The Violated Gospel
The Gospel is the good news that Christ has come and finished the work of redemption.
Dispensationalism is in direct contradiction of the good news of Christ.
Now let me prove my point, if you will.
The heart of dispensationalism involves two peoples of God, one is the Church, the other is the Jewish race.
There are some variations of this thought within dispensationalism.
Jesus said the following.-
1. Why did Jesus say that God could turn stones into the children of Abraham? What was the Jews of his day into that provoked him to say this? Just what were the trees here representative of? Only the good trees were going to survive?
2. Did Paul teach us that it was only the child of promise through whom the world would be blessed?
Did he not teach that it is only those who are of faith that God recognizes as being his Israel, or a child of Abraham?
3. Does the NT teach us that the middle wall of partition was torn down so that from that time forward there would no longer be any racial connotations in the gospel?
God gave Abraham the following promise. -
Paul said the following concerning those who were truly of Abraham. -
4. In light of these two texts how can we justify making a nation of unbelieving Jews the recipients of God's favor?
5. If the Israel of our day was rebuilt on the basis of OT scripture or the law, then on what basis is it that they are now considered to be God's favored people though they live in unbelief?
Paul also said. -
6. With these NT principles in mind how can we deny that dispensationalism is a violation of the gospel?
7. How can we justify speaking of two peoples of God, one of the flesh and one spiritual, when Paul says, in this last verse, that we are all one in Christ?
8. If we are a believing Christian we are to receive the same promises as was given to Abraham? If so, where do unbelieving Jews fit in this picture?
I do not see them, other then being in unbelief and need of conversion, like all of the others who do not believe.
9. Where do all of these principles find their fulfillment in dispensationalism?
It appears obvious to me that they are openly violated by the doctrine of dispensationalism.
Yes, Paul seemed to have tied the unsaved Jews into his view of the future, however, he may well have only been speaking from the point of his own desires for his people. He said he had continual sorrow for his kinsmen in the flesh. In another sense he also may have only been speaking of those who would eventually follow Christ, the people of the promise that he spoke of above. In any case he did not necessarily contradict the doctrine as he taught in the scriptures above. Dispensationalism does.
Paul and Barnabus and James speak of the house of David being rebuilt and how that all who were of faith would be a part of it.
James quotes the OT and in that passage it teaches us that after the Tabernacle of David was rebuilt then the Gentiles would come in along with Israel. Please note the term "after." According to these apostles the Tabernacle of David had, past tense, been rebuilt through the ministry of Christ and they were seeing the end result. The Gentiles were coming in to it through faith.
It is a violation of the Gospel to put this off in the future, for it is for all who will accept it, and not a racial thing. It is contradictory of the message of the Gospel to deny that it is now "whosoever will." We are now, present tense, the "temple of God."
Here is an article about one who denies the thoughts above in practice. (link) (Hagee) His position is logical relative to Dispensationalism.