Posted on 09/30/2005 9:26:35 AM PDT by HarleyD
I thought this was an interesting article about dispensationalism from the perspective of Galatian. I don't wish to steal topcat's thunder from his other post but someone encouraged me to post this.
For your review and comments.
Breathtaking, to think that (on this man's read) God deceived all those people for thousands of years... until Galatians was written!
And here I am thinking that Jacob (Israel) came after Abraham and that Israel the nation came after Jacob.
And could it be that Moses really was told by God that God would destroy that gold calf nation of Israel and create a new one from Moses' own line?
I do think it's true; there is a nation of Israel with a particular purpose assigned it by God....and particular promises made to it by God.
Dan
Tag-teaming with Phil Johnson on futile, Jew-tile silliness about God's name(s)
As the card shark says, "Read 'em and weep."
Step one: what are the words of the text?
"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Romans 11:17ff [emphasis mind]
And this one:
"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so tht ou may not be conceited; Israel has experienced a hardening inn part until the full number of he Gentiles has come in." Ro. 11:25
How do you reconcile these verses with the article? Dispensationalism aside, Paul is making a very clear distinction between the church and the ETHNIC jewish people in these verses.
"Covenant" hermeneutics effectively denies this statement. They imagine God was really talking to us, but pretending to talk to the fathers.
Dispensationalism, by contrast, believes the writer.
Dan
Not if, but when.
This question has a disgusting embedded insinuation - and that is the people who blow up women and children are morally superior to the people who are defending themselves against an aggressive enemy. be from one of the spiritually dead mainline churches.
While they are forming their reply, we would point out to readers that so far from converting Israel and establishing them in the land, the second coming of Christ will overtake them (and all the world) "as a thief in the night," in the which the heavens will pass away with a great noise and the elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up (2 Peter 3: 1 0).
Fine. Explain the Romans verses I posted and how you reconcile them to this horrible exegesis.
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion
No mental reservation or purpose of evasion....
Those promises made by God to Israel, according to the replacement crowd were based on "mental reservation or purpose of evasion..."
"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Romans 11:17ff [emphasis mind]
And this one:
"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so tht ou may not be conceited; Israel has experienced a hardening inn part until the full number of he Gentiles has come in." Ro. 11:25
How do you reconcile these verses with your view of the jewish people? Dispensationalism aside, Paul is making a very clear distinction between the church and the ETHNIC jewish people in these verses. You should "BE AFRAID" lest you be "cut off."
I can't see ay way around that, any honest way.
If Jeremiah 31 was said with a wink, how can I know whether or not Romans 8:28-32 was said with a wink?
Dan
Be my guest. Good articles are always welcome.
In addition, the Savior will return to where when he returns? - the Mount of Olives! (Acts 1, Zech. 14). That means the place is highly important to God. God's name is attached to the land.
It makes me angry when I hear professing Christians take the side of the muslims in the struggle, since the muslims have perpetrated some of the most evil acts in world history. They target women and children purposefully - they are "Hitlers in headscarves" when it comes to their view of Jews. And to hear Christians speak in favor of these folks ("occupation", etc.) - it's just SINFUL.
Thus it follows that either the Jews were NEVER under the Law or that Christians are STILL under the law. Since the author contends that all things remain the same, I'd suggest that you put down that bacon cheeseburger and start being a Sabbath Observer.
If the Church has inherited the covenants of Abraham, then we must keep the law as many, if not most, of the covenants were conditional upon keeping the law.
BTW Paul never mentioned anything about the restoration of "Palestine," probably because Palestine has never existed (at least not as a country). This guy literally refuses to acknowledge that Israel exists as a nation. He refers to the Jewish presence in "Palestine" as an "occupation."
Do I detect a bit of anti-Jewish or anti-Semetic leanings in his writing? IMO this is where replacement theology leads. It is not only unbiblical, it is, IMO, a highway to hell.
If promises are made with a wink, then you would not be able to tell if any promise made to you was with a wink, and, therefore, you could well yet be dead in your trespasses and sins.
What is the proof of a promise?
The only proof is the keeping of the promise. Otherwise, the person is a promise breaker and not a promise keeper.
Can you imagine God having lesser standing in the area of promises than the former head of a Colorado college football team?
I would also add that the Holocaust was possible in part due to this replacement theology mindset in Europe. Hey, who cares about the Jews -they are Christ-killers anyway and God is judging them. EVIL!
Yes, you do. I do as well. It's revolting.
Wow! Excellent catch, P-M.
My eye glided right over that without noticing it.
This guy is an anti-semitic, pro-Palestinian. And the replace folks say there's no truth to the claim that no one of their number are anti-Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.