Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What's Wrong with this Picture?
Five Solas ^ | Dr. Gus Gianello

Posted on 11/04/2007 1:26:45 PM PST by topcat54

Ever seen a Picasso? Ever tried to understand a "cubist" painting? It’s a lot like trying to understand Dispensational thinking. Here's a gem for you, in response to a Reformed critique of Dispensationalism. This is the defense that was given:

”The dispensationalist’s answer to the problem is this: The BASIS of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the REQUIREMENT for salvation in every age is faith; the OBJECT of faith in every age is God; the CONTENT of faith changes in the various dispensations.”
"Dispensationalism Today” Charles Ryrie pg 123.
Now, folks, what is the sound of one hand clapping? Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it? Can God make a rock he cant move? And for more such silly sayings consult your local irrationalist bookstore---the one on every street corner.

This is the age of pure nonsense. How any individual who takes language seriously can make such a statement is incredible. I don't know what Ryrie was like as a theologian, but I do know he did not know the Queen's english--or any facsimile thereof.

Let us analyze this silly prose and see what it means. The word BASIS in English means base, reason or essence. So far we can agree with Dr. Ryrie. The essence of salvation is the work of Christ. Salvation is Christocentric. Then he goes on to say, the REQUIREMENT for salvation in every age is faith. Yup, excellent. We, NEED to have faith in the Christ of Scripture. Now, note, this is in EVERY age according to Ryrie. Then he says the OBJECT of faith in every age is God. Ummm, ok, if by that he means "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." Strictly speaking the object of faith is the God-man Christ Jesus. But, we can live with that.

Here it comes, are you ready? The CONTENT of faith changes in the various dispensations. HUH!? The word "content" means significance. So in each dispensation the significance of faith is different. In every dispensation we believe in God, the essence of our faith is Christ, and faith is essential, BUT in every dispensation the CONTENT changes. Have you ever heard such torturous nonsense.

Let’s put this in perspective and talk about something as mundane as apple pie. The BASIS of apple pie is apples. The REQUIREMENT for apple pie are apples. The OBJECT of apple pie is to be eaten. BUT the CONTENT of apple pie changes from dispensation to dispensation. Now, do you see what I mean by trying to understand Picasso?

You, see the point of Dispensationalism, is that it is not meant to be understood--only believed. No matter how silly or irrational. Jesus is to be felt, and entered into a relationship with, not known and believed. Besides belief comes from the heart not the head, and anyway don't you see all the signs. These must be the "last days" cause of all the earthquakes and stuff. Can millions of dispensationalists be wrong?

I don't know--ask the Mormons. So some poor Reformed guy, who sincerely but foolishly believes he can reason with dispensationalists comes back and says,

Personally, I am leaning further and further away from this idea and more and more to the idea that the content was always the same “Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death”
What an incredibly rational thing to say. As though somehow the ESSENCE and OBJECT of our faith can be different from the CONTENT of our faith. (You see our dear Reformed budding-buddy, is beginning to realize that these words are just synonyms for each other--the same thing stated in a slightly different way, each time, to emphasize a different point.) So, he says what any good fledgling Reformed Christian says--Jesus is the answer. But he misses the point. He's trying to REASON with dispensationalists. Remember, these are the same people who have believed every false prophet who has come down the pike when dates were set for the 2nd coming. Let's see, first it was 1988, then 1994, then 1998. And besides Hal Lindsay says "one generation" from the birth of Israel as a nation. Oops, that's only 40 years, and that would mean 1988. Oh, well, Hal just mispoke himself, he MEANT to say "from the retaking of Jerusalem by the Jews in 1967". Wow, that was a close one---at least now, Hal has got until 2007 to sell his books--or get married AGAIN.

You see, good Christian friend, you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist, anymore than you can reason with a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, or JW. You must proclaim the gospel to them. Am I saying dispensationalists are not saved? God forbid! There are many wonderful Christian people who are dispensationalists--but they are Christians in spite of themselves. Blessed inconsistency! They, if truly logical, (like Spock logical) SHOULD NOT be Christians. Why? Because, Jesus WAS trying to subvert the state and establish an earthly kingdom. He DID break the Law of God. Therefore, his death did not atone. The Jews were justified in crucifying him.

Now, in finality, notice the dispensational retort,

What did Abraham understand about “Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death”? How could it have been the content of faith for him? I don’t understand your statement at all.
And, sadly that is the whole point. Because they deny the unity of Scripture but instead chop it up into 7, no 9,--or is it 3? Dispensations, they just cannot see how any Old Testament saint like Abraham could have known Jesus Christ. And this saddest of all is in direct contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. Pray for dispensationalists.
John 8:54-59
Jesus replied, "If I honor myself, it would mean nothing. My Father is the one who honors me. You claim that he is your God, even though you don't really know him. If I said I didn't know him, I would be a liar, just like all of you. But I know him, and I do what he says. Your father Abraham was really glad to see me." You are not yet fifty years old?", they said. "How could you have seen Abraham?" (CEV)

Dispensationalists ask of Abraham the same question today. "How could you have known Christ". They will get the same answer, by FAITH. One God, one covenant, one faith, one saviour.


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: dispensationalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

1 posted on 11/04/2007 1:26:47 PM PST by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow; HarleyD; suzyjaruki; nobdysfool; jkl1122; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
Reformed Eschatology Ping List (REPL)

"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)

2 posted on 11/04/2007 1:28:20 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist...”

Ain’t that the truth.

Good article. Thanks.


3 posted on 11/04/2007 2:57:29 PM PST by tabsternager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

What exactly is the basis of the arguments on dispensationalism?

If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated. This Catholic looks at the threads and instantly gets a head-ache.


4 posted on 11/04/2007 3:02:17 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Dispensationalists ask of Abraham the same question today. "How could you have known Christ". They will get the same answer, by FAITH. One God, one covenant, one faith, one saviour.

AMEN!

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28

5 posted on 11/04/2007 3:49:27 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
Here's a couple articles, one pro and one con.

What is dispensationalism? by John MacArthur.

A Study of Dispensationalism by Arthur W. Pink.

Short answer: seven (or more) dispensations or times of "testing" wrt God’s salvation program; radical distinction between Israel (God’s earthly people) and the Church (God’s heavenly people); radical discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament; future personal antichrist and "great tribulation" where many if not most of the earth’s inhabitants are killed, including most Jews living in Israel; secret pre-tribulational rapture (i.e., rapture is distinct from the orthodox second coming); Jewish millennium ("thousand years" of Revelation 20) after Christ’s second coming with Christ physically reigning over the earth from a throne in earthly Jerusalem; future rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem and reinstitution of the Levitical/sacrificial system.

It has been denounced by most historic protestant denominations, especially Lutheran and Reformed. Closely akin to such heretical views as Christian Zionism (ala John Hagee) and dual covenantalism. Also seems to have an odd relationship to messianic Judaism.

6 posted on 11/04/2007 3:53:49 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

So Left Behind in other words?


7 posted on 11/04/2007 4:09:45 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated. This Catholic looks at the threads and instantly gets a head-ache.

Israel =/= the church. That is the root assumption, defended at all costs. All else flows from that.

Historically it dates from the 1830s, from an English Plymouth Brethren theologian named J. N. Darby.

As far as the eschatology, with the charts and all, Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth of one of the Left Behind novels are available at fine garage sales everywhere. Ah, yes. Amazon lists Late Grate as " 126 Used & new from $0.01". Left Lying Around "623 Used & new from $0.01".

8 posted on 11/04/2007 4:40:54 PM PST by Lee N. Field ("Dispensationalism -- threat or menace?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
So Left Behind in other words?

You got it.

9 posted on 11/04/2007 4:57:48 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Makes sense, so its a theology that Roman Catholic, Reformed, and Traditional Protestant (not modern mainline Protestant) would take a look at and disagree with.


10 posted on 11/04/2007 5:30:09 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
so its a theology that Roman Catholic, Reformed, and Traditional Protestant would take a look at and disagree with.
Pretty much.

Here's a linky to a representative statement. Their objections are pretty much mine.

(not modern mainline Protestant)

I spent a couple hours once scouring WCC denominational websites for their statements of faith, specifically looking for eschatological positions. Most don't appear to believe much of anything at all. It's a dogmatic stretch for them to say Jesus is coming back.

11 posted on 11/04/2007 6:04:09 PM PST by Lee N. Field ("Dispensationalism -- threat or menace?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

That was what I was implying, not that mainline Protestants believe in Dispensationalism, but they don’t necessary believe in the essentials of Christianity in the first place.


12 posted on 11/04/2007 6:22:11 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
Makes sense, so its a theology that Roman Catholic, Reformed, and Traditional Protestant (not modern mainline Protestant) would take a look at and disagree with.

That's correct. Any denomination that subscribes to the ecumenical creeds with its very simple and straightforward wording about Christ’s return would think that dispensationalism is a radical departure from the historic position.

"He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved. Amen." (Athanasian Creed)

13 posted on 11/04/2007 6:36:28 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

**If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated.***

I would be willing to try.

Jesus is crucified, buried and resurected. He is the true king of Israel.

The Apostles preach this so that Israel can experience “the times of refreshing” and then Christ is to return during the destruction of Jerusalem and fulfill the prophecies in the OT, while setting up his world kingdom.

Israel rejects Jesus as the Mesiah. The promise of the kingdom and Israel is set aside and the word of God goes to the Gentiles. The age of Grace begins.

In the future, “the age of grace” will end and the believers will be “raptured” up to be with the Lord before, during, or after the tribulation (take your choice).

Israel then makes a seven year peace treaty with the “anti-Christ” which he then breaks. Wars begin against Israel.

God will then begin again to fulfill all the promises made to Israel in the past and Jesus will return at the destruction of Jerusalem and destroy those invaders.

Then begins the kingdom with Christ as King ruling out of Jerusalem. After one thousand years Satan is released from the botomless pit for one last battle then the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven and everyone lives happily after after except the followers of Satan who are cast into the lake of fire.

Whew. Confusing, isn’t it.

My thoughts is we should live as if Christ was going to return tomorrow and not worry or speculate about what is to happen after that.


14 posted on 11/04/2007 7:05:44 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated. This Catholic looks at the threads and instantly gets a head-ache.

For what it is worth FRiend, most of the Calvinists and other Traditional Reformed (Lutherans, Church of England derivatives, etc) get head aches as well.

In a nut shell...appropriate term for the subject of this discussion...Although John N.A.B. Darby is given credit for the first theological outlook that is recognisable as Dispensationalism, the school actually goes back to the movement of Edward Irving, and in particular, two female 'prophets' in his congregation in the 1830's. Those two Scottish females were named Mary Campbell, and Margaret MacDonald. (As a Scot, let me tell you that when you can get a MacDonald and a Campbell to agree on anything, beware of whatever 'it' happens to be.)

Some parts of it were derived from the theology of hymn writer Isaac Watts, though Watts' public theology did not remotely resemble anything recognisable as Modern Dispensationalism.

Along with Dispensationalism, Irving's congregation resembled much of the excesses that one sees in the Modern Charismatic movement. Irving also had difficulties with his Christological doctrines, and was taken to task by the Church of Scotland over those views.

It appears that bad ideas keep trying to gain a foothold in the church in every generation.

Or in the words of the 'Preacher' ...There is nothing new under the Sun...

15 posted on 11/04/2007 7:36:05 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

pflr


16 posted on 11/04/2007 7:38:09 PM PST by crghill (Christianity...setting women free since 0 a.d.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Ruy Dias de Bivar

Thank you for the response. It is very much appreciated.

I loved the little Scottish joke you dropped in. I have a head-ache already. Its not a theology I put much stock in, I am learning I don’t have to. Thanks again and God Bless.


17 posted on 11/04/2007 7:43:44 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord; StAthanasiustheGreat; Ruy Dias de Bivar; Lee N. Field
You will also note that this odd teaching is most welcome and well-received among those who eschew the historic confessions and creeds of the Church.

The reason for this seems obvious. Men love the attention they get from formulating their own creeds with their own noxious doctrines with which they can fool the sheep under their care.

For 1830 years the Church knew nothing of these teachings on the second coming, or on the relationship between Israel and the Church. The early church fathers, and all the fathers for 2000 years, have been supersessionists, teaching that the universal Church is the expansion of the geographically limited entity known as Israel.

All the righteous are the true sons of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ. We are related to Abraham by the only genetic that matters, spiritual genetics. We are Spiritual Israel.

18 posted on 11/04/2007 8:25:54 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Well said. While I theologically disagree with Reformed and the other traditional Protestant theologies, they have a grounding in the Traditions and History of the Church that the Fundamentalist and Evangelical (in the seeker and mega-church variety) do not have. It would appear that while Luther broke with Tradition (from the Catholic POV), it wasn’t as radical a break in the basic history of the Church as seen in the Dispensationalists.


19 posted on 11/04/2007 8:30:15 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Reaganesque; Grig; sandude; Saundra Duffy; Utah Girl; Spiff; tantiboh; 2pugs4me; ...

Well us LDS don’t have a problem with dispensations as Traditional folks do!

But than when you have the fullness of the Gospel a lot of those kinds of questions are answered.


20 posted on 11/04/2007 8:33:57 PM PST by restornu (Improve The Shining Moment! Don't let them pass you by... PRESS FORWARD MITT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
”The dispensationalist’s answer to the problem is this: The BASIS of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the REQUIREMENT for salvation in every age is faith; the OBJECT of faith in every age is God; the CONTENT of faith changes in the various dispensations.”

That reads a lot like something I read in a Catholic thread last week...

“God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the [Catholic] Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”

Contrary to the headlines, this does not mean “Christians are saved by Jesus, Jews don’t need him.” Rather, it means that everybody who is saved — including Jews — will find that they have been saved by Jesus Christ at work in the light they have received in their own particular situation. That’s not new. It’s biblical. Here’s how


21 posted on 11/04/2007 8:36:54 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time." - Amos 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

My impression is increasingly that

God is very much NOT AMUSED.


22 posted on 11/04/2007 8:43:33 PM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; StAthanasiustheGreat

I don’t know too much about dispensationalism, but from what I hear, I think the Catholic Church would reject dispensationalism AND antidispensationalism as both false solutions to a fake dilemma.

The Catholic Church teaches that the ancient Jews who were faithful did go to a Hell (=Sheol) (=Hades), for they did not know Christ, but that Hell to which they went was neither torturous nor eternal. When Christ died, he descended into Hell, an act which is known as “the Harrowing of Hell,” and there did what 1 Pet 3:19 refers to as “preach[ing] to the spirits in prison,” wherein the righteous souls of the ancient Jews had the opportunity to believe in Him and be saved.

The Jews in the time of Christ were already in diaspora. Although those Jews in Palestine did reject Christianity, Jews throughout the empire did not. They are Jews whom Paul preaches to throughout the books of Act, and to whom most of his letters were addressed; if they had been pagan, basing his arguments on the Old Testament, which had already been rejected by pagans, would have been senseless.

Thus, Christianity represents an expansion of the Jewish people; every Christian convert is made a Jew by adoption. In turn, then both of these propositions are false: that Christianity is a replacement Israel, and that Jews need not know Jesus as Christ to be saved.

There is still a theological problem which I do not believe the Catholic Church has a defined, doctrinal answer for:

When Paul bemoans the fate of Israel, he is referring to Palestinian Jews in specific, rather than the broader Israel in diaspora, so there is no conflict between what I have written and his letter to the Romans. But neither is the explanation entirely satisfying because it isn’t sensible that the stem he talks of being restored to the olive tree refers only to Palestinian Jews of a given time (the end of history.)

In the time Paul speaks of, all of Israel will be converted, the glory of Israel shines forth, and all of Israel united in glory. But what of the Jews in the interim? When the bible speaks all such wonderful prophesies for the fate of the Jews, isn’t it kind of a raw deal, a backpedal, for God to say, “Oh, not *those* Jews”?

While recognizing the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, The Catholic Church has never despaired of the salvation of “the perfidious Jews.” This prayer which was removed from the mass only because it was falsely interpreted. “Perfidious” is not an accusation of sinfulness, nor does it means “damned.” If the objects of such a prayer were damned, it would be sinful to pray for them, as 2 Maccabees plainly explains.

So what is the fate of non-Christian Jews of the here and now? This is not clear from scripture. But dispensationalism is an unsatisfactory, anti-traditional, and counter-biblical hypothesis, which sadly is not as completely alien to modern Catholics as it to Catholicism.

I can’t help but to notice that the man who betrayed Christ was known simply as “Jew.” (That’s all “Judas” meant.) But at the same time, when we Catholics pray to St. Thaddeus, the Patron Saint of (Seemingly) Hopeless Causes, we refer to him also ny that same name.


23 posted on 11/04/2007 9:08:57 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dangus; StAthanasiustheGreat
Thus, Christianity represents an expansion of the Jewish people; every Christian convert is made a Jew by adoption. In turn, then both of these propositions are false: that Christianity is a replacement Israel, and that Jews need not know Jesus as Christ to be saved.

I believe that I what I said has been the historic position of most if not all creedal Christians churches. The Church is the expansion and eschatological fulfillment of all the promises to ancient Israel by virtue of being in Christ, the Seed, to whom the promises were made. Thus Christ’s own are the true sons of Abraham. The "replacement" charge comes from dispensationalists and is made against all those who oppose their views.

In the time Paul speaks of, all of Israel will be converted, the glory of Israel shines forth, and all of Israel united in glory.

I read a touch of dispensationalism in this comment. What is the time of which Paul is speaking, and what actually is the definition of "all Israel"? Since Paul was writing these words to the Roman church, which presumably included many Jews of the Diaspora, I find the suggestion that he is trying to make some distinction between the inhabitants of Palestine and the Diaspora questionable.

So what is the fate of non-Christian Jews of the here and now?

Salvation comes by faith alone through Christ alone. "... if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom, 10:9) Any other position wrt the Jews smacks of double covenantalism, the ugly step-child of dispensationalism.

24 posted on 11/04/2007 9:29:04 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: restornu
Well us LDS don’t have a problem with dispensations as Traditional folks do!

Quite understandable given the restorationist nature of both systems.

25 posted on 11/04/2007 9:30:44 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

I’m not sure why you detect something wrong in your 2nd citation of my post. I’m not so much drawing the distinction between Jews based on where they live (Exilic v Palestinian), but on whether they became Christian (as most exilic Jews did) or not (like most Palestinian Jews).

As for the 3rd part you wrote, I believe I was abundantly clear in my statement that Jews need to come to Christ. Since that is so, I’m not sure where hope lies for the “perfidious Jews,” only that there seems to be some which is not yet revealed to us. I could speculate, such as to guess that there may be reserved for the Jews some time between now and the 2nd death some opportunity for recognizing Christ. But any such speculation would be highly problemmatic and non-biblical. More likely is that Christ may have something up his sleeve that we cannot fathom. Who, before Christ, would have asserted the harrowing of Hell?

I’m certainly uncomfortable with the presumptiveness expressed in the article Alex Murphy linked to. But is there no hope for the Jews? St. Paul consoles himself with a vision of the restoration of Israel, but if his soul is troubled that acceptance of Christ is merely found among those not of his native locality, is it much more solace for this particular concern that it is found among those not of his time? Does not his vision of the restoration of Israel, which seems to refer to the very object of his concern, suggest the restoration not only of some other olive branch, but of the very branches which were cut? Does “all Israel” exclude what was then present Israel?

Please understand that in these questions, I am not asserting Catholic doctrine, or making biblical assertions, but pondering what is *NOT* made clear.


26 posted on 11/04/2007 10:19:33 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
It would appear that while Luther broke with Tradition (from the Catholic POV), it wasn’t as radical a break in the basic history of the Church as seen in the Dispensationalists.

Absolutely not. If you read the reformers, they're writings are full of references to the folks that preceded them.

27 posted on 11/05/2007 5:14:10 AM PST by Lee N. Field ("Dispensationalism -- threat or menace?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

StAthanasiustheGreat, Actually as a Catholic I think such threads are very helpful. The popularity of such tripe as the Left Behind series shows how few people understand that the theology behind it (not to mention the literature) is total caca. This heresy needs to be countered by Protestant voices speaking to a Protestant audience. If for one applaud these voices and pray the blessing of Christ be upon them all.


28 posted on 11/05/2007 6:01:51 AM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

No, no, no I can assure you that they have as much in common with “Left Behind” as a good Catholic has with the Da Vinci Code.


29 posted on 11/05/2007 6:02:50 AM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

oops I goofed. I misread what StA wrote sorry.


30 posted on 11/05/2007 6:05:05 AM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I’m not so much drawing the distinction between Jews based on where they live (Exilic v Palestinian), but on whether they became Christian (as most exilic Jews did) or not (like most Palestinian Jews).

I'm curious as to what objective evidence you have for such a conclusion. Is it a hunch on your part?

Paul certainly found much resistance to the gospel among the Diaspora Jews, as any plain reading of the book of Acts will attest. (There may have been more Jews living in the Diaspora, and so a larger percentage of converts would come from that segment of the Jewish population, but that is only speculation.) In fact it was this resistance that prompted his turning to the gentiles with the good news. So when we turn to Romans 11 we see Paul’s analysis in terms of the ingrafting of gentiles.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
I’m not sure where hope lies for the “perfidious Jews,” only that there seems to be some which is not yet revealed to us. … But is there no hope for the Jews?

There is no hope for any apart from Christ.

Does “all Israel” exclude what was then present Israel?

"All Israel" is a reference to the elect ones from out of that nation throughout time. "And so all Israel will be saved."

31 posted on 11/05/2007 6:07:26 AM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
This heresy needs to be countered by Protestant voices speaking to a Protestant audience.

It is.

32 posted on 11/05/2007 7:25:48 AM PST by Lee N. Field ("Dispensationalism -- threat or menace?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

Yes I know. Sometimes it is even done with great humor. Have you read the book “ Right Behind”? I strongly endorse it as a very funny look at dispensationalism and the bad literature that arises from it.


33 posted on 11/05/2007 8:00:28 AM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

***You see, good Christian friend, you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist, anymore than you can reason with a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, or JW. You must proclaim the gospel to them.***

I agree with this, BTW. There is a complete Eschatology in the gospels that is NOT Dispensationalism. At a fundamental level, they don’t even know the gospel. If they truly knew the gospel and the promises the Lord made, they wouldn’t be Dispensationalists.


34 posted on 11/05/2007 9:32:27 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus
***You see, good Christian friend, you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist, anymore than you can reason with a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, or JW.

So we have found, elsewhere. It's an explanatory framework with an extraordinarily strong hold on a lot of people. Kind of like, oh, certain illegal substances....

At a fundamental level, they don’t even know the gospel. If they truly knew the gospel and the promises the Lord made, they wouldn’t be Dispensationalists.

My biggest problem with it is not the charts and graphs and whatnot. It's what it does to the gospel.

If DP-ism is true, if being a blood descendant of Abraham matters the way they say it does, the atonement needs to be rethought.

You must proclaim the gospel to them.***
yes.
35 posted on 11/05/2007 9:57:00 AM PST by Lee N. Field ("Dispensationalism -- threat or menace?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat
If you could do dispensationalism for dummies in about five sentences, it would be appreciated.

      Perhaps this page would be helpful: Dispensationalism

      A few excerpts:

"
Dispensationalism
A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations.
...
    Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
  1. A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
  2. A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation.
  3. The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.
...

      The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations. This is a misunderstanding of the opponents of Dispensationalism. "

      In my own words, Dispensationalism is the logical result of believing that:

  1. The Bible is a message from God to mankind.
  2. In the Bible, God said what He meant and meant what He said.

36 posted on 11/05/2007 1:40:02 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Article:
The word "content" means significance.

      Huhh?  Not in this context, it doesn't

Let’s put this in perspective and talk about something as mundane as apple pie.

No, let's not.  Let's change this nonsensical analogy a tad, and talk about a pie.  The content of a pie can be apples, cherries, peaches, or rhubarb. 

You, see the point of Dispensationalism, is that it is not meant to be understood--only believed.

      If the author did understand Dispensationalism, he would know that this statement is nonsense.  But, in other words, the author is writing about something which he does not understand.

They, if truly logical, (like Spock logical) SHOULD NOT be Christians. Why? Because, Jesus WAS trying to subvert the state and establish an earthly kingdom. He DID break the Law of God. Therefore, his death did not atone. The Jews were justified in crucifying him.

      Double HUHHH.  Is the author saying that he believes this nonsense?  Or that dispensationalists do?  If the latter, he is quite wrong.  A pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it.

... Because they deny the unity of Scripture but instead chop it up into 7, no 9,--or is it 3? Dispensations, ...

      Incorrect.  Another pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it.

      I find it quite ironic that the doctrinal system which calls itself "covenant" seems to have as its cornerstone doctrine the misconception that God has abrogated his covenant with Abraham.

37 posted on 11/05/2007 3:51:11 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celtman
Huhh? Not in this context, it doesn't

What does it mean then? Get specific.

Incorrect. Another pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it. I find it quite ironic that the doctrinal system which calls itself "covenant" seems to have as its cornerstone doctrine the misconception that God has abrogated his covenant with Abraham.

Looks like you have fallen into the same trap that you are complaining about.

38 posted on 11/05/2007 5:18:55 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism is a disease ... as contagious as polio.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Celtman; StAthanasiustheGreat
A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.

A distinction unknown in Scripture, at least in the way formulated by dispensationalists.

A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation.

That’s funny. It’s more like the "literal when convenient" approach.

The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations.

But you lead off with this for the definition: A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations.

Then the name is a misnomer, or perhaps contributes to the confusion of its adherents.

39 posted on 11/05/2007 5:24:40 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism is a disease ... as contagious as polio.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Huhh? Not in this context, it doesn't
What does it mean then? Get specific.
Content 4)
1 a: something contained —usually used in plural b: the topics or matter treated in a written work
c: the principal substance (as written matter, illustrations, or music) offered by a World Wide Web site
2 a: substance, gist b: meaning, significance c: the events, physical detail, and information in a work of art — compare form 10b
Merriam-Webster

      Definition 1 applies, not definition 2.

--------

A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation.
That’s funny. It’s more like the "literal when convenient" approach.

Not at all.  It's a "use your intelligence and consider the context" approach.

--------

ncorrect. Another pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it.

I find it quite ironic that the doctrinal system which calls itself "covenant" seems to have as its cornerstone doctrine the misconception that God has abrogated his covenant with Abraham.
Looks like you have fallen into the same trap that you are complaining about.

      OK.  So, does Covenant doctrine teach that God's covenant with Abraham and his seed is still in effect with his seed?

--------

Then the name is a misnomer, or perhaps contributes to the confusion of its adherents.

Perhaps you missed the key phrase:
The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations.

40 posted on 11/05/2007 8:01:35 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Celtman
Definition 1 applies, not definition 2.

That’s still not very specific. Perhaps I’m missing the significance in the context of Ryrie’s statement and the analysis. Why is "something contained" more appropriate than "substance" and what difference does it make?

OK. So, does Covenant doctrine teach that God's covenant with Abraham and his seed is still in effect with his seed?

Absolutely. Just read Galatians 3 for the proper understanding of "Seed" being Jesus Christ and the fact that all those found to be in Christ are the true sons of Abraham and, therefore, heirs of the promises.

41 posted on 11/05/2007 8:39:37 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism is a disease ... as contagious as polio.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Celtman; Iscool; Quix
For 1830 years the Church knew nothing of these teachings on the second coming, or on the relationship between Israel and the Church. The early church fathers, and all the fathers for 2000 years, have been supersessionists, teaching that the universal Church is the expansion of the geographically limited entity known as Israel.

Baloney. The apostles at the First Council of the Church in Jerusalem in 49 AD were all dispensationalists as we know from Acts 15:

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up, that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." [Acts 13-16]

After the church age Jesus would return to Jerusalem to rebuild it adn establish His throne there, just as Amos and the prophets wrote.

42 posted on 11/06/2007 4:55:33 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Celtman
I find it quite ironic that the doctrinal system which calls itself "covenant" seems to have as its cornerstone doctrine the misconception that God has abrogated his covenant with Abraham.

Not at all.

OK. So, does Covenant doctrine teach that God's covenant with Abraham and his seed is still in effect with his seed?

Absolutely. Paul explicitly tells us who that seed is.

43 posted on 11/06/2007 5:30:19 AM PST by Lee N. Field ("Dispensationalism -- threat or menace?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field; Uncle Chip; Iscool

OK. So, does Covenant doctrine teach that God’s covenant with Abraham and his seed is still in effect with his seed?

Absolutely. Paul explicitly tells us who that seed is.

= ==

Ahhhhh, the rubber dictionary strikes again . . . along with the Slipping and Sliding and Shucking and Jiving School of Biblical Interpretation . . .

The Covenant still applies to Blood Israel except that it doesn’t because The Cross obliterated their DNA and lineage

. . . so God is going to have a real rough time choosing 12,000 from EACH of the 12 patriarchical tribes . . .

And God didn’t really EMAN TRULY EVERLASTING COVENANT . . . He only meant a temporary covenant until the Replacementarians could arise and tell Him how to get it right . . .

So, all bets are off, nothing is dependable except Replacementarian obtuseness, rubber Bibles, rubber history books, rubber dictionaries and rubber logic books.

The children of Jacob were foolish to trust that God meant what He said about an EVERLASTING COVENANT—they should have known that the Replacementarians would arise and change God’s mind.

/sar


44 posted on 11/06/2007 6:40:48 AM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Celtman
In the Bible, God said what He meant and meant what He said.

AND, to whom He said and when...

45 posted on 11/06/2007 7:34:20 AM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Quix

***Ahhhhh, the rubber dictionary strikes again . . . along with the Slipping and Sliding and Shucking and Jiving School of Biblical Interpretation . . .***

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.


46 posted on 11/06/2007 7:39:32 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Just read Galatians 3 for the proper understanding of "Seed" being Jesus Christ and the fact that all those found to be in Christ are the true sons of Abraham and, therefore, heirs of the promises.

Christians are the Spiritual heirs of the Spiritual promises...

The Jews are (still) the physical heirs of the physical promises...

47 posted on 11/06/2007 7:39:54 AM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

I suspect that even if y’all laid out all the “seed” Scriptures on a table, sense would still not be made of them.

It’s not that hard, really. Just believ the text.


48 posted on 11/06/2007 11:54:41 AM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field; Dr. Eckleburg

The dispy bible doesn’t teach Jeremiah 31:31 or the Book of Hebrews. They’re “too hard”, lol


49 posted on 11/06/2007 11:57:58 AM PST by 1000 silverlings (Everything that deceives also enchants: Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Actually, I’d put it that

Christians are joint heirs with Christ and with Abraham’s blood seed of

ALL

the benefits of the Covenant.

It may well be that vis a vis SOME ceremonial aspects or whatever that blood children of Abraham will have priority. I don’t think so but it wouldn’t rock my theology if it turned out that way.

We are ‘early-horners-in’ on the blessings of the Covenant via CHRIST CRUSIFIED, RESURRECTED AND TREIGNING FOREVERMORE.

But the branch we were grafted into will not be forgotten by a long shot. As Scripture is clear about.

God is NOT slack concerning HIS PROMISES to HIS BUDDY Abraham.


50 posted on 11/06/2007 12:04:46 PM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson