Posted on 02/22/2014 10:53:16 AM PST by PhilipFreneau
He who would understand the prophets had better begin with Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, where he will find that the Church is one in the Old Testament and New, and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the very last phase of God’s redemptive work on earth.
He will discover in Galatians who the true Israel is, to whom the promises are made and that there is no other Israel, and no further fulfillment of prophecy.
The problem of the Galatian believers was the conspiracy to impose upon them Jewish interpretations of prophecy, and to claim over them a Jewish priority or privilege. Paul repulses this conspiracy with unparalleled severity...
(Excerpt) Read more at graceonlinelibrary.org ...
Is that what this verse you quoted means?
Rom 11:25 "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."
That verse you quoted is from the New International Version. The King James and most other translations read somewhat differently. This is the King James:
"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." (Rom 11:25 KJV)
And this is the Greek:
(4138) play’-ro-mah; repletion or completion, i.e. (subject) what fills (as contents, supplement, copiousness, multitude), or (object) what is filled (as container, performance, period): — which is put in to fill up, piece that filled up, fulfilling, full, fulness.
Okay, what did Paul tell us? I, frankly, do not know anyone who knows what Romans 11:25 means. It is like asking 100 economists a question and getting 125 different answers. I am not implying they would not all pretend to know.
As a matter of fact, your interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. How can we, Jews and Gentiles, be fellowcitizens in the present tense in Paul's day, and yet be strangers until 2000 years later? That makes no sense. Take note in the following passage of the keyword "ARE", which denotes present tense in our language:
"Now therefore ye [Jews and Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph 2:19-22 KJV)
That "present tense" can only mean that Paul was referring to the Holy Temple that existed in his days, and the Jew and Gentile Christians of his day. The alternative is to spiritualize the scripture to make it mean some other time period.
I believe that no one, but the Lord and maybe his heavenly host, really knows what Romans 11:25 means: they can only speculate. Therefore, we are left with interpretation by means of context.
To put Romans 11:25 in context requires other verses from the chapter, such as the next verse:
"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (Rom 11:25)
And who was all Israel? Not many of those who would claim to be, according to Isaiah and Paul:
"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. " (Rom 9:27-28 KJV)
"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Rom 11:5-7 KJV)
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel… That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom 9:6, 8 KJV)
So, after all that, we can now ask, "who are considered to be the children of Israel (Jacob) and Abraham, Israel's grandfather?" Well, it was not these that John the Baptist confronted:
"But when [John the Baptist] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Mat 3:7-9 KJV)
Nor, these that Jesus met in the Temple:
"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." (John 8:39 KJV)
So much for blood-lines and lineage. So who are the children of Israel (Jacob) and his grandfather, Abraham, and are, therefore, heirs to the promises? Paul makes not bones about it:
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29 KJV)
The remnant of old Israel (aka, the election of Israel (of Jacob) according to grace) were Christ's, and became heirs, as are all Christians. However, those "elect" are another matter altogether. I believe they are the "144, 000" serving Christ in his temple.
Philip
Once again you fail to address the issue of the promise of God with regards to the “land of Canaan”. Until you can realize that the genetic descendents of the twelve tribes of Israel will once again live in the land of Canaan none of those other verses will ever make sense to you. I could explain till my fingers are raw but until you understand that Israel is the wife of the Father and the “church” is the bride of Christ all of scripture will be fog to you. Your explanation of it is certainly “out there” to those of us who do know the difference.
That is really good to hear from a dispensationalist. Until this time I thought the so-called land covenant was a major tenet of dispensationalism that could not be denied.
>>>Even if it was you wouldn’t be able to get around the fact that Christ will rule on the physical land of Canaan.<<<
LOL! You mean the Lord who uses the earth at his footstool?
"Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?" (Acts 7:49)
Or the Lord who ruleth over the entire universe from this throne in heaven?
"The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all." (Ps 103:19)
Nowhere in the scripture does it say that Christ will physically rule from an earthly throne, temple, or in any other earthly manner. To the contrary, Christ plainly stated:
"…My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)
What does Jesus have to say to convince you?
My ancestors made it up that notion of the restoration of the earthly throne of David; not because they were concerned about the future of Israel; but because they were selfish, mean, arrogant little creeps. They would not listen to the prophets (or they killed them so they couldn’t listen to them.) And now the offspring of that same, ungodly bunch (along with their modern-day tag-team partners, the dispensationalists,) are again living in that make-believe world where they believe they, the "Jews," will rule the world! I promise you from the bottom of my heart: you do not want them ruling the world. Of course, you think you are going to be "raptured" before all that takes place, so why worry?
Forget about it. It will not happen the way you believe. Christ (who only is Holy) will never be seen in the flesh, again:
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." (John 16:7-11 KJV)
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
If you are still not convinced, why did Christ send his angel to talk to John about writing the book of the Revelation, rather than come in the flesh, Himself? It was only about 30 years after his ascension?
Philip
>>>Once again you fail to address the issue of the promise of God with regards to the “land of Canaan”. Until you can realize that the genetic descendents of the twelve tribes of Israel will once again live in the land of Canaan none of those other verses will ever make sense to you.<<<
I am a genetic descendant of the twelve tribes. Does that mean I get to live there? LOL! No thanks. I am a happy USA camper.
BTW, where in the New Testament can I find clear references to what you are claiming? I would expect there would be many, unambiguous verses to support your theory. And, of course, no one can rely on anyone’s interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies: over one million Jews slaughtered between AD 67 and 70 can be the testimony to that.
Philip
Is what I’m saying going right over your head? The land covenant IS a major tenet. God didn’t make it frivolously.
>>LOL! You mean the Lord who uses the earth at his footstool?<<
You can LOL all you want to but Christ will come back to this earth just as He left it.
Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
He will reign in the physical land of Canaan in the city of Jerusalem.
Zechariah 8:1 Again the word of the Lord of hosts came to me, saying, 2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury. 3 Thus saith the Lord; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the Lord of hosts the holy mountain. 4 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age. 5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof. 6 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in these days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith the Lord of hosts. 7 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country; 8 And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.
Like I said. Until you understand that God literally meant what He promised you will never be able to clearly see. It’s become very clear to me that you are not here to learn but to simply preach your beliefs with little or no regard the scripture showing your error. As such it’s rather futile to discuss the truths of scripture with you. Others have chosen to simply ignore you and I should probably do the same again.
I would request you refrain from ignoring the scriptures I post. Also, would you please keep the size of your fonts down to post-pre-school sizes?
These are my interpretations, again. Please read them:
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:21)
Oh, that wasn't it. Go ahead and ponder that verse while I look for the others.
"O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel." (Jer 18:6)
Oh, that wasn't it, either. Bear with me, I will find it.
Oh, here it is. Before you read this passage, take note that these were some of the Lord's instructions to Israel regarding their land covenant (whether you want to believe it or not.) The Lord was very concerned about Israel being led astray by the idolatry of the inhabitants of Canaan (to no avail,) and therefore ordered Israel to drive them out, along with their idols:
"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it." (Num 33:51-53 KJV)
If you think for one minute that Israel could have ignored those instructions, and retained the land covenant over the long haul, you have been greatly deceived. In fact, to make it clear to Israel in no uncertain terms, their destiny if they ignored his instructions, the Lord said:
"But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them." (Num 33:55-56 KJV)
And what had the Lord thought to do unto those nations that Israel was supposed to drive out? To destroy them:
"And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the Lord thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God." (Deu 8:19-20 KJV)
Therefore, Israel forfeited it's right to the land of Canaan, or so it would seem. But, in reality, that promise, and all others made to Abraham, went to Christ, the seed of promise of Israel and Abraham. I know that is a hard concept: that Christ was the inheritor (the seed) of the promise (all of them;) but it is a fact.
Over the "long-haul," Israel became so corrupt with idolatry and man-made traditions, that many were no longer worshipping the Lord, but Satan. Jesus tried to make that clear in this passage:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44 KJV)
Philip
No, the "times" didn't change, just the proper thread for discussing the subject instead of hijacking one already deep in disputing a false gospel. You were asked nicely by several to create a thread for discussing your claims. Glad to see you have, though, posting one as "ecumenical" in order to escape strong disagreement was not what I would call encouraging. Glad to see also that the Moderator removed the label.
Let me ask you this one question, as it will determine whether or not I choose to participate in this thread. Do you see the differences between the preterist and dispensationalist views as insurmountable to Christian fellowship? In other words, I can accept those who believe as you do as Christian brothers and sisters while disagreeing with their beliefs on this subject. I don't see these differences as "heresy" and can respectfully discuss why I disagree without inserting acrimony and disparagement in the conversation. If you cannot, then, I don't see the point. So, which is it?
There you go again, mischaracterizing what happened in that older thread. Why not present the whole story, instead of presenting only your heavily biased opinion of it?
Have you already forgotten that I only responded to new-age doctrine that had, in itself, hijacked a thread? Or was their new-age doctrine pre-authorized to hijack a tread, but not mine?
What are your rules for this forum, boatbums?
Philip
ROFL! Aw, come on, Cynical Bear: you can smear better than that! I have seen you in action, and this smear is very weak! LOL!
Why don't we evaluate new-age vs old-age doctrines:
New-Age doctrines:
1) Millerism: evolved into Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists
2) Mormanism
3) Dispensationalism
Did I leave any out? Now lets look at some of of the old-age, traditional doctrines. Let's start with the doctrine of a third-century fellow named Eusebius, called postmillennialism, which matches my doctrine mostly, and work from there:
1) Postmillennialism
2) Amillennialism
3) Historic Premillennialism
I may have left a few out.
BTW, I was thoroughly and completely amused by your recent thread where you seemed to claim that the doctrine of dispensationalism had been hidden from the masses, or "veiled," until these "last days." That was wry humour, wasn't it?
You do know that Christ appeared on the earth during the last days, don't you; and that was about 2,000 years ago. Are we still in the last days, and how long will they last? How many Hal Lindsey books, loaded with false prophesies, do we have to endure? How many days are there after the Last Day?
This is a passage from the Hebrews that mentions that Christ was here in the last days:
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Heb 1:1-2 KJV)
That is powerful stuff.
Philip
>>>Please show us from scripture where the land of Canaan is in heaven.<<<
I can’t find the land of Canaan in the New Testament, at all, other than the implied reference to Canaan from Jesus. Maybe you can show us in the New Covenant (er, New Testament) where the land of Canaan is mentioned?
Certainly a major event like the Israelite’s returning to the land of Canaan after 2000 years would be mentioned in every book of the New Testament, in any number of ways. The same for that mysterious third temple. Why is it that I cannot find them anywhere in the New Testament, after forty years of research?
Philip
Will you answer my question about THIS thread (reminder: can we discuss the topic respectfully without insults)? I don't see any point in talking about my views of dispensationalism if the only thing I can expect to get back is snark and condescension. I'd rather not waste my time.
He's correct. The Church Age still hasn't passed. That is still future. If it had, then the Tribulation has passed, as is His Second coming, as too the Millennium, and if you are a believer you are already in your second body and with Him in Heaven.
Then again, since it is still future,...you really are still here and He hasn't returned for His Millennial reign.
What nonsense ...
To understand the prophets you begin with the text of the prophets ... not with the text of Paul.
>>>>Even a cursory read through “that” thread easily shows that your input was acknowledged, discussed and then, only when you continued to drag the subject on and on with a thread STARTED by Catholics to mock the disunity of all non-Catholic Christians, were you repeatedly asked to start a NEW thread where the subject could be properly addressed.<<<<
Cursory? Is this your definition of CURSORY: “I will pretend like I know what is going on, and then attack the guy who disagrees with me?”
That is the only way I could squeeze your explanation out of what really happened. You made it up, boatbums. So please refrain from any more false witnessing against me.
Philip
The so-called "Church Age" doesn't exist. It a new-age term, made up out of thin air by the founders of dispensationalism in the mid to late 1800's, or early 1900's.
The real "Church" is eternal. So, if you want to imagine a so-called "Church Age," simply imagine one that will last forever, on earth as it is in heaven.
This is the real church that has existed since, at least, before the book of Hebrews was written:
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant…." (Heb 12:22-24 KJV)
That passage clearly is in "present tense."
We, on earth, are a part of that Church, if we believe (100%) in the words of Christ.
The Church was not an afterthought! Don't believe anyone who claims or implies it was. Christ loved the Church and gave his life for it:
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it…" (Eph 5:25 KJV)
Most, if not all, of his disciples and apostles also gave their lives for Church.
Philip
Like the Jews who denied Christ and had him crucified?
No thanks. I will stick with the doctrine of Paul and Jesus: the Good Guys. I particularly believe that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who was also our Creator, knew more about what the Holy Ghost had given to the prophets than either the prophets, themselves, or the Jews.
You have heard Paul. This is Jesus:
"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Mat 13:15)
"For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (Mat 13:17 KJV)
What do you think Jesus meant by that last verse?
Many have been schooled in this new-age belief that the Jews and Israel ("my people," to put it in the words of the famous "theologian," Eric Holder,) did, in the "last minute" reject Christ. But their rejection of Christ was prophesied about 1500 years earlier by Moses. That is hardly an "last minute" afterthought: but I repeat myself.
Philip
I somehow missed your attempted smear of Ken Gentry, CB.
>>>Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (b. 1950) is a pastor and theologian ordained in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly. He has written numerous books and articles, most notably on preterism and postmillennialism in eschatology, and the Book of Revelation. He has also written on ethics, particularly from a theonomist view. Gentry is a graduate of Tennessee Temple University (BA), Reformed Theological Seminary (MDiv), and Whitefield Theological Seminary (ThM, ThD).<<<
Wow! Sounds like a pretty dangerous dude! Maybe I should refrain from recommending his books, ya think? LOL!
>>>Theonomy – aka Christian Reconstructionism [http://carm.org/christian-reconstructionism-theonomy]<<<
I had never heard of Christian Reconstructionism, until you brought it up a few threads ago, CB. After some research, one thing I did notice that you didn't mention is this:
"They [Christian Reconstructionists] tend to support a decentralized political order resulting in laissez-faire capitalism."
Wow! Sounds like some pretty dangerous dudes.
>>>Recent advocates are Gary North, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, Larry Pratt, Greg Bahnsen.<<<
Very dangerous dudes, indeed; especially that Larry Pratt fellow: the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America for the last thirty years. LOL!
>>>Christian Reconstructionism (also known as theonomy) is a highly controversial movement within some conservative Christian circles. <<<
CB, you didn't mention "which Christian circles" in which it is "highly controversial." Would you please fill us in?
Obviously, it was not so controversial in these circles:
"Jerry Falwell [DISPENSATIONALIST] and D. James Kennedy [PRESBYTERIAN] have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy's television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson [DISPENSATIONALIST] makes frequent use of 'dominion' language; his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he 'would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.' And Jay Grimstead [PRESBYTERIAN], who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, 'I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],' but 'A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality … in all points of history … and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike… It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.' He added, 'There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership—James Kennedy is one of them—who don't go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.'"
Those really do sound like some pretty bad dudes, especially Falwell and Kennedy (God bless their souls.)
You are a riot, Cynical Bear. You did intend this to be humor, is that correct?
Philip
Since Revelation was written by John in 95 AD, it could not be a prophesy of events 25 years before that.
Your entire theological system crmubles to dust unless Revelation was written in AD66. To assume that is to assume a position against 99% of biblical scholars. Hitchcock dealt the deathblow to Gentry's work 10 years ago.
I suggest you read it.
wow ... we're way beyond mere theological error here.
Preterism is the easiest eschatological system to dispense with ... but they scream the loudest so we must always deal with them.
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.