Posted on 11/04/2007 1:26:45 PM PST by topcat54
Ever seen a Picasso? Ever tried to understand a "cubist" painting? It’s a lot like trying to understand Dispensational thinking. Here's a gem for you, in response to a Reformed critique of Dispensationalism. This is the defense that was given:
”The dispensationalist’s answer to the problem is this: The BASIS of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the REQUIREMENT for salvation in every age is faith; the OBJECT of faith in every age is God; the CONTENT of faith changes in the various dispensations.”Now, folks, what is the sound of one hand clapping? Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it? Can God make a rock he cant move? And for more such silly sayings consult your local irrationalist bookstore---the one on every street corner.
"Dispensationalism Today” Charles Ryrie pg 123.
This is the age of pure nonsense. How any individual who takes language seriously can make such a statement is incredible. I don't know what Ryrie was like as a theologian, but I do know he did not know the Queen's english--or any facsimile thereof.
Let us analyze this silly prose and see what it means. The word BASIS in English means base, reason or essence. So far we can agree with Dr. Ryrie. The essence of salvation is the work of Christ. Salvation is Christocentric. Then he goes on to say, the REQUIREMENT for salvation in every age is faith. Yup, excellent. We, NEED to have faith in the Christ of Scripture. Now, note, this is in EVERY age according to Ryrie. Then he says the OBJECT of faith in every age is God. Ummm, ok, if by that he means "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." Strictly speaking the object of faith is the God-man Christ Jesus. But, we can live with that.
Here it comes, are you ready? The CONTENT of faith changes in the various dispensations. HUH!? The word "content" means significance. So in each dispensation the significance of faith is different. In every dispensation we believe in God, the essence of our faith is Christ, and faith is essential, BUT in every dispensation the CONTENT changes. Have you ever heard such torturous nonsense.
Let’s put this in perspective and talk about something as mundane as apple pie. The BASIS of apple pie is apples. The REQUIREMENT for apple pie are apples. The OBJECT of apple pie is to be eaten. BUT the CONTENT of apple pie changes from dispensation to dispensation. Now, do you see what I mean by trying to understand Picasso?
You, see the point of Dispensationalism, is that it is not meant to be understood--only believed. No matter how silly or irrational. Jesus is to be felt, and entered into a relationship with, not known and believed. Besides belief comes from the heart not the head, and anyway don't you see all the signs. These must be the "last days" cause of all the earthquakes and stuff. Can millions of dispensationalists be wrong?
I don't know--ask the Mormons. So some poor Reformed guy, who sincerely but foolishly believes he can reason with dispensationalists comes back and says,
Personally, I am leaning further and further away from this idea and more and more to the idea that the content was always the same “Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death”What an incredibly rational thing to say. As though somehow the ESSENCE and OBJECT of our faith can be different from the CONTENT of our faith. (You see our dear Reformed budding-buddy, is beginning to realize that these words are just synonyms for each other--the same thing stated in a slightly different way, each time, to emphasize a different point.) So, he says what any good fledgling Reformed Christian says--Jesus is the answer. But he misses the point. He's trying to REASON with dispensationalists. Remember, these are the same people who have believed every false prophet who has come down the pike when dates were set for the 2nd coming. Let's see, first it was 1988, then 1994, then 1998. And besides Hal Lindsay says "one generation" from the birth of Israel as a nation. Oops, that's only 40 years, and that would mean 1988. Oh, well, Hal just mispoke himself, he MEANT to say "from the retaking of Jerusalem by the Jews in 1967". Wow, that was a close one---at least now, Hal has got until 2007 to sell his books--or get married AGAIN.
You see, good Christian friend, you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist, anymore than you can reason with a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, or JW. You must proclaim the gospel to them. Am I saying dispensationalists are not saved? God forbid! There are many wonderful Christian people who are dispensationalists--but they are Christians in spite of themselves. Blessed inconsistency! They, if truly logical, (like Spock logical) SHOULD NOT be Christians. Why? Because, Jesus WAS trying to subvert the state and establish an earthly kingdom. He DID break the Law of God. Therefore, his death did not atone. The Jews were justified in crucifying him.
Now, in finality, notice the dispensational retort,
What did Abraham understand about “Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death”? How could it have been the content of faith for him? I don’t understand your statement at all.And, sadly that is the whole point. Because they deny the unity of Scripture but instead chop it up into 7, no 9,--or is it 3? Dispensations, they just cannot see how any Old Testament saint like Abraham could have known Jesus Christ. And this saddest of all is in direct contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. Pray for dispensationalists.
John 8:54-59
Jesus replied, "If I honor myself, it would mean nothing. My Father is the one who honors me. You claim that he is your God, even though you don't really know him. If I said I didn't know him, I would be a liar, just like all of you. But I know him, and I do what he says. Your father Abraham was really glad to see me." You are not yet fifty years old?", they said. "How could you have seen Abraham?" (CEV)
Dispensationalists ask of Abraham the same question today. "How could you have known Christ". They will get the same answer, by FAITH. One God, one covenant, one faith, one saviour.
That’s still not very specific. Perhaps I’m missing the significance in the context of Ryrie’s statement and the analysis. Why is "something contained" more appropriate than "substance" and what difference does it make?
OK. So, does Covenant doctrine teach that God's covenant with Abraham and his seed is still in effect with his seed?
Absolutely. Just read Galatians 3 for the proper understanding of "Seed" being Jesus Christ and the fact that all those found to be in Christ are the true sons of Abraham and, therefore, heirs of the promises.
Baloney. The apostles at the First Council of the Church in Jerusalem in 49 AD were all dispensationalists as we know from Acts 15:
"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up, that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." [Acts 13-16]
After the church age Jesus would return to Jerusalem to rebuild it adn establish His throne there, just as Amos and the prophets wrote.
I find it quite ironic that the doctrinal system which calls itself "covenant" seems to have as its cornerstone doctrine the misconception that God has abrogated his covenant with Abraham.
Not at all.
OK. So, does Covenant doctrine teach that God's covenant with Abraham and his seed is still in effect with his seed?
Absolutely. Paul explicitly tells us who that seed is.
OK. So, does Covenant doctrine teach that God’s covenant with Abraham and his seed is still in effect with his seed?
Absolutely. Paul explicitly tells us who that seed is.
= ==
Ahhhhh, the rubber dictionary strikes again . . . along with the Slipping and Sliding and Shucking and Jiving School of Biblical Interpretation . . .
The Covenant still applies to Blood Israel except that it doesn’t because The Cross obliterated their DNA and lineage
. . . so God is going to have a real rough time choosing 12,000 from EACH of the 12 patriarchical tribes . . .
And God didn’t really EMAN TRULY EVERLASTING COVENANT . . . He only meant a temporary covenant until the Replacementarians could arise and tell Him how to get it right . . .
So, all bets are off, nothing is dependable except Replacementarian obtuseness, rubber Bibles, rubber history books, rubber dictionaries and rubber logic books.
The children of Jacob were foolish to trust that God meant what He said about an EVERLASTING COVENANT—they should have known that the Replacementarians would arise and change God’s mind.
/sar
AND, to whom He said and when...
***Ahhhhh, the rubber dictionary strikes again . . . along with the Slipping and Sliding and Shucking and Jiving School of Biblical Interpretation . . .***
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.
Christians are the Spiritual heirs of the Spiritual promises...
The Jews are (still) the physical heirs of the physical promises...
I suspect that even if y’all laid out all the “seed” Scriptures on a table, sense would still not be made of them.
It’s not that hard, really. Just believ the text.
The dispy bible doesn’t teach Jeremiah 31:31 or the Book of Hebrews. They’re “too hard”, lol
Actually, I’d put it that
Christians are joint heirs with Christ and with Abraham’s blood seed of
ALL
the benefits of the Covenant.
It may well be that vis a vis SOME ceremonial aspects or whatever that blood children of Abraham will have priority. I don’t think so but it wouldn’t rock my theology if it turned out that way.
We are ‘early-horners-in’ on the blessings of the Covenant via CHRIST CRUSIFIED, RESURRECTED AND TREIGNING FOREVERMORE.
But the branch we were grafted into will not be forgotten by a long shot. As Scripture is clear about.
God is NOT slack concerning HIS PROMISES to HIS BUDDY Abraham.
The dispy bible doesn’t teach Jeremiah 31:31 or the Book of Hebrews. They’re “too hard”, lol
= = =
ANOTHER falsehood about Dispys.
Really? So now you agree with Jeremiah 31:31? how is that possible?
The text EXPLICITLY says that the promises were made to Abraham and Christ. Do you believe this gospel truth?
OF COURSE I BELIEVE JER 31:31! Sheesh!
I do not believe that the time of Christ
“after that time, declares the Lord, I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. No logner will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother saying, Know the Lord, because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. . . . “
I suppose you are going to try and tell me that THAT occurred in AD 70?
LOL ROTFLOL GTTM
Sheesh. It has YET to occur but looms closer and closer PARISE GOD.
Which text are you going on about now?
I BELIEVE EVERY WORD OF SCRIPTURE.
You can put that in your pipe and smoke it, Fred.
No of course not. Jesus didn’t come to the earth. He didn’t visit any Jews or Gentiles, didn’t fulfill any prophecies and certainly did not establish any new covenant with anyone, nor have any books been published since then with the tile of “The New Testament(Covenant) of Jesus Christ. I wonder what the Zohar says.
So you have never read the book of hebrews, especially chapter 9 I take it?
lol, they don’t know what they believe
== =
I am at a loss as to how to respond to nonsensical egg salad gibberish.
That makes absolutely 0.000% sense to me—except as an off the wall diatribe with no rational thought in it at all.
“after that time, declares the Lord, I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. No logner will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother saying, Know the Lord, because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. . . . “
= = =
Are you HONESTLY trying to say that YOU BELIEVE the above has already occurred???
If so . . .
UNBELIEVABLE. Shocking.
Clearly Biblical words do not mean the least bit of a consistent anything to Replacementarians.
***That makes absolutely 0.000% sense to me....***
No!!! Quit!!!
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.