Posted on 11/07/2008 8:07:14 AM PST by topcat54
5. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ assertion that modern-day Jews are faithful to the Old Testament and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Hagee), the New Testament teaches that there is no such thing as “orthodox Judaism.” Any modern-day Jew who claims to believe the Old Testament and yet rejects Christ Jesus as Lord and God rejects the Old Testament also.
24. Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.
36. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim to interpret all of the Bible “literally”, Dr. O.T. Allis correctly observed, "While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers."
94. "Despite dispensationalism’s affirmation of “genuine and wholesome spirituality” (Charles Ryrie), it actually encourages antinomianism by denying the role of God’s law as the God-ordained standard of righteousness, deeming God’s law (including the Ten Commandments) to be only for the Jews in another dispensation. Dispensationalists reject the Ten Commandments because “the law was never given to Gentiles and is expressly done away for the Christian” (Charles Ryrie)—even though the New Testament teaches that all men “are under the Law” so “that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God” (Rom 3:19)."
(Excerpt) Read more at againstdispensationalism.com ...
Revoke is not a word I would use. Plainly the NT teaches how the Abrahamic covenant was truly intended to be understood; in terms of the whole world coming under the dominion of Jesus Christ and His followers, both Jews and gentiles, the true children of Abraham in the divine commonwealth (Eph. 2:11-13).
The race-based theology that sees a rather stunted future for ethnic Israel is not what is portrayed on the pages of Scripture.
And yet we have many examples of non-Jews who figure prominently in the history of Israel, e.g., Rahab and Ruth are both figured in the lineage of Jesus.
I think what you are struggling with is ultimately not racial or ethnic. It is a matter of covenant. There were many from Abraham's household who were circumcised and counted among the faithful who did not spring from Abraham's loins (Gen. 17:13,23). There was the mixed multitude who came out of Egypt and were able to able to participate in the Passover once they were circumcised (Exo. 12:43ff).
So, we see that inclusion in Israel was never strictly by race, but rather by obedience to the covenant.
But since the time of Christ there has been only one divinely-sanctioned covenant, that is the new covenant in Christ's blood. The old covenant decayed and passed away (Heb. 8:13). In order to be counted among the faithful one must be obedient to the teachings of the new covenant. This is why we read in places like Galatians 3 that the true children of Abraham are not by race or flesh, but by the new birth.
"8 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Paul also tells us in Ephesians 2 that gentiles are now full members of the commonwealth by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ.
Sadly, modern Jews have it all wrong. They are not the true children of Abraham because they do have have the faith of Abraham. Abraham believed in the triune God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus confirmed that in John 8: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
And sadly there are many Christians who continue to believe that modern Jews are somehow remaining faithful to the covenant God made with Abraham. They misunderstand the true nature of God's covenant with His people.
Race/ethnicity/genetics will not save you. Only having the right spiritual DNA by a relationship with Jesus Christ will bring one favor with God.
Well then, in what way is the old covenant still in effect? How would you go about proving your views from the Bible, esp. in light of all the NT says about the true children of Abraham being the members of CHrist's body, the Church?
"In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:13)
That was written 2000 years ago. What parts of the old covenant were not "obsolete" and fading away back then?
I stand alone on the Word of God. As Martin Luther said to his accusers (in paraphrase), show me where I’m wrong from the Word of God and I will surely repent of my errant views.
Would you agree that a possibility exists that two honest Bible scholars may come to different conclusions about this issue?
Absolutely. One may be right and the other wrong, or they may both be wrong, but they cannot both be right. No man is perfect in his interpretation of the Word of God. All men can and do make mistakes, including me. Some eminent Bible scholars have changed long held views of the Bible.
Have you a revelation from God supporting your conclusion and invalidating theirs?
Nope. I stand alone on the Word of God, which I am ready to discuss at any time. I am ready to compare any interpretation of Scripture with my understanding. If I can be shown to be wrong, I am prepared to change my interpretation to be more faithful to the Word of God. In fact, I have changed my opinion many times. In my younger days, just after my conversion, I used to believe many of the thing commonly believed about Israel, etc. I have since discarded most of those ideas because I found they were not entirely true to the Bible.
Do these two different interpretations of Scripture effect the historic creeds of the church?
Not sure what you are asking. I do not believe that certain modern views wrt the Church and Israel are biblical and fit with the historic views of the Church, esp. the Reformed Church that I’m a member of.
You said before, I don't believe that the new covenant eradicates the old. I asked you in what way then is the old covenant still in effect? And your biblical basis for such a conclusion.
I urge you to remember the words of Oliver Cromwell, “Think it possible in the bowels of Christ that you may be mistaken.”
I live in the SF Bay area. Thousands of people are not only indifferent to the Word but display outright hostility. many live openly in sinful homosexual relationships. I debate them quite frequently and attempt to show them the Truth of God's message of salvation through the redemptive sacrifice of His Son. Only a few and a very few are willing to listen. They claim to stand on reason, love, and tolerance. They even claim to stand on truth, or at least on what they consider to be the truth. I know their ideas of truth are little more than rationalizations for what they want to believe. I know intellectual arrogance when I see it.
When I listen to or read the men who support my ideas, I know they are as devoted to spreading the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus as I am - and as you claim to be. Many of the men I speak with have sacrificed decades to work in the missions of Asia and the Middle East. After risking their lives to spread the Gospel, I know they would not preach one word they did not consider the Truth of Scripture.
As a layman I am not competent to debate Scripture. I trust the character of the men to whom I listen. Many would cut off their hands before they preached falsehood.
I tell you this, when I read the Apostles of Nicene Creeds, I read nothing of Dispensationalism. Your arguments are simply unimportant to the Truth of Jesus as Messiah.
Well, I think I have answered your questions. I have admitted my fallibility; the possibility that I may be wrong. I have said that I am willing to have my views examined in light of the Word of God.
You are not persuaded by my arguments. That is fine. You respond by appealing to "experts" who disagree with my view. This is not a matter of 51% vs. 49%. Recall the cry of the early church, Athanasius contra mundum. Just like Athanasius and Luther, I’m right until someone comes along and conclusively shows me to be wrong. The alternative is a kind of debilitating schizophrenia on theological matters. I have checked my views with the creeds and councils of the Church. They fit without any distortion of either.
In response I have asked a very simple question regarding your statement, I don't believe that the new covenant eradicates the old. I asked you in what way then is the old covenant still in effect? And your biblical basis for such a conclusion.
You seem reluctant to answer. But I see why:
As a layman I am not competent to debate Scripture.
Then, sadly, you are forced to reply on "experts" to do your thinking for you. You must have your own version of the Roman magisterium to tell you what to believe.
But I am also a "layman". Does that make me unqualified to debate these issues?
Why then did you jump into the fray in the first place?
I tell you this, when I read the Apostles of Nicene Creeds, I read nothing of Dispensationalism. Your arguments are simply unimportant to the Truth of Jesus as Messiah.
How can you be so sure when you are admittedly not competent to debate the issue? Why would you adopt and (to a degree) defend a system that you cannot support to those who might question you on it?
Earlier, in response to many passages of Scripture I gave to demonstrate how the new covenant displaced the old and how all those who believe in Christ are the true children of Abraham you said, None, not one, of the passages you cite revokes the Abrahamic covenant.
On what objective basis do you make such a claim?
And recall you were the one who jumped on this topic when you began, The argument - as I understand it - is not factual., and you proceeded to talk about the Garden of Eden and gifts, etc. No actual Scripture references were given.
I don’t mean for you to take this personally. I enjoy discussing these issues. Perhaps we can learn from one another.
Perhaps you can become better equipped by your interactions here.
I am as Lewis labels it: a mere Christian. But I know people who are great Bible scholars, and they disagree with you.
It’s a free country. They are entitled to be wrong. :-)
They are intelligent men, and I'm certain they would not proclaim any doctrine that could not be supported by the Word of God.
There are lots of opinions about what the Bible says, from Roman Catholics to protestants to Mormons to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some of these folks are quite intelligent. But they can’t all be right.
Let me ask you, when you get to heaven, do you believe you will be questioned by God as to your view of this particular matter? Do you believe that your salvation rests on your interpretation of this matter?
Absolutely not. But remember, you were the one who chimed in here with your insistence that I was wrong. If you want to back away, just back away. If you want to believe some man’s interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant still being in effect as it relates to national Israel, go right ahead. It’s a free country.
If you want to critique me, be specific. Don’t hide behind vague words about what others believe.
If the answer to these questions is no, why is it such an issue for you. Admit as I have that this is a matter of interest for theologians but of little practical concern for mere Christians.
So why did you jump in the fray?
I chose to believe the Abrahamic covenant still exists. I believe that the New Covenant does not eliminate the Old, and that the area we call the Holy Land was set aside by God for the Jewish people - then, now, and until Jesus returns.
Again, you can believe whatever you wish. I just hope it comes from the Bible and not what you read on the back of a box of cornflakes. It’s hard for me to judge since you have been so closed mouth after I started asking you some pointed questions.
They are as entitled to be wrong as you are.
Not call can be right about all things but some and probably most can be right about some things. After all, even Muslims claim to be monotheists.
If I'm not mistaken, you buttressed your claim to truth with interpretations of the Bible you believe support your views.
I have never heard one word spoken at my church that contradicts the Bible. If I did, I'd leave.
I jumped into this question because I believe you wrong. Still do.
Yes, I did.
I have never heard one word spoken at my church that contradicts the Bible. If I did, I'd leave.
That’s good news, I’m sure. Let me ask, did you ever sit down and carefully consider a biblical argument from the other side?
I jumped into this question because I believe you wrong. Still do.
Well, it’s obvious that I cannot undo the effect of your many "experts". They have the advantage in that you will listen to them from the Bible. But you do not care to listen to me or someone from the other side from the Bible. That’s OK.
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.