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.
The Jews are (still) the physical heirs of the physical promises...
The first problem you need to overcome is that all the promises were made with Jesus Christ, the "Seed" of Abraham (Gal. 3:16).
Second, your comment above is merely a slogan as it stands. You need a biblical (i.e., non-arbitrary) way to define physical promises vs. spiritual.
The Church has generally made the distinction between the old covenant promises to Israel that were temporary and entirely passed away with the coming of Christ, and those which persist in the person and work of Christ Himself. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matt. 5:17)
There are no physical promises to ethnic Israel that persist beyond Christ’s first coming. All the promises terminate one way or another in Christ.
And Ryrie covers that under OBJECT, not CONTENT. It’s his words and definition you are arguing with, not Gianello or me.
Mr. Gianello never does actually give a good description of what he thinks the unchanging "CONTENT" of Christianity is supposed to be
That was not his purpose.
Again, your argument is with Ryrie’s very poor formulation in order to try to define a concept that is foreign to the Bible and normal systematic theology.
I learned a long time ago not to deal with religious ranters who focus on some other guy's obscure "ism."
Unfortunately, this obscure "ism" is like a theological Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees – rational folks are horrified that they will not die.
So when he comes back from the right hand of the Father to receive the promise of the Land of Israel, then He and Abraham are just going to hang out there together with nobody else???
IMO, this particular "ism" takes our eyes off God's command to preach the Gospel to all men, and instead focuses our attention on fear, insecurity and useless speculation.
Who benefits by Christians arguing the end times? Who benefits by Christians saying faith in Christ is not a necessity today for all men everywhere?
How could it not be his purpose -- the guy spends a crapload of capital letters telling us about how Ryrie is so amazingly wrong about CONTENT ... without telling us what the "CONTENT" really is?
What a monumental waste of time.
As does Mr. Gianello's pointless screed. Really -- if a fellow's gonna argue about the word "CONTENT", doncha think he should actually discuss the word to which he takes exception?
As for the argument itself .... well, we have a choice. Should we argue with Ryrie or Gianello, or should we preach the Gospel to all men?
Because we can't really do both: suppose a seeker opens this thread. He might need to hear the Gospel, but he only sees Gianello blathering on about "dispensationalism." The distinction is utterly pointless to a seeker, who will in any case be chased away by the ugly manner in which Gianello makes his case.
We could use a lot fewer screeds like this one....
There are no physical promises to ethnic Israel that persist beyond Christ’s first coming. All the promises terminate one way or another in Christ.
So when Jesus comes back from the right hand of the Father to receive the promise of the Land of Israel, then He and Abraham are just going to hang out there together with nobody else??? Not Ike, or Jake, or Joe, or Mose, or Dave or any of the others. He'll be there all alone --
What "promise of the Land of Israel"? Are you inventing things? Christ and His followers are heirs of all things.
He will come back with and for all His saints (not just the ethnically Jewish ones) and they will all together inhabit the new heavens and new earth, not just a dusty plot in the middle east. They will be with their father Abraham who will be enjoying that heavenly city. "But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them." (Heb. 11:16)
You must remember that we are all not as confused as the dispensationalist wrt the promises. There is no racial segregation in the new Jerusalem.
Oh you mean like the Promise to Abraham, confirmed again and again by the prophets as here in Amos 9:
"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old ...And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
There's nothing "ugly" about the author's manner other than you disagree with it which is your prerogative.
IMO dispensationalism weakens the Gospel and confuses the assurance and clarity with which Christ spoke -- "Be not afraid; only believe" (Mark 5:36). Any understanding that says we should not preach to the Jews today to acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior today is unScriptural.
As far as hindering the seeker, I rest content in Paul's assurance that it is "God that giveth the increase." (1 Corin. 3:7)
What do you suppose this debate is about then??? The two kingdoms are all over the bible...You couldn't miss them if you were blind as a bat coming in backwards...
How can you not spot the difference (in scripture) between the physical kingdom and the spiritual kingdom???
The Jews all over the bible are offered LAND...Earth...Soil...With a physical Messiah...On a physical Throne...
Christians, whether they be Gentiles or Jews or Klingons are offered a Spiritual Kingdom...
And the idea that you can't define the differences in the scripture doesn't change the scripture...
Exactly...Jesus came to fulfill the promise of a Jewish Messiah to a Jewish people...
But the Jews rejected Him and he TEMPORARILY put blinders on them...
Of course I can, and so has the Church for 2000 years.
The physical kingdom was temporary and limited to ancient national Israel. Most of its citizens were ethnic Jews, although there were some gentiles who also participated (e.g., Ruth and Rahab). It passed away with the end of the old covenant. It was a type of the eternal kingdom of God, which is spiritual and is made up of all those who have placed their faith in Messiah from all ages. The spiritual kingdom is made up of the righteous from all nation, tribes and tongues. There are no racial qualifications. Abraham was a member of both kingdoms, as was Paul. However, most of the righteous are only members of the latter, since there are many more these last 2000 years (and still counting).
The type does not need to remain once the antitype has been fully realized. So, we no longer sacrifice lambs (type) once a year as a sign of atonement because the true Lamb of God (antitype) has appeared once for all to put away sin.
It's really quite simple to understand. No need to slice and dice things into seven or so dispensations or "testing times".
And I take that as confirmation that you can't make sense of Ryrie either.
But it will return just as Jesus said it would in Acts 1, and Peter in Acts 2, and James in Acts 15, and Amos, and Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, and Zechariah:
"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee. And the LORD shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.[Zechariah 2]
I notice that the preterists and replacement theologians don't like to cite the prophets. Is that because they are all dispensationalists???
Only in the dispensationalist fairy tale fabricated on Scofield's Notes.
When God blesses an individual repeatedly with presentations of Biblical truth . . . and the individual stubbornly blackwashes it, resists it . . . ignores it . . . Is God well pleased? I think not.
To reiterate . . . . proof against AD70 constructions on nonreality.
1. The tin horn Emporer was NOT ruler of the whole world, every people group; every language group; every tribe. THEREFORE, BIBLICALLY, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIM. His actions may have hinted at horrors to come but he didn’t have what it takes to fit the Biblical ruler involved.
2. He did not live in an era WHEN it is now possible for THE MARK OF THE BEAST to prevent anyone not having it from buying or selling. The technology did not exist then. The Scripture indicates to me that it’s not POSSIBLE to buy or sell without it—not mearly not permitted. That only exists in our era, with the chip ID implant so in evidence at a recent big football game. This one issue screams that these are the END TIMES conclusively. This one fact blows all other constructions on prophetic reality out of the water.
3. The desolation will be as no other era/time in history and as no other era/time in the future. The tin horn Emporer could not rise to that level of devastation. The Replacementarian perspective is WRONG AGAIN.
4. The tin horn Emporer did not live in a time when THE TWO WITNESSES SUPERNATURALLY WILL CALL FIRE DOWN FROM HEAVEN; WILL BE SEEN BY EVERY TRIBE, LANGUAGE GROUP, PEOPLE GROUP all around the globe. The Replacementarian perspective is WRONG AGAIN.
5. The Emporer did not live in an era when there were massive numbers of massively dramatic signs in the heavens as in our era.
6. IIRC, the slaughter then was not as massive and efficient as the future one is slated to be . . . and IIRC, there were no elements of supernatural deliverance of any of the victims as are hinted about in the future scenario.
7. The Emporer was NOT satan incarnate nor his false prophet. This fact alone blows the Replacementarian perspective out of the water on this point.
I don’t expect any of the Replacementarians to deal remotely adequately with even a fraction of the above. But at least here they are for the fair-minded lurkers to prayerfull ponder. At least 6 of the 7 are deal brakers for the nonsense interpretations so doggedly foisted on these threads.
Only in the dispensationalist fairy tale fabricated on Scofield's Notes.
Wow -- is that what you call the text of the scriptures??? like this from Amos 9:
"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old ...And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God."
Are you going to scoff at this promise of His coming? Are you calling this promised fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant a fairy tale???
Are you going to scoff at this promise of His coming? Are you calling this promised fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant a fairy tale???
= = =
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to convince myself that MANY Replacementarians have the least bit of interest in Biblical Truth; Historical Truth.
. . . which might explain why it seems to be such a man-driven; man-designed; man-pontificated; man-mangled; convoluted; dark; UNBiblical; closed; . . . system.
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.