Oviously the Church is spiritual Isreal today....

[Darth Xena]

Hey Everyone....


In my studies which led me out of a very light form of dispensationalism, I found something very interesting. Now to me it seems a complete obviousity (is that a word??) that the Church is spiritual Israel. It confounds me to no end that someone would even dispute that. And what I find interesting is this.....

Most dispensationalists are Trinitarians as I am. We stand in utter agreement on this essential of the faith.... but if you observe the way that texts are very often used to prove that Christ is Deity, it is the same way I would use texts to show that the Church is Israel. Namely.... there are OT passages used to exclusively describe Israel that are en masse applied to the Church in the NT. Why is it legitmate to do that with Christology but not Israelogy??

[Solly]

Hi DD. >shhh, is JS about?<

I think one of the things that annoys DFers is the term "Spiritual Israel". I think "New Israel" might be better; but even that does not point out the continuity in the matter:

-->Abraham
--|Isaac
--|Jacob
--|Joseph and his Brethren
--|12 Tribes
--|2 Tribes
--|Remnant
--|Pentecost Jews
--|Gentiles & Jews

Any kind of "Replacment" theology must be discouraged. It is Grafting theology. Christ is the stock. The Jews were cut off, and the gentiles grated in, as well as some Jews. Some refer to the idea that the Gentiles will make up the number of the 10 tribes that were lost, but I think Paul makes it clear that it was always God's intention to bring in the Gentiles as well.

The failure of DFers, from my point of view, is to take OT prophecies and to assume they will still be fulfilled apart from the NT, almost as if the NT never happened, rather than the fact that the NT is the fulfillment. The Christ is the goal, that all the promises of God are yea and amen in him, and there is no fulfillment apart form him. That is why the NT writers do not major on the land promises: the land is an inheritance, and Christ is our true inheritance. Therefore, the DF idea of an earthly kingdom is fundamentally flawed, as much as the idea of a separate plan for natural Israel: whatever that might be.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Solly:

I need to dig up an article by Rev Fred Klett where he dubs it "Commonwealth theology" and notes that it is not replacement, it is expansion.....

Oh, and is JS about?? Dunno if he even knows about us, but I did figure I might as well start this thread. Every forum needs one!

[Solly]

I look forward to reading it.

[Act9_12Out]

Dee-Dee,

The problem is, the mystery of the body of Christ was "hidden in God" until it was revealed to the Apostle Paul. The body of Christ was not in existence until God revealed the mystery to Paul after his Acts 9 conversion... Please see my comments on Eph 3:1-9 on the born again thread.

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Darth Xena]

Dear Jeremy:

Thank you for you comments very much. For a sec, let me for the sake of argument concede that point (which I don't), it doesn't matter or defeat the point I made in my first post. In the same way the Trinity is proven at least in part by the demonstration of the application of OT YHWH passages to Christ, the Church is identified with Israel in the exact same way.

Of course I dispute that whole contention about the Body of Christ to begin with and the nature of the mystery. And the big problem with the way you are interpreting mystery is the fact that Paul uses OT passages to justify his ministry and to prove God's plan for the Gentiles. It is hard to use previously written revelation to "prove" something that was allegedly entirely unknown.

[Act9_12Out]

Dee Dee,

That is the point... The fact that Paul refers to the OT in his writings has nothing to do with the dispensation of the mystery that was revealed to him. He is very clear when he references the mystery and the fact that it is revealed to him. Again, what is the mystery? The fact that Jews and Gentiles are fellow heirs in the body of Christ (Eph 3:1-9). The body of Christ is not referred to in the OT, gospels or in any of the circumcision epistles (Hebrews thru Revelation). The mystery was hidden in God from the ages and has "now" been revealed to Paul after his conversion on the road to Damascus. This fact implies that the body of Christ was hidden in God, and was revealed to Paul. The body is the "unsearchable riches of Christ" that Paul refers to in Eph 3:1-9 and Col 1:24, 25. You cannot "search out" or find references to the body outside of the Pauline Epistles.

Let me ask you this... Is your desire the same as Paul's desire? "To make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery..." (Eph 3:9). That is the foundation of my ministry...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Darth Xena]

Dear Jeremy:

I will be back to you as soon as I can. Thank you for your response... and I liked the hyphen action with "Dee-Dee"... no one has done that before.. pretty cool.

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Solly:

I need to dig up an article by Rev Fred Klett where he dubs it &quot;Commonwealth theology&quot; and notes that it is not replacement, it is expansion.....

Oh, and is JS about?? Dunno if he even knows about us, but I did figure I might as well start this thread. Every forum needs one!

Solly:
I look forward to reading it.

Me too Solly :thumb:

No rush Dee Dee :p

[FlimFlamboyant]

The notion that the Body of Christ is "spiritual Israel" seems to stem from a train of thought that begins with a misunderstanding.

The logic flows something like this:

"Abraham was the physical father of the nation of Israel. Verses such as Galatians 3:28 (And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.) indicate that we are of the seed of Abraham. Since this passage is not speaking of physical decendants, it must therefore be speaking of something that we will call Spiritual Israel".

There is at least one major flaw with this reasoning, and I'll start my point off by asking a question. What was Abraham when he became our spiritual father? Our answer is in Romans 4:

Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
(Rom 4:9-10)

Our spiritual father was a Gentile, if there even was such a thing, beings that the nation of Israel didn't exist at that time. Notice HOW righteousness was reckoned unto Abraham; by faith; the same faith that qualifies us as spiritual decendants of Abraham:

And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
(Rom 4:12)

My spiritual father was a Gentile.

[yxboom]

That was an outstanding point Flim. I think I know you already anyway welcome to TWeb! :thumb:

I would like to add a bit to that saying......My spiritual father was of the "uncircumcision".

[Act9_12Out]

Excellent!

[joelkaki]

I must disagree. Philippians 3:3 tells us that we (Christians) are the circumcision.


Joel

[FlimFlamboyant]

I never stated that we aren't circumcised, for indeed we are... Spiritually circumcised, of course. But look at Abraham. When did he receive his spiritual circumcision? Did he not receive it when his faith was reckoned to him for righteousness? Before the fleshly sign of that spiritual circumcision was given to him? Before the nation of Israel had been established?

(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:

... An outward sign of an already-existing inward circumcision.

My only point in all of this is simply that although we are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and have received the circumcision "made without hands" (Col 2:11); that does not automatically make us a member of Israel in any sense, because Abraham was a Gentile when he received his, and became our spiritual father.

[Hitch]

Yeah and the children of Promise

the elect

Abe's seed

the peple of God

The City of God

the royal priesthood

the temple of God

a chosen generation

a holy nation



the houshold of God


Really how could anyone call the church 'spiritual Israel'?

H

[joelkaki]

FlimF, if physical circumcision is what made physical Jews, does it not follow that spiritual circumcision is what makes spiritual Jews? In the Old Testament, there was also spiritual circumcision. Circumcision of the heart. Not all physically circumcised Jews were spiritually circumcised, though. Thus "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." (Romans 9:6-7) Those who actually believed and were spiritually circumcised were true Jews--Romans 2:28-29. Spiritual circumcision is what made them true Jews. Now if we also are the circumcision, and also children of Abraham AS Jews who believe are (Gal 3), then the only logical conclusion is that we are true, or spiritual, Jews.

Joel

[FlimFlamboyant]

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. Once again, look at Abraham. What made him a Jew? His spiritual circumcision (which came first), or his physical circumcision? He needed both. One or the other does not make a Jew.

Spiritual circumcision is not specific to the nation of Israel. Let's look at Cornelius and crew:

And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Act 10:45)

But wait a minute, aren't they Israel now, and no longer Gentiles? "According to the flesh", you'll say. Ok, let's look at another passage concerning just that:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Gal 3:28)

Now, do we lose our physical distinctiveness when we become a member of the Body of Christ? Of course not! This is obviously looking at the matter from a spiritual perspective. Now notice what it says... No Jew, No Greek (Gentile). No spiritual Jews, no spiritual Gentiles.

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;
(Eph 2:15)

One new man, not one old nation. Man, nation... They're just not the same. Is there such a thing as a one-man nation?

For we are the circumcision, the ones who worship by the Spirit of God, and who glory in Christ Jesus, and who do not trust in flesh.
(Phi 3:3)

You'll notice he doesn't say "For we are Israel". I guess the question now should be: Is spiritual circumcision specific to Israel? Not that I can see.

[Darth Xena]

Here is the link to that article I referred to before on Commonwealth theology...

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=913

[Ishmael]

Israel and the Church - by Jack Van Deventer
Modern 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, "Historically 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 3:2.

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).

(I believe that while many Israelites throughout the history of the world will be converted, Israel as a nation will never have a day when the nation is converted. I have no doubt that blindness will continue until the "fullness of the Gentiles" the only question is what follows that, I believe the scriptures teach "the end".) (Rich)


Endnotes
1 Ernest R. Sandeen, British and American Millen-narianism1800-1930 (Chicago: The Univ. of Chic. Press, 1970), p. 63, 66.
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 PremillennialFaith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Bros, 1953) p. 136.
5 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas,TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948) Vol. 4, pp. 40-41.
6 John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 1959), p. 136.
7 Herman Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialsim," in Robert G. Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views(Downer's Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1977), p. 81.
8 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 525.
9 John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth(Brentwood, TN: Wogemuth & Hyatt, 1991) p. 186. Dispensationalist AlanPatrick Boyd agreed, stating "The majority of the writers/writings in thisperiod 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-Upof Dispensational Theology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics,1989), p. 173, 174.
11 William E. Cox, An Examination of Dispensationalism, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presb. and Ref. Publ. Co.) p. 44.
12 Charles D. Provan, The Church is Israel Now (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1987).

[Darth Xena]

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. Once again, look at Abraham. What made him a Jew? His spiritual circumcision (which came first), or his physical circumcision? He needed both. One or the other does not make a Jew.


Paul disagrees...

Romans 2:29-30 - for he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly and circumsion is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God.

Also, the "promise" is the same.... there are not differing promises for the alleged differing lines Abraham.

Romans 4:16 - Therefore it is of faith, that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, bugt also to those who are of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all.

The same promise to all. The same faith, and the same grace.

[Darth Xena]

And from the article that Cal pointed out...

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.

Exactly, and it was Provan's work that got me thinking along these lines. No one who disagrees with me has dealt with (or I missed it and apologize) the premise/challenge in my opening post.. and that is that the same methodology used, at least in large part, to prove the Trinity is also used to prove that the Chruch is Israel today..... why is it valid for one and not for the other. That was my original point.

[FlimFlamboyant]

First, in response to Calvinist's post, I would simply state that my beliefs differ greatly from that of Darby's, and a large portion of the points made in that article don't even apply to me. If you're curious about what I believe on any specific point; ask me, but don't presume. :smile:

Paul disagrees...
Romans 2:29-30 - for he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly and circumsion is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God.

Back up a little. Paul is not addressing Gentiles here. The context of this passage begins in verse 17:

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
(Rom 2:17-18)

Paul is addressing law-keeping, circumcised (in the flesh) Jews here.

It's getting late... I'll try to deal with that article in more detail later.

[Darth Xena]

Dear FF:

First of all I apologize for that lost post when our server crashed... I am really sorry about that.


Back up a little. Paul is not addressing Gentiles here. The context of this passage begins in verse 17:

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
(Rom 2:17-18)

Paul is addressing law-keeping, circumcised (in the flesh) Jews here.



Not so fast, you backed up too far, verse 27 tells us who Paul is referring to, and that is the physically uncircumcised. The whole context demands that. If you still dispute that, I can absolutely prove it. (and BTW the verse you quoted after going through the entire context also proves my point as well)

[FlimFlamboyant]

Uhm... he's talking ABOUT the uncircumcision while talking TO the circumcision. The uncircumcision is the third party in this passage. The people being spoke TO is the circumcision. Read the passage in it's entirety, and pay very close attention to whom is being addressed. That's the point. NOT whom he's talking ABOUT, but whom he's talking TO.

And shall not uncircumcision (this is the third party being spoken OF, not the group being addressed) which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
(Rom 2:27)

And pray tell how the verse I quoted last proves your point? Are you seriously trying to tell me that Paul is calling Gentiles Jews here?

[Darth Xena]

Dear FF:

I am posting just to acknowledge your question. I will return to it in turn... I am in the middle of about four intensive threads and I put a lot of time into my responses, so I take them in order. I will get to yours as I finish the ones that were posted first. Thanks!

[Darth Xena]

Who is a Jew??

I had previously brought to FF that Paul disagrees with his assessment that the Church is not Israel in Romans 2. In defense FF claimed…

Uhm... he's talking ABOUT the uncircumcision while talking TO the circumcision. The uncircumcision is the third party in this passage. The people being spoke TO is the circumcision. Read the passage in it's entirety, and pay very close attention to whom is being addressed. That's the point. NOT whom he's talking ABOUT, but whom he's talking TO.

And shall not uncircumcision (this is the third party being spoken OF, not the group being addressed) which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
(Rom 2:27)

And pray tell how the verse I quoted last proves your point? Are you seriously trying to tell me that Paul is calling Gentiles Jews here?

Yes I am absolutely seriously telling you that Paul is identifying who a true Jew is and I will do more than that, I will prove it. Let’s back up that horsey and check those hooves.

Romans 2:17-24 – Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, 18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law. 21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? 24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.

Yep Paul is talking to the Jews by birth and upbraiding them for their hypocrisy.

For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

After telling THEM that THEY are hypocrites, Paul tells THEM the end result of THEIR hypocrisy… their circumcision in which THEY trusted has become uncircumcision. Obviously (and I am not truly to be crude here) they did not regrow a foreskin, Paul is talking about the true circumcision, the one that THEY forfeited due to THEIR hypocrisy.

And then in contrast, Paul says to THEM….

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?

Paul speaks to THEM about the status of the righteous gentile and declares them to be actually circumcised, the same circumcision which he already told THEM that they forfeited.

And sums up this whole thought….

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Those who have the true circumcision, the circumcision which Paul told THEM that THEY forfeited, are the true Jews. There is no way around this passage. It is patently clear.

For of course, in Christ (who is the True Israel, the true Olive tree to Whom all of faith are joined) physical circumcision or uncircumcision avails nothings but only a new creation (Galatians 6:15).

And because of this, Gentiles are now part of the nation of Israel in a way that was not possible before (this is the “mystery”):

Ephesians 2:11-13 – Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

In Christ (who was circumcised on our behalf, and thus, His circumcision is credited to us Philippians 3:3), we are now part of the commonwealth of Israel, not a separate entity whatsoever.

[FlimFlamboyant]

A true Jew is one who has BOTH circumcisions. Perhaps the language in 2:29 is confusing, but the context is clear. Let's keep reading into chapter 3:

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
(Rom 3:1)

But wait. Aren't we Jews? Why is Paul associating physical circumcision with the Jews?

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(Rom 3:2)

"Them"? Why not "us"? Paul is still making a distinction; why, if that physical circumcision now makes no difference? 2:29 is not saying that anyone who is circumcized of the heart is a Jew. Only those of the physical circumcision who are ALSO circumcized of the heart qualify for that title. In fact, Galatians 3:28 makes it pretty clear that, spiritually speaking, there are NO spiritual Jews nor spiritual Gentiles in the Body of Christ.

[chaplain bob]

My Verse:

Jhn 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.


I like this forum and Galations 3:29

Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


this says nothing about "spiritual" Israel...

yet this is a proof test of the so called identity movement, and yet it is a bible truth.

many calvinists acknowledge that God knows his elect throughout time and histroy....from beginning to end....
who am I to argue that point

it is so sad that the typical "identity" movement preacher will deny the tri-unity of the Godhead. (trinity is not a Bible word, but I believe it anyways) they share a doctrine with the watchtower cult.

Yes I read your statement of faith and I believe it and I have a similar creed on my web site...

whenether we are the physical seed of Israel makes no matter if we have not Christ as saviour.

I know that I can not say it better that Paul:


Phl 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Phl 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

Phl 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Phl 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

Phl 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,

Phl 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

so even if we are physical Israel, without Christ, it means nothing....


Yet I find this point interesting:

Rev 21:12 And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

Rev 21:13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

where is the 13th gate for the "gentiles".....?


:yipee: :yipee:

anyways I like your bulletin board...

I see some very good points and posts....

Chaplain Bob

[Jeremy Oxford]

:yipee: Humm, where to start? I must say first of all as of now I take no eschatological stance, so my immidiate bias is that I have no systematic stance in this area of theology. I, at this point see the systematic of eschotology blinding to the students of scripture. My belief as far as the rapture is concerned is very simple and non-systematic at this point (not to say it absolutely will not be in the future.- also before I go any further allow me to foot note that I do not hold anything against systematics as long as they are inductive of the scripture, i.e. 'Calvinism'.).

First off my understanding:

(1) "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him,(2) that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturb by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
3) Let no one in anyway decieve you, for it iwill not come unless the apostasy comes first. and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, (4) who oppresses and exalts himself above every so called god and object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself, as being God. (5) Do you not remember while I was still with you I was telling you these things?"

Now I know there are many more passages I could use for my example, but this is one of the clearest for me, Paul lays it right out. Before the Lord will return..The apostate will take place, the temple will be rebuilt and the Anti-Christ will exalt himself in the rebuilt temple. So that is what I hold to as of right now.

Ok, now that I have that out of the way, on with the issue.

I will present to you 6 points given to me by Dr. D. Akin of Southern Seminary, who is a progressive Dispensationalist.
Prog. Dispen. holds to:

1.) A historical Grammatical Hermeneutic.
2.) Pre-millinial view of the reign of Christ.
3.) Pre-tribulation rapture
4.) A distinction between Israel and the Church.
5.) The kingdom being inaugerated @ the first coming of Christ.
6.) The Church constitutes the body of redeemed believers.

Ok. so there is my understanding of Progressive Dispensationalism. The only diffrenece from this view and plain Dispensationalism is their interpretation of the first three chapters of Revelation. They see the first three chapters as being the entire History of the church. Seven churches-seven dispensations of time, and suposedly we are in the seventh. Not only do they allegorize the text, contradicting the Historical Grammitical hermenuetic, but the numbers do not support it as well. History shows that right now the church WORLD WIDE, not just looking at America, is being persecuted more than ever and the martyr toll testifies to that!

Point I: I admit the most soundest hermeneutic is that of the Historical Grammitcal. It does the most justice to the text. It does not read into to the text nor does try to mystify scripture. However there are som places where the Pro. Diss. contradit their hermenutic. point four which will be discussed in time.

Point II: Pre-mill view of the reign of Christ. I am not going to try and battle it because I just do not know.

Point III: Pre-trib Rapture. Now come on! Scripture is very clear here, "There will be wars and rumors of wars" Need I say more? Why would the Gospel writer need to mention this to unbelievers? Especially if when the consumation takes place there will be no more coming to know Jesus.

Point IV: Distinction between Israel and the Church. Where's the distinction?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Gal 3:28)
Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The list of scripture goes on. How is the church and Israel seperated? Paul even says "Not all of Israel is Israel." The nationality is not what makes one an Israelite. An Israelite is one who is Justified by faith! With no discstinction. Even Peter, in his first letter, wites to what most would think to be a Jewish audience only but that is not so. He is writing to both Jew and Gentile, yet including the Gentiles in the "Diaspora" . The Gentiles were not the ones who were included in the Babylonian exile of 586bc, but yet Peter adresses the believers as if they were of the heirs of those who were apart of it.
Point V: The Kingdom was inaugurated at the first coming of Christ. I have more to learn about this.

Point VI. The Church constitues the Body of Redeemed believers. Ok..I am definatly cool with this. Suported by scripture all the way.

If dispensationalism was to be taken to its logical conclusion you end up with anti-reformed view of God. The whole Calminian and arminian plan A and plan B stuff is played. Isrel screwed up what God had planned so it was passed to the church. God ultimatly could not fulfill his ordained will for Israel. So The state of Israel over came God. His will was resisted.

Now this is how I see dispensationalism is playe out. Am I right? Maybe. Am I wrong? Maybe. But as for now I see no other route but to discredit the Progressive Dispensationlist / Dispensationlist view of eschatology.

So tell me what you think. Correct me if I need corrected, but do so in love and with scripture. I am not above being wrong..I am a studen who is working out his salvation as well as his theology every day. If I have some strong points in my arguments let me know. I am curious to know what type of replys I will get with this.

Grace and Peace,

Jeremy D. Oxford
Boyce College @ The Southen Baptist Theological Seminary.

[Hitch]

[/b]If dispensationalism was to be taken to its logical conclusion you end up with anti-reformed view of God. The whole Calminian and arminian plan A and plan B stuff is played. Isrel screwed up what God had planned so it was passed to the church. God ultimatly could not fulfill his ordained will for Israel. So The state of Israel over came God. His will was resisted.

Now this is how I see dispensationalism is playe out. Am I right? Maybe. Am I wrong? Maybe. But as for now I see no other route but to discredit the Progressive Dispensationlist / Dispensationlist view of eschatology.


Obviously you are familiar with the 'Parenthetical Church Age' and you have shown a foundational weakness in it ;God ultimatly could not fulfill his ordained will for Israel and made the obvious connection to eschatology. This is the foulest DF doctrine and how someone like McGee could ever have abided it I dont understand.

With a system based on false dichotomies, Law/Grace, Kingdom of Heaven/God, 'Dispensations/Continuity ,Israel/Church its a wonder so many willingly accept the eschatalogical conclusions. Must be the longterm effect of grits.

You will get a lot of support here, but what about your school?


Take care

Hitch

[Jeremy Oxford]

:cheers: Hitch,

I am unfamilar with the Parenthetical Church age. If you could please explain it to me. As for my school We have a varity of eschatological views amog professors. We have a combination of Amill, pre-mill, post-mill, and even pan-mill (it will all pan out in the end view, I like that one!)

I appreciate your words of critique.

Blessings,

J.D. Oxford

P.S. What is DF Doctrine? I am unfamilar with this abreviant.

[undead]

02-13-2003 @ 10:06 AM
Dee Dee Warren:
Now to me it seems a complete obviousity (is that a word??) that the Church is spiritual Israel. It confounds me to no end that someone would even dispute that. And what I find interesting is this.....


The phrase "Spiritual Israel" does not occur in the bible. I would dispute that "spiritual Israel" is biblical, because it infers that there is another Israel. But there was only ever one Israel.

What Paul was claiming in Romans, was, as you point out, that the church is Israel (literally "God prevails"), and that the Jews are "not Israel", even though they are "of Israel".

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Paul distinguishes those who "are Israel" from those "of Israel". The Jews who do not believe have no further right to refer to themselves as Israel, but are restricted to the original name Jacob ("surplanter").

And that is what the unbelieving Jews are today - surplanters of true religion.


Most dispensationalists are Trinitarians as I am. We stand in utter agreement on this essential of the faith....


The Pauline concept of the trinity does not include the philosophical speculations of Thomas Aquinas.


but if you observe the way that texts are very often used to prove that Christ is Deity, it is the same way I would use texts to show that the Church is Israel. Namely.... there are OT passages used to exclusively describe Israel that are en masse applied to the Church in the NT. Why is it legitmate to do that with Christology but not Israelogy??

You don't need to consider more than the name "Israel" (God prevails) to understand that the church, the child of the promise, is Israel to the exclusion of all else.

[Hitch]

03-02-2003 @ 08:16 PM
Jeremy Oxford:

:cheers: Hitch,

I am unfamilar with the Parenthetical Church age. If you could please explain it to me. As for my school We have a varity of eschatological views amog professors. We have a combination of Amill, pre-mill, post-mill, and even pan-mill (it will all pan out in the end view, I like that one!)

I appreciate your words of critique.
Blessings,

J.D. Oxford

P.S. What is DF Doctrine? I am unfamilar with this abreviant. My Mistake Although you described it perfectly..lol So let my try and stone two kills with one bird...

The church as the 'great parentheses in history' is the result of the failure of Christ in the establishment of the geo-political kingdom offered to the jews of the first century. (sic) It sets the entire gospel age between the 69th and 70th week of Dan's prophecy and forms the basis for the 'any moment rapture' , once a main plank of DF thought (Dispensational/Futurist). Just as you described.

A funny thing happend on the way to the Tribulation,,,

In the classical form of DF teaching the rapture could come at any second because the church existed within the 'great parentheses' during wihich God's Prophetic Clock had stopped marking time. As North explains;

"Walvoord’s Warning in 1979


It was this traditional dispensational doctrine of no intervening
prophesied events that Walvoord emphatically taught his students
in the 1970’s. 12 In Walvoord’s book, The Rapture Question
(1979), he openly rejected the “ticking today” interpretation of
Bible prophecy and for a very good theological reason: it denies
the traditional dispensational doctrine of the any-moment
Rapture. If any prophecies are being fulfilled today, he wrote,
this would mean that there are events in the Church Age that
must come true prior to the Rapture. Therefore, the Rapture
could not come at any moment prior to the fulfillment of these
prophecies. Such a view of “signs being fulfilled in our day”
denies the doctrine of the any-moment Rapture.
Walvoord saw clearly in 1979 that the doctrine of intermediate
prophetic events leads to mid-tribulationism or post-tribulationism,
or even worse, to postmillennialism. In a subsection,
“No Intervening Events,“ in a chapter called “The Imminency
of the Rapture,” Walvoord wrote: “The hope of the return of
Christ to take the saints to heaven is presented in John 14 as an
imminent hope. There is no teaching of any intervening event.
The prospect of being taken to heaven at the coming of Christ
is not qualified by description of any signs or prerequisite
events.”18 This is the heart of the formal theology of pre-tribulational,
premillennial dispensationalism: no ticking clock."

From Rapture Fever Gary north 1993, p24


But what fun is there is watching for the rapture if there are no preceeding 'signs'? This unravelling began shortly after the idea first appeared in the SRB (Scofield Reference Bible) when the Evengel later to become the The Pentecostal Evangel(published by the AOG) prior to WWI started reporting 'sure signs' of the near arrival of Jesus Christ ( it worked so well they trotted out the same stuff just before WWII heh heh) While at the same time the AOG adopted and used the SRB. It all really came apart with the success of what North calls 'pop dispensationalism' or the Lindsey, LaHaye, La Lond variety. Complete with every manner of 'sign' pointing positively toward the any second arrival of Jesus Christ to not quite touch down ( Im not kidding) and catch away the church ,or some of the church, depending, to be saved from the 7 years of tribulation. Seems the internal conflict of the 'Parenthetical Church Age' and current event 'signs' never entered the minds of best selling authors, just as the Evangel had missed the point 60 years earlier.

So the gooney bird of DF thought aka the 'Parenthetical Church Age' crashed into the Dodo of the any second rapture and now both are barely breathing. They are artificially kept alive through an ingeneous machinery that allows the practical denial of the 69th /70th Week doctrine (no signs) while allowing that very same feature to be a platform for 'signs'. Which makes perfect sense to those who can see the beauty of the Emporer's new clothes.


This is so powerful that the esteemed president of DTS quoted above altered his position,and therfore the offical DTS position of 60 years, 180 degrees;

" The leaders of American dispensationalism have not resisted
the lure of huge book royalties and a few moments in the public spotlight which the doctrine of “today’s ticking clock of
prophecy” offers to them. In an interview in the national newspaper,
USA i’bday (Jan. 19, 1991), three days after the U.S.
attacked Iraq, a theologically well-informed reporter asked Dr.
Walvoord: “So the prophetic clock is ticking?” Walvoord answered
emphatically, “Yes.” He had begun the interview with
this assertion: “Bible prophecy is being fidfilled every day.”
This was an about-face of astounding proportions on his part.
He threw out a lifetime of scholarship for a moment of fame.
He sold his theological birthright for a pot of message - a sensational
message that sells newspapers and paperback books.
He sold out orthodox dispensationalism in general and what
little remains of orthodox dispensationalism at Dallas Theological
Seminary.5 He bought pop-dispensationalism’s ticking
clock."



From Rapture Fever Gary North. 1993 p 21


And the ground was covered in feathers.


Take care

Hitch

[undead]

03-02-2003 @ 09:16 PM
Hitch:
The church as the 'great parentheses in history' is the result of the failure of Christ ..... [/b]

Oh dear. I was looking for a Christian forum. I see I've come to the wrong place.

[Hitch]

Agreed.

[Jeremy Oxford]

Hitch,

Thank you very much for that informed and well worked out paper. I am glad to see i am i good company. What is your Eschatological stance? As mentioned earlier, I am a pan-millinialist (It will all pan out.)

Undead, please reread the artical you got the quote from. You are quoting it out of context. Also you are 0 point Amillenialist? How does that work. I have never met an Amill Arminian.

So you say no:

1) Depravity
2.) Election
3.) Limited Atonement
4.) Iresitable Grace
5.) Perseverence of the Saints

How???

I understand ths is not a room for soteriology, so I am not gonna debate the issue but just curious. I truely do find this intresting if that is your stance.

[Hitch]

Post Millennial, or as DeeDee puts it orthodox preterist.

H

[Theolog]

I like to say that the Church is the true Israel of God. The true Israel of God is composed of both Jew and gentile and are now called Christians.

The other Israel is the Israel of the other guy.

[PuritanD]

Reading throughout this thread, I have to agree with the person who suggested that we are grafted into Israel. Romans 9-11 is the pivatol passage of Scripture throughout this debate. I beleive Marvin Wilson does a decent job in his book, "Our Father Abraham," in answering such questions.

Being raised dispensationally and attending Moody Bible Institute, I can understand some of the dilemmas that plague this view. Yet, I must say that I am not fully convinced that God has washed His hands of the Jews.

One post mentioned that all prophecy in the OT is fulfilled in the NT. This is partially true. There are many prophecies in the OT that talk about the End in which has yet to be completely fulfilled. The book of Revelation seems to signify that the complete fulfillment of some prophecy will happen at Christ's second coming.

One critique of the reform view of the church being the Spiritual Israel is the need to "spiritualize" many of the OT scriptures that deal with Israel. One problem that this encounters is that which prophecies are just spiritual fulfillments and which should we expect literal fulfillment. In particular for anyone within the dispensational framework is the problem of the land promised to Abraham. At no time has the land which has literal boundries been fully lived in by his physical lineage as promised. The closest it gets at any time is during King Solomon's reign, but even there it is economical influence and not actual ownership of the land.

Another problem for the reformed view of Israel vs. Church is the irrevelancy of historical events specifically dealing with Israel being a nation once again. A few of my reformed brethren does not see any significance of this unique historical event. If God is in control of nation building, why does He after 1800 years allow the nation of Israel to be placed back on the map? What other nation in the world has been displaced and then relocated back to their anscestory land? Another question is why have the Jews been so persecuted and still are? Finally, every person who has tried to annihilate the Jews has never succeeded and were always brought done in failure (a.k.a. Hitler). Having the Jewish people still on this planet is proof that God is literally fulfilling His covenant with Abraham.

However, not all reform theologians have disqualified the Jews. Martin Luther (before his latter years) saw the great need in Scripture to witness to the Jews. The Puritans saw a great connection between the Jews and God's blessing. They strongly encouraged Jews to migrate to England for such blessing.

If all this is true, the only conclusion I can come up with is that God has not washed His hands of the Jewish people.

I must admit that I am less dispensational now than I use to be. I find myself (if needing to be classified) closer to Kaiser's viewpoint (though he is not dispensational) than Walvoord's.

[Hitch]

One critique of the reform view of the church being the Spiritual Israel is the need to "spiritualize" many of the OT scriptures that deal with Israel. One problem that this encounters is that which prophecies are just spiritual fulfillments and which should we expect literal fulfillment. In particular for anyone within the dispensational framework is the problem of the land promised to Abraham. At no time has the land which has literal boundries been fully lived in by his physical lineage as promised. The closest it gets at any time is during King Solomon's reign, but even there it is economical influence and not actual ownership of the land.



Hmmmmmmm


Josh 21:43-45
43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.
(KJV)

Seems Josh does not agree.


And niether does Luke;


Having the Jewish people still on this planet is proof that God is literally fulfilling His covenant with Abraham.

Luke 1:72-75
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
(KJV)

and the story leads not to modern Israel the to the real Israel;


Luke 2:10-11
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
(KJV)

This is what Luke through the Holy Spirit says fulfilled, The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

03-05-2003 @ 01:57 AM
Theolog:

I like to say that the Church is the true Israel of God. The true Israel of God is composed of both Jew and gentile and are now called Christians.

The other Israel is the Israel of the other guy. LOL

Perf!

H

[FlimFlamboyant]

First of all, if you're going to ask about dispensationalism, ask a dispensationlist, else you'll get someone else's absolutely ludicrous conclusions in regards to it, rather than what is actually taught. For example:

The church as the 'great parentheses in history' is the result of the failure of Christ .....

This assumption completely falls apart when you consider verses such as:

Eph 1:3-4 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: (4) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Here we have the Body of Christ being something that was in God's mind BEFORE the very foundation of this world. Christ's death was not a failure, even according to dispensational thinking. It accomplished absolutely everything that was intended.

Eph 2:13-14 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

In fact, that blood made it possible for the Body of Christ to be created in the first place. So don't jump to conclusions.

Now, I want to touch on something made in an earlier post. There's only one point I see that's directly related to the subject, so I'll just deal with that.


Point IV: Distinction between Israel and the Church. Where's the distinction?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Gal 3:28)
Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The list of scripture goes on. How is the church and Israel seperated? Paul even says "Not all of Israel is Israel." The nationality is not what makes one an Israelite. An Israelite is one who is Justified by faith! With no discstinction. Even Peter, in his first letter, wites to what most would think to be a Jewish audience only but that is not so. He is writing to both Jew and Gentile, yet including the Gentiles in the "Diaspora" . The Gentiles were not the ones who were included in the Babylonian exile of 586bc, but yet Peter adresses the believers as if they were of the heirs of those who were apart of it.


There is no distinction now. That's the whole point. There WAS a distinction in time past, however, before the Body of Christ was formed. This is very evident even while Christ was on earth.

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

Is this the commission you abide by today? You DO go into the way of the Gentiles, right? Good. Also, the account of the woman of Canaan in Matthew 15 makes it clear that Christ's ministry was heavily geared toward the nation of Israel having a favored position over the Gentiles. This, of course, has all changed.... But only for the timebeing.

Anyway, that's all I want to bring up. There are other things brought up in that post that I've already dealt with, so I won't waste board space by repeating it.

[Hitch]

First of all, if you're going to ask about dispensationalism, ask a dispensationlist, else you'll get someone else's absolutely ludicrous conclusions in regards to it, rather than what is actually taught. For example:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The church as the 'great parentheses in history' is the result of the failure of Christ .....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This assumption completely falls apart when you consider verses such as:

Eph 1:3-4 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: (4) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Here we have the Body of Christ being something that was in God's mind BEFORE the very foundation of this world. Christ's death was not a failure, even according to dispensational thinking. It accomplished absolutely everything that was intended.

Eph 2:13-14 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

In fact, that blood made it possible for the Body of Christ to be created in the first place. So don't jump to conclusions.

And this has what to do with Scofield's, (and Walvoord and so on) teaching of Christ coming to offer a geo-political kingdom and being rejected?


You're right in that the passages you cite and a great deal more than that render the whole notion ridiculous but that is not the question.

The question wrt to this specefic is did Walvoord and Co, teach it?

Now are you going to deny that it was taught? Will you also deny that DTS taught the gap of indertenimate length between the 69th and 70th Weeks of Dan's prophecy? Will you also deny that DTS taught that the Kingdom of God/Heaven are two different things?

Take care


Hitch

[FlimFlamboyant]

I'm not terribly familiar with what Scofield actually taught, although from what I heard he was kinda half-way between Acts 2 and mid-Acts dispensationlism. I'm not at all familiar with Mr. Walvoord.

Now are you going to deny that it was taught? Will you also deny that DTS taught the gap of indertenimate length between the 69th and 70th Weeks of Dan's prophecy? Will you also deny that DTS taught that the Kingdom of God/Heaven are two different things?

If those two individuals actually taught that Christ failed, I'm not aware of it, and they couldn't be more wrong. As for the other two claims, yes, I agree with them. But those are issues best left for another thread.

Beings that I'm relatively new to the board, you're going to have to fill me in on the meaning of such acronyms as "DTS".

[PuritanD]

03-05-2003 @ 11:24 PM
FlimFlamboyant:

I'm not terribly familiar with what Scofield actually taught, although from what I heard he was kinda half-way between Acts 2 and mid-Acts dispensationlism. I'm not at all familiar with Mr. Walvoord.


Beings that I'm relatively new to the board, you're going to have to fill me in on the meaning of such acronyms as &quot;DTS&quot;.

DTS stands for Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr Walvoord was the president of this fine institution and I still think holds a title there.

[PuritanD]

Hitch:[/i]

Josh 21:43-45
43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.
(KJV)

Seems Josh does not agree.

Hmmm, almost, but just a couple of chapters later...

23:4-5 we read 4 "See, I have apportioned to you these nations which remain as an inheritance for your tribes, with all the nations which I have cut off, from the Jordan even to the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun. 5 "The LORD your God, He will thrust them out from before you and drive them from before you; and you will possess their land, just as the LORD your God promised you.

Now it would seem to be an apparent contradiction then that they had rest on all sides and they still had to defeat other nations to inherent the land. One only has to go to the book of Judges to see how Israel accomplished this task.

Numbers 34:1-12 lays out the boundry for the promise land and most commentaries that I am aware of admit that Israel never came into undisputed possession of the land within the boarders of this passage.


And niether does Luke;

Luke 1:72-75
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
(KJV)

and the story leads not to modern Israel the to the real Israel;


Luke 2:10-11
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
(KJV)

This is what Luke through the Holy Spirit says fulfilled, The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

The first part of Luke you quote is the partial prophecy of Zacharias gave when his lips were loosen due to the birth of John the Baptist. If you include the earlier verses of this prophecy, it would seem that Zacharias was talking about a prophecy that would benifit the literal Israel (see veses 67 - 70).

And I do not understand how Luke 2:10-11 proves your point. You will need to help me out with that one.

PuritanD

[Act9_12Out]

Puritan,

You say,One critique of the reform view of the church being the Spiritual Israel is the need to "spiritualize" many of the OT scriptures that deal with Israel.Exactly... That's a huge critique / problem. You continue,One problem that this encounters is that which prophecies are just spiritual fulfillments and which should we expect literal fulfillment. In particular for anyone within the dispensational framework is the problem of the land promised to Abraham. At no time has the land which has literal boundries been fully lived in by his physical lineage as promised. The closest it gets at any time is during King Solomon's reign, but even there it is economical influence and not actual ownership of the land.I don't see this as a dispensational problem at all. This is more of a problem for the reformed view and those who do not hold to the open view. Here's why,Exodus 33:2 - "And I will send My Angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanite and the Amorite and the Hittite and the Perrizite and the Hittite and the Jebusite.

Exodus 34:11,24 - Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perrizite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.
24 For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year.

Jos 1:4-5 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory.
5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so shall I be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you.

Jos 3:10 - And Joshua said, By this you shall know the living God is among you, and that He will WITHOUT FAIL drive out from before you the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Hivites and the Perizittes and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Jebusites.God said that He would drive all these nations out. However, God has shown how He deals with men and nations (Jer 18, Eze 18), and shows that He responds to the actions of individuals or nations. Due to Israel's rejection of God, we see that He does not fulfill His promise to WITHOUT FAIL drive out all of those "ites."Jos 15:63 - As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Jerusalem to this day.

Jos 16:10 - And they did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites to this day and have become forced laborers.

Judges 2:1-3 - Then the Angel of the LORD came up from Gigal to Bochim, and said, "I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, "I will never break My covenant with you.
2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars." But you have not obeyed my voice. Why have you done this?
3 Therefore I also said, "I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you."

Judges 2:19-22 - And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they reverted and behaved more corruptly than their fathers, by following other gods, to serve them and bow down to them. They did not cease from their own doings nor from their stubborn way.
20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and He said, "Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice,
21 I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died,
22 so that through them I might test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not."

Judges 3:1-6 - Now these are the nations which the LORD left, that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known any wars in Canaan
2 (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it),
3 namely, five lords of the Philistines, and all the Cannanites, the Sidonians, and the Hivites who dwelt in Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath.
4 And they wer left, that He might test Israel by them, to know whether they would obey the commandments of the LORD, which He had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.
5 Thus the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
6 And they their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons; and they served their gods.So you see, this has nothing to do with dispensationalism. God did not drive out the "ites" because the people rejected Him and made Him angry. This definitely presents a problem for those who hold to the belief that God knows and predestines everything. Again, these passages show that God expects a result from man, and if He gets that desired result, God will bless him. However, man failed, so God changed the blessings He was to impart (Jer 18, Eze 18).

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Hitch]

The first part of Luke you quote is the partial prophecy of Zacharias gave when his lips were loosen due to the birth of John the Baptist. If you include the earlier verses of this prophecy, it would seem that Zacharias was talking about a prophecy that would benifit the literal Israel (see veses 67 - 70).

And I do not understand how Luke 2:10-11 proves your point. You will need to help me out with that one.

PuritanD



A more detailed answer will follow PD but why would such 'literal' benfits be brought up as its obvious anything approaching a 'literal' fulfillment did not come to pass and hasnt to this day?

[PuritanD]

03-06-2003 @ 10:33 PM
Hitch:
A more detailed answer will follow PD but why would such 'literal' benfits be brought up as its obvious anything approaching a 'literal' fulfillment did not come to pass and hasnt to this day?

Was messianic prophecy literal and did it come to pass during the time of Isaiah or David or even Adam...or did time have to pass?

PuritanD

[Theolog]

03-04-2003 @ 11:05 PM
PuritanD:



Another problem for the reformed view of Israel vs. Church is the irrevelancy of historical events specifically dealing with Israel being a nation once again. A few of my reformed brethren does not see any significance of this unique historical event. If God is in control of nation building, why does He after 1800 years allow the nation of Israel to be placed back on the map? What other nation in the world has been displaced and then relocated back to their anscestory land? Another question is why have the Jews been so persecuted and still are? Finally, every person who has tried to annihilate the Jews has never succeeded and were always brought done in failure (a.k.a. Hitler). Having the Jewish people still on this planet is proof that God is literally fulfilling His covenant with Abraham.

However, not all reform theologians have disqualified the Jews. Martin Luther (before his latter years) saw the great need in Scripture to witness to the Jews. The Puritans saw a great connection between the Jews and God's blessing. They strongly encouraged Jews to migrate to England for such blessing.

If all this is true, the only conclusion I can come up with is that God has not washed His hands of the Jewish people.



Of course God is keeping Jews around. How else could the Church be made up of both Jews and Gentiles without Jews?

[PuritanD]

03-08-2003 @ 12:12 AM
Theolog:

Of course God is keeping Jews around. How else could the Church be made up of both Jews and Gentiles without Jews?

So you agree that God is literally fulfilling the promise to Abraham concerning the literally blood line. The Jews are still needed, because God is always faithful to His promises

[Hitch]

The first part of Luke you quote is the partial prophecy of Zacharias gave when his lips were loosen due to the birth of John the Baptist. If you include the earlier verses of this prophecy, it would seem that Zacharias was talking about a prophecy that would benifit the literal Israel (see veses 67 - 70).

And I do not understand how Luke 2:10-11 proves your point. You will need to help me out with that one.

PuritanD
The first part of Luke you quote is the partial prophecy of Zacharias gave when his lips were loosen due to the birth of John the Baptist. If you include the earlier verses of this prophecy, it would seem that Zacharias was talking about a prophecy that would benifit the literal Israel (see veses 67 - 70).

And I do not understand how Luke 2:10-11 proves your point. You will need to help me out with that one.

PuritanD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Luke 1:16-17
16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
(KJV)


The purpose of the forerunner is to prepare the way of the Lord. Setting the stage for His entrance. So the real focus is the Virgin birth.


67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his
(KJV)


By direct revelation ol Zack interprets Issy, Malachi and a host of excepts from the Psalms including the promise of G 22;16, as being fulfilled in the birth of John and his cousin. He specificly includes, redemption,salvation, covenant,deliverance from enemies, and peace.

And the culmination if seen in the angelic declarations and the prophetic utterances of Simeon;


Luke 2:9-11
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
(KJV)


Luke 2:9-11
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
(KJV)

Luke 2:26-32
26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
(KJV)

The forerunner and the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Promise to Abe and all the other promises cited and alluded to in Zach's prophecy, are what was prophesied by alll the prophets of old and in christ are they all fulfilled.


This satnds in stark contrast to the DF model which states that the thing next order of prophetic revelation was to be the establishement of the Davidic,(geo-political) kingdom. The reality here established in Scripture is that the 'forerunner' was to come after the silence and his time would ovedrlap that of Messiah.

Completely abasent is any temporal or geo-political kingdom. In fact ,as you said, what appears to be a temporal blessing for the nation, is actually the (result of ) the appearence of Messiah. here established by Luke's repetition of the infilling of the Holy spirit wrt Zach, Liz and Simeon.

take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Was messianic prophecy literal and did it come to pass during the time of Isaiah or David or even Adam...or did time have to pass?

PuritanD

Lost me

[PuritanD]

03-08-2003 @ 12:45 PM
Hitch:

The purpose of the forerunner is to prepare the way of the Lord. Setting the stage for His entrance. So the real focus is the Virgin birth.


The forerunner and the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Promise to Abe and all the other promises cited and alluded to in Zach's prophecy, are what was prophesied by alll the prophets of old and in christ are they all fulfilled.

This satnds in stark contrast to the DF model which states that the thing next order of prophetic revelation was to be the establishement of the Davidic,(geo-political) kingdom. The reality here established in Scripture is that the 'forerunner' was to come after the silence and his time would ovedrlap that of Messiah.

Completely abasent is any temporal or geo-political kingdom. In fact ,as you said, what appears to be a temporal blessing for the nation, is actually the (result of ) the appearence of Messiah. here established by Luke's repetition of the infilling of the Holy spirit wrt Zach, Liz and Simeon.


I think it is coming clearer to me. What you are arguing is that these texts somehow prove that there was to be no Davidic kingdom since Christ did not establish one while on earth.

It seems to be a bit of deductive reasoning here that you read your conclusion into the scriptures that you site. Did John the Baptist prepare the way of the Lord? Yep as prophesied. Is Jesus a decendant of David, yep. Being a decendant of David, it would not be far fetched for the Jews of that day to see Him being established on a political throne. But as Christ made clear, His first visit was not to fulfill this aspect of prophesy yet. The already not yet aspect. It should not be farfetch to see that it is possible that Christ is establishing his kingdom spiritually before physically on earth.

As you are aware, the OT prophecy concerning the Messiah combined the first and second coming of Christ into one. So, it should not be farfetched that they did not see such a fulfillment but just need to wait on it. Hence the literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is seen as the fulfillment.

You will have to go deeper than that to dissuade any dispensationalist, concerning the Davidic kingdom. Your best bet is to try to prove that the millenial kingdom is not literal but purely figurative, but that is hard to do especially when historical premil has within its system people of both literal and figurative persuassion. This is not to equate historical with dispensational but just to show that you would need to argue against two different systems with one being firmly established in the reform tradition.

I must warn you though, I am not a classical dispensationalist that believes that the church age is an abberation. In fact, I am not a dispensatinalist in the Walvoord, Ryrie, Scofield camp. I lean towards the historical premil view and am still unconvinced that there is no rapture.

Thanks though for the clarification.

Puritan D

By the way the last post was in asking you how you can argtue against a lieteral prophesy of Luke because it did not seem to be fulfilled literally because of the elapse of time but yet at the same time messianic prophecy which have been literal fulfilled took thousands of years to see its fulfillment. Why should Luke literally be fulfilled immediately then?

[Hitch]

03-08-2003 @ 06:24 PM
PuritanD:



I think it is coming clearer to me. What you are arguing is that these texts somehow prove that there was to be no Davidic kingdom since Christ did not establish one while on earth.

It seems to be a bit of deductive reasoning here that you read your conclusion into the scriptures that you site. Did John the Baptist prepare the way of the Lord? Yep as prophesied. Is Jesus a decendant of David, yep. Being a decendant of David, it would not be far fetched for the Jews of that day to see Him being established on a political throne. But as Christ made clear, His first visit was not to fulfill this aspect of prophesy yet. The already not yet aspect. It should not be farfetch to see that it is possible that Christ is establishing his kingdom spiritually before physically on earth. this notion begs the question. If Christ is not operating as Regent today what is it that he is doing? And along the same lines, Is the seat of powerr at God's right hand less then the higest? It must be in there is to be any gain for Christ to humbly re-enter time on the earth.

As you are aware, the OT prophecy concerning the Messiah combined the first and second coming of Christ into one. So, it should not be farfetched that they did not see such a fulfillment but just need to wait on it. Hence the literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is seen as the fulfillment.
The NT teaches his kingdom as current reality and Christ himself declared the in order to better fulfill our commision (which X9 removes from the church) he must ascend and send the Comforter . Demonstrating that his physical presence is by no menas an aid to the expansion of the kingdom.

You will have to go deeper than that to dissuade any dispensationalist, concerning the Davidic kingdom. Your best bet is to try to prove that the millenial kingdom is not literal but purely figurative, but that is hard to do especially when historical premil has within its system people of both literal and figurative persuassion. This is not to equate historical with dispensational but just to show that you would need to argue against two different systems with one being firmly established in the reform tradition. On the contrary it is the DF who demands that the kingom is not yet and the church is not the fulfillemnt of the same. Jesus says(and the entire NT) the kingdom is, DF says the kingdom was withdrawn. Clearly the burden of proof is theres.

I must warn you though, I am not a classical dispensationalist that believes that the church age is an abberation. In fact, I am not a dispensatinalist in the Walvoord, Ryrie, Scofield camp. I lean towards the historical premil view and am still unconvinced that there is no rapture.

Thanks though for the clarification.

Puritan D

By the way the last post was in asking you how you can argtue against a lieteral prophesy of Luke because it did not seem to be fulfilled literally because of the elapse of time but yet at the same time messianic prophecy which have been literal fulfilled took thousands of years to see its fulfillment. Why should Luke literally be fulfilled immediately then? This assumes a geo-political kingodom is in view, at least at some point. The pattern is long established,, first the natural, the physical, types and shadows, then the spiritual. the point of this thread and the reason for DF opposition is that if the church is Israel in the spiritual sense the it is the Kingdom, and thus the fulfillment of those prophecies.


Talk care

Hitch

[Darth Xena]

02-13-2003 @ 05:06 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Most dispensationalists are Trinitarians as I am. We stand in utter agreement on this essential of the faith.... but if you observe the way that texts are very often used to prove that Christ is Deity, it is the same way I would use texts to show that the Church is Israel. Namely.... there are OT passages used to exclusively describe Israel that are en masse applied to the Church in the NT. Why is it legitmate to do that with Christology but not Israelogy??

02-13-2003 @ 10:31 PM
Hitch:

Yeah and the children of Promise

the elect

Abe's seed

the peple of God

The City of God

the royal priesthood

the temple of God

a chosen generation

a holy nation



the houshold of God


Really how could anyone call the church 'spiritual Israel'?

H

And that is EXACTLY my point with which I opened this thread... and I do not think anyone in opposition has dealt with it.

[Darth Xena]

03-04-2003 @ 08:57 PM
Theolog:

I like to say that the Church is the true Israel of God. The true Israel of God is composed of both Jew and gentile and are now called Christians.

The other Israel is the Israel of the other guy.

There you go, no matter how harsh they may sound. Jesus only posited two fathers... God and the devil. Those who outright rejected Him had the devil as their father. Yet we today in the Church believe that God is somehow blessing apostate "Israel" though they reject His Son. Before anyone cries anti-Semetism, let me say, that I consider myself blessed to have been grafted into the Olive Tree of Israel and to consider Abraham my spiritual ancestor. I am blessed to be the heir of a rich Jewish culture. I have not rejected things Jewish and Judaism, those who have rejected Christ ultimately have. Please do not misunderstand me. My heart aches for the ethnically Jewish people... they have so much that God wants for them in their Messiah.

[Hitch]

It too devastating.

[Darth Xena]

I do wish that some dispesnationalist though would take up my initial challenge in my opening post comparing proving the Trinity with proving that the Church is Israel as Provan has so ably done.

[FlimFlamboyant]

I do wish that some dispesnationalist though would take up my initial challenge in my opening post comparing proving the Trinity with proving that the Church is Israel as Provan has so ably done.

Sure, the OT is very useful for proving the deity of Christ; in fact, Paul used them for that very purpose on many occasions. Does that mean that Paul was under the Mosaic law? Don't verses like Romans 6:14 tell us otherwise? Do you reject the Genesis account of creation because things changed after Adam fell?

You know as well as I do that God's dealings with man have changed throughout history, while many things remain the same. I don't see how your initial argument proves anything. Just because I can't apply the dietary laws of the OT to myself doesn't mean I throw out every piece of information in all of those books, though you would probably accuse us otherwise.

[Hitch]

In baseball we would have called that a hanging curve.

[Darth Xena]

03-09-2003 @ 06:52 PM
FlimFlamboyant:



Sure, the OT is very useful for proving the deity of Christ; in fact, Paul used them for that very purpose on many occasions. Does that mean that Paul was under the Mosaic law? Don't verses like Romans 6:14 tell us otherwise? Do you reject the Genesis account of creation because things changed after Adam fell?

You know as well as I do that God's dealings with man have changed throughout history, while many things remain the same. I don't see how your initial argument proves anything. Just because I can't apply the dietary laws of the OT to myself doesn't mean I throw out every piece of information in all of those books, though you would probably accuse us otherwise.

That so totally did not answer my question though. Do I need to explain my question better?

[Darth Xena]

Since I have been absent for a bit… I think it appropriate to repost my point, and FF’s response…..

I had previously brought to FF that Paul disagrees with his assessment that the Church is not Israel in Romans 2. In defense FF claimed…

Uhm... he's talking ABOUT the uncircumcision while talking TO the circumcision. The uncircumcision is the third party in this passage. The people being spoke TO is the circumcision. Read the passage in it's entirety, and pay very close attention to whom is being addressed. That's the point. NOT whom he's talking ABOUT, but whom he's talking TO.

And shall not uncircumcision (this is the third party being spoken OF, not the group being addressed) which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
(Rom 2:27)

And pray tell how the verse I quoted last proves your point? Are you seriously trying to tell me that Paul is calling Gentiles Jews here?

Yes I am absolutely seriously telling you that Paul is identifying who a true Jew is and I will do more than that, I will prove it. Let’s back up that horsey and check those hooves.

Romans 2:17-24 – Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, 18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law. 21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law? 24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.

Yep Paul is talking to the Jews by birth and upbraiding them for their hypocrisy.

For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

After telling THEM that THEY are hypocrites, Paul tells THEM the end result of THEIR hypocrisy… their circumcision in which THEY trusted has become uncircumcision. Obviously (and I am not truly to be crude here) they did not regrow a foreskin, Paul is talking about the true circumcision, the one that THEY forfeited due to THEIR hypocrisy.

And then in contrast, Paul says to THEM….

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?

Paul speaks to THEM about the status of the righteous gentile and declares them to be actually circumcised, the same circumcision which he already told THEM that they forfeited.

And sums up this whole thought….

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Those who have the true circumcision, the circumcision which Paul told THEM that THEY forfeited, are the true Jews. There is no way around this passage. It is patently clear.

For of course, in Christ (who is the True Israel, the true Olive tree to Whom all of faith are joined) physical circumcision or uncircumcision avails nothings but only a new creation (Galatians 6:15).

And because of this, Gentiles are now part of the nation of Israel in a way that was not possible before (this is the “mystery”):

Ephesians 2:11-13 – Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

In Christ (who was circumcised on our behalf, and thus, His circumcision is credited to us Philippians 3:3), we are now part of the commonwealth of Israel, not a separate entity whatsoever.



Now in response, FF has said,

A true Jew is one who has BOTH circumcisions. Perhaps the language in 2:29 is confusing, but the context is clear. Let's keep reading into chapter 3:

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
(Rom 3:1)

But wait. Aren't we Jews? Why is Paul associating physical circumcision with the Jews?

much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(Rom 3:2)

"Them"? Why not "us"? Paul is still making a distinction; why, if that physical circumcision now makes no difference? 2:29 is not saying that anyone who is circumcised of the heart is a Jew. Only those of the physical circumcision who are ALSO circumcised of the heart qualify for that title. In fact, Galatians 3:28 makes it pretty clear that, spiritually speaking, there are NO spiritual Jews nor spiritual Gentiles in the Body of Christ.

I will now respond….

FF is clearly getting confused (and I do not mean that in a patronizing sense) by the fact that Paul can use the term “Jew” in more ways than one, in the same way that he uses the term “law” in more ways than one. Notice that FF did not at all defeat the point that I made that Paul in Romans 2 is talking about the physically uncircumcised whom Paul dubs as “Jews,” but what FF did try to say is that Paul’s point was ONLY that a true Jew required both physical and spiritual circumcision. Well again, does the context support that?? Let’s look again….

Paul is contrasting certain members of the physically uncircumcised with certain members of the physically circumcised and condemning the former. He then sums up his thoughts with….

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Since the contrast was already between unrighteous ethnic Jews who were physically circumcised yet forfeited said circumcision, and righteous uncircumcised Gentiles, there is nothing to indicate that Paul has now switch to praise about righteous ethnic Jews. Such a group has been NOWHERE in the context here. He is summing up the status of the righteous Gentiles that he ALREADY spoke about and declares such people to be “Jews.” He is not saying that BOTH are required, he is saying that ONLY spiritual circumcision is actually required, and that qualifies one as a Jew. Again, there is no way around this passage.

That then leads us to the context of Chapter 3 which does not help FF’s case one bit. The opening statement of Chapter 3, What advantage then has the Jew or what is the profit of circumcision only makes sense in light of Paul’s astounding prior declaration that being “Jewish” is not dependant upon birth or circumcision. Paul is now explaining God’s purpose in ordaining the Jewish people to begin with.

Now onto FF’s last point

In fact, Galatians 3:28 makes it pretty clear that, spiritually speaking, there are NO spiritual Jews nor spiritual Gentiles in the Body of Christ.

No, that is not what that verse is saying at all. And let me clarify my position here a bit… when I refer to the Church as “spiritual” Israel I am only using that phrase to differentiate from physical descendancy from Abraham. I am not making that designation to make “spiritual” Israel a different entity from the true Israel of the OT. It is one and the same. There is continuity in the concept.

So let’s go back to the verse in question which is actually quite devastating to FF’s case…

Galatians 3:26-29 – You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul is teaching that all religious and cultural boundaries mean nothing in Christ. We are all on equal footing. He is not denying that the Christian faith is the continuation of Judaism, for in fact specifically affirms that being part of Christ’s Body (and I would remind you that Christ was Jewish, thus He has a Jewish body), means that a believer is Abraham’s seed and part of the OT family of faith. Paul in referring to the lack of “Jew” and “Gentile” is speaking of circumstances of ancestry by physical birth, and declaring that does not matter a bit. It is our common faith in Christ that makes us all the true seed of Abraham. That is the context of this verse, and it does not help dispensationalism one bit.

This of course is confirmed further by Paul here:

Ephesians 2:11-13 – Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

and continuing…

2:19 – Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets….

Paul does not say that “God’s people” in Christ become some new “thing” and that the Gentiles stop being Gentiles and morph into this new “thing,” but rather Paul teaches that the Gentiles are brought into the already existing commonwealth of Israel, the household of God and that the distinction is removed. The true Israel did not move or change, the Gentiles are grafted in as of course Romans 11 also teaches. This is the true Israel built upon the foundation of the OT!! Not a new and undisclosed “thing” – the mystery was that the distinction would be removed.

[FlimFlamboyant]

That so totally did not answer my question though. Do I need to explain my question better?

You can't ask a question, and demand it be answered according to a specific set of rules and faulty logic that you define. My reply was simply to show the invalidity of the question to begin with.

[Darth Xena]

Hey FF, that would be fine if your post did that, but it absolutely did not. I will show how it did not hopefully tomorrow.. I have to get offline for tonight.

[Hitch]

Ball three.

DeeDEe Balls is balls and strikes is strikes but youz should nos dey dont like it whenya youz wanna use da same ball fer everybody.

[FlimFlamboyant]

That then leads us to the context of Chapter 3 which does not help FF’s case one bit. The opening statement of Chapter 3, What advantage then has the Jew or what is the profit of circumcision only makes sense in light of Paul’s astounding prior declaration that being “Jewish” is not dependant upon birth or circumcision. Paul is now explaining God’s purpose in ordaining the Jewish people to begin with.

What advantage does the Jew have when we (according to you) are made members of the same nation? "Much in every way"? How can that be if we're all part of the same group now? There would be no more advantage.

I am not making that designation to make “spiritual” Israel a different entity from the true Israel of the OT. It is one and the same. There is continuity in the concept.

Yes, I realize that's what you're claiming.

2:19 – Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets….

I see you conveniently cut off the last part of that verse. What is the foundation?

This is the true Israel built upon the foundation of the OT!!

The Old Testament is the foundation? Let's read the rest of that verse and let Paul clear this up for us.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

The foundation is Christ. Well gee, why WOULDN'T he be? Afterall:

1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The foundation is hardly in dispute. Are both groups in Christ? Yeah. Are both groups in the "household of God"? Of course. Are there similarities? Naturally! How else could we all be saved?

[Darth Xena]

Dear FF, first with regards to your above post.. is that your complete answer? If so, you have simply cherry-picked and not dealt with the entirety of the argument. Before I respond further, I am waiting to see if you intend upon supplementing your response.

[Hitch]

What advantage does the Jew have when we (according to you) are made members of the same nation? "Much in every way"? How can that be if we're all part of the same group now? There would be no more advantage.

It takes a dedicated DF to say the long cultural understanding of monotheism, the roles of Scripture ,Scriptural characters and Scriptural history add up to nothing. LOL

Hitch

[Darth Xena]

Now to further explicate my opening challenge which was as follows:

Most dispensationalists are Trinitarians as I am. We stand in utter agreement on this essential of the faith.... but if you observe the way that texts are very often used to prove that Christ is Deity, it is the same way I would use texts to show that the Church is Israel. Namely.... there are OT passages used to exclusively describe Israel that are en masse applied to the Church in the NT. Why is it legitimate to do that with Christology but not Israelogy??

I then also pointed out Hitch’s post which stated….

Yeah and the children of Promise

the elect

Abe's seed

the people of God

The City of God

the royal priesthood

the temple of God

a chosen generation

a holy nation

the household of God


Really how could anyone call the church 'spiritual Israel'?

How is this any different than what we do with regards to Christology?? In response you said…

Sure, the OT is very useful for proving the deity of Christ; in fact, Paul used them for that very purpose on many occasions. Does that mean that Paul was under the Mosaic law? Don't verses like Romans 6:14 tell us otherwise? Do you reject the Genesis account of creation because things changed after Adam fell?

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point. If you think it does you are going to have to do some further explaining because you have failed to deal with my issue which is….

Multiple unique designations are used for Israel in the OT. Those same designations are applied without qualification to the Church in the NT making an identification of the two extraordinarily strong in a cumulative case, which is exactly what we do with the Trinity when we note that unique and/or multiple OT designation of YHWH are applied without qualification to Christ. You need to explain why this reasoning is legitimate in Christology but illegitimate in Israelogy or prove that my initial premise is flawed in some way. You have not done so whatsoever.

You know as well as I do that God's dealings with man have changed throughout history, while many things remain the same. I don't see how your initial argument proves anything. Just because I can't apply the dietary laws of the OT to myself doesn't mean I throw out every piece of information in all of those books, though you would probably accuse us otherwise.

And again, this is wholly irrelevant. We are not talking ceremonial laws or anything of the kind. We are talking about unique descriptive identifiers, things that make an entity unique and what it is…. Those multiple and/or unique descriptive identifiers of Israel, the “stuff” that makes Israel who she is, are applied without qualification to the Church which would be odd to the utmost if an equivalency between the two were not intended.

Here is a quote from James White on his “Son of God, Lord of Glory” tape on this issue with regards to the deity of Christ:

“This next section I entitled, “Comparison Texts.” Comparison texts is where you… Normally I will be taking a passage from the Old Testament that teaches something about God, that talks about God, YHWH God of the Old Testament. And for some strange reason in the New Testament we find the New Testament writers ransacking the Old Testament looking for these very phrases to apply to Jesus Christ. It would be rather strange if the writers of the New Testament did not believe in the deity of Christ that they would search the Old Testament from stem to stern for phrases used of God to apply to their Lord. It certainly would be strange if you believe that they did not believe in the deity of Christ, but it’s obviously that they did from what we’ve already seen, so this is hardly unusual.”

To transplant this into our discussion.... for some strange reason we find the New Testament writers ransacking the Old Testament to find descriptive identifiers of Israel and applying them to the Church. Now this would be strange if the NT writers did not believe in the identification of the two as the same entity....

Now explain to me why this reasoning is invalid for Israelogy?

[FlimFlamboyant]

To transplant this into our discussion.... for some strange reason we find the New Testament writers ransacking the Old Testament to find descriptive identifiers of Israel and applying them to the Church.

I guess you're going to have to find me a place where Paul does this in regards to the Body of Christ. I can only think of one place off the top of my head where he looks to be doing this on the surface, but further investigation reveals otherwise.

Hitch was a bit slack in his research while compiling his list. Only the following terms are used for both groups:

the children of Promise (ask yourself; which promise?)
the elect
Abe's seed
the temple of God

Now for the rest:

the people of God

Paul never uses the term "God's people" or "the people of God" in his epistles in application to the Body of Christ. But even if that were so, this is hardly a convincing point. I mean, really.

The City of God

This term appears only twice in the entire Bible. They're both in Psalms. Try again.

the royal priesthood
a chosen generation

Paul never uses these terms in conjunction with the Body of Christ. This term appears only in 1 Peter 2:9, and is applicable only to the remnant of the nation of Israel.

a holy nation

Besides 1 Peter 2:9, this also appears in Exodus 19:6

Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Was God including Gentiles here? I didn't think so.

the household of God

What makes you think that this term has anything to do with the nation of Israel, seeing that it appears only in Ephesians 2:19?

Now that we're down a more manageable and accurate list, perhaps we can touch on the points that are left.

[Darth Xena]

Dear FF:

Of course I do not agree with your chopping up of the NT (and did not agree with that as a dispensationalist either BTW). I was only using Hitch's list as a good starting point, but your point is well-taken in that I will provide my own list. But in providing my own (since I am writing for a much broader audience than just us two as I am assuming you are as well) I am not going to eliminate certain texts which you may think are inapplicable. I will be back to this later...

[Darth Xena]

Okay moving on to further explicating Hitch’s point and I readily confess I am using upon the work of Charles Provan in “The Church is Israel Now”:

Beloved of God

Israel is Beloved of God –
Exodus 15:13-16
Deuteronomy 33:1-4
Ezra 3:10-11

Disobedient Israel is not Beloved of God
Leviticus 26:27-30
Jeremiah 12:8
Jeremiah 16:5-7
Hosea 9:10-15
Amos 9:7-8
Matthew 3:7
Philippians 3:2
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
Titus 1:10-11

The Christians are Beloved of God
Romans 9:22-25
Ephesians 5:1-2
Colossians 3:5-12
1 John 3:1

The Children of God

Israelites are the Children of God –
Exodus 4:21-23
Deuteronomy 14:1-2
Isaiah 1:1-4
Isaiah 63:7-10
Jeremiah 31:7-10
Hosea 11:1-2

Disobedient Israelites are not the Children of God
Deuteronomy 32:5
John 8:37-44

The Christians are the Children of God
John 1:11-13
John 11:49-52
Romans 8:13-16
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Galatians 3:26-28
Galatians 4:4-7
Philippians 2:14-16
1 John 3:1

The Field of God

Israel is the Field of God –
Jeremiah 12:7-12

The Christians are the Field of God
1 Corinthians 3:5-9

The Flock of God and of the Messiah

Israel is the Flock of God and of the Messiah –
Psalm 78:52-55
Psalm 80:1-3
Isaiah 40:9-11
Jeremiah 23:1-3
Jeremiah 31:10-12
Ezekiel 34:12-16
Micah 5:2-4
Zechariah 10:3-5

The Christians are the Flock of God and of the Messiah
John 10:14-16
Hebrews 13:20-21
1 Peter 2:25
1 Peter 5:1-3

The House of God

Israel is the House of God –
Numbers 12:1-9

The C