Conference yukon::christian_v7

Eschaton

Israel and the Church

Jack Van Deventer

[Image]

[M] odern premillennialism teaches that God has not one, but two separate
    peoples of God, Israel and the Church. This teaching, known as
dispensationalism, was developed in the 1830's by J.N. Darby. Darby,
seeking to legitimize his newly created rapture theory and its two "second
comings," divided up the Bible into passages for Israel and the Church.[1]
According to traditional dispensationalism, Jesus came to deliver the
kingdom to the Jews, but the Jews rejected Him and caused Him to die on the
cross. Thus, Christ's death on the cross was not part of God's plan.[2] As
a result, the coming of the kingdom was postponed until the second coming
of Christ and is not present today except in "mystery form."[3] Christ"s
rejection caused a "parenthesis" in time in which the "prophetic clock"
stopped ticking.[4] Because the Jews rejected the Messiah, God created the
Church as a Plan B that dispensationalists claim was wholly unanticipated,
even by the Old Testament prophets.[5]

The implications of dispensationalism as historically put forth may
surprise those who have been taught this form of premillennialism.
According to dispensationalism, the millennium is fundamentally Jewish in
nature such that the Jews will be "exalted above the Gentiles."[6] The
Gentiles will "be on the lowest level" in Christ's rule.[7] In addition,
despite Christ's ultimate sacrifice as "the lamb of God who takes away the
sin of the world," dispensationalism teaches that the sacrificial system
will be reinstituted![8]

Regarding dispensationalism's distinctive doctrine that Israel and the
Church are two separate peoples of God, it should first be noted that such
teaching is a radical departure from historic Christianity. According to
Gerstner, "[H]istorically speaking, this dispensational denial of the unity
of Israel and the church represents a surprising novelty. From the earliest
period of Christian theology onward, the essential continuity of Israel and
the church has been maintained. This historic doctrine of the church is
based on both the clear implication of Old Testament texts and the clear
teaching of the New Testament."[9] For example, early Church fathers such
as Papias, Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, and Justin Martyr believed that the
Church inherited God's promises to Israel.[10]

Christ's death was not an unfortunate accident brought on by the
unanticipated rejection by the Jews. On the contrary, speaking of the
cross, Jesus said "But for this purpose I came to this hour" (John 12:27).
The Church is not a parenthesis lying between God's two dealings with
national Israel, but rather the Church is the body of Christ and is
therefore the "fullness of God" (Eph. 1:22,23).[11] Rather than being
entirely future, the kingdom is a present and growing reality (Matt. 12:28;
Col. 1:13). Contrary to dispensational claims, the Church was very much a
part of God's plan from the beginning. Romans 9:22-26 (which cites Hosea
1:10) states that the children of Israel, both Jews and Gentiles, will be
as the sand of the sea, too numerous to measure or number. That the
Gentiles would be included among God's people was God's plan even before
the cross (see Amos 9:11 and Acts 15:16-17).

As Provan points out, the Bible uses the same terms to describe both Israel
and the Church, proving that those of the household of faith are one and
the same. Both are called the beloved of God, the children of God, the
field of God, the flock of God, the house of God, the people of God, the
vineyard of God, the wife of God, the children of Abraham, the chosen
people, and the circumcised.[12] This presents a dilemma for the
dispensationalists. Does God have two chosen peoples? two flocks? two
wives? The Bible is clear on this point, "There is neither Jew nor Greek...
for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).

The fact that Jewish names such as "children of Abraham" and "the
circumcised" are used to describe the Church further accentuates the
reality of the church as spiritual Israel. Indeed, Christians are called
"the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). Whereas Israel was to be "a kingdom of
priests and a holy nation," now to the church God says, "But you are a
chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special
people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of
darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now
the people of God" (1 Pet. 2:9-10).

The Jews rejected Christ, shouting, "Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify
Him!" and "We have no king but Caesar!" (John 19:15). Anticipating this
rejection, Jesus warned them in parable that "the kingdom of God will be
taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it" (Matt.
21:43). In condemnation He warned that upon them would "come all the
righteous blood shed on the earth" (Matt. 23:35) and that this judgment
would happen "upon this generation" (Matt. 23:36). This prophecy was
fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was laid waste by armies under Roman
command and the temple was destroyed such that not one stone was left upon
another (Matt. 24:2).

The rejection of the Jews will not be permanent, however. As the gospel
spreads and the nations are discipled, the Jews will respond in faith when
the "fullness of the Gentiles" takes place (Romans 11:25). Genetic Israel
will be converted to Christ and this conversion will be a great blessing to
the world (Romans 11:11-12, 15, 23-27).

                             [________________]

                       Credenda/Agenda Vol. 7, No. 4

[Image]

    
    Mike,
    
    One pre-trib reference among the many Church Fathers who did not share
    such a view does not grant the view legitimacy, especially biblical
    legitimacy.  And I'm pretty confident in saying that it is very
    unlikely that Darby's dispensationalism (in total rather than the
    "rapture" facet) was much like the Syrian's.
    
    In any case, those church authorities (councils) over the ages which
    have, by the power of the Holy Spirit, led us into new knowledge of
    biblical doctrines, none of them have ever presented the idea of
    dispensationalism.  In fact their doctrines have always made such a
    system of interpretation as dispensationalism impossible.
    
    jeff

>First, in Revelation we have clear evidence that John is writing to
>particular, historic, individual churches that existed in his day.
>Revelation 1:4 provides a common salutation: "John to the seven churches
>which are in Asia: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from him which is, and
>which was, and which is to come." In verse 11 he specifically names the
>seven churches to whom he speaks: "What you see, write in a book and send
>it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to
>Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea." We
>know these names to be those of historical cities containing literal
>churches existing in the first century.
    
    fwiw - the church at Philadelphia is the only one that still exists.
    
>Furthermore, in Revelation 1:3 we read: "Blessed [is] he that readeth, and
>they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are
>written therein." The members of the churches to whom Revelation was
>addressed are expected to read, understand, and keep the directives in
>Revelation. John's message (ultimately from Christ, Rev. 1:1) calls upon
    
    I think this promise also applies to us today as we study this book.
    
>Nero and Nero alone fits the bill as the specific or personal expression of
>the Beast. This vile character fulfills all the requirements of the
>principles derived from the very text of Revelation itself. Those
>principles are particularly abundant in Revelation 13. Notice:
    
    Nero was emperor from 54-68 A.D.  God gave John Revelation around 90
    A.D. on Patmos.  God doesn't inspire prophecy that's already been
    fulfilled.  It's a shame that this writer turns Revelation into a
    history book.  As Revelation says, the testimony of Christ is prophecy,
    not history.
    
    Mike

    Well Jeff, as the article states, this doesn't prove the legitimacy of
    the doctrine.  It proves that it was taught long before Darby.  To say
    Darby started it is false.  To say it was never taught by the early
    church is also false.
    
    Mike

    
    To say that one Syrian's beliefs represented the early Church is a
    simplistic statement of Church history.  The dogma of the early Church
    was developed and sanctioned, in a way completely foreign to most 
    Protestants today, via councils.  Doctrines were accepted as Biblical
    doctrines and errors were condemned as unbiblical.  Premillenial
    dispensationalism was never a doctrine reflected in any creed or
    confession and it could not have been because it's acceptance would have 
    contradicted so many clear biblical doctrines already established.
    
    jeff
    

    Well Jeff, it wasn't just the Syrian.  There are several more examples
    available from Tommy Ice and Grant Jeffries at the Pre-Trib Research
    Center.
    
    Mike

    
    Yes, Mike, I'm sure there are several more examples.  And if you want
    me to concede the point, which the author would too, I'm certain, that
    the premillenial conception of a rapture can be found in history, then
    I will.
    
    It is true, however, that the premillenial rapture is only a facet,
    albeit an important one, of dispensationalism.  It is the theology of
    dispensationalism, which allows several millenial schemes, that is not 
    to be found in the doctrinal history of the Church before Darby.
    
    jeff

    Hmm,
    
    I've been rather quiet recently ;') but...
    
    'Dispensationalism', believe it or not, is a doctrine implicitly
    believed by *every* Christian.
    
    trust me.
    
    A "Dispensation" is basically a time when God deals (seemingly to us)
    in a differnt manner with mankind.
    
    We can delineate at least _two_ dispensations in the Bible. The Time
    before Christ (covered by the Old Testament - 'The Law') and the Time
    subsequent to Christ's incarnation (covered by the New Testament).
    
    After Christ's return (leave it for the moment just _what_ that means),
    there is the time after the 'heavens and the earth are destroyed and a
    new heaven and earth are created) [assuming a fairly literal
    interpretation of the Bible] we have another 'dispensation'. Three so
    far.
    
    If we accept a 'literal' interpratation, then the 'millenium' (the 1000
    year reighn of Jesus on the Earth before the destruction of this earth,
    and its' subsequent re-creation - mentioned above), gives us a 'forth'
    'dispensation'.
    
    If we go back to the Old Testament, we can see that there was a change
    in the way God dealt with mankind at 'the Fall'. So there was a
    'dispensation' before the 'Fall'. That's five ;')
    
    Things changed again at the time of the Noahic Flood, so there's one
    between the 'Fall' and the 'Flood' - that's six. We can see a change
    _again_ between the time just after the 'Flood' and the time of the
    giving of the 'Law' to Moses. 
    
    So, in 'chronological order' we have...
    
    Creation of man - the Fall
    the Fall - the Flood
    the Flood - the giving of the Law
    the giving of the Law - the time of Christ
    the time of Christ - His return to reign on earth
    His reign on earth - the detruction of heavens and earth
    Eternity 'future'
    
    The question is, "are these valid interpretations of the Bible?"
    
    Some say 'no', others say 'yes', and many many others say either 'huh?'
    or 'who cares?'.
    
    As for the argument that it is a doctrine that hasn't been taught
    consistently through the majority of the church through the ages; it's
    a good thing for many of us that Martin Luther didn't acceed to that
    line in relation to the 'Justification by Faith' stand that he took.
    
    btw - there are extreme dispensationalists who will break history down
    even further :'/
    
    Now - the thing that this whole discussion really hinges on is 'how
    literally do we interpret the Bible?'
    
    Before we go off dicussing the 'finer points' of dispensationalism, we
    need to determine if we a starting with the 'same interpretation'. I
    suspect we are not. And if that is the case, we should agree to
    disagree, because an item that is 'essential to the case' on one side,
    will be dismissed as 'mere background noise' by the other.
    
    Harry

    no problem, Jeff.  I hear this Darby stuff all the time and it needs to
    be corrected.  He may have propagated the concept, but he most
    certainly didn't originate it.
    
    There are several doctrines embraced today that weren't embraced by the
    early church (i.e., that's what the Reformation was for).  There are
    also some embraced then that aren't embraced today (again the
    Reformation is an example).  Paul said it best when it comes to early
    church doctrine: all things are lawful, not all things are profitable.
    
    As for a historical Revelation, one major problem that jumps off the
    page right away is the Second Coming of Christ.  The book ends with it
    and as far as I know, it hasn't happened yet.  I'm sure several more
    problems are exposed when one takes the time to do a in-depth survey.
    
    Mike

    Harry,  we've missed you!  (I'm back from the supper break, still
    waiting for a job to finish).

    However, I don't see a big difference in the way God has related to 
    humanity throughout the ages.  He has always been just, merciful,
    slow to anger, showing faithful, loving kindness.  He has always 
    wanted us to to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him, 
    our God.  The plan for Messiah was laid before the foundations of 
    the earth were created.  The entire Bible shows us His great mercy
    and love in giving us choice and in giving us the Messiah so that
    we might be redeemed to abundant life and to Him, our Lord.

    Leslie

    Hi Leslie,
    
    I didn't say that He did deal differntly, just that from our point of
    view it can (and does) appear different ;')
    
    GBY,
    
    H
    
    p.s. I have to get my act together and send you (and Steve McC) some
    mail - got some questions ;')

Folks,

Having been extensively taught the dispensational theology in all of the
non-Reformed, evangelical churches I have attended since becoming a Christian,
I have come to reject it completely as unbiblical and thus completely
inadequate as a system for understanding the Bible.  I believe many of you,
if not all, share the confusion, which such a system creates, in attempting
to understand the whole counsel of God (both OT and NT).  The following
item is *the primary reason* the confusion exists.

>[M] odern premillennialism teaches that God has not one, but two separate
>    peoples of God, Israel and the Church. This teaching, known as
>dispensationalism, was developed in the 1830's by J.N. Darby.... 
>...divided up the Bible into passages for Israel and the Church.[1]
>According to traditional dispensationalism, Jesus came to deliver the
>kingdom to the Jews, but the Jews rejected Him and caused Him to die on the
>cross. Thus, Christ's death on the cross was not part of God's plan.[2] As

The idea that there are two peoples of God, that is, dispensationalism as
taught by Darby and then adopted by most evangelicals, causes more confusion,
ignorance, and misunderstanding of Scripture than any other single thing,
in my opinion.  I remember my own experience, mostly private and never sure
of it's cause, of agonizing over the incredible logical and biblical 
inconsistency in viewing OT Israel and the NT Church as two groups basically
serving two different Gods, Jehovah and Christ.  And since Christ is the
fullness of what was going on with Israel, then the OT became virtually
an obsolete record and Jehovah an enigma.  Therefore the abundance of the
record of God's revelation to humanity (the OT) was virtually unpreached,
untaught, and largely irrelevant except to prove some dispensational
point.  This never seemed right to me because of the logical conclusion
that God was not one, acting in perfect agreement and consistency, as one
would expect of God and as God described Himself in the OT and in the NT.

The day I heard about the "whole counsel of God" and the complete seamlessness
of the OT and NT, as one would expect, was the day I shouted praises to God.
The inconsistencies of dispensationalism fell away and my knowledge of Christ
and thus spiritual growth began to blossom again in a fabulous way.  

I urge each of you to first simply begin to read the OT just as you would 
read the NT, seeking the knowledge and grace of God in all texts.  Secondly 
I urge you to identify, in writing ideally, those gnawing inconsistencies
you have had intellectual and spiritual glimpses of over the years.  Then
I ask you to hold those inconsistencies up and test them against this question,
"If I discard the dispensational system's idea that says God has two different
groups of people, Israel and the Church, and instead see God's people as one
throughout history, does it alleviate at all this apparent inconsistency?"
Pray that God will assist you, as He most certainly will.  Use the very good
points in .0 which pretty much reflect and point to most of the inconsistencies
I encountered. I pray that all Christians everywhere, but especially here 
among so many I have known and loved over the years, would be free of the 
ignorance, and confusion, and inability to really live in Christ, which is 
the result of the unbiblical, premillenial dispensational system.

    jeff

    I don't see how you can assume that other people aren't experiencing an
    abundant life in Christ through the Word because they have a different
    view than you on a minor doctrine.
    
    Mike

  This is one of those things that I figure I'll have eternity in which to
 gain a better understanding.  In the meantime, I have family, friends and
 neighbors who need to hear what Jesus did for them.



 Jim

    .16
    
    Amen Jimbo.  You know, what it really all boils down to is what is your
    relationship with Jesus?  Is it casual, is it intimate, or is it
    non-existant.  How much of Jesus sticks out of you?  :-) :-)
    
    Love ya,
    Nancy
    

re.10

> Creation of man - the Fall
>    the Fall - the Flood
>    the Flood - the giving of the Law
>    the giving of the Law - the time of Christ
>    the time of Christ - His return to reign on earth
>    His reign on earth - the detruction of heavens and earth
>    Eternity 'future'

Okay Harry, I'm convinced. It makes perfect biblical and logical sense.

Regards,
Ace
    

>    I don't see how you can assume that other people aren't experiencing an
>    abundant life in Christ through the Word because they have a different
>    view than you on a minor doctrine.
    
>    Mike

Mike,  Dispensationalism is a theological system, not a minor doctrine, for 
interpreting all of the Bible.  If the system is bad, the interpretation is
bad.  If the interpretation is bad, the conclusions are bad.  If the 
conclusions are bad, one can hardly grow in the knowledge of the truth, which
is the path to obedience to Christ's commands and to holiness.

My exhortation is to those who do share my experience which I expect to be
a significant number of evangelicals considering the commonality of our
natures, thoughts, and experiences in the evangelical church.  There is a
whole new world in the Bible, the whole Bible, which is apparent when one
discards dispensationalism.  The primary feature is the continuity of
God's revelation and its consistency!!  After all, our desire is to grow
in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Our Christ is present
and speaking in all of Scripture!

jeff

    Well Jeff, part of my testimony includes your same view of the Bible. 
    I included it in my latest paper posted in here this week.  I know
    several people who hold the same view inside and outside of my church. 
    I haven't met a Calvary Chapel pastor yet that doesn't share a similar
    view.  All of these people would reject the papers you posted.  
    
    It was amazing to me as well just how many contradictions disappeared 
    when adopting this view.  Any apparent contradictions that surface now 
    are a result of *our* misunderstanding, yet they usually contain a 
    surprise for the diligent student.  The bottomline is that there are
    solid Christian people in both camps that hold the same view of God's
    Holy Word.  Your camp doesn't have a monopoly on the view of scripture 
    or the validity of dispensationalism.
    
    "The most important discovery of my life was the insight that the Bible 
    is a highly *integrated message system.*  We possess 66 books, penned by 
    40 authors over thousands of years, yet the more we investigate, the more 
    we discover that they are a unified whole.  Every word, every detail, 
    every number, every place and name, every subtlety of the text: the 
    elemental structures within the text itself, even the implied punctuation 
    are clearly the result of intricate and skillful supernatural 
    'engineering.'  The more we look, the more we realize that there is still 
    much more hidden and thus reserved for the diligent inquirer.  The 
    evidence of design is clearly obvious even in the acrostics hidden 
    throughout the Bible.  *ALL* Scripture is given by inspiration and is 
    profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and correction.  It is amazing how 
    apparent contradictions disappear when you realize what we hold in our 
    hands.  We haven't begun to discover the detail, the power, and the 
    majesty of God's handiwork.  Would you expect anything less in the Word 
    of God Himself?"
    
    Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    We are not speaking the same language.  But my intent is not to
    convince *you* but to help those who cannot live with the biblical and
    logical inconsistencies found in modern biblical teaching, which is
    primarily a result of dispensationlist theology.  
    
    So again I exhort folks to read .0 closely, especially the clear
    contradictions it exposes, and to pray for God's opening of eyes and
    ears.  There is a God to know who is shrouded by the system of
    interpretation (theology) being used today.  And there are fabulous
    resources available to lead one out of the fog and into a greater
    vision of the truth.  Please contact me off-line if you are interested.
    
    jeff

      Mike, what you quoted, which is from your paper, right?, is
      EXCELLENT.
    
      Man, when you realize it is the word of God!
    
      Its like - WOW!
    
      THE WORD OF GOD!!!!	
    
      TOTALLY AWESOME!

    Jeff, what do you think of Harry's list of dispensations?

    Hmmm...
    
    re: 'theological systems' and 'methods of interpretation'.
    
    it would seem to me that our method of interpretation should be decided
    _first_. i.e. should we assume that we 'when the literal sense of the
    Bible makes sense' we should accept that? In a way, it's sort of a
    'theological "Occam's Razor"' ;') Which simpler hypothesis fits the
    facts 'better'?
    
    Now sure, we do not agree on what the 'facts' are. Which is why we need
    to make sure we have similar (I doubt two people could ever have "the
    same") interpretations.
    
    As far as possible, I _try_ (I don't always succeeed) in setting my
    interpretation 'ground rules' first, and _then_ seeing what the Bible
    tells me. When I've come to passages that contradict previous (mis-)
    conceptions, I've had to change my ideas. Not always too willingly
    either :'/
    
    As for "someone's" (sorry forgot the name) comment about 'logical and
    biblical... I'm convinced'. *I*'m horrified!!!
    
    I produced no Scriptural backing for my statements at all. I alluded to
    Scripture, I admit, but there is not a single reference in there!
    
    *** Harry slaps his forehead and mutters "Oy vey!"
    
    Back to the topic, we are delving into areas of eschatology*, and often
    times our thinking on this subject is colo[u]red by our Christian past,
    and more particularly our method of interpretation.
    
    If you take a 'more literal' interpretative method, you will _tend_
    towards a literal millenial, possibly dispensational (all be it
    vaguely) view of Scripture.
    
    If you adopt a more 'symbolic' interpretation, then there is the
    tendency to steer away from things such as literal millenia.
    
    Extremes on _both_ types are "not good". There are times when a
    symbolic interpretation needs to be applied, and there are times when
    the literal interpretation is desirable.
    
    I think 'balance' can help. Although I prefer the term 'synthesis'.
    This is, however, not something I would recommend to a 'young
    Christian' ;')
    
    H
    
    * a pastor once told me that I could 'earn 10 points' by being able to
    drop that word into a conversation ;')

    Hi Mike,
    
>    Jeff, what do you think of Harry's list of dispensations?
    
    I think they reflect roughly the theology of dispensationalism and
    therefore reject their underlying premise completely as it leads to the
    unbiblical conclusions identified in .0 which leads to ignorance,
    confusion, frustration, and neglect of the Word of God - our very
    sustenance.
    
    jeff

re.24

>As for "someone's" (sorry forgot the name) comment about 'logical and
>    biblical... I'm convinced'. *I*'m horrified!!!
    
>   I produced no Scriptural backing for my statements at all. I alluded to
>    Scripture, I admit, but there is not a single reference in there!

Harry,

I confess it was me. I also confess that I was already convinced. 8*) 8*)
Don't give yourself too much credit but don't beat yourself up either. 
What you stated was logical. It is also accurate according to the
Biblical revelation. You did not originate this teaching, you merely 
summarized the revelation which God gave someone else. 

Now stop being "horrified" and save being horrified for something really
horrible!  8*) 8*)

Laters,
Ace 
    

    I guess if dispensations are wrong, then all the non-dispensationalist
    churches should be continuing Hebrew traditions such as celebrating the
    Feasts of Israel.  They can't be any different because the Bible never
    clears us of this responsibility.  Also in Zechariah 14:4,9,16-21 we
    read about the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacle in the Messianic
    Kingdom.  Good thing the non-dispensationalists are remembering the
    feasts now so they won't look like tourists then.
    
    Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    The Law and all of its observances were only tools used by God to
    reveal His Messiah, Jesus.  The Law looks forward trusting in the 
    Messiah's death and resurrection as we today look backward trusting in 
    the Messiah's death and resurrection.  All of the Bible is about Jesus
    and there has never been any salvation outside of Him at any time.
    When Jesus sent the Holy Spirit and led the disciples into all truth,
    we have in the Bible the fullness of revelation which dispels the 
    mysteries of the Law and Prophets, which all point to Jesus and God's
    Salvation by grace.
    
    jeff

    I know, Jeff, but the feasts aren't part of the Law.  Everything you
    say is correct.  The "Law" actually consists of 613 laws, none of which
    have to do with observing the Feasts of Israel.  Hope you're practicing
    and getting ready for the millenial kingdom.
    
    Mike

    In case you're wondering why I even brought up the Feasts, one of the 
    reasons is that a lot of non-dispensationalist writings I've read are laced
    with anti-Semitic remarks.  Some folks, like LaRondelle, come right out
    and admit that they harbor anti-Semitic prejudices.  I view this as
    hypocritical for a group that views us all as 1 people under God.  It's
    virtually impossible to claim to be a Christian and harbor anti-Semitic
    tendencies.  Your Savior was a Jew!
    
    Another reason, as stated, is that scripture never releases us from the
    observances of the Feasts.  Christ also celebrated them, why shouldn't
    we?  Again, it's hard for those who harbor anti-Semitic tendencies to
    have to participate in Jewishness.  In this respect,
    non-dispensationalists are a walking paradox.
    
    Mike

>scripture never releases us from the observances of the Feasts.

It doesn't?

/john

      I've said this before and I'll say it again!!!
    
      Dispensationalism started at least with Trent.  For a historical
      overview, the Protestant reformation was in full swing and the
      church of Rome knew it lacked the power to do what it previously
      tried to do - completely destroy it.
    
      At this time, the Reformers were 100% consistent about a certain
      thing.  The little horn of Daniel was the papacy and 1260 marked
      1260 years of persecution.  They believed they were at the tail
      end of this 1260 years.
    
      Trent, among other things, wished for scripture to LOOK AWAY from
      Rome.  How?  Well, Alchazzar came up with a prophetic scheme known
      as preterism.  In other words, place 1260 and all of Revelation
      BEFORE the inception of the church of Rome as a power.
    
      Riberra came up with FUTURISM.  Place the prophecies far into the
      future so that 1260 could not be identified with Rome during her
      time as a persecutor for 1260 had not occured yet.  Riberra was
      the one to break off the 70th week from the 69th and place two
      1260 days as components of the 70th.
    
      Futurism sort of sat dormant, but some Protestants embraced this
      child of Rome.
    
      My conviction regarding eschatology is this...
    
      Time prophecies have a historicist application.  1260, 70 weeks, 
      1290, 1330, 2300...they all have fits where a prophetic day equals
      a literal year.
    
      BUT, I believe there is an endtime fit where:
    
      1) The time duration does not apply.
    
      2) Spiritual themes do apply.
    
      There is an endtime 1260 days.  An endtime 40 day experience such as
      the apostles had before being filled with the Spirit.  An endtime 3
      day crosslike exp.  (see Ezra 10 as a real good ex./also Hosea 6:1-3.)
    
      I very much doubt Darby mentioned this aspect, i.e. the history of 
      Rome's support and proselytizing of dispensationalism.
    
    						Tony

    
    
    	RE: .1
    
    	I'm surprised nobody has asked about this
    
>cross. Thus, Christ's death on the cross was not part of God's plan.[2] As
>a result, the coming of the kingdom was postponed until the second coming
>of Christ and is not present today except in "mystery form."[3] Christ"s
>rejection caused a "parenthesis" in time in which the "prophetic clock"
>stopped ticking.[4] Because the Jews rejected the Messiah, God created the
>Church as a Plan B that dispensationalists claim was wholly unanticipated,
>even by the Old Testament prophets.[5]
    
	"Christ's death on the cross was not part of God'd plan" ?? 
    
    Is this seriously being put forward to explain the two separate peoples
    of God ?
    
    	tom

    .33
    
    
    I confess I didn't read the note, if I had, it would have jumped out
    and bit me too. :-(

Hi Tom,

	Someone is putting this forth, but it wasn't Darby as was alleged.

	It is absurb. 

	Long time no see.

ace

    Re: .33
    
    Thanks for exposing more falsehoods in this paper.  Some of us didn't
    have the stomach to read down very far.
    
    Mike

      By the way, I didn't bother reading it.  Too long.
    
      I do believe Trent's involvement and underlying motivation to
      not be insignificant.   Though that is what seems to be the
      opinion here.  (Like it doesn't seem to raise any eyebrows
      which I fail to comprehend.)
    
    						Tony

Not on the note title, but with reference to .29   ---

The feasts (or festivals, convocations, or holydays) ARE included in the 613
commandments.  

When one discusses the "law", one should remember that Christ said the scribes 
and pharasees sit in Moses' seat.  IMO, that implies one should look at the 
modern successors to the scribes and pharasees, who _would appear_ to be the 
Orthodox Jews.  Many Christian groups teach different things about the Law, 
dividing it in various ways.  Anyway, perhaps it makes sense to go to those
who seem to be the modern keepers of the 613 commandments and see what THEY 
teach about the law, if one wants the "real scoop".  

THE TARYAG MITZVOS 613 by Rabbi A.Y. Kahan, Keser Torah Publications, Brooklyn 
NY (C) 1988 states in the preface: "Rabbi Simlai stated 613 mitzvos were 
transmitted to Moshe (Rabbeinu on Mount Sinai); 365 prohibitive commandments 
correspond to the number of days in the solar year (one is cautioned daily 
regarding the transgression of mitzvos); and 248 performative commandments 
which correspond to the number of organs and limbs of the human body (urging 
man to perform good deeds)."

In this book (which is excellent if one wants to study the Law) there are 24 
commandments given before the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20, starting with #1 
in Gen. 1:28, "Be fruitful and multiply ...".  Some of them, like #2 in 
Gen. 17:10 (circumcision) apply only to males, others only to females, some
only in the land of Israel, and some only to the temple service.

In fact, 28 of the 613 commandments deal with the "feasts" mentioned in 
Leviticus 23 - commandments 297 (Ex. 23:7, dealing with the Passover) through 
325 (Lev. 23:42, dealing with dwelling in booths). 

    Re: -1
    
    If the Feasts are included in the 613, then what about the Feasts that
    were implemented after the Law was given.  There are several:
    
    Purim
    Hannukah
    Tisha B'Av 
    Tu B'Shevat 
    Rosh Chodesh 
    Fast of Tammuz 
    Fast of Gedaliah

    
    Mike, in reference to .30 you seem to forget that when the Jews wanted
    to insist that the Gentile Christians be circumsized in order to be
    saved, the Jerusalem council (Apostles) decided that the Gentiles did
    not have to observe any Jewish tradition whatsoever.
    
    jeff

    Jeff, welcome back!
    
>    Mike, in reference to .30 you seem to forget that when the Jews wanted
>    to insist that the Gentile Christians be circumsized in order to be
>    saved, the Jerusalem council (Apostles) decided that the Gentiles did
>    not have to observe any Jewish tradition whatsoever.
    
    Need I remind you that the Jerusalem council, and Apostles, were also
    Jews.
    
    btw - what do you think of the blatant doctrinal error in the report 
    that was pointed out a few back?
    
    Mike

Would I be ratholing this topic if I asked for a comment on the relationship
between the People of Israel and the Land of Israel, but specifically asked
that you consider the descendants of the thousands of Jews who, according
to Acts, became Christians.

Don't you think that almost all of the Palestinian Christians (and some of
the Moslems, for that matter), are descendants of those faithful Jews who
were baptised by the first Apostles?  Don't they have the same right to
the land as other Children of Israel who haven't accepted Christ?

People like Christian Palestinian Assembly member and negotiator Hanan
Ashrawi.

/john

    Re: .40
    
>    If the Feasts are included in the 613, then what about the Feasts that
>    were implemented after the Law was given.  There are several:
    
>    Purim
>    Hannukah
>    Tisha B'Av 
>    Tu B'Shevat 
>    Rosh Chodesh 
>    Fast of Tammuz 
>    Fast of Gedaliah

As mentioned in Lev. 23, the feasts, or holy convocations (the Sabbath, Rosh 
Hashana, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, etc.) are included in the 613 comandments.

As far as Hannukah, and probably Purim and the others you've listed, the 
following (from TAVENG::BAGELS) seems to apply (perhaps they are part of
    the "oral" law?):

"Channukah is not of Torah origin, but of Rabbinic origin."

"Chanukah is not a 'major' holiday.  It is not biblical and does not require 
taking off from work." 

>    Jeff, welcome back!
    
     Thanks, Mike!
        
>>    Mike, in reference to .30 you seem to forget that when the Jews wanted
>>    to insist that the Gentile Christians be circumsized in order to be
>>    saved, the Jerusalem council (Apostles) decided that the Gentiles did
>>    not have to observe any Jewish tradition whatsoever.
    
>    Need I remind you that the Jerusalem council, and Apostles, were also
>    Jews.
    
    No, you needn't remind me.  I think the fact that the Jerusalem council
    was Jewish makes their decision all the more impressive.  Their
    decision (directed by the Holy Spirit) forever resolved any disputes 
    concerning what Jewish ceremonial procedures are required of Gentiles,
    that is, none whatsoever.  Therefore, the *dispensationalist* who would
    suggest otherwise is in error.
    
    >btw - what do you think of the blatant doctrinal error in the report 
    >that was pointed out a few back?
    
    You'll have to be more specific, Mike.
    
    jeff

> Therefore, the *dispensationalist* who would suggest otherwise is in error.

Hi Jeff, 

	Anyone who would suggest otherwise is in error. I don't understand
your associations between dispensationalist and keeping the Jewish ceremonial
procedures. For sake of this topic you may consider me a *dispensationalist*. 
I also believe that there is no need to keep the Jewish ceremonial procedures. 

Now what? Did you think every *dispensationalist* believed they were to 
keep the Jewish ceremonial procedures? Did you think only a 
*dispensationalist* could be in error about this?

I don't comprendo your association of these.

Regards,
Ace

    
Hi Ace,  I was responding to Mike's assertion below where he seemed to
be making the statement that the non-dispensationalist must somehow observe
the Jewish traditions because they weren't explicitly ruled out.

Comprendo?
jeff

> Therefore, the *dispensationalist* who would suggest otherwise is in error.


>>	Anyone who would suggest otherwise is in error. I don't understand
>>your associations between dispensationalist and keeping the Jewish ceremonial
>>procedures. For sake of this topic you may consider me a *dispensationalist*. 
>>I also believe that there is no need to keep the Jewish ceremonial procedures. 

>>Now what? Did you think every *dispensationalist* believed they were to 
>>keep the Jewish ceremonial procedures? Did you think only a 
>>*dispensationalist* could be in error about this?

>>I don't comprendo your association of these.

>>Regards,
>>Ace
      
**    Another reason, as stated, is that scripture never releases us from the
**    observances of the Feasts.  Christ also celebrated them, why shouldn't
**    we?  Again, it's hard for those who harbor anti-Semitic tendencies to
**    have to participate in Jewishness.  In this respect,
**    non-dispensationalists are a walking paradox.
    
**    Mike

    
    Barry (and others),
    
    When I say "inconsistency" I mean inconsistent with the teaching of the
    whole Bible, not within dispensationalism.  Even the Modern or Liberal
    theologies are fairly consistent within themselves but of course their
    presuppositions are not biblical.
    
    Below is the first biblical inconsistency identified in the article and
    which I alluded to in preceding notes.  The "*" represents the
    dispensational belief and the ">" discusses the biblical inconsistency
    in that belief.
    
    And then I will add my own personal observation that the effect of this
    particular belief is to divide God into two, the OT God (Jehovah) and the 
    NT God (Jesus), who are of different minds and personalities or at
    least seemingly so interpreted in the dispensational context.  I am
    absolutely certain that this effect (confusion and frustration) is 
    experienced by many evangelicals as they struggle with God's description 
    of His (Tri)Unity and single-mindedness throughout the Bible and the 
    resultant implications of dispensationalism which leads to God saying 
    essentially contradictory things at different times to different
    peoples.
    
    
    >Eschaton
    
    
    >Israel and the Church
    
    >Jack Van Deventer


*[M] odern premillennialism teaches that God has not one, but two separate
*    peoples of God, Israel and the Church. This teaching, known as
*dispensationalism...seeking to legitimize his newly created rapture theory 
*and its two "second comings," divided up the Bible into passages for Israel 
*and the Church.[1]

*1 Ernest R. Sandeen, British and American Millen-narianism 1800-1930
(Chicago: The Univ. of Chic. Press, 1970), p. 63, 66.

>Regarding dispensationalism's distinctive doctrine that Israel and the
>Church are two separate peoples of God, it should first be noted that such
>teaching is a radical departure from historic Christianity. According to
>Gerstner, "[H]istorically speaking, this dispensational denial of the unity
>of Israel and the church represents a surprising novelty. From the earliest
>period of Christian theology onward, the essential continuity of Israel and
>the church has been maintained. This historic doctrine of the church is
>based on both the clear implication of Old Testament texts and the clear
>teaching of the New Testament."[9] For example, early Church fathers such
>as Papias, Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, and Justin Martyr believed that the
>Church inherited God's promises to Israel.[10]

>9 John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth (Brentwood, TN:
>Wogemuth & Hyatt, 1991) p. 186. Dispensationalist Alan Patrick Boyd agreed,
>stating "The majority of the writers/writings in this period completely
>identify Israel with the Church" (in "A Dispensational Premillennial
>Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers [Until the Death
>of Justin Martyr]," unpublished master's thesis, Dallas Theological
>Seminary, 1977, p. 47).

>10 Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., House Divided, The Break-Up
>of Dispensational Theology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics,
>1989), p. 173, 174.

>As Provan points out, the Bible uses the same terms to describe both Israel
>and the Church, proving that those of the household of faith are one and
>the same. Both are called the beloved of God, the children of God, the
>field of God, the flock of God, the house of God, the people of God, the
>vineyard of God, the wife of God, the children of Abraham, the chosen
>people, and the circumcised.[12] This presents a dilemma for the
>dispensationalists. Does God have two chosen peoples? two flocks? two
>wives? The Bible is clear on this point, "There is neither Jew nor Greek...
>for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).

>12 Charles D. Provan, The Church is Israel Now (Vallecito, CA: Ross House
>Books, 1987).

>The fact that Jewish names such as "children of Abraham" and "the
>circumcised" are used to describe the Church further accentuates the
>reality of the church as spiritual Israel. Indeed, Christians are called
>"the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). Whereas Israel was to be "a kingdom of
>priests and a holy nation," now to the church God says, "But you are a
>chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special
>people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of
>darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now
>the people of God" (1 Pet. 2:9-10).

re.47

I see. Yo comprendo ahora.

Hopefully, you understand that there is at least one dispensationalist
who agrees with you on this point (ceremonial procedures).

Kinda scary huh?

8*)  8*)

    .49
    
    Tu eres mejor de mi, senor! :-)

>         <<< Note 899.45 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
>    No, you needn't remind me.  I think the fact that the Jerusalem council
>    was Jewish makes their decision all the more impressive.  Their
>    decision (directed by the Holy Spirit) forever resolved any disputes 
>    concerning what Jewish ceremonial procedures are required of Gentiles,
>    that is, none whatsoever.  Therefore, the *dispensationalist* who would
>    suggest otherwise is in error.
    
    Circumcision appears to be the only thing ruled on here.  The early
    church, disciples and Gentiles included, still celebrated the feasts.
    Jews & Gentiles (believers) will celebrate them again in the Messianic
    Kingdom.
    
>    You'll have to be more specific, Mike.
    
    Jeff, see reply .33
    
    Mike

re.50
8*)

    Re: .46
    
    Ace, I started this on the Jewish ceremonies.  The
    non-dispensationalists have caught themselves in quite a paradox.  They
    wants Jews & Gentiles to be treated equally in every sense of the Word,
    yet they're too anti-semitic to participate in what their "equals"
    (i.e., the Jews) celebrate according to the Word.  Even too
    anti-semitic to celebrate what their Jewish Savior celebrated.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
>    No, you needn't remind me.  I think the fact that the Jerusalem council
>    was Jewish makes their decision all the more impressive.  Their
>    decision (directed by the Holy Spirit) forever resolved any disputes 
>    concerning what Jewish ceremonial procedures are required of Gentiles,
>    that is, none whatsoever.  Therefore, the *dispensationalist* who would
>    suggest otherwise is in error.
    
>>    Circumcision appears to be the only thing ruled on here.  The early
>>    church, disciples and Gentiles included, still celebrated the feasts.
>>    Jews & Gentiles (believers) will celebrate them again in the Messianic
>>    Kingdom.
 
    Your position is indefensible, Mike.  And it demonstrates the effect
    of dispensationalism perfectly and how ridiculous it can be.  And
    furthermore it demonstrates that there are two groups, Israel and the
    Church, rather than one.  And that the Feasts, instead of being merely
    shadows of Christ who has now come, are somehow in themselves valuable. 
    It's crazy, brother!
    
    jeff

>    
>    Ace, I started this on the Jewish ceremonies.  The
>    non-dispensationalists have caught themselves in quite a paradox.  They
>    wants Jews & Gentiles to be treated equally in every sense of the Word,
>    yet they're too anti-semitic to participate in what their "equals"
>    (i.e., the Jews) celebrate according to the Word.  Even too
>    anti-semitic to celebrate what their Jewish Savior celebrated.
    
>    Mike
    
    Mike, this is an ad hominum attack and is not only patently absurd but
    extremely offensive to me and any other non-dispensationalist.  Your
    idea concerning some obligation to celebrate the Feasts is truly
    strange and I'm sure it goes even beyond dispensationalism.  
    
    jeff

>Jews & Gentiles (believers) 

Hi Mike,

	There are actually three people distinctions the Bible makes:

	" Give no occasion of stumbling both to Jews and to Greeks and to
the church of God"  1 Corinthians 10:32

	1) Jews (the physical descendents of Abraham) 
	2) Church (believers both Jewish and Gentile)
	3) Gentiles (unbelieving nations)

	The Lord deals with each of these differently.

Regards,
Ace



	

    Jeff, what about .33?
    
>    Church, rather than one.  And that the Feasts, instead of being merely
>    shadows of Christ who has now come, are somehow in themselves valuable. 
    
    I never said how to celebrate them, you're assuming.  Messianic
    believers and Christians with a heart for Israel celebrate them just as
    you say: focus on all that points to Messiah and our standing in Him.  
    Is there no value in this?  Those who have experienced it know of the 
    great object lessons they contain for all ages.
    
    Mike

>                      -< Be kind, honest, and fair, Mike >-
    
    I am.  Now it's your turn.  Read "Our Hands are Stained with Blood" by
    Michael L. Brown and get back to me.

>    Mike, this is an ad hominum attack and is not only patently absurd but
>    extremely offensive to me and any other non-dispensationalist.  Your
>    idea concerning some obligation to celebrate the Feasts is truly
>    strange and I'm sure it goes even beyond dispensationalism.  
    
    Jeff, several of your non-dispensationalist advocates that I've read
    have admitted their anti-semitism both directly and indirectly through
    replacement theology.  LaRondelle is one of the more popular ones.
    Worst of all, they err in basic doctrine like .0 and .1 did as noted in
    .33.
    
    You don't appear to know enough about the feasts or how they're
    celebrated to pass judgment on a brother.  
    
    Mike

>>    	RE: .1
    
>>    	I'm surprised nobody has asked about this
    
>cross. Thus, Christ's death on the cross was not part of God's plan.[2] As
>a result, the coming of the kingdom was postponed until the second coming
>of Christ and is not present today except in "mystery form."[3] Christ"s
>rejection caused a "parenthesis" in time in which the "prophetic clock"
>stopped ticking.[4] Because the Jews rejected the Messiah, God created the
>Church as a Plan B that dispensationalists claim was wholly unanticipated,
>even by the Old Testament prophets.[5]
    
>	"Christ's death on the cross was not part of God'd plan" ?? 
    
>    Is this seriously being put forward to explain the two separate peoples
>    of God ?
    
>    	tom

The references for each statement are offered and the authors are 
dispensationalist theologians - (and I dare ;) any evangelical act 
surprised - I've heard this stuff over the years repeatedly both directly
and by implication, from dispensationalist pulpits and in this notesfile).

2 Clarence Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word (Philadelphia, PA: C. Larkin,
1921).

3 John F. Walvoord, in Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (General
Editors), Issues in Dispensationalism (Chicago, Moody Press, 1994), p. 80.

4 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune,
NJ: Loizeaux Bros, 1953) p. 136.

5 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary
Press, 1948) Vol. 4, pp. 40-41.

I was away on vacation for much of this discussion, but have just read
quickly through all the notes.  Some brief comments:

   1.  I am with Jeff in that I think the idea of different periods of 
       dispensation or ways that God has dealt with humanity has con-
       tributed to a lot of things that are not quite right within the
       believing community.

   2.  I think the dialogue here is getting confused with the entry of 
       several different topics  -  we've got the dispensationalism,
       The Law, and anti-Sematism all mixed up together in here.  Al-
       though they have may have some relationship amongst them, I 
       think people are getting tangled up and confusing one topic for
       the other.

   3.  As far as the feasts go, the information provided by LANDO::NIEMI
       is accurate according to what I have studied.

   Leslie

    Hi Leslie,  Hope you had a refreshing vacation!
    
   >2.  I think the dialogue here is getting confused with the entry of 
   >    several different topics  -  we've got the dispensationalism,
   >    The Law, and anti-Sematism all mixed up together in here.  Al-
   >    though they have may have some relationship amongst them, I 
   >    think people are getting tangled up and confusing one topic for
   >    the other.
    
    Ratholes are a never-ending problem, aren't they?  Mike has introduced
    The Law (feasts) and anti-Semitism to bolster his position.  I think
    Acts 15:5-29 puts to bed very completely the relation of Gentiles to
    the feasts (regardless of what value they might contain).  The
    accusation of anti-Semitism is an ad hominum attack which is not
    recognized as valid debate.  And furthermore the very use of the term
    "anti-Semitism" by dispensationalists against non-dispensationalists is
    part and parcel of the dispensational belief that Jews are "special" as
    an ethnic group and therefore any disagreement with that view is anti-0
    Semitic.  Of course the Bible makes it clear that racial Jews
    are no more special than any other group of people from God's
    perspective except possibly in the sense of their infamy in having the 
    Word of God and the promises of the Messiah when the world did not yet
    cognitively have them, yet rejecting both, even crucifying the Messiah.
    
    Anyway, maybe all of us could reassert in this string that age-old battle 
    in notes - avoiding ratholes.
    
    jeff

>    Ratholes are a never-ending problem, aren't they?  Mike has introduced
>    The Law (feasts) and anti-Semitism to bolster his position.  I think
>    Acts 15:5-29 puts to bed very completely the relation of Gentiles to
>    the feasts (regardless of what value they might contain).  The
    
Matthew 24:20  
    But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the 
    sabbath day:

    This is from the Olivet Discourse.  Non-dispensationalists that I've
    read say that this applies to all of us, yet Jeff just said the feasts
    don't apply to Gentiles.  The Sabbath is a feast.  Who today in the
    Gentile world celebrates the Sabbath?  Certainly not the
    non-dispensationalists!  This obviously refers to the Jews because of
    the context, but this can't be for a non-dispensationalist.  The Jews
    celebrate the Sabbath, not the church.  For them to support this verse
    in its proper context, they would also have to change their view on the
    timing of the rapture.  Hence, the paradox continues.  So much for their 
    unified view of scripture.  The truth is that their view is more 
    selective/filtered than other camps. 
    
>    perspective except possibly in the sense of their infamy in having the 
>    Word of God and the promises of the Messiah when the world did not yet
>    cognitively have them, yet rejecting both, even crucifying the Messiah.
    
    The Jews didn't kill the Messiah, you and I did.  You've just proven my
    point about anti-semitism among non-dispensationalists.
    
    Mike

    
>Matthew 24:20  
>    But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the 
>    sabbath day:

>    This is from the Olivet Discourse.  Non-dispensationalists that I've
>    read say that this applies to all of us, yet Jeff just said the feasts
>    don't apply to Gentiles.  The Sabbath is a feast.  Who today in the
>    Gentile world celebrates the Sabbath?  Certainly not the
>    non-dispensationalists!  This obviously refers to the Jews because of
>    the context, but this can't be for a non-dispensationalist.  The Jews
>    celebrate the Sabbath, not the church.  For them to support this verse
>    in its proper context, they would also have to change their view on the
>    timing of the rapture.  Hence, the paradox continues.  So much for their 
>    unified view of scripture.  The truth is that their view is more 
>    selective/filtered than other camps. 

Mike,  first off, I suspect the non-dispensationalists you have read have
been quoted in materials supporting dispensationalism.  You have
introduced the antibiblical notion of a Gentile requirement to observe
the Law thus darkening the discussion.  If this is what you believe and
you attribute this to dispensationalism I can only emphasize how 
dispensationlism gone to seed results in another incredibly false and
unbiblical notion concerning the Law.
    
>    The Jews didn't kill the Messiah, you and I did.  You've just proven my
>    point about anti-semitism among non-dispensationalists.
    
>    Mike

The Jews as a corporate group did indeed kill the Messiah.  If you don't
like the language then complain to God since I am only parroting Him out
of His Word.  But this is off the point altogether.  You make no progress in
your defense of dispensationalism by casting insults at a strawman.

jeff

Since we are having so much discussion about this note I decided to read it.

8*)  8*)

> re.1 This presents a dilemma for the dispensationalists. Does God have two
> chosen peoples? two flocks? two wives? The Bible is clear on this point,
> "There is neither Jew nor Greek...for you are all one in Christ Jesus"
> (Gal 3:28).

This is a clear of example of taking a verse from the Bible and twisting it
(with or without forethought I do not know) to say exactly the opposite of what
it obviously does. The above quote is trying to convince us that physical Jews
and the christians are one people. 

To understand the true meaning of this verse we only need go back as far as the
preceding two verses.

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as
were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek,
there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female; for
you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:26-28

All those who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, are sons
of God. Among these, there cannot be distinctions such as Jew or Greek,
slave nor free man, male or female. Such distinctions divide the oneness of the
body of Christ. This is the meaning.

The Church doesn't replace Israel. The Church wasn't Plan B (Ephesians 1).
Israel as a nation lost the promised blessing of the Spirit for a time, but
Israelis did not. Eventually, Israel will repent as nation (For they shall look
upon Him,
Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as for an only
son, etc.). In this age, Israelis (Jews if you prefer), Gentiles (Greeks,
Romans, Scythians, Mexicans 8*)), all may put on Christ and partake of the
promised blessing of the Spirit. 

As I stated in a previous reply, the Bible (1 Cor 10:32) recognizes and deals
differently with three catagories of humanity:

	1) Physical Israel (the Jews)
	2) The Church (made up of believers both Jew and Gentile)
	3) The Gentiles (unbelieving nations)


Regards,
Ace

>importance.  However, I will say that their distinction as being alone
>the people of God is lost forever, as was planned by God Himself, of course.
    
    I'm not so sure it was ever intended to be that way (that Israel alone
    were to be the people of God).  This is one area where I think 
    non-dispensationalists have a point: we're all God's children.  Abraham 
    was a Gentile, wasn't he?  One of the roles of the Messiah was to reach 
    out to the Gentiles too.  Israel was supposed to be a light unto the 
    world.  The OT records many Gentiles that came to believe in God.  Israel 
    became God's chosen people so that all might be saved.
    
    Mike

>Mike,  first off, I suspect the non-dispensationalists you have read have
>been quoted in materials supporting dispensationalism.  You have
    
    you suspect wrong.  Ever hear of William R. Kimball?
    
>introduced the antibiblical notion of a Gentile requirement to observe
>the Law thus darkening the discussion.  If this is what you believe and
    
    I mistakenly thought the feasts were outside the Law so for that I 
    apologize.  Matthew 24:20 still puts a cramp in your eschatology.
    
    It's already been stated why Christians should celebrate the feasts. 
    It also should be noted that not all of the foreshadows have been
    fulfilled.  The fall feasts foreshadow the Messiah's second coming.
    
>The Jews as a corporate group did indeed kill the Messiah.  If you don't
    
    So did the Romans.  So did everyone who He died for.  You can't
    possibly blame it on 1 group without being a racist.
    
>like the language then complain to God since I am only parroting Him out
>of His Word.  But this is off the point altogether.  You make no progress in
>your defense of dispensationalism by casting insults at a strawman.
    
    His Word says who/what killed Him.  To say it was the Jews only is a
    pretext of God's Word.
    
    Mike

    Ace,
    
>Since we are having so much discussion about this note I decided to read it.

Well, isn't that special! 8*)  8*)

>> re.1 This presents a dilemma for the dispensationalists. Does God have two
>> chosen peoples? two flocks? two wives? The Bible is clear on this point,
>> "There is neither Jew nor Greek...for you are all one in Christ Jesus"
>> (Gal 3:28).

>This is a clear of example of taking a verse from the Bible and twisting it
>(with or without forethought I do not know) to say exactly the opposite of what
>it obviously does. The above quote is trying to convince us that physical Jews
>and the christians are one people. 

See .48 for the full biblical argument against this particular effect of
    the dispensational system.

jeff

>>Mike,  first off, I suspect the non-dispensationalists you have read have
>>been quoted in materials supporting dispensationalism.  You have
    
>    you suspect wrong.  Ever hear of William R. Kimball?

No, I haven't.  I don't study "non-dispensationalism"; I study the Bible
and the history of the Church's dogmas which reveal no support for
dispensational theology.
   
>introduced the antibiblical notion of a Gentile requirement to observe
>the Law thus darkening the discussion.  If this is what you believe and
    
>>    I mistakenly thought the feasts were outside the Law so for that I 
>>    apologize.  

Apology accepted.

>>Matthew 24:20 still puts a cramp in your eschatology.

It certainly doesn't.  Jesus was speaking to Jews using Jewish language to
make His point concerning the severity of the coming trials.  It is only
natural that He should use terms which would drive home His point clearly.
To suggest that this is teaching a future Sabbath is ridiculous.  To suggest
that this is a reason to observe the Law now or in the future is ridiculous.
Is this what dispensationalism is today?  

    
    >>It's already been stated why Christians should celebrate the feasts. 
    >>It also should be noted that not all of the foreshadows have been
    >>fulfilled.  The fall feasts foreshadow the Messiah's second coming.

This is no more than Judaizing, Mike.  And I pray that no one here will be
influenced by it.
    
>The Jews as a corporate group did indeed kill the Messiah.  If you don't
    
>>    So did the Romans.  So did everyone who He died for.  You can't
>>    possibly blame it on 1 group without being a racist.

You're equivocating on the word "kill".  While Jesus died for the sins
of His people everywhere throughout history, only the Jews hatched the plot
to have Jesus killed, then charged Him, then harrassed the Romans to kill
Him, then turned Him over to the Romans, then insisted He be crucified.
Again, if you don't like the statement, then take your complaint to God.
Do you want me to post the several passages where this precise story is
recounted in the Bible?!
    
>like the language then complain to God since I am only parroting Him out
>of His Word.  But this is off the point altogether.  You make no progress in
>your defense of dispensationalism by casting insults at a strawman.
    
>>    His Word says who/what killed Him.  To say it was the Jews only is a
>>    pretext of God's Word.
    
>>    Mike

Without equivocating on the word "kill", you'd have no point.  You're still
dragging this discussion into a rathole.  I ask you to cease with the string
of accusations of racism, please!  It is a strawman.

jeff

re.70

Hi Jeff,

	As a serious Bible student I would expect you to object to any
obvious twisting of the Bible. The reference I quoted was too obvious
to let go. .70 suggests "one bad teaching deserves another". I know
you don't really think that, so maybe you're just hoping I'll go away 
easily 8*).

Ace	
 

	

    >You're equivocating on the word "kill".  While Jesus died for the sins

    You were the one that originated the equivocal word in your accusation.

>of His people everywhere throughout history, only the Jews hatched the plot
>to have Jesus killed, then charged Him, then harrassed the Romans to kill
>Him, then turned Him over to the Romans, then insisted He be crucified.

    I think Genesis 3:15, Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53 say otherwise.  It was
    God's plan of redemption, not a Jewish plot.  You're missing the bigger
    picture.

    Anyway, I've read enough to be convinced and don't wish to participate 
    here any longer (GIGO).
    
    Mike

Hi Ace,
    
>	As a serious Bible student I would expect you to object to any
>obvious twisting of the Bible. The reference I quoted was too obvious
>to let go. .70 suggests "one bad teaching deserves another". I know
>you don't really think that, so maybe you're just hoping I'll go away 
>easily 8*).

>Ace	
    
    You are hanging onto your point without basis, Ace.  You may pull out
    that paragraph and treat it individually as if it would stand alone but
    it does not.  .48 is the complete context for the discussion  of this
    topic.
    
    jeff
 

	

    Hi Mike,
    
>of His people everywhere throughout history, only the Jews hatched the plot
>to have Jesus killed, then charged Him, then harrassed the Romans to kill
>Him, then turned Him over to the Romans, then insisted He be crucified.

    >>I think Genesis 3:15, Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53 say otherwise.  It was
    >>God's plan of redemption, not a Jewish plot.  You're missing the bigger
    >>picture.
    
    *I* understand well the biblical doctrines of the sovereignty of God and 
    the responsibility of man.  Arminians do not.  Millenarian 
    dispensationalists do not.
    
    One of the most significant biblical points I have attempted to make
    here in this conference, against incredible opposition, including much 
    opposition from you personally, is the fact that God's decrees do not in 
    any way whatsoever relinquish men from their responsibility.  It is in
    this context that Christ's redemptive work as eternally decreed in
    every detail does not absolve the Jews who crucified Him.  Indeed they
    are held responsible by Jesus and His Apostles for their unique sins
    throughout the written record.  The Jews, individuals and corporately,
    killed Jesus, the Messiah.  Jesus died for the sins of all of His
    people everywhere throughout time.  However, not everyone was among the
    group of Pharisees and Scribes and the Jewish people at large who were
    directly involved in Christ's death in history.
    
    jeff

    Hi, Jeff.
    
    I just returned from a wonderful two-week vacation with my family to
    Prince Edward Island, Canada to find this, another interesting topic
    opened by you, and a good bit of debate.
    
    For the record, I'm not a dispensationalist, but I have a couple
    questions for you:
    
      - How do you regard the Old and New Covenants?
      - For whose sin(s) did Christ die?
    
    /Wayne

Hi Wayne!  Welcome back!  I just knew you were out of pocket or we would
have heard from you before now.
    
>    For the record, I'm not a dispensationalist, but I have a couple
>    questions for you:
    
>      - How do you regard the Old and New Covenants?

Huge topic, Wayne!  Could you ask a more specific question which directly
relates to this topic?

>      - For whose sin(s) did Christ die?
    
I see this as a potential tangent, rathole even.  Would you make a statement
or ask a more pointed question which would relate it to the topic at hand?

jeff

Jeff,

For all that we have done, we are as quilty as the Jewish people.  Maybe
more so.

I find your statements to be anti-semitic whether you can see why or
not.  When it is pointed out that the Jewish people were the Messiah's
first followers, that the Bible for the most part was written by Jews, 
that was Jews who began the great task of bringing the gospel message 
to the world, in fact many of them died bringing that message to the world,
you say that does them no credit, God simply used them.  

Then you say that they are completely responsible for the Messiah's death 
on the execution stake.  Which is it, are they responsible for their actions, 
or is God using simply using them?  It is unfair and anti-semitic to credit 
only the bad and not the good to them.  To be just, fair, and honest, in order
to attach the blame for the Messiah's death to them, you must also give 
them the credit for their faithfulness in writing and preserving God's word, 
and for committing their lives to bringing the good news of the Messiah to 
the world.

Again, I urge you to read "Our Hands are Stained with Blood".

Leslie

re.74

Hi Jeff,

	But even if I agreed with the larger contextual point (.48) being
made, I would still object to the author's misuse of these verses (.1) to
support his larger point. His unintentional or intentional misuse and apparent
lack of understanding undermines the credibility of the point he is making. 

	You seem to be saying that because you believe his larger contextual
point (.48), that you overlook or consider unimportant how he supports his
position from the scripture. 

	"Jew and Greek" in Gal 3:28 refers to Jewish and Gentile believers
respectively, not as the author contends to the Jewish people and the
christians. Perhaps if he understood these verses, he may change his doctrine
about "one people of God". 

	But then again, maybe nothing could ever change his mind.  8*)

Laters,
Ace

    
    Hi Ace,
    
    I guess I don't understand your argument.
    
    jeff

RE:         <<< Note 899.75 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

        First, let me say that I do not consider myself a dispensationalist
        or any other kind of "ist" or "ite".

        The Scribes and Pharisees were afraid to take Jesus in front of the
        people, because the people would have not have permitted this
        without a serious fight.  Again and again, the Scripture says that
        they would have laid hands on Him, but for fear of the people who
        loved Him. The people, in this context, is the overwhelming
        majority of Jews, the multitudes among whome Jesus walked, and
        taught, and wrought miracles of healing and cleansing.  The priests
        couldn't even get the temple guard to arrest Him, as even the
	temple guard were convicted by His preaching.

        The Scribes and Pharisees came to take Jesus late at night, in the
        dark, in secret, requiring the aid of an insider to betray his
        Master.  At least two of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus and Joseph,
        rejected the verdict of death.  The verdict had to be unanimous,
        even by their own tradition, which they proceeded to violate.  They
        tried to get Herod to execute Jesus.  He wisely refused to take the
        bait.  Finally, they convinced the Roman authorities to crucify
        Jesus, so that the chief priests and Scribes would not be directly
        blamed, so that the crucifiction of Jesus would look like a Roman
        execution.  The rabble that appeared at Jesus trial before Pilate
        were organized by the chief priests and Scribes.  They were not
        representative of the multitudinous majority of the Jewish people
        that hailed Him as "Son of David".  They were not the daughters of
	Israel that wept at his death march.  

	Our sins crucified Jesus.

	All the first "Christians" were Jews.

	God's peace,
		TonyC

    
    Hi Leslie (and others),
    
    I would like to request that the issue of "anti-semitism" be brought up
    in some other topic if you would like to continue to discuss it - not
    that I am particularly interested.  It is a rathole here, apparently 
    achieving its original objective of reorienting the discussion from a
    biblical/historical review of dispensationalism to the character of
    non-dispensationlists.  It's effect is not only to impugn me and my
    character but to start a classic rathole.  I harbor no anti-semitic
    thoughts or feelings.
    
    jeff

    Wayne, I have provided below the most eloquent statement of the
    biblical doctrine of Covenant with Scripture proofs, from the 
    Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).  This should answer one of your 
    earlier questions.  Also, do not be confused by the use of the word
    "dispensation" in the last paragraph - it is not equal to nor does it
    suggest "dispensationalism" as a theological system.
    
Chapter VII

Of God's Covenant with Man

I. The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although
reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they
could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but
by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to
express by way of covenant.[1]

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein
life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition
of perfect and personal obedience.[4]

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that
covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the
covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation
by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,[6]
and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life
His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7]

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name
of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and
to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein
bequeathed.[8]

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and
in the time of the Gospel:[9] under the law it was administered by
promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other
types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all
foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient
and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build
up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full
remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old
Testament.[12]

VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the
ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the
Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more
simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more
fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews
and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament.[17] There are not
therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the
same, under various dispensations.[18]

Scripture Proofs
    
[1] ISA 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his
counseller hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who
instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him
knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the
nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the
balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. 16 And
Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a
burnt offering. 17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are
counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. JOB 9:32 For he is not a man,
as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.
33 Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us
both. 1SA 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him:
but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall intreat for him?
Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because
the Lord would slay them. PSA 113:5 Who is like unto the Lord our God, who
dwelleth on high, 6 Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in
heaven, and in the earth! PSA 100:2 Serve the Lord with gladness: come
before his presence with singing. 3 Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is
he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the
sheep of his pasture. JOB 22:2 Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that
is wise may be profitable unto himself? 3 Is it any pleasure to the
Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him that thou makest
thy ways perfect? JOB 35:7 If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or
what receiveth he of thine hand? 8 Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou
art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man. LUK 17:10 So likewise
ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say,
We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
ACT 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is
Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing,
seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.

[2] GAL 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them
shall live in them.

[3] ROM 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law,
That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. ROM 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the
law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not
sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of
him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.
For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God,
and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded
unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the
judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences
unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one;
much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of
righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by
the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification
of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by
the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law
entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did
much more abound.

[4] GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die. GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the
curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all
things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

[5] GAL 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily
righteousness should have been by the law. ROM 8:3 For what the law could
not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. ROM
3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in
his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the
righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the
law and the prophets. GEN 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the
woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and
thou shalt bruise his heel. ISA 42:6 I the Lord have called thee in
righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee
for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.

[6] MAR 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. JOH 3:16 For God so loved
the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ROM 10:6 But the
righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine
heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from
above:) 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and
shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved. GAL 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the
sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

[7] EZE 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I
will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you,
and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and
do them. JOH 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent
me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in
the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that
hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

[8] HEB 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament,
that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were
under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise
of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of
necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force
after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the
testator liveth. HEB 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better
testament. LUK 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup
is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 1CO 11:25 After
the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup
is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in
remembrance of me.

[9] 2CO 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not
of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit
giveth life. 7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in
stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly
behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was
to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather
glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more
doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

[10] SEE HEB 8-10, ROM 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a
seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being
uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though
they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them
also. COL 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised
him from the dead. 1CO 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may
be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is
sacrificed for us.

[11] 1CO 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant,
how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the
sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And
did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual
drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that
Rock was Christ. HEB 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the
promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and
embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the
earth. JOH 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it,
and was glad.

[12] GAL 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are
the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would
justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of
faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 14 That the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith.

[13] COL 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of
Christ.

[14] MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 1CO 11:23 For I have
received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord
Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he
had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which
is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner
also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new
testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of
me.

[15] HEB 12:22 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, 23 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, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to
the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 25
See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who
refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn
away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26 Whose voice then shook the
earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the
earth only, but also heaven. 27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth
the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made,
that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. JER 31:33 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.

[16] MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. EPH 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so
making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by
the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace
to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him
we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are
no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and
of the household of God.

[17] LUK 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the
new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

[18] GAL 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles
through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He
saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which
is Christ. ACT 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. ROM 3:21 But now the
righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the
law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of
Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no
difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. 30
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and
uncircumcision through faith. PSA 32:1 Blessed is he whose transgression is
forgiven, whose sin is covered. ROM 4:3 For what saith the scripture?
Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 6 Even
as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be
by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that
only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of
Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made
thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who
quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they
were. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to
him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him
that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. HEB 13:8 Jesus Christ the same
yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

re.80

Hi Jeff,

>  I guess I don't understand your argument.

	Well, that happens every now and then!  8*)

	Let me try it this way.

	The following is extracted from .48. I think the author is trying
to establish that the physical descendents of Israel and the believers who make
up the Church are one and the same. He says that in the first sentence. Then at
the end of the sentence he quotes Gal 3:28 to support this teaching. He wants us
to believe that the "Jews" of Galatians 3:28 refer to the genetic or physical
nation of Israel. He also wants us to believe that the Greeks refer to the
Church. Both these points are wrong as I previously stated. From the context of
the surrounding verses, the "Jew" of Gal 3:28 refers to a Jewish believer, and
the "Greek" refers to the Gentile believer. The one people in Gal 3:28 refers
to the Church exclusively. Gal 3:28 refers to the oneness in the Body where
there is no Jew, Greek, male, female, slave, freeman, etc.. Making such
cultural, gender, class distinctions in the church will divide the Body of
Christ. 
	But the author missed this point completely and instead explains this
verse to mean the exact opposite of what it obviously means. He does this to
support his doctrine. By misapplying the Bible in such a gross and obvious way,
he undermines his main point. His main point may be better supported by other
verses in the Bible, but because he so mishandled this verse I doubt that he
really could put forth a convincing biblical basis for this teaching. 

	Jeff, It doesn't matter how much one agrees or disagrees with his main
point, it's just plain poor bible teaching. 

	Now it is possible that in all the confusion I got mixed up as to who
believes what. I'm sure you'll straighten me out if I did. 8*) 8*) 

Regards,
Ace

>As Provan points out, the Bible uses the same terms to describe both Israel
>and the Church, proving that those of the household of faith are one and
>the same. Both are called the beloved of God, the children of God, the
>field of God, the flock of God, the house of God, the people of God, the
>vineyard of God, the wife of God, the children of Abraham, the chosen
>people, and the circumcised.[12] This presents a dilemma for the
>dispensationalists. Does God have two chosen peoples? two flocks? two
>wives? The Bible is clear on this point, "There is neither Jew nor Greek...
>for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).

Hi Ace,

>  I guess I don't understand your argument.

>>	Well, that happens every now and then!  8*)

>>	Let me try it this way.
>>
>>	The following is extracted from .48. I think the author is trying
>>to establish that the physical descendents of Israel and the believers who make
>>up the Church are one and the same. He says that in the first sentence.

Okay, I now see the problem in your argument!  The author is *not* saying 
that the physical descendants of Israel and Gentile believers are one and
the same.  He is saying, as the Bible says, that the believers, both Jewish
and Gentile, are in the same household and by implication and according to
the Bible are actually spiritual Israel. 

>>Then at
>>the end of the sentence he quotes Gal 3:28 to support this teaching. He wants us
>>to believe that the "Jews" of Galatians 3:28 refer to the genetic or physical
>>nation of Israel. He also wants us to believe that the Greeks refer to the
>>Church. 

No, he wants you to understand that the household of faith ("Israel") is now 
made up of Jews and Gentiles as the Bible attests rather than of believing
    Jews only.

>>	Now it is possible that in all the confusion I got mixed up as to who
>>believes what. I'm sure you'll straighten me out if I did. 8*) 8*) 

I've tried ;) 

>As Provan points out, the Bible uses the same terms to describe both Israel
>and the Church, proving that those of the household of faith are one and
>the same. Both are called the beloved of God, the children of God, the
>field of God, the flock of God, the house of God, the people of God, the
>vineyard of God, the wife of God, the children of Abraham, the chosen
>people, and the circumcised.[12] This presents a dilemma for the
>dispensationalists. Does God have two chosen peoples? two flocks? two
>wives? The Bible is clear on this point, "There is neither Jew nor Greek...
>for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28).

jeff

Hi, Jeff.

|>      - How do you regard the Old and New Covenants?

| Huge topic, Wayne!  Could you ask a more specific question which directly
| relates to this topic?

** That you fail to see that this question "directly relates to this topic" is
   disturbing.

   Would you agree that there was/is an Old and a New?  If so, then what is
   the relationship between the two?

   I see the New Covenant as superceding and including the Old, with the basis
   for imputed righteousness being the same, i.e., by grace through faith.
   Jesus the (promised) Christ of God was and is the only provision for our
   sin.

   Some dispensationalists argue that the Old and New Covenants represent at
   least two distinct and different dispensations (law and grace) in God's
   dealing with man.  I was merely asking you to address that view.

   I hold that God has bound Himself to His children and His children to
   Himself, with no promise ever obviated but rather all fulfilled.

   Yeah, the topic is huge, but Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.

   No matter if you came to see my question relating to this topic or just
   desired to humor me, your response in .83 is appreciated.  If we desire that
   all men come to knowledge of the Truth, then huge questions can/should be
   addressed because there are answers!

|>      - For whose sin(s) did Christ die?
    
| I see this as a potential tangent, rathole even.  Would you make a statement
| or ask a more pointed question which would relate it to the topic at hand?

** Do you really not see how this relates to the topic, either?!  You claim
   that the Jews killed Jesus.  Was not Jesus "tried" in both Jewish and
   Gentile "courts?"

   When Jesus prayed "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do",
   for whom was He praying and did the Father answer that prayer?  Who
   actually physically nailed Christ to the cross?  By whose law was Christ
   condemned?  Jews or Gentiles?  The irony is that both Jewish and Roman laws
   were disregarded in Jesus' "conviction."

   Jeff, if we can't/won't see our sin as responsible for Jesus' death, that
   we would have done something differently if we had been there, or even that
   we would have behaved differently in the garden of Eden had we been Adam,
   then we are WRONG!

   If you think this is a rathole, then feel free to not respond.  But please
   realize the difficulty your understanding presents to some when major
   problems are dismissed condescendingly or flippantly.  Scholars throughout
   history have argued Dispensational versus Covenant theologies.  Truth
   stands, and we would do well to offer answers.

In the grace of our loving Lord,

/Wayne

Wayne, .86
    
|>      - How do you regard the Old and New Covenants?

| Huge topic, Wayne!  Could you ask a more specific question which directly
| relates to this topic?

|>   No matter if you came to see my question relating to this topic or just
|>   desired to humor me, your response in .83 is appreciated.  If we desire that
|>   all men come to knowledge of the Truth, then huge questions can/should be
|>   addressed because there are answers!

The Confession summarizes the biblical doctrine of Covenant very well and I
am in accord with it.

|>      - For whose sin(s) did Christ die?
    
| I see this as a potential tangent, rathole even.  Would you make a statement
| or ask a more pointed question which would relate it to the topic at hand?

|>** Do you really not see how this relates to the topic, either?!  You claim
|>   that the Jews killed Jesus.  Was not Jesus "tried" in both Jewish and
|>   Gentile "courts?"

A discussion of "who killed Jesus?" is not related to this topic and is in
fact a rathole.  Please see .82 for my response.

jeff

Jeff,
    
||>      - How do you regard the Old and New Covenants?

|| Huge topic, Wayne!  Could you ask a more specific question which directly
|| relates to this topic?

||> No matter if you came to see my question relating to this topic or just
||> desired to humor me, your response in .83 is appreciated.  If we desire that
||> all men come to knowledge of the Truth, then huge questions can/should be
||> addressed because there are answers!

| The Confession summarizes the biblical doctrine of Covenant very well and I
| am in accord with it.

** And I agree that the Confession is an excellent answer, albeit imperfect
   IMHO.  As you know, I see Scripture revealing that God regarded Adam the
   same as us in terms of sin and imputed righteousness.  With the rest of this
   portion of the Confession I share your accord.

||>      - For whose sin(s) did Christ die?
    
|| I see this as a potential tangent, rathole even.  Would you make a statement
|| or ask a more pointed question which would relate it to the topic at hand?

||>** Do you really not see how this relates to the topic, either?!  You claim
||>   that the Jews killed Jesus.  Was not Jesus "tried" in both Jewish and
||>   Gentile "courts?"

| A discussion of "who killed Jesus?" is not related to this topic and is in
| fact a rathole.  Please see .82 for my response.

** Okay, your call.  So be it.

   I just see pointing fingers to determine "who killed Jesus" as dividing that
   which God would join, not unlike Dispensationalists.

   I repeat what I said in .86:

   "...please realize the difficulty your understanding presents to some when
    major problems are dismissed condescendingly or flippantly.  Scholars
    throughout history have argued Dispensational versus Covenant theologies.
    Truth stands, and we would do well to offer answers."

By the grace of Jesus Christ in whom we live and move and have our being,

/Wayne

  Hi,

    Just a couple thoughts on covenants/dispensations...

    I am not sure of the terminology, but if dispensation means God
    treats people differently, well, I believe yes and no!

    My take on this is that sin condemns and Christ came to save us
    from our sins.  It is light that reveals sin and we can only see
    it progressively.

    There were times when God gave discrete amounts of light - a lot
    of light within a short period of time.  Sinai was an example
    and of course Calvary was another.

    Calvary did not contradict Sinai, it magnified Sinai.  The ten
    commandments are a transcript of love.  Calvary is a magnified
    transcript of that same love.   The Sermon on the Mount was a
    transcript of that love.

    The only thing wrong with shadow is that it cannot cleanse the
    conscience perfectly (Heb. 10:1-4).

    The fulfillment of the New Covenant is when God prepares a people
    to see the depths of the cross which, as a mirror, will expose the
    depths of all the evil inherent in sin.  This covenant is yet unful-
    filled for we still see, in the cross of Christ, largely shadow.
    Are we so certain as to the full very image reality that the blood
    represents, for example?

    But, the cross will save to the uttermost all who come to Christ
    by faith.  The blood will perfectly remove sin from the heart and
    this removal of sin is redemption.

    I see dispensation and covenants only relevent in terms of the
    amount of light the body of Christ's faithful are receiving by
    faith.

    As I am still a sinner and the new covenant makes sinless, I recognize
    that I am having an old covenant experience.

    I am not ready to behold the scroll sealed with seven seals.  That
    would be too much love for me to see in my present condition.

    A new covenant unsealing awaits the people of God.

						Tony

Hi Wayne,

| A discussion of "who killed Jesus?" is not related to this topic and is in
| fact a rathole.  Please see .82 for my response.

>>** Okay, your call.  So be it.

>>   I repeat what I said in .86:

>>   "...please realize the difficulty your understanding presents to some when
>>    major problems are dismissed condescendingly or flippantly.  Scholars
>>    throughout history have argued Dispensational versus Covenant theologies.
>>    Truth stands, and we would do well to offer answers."

The real problem here, Wayne, is that what you call "major problems", and in
obvious context of the accusation by one person of anti-semitism as a basis
for my beliefs, is simply not a major problem for me nor is it established
here or anywhere that it is a problem for any particular group, 
dispensationalist or Reformed.  It is simply, at this point, a bare assertion
by Mike Heiser which is indefensible in the first place and off the topic
in the second place.  Let's hear no more of it here!

Also, the suggestion above that dispensational and covenant theologies have
been argued throughout history is incorrect.  As the article in .1 states,
premillenial dispensationalism is a novelty, not a long-standing argument
in Church history.  And as it also states, throughout the history of the
Church the doctrine has been that the Church inherited the promises to
Israel.  Of course, "the Church" includes all believers of every race
everywhere.

jeff

    Hi, Jeff.
    
    As you wish--no more of the anti-semitism innuendos here.  If you want
    to dismiss my question on the basis of reinforcing that accusation,
    then you've missed the point.
    
    The bigger context in my mind was God concluding all in unbelief and
    Scripture concluding all under sin, that He might have mercy upon all
    and that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them
    that believe. (Ro.11:32; Ga.3:22)
    
    In that context, singling out a group of people as responsible for
    Christ's death is inappropriate.
    
    Okay, I was being short-sighted about Dispensationalism versus
    Covenant.  I regard as history anything longer than a century, and this
    debate has been ongoing for over 160 years.  But law versus grace has
    been ongoing since Adam! :-)
    
    Again, I will desist.  My questions frustrate you and your dismissing
    them as unworthy of consideration frustrates me.  If no one else has
    such questions, then no need to address stumblingblocks that are not
    really there.
    
    /Wayne

  Wayne,
  
>    As you wish--no more of the anti-semitism innuendos here.  

Thank you!

>    If you want
>    to dismiss my question on the basis of reinforcing that accusation,
>    then you've missed the point.

Yes, I do want to dismiss your question on that basis because to entertain
it is to go off on a wild tangent to the topic at hand.
    
>    The bigger context in my mind was God concluding all in unbelief and
>    Scripture concluding all under sin, that He might have mercy upon all
>    and that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them
>    that believe. (Ro.11:32; Ga.3:22)

We are in complete agreement here with the Bible.  
    
>    In that context, singling out a group of people as responsible for
>    Christ's death is inappropriate.

Of course it is inappropriate.  But that wasn't my context!  But I didn't
want to have to explain what my context was since it is not germaine to the
topic!

>    Okay, I was being short-sighted about Dispensationalism versus
>    Covenant.  I regard as history anything longer than a century, and this
>    debate has been ongoing for over 160 years.  But law versus grace has
>    been ongoing since Adam! :-)

Okay.  But I hope your first thinking about "history" is not common, though
I fear it is.  The history of the NT Church is almost 2000 years now!  It's
development can only be attributed to the Holy Spirit and the will of God
and therefore we must look at all of history for guidance, not just the last 
160 years.  Everyone should be shocked and surprised, as I was, that 
premillenial dispensationalism is a blip on the doctrinal screen of 
eschatology.  It is a "fad"!  But one cannot excuse it as such, turning
the other cheek, when one understands how it undermines our ability to
understand the Scriptures.  The Bible does not say what dispensationalists
say it says and the confusion and frustration which must follow in the
believer's heart and mind and soul from using that system is unnecessary
and crippling, in my strong opinion and experience.
    
>    Again, I will desist.  My questions frustrate you and your dismissing
>    them as unworthy of consideration frustrates me.  If no one else has
>    such questions, then no need to address stumblingblocks that are not
>    really there.
    
>    /Wayne

What frustrates me are leading questions in a strictly written media.  What 
frustrates me are ratholes and tangents.  Your questions are worthy of
consideration, Wayne, always!!

jeff

Jeff,

| Okay.  But I hope your first thinking about "history" is not common, though
| I fear it is.  The history of the NT Church is almost 2000 years now!  It's
| development can only be attributed to the Holy Spirit and the will of God
| and therefore we must look at all of history for guidance, not just the last 
| 160 years.  Everyone should be shocked and surprised, as I was, that 
| premillenial dispensationalism is a blip on the doctrinal screen of 
| eschatology.  It is a "fad"!  But one cannot excuse it as such, turning
| the other cheek, when one understands how it undermines our ability to
| understand the Scriptures.  The Bible does not say what dispensationalists
| say it says and the confusion and frustration which must follow in the
| believer's heart and mind and soul from using that system is unnecessary
| and crippling, in my strong opinion and experience.

** Of course the Church's development and endurance can only be attributed to
   God.  The very gates of hell will not prevail against it!  And no error
   put forth by man in the form of a systematic theology of any persuasion
   will keep Christ from presenting His Church holy and blameless before our
   Father.  That's the bottom-line!

   God is not the author of confusion, so believers do well to regard
   frustration as impetus to seek Truth.  If frustration is manifest, then
   questions must be asked and answered.  If questions are dismissed without
   answers, then frustration remains and timely truth is not seen.

   I desire to stand with you, Jeff, as a workman that needeth not to be
   ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  Ironic again that 2Ti.2:15 is
   the springboard for dispensational teaching. :-(

   The argument cuts both ways for anyone who would seek to establish their
   understanding/interpretation of God's Word as perfect versus the Word of
   God Himself.

   Human understanding is perfect in neither Dispensational nor Covenant
   schools of thought, though Covenant or Reformed doctrine is commended to my
   heart by the Holy Spirit and the Word as most Truthful! :-)

   My taking issue with some details of the Westminster Confession, or with
   another man's articulation of Reformed doctrine, is not the same as taking
   issue with the Word of God.  But I would not claim that my words express
   truth as well as the Confession.  If the Westminster Confession is studied
   to particularly work through points of difficulty or frustration, then the
   Confession can be used by the Holy Spirit to lead us into Truth.  My faith
   is not in the Confession or any other system, but in Jesus Christ who is
   confessed and revealed.
    
| What frustrates me are leading questions in a strictly written media.  What 
| frustrates me are ratholes and tangents.  Your questions are worthy of
| consideration, Wayne, always!!

** Again, my heart's desire was to ask questions that would lead to the Truth,
   NOT to create ratholes and spin tangents.

   I defer further elucidation to you, Jeff, and the Holy Spirit's revelation
   of God's Word to the readers' hearts.

   If you feel strongly that I've compromised truth, then please forgive and
   pray for me.

In Christ's peace,

/Wayne

P.S.  I would not declare all Dispensationalists to be heretics any more than I
would declare all in the Reformed faith to be wrong because some radicals say
say that Billy Graham is ill because he went into the world preaching the
Gospel to all while Scripture "clearly teaches" that Christ didn't die for the
sins of all.

re.85

>Okay, I now see the problem in your argument!  The author is *not* saying 
>that the physical descendants of Israel and Gentile believers are one and
>the same.  He is saying, as the Bible says, that the believers, both Jewish
>and Gentile, are in the same household and by implication and according to
>the Bible are actually spiritual Israel. 

Hi Jeff,

	Are you sure he's saying that? I agree totally with the above. It just
doesn't come across that way in his dialogue. It seems he's saying something
else. But if you believe the above, well then okay, I'll agree with you. But I
still don't think I agree with him. 8*)

	Maybe the assumption with the above is that God has no purpose for
physical Israel anymore. I would disagree with that also. 

Jeff, help me understand where I should disagree with you!  8*)

Ace

re.94 (me)


Wait, I remember now!

I disagree with you about dispensationalism!

Ace

    100 replies later and everyone is still confused about what this is
    actually about.

      Hi,
    
        I just want to know what is meant by dispensationalism and
        by covenants.
    
        What is meant by having a transition in dispensation?  What
        is meant by having a transition in covenant?
    
    						Thanks!,
    
    						Tony

>    100 replies later and everyone is still confused about what this is
>    actually about.


    I'm not confused.  To be honest I'm not even worried about it and unless
    someone can convince me that God is going to grill me on premillinial
    dispensationalism as I stand before Him, I will not worry about it.



 Jim

re.98

The best point made to date.

8*)

    A snarfing 100 year amen to .98. :-)

	Hi Tony,
        
    >    I just want to know what is meant by dispensationalism and
    >    by covenants.
    
    	Read .1 as a starter to understand what dispensationalism is.
    
    jeff

    Hi, Tony.
    
    See .83 for a good summary of covenant(s).
    
    As I've said before, I'm unfamiliar with the term "transition in
    covenant."  Isn't that a concept you introduced leading to some dialog
    between us? :-)
    
    /Wayne

      Hi Wayne,
    
        Perhaps!  :-)
    
        I resorted to a terminology known only to me!!!
    
    						Tony

    I vaguely recall hearing something about that too.  :-)
    
    Jill

Hey Ace (.94),
    
>Okay, I now see the problem in your argument!  The author is *not* saying 
>that the physical descendants of Israel and Gentile believers are one and
>the same.  He is saying, as the Bible says, that the believers, both Jewish
>and Gentile, are in the same household and by implication and according to
>the Bible are actually spiritual Israel. 


|	Are you sure he's saying that? I agree totally with the above. It just
|doesn't come across that way in his dialogue. It seems he's saying something
|else. But if you believe the above, well then okay, I'll agree with you. But I
|still don't think I agree with him. 8*)

Yes, that is exactly what he is saying.

|	Maybe the assumption with the above is that God has no purpose for
|physical Israel anymore. I would disagree with that also. 

Not the assumption but maybe an implication and certainly you would disagree
if you are under the dispensationalist error.  God never had any purpose for
"physical Israel" other than to create "spiritual Israel".  Now one has to
be careful not to separate unnecessarily the physical and the spiritual
but I'm pretty sure that aside from the existential requirement for physical
Israel to exist in order to have spiritual Israel that genetic, unbelieving
Israel is irrelevant now.

|Jeff, help me understand where I should disagree with you!  8*)

OK.  Genetic/unbelieving Israel has no relevancy in God's plans any longer!

jeff

re105

Jeff,

I knew there had to be something!  8*)

ace

    I pretty much agree with you Jeff in .105.  Like Ace, this is where we
    disagree.
    
    >OK.  Genetic/unbelieving Israel has no relevancy in God's plans any longer!
    
    If you believe this, then you believe in a god that isn't the same
    yesterday, today, and forever.  A god that isn't in the Bible.
    
- 2 Samuel 7:24, God says Israel will be His people *FOREVER*!
- Jeremiah 31:35-37, 33:23-26, God says Israel will never be forsaken or
  rejected.  Verse 26 was fulfilled in 1948 when Israel became a nation.
- Psalm 89:30-37, God once again declares He will not violate His covenant
  with Israel.
- Isaiah 11:11-12 says how God will gather the Jews together again from all
  over the world just as it is happening now!
- Amos 9:8-15 says that God will never destroy the Jews, even though they will
  go through the Great Tribulation.  God will restore their land afterwards.

The significance of this is great because you will not ever properly understand
Bible prophecy without realizing the importance of Israel with God and its role
in prophecy.
    
In Romans 9:3-5, Paul tells us:

"9:3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my
      kinsmen according to the flesh:
 9:4  Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and
      the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the
      promises;
 9:5  Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
      who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Jesus Christ came in the flesh out of the Physical or Natural Israel. 
    Replacement theology says that Israel is finished and that the Church 
    is now Israel.  Before the cross, there were only 2 entities: Jew and 
    Gentile.  After the cross, there are 3 and they are mentioned in 
    I Corinthians 10:32:

"10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the
       church of God:"

In Ephesians 2:15, Paul adds:

"2:15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
       contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so
       making peace;"

The Church of God is composed of both Jews and Gentiles.  When Gentiles come
into the Church of God, that doesn't mean there are no more Gentiles.  Likewise
for the Jews.  When the Jews come into the Church of God, that doesn't mean
there is no more Israel.  Look at Romans 10:1:

"10:1  Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they
       might be saved."

You have to be saved to be in the Church of God, so obviously this applies to a
Physical or Natural Israel.  Spiritual Israel was not promised the land
of Israel.  Spiritual Israel was not scattered across the world and
re-gathered in these last days.  As in Romans 4, though the Jews have specific
promises that apply to them only, they will not inherit the promises of Abraham
unless they have the relationship with God that Abraham had.  As in
Zechariah 12:10, they will recognize Him who they have pierced.  There's a
definite distinction between Israel and the Church of God.

In a sense you could call the Church of God a Spiritual Israel because of our
promises, but that DOESN'T replace Natural Israel.  It also doesn't change
    God's eternal covenant with Natural Israel.
    
    Mike

Hi, Tony.

Okay, I'm going to risk taking a layman's crack at "dividing" dispensations and
convenants.  I leave my studied opinion open to the critique of greater minds
than mine.

That said, I understand that:

Dispensations are the acts of God whereby He adminsters affairs with, or
dispenses His grace and mercy to, man in appointed epochs.  God has ordered His
dealings, but what has happened before indicates neither what must happen now
nor what will happen later.  God is immutable, but the way He reveals Himself
differs through time and revelation is applicable only to respective epochs.

Covenants are the acts of God whereby He binds Himself to man.  God is
immutable, and His covenants reveal His faithfulness to an appointed end.  God
keeps all His promises, and His present and future acts are always consistent
with past revelation.

A key point of difference between dispensation and covenant is how God deals
with sin, righteousness and judgment.  Dispensational doctrine is built on
seeing God's provisions changing.  Reformed doctrine is built on seeing God
always and only dealing by grace through faith in His promise.

/Wayne

>seeing God's provisions changing.  Reformed doctrine is built on seeing God
>always and only dealing by grace through faith in His promise.
    
    Call me crazy, but I see no grace in washing your hands of your
    "chosen" people that you made an everlasting covenant with.
    
    Mike

    re: .108
    
    Hi Wayne,
    
      I gave it a quick read and it deserves far more.  Work coming!
    
    re: .109
    
    Hi Mike,
    
      "But they are not all Israel who are Israel" or something like
      that.
    
      Sovereignty is certainly related here.  If the only way one can
      be 'rejected' by God is if God is rejected by that person (or
      corporate group), it need not be implied that grace is lacking...
    
      ...only that free choice denied it access.
    
    						Tony

>      Sovereignty is certainly related here.  If the only way one can
>      be 'rejected' by God is if God is rejected by that person (or
>      corporate group), it need not be implied that grace is lacking...
>    
>      ...only that free choice denied it access.
    
    Tony, I hear what you're saying but Jeff, as a Calvinist, won't
    support "free choice."
    
    Mike

>seeing God's provisions changing.  Reformed doctrine is built on seeing God
>always and only dealing by grace through faith in His promise.
    
|    Call me crazy, but I see no grace in washing your hands of your
|    "chosen" people that you made an everlasting covenant with.
    
|    Mike

Alright, Crazy! ;)~

    The problem is, Mike, that you erroneously think that God made promises
    to national/genetic Israel for national/genetic Israel when in fact God 
    made promises to those *believers* who were in national/genetic Israel,
    which were promises of the Messiah for the whole world.  He has remained 
    faithful, has provided the Messiah, and has kept those who have believed 
    in His grace and by His power. 
    
    National/genetic Israel was a tool God used to reveal Himself to the 
    whole world in Jesus Christ.  Jesus is revealed, the old covenant is
    fulfilled in Christ, and the future is the Church.  There is no going back
    to the old covenant.  Old has been superceded by the new.

    jeff

	Mike,

>      ...only that free choice denied it access.
    

\    Tony, I hear what you're saying but Jeff, as a Calvinist, won't
\    support "free choice."
    
\    Mike

Please don't rathole my topic again!  You're wrong anyway. ;)~  

jeff

>    The problem is, Mike, that you erroneously think that God made promises
>    to national/genetic Israel for national/genetic Israel when in fact God 
>    made promises to those *believers* who were in national/genetic Israel,
>    which were promises of the Messiah for the whole world.  He has remained 
>    faithful, has provided the Messiah, and has kept those who have believed 
>    in His grace and by His power. 
    
    Jeff, I hear you but OT passages don't exactly support this.  The OT
    verses talking about God's covenant with Israel don't specify natural
    or spiritual and they don't say it ends with the Messianic revelation. 
    It says the covenant is forever.
    
>    National/genetic Israel was a tool God used to reveal Himself to the 
>    whole world in Jesus Christ.  Jesus is revealed, the old covenant is
>    fulfilled in Christ, and the future is the Church.  There is no going back
>    to the old covenant.  Old has been superceded by the new.
    
    Agreed (but Israel still will be dealt with by God).
    
    Mike

     Mike,

>    Jeff, I hear you but OT passages don't exactly support this.  The OT
>    verses talking about God's covenant with Israel don't specify natural
>    or spiritual and they don't say it ends with the Messianic revelation. 
>    It says the covenant is forever.

>    Mike

OT passages must be intepreted by NT passages.   The NT makes it very,
very clear (to me at least and the historic Church but this truth is 
darkened for those who are under dispensational teaching by the 
contradictory dispensational system) that the covenant God had with Israel 
was the covenant with *believers* in Israel and that genetic/national Israel 
has no basis for any claims before God whatsoever.  There is a great deal of 
articulation of this point in the NT in several places.

jeff

    Ah, the crux of the issue: To whom did God make promises?
    
    Covenant theology emphasizes continuity and consistency.  As God's
    chosen people, Israel, moves to their appointed end, changing from
    glory to glory, God never reneges.
    
    Setting aside is not the same as forgetting/replacing.
    
    God is reconciling us to Himself in Jesus Christ.  In my humble, though
    studied, opinion, neither the Dispensational nor Reformed extreme
    position stands on the Truth of God's Word.
    
    /Wayne

>has no basis for any claims before God whatsoever.  There is a great deal of 
>articulation of this point in the NT in several places.
    
    BCV?

    
    Romans 11:17  And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou,
    being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them
    partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
    
    Romans 11:18  Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou
    bearest not the root, but the root thee.
    
    Romans 11:19  Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I
    might be graffed in.
    
    Romans 11:20  Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou
    standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
    
    Romans 11:21  For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed
    lest he also spare not thee.
    
    Romans 11:22  Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on
    them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue
    in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
    
    Romans 11:23  And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall
    be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
    
    Romans 11:24  For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild
    by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree:
    how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed
    into their own olive tree?
    
    Romans 11:25  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.
    
===============================================================================
    
    These verses say much to me.  Seems like Isreal is partially 
    blinded at this point and that those of us Christians should 
    be forwarned that as easily as we were grafted into Christ 
    through Him that we can just as easily be cut off by Him
    as well.  Unless I'm severly mis-interpretting what is
    being said in these verses.
    
    The wild ones are those of us who were not genetic descendants
    of the tribes of Isreal; why else is there a distinction here?
    

    Y'know,
    
    It always amuses me that we often get '2 sides' forming - I guess
    that's what's needed to form an argument ;'/ - at times so focused on
    their version of truth as the see it, that they miss other
    possibilities.
    
    One fact that we all know, and I think we all agree on, is that the
    overriding message through out the Bible is Grace.
    
    Often, as we see here, the Bible appears to hold contradictory views on
    a subject. People on one 'side' can show valid references for their
    interpretation for their view, people on the other 'side' can show
    equally valid references for their interpretation.
    
    One thing I have learned over the years {shudder} is that often, these
    seemingly contradictory themes _are_ both equally valid. With our
    'Western' (linear) mode of thought, we insist that "if this, then _not_
    that". Mid-Eastern (and Biblical) thought patterns are more
    accomodating - they seem to be able to hold two (seemingly)
    contradictory thoughts in parallel/tension.
    
    The classic 'example' of this is the "Free-Will/Predestination"
    "debate" (let's not 'rat-hole' on that one here).
    
    My 'take' is more of a "synthesis" method. Only 'cause I find it too
    hard to think in 'parallel'.
    
    Anyway, to be honest, I don't see what all the fuss is about (now
    that's _sure_ to stir things up ;')
    
    H

re: 116 (Parker) & 118 (Glenn)

Yes, agree with both of you.  Leslie

    re: .118
    
    Yes, but do the 'nonwild' ones also represent genetic Israel that
    are unbelievers???
    
    I see the branches differently.  Paul says, also in Romans, that
    Isreal had only one advantage, "for unto them were committed the
    oracles of God."
    
    This to me is Israel - that corporate body of which "unto them is
    committed the oracles of God."
    
    No one can reject the idea that corporate Israel was the body that
    unto them was committed the oracles.  As a huge discrete amount of
    light came upon Israel at the time of Christ, something happened.
    
    From the perspective of just what constitutes being that corporate
    body unto which God has given the oracles of God, many Israelites
    no longer constituted that characterization.  This is obvious in
    that many disbelieved in Christ as the Messiah and as they did not
    believe in this precious oracle, the oracle cannot be considered to
    be committed to them.  Or to put another way, these branches were
    removed.
    
    Many Gentiles received this precious light.  They were depositories
    of this light or (to put another way) are part of that group of which
    it can be said that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
    
    But, there is a warning there.  Reject the light and you are no longer
    a branch - no longer one in whom the oracles are.
    
    Anyway, that is the perspective I see.  Its all from the perspective
    of the light the corporate body of God's faithful is faithful to.
    
    Please also consider how this is compatible with what took place in
    Israel at the time of Christ.  The light that is Christ essentially
    was borne and received within Israel - within that tree.  All the
    apostles were Jews.  The vast majority of initial converts were Jews.
    Israel remained what it had always been, the tree within which the
    oracles of God are committed and from which they are disseminated.
    
    However, branches that were Israel, were removed.  Branches that were
    not Israel were grafted in.  
    
    Consider how all of this is compatible with the single reason Paul
    says Israel has an advantage...
    
    "for unto them..."
    
    						Tony
    
    If you are not faithful to the light, you, as a branch will be cut off.
    If you receive the light and have committed to it, you are a branch
    grafted in.
    
    

    Hi Harry,
    
>    It always amuses me that we often get '2 sides' forming - I guess
>    that's what's needed to form an argument ;'/ - at times so focused on
>    their version of truth as the see it, that they miss other
>    possibilities.

Arguments are a reflection of contradiction by their nature, as you
imply.  Truth exists only in its relation to falsity.  When a truth
exists a falsity must exist.  We are commmanded to seek the truth.
Indeed our lives are a reflection of our knowledge of the truth.
    
>    One fact that we all know, and I think we all agree on, is that the
>    overriding message through out the Bible is Grace.

This is only true as long as "grace" remains undefined.  The biblical meaning
of biblical grace and its implications is absolutely, unequivocally *not 
commonly understood or accepted* today among evangelicals.
    
>    Often, as we see here, the Bible appears to hold contradictory views on
>    a subject. People on one 'side' can show valid references for their
>    interpretation for their view, people on the other 'side' can show
>    equally valid references for their interpretation.

The Bible may *appear* to hold contradictory views on a subject for many
reasons.  In reality we know our God is truth and his word is truth.  God
is unified and does not contradict himself in any way.  The many reasons
for the appearance of contradiction include our ignorance, our pride, bad
teaching, shallow thinking, our rebelliousness to the truth, among other 
things.  The *worldly* idea of relativity, adopted by Christians, leads
to a false view of contradiction as well.
    
>    One thing I have learned over the years {shudder} is that often, these
>    seemingly contradictory themes _are_ both equally valid. With our
>    'Western' (linear) mode of thought, we insist that "if this, then _not_
>    that". Mid-Eastern (and Biblical) thought patterns are more
>    accomodating - they seem to be able to hold two (seemingly)
>    contradictory thoughts in parallel/tension.

There are very few themes, almost none rather than the number implied by 
"often", in the Bible which appear contradictory (for even they are not actually
so) with adequate study.  However, as shallow as evangelical Christianity has
become in its understanding and knowledge of the Scriptures (very much the
result of dispensational theology and the results of that error) and as worldly
as Christians have become in their thinking about truth, it is no wonder that
we so easily classify difficulties as contradictions we must accept and live
with regardless of the consequences of such contradictory beliefs.  I am here
to testify that there is a *better way*, a long tradition filled with martyrs'
blood and God-given gifts which open up the Scriptures, teach one to think,
and dispel all merely seeming contradictions allowing one to move forward
in their understanding of God, this life we have been given to live, the
power to live in it, and cultivating the fruit that is expected to be present
in the life of the Christian.  *It is fundamentally the ideas of 
dispensationalism, among others, as far as they distort the biblical record 
and the historical testament of the church that evangelicals must escape from 
in order to experience what should be the Christian life and what I have 
attested to above!*  I pray that all of you may see this in spite of my
feeble attempt to demonstrate it here.
    
>    The classic 'example' of this is the "Free-Will/Predestination"
>    "debate" (let's not 'rat-hole' on that one here).

As the argument goes among laymen, it can only be classic as an example of
ignorance. The two views *cannot be held*, as commonly understood, at the 
same time without making both meaningless.
    
>    My 'take' is more of a "synthesis" method. Only 'cause I find it too
>    hard to think in 'parallel'.

This is another of the results of worldly thinking, ignorance, and our
bent toward laziness.  Because I do not know my God well enough, rather
than address the apparent contradiction and the confusion which is obvious
to me on a particular subject, I will create (synthesize) a "solution"
which neutralizes a contradiction.  But what one has done in effect is to
create a new error and has darkened understanding even further.

    
>    Anyway, to be honest, I don't see what all the fuss is about (now
>    that's _sure_ to stir things up ;')
    
>    H

Naturally a person who synthesizes a solution out of contradictory ideas
will have no fuss about anything.  "All is okay!."  "Do what I do - 
throw out the contradictions and combine what's left!"

Now Harry, please do not think that I am picking on you.  I am not.  You
have made the quintessential statement, speaking symbolically for most
of evangelicalism today, as you describe your approach to truth.  I hope
you don't think of me as unkind in using your ideas as a way to help
express what I am talking about.  I love you in Christ, Harry.

jeff

    Hi Tony
    
    >Yes, but do the 'nonwild' ones also represent genetic Israel that
    >    are unbelievers???
    
    Yes the 'nonwild' ones are the branches that are broken off/cut out.
    But, Romans 11:23 seems to say to me that when those broken branches
    change from their unbelief, they will be grafted back in among us
    wilds.
    
    
    Gee, I guess I never considered myself a wild thing until just now :-).
    
    RE: Harry.  Now if we didn't have any conversations or discussions
        in here, don't you think it would be rather boring ? :-).
    
    

    re: -1
    
    Hi Glenn,
    
      Is that your name???
    
      Perhaps God is echoing foreknowledge?  I.e. He knows that in the
      last days there will be a dramatic spiritual awakening within
      'genetic' Hebrews?
    
      I am certainly open to this possibility!
    
      Thanks for your inputs!
    
    							Tony

    You have found "the better way."  Do you mean to imply that those who
    would disagree with your understanding are not by God's grace faithful
    to His Word?
    
    Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
    the Father, but by me." (Jn.14:6)
    
    The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul said, "And now abideth faith,
    hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
    (1Co.13:13)
    
    You said, "Indeed our lives are a reflection of our knowledge of the
    truth."
    
    The Holy Spirit through the Apostle John said, "Hereby know we that we
    dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit. And
    we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the
    Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of
    God, God dwelleth in Him, and He in God. And we have known and believed
    the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love
    dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is love with us made perfect,
    that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as He is, so
    are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love
    casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not
    made perfect in love. We love Him, because He first loved us."
    (1Jn.4:13-19)
    
    Jesus said, "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every
    branch in me that beareth not fruit He taketh away: and every branch
    that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more
    fruit...I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and
    I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for severed from me ye
    can do nothing...This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I
    have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
    his live for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I
    command you...Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and
    ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your
    fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my
    name, He may give it you." (Jn.15:1-17)
    
    The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul said, "But the fruit of the
    Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
    Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law...If we live in the
    Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." (Ga.5:22-25)
    
    We are in agreement together with God's Word: Fruit reveals the tree
    whose branches we are.  As I understand things, there is no "good and
    lasting fruit" apart from the grace of God in our lives.  I, for one,
    seek no "better way."
    
    Selah.
    
    /Wayne

    Hi, Tony.
    
    Now, if God were to dramatically open the eyes of His chosen seed from
    Israel's race, wouldn't that be a neat and tidy reconciliation of some
    things by God's Word?! :-)
    
    May we all be open to the mighty working of God's grace by which He
    will be glorified in us!

    What do you (or other readers) make of this?

    "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
    lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness (or hard-
    ness) in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles
    be come in. 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: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
    their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes:
    but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
    For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as in times
    past have not believed (or obeyed) God, yet have now obtained mercy
    through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed (or
    obeyed), that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath
    concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all."
    (Ro.11:25-32)

    How can we who "in times past have not believed God, yet have now
    obtained mercy through their unbelief" not love those who "as touching
    the election are beloved for the fathers' sakes," and greatly anticipate
    "the fulness of the Gentiles" coming in, and God's family being made
    whole to stand holy and blameless before Him?

    Do we see God working in our lives such that through our "mercy they
    also may obtain mercy?"

    Much to ponder.

    May we by God's grace be ambassadors of reconciliation.
    
    /Wayne

>    You have found "the better way."  

No.  I have found a better way of understanding the Scriptures than the
understanding enabled by the dispensationalist system.

Again, I request that you not introduce division by way of innuendo.

jeff

>    Now, if God were to dramatically open the eyes of His chosen seed from
>    Israel's race, wouldn't that be a neat and tidy reconciliation of some
>    things by God's Word?! :-)
    
    There's quite a revival going on now among Russian Jews but I haven't
    heard anything about Israel.
    
    Mike

    I've introduced division?  Who/what is being divided?
    
    Would not your words *better way* been better understood had you said
    "of understanding the Scriptures than the understanding enabled by the
    dispensationalist system" in the first place?
    
    Can you not read your own words to see the implication that those who
    disagree with you are wrong?
    
    /Wayne

    >No.  I have found a better way of understanding the Scriptures than the
>understanding enabled by the dispensationalist system.
>
>Again, I request that you not introduce division by way of innuendo.

    With all due respect, Jeff, you are the one introducing division by way
    of condescension.

    Mike

    Hi, Mike.
    
    I said "chosen seed from Israel's race."
    
    These are exciting times!
    
    Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.
    
    /Wayne

    Jeff,
    
    You feel impelled to use "strong words," but somehow feel free from
    strong words in return.  That again suggests you see yourself as
    holding the truth to which others must submit.

    I request that you refrain from accusing me of introducing division by
    way of innuendo.
    
    My Brother, do a mathematician and artist necessarily see the same
    thing in the same way?  If an artist were constrained to express what
    is seen in mathematical terms, or if a mathematician were constrained
    to use images rather than equations, would not something be lost?
    
    Can you not see that Christ is more fully revealed by all members of
    His body?  No one man among us yet knows enough to reveal the fulness
    of grace and truth found in our Lord.
    
    The Word and the Spirit together reveal Truth.  To require another man
    to parrot your words in order for you to commend truth is to put
    yourself in the position of God.
    
    I really desire to stand with/beside you in truth, but you seem
    unwilling or unable to stand beside me.
    
    Again, if I'm not speaking the truth, then please forgive and pray for
    me.  You are my Brother in Christ, and as such, you are in a position to
    reveal more of Him to me by His grace.  I confess difficulty hearing what
    you mean because of the way you say things.
    
    /Wayne

>    I've introduced division?  Who/what is being divided?
 
Yes. You attempted to make a distinction and divide this group by suggesting
that my basis for discussion is some arrogant, mystical, gnostic,
"better way" of my imagination in which Christians should follow, compared 
to the biblical message (which everyone else holds and is following here) 
of what belief is required to be a Christian.  You attempted to make me at 
odds with others and vice versa by dividing us along the biblical way (your
way) and Jeff's supposed "better way", which must be likened to some gnostic
idea.  Remember, when one speaks in this forum one is speaking publicly at
all times.
  
>    Would not your words *better way* been better understood had you said
>    "of understanding the Scriptures than the understanding enabled by the
>    dispensationalist system" in the first place?

Is not the whole context of this topic that dispensationalism fails as a
system of biblical interpretation and that there is a better way?
    
>    Can you not read your own words to see the implication that those who
>    disagree with you are wrong?
 
Can you not see that what is wrong is deadly?  Can you not see that truth is
paramount?  That our love for God and others (*not* our sentimental estimation
of love) is directly based upon our understanding of what is true? Can 
you not see that you have no basis, other than some pagan cultural or 
personal norm, for suggesting that I should not say someone is wrong?  Do
you realize how anti-biblical this is?  Have I been unkind?  Have I been
unsympathetic?  Have I been unloving?  Must I apologize for saying someone
is wrong?
   
_________________________________________________________________
Mike,

    >No.  I have found a better way of understanding the Scriptures than the
>understanding enabled by the dispensationalist system.
>
>Again, I request that you not introduce division by way of innuendo.

|    With all due respect, Jeff, you are the one introducing division by way
|    of condescension.

|    Mike

I understand that under the circumstances it may appear that I am being
condescending.  But I am not!  Condescension is an action of belittling
another.  I have said repeatedly *why* this is important and the reasons
I have given, if they are true, surely may be objectively seen as 
worthy of my time and effort in arguing for them.  Isn't your
accusation really a reflection of your anger and discomfort at being so 
directly challenged in your dearly-held beliefs?  Am I attacking you 
personally?  Am I ascribing to you as a basis for your beliefs a 
dishonorable motive such as anti-semitism or the pride and arrogance 
which precedes condescension?  I suspect you can accuse me of calling you 
ignorant by implication.  But that is a technical term and is not a bad 
thing in my estimation.

You are being divisive in that you attempt to single me out as condescending,
making a division (Jeff's condescending, you (and by implication) everyone
else is not), thus discrediting me and what I am saying, when you have no 
valid reason for doing so.

jeff

    Hi, Jeff.
    
    When have I ever suggested that you should not say someone is wrong?
    Certainly identifying error is not wrong.
    
    Yes, truth is paramount.
    
    All I've suggested is that your style compromises your content.
    
    And, to be explicit, some of what you've said appears wrong, according
    to my understanding of your words versus my understanding of God's
    Word.
    
    And I concede that I do not understand God's Word as fully as I should
    and will by His grace, perhaps not even as well as you.
    
    My intent was not to be divisive, rather to get at the truth.
    
    What would you have me do if you enter things that appear to be wrong?
    Should I not call you wrong?
    
    /Wayne
    
    P.S.  I desire to not elevate the tension between us further.  If you
    are led to respond to this note, then I will consider your words and
    admonition without further comment.  Moreover, I will defer to your
    subsequent entries in this topic so as to not give the appearance of
    standing against truth.  In other words, the final word is yours on
    which to build.

>worthy of my time and effort in arguing for them.  Isn't your
>accusation really a reflection of your anger and discomfort at being so 
>directly challenged in your dearly-held beliefs?
    
    I don't think so.  I've even stated that I agreed with some of what you
    wrote.  I feel no anger about this, just surprised that you can claim
    to hold the Bible to a higher standard and not see some of the
    contradictions in your view.
    
    Mike

    Brother Mike,
    
>worthy of my time and effort in arguing for them.  Isn't your
>accusation really a reflection of your anger and discomfort at being so 
>directly challenged in your dearly-held beliefs?
    
|    I don't think so.  
    
    Well, I may be wrong.
    
    |I've even stated that I agreed with some of what you
|    wrote.  I feel no anger about this, just surprised that you can claim
|    to hold the Bible to a higher standard and not see some of the
|    contradictions in your view.
    
    I don't think I've said this yet (I started to some time ago) but what
    you see as contradictions (which I'm not quite sure you have clearly
    pointed out - one thing comes to mind which the next sentence will
    address, I think) in historic Christianity is only a contradiction
    through dispensationalist eyes.  There is no contradiction in historic
    Christianity's beliefs on this topic as .1 states clearly.  
    
    What you are doing is called "begging the question".  This is how it 
    works; you see the passage in Matthew which you pointed out here.  In
    this passage Jesus is telling Jews about trials and tribulations to come 
    and you, *solely on the basis of dispensationalism* interpret that
    Jesus has spoken about "end-times", i.e. the end of this present age.
    Since dispensationalism is being argued as an untrue system for
    interpreting Scripture you have to prove that that passage is properly
    interpreted as you would have us understand it without resorting to
    the presupposition of the truth of dispensationalism.
    
    The reasons you should not interpret that passage that way are because
    1) it is not a *necessary* interpretation, i.e. there is no reason it
    must be interpreted that way; especially in light of the facts that the
    historic church has never interpreted the passage that way, has
    resisted any efforts to do so, and has a perfectly reasonable
    explanation for interpreting it differently and it makes perfectly good
    sense in its non-dispensationalist interpretation.  And 2) the
    dispensational interpretation which you use violates your own rule of
    reading a literal interpretation where possible.
    
    jeff

    Well Jeff, as far as Matthew 24 is concerned, there are definite
    prophecies that can be tied to 70 A.D.  However, prophecies with 
    dual-natures aren't uncommon in the Bible.  All the OT Messianic
    prophecies are prime examples.  I'll leave it at that.
    
    As for historical Christianity, there are many black marks the church
    has left in its path through the centuries.  I'd be careful about what
    I embrace based on what the historical church teaches.  I'd also be
    careful about what extrabiblical documents I'd embrace and how much
    weight should be placed on them.  Too much of this type of thinking
    says that the Reformation, and all our brothers and sisters lives that
    were martyred, was for nothing.
    
    Mike

    Oh dear,
    
    why do I feel that in trying to put concepts into English (or 'Murikan
    even ;'), I've made a complete hash of it.
    
    I thought at the time, I was being clear, but Jeff seems to have
    grabbed onto things in a slightly different manner to my intentions. Oh
    dear, oh dear.
    
    For example, by 'synthesis', I didn't mean to imply that I 'neutralise'
    the apparently contradictory elements, but rather I try to see the 'two
    sides' as different facets of the same Truth. (to mind comes the
    analogy of the blind men and the elephant).
    
    I see though, that no matter what I say here may be misconstrued.
    
    Yes, I am a child of this Western "culture" (using that word in a loose
    and easy manner ;'), and unfortunately I am constrained unconsciously
    by many of the restrictions and 'filters' that are implied in that.
    Even more so, the 'Australian version' of that culture is, in many
    areas, quite different to the North American version (at times I wonder
    if you guys are from the same planet ;').
    
    But back to the point at hand.
    
    I think there will be disagreement on many points of interpretation -
    dispensationalism being one of them. In the basics of our Faith, many
    of us are complete agreement. In some of the areas that have been left
    'less clear', there will be disagreements. I happen to think (my own
    opinion here - treat it with the contempt it deserves) that this area
    of 'dispensations' in one such area. That's one area I (me, myself,
    personally) think is one the 'other side of the line' - others will see
    it as fundamental to 'True Faith'.
    
    I think the statement(s) in 2.* cover the basics as I see them pretty
    well.
    
    Love in Jesus,
    
    H

      re: .125
    
      Hi Wayne,
    
       I think you hit the jugular with this reply.  I believe we
       all pale markedly from the standard of Christ which standard
       is loving as He loves, even unto death.
    
       The true gospel will be seen as truth largely so from the
       standpoint of the love manifesting by its adherents.
    
       I do not believe any of us fittingly represent the true gospel,
       myself included.
    
      But, I look forward to the day...
    
    						Tony

re: .1
    

>[M] odern premillennialism teaches that God has not one, but two separate
>    peoples of God, Israel and the Church.  This teaching, known as
>dispensationalism, was developed in the 1830's by J.N. Darby. Darby,
    
    Darby did not develope this idea, but this has been pointed out already.
    
>   Thus, Christ's death on the cross was not part of God's plan.
    
    This too, is an incorrect summary of the pre-trib theology.  I've read
    many books on this subject, and not one "pre-tribber" has suggested the
    conclusion that Mr. Deventer assigns to them.
    
>    [2] As
>a result, the coming of the kingdom was postponed until the second coming
>of Christ and is not present today except in "mystery form."[3] 
    
    "mystery form"?  I have no idea what he is talking about here. 
    
>Because the Jews rejected the Messiah, God created the
>Church as a Plan B that dispensationalists claim was wholly unanticipated,
>even by the Old Testament prophets.[5]

    This is poppycock.  No respected author suggests this at all.  Mr.
    Deventer is creating straw-men arguments.
    
>According to dispensationalism, the millennium is fundamentally Jewish in
>nature such that the Jews will be "exalted above the Gentiles."
    
    Fundamentally Jewish?  Another straw-man. 
    
>    [6] The
>Gentiles will "be on the lowest level" in Christ's rule.
    
    And another...
    
>    [7] In addition,
>despite Christ's ultimate sacrifice as "the lamb of God who takes away the
>sin of the world," dispensationalism teaches that the sacrificial system
>will be reinstituted![8]

    I think Mr. Deventer is confusing pre-trib theology.  
    
    The sacrificial system *will* be reintroduced by Israel, according to
    Revelation (his confusion is likely do to his belief that Israel =
    Church).  Why do I think this?   Because right in Revelation is says
    that the beast will stop all sacrifice in the temple.    
    
    The author's implications are off, since the Church (according to the 
    pre-trib theology) will not be around at this time (not that this
    conclusion makes any difference since Judaism != Christianity).  These 
    Jews do not consider Christ as savior, nor do they consider the NT in 
    their religion, so why wouldn't they rebuild their temple and reintroduce 
    their traditional ceremonies? 
    
>Christ's death was not an unfortunate accident brought on by the
>unanticipated rejection by the Jews. 
    
    Of course it wasn't.  No one is saying this.  Many prophesies,
    including those of the OT, tell of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins.
    
>As Provan points out, the Bible uses the same terms to describe both Israel
>and the Church, proving that those of the household of faith are one and
>the same. 
    
    I disagree with this for a few reasons.  One, many
    prophesies/historical accounts deal specifically with Israel - physical 
    Israel.  Second, some mentionings of Israel cannot possibly apply to the 
    Church.  
    
    But this is an argument for another topic, perhaps.

>The rejection of the Jews will not be permanent, however. As the gospel
>spreads and the nations are discipled, the Jews will respond in faith when
>the "fullness of the Gentiles" takes place (Romans 11:25). 
    
    Not quite.  The Jews will respond, and finally believe (wholesale), after 
    Christ makes an appearance personally, saving Israel from certain 
    destruction (it's all in Revelation).  
    

    
    Now, I don't want to demean Mr. Deventer, but I wonder how he has
    missed so much in Revelation that rejects his theory?  A brief perusal
    (whether it be literal interpretation or not) shows many events of the
    Great Tribulation that have not happened yet.  The fact is that 
    you have to ignore a great deal of Revealtion to believe that the 
    tribulation has already occurred. 
    
    
    
    -steve 

    
    Hi Steve,
    
    One of the entries I supplied provides the bibliography for .0, or at
    least the sections we have discussed.
    
    I think you are generally ill-informed concerning a biblical, objective
    review of premillenial dispensationalism.  And the truth of premil
    disp. is your presupposition for scrutinizing the words of Deventer, 
    for example, rather than the Bible.
    
    All of the what Deventer says is true.  I've seen/heard/deduced every bit 
    of it during my Christian life.
    
    jeff

 Is it at all possible, Jeff, for you to state your disagreement without
 including veiled insults?




 Jim

> Is it at all possible, Jeff, for you to state your disagreement without
> including veiled insults?

> Jim
    
    Okay, Jim, that's it.  In lieu of defending myself, I acquiesce.
    
    jeff

    Hi Jeff,
    
>    One of the entries I supplied provides the bibliography for .0, or at
>    least the sections we have discussed.
   
    I know.  All too much of Revelation itself is ignored or explained
    away, however, in his article.  Couple this with his false conclusion
    of where dispensationalist ideas originated (this in the beginning of
    his article) and it is hard for me to take his conclusions seriously.
      
>    I think you are generally ill-informed concerning a biblical, objective
>    review of premillenial dispensationalism.  
    
    Actually, this is the one area of Biblical study that I am
    comfortable arguing doctrine over, down to nitpick level.  I've done a
    lot of study on this, my conclusions after such a study have changed
    180 degrees from where they began when I took an interest in "end
    times" prophesies.
     
>    And the truth of premil
>    disp. is your presupposition for scrutinizing the words of Deventer, 
>    for example, rather than the Bible.
 
    I scrutinize Deventer's words because his conclusions are false
    regarding some of the mainstream dispensationalist veiws propagated by
    the likes of Hal Lindsey, Vernon McGee, Grant R. Jeffry (yes, I've
    probably mis-spelled all the names  8^) ), etc.  
        
>    All of the what Deventer says is true.  
    
    Like who originated the dispensationalist views?  He's undoubtedly
    right on much of the logic regarding intended audience, translational
    meanings of words and such, but his conclusions of the
    dispensationalist views are off.  
         
>    I've seen/heard/deduced every bit of it during my Christian life.
 
    If it has helped your faith or your walk with God, more power to you. 
    That's what really counts, anyway.  This is mere theological
    nitpicking, and neither of our eternal souls are at risk due to our
    views on this subject.  8^)
       
    
    -steve
            

    
>    One of the entries I supplied provides the bibliography for .0, or at
>    least the sections we have discussed.
   
>>    I know.  All too much of Revelation itself is ignored or explained
>>    away, however, in his article.  Couple this with his false conclusion
>>    of where dispensationalist ideas originated (this in the beginning of
>>    his article) and it is hard for me to take his conclusions seriously.
    
    I challenge you (collegially, of course) to identify the "false
    conclusion of where dispensationalist ideas originated."  Remember, he
    is not stating that premillenial or dispensationalist thoughts have
    never surfaced in Christian history (they have but they have always
    been regarded as error by the church and never accepted as biblical
    doctrine).  The point he is making is that today's premillenial
    dispensationlist theology is rooted in Darby's system.
      
>    And the truth of premil
>    disp. is your presupposition for scrutinizing the words of Deventer, 
>    for example, rather than the Bible.
 
   >> I scrutinize Deventer's words because his conclusions are false
   >> regarding some of the mainstream dispensationalist veiws propagated by
   >> the likes of Hal Lindsey, Vernon McGee, Grant R. Jeffry (yes, I've
   >> probably mis-spelled all the names  8^) ), etc.  
    
    I doubt that you can provide one whit of evidence that suggests that
    any modern premillenial dispensationalist system is too far off from
    Darby's system.  Modifications of dispensationalism are like
    modifications of evolutionary theory, all the original, basic ideas
    remain mostly intact.
        
>    All of the what Deventer says is true.  
    
    >>Like who originated the dispensationalist views?  He's undoubtedly
    >>right on much of the logic regarding intended audience, translational
    >>meanings of words and such, but his conclusions of the
    >>dispensationalist views are off.  
    
    Hal Lindsey (and probably the others you mention) is not a scholar.  I
    think it is only appropriate to argue such issues on the objective
    basis of scholarship rather than popular figures and their opinions
    since endless variation may occur among laymen.
         
>    I've seen/heard/deduced every bit of it during my Christian life.
 
    >>If it has helped your faith or your walk with God, more power to you. 
    >>That's what really counts, anyway.  This is mere theological
    >>nitpicking, and neither of our eternal souls are at risk due to our
    >>views on this subject.  8^)
       
    >>-steve
    
    Oh, it has helped my walk with God, to be sure, to discard premillenial
    dispensationalism as a fatally flawed theological system which distorts
    the understanding of the Bible in significant ways.  If you believe the
    Bible to be the Word of God and if you believe the Word of God to
    contain all we need to understand His will then you will be truly
    anxious to find the best means for understanding it.  It is far more
    serious than individual preferences.  And just as a wholesale embrace
    of dispensationalism has led to the weak, sinful, worldly, ineffective
    evangelical church of today, so a rejection of dispensationalism and
    the adoption of the views of the Reformers will lead to a strong, holy,
    effective church of tomorrow. 
    
    Thank you, Steve, for not taking offense at my earlier entry, as Jim
    suggested you should (or at least not acting as if you did).
    
    jeff        

 While I don't know if the late J. Vernon McGee can be considered a scholar,
 he was hardly a layman, having pastored numerous churchs in his long
 career.  He also hosted "Through the Bible", a 5 year radio program where
 he preached and taught through the entire Bible (broadcasts of which
 have been published as commentary).


 Jim

    
    Hi Jim,
    
    I should have said, "laymen and non-scholars".
    
    jeff

    Just curious, Jeff:  What is your definition of a scholar, or how would
    you characterize a scholar?
    
    And what exactly is a layman in the kingdom of God?
    
    /Wayne

    re: Jim (.126)
    
    Indeed.  His commentaries on Revelation are very good (I've got his
    commentaries on Revealtion and Genesis - I recommend both highly).
    He has a very laid back approach in his commentary which I can relate
    to very well.
    
    
    -steve

 I have several of them myself.  I used to love listening to his program
 on the radio and planned my lunch hour around when it was on.  Now, when
 I read his commentaries (which for the most part were taken word for word
 from his broadcasts) in my "mind's ear" I can hear him reading them..



 Jim

    re: Jeff (.145)
    
    
>    I challenge you (collegially, of course) to identify the "false
>    conclusion of where dispensationalist ideas originated."  
    
    In his own words, regarding dispensationalism... it "was developed in
    teh 1830's by J.N. Darby.  Darby, seeking to legitimize his newly
    created rapture theory and its two "second comings"..."
    
    This is incorrect.  There is only one second coming mentioned in any of
    the views I've read from Lindsey, McGee, Grant, et-al.  According to
    these authors, the saints are raptured (this is NOT a 'second coming')
    before the tribulation, then at the end Jesus comes in person to end
    the final battle of Armageddon.  Also, the "rapture of the saints" was
    not a "newly created theory" by Darby.
    
>    The point he is making is that today's premillenial
>    dispensationlist theology is rooted in Darby's system.
 
    If this is the point he was trying to make, he wasn't very clear about
    it, IMO.  I'll not disagree with it, as certainly Darby had a great
    deal of influence in reviving this veiw of Revelation (and supporting
    prophesy).  What I question is Darby's own understanding of this
    view...he seems to come to conclusions that I do not see coming from
    Lindsey, etc.
         
>    I doubt that you can provide one whit of evidence that suggests that
>    any modern premillenial dispensationalist system is too far off from
>    Darby's system.  
    
    That depends on what you consider "far off", I guess, but I won't argue
    the point.
        
>    Hal Lindsey (and probably the others you mention) is not a scholar.  
    
    I'd really like to know what you consider a scholar, then.  Hal Lindsey
    has studied "end times" prophesy for over 25 years, and has written
    numerous books on this very subject.  Grant Jeffries (Jeffry?) has also 
    been a student of prophesy for over 25 years, and has written many
    books on the subject.  Vernon McGee certainly is not a lay-man on this 
    subject, having had many, many years of Biblical study and teaching (and 
    church startings).  I don't know about the other two, but McGee
    was a graduate of seminary school (no sure which one), too.    
    
>    Oh, it has helped my walk with God, to be sure, to discard premillenial
>    dispensationalism as a fatally flawed theological system which distorts
>    the understanding of the Bible in significant ways.  
    
    I don't even consider it a theological system.  It was through this
    type of study, however, that I became serious in my Christian walk.
    
>    If you believe the
>    Bible to be the Word of God and if you believe the Word of God to
>    contain all we need to understand His will then you will be truly
>    anxious to find the best means for understanding it.  
    
    Prophesy is very important in many ways.  However, you need not have a
    firm grasp of it in order to grow in the Lord.  Nor do you need an
    in-depth understanding of "end-times" timing and events in order to
    understand the most important aspects of His wisdom to us: "Love one
    another as I have loved you".  Evil cannot fight love.  This is the
    key to all the commandments.
       
>    Thank you, Steve, for not taking offense at my earlier entry, 
    
    I didn't think any was intended, so I didn't bother being offended.  8^)
    
    
    -steve       

    .150
    
    Ditto.  I used to listen to him on the way home from work.  Oddly
    enough, I catch myself reading slowew than normal to match his slower 
    pace of speaking that I had become so familiar with.  I can almost hear
    him speaking the words from my memory when I read his commentaries.
    
    
    -steve

    
    A scholar is one who by virtue of their gifts, education, and vocation
    have devoted themselves to some field of biblical studies, normally to
    the exclusion of all other endeavors (i.e. vocations), their whole life
    and who serve as a professor and/or researcher in their field of study.
    
    jeff
    

    
     Hi Steve,
        
>    I challenge you (collegially, of course) to identify the "false
>    conclusion of where dispensationalist ideas originated."  
    
    >>In his own words, regarding dispensationalism... it "was developed in
    >>teh 1830's by J.N. Darby.  Darby, seeking to legitimize his newly
    >>created rapture theory and its two "second comings"..."
    
    >>This is incorrect.  There is only one second coming mentioned in any of
    >>the views I've read from Lindsey, McGee, Grant, et-al.  According to
    >>these authors, the saints are raptured (this is NOT a 'second coming')
    >>before the tribulation, then at the end Jesus comes in person to end
    >>the final battle of Armageddon.  Also, the "rapture of the saints" was
    >>not a "newly created theory" by Darby.
    
    You will note the quotations around "second comings".  
    I bet you that Darby's rapture theory was unique enough from the
    historical theories to be legitimately called "newly created".
    
>    The point he is making is that today's premillenial
>    dispensationlist theology is rooted in Darby's system.
 
    >>If this is the point he was trying to make, he wasn't very clear about
    >>it, IMO.  I'll not disagree with it, as certainly Darby had a great
    >>deal of influence in reviving this veiw of Revelation (and supporting
    >>prophesy).  What I question is Darby's own understanding of this
    >>view...he seems to come to conclusions that I do not see coming from
    >>Lindsey, etc.
    
    Well, I think this can be explained in that Deventer presumes a
    level of knowledge of how theologies and movements are born and
    develop.
         
>    Hal Lindsey (and probably the others you mention) is not a scholar.  
    
    >>I'd really like to know what you consider a scholar, then.  Hal Lindsey
    >>has studied "end times" prophesy for over 25 years, and has written
    >>numerous books on this very subject.  Grant Jeffries (Jeffry?) has also 
    >>been a student of prophesy for over 25 years, and has written many
    >>books on the subject.  Vernon McGee certainly is not a lay-man on this 
    >>subject, having had many, many years of Biblical study and teaching (and 
    >>church startings).  I don't know about the other two, but McGee
    >>was a graduate of seminary school (no sure which one), too.
    
    If I recall correctly my point was that it is inappropriate to draw
    conclusions about Deventer's article based upon the work of such men as
    Lindsey.  Lindsey is not a scholar (as I defined a few back) nor are
    the other men.  Scholars use theological systems and hermeneutics and
    so on in their study of the *Bible*.  When proposing something new,
    they have to not only prove from the Bible their new interpretation but
    they have to counter all of the arguments for the prior accepted
    understanding.  So, it is only really relevant to argue the formal,
    theologically "proven" arguments and not the endless variations often found
    among non-scholars.
    
>    Oh, it has helped my walk with God, to be sure, to discard premillenial
>    dispensationalism as a fatally flawed theological system which distorts
>    the understanding of the Bible in significant ways.  
    
    >>I don't even consider it a theological system.  It was through this
    >>type of study, however, that I became serious in my Christian walk.
    
    It is a theological system, formally and practically.  It is a system
    for interpreting all of the Bible.
    
>    If you believe the
>    Bible to be the Word of God and if you believe the Word of God to
>    contain all we need to understand His will then you will be truly
>    anxious to find the best means for understanding it.  
    
    >>Prophesy is very important in many ways.  However, you need not have a
    >>firm grasp of it in order to grow in the Lord.  Nor do you need an
    >>in-depth understanding of "end-times" timing and events in order to
    >>understand the most important aspects of His wisdom to us: "Love one
    >>another as I have loved you".  Evil cannot fight love.  This is the
    >>key to all the commandments.
    
    I'm not sure what you mean here.  I do not believe prophecy is
    important in many ways, certainly not end times prophecy as it is
    envisioned by the dispensationalist.  Basically, dispensationalism
    turns some significant portions of the Bible into means to satisfy
    man's curiosity, veiling the actual meaning of the Scriptures.  Also,
    it is absolutely clear (Oh, how I wish I could show you and demonstrate
    for you so that  your eyes would be opened) that the dispensationalist
    system, in the name of interpreting prophecy, obscures and destroys some 
    very basic, fundamental, and important bibilical doctrines.
           
>    Thank you, Steve, for not taking offense at my earlier entry, 
    
    >>I didn't think any was intended, so I didn't bother being offended.  8^)
    
    Whatta guy!!
    
    jeff
    

    re: .154 (Jeff)
    
>    You will note the quotations around "second comings". 
    
    I noticed, but that does not make much difference in this instance. 
    His conclusions of two second comings is false, unless he considers the
    rapture a "second coming" - in which case he shows another
    misunderstanding of the pre-trib rapture view. 
     
>    I bet you that Darby's rapture theory was unique enough from the
>    historical theories to be legitimately called "newly created".
 
    It was not unique at all in the first century.
            
>    If I recall correctly my point was that it is inappropriate to draw
>    conclusions about Deventer's article based upon the work of such men as
>    Lindsey.  
    
    A point I disagree with, but that's neither here nor there.  My point
    is that I'm not using these authors to do anything but show Deventer's
    faulty conclusions of the view he tried to debunk.  Scripturally
    speaking, I believe Lindsey and the other to be close to the mark.
    
>    Lindsey is not a scholar (as I defined a few back) nor are
>    the other men.  
    
    Actually, by your definition given in .153, they are.
    
>   When proposing something new,
>    they have to not only prove from the Bible their new interpretation but
>    they have to counter all of the arguments for the prior accepted
>    understanding.  
    
    Which they do quite well, actually.  Of course, thier interpretations
    are not unique, nor new.  
    
    >>Prophesy is very important in many ways.  However, you need not have a
    >>firm grasp of it in order to grow in the Lord.  Nor do you need an
    >>in-depth understanding of "end-times" timing and events in order to
    >>understand the most important aspects of His wisdom to us: "Love one
    >>another as I have loved you".  Evil cannot fight love.  This is the
    >>key to all the commandments.
    
>    I'm not sure what you mean here.  
    
    Scripture, at least the most important lessons, are SIMPLE.  They are
    no meant to be complicated, but understandable by the normal,
    every-day, non-scholar.  Salvation is the most important aspect of
    God's word, and it is simple.  "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is
    simple.  "Do not steal", "Do not commit adultery", "Do not
    murder"...these are all simple things, understandable to most everyone-
    even children.
    
    You can grow in your walk with God without being able to peice together
    complex prophesy and even the more subtle aspects of Bible
    interpretation (like the intended audience, and other historical facts
    of the day).  You will not be crippled in your walk with God if your
    view on the second coming of Christ is off.
     
>    I do not believe prophecy is
>    important in many ways, certainly not end times prophecy as it is
>    envisioned by the dispensationalist.  
    
    That is because in your view on this subject, most prophesies have
    already happened.  In my view, many are yet to come (in fact,
    everything past chapter 3 in Revelation is yet to come).  
    
>    Basically, dispensationalism
>    turns some significant portions of the Bible into means to satisfy
>    man's curiosity, veiling the actual meaning of the Scriptures.  
    
    Like what? 
    
>    Also,
>    it is absolutely clear (Oh, how I wish I could show you and demonstrate
>    for you so that  your eyes would be opened) that the dispensationalist
>    system, in the name of interpreting prophecy, obscures and destroys some 
>    very basic, fundamental, and important bibilical doctrines.
 
    Like what?
              
>    Whatta guy!!
    
    Aw, shucks...  <blush>
        
    
    -steve

    Re: .153
    
    That's a good foundation but it deserves more detail.  Any number of
    cultic or unorthodox groups would fit under that defintion as it
    stands.
    
    Mike

    What do mean by that heretical statement,that it wasn't part of God's
    plan,that Christ should not have died?

    http://www.best.com/~dolphin//dispens.html