Posted on 05/04/2003 12:10:50 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
You will acknowledge that this "two phase" Judgement was offered by Darby, Schofield and the novel dispensational theology that they offered?
Do you know the history of your chosen theological framework?
I'm going on memory, but a web seach on Darby, Schofield, Plymouth Brethern and especially Irving (think it was Clifford) might be in order.
Have you turned it over in your mind recently. A quck search found a book predicting that soon Dallas will discard this innovation.
Also found this.
Dispensationalists begin by clearing the board of all opinions except their own; they dismiss as useless and false all historic interpretations. Next they divide the human race and the Bible into three distinct groups (this is convenient since any scripture which would otherwise refute their interpretation can be relegated to another "division" of Scripture). They add many arbitrary elements which are not supported by the Scriptures, such as extra captivities, extra kingdoms, extra covenants, extra judgments, extra ages, and so on and on. All of these stand or fall together. To disprove one of these premises is to collapse the entire theory.
_____________________________________
Back later. My boys need new shoes.
As a formerly convinced dispensationalist, I would honestly like to revisit my errors with you.
In Paul's letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 5, he exhorts his Christian audience to remain pure and avoid lewd conduct. He says "Make no mistake about this: no fornicator, no unclean or lustful person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God......These are sins which bring down God's wrath on the disobedient; therefore have nothing to do with them."
Paul is speaking to Christians in regards to other disobedient Christians. He does not identify the disobedient as unsaved or nonbelievers. Clearly, in our time, we know Christians guilty of sins such as these. Paul in effect said Christians such as these have no share in the kingdom at all. How do you reconcile this with your above statement?
Nor, am I particularly interested is such specifics as eschatologhy.
However, I am interested in how thoughtful people can accept a system of theology that is such a departure from the understanding of even the historical Protestant confessions.
22 And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee.
23 Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.
scandal 1(n) 1b conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another
Jesus compared Peter to Satan because like Satan in the desert, Peter was tempting Jesus with the easy way out. In this context he was calling Peter a tempter and was correcting him and his attitude. At this point neither Peter nor any of the other apostles understood what Jesus' mission was and what He had to do. Only after His resurrection and the help of the Hold Spirit did they understand. The commission Peter was given to lead was never taken away.
Not quite. Here's what I said in #18
*That is why Jesus' mission failed.*
His mission was to preach repentance, and to get Israel to repent, and become Holy and Priestly so that the Kingdom could come.
But, he wasn't the first to fail in such a mission, as a messiah contender. And the others were usually caught and killed or fled, leaving their followers to die.
If anyone is to blame for his subsequent death, it may be his followers, that may have been too eager to spread the word on who he was, when he had asked them not to.
He may have allowed himself to die, to protect his followers, and in that sense could be seen as having died for 'their' sins.
But, that's about as far as it goes. I pointed out earlier that God didn't want sacrifices. If you look at the history of sacrifices in the OT, you'll see that after the fall, is when sacrifices started. They were meant as a means of fellowship. Not for forgiveness of sin. They were used to draw closer to God. At first they were done whenever the person wanted to do them. Then it became when God commanded them. Then with Abraham/Isaac he replaced Isaac with the Ram.
He was showing that he wanted NO human sacrifices. He was weaning them away from sacrifices. In the atonement it was about confession, prayer, repentance.
The blood was not the issue, it was the SOUL. The soul was found in the blood. You got closer to God by confessing, and repenting. God was gradually showing people how to get closer to God, through confession, prayer and repentance, and not sacrifice.
Before answering this, let's get our definitions straight. What is sin?
I believe this:
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
The biblical defintion of sin is transgression of the law. This can mean a willful violation of the law or "missing the mark"...failure to live fully up to the law.
The "law" is referred to here, under the new covenant.
What is "the law"?
The law is love:
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jam 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Now love is kind of a vague term. It could mean anything. Sex. Liking someone. Whatever. But thank God once again He defines what love is in scripture:
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself
Here Paul specifically lists the last five of the ten commandments and sums them up as "loving thy neighbor".
So violation of any of those, in physical action or in spirit or thought, means you are sinning. You are not loving your neighbor as God intended.
But wait there is another component to love, love of God:
Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Now we know that Paul has already defined love of neighbor. We know that it's keeping the commandments. So what's love of God? Keeping the first 5 commandments. No other Gods, keep God's sabbath, etc.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
All the law is based on love. Violation of the law is violation of love. They are the same. If we don't love God and our neighbor fully, then we are in violation. If we purposely and habitually violate one of the ten commandments, we are purposely and deliberately thwarting God.
Do you agree with this?
The only part I disagree with is, this thing called a 'new covenant'.
There was no 'new' covenant, but a ReNEWal of the old covenant.
Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Israel had to return to God and allow His Commandments to be written on their hearts and minds. Israel needed a Covenant Renewal of their Sinai Covenant. They needed to repent and return to God through obedience to His Laws thus being a witness and an example to the nations. Only by being such a righteous priestly nation, and example, could they hope to be the catalyst that merits the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven and its King. Here it was promised that the spiritual infirmity of Israel would be helped by the intervention of God.
God allowed them to RENEW their 'lease'. But, this time, it was not written on stone, but written WITHIN THEIR HEARTS.
IF..... IF.... there was a new covenant, then why is it that one of the promises of the old covenant (Isreal would regain their homeland) was fulfilled in 1948, when Israel became a nation???
It's the same covenant, just put forth more forcefully, imo.
The only thing there might be a difference on is the terms. The new convenant was established by Christ:
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.
He affirmed the covenant at the last supper:
Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
I agree though that it could just as well be thought of a renewal because God's promises never changed...but he actually did add on to his promises by now adding in eternal life, which wasn't in the old covenant.
But as far as the law it's exactly right...nothing in the law changed except that which was specified in scripture. Israel broke the original covenanat, not God.
God in his mercy made it in a sense easier for us to fulfill the terms by giving us the gift of his holy spirit to live in and through us and enable us to grow in righteousness. With the sacrifice of Christ it no longer became about us trying to keep the law...it became about Christ indwelling in us and living through us to do so and covering our sins while we grow in faith. The outward appearance is that we are keeping the written law. This is how I believe the law is written on our hearts.
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.