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

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!!".)

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.

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".

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.

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.)

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).

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?

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.

I believe that it is part of God's plan, yes:

For thus saith YHVH; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
And the word of YHVH came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith YHVH; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
--Jeremiah 3:17-22

Now, if the eternality of the office and sacrifices of the Levite is associated with the eternality of the Messiah, how can we say that it is wrong that there will be a third Temple and/or a Millennial Temple?

Moreover, if even the Apostles offered sacrifices in the Temple (Acts 21:20ff), how can we claim that the Cross should have ended all animal sacrifice?

And before you go quoting Hebrews, I've read it, and it very specifically explains the limitations of the Levitical sacrifices and the superiority of Yeshua's office. But the fact that there is a superior office no more renders the lesser office without value than the superior power of a backhoe makes a shovel without value.

And I'm about to have to leave and won't be back for a few days, so please excuse any delays in responding. I may be able to get in quick posts, but I'm not likely to have a chance to write an in-depth response until late Monday.

God bless.

But if it was impossible for us to put stumbling blocks in the path of the blind, why does the Bible command us not to?

Because it impedes our own spiritual progress and walk with God. It serves as an impediment to those with whom God intends us to be in full fellowship in Christ.

That's why. Maybe some other reasons too but those are the first and foremost.

Review the teachings about love (charity in KJV) in 1 Corr 13:4-13 for just one scriptural support for showing love and charity in all things to all other persons. Not as though we are lacking such commands many other places in scripture. Thus we are commanded to be loving and blameless with Christ in dealing with the Jews. And the Africans. And the pygmy cannibals. And even with the Godless Democrats.

Besides, how do you know that God hasn't predestined me and others like me to be the instrument by which some of the elect are brought into the Kingdom?

Wouldn't surprise me one bit. What's your point? That we can make your job harder? It is no more possible for us to make it harder for you to "save" a Jew than it is possible for us, by any harsh words we might be foolish enough to utter, to cause that same Jew's damnation.

We are not so powerful. Even Satan is not. And God is not so weak when He has foreordained the eternal salvation of one of His children.

Have faith in our God, His power and benevolence toward all His children.

And if our actions have no bearing on bringing people to the Lord, then why did Sha'ul say,

1Co 9:19 For being free from all [people], I made myself a servant to all [people], so that I should win the more.
1Co 9:20 And I became to the Jews as a Jew, so that I should win Jews; to the [ones] under law as under law, so that I should win the [ones] under law;
1Co 9:21 to the [ones] without law as without law (not being without law to God, _but_ subject to law to Christ), so that I should win the [ones] without law.
1Co 9:22 I became to the weak as weak, so that I should win the weak; I have become all [things] to all [people], so that I should by all means [or, certainly] save some.
1Co 9:23 Now this I do because of the Gospel, so that I shall become a fellow-partaker of it.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 [Analytical-Literal Translation]

You are too literal here. First, Paul is indicating that he was an apostolic Christian under his own sovereign authority in spiritual matters and proselytization. It is not clear that either you or I or any modern Christian is granted the same apostolic commission. Certainly, I would lay no such claim.

Second, we should first notice that Paul indicates that he "became to the Jews as a Jew". This phrase can make no sense if Paul considered himself an observant Jew in the sense that you constantly insist. The phrase would have no meaning. He means here that he adopted such customs as required to further his evangelism among Jews. And nothing more. Recall that he had Timothy circumcized for much the same reason in order to be certain that Jews in the early churches would not ignore Timothy merely because he was uncircumcised. Nevertheless, Paul's teachings on how spiritually profitless and, indeed, unprofitable, the circumcision was to both Jew and Gentile could not be clearer.

Third, when Paul speaks in 21 of being "to the [ones] without law as without law", he is clearly indicating he did not keep Jewish laws and customs among the Gentiles. Again, he was the Christian evangelist, not a Jew among Jews or a Pharisee of Pharisees.

Fourth, in verse 22, becoming as the "weak", whether it is Jew or Gentile signified here or both, Paul certainly is not suggesting that he is teaching anything other than pure Christian doctrine.

Inasmuch as any missionary does, Paul adapted himself to the customs of those to whom he evangelized and exhorted and preached. He did not in any way compromise the fullness of Christian doctrine or neglect it, regardless of his audience.

No, but I am attributing his words to the Adversary.

I know this personally to be a libelous and insupportable accusation, no doubt driven by your emotions surrounding your agenda. However, I'll point out in passing that it is a popular tactic of popes and other usurpers of gospel truth to accuse anyone who refuses to agree with them or obey their edicts for conduct or theology as a minion of Satan.

Now, show where I have disobeyed Scripture or taught incorrectly from them--using specifics and real exegesis, not broad generalities--on this forum, and I will be happy to repent. If you cannot, then I suggest that you publicly withdraw the ad hominem.

It is disobedience to scripture to suggest or teach that Jews or Gentiles are to have different doctrine.

It is a libel upon the Gospel to suggest that the true faith of Christianity was lost over 1500 years ago because of Gentilization of the faith.

It is a blasphemy against the omnipotence of God to suggest that He cannot bring to repentance those He has chosen, both Jew and Gentile, from the foundations of the world to be His children in all eternity.

As also in all his [Sha'ul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Pt. 3:16).

I would agree. Given that it is abundantly clear that Arminianism is inherently unstable (except with regard toward a glorification of man over God and a creeping tendency to slink back to Rome), we Calvinists are well content to observe that Paul and Peter were correct in these warnings.

We're finally at the point where the overwhelming majority in Israel (75%, according to one poll that I've not been able to find online) accept Messianic Jews (that is, born Jews, not Gentiles like myself) as nevertheless being fully Jewish and able to make aliyah. We're seeing Orthodox Jews like Avi Lipkin crusading to give Christians in Israel their own representation in the Knesset.

That is all good and fine. Our God is mighty and appears determined to save more of the nation of Israel. I think it's wonderful. But the essentials of Christian faith and doctrine are not altered in the slightest.

BTW, let me know when the only Jews whose Right Of Return is not refused are criminals and Messianic Jews. To me, that is the real test. Because once that happens, Christian churches and their missionaries will also be allowed unhindered.

You can start by either showing how the Church is partially blind until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, and that it is an enemy of the Gospel because of the Gentiles, or concede that "Israel" in Rom. 9-11 really does mean the Jewish people who are currently in disbelief.

First, you can demonstrate that the modern geopolitical Israel is the same entity as ancient Israel. Given that the U.S. still has far more Jews than Israel and other continents have numbers comparable to Israel, it's not entirely clear that "Israel" is actually Israel in the biblical sense favored by the dispensationalists. The prophecy clock is not clearly ticking since 1948. God's plan may be fulfilled only when all Jews return to the land of Israel.

As for Romans 9-11, I've been in so many debates on the issue in past years that I don't particularly care to rehash it with you. Obviously, I will take the position that the Church, regardless of ethnic composition, is the Israel of God. However, this still would not settle the matter of Torah observance which you would inflict, if allowed, on all Christians on a dubious scriptural basis.

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.

Worth repeating!