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

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

[Frumanchu]

Too bad we don't keep a ping list.

[Frumanchu]

Excellent article, brother. Will weigh in when I have opportunity.

[jude24]

It is explained by Romans 9-11 - that all Israel, being defined as those elected to be "children of the promise," will be saved. Ethnicity ain't got nothing to do with it, since God can raise up from these stones children for Abraham.

[jude24]

Sha'ul's point is that we are all equally saved by faith in the Messiah of Israel, and that makes us all one family, whether we are Jew, Gentile, man, woman, slave, freeman, black, white, American, Chinese, or any other ontological distinction one can think of.

Which is why the idea that the Jews get their own special dispensation is offensive.

(Would it kill you to lay off the Hebraisms? They're pretentious.)

[P-Marlowe]

I just did a google search and apparently there are a lot of people out there who are using the "OP Absolute Law"^® method of interpreting Galatians 3:28 in order to justify homosexuality. I didn't realize that when I made by post at post 51. But if you take the Absolute Law theory of the interpretation of that passage, then one cannot argue that marriage between a man and a woman is superior to a marriage between a man and a man. After all there is no longer male or female, just Christians.

OP was so sure of his interpretive method that he was willing to call down damnation from God against any who disagreed with his interpretive method. Well is he ready to call down damnation from God against anyone who opposes gay marriage between same sex Christians?

Somehow I think not. But these days nothing surprises me. I would have thought that saying G-- D--- was out of bounds on the religion forum. But it seems that is quickly becoming an acceptable fad. Maybe it will replace "Purpose Driven" as the new universal Christian adjective. Instead of people going to a PD Church, they can go to a GD Church.

[jude24]

Afterward shall the children of Israel return, {{WE ARE RIGHT HERE TODAY}} and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

We are not "right here today," according to your definitions. The State of Israel has far from returned to God - they reject him, embracing secularism instead.

Only way we could be here today is if, as we amillenialists hold, the Kingdom is here now and it is a spiritual reality.

[rabid liberty]

It is explained by Romans 9-11 - that all Israel, being defined as those elected to be "children of the promise," will be saved. Ethnicity ain't got nothing to do with it, since God can raise up from these stones children for Abraham.

 

I take it you don't want to deal with the text of Hosea 3:4-5 and respond directly to my questions either. I think the legal term for your post is "non responsive."

[P-Marlowe]

Objection sustained.

The answer is stricken.

The jury is admonished to disregard the answer.

The witness is admonished to answer the question.

[rabid liberty]

Jude24: We are not "right here today," according to your definitions. The State of Israel has far from returned to God - they reject him, embracing secularism instead.

 

Note I did not say...

Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days {{WE ARE RIGHT HERE TODAY}} .

I did say...

Afterward shall the children of Israel return, {{WE ARE RIGHT HERE TODAY}} and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

 

They have returned they have yet to seek. The scattered dry bones are re-assembled but as of yet they do not live (Ezek 37).

[Alex Murphy]

One of the "satire warnings" I designed....

[P-Marlowe]

oops, I left off the 24. Ping to 88.

[jude24]

"All Israel" does not mean that 100% of those of Jewish lineage through all history will be saved, nor does it mean even that 100% of those of Jewish lineage at the time of the Second Coming will be. Indeed, there are a number of passages that indicate that God will save "all Israel" by removing the dross via persecution, so that 100% of those brought through the fire will be saved. And I believe that when they see the Second Coming, see Yeshua coming on the clouds of heaven to gather the elect, they will mourn (Rev. 1:7, Zec. 12:10ff), and that they will be cleansed (Zec. 13:1ff), and they will be brought into the New Covenant the same way we are... I believe that the Church will be having its dross removed at the same time in the same way, the tares being bundled to be burnt before the wheat is carried into the barn.

I can live with this. Unfortunately, your position is not that of all dispensationalists.

whether rejecting a false, anti-semetic image of Jesus is the same as rejecting the real Messiah--suffice to say I don't think so.

I'm not going to let that slide, however. (It's relevant to this post, so let's talk about it.) The Scriptures are clear that even those who reject a false parody of what they think Christ was are still responsible. Ghandi rejected Christianity because of what Christians did - that no more justifies his decision than it does any Jew or Gentile.

So because "some" Dispys hold to a form of dual-covenantism, you're going to claim that the system as a whole teaches that? .... Or do you agree that we should not judge a theological system by its abuses?

This is no abuse. When I was investigating Dallas Theological Seminary, I sat in on a class where the professor was arguing that we are not now in the New Covenant, since that's reserved to a future dispensation. Nope, we are in some grand parenthesis. This is rank-and-file dispensationalism.

[Buggman]

Which is why the idea that the Jews get their own special dispensation is offensive.

Take it up with all the authors of Scripture, then. Sha'ul was the one who said that "all Israel"--defined as those who were then enemies of the Gospel and who yet were still beloved of God for the sake of the patriarchs, both of which rule out that "Israel" here really means "the Church"--would be saved "when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in."

(Would it kill you to lay off the Hebraisms? They're pretentious.)

It wouldn't kill me, but since it apparently hasn't been driven home with everyone here that the Bible is a fundamentally Jewish document (even those parts written in Greek), I'm going to continue to use Hebraisms until it has.

[jude24]

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it non-responsive.

[rabid liberty]

Jude24: Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it non-responsive.

True.

It was non responsive because it did not address Hosea 3:4-5 or any on the questions I asked about that text. Yours was a fine answer to a question that was not asked.

But I'll let you try again.

[jude24]

It wouldn't kill me, but since it apparently hasn't been driven home with everyone here that the Bible is a fundamentally Jewish document (even those parts written in Greek), I'm going to continue to use Hebraisms until it has.

My objection would be the same if you were utilizing superfluous Greek too. It's pretentious. Everyone has heard of the Apostle Paul. Only because of the novelty of faux-Hebraisms does anyone refer to him as Sha'ul.

defined as those who were then enemies of the Gospel and who yet were still beloved of God for the sake of the patriarchs, both of which rule out that "Israel" here really means "the Church"

Not necessarily. They've been broken off, we've been ingrafted, those elected will be grafted in again - to the same tree - the church.

[jude24]

It was responsive becasue the interpretation of Hosea 3:4-5 is defined by Romans 9-11.

The fact that you didn't like the answer doesn't change the fact that it is true.

[William Terrell]

"Christian Identity" ascends from British-Israelism

What did British-Israelism ascend from?

[William Terrell]

Here's the foundation of the notion. Lot of soup from one stone, probably.

[P-Marlowe]

It was responsive becasue the interpretation of Hosea 3:4-5 is defined by Romans 9-11. The fact that you didn't like the answer doesn't change the fact that it is true.

Are you going to object again?