Identify Your View

[webdog]

Why would God say "Israel" but mean the church? Is He trying to fool us? We have so much about the church in the Bible. Why all of a sudden just in prophecy would God say Israel but mean the church?

Excellent point. The defense of "because this is how God decided to do it" falls on it's face. God is not a God of confusion. He never called Israel the "church" in the OT. If they are interchangeable as CT's believe, this should be the concept throughout Scripture, not just the NT.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

John of Japan,

What does Romans 11:26 "And so ALL Israel shall be saved", mean to you?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[dan e.]

Excellent points. I tend to agree with you, Pilgrimer.

 

[Pilgrimer]

All men are saved by faith, both OT and NT; the blood of bulls and goats wasn’t what saved the OT people and neither will it save any in the futurists’ view.

Amen.

All those who came before were saved by faith in the salvation that God would one day work.

All those who have come since are saved by faith in the salvation that God has now wrought.

The dividing line is the Cross of Christ.

There is no Plan B.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

Excellent point. The defense of "because this is how God decided to do it" falls on it's face. God is not a God of confusion. He never called Israel the "church" in the OT. If they are interchangeable as CT's believe, this should be the concept throughout Scripture, not just the NT.

I can't speak for CT's because I don't know what that means. But the way I understand it is that Israel was symbolic of the Church, just as all those Passover lambs were symbolic of Christ. The Old Testament is actually filled to overflowing with people and places and events that were symbolic of God's New Covenant people. And every jot and tittle of the Law has something to teach us about the things of God, such as the way the ordering and arrangement of the Temple in Jerusalem symbolizes the very courts of Heaven! And the seedtime and harvest of the land of Israel symbolizes the process of salvation; the rain falls upon the dry, thirsty ground and softens it; the plowman comes along with the "turn" plow to break the ground and prepare it; then the sower comes along and sows the seed. And only when the ground has been rained upon and broken and turned will it be fit to receive the seed which can then take root and grow and bring forth much fruit, and when the harvest was come how the people would all journey up to the city of God "bringing in the sheaves." All these ancient earthly things of the Old Covenant have so much to teach us about the spiritual things of the New Covenant, things that concern not only salvation, but fellowship with God.

So yes, Israel did symbolize the church, and the great events in the life of the nation of Israel symbolize those of the Believer . . . such as the deliverace from Egypt symbolizing our liberation from the slavery of sin . . . by the blood of the Lamb.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[EdSutton]

Uh' - One question, here!

If you really are interested, then first of all lose the red letters. It's loud and pushy, and impolite on an Internet forum. If you do that I'll reconsider answering your points.

Since you are the one who proclaims the use of "red letters" is "loud and pushy, and impolite on an internet forum," why do you have your tag-line quote of ("Expect great things from God. Attempt great things for God."--William Carey) in red, as well as use a larger font?

(It was tough reproducing the exact shade of red you use, on my computer, but I managed to stumble onto the way to do so, by accident.) Or does this admonition merely apply to Grasshopper and others?

Sure seems like you are wanting a double standard, to me.

Incidentally, I refuse to allow some undefined, yet assumed, "internet protocol" dictate my post style, writing on the computer exactly as I would type it out on a sheet of paper on an old manual typewriter, for I never had any access to an 'electric.', and could not type anything with more thanmy two index fingers at a time, until I got married and my bride had a computer, which I learned to use a little bit. (I still ain't all that good at it, as you can probably tell, which is why I keep Langauge Cop around.)

FTR, if I remember correctly, this "proper Internet protocol" 'demanded' the use of all lower case letters (e. e. cummings, anyone) where the use of any upper case letters were considered as "shouting," (and woe be to the individual who actually had the audacity to 'bold' anything, or use a larger font), while allowing and actually 'preferring' deliberate misspellings that were considered 'internet shorthand.'

Thankfully, most of today's posters do not follow this self-sanctimonious B*** ####, (you can fill in the blanks, I assume), but rather post normally. I do use blue, usually, as well as red and other colors that are fairly easily distinguishable on my light blue BB background screen (some colors are easier to read, than others are for me, at least) to differentiate, and upper case, italics, and 'bold' when and where such use is appropriate, I believe. I guess if any or all that means someone will not respond to my posts, then that is just the way it will have to be.

I will not fail to respond to one whom I think posts in good faith, if appropriate, as well, IMO, regardless of any color they might use.

Incidentally, and out of curiosity, does your dislike for 'red' include "red-letter" Bibles? I know I do not like them, definitley preferring all 'black letter' editions.

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

What does Romans 11:26 "And so ALL Israel shall be saved", mean to you?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

It means that at a point in history (the fullness of the Gentiles), all Israel will be saved.

 

[John of Japan]

Since you are the one who proclaims the use of "red letters" is "loud and pushy, and impolite on an internet forum," why do you have your tag-line quote of ("Expect great things from God. Attempt great things for God."--William Carey) in red, as well as use a larger font?

(It was tough reproducing the exact shade of red you use, on my computer, but I managed to stumble onto the way to do so, by accident.) Or does this admonition merely apply to Grasshopper and others?

Sure seems like you are wanting a double standard, to me.

...

Thankfully, most of today's posters do not follow this self-sanctimonious B*** ####, (you can fill in the blanks, I assume), but rather post normally. I do use blue, usually, as well as red and other colors that are fairly easily distinguishable on my light blue BB background screen (some colors are easier to read, than others are for me, at least) to differentiate, and upper case, italics, and 'bold' when and where such use is appropriate, I believe. I guess if any or all that means someone will not respond to my posts, then that is just the way it will have to be.

I will not fail to respond to one whom I think posts in good faith, if appropriate, as well, IMO, regardless of any color they might use.

Incidentally, and out of curiosity, does your dislike for 'red' include "red-letter" Bibles? I know I do not like them, definitley preferring all 'black letter' editions.

Ed

Why the hostility, Ed? Have I offended you somehow? Tell me what I've done and I'll willingly apologize.

If my signature offends you I'd be happy to change it. But it seems to me that one's signature is a different matter than a direct conversation is.

I grew up with a red letter Bible that was precious to me, since it was my first one. I still have it. But the color of the letters in the Bible don't matter to me. The red is a little hard to read, though, as it is on an Internet forum. I have an eye disease called ocular rosacea which is acting up right now.

 

[Grasshopper]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasshopper
Actually I am.

If you really are interested, then first of all lose the red letters. It's loud and pushy, and impolite on an Internet forum. If you do that I'll reconsider answering your points.

Look if you don't want to answer the questions just man-up and say so. Font color seems to be an excuse (see Ed's comment) for avoiding the questions.

We can debate with Christian politeness and mutual respect if we want to. Col 4:6--"Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."

I'm all for it.:thumbs: But debate can be a tough games at times that requires a little thick skin.

Quote:

Where?

These are snide comments:

Quote:

So Dispies are allowed to make "stars" into meteors or planets but to make them into civil authorities is somehow "spiritualizing" the text?

Nothing snide about that at all. It goes to the very heart of the debate, how to interpret scripture. I think Lightfoot's interpretation is how a 1st century Hebrew would view this apocalytic prophecy.

Quote:

Yes, and your scholars have had Mussolini, Hitler and the Pope as the antichrist and Russia, China, United Nations and now the Muslims as the Beast. But when you ignore the time statements of prophecy anything becomes possible.

Once again, where am I wrong??? Have you not read dispies writings since 1900? When you ignore and don't take "literal" the time statments of the Bible then all of these examples become plausible and have been offered.

Now how about we stick with Rev. 1:1,3 and how you interpret Is. 34:4 in a literal way since you believe it has been fulfilled.

 

[John of Japan]

Because God, in His wisdom, progressively revealed the Gospel in that way, (1Cor 2) and went about “fulfilling” His plan to save all those that would believe the Truth. The church is the body of Christ, one people of faith. All men are saved by faith, both OT and NT; the blood of bulls and goats wasn’t what saved the OT people and neither will it save any in the futurists’ view.

I agree that all in all ages are saved by grace through faith. I don't agree that progressive revelation means that at some point in history all of a sudden Israel didn't mean Israel. Words have meanings.

Although certainly we could do little more here than only scratch the surface on these issues, (which I usually avoid debating) because of the flying sparks that all too often cause smoldering fires with my beloved brothers. Frankly, I am replying because I resent to my position being referred to as “allegorical interpretation”

I'm sorry you feel this way, but that is the normal, technical term in hermeneutics for the view that spiritualizes Israel.

As for all the verses you gave, grammatical-historical hermeneutics gives plenty of room for normal symbolism.

 

[Benjamin]

I'm sorry you feel this way, but that is the normal, technical term in hermeneutics for the view that spiritualizes Israel.

As for all the verses you gave, grammatical-historical hermeneutics gives plenty of room for normal symbolism.

It may be normal in your circles, but I guess I just find it to be a hypocritical double standard that to some it is supposed “normal symbolism” and toward others it is branded as “allegorical interpretation”. As far as I’m concerned, the verses I posted are being interpreted more as literal by me but allegorically by you and your “normal

” friends though.

Oh I see, if I take the verses as literal and you see them otherwise (spiritual?) it is “Normal Symbolism” BUT if you take them literal and I see them otherwise it is “Allegorical Interpretation.” I have a feeling you learn these kinds of standards of hermeneutical interpretation rules in dispensational school or something.

 

[John of Japan]

Look if you don't want to answer the questions just man-up and say so. Font color seems to be an excuse (see Ed's comment) for avoiding the questions.

I have no inner need to answer your questions. And font color is not an excuse. That bright red genuinely bothers me, not only psychologically, but I have an eye disease.

What is there "manly" about an Internet debate? Why is it not manly to not answer someone I think is berating me? How do I know you are even a worthy opponent, with close credentials to mine? I'm on the BB because (1) it gets lonely sometimes on the mission field, and (2) I want to try to be a blessing. I'm not sure how this debate is going to bless people.

Having said all of that, you have now taken a better attitude, and I'll do some debating with you.

Nothing snide about that at all. It goes to the very heart of the debate, how to interpret scripture. I think Lightfoot's interpretation is how a 1st century Hebrew would view this apocalytic prophecy.

There was nothing snide about your point, but in the way you phrased it.

Now, for your information, here is the Greek lexical meaning of aster, the Greek word translated "star."


ἀστήρ , έρος , ὁ literally (single) star, luminous (heavenly) body like a star (Anlex lexicon).

See also Jude v. 13, "wandering stars," obviously not meaning what we mean by "star" in English.

Once again, where am I wrong??? Have you not read dispies writings since 1900? When you ignore and don't take "literal" the time statments of the Bible then all of these examples become plausible and have been offered.

I've read many books on the subject, and written outlines in Japanese for my Bible school classes in Isaiah, Rev., prophecy, etc. No scholarly writers on dispensationalism have taught any of these things you accuse them of. Have you read Walvoord, Ryrie, Biederwolf, Payne, McClain? (Edited in, before someone mentions him: John R. Rice did not teach any of this either after his one flirtation with Mussolini as Antichrist.) None of them would take any of these positions you mentioned, and I never have myself. Maybe you've been only reading second rate authors.


As I said before, I do take the time statements as literal, from the viewpoint of our Lord Jesus. Compare 2 Peter 3:8-9. From Christ's viewpoint, the two thousand years since Christ's ascension is only a brief time, and His coming is still soon. This says to me that God is in charge, that I don't need to worry about the future. I even wrote a chorus in Japanese about this that has been included in our new hymnbook, "What Will Happen Now?" The point of my chorus is that God is in charge, so we need not worry about the future.

Now how about we stick with Rev. 1:1,3 and how you interpret Is. 34:4 in a literal way since you believe it has been fulfilled.

I previously wrote about a double fulfillment without even looking at the Isaiah passage. At that time I wasn't at all impressed with you, and thus wasn't sure I wanted to debate you, so I just answered off the cuff to see what you would say.

Having looked at Is. 34:4, I believe it is depicting the same time as the parallel passage in Rev., since it says "all nations" v. 2. So I have no problem with either passage. They have not been fulfilled.

 

[John of Japan]

It may be normal in your circles, but I guess I just find it to be a hypocritical double standard that to some it is supposed “normal symbolism” and toward others it is branded as “allegorical interpretation”. As far as I’m concerned, the verses I posted are being interpreted more as literal by me but allegorically by you and your “normal

” friends though.

Oh I see, if I take the verses as literal and you see them otherwise (spiritual?) it is “Normal Symbolism” BUT if you take them literal and I see them otherwise it is “Allegorical Interpretation.” I have a feeling you learn these kinds of standards of hermeneutical interpretation rules in dispensational school or something.

I'm sorry you're offended. I don't mean to offend, I'm just using normal terminology. All I can say is that the "allegorical" terminology goes all the way back to Origen. It was not invented by dispensationalists. I suggest a standard book on hermeneutics, such as Protestant Biblical Interpretation, by Bernard Ramm. I'm pretty sure he was not a dispensationalist, but he has quite a bit about the allegorical schools down through history in his second chapter, "Historical Schools."

 

[DeafPosttrib]

John of Japan,

Nothing in context of Romans chapter 11 suggest that, there will be kiteral physical Jewish nation again in the future. The whole context chapter talking about the salvation of individuals. First, Natural Jews were in the branch. When they were in their unbelief. God removed them from the tree. God grafted wild branch(Gentiles) into join with believing Jews in tree. That's how "ALL Israel shall be be saved" as it completed by Calvary 2,000 years ago (Romans 11:25-27). This is speaking of Spiritual Israel. Jesus Christ is the type of tree like as vine of John chapter 14. \

"the fulness of the Gentiles BE COME IN" - Romans 11:25 is not speaking of supposed future end times, this is speaking of the SALVATION was brought unto Gentiles, that Christ already reconciled Gentiles join with Jews became one by Calvary, that's how, "And SO, ALL Israel shall be saved" shows that the salvation is being completed as God reconciled both Gentiles and Jews became unity into one by Calvary 2,000 years.

The context of Romans chapter 11 is not talking about supposed future literal physical Jewish nation again, this chapter talks about salvation is for ALL nations, by join with believing Jews in the same tree, which is in Christ.

I hope that you understand what the whole context of Romans chapter 11 is talking about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Marcia]

Hello Marcia,

The most glaring example is the hyper-literal interpretation of the Kingdom of Christ as an earthly kingdom. It is not, it is a heavenly kingdom.

WHy do you use the word "hyper-literal" or "hyper-literatist?" That seems to be loaded language. It's like the people who accuse people of taking the Bible literally. Well, I take it literally where it is literal and non-literaly where it is non-literal. This word you are using seems very biased.

"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven." This is a prayer Jesus prayed. I am not sure what you mean by an "earthly kingdom." Can you explain? Are you confusing disp. with reconstructionist post-mils?

Another glaring example is the hyper-literal interpretation of the reign of Christ as a world-wide forced obedience to an earthly, geo-political rule. It is not. The reign of Christ is the power and authority He exercises in this world every time he reaches down and breaks the chains of sin and death that bind the soul to hell and lifts us up to walk in His Kingdom, stand in His presence, and worship before His Throne. The victory is won, Jesus Christ reigns!

??? What are you talking about? This sounds like the "Kingdom Now" reconstructionist people.

On the subject of the error of Rabbinic Judaism, their misunderstanding of the Scriptures rose from their inability to see beyond the letter of the Law to the spirit of the Law, or what the Law was pointing to. This was taught by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3. The “letter of the law,” refers to a strict literal (grammatical/historical) interpretation of the Law. The “spirit of the Law” refers to the spiritual things that those literal things teach us. For example, how much would we really understand about Jesus’ role as the “Lamb of God,” if it were not for all those literal lambs that were sacrificed according to the Law, which we can study and read about and learn from?

But the problem for Rabbinic Judaism is that it is the very glory of the earthly things of the Old Covenant that blinds them to the greater glory of the spiritual things of the New Covenant. In other words, they can’t see the what the Law teaches about the spiritual things of God because their eyes are fixed on the earthly things of the Law.

You didn't say how disp. are like this. You only described something I already understand.

The hyper-literalist falls into the same mistake, and not surprisingly winds up in the same place, which is why Pre-Millennial Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism find common ground in their Messianic expectations of a future, earthly kingdom, earthly temple, earthly king and the reinstitution of Old Covenant worship.

Well, I am not sure about all this -- isn't it true that the new Jerusalem will descend to the new earth? Or are you talking about Jesus ruling for a 1,000 years? I don't think the view of that is "forced obedience." I'm not sure where you got that from.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

Nothing in context of Romans chapter 11 suggest that, there will be kiteral physical Jewish nation again in the future. The whole context chapter talking about the salvation of individuals. First, Natural Jews were in the branch. When they were in their unbelief. God removed them from the tree. God grafted wild branch(Gentiles) into join with believing Jews in tree. That's how "ALL Israel shall be be saved" as it completed by Calvary 2,000 years ago (Romans 11:25-27). This is speaking of Spiritual Israel. Jesus Christ is the type of tree like as vine of John chapter 14. \

"the fulness of the Gentiles BE COME IN" - Romans 11:25 is not speaking of supposed future end times, this is speaking of the SALVATION was brought unto Gentiles, that Christ already reconciled Gentiles join with Jews became one by Calvary, that's how, "And SO, ALL Israel shall be saved" shows that the salvation is being completed as God reconciled both Gentiles and Jews became unity into one by Calvary 2,000 years.

The context of Romans chapter 11 is not talking about supposed future literal physical Jewish nation again, this chapter talks about salvation is for ALL nations, by join with believing Jews in the same tree, which is in Christ.

I hope that you understand what the whole context of Romans chapter 11 is talking about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

We'll just have to differ on this one. I'll keep my view, thank you. I don't really have time right now to get into an extended discussion of Romans 11. When it says Israel, I'll just keep believing it means Israel.

 

[Marcia]

I want to point out the vote so far -

Disp. - 33

Covenant Theology - 23

Preterism - 5

As I remarked earlier, Preterism should be divided into 2 parts - partial and full.

Is anyone willing to admit they are a full preterist who does not believe Jesus is coming back?

 

[Grasshopper]

I have no inner need to answer your questions. And font color is not an excuse. That bright red genuinely bothers me, not only psychologically, but I have an eye disease.

All you had to do was say so instead of addressing it in the manner you chose.

What is there "manly" about an Internet debate? Why is it not manly to not answer someone I think is berating me? How do I know you are even a worthy opponent, with close credentials to mine?

My aren't we impressed with ourselves. No one will ever acccuse you of humbleness.

Now, for your information, here is the Greek lexical meaning of aster, the Greek word translated "star."


ἀστήρ , έρος , ὁ literally (single) star, luminous (heavenly) body like a star (Anlex lexicon).

See also Jude v. 13, "wandering stars," obviously not meaning what we mean by "star" in English.

Strong
G792
ἀστήρ
astēr
as-tare'
Probably from the base of G4766; a star (as strown over the sky), literally or figuratively: - star.

What does figuratively mean? Does it mean its usage doesn't have to be literal? You didn't address John Lightfoot's comments on the matter and if a 1st century Hebrew would agree with his interpretation.

I've read many books on the subject, and written outlines in Japanese for my Bible school classes in Isaiah, Rev., prophecy, etc. No scholarly writers on dispensationalism have taught any of these things you accuse them of. Have you read Walvoord, Ryrie, Biederwolf, Payne, McClain? (Edited in, before someone mentions him: John R. Rice did not teach any of this either after his one flirtation with Mussolini as Antichrist.) None of them would take any of these positions you mentioned, and I never have myself. Maybe you've been only reading second rate authors.

Amazing you deny this. Well then apparently most who write today and preach from the pulpit from many Baptist churches are second rate.

By the way, Ryrie denies the New Covenant has been established.

As I said before, I do take the time statements as literal, from the viewpoint of our Lord Jesus.

So then my first response was correct. Time statements in the Bible are useless to man as far as indicating when these events would occur.

I take the Bible literal as well but allow the Bible to use metaphors to express those literal truths.

So then near could actually mean 1000's of years in this passage:

Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to happen, then look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near.

Do the dispie scholars take this view on this passage?

Compare 2 Peter 3:8-9. From Christ's viewpoint, the two thousand years since Christ's ascension is only a brief time, and His coming is still soon.

So this verse is to be used as a filter to which all prophetic passages are to be interpreted? It's not speaking of Gods patience?

Why would Jesus warn of false prophets predicting the end was near if near means 1000's of years?
Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Are there two "nears"? One from God's point of view and another man's?

Was James a deciever that Jesus predicted would come?

Jam 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

I previously wrote about a double fulfillment without even looking at the Isaiah passage. At that time I wasn't at all impressed with you, and thus wasn't sure I wanted to debate you, so I just answered off the cuff to see what you would say.

Sure you did. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that your first answer destroyed your own view. Since you have a superior intellect tell us who is this Edom going to be:


Isa 34:6 The sword of Jehovah is filled with blood; it is made fat with fatness, with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams; for Jehovah has a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Edom.

Isa 34:5 For My sword bathed in the heavens. Behold, it shall come down on Edom, and on the people of My curse for judgment.

And what are these swords? AK 47s? How does that fit into a literal interpretation?

Having looked at Is. 34:4, I believe it is depicting the same time as the parallel passage in Rev., since it says "all nations" v. 2. So I have no problem with either passage. They have not been fulfilled.

And I suppose Is. 13 has not been fulfilled yet either.

 

[Grasshopper]

Is anyone willing to admit they are a full preterist who does not believe Jesus is coming back?

That is very much a gray area for me.

Just for clarification FP believe in a parousia they would just say it was fulfilled within the time frame given in scriptures. Of course assuming you take those statements literally.

 

[Benjamin]

I'm sorry you're offended. I don't mean to offend, I'm just using normal terminology. All I can say is that the "allegorical" terminology goes all the way back to Origen. It was not invented by dispensationalists. I suggest a standard book on hermeneutics, such as Protestant Biblical Interpretation, by Bernard Ramm. I'm pretty sure he was not a dispensationalist, but he has quite a bit about the allegorical schools down through history in his second chapter, "Historical Schools."

Not so much offended, but just resentful of the monopolization on theological terms and labels sometimes. For example: I also resent hearing a Calvinist call what they are espousing “THE Doctrine of Grace” as I believe my doctrine is just as full of grace as theirs is, you know? I know you aren’t meaning to offend me. :type: