Posted on 09/01/2006 5:32:18 AM PDT by xzins
When they stated, 'let His blood be on us, and on our children', that is exactly what God gave them.
Christ prayed for the Father to forgive them, and they were given a second chance.(Acts.3:19) So, just because Jesus said "Father, forgive them" that does not mean they were really forgiven at that time. Is that correct? Does consistent dispensationalism teach that God has been keeping unbelieving Jews on ice for 2000 years awaiting this future judgment when two-thirds of them will be killed?
What Dispensationalists teach is that any Jew can become a Christian and accept what his ancestors rejected, their Messiah.
If a Jew doesn't then he is agreeing with the sentence passed on Jesus as a false Messiah and thus, deserving of death-correct?
So, when was Israel really rejected? IOW, when did Israel get frozen in time and the church take over in God's redemptive plan?
As stated in another post, Acts 7 is the turning point.
As for millions of Jews being killed, they are killed by those who reject what the Bible says about them, that God has a future plan for them.
Thus, every nation that has persecuted them has been destroyed by God for doing so, and that will include the Anti-Christ's Kingdom.
Dispensationalists warn people to leave the Jew alone.
Kim also prophesied that Saddam Hussein would be caught within 35 days and he was. Prophecies of this particular age tend to be more encouragement and personal than ones from way back. God speaks to persons, to encourage and lift them up. There are many others. Read David Wilkerson's two older books, The Vision and Racing Towards Judgement. He doesn't consider himself a prophet but these books are already starting to come true.
Oh, and why not? Don't put God in a box, my FRiend. He doesn't fit well.
But you say they, these future Jews, are killed for rejecting Christ. So both groups, the Jes and their enemies, really reject the Bible and Christ, who is the focus of all the Bible. They are both enemies of Christ, the King of kings.
Dispensationalists warn people to leave the Jew alone.
Does that include not sharing the gospel with them? After all, if the accept Christ and join with His body, the church, they are no longer part of "Israel" and no longer able to receive the millennial blessings reserved for Israel, correct?
Nothing remarkable there, if it is true, lots of folks in the Department of Defense were predicting the very same thing. Now, if he gave an exact date, time, and locaion months in advance that would be noteworthy. He didn't do that, did he?
God speaks to persons, to encourage and lift them up.
God does that to all His childern in His word, which we know to be true. We don't need personal "prophets" or whatewver they want to be called to be encouraged? We can all encourage one another without having a special "word from the Lord".
The fact remains that these modern "prophecies" lack the characteristics of true, biblical ones.
That probably is not satisfactory for "literalists" whose operative principle is to break the Bible up into atomic parts and deal with them separately. This they do under belief they are "rightly dividing the word". What they really end up doing is to divide the program and purpose of God through all eternity which has always been to bring people to Jesus Christ nad incorporate them into His one true body. This is the grave deficiency of dispensationalism. This is what dispensationalism has been formally rejected by mnost reformed denominations, becuase it seek to continues to divide the people of God along racial lines.
And why does the [Orthodox Presbyterian Church] regard dispensationalism as a serious error? In the main because it is contrary to the biblical doctrine of the covenant.The Bible teaches two covenants: the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. In the Covenant of Works God created mankind under one federal head -- Adam. Romans 5:12 tells us that when Adam sinned all mankind descending from him by natural generation sinned in him and fell with him. The Covenant of Grace was instituted to deliver out of those under the curse of Adam's sin a new humanity with a new head -- Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:13-19 compares and contrasts the two covenants and their results through the actions of their heads: Adam brought sin and misery leading to death; Christ brought redemption from that sin and its curse leading to life.
This is also taught in 1 Corinthians 15, the great chapter on the resurrection of Christ leading to the resurrection of His people. Notice that in verse 22 we are told that all who die, die in Adam, and all who are made alive are made alive in Christ. Later, verses 45-49 again deal with the relation between the two covenant heads and the contrast between them. "Adam" in Hebrew means "man." In vs. 47 the first man was surely Adam, made from earth (Genesis 2:7); the second man was Christ, "the Lord from heaven."
We all were born in Adam (except Jesus who was virgin-born, and not by natural generation). By way of contrast, 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (or a new creation)...." This is the heart of the Scripture teaching.
Old Testament covenants, we believe, are but administrations of the one covenant of grace. Even the book of Hebrews, which exalts the contrast between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, does not utterly divide them. In chapter 11:39 & 40: "And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect." Add to that Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile]...; for we are all one in Christ Jesus."
Dispensationalism divides what God has put together. It is difficult to define dispensationalism precisely because, especially after the demise of the original Schofield Reference Bible, dispensationalists have differed in many ways. The core of dispensationalism, however, continues to be that the OT people of God are distinct from the NT church.
And, though modern dispensationalists admit that the OT people are saved by the grace of Christ's cross (and that is good!), yet God's dealing with them is on the basis of law-keeping rather than grace. Whether there be seven dispensations (as Scofield taught) or but two, as some hold today, the separation between Jew and Gentile is deep and bordering on the absolute. That's what makes them distinguish between the church and Israel, saying that the church is not in the Old Testament. But I say, how can one make that claim when the book of Isaiah is full of prophecies of the church?
I don't want to overstate the issue, but I think the principal issue between us is their emphasis that Law is predominant in the OT and Grace in the NT. But there is great grace in the Old Testament, and law is not ignored in the New. Romans 3:19-20 clearly says that the Law doesn't save, but Law is the servant of grace because, "by the law is the knowledge of sin." Then follows that great passage on justification. Then notice that, in chapter 4, the Apostle attributes justifying faith to Abraham!
Just one more thing: All dispensationalists justify building their millennial belief on their interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. From this passage they claim two coming resurrections from the dead -- the righteous at the second coming and the wicked in Revelation 20:11-15. They completely ignore two things: Revelation 20 teaches that ALL the dead are raised at one time (cf. John 5:28-29), and Paul's teaching on the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians carries over into chapter 5:1-11.
The Apostle goes on in the next chapter to describe anything but a "secret rapture"! Furthermore, the Apostle's reason for not mentioning the resurrection of the wicked in chapter 4 was the question as to the present condition of the believing dead in vs. 13. He ends that portion with words of comfort in vs. 18. But continuing his teaching on the second coming of Christ, he ends that segment in chapter 5 in vs. 11: "Therefore encourage one another...."
This has been a long answer. I could have shortened it with answers without Scriptural support, but speaking for the OPC requires more that saying why and where we differ with other believers. I feel obliged to ground our convictions in Scripture, for, without that, we merely spout opinions! And one Word from God is better than a thousand opinions.
In saying this, we in the OPC do not pass judgment on our dispensational brothers. Our differences are honest differences; but if their hope is in Christ and Christ alone, we rejoice with them in a seeking and saving God.
Orthodox Presbyterian Church Question and Answer
I agree with you entire post.
Are you saying that Matthew is written to the Jews, simply because the geneology goes to Abraham?
What hasn't started yet is Daniel's 70th week. ...
The essential issue in classical dispensationalism is that Israel is not the church and God will not being dealing with Israel in judgement until the Church is removed.
According to Ironside, "the moment Messiah died on the cross, the prophetic clock stopped", he went on to say that, "There has not been a tick upon that clock for nineteen centuries. It will not begin again until the entire present age has come to an end."
According to Ironside and the older, classic dispensationalist, the clock starts ticking when the antichrist signs the covenant mentioned in Dan. 9:27, "Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week". Somehow they fit this together with the rapture event, with the panic being the trigger that precipitates the regathering of Israel and the covenant. But that is all just speculation on their part since there is no explicit linkage in the Scripture.
This was the normative dispensational view until Hal Lindsey came along in the early '70s and identified 1948 as a prpohetically significant date. The classic dispensationalists were horrified, but Hal was selling books, not them. There's nothing interesting to the masses in the view that the "secret rapture" is really a sudden event with absolutely no predictors, even though that is the dispensationally consistent view.
So dispensationalism became tainted by Lindsey and his follow-on "date suggesters" like Churck Smith and Edgar Whisenant. Once these guys have drunk at the well of sensationalism there was no turning back.
And that's pretty much where we stand today. The pop dispensationlism we see on the TV and the Internet is the child of Hal Lindsey, not Ironside or Chafer, or even Ryrie. Ryrie and Walvoord were caught in the netherworld between classic and pop dispensationalism. They wanted to appear respectable and retain their privileges as seminary professors and such, but the pop dispensaitonal cat was out of the bag. Even Walvoord succumbed with his now classic, Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis.
All this has played into the hand of the progressive dispensationalist who are in many ways just inconsistent covenantalists. The radical distinction between Israel and the church, so essential to classic dispenationalism, is fading away. Dallas Seminary, founded by Chafer, is now the stronghold of the progressives.
In any case, Luke was well aware of the information at hand. He chose to put it together the way he did. He did not put it together the way that you did.
I'll trust Luke. You method suggests that Luke was wrong about sequence.
You need to read more prophets to make that assumption. There are many out there. This is a time for apostles and prophets and they are out there doing what they're called to do. Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean they don't exist and do what they're called by God to do.
Yes, and he is referring to Daniel's 70 'weeks'.
The clock stopped ticking at the 69th week when the Messiah was cut off and won't start again until after the rapture.
That doesn't mean there aren't are prophecies not related to the weeks of Daniel, such as the growing apostasy in the church in the 'last days'(1Tim.4,2Tim.3)
However, dispensationalism (classical) is distinct in its interpretation of Daniel's Sevenieth week as future. With Israel's rejection of the Messiah and His death taking place after the 69th week, the completion of the 6 restortation for Israel is left for the 70th week....This interpretation requires a prophetic postponement...between the events of verses 26 and 27. The revelation of a prophetic postponement in the fulfillment of the eschatological aspect of the messianic program is in harmony with numerous passages of the Old Testament that reveal two advents of Christ...(Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Mal Couch Gen.Edit),
According to Ironside and the older, classic dispensationalist, the clock starts ticking when the antichrist signs the covenant mentioned in Dan. 9:27, "Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week". Somehow they fit this together with the rapture event, with the panic being the trigger that precipitates the regathering of Israel and the covenant. But that is all just speculation on their part since there is no explicit linkage in the Scripture.
What they are talking about is the 70th week beginning (seven years of Tribulation).
The Rapture may trigger it or there may be some time before it begins.
This was the normative dispensational view until Hal Lindsey came along in the early '70s and identified 1948 as a prpohetically significant date. The classic dispensationalists were horrified, but Hal was selling books, not them. There's nothing interesting to the masses in the view that the "secret rapture" is really a sudden event with absolutely no predictors, even though that is the dispensationally consistent view.
Lindsey took 1948 (the creation of Israel) because of the 'fig tree parable'
Some say that the budding of the fig tree speaks of the reestablishment of Israel as a nation seeing it as a precursor of Christ's return' (Ibid).
However, those parables refer to events in the Tribulation, not before.
The church is not looking for signs, it is listening for a sound.
So dispensationalism became tainted by Lindsey and his follow-on "date suggesters" like Churck Smith and Edgar Whisenant. Once these guys have drunk at the well of sensationalism there was no turning back.
I think that you overrate their influence.
Far more influential are the Scofield notes and Clarence Larkin.
The sixth concern focuses on the modern state of Israel that came into existence in 1948. Israelology (the study of all things involving Israel) sees this as a definite fulfillment of prophecy, though not the fulfillment of the final restoration predicted by Scriptures.(Ibid)
And that's pretty much where we stand today. The pop dispensationlism we see on the TV and the Internet is the child of Hal Lindsey, not Ironside or Chafer, or even Ryrie. Ryrie and Walvoord were caught in the netherworld between classic and pop dispensationalism. They wanted to appear respectable and retain their privileges as seminary professors and such, but the pop dispensaitonal cat was out of the bag. Even Walvoord succumbed with his now classic, Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis.
I can't argue with that, but even if they are wrong on the details, they are correct in the theology.
All this has played into the hand of the progressive dispensationalist who are in many ways just inconsistent covenantalists. The radical distinction between Israel and the church, so essential to classic dispenationalism, is fading away. Dallas Seminary, founded by Chafer, is now the stronghold of the progressives.
Amen.
That is one aspect of Matthew.
Matthew also emphasizes Christ as 'Son of David'.
Also, the Kingdom of Heaven is only mentioned in Matthew, which is a literal, physical Kingdom, unlike the Kingdom of God, which is a spiritual one (Rom.14:17)
Yes, but those killing the Jews are still killing those 'who are beloved because of the father's'
All that found them have devoured them; and their adversaries said, We offend not, beause they have sinned against the Lord, the habitation of justice, even the Lord, the hope of their fathers....Because ye were glad, because ye rejoiced, O ye destroyers of mine heritage,....Therefore, thus saith the Lord of hosts, he God of Israel, I will punish he king of Bablyon and his land as I have punished the king of Assyria (Jer.50:7,11,18)
Those who attack Israel and the Jew will themselves be destroyed by God.
Gen.12:3 is still in effect.
Dispensationalists warn people to leave the Jew alone. Does that include not sharing the gospel with them? After all, if the accept Christ and join with His body, the church, they are no longer part of "Israel" and no longer able to receive the millennial blessings reserved for Israel, correct?
The Christian should try to get the Jew saved, as well as the Gentile.
Thus, the Christian should preach the Gospel to every unsaved man.
The Christian has greater blessings then the Millennium Kingdom, we have a heavenly home.(Jn.14,Eph.3) and are the Bride of Christ (Eph.5:30, Rev.19:7-8)
Amen to that, Brother! You and I have a different perspective, on scripture. I don't know how many passages of scripture we disagree on, but I know it is substantial, in fact, if we look closely at the details, we may disagree on all passages. It is that disagreement that forces us to search the scripture. I suspect God knew that would happen. That said, here is my take on one of your points:
From this passage they claim two coming resurrections from the dead -- the righteous at the second coming and the wicked in Revelation 20:11-15. They completely ignore two things: Revelation 20 teaches that ALL the dead are raised at one time
Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
There are many arguments that I can see here, but I will point out just two. First, those standing before God are referred as the "Dead." Now I don't know if I have a good definition of resurrection, but according to my definition, this is not a resurrection. Just as Abraham and the rich man had not been resurrected when they had their conversation.
Second, I know that there is nothing I can do to improve or diminish my standing before God, it is established in Christ. Here we have the "Dead" being judged according to their works. How frightening to be judged by our works.
Do I have problems with this viewpoint? Of course, I am aware that scripture speaks of a resurrection of damnation. But if I exchange my viewpoint for yours, I simply have a new set of questions to deal with.
Back to the Scriptures
Seven
OK, but that has nothing to do with Israel in the dispensational scheme. God does not deal with Israel again until after the rapture of the church. Then the prophetic clock begins ticking again. IOW, no one can know for sure that modern Israel is real prophetic Israel until after the rapture has occurred. And there are no sign predictors of the rapture, at least according to real dispensationalism.
Modern Israel is not part of any prophetic sequence. Those who insist it is are not being consistent dispensationalists.
Lindsey took 1948 (the creation of Israel) because of the 'fig tree parable'
But Lindsey was wrong because he failed to realize that the prophetic clock was stopped. He invented a new form of dispensationalism that said there would be signs of Christ's "secret rapture" before the fact.
The church is not looking for signs, it is listening for a sound.
Tell that to Hal, Chuck Smith, and all the other dispensationalists running around reading the prophetic tea leaves. Or at least they were until the sky didn't fall down in 1988. The new set of date suggesters are more subtle. But they are no less convinced (mistakenly as far as classic dispensationalism) that modern Israel is the key to the prophetic future.
I can't argue with that, but even if they are wrong on the details, they are correct in the theology.
But their bad theology leads them to bad conclusions about the future.
"The radical distinction between Israel and the church, so essential to classic dispenationalism, is fading away. Dallas Seminary, founded by Chafer, is now the stronghold of the progressives."
Amen.
The progressive takeover of Dallas is a good thing for the church in general. The surrender is being made to the fundamentally correct covenantal position of the protestant reformers. They are starting to realize the pernicious error of classic and neo dispenationalism needs to give way to biblical truth. They need to become more consistent protestants.
Yes, but admittedly they are still haters of Christ, the true beloved of the Father.
And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.' So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?" (Matt. 21:35-40)The difference between perspectives is that I believe God punished that generation 2000 years ago who actually killed Chrtist and said, "His blood be on us and on our children." I also believe that God does not punish beyond "the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me" (Exo. 20:5).
The national judgment of Israel was finalized in AD70 as it happened to "this generation". There is no future version of that national judgment in store for these people. What they should look forward to is gospel blessings and the fulfillment of Abrahamic promises only when they accept Christ and are regrafted into His true body, the Church, the wife of God and bride of Christ, the new Jerusalem and Israel of God, His special people, royal priesthood, and holy nation.
The futurists who see this "great tribulation" judgment yet to come are holding hostage a people for things that happened thousands of years ago. Nowhere in the Bible does God indicate that way of dealing with what some regard as His covenant people.
The national judgment of Israel was finalized in AD70 as it happened to "this generation". There is no future version of that national judgment in store for these people. What they should look forward to is gospel blessings and the fulfillment of Abrahamic promises only when they accept Christ and are regrafted into His true body, the Church, the wife of God and bride of Christ, the new Jerusalem and Israel of God, His special people, royal priesthood, and holy nation.
The futurists who see this "great tribulation" judgment yet to come are holding hostage a people for things that happened thousands of years ago. Nowhere in the Bible does God indicate that way of dealing with what some regard as His covenant people."
AMEN!!!
great post
What one can now is that Israel is to be in the land twice (Isa.11) and this is the second time.
That Israel is not being dealt with prophetically does not change the fact that the nation of Israel is going to the focal point one day of that prophecy.
Modern Israel is not part of any prophetic sequence. Those who insist it is are not being consistent dispensationalists.
Modern Israel is not now part of Daniel's 70th week.
However, pieces are being put into place for when the Rapture does occur.
God used the tax of Rome to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, which was the fulfillment of prophecy.
Rome had to be in place to accomplish that.
Lindsey took 1948 (the creation of Israel) because of the 'fig tree parable' But Lindsey was wrong because he failed to realize that the prophetic clock was stopped. He invented a new form of dispensationalism that said there would be signs of Christ's "secret rapture" before the fact.
Agreed.
The church is not looking for signs, it is listening for a sound. Tell that to Hal, Chuck Smith, and all the other dispensationalists running around reading the prophetic tea leaves. Or at least they were until the sky didn't fall down in 1988. The new set of date suggesters are more subtle. But they are no less convinced (mistakenly as far as classic dispensationalism) that modern Israel is the key to the prophetic future.
Israel is an important piece in the prophecy puzzle.
We see Israel in the land.
We see chip technology.
We see satellite's able to beam pictures throughout all the globe at once.
We see many things which other generations did not see and can understand how many prophecies, thought to be impossible, will be fulfilled.
Who thought Israel would ever be back in the Land?
And in control of Jerusalem?
Who could imagine how the anti-Christ is going to control with a mark buying and selling?
Who could think of how Christ will be seen by all eyes on earth, when He touches down on Mt Olivet.
Now, we take for granted how those things can occur.
I can't argue with that, but even if they are wrong on the details, they are correct in the theology. But their bad theology leads them to bad conclusions about the future.
They are making wrong assumptions and should not be commenting on how certain events are going to take place in the Tribulation.
Nor, should they be setting any dates.
But, the fact that there will be a pre-Trib rapture and seven years of Tribulation and then a Millennial reign are true.
"The radical distinction between Israel and the church, so essential to classic dispenationalism, is fading away. Dallas Seminary, founded by Chafer, is now the stronghold of the progressives." Amen. The progressive takeover of Dallas is a good thing for the church in general. The surrender is being made to the fundamentally correct covenantal position of the protestant reformers. They are starting to realize the pernicious error of classic and neo dispenationalism needs to give way to biblical truth. They need to become more consistent protestants.
LOL!
No, the progressive takeover is a bad thing.
Dispensationalism (rightly dividing) is crucial to a sound hermeneutic (literal/figurative) as well as eschatology.
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.