Posted on 11/30/2008 4:07:04 PM PST by mbeeber
Biblical Seminary in Hatfield, PA
That's funny. On their website I see them presenting as useful links to the World Reformed Fellowship, Mark Driscoll and Redeemer Presbyterian, Tim Keller's church in NYC. Haven't found anything like a clear statement of faith though. The closest I find is this which seems a bit vague and squishy. Gone downhill since you were there?
Do you hold that there are separate redemptive plans for the new testament church, and the genetic descendants of the patriarch Israel?
Who've you actually read?
World Reformed Fellowship
And speaking of which, this is interesting: The Use of the Heidelberg Catechism with Israeli Christians
As a Jewish Christian, it was not easy for me and others to translate and bring this work to completion. We as the Jewish people carry the scars of the past, the pain of humiliation and the high price that we had to pay for being Jewish, from the hand of the so called “Christians”. This is particularly true of the German people, and the World War II. So why publish a book written in Germany?I think that after six decades, it is time for us to put our emotional baggage away and to take advantage of the rich heritage and tradition that God has provided for His church through superb and valuable documents such as the Heidelberg Catechism.
To come to this day were we can hold this guide in our hand was not an easy journey. I began its translation more than four years ago while still studying at Westminster Seminary. It was there that I saw the need for such a personal guide to be translated and used by the Believers in the land of Israel. Once we completed the editing of the work, I decided not to publish it, since I felt that the church in Israel may not be ready for it. But in time and through the patience of the members of Board for Israel, we have come to this historical moment, at least it is such for me!
Some of the struggles of the congregations in Israel today and in the other parts of the world are not new. As the preacher said – there is no new thing under the sun. (Eccl 1:9, KJV). Some of the issues, challenges and heresies that the church is dealing with today were also in existence in the past, and much during the time that this guide originally was written. Therefore, we need to be wise and to learn from them in order to avoid making the same mistakes. And I believe that this guide can help do that and much more. The One and Only Comfort, for centuries has been a source of comfort for many people as they struggled in their walk with the Lord. Many Churches has been using it as a way of instructing and feeding their flocks, and also as their church constitution.
"what is your only comfort, in life and death?"
the confirmation of the covenant (Daniel ch. 9).
Already happened.
In 25 words or less, what is the "tremondous error" in Reformed thought.
I will not though play into your sophist hand, knowing well that usually is your trump card.
I am curious as to why you would post this thread (I trust you are the author) if you are not willing to defend it no matter which direction it takes? What we do here is to post articles and then discuss them. When a vanity article is posted, like this one, then we all have the opportunity to engage the author himself.
And, BTW, what was "sophistic" about Lee's question?
As a Charismatic dispensationalist, I find this statement odd. Nearly every Charismatic I know is a dispensationalist. The dispute over the gifts of the spirit are not dispensationalist v. charismatic, it is more along the lines of Traditionalists v. Charismatics, with the traditionalists taking the position that the gifts of the spirit ended in the first century, despite the complete lack of scriptural evidence for that fact.
Can you name a single renowned Charismatic who is not a dispensationalist?
Thanks! I’ll have to look into the details and maybe start my own tradition in home.
Beeber seems to be describing “cessationists” rather than dispensationalists.
Obviously, there is no such thing as a charismatic cessationist. It would be a contradiction.
You know, misidentifying theological positions is starting to become a real pet peeve of mine.
I’m a great advocate of just mixing theology up, calling it whatever you wanna call it, and then being really, really for it or really, really against it.
And then you get popcorn and watch the fights.
I’m a great advocate of just mixing theology up, calling it whatever you wanna call it, and then being really, really for it or really, really against it.
Sometimes you end up with a tasty stew. Sometimes it's just Chelada. :-).
How can an article be so wrong right off the bat? Amazing.
Dispensationalism: An Abbreviated Critique by Grover Gunn
*chuckle* You know, I’ve often been tempted to take whatever my theological beliefs are at the time, write them all up, and name it “Truth Theology” or some other pretentious title, just to see who would get ticked off at me for it.
Never heard of it...it sounds absolutely awful
Beer & Clamato? That’s probably illegal in Germany. :>)
It must be that it keeps most people and churches from being dispensational. It prevents folks from dividing the people of God along racial lines, and teaches that, rather than being a parenthesis, the Church, the body of Christ, is actually the eschatological terminus of God’s plan to have one people. IOW, it does not take a Jewish/Israel slant on the Abrahamic promises, but see them entirely as pointing to the Seed, Jesus Christ, and the spiritual children of Abraham by faith in Him. Reformed theology is thoroughly Christocentric.
This is an interesting article since our friend warned us earlier that he was going to prove his position using Reformed authors. He tried to do that with a quote from Matthew Henry, but failed miserably by misinterpreting Henry. Henry actually just the opposite of what our friend was trying to assert.
Perhaps this article is plan B. How apropos to the dispensational position.
With all due respect to the RH two-agers, It’s hermeneutics not hermeneutic. Hermeneutics is both the singular and plural form of the noun. "We can learn much from the hermeneutics of John Calvin’s." Hermeneutic is an adjective.
This is called begging the question. It assumes that the futurist dispensationalists (and their MJ stepchildren) correctly interpret and understand whatever falls under the category of "future Messianic prophecy". This is the very heart of the debate.
"fruitless debate" – Interesting, since you also made the claim "I read enough reformed theology to understand the tremendous error present in reformed thought. " Are we simply to assume you correctly understand Reformed theology and how it applies to Israel v. the Church? You have not demonstrated that ability in your handling, for example, of Matthew Henry’s commentary. You misinterpreted his commentary on the meaning of the "great tribulation", selectively choosing from his commentary of Joel 2 while ignoring his commentary on Acts 2. Folks can see that in this thread.
Herman Neutered ...
(and he doesn’t want to talk about it!)
Ouch! I can see why.
Beer & Clamato?
There's some amusing reviews on youtube.
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.