K.Mathison's error of the Church

[tralon]

Keith Mathison who attended Dallas Seminary, has now turned his back on dispensationalism altogether, and now presents a book to assault his former instructors. It is called "Dispensationalism". It is so poorly constructed, one wonders how so many people could be taken in by it's distortions.

Futhermore, Mr Mathison, in his book, now denies that Christ is the Savior of ALL men, especially to those that believe, even though God's word clearly exposes Mr Mathison as a liar.I Tim 4:10, I John 2:2.

Mr Mathison ASSUMES Christ's church began with the Old Testament faithful. Not natural descendants of Israel, but the faithful within Israel. The trouble with this poor starting place is that the church that our Lord founded did not start in the Old Testament era, but rather with Christ himself and his chosen apostles. Chiefly, Peter. Mr Mathison glosses over Matthew 16 purposely. Jesus said "I will build my church"(future tense) and NOT "I will continue building my church" as Mr Mathison would wish Christ to say and mean.

Also, WHAT places one into the church anyway? Is it faith alone? No, it isn't. It is the Holy Spirit that does this. I Cor 12:13. Beginning at Pentecost all the Jewish believers were baptized with or in the Holy Spirit, as were the gentile believers at the household of Cornelius and the believers at Corinth. Acts 10 and I Cor 12:13.

But where do we read that the OT saints of faith were baptized in the spirit? Nowhere!!!!!!! It won't do any good to surmise that because these OT saints had faith they automatically received the Holy Spirit. Why? Because the Holy Spirit was not given to man UNTIL Pentecost. So there is no way that the OT faithful saints can be a part of the New Testament Church or body.

Mr Mathison is on a vengeance seeking to assault scholarly men of faith like the deceased Prof. John Walvoord and Dr Charles Ryrie. He should be ashamed of himself and should go back to college and this time pay more attention to what is REALLY taught concerning the beginning of the New Testament church and what exactly places a believer in this church.

[Solly]

Sounds to me like he has made a smart move. Is he trying to call himself a progressive Dispensationalist, or has he cut loose entirely?

By the way, be careful who you call a liar on this site, you will be asked to substantiate the fact or retract.

slly

[dizzle]

Keith Mathison is a friend of mine, very helpful and godly man. He is an orthodox preterist, I believe he is also postmill.

[Solly]

Oh, THAT keith Mathison. *scol

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Keith Mathison is a friend of mine, very helpful and godly man. He is an orthodox preterist, I believe he is also postmill.
Ya think?

https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/product.asp?idProduct=POS01BP

[dizzle]

Egad I forgot. I am not too swift today, forgive me. That was a huge blunder, and I have that book. I forgot because Keith and I have never spoke of postmill issues, but focus on our common theological nemesis, NeoHymenaeanism.

[dizzle]

I have Keith's contra dispie book by the way, the title IIRC is "Dispensationalism: Wrongly Dividing the People of God"

[Mickey]

Mr Mathison ASSUMES Christ's church began with the Old Testament faithful.tralon,

It is clear that Mr.Mathison will find the ideas invented by the preterists to his liking as they too seem to put little faith in what the Scriptures actually say.In the case of the beginning of the Body of Christ Paul makes it quite clear that the Church is a New Creation:

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of two one New Man, so making peace; And that He might reconcile both unto God in one Body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby"(Eph.2:15,16).

Anyone who can ignore these plain words concerning the fact the the Body of Christ was a "NEW" creation when Paul wrote those words and insist that it started in the OT times will,I am sure,be welcomed with open arms by the preterists.

In Christ,

Mickey

[Xavier]

Also, WHAT places one into the church anyway? Is it faith alone? No, it isn't. It is the Holy Spirit that does this. I Cor 12:13. Beginning at Pentecost all the Jewish believers were baptized with or in the Holy Spirit, as were the gentile believers at the household of Cornelius and the believers at Corinth. Acts 10 and I Cor 12:13.

When you get a chance... Look up something on the "New Perspective" on Paul, then search those texts for the Doctrine of Justification... You might be surprised... :wink:

Yours,
Xavier

[Ted]

I have in my library, and have read, the book in question. While not as good a O. Palmer Robinson's The Israel of God or Hans LaRondelle's The Israel of God in Prophecy, it is in fact a good book.

BTW, if the author is so off base, why is it that Stephen agrees with him in Acts 7:38 when he calls the Israelites in the wilderness "the church?"

Ted

[dizzle]

LaRondelle's book is the bomb.

[Solly]

Must get Robinson; keep meaning to, but never got around to it. I have his Christ of the Covenants, it's great, very influential on my thinking, esp about the Creation Covenant.

[Amazing Rando]

But where do we read that the OT saints of faith were baptized in the spirit? Nowhere!!!!!!!

And when the Spirit of the LORD came upon all those OT folks, what exactly did that mean? :ahem:

Numbers 24:2
When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came upon him

Judges 6:34
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, summoning the Abiezrites to follow him.

Judges 11:29
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah.

2 Chronicles 15:1
The Spirit of God came upon Azariah son of Oded.

Etc.

:nsm:

[Solly]

That's not baptised in the spirit AR, and certainly not Balaam; that was empowering. Admittedly, that is what is also included in the NT at pentecost, etc, but it is slightly different, since the former is not an ecclesial thing. The Spirit was present in the Temple, but now the people themselves were the temple. The shekinah went up from the temple in Ezek 10, and came back down in Acts 2

[Amazing Rando]

That's not baptised in the spirit AR, and certainly not Balaam; that was empowering. Admittedly, that is what is also included in the NT at pentecost, etc, but it is slightly different, since the former is not an ecclesial thing. The Spirit was present in the Temple, but now the people themselves were the temple. The shekinah went up from the temple in Ezek 10, and came back down in Acts 2

Certainly there's a difference, I recognize that, but there's got to be some connection. The way some people act as if the Holy Spirit were not present prior to Pentecost just reminds me of the way JW's believe Jesus did not exist prior to being "born of a woman."

[Solly]

This might double post, as i just got a database error message.

Yes, there is a connection. God was present to his people in the temple; he is present to us now in the temple of the body. He endowed with the spirit for extraordinary acts then, does so, but not so extraordinary now. The Spirit was present from Gen 1 onwards.
For those who say there was no church before pentecost, there is little you can say to change their minds. The form of the church changes, hidden in the mass of israel, with external institutions, and limited to a nation generally, whereas now, visible in the gathered community, international, and few institutions. Israel was a drainpipe through which God's revelatory activity flowed for a while, the international aspect being 'constricted' in Abraham, and then 'released' in Jesus. But if all are saved by faith in the work of Christ - completely future then, proleptically future now - and all receive righteousness from him, then all are in him, all are his body for that is how it is mediated, and there is no secondary place of salvation, no two tier salvation.

[lightninboy]

I recently read Mathison's Dispensationalism book.

I thought it was mostly Calvinist propaganda.

But here I am now: an Amillennialist.

[lightninboy]

I have been doing research on Amillennialism, and I have concluded that I will no longer admit to being an Amillennialist, as Amillennialism shortchanges Israel and does not take God at His word. I warn all Amillennialists to do likewise!

[ChosenOne66]

Keith Mathison who attended Dallas Seminary, has now turned his back on dispensationalism altogether, and now presents a book to assault his former instructors. It is called "Dispensationalism". It is so poorly constructed, one wonders how so many people could be taken in by it's distortions.

Mathison is actually a great teacher.

Futhermore, Mr Mathison, in his book, now denies that Christ is the Savior of ALL men, especially to those that believe, even though God's word clearly exposes Mr Mathison as a liar.I Tim 4:10, I John 2:2.

Mathison is now a reformed Calvinist, so of course he will believe in Limited Atonement.

Mr Mathison ASSUMES Christ's church began with the Old Testament faithful. Not natural descendants of Israel, but the faithful within Israel. The trouble with this poor starting place is that the church that our Lord founded did not start in the Old Testament era, but rather with Christ himself and his chosen apostles. Chiefly, Peter. Mr Mathison glosses over Matthew 16 purposely. Jesus said "I will build my church"(future tense) and NOT "I will continue building my church" as Mr Mathison would wish Christ to say and mean.

Actually, Mathison realizes that the Church began in the OT.

What God said of national Israel now applies to the Church:

“You shall be My own possession among all the peoples. . . .and you shall be to Me a kingdom of Priests and a holy nation,” (Ex. 19:5-6).

"You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who were once not a people, but are now the people of God; who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy," (1 Pet. 2:9-10).

Also consider the following symbols and expressions God used for Israel in the OT with the same titles now used for the Church:

Beloved of God (Ex. 15:13; Deut. 33:3; Ezra 3:11/Rem. 4:22; Eph. 5:1; Col. 3:12; 1 John 3:1),

Children of God (Ex. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Isa. 1:2, 4; 63:8; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1/ John 1:12; 11:52; Rom. 8:14, 16; 2 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 3:26; 4:5, 6, 7; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1),

Field of God (Jer. 12:10/ 1 Cor. 3:9),

Flock of God and Messiah (Ps. 78:52; 80:1; Isa. 40:11; Jer. 23:1-3; 31:10; Ezek. 34:12, 15-16; Mic. 5:4; Zec. 10:3/ John 10:14, 16; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:2, 3),

House of God (Num. 12:7/ 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:2, 5, 6; 1 Pet. 4:17),

Kingdom of God (Ex. 19:6; 1 Chron. 17:14; 28:5/ Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 1:13; 4:11; Rev. 1:6),

People of God (Ex. 6:7; Deut. 27:9; 2 Sam. 7:23; Jer. 11:4/ Rom. 9:25; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 4:12; 5:3; 2 Thess. 1:10; Titus 2:14),

Priests of God (Ex. 19:6/ 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10),

Vineyard of God (Isa. 5:3, 4, 5, 7; Jer. 12:10/ Luke 20:16),

Wife or Bride of God (Isa. 54:5, 6; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 1:2/ 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:31, 32),

Children of Abraham (2 Chron. 20:7; Ps. 105:6; Isa. 41:8/ Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:7, 29; 4:23, 28, 31),

Chosen People (Deut. 7:7; 10:15; 14:2; Isa. 43:20, 21/ Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 2:9),

the Circumcised (Gen. 17:10, 13; Jdg. 15:15:18/ Rom. 2:29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11),

Israel (John 11:50; 51, 52; 1 Cor. 10:1; Gal. 6:15, 16; Eph. 2:12, 19),

Jerusalem (Ps. 149:2; Isa. 12:6; 49:18, 20, 22; 51:18; Lam. 4:2/ Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22),

the Jews (Ezra 5:1; Jer. 34:8, 9; Zec. 8:22, 23/ Rom. 2:29),

an Olive Tree (Jer. 11:16; Hos. 14:6/ Rom. 11:24)


and the New Covenant is with Israel (Jer. 31:31, 33/ Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:6, 8, 10)

Christ has “made both groups into one,” (Eph. 2:14). There is no longer Jew nor Gentile, slave nor freeman, man or woman, for all are one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). There is now only the Church (Eph. 2:16). All people, no matter their heritage, must enter the Church to become the Children of God and inherit the promises of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29). Never again will the Kingdom of God be national Israel (Matt. 21:43; 1 Pet. 2:9). "In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the land, whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, 'Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance," (Isa. 19:24-25).

As Douglas Wilson, a good friend of Mathison, so correctly writes:

When Mary, Jesus' mother, learned that she was to give birth to the promised Messiah, she didn't think that this would be some new, unconnected event, beginning only in the first century A.D. No, she sang of God's ancient promises to Abraham and Israel: "He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His seed forever" (Lk. 1:54,55; Lk. 1:68-74). And Christ's apostles declared the message that "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. . . that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. . . And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:13,14,29; Acts 3:20-26). The New Covenant writers even explained that the New Covenant gospel was preached to the Old Covenant saints! The writer of Hebrews wrote quite explicitly of Moses' time saying, "the gospel was preached to us as well as to them" (Heb. 4:2). Paul, too, declared that God "preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, 'In you all the nations shall be blessed'" (Gal.3:8). That's the Christian gospel, ancient and glorious and Jewish.

Also, WHAT places one into the church anyway? Is it faith alone? No, it isn't. It is the Holy Spirit that does this. I Cor 12:13. Beginning at Pentecost all the Jewish believers were baptized with or in the Holy Spirit, as were the gentile believers at the household of Cornelius and the believers at Corinth. Acts 10 and I Cor 12:13.

Actually, it is baptism that places one in the Church.

But where do we read that the OT saints of faith were baptized in the spirit? Nowhere!!!!!!!

Try this one:

"For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ," (1 Cor. 10:1-4).

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation," (Heb. 11:1-2).

It won't do any good to surmise that because these OT saints had faith they automatically received the Holy Spirit. Why? Because the Holy Spirit was not given to man UNTIL Pentecost.

I wonder, then, how the Scriptures were written, if they were not inspired by the Spirit?

And more importantly, you can only be saved by faith, and you can only have faith if you are first given the Spirit to open your heart to the Gospel. THis is the classical Protestant position on salvation, one to which Mathison subscribes. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to come to the conclusion that the OT saints must have had the Spirit - they had bucketloads of faith! (Heb. 11).

So there is no way that the OT faithful saints can be a part of the New Testament Church or body.

Really? Because New Covenant branches are grafted into the Jewish tree, which would indicate a surprising conclusion. Through baptism, we become heirs of Abraham, and therefore Jews. I'm certainly hoping that Abraham is "a part of the New Testament Church or body," because if not, then according to Paul, we all have a very big problem.

"For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear," (Rom. 11:15-20).

Notice that it is the same Jewish tree of old, that same tree on which branches like Abel, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Ruth, and David grew. Some of the natural branches have been broken off, but gentile Christians (that's us) are grafted onto this same old tree that weathered the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the exile, and saw the coming of Christ and the great pruning that gave new, gentile branches access to salvation.

Mr Mathison is on a vengeance seeking to assault scholarly men of faith like the deceased Prof. John Walvoord and Dr Charles Ryrie. He should be ashamed of himself and should go back to college and this time pay more attention to what is REALLY taught concerning the beginning of the New Testament church and what exactly places a believer in this church.

Well, it sounds like you have something of a vendetta too. Perhaps you are seeking to assault scholarly men like Mathison and all those he agrees with?

[Nang]

I have been doing research on Amillennialism, and I have concluded that I will no longer admit to being an Amillennialist, as Amillennialism shortchanges Israel and does not take God at His word. I warn all Amillennialists to do likewise!


I am an Amillennialist, who takes God at His word. Including the Word, that the nation of Israel "short-changed" themselves by their unfaithfulness to God.

That said, God in His great mercy and wisdom still saves a "remnant according to election," from the nation of Israel; incorporating them into the true, and spiritual "Israel", the invisible church of Jesus Christ.

Nang