Dispensationalists frequently defend their view by saying something like, "God has made promises to Israel that He has not fulfilled. Therefore we trust that He will fulfill them at some future date." That seems to be a recurring theme among dispensationalists. And I agree with that whole-heartedly.
At the same time, I recognize that there is an issue we need to address in this argument. There is an elephant in the room. When we consider Romans 9–11, we find that Scripture also recognizes there's an issue. The issue is something like this: we know that God has made promises to Israel that went unfulfilled to those specific people. For example, very few of the children of Israel that came out of Egypt made it into the promised land. Most of them died in the wilderness.
So did God really fulfill His promise to them?
Romans 9:6–8 addresses this question with the assertion that, "not all [are] Israel which [are] of Israel; nor because they are seed of Abraham [are] all children." So this is a guiding principle when it comes to God's election: it's possible to be part of an elect people, without being an elect individual. Notice Romans 9:15 quotes Exodus 33:19. That's the story of the golden calf, the first time the Scripture talks about Israelites falling in the wilderness.
That's a point worth repeating: it's possible to be part of a chosen nation and not yourself be chosen.
So when it comes to Israel, dispensationalists calmly assert that God will, indeed, restore Israel, but that doesn't mean that any specific Jewish person will be included in that. And I fully agree with that statement.
Of course this has application to us. If we object to amillennialism on the grounds that we believe God can be trusted, then surely we need to consider carefully how His trustworthiness is displayed in light of Romans 9–11. Which is a really clumsy way of saying, if it's possible for individual Israelites to fall short of what God promised the nation, is it also possible for individual Christians to fall short of what God promised the church?
Without diving too deep into controversy, let's just say that everyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit has a claim to call themselves "Christian." That doesn't mean everyone baptized has been born again, or that they're truly regenerated. But it's reasonable for them to think of themselves as Christian. And we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking all of the unregenerate baptized were baptized as infants!
And we don't really even need to talk in terms of baptism. What about those who were born into Christian homes and so think they're Christians? What about those who grew up in Sunday school, but were never born again? I really don't think they're entirely wrong to think of themselves as "Christian." But it doesn't at all mean they're born again.
So yes, there are lots of people who are part of the elect nation, but aren't themselves elect.
When the Lord Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, He told him point-blank, "you must be born anew" (John 3:3–8). There's no question that Nicodemus was part of the elect nation, but he still needed new birth.
So if you're part of an elect nation, if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, you still need to be born again. The question for you isn't, "Was I baptized?" The question for you is, "Do you believe God?" Because in the end, God justifies the one who does not work, but believes (Romans 4:5).
And notice, Scripture doesn't tell us we have to be sure we're elect before we come to Christ.
By exactly the same token, Scripture doesn't say that God justifies the one who can remember a conversion experience. It says God justifies the one who believes. So let's not fall into the trap of telling people they need to have a "salvation experience."
But the fact remains, being part of the elect nation doesn't mean that you will receive that God has promised. God doesn't work that way: it's the children of promise, not the children of flesh, who receive what He promises (Romans 9:8).
