Posted on 06/07/2010 7:28:42 AM PDT by topcat54
I knew it would happen. The latest incident in Israel has brought out the prophetic speculators again. “A council of rabbis in Israel says their nation’s conflict with Turkey over a flotilla of ‘aid’ ships headed for the blockaded Gaza Strip controlled by the terrorist Hamas organization just may be the beginning of the ‘Gog and Magog process where the world is against us, but which ends with the third and final redemption’” (see here ). Picking up on the story, Christian prophecy speculator Joel Rosenberg takes a similar position but with some caution:
There is growing interest in the Ezekiel prophecies and whether they could play out in our lifetime. I believe it is still too early to say anything definitively. But I agree that current events are strikingly consistent with the prophecies and I believe it is possible that we could see these events unfold soon. The mention of “Gomer” in Ezekiel, for example, refers to the modern-day State of Turkey which will be an enemy of Israel and part of a Russian-Iranian alliance against the Jewish state. I’m not saying the prophecy will necessarily come to pass soon, but I can’t rule out that possibility. We’ve never seen a convergence of geopolitical and spiritual events so consistent with Ezekiel 38–39 in history like we are seeing today (see here ).One of the arguments used to futurize Ezekiel’s prophecy 2600 years from the time it was written is the claim that the Hebrew word rosh in Ezekiel 38:2–3 and 39:1 sounds like Russia. So then why doesn’t “Gomer” sound like some modern-day nation? Why Turkey? If God wanted to identify Turkey 2600 years ago, then why didn’t He use some sound-alike word that would identify modern Turkey? The same is true of the other nations listed in Ezekiel.
There is no need to speculate beyond the historical boundaries of Ezekiel’s day to force the names of these ancient nations to find a place on a modern-day map and conform to today’s geo-political landscape. Iain Duguid’s comments are helpful in accounting for the historical realities of Ezekiel’s prophecy:
[Gog] is the commander-in-chief ([ chief prince]) of a coalition of forces gathered from the ends of the earth. He himself is from the land of Magog, and he rules over Meshech-Tubal. His allies include Persia, Cush, and Put (38:5), along with Gomer and Beth Togarmah (38:6). It is no coincidence that together these make up a total of seven nations, and it is significant that they are gathered from the uttermost parts of the known world to the prophet. Meshech-Tubal, Gomer, and Beth Togarmah come from the North, Put (Northwest Egypt) and Cush (southern Egypt) from the south and west, while Persia is to the east of Judah.[1]Ezekiel was given a revelation that was describing his world. You don’t have to be a biblical scholar to figure this out. The people making up these nations were alive and well and living in proximity to Israel in Ezekiel’s day. There is no question about this claim. There is no way to refute it. To maintain that the nations that attack Israel are nations in our day is not allowing the Bible to speak for itself. “To seek the fulfillment in the dark region of the end of the days,” Ernest Hengstenberg (1802–1868) writes, “is the less possible, because most of the nations named either no longer exist, or are no longer heathen. Magog, Gomer, Meshech and Tubal, Phut, Sheba, and Dedan, are no more to be found”[2] on any modern map.
If the battle described in Ezekiel 38–39 does not refer to modern-day nations that will attack Israel, then when and where in biblical history did this conflict take place? Instead of looking to the distant future or finding fulfillment in a historical setting outside the Bible where we are dependent on unreliable secular sources, James B. Jordan believes that “it is in [the book of] Esther that we see a conspiracy to plunder the Jews, which backfires with the result that the Jews plundered their enemies. This event is then ceremonially sealed with the institution of the annual Feast of Purim.”[3] Jordan continues by establishing the context for Ezekiel 38 and 39:
Ezekiel describes the attack of Gog, Prince of Magog, and his confederates. Ezekiel states that people from all over the world attack God’s people, who are pictured dwelling at peace in the land. God’s people will completely defeat them, however, and the spoils will be immense. The result is that all nations will see the victory, and “the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God from that day onward” (Ezek. 39:21–23). . . . Chronologically this all fits very nicely. The events of Esther took place during the reign of Darius, after the initial rebuilding of the Temple under Joshua [the High Priest] and Zerubbabel and shortly before rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah. . . . Thus, the interpretive hypothesis I am suggesting (until someone shoots it down) is this: Ezekiel 34–37 describes the first return of the exiles under Zerubbabel, and implies the initial rebuilding of the physical Temple. Ezekiel 38–39 describes the attack of Gog (Haman) and his confederates against the Jews. Finally, Ezekiel 40–48 describes in figurative language the situation as a result of the work of Nehemiah.[4]Ezekiel 38:5–6 tells us that Israel’s enemies come from “Persia, Cush, and . . . from the remote parts of the north. . . ,” all within the boundaries of the Persian Empire of Esther’s day. From Esther we learn that the Persian Empire “extended from India to Cush, 127 provinces. . .” in all (Esther 8:9). Ethiopia (Cush) and Persia are listed in Esther 1:1 and 3 and are also found in Ezekiel 38:5. The other nations were in the geographical boundaries “from India to Ethiopia” in the “127 provinces” over which Ahasueras ruled (Esther 1:1). “In other words, the explicit idea that the Jews were attacked by people from all the provinces of Persia is in both passages,”[5] and the nations listed by Ezekiel were part of the Persian empire of his day. The parallels are unmistakable (There are many more parallels that can be found in my book Why the End of the World is Not in Your Future .) Even Ezekiel’s statement that the fulfillment of the prophecy takes place in a time when there are “unwalled villages” (Ezek. 38:11) is not an indication of a distant future fulfillment as Grant Jeffrey attempts to argue:
It is interesting to note that during the lifetime of Ezekiel and up until 1900, virtually all of the villages and cities in the Middle East had walls for defense. Ezekiel had never seen a village or city without defensive walls. Yet, in our day, Israel is a “land of unwalled villages” for the simple reason that modern techniques of warfare (bombs and missiles) make city walls irrelevant for defense. This is one more indication that his prophecy refers to our modern generation.In Esther we learn that there were Jews who were living peacefully in “unwalled towns” (KJV) (9:19) when Haman conspired against them. Israel’s antagonists in Ezekiel are said to “go up against the land of unwalled villages” (Ezek. 38:11). The Hebrew word perazah is used in Esther 9:19 and Ezekiel 38:11. This fits the conditions of Esther’s day. Jeffrey is mistaken in his assertion that “Ezekiel had never seen a village or city without defensive walls.” They seemed to be quite common outside the main cities. Moreover, his contention that Israel is currently “dwelling safely because of her strong armed defense” is patently untrue. Since 2006, the Israeli government has built more than 435 miles of walls in Israel.* * * * *
Ezekiel’s reference to “dwell safely” and “without walls . . . neither bars nor gates” refers precisely to Israel’s current military situation, where she is dwelling safely because of her strong armed defense and where her cities and villages have no walls or defensive bars. The prophet had never seen a city without walls, so he was astonished when he saw, in a vision, Israel dwelling in the future without walls. Ezekiel lived in a time when every city in the world used huge walls for military defense.[6]
There are many more parallels between Ezekiel 38–39 and Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. I had one emailer argue with me over the above summary interpretation. He fed me all the standard end-time arguments that are popular with interpretations of Ezekiel 38–39. When I told him to purchase my book Why the End of the World is Not in Your Future and offer a detailed response, he wrote the following: “I’m not buying prophecy books just now, but I will accept a complimentary copy for review.” This is a person who is not serious about Bible study. He’s afraid of what he will find. He wanted to know if I belonged to the “Allegorism school of interpretation” that dismisses a literal interpretation. As I show in my book, I am very literal. I don’t turn horses into “horsepower, bows and arrows into “launching pads” and “missiles,” or chariots into tanks. When the text says “to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods” (Ezek. 38:13), it means silver, gold, cattle, and goods (Ezra 1:4) and not natural gas, potash, or oil.
He and many others like him have adopted a system of interpretation that locks him into a theology of irrelevance. Here is his final comment to me: “Things are winding up very rapidly these days.” Yes they are. We are witnessing the end of humanism. Either get on board to make it happen through the preaching of the gospel, applying the Bible to every area of life, and building an alternative society when the inevitable collapse comes or get out of the way. There won’t be a “rapture” to rescue you. Deal with it.
Endnotes:
1. Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 448.
2. E. W. Hengstenberg, The Prophecies of the Prophet Ezekiel Elucidated, trans. A. C. Murphy and J. G. Murphy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869), 331.
3. James B. Jordan, Esther in the Midst of Covenant History (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1995), 5.
4. Jordan, Esther in the Midst of Covenant History, 7.
5. Jordan, Esther in the Midst of Covenant History, 7.
6. Grant R. Jeffrey, The Next World War: What Prophecy Reveals About Extreme Islam and the West (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2006), 143, 147–148.
Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. In 2007, he earned his Ph.D. in Christian Intellectual History from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandson. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
Ephesians3:1,2. "For this cause I Paul,the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God WHICH IS GIVEN ME to you-ward".
The Dispensation of Grace was given to Paul. Since he was not saved until Acts 9, this dispensation could not have begun before then. It concludes at the rapture of the Church the Body of Christ (1Thessalonians 4:13-18). At that time, God begins dealing with Israel again(Hebrews-Revelation). Paul's Ministry deals with the Dispensation of Grace and The Church The Body Of Christ (Romans-Philemon).
I am Pan Mil...it will all pan out in the end... :)
ROTFLOLOl. Amen!
No, no no... Please let me clarify: I was commenting upon mountn man's post in the light of the OP - I had not tied it back to your comment up-thread. Be aware that your exhortation is met with Scripture:
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
(e-Sword:KJV)
Your exhortations are quite in line with the Word - We should not be excited about the coming of the Day of the Lord - A dark and fearful day... Even as we should hope for the Throne of David in Jerusalem!
Yet the dichotomy discussed herein is also expressed within the passage above, and throughout... even unto the Bible's very last words:
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Rev 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Therein lies the beginnings of "Maranatha!" This is the part that gets us all excited when prophecy is coming to pass before our eyes... It isn't the coming war... It is the fact of it's prediction in prophecy, and that another mile marker goes whizzing by.
So how does one hope for the return of the King, without hoping for all of the horrible things which must certainly come to pass in order for the King to come? That is the tricky bit.
But that, I think, is what mountn man was getting at - Being joyful that a milestone is sighted, because that translates into the closer coming of the Lord in His Kingdom, does not mean that we are joyful about the war that brings the milestone.
It is evidence long awaited, regardless of the surrounding issues. It is proof that God is in His Heaven, and proof of His promise, which we have every hope to receive.
So your exhortation is just and well placed: We must certainly humble ourselves, aware of the coming storms, and knowing our feeble work for the Kingdom is not enough, and the time grows perilously short. But neither is it wrong to cry out for the Peace of Jerusalem, albeit amidst the gathering clouds... Indeed, in aspects, there is no better time to do so.
They’re more Trinitarian than some of my Oneness relatives!
I’ll leave it to Jesus to decide who and what is beyond the Pale from HIS perspective.
Not so much as a sub-atomic particle’s worth of the tiniest punctuation point in
ANY
Scriptures offered by the REPLACEMENTARIANS, PRETERISTS, et al
hereon have the least bit
NOT THE LEAST BIT
negated the Biblical EVERLASTING promises of ALMIGHTY GOD
to the Blood children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
They have ALL BEEN UTTERLY SILLY STRAW DOGS UNRELATED EVEN TO THE TOPIC.
SHEESH, Sometimes the denseness rivals that of a black hole!
I understand and have some respect for your perspective about the long posts.
It’s not mine.
I must be true to my sense of what is right for me to do, not what is right for you to do.
There are folks on both sides of that issue.
I have a strong preference in that respect and will continue to honor it. TO ME, it is the MOST LOVING THING to do on a thread. I’d MUCH rather have the whole doc in the thread—not only for saving such in one file but merely for convenience, as well.
I don’t know that anyone can say with GREAT Biblical certainty exactly what the Gog-Magog wars are likely to be in terms of great specifics and specific timing. We can probably say that there appear to be 2 of them scheduled. One during the END TIMES/TRIBULATION ERA and one at the end of the Millenium or some such.
As to who Gog and Magog are . . . some translations put the enemy of Israel spoken of as NOTHERNMOST from Israel. The only capital fitting that description is MOSCOW.
We have repeatedly documented hereon that dispensationalism did NOT begin in the 1870’s or so but has been around for essentially the whole Church era and certainly for many hundreds of years.
I’m troubled that you’d deny such documentation.
WELL DONE.
THX.
Remember, the Tribulation period begins with a “man of peace”, the Antichrist, confirming a seven-year peace treaty between Israel and the nations.
That did not happen in 70AD. It is a future event.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
GOODNESS, DR E!
KEEP this up and I’ll have reason to question your documentation on the RC threads.
There’s a list of WHOLESALE WRONG assertions about Dispies on that linked doc just from a quick scan of the first page.
Sheesh what a stinking pile of untruths.
Not by a trillion galactic clusters worth of distance.
VERY well said.
Now, see, Quix, that's where you cross the line. We can disagree about the end times and prophecy and the millennial reign of Christ because those things are not explicit in Scripture. They are suggested. Some are even cryptic. And for the most part, they do NOT involve the salvation of souls.
Unless you can show me in the Bible where it is said that only those who are premil or dispy or postmil are saved. But it's not there. And for good reason.
Because there is only one thing required for salvation -- God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross on behalf of His sheep.
And that is where the church of Rome fails. It teaches a works-based salvation, doled out by the magisterium and various "alter Christus" and a female "co-redeemer."
And that is heresy.
Eschatology does not involve heresy. It can be wrong, but it is not lethal.
Believing in rituals and works and names under the sun other than Jesus Christ is deadly to the hearts and minds and souls of those who are blinded and unable to recognize the lie they hold in their right hand.
These topics are world's apart.
I agree about Salvation by faith etc. and about the heresies of the Vatican et al.
I was just SHOCKED—GENUINELY SHOCKED to realize that a post/link/document my dear Friend/Sister Dr E was affirming had a gross list of errors of fact in it about Dispensationalism and Dispensationalists.
I found it difficult to associate your name with that document.
I have always thought much more of your research and integrity in such matters.
I would like to continue to do so.
I’m simply very shaken, shocked about that.
There's just too much to read and study to even begin to comprehend all its various positions. Especially in light of the fact that its basic premise -- that not all men TODAY are called to kneel to Christ -- IMO, devalues it and causes me to question whatever else comes after that misjudgment.
As I said earlier, I am not versed in all the many intricacies of dispensationalism. If you say that link was incorrect, I'll certainly take that into consideration since I value your opinion.
I'll do my best to go to your doc and post the errors and corrections after this post.
1. I'm no expert on all the permutations either.
2. However, I can write knowledgeably about that Dispensationalism taught in the AoG and every other Pentecostal denomination and non-denominational congregation I've been a part of--which covers a lot of territory.
3. It is NOT the case at all that the Dispensationalism I know anything about believes or asserts that
Especially in light of the fact that its basic premise -- that not all men TODAY are called to kneel to Christ
4. Though I suppose it would depend on what is meant by that.
5. My kind of Dispy does NOT claim that NOT ALL MEN ARE CALLED TO KNEEL TO CHRIST. WE ONLY ASSERT THAT GOD IS IN CHARGE OF WHEN AND HOW HE ARRANGES THE BLOOD CHILDREN OF JACOB TO DO THAT--TODAY AND AS THE END TIMES CONTINUE TO UNFOLD . . . INCLUDING THE 144,000--12,000 FROM EACH TRIBE.
. . . now to check the rest of my pings and go to the doc.
1. May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never 5-point Calvinist.
As far as I know, that's true.
2. Stresses rigidly 'literal' interpretation of the Bible.
NOT TRUE.
Dispies MAY be MUCH MORE PERSISTENT, CONSISTENT, GIVEN to taking a plausible literal interpretation than some other groups. However, we aren't idiots about it!
We recognize that Scripture frequently uses metaphors. The Lord's Supper is a metaphor. Some of us believe that for SOME metaphors, God will also reveal in eternity that there was ALSO A VERY LITERAL reality as well.
For example, I personally, have a very personal bias and belief that when Christ told a parable, the stories were literally true SOMEWHERE IN TIME. It won't shake my theology if that proves later to not be true--I just personally happen to believe it to be true.
I think a lot of us Dispies get a bit uneasy when some folks take some of the fantastic creatures in prophecy and explain 100% of them 100% away as 100% metaphor. Certainly Nebuchednezer's image of gold, brass, etc. was a metaphor for different kingdoms as Daniel explained.
And, quite plausibly, SOME of the other creatures in Bible prophecy are also metaphor or both metaphor and literal and maybe a few even totally literal.
What does one do with the candle sticks; the Olive Trees; the 7 Spirits of God etc. etc. Personally, I think the 7 Spirits of God mean the 7 Spirits of God. What THAT means is, for now, rather unclear. To go off pontificating that it HAS to mean XYZ, is arrogant and foolishness, to me.
I think the solid Biblical interpretation principle is that WERE IT IS REMOTELY LOGICAL TO CONSTRUE SOMETHING IN SCRIPTURE LITERALLY--IT MUST BE SO CONSTRUED FIRST AND FOREMOST. IF there is ALSO significant evidence for a metaphorical meaning--fine. And, in a few cases, where Scripture says clearly that something is a metaphor--fine. In SOME cases where IT WOULD SEEM that a metaphor is the ONLY PLAUSIBLE explanation--many of us Dispies would still consider the jury out and we'll wait and see.
After all--here we only see through the glass darkly. We only know in part.
3. Usually does not accept the idea of the 'Analogy of Faith.'
I don't know what they are referring to. My initial and abiding reaction is that's a HOGWASH assertion. Faith is crucial to please God. That covers a lot of territory. All the Dispy preachers I've ever heard assert that.
4. 'Israel' always means only the literal, physical descendants of Jacob.
That's bearing false witness, imho. That's simply WRONG, UNTRUE.
We believe that EXCEPT where Scripture specifically mentions us being GRAFTED INTO Abraham's family, Israel--that WHEN SCRIPTURE MENTIONS ISRAEL, it is referring to the blood children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When it refers to THE CHURCH OF JESUS THE CHRIST--IT IS REFERRING TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.
We recognize that in eternity--all who come to The Father must come through Christ. We don't know precisely how God is going to do that vis a vis the children of Jacob currently running around loose.
I personally believe that ALL WHO SEEK GOD EARNESTLY--AS SCRIPTURE SAYS--WILL FIND HIM. I believe that's true for everyone on the planet whether pagan, atheist, Buddhist or whatever. Samuel Morris was saved after being sovereignly led of God by a visible light at night & a voice from God for two weeks to a mission compound in Africa. God will faithfully honor that word: THOSE WHO SEEK ME, SHALL FIND ME.
5. 'Israel of God' in Gal 6:16 means physical Israel alone.
I don't know of any rigid Dispy pontifications on that verse and phrase.
HOWEVER, IT IS PLAIN FROM THE CONTEXT AND WORDING THAT PAUL IS SPEAKING OF THE BLOOD CHILDREN OF JACOB. Else the distinction makes no sense.
Interestingly, the FULL STUDY BIBLE note asserts that phrase refers to: "all God's people under the new covenant, i.e. both believing Jews and believing Gentiles." And cross refs are cited: Ro 2:28-29; 9:7-8; Eph 2:14-22; Php 3:3; IPeter 2:9.
Personally, I think they are wrong. It doesn't rock my theology one way or the other. It doesn't have anything to do with Dispensationalism one way or the other.
In the first part of that verse, Paul says Peace and mercy to "all who follow this rule," Who would that logically be? The New Testament Church that he's writing to and helping oversee! Then HE ADDS--EVEN TO THE ISRAEL OF GOD.
Why the distinction? He wants God's Peace and Mercy extended to his former co-religionists--the Jews--the children of Jacob, as well! Nothing else makes much sense, to me.
On the whole, it doesn't matter. It certainly doesn't matter to Dispensationalism. Saved Israel and Saved Christians will all be Saved by Christ's Blood and submission to Him as Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
6. God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies: Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly).
UNMITIGATED NONSENSE. BALDERDASH. BEARING FALSE WITNESS AGAIN.
We believe that all the SAVED OF GOD--WHETHER BLOOD CHILDREN OF JACOB OR CHRISTIANS WILL BE TOGETHER RULING AND REIGNING WITH CHRIST--AFTER ARMAGEDDON IN THE NEW MILLENIUM AND AFTER THAT IN THE NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH. CHRISTIANS ARE GRAFTED INTO THAT CHILDREN OF JACOB FAMILY--INTO ISRAEL. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
7. The Church was born at Pentecost.
I don't know that THAT'S a very big issue to Dispies. Probably many Pentecostals would say--Yeah! Some might say it was born at the Resurrection. Some might say at The Last Supper. Some might say at Christ's Ascension. Pentecost is probably as likely a time to set as the beginning as any other, if not more so.
8. The Church was not prophesied as such in the O.T. but was a hidden mystery until the N.T.
Dispies would likely DISAGREE that the Church was not prophesied as such in the O.T. I suppose that "as such" would be a key phrase to pin down. I think all Pentecostal Dispies would insist that the church was predicted in some sense in the OT. I don't have a Scripture on the top of my mind to cite. I think a lot of that would be keyed to the Messiah prophecies in the OT. One doesn't imagine a Messiah without followers. I believe some of those prophecies would, to some Dispies, allude, at least, to the NT church.
9. All O.T. prophecies for 'Israel' are for literal Israel, not the Church.'
That's probably true or mostly true. It's at least overwhelmingly 99.998% true. None come to mind that I'd think otherwise about.
10. God's main purpose in history is literal Israel.
Yes and no. GOD'S MAIN PURPOSE IN HISTORY IS TO RETURN MAN TO FELLOWSHIP WITH HIM.
Christ was planned before the foundation of the world to do so. Israel was planned similarly to be God's CHOSEN family to bring that about through--and to garner folks to rule and reign with Christ via that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob family AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE GENTILES BROUGHT TO GOD THROUGH THAT FAMILY.
11. The Church is a parenthesis in God's program for the ages.
NONSENSE. UNMITIGATED BEARING FALSE WITNESS AGAIN.
The 24 elders in Revelation indicate both JEWISH PATRIARCHS AND THE DISCIPLES reigning in their respective places.
Dispies CERTAINLY construe CHRISTIANS GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL ALSO RULING AND REIGNING WITH CHRIST THROUGHOUT ENDLESS AGES ETC. AS JOINT HEIRS WITH CHRIST AND JOINT HEIRS OF ABRAHAM'S BLESSINGS ETC.
I guess it's safe to say we see Christians ruling and reigning with Christ as a grafted in part of Abraham's family without losing whatever fitting distinctives there are about being Christians saved as Christians first.
12. The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Isaac and literal Israel.
I think that's unmitigated balderdash again.
In sheer numbers alone, the Gentiles could be construed to, at some points at least, outnumber the children of Jacob. Certainly the children of Jacob will outnumber the stars and the grains of sand on the seashore. Will the children of the grafted in gentiles number larger numbers? I don't know. Scripture is silent. It's plausible. Currently, we outnumber the children of Jacob who choose The God of Abraham as their God.
Paul makes it pointedly clear--that those who think that Israel--who was blinded for the Gentiles' sake--will end up 2nd class Heavenly eternal citizens--THAT THAT CRAZY NOTION IS UTTERLY UNBIBLICAL, UNGODLY AND TRULY CRAZY--WON'T HAPPEN THAT WAY--WON'T BE THAT WAY. Israel will be pre-eminent in a sense.
Personally, I don't think that pre-eminence will be more than say a higher quality feather in their cap. We'll all be equal before Christ and The Cross as we rule and reign with Christ. Yet, Paul makes somewhat clear that Israel WILL HAVE their rightful priority place at the table in eternity and before God; in God's eyes. I think those points are made in Romans--Romans 11? I forget and am not looking it up before I go to bed.
13. There was no eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity.
What unmitigated balderdash. More bearing false witness, imho. Sheesh.
14. There was no Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden of Eden.
Maybe I'm too ignorant. I have no idea what that's referring to. I don't think Dispies deal with that at all, one way or the other. Adam and Eve blew it, dooming us all to the pollutions of sin. That's the main issue taken from The Garden. And that it was a dreadful loss to lose walking and communing with God in The Garden.
15. There was no Covenant of Grace concerning Adam. I suppose different Dispies might differ on that.
I'm Not sure what Covenantial folks teach about that . . . The Dispies I know believe that God gave Adam et al Grace according to GOD'S PATTERN FOR THAT ERA vs snuffing them all out.
16. Israel was rash to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.
WHAT UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH. MORE BEARING FALSE WITNESS. SHEESH. WHAT NONSENSE.
Dispies would never accuse anyone of being rash for accepting a covenant with God.
17. The 'New Covenant' of Jer. 31:31- 34 is only for literal Israel and is not the New Covenant of Lk.22:20.
MORE UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH AND BEARING FALSE WITNESS. SHEESH. WHAT A STINKING PILE OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS! GRRR.
All the Dispies I've ever heard of believe that Jeremiah and Luke are talking about the same covenant. Sheesh.
18. God's program in history is mainly through separate dispensations.
I don't know what is meant precisely by that but I think most Dispies would be inclined to disagree--particularly with "mainly." God's program is MAINLY through FAITH as Paul outlined in Hebrews.
Certainly we believe God made a covenant with Israel. And, that through Israel, Christ would come and redeem the Gentiles, too. We would probably assert two Covenants to some degree. Yet, most Dispies, I know of see the two covenants mostly as a continuum--a kind of seamless program of redemption through Christ.
19. Some Dispensationalists have said that O. T. sinners were saved by works.
Wrong in my experience. Most of the Dispies I know would cite Paul in Hebrews as emphasizing FAITH even in the OT.
20. Most Dispensationalists teach that men in the O.T. were saved by faith in a revelation peculiar to their dispensation, but this did not include faith in the Messiah as their sin-bearer.
I don't think that's necessarily so, at all. Dispies see Christ throughout the OT and the OT as pointing toward Christ's appearing and redeeming Israel AND the Gentiles. WE also see several OT incidents as Christ's appearing in the OT . . . such as the fiery furnace.
21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.
By the Jews IN THE OT TIMES? I think most Dispies would believe that Moses, himself, at the time of the serpents in the OT on the cross--would see that as a foreshadowing of the Messiah. Yet, on the whole, no, that was not, per se, an evident OT theme or teaching with anything close to the NT perspective.
22. The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the dispensation of Grace, not O.T. and not after the Rapture.
I think that's mostly inaccurate.
Dispies see Holy Spirit certainly indwelling the prophets of the OT as well as David and possibly Solomon when he was Godly. I think there are some other examples in the OT that aren't coming to mind at the moment.
Certainly most Dispies would agree that Holy Spirit did not indwell the common person in the OT.
They would probably be divided on whether Holy Spirit will indwell individuals after the Rapture. Scripture seems mostly silent on that and the wiser ones are similarly silent about it.
Some would talk about 'that which is removed' as being Holy Spirit. Others would disagree.
23. Jesus.made an offer of the literal Kingdom to Israel; since Israel rejected it, it is postponed.
That's probably close enough to what we believe.
24. O.T. believers were not in Christ, not part of the Body or Bride of Christ.
I don't know that most have an opinion on that. I can imagine that some would argue one side of that and others the other side. I believe that most would conclude that IN ETERNITY, ALL WOULD BE THE BRIDE OF CHRIST.
25. The Law has been abolished.
I don't believe most Dispies would teach or believe that, at all. Fulfilled is not the same as abolished. Some pointedly teach that the law of Love through Christ is MORE STRICT than the Mosaic law . . . love your enemies etc.
Welllllll, that's the quick review and responses. I think it's dreadful the degree to which the author of that mishmash got it all wrong.
Blessings,
Another related principle, that is very helpful in interpreting prophecy and apocalyptic literature in particular, is that the clear must interpret the unclear. In other words, a very specific interpretation of the highly symbolic visions of John's apocalypse, for example, may never “trump” the clear teachings of Paul's epistles, which are more didactic and less symbolic, and hence more clear. The “analogy of faith” is a reformed hermeneutical principle which states that, since all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions, therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. In other words, the “faith,” or body of doctrine, which the scriptures as a whole proclaim will not be contradicted in any way by any passage. Therefore, if two or three different interpretations of a verse are equally possible, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out from the beginning.
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.