| Author | Message | ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 77 Registered: 2-2008 |
Eternity, and eternal life stretches in both ways, (God existed before the first day of creation, and will always exist). I would relate our understanding of God to perhaps a scientists interpretation of the universe. The universe is said to be constantly expanding in all directions at the speed of light ,and for all practical purposes, it extends forever. Yet, everything is moving away from us here on earth. In effect, the earth is the center of the universe. But, it is said that, from any point in the universe this same observation is experienced. So that from any observation point in the universe, whether it be here, or 4,000 light years away, the appearence is that, where one stands is the center of the universe.Human pride definately takes this position, of being the center of the universe. With so much human pride, where exactly is the center of the universe? Is it merely a perception? We know that all things are created by and for Christ. We know that eternal life, is from Christ,and what he has done for us,not what we have done for him. Paul preached Christ Crucified, which tells us the answere to everything we need. The center point of the universe is Christ, and the center point of time,is Christ crucified. Chris | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 331 Registered: 2-2003  |
Having read what was said on this thread, just a couple of thoughts. I still like what Brinsmead said, though that could be related to how I understood it. I don't think he was saying there were no prophecies still to be fulfilled. If he did, then I misunderstood and I don't agree. But a prophecy may well be figurative, and therefore not fulfilled literally, but even so fulfilled physically. Physical and literal are not the same thought. What I like was his insight on dispensationalism, and I think he is right, pretty well. The problem with this system is that, when taken to its logical conclusion, it sees the church age (or dispensation) as an "unforeseen hiatus" in the middle of the dispensation of law (i.e. unforeseen in the OT prophets - like they had no insight into the church age), and when the church age is over, and the body of Christ is raptured, then the Mosaic dispensation will just continue. I have had "Evangelical," pastors tell me that we as Christians are under the New Covenant, but the Jews are under the Old Covenant. Dispensationalists teach that there are two ways to be saved. The Jews are saved by being Jews and will live for ever on earth, and Christians are saved by believing in Jesus and will live for ever in heaven. This sounds very much to me like the two classes of salvation taught by the Jehovah's Witnesses (heavenly class and "great crowd"), which most Christians think is outrageous. So why accept the Dispensationalist view? Particularly you people as ex-adventists, as I know you have had to understand the issue of the covenants in order to become ex-es. I also have learnt so much about this by reading your thoughts! The New Testament teaches that: 1) The Old Covenant is obsolete - so no-one can be saved under it now, even if they wanted to be (Hebrews 8: 13 - among others). 2) The New Covenant was first and foremost for THE JEWS (Jer 31: 31, Rom 1: 16; Acts 13: 46) so the idea that there is a way of salvation exclusively for the Gentiles does not hold water. Don't let go of the New Covenant! Adrian | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2523 Registered: 10-2004  |
Adrian, I don't think any of us are saying that we believe in "Dispensationalism" as a system of theology, or that we agree with the teachings that you described above. A lot of us do see a Biblical and prophetic significance to the modern nation of Israel and the future of the Jewish people. Speaking for myself, personally, I do not believe that the Old/Mosaic Covenant will be re-instituted (for anyone!) or that it is still in effect (for anyone!). I do not believe that there are, or ever have been, or ever will be, two ways to be saved--or that Jews and Christians will live forever in separate places. I totally agree with your points above, about what the New Testament teaches us.  Jeremy | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 332 Registered: 2-2003 |
Good to here it Jeremy! I also believe Israel is still significant in some way, as I am not a "covenant theologian" either. Sometimes it seems there are so many minefields to negotiate! Isten áldjon, Adrian | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1529 Registered: 4-2000  |
Bob, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. The paschal sacrifice is basic to the whole sacrificial system in designation of the "Lamb of God." The figures in Isaiah 53:7 and Exodus 12:13 compliment each other. The innocence and gentleness of the sacrificial lamb is featured in descriptions in the Old Testament. He is seen as the suffering lamb of God in Isaiah 53, and the fulfillment of all the lambs of sacrifice in the Jewish rituals. When Jesus came, it was God who substituted His own provision, a lamb for the people. This substitutionary aspect is seen in Abraham's sacrifice of the lamb caught in the briars (Gen. 22). Like with Abraham, God is the provider of this special lamb. The Gospel of John gives a composite of the OT typology of the lamb and its fulfillment in Christ. The sacrifice of the Lamb of God is at the theological center of the good news in Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:27; 9:26-28;10:1-18;1 Peter 1:18-19; Mark 10:45). All in all, the Apostle Paul affirmed (2 Tim. 3:16) that "all" Scripture is inspired and useful for teaching in doctrinal matters, for reproof, and for training in righteousness--both the OT and NT compliment each other. The ethical teachings of the Old Testament comprise the very foundation of the NT gospel (e.g., notice the many quotations from the OT in the NT canon). Each book of the Bible proceeded from the same divine mind, so the teaching of the Bible's sixty-six books will be complimentary and self-consistent. If we cannot see yet see this, the fault is in us, not in Scripture. Moreover, without clearly-defined law, there is no sin and hence no need of the Gospel. "Christ redeemed us from the CURSE of the Law," (Gal. 3:13) and not from our duty to honor it. The obedience of faith is a reality in every regenerate heart. Praise God, there never was the slightest possibility that Christ could have died in vain. His grace still amazes me, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 8996 Registered: 12-2003  |
Adrian, thank you. I agree with your points as well. Ditto what Jeremy said! Jesus has totally fulfilled the Mosaic covenant. The wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles is gone in Him. Dennis, I have a question about your statement, "without a clearly-defined law, there is no sin and hence no need of the Gospel." Romans 5:12-14 does state that "before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come." To be sure, the law defined sin so people could identify it, but even before the law, sin reigned and people were dead spiritually and died physically. There WAS a need for the Gospel—even before the law. It just wouldn't have been as effective without the law to make them aware they were sinners. The need for redemption was always there—from the time of Adam on. Jesus also said that when He left, the Counselor would come, and the Counselor would "convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment" (John 16:8-9). To be sure, the law still functions as a mirror of sin, but if Jesus really did fulfill the law, He fulfilled ALL the functions of the law, including the function of convicting of sin. The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin—sometimes by using the law as a mirror, sometimes by showing people their hopelessness and need of a Savior; sometimes by driving home a New Testament passage. In every case, the Holy Spirit functions as the law in the hearts of believers, and He uses ALL of Scripture, not just the literal law, to convict people of sin. And to be sure, "The obedience of faith is a reality in every regenerate heart." Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1530 Registered: 4-2000 |
Colleen, Indeed, there was a desperate need for a Savior before the giving of the Law on Sinai (Gen. 3:15). In Romans 5, Paul was referring exclusively to the Mosaic Law. Paul says "death reigned" even before more extensive ethical guidelines were given on Sinai. There were numerous prohibitions (not written on stone) before the Mosaic law was given. Paul alludes to the fact that we sin both knowingly and unknowingly. Humans are not sinners because they sin, but rather they sin because they are sinners. For example, the Noahic Covenant prohibited murder in no uncertain terms (Gen. 9:6). Likewise, Adam and Eve knew the precise rules for their Edenic home (Gen. 2:16-17). They certainly were not cast out of Eden for their obedience. It is important to note that there was "well-defined law" prior to Sinai. There are commonalities, as well as distinctives, among the covenants in redemptive history. Our sovereign God is not vague about his expectations for humankind. Although the Mosaic Law is not flawed (7:12), its presence caused man's sin to increase. Thus, it made people more aware of their own sinfulness and inability to keep God's perfect standard (Romans 7:7; Galatians 3:21-22). Moreover, the Law served as a tutor to drive them to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Because of his past Pharisaic experience, Paul was able to anticipate the major objection of the critics in Romans 6:1 by asking, "Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" His immediate answer was "Certainly not!" in verse 2. This expression is the strongest Greek idiom for repudiating a statement, and it contains a sense of outrage that anyone would ever think the statement was true. All people from Adam to Moses were subject to death, not because of their sinful acts against the Mosaic Law (which they did not yet have), but primarily because of their own inherited sinful nature. The original sin condition stems solely from the disobedience of the first Adam. Without law, either written or oral, there is no sin. Sin abounded before Sinai because of man's sinful nature due to the Fall. Paul concludes that without God's written, revealed will for humankind, he would not have known what sin is. Due to the sinful nature of man, God found it is necessary to make an a extensive list of do's and don'ts. Interestingly, this list is even longer in the NT than in the OT. God has always had "clearly defined-law" even before written on stone. Without an actual list or written standard, humans were out of control in their sinfulness. It is a grave error to assume that freedom from the law as a way of salvation brings with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct. Without law there is no sin, and without law there is no gospel. Scripture holds out no hope of salvation for any who, whatever their profession of faith, do not seek to turn from sin to righteousness (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rev.21:8). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1683 Registered: 10-2002  |
Wow, Adrian, good, good words above! The speculation about the restoration of the temple, sacrifices or Sabbaths (etc.) is unfortunately just speculation without Biblical grounds. Not Christian biblical grounds, anyway. Again, there are many Christians who believe in a "milennium" restoration of temple worship, but this idea is a clear step backwards from the gospel which fulfilled those shadows. Believers who think that the OT prophecies will be fulfilled during the milennium (re: temple & feasts, etc.) are unwittingly declaring that the light of the gospel is for us who live before the milennium, and that the shadows which had previously passed away and been fulfilled will be restored as thelegitimate means of worshiping God for a thousand years. Ironically, a scenario entered my mind today considering that odd set of milennium beliefs. Think of our friends & relatives in Adventism to whom we have preached the fulfillment of shadows in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, assume the milennium scenario comes to pass and the shadows are restored, the temple is the place of worshiping God, Jesus sits in the East Gate, and the nations come to Jerusalem to celebrate Sabbath & Feast of Tabernacles. Some of the "nations" who didn't reject God happened to have heard folks like us Formers speak about the fulfillment of shadows in Christ. Yet here they stand in the milennium, and Christ in the East Gate, before a literal temple in the land of Israel, with shadows restored! How odd! Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1684 Registered: 10-2002 |
P.S. Adrian, I think there is some significance to "Israel", but it is not a happy one, unfortunately. Mind you, I love Jewish culture and am listening to some Jewish music right now. But the attempt to sieze the land spells an ungodly prioritizing of land over lives -- the attempt to lay hold of Old Covenant promises by force instead of by resting in the Messiah. The promise is still sought by the old covenant commandments and by circumcision. The even more tragic significance is that Christians are not preaching the agape love of Christ to the people of the nation of Israel which includes forgiving enemies, blessing them, and loving one's neighbors. "Israel" represents a serious blindspot in evangelical Christianity's proclamation of the gospel which continues to cause offense among unbelieving nations... Paul's words to his nation in his day are true for the state today and for evangelical Christians who proclaim that state ("Israel") instead of the whole gospel, "God's name is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you". | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2583 Registered: 10-2004 |
Ramone, Jesus does not say that nations/governments are supposed to "forgive their enemies." He was talking personally, individually--not corporately, about government. The New Testament is very clear that governments (such as Israel) are NOT supposed to just forgive terrorists who commit terrible crimes against innocent humans--rather they are supposed to KILL them and destroy them, and this killing is a ministry of God. See Romans 13:1-7. Government is supposed to mete out justice, not forgiveness! What you are proposing sounds extremely dangerous, and is certainly not the teaching of the New Testament, whether we are talking about Israel in particular or not. Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9351 Registered: 12-2003 |
Actually, there is a very significant evangelism going on among the Jews of Israel. To be sure, it is not largely being done by "evangelical Christianity" because, quite frankly, the Jews would not be receptive to "evangelical Christians" trying to convert them. There is, however, a significant work in Israel by Messianic Jews who are throughly Christ-followers. We have gotten a newsletter called Maoz Israel for a couple of years, compliments of one of Proclamation's readers, and you can see the website here: http://www.maozisrael.org/site/PageServer?pagename=maoz_homepage The Sorkos have an active and growing ministry to their own Jewish brothers and sisters, and these Christ-following Jews are seriously resisted and persecuted by the still-unbelieving Jews around them. Yet the numbers of Christ-following Jews is growing. This outreach is different in flavor from the evangelical Christianity we know; it is decidedly "Jewish", and these people consider themselves to be Jews who know the Messiah--not "Christians" in the same way we think of ourselves. My point is this: there is most definitely significant missionary activity to the Jews in Israel--but it is done directly primarily by converted Jews. I also know that there is a great number of Christians who pray for the Jews in Israel to come to know Jesus. I don't believe Israel is a blindspot in evangelical Christianity. Romans 11 is quite clear that God still loves the Jews because of the patriarchs, and his promises to them are unconditional. That doesn't mean Jews will be saved apart from coming to faith in Christ. It does seem to mean, however, that the day is coming when Jews will be "un-hardened" and many will come to faith. The fact that even today believing Jews are actually ministering to and having success in presenting the gospel to fellow Jews seems to foreshadow the future when, according to the understanding of Revelation held by many, the Jews will be evangelized by Jewish witnesses—and so all Israel will be saved. (Not meaning, of course, every single Jew--but those who come to faith will be saved, and many Jews will come to faith.) Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1691 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jeremy, do you know why terrorism exists? What should the Arabs have done about the Jewish terrorism (from militant Zionists) that existed prior to 1948? What should be done about the injustice of driving thousands and thousands of people out of their homes and into refugee camps in the name of God and the "restoring the holy land"? Forgiveness invloves learning to understand the root causes of our own griefs, others' griefs , and our own & others' bitterness. Terrorism is not a country or something that just popped up because people were "full of hate". The hate is rooted in a very valid offense. In order to take care of the terrible evil of terrorism, the "foothold" that it has in people has to be addressed. And you're not going to take care of it by killing people. In fact, the more you killl, the more you will create new terrorists. The gospel's solution is far better. In Jesus, Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1692 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jeremy, after I posted my last comment I took a moment to consider what you had written: You're my brother in Christ, so I want to say this as lovingly as possible but as truthfully as possible: I am appalled by what you've written. Firstly, you inserted "killing" into Romans 13. Secondly, you ignored the preceding verses in Romans 12. Thirdly, well, thirdly, take a minute to think about the situations that would fit your description... Consider the Jewish rebellions against Rome leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Are you saying that Rome was right to meet out justice upon the Jewish rebellions? Consider that Paul was contextually and immediately referring to the government of Rome, the government of Caesar. Not many years after writing his letter, Christians were going to be persecuted, tortured, and put to death relentlessly. Such persecution fits to a tee what you said -- terrible crimes against innocent humans. Should Christians have banned together, formed a government and done the divine duty of "killing" you have stated? Were they mistaken to forgive their persecutors and murderers? Would a better testimony of the gospel have been fighting back against the Roman killing of innocents? What kind of gospel takes shape from this kind of reasoning? A gospel that has lost agape love and grown cold, reacting to wickedness in the world with more wickedness (in the name of "justice" of course). And what of the individual? Because of the nature of terrorists' crimes, are Israelis then exempt from Christ's call to forgive? Is one exempt from forgiving the oppressor simply because the target was innocent? Is forgiveness only for when the murderer targeted a victim who was guilty? Or, are individuals exempt from the gospel call to extend forgiveness "because it was a government" or "movement" that did the offending actions? In other words, I should forgive if a neighbor hurts me, but I should not forgive if the neighbor was part of an army or militia movement? In Christ, forgiveness does not mean setting aside justice. But firstly it recognizes that we are all guilty and deserving of death in God's eyes. And it calls us to forgive as we have been forgiven. God loved us while we were His enemies, so we should extend that same love to our enemies. That doesn't mean we just walk out in front of their artillery, but it also doesn't mean we imagine the solution to our problem is simply "killing them". God wants them to have eternal life just as much as He wants us to have eternal life. Unspeakable, terrible crimes were committed in the southern United States against black people not very long ago. According to your rationale, they should have taken up killing as a "ministry of God". But instead a minister of God applied the gospel in a better way -- Now which "ministry" is closer to that of Christ, the apostles, and the early church -- your "killing" application of Romans 13, or the words spoken by Dr. King? (Not only that, but which "ministry" has proven more effective in the world?) Effectively, you've said that governments are not subjected to the sermon on the mount. Would it follow then that if one is part of a government, he may violate other parts of the sermon on the mount? Or that the government as a whole can do that? Of course a government has to act responsibly and take measures to protect its people, and governments don't operate according to the gospel of grace, but according to law, which is by ungrace. Yet this does not mean that the church needs to join the government in its operation of ungrace. The church is not meant to be in bed with the government on sides, but rather a third party that is able to intercede for the preservation of lives and to minister agape & the word of eternal life. Now for Israel, the way before her is not an easy one. Imagine that hundreds of thousands of Native Americans suddenly arrived on the shores of the United States and fought for their land back, and won it, and then set up a government favorable to them and not to you, Jeremy. How would you feel? And further, what if they drove you out of your home? What if you and your whole family were suddenly living in a refugee camp just across the border in Mexico? Knowing the tempermant of my fellow Americans, wouldn't many of them ban together in militias to go in and harass the new government's forces, to try and fight to regain "our homeland" which was lost? A pretty wild scenario, but then again, it is not a wild scenario for the Native Americans, because that's not too far from how their "homeland" was taken from them and became "our homeland". It was not ours in the first place, but was theirs. Our forefathers took it and while doing so blasphemously called it "manifest destiny". But the fact is that America is now the home of a people who were originally foreigners. It's a situation that must be dealt with in a loving and realistic way -- evicting either group is not realistic. The situation in Israel is the same. Arabic people were living in the land and it was their home. It was also home to many Jews, but the majority were Arabs. By an undemocratic decree of the United Nations --in which the majority of people in the land had no say-- the state of Israel was created. By force and violence, "God's people" set up their state on top of the homes of living people, sending countless innocents into refugee camps, many who still live there today with their children and children's children. Israel's way before her today is paved with two, gut-wrenching pills to swallow: forgiveness, and repentance... just like we who obey the gospel are called to forgive those who have offended us and repent of the offenses we have caused others. The root of Palestinian terrorism against Jews is the creation of the state of Israel by Zionist nationals, and this has to be addressed. It does not excuse terrorism in the least (one can only pray that someone with as much gospel-inspired wisdom as Martin Luther King Jr. arises from the ranks of Palestiniants today!), but it recognizes that "terrorism" is not some random evil that popped up just because "they are evil people" (that's naivity to the extreme). Israel needs to protect her people, but she also needs to swallow her pride and admit she did not treat the people of the land in a godly way by evicting them and then quartering them (much like "Americans" put Native Americans into "reservations"). It's impractical and unrealistic for Israel to simply tell all her people to "go home" --back to the nations-- because they have now been there for a good few generations. But at the very least Israel has got to apologize to and learn to live together with the original inhabitants, treating them as equals. And find a way to let refugees return. Or the two-state idea. But the two-state idea is frought with difficulties, primarily because it doesn't fit the needed "repentance" very well. The hard fact for Israel to face is that it stole the land from the Palestinians. Many Palestinians have reacted badly by resorting to terrible acts in order to get the land back. Today we call it "terrorism", but the British might've said that about Francis Marion's tactics during the "Revolutionary War"; the Nazi Vichy Regime in France might've referred to Charles du Gaulle and the French Resistance as "terrorists". The nature of things is that the government in power looks at them as "terrorists", but to the people who suffered wrong in their land, they look at the terrorists as "the resistance" or "freedom fighters". The methods various resistance groups use to secure their ends changes throughout history... going from what some consider honorable to what others consider despicable. I tend to think of suicide bombing as despicable. But then I also think of the atomic bombing of civilians (which maimed future, unborn generations as well) as despicable. The best way to "resist" was used by King and Ghandi. Both got their inspiration from Jesus Christ because they took Him literally, at His word (granted, I wish Ghandi had taken more of His word literally!). They took what had been said in the Sermon on the Mount and applied it to NATIONS, not just individuals. And because of what they did, the world has not been the same where they walked. Problems still exist, but a large dose of HEALING took the place of what would've come if the "kill and destory ministry" had been applied. Israel would be wise to learn from such men, to learn from the GOSPEL. And evangelical Christians would be wise to PREACH the gospel to the state of Israel, because it would help them (and the Palestinians) much more than the course they have been taking. Israel stole the land, and has been seeking a "kill and destroy ministry"... interesting, don"t you think? "Steal, kill and destroy". Where have we heard those words together before? And who came in contrast to give LIFE --even to His enemies? People who put His words into practice like Dr. King averted conflict and helped minister life to not only the wounded people, but also to the oppressors. This is part of the gospel, a big part. Missionaries in hostile lands know much about this because they have to live by it. But Christians in "Christian nations" such as the USA don't always have to practice this every day in order to survive, so they aren't acquainted with it as well. But I pray they will come to know this great part of the gospel, and will put it into practice. It is His commandment to "love one another as I have loved you." Let's not forget that "obey His commandments" is a recurring feature in the book of Revelation, and His commandment is to love one another as He has loved us. Without this, our love grows cold. Bless you in Jesus, Ramone | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9356 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hey, guys--this isn't the venue for political argument! The passage in Romans 13 to which Jeremy referred isn't giving a blueprint for proper governing—but it does state in verse 4 that governing authorities will bring the sword against evildoers. Further, Paul does say that this sword-bearing is a ministry of God. Of course, this passage sticks in our craw--we instantly think of the evil power-mongers who have destroyed millions of innocent lives. This passage is not meant to excuse cruel use of power. But Paul IS saying all authority is given by God, and rulers are established by God. And don't forget--Paul wrote this while the cruel Nero was on the throne of the Roman empire. But Paul takes this a step further in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 where he commands Timothy (and us) to pray for "kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." He further says this is good to do because God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." The whole point of all this is that when we focus on individual governments, their relative morality or immorality, we totally miss the big picture which Paul preached on Mars Hill in Athens: …"and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us…" (Acts 17:26-27). This resonates with Paul's command to Timothy above. God determines and establishes and gives authority and power to the leaders and nations of the world. Even the cruel ones are known to Him, and ultimately they are part of His story. We can't force them to be Christian. We can only obey God ourselves: by praying for our leaders, that they will listen to God and come to the knowledge of the truth. We are also to pray for our brothers and sisters—those who are suffering persecution as well as those who are flourishing. And we are to pray for and proclaim Christ to those who do not know Him. There is mystery here—but we cannot conclude that a nation is necessarily "illegitimate". It may be ungodly and cruel, or selfish and materialistic, or--whatever. But nations exist because God has determined their time and place, and we are to pray for the leaders and respect them. Above all, we are to honor the Lord Jesus, as did Paul, who did not waver in his dedication no matter what the cost. The apostles were persecuted and killed for their faith—not for political loyalties. Colleen | ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 95 Registered: 2-2008 |
In a political-religio state such as bibical Isreal, the persecutors percieved faith ,as a obstical to their power structure, in essense their politics. Isreals spirituality had devolved to mere political religion. For the believer faith is their spiritual experience.Their tabernacling with God. For the church leadership in those days their religion was in essense tabernacling with the church, and each other. The same conditions exist in churches today, no names mentioned, but examples would include a focus on which is the true church , rather than experiencing the true God. Church leadership can be a comforatable, prestigious, lucrative enterprise, both then as now. The apostles were persecuted in the past by the church, and people are persecuted today by churches. In those cases it's all politics, as believers display the fruits of the spirit which doesn't include persecution. Joshua 5: 13And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? 14And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant? 15And the captain of the LORD's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so. Holy ground is where you meet God in your heart,not a place on a map, just as Gods rest is today, not a day of the week. How often we take sides, on events,places,and times.When we could make as much difference, or more loosing our shoe off our feet, and standing on holy ground. I feel grieved, for sometimes I imagine what God should do next to advenge a particular grievence I have, or a particular injustice I see occuring in the world.I try and figure out whose side God is on. Lord forgive me. My prayer is,Let me trust in you Lord. Chris | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1693 Registered: 10-2002 |
Christo, amen: "Holy ground is where you meet God in your heart, not a place on a map, just as God's rest is today, not a day of the week." You also said... The thing that strikes me about this is that it is a very fitting description of religious leadership in ancient Israel during two crucial times in her history -- one, under the Greek empire prior to Antiochus IV, and two, at the time of Christ and up until the rebellions that provoked Rome so tragically. I think there is a common thread---that takes place on the altar of the heart---which we may spiritually identify as "the abomination/rebellion that causes desolation". (>_<) ***** Colleen, You're right about Paul saying the sword will be brought against evildoers, but again, it needs to be read in conjunction with the preceding paragraphs which give explicit instructions to believers. Additionally, the usage of "the sword" throughout Scripture should make us pause and help us realize that the ultimate wielder of "the sword" is God, and the agent (person/nation, etc.) may not be righteous at all (i.g. Nebuchadnezzar), but God my refer to that agent as "His servant" (as He did to Cyrus in Isaiah). I believe you're right about God determining appointed times and boundaries -- He is sovereign, and all happens according to His will, even the difficult things (which can be a hard, hard pill to swallow). However, even though He allows bad things to happen, it does not remove the responsibility of the agents that strike with the sword. Although the Babylonian Empire did God's will and was "God's sword" for a time, God declared several times how He would punish the for what they had done! And although Jehu was prophesied and told to rid Israel of Jezebel, God later said He would deal with the house of Jehu for the massacring he did -- that is, the massacre of the priests of Baal, ironically! What Jesus said (and Paul confirmed) about forgiving and loving enemies is part of the gospel that was given "first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles." Ironically, this un-earthly method of overcoming is something that was first told to the Jews, and is instruction that came to them first before us. Bad stuff happens, and countries are founded on top of it and grow there for many years. Such is the case with many nations... the United States and Israel being only two examples. And it doesn't excuse any oppressed group or minority group for any violent way they react to the bad stuff that happened in the beginning. That's why forgiveness and agape love is the only way to ultimately get anywhere. Killing provides a temporary solution---a temporary solution that will only come back to bite you later on. Agape love & forgiveness act as an interruption of the natural cycle of tit-for-tat. Without agape intervention, "what goes around comes around" will continue and will not cease. Our attempts to secure justice are so often tainted by our personal feelings of offense (and the resulting conscious or subconscious desire for vengeance, for the offender to pay me back for what he did to me or those I love). The gospel boldly declares that under the terms of "justice", we are all screwed in God's sight. But then He intervenes, He intercedes. Agape comes in, takes our deserved 'payment', and forgives us. Whether we asked Him to or not, He died to give it to us. Whether we accept it or not, He died to give it to us. Whether we spit at Him and throw it back in His face, He still thought of us as He was hanging on that tree. And then He said, "Love as I have loved you." And His servant Paul said, "Forgive as God has forgiven you." God knows that the cycle of retribution (demanding payment from one who "owes" us "justice") will continue until we choose to release people from their "debts". The irony is that once we choose to release them, we discover it is we ourselves who were held captive!--held captive by our desire for the to pay us back something that they could never truly pay back. Our only true satisfaction will be in releasing them, just as we have been released. Again, of course, this doesn't always translate into legislation or policy! "Law" doesn't work this way... that's why it is the church's job to proclaim this to all -- individuals, groups, nations, and the world. Whoever has ears to hear it and is filled with His heart to give it should then give it. Whoever is unable to, let the word be spoken to them anyway. (And of course, healthy boundaries are a must.) ***** Coming back to the original connected-to-Adventism purpose of this thread... I want to share two things that I believe illustrate the importance of dealing with and working through this subject, instead of leaving it ambiguous. First, I was browsing Wikipedia through the various 20th century Arab-Israeli wars, and I came across this frightening quote from an article entitled "Terror", by a pre-1948 Zionist group fighting "for the freedom of Israel"-- Second, do you know the song "Jerusalem of Gold" written by Naomi Shemer in 1967? It is hauntingly beautiful. You might've heard it (as I did) at the end of Schindler's List (I have the soundtrack). I looked up the history of it and found it was written days before the Six-Day War, and two verses were added when the Temple Mount was taken to celebrate. Here is one of the new verses and one of the original verses: The thing I am pointing out here is that if we are going to declare that Israel has the biblical "right" to her Old Covenant land, then we've got not be shy about declaring our support for the times when Israel uses Old Covenant means to secure that land, as is mentioned in the "Terror" article excerpt above. "Ye shall blot them out to the last man" is the command God gave to Moses when He brought Israel into the promised land. Can we rightly say the land is theirs and then shy away from beliefs such as the Lehi fighters published and practiced? I believe we should either go with the Old or the New, not straddle the fence in-between. Which is what dispensationalism does, and what Adventism does. Adventism does it with the laws of the covenants, and dispensationalism does it with the prophets, the ownership of "the holy land", and the identity of "Israel". The lyrics of "Jerusalem of Gold" are as beautiful and as haunting as the ancient-sounding tune itself. They speak of a deep, deep ache in the souls of an entire people... an aching for their ancient land, for their ancient home, for their ancient glory, for their ancient ways and their ancient temple. I can't even begin to grasp how deep that longing is. But I remember the words of the book of Hebrews --written to Jewish people who were riding the fence-- that "here we do not have an enduring city", and that Abraham and the others "looked forward to the city whose builder is God", "the city that is to come", and "you have come to the heavenly Jerusalem"... just as Paul said to the Galatians, "the heavenly Jerusalem is our mother." There is an entire nation of people who --according to God-- have "eternity" set in their hearts. They are truly longing for a city that is above, but they do not know it is above. They long for it below, they long for it on earth. And the attempts to secure that obsolete inheritance (>_<) have caused immeasurable pain to them themselves and to others. The greatest impediment to discovering the glory of the New Jerusalem is the desire to see the glory of the Old Jerusalem. Their eyes are blinded when they read Moses, and they cannot see that their city and their land have a fading glory that will not last or remain. ***** I believe we who are Former Adventists can and should recognize these things somewhat easier than Evangelical Christians who were raised in dispensationalism -- in the same way that they could recognize the absoluteness of grace instead of law more than we could while we were Adventists. Dispensationalism and Adventism have similar roots, similar fruits, and similar passages on which they base their respective ideas (e.g., apocalyptic chapters in Daniel). Coming out of Adventism it is easy to be confused about these things. Feeling like novices because of our background (and how much we have to re-learn), it's easy I think to simply adopt dispensationalism or grow a respect for it... partially because people who are right about grace teach it. But sadly it doesn't line up with the truths & principles we've learned on the journey while God brought us out of Adventism. I think it's easy for Formers to become free of one place of cognitive dissonance (Adventist teachings) and then enter Evangelical Christian churches and find that dispensationalism forces them to accept things that don't completly comply with what has just been learned in the New Covenant. A new cognitive dissonance forms. Strangely enough (or not so strangely?), many non-evangelical groups often tend to get the "agape" loving-one-another thing better than we do... Catholics, Quakers, Mennonites, and even Unitarians now and then. I've known a lot of Adventists who get it pretty well, too... loving neighbors, caring about their needs, trying to understand them before juding them, even loving enemies at times. And sadly, I've known many Adventists who love God's agape love, but cannot stand the voices in "evangelical Christianity" that don't exhibit agape love. They are shocked and say, "I am glad I'm not one of them!" Mind you, they don't know or face the terrible weight and oppression of the spirit of Adventism. But somehow they've discovered God's agape love in a measure that the mainstream sometimes forgets. A statistic cited by Philip Yancey in his book What's So Amazing About Grace? took note of the one teaching of Jesus Christ that unbelievers knew the most. Do you know which one it was? "Love your enemies." It's the one we often make the most excuses to exempt ourselves from. Or the one that we don't proclaim to Israel because we straddle the fence of the Old and New, trepidly cautious and fearful of rebuking "God's people". A new friend wrote to me about praying for peace in the Middle East, and I replied in part: Bless you all in Jesus. I pray this touches someone. In Jesus, Ramone | ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 97 Registered: 2-2008 |
Ramone, Touched Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9364 Registered: 12-2003 |
Eschatology is not something the body of Christ should divide over. On this forum there are dispensationalists, amillennialists, pre-trib and post-tribbers, and plenty who just don't know! We are born again, we know and love the Lord Jesus, and we know our future is secure because of the cross. We can allow each other to understand end-things differently! I know that my own understanding has slowly changed over the years. I still don't feel I can take a dogmatic stance, but the more I study, the more I see support for a modified dispensationalism. (Classic dispensationalism, by the way, is becoming obsolete.) As I see it, the "land" isn't about whether or not the Jews want it or have a "right" to it. The land is significant only as it relates to God's promises. No amount of force or treachery will fulfill God's promises. Yet God has said He will reign over the nations from Jerusalem, and that's not primarily about any nation having "rights". Those promises are primarily about God accomplishing His promises for His own glory, and all those who trust Him will reign with Him. And, as Romans 3:2-4 states in response to the rhetorical question, "What is the advantage of being a Jew?" Great in every respect. First of all that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. What then? if some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar." This issue isn't about ethnicity or who has "rights". It's about God--pure and simple. God is faithful; He keeps His word, and those He chooses (which includes, as Paul clarifies, not only those who are "of the law" but are "of the faith of Abraham") are those He chooses! God is sovereign, and He will do what He has ordained...and none of us really knows how that will look. I rather like living with mystery instead of believing I KNOW what He will do and how He'll do it! Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1694 Registered: 10-2002 |
Colleen, I understand "eschatology" is not something that we should divide over. However, when our eyes have had scales removed about the Law, don't we want to share it with everyone we know? And when we learn about what veils hearts, don't we want to share that, too, so that others can be free? The parallels between wanting the literal Sabbath and wanting the literal Land are staggering. We who have learned that the invisible Sabbath (eternal) is greater than the visible Sabbath (weekly) know that there is no comparison, and we desperately desire for our brothers & sisters to know this unending rest. Could we not be filled with the same kind of passion for Jewish brothers & sisters who are fixated on the fading glory instead of knowing an eternal, unending home and land? No matter how many ministries are quietly trying to minister to Jews, this is simply something that Evangelical Christianity does NOT want to confront, does NOT want to say directly to Jews. No church I have heard of is directly calling them to repentance for this. We know that Adventism must be called to repentance for putting the Law above God, and that this call to repentance is a crucial part of the gospel. But we do not call Jews to repentance for doing the exact same thing with the Land -- putting it above God. Merely suggesting this makes Evangelical Christians nervous because part of us has been Judaized, and we are AFRAID to speak confidently. Evangelical Christianity's eyes have been partially removed from the heavenly Jerusalem to be partially fixed on the earthly Jerusalem. Will God reign from the Old Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem? Scripture is clear if we let the New Covenant interpret the Old. This issue is not simply eschatalogical, unfortunately, because our CURRENT witness to Jews and to an entire nation is compromised because of it. Our eschatology is important in this respect, because it directly influences the amoung of "gospel" we proclaim and the amount of "gospel" we let interpret the Old Testament. When we were Adventists, we had a unique and obviously incorrect eschatology. But the underlying roots of that eschatology were the greatest problem. In other words, the finer points of it were not the problem. The root issues were -- such as the way we misinterpreted the Law, etc. I completely agree that we shouldn't divide over finer points of eschatology. But not only is what I wrote above simply not a finer point at all, it is also indicative of deeper root issues, deeper root problems going on. The misinterpretation of the prophets, being veiled to the glory of the New. And a hindered testimony to a nation of people. And a FEAR of speaking forthrightly to those people. We boldly say that Muslim extremists are wrong to use violence the way that they do, but rarely do we make such comments about armed settlers on outposts trying to restore the original borders of Israel, or about sentiments like the historical Lehi group exhibited. We are UNSURE ... is Israel really in the Old Testament situation? We are afraid of getting on God's wrong side by speaking anything negative about them. We would rather leave that ambiguous, just to be safe. Just like as Adventists we would rather just "keep the Sabbath", just to be safe. This is not about "eschatology", Colleen, just like our desire for Adventists to be free is not about "eschatology". This is about a VEIL, a *whole* gospel, and praying for people's hearts to be freed from the thing which is blinding them from seeing Christ, but which they so desperately want -- and which we so fearfully hesitate to speak about. In fact, I can't say that I look at this eschatalogically at all. There is so much pain TODAY and need for us to see clearly TODAY. People are dying over there, curses are perpetually repeating, and eyes are blinded among us about why it's happening. Evangelical Christianity is veiled about it and her gospel is muted on a matter where she could be interceding, praying, and sharing the gospel for the sake of a people God loves dearly. I don't mean to be hard on you or anyone here, but there is a fire in my spirit because people are blinded, and I speak and pray for eyes to be opened, just as I do for Adventists. Bless you in Jesus, our true Pasture forever. Ramone | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9369 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ramone, I understand. I agree we must not hesitate to call Jews and Gentiles to repentance. I'm certainly not trying to defend cruel or immoral behavior on the part of either Jews or Arabs. Further, I do not believe that the human struggle for the land is the way God will fulfill His promise. In fact, the issue of "land", as I understand it from a biblical perspective, really has not much at all to do with the Jews' politics or warfare. The analogy between Jews and the land and Adventists and the Sabbath is apt--but there is a difference in the background big picture. God never promised Abraham and his descendants a Sabbath day for eternity; He promised him seed, land, and blessing. We know that ultimately these promises are all fulfilled in and through Jesus, but God did promise a literal throne and a reign over the nations from Jerusalem. God will accomplish this promise. Revelation 20 describes Jesus carrying out this ultimate promised reign on this earth--prior to the new heaven and the new earth. No, this fulfillment of a king from David's line ruling the nations will not be brought about by the struggle over the land that we see today. At the same time, we have to be willing to admit that God's ways are usually mysterious and surprising, and He doesn't usually execute them in any way we can imagine or foresee. When we read in Romans 11 that God will yet be faithful to Israel simply because He promised, we don't have to make than any more or any less than it says. God's faithfulness to Israel, long-term, is not because they deserve it. God's faithfulness is entirely about God. We all deserve hell. Not one of us is getting what we deserve. Our responsibility to preach the gospel to all who will listen, Jew or Gentile, is a concurrent reality with God's sovereign purposes which He is working out without our being able to see or understand how it fits together. I'm not saying we have no urgency to evangelize Jews because they "deserve" the land. Far from it. I'm just saying that the land issue is a "God issue", not a "Jew issue". God will do what He promised--and to date, Israel has never inhabited the land fully with a Davidic King on the throne. The fulfillment of God's promises in this regard do not depend upon the Jews or upon the Gentiles. They are unconditional promises God made. How they will come about will unfold as God decrees--they are not being fulfilled by terrorist warfare. But God's promises are sure. The issue is not the Jews. The Jews are sinners in need of their Savior just as we Gentiles are. The issue re: the land is God Himself. It is His promise, and it is His responsibility. He is faithful to Himself, and He cannot lie. Colleen |
