Well, I must have run the conversation off--or schedules are tight and time is precious.  I hope it is the latter.  However, I find it refreshing to air my thoughts out in this forum to have them tested.  I put before you a very deep Scriptural passage.  Read it slowly.

“Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.  But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.  For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.  And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.  So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”  (Ephesians 2:11-22 NASB)

The theology contained within this passage is enormous!!!  First note how the Gentiles were excluded from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, but no longer.  I am reminded that one of the first covenants made with Abram was before his circumcision.  It was during this very visit that Abram's faith was "credited to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6) -- not following the Law of commandments which was the enmity and abolished with Christ's flesh.  Therefore, Abraham became the father of all God's People (Rom. 4:1-15).  However, it took Jesus to bring the Family together.  But now the Gentiles are no longer strangers and aliens, but fellow citizens with the saints--one household.  The promises belong to the Gentiles as well.

The family has been built.  To Peter, Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build My [assembly] (church/ekklesia); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." (Matt. 16:18)  (Interesting ASIDE: What is 'this rock'?)  Through the prophet Amos and repeated at the Council at Jerusalem, God said, "After this I will return and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from old." (Amos 9:11,12 or Acts 15:16,17 ESV)  The "Church" has not replaced Israel.  Israel has been rebuilt as promised.  And the cornerstone is Christ himself.  And Jews and Gentiles alike are being built together into a growing holy temple.  So no temple in Jerusalem is needed as Jesus told the Samaritan woman (John 4:21).  Notice how Amos prophecied that the tabernacle would be rebuilt and how Paul said that this temple was the fitting together of both Jews and Gentiles.  Do we really need a structure or building in our eschatological creations?

In my mind, this passage alone (with supported verses above) shoots down the theology of Dispensationalism.  The teachings of this view teach a separation, a division of the body.  They teach--The "Church" is raptured; God returns his focus back to the Jews; He gives them songs the Gentiles cannot learn; and He gives them the land between the Great Sea and the Euphrates while the Gentiles take a back seat.  Is this Biblical or man-made hogwash?  Note I do not deny a possible resurgence of Jews back into the Family that God established naturally through their fathers.  However, why would God have them enter into the Family by the old method and not the new?

And while the Covenantalists sit comfortably in their seat, while this verse does not shoot down this theology, it does begin to etch away some of its teachings.  The dividing wall, the enmity between Jew and Gentile, has been broken down.  What is this wall?  The Law of commandments contained in ordinances.  "It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith." (Rom. 4:13)  For the covenant at Sinai was broken (Jer. 31:32), but God did not forget the covenants of promise he made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Lev. 26:42).  And it is this promise that unites: "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.'  This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." (Rom. 9:8-9 ESV)  If the covenant at Sinai was broken is this mysterious "covenant of grace" broken?  Or is this "covenant of grace" man-made hogwash, as well?

Am I the only one who struggles with both diametrically opposed views of the dispensationalist, as well as the covenantalist?  What view or "group" am I left with?

I agree with everything you write except for the final word picture. You view covenant theology and dispensationalism to be diametrically opposed, while you stand in the middle. You have allowed covenant theology to dictate definitions. In other words, covenant theologians will say that if you're not a follower of Calvin's theology, then you are obviously a dispensationalist.

I contend that you aren't in the middle, but are diametrically opposed to both. On one side, you stand sola scriptura. On the other side resides these two theologies and their gratuitous assumptions, strained Scriptural interpretations and extra-scriptural ideas.

So, instead of digging in and defending, keep firing and moving forward.

Yes, and those hog-wash minded Trinitarians, too...

Joe, thanks for your insight.  I believe your "word picture" captures the discussion much better.  I stumbled upon a middle ground group who call their view New Covenant Theology.  I applaud their honest attempt to find middle ground.  I also applaud their realization that both views (dispensationalism and covenant theology) fall short.  However, they tend to shape their views from a counteraction perspective rather than a "moving forward" perspective.  So I return back to firing ... haha

B8, your Trinitarian comment appears to be dodging the issue.  Do you believe that the Trinity is man-made or God-made?  I believe it is God-made (and I believe you probably do too).  I think you are trying to make the issue that the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Bible but an understood-underlining concept.  And am I correct that you then wish to apply that logic to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace?  Well, that is all good and dandy.  Scientists, like theologians, do the same.  However, when the theory fails, the scientist should return back to his hypothesis.  Has the Trinity concept failed?  No.  Therefore, its reality is strengthened.  What about the covenant of works and the covenant of grace?  Glad you asked.

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. ... In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.  And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. ... He abolishes the first in order to establish the second." (Hebrews 8:7, 13; 10:9 ESV)

What I am starting to find is that covenantalists throw the word covenant around like it is a generic word.  They speak of covenant this and covenant that.  And when you use a word so loosely, its intent in Scripture is lost.  The word covenant is used throughout Genesis.  Why then did God not inspire Moses to write the word in respect to Adam (with this so called covenant of works)?  And why did God inspire Moses, Jeremiah, Paul, the writer to the Hebrews, as well as others, to contrast the covenant with Abraham with the covenant at Sinai if they were really the same (or extention of each other)?

Paul says something interesting, which applies here: "To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified." (Galatians 3:15) Hmmm.  This flies in the face of the systematic theology of a covenantalist.

And here is a second question, can the New covenant (or even the Noahic, Davidic, or Abrahamic covenants) be broken?  Yet, we know that the covenant at Sinai was broken.  These issues are not verses here or there that fly in the face of covenant theology; we are talking about large passages (sometimes chapters like in Hebrews).

Why cling to a weak view?

Some may be reading my comments and asking "who cares" or "why does he keep going on and on".  Christians, as a community, from time to time need to pause and audit their beliefs.  We need to return to the fundamentals and self-check any bad conclusions we have drawn by continuing down one line of thought.  The People of God have a long and established history of following man-made Biblical thoughts.  And while I do not believe today is a day for me or others to post a Ninety-Five These on the Power of Indulgences on the doors of dispensationalists and covenantalists, I do believe we need to "return back to our first love."

Let me give you a few examples of real Christian beliefs that shape actions that have burdened me lately.  First, this weekend my Dad's family got together.  Praise God that his side is predominantly Christian.  However, the views are very diverse.  My cousin was telling about a new family that has been visiting his church.  These visitors drive over one hour (past numerous churches) with their family of 11 to this church.  Why?  They cannot seem to find a church near them where all the children are homeschooled, the families are large, the women only wear dresses, and the infants are force fed the Lord's Supper (my language, of course).  I bit my tongue during this conversation (for the most part).  Needless to say, I bet my cousin has not told them that he was not 100% homeschooled because of the fear he will not be likeminded enough with the congregation.  This is covenant theology gone wild--or Christianity gone wrong!

Second example, one of my uncles is going on the mission field.  Some months back I asked about what he will be doing.  Most of his work is going to be noble.  However, he brought up to me that it is going to be important to teach the local pastors about the theology of dispensationalism.  Why?  This country has large problems with anti-Semitism.  He feels that the Bible elevates the Jews to this higher plane, especially after the "Church" has been Raptured.  And these pastors need to understand the truths of Israel.  I bit my tongue once again.  So is he confident that he is not making these new converts "twice as much as son of hell" as we often are back in the religious US?

So does theology matter?  Of course.  So if you are reading my comments, please think about what you believe and why.  And be an external auditor for my beliefs if they go contrary to Scripture.

So, you will stop using the argument "covenant of ..... phrase is not found in the Bible"? Good. Then, my point succeeded. There is no need to use that argument anymore. You don't need to. Your Scriptural arguments are much stronger. B8

TheOneWhoQuotesHimself:

I do believe we need to "return back to our first love."

So what is our first love?  Maybe better stated is who is our first love?

"Look! Here he comes, leeping across the mountains, bounding over the hills.  My lover is like a gazelle or a young stag.  Look!  There he stands behind our wall, gazing through the windows, peering through the lattice.  My lover spoke and said to me, 'Arise, my darling, my beautiful one, and come with me.  See!  The winter is past; the rains are over and gone.  Flowers appear on the earth; the season of singing has come, the cooing of doves is heard in our land.  The fig tree forms its early fruit; the blossoming vines spread their fragrance.  Arise, come, my darling; my beautiful one, come with me.'  ... Who is this coming up from the desert like a column of smoke, perfurmed with myrrh and incense made from all the spices of the merchant?  Look!  It is Solomon's carriage, escorted by sixty warriors, the noblest of Israel, all of them wearing the sword, all experienced in battle, each with his sword at his side, prepared for the terrors of the night.  ... Come out, you daughters of Zion, and look at King Solomon wearing the crown, the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding, the day his heart rejoiced." (Song of Solomon 2:8-13, 3:6-11)

This Son of David is our love--Jesus the Christ.  He is sitting on his throne.  But our hope is in his coming with the cavalry on white horses.  But who are we?  We are the Bride.  But before we get all giggly like a soon to be bride, we have to remember we are not Hosea but Gomer, the whore.  (yucky word ... but true)  We have all sinned and cheated on God.  And when we recall what our lover has done for us--as well as for the whole world--and his vow, "I will betroth you to Me forever; yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, in lovingkindness and in compassion, and I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness," (Hosea 2:19-20) we have a different outlook on others.

Now true Theology is starting to take shape.

Dispensationalism is the root of anti-semetism. While we as gentlies are grafted in, we do not replace the natural born children. God will bring up His chosen people (physical blood hebrews) and we would be wise to support them in all matters.

Church (man-made) theology has been the curse of the Jews forever. All of the labels of said theology gets extremely irritating to hear. Taking God's word at face value is much better. I am in no way dissing your conversation though. Lots of food for thought.

  Question:

How can the "Law" be beautiful and perfect (Psalm 119- David obviously was fond of the law) and then through man's intrepretations of  Apostolic scriptures become something evil? God says He cannot nor does not change. Is it possible to believe in Messiah and still love the Torah (law) as King David did? Just asking.

grafted:

Question:

How can the "Law" be beautiful and perfect (Psalm 119- David obviously was fond of the law) and then through man's intrepretations of  Apostolic scriptures become something evil? God says He cannot nor does not change. Is it possible to believe in Messiah and still love the Torah (law) as King David did? Just asking.

Good question! See Something to think about/VP Palin.

grafted:

  Question:

How can the "Law" be beautiful and perfect (Psalm 119- David obviously was fond of the law) and then through man's intrepretations of  Apostolic scriptures become something evil? God says He cannot nor does not change. Is it possible to believe in Messiah and still love the Torah (law) as King David did? Just asking.

Yes.

Hi fluffy cow. Nice to see you again.

Hi-dee ho!!!

grafted:

Church (man-made) theology has been the curse of the Jews forever.

Peter, a Jew himself, said: "This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone." (Acts 4:11)

Paul, a Jew as well, said: "They [Israel] have stumbled over the stumbling stone." (Romans 9:32)

Isaiah wrote: "Behold, I [God] am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling,and a rock of offense."

Sadly, it is Jesus Christ who has been their stumbling block.  Unfortunately, Christians throughout history have not helped the situation.

The Sanhedrin and the leaders rejected him and many others did also , but remember as you point out, both Peter and Paul were Jewish. Plus the majority of the 1st century congregation were Jewish.  Not everyone rejected Messiah. God also blinded the community of Israel until He so chooses to open their eyes (I think in Isaiah?). I think that we(the corporate church-fellowship of believers) are arrogant in our thinking when we say Jesus is their stumbling block. We have created a system of doctrine dating back to Constantine that has done way more than just "not helped the situation". We have completely tried to annihilate the Jewish way of life(with the help of the Moors along the way). I do not think God has been happy with the way we have presented the "gospel" to the Jews. Why would they want to give up their Torah(which they have been taught to love and cherish) for a new religion full of man's doctrine? All of this to say; even if we delude ourselves(I 'm not necessarily meaning you) into thinking we are not anti-semetic, we are. It is steeped into every aspect of our Christian faith whether we like it or not. so much of our doctrine whether it be covenant theology etc.. comes from Constantine-. The 1st century believers were part of the commonwealth of Israel (with internal arguing etc..I'm sure)and worked within a Hebraic mindset and way of life.

Edith Schaeffer wrote a good book called Chrisitanity is Jewish.  You should pick it up sometime.  Valid points you have made.  But I am a Gentile.  Yes, I have been grafted into the People of God and I should not grow arrogant.  Paul writes: "If some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches.  If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.  Then you will say, 'Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.'  That is true.  They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith.  So do not become proud, but stand in awe.  For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you."  (and it continues beautifully throughout that chapter)

Being a Gentile, filled with the Spirit of God, I have a freedom.  I feel no obligation to uphold the Seasons and Holidays prescribed in the Law.  Yet, I hold it against no one who enjoys participating in these activities.  I eat meat--with a good conscience.  I worship alongside fellow brothers in Christ who have never been circumcised.  And I become sad when individuals want to teach a lifestyle that takes away from this freedom in Jesus Christ.