Replies

I wish I knew how to quote things, this would make this a lot easier.

Anyway, let’s get to this.

You stated that “Unlike you, I have never accused anyone of anti-semitism. And there is no objective evidence that so-called replacement theology is anti-semtitic. That’s a phony claim by modern dispensationalists who don’t like to have their assertions challenged. But they repeat their lies to no end.”

In this, I can say honestly that you were right and I was wrong. You, to the best of my knowledge, have never accused another Christian of Anti-Semitism in these debates. I thought that you had done so due to a faulty memory on my part and for that I do ask for your pardon and forgiveness. It was an honest mistake. Made in the heat of the moment, to be sure, but still just that; a mistake.

That being said, I reject your claim that Replacement Theology is not Anti-Semetic. We can, and I suspect will, discuss this in a later post but for the time being allow me to address your last post.

Furthermore, you stated “As for heretics, they usually take care of themselves, or hide and try to avoid unpleasant questions, e.g.,

Do you believe God has been/is/or will be in the future married to two different and distinct people?
Still waiting for an answer. Do you have some reason for not answering?”

I did answer this question, I just didn’t answer you. Bluntly put, I do believe that God the Father is married to Historical Israel while Christ is betrothed to and will be married to the Church. They are seperate persons of the Godhead and, as such, there is no problem with having two different persons married to two seperate peoples. Same God, different persons.

Again, you said in response to my claim that you have stated that God has divorced Israel and has/will marry the Church that “Fabrication. I never made any such statement.”

Yet by defending the article (Jerusalem, the Have-not Whore) from the Website (American Vision) that this thread was created about, you signal that not only do you agree with it, but you hold it to be the proper understanding of the Scriptures. That article states that God has divorced Israel and has/will marry the Church. Therefore by defending that article you have in affect stated that you agree with this line of reasoning.

The rest of your post can be summed up as this. While I had believed that you stated the things that I accused you of, including questioning the salvation of Dispensationals and accusing us of practicing a doctrine of satanic origin, you are correct in stating that you never did those things. I was, simply put, wrong. I can try to dress it up however I like, but the fact remains that, as I said before, my memory was faulty and I was wrong to rely on it instead of seeking out the proof first before I posted.

For that, I am truly and honestly sorry as I accused you falsely and I do ask your forgiveness in that matter. I still disagree with your intrepretation, but after researching the matter fully, I do have to admit that you haven’t challenged the salvation of other Christians.

That being said, quit calling me a heretic, especially when you’re trying to group me as well as other Dispys into the Marcion heresy. That isn’t even remotely close to how we view the matter. I fully understand what the Trinity is and how God can be one God but three Persons and that’s what I base my understanding of His relationship with Israel and the Church upon.

I appreciate your clarification and retraction of claims you made that were plainly not true. Would that we all were so quick to clean up after ourselves. One slight issue with what you said:

Therefore by defending that article you have in affect stated that you agree with this line of reasoning.

That’s not true. Besides, the article does not state things in the way you have, i.e., “God divorced Israel in order to marry the Church.” You’re reading far too much into it.

But to the basic substance of your comments:

And here is the issue, the notion that God is essentially a bigamist. You can dress this up as a person vs. person thingy, but the fact is there is only one true God acting with one revealed will. The essence of the Marcion heresy was that the OT god and the NT god were distinct and therefore exercised different wills, one being much more likeable than the other.

5 For your Maker is your husband, The Lord of hosts is His name; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He is called the God of the whole earth.
6 For the Lord has called you Like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, Like a youthful wife when you were refused," Says your God. (Isa. 54)

There is no differentiation in this passage, or in any other passage using similar “wife of God” language that distinguishes between Father and Son in the Godhead. The husband here is called “your redeemer.” Christ is the redeemer of the people in the plan of God. Similarly:

14 "Return, O backsliding children," says the Lord; "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.
15 And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. (Jer. 3)

Who is it that offers His salvation to Israel and “brings them to Zion?” In the economic sense, it is Christ who performs our redemption and brings us to the Father. There is only one mediator between God and men. And, thus, there is only one God with one bride.

I will feed those who oppress you with their own flesh, And they shall be drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine. All flesh shall know That I, the Lord, am your Savior, And your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob." (Isa. 49:26)

Some people, incorrectly, think of the Father when they read of God in the OT. The fact is that God has always revealed Himself through the second person of the trinity. It was the re-incarnate Christ who appeared to Abraham and gave the Law to Moses on Sinai. It is Christ speaking in these passages on behalf of the triune God.

I realize you have not offered support for your views from the Bible. Perhaps you can, or perhaps this is just part of the larger package of error you have latched onto.

Whether your view is heresy or borders on heresy, I’m not sure. The distinction is lost on me. It certainly does divide the Godhead in a way not sanctioned from the Scriptures. You end up with essentially tri-theism.

God has only one wife. All other views and defective and betray a false view of the God of Scripture.