A Question

[OldRegular]

I'll link to the website that OldRegular gave as his sourse which shows the similarities are much more in line with Dispensational premil views that Covenant.

If you believe that website shows that historic premillennialism has more in common with dispensational theology than Covenant Theology you are sadly mistaken.

Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.

Covenant theology believes there is only one people of God, the Church. Historic premillennialism believes there is only one people of God, the Church.

 

[OldRegular]

My correction here - It was not Ladd but Robert Clouse, Mr. Ladd editted the work that Oldreg tried to cite as proving Israel was seen as seperate from the church and on his own weblink it shows they are not seen as one and the same - and he was a Covenant view holder.

The above statement makes absolutely no sense. You are apparently referring to the book Millennium, Four Views edited by Robert Clause. George Eldon Ladd, a Covenant/historic premillennialist, was a contributer.

Covenant theology teaches there is only one people of God, the Church. Historic premillennialism teaches there is only one people of God, the Church. I believe there is only one people of God, the Church.

Again, your above remark is unintelligible. What are you trying to say?

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you believe that website shows that historic premillennialism has more in common with dispensational theology than Covenant Theology you are sadly mistaken.

I suppose it depends on what you want to emphasize, but HP seems to have more in common with DT than with Amill. (HP is a form of CT).

HP and DT both emphasize the fact that there is an earthly kingdom, and amill denies that. That is a major similarity between HP and DT and a major disagreement with HP and amill. It means that on most eschatological passages, HP is going to agree with DT over amill.

 

[HankD]

Now at last to the question. The Jews are anti Christian; the Muslims are anti Christian; the Hindus are anti Christian. Why then is it such a grievous sin to be anti semitic and yet not such a grievous sin to be anti Islam or anti Hindu, or anti any other ethnic or religious group? I have not seen anyone on this forum taken to the woodshed over making anti Islamic remarks.

There are two general responses.

As a possible response typified by anti-semtic hatred, here is an answer set within the class of "anti-semitism" systems of thought.

I am not going into the specific details but it has to do with a so-called Jewish conspiracy of world domination through the supposed influence of Jews over the press and other media which "manipulate" thought on the level of social engineering.

Speaking contemporaneously, the strategic accusation of this anti-semitic school of thought is that international Jewry have through their personal power, influenced the PC agenda to make it a taboo to propogate anti-semitic statements.

The modern illustration of this philosophy is found in Mein Kampf Hitler's infamous "classic". It can be found in it's entirety on the web in English.

There are older "classics" regarding this supposed conspiracy and I'm not going to mention them.

To me they are hate propaganda pure and simple OR (and I am not implying anything different concerning your own views).

It is Ironic that Hitler ended up doing (or trying to do) exactly (nay, actually much more) than what he accused Jews of conspiring to do to the world.

The truth is, as a people, they deserve a place of honor and respect because they are indeed God's chosen people. Those who hate them will receive God's retribution. Whether a Jew is walking in the Lord as a NT believer is not the issue. Just as the office of President is to be honored and respected, the Jews as God's ancient people must also be honored and repected (IMO).

I suspect the motive of anti-semites is jealousy. Obviously not of their history of suffering and persecution, but of the place of honor God has given to them. A place which anti-semites believe is self proclaimed.
This is contradiction of the Scripture.

This jealousy has led to hatred and murder down through the ages from Pharoah to Hiltler with current threats of anihilation to this very day.

In addition, I personally believe that our Father has unfinished business with both the Jew and the Nation of Israel. My view is that He will restore them as a devoted people and their nation to a place of honor and leadership as under David and Solomon when He returns the Kingdom to them, when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Currently, they are in "the land" in an overall state of disbelief. They are, generally speaking, a secular nation.

Politically speaking, modern Israel as a nation is one of our allies as we took a signifcant role in their modern retoration and have maintained a "parent" and advisary position with them to this day.

However, when they do evil they should receive our rebuke.
When they do good they should receive our praise.

Now, as to who as a political power and people killed Jesus:

Acts 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,​

Jew and Gentile alike, both leadership and laity.

BTW, it might also be mentioned if it already hasn't that arabs are also a semitic people being descendants of Shem via Ishmael.

Now as to some statements which have been made concerning the physical seed of Abraham:

Jesus speaking to the pharisees, believed that unsaved Jews were Abraham's seed:

John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.​

Also, some have denigrated certain dispensational teachers because of their manner of life.

However, King David was a man who did not have a clean slate.

I won't elaborate, we all know his sins as they are recorded in the Word of God. Yet, God chose him to have a place of honor being used of the Holy Spirit to author (humanly speaking) a great deal of Scripture.

That is not a defense of anyone in particular but it shows that manner of life is sometimes not part of God's criteria in the selection of those whom He chooses to use.


HankD

 

[HankD]

If you believe that website shows that historic premillennialism has more in common with dispensational theology than Covenant Theology you are sadly mistaken.

Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.

Covenant theology believes there is only one people of God, the Church. Historic premillennialism believes there is only one people of God, the Church.

Personally I would add "redeemed" to the phrase "Israel"

Redeemed Israel are the saved of Israel.
Saved by grace through faith in the salvation (or future expectation thereof) provided by God through the blood atonement of Jesus Christ.

Not all Israel is of Israel just as the contemporary manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth is a mixed multitude (wheat and tares).

Together Redeemed Israel and the Church of the firstborn distinct from each other but one in the Spirit will comprise the New Jerusalem enduring for eternity.

HankD

 

[Allan]

Ok, I just spent the last 2 hours writting a reply with citiations, historical commentary - the works. Then my laptop battery goes out, and when I get up to plug it in (cause it saves the screen) I dropped the goofy thing and it had to restart and do a scandisc which removed all previous information. I seriously screamed .. good thing my wife and kids were out

Anyway, we will disagree about the Church being the New Israel or even the continuation of Israel and that is based upon Hermemuetics of scripture not the absense of scripture.

Also, before I forget, the church is not a continuation of Judaism. A fulfillment of those shadows to come - yes, but a a continuation of Judaism - no. Thus it depends on how one uses the term. If meant the Church is coming from or out of this particular view, then yes. If meant as a particular theology of which the Church is to continue in, then no.

Philip Schaff states, in History of the Christian Church, quite repeatedly that Judaism was a problem to the apostolic church, most especially to the gentile Churches of Paul, though not as bad in the circumsized/Jewish Churches of Peter. And that it almost lead to a horrible and potentially deadly schism in the body between the two groups.

 

[Allan]

I suppose it depends on what you want to emphasize, but HP seems to have more in common with DT than with Amill. (HP is a form of CT).

HP and DT both emphasize the fact that there is an earthly kingdom, and amill denies that. That is a major similarity between HP and DT and a major disagreement with HP and amill. It means that on most eschatological passages, HP is going to agree with DT over amill.

Anyone who will look at that chart will see this quite plainly.

 

[saturneptune]

OR,
I have always wondered, and would be interested in your opinion, if Islam did not exist, how close would the Chrisitians and Jews be? Or would they be at each others throats like Islam is today?

The NT shows sharp differences between Christians and the Jews throughout the book of Acts and other places. Maybe Jews and Christians (Israel and America, sort of) get along because of a common enemy, Islam.

 

[OldRegular]

Also, before I forget, the church is not a continuation of Judaism. A fulfillment of those shadows to come - yes, but a a continuation of Judaism - no. Thus it depends on how one uses the term. If meant the Church is coming from or out of this particular view, then yes. If meant as a particular theology of which the Church is to continue in, then no.

I have never believed and never will that the Church is a continuation of Judaism. Judasim is a carnal institution. The Church is a Spiritual Institution. The Church is a continuation of Spiritual Israel of the Old Testament, those who were justified by faith, such as the 7000 in the Northern Kingdom who had not bowed the knee to Baal.

Philip Schaff states, in History of the Christian Church, quite repeatedly that Judaism was a problem to the apostolic church, most especially to the gentile Churches of Paul, though not as bad in the circumsized/Jewish Churches of Peter. And that it almost lead to a horrible and potentially deadly schism in the body between the two groups.

Judaism was the first persecutors of the Church, as indicated by Scripture and history, and remained so at least until the destruction of Jerusalem. At some point the Roman Empire became the prime persecutor of the Church.

 

[Allan]

I have never believed and never will that the Church is a continuation of Judaism. Judasim is a carnal institution. The Church is a Spiritual Institution. The Church is a continuation of Spiritual Israel of the Old Testament, those who were justified by faith, such as the 7000 in the Northern Kingdom who had not bowed the knee to Baal.



Judaism was the first persecutors of the Church, as indicated by Scripture and history, and remained so at least until the destruction of Jerusalem. At some point the Roman Empire became the prime persecutor of the Church.

I understand and didn't state that you did hold to that. That post was in relation to Heavensdad earlier post making the statement that the christianity is the continuation and fulfillment of Judaism

 

[OldRegular]

In addition, I personally believe that our Father has unfinished business with both the Jew and the Nation of Israel. My view is that He will restore them as a devoted people and their nation to a place of honor and leadership as under David and Solomon when He returns the Kingdom to them, when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
HankD

Many amillennialists and post millennialists believe that there will be a mass conversion of the Jews prior to the return of Jesus Christ. I do not. I believe that the nation was set apart by God as the vehicle through which he would bring Jesus Christ into the world. Once that happened their mission was complete and they hold the same relation to God as any other peoples.

 

[OldRegular]

Together Redeemed Israel and the Church of the firstborn distinct from each other but one in the Spirit will comprise the New Jerusalem enduring for eternity.

HankD

You and I will have to agreeably disagree on this one.

 

[OldRegular]

OR,
I have always wondered, and would be interested in your opinion, if Islam did not exist, how close would the Chrisitians and Jews be? Or would they be at each others throats like Islam is today?

That is one of those what if questions that is almost impossible to answer. There is a fairly strong Jewish lobby in this country so it is possible that Israel and America might be allies to some extent, but without some common enemy I just can't say. [See remarks below on dispensational influence.]

The NT shows sharp differences between Christians and the Jews throughout the book of Acts and other places. Maybe Jews and Christians (Israel and America, sort of) get along because of a common enemy, Islam.

As I have indicated on an earlier post the Jews were the first persecutors of the Church and that persecution continued for a number of years. Again I suspect that a common enemy coupled with the fact that Israel is a democracy makes for cooperation. I also believe that dispensational doctrine has strongly influenced the relationship between Israel and America.

 

[HankD]

You and I will have to agreeably disagree on this one.

Agreed.

HankD

 

[ituttut]

Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

God never made such a "Covenant" with any other "RACE" of people.

The "Last week" of Daniel's prophecy for "THY PEOPLE" (Israel) is still in the future, the "Trib period".

Ro 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.

Such understanding of His Word. But some people just will not accept what the Bible says. A good answer to what was put forth.

 

[ituttut]

Hello OldRegular

If the question of your OP is..........


I believe that me4him answered your question;
(Because the Jews are still God’s people.)

But I am not surprised that you don’t believe that, being as you reject “dispensationalism”.
--------------------------------------------------
But I have a question for you.

Undoubtedly you flatly reject any kind of a 7 year tribulation period, or for that matter a 1000 millennial reign of Christ.

My I ask your eschatology. How do you think this is all going to end?

I see you have learned much, and how to respond to error.

 

[Havensdad]

God never made such a "Covenant" with any other "RACE" of people.

The "Last week" of Daniel's prophecy for "THY PEOPLE" (Israel) is still in the future, the "Trib period".

Ro 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.

A "Race" of people? I think not.

There were two types of people in the "Congregation of Israel". "Natives of the Land" and "sojourners". This can be found throughout the Old Testament.

"from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land."

The dispensationalist wants to say "Look! See! God DOES make distinction according to one's race!" But this is false.

A "sojourner" could become a "native of the land"! Irrespective of "race"...

Exo 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it

Not only that, a Jewish person was not necessarily PART of Israel...

Exo 12:19 For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses. If anyone eats what is leavened, that person will be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land.

Regardless of one's race, the rules were the same. Notice this was to be a part of "Israel", a "native of the land" etc.

But you say, What about now? Exactly the same. We have been "grafted into" the Olive tree. What is the Olive tree? The Church? No, the "Olive Tree" has ALWAYS been a symbol for Israel. And this is where dispensationalist theology falls apart. We ARE a part of Israel, with no distinction.

Tell me, if God is a racist (the definition of a racist is a person who makes distinction according to race: i.e. treats people different because of the color of their skin), why does He go to SO MUCH trouble in scripture, saying over and over again that He makes no distinction, shows no favorites, etc.??

 

[HankD]

If God is a racist because He made Israel His chosen people, then is He a murderer because He caused a flood which killed all the men, women, children and infants (apart from Noah's family) upon the face of the earth?

God is sovereign over His creation. We are His to do with as He pleases.

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.​

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.​

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.​

HankD

 

[Havensdad]

If God is a racist because He made Israel His chosen people, then is He a murderer because He caused a flood which killed all the men, women, children and infants (apart from Noah's family) upon the face of the earth?

God is sovereign over His creation. We are His to do with as He pleases.

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.​

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.​

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.​

HankD

Absolutely. God can be a racist if He so chooses. The question is, IS He a racist (determines ones position by the color of their skin/lineage) or does He "show NO partiality"?

 

[HankD]

Absolutely. God can be a racist if He so chooses. The question is, IS He a racist (determines ones position by the color of their skin/lineage) or does He "show NO partiality"?

First of all, to even ask the question defies certain Scripture as well as logic. He is beyond any sin or character flaw. He does however do whatever pleases Him.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:


James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
​

Since God is without sin or character flaw and He created all the races (of one blood BTW), it seems illogical to even ask the question concerning "partiality".

So, the simple answer from me is: No.

The passage from which you may be alluding to is:

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

And is in fact, used in Romans 2-3 as the very argument that His choice of the Jews is one based upon a criteria other than racial prejudice.

His choices are those which ultimately glorify Him.
On the grass roots level, Israel was brought into being by Him who is without sin for that purpose and not out of any human assessment of prejudice or "partiality".


HankD