Posted on 08/10/2006 12:22:56 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
(shrugs)
Indeed. Perhaps they need replacing.
Yeah, just projecting future trends in my human abilities, it looks pretty bleak. Thank God for faith which regards the unseen things, and calls those things which are not as though they are. The only hope of dealing with Islam is Jesus Christ, and always has been.
The allegation about racist theology is sooooo bogus.
There's a simple fact that should trash that silly idea once and for all.
God chose JACOB over ESAU.
Wasn't exactly racist. What would one call it . . . 'younger-brotherist?'
Sheesh.
BTW,
GOD IS GOD.
ALWAYS WILL BE GOD.
HAS A RIGHT TO BE GOD.
HAS A RIGHT TO DO THINGS HIS WAY.
WILL ALWAYS DO THINGS HIS WAY.
HE HAPPENS TO BE THE BOSS.
Some would consider it cheeky to the max to label God anything derogatory . . . . including racist.
Just did that at Sam's.
I think the bifocal area is too narrow for book reading. Have until Sept something to take them back. Will see.
Agreed.
I do think . . . that God may be setting them up for a major portion of the object lesson of what happens when a nation or people set themselves up in violent opposition to God's priorities and ways.
Thankfully, many are having dreams and visions and visitations of Christ The Risen Lord and coming to a saving knowledge of HIM.
Personally, I'd call it "Individualist".
God Chose one Individual, Saved that Individual; Rejected another Individual, and Damned that Individual. So what we see here is God dealing with His Imago Dei Creations, Human Beings, as Individuals.
Certainly not on the basis of Ethnic Race. That sort of Racialism is NOT how God deals with Men. Our God is not a Racist God, and on that basis Dispensationalism must be rejected as Evil Heresy.
If I were to read the following statements from some Christian Identity "pastors"...
Immediately upon reading such putrescence, I could tell you without skipping a beat to think about it: That is Evil, Satanic, Racially-Divisive Heresy. Plain and simple -- Do not pass Go, Do not collect 200 FreeRepublic Posts defending you.
Only problem is -- these AREN'T quotations from some "Christian Identity" nutbags; they are direct quotations from the leading Dispensationalist pastors of the 20th Century.
All I did was change the Ethnic Groups in question -- the "White Race" for Jews, "Non-Whites" for Gentiles -- but the Un-Biblical, Anti-Christian Racism remains the same.
Best, OP
on that basis Dispensationalism must be rejected as Evil Heresy.
= = = =
Hogwash.
Doesn't have anything to do with racism at all.
That some racists may pontificate all kinds of nonsense is not new information.
Doesn't alter the validity of various aspects of the dispensationalist perspective one jot or tittle.
Some TULIP folks make real donkeeees of themselves in various ways. I still consider most of them Believers in Christ.
Some dispensationalists are idiot racists. Doesn't alter the basic truths a gnat's fart's worth.
Seems to me the proffered argument takes guilt by association to new, awesomely dumb lows.
I am deeply humbled by them - but, of a Truth, if anyone finds a thing commendable in my life, it is Christ - not me. Before I knew Him, I was completely unloveable.
Before I knew Him, I was completely unloveable.
= = = =
Thx.
But, listen Sis, yo ain't got NOOOOOOO corner on that market!
LUB
For this, some of my opponents would slam the Abuse Button on me.
But, I'm not them.
Some dispensationalists are idiot racists.
Um... I just quoted pretty much every major, best-selling Dispensationalist pastor of the latter 20th Century (more quotes where those came from, if need be).
Are they all just "idiot racists" who have got Dispensationalism all wrong, all along... or do you think there might be a wee bit of a problem with the Theology itself?
Just asking. You can choose to actually think about it, or not.
's a free country.
You're so friendly, how could we say otherwise?
:>)
OK. Excuzzzzeeeeeee me.
a gnat's flatulance's worth.
"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
How much clearer does it have to be?
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. " -- John 14:6
What should evangelicals make of Christian Zionism and its claim to biblical certitude regarding Israel? Christian Zionists make much of Romans 9-11 suggesting, wrongly in the opinion of the author, that the promises of future spiritual revival are synonymous with physical restoration. It is rare, however to find any analysis among Christian Zionists of Hebrews 8:13, which, it is suggested, provides not only the hermeneutical key to unravelling the Christian Zionist case, but also to explaining Paul’s vehemence at the Judaizing tendencies corrupting the church in Galatia.By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:13)It may be argued that it should be impossible for Christians to view claims and promises made to the Jews by God in the Hebrew scriptures without now reading them through the cross and its irrevocable consequences for the Jews. Now we find that it is Gentiles (and Jews who believe in Jesus) who are declared to be the true children of Abraham and Sarah. Jews outside the new covenant of grace have, through the cross, and because of their rejection of Jesus, become the children of Hagar. (Galatians 4:21-26). This is no excuse for arrogance or worse. With sensitivity and compassion we must rightly share our faith in Jesus praying that our Jewish friends find their Messiah and complete their faith. However, any suggestion that the Jewish people continue to have a special status or exclusive rights to the lands of the Middle East, as advocated by Christian Zionists is surely, in the words of John Stott, ‘biblical anathema.’[78]1. The Old Testament promises about the Jews’ return to the land are comforted by promises of the Jews’ return to the Lord. It is hard to see how that secular, unbelieving State of Israel can possibly be a fulfillment of those prophecies.
2. The Old Testament promises about the land are nowhere repeated in the New Testament. The prophecy of Romans 11 is a prophecy that many Jews will turn to Christ, but the land is not mentioned nor is Israel mentioned as a political entity...
3. The Old Testament promises according to the apostles are fulfilled in Christ and the international community of Christ. The New Testament authors apply the promise of Abraham’s seed to Jesus Christ. And they apply to Jesus Christ the promise of the land and all the land which is inherited, the land flowing with milk and honey, because it is in him that our hunger is satisfied and out thirst quenched. A return to Jewish nationalism would seem incompatible with this New Testament perspective of the international community of Jesus.[79]
Essentially, Christian Zionists are viewing biblical prophecy through the wrong end of the telescope. In doing so, they distort the Bible and marginalise the universal imperative of the gospel which is of equal grace and common justice. It may therefore be argued that it is actually Christian Zionists who are anti-Semitic through their partisan support for Israel’s apartheid regime, their antipathy toward Arabs, and their almost pathological conviction which makes them ‘anxious for Armageddon’.[80] In so doing, they have, whether intentionally or otherwise, legitimised the oppression of Palestinian Christians in the name of God.
I still fail to see how mixing apples, oranges, kiwi, bread fruit and cactus, koalas and whale snot makes an argument.
What is so difficult about accepting God's promise to HIS FRIEND?
That is as plain as the Scriptures you quote!
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:13)
== = = = = = ==
Making an old covenant OF SALVATION obselete
says nothing about making an eternal PROMISE TO HIS FRIEND remotely obselete.
says nothing about making an eternal PROMISE TO HIS FRIEND remotely obselete.
Better check your glasses from Sam's. There is no such distinction in that passage (or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter). You invented it to fit your theology.
Perhaps our disagreement here is related to differences between our underlying foundations?
Please understand that I eschew all the doctrines and traditions of men – whether the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, etc. I do not include the scribes of Scripture in this category because they wrote as the Spirit led them, God’s words not their own – such that until there is a new heaven and a new earth, not a jot or tittle of the law will pass away until it is fulfilled (Matt 5:18).
Likewise, please understand that my epistemology (how I know what I know and how sure I am that I know it) - is strictly ordered as follows:
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another; i.e., Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know.…
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I’m happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that.…
11. Determined facts: I accept something as fact because of a consensus determination by others, positive (affirmation) or negative (veto); i.e., I trust that these fact finders collectively know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
Thus I do not rely on others’ interpretation of Scriptures but rather lean on the Spirit to bring the passages alive within me according to His will. This living nature of the Scriptures is both what separates them from all other ancient manuscripts which are merely text on paper --- and also is the authentication by God as the author of them.
To answer your question concerning Galatians 3:28, the leaning I have in the Spirit is that it is speaking of Christians, the body of Christ:
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?
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. 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:
For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. – Romans 11:18-28
And if you can't see the difference between my having once called your words the words of Satan (in response to another poster who was trying to build a strawman to knock over) and your repeating the refrain "God d*mn" on every single post I've been pinged to (after being called down for it by multiple posters), then you lack the rationality to have a real discussion and/or debate with.
The fact is that when you are not resorting to bigotry and cursing, you're a worthwhile and challenging opponent. The fact is also that you are being a very poor witness for Orthodox Presbyterianism, let alone for the Messiah of Israel.
Frankly, I miss Uriel1975. He was a good guy.
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.