DISPENSATIONALIST "CHRISTIAN" ZIONISM -- Is there now "neither Jew nor Gentile", or not?

KennethGentry.Com, "Dispensational Distortions" ^ | 2004 | Kenneth Gentry (and OP)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

A Young Fool encounters Foolishness

Once upon a time, I was but a wee child in Reformed Theology, taking my first baby-steps into the beautiful Cathedral of Calvinism as a young Debater for Jerry Falwell's world-beating Liberty Debate Team (Our Creed: "Defeat Harvard. Defeat Navy. Defeat American Catholic. Defeat everyone. Crush them all, every time, no exceptions. Win every single National Championship, every year.... because as long as we Calvinists keep winning, Jerry won't excommunicate us for being Calvinists!!".)

[Dr. Jerry Falwell personally thinks that Calvinism is Heresy. He also doesn't care, as long as we Win.]

Since a Debater is always expected to be able to immediately argue either side of any given question, I spent a lot of time in the local used book-store picking up various books on philosophy and theology and politics and economics... anything I could get my dirt-poor hands on for $2 or $3 dollars a copy. Anything to familiarize myself with multiple intellectual perspectives and multiple modes of argumentation.

Now, in the course of my researches, I happened across a little book entitled War Cycles, Peace Cycles by Richard Kelly Hoskins of Lynchburg, Virginia, regarding the short and long-term economic effects of Monetary Expansions and Contractions in the context of fractional-reserve lending. Hoskins was by no means an uneducated fellow (a capable Financial Advisor and Econometricist, some of his works are still occasionally cited today), but I was singularly disturbed by several passages in which he seemed to suggest a Racial component to Fractional-Reserve Lending (which he called "the Babylon System") versus his contrary suggestions for Joint-Venture Lending.

One passage which stood out in my mind read as follows:

Take Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and look up the word "Man". Then, turn to the Hebrew section in the back of the concordance to locate the word for "man" which is "Adam". You will find that the word "adam" (Man) is used hundreds of times throughout the Bible. Under "man" locate the verse "In the beginning God created man", or "adam", as an example. The word "adam" is not just another name like John or Bob. "Adam" is the Hebrew word meaning "to turn rosy", or "to blush red" (Strong's number 119). A better translation of the above verse "In the beginning God created man" would be - "In the beginning God created 'he who blushes red'... (The White Race)" ~~ Hoskins, "War Cycles, Peace Cycles", page 20-21 (bolded explanation mine)

The further I read, the more it was apparent to me that Hoskins regarded "Israel" as The White Race, the Adamic Race descended through Abraham, and that all Non-Whites were considered to him to be zuwr "strangers": Pagans at worst, "Samaritan" Christians at best... but never "Israel".

And so, being the young fool that I was, I did what any young fool would do... I looked Dick Hoskins up in the Lynchburg, Virginia phone book, and called him at his house.

I asked him what he would make of my spiritual position -- a Confessing Christian by Faith, mostly Prussian German by Ethnicity, but with a little 1/16 smidgen of Sioux Nation mixed in 3 or 4 generations back on my mother's side.

Hoskins informed me, quite cordially and without any rancor whatsoever, that God considered me to be a mixed-breed Bastard and that "A Bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 23:2) He advised me to marry "one of my own kind".

(I guess I have now violated the Law of God, a German-Sioux mixed-breed Bastard like me marrying a Pure Scottish White Woman.)

Well, I decided at that point (even before I knew him to be the godfather of the "Phinehas Priesthood", the most violent expression of the Christian Identity movement) that even if he was a good money-runner, Dick Hoskins' theology was a barrel full of wet, smelly, foolish Scheißdreck, with which I would have no truck whatsoever. The Christian Creed is this: "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, KJV).

Unfortunately, however, "Christian Identity" (derived not from pagan Nazism but rather from its bastard godfather, British Israelism) is not the only theology which Racially divides the Body of Christ into Jew and Gentile, "Israel" and "Not-Israel", Blood and Blood-lines.

Dispensational Zionist Foolishness

The future dispensational kingdom involves a racial prejudice favoring the Jews above even saved Gentiles during the millennium. As such it re-introduces the distinction between Jew and Gentile and replaces Faith with Race as a basis for divine favor. Consider the following citations from leading dispensationalists: (DISPENSATIONAL DISTORTIONS PART TWO, Redemptive History Distortions ~~ Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.)

• Ryrie: "Three groups of people will be related to the millennial government. Israel, regathered and turned to the Lord in salvation, will be exalted, blessed, and favored throughout the period."
• Pentecost: "The Gentiles will be Israel's servants during that age. . . . The Gentiles that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission."
• Walvoord speaks of "Israel's restoration and exaltation in the millennial kingdom."
• Herman Hoyt (past president of Grace Theological Seminary) puts it quite starkly: "The redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land, will be head over all the nations of earth. . . . So he exalts them above the Gentile nations . . . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations."
• Popular prophecy writer Dave Hunt comments: "The Messiah ruling the world from the throne of David and with national Israel restored to its place of supremacy over the nations."

However, with the establishment of the New Testament phase of the Church, the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been abolished. This was the whole point of Peter's vision of the sheet filled with unclean animals in Acts 10: "What God has called clean, let no man call unclean." Thus, there is no separate Jewish program exalting them over saved Gentiles. THE CHURCH, which includes Jew and Gentile in one body, is the fruition and culmination of God's promises to the Jews. In evidence of this, we should note that Christians are called by distinctively Jewish names in the New Testament. "He is a Jew, which is one inwardly" (Rom. 2:29). Christians are called "the circumcision" (Phil. 3:3), "the children" and "the seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7, 29), the "Jerusalem which is above" and the "children of the promise" (Gal. 4:24-29). In fact, Christians compose "the Israel of God" for we are a "new creature" regarding which "circumcision availeth nothing" (Gal. 6:16).

Comparing Foolishness with Foolishness

In closing, I ask only (according to the Hebrew logical-interpretive method of "how much the more?")... if the heretical British-Israel/Christian-Identity Racialists pervert True Christianity by dividing the People of God along Racial lines, then how much the more do Dispensationalists also pervert the Word of God and divide the People of God along equally Racialist lines?

Consider the following:

---

• Three groups of people will be related to the millennial government. The White Race, regathered and turned to the Lord in salvation, will be exalted, blessed, and favored throughout the period.
  
• The Non-Whites will be The White Race's servants during that age. . . . The Non-Whites that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission.
  
• The White Race's restoration and exaltation in the millennial kingdom...
  
• The redeemed living nation of The White Race, regenerated and regathered to the land, will be head over all the nations of earth. . . . So he exalts them above the Non-White nations . . . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Non-White nations.
  
• The Messiah ruling the world from the throne of David and with The White Race restored to its place of supremacy over the nations.
  
• God will keep his original promises to the fathers and will one day convert and place The White Race as the head of the nations.

---

Those aren't Quotations from Richard Kelly Hoskins... granted, they may sound like Christian Identity quotations, but they aren't.

These are nothing less than direct quotations from the leading lights of Dispensationalism in America -- Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Hoyt, Hunt, Thomas Ice. (I could've quoted Hagee, I suppose, but the man is absolutely freakin' nutbar).

All that I did was to replace "Israel" with "The White Race", and replace "Gentiles" with "Non-Whites".
Does Dispensationalist "theology" destroy the Racial equality of the Body of Christ? What you see is what you get.

God Damn all Racial Theology.

[Buggman]

You didn't even read the thread before firing that off, did you?

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Sure. Scofield Reference Bible, for starters.

Well, actually in it's more mature form, you're correct. The genesis of this 'axiom' begins with Mary Campbell and Margaret McDonald in the congregation of Edward Irving, a defrocked, and disgraced Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) minister in the 1830's. From there the doctrine was picked up and refined by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Bretheren. THEN Schofield picked it up.

In it's most recent incarnation much of the excesses have been removed.

That said, British Israelism was most recently popularised by Herbert W. Armstrong and the World Wide Church of God. The basic story is that a daughter of Zedechaiah named Tea Tephi was brought to Ireland by the Prophet Jeremaiah, where she married a "King Herramon" of Ireland. The Line of David supposedly continues through Herramon's offspring, to Scotland, and with the Stuart/Stewart kings. Armstrong claimed that the throne of Britain IS the throne of David. BTW, Armstrong claimed to be a descendent of King Herramon.

Oddly enough, King Herramon himself was a mythological Character, and probably never really existed.

EVEN IF the story is true, it would still not be the throne of David. If one reads the Old Testament, (s)he would realise that Zedechaiah was a usurper put in place by Nebuchadnezzar, and was not the true king. The true king was in Babalonian captivity. (see II Kings 24 through chapter 25). The British Israelites have not a single iota of factual evidence for their claims.

[P-Marlowe]

You didn't even read the thread before firing that off, did you?

Objection, counsel is badgering the witness.

Sustained.

Please rephrase the question counselor.

This is kinda fun. :-)

[1000 silverlings]

I read every post as it is my wont to do.

[1000 silverlings]

Yes, all I did, which apparently ired him, was to introduce into evidence, more of Romans 10.

[P-Marlowe]

Yes, all I did, which apparently ired him, was to introduce into evidence, more of Romans 10.

Objection, non responsive. No question pending. Answer is argumentative.

Sustained.

BTW as a point of order, we are talking about the "Absolute Law" interpretation of Galatians 3:28. If we are going to argue ALL of Romans 10, we are going to need to start a new thread.

Carry on.

[Buggman]

Yes, all I did . . .

Then why did you simply repeat an opening statement, instead of making a counter-argument to what has already been presented? It seems a horrible waste of everyone's time to me.

[P-Marlowe]

It seems a horrible waste of everyone's time to me.

Objection, argumentative.

Sustained.

Everything after the word "presented" shall be stricken.

Carry on gentlemen.

Does anyone have a gavel I can borrow?

[1000 silverlings]

Seems to me the latest post was on whether or not Prince William is the next David, but whatever.

[P-Marlowe]

Seems to me the latest post was on whether or not Prince William is the next David, but whatever.

That's a side thread. I'm not presiding over that court. It's just the walls are really thin in this building. You can overhear all kinds of stuff going on next door.

Now if the court reporter could read back the last question...

[1000 silverlings]

Does that change the fact that we know that he is not the Messiah described in Scripture, and that we are right to disobey his followers, even to the point of death?

Jesus is fully the Messiah described in scripture.

[1000 silverlings]

I see. I guess I somehow thought Orthodox P started the thread and the topic had something to do with Israel. Perhaps someone appointed you to be the judge over us.

[P-Marlowe]

I see. I guess I somehow thought Orthodox P started the thread and the topic had something to do with Israel. Perhaps someone appointed you to be the judge over us.

That would be me.

And I believe that OP has left the building.

I have issued a bench warrant.

[1000 silverlings]

Very well then, I will ring up the Dog to catch him and then see if there's any bail money in the chorus fund.

[P-Marlowe]

Very well then, I will ring up the Dog to catch him and then see if there's any bail money in the chorus fund.

You rang?

[George W. Bush]

Because, often as not, I don't even wear underwear. Unfortunately, most of us Calvinists are so blessed, we have to go commando. It's just one of our burdens.

Often as not, I have taken to wearing underwear. Commando is fine but it's not always more hygenic or practical.

I thought I'd address this dispensationalism with a peculiar Baptist position. Well, a position of some peculiar Baptists that is cogent here.

The Baptist Bride is a doctrine that teaches that only Baptists will live in the New Jerusalem after the Rapture. They maintain that True Baptists^TM are and have always been the true bride of Christ. Any Baptists who object to this doctrine are, what else, Protestants in disguise.

Just wait until you read about the Alien Baptisms and the Twelve Baptist Preachers in the Book of Revelation!

It serves to illustrate just how silly and selfish and sectarian people can become over dispensationalism. These Baptist Briders are reduced to arguing who is going to get to live next door to Jesus. It's a little insane. Oops, now the Briders will know I'm just a Protestant in disguise.

So here are a bunch of dispensationalist who manage to shove all Jews and Protestants and, well, non-Baptists out of New Jerusalem. Oh, yeah, and at the Marriage Supper, you guys will only be guests of the groom, the Bride!

---

As far as your remarks on Christ-Rejecting Jews, I grasp your intent is to inflame the dispensationalists. But every heart that is not redeemed by Christ is at enmity with God. This includes many who are false Christians who hold unsound doctinre.

It is not a particularly surprising notion to me that I was an enemy of God before He gave me grace and mercy. Certainly, the same applies to others who are not in Christ. It is a most fair and accurate assessment. One might want to be tactful but there is no kind way to tell people this particular doctrinal truth.

The world, until the end of the present age, shall always hate Christ and the true doctrines of His scripture and teachings. Just as He warned us to expect. The unbelievers and even some Christians deserve a warning of their peril to be certain their own hearts are not at enmity with God.

[George W. Bush]

British-Israelism, Christian Identity, Dispensationalism, doesn't matter -- DO NOT PASS GO,...

I find this page on Christian Identity to be most helpful. It's from Nizkor, a Jewish hate watch group.

Nizkor Project: Christian Identity: A Religion for White Racists

The page mentions Arthur Murray and Shepherd's Chapel prominently. Murray's doctrines include the most antisemitic variation of Serpent Seed doctrine (Kenites), Gap theory and preexistence of the spirits of all mankind, and forbidding racial intermarriage. Something that I found interesting is that Murray is also a modalist heretic.

You might think modalism and monarchianism as heresies are unrelated. As background, we should recall Branhamism. Branham was a Oneness Pentecostal preacher who taught Serpent Seed doctrine and insisted that Jesus was the only God in the Bible. Notice here that the Trinity of orthodox Christianity is eliminated. More importantly to this topic, he also eliminated the Jehovah of traditional Judaism.

I think we're all familiar enough with the British-Israelism of Armstrongism (Worldwide Church of God), regardless of which of the hundred or so splinter groups claim the leadership role at present.

Murray is strikingly similar to Branham but has made his Serpent Seed doctrine more antisemitic and even more unbiblical. Murray's notions that Cain's descendants survived the Flood and then killed Jesus and are presently in Israel is perverse and pernicious. Murray is also anti-Rapture in many of his sermons. Drawing from Armstrongism, Murray finds the "true Israel" living mostly in Britain and America as Christians. Because Murray teaches the modalist view that the Father became the Son then became the Holy Spirit, again the Jews are left with no Jehovah, strictly speaking.

In a sense, what these people are driving at is not merely that Jews are not saved in Christ. It is that they never really had a covenant with Jehovah at all because they didn't know who God really was.

There is a grouping of these heretics in the last century and they feed off dispensational enthusiasms, from promoting antitrinitarian heresy. And they teach in one way or another doctrines that are hateful toward Jews.

These folks are close to being to Jews what Westboro Baptist is to homosexuals. Not merely hateful but an active impediment to evangelizing them.

...Do not Collect Tithes and Offerings from the Faithful.

Whoa! Now you've gone too far. Fleecing the flock with dispensational sensationalism is a sure path to riches. Write a Beast book, say a Prayer Of Jabez^TM and you're on your way.

[bornacatholic]

Your ideas about what the Catholic Church Teaches are as accurate as your ideas about a hateful God.

Supersessionism is not Catholic Doctrine. Never has been. Never will be.

Your odd ideas about theology are in no way attributable to Catholic Doctrine nor are they to be found in Catholic Doctrine. You have no idea about what constitutes Catholic Doctrine.

Your odd and irrational claims can not be found in any Ecuemnical Council Document, any Papal Encyclical, any Catechism, any Catholic Encyclopedia, or any Catholic Dictionary.

Will that stop you from making your claims? Of course not. You will take any sentence from, say, Decree for the Jacobites and misuse it to your own ends, not understanding the idea about the Develoment of Doctrine.

I am just setting the record straight for those interested in the facts.

The New Covenant in Christ - in which you refuse to participate in the New Covenant Sacrifice and New Covenant Heavenly Banquet - fulfills all prior Covenants. God does not revoke His Covenants.

Please stick with your own community and do not presume to speak for the Church established by Jesus.

[Corin Stormhands]

Putting a wall, any wall, between a person and the Messiah is not an act of Christian love, but the ultimate act of hatred.

Amen.

[xzins]

Terzackly!