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.
I’m increasingly convinced that there’s absolutely no capacity for rational discourse with such a perspective.
Scripture seems to mean nothing.
The words seem to have no consistent meanings.
History means nothing.
Logic means nothing.
Shocking.
I was very clear in my posts about Jeremiah and quoted most of the rest of the passage to demonstrate that it could not possibly have TOTALLY BEEN FULFILLED YET.
You can IGNORE SCRIPTURE but at some point, you will either be broken on it or broken by it.
Shocking.
The covenant was made by the blood of Christ, what is shocking is that you don’t believe it. Is the book of Hebrews, chapter 9 correct or not? How many times does Christ Himself talk of blood and testament? About 30 times
Y’all’s mangling of Hebrews is also shocking.
The Lord knows I believe every word of Hebrews, too.
In contrast to some.
What does Hebrews 9 say then?
You can peddle your Scripture mangling nonsense elsewhere, for now. I’m taking a break from such UNBiblical outrageousness.
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.
Well, now, see, I have to take this as an obtuse "no". Christ did indeed fulfill one promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, but there was more to the Covenant. The New Covenant did not cancel the Old Covenant, and a Gentile Church did not replace a Jewish Nation. Supersessionism is completely without Biblical basis. Replacement theology, not eschatology, is the real disagreement between Dispensationalism and Covenant Doctrine. And "Covenant" doctrine does, indeed, teach that God has broken His covenants.
If the Church is heir to the promises of the Old Covenant, then why is the Church not heir to the obligations of the Old Covenant?
Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Lu 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Re 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
And here Mr. Gianello -- already not to be dissuaded from a rather loopy rant -- goes off the tracks. Rather than tell us what the actual author means by "the "content" of our faith, or better yet, let the author explain it for himself, Mr. Gianello decides to careen into a combined strawman/ad hominem attack that answers precisely nothing.
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.
This is actually a very poor analogy. As it happens, the CONTENT (or "significance") of apple pie really can change from "dispensation to dispensation." Consider: are you baking it for Thanksgiving Dinner? For a bake sale? For your kid's kindergarten play? To impress a girl?
Does this pie have the same significance in each case? Well, no, it does not. So if Mr. Gianello expects his example to prove anything at all, he merely proves what he was trying to disprove.
Now, do you see what I mean by trying to understand Picasso?
I see that Mr. Gianello doesn't understand Picasso ... but it doesn't mean that Picasso can't be understood. All it really signifies is that Mr. Gianello is possibly something of a lightweight. He certainly comes across as an arrogant blowhard.
Because the promise did not change, and the obligations have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Really? So now you agree with Jeremiah 31:31? how is that possible?
" 31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
Not looking ahead to see. I'm going to hazard an informed guess, and say that one of the dispensationalists' going to say that this is for the national Israel, Israel according to the flesh and is not for the church. It's an informed guess because I've seen dispensationalists claim that.
What is the plain language interpretation of “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. “
Only by faith.
But the Gospel is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant not the Mosaic Law. Read what Paul writes in Galatians 3:
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham , saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham...." [note that it says: "with" not "in place of"]
"Christ hath redeemed us [Jews] from the curse of the law .... that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we [Jews] might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.... And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."
The Everlasting Gospel is the fulfillment of God's Promise to Abraham not the Mosaic Law. And the gift of the Land of Israel to Abraham's seed is part of that Promise.
Does that include Gen. 15:18?
Is it part of God's Promise to Abraham and his seed?
I asked, “Does that include Gen. 15:18?”
You then asked, Is it part of God's Promise to Abraham and his seed?
What is the subject of the pronoun "it"?
If by "it" you are referring to the promise in Gen 15:18, then I would say "yes". The promise of Gen. 15:18 is part of the promise to the "Seed" of Abraham, and is fulfilled entirely in the gospel, since we know from Galatians 3 that the "Seed" to whom all the promises were made in Jesus Christ, not ethnic Israel.
It is in Christ, the only true and faithful Seed of Abraham, that all the nations of the world are blessed. It is the new Jerusalem, where Jesus Christ now reigns on the throne of David, that Abraham was longing, not a tiny piece of ground in the middle east (Heb. 11:16).
Ethnic Israel is blessed only insofar as they are found to be in Christ. In order for them to prove themselves to be true sons of Abraham, they must be found in Christ and also have a longing for the same promise of a heavenly land, not the carnal one. Then they are part of the true, spiritual Israel of God.
Looking for substance in your remarks, I find this:
This is actually a very poor analogy. As it happens, the CONTENT (or "significance") of apple pie really can change from "dispensation to dispensation." Consider: are you baking it for Thanksgiving Dinner? For a bake sale? For your kid's kindergarten play? To impress a girl?
That’s not CONTENT in Ryrie’s statement, but OBJECT. What is the OBJECT or reason for making the pie.
Face it. Gianello nailed it.
"and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones." (Matt. 3:9)
But the significance -- or meaning -- of my making the pie is, obviously, different if I'm making it for a bake sale, or trying to impress a girl.
Interestingly, Mr. Gianello never does actually give a good description of what he thinks the unchanging "CONTENT" of Christianity is supposed to be -- and I'm not going to argue about it anyway. I'm just pointing out that his analogy is piss-poor.
Face it. Gianello nailed it.
Well, no. For him to have "nailed it" would require that his point was understandable -- which it is not. The article is a mess of strawman/ad hominem which never really does say what's wrong with Ryrie's statement.
I learned a long time ago not to deal with religious ranters who focus on some other guy's obscure "ism." The first clue was that said ranter uses CAPITAL LETTERS to make his points (such as they are).
And no, I don't much care to argue "isms" with you, either.
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.