Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ninety-Five Theses Against Dispensationalism
AgainstDispensationalism.com ^ | 2008 | Jerry Johnson

Posted on 11/07/2008 8:07:14 AM PST by topcat54

5. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ assertion that modern-day Jews are faithful to the Old Testament and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Hagee), the New Testament teaches that there is no such thing as “orthodox Judaism.” Any modern-day Jew who claims to believe the Old Testament and yet rejects Christ Jesus as Lord and God rejects the Old Testament also.

24. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.

36. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim to interpret all of the Bible “literally”, Dr. O.T. Allis correctly observed, "While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers."

94. "Despite dispensationalism’s affirmation of “genuine and wholesome spirituality” (Charles Ryrie), it actually encourages antinomianism by denying the role of God’s law as the God-ordained standard of righteousness, deeming God’s law (including the Ten Commandments) to be only for the Jews in another dispensation. Dispensationalists reject the Ten Commandments because “the law was never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away for the Christian” (Charles Ryrie)—even though the New Testament teaches that all men “are under the Law” so “that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God” (Rom 3:19)."

(Excerpt) Read more at againstdispensationalism.com ...


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: dispensationalism; eschatology
“…dispensationalists have followed the course of “end times” events with the consuming fascination of a betting man at a race track. In so doing they have virtually turned their backs on the world in which they live.” Os Guinness, Fit Bodies Fat Minds (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), p. 67

“…[the] Plymouth Brethren who follow Mr. Darby. As on all hands, with a diligence never exceeded, and a subtlety never equaled, they are laboring to seduce the members of our churches to the subversion of the truth and the overthrow of the needful order and discipline…” Charles H. Spurgeon, author and Pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle

1 posted on 11/07/2008 8:07:15 AM 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)
Biblically Optimistic and Gospel-Based

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

2 posted on 11/07/2008 8:08:05 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

I love these learned religion posts — I can’t really follow them, but I love them!


3 posted on 11/07/2008 8:09:33 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
TO ALL THE WATCHMEN ON THE WALL – SOUND THE ALERT!

Consecrate yourselves.
Get your households in order.
Purify yourselves and the Church – casting out apostates, wolves in sheep clothing, and those living in unrepentant sin in your midst.
Wake up – Bride of Christ – cease living as though tomorrow is just the same as yesterday.
Tell everyone of the coming wrath. If they will not listen, shake the dust off your sandals and move on quickly. Leave the “calling out” to the LORD.
Do not fear; be of great courage and boldness.
Pray for there to be ears to hear and eyes to see….the Truth. Thy Word is Truth.
Prepare the way of the LORD.
Praise the Worthy Lamb, for His Kingdom is near.

4 posted on 11/07/2008 8:12:09 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
..since you brought up J. Dwight Pentecost, it would be a good study to read "Things To Come", especially the chapters dealing with side by side analysis of the different modes of hermeneutics

Being from an Historical-Grammatical (literal) point of view with strong Dispensational leanings, I haven't heard one argument in 30 years that would change that.

But time will tell--watch the Middle East and see...

5 posted on 11/07/2008 8:41:12 AM PST by WalterSkinner ( In Memory of My Father--WWII Vet and Patriot 1926-2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

You, I love these religious posts as well, and this election has really dragged them out all over the place.


6 posted on 11/07/2008 9:01:14 AM PST by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WalterSkinner
since you brought up J. Dwight Pentecost, it would be a good study to read "Things To Come",

Since Tuesday I have honestly thought we are seeing the beginning of The End Times.

7 posted on 11/07/2008 9:03:40 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your power dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WalterSkinner

“22. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim to be following “the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation” (Charles Ryrie), they have redefined the method in a way that is rejected by the majority of non-dispensational evangelicals (and even “progressive dispensationalists”) who see that the Bible, while true in all its parts, often speaks in figures and types—e.g., most evangelicals interpret the prophecy in Isaiah and Micah of “the mountain of the house of the Lord being established as the chief of the mountains” (Isa 2:2b, Mic. 4:1b) to refer to the exaltation of God’s people; whereas dispensationalism claims this text is referring to actual geological, tectonic, and volcanic mountain-building whereby “the Temple mount would be lifted up and exalted over all the other mountains” (John Sailhammer) during the millennium.”


8 posted on 11/07/2008 9:15:34 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Oh, boy, this will set them off.

Y-all go read the whole thing.

9 posted on 11/07/2008 9:15:55 AM PST by Lee N. Field ("I for one welcome our new Chicago overlords")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; topcat54; WalterSkinner

Exactly what I heard the Dispies say when Clinton was elected in the ever changing world of trying to make current events fit their interpretation. Oh, well, at least the sign seekers have something to do.


10 posted on 11/07/2008 9:17:07 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
The argument - as I understand it - is not factual.
You might compare the gift of the land to conditions existing in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from all the trees in the Garden save one. That tree, God reserved for himself.

God gave the earth to human kind, but one small portion of it He reserved for His chosen people, the Jews . This was not an absolute gift but one conditional upon obedience to the Law. Disobedience did not cancel God's gift itself but did mean loss of the land temporarily. His love remained and remains on His people - for the sake of His servants Abraham, Moses, and David, if for no other reason.

The coming of Messiah did not mean the gift was canceled but merely that the relationship between God and His people(and through His people to the whole world) had to change. Since it was obvious the Law could not be kept to any degree, the relationship had to be transformed into one based on acceptance of Jesus as the Lamb of God. When this did not happen, when the Jews were disobedient again, they forfeited the land - again.

God's love for the Jews remains. He has a plan for them. And this is certain: anyone who opposes God's plan will face destruction, whether that be Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, the new EU, the Islamic world, or preachers in this country or elsewhere.

11 posted on 11/07/2008 9:34:56 AM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
The argument - as I understand it - is not factual.

What part, specifically, is not factual?

God's love for the Jews remains. He has a plan for them.

God indeed has an elect remnant from among the Jewish people chosen before the foundation of the world. The dispensationalist error comes from confusing modern, secular Israel with this divine election.

12 posted on 11/07/2008 9:40:52 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus; freedumb2003; WalterSkinner
Exactly what I heard the Dispies say when Clinton was elected in the ever changing world of trying to make current events fit their interpretation. Oh, well, at least the sign seekers have something to do.

And recall that Jimmy Carter was setting the stage for the rapture in 1980.

13 posted on 11/07/2008 9:43:03 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus
..you didn't hear that from me--there are nuts in every camp who take two verse of Bible and try to fit a square peg in a round hole...

I'm probably as Calvinistic as anyone here--except in the area of eschatology

Israel is God's timepiece--watch and see which one of us is in error...

14 posted on 11/07/2008 9:43:07 AM PST by WalterSkinner ( In Memory of My Father--WWII Vet and Patriot 1926-2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
..Jimmy Carter--that famous liberal Baptist

His social views alone reveal his contempt for Scripture...

15 posted on 11/07/2008 9:45:02 AM PST by WalterSkinner ( In Memory of My Father--WWII Vet and Patriot 1926-2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WalterSkinner
His social views alone reveal his contempt for Scripture...

And thus he was the perfect persona for dispensational date-suggesters in the 70s, setting the political stage as it were for rapture/antichrist.

16 posted on 11/07/2008 10:10:21 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WalterSkinner; Lord_Calvinus
Israel is God's timepiece--watch and see which one of us is in error...

Why, and what exactly are we supposed to be looking for?

According to the 70s-style futurists, it was a matter of simple math. Just add 40 years (one biblical generation) to 1948 (founding of modern, secular Israel) and the date of Jesus’ Second Coming was obvious -- 1988.

When that one didn’t pan out they decided to redefine the start date to 1967 coinciding with the Six Day War and the unification of old Jerusalem. That means the Second Coming was now set for 2007. Oops. We missed that one.

Then they started redefining what the term "generation" means to make all the date-suggesting a bit more flexible.

Other dates included Y2K … the disruption of all things would be a perfect opportunity for antichrist to rise and set things straight. And don't forget 1844 or 1914. Other futurist perdictions.

The futurist haven't gotten one call right yet. The track record is abysmal.

17 posted on 11/07/2008 10:19:10 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; WalterSkinner

Perhaps the Dispensationalists should have observed the coming of the kingdom to Israel “God’s timepiece” a few thousand years ago.

Dispensationalists are simply a few days late according to how God tells time. ;^)


18 posted on 11/07/2008 12:27:31 PM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Perhaps I should have said that the arguments put forward in the article contains conclusions that other scholars, equally renowned and learned, have questioned.

If an omniscient God chose the Jews before the foundation of the world, then He would have known that He planned to reserve a small corner of the earth for them.
I'll grant you that the modern state of Israel is secular, but I argue that by the time of the exile of Israel and then Judah both those states were pretty secular as well.

19 posted on 11/07/2008 12:41:20 PM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
Perhaps I should have said that the arguments put forward in the article contains conclusions that other scholars, equally renowned and learned, have questioned.

So they are not factual errors, merely disagreements in interpretation.

If an omniscient God chose the Jews before the foundation of the world, then He would have known that He planned to reserve a small corner of the earth for them. I'll grant you that the modern state of Israel is secular, but I argue that by the time of the exile of Israel and then Judah both those states were pretty secular as well.

It is quite possible, in fact it fits with Scripture, that God merely intended to give them the land for a time as a typological representation that one day His wpopel woul dinherit the whole earth. That is the undeniable perspective of the New Testament. See Matthew 5:5, Romans 4:13, and Hebrews 11:9,10,16.

The typological day is past. The new covenant has arrived when the new covenant people, Jews and gentiles together, are receiving the promise by virtue of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and children of Abraham (Gal. 3:28,29).

20 posted on 11/07/2008 2:54:48 PM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
None, not one, of the passages you cite revokes the Abrahamic covenant.
21 posted on 11/07/2008 3:50:59 PM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
The old testament Jews look forward to the coming messiah. The land and kingdom of Israel was promised and delivered but like the temple that pointed to a temple raised in three days, the body. Israel pointed to a greater promised that the Jews knew about. The new heaven and earth. Book of Isaiah. And the new Jerusalem. Even Abraham consider himself a stranger in the land of Israel. Because he look forward to something more, by faith.
22 posted on 11/07/2008 4:46:33 PM PST by Warlord David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
None, not one, of the passages you cite revokes the Abrahamic covenant.

Revoke is not a word I would use. Plainly the NT teaches how the Abrahamic covenant was truly intended to be understood; in terms of the whole world coming under the dominion of Jesus Christ and His followers, both Jews and gentiles, the true children of Abraham in the divine commonwealth (Eph. 2:11-13).

The race-based theology that sees a rather stunted future for ethnic Israel is not what is portrayed on the pages of Scripture.

23 posted on 11/07/2008 6:41:48 PM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Much of the OT is a warning (either directly or indirectly) to the Jews about the dangers of marriage outside the Hebrew community. Even to this day Orthodox Jews do not recognize a person as a Jew unless he or she has a Jewish mother - or has converted to Judaism under the auspices of an Orthodox rabbi. A race based covenant is the only way Judaism could have survived from antiquity to the current day, and if Israel is to survive this system must be maintained - at least in some form - despite the hardship such a policy imposes on some or the disapproval of those who believe in diversity or tolerance.
24 posted on 11/07/2008 7:53:21 PM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
Much of the OT is a warning (either directly or indirectly) to the Jews about the dangers of marriage outside the Hebrew community.

And yet we have many examples of non-Jews who figure prominently in the history of Israel, e.g., Rahab and Ruth are both figured in the lineage of Jesus.

I think what you are struggling with is ultimately not racial or ethnic. It is a matter of covenant. There were many from Abraham's household who were circumcised and counted among the faithful who did not spring from Abraham's loins (Gen. 17:13,23). There was the mixed multitude who came out of Egypt and were able to able to participate in the Passover once they were circumcised (Exo. 12:43ff).

So, we see that inclusion in Israel was never strictly by race, but rather by obedience to the covenant.

But since the time of Christ there has been only one divinely-sanctioned covenant, that is the new covenant in Christ's blood. The old covenant decayed and passed away (Heb. 8:13). In order to be counted among the faithful one must be obedient to the teachings of the new covenant. This is why we read in places like Galatians 3 that the true children of Abraham are not by race or flesh, but by the new birth.

"8 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Paul also tells us in Ephesians 2 that gentiles are now full members of the commonwealth by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ.

Sadly, modern Jews have it all wrong. They are not the true children of Abraham because they do have have the faith of Abraham. Abraham believed in the triune God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus confirmed that in John 8: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

And sadly there are many Christians who continue to believe that modern Jews are somehow remaining faithful to the covenant God made with Abraham. They misunderstand the true nature of God's covenant with His people.

Race/ethnicity/genetics will not save you. Only having the right spiritual DNA by a relationship with Jesus Christ will bring one favor with God.

25 posted on 11/09/2008 3:38:03 PM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
I cannot dispute the conclusion of your argument, but I don't believe that the new covenant eradicates the old.
26 posted on 11/09/2008 5:19:37 PM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
I cannot dispute the conclusion of your argument, but I don't believe that the new covenant eradicates the old.
27 posted on 11/09/2008 5:20:02 PM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
I cannot dispute the conclusion of your argument, but I don't believe that the new covenant eradicates the old.

Well then, in what way is the old covenant still in effect? How would you go about proving your views from the Bible, esp. in light of all the NT says about the true children of Abraham being the members of CHrist's body, the Church?

"In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:13)

That was written 2000 years ago. What parts of the old covenant were not "obsolete" and fading away back then?

28 posted on 11/10/2008 7:04:18 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Let me ask you these questions.
You have cited several Bible passages to support your conclusion. Others, including many Bible scholars of international reputations, read the same passages and come to different conclusinons. What makes you right and them wrong?
Would you agree that a possibility exists that two honest Bible scholars may come to different conclusions about this issue?
Have you a revelation from God supporting your conclusion and invalidating theirs?
Do these two different interpretations of Scripture effect the historic creeds of the church?
29 posted on 11/10/2008 7:18:56 PM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
Let me ask you these questions. You have cited several Bible passages to support your conclusion. Others, including many Bible scholars of international reputations, read the same passages and come to different conclusinons. What makes you right and them wrong?

I stand alone on the Word of God. As Martin Luther said to his accusers (in paraphrase), show me where I’m wrong from the Word of God and I will surely repent of my errant views.

Would you agree that a possibility exists that two honest Bible scholars may come to different conclusions about this issue?

Absolutely. One may be right and the other wrong, or they may both be wrong, but they cannot both be right. No man is perfect in his interpretation of the Word of God. All men can and do make mistakes, including me. Some eminent Bible scholars have changed long held views of the Bible.

Have you a revelation from God supporting your conclusion and invalidating theirs?

Nope. I stand alone on the Word of God, which I am ready to discuss at any time. I am ready to compare any interpretation of Scripture with my understanding. If I can be shown to be wrong, I am prepared to change my interpretation to be more faithful to the Word of God. In fact, I have changed my opinion many times. In my younger days, just after my conversion, I used to believe many of the thing commonly believed about Israel, etc. I have since discarded most of those ideas because I found they were not entirely true to the Bible.

Do these two different interpretations of Scripture effect the historic creeds of the church?

Not sure what you are asking. I do not believe that certain modern views wrt the Church and Israel are biblical and fit with the historic views of the Church, esp. the Reformed Church that I’m a member of.

You said before, I don't believe that the new covenant eradicates the old. I asked you in what way then is the old covenant still in effect? And your biblical basis for such a conclusion.

30 posted on 11/10/2008 7:54:04 PM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Others stand on the Word, just as you claim to. What makes your stand the correct one and theirs wrong? You have attempted to show me where they are wrong. Your arguments are unpersuasive, theirs convince.

I urge you to remember the words of Oliver Cromwell, “Think it possible in the bowels of Christ that you may be mistaken.”

I live in the SF Bay area. Thousands of people are not only indifferent to the Word but display outright hostility. many live openly in sinful homosexual relationships. I debate them quite frequently and attempt to show them the Truth of God's message of salvation through the redemptive sacrifice of His Son. Only a few and a very few are willing to listen. They claim to stand on reason, love, and tolerance. They even claim to stand on truth, or at least on what they consider to be the truth. I know their ideas of truth are little more than rationalizations for what they want to believe. I know intellectual arrogance when I see it.

When I listen to or read the men who support my ideas, I know they are as devoted to spreading the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus as I am - and as you claim to be. Many of the men I speak with have sacrificed decades to work in the missions of Asia and the Middle East. After risking their lives to spread the Gospel, I know they would not preach one word they did not consider the Truth of Scripture.

As a layman I am not competent to debate Scripture. I trust the character of the men to whom I listen. Many would cut off their hands before they preached falsehood.

I tell you this, when I read the Apostles of Nicene Creeds, I read nothing of Dispensationalism. Your arguments are simply unimportant to the Truth of Jesus as Messiah.

31 posted on 11/11/2008 5:14:52 AM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
Others stand on the Word, just as you claim to. What makes your stand the correct one and theirs wrong? You have attempted to show me where they are wrong. Your arguments are unpersuasive, theirs convince.

Well, I think I have answered your questions. I have admitted my fallibility; the possibility that I may be wrong. I have said that I am willing to have my views examined in light of the Word of God.

You are not persuaded by my arguments. That is fine. You respond by appealing to "experts" who disagree with my view. This is not a matter of 51% vs. 49%. Recall the cry of the early church, Athanasius contra mundum. Just like Athanasius and Luther, I’m right until someone comes along and conclusively shows me to be wrong. The alternative is a kind of debilitating schizophrenia on theological matters. I have checked my views with the creeds and councils of the Church. They fit without any distortion of either.

In response I have asked a very simple question regarding your statement, I don't believe that the new covenant eradicates the old. I asked you in what way then is the old covenant still in effect? And your biblical basis for such a conclusion.

You seem reluctant to answer. But I see why:

As a layman I am not competent to debate Scripture.

Then, sadly, you are forced to reply on "experts" to do your thinking for you. You must have your own version of the Roman magisterium to tell you what to believe.

But I am also a "layman". Does that make me unqualified to debate these issues?

Why then did you jump into the fray in the first place?

I tell you this, when I read the Apostles of Nicene Creeds, I read nothing of Dispensationalism. Your arguments are simply unimportant to the Truth of Jesus as Messiah.

How can you be so sure when you are admittedly not competent to debate the issue? Why would you adopt and (to a degree) defend a system that you cannot support to those who might question you on it?

Earlier, in response to many passages of Scripture I gave to demonstrate how the new covenant displaced the old and how all those who believe in Christ are the true children of Abraham you said, None, not one, of the passages you cite revokes the Abrahamic covenant.

On what objective basis do you make such a claim?

And recall you were the one who jumped on this topic when you began, The argument - as I understand it - is not factual., and you proceeded to talk about the Garden of Eden and gifts, etc. No actual Scripture references were given.

I don’t mean for you to take this personally. I enjoy discussing these issues. Perhaps we can learn from one another.

32 posted on 11/11/2008 8:37:52 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
I am not equipped to debate the fine points of Bible interpretation. I am as Lewis labels it: a mere Christian. But I know people who are great Bible scholars, and they disagree with you. They are intelligent men, and I'm certain they would not proclaim any doctrine that could not be supported by the Word of God.
Let me ask you, when you get to heaven, do you believe you will be questioned by God as to your view of this particular matter? Do you believe that your salvation rests on your interpretation of this matter?
If the answer to these questions is no, why is it such an issue for you. Admit as I have that this is a matter of interest for theologians but of little practical concern for mere Christians.
I chose to believe the Abrahamic covenant still exists. I believe that the New Covenant does not eliminate the Old, and that the area we call the Holy Land was set aside by God for the Jewish people - then, now, and until Jesus returns.
Also, I believe the Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah as promised in the Old Testament. I believe that Jesus is the Lamb of God who died for the sins of the world and whom God raised from the dead. I believe that Jesus is God. I believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and is the second person of the Trinity.
I used to argue with Catholic friends all the time about the Immaculate Conception, whether Mary had any children other than Jesus, and the Assumption of Mary. I respect them. I hope they respect me.
I agree its not a matter of 51%-49% or any ratio at all.
33 posted on 11/11/2008 9:05:50 AM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
I am not equipped to debate the fine points of Bible interpretation.

Perhaps you can become better equipped by your interactions here.

I am as Lewis labels it: a mere Christian. But I know people who are great Bible scholars, and they disagree with you.

It’s a free country. They are entitled to be wrong. :-)

They are intelligent men, and I'm certain they would not proclaim any doctrine that could not be supported by the Word of God.

There are lots of opinions about what the Bible says, from Roman Catholics to protestants to Mormons to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some of these folks are quite intelligent. But they can’t all be right.

Let me ask you, when you get to heaven, do you believe you will be questioned by God as to your view of this particular matter? Do you believe that your salvation rests on your interpretation of this matter?

Absolutely not. But remember, you were the one who chimed in here with your insistence that I was wrong. If you want to back away, just back away. If you want to believe some man’s interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant still being in effect as it relates to national Israel, go right ahead. It’s a free country.

If you want to critique me, be specific. Don’t hide behind vague words about what others believe.

If the answer to these questions is no, why is it such an issue for you. Admit as I have that this is a matter of interest for theologians but of little practical concern for mere Christians.

So why did you jump in the fray?

I chose to believe the Abrahamic covenant still exists. I believe that the New Covenant does not eliminate the Old, and that the area we call the Holy Land was set aside by God for the Jewish people - then, now, and until Jesus returns.

Again, you can believe whatever you wish. I just hope it comes from the Bible and not what you read on the back of a box of cornflakes. It’s hard for me to judge since you have been so closed mouth after I started asking you some pointed questions.

34 posted on 11/11/2008 11:23:35 AM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
God called me to do many things but become an expert on Biblical interpretation is not one.

They are as entitled to be wrong as you are.

Not call can be right about all things but some and probably most can be right about some things. After all, even Muslims claim to be monotheists.

If I'm not mistaken, you buttressed your claim to truth with interpretations of the Bible you believe support your views.

I have never heard one word spoken at my church that contradicts the Bible. If I did, I'd leave.

I jumped into this question because I believe you wrong. Still do.

35 posted on 11/11/2008 11:36:06 AM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
If I'm not mistaken, you buttressed your claim to truth with interpretations of the Bible you believe support your views.

Yes, I did.

I have never heard one word spoken at my church that contradicts the Bible. If I did, I'd leave.

That’s good news, I’m sure. Let me ask, did you ever sit down and carefully consider a biblical argument from the other side?

I jumped into this question because I believe you wrong. Still do.

Well, it’s obvious that I cannot undo the effect of your many "experts". They have the advantage in that you will listen to them from the Bible. But you do not care to listen to me or someone from the other side from the Bible. That’s OK.

36 posted on 11/11/2008 12:03:16 PM PST by topcat54 ("The selling of bad beer is a crime against Christian love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
I've read yours and I find the arguments unpersuasive.
37 posted on 11/11/2008 3:06:36 PM PST by quadrant (1o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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