Posted on 08/25/2006 6:09:27 AM PDT by xzins
I'm dealing with groups rather than individuals in the parable. I agree that God reserves the right to prune His tree of individual branches for the sin of unbelief.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that you'd still be exercising the spiritual gift of surliness after this long. Farewell to thee, then.
However, there is no desire here to get in a food fight with those having other millennial views (amil, postmil, preterist, etc.)
Well, I practice the doctrine of separation with respect to such chaps. And I know there are even more extreme brothers who consider anyone who goes amillennial, etc as being on step 1 of becoming ecumenical-apostate-liberal LOL. But it is interesting - if you look at the people surrounding pre-tribbers, there are inevitably no modernists or liberals (well, SDA isn't pre-trib, and those "Heavens" cults deny imminency), but postmillennial or amillennial people have plenty of apostates surrounding them holding to the same stance. Something that will make you go umm...
Anyway, back to topic. My stance over PD is not as extreme as Zola Levitt, but I agree that it is not something in the right direction. Perhaps it is a milder form of NAE softening stance towards amillennialism. I agree with what the following article takes on PD:
You are welcome, sister. Let's pray that it be a constructive discussion. I hope it will center on Israel of the flesh and its future place in God's plan for this earth.
My initial reaction is that the Jer 31:33-37 and Romans 11:18-28 are speaking to the nation of Israel which is to say the descendants of Jacob, not the geopolitical "nation" we call "Israel". God's promise is not broken, Jesus sits on the throne of David - He is also the Alpha and Omega. Interestingly, Revelation refers to both Jesus and the Father as Alpha and Omega.
I think that today's nation of Israel is not all of Israel of the flesh. However, I believe that that nation in that land is certainly a curiosity that should be watched. The promise was that David's descendant would sit on the throne of David for forever. Assuming the inception of that with Jesus, then it makes sense for some to assume that "now" is part of "forever." There is nothing at fault logically with such an assumption.
Because I see Jesus in timelessness, I would say He exists in that position regardless of our timeline (sense of an "arrow of time") - just as He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that He is always our crucified Lord and always our risen Lord, always the Logos, etc.
And He could likewise be on the throne of David for eternity.
But I would also say that the descendants of Jacob have not yet realized the promise because they are "time-bound" as are all of us "in" this Creation, this heaven and earth. The new heaven and earth of Revelation may not have a sense of time passing according to other Jewish interpretations discussed on a previous thread. The millennial reign does not end Christ's authority on the seat of David (or in any other respect) - it is more like a prologue to the new heaven and the new earth.
I've always been blessed with the verse "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the hearts of man, the things that God has prepared for those who love Him." I've always been one to permit speculation and dreaming when discussing doctrine. As long as we are anchored to the Word of God, a shelter in a time of storm, a safe harbor, a rock in a weary land, we will be able to compare our speculations and ideas with the Word He has left us.
In sum, I see the "sheep" of Eze 34 encompassing both the nation of Israel, and the "other" fold of John 10 (we who are grafted in) - but that we are ultimately one fold with one Shepherd - hence the 24 thrones in Revelation.
24 is definitely a repeated theme in Revelation, as is multiples of 12. Not all of the church is Israel of the flesh. Nor is all of Israel of the flesh part of the church. If we are right about the rapture, then those Jewish Christians will be withdrawn with the church.
From those who remain, I believe will come a mighty remnant.
If progressive dispensationalists combine Israel and the Church for their entire eschatological framework, then there will have to be changes in the question of "Who populates the earth during the tribulation period?"
. Non-dispensationalists are certainly invited to offer FRIENDLY, non-disruptive observations.
[shrug]. Your thread.
An honest question, offered in an irenic spirit: Back in the 80s Vern Poythress spent a sabattical at Dallas seminary interacting with you-all. His little book Understanding Dispensationalists came out of that. I'm currently somewhere in the middle, reading through it.
If you've read that book, how accurate from your vantage point is his coverage of dispensationalism?
I don't know the book. Sorry.
I'm not even a Dallas grad. Believe it or not, I came out of amil/post-mil Asbury Seminary.
I guess I'm not good at learning my lessons. :>)
Is your link a good summary of the book?
As Buggman has so ably pointed out, if Israel = Church in Romans 9-11, then replace the word Israel with the word church and stop when it becomes painfully obvious that it doesn't work.
I concur Alamo girl, and what a lovely post!
I think your post was brilliant Buggman.
Great Introduction to Dispensationalism, November 27, 2002 Reviewer: A reader Poythress provides a very thoughtful, honest look at dispensationalism from a reformed perspective. It is a short and easy to read book, and should be required for all dispensationalist (or anyone who has fallen in love the Left Behind series). Before I read this book I read Keith Mathison's book Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the Word of God? and couldn't help but think that he used huge over-generalizations and was more content to attack dispensationalist that open a dialog with them. Poythress avoids this trap with a fair interpretation. He points out that dispensationalism has a very high degree of internal coherence. While many reformed theologians point out the problems with dispensationalism, they do so from within the reformed mindset. As Poythress points out, dispensationalism makes complete sense when viewed within a dispensationalist theology. He does, however, point out why the dispensational theology is flawed and, ultimately, incorrect. Finally, he is careful to observe the distinction between classic and progressive dispensationalism. Since there are, as Poythress points out, many areas of agreement between reformed and progressive dispensationalists, he directs most of his critique towards to more radical classic dispensationalism.
It is good to know that we are found to be internally coherent. I would, of course, go beyond that to say that dispensationalism is biblically coherent.
Any reading of the bible cannot miss the promises to national Israel, and there is no way to read Romans 9-11 while replacing the word "Israel" with the word "church." It just doesn't work; illogical and incoherent.
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.