Posted on 05/21/2007 1:31:42 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Or, alternatively, you could spend two years studying there, as I did. Your sneering dismissal is UNchristian. It is a fine school. I transferred out to another school, but RTS is one of the finest schools one could ask for. It is one of the few schools which holds to both the absolute inerrancy of the scriptures and stresses the importance of passion for Christ in ministry. It is one of the VERY few schools I have been exposed to which stresses THE GOSPEL as the driving, motivating pulsating force for Christian living, rather than falling back into 4876 different (many times unbiblical) "rules" for Christian behavior. You owe the staff and alumni there an apology.
PS - don’t be so quick to judge a fellow freeper!
Thank you. Always good advice. I will take it under advisement.
Paul did NOT write about a secret rapture, in I Thess 4 or anywhere else. There is no biblical justification to assume this section refers to some unbiblical first part of a twofold coming of Christ. None whatsoever.
Dreams, just a side note about your tag line...You still have it there after his performance last week?
Thank you...now back to our regularly scheduled program...
DoP,
You assume a lot friend! I did not level a single
criticism against the institution, as you assume
in your post. I simply said that knowing the
institution gives you all you need to know about
the criticism by the author of the article. I stand
by that.
Heck, you even assumed I “sneered”. For the record,
I never sneer. I do smile a lot.
As an aside, I appreciate a high view of scripture,
where ever I find it, including your alma mater.
best,
ampu
DoP,
guess we’ll have to disagree. I take the words to
mean what they say, what the context confirms,
and what the totality of scripture teaches,
starting with the Abrahamic covenant and moving
forward through each promise God makes and will
keep. I don’t profess to know why God does things -
especially after watching human nature for over
50 winters now (including my own).
At the very most common denominator, I appreciate
that you know Christ and love Him and have a high
view of scripture. God will eventually sort out
the details in a way that will please us both.
Best,
ampu
Actually, all covenant theologians have affirmed that they are "both," and your attempt to drive a divide between physical and spiritual Israel as a teaching is simply false. The terms of the covenant were that the entire physical nation of Israel WOULD BE obedient to the covenant. However, there are clear statements within the Old Testament that repeated the threat that the disobedient and unbelieving would be "cut off" from their people. So, then, it is not "preterists" who highlight that it is possible to be a physical descendant of Abraham and NOT a recipient of the covenant blessings. God himself declared it. Indeed John the Baptist mocks the reliance on physical lineage when he calls the disobedient leaders "sons of snakes." The covenant blessings were for the "seed of the woman" which was ultimately Christ, of course. God further narrowed this to the "seed of Abraham" when He made the covenant promises to him. Indeed, Galatians says that God "preached the gospel" to Abraham by telling him that in HIS seed all the families of the earth would be blessed. Romans tells us that Abraham believed that promise and was justified, just like WE believe in the already unfolded promise, and are justified. One people, one message, one set of promises, one faith, many nations, with one physical group in the forefront.
The idea of a wooden "distinction" between physical and spiritual Israel is false, and the idea of a wooden distinction between the physical sons of Abraham and the spriritual sons of Abraham is also false. They are one. The promises to Abraham HAVE ALL MET THEIR FULFILLMENT in Christ. The idea that God has to get the "church" out of the way to fulfill his promises to "Israel" is simply unbiblical. Take out that lynchpin and all the stuff about premillineal raptures and the weird weird stuff you see in the dispensational rubric simply melts away because there is no need for it. The TRUE Israel (aka "the remnant") was always the church, and the church is the true Israel. ALL of the earliest church were Jews, and hopefully, there seems to be good cause in Romans to look for a greater revival of the Jews "back in" to the true faith, which should result in a conflagration of a worldwide "super revival" (or "life from the dead" as Paul puts it). Amen. Bring it, Lord Jesus, and bring it now.
That said, there is NO reason to assume that the promises made to Abraham's seed are restricted to a wooden literalism, especially when the Old and New Testament declare clearly that they are made to the children of Abraham's FAITH. Get that colossal error out of the way and the entire case for dispensational end times theology collapses.
--- and not to mention "Dreams" from CBS's "Survivor" whose unfettered broken promise before millions of viewers gave new meaning to the word.
NO. Rather Paul tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant IS the gospel. God preached it in advance to Abraham and he believed and was justified. In fact, that same gospel was in its most rude and crude form in the promise to Adam and his wife in the curse of the serpent. That ONE message of a coming savior was expanded through Abraham, Moses and the pictures of Christ in both the law and the sacrificial systems, throught he promise to David that his son would be a king who would reign forever, and then the promises in the prophets to the "remnant" regarding the "day of the lord." These are all part of the ONE promise of "GOD WILL BE WITH HIS PEOPLE TO RESCUE AND BLESS THEM." This is the solitary, unifying theme that spans the testaments. One promise, one people, one faith, one destiny, one God over all. It is historical Christianity, no matter which way we come down over a physical and literal millenium.
you are correct and I am wrong. In re viewing your post, you could have simply been saying that "you know the theological bent simply by knowing the theological heritage of RTS." Since you say that was all you meant, then I accept that, and I humbly apologize.
If that is what you meant, then you are in fact, absolutely correct. Where you start out in these issues largely determines where you will wind up. I hope you will forgive me for misreading your post.
The End Time’s primary purpose is the reconcilation between Israel and God.
God’s convenent with His people still stands.
Roman 11:1 So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew! ...
Rom 11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel18 until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion;
he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them,
when I take away their sins.”
In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy.
Partially true. The Abrahamic Covenant is meeting its fulfillment in Christ, and that fulfillment will culminate in the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel by the Messiah who will reign from the city of Jerusalem, as promised. It is not just past tense as Preterists are addicted to but past, present, and future.
Most people read only the New Testament and base all their beliefs strictly on that. My suggestion is read the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. You will get a much better perspective as to where we really are in Biblical time in respect to New Testament teachings. For example, I will only use Ezekiel 37 although there are many others. The 2 houses, Judah and Israel (10 tribes) have never been one nation since the split in 931 BC during the reign of Soloman. If one looks at the current war in Iraq with the Alliance of the US/Britain with Israel, one can begin to understand Ezekiel 37:21,22. That union has not occurred since 931BC but is in it’s beginnings. Note verse 21, “bring them into their own land.” Unless one understands the Abrahamic covenant of the Old, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man with Lazarus going to the bosom of Abraham of the New, Zechariah 14:9 (King over all the earth of the Old – did you read that? Rev 5:10 of the New). Hosea 6:2 of the Old. The parable of the fig tree and Matt.15:24 of the New. All those verses refer to the times we’re in and the redemption going into effect. If one is blind to the new ecollogical and world and heavenly changes (new earth and new heavens) then all the reading in the world will never convince you. There is much much more one needs to read in the Old if he is going to get the big picture of the New. I’ve got to run.
G-d bless in your search for Truth.
Yeah. I think rudy was dishonest, but you gotta give him credit for the one liner. Ron took alot of (I believe) unwarranted criticism as though he were agreeing with Bin Laden, rather than just articulating the reasons Al Quaeda stated that they did what they did. Again, Rudy's response was disingenuous (of COURSE he had heard that explanation before, he even stated he did from the Saudi Prince in the post debate interview), but he knew the entry point for a good riposte. I love Ron Paul and have for years. He has been a champion for the unborn, a patriot, and an advocate for liberty and constitutional government for at least 30 years now. I don't think he will win the nomination (my money is on Fred Thompson), but I hope he will, by his very presence, force other candidates to at least give a passing wave to the constitution as they trample it.
the problem with this, is that the city of Jerusalem, as described in Ezekiel, IS BIGGER THAN THE ENTIRE LAND OF PALESTINE, and the Temple is bigger than the entire city of Jerusalem. NO ONE takes the prophecy "literally." NO ONE. Not dispensationalists, not covenant theologians, NO ONE. Historical Reformed theology says "this is a pictorial way of doing what the OT often does, which is use figurative language to describe the glory of the coming age of Christ, which finds its final expression in the new heavans and new earth." This makes far more sense to me than insisting the it refers to "literal" Jerusalem and ignoring the fact that the spatial dimensions in the (long) description are simply geographically untenable.
I agree. My problem with Ron Paul is that he is a strict Libertarian and I don't think most Americans will go for that.
(my money is on Fred Thompson)
Mine too!!!
Sorry everybody...didn't mean to hijack the thread. Now back to the rapture...BTW, I do like the tone of this discussion more than most. I see respect in the post and that is truly refreshing.
Wiley
That is a VERY good suggestion. An even better suggestion is then to go back and read the NEW TESTAMENT AS IT INTERPRETS THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES FOR US. When one does that, we let the bible itself teach us how to interpret it, rather than bring some man made rule like "literaly whenever possible" into play. In fact, the New Testament teaches us OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER that the promises made in the OT are in fact fulfilled in the NT saints. Many of my brothers respond that "yes, they have a PARTIAL fulfillment, but the REAL DEAL is literal and future." The problem with that is that this does not come from the Bible itself, but a method of interpreting the Old Testament (literal whenever possible) that the New Testament simply does not teach. It is a man-made hermeneutic (rule for interpreting scripture), which is -again- why the church never heard of most of the end times events pictured by pretrib dispensationalists until about 1830. It is a NEW method of interpreting the bible.
It was mentioned on the radio here that Ron Paul thinks that the heart of our problem in the Middle East is our support of the nation of Israel and that we should step back from supporting them. Is that his position???
The true Israel is already being reconciled to God. It started at Calvary and I am a part of it. I have claim to every single one of the Abrahamic promises by being in Christ.
God’s convenent with His people still stands. It certainly does. That covenant includes the curses of the covenant which include breaking off and expulsion from the covenant community for unbelief. The covenant was NEVER made with geopolitical entity (there was no established nation of Israel at the time of Abraham, and only a loose confederation of tribes under Moses), but with a believing worshiping community. Further, the promises were NOT restricted to those of the descent of Abraham, but provisions were made in the OT for the incorporation of gentiles into the community. This has been "superexpanded" in the NT, and the barriers between Jew and "other" have been forever smashed and obliterated by the cross of Christ, so that we are now ALL jews who are of the faith of Abraham. We are ALL recipients of the covenant blessings. In light of that, I am exteremely grateful that "God's covenant with his people still stands." I suspect that you have a withered stunted and narrow view of who "His people" refer to, and are still trying, like the Jews of Jesus's time -- to restrict them to those of Abraham's bloodline. You are 2000 years out of date on that one.
Roman 11:1 So I ask, God has not rejected his people, has he? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew! ...
YES! GOD has never rejected his people, which includes ALL types of men. There are still Jews getting saved too! Paul is an illustration. However, they are not all "Israel" who are descended from Israel. A man is a "jew" if he is one inwardly, and his circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit. Therefore, Paul declares ME and ALL men who have the faith of Abraham to be true Jews. So, no, God's promises have not and cannot fail to his people.
A partial hardening has happened to Israel1 until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved
ALL the true Israel will be saved. I believe that towards the end, the sons of Abraham will be grafted back in which will lead to an even greater fulness of the gentiles.
However, none of this means that there will be a political restoration of a nation state of "Israel" much less the rebuilding of a temple (HORRORS! what a slap in the face to the finished work of Christ!!) or any of the other stuff so integral to the pretrib premil group.
No. However, he is not a Christian Zionist. Neither am I. the present nation state of “israel” could be bulldozed into the sea by enraged Muslims and it would not affect one scintilla of biblical end times prophecy.
And yet the attitude of those within and without the so-called Church who feel this way fulfills a whole lot of those scintillas ----
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.