Posted on 08/24/2014 10:55:16 AM PDT by wmfights
well, it seems like dispensationalists are a little uncomfortable when their beliefs are taken to their logical conclusions. before I explain this in a way even a third grader can understand, I first want to say I assume dispensationalists actually believe what they say and teach.
ok, here are major tenants of dispensationalism which we need to focus on to prove my statement:
1. the Bible is true and is to be believed. ( we can all agree on this )
2. the Bible is to be interpreted literally. no allegorizing or spiritualizing of verses like Origen or Augustine.
3. the Church is not Israel.
4. the Jews are Israel.
5. everywhere in the NT when it mentions Israel, it means the Jews or Jewish nation and never the Church.
6. God is fulfilling prophecy by bringing the Jewish people back to the land He promised them.
7. the country in the Middle East called Israel is there as a result of God being faithful in keeping his promises.
8. all means all. all does not mean 15%, 53% or 78%. all means 100%
9. Romans 11:26 “and so all Israel will be saved” is literally true.
I don’t think you can find anyone who calls them self a “dispensationalist” who would/could deny any of those nine tenants or principles listed above.
now, here is where logic comes in and the dispensationalist gets nervous.
we all know Jews who have lived and died knowing of Jesus Christ, knowing Christians teach He is the promised Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and these Jews died utterly rejecting Jesus and the Christian Faith. they wanted nothing to do with it. in fact, in the country in the Middle East called Israel, I dare say 99% of the citizens also utterly reject Jesus, some in fact are very hostile to Christians.
BUT ACCORDING TO DISPENSATIONALISTS, THESE PEOPLE ARE ISRAEL. Further, Romans 11 says ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED.
logically then if they are saved and they rejected Jesus and His offer of salvation:
THEY MUST HAVE A DIIFERENT PATH TO SALVATION THAN JESUS CHRIST.
own it dispensationalists, its your teaching.
it is a foreign to Christianity as other 19th century novel teaching, Mormonism, 7th day Adventism, Church of Christ, JEHOVAH Witnesses, Christian Science,etc.
You’re starting with at least one false premise about what dispensationalists believe so it’s no wonder that you are confused and misunderstanding what is being said.
Your opinion about dispensationalists is not fact.
Get over yourself. You are not the mental heavyweight you portray yourself as.
and that false premise would be...........?
Number 2 to begin with.
For all the enemies of Christianity like to portray that Christians demand to take the Bible literally with no considering the obvious literary styles that exist in it, all for the purpose of mocking Christians, they have yet to provide proof that ONE person takes the entire Bible literally, even though they’ve been asked for it time and again.
well if you reject #2, you might not be a dispensationalist.
Literal interpretation. Modern premillennialism is dependent upon the principle of literal interpretation. Premillennialism is a result of the application of this method to Scriptural interpretation
_______________
the above is taken from the part 10 of this series.
congratulations, you have just now had your dipsensationalist membership card revoked.
>>2. the Bible is to be interpreted literally. no allegorizing or spiritualizing of verses like Origen or Augustine.<<
That must be a construct of your attempts to discredit the those you disagree with due to some serious flaws in your self azsurrance of what you believe. Jesus is not a literal door nor is He a literal lamb. So you see, your premises is already flawed.≤p> >>8. all means all. all does not mean 15%, 53% or 78%. all means 100%<<
Once again wrong as we will see in your next point.
>>9. Romans 11:26 “and so all Israel will be saved” is literally true.<<
During this age of grace it matters not what nationality a person is as far as salvation is concerned. And no indication is given in scripture as to the destiny of each individual who is of Israelie decent. "All of Israel" could well mean that representative members of all of the tribes will be saved as the 12,000 from each tribe would indicate.
>>I don’t think you can find anyone who calls them self a “dispensationalist” who would/could deny any of those nine tenants or principles listed above.<<
I just showed you how what you think has little or no basis in reality. I am a "dispensationalist" and don't believe in your erroneous list. The rest of you post is based on your errors listed so is and should be disregarded as the rantings of one who has convinced no one of his grasp of the subject. Trying to project what you hope others believe in hopes to denegrate those beliefs isn't working well for you nor is it enhancing your credibility.
Or you might not have a clue about what dispensationalists believe.
You were presented the scriptures from Romans as provided by Iscool.
Your beef is with Paul not premil presentation of the Scriptures.
In the Scriptures provided in Romans your theory that Israel=100% Church is refuted. Because how could the church be an enemy of itself.
On your enumeration I would agree with 1-3 and 4 if you substitute Hebrew people.
#5 begs the question as clearly Paul tells us the elect of the church are grafted in. And agreeing with God’s bond servant Paul God is not finished with Israel.
#6 very possible. We shall find out. Could be or a yet far future event. It’s not dogmatic. Show me those who claim such.
#7 at the least IMO a beginning of gathering. It is a secular state no professing Christ as Lord and Savior. Pieces being put together for larger prophecy fulfillment. See Paul again Romans 9-12.
#8-10 you beg the questions again. So as to fit your stereotype. Paul stated all Israel will be saved. Not redleghunter, Iscool or Walvoord (he’s the author of the series if you had not read). It was Paul and as such Paul knew the Hebrew scriptures quite well from what I know. Better than us. He knew YHWH always kept a faithful remnant.
So your reasoning is flawed. Pick up the Bible and read these articles if you truly want to converse on these threads.
You have obviously no understanding of what is meant by the term “literal interpretation” in light of interpreting scripture. The term is used for those who interpret the words literally unless it is obvious and other passages back up a non literal meaning. You are proving over and over again that you are ill equipted to debate the meaning of scripture.
I'll say! Quite the broad brush even WP could help with.
Check out the literal grammatical interpretation method. It is no wonder your posts are based on faulty premises.
It is the same method used by the apostles.
during this “age of grace”
____
as opposed to the next age of what, works? the law?
“all of Israel” could well mean...... could well mean? so we don’t know what Israel is? you posted about a week ago that 1948 was a fulfillment of prophecy, God was bringing his people Israel back to the promised land.......now we are told it “could” mean something.
see how easily dispensationalism falls apart when confronted?
now we are also told all doesn’t mean all....okey dokey.
my “beef” is not with Paul, it’s with the 19th century invention called dispensationalism.
Paul clearly presents two Israels in Romans, national Israel, which was a type of the second true Israel, spiritual Israel, of which all in it will be saved.
this second true Israel is the Church, as we read in Acts 2:47 “and the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved”
Paul flat out tells us there are two Israels in Romans 9:6, for not all who are descended from ( national ) Israel, belong to ( spiritual ) Israel.
only all spiritual Israel ( the Church ) will be saved.
national Israel is no different in God’s eyes than national Nigeria, He wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of his Son.....who so ever will.....
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your hubris.
ok, if I don’t understand literal interpretation, please define “Israel” in Romans 11:26 using any method you like.
It is an honor that someone ill equipped to debate the meaning of Scripture is able to question and learn from someone of your obvious knowledge and skill. Let’s see what you got.
school me man, should be like shooting fish in a barrel.
literal grammatical interpretation method
under this method, please define Israel in Romans 11:26.
Hebrews? all Hebrews will be saved?
You mean unlike as seen for 50 years in sanctioned Catholic Bible commentary, which relegates stories like Jonah and the fish, Balaam and the donkey to be fables, the conquests of Joshua to be folk tales, and questions whether Jesus Christ was actually involved in some conversations which the gospel records, and thinks that most of which Jesus is recorded as saying was probably theological elaboration by the writers, and who likewise simply placed the Lord Jesus on a hill in giving the sermon on the Mount etc.
NOW THERE YOU GO AGAIN!!! THINKING!!! That's your downfall...
If you would read (and believe) what the scriptures say instead of worrying about your catechism, you'd learn something about God...
While Israel rejected Jesus, they are still looking for the Messiah...That seems to escape you...
THEY MUST HAVE A DIIFERENT PATH TO SALVATION THAN JESUS CHRIST.
AGAIN, salvation can only be thru Jesus Christ...So your false accusation falls flat on its face, AGAIN...However, what Israel WILL have is 'not' a different path to salvation but a different path to Jesus...They WILL have a new covenant...A covenant just for Israel...
So let's try this again...Instead of trying to focus on 'gotcha' words, why not just read it and see what it says...And of course it would help tremendously if you something of what the rest of the bible says...
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Do you realize Paul is talking abut Jesus taking away THEIR sins, NOT yours???
And of course that means ALL of Jacob...Living, or dead, or both??? We can be certain it pertains to ALL of Israel who are alive when this covenant takes place...To focus on whether it means all who are living or all in history is just straining at gnats to shift the focus of the message to try to prove there is an error...
Jer 31:20 Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.
Jer 31:8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Jer 31:10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
What is intriguing about that last verse is that the Catholic religion shows Israel no mercy whatsoever...Of course the mercy comes from God but it would seem we should 'pay it ahead' to Israel...
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.