DISPENSATIONALIST "CHRISTIAN" ZIONISM -- Is there now "neither Jew nor Gentile", or not?

KennethGentry.Com, "Dispensational Distortions" ^ | 2004 | Kenneth Gentry (and OP)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

When at the time of the restoration did the children of Israel seek the Messiah and fear the Lord and His goodness?

At Pentecost. Through His Church. "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel".

The only Israel that counts in the New Testament is "God's Israel", the Church.

If you are unwilling to interpret Old Testament "Israel Prophecies" according to the New Testament revelation that the "Israel of God" is the Christian Church, then you don't care about the New Testament.

Given that the New Testament defines the "Israel of God" as being THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, no other interpretation is permissible whatsoever.

Go on that basis, and I'll debate you. Otherwise... any "interpretation" that you offer, frankly doesn't count.

Best, OP

[jude24]

Your words, OP, serve absolutely no purpose but to puff yourself up and to put a barrier between the Jewish people and the Cross

Lil 'ol OP can't do anything that isn't there. The cross is already a stumbling block to the unconverted Jewish people - as it is to all natural men. 1Co. 1 is explicit on that.

Alex Murphy is 100% correct - if it weren't for the dispensational fetish for the Jews, this would be a non-issue. I know I have absolutely nothing against any ethnicity. But I am angered by those who advocate this dual-covenant track that is found in dispensationalism. It's unbiblical.

[jude24]

Is this two peoples of God scheme a given (an axiom, unproven), or do they get it from somewhere?

Sure. Scofield Reference Bible, for starters.

[Alex Murphy]

Is this two peoples of God scheme a given (an axiom, unproven), or do they get it from somewhere?

For an IMO least-biased answer, I would refer you over to Frumanchu's thread Four Views On The Millennium. The article contains some excellent references and resources for further study re any of the four systems, dispensationalism included.

[Buggman]

Lil 'ol OP can't do anything that isn't there. The cross is already a stumbling block to the unconverted Jewish people - as it is to all natural men. 1Co. 1 is explicit on that.

Oh, baloney. The fact that there is already one stumbling block in the way--one natural to all men--doesn't mean that one cannot by their behavior set up more in the road, or else Sha'ul's words in Romans 14 become meaningless.

That's like saying that just because it's hard to scale a mountain, it's impossible for the act of pouring slippery oil all over the climber's path to make it any more difficult.

Alex Murphy is 100% correct - if it weren't for the dispensational fetish for the Jews, this would be a non-issue.

Ah, because of course there was no such thing as anti-Semetic Christian rhetoric before Dispensationalism showed up in the 1800s. Of course, it's all so clear now.

As for Alex being correct, we'll have to wait for him to define his terms to come to any conclusion on that (see posts #55 and 37).

[rabid liberty]

me: When at the time of the restoration did the children of Israel seek the Messiah and fear the Lord and His goodness?

OP: At Pentecost. Through His Church.

We're back at the series of "children of Israel" questions I asked you and you did not answer. But earlier you said...

OP: In other words, this passage may very well refer to the restoration of Jerusalem after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity

So is it Restoration or Pentecost -- you have said both.

So is children of Israel referring to the Church (see unanswered questions post #49) or to physical descendants of Abraham ???? You seem to say both again. This comment indicates the "children of Israel" is the folks coming back from Babylon and Assyria.

OP: In other words, this passage may very well refer to the restoration of Jerusalem after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity

======

OP: If you are unwilling to interpret Old Testament "Israel Prophecies" according to the New Testament revelation that the "Israel of God" is the Christian Church, then you don't care about the New Testament.

Given that the New Testament defines the "Israel of God" as being THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, no other interpretation is permissible whatsoever.

.

So let me sum it up:  I am a racist, holding theology damned by God, and I do not care about the New Testament? Why not just show how your view actually explains the prophecy rather than lobbing invectives at me an my views?

 

OP: Go on that basis, and I'll debate you. Otherwise... any "interpretation" that you offer, frankly doesn't count

Interesting debating rules. I was asking for exegesis of Hosea's inspired words. And, frankly, I am waiting for a single interpretation from you. And I am waiting for you to show how this interpretation arises from the text and not how you read your premise into the text at the expense of Hosea's words.

.

[rabid liberty]

Jude24: But I am angered by those who advocate this dual-covenant track that is found in dispensationalism. It's unbiblical.

So give me your exegesis of Hosea 3:4-5. BTW, not all dispensationalists hold a dual-covenant track... I don't.

 

[Alex Murphy]

As for Alex being correct, we'll have to wait for him to define his terms to come to any conclusion on that (see posts #55 and 37).

You'll have to wait a little longer, I'm afraid. Thanks to jude24, my head is swelled up so huge that I'm having trouble reaching the keyboard!

But seriously, I was specifically alluding to certain proponents of dispensationalism (IIRC Hagee being one) who intentionally avoid evangelizing to the Jews in order to "bless Israel" in some other way, and alluding to a larger group of proponents (Lindsey among others) who IMHO act as if modern-day Israel is accountable to any ethical/Biblical standards, even Old Covenant ones.

My view is that Jews - like every other unbelieving people on Earth - need to fall at Christ's feet and acknowledged Him as Lord, and need to repent of their sins. There is no salvific benefit for them in being racially Jewish, except in the knowledge available to them via their (prior) covenantal history and experiences with their Maker. They will have to repent and bow to Christ in the same way as we all have to repent and bow to Christ. Keeping the old customs has no merit for them. In fact, by keeping the traditions and laws while still denying their Lord, their own culture IMO serves as a covenantal witness against them. Meanwhile, (some) dispensationalists teach that by keeping the OT laws, they are not required to bend the knee to Christ like the rest of us. And that is the dual-redemptive plan that I was speaking against earlier.

[Alex Murphy]

IMHO act as if modern-day Israel is accountable to any ethical/Biblical standards, even Old Covenant ones.

That should have read "IMHO act as if modern-day Israel is isn't accountable to any ethical/Biblical standards, even Old Covenant ones." Sorry for the error.

[Buggman]

Well said, Marlowe. It's interesting, isn't it, that those who cite Gal. 3:28 on this subject always do so very selectively?

One wonders what they do with other passages in the NT that do indicate a difference:

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. (1 Co. 7:18)

Really? So Jews are supposed to stay Jews and Gentiles supposed to stay Gentiles even within the Body of the Messiah?

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Rom. 3:1-2)

Wait, there's a natural advantage to being a circumcised Jew? How can that be if there is no more Jew or Gentile?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Rom. 1:16)

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; (Rom. 2:9)

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Rom. 2:10)

Waitwaitwait, what's with all this "Jew first" stuff? I though there was no more Jew or Gentile.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Co. 12:13)

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Co. 12:13)

Ah, there's that annoying distinction again.

So, obviously the ontological (essential, by nature) distinction between Jew and Gentile remains, just as the ontological distinction between male and female does, or the economic distinction between slave and free--but Sha'ul's point is that we are all equally saved by faith in the Messiah of Israel, and that makes us all one family, whether we are Jew, Gentile, man, woman, slave, freeman, black, white, American, Chinese, or any other ontological distinction one can think of.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"ALL Racially-Divisive Theologies of Christianity should be rejected out of hand."


"One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith" - Titus 1:11-13

Paul recognized racial differences - even the unpleasant ones.



"Neither Jew nor Gentile. Period. End of Story."

Full stop, eh? (Oh wait, there's a postscript...)

"But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:"

No Jew will be saved apart from Christ, but they Jewish nation did not cease to exist in God's economy with the advent of the Church. The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.


"May GOD DAMN all Racially-Divisive "Christian" theologies"

Slow down there partner. You may be calling something "damnable" which you don't understand. Besides, it make you sound like a seminarian who just discovered that they can cuss while there alone in the dorm room and not get struck with lightning.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"it's because that same group is already singled out by the opposition and granted a "free pass", redemptively and eschatologically "


That's not my understanding.

Dispensational theology posits a future "unfreezing" of the Jewish nation. But until that time there are as spiritually dead as any other unbeliever.

No one can be saved by merely keeping the Law apart from faith in Christ.

[rabid liberty]

For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and [without] teraphim:

Afterward shall the children of Israel return, {{WE ARE RIGHT HERE TODAY}} and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

Hosea 3:4-5 ===========

 

[PetroniusMaximus]

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge"

Wow. Nice one.

[Alex Murphy]

That's not my understanding....No one can be saved by merely keeping the Law apart from faith in Christ.

Duly noted. But there are dispensationalists who would disagree with you and I both, AT LEAST in practice (by not evangelising them or calling them to repentance) IF NOT in outright theology. I can't speak for OP, but it's this dispensational school that I myself am railing against.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice,..."


Kind of reminds me of...

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled... And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." - Luke 21

[blue-duncan]

"Well said, Marlowe. It's interesting, isn't it, that those who cite Gal. 3:28 on this subject always do so very selectively?"

And they interpret too broadly. It was meant to describe the make up of the church, like Eph. 2 and 3, not God's total plan for the nation of Israel. During the "times of the Gentiles" (the church age) it is the church God is dealing with and both Jew and Gentile are dealt with in the same way by the Holy Spirit. But Paul in Romans 11: 25-27, says after the "fullness of the Gentiles be come in" the temporary blindness of the nation of Israel will be removed and God will deal with the believing remnant of Israel again and they will be saved and their salvation will cause Gentiles to turn to God. That is what the tribulation period and the millennium is for.

Paul warns us if we are ignore this mystery we are at risk of becoming wise in our own conceits.

[Buggman]

But seriously, I was specifically alluding to certain proponents of dispensationalism . . .

Hm. First, I don't follow Hagee, so I'd enjoy seeing an example of what he's said or done that makes you think that he isn't interested in "evangelizing" Jews per se--I know many who are, but who take a soft approach and show love and blessings to the Jewish people to bring down the old walls that keep the Jewish people from seeing the Cross clearly. You know, as opposed to trying to convince Jews that they hate God, because that works so well.

. . . who IMHO act as if modern-day Israel is[n't] accountable to any ethical/Biblical standards, even Old Covenant ones.

Which standards are those which you think they are consistantly violating as a body?

My view is that Jews - like every other unbelieving people on Earth - need to fall at Christ's feet and acknowledged Him as Lord, and need to repent of their sins.

That is in fact the Dispensational, Historical Premillennial, and Messianic view as well, so I'm still not sure where your dispute is.

There is no salvific benefit for them in being racially Jewish, except in the knowledge available to them via their (prior) covenantal history and experiences with their Maker.

Unfortunately for you, the Apostle Sha'ul disagrees (Rom. 11:25ff). And now that I've said that and gotten your hackles up, let me clarify it.

Clearly, each individual Jew is individually reponsible for putting his trust in the Messiah. (I'm going to leave aside for the purposes of this discussion whether rejecting a false, anti-semetic image of Jesus is the same as rejecting the real Messiah--suffice to say I don't think so. I'm just putting this caveat in so that people won't accuse me of being inconsistant with the last thread.) And those who remain irrepentant can be "cut off from his people," to use the Torah's phrase.

However, there is still a promise to the body of Israel as a whole that "all Israel" will be saved. Now obviously, the whole nation cannot be saved while the great majority are not obediant to their rightful King--therefore, Premill, Dispy and otherwise, recognizes that at some point near or at the time of the Second Coming and/or Rapture, something spectacular has to happen to take the blinders off and bring the whole nation of Israel, not just the remnant that God has reserved for now, to repentence.

"All Israel" does not mean that 100% of those of Jewish lineage through all history will be saved, nor does it mean even that 100% of those of Jewish lineage at the time of the Second Coming will be. Indeed, there are a number of passages that indicate that God will save "all Israel" by removing the dross via persecution, so that 100% of those brought through the fire will be saved. And I believe that when they see the Second Coming, see Yeshua coming on the clouds of heaven to gather the elect, they will mourn (Rev. 1:7, Zec. 12:10ff), and that they will be cleansed (Zec. 13:1ff), and they will be brought into the New Covenant the same way we are--by faith in Yeshua HaMashiach.

Lest anyone pervert that statement into a grotesque parody where I look forward to Jews being killed in the End Times, I will point out that I am neither a Dispensationalist nor a pretrib rapturist. I believe that the Church will be having its dross removed at the same time in the same way, the tares being bundled to be burnt before the wheat is carried into the barn.

Of course, even Dispen acknowledges the existence of Gentile "tribulation saints" after the Rapture who will have to undergo the Great Tribulation with Israel, so its a grotesque bit of slander to pretend that they are eager for another Holocaust as well.

That, of course, is a very, very brief overview of my eschatology. The major difference between my view and Dispensationalism is on the matter of the timing of the Rapture and that I would quibble on the distinctions Dispen draws between the Church and Israel.

Meanwhile, (some) dispensationalists teach that by keeping the OT laws, they are not required to bend the knee to Christ like the rest of us. And that is the dual-redemptive plan that I was speaking against earlier.

So because "some" Dispys hold to a form of dual-covenantism, you're going to claim that the system as a whole teaches that? Interesting. Does that mean because the father of the Reformation advocated burning synagogues and killing rabbis that I should claim that all Reform theology makes this claim? Or do you agree that we should not judge a theological system by its abuses?

[Buggman]

Besides, it make you sound like a seminarian who just discovered that they can cuss while there alone in the dorm room and not get struck with lightning.

ROTFL! Thank you, I needed that.

[Celtman]

The fact is, I am obeying the Logical forms of Analogical Reasoning exactly -- I have changed none of the Terms of the Equation, only the Variables.

      Balderdash.  In terms of predicate calculus, neither "Israel" nor "The White Race" is a variable - they have been quantified.  (In other words, they are constants.)  Your argument is logically equivalent to:

• 7 > 23 is false.
• Therefore 35 > 11 is false.

      Clearly fallacious reasoning.