[Easy E]

But I do not believe the Messianic Israelites have a different covenant than us gentile Christians.

I don't either. I think that they WILL have a different one, after the Rapture of the Church. This is Daniel's 70th week, knowing that Daniel's prophecies deal with God and the Jews. (Dan. 9:24 - "thy people" Dan was a Jew) Right now, in the church, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Rom 10:12)

I believe that we (the wild olive tree) are a grafted branch into the vine (Romans 11) and partakers of the same salvation they are offered in Christ Jesus.

I agree we are. If someone is teaching a different plan of salvation for Jews today, they are wrong. They must go through Jesus Christ and they must be Born Again.

It is important for you to understand that I am not trying to make this theory out to be some big heresy, but rather to be a voice for those that do not agree with this doctrine. I am also not saying there is nothing good in what you guys teach, but am saying that as a whole I don't agree with your aproach.

I understand what you are saying. Dispensationalism is a hard doctrine. But that is not a reason to just get rid of it.

To be honest I don't agree with any such preconcieved idea about how one should interpret Scripture.

What's wrong with taking the Bible as it says to. If a guy in the Bible is speaking to the Church, than he is talking to the Church. If he is talking to Jews than he is talking to Jews. I don't see that as a preconcieved idea or interpretation. I actually think that to make the passages addressed to the Jews something for the church is a preconcieved idea or interpretation that I would stay away from.

Now, a person should look for spiritual application throughout the entire Bible (I Tim 3:16). But one has to be careful getting Church Age doctrine outside of the Pauline Epistles and Peter and John. Have you ever wondered why Catholics and JWs and Mormons even use the Bible? Because their doctrine is in there. They just don't read context. Dispensationalism just is a way of remembering to look at context.

I've seen how some 'groups' are very controlling about this sort of thing, and I believe this is dangerous.

Maybe they are. I don't know, I've only been around this game for about a year now. Praise God He is very longsuffering. But like I've said before (can't remember where), the robber barons were bad, but, please, don't become a communists because of a couple of bad capitalists. (just an example, I am not calling anyone a commie)

I guess my point to you dispensationalists is that you live the rhetoric at the door and just stick with Scriptures. I can go with that, but not with all the 'dispensations' and such an such 'age'.

Fine. I can very much respect that.

But you never really answered my question. How do you keep verses like those in James 2 and Romans 4 together? A plain reading shows that they are not talking about the same thing. Are we Christians saved by faith and then have to have works or else we were never saved? Or can a person get saved, do nothing with his new life, and still get to heaven (I would never recommend this, just an example)?

What about I Cor 3:10-15 and Heb 3:14? These questions are every where and if you, Stephanos, can give me a good reason to look at these verses in another way, I'm all ears!