Posted on 09/30/2005 9:26:35 AM PDT by HarleyD
Well here is the first sentence broke out:
2) and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the very last phase of God's redemptive work on earth.
What do you disagree with? I would hope that you would concur with #1. That leaves #2. If you disagree with “is the fulfillment of all prophecy” then you must also believe that it is not the last phase of “God’s redemptive work”. Is this correct?
Nowhere does the Bible teach that national Israel is the root of anything. This is a sad twist on reality by (semi-)dispensationalists.
The faith of Abraham, and the Seed, Jesus Christ, are the root of true religion, not national Israel. "Natural branches" (Jews) only share in the blessing and nourishment of the root as they trust in Messiah for their redemption. This is true also for wild branches, the gentiles. There is no distinction in Scripture.
There is an important lesson here. God gave the land to Israel (forever) and to no one else. If, in fact, the Church is Israel, then the Church should be the rightful posessor of that land. But as far as I can tell, the Church has NEVER possessed the land. Except for possibly a few years during the Crusades, it has been physically and legally held by either Jews or heathen since the date of the Destruction of the Temple.
If in fact the Christian Church was the legal heir to the Land of Palestine, then why did God allow it to be taken back from the Church (during the Crusades) and handed over to the Islamasists and eventually (and miraculously) returned to the Jews.
If the Christian Church is "True Israel" then the land of Palestine should be in the posession of the Church itself. But the Church has never wanted the land. Only after it was returned to Jewish rule has it prospered in any sense of the word.
No kidding. I've never seen such an oppressive article in my life. It starts with a supposition - Prophesy ended with the 'New Testament Church' and tries to further it.
The fact is that the Apostle Paul, John and our Lord Jesus Christ have all prophesied about things that have not happened yet. The convenient theological argument is to spiritual these writings and dismiss them as being fulfilled in the current New Testament Church.
This clearly denies the deity of Christ and that he is Lord, even in the future. For if Christ said that "all the tribes of the earth will morn" and it is only a few tribes on one section of the earth in 70AD, then he is made out to be less than God. The Apostle John clearly was writing about things to come. Paul said believers who would be alive would be taken up into the air when he comes and join the resurrected saints.
If this has already happened, then those who have died after 70AD have no hope of the resurrection.
Clearly this writer wants to convince us that the physical Kingdom of Christ is not coming and that the Old Testament and New Testament writings have only "Spiritual Meanings". The warnings to all nations and peoples to repent for "The great and terrible day of God" is coming, has no teeth. Yeah right, Blah, Blah, Blah.
No, after much scripture memorization, I too look forward to the "city, whose architect and builder is God", I look forward to seeing the "Great King" - the Lord Jesus on his throne, Jerusalem and the government "which shall have no end". To dismiss the prophesies of scripture and dilute them is not wise, because one faces Christ ultimately and how much should one suffer loss?
Clearly, you are a master at reading half an argument (Sha'ul's, not mine) and ignoring the rest in order to preserve your theology.
So what do it mean according to you theory of Scripture? I'm not sure I've seen a complete response to that question.
Are you referring to Darby or Scofield?
"You mean this present occupation of Palestine by Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy? Please be specific."
You mean the present condition of the world is fulfillment of the prophecy that the Kingdom of God has come? Please be specific.
True. Also, it is because of God's Holy Name that he is bringing the jews back, not because they deserve it, and so that the heathen will know He is Lord, to wit:
Eze 36;20-21 And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These [are] the people of the LORD, and are gone forth out of his land. But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.
Eze 39:7 So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not [let them] pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I [am] the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.
Eze 39:25 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;
Well, fully, what it does is: (A) spiritualize unfulfilled prophecies of blessing and take them for the Jew/Gentile Christian Church; but (B) leave the cursings all as literal, and all as applying to ethnic Israel only.
Neat, huh?
It is, I say seriously, the sort of "interpretation" we used to do in the New Age cult of Religious Science -- except, thankfully, they almost only do it on prophetic and Israel-related passages. When it comes to soteriological, theological passages, Reformed exegetes are as good as it gets.
Well, that's wrong because Jesus said "Upon this Rock I will (future perfect tense) build my Church."
IOW, prior to that time Christ had not YET built his church, so what occurred prior to that time was NOT THE CHURCH!
Christ came to establish and build his church. It was not here when he came. The Church did not exist in the Old Testament, so the "Church" cannot be "one in the Old Testament and New". Jesus did not build something that was already here.
Jesus did come to "seal up prophecy".
"Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy." (Dan. 9:24)
The final week of Daniel 9 was the time of Christ's coming to redeem His people and establish His church of both Jews and gentiles, the true sons of Abraham.
Only the gap theorists can argue for "vision and prophecy" after the 1st century.
"From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' (Matt. 4:17)
"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Matt. 12:28)
"Another parable He put forth to them, saying: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.' " (Matt. 13:31,32)
That was easy. Now take a crack at mine.
What is "the Rock" that Jesus was speaking of? Be careful cuz there's gonna be a follow up question.
Well TC, it appears that you have a GAP as well. After the 69th Week the Messiah was to be cut off. That was the crucifixion. That left one week (7 years) for the fulfillment of all prophecy. That would mean that everything in the book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel would have to have been completed by AD 40.
Yet you claim that the 70th week was not fulfilled until 70 AD. So, you've got a Gap! So no matter whether you are a hyper-preterist or a hyper-dispensationalist, you've got to account for the suspension of the prophecy between the 69th and 70th week.
Where did He do that? Be careful there's gonna be another question or two.
I'll let you parse Daniel 9 first and you can tell us what you are talking about.
Well, better to be right on the major issues and wrong on minor ones, than to be majoring on the puzzlement regarding the secular state of Israel and prophecy and allowing wacky theology and soteriology. (Not that reformed folk are wrong on eschatology. We just aren't drinking Scofield's kool aid and seeing the same thing.)
Wrong. Try again.
Not so fast there big fellow. Two of your citations have a future sense and a progressive sense so that there can be the ebb and flow of history, much like the State of Israel. Why do you fix Israel's position today as if this was the fulfillment of prophecy and not a progressive history like you do the Kingdom of God?
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.