Posted on 05/31/2024 3:27:35 AM PDT by Cronos
/-)
Agreed! Can you explain what you mean by Dual Covenant?
Nevertheless, over the many decades, starting early in the 19th century, the “dual covenant.
\/
there is no dual covenant
quit putting words in our mouth
typical of false teachers
im out.
if i missunderstood your point i aplogize.
I can imagine that some hard-core, non Jesus believing Jews, would rebuild the temple and attempt to restart sacrifices.
And it would be worth nothing, except to amplify that their attempts do not work, they do not bring Holiness or forgiveness.
Then those Jews who recognize this will see the answer is the real Jesus, the rest will double down on their temple and sacrifices.
This is my imagination, that’s all.
That's just the label I apply to the false teaching (promoted by Darby and popularized by Scofield, etc.) that there are "two peoples of God" -- i.e., (1) Israelites/Jews, to whom the Old Covenant continues to apply even after the Cross, and thus who are reconciled to God under the Old Covenant; and (2) Gentiles, who are reconciled to God by the finished work of Christ on the Cross.
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”Jesus Christ institutes the New Covenant in establishing his Church, which restores and fulfills the kingdom of Israel (Luke 1:32-33; Matt. 16:18-19; see Gal. 6:14-16). Jesus fulfills the Old Covenant through his one redemptive Sacrifice of Calvary, which provides definitive atonement for our sins, and then by sending the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, which applies the merits of Christ’s Sacrifice, beginning with the baptism of the Jewish faithful (Acts. 37-42)
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes the passage verbatim in chapter 8, and then in chapter 9 describes the differences between the High Priest of the Old Covenant and the High Priest of the New, concluding:
Not only is the Jeremiah prophecy pointing to a prophecy which will be fulfilled by a Messiah, it points to the Messiah fulfilling the prophecy by providing the New Covenant.
Modern Anabaptists originated in the 16th century as a group known as the Swiss Brethren. They rejected infant baptism and promoted a belief in pacifism. Pacifism is a central tenant of their faith. They do not accept the Baptist doctrine of justification by faith alone but rather a belief in a “living faith” of good works and discipleship. The most traditional descendants include the Amish and Mennonites. Their view of the Bible includes the belief that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. They believe in a separation from the world which is why Old Order Amish reject having electricity in their homes.
Baptists originated as an offshoot of Puritanism. While they too reject infant baptism, they do not share in the belief of pacifism
we gentiles are grafted into Israel - Israel is no longer just the genetic descendants of Abraham, but his spiritual descendants
Who said Israel was only genetic?
So we Gentiles are grafted into Believing Israel and believing Judah and get to partake of this “New Covenant”?
Correct
Yes…so why are you denying Jesus coming back to judge the earth and Rule and Reign with believing Israel?
I certainly believe in the judgment and Christ’s rule and reign on the new earth with believing “Israel”. I just don’t believe your dispensational interpretation of events.
“Israel” is all believers in Christ, from Adam to the last person saved on this wicked earth until the second coming of Christ.
The Apostle Paul was the original dispensationalist. Do you disagree with his dispensation?
Only a dispensationalist would believe that Paul was a dispensationalist, which he was not. He wasn’t one and certainly didn’t teach anything even remotely resembling it.
You don’t understand who “Israel” is.
As a reformer, do you baptize your babies? Advocate state sponsored homicide for those who disagree with you?
No, do you?
I believe God’s dealings with the unbelieving Jewish people now, and during the coming tribulation period, are a fulfillment to what Jesus said in Matthew 23…”you won’t see me again until you say ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’”
As the Prophet Zechariah also prophesied…
Zechariah 12: 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Yes, well, here is where I would indeed part ways with your eschatological outlook. My reference to the "dual covenant" -- which I, of course, reject; God has only ever had one people -- comes from what Dispensationalist adherents like Darby and Larkin and Scofield believed. That's simply a fact of history, as can be evidenced by what they themselves wrote. Thereafter, through the course of the 20th century, Dispensationalists largely shed most of the trappings of their own aberrant (indeed, heretical) theology, until the only part of the Dispensationalist dog that is now left is its eschatological tail.
Along the way, those who continued to embrace Dispensationalist End Times thinking tweaked their eschatological outlook by retrofitting it with various proof-texts (including the ones you've cited here), changes intended to establish that, "oh, no, Jews aren't saved apart from the Cross; we're not saying anything that. Rather, at the end of, or at some point during, the (mythical) Great Tribulation, those Jews who have managed to survive said Great Tribulation, will all come to faith, corporately, in Jesus. So, see? No heresy here!"
Okay, except that I think that this Rube Goldberg retrofit is wholly without basis in Scripture itself. I wouldn't myself divide with a brother or sister in Christ over this matter, its not being an essential of the faith and its being of secondary or tertiary importance at best. But I do reject Dispensational eschatology as being errant nonsense, propagated most fervently in recent times by Bible "teachers" whose "ministry" in this regard is more in the nature of a grift or a racket. To sell books or to drive a particular latter day geo-political agenda. I mean, you haven't lived until you've heard -- as I did this past October -- a former Hindu woman who moved to Israel, married an Israeli, and converted to Judaism, explain in a Twitter/X video how Christians must read Romans 11:26, or else risk falling into the error of "Replacement Theology." So, get out there and support the modern nation-state of Israel, and the Likud Party, no matter what. Yeah, no.
I won't otherwise argue the finer points of the matter with you, as I'm confident in my own position and am willing to rest on "we must agree to disagree." I would point out, however, that while I'm well familiar with the Dispensationalist invocation of Zechariah 12:10 as a key proof-text of this supposed End Times mass conversion, as it were, of the Jews corporately, I've always found it curious that the apostle Paul, writing in Romans 11:26, that "all Israel will be saved" -- another, of course, of the Dispensationalists' proof-texts -- does not at that point reference the aforementioned Zechariah 12:10. And this, even though, as he continues in verse 26, he specifically adds "as it is written. . . ." Rather, Paul cites, and stiches together, two other snippets from Isaiah . . . while quoting the LXX version of the same at an interesting point. Cf. "The Deliver will come from Zion" (LXX) with "A Redeemer will come to Zion." (MT)
I would have imagined that, if Zechariah 12:10 is indeed the Old Testament passage that speaks to this End Times mass conversion that Dispensationalists foresee for the Jews, the apostle Paul would have cited it right then and there. But he does not. He never cites Zechariah 12:10 in any of his epistles. Did he not know his Old Testament as well as the crooked American lawyer, C.I. Scofield? Very curious.
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.