| Author |
Message |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 1:06 am: |     |
Hi Colleen (and everyone),
As I've looked more into the founding of dispensationalism in the 1800s and what it entails, it matches exactly what Adrian said earlier -- it is the idea that the "church age" (or dispensation) is a sort of interruption or "pause" in the greater scheme of things with God & the nation of Israel.
As Jeremy noted awhile ago on some thread, Darby's dispensationalism began when he "realized the separation between Israel and the church". That is the root and heart of dispensationalism... the beginning of it, and also the end that it pictures (the new earth age).
Thus when Brinsmead called it along with Adventism "a form of Christian Judaism" he was definitely correct. Coupled snugly inside dispensationalism is the assumption or belief that "Israel" (the people) must be in the land of Israel prior to Christ's coming.
In other words, dispensationalism is a form of and closely linked with Christian Zionism. Zionism itself is the Jewish movement that believes the Jews must have the land of Israel, often at any cost, and religiously seeks a restoration of the ancient kingdom of Israel.
I'm going to share some comparisons with Adventism in a minute, but I need to focus on the connection between Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism for a moment.
*****
Christian Zionism & Dispensationalism, Sabbatarianism & Adventism
The relationship between Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism is very similar to the relationship between Sabbatarianism and Seventh-day Adventism.
All SDA's are Sabbatarians, but not all Sabbatarians are SDA's.
All Dispensationalists are Christian Zionists, but not all Christian Zionists are Dispensationalists.
Christian Zionism is simply when Christians believe that the "land" in the Middle East belongs to Israel, and is Israel's right. It's simply the Christian form of Jewish Zionism. I'll put this next section in quotes for emphasis:
quote:Dispensationalism believes Christian Zionism, but adds much to it, namely the eschatalogical emphasis/importance and a larger, theological and overarching framework for viewing things all throughout history ("dispensations"). Dispensationalism added to Christian Zionism a certain prophetic urgency which Christian Zionism did not have in itself. Dispensationalism made Christian Zionism important "in light of the end times", so to speak.
This is similar to Adventism and Sabbatarianism:
quote:Adventism believes in Sabbatarianism, but adds much to it, namely the eschatalogical emphasis/importance and a larger, theological and overarching framework for viewing things all throughout history ("the great controversy"). Adventism added to Sabbatarianism a certain prophetic urgency which Sabbatarianism did not have in itself. Adventism made Sabbatarianism important "in light of the end times", so to speak.
Like Sabbatarianism existed prior to SDA, Christian Zionism also existed prior to Dispensationalism, but just like Sabbatarianism, it was not the strong view of the majority. Just like SDA did not invent Sabbatarianism, but "took it and ran with it" (so to speak), so also Dispensationalism did not invent Christian Zionism, but "took it and ran with it."
Now, for some comparisons between Adventism and Dispensationalism. In these comparisons I've generally treated Dispensationalism and Zionism as one entity because a strong degree of Zionism is a fundamental part of Dispensationalism, just like "Saturday is the Sabbath" is a fundamental part of SDA. To remove the idea that "the land belongs to Israel" from Dispensationalism is to destroy Dispensationalism, just like removing Sabbath from SDA will destroy SDA.
*****
Comparisons between Adventism and Dispensationalism-Zionism
Adventism sees this specific day of the week as being set apart (sanctified) by God.
Dispensationalism sees these specific people [Jews] as being set apart by God.
Adventism sees the seventh day of the week as God's holy "place of rest" for us.
Dispensationalism sees the "holy" land as God's "place of rest" for the Jews.
Adventism acknowledges & guards the Sabbath to please God.
Dispensationalism acknowledges & guards the Jewish nation to please God.
Adventism sees the way into the Holy of Holies as being through the 1844 "sanctuary".
Zionism sees the way into the Holy of Holies as being through the Temple Mount in Jerusalem when the Muslim Dome of the Rock is finally removed and the Temple rebuilt. Both have a different sanctuary than the true Holy Place which is in Christ Jesus. Even though Dispensationalism wouldn't fully agree with Zionism about this, they wouldn't fully disagree either as is evidenced by their great support for Jewish Zionism. Additionally, dispensationalists often see the "millenial age" as being a time when the temple in Jerusalem is restored and all the nations come to worship God there, feasts and sabbaths re-instituted. This common dispensational view does not understand shadow & fulfillment, and the superiority of the gospel. It suggests that after the Light has come (in the new covenant), Jerusalem and the nations will return to the shadows during the millenium. Adrian (Doc) was right that this view sees the New Covenant and Church as basically an "interruption" of the Mosaic covenant, and that after the rapture of the church the mosaic covenant will continue.
Adventism sees Sabbath as the big issue in the end times, which everything revolves around and which the whole world will gather & fight around.
Dispensationalism sees the nation of Jews as the big issue in the end times, which everything revolves around and which the whole world will gather & fight around.
So just in case, Adventism treats the Sabbath reverently.
So just in case, Dispensationalism treats the Jewish nation reverently.
Adventism sees God as angry with or judging those who violate Sabbath.
Dispensationalism sees God as angry with & judging those who divide or deny Israel's land.
Adventism says that "God loves the Sabbath" and believes that above all Satan hates the Sabbath & continually tries to destroy it.
Dispensationalism says that "God loves the Jews" and believes that above all Satan hates the Jews & continually tries to destroy them.
Adventism is afraid of "the law of the Spirit" out of fear of antinomianism (lawlessness)... that not teaching the Ten Commandments will give people "license to sin". Adventism sees the Law as necessary in order to prevent the abuses of lawlessness.
Dispensationalism is afraid of "replacement theology" out of fear of repeating past abuses against the Jewish people. The Catholic church used a form of amillenial replacement theology as a pretext for invading Palestine to take it from the Jews during the Crusades. Dispensationalists attribute the terrible abuses of the Crusades to "replacement theology". They sumise that the abuses wouldn't have happened if the church hadn't called itself "Spiritual Israel". The problem with this is that it is not the root of the abuses of the Crusades. The root of the abuses of the Crusades was a loss of the gospel's agape love and focus on heavenly realities instead of earthly ones. Because the Catholic church looked to material earthly things (such as the land of Israel) as "the kingdom", she fought for it and considered it more valuable than lives -- lives which Christ died for. The Catholic church had a distorted understanding of what "God's Kingdom" was. Ironically, so does Zionism. Dispensationalism doesn't wholly disagree with Zionism here, but simply puts it off until after the church is removed from the picture.
Adventism has allowed many legalistic abuses in the church simply because "it's right for us to keep Sabbath".
Dispensationalism has allowed many inhumane abuses in the land of Israel simply because "it's right for them to keep the land".
Adventism believes in the perpetual importance of the Law.
Dispensationalism believes in the perpetual importance of the Circumcision (the perpetual distinction of the Circumcision -- that is, the Jews).
Adventism sees the Law as being in an eternally exalted position.
Dispensationalism sees the Circumcision as being in an eternally exalted position.
Adventism sees those who are "of the law" as being "the remnant", and is focused on the law as such.
Dispensationalism sees those who are "of the circumcision" as being "the remnant" and is focused on literal Israel as such.
Adventism thus looks at the letter of the law.
Dispensationalism thus looks at the circumcision of the flesh.
Adventists who know [some] the gospel set it aside when in the mode of talking about "the end times" and its events.
Dispensationalists who know the gospel subtly set it aside somewhat when in the mode of talking about "the end times" and its events... focusing instead on the people (Jews) whom they believe will preach the gospel, and the nations being gathered against Israel.
Adventism --in focusing on Sabbath-- sets aside the First great commandment to love God above all else, and turn their worship to a Day instead of to a Man: Jesus Christ. (>_<)
Dispensationalism --in supporting Zionism-- sets aside the Second great commandment to love neighbors & one another as God loves us (His agape love for non-Jewish people in Palestine).
The spirit of Adventism distorts the message of salvation;
The spirit of Dispensationalism distorts the message of God's love. (>_<)
(Conversely, this is why many Adventists who may not know God's salvation clearly are nonetheless able to see the truth of God's love regarding the Israel-Arab situation more clearly; and why Dispensationalists can see the truth of salvation more clearly than Adventists -- that it is by faith/grace, not by works.)
Adventism distorts the truth of the gospel;
Dispensationalism distorts the love of the gospel.
Adventism distorts the message of how salvation is attained [by "law"];
Dispensationalism distorts the message of what is obtained ["land" for Israel].
Adventism distorts the God-focused nature of the gospel.
Dispensationalism distorts the spiritually-focused, eternal nature of the gospel.
Adventism understands Scripture by interpreting the New Testament through the lens of the Old.
Dispensationalism understands Scripture by interpreting the New Testament through the lens of the Old.
Adventism proclaims the shadow of the Sabbath.
Dispensationalism proclaims the shadow of Circumcision and the land of Israel, and in the millenial age, Dispensationalism proclaims the return of the shadows of the Law as well, including the Sabbath.
Adventism corrupts the gospel today.
Dispensationalism corrupts the gospel in the future (during the Millenium).
Adventism can seem impressive and straightforward because it takes Sabbath literally (and Ecclesiastes). It proclaims, "The Word says it, so we believe it!" It chides other Christians for not believing the Bible literally (about Sabbath), and says that they "spiritualize it away" or "replace" it with an incorrect Sabbath.
Dispensationalism, in the same way, can seem impressive and straightforward because it takes "Israel" literally. It proclaims, "The Word says it, so we believe it!" It chides other Christians for not believing the Bible literally (about Israel), and says that they "spiritualize it away" or "replace" it with an incorrect [Spiritual] Israel.
Adventism says there's only one true Sabbath, and it's the literal one of the Old Testament.
Dispensationalism says there's only one true Israel, and it's the literal one of the Old Testament.
*****
Two final comparisons:
1) We who have left Adventism are shocked at how obvious the truth about the Sabbath is in Scripture -- that it was a shadow instead, not the realit itself. In the same degree, it is obvious in Scripture that the land, nation, and circumcision itself were also a shadow. The mere mention of "the heavenly Jerusalem" speaks volumes about this truth (as does Hebrews 11). But just like we couldn't "see" the truth in Adventism because we were so focused on "the letter" of the law in the Old Testament, in the same way Dispensationalists cannot see the blaring truth because they are focused on "the letter" of the prophets in the Old Testament.
2) Just as Christ is "a better rest" and the Spirit is "a better law", so also Christ is "a better inheritance (land)", "a better home", and "a better promise" (that is, a more full fulfillment than the land or letter of the Prophets can give).
In the past, God spoke to Israel in part, and in shadows as well. Christ is the Light. The promises of the Old Testament for Israel need to be held up to the Light and be transformed in Him, otherwise we are interpreting by shadows again.
Colleen, this is why when we think of the Old's promises that God would rule the nations from Jerusalem, we must pass this through the New Covenant, and understand then that firstly not only has God made Gentiles & Jews one body, but that this promise finds its fulfillment in the new Jerusalem, not in the Old. The New Testament declares that this earth (the "holy land" included) will be destroyed by fire and will be remade.
*****
Okay, you get the idea. This wasn't an exhaustive list of comparisons, but I'm exhausted! I got hit hard in the Spirit on those ones with Adventism's setting aside the 1st great command and Dispensationalism setting aside the 2nd great command, and the distortions of the gospel.
There's a lot of things to process here, but what I pray is that this somehow exposes the spirit of dispensationalism to all who come in here, especially by seeing its parallel spirit in Adventism and their parallel fruits & distortions of the gospel.
Bless you in Jesus' name,
Ramone |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1696
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 2:30 am: | |
P.S. As a post-script, I recently read something at wikipedia which I thought was a wonderful, Christian response to the problem of Dispensationalism and Christian Zionism:
quote:The Jerusalem Declaration
The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Catholic), the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle Eastand the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land, have recently joined together in order to proclaim and to publish The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism (August 22, 2006). All of these Churches include local Christians, which would include Palestinian Christians.
The Jerusalem Declaration rejects Christian Zionism, concluding that it is a "false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation." Several reasons are given, among them the following: "The Christian Zionist programme provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ's love and justice today" ... "We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people."
The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism cites Micah 6:8, "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." Also, 2nd Corinthians 5:19, "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting sins against the sinners. He has entrusted to us the message of reconciliation." It begins with a quotation from Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God."
In speaking of Christian Zionism's "extreme form", the Declaration seems to be clearly referring to Dispensationalism, which supports Christian Zionism in the light of "an emphasis on apocalyptic events". Dispensationalists weaken the love of the Gospel because they believe that these events (in Israel) are a fulfillment of prophecy. So they stand back instead of entering the blessed task of peacemaking & proclaiming the gospel of God's reconciliation.
I know we don't want to divide "because of eschatology", but some types of eschatology aren't merely "far off" things in the future -- they affect and weaken the proclamation of the gospel today. Dispensationalist eschatology causes Christians to hesitate to speak and act the love of the gospel into the Middle East situation, simply because we don't want to interfere with prophetic fulfillments (or we don't want to get on God's bad side by doing something "against His people"). In a way, it's similar to Adventists who might refrain from voting in American elections and taking a stand for God because they don't want to interfere with SDA "prophetic fulfillments" about the coming mark of the beast in America, etc.
One more very good Christian response:
quote:Response to Christian Zionism (NCC)
The General Assembly of the National Council of Churches in November 2007 approved a resolution for further study which stated that the "theological stance of Chistian Zionism adversely affects:
- justice and peace in the Middle East, delaying the day when Israelis and Palestinians can live within secure borders
- relationships with Middle Eastern Christians [prior reference to the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism]
- relationships with Jews, since Jews are seen as mere pawns in an eschatological scheme
relationships with Muslims, since it ignores the rights of Muslims
- interfaith dialogue, since it views the world in starkly dichotomous terms"
The Reformed Church in America at its 2004 General Synod found "the ideology of Christian Zionism and the extreme form of dispensationalism that undergirds it to be a distortion of the biblical message, noting the impediment it represents to achieving a just peace in Israel/Palestine." The Mennonite Church published an article that referenced what is called the ongoing illegal seizure of additional Palestinian lands by Israeli militants, noting that in some churches under the influence of Christian Zionism the "congregations 'adopt' illegal Israeli settlements, sending funds to bolster the defense of these armed colonies." As of September 2007, listed among American churches that have criticized Christian Zionism: the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Church of Christ.
Links:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article144310.html
http://www.mcselca.org/WGME/07ASSY.RES.09-07.Christian-Zionism.pdf
http://www.ncccusa.org/NCCpolicies/christianzionism.htm |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1546
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 8:50 pm: | |
You know Ramone, I'll say right up front that no one really knows how everything is going to play out exactly. At the end of the day, there's quite a bit of guess work in any eschatological postion. My only advice to you, which comes from personal experience, is to be humble, very, very, very humble. I think if you did some searches you would find quite a few posts from me that sound almost identical to yours above using most of the same reasoning. I was adamantly against dispensationalism, wanted to see the whole system crumble and blow away, and wasn't afraid to tell everyone why.
I read the Bible cover to cover in different translations every year, but that's not quite the same as doing in depth inductive analysis. So after completing an extensive line by line inductive study of the entire New Testament a couple of years ago I decided to tackle the Old Testament in the same way. Guess what, I finally had to come to the Lord, confess my pride and arrogance, and repent. As it stands now, I guess my current understanding would be labled "modified or revised dispensationalism". Talk about eating crow! I'm not saying that my humbling experience means my current position is right. I'm just saying, it's a very good thing to be very humble about these matters. You never know, you might end up like me and it's pretty embarrassing being me. :-)
Chris |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1698
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 9:07 pm: | |
Chris, again, as I've written above, this is not just a case of "eschatology", but this is a matter of an eschatology which affects us--and the love of the gospel--TODAY, in us and in the world. Many churches have recognized this, particularly in "the holy land" itself, as noted in the post-script above. Just like Adventism has ramifications *today* and is not "just eschatology", it is the same with Dispensationalism. Adventism distorts salvation in the gospel, but Dispensationalism distorts the love of the gospel.
Beside that, theologically, embracing the millenial aspects of Dispensationalism represent a serious step backwards for any Former Adventist who learned about shadow & fulfillment while exiting Adventism... leaving one veil to put on another.
It's easy to say, "you might end up like me", but again, the things above have not been answered, and saying "I used to believe that, too" doesn't answer it either, nor does it change the serious distortions Dispensationalism does to the New Covenant (such as making it a mere interruption of the Mosaic covenant). |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1699
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 8:06 am: | |
The Fear of Loss of Scriptural Authority Without a Literal "Israel"
Adventism is afraid that if we don't hold to the The Ten Commandments, people will not be moral but will become lawless. They fear it will give people a license to sin (mind you, people didn't need a "license" to sin in the first place). But the truth is that the law of the Spirit fulfills (produces) in us a morality that not only ends up doing the things the Law had required, but goes well above and beyond what the Law had required.
For example, the Law had said not to kill your neighbor, covet their things, steal them, etc. But Jesus Christ--the New Covenant Himself--said, "Love one another as I have loved you." The ways in which Christ has loved us far exceed the Law... He healed us; He died for us; He loved us while we were His enemies; He carried our sicknesses; He carried our griefs; He suffered for us; He gave us hope; He interceded for us; He came into our darkness; He reached out and touched the unholy, making us holy, etc. Obviously we are unable to do all of these things for people, but as you can see, "Love one another as I have loved you" is a very tall order -- the tallest in the whole Bible, far surpassing all moral commands that came before, even while fulfilling them.
In the same way, Dispensationalism is afraid that if we don't hold to a distinct Literal Israel, it will jeopardize our faith in God's word. Without "Literal Israel", Dispensationalists fear that it would give us a "license to twist Scripture", so to speak -- a license to disrespect, alter, remove, misinterpret, or just plain abuse Scriptures. Just like "The Ten Commandments" to Adventists seem to protect "morality", so in the same way "Literal Israel" seems to protect the validity of Scripture itself to Dispensationalists.
In fact, however, just as the Law of the Spirit is so much morally greater than the Old Covenant Law, in the same degree interpreting according to the Spirit (instead of literally) will not let us run loose. Responsible Biblical interpretation will not be jeopardized, but rather strengthened -- just like New Covenant morality is stronger than Old Covenant morality.
Keeping "Literal Israel" ultimately does not protect or produce sound Scriptural interpretation/respect anymore than SDA keeping the Old Covenant Law produces better or more secure morality. You can find crackpot interpretations done by both Dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists. Just as no one needed "a license to sin" in order to sin, in the same way no one needed a "license to twist Scripture" in order to twist Scripture. The Law didn't prevent immorality, and neither did Dispensationalism prevent Scripture-twisting.
Just as the New Covenant morality of the Spirit surpasses & transcends the narrow parameters of the Law's morality, in the same way the New Covenant fulfillment according to the Spirit (instead of the letter) surpasses & transcends the narrow parameters of a strictly literal interpretation of the prophecies of the Old Testament.
The Old Wineskins of the Law cannot contain the New Wine of the Spirit's morality -- the Spirit fills up what was required and overflows, and the container of "the Law" is burst wide open so that you don't need to strictly focus on it anymore (in knowing & obeying Christ's tall-order commands, we find we don't have to repeat a lot of the elementary commands in the Old Covenant law).
In the same way, the Old Wineskins of literal-Israel prophecies in the Old Testament cannot fully contain or comprehend the vast scope of the New Wine of fulfillment in Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ's fulfillment (and that of the ministry of the Holy Spirit) expands "Israel" to include not only the circumcised, but also the un-circumcised. That is why God says to Christ in Isaiah 49:6--
quote:It is too small a thing for You to be My Servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make You a light for the Gentiles,
that You may bring My salvation
to the ends of the earth.
And so the promises that were spoken originally (and apparently exclusively) to Israel are thus taken by God and applied to all nations, chief among them being the New Covenant itself, but also including the Kingship itself (Christ the King) and more. The promises are fulfilled for Israel, but they are also fulfilled for every nation. You could say that "Israel" is simply expanded and opened up to include all nations now. Or you could say that God has broken down the dividing wall and has made the two one, to use Scripture's language. The Gentiles are heirs together of the promises with Israel. They are all grafted into the same tree -- the same Root, which is Christ.
This is such a fundamentally large shift that the Old Covenant prophets could not fully envision it. You get glimpses of it once in awhile, but it is not something that is seen clearly until Christ is seen clearly. The Old Testament prophecies were written "in part" (Heb.1:1), and cannot picture "the whole" completely. They were snippets of what God was waiting to reveal in Jesus Christ.
And just as Light overwhelms shadows, in the same way the revelation of Jesus Christ overwhelms the seemingly distinct boundaries between Israel and the nations (including the "church"). When the Light turns on, Shadows disappear. When Christ came, Jewish distinctions began to disappear. Slowly at first, but then at an ever-increasing pace until the point that the very sign of their unique identity was declared a shadow -- circumcision.
quote:In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the flesh, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ. (Colossians 2:11)
It is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh. (Philippians 3:3)
We know that the New Covenant replaces the Sinatic Covenant, but circumcision did not come through Moses, as Jesus Himself pointed out. Circumcision far, far predates Moses and the Old Covenant, by 430 years, according to Paul. This is important to realize because...
Circumcision was part of a covenant with Abraham. Abraham's part of keeping the covenant was to circumcise every male among his people on the 8th day; God's part of the covenant was:
1) To make Abraham the father of many nations
2) To be the God of Abraham's descendants
3) To give the whole land of Canaan to them
Take a look at Genesis 17. Yes, God had promised the land to Abraham's seed a few times before, but here it is promised as part of "an everlasting covenant" with Abraham. And so Jewish identity itself is inextricably tied to circumcision, so much so that they referred to themselves as "the circumcised" and non-Jews as "the uncircumcised".
This wall of distinction was broken down in Christ Jesus. Circumcision is now done by Christ in the Spirit, not in the flesh. Whether one is physically circumcised or not, in God's sight they are "circumcised" when they are in Christ Jesus. Hence,
quote:If you belong to Christ
then you are Abraham's seed,
and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:29)
God has now named us as heirs together with Israel of its foundational promises given to Abraham. We are declared His heirs -- not by flesh, but by faith. Not according to literal lineage, but according to the Spirit.
quote:Through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise of Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 3:6)
Now, since the land was promised to Abraham's "seed", we could conclude that the Church has literally been given the land of Canaan to dwell in and possess. The obvious problem with this is that the Church is too large for the land of Canaan! And that is exactly the point. The Gentiles are members of the same body with Israel --the same tree-- and are heirs together with Israel of its promises, even its foundational one given "to Abraham's seed". Just like the Church is too large for Canaan, in the same way the fulfillment of the promises to "literal Israel" is too large for "literal Israel" to contain it -- both now and in the future age to come.
But we are looking at things backwards a bit here. When we were Adventists on the way out, we all probably had this "ah-ha!" moment when we realized that the Sabbath day was not the real rest, but rather the unseen rest by faith in Jesus Christ is the real rest. What was literal was a shadow, but what is invisible is the substance, or the "reality" as the NIV puts it. What this means is that the literal day is not the real reality. This is easily understood because it is not eternal. But what is eternal is the real reality.
In the same way, it is looking at things slightly backwards to say the very words "literal Israel", because literal Israel is defined according to the flesh and the rituals/heritage of the Old Covenant practices. The flesh is not eternal and neither are the Old Covenant practices. The latter is obsolete, and the former will be exchanged for an incorruptible body. Jesus said not to store up treasures on earth, simply because we do not have a lasting inheritance on earth. Our treasures are in heaven, and our inheritance is with Him (and in Him!).
And just as the literal, perishable Jerusalem was a shadow of the heavenly (spiritual) one --which is eternal and imperishable-- in the same way the Old Testament's "literal Israel" was a shadow of the "one body" which now exists in Christ (here it's probably good to say "one body" instead of "church" just because of the fallacy of unconsciously thinking of the "church" as being non-Jewish). Jewish identity itself--in circumcision--was declared a shadow of being in the "one body" in Jesus Christ.
An Adventist recently said to me in defending the need to keep the Ten Commandments that "we are Spiritual Israel". Following someone's cue on the forum a long time ago, I asked him why he then felt he needed to keep a literal Sabbath day if he believed he was part of spiritual Israel, especially when Scripture clearly says that Sabbath was a shadow of Christ and not the really real rest. He hasn't answered back yet (I pray it's sinking in!).
In the same way, there are words all over Scripture about the ending of the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles. But just like Adventists could not see the truth of the verses about Sabbath, in the same way Dispensationalists cannot see the truth of the verses talking about Israel and the Gentiles being one in Christ, nor the times when the land of Canaan is used as a shadow of the future inheritance for all nations in Christ (Heb.3-4 and Heb.11, for example).
And as we've just seen, circumcision itself was there as part of the covenant in which Abraham's descendants received the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession. Circumcision has been transformed to the spiritual in the light of Christ -- why then do Dispensationalists take the land of Canaan literally? Especially considering that now we are all declared to be Abraham's descendants in Christ!
The more I've come to study, write, and observe defenses of Dispensationalism, the more and more it seems like a spiritual stronghold instead of a mere theology or eschatological scenario. It is rooted in "the distinction of Israel and the Church", but the New Testament makes no such distinction.
The fear of loss of respect for or belief in Scripture (or license to twist it) is one of the roots of this spiritual stronghold. Just as in the same way the fear of sinning without a moral compass was a spiritual stronghold for Adventists. Dispensationalism seems attractive because it seems to lend greater support to respecting the Bible and taking God at His word. But His Word declares things that just don't fit Dispensationalism at all because Dispensationalism is founded on an unbiblical distinction between Israel and the Church, and then it goes even further to make out the New Covenant as an interruption of the Mosaic. Dispensationalism is simply Israel-centered, while the Bible is Christ-centered, and His love is world-centered.
Bless you in Jesus,
Ramone |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1700
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 8:07 am: | |
P.S. Yes, Romans 11 refers to literal unbelieving Jews coming back into Christ by faith, but this does not nullify the other clear statements of the NT, nor is this to be the lense through which the entire NT (or entire Bible) is read. Apparently that may be how John Darby arrived at Dispensationalism. Seeking to figure out the end times, perhaps, he found his "key" here and dropped anchor there. The whole of Dispensationalism rests in this spot.
But Romans 11 simply declares that some people who looked to the circumcision of the flesh will have their hearts unhardened. In other words, they will do a Psalm 45:10-11 and forget their heritage, counting all things as loss for the sake of knowing Jesus Christ and being found in Him, just like that "Hebrew of Hebrews" Paul of Tarsus did. Their "hearts will be unhardened" -- in other words, they will forsake the circumcision of the flesh for the circumcision of the heart done by Jesus Christ. That is what Romans 11 talks about -- not some continuing special distinction for the circumcision. It simply says that those who were circumcised by flesh will choose instead the circumcision of the heart.
And this will happen around the time that the fullness of the Gentiles has come into that "one body" in Christ --that is, into the Church. Some of the circumcised (in flesh) will then come into that "one body" in Christ -- that is, into the Church. Dispensationalism is set up on seeing a permanent distinction "between Israel and the Church", and different sets of promises for each, but the terms here are incorrect, because Paul speaks of circumcised Israelites coming into the Church, not remaining separate or going into a specially set-apart part of the Church. Rather, they enter Christ where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Him.
Paul forsaw a time when the non-circumcised would receive Christ much more than the circumcised would. Paul ministered as he did to the uncircumcised in the hope of arousing the jealousy of the circumcised. What he forsees then is that when so many people come into Christ, the jealousy of some of the circumcised will finally be aroused -- aroused to the point that they count their circumcision as loss. Aroused to the point that they count their earthly treasures & identity as loss for Christ's eternal inheritance and being found in Him.
Dispensationalism isn't helping arouse that jealousy, because the circumcised (in flesh) are fighting hard --so, so hard-- for their earthly kingdom, when in fact their King said His kingdom is not of this world, but is from another place. "Literal Israel" today is suffering terribly because of the pursuit of an earthly kingdom, and because Dispensationalism thinks its all part of the eschatalogical fulfillment of things, its Christians are trying to help Israel in its pursuit of perishable inheritance, and continually proclaiming their identity according to circumcision. Dispensational Christians have formed "love Israel" networks that often support violent Israeli extremists' settlements on Palestinian lands. Jews have noted that Christian Zionists can often be more "fundamental" about Jews having the land than they themselves are!
Dispensationalism is actually standing in the way of the proclamation of the gospel to Jews today. The gospel calls all nations to repentance, to loving one's neighbors (as opposed to uprooting and destroying them), and to seeking God's Kingdom. Literal Israel needs this more than she needs the land. She doesn't need to have her "God-given land" in order to hear the gospel and receive Christ. That's backwards, because Jesus said, "Seek first the Kingdom of God and all these other things will be given to you." In other words, what literal Israel needs most is the proclamation that she needs to die to what she desires most (land, ancient kingdom, temple & its glory) in order to receive life.
I know that not all Dispensationalists here on the forum (moderate & modified versions included) are fundamental about supporting the Israeli state. But I say to you that it's good to take a hard look at Dispensationalist churches as a whole, and also the history of Dispensationalism, how Christian Zionist they are as a whole, and how much Christian Zionism aided the formation of the State of Israel, and even helped get Zionism going in the 19th century. This is bad fruit that should not be ignored -- not for their sakes, nor for ours. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 4:51 pm: | |
Excellent points well stated, Ramone. I agree that dispensationalism is ultimately "Christian Judaism." This idea has strongly influenced American foreign policy as well (many U. S. politicians/policy makers have a Southern Baptist background). John Darby's association with the young visionary, Margaret MacDonald, is yet another factor to turn off former Adventists to dispensationalism.
Dennis Fischer |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 6:46 pm: | |
PS: After we officially left Adventism, my wife and I immersed ourselves into studying dispensationalism. Our library has several books, by popular authors, on this topic. In addition, we read the views of the opponents of dispensationalism as well. It is noteworthy that most Christians today do not believe in dispensationalism. We soon came to the conclusion that unbibical views usually become incredibly complicated. As former Adventists, we well know how this works with the investigative judgment alibi, etc. However, Biblical truth is not complicated nor associated with extrabiblical revelations in any form.
Dennis Fischer |
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3
Post Number: 189
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 8:32 pm: | |
Dennis Fischer said "It is noteworthy that most Christians today do not believe in dispensationalism"
Must be only if you don't live within 1000 miles of Dallas Theological Seminary! :-)
In Christ,
Brian (Arlington, Texas) |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9388
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 10:23 pm: | |
Ramone, I think that the problem here is a sense of having to defend or expose an "ism"--in this case, dispensationalism. By the same token, amillennialism is also just another "ism".
This whole discussion is another example of why I do not believe we can encapsulate our belief into ANY system—any "ism". Anytime we develop a "system" of how things work, we run into texts that don't quite "fit". We absolutely can't make systems, or "isms", to describe reality.
The fact that the Bible says that Israel will be grafted back into the olive tree of God, that God still loves Israel on account of the patriarchs, that His calling and election are sure...these facts are not negated by the New Covenant. They are, in fact, part of the New Covenant. These facts occur in Romans 11 as part of Paul's greatest treatise on salvation and "how things are".
We can't explain away these things just because we don't like "Dispensationalism". The facts stated in the Bible are facts, even if we don't know exactly how to understand them. We don't have to be "dispensationalists" in order to believe that God will keep His promises to Israel. We don't have to be champions of political Israel in order to believe these things. We don't have to create logical explanations for why or why not God's faithfulness to Israel is real.
We are asked to believe what the Bible says, and we aren't in any position to assume that God doesn't actually mean that He still loves Israel on account of the patriarchs. The fact that this is true does not mean He loves the Gentile Christians less. And we don't have to understand how it will look or happen.
Margaret MacDonald and John Darby are just distractions. What they think is no more or less authoritative than what any man or woman thinks. John MacArthur and John Piper and John Calvin agree(d) on many things, and they disagree(d) on others. We don't have to believe one is truthful and the others are not, nor do we have to conclude that only one has "the truth". All three tell the truth about the things that are clearly known—and we are frankly not in a position to decide that what the Bible actually says can't be true simply because some human created a system to explain what the Bible says.
The fact that Ellen White said that Jesus is the Son of God does not mean we have to disbelieve the truth that Jesus is the Son of God. The fact that a dubious messenger bears news does not mean the news is necessarily false. It just means we can't make our decisions or shape our beliefs on that person's delivery of the news. We have to go to the source.
In the case of the future of Israel, we have to go to the source--the Bible. Apparently contradictory passages are not wrong, and we're not supposed to rationalize them to "fit". As John Piper says, difficult passages are in the Bible to drive us to cry out to God to teach us what they mean.
A person doesn't have to be a dispensationalist per se in order to believe God will keep His promises to Israel. And certainly whatever has been done politically as a result of "dispensationalism" is a human construct. God never asked us to make government policy based on His hints of the future.
"Isms" are distractions. The truth is plainly stated, and we cannot dismiss or explain away the difficult passages. We should assume that God has ways which we are not privileged to know. We have to wait and see how it will look.
Colleen |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9389
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 10:26 pm: | |
And one more thing--my coming to see that there are promises and statements in the Bible re: God's faithfulness to Israel have not come about as a result of my studying dispensationalism. Actually, I have never studied it or even read anything describing it. My conclusions have been based on Bible study--plus seeing modern history through new lenses based upon a sovereign God who is Lord over the nations and peoples.
Colleen |
Christo
Registered user
Username: Christo
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 12:20 am: | |
Quote [The fact that the Bible says that Israel will be grafted back into the olive tree of God, that God still loves Israel on account of the patriarchs, that His calling and election are sure...these facts are not negated by the New Covenant. They are, in fact, part of the New Covenant. These facts occur in Romans 11 as part of Paul's greatest treatise on salvation and "how things are".]
Those: the natural branches, that were cut off, were cut off because of unbelief. They failed to enter Gods rest in Christ Jesus. They were not cut off because of ethnicity, and will not be grafted back on because of ethnicity.
If Isreal were to be construed as the Body of Moses,and we who enter Gods rest in Christ Jesus are the Body Of Christ. Then the promises of God are an invitation into his rest,and not a territory, or nation state.
It would not prosper the Body of Moses one bit to gain the whole world, even, and to loose their soul.They are in the physical promised land right now,and they have neither peace nor rest. The parrallels to Adventism are astounding.
Maybe physical Isreal is occupying a land now, and the region is in turmoil now to show us,and them, that its not about a piece of land, but peace in our hearts, that comes from knowing the truth, Christ Jesus. They have the piece, but they don't have the peace.
The Palestinians have neither the piece, or the peace. Religioned people are very hard to bring to acceptance of Gods plan of salvation, whether they be Jewish, Muslim, or Adventist.
Paul lived in abundance and abased but he lived by faith.
Lets face it, the Palestinians are caught between a rock, and a hard place. The carrying capacity of the land they have been forced to occupy has been exceeded for years , hense, abject poverty. The Body of Mohammed, would just as soon not have them in their wealthier nations, prefering cheap labor from India,Korea, and the Phillipeans. Also it seems many in the middle east revell in, the thorn in the side of Isreal that the Palestinians provide.
It would sure be something else if the Palestinians came to Christ first, and were able to provoke that whole region to jelousy in a way that the western world has been unable to do.
"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy."
When we believe this we are grafted on, when they believe this they too shall be grafted on, and given the promised land of Gods rest.
I pray that The Lord Jesus comes into the unbelieving hearts quickly.
Chris |
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3
Post Number: 190
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 7:11 am: | |
Colleen said "The fact that the Bible says that Israel will be grafted back into the olive tree of God"
Isn't there a big IF before the "will be"?
Rom 11:23 HCSB And even they(Individual Israelites/branches), if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, because God has the power to graft them in again. |
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3
Post Number: 191
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 7:30 am: | |
Also Colleen, I believe you when you say you haven't studied dispensationalism directly. But I believe you have definitely been exposed.
Trinity Church - Pastoral Staff
Gary Inrig
Senior Pastor
Education: D.Min., Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary.
Trinity Church - What we believe
#11 In the personal, pre-millennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that this "blessed hope" has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer.
I have studied Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (not academically) and don't like the basic presuppositions of either. Both have there system in place before getting out of Genesis.
In Christ,
Brian |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 1593
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 12:27 pm: | |
Brian,
Since you live in Southern Baptist country (also near DTS), it would seem that dispensationalism is the most popular view in town--probably really is (smile). When one considers all the adherents of Christianity worldwide, however, dispensationalism is a minority view. Interestingly, both the investigative judgment and dispensationalism (in its current form) were unknown to Christ-followers for 1800 years after the Cross. Both of these views began at about the same time with similar elements present.
Lest anyone think that I am somehow hostile to dispensationalists, I have many good friends--even my pastors--who believe that way. However, in my non-denominational church, eschatology is not a dividing factor. Of course, I realize that dispensationalism also affects the way people interpret current events. Our church has a variety of eschatological views. I mentioned to my Sunday School class, that I taught at an Evangelical Free church several years ago, that we are all wrong with our various views about last-day events. The class response seemed to be unanimous with that conclusion as well. Indeed, God will have many surprises awaiting us. Moreover, our sovereign God has largely and wisely shielded us about our tomorrows in this world.
Isn't it wonderful that we don't all think alike about the non-essentials of the Christian faith? This way we have an additional reason to talk to each other. Since most of what we learn in life we learn from others, it is always great to share our biblical insights.
His grace still amazes me,
Dennis Fischer |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9393
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 4:31 pm: | |
Yes, of course there is a big IF. No one gets grafted into the tree unless they come to faith in Jesus. In fact, we Gentiles can be cut out of the olive tree for unbelief, too (Romans 11:22). The Olive Tree is God's plan and purpose and people, and Jews and Gentiles are both in it--graftable if they believe, and cut-offable if they don't.
Moreover, Romans 11:30-32 makes it clear that EVERYONE is admitted to the olive tree of God the same way: "For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all."
Brian, I know, of course, that the Inrigs are dispensational. But I have never "bought" their dispensationalism. In fact, I quite strenuously opposed it for years when I heard it. What has changed my thinking has been the systematic study we've been doing in FAF through the book of Romans. We began Romans in 2003, and I've been walking through it verse by verse, doing inductive studies on every verse, and that study has taken me to Isaiah and Revelation as well as Zechariah and Joel and Ezekiel.
It's been my own wrestling with the texts, especially of Revelation and Isaiah, that has begun to convince me that there is something to the millennial kingdom that precedes the second resurrection but succeeds the first resurrection. I still don't see the tribulation like the Inrigs see it, but I certainly see that I can't dismiss Romans 11. I have struggled with Romans 11--and I mean that very literally. I have not asked anyone for help during my struggle, either, except for asking God to teach me with His Spirit.
Moreover, I can't accept the standard amillennial teaching that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 is talking about the new birth, when saints come alive spiritually and "spiritually" reign with Christ until the second coming. The New Testament totally describes the physical resurrection. Resurrection has never been referred to as a spiritual rebirth. It's ONLY the miracle of the physical resurrection that is called the "resurrection". I find the teaching that the first resurrection is "spiritual" is a serious wresting of the text to mean something it does not obviously say. Somehow that just feels far to familiar, in an off-putting way...
I've never spoken to the Inrigs about it; I've never read a book to help me "figure it out". I've simply studied inductively through the book and looked at both testaments, and I have to conclude that Paul isn't merely spiritualizing Israel.
I don't personally see Israel looking like I think many dispensationalists see it looking--and for that matter, Gary and Elizabeth don't see these details the same, either. But I do see Paul saying very clearly:
"From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
Now, I've never read or spoken to a dispensationalist about this passage. I've simply struggled with it and searched many other places in Scripture, and I do not believe Paul is speaking metaphorically. He is speaking exactly what the words mean. I don't know exactly how this will look. But I believe I have to take the words seriously.
And Brian, I agree that systems that explain a particular outcome are suspect. That's why I really haven't ever found an "ism" I really agree with. My beliefs, at this point, are not because I've studied a "theology". What I believe at this point is simply because I have to believe what I read in the Bible.
Colleen |
Brian3
Registered user
Username: Brian3
Post Number: 192
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 6:13 pm: | |
I haven't come to any conclusions on Rev 20 myself. I do struggle with seeing the 1000 years as having to be literal when everything around it seems unreal, dragons, angels with chains and keys, beheaded saints.....
And I don't believe in spritualizing Israel in Romans 11 either. Neither to I believe that "All Israel will be saved" means "most of Israel will be saved". When "All Israel" is understood to be as that part of Israel that really is Israel (i.e. the remnant) as Paul pointed out in Romans 9:6 "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". In Elijahs day there were only 7000 of "Real" Israel. At Pentacost approximately 3000.
Anyway, I've probably taken this thread off of Ramones intent and I apologize. However, I do see where he is coming from with the comparison between the SDA fixation on the "seventh day sabbath" and dispensationalism's fixation on Israel as the key to the "end times" rather than Christ as the fulfillment of all.
In Christ,
Brian |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 9394
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:57 pm: | |
Yes, I agree. I don't think "all Israel" means "most Jews" either--just those who believe—whatever percentage that will be. And I also agree that Christ is the key to end-time fulfillment.
Colleen |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 6:12 am: | |
Hi Colleen & others,
I haven't been able to read here lately, and I'm not reading right now because I know if I do I'm going to spend another two hours that I should use sleeping! But I wanted to thank you for writing back, apologize for not replying right away, and let you know that above all I am praying HEAVILY about these things lately.
Bless you in Jesus,
Ramone
P.S. These pictures are a result of that "heavy praying", and there are more on the way:
http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/love-and-hope.html
http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/mighty-relief-sketch.html
http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/mighty-relief.html
http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/outpouring.html
http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/angel-of-babylon.html |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1715
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 7:12 am: | |
This is the picture that's hit me the hardest in the Spirit after praying about these things. It's the same "position" as the picture "Gently Broken", except... well, you'll see. I've cried so hard in the Spirit with this one, and there is a poem that goes with it (coming soon).
http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/oh-jerusalem.html
In Jesus,
Ramone
(Message edited by agapetos on February 22, 2009) |
Christo
Registered user
Username: Christo
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 10:29 pm: | |
I love you for being my brother in Christ,
Chris |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1720
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 8:46 am: | |
I posted the poem that goes with the picture:
http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/oh-jerusalem.html
quote:Oh Jerusalem, My love
Your treasures are above!
Here your cities crumble, fall,
Waste away and rust.
But inside you is a longing,
A longing for your home;
The Kingdom sure and eternal,
The King upon His throne.
Once in the past there was glory,
A glory now long gone;
A promise unfulfilled it seems,
An ache without a balm.
How hard and long you have struggled
To regain what was lost;
You've fought and killed and bled and died
For things not worth the cost.
You cry out "Oh Jerusalem!"
And I cry, too, it's true.
But when I cry "Jerusalem,"
It means I cry for you.
For you need no more blood to spill,
Nor for lost glory ache;
For I drank all the bitter pill,
I drank it for your sake.
An everlasting, new glory
I have for you above:
A Kingdom that is far surpassing,
Eternal as My love.
Your future is held in My hands;
Believing Me you're safe.
Look no longer to things below
Which distract from My face.
Oh daughter much beloved by Me,
Distracted is your gaze!
Oh that your eyes would turn to Me,
Instead of to a maze.
One thing is needed, just one,
To survive all to come;
A faith humbly to seek My face
And abide in My love.
To save your life ultimately
It must be counted loss.
Forget your house and great treasure;
Find peace, embrace My cross.
Oh Jerusalem, My love,
Your home is here above.
With Me, I long for you to be
At rest, safe in My love.
There are several levels of meaning to the picture and poem. Immediately it is obviously for literal Israel (she cries, "Oh Jerusalem" thinking of the city and her old glory, but God cries "Oh Jerusalem" thinking of her!), but it is also for the Church as well (fixated upon literal Jerusalem and trying to "put the pieces together" about the end by looking there). And then in another sense it is for all of us (humans!) who try to hold onto and "fix" the things we feel that God has promised us, but which He leaves "broken" so that we will turn our gaze upwards to Him! The "gold" before us becomes the thing which keeps hold of our attention instead of His face. The background is a yellowish color because the hour is late! And unlike the "Gently Broken" picture, Jesus' hands are not as close to her face -- because here He is pleading with her to come into His arms!
In Jesus,
Ramone |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 1789
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 7:14 am: | |
Hi Colleen (and others),
It's taken awhile for me to get back to this thread, but I read an article yesterday which had bearing on these things -- or rather, has bearing on our ability to see in the Spirit on these things.
Before that, however, I'll reply to some things you (Colleen) had mentioned earlier:
Firstly, no one is debating Romans 11. However, the confusion comes in seeing "Israel" strictly as a country or piece of land. I've mentioned this before and you haven't replied to it, but if you study how God defined "Israel" in Scripture it was never dependent on them being in one place or in one land. They were still "Israel" before they ever entered the promised land, and they were still "Israel" when they were in captivity and scattered in the nations.
More importantly, "God's faithfulness to Israel" is properly measured in terms of eternity, not in terms of temporary. Writing from the land of Israel, the prophets and apostles spoke of the whole earth being destroyed by fire and laid bare. This would include the present land of Israel. God's faithfulness to Israel is in Jesus Christ --who is the Promised Land-- not in restoring her to a land and city destined for destruction. God will and has kept His promises to Israel in Jesus Christ, the seed through which all nations are blessed (all nations, including Israel).
quote:We don't have to be "dispensationalists" in order to believe that God will keep His promises to Israel. We don't have to be champions of political Israel in order to believe these things. We don't have to create logical explanations for why or why not God's faithfulness to Israel is real...
Margaret MacDonald and John Darby are just distractions... We don't have to believe one is truthful and the others are not, nor do we have to conclude that only one has "the truth". All three tell the truth about the things that are clearly known—and we are frankly not in a position to decide that what the Bible actually says can't be true simply because some human created a system to explain what the Bible says. ...
A person doesn't have to be a dispensationalist per se in order to believe God will keep His promises to Israel. And certainly whatever has been done politically as a result of "dispensationalism" is a human construct. God never asked us to make government policy based on His hints of the future.
It would be wonderful for many liberal Adventists if its theology truly could be shown to be Scriptural -- that is, if it could stand without Ellen White and did not have its source in 1844. But it does. In the same way, it would be wonderful for many dispensationalists if they could show dispensationalism existed prior to John Darby. I think that is why so many have been trying hard to see it as having existed in folks like Augustine, etc. It, like Adventism, was new idea that people wanted to think was the original idea, so they've gone in search of proof that it has been passed down instead of suddenly invented.
The ironic thing for many of us in Adventism is discovering that even while may not have read EGW, nevertheless her beliefs have seriously colored many, many parts of our understanding of Scripture in general. Dispensationalism is the same way. It colors the way we interpret both testaments; it sets problems before us that we struggle with, which seem difficult; and it makes certain things "the issue" when in fact they are not the issue (e.g., just like Adventism made "the law" the issue, dispensationalism has made "God's faithfulness to Israel" the issue).
The "fruit" of dispensationlism cannot be ignored. As a movement it has actually helped establish the modern state of Israel... by instutionalizing Christian Zionism in the 1800s, encouraging Jewish Zionism's formation and growth, and weakening the Arabic population's ability to defend itself prior to the 1948 war (some British commanders --with such "Christian" beliefs-- carried out campaigns to disarm the Arab population).
The fruit since then has been even worse, particularly in the United States. The loudest voices in the Church are exactly what you have said, Colleen: Champions of political Israel. Countless more Christians simply figure they need to "agree with Israel" and support her simply because she has the "right" to the land. Israel has a blank check from mainstream/evangelical American Christianity. The source of this is firstly dispensationalism, and secondly non-dispensational Christian Zionism. This is not simply government policy, but rather it is church policy. Government policy has been largely influenced by lobbies from Christians, especially in the last 30 years (and of course, by the large Jewish population in the US -- and that is understandable).
Dispensationalism has a deadening, numbing effect on the Spirit-ual sensitivities of Christians. It keeps them from seeing what is happening in the nations in the Spirit and praying accordingly. It deadens them to seeing the situation(s) through the truth of the gospel. For example, many dispensationalism-teaching churches sponsor armed Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories. Such settlements do not live by the truth of the gospel, nor by the command to love neighbors even in the Old Testament. But instead of seeing things like this clearly, Christians influenced by dispensationalism are mute. They don't speak the truth of the gospel into the situation because, after all, what is unfolding is part of "God's faithfulness to Israel".
It's similar to Adventists telling each other that they should not vote or get involved in the political process in America simply because things are lining up for the "mark of the beast" and the "Sunday law". Both Adventists and dispensationalists are stunted in their God-ordained ministry of intercession because of their erroneous beliefs. They cannot completely lift up the gospel trumpet in these situations because similar interpretational errors have blinded their ability to see the spiritual problems before them. The overwhelmingly mute or negative witness of "dispensationalism" speaks volumes of this. Even most marginal dispensationlists can't raise their voices or speak clearly about it, because after all, "it's part of God's faithfulness to Israel".
I don't mean to be "divisive" here on the forum, but I want it to be noted that I am not speaking here of "eschatology". Sometimes it's easier to write these things off by simply saying, "Well, it's eschatology." Dispensationalism is an eschatalogical scenario that has direct bearing on the gospel witness today. And the church is not lifting up the gospel trumpet among the hurt and dying because of it. Instead in siding with one nation against another, she is willfully blind to the spiritual abuses happening in that nation.
The article I mentioned: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22BRONNER.html?_r=1
Many Christians will not even see a problem in what the article mentions. Many other Christians will see the article as being "anti-Israel". And others will maybe agree it's tragic, but will not say anything in public in their churches about it when pro-political-Israel rhetoric is sounded loudly, particularly when it comes from the pulpit. Better to stand back and "let it play out", because "it's part of the end times unfolding of God's plan." Yet something is dreadfully wrong in Israel, and dispensational Christians will not speak much of it even if they can see it. Dispensationalism keeps them mute. The word of life that is in the gospel --from the God of love-- is not being spoken. Muteness is chosen because what is happening there is "part of God's sovereign plan." What would be balm for them (the love, repentance and forgiveness of the gospel) is withheld from them. And so the gospel has yet to "go out to all the nations", for among Jews and Muslims, dispensationalism is hindering the gospel witness.
I'll add more to this on the "Eastern Gate & Messiah's Return" thread.
In Jesus,
Ramone |
Christo
Registered user
Username: Christo
Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 - 10:19 am: | |
Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus tells us almost immediately after telling the manner in which we should pray that........
Mathew 6: 19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
These words of Jesus, are just as true today as they were 2000 years ago.Dispensationalism would appear to contradict this instruction by retaining the notion that earthly kingdoms,and constructing national, or personal fortunes, are the key to the eternal.
Quite the opposite is true whereby......
Mathew6: 24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
I know we have all heard this a thousand times, and this may sound simplistic, in its approach to a complex issue, but their is simplicity that is in Christ, that we should not be corrupted away from. (2 cor.11:3)
The body of Moses, is not the body of Christ, it is that simple.
The body of Moses, whether they be Adventists,or praticing jews, are just as disfuctional in Gods eyes, as the heathen.
The only thing we have in common with God is God himself Christ Jesus.
The whole middle east is drunk on theology ( all sides), and humanity is collectively cleaning them up every morning from their vomit by taking theological sides.
There are difficult issues on all sides, and for people caught up in that situation of sufferring my heart goes out to them.
Maybe when enough people realize that the promised land is not a place , but a person, Christ Jesus. The thoughts of God are, thoughts of peace, not of evil. That he came to give us rest in him, not in a day or a ritual. ( mind you muslims are Friday keepers) this region will harmonize with God. Maybe thats the most important thing I can do for this situation is being one of the enough.
The righteousness of Christ is his love and sacrifice for us, not a cruel chess game of humanity, against humanity.
Like many issues I have no recourse but to seek the kingdom of God, and the righteousness of Jesus, and pray.
Oh Jesus,
Chris |
|
