Posted on 08/30/2002 5:23:25 PM PDT by xzins
Distinction between church, Israel, spiritual Israel, is very well presented and thought provoking.
Link to "Progressive Dispensationalism 101" click here
First, there is no proof that any Apostle used a Septugaint.
The Septuagint we have today is from Origen's 'fifth column' not a BC manuscript.
More importantly, if you remove the distinctions between the Church and Israel, you have removed the essential element in Dispensationalism.
The Church is unique in that it is Christ's body (Eph.1:26, Eph.5:30) and His Bride (Eph.5:23-27)
'Progressive' Dispensationalism is as wrong as 'HyperDispensationalism'.
I have lot of sympathy with this view, and believe most of the theological debates here and elsewhere are the result of giving human speculation more importance than clear Bible teaching.
My whole view of dispensationalsim is stated by Solomon:
Eccl. 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
To me, both dispensationalism and eschatology are mostly attempts to find out what God flatly tells us we cannot find out. Humanity is amazingly persistent in folly.
Hank
Unless they are simply trying to understand SCRIPTURE....the information that God has already revealed.
Any doctrine is necessarily going to be a construct. The issue is if the construct designers are willing to admit that it's their latest effort to understand how a variety of scriptures fit together.
As long as there's honesty, there's no problem. As soon as they start thinking their construct IS the Word of God, that's when they get off track.
As the old rule goes, "Generalizations should not be made; even this one." There are surely some doctrines that are so certain that they simply are true renderings of the Bible. We spoke yesterday of the doctrine of God, that God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit. INHO, that is beyond construct. So is the resurrection, incarnation, etc. This will cause some consternation as people push that list of irrefutable doctrines into areas beyond basic Christianity.
ftD, I understand the article to be saying differently that you have concluded. I see the article saying that the Church is NOT Israel. It draws clear distinctions between Church, Israel, and Spiritual Israel.
Spiritual Israel is not Israel, but they are Israelites. The Church incorporates Spiritual Israel but all believers are not part of Spiritual Israel....the Gentile believers are not Jewish. The eternal promises to Israel were made to believing Israel (Spiritual Israel) NOT to unbelievers. They were never intended for unbelievers, but they were intended for Jews.
This all seems to me a scripturally logical way to approach the issue.
As mentioned to Hank, though, it's important to distinguish between a construct and a certainty. This is not at the level of a doctrinal certainty. It is a construct.
I hear it said that the Bereans searched the Greek OT for validation of what Paul said -- but would the Bereans, who were so interested in the truth that they went to the official record, not go to the "original" documents, particularly since some of those Bereans were also Jews who knew Hebrew as well as Greek.
I wonder if the real Greek translation of the OT did not originate in Berea after Paul's visit, and only pieces of unreliable translations were available before along with the myths of the LXX.
There is no proof that a BC Septuagint even existed.
The only BC evidence of the Septuagint we have are some fragments from the Torah.
All other manuscripts are A.D.
Thus, the exact readings that one can find in the Septuagint of the New Testament are 'exact' because the translator (Origen) had the New Testament in front of him and simply copied the New Testament back into the Septuagint translation to make them match. This is from Watson's article on the Apocrypha,
The only manuscripts we posses of the Septuagint are of Christian origin from the 4th and 5th centuries so they are not necessarily reflective of the Jews of Alexandria at all.
For more information you can go to
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv1.htm
This link has a discussion between Augustine and Jerome about translating the Vulgate from the Hebrew and not the Greek Septuagint.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html
Below is what the Progressives say about the Church
Traditional dispensationalists use the word 'Church' to distinguish believers between Pentecost and the rapture from all other saints. This contemporary dispensational meaning is absolutely contrary to biblical and historical usage. The Greek word 'eklessia' is NOT used in the Bible exclusively of New Testament believers. Steven referred to Israel as "the church in the wilderness" in Acts 7:38. The writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 22:22 (from the LXX), and used the Greek word 'eklessia' for congregation [Heb. 2:12]. Furthermore, the LXX - Greek translation (200BC) of the OT used by the Apostles and the early Christians - uses the word 'eklessia' many times in reference to the people of God in the Old Testament. Therefore, the early Christians who used this translation would NOT see this word as having exclusively post-Pentecost / pre-rapture connotations!
The reading as regards to Dispensationalism must go back to Paul, since to him and to him alone was the mystery of the Church revealed (Eph.3).
No matter what word was being used for church before Paul, after Paul it had a different connotation, that is a body of believers who were both Jews and Gentiles, thus a different group.
This uniqueness will go into eternity, since we have a different inheritance then any other group of saints and are married to Christ (Rev.19) (If everyone is the 'Church' they should therefore be the 'bride' then what would be John the Baptist be since he was just a 'friend of the bridegroom' but not the Bride.(Jn.3:29)
Progressive dispensationalists see the word 'church' (when used in the universal sense) in the biblical and historical context. Therefore, the universal 'Church' today is all saints of all ages, and includes ALL who's names are written in heaven [Heb. 12:23].
You can call everyone 'Church' (a Convenant designation) but they are not the church, the body of Christ (Eph.1:26) and His Bride (Eph.5:23-25)
Some, no doubt, will object that Jesus referred to "my Church" in the future tense [Matt. 16:18]. This is true. However, the building of Jesus' 'Church' is in reference to the Old Testament believers being brought under the blood of Christ after the crucifixion [Heb. 9:15]. The very first act of Jesus after His crucifixion was to gather the OT saints into the New Covenant. This occurred prior to Pentecost. Both Jew and Gentile from all dispensations must be brought under the New Covenant in order to partake of eternal life. The 'Church,' from a New Testament perspective, includes all saints who possess eternal salvation. Paul wrote of "those in heaven" (OT saints) and "those on earth" (NT saints of the first century) as being joined together "in Christ" [Eph. 1:9,10]. That this joining of both the Old Testament and New Testament saints had already occurred when Paul wrote is seen from his use of the present tense when referring to this united group of saints as "the whole family" in both heaven and earth named after Christ [Eph. 3:14,15].
Oh, no, that is totally bogus!
The church age believer is adopted into the family(Paul is the only one that uses that term,)(Rom.8:15) his body is made the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Cor.3:16) and brought into Union with Christ (Jn.17), which never happened to any Old Testament Saint.
This is from the Scofield notes:
That the Gentiles were to be saved was no mystery Romans 9:24-33; Romans 10:19-21. The mystery "hid in God" was the divine purpose to make of Jew and Gentile a wholly new thing--"the church, which is his Christ's body," formed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit 1 Corinthians 12:12,13 and in which the earthly distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears ; Ephesians 2:14,15; Colossians 3:10,11. The revelation of this mystery, which was foretold, but not explained by Christ Matthew 16:18 was committed to Paul. In his writings alone we find the doctrine, position, walk, and destiny of the church.
Amen!!
m
Maranatha!
Yes, it's the quickest way to make people comfortable with Non-Scriptural doctrine.
There are many attacks on dispensationalism, and most of the attackers don't understand what they are attacking. - It all smells like Israel-replacement in some form or other. - Really no better than 'British Israel' or any other form of replacement.
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.