He thinks that the Secons Coming already happened, so would not see him gifted to teach!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If God doesn't have a future for the Jews...
- Thread starter Jope
- Start date
- Status
"In 1929, Allis, J. Gresham Machen, Robert Dick Wilson and others founded Westminster Theological Seminary." - Wikipedia, Oswald Thompson Allis - Wikipedia
So I should read someone else on C. T....Someone who didn't found Westminster Theologocial Seminary...
My question was why you thought that Genesis 12 and 17 should be applied to separate Jews and Gentiles in opposition to Paul’s insistence that such is a misunderstanding of the Promise (while the Jews took it to mean exactly that, Paul says that it does not). Your reply:
Yes, I do know the definition of progressive revelation. Do you? It is scripture that contains a fuller revelation of an earlier passage. Note “a fuller” revelation (not an entirely different revelation).
Yes (I attended a very pro-dispensationalism seminary). I am not asking what dispensationalists believe. I am asking YOU what YOU believe. There are dispensationalists that do not believe the Abrahamic Covenant to mean one thing in Genesis and the opposite under the New Covenant (in fact, you are the only one I’ve actually met thus far).
No. That was Scripture.
Perhaps, but that does not carry any application to this thread. Your post was that Genesis teaches the covenant was made with Abraham and to his descendant. I think that Paul’s explanation that this is to Abraham’s Seed the true children of Abraham are those who have faith in God (Gal. 3:7). But then you asked a strange question. You asked “Why does God make Jesus the descendant of Abraham? Why not just make Jesus the descendant of Shem?” My reply is that it wouldn’t matter because we’d be in the same place (we are in the same place because God did make Jesus the descendant of Shem, but his covenant was with Abraham). No matter what God did, you objection would be the same. If it were Shem, and Paul explained that the true Seed of Shem was Jesus (and the true children of Shem were believers) then you would go one more back with "why not Noah". If Noah, then you'd go back to Lamech. You'd ultimately get back to Adam. And, of course, there you would find the promise foreshadowed in Genesis 3:15.
How do you reconcile the idea that “Paul would see spiritual Israel as being saved Jews who are then part of the Church” with Romans 11:11-31, specifically verses 19-31?
It seems to me Paul is saying many Jews who are members of national Israel are cut off from Spiritual Israel so that Gentiles can be grafted in. If this is true, then Spiritual Israel would include those of the “wild olive tree” (Gentiles) who are grafted to a cultivated tree. And if that is true then God, while perhaps not done with Israel as a nation, has always had one people (true Israel).
I don't believe that Paul taught that there is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles in this present dispensation. Neither does dispensationalism. That is why I asked if you knew what progressive revelation was.
You already have my belief. Yes, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in this present dispensation.
Nope. All dispensationalists from Darby onward believed in a distinction between the Church, Israel and the Gentiles. Darby and onward believed that the Abrahamic covenant's wall of separation didn't exist in the present dispensation. This is what I believe in as well. Where I differ (although it doesn't matter to this thread) is in the constitution of the ekklesia after the church is raptured: I believe that the ekklesia exists on earth (the jews and gentiles) and in heaven, during the tribulation. This is the belief of the Church Fathers, who were mostly, if not all, pretribulational, although this isn't the reason why I believe in their ecclesiology. My belief, like theirs, is based on the study of scripture.
What do you see as the purpose of history? It seems you haven't studied much dispensationalism. Did you ever encounter Renald Showers or Alva J Mclain in your years at Bible School? George Peters?
That is what I wanted to know (what you believed). The "wall of separation" did not exist during Abraham's time (Gentiles could be converted into Israel...e.g., Rahab, who is in the linage of Christ). That said, not all dispensationalists see the covenant with Abraham to change with dispensations. It meant the same thing across dispensations (even if it was not understood at the time as such).
Please quote two early church sources that teach pre-trib.
Cyprian:
"Lo, the world is changing and passing away, and witnesses to its ruin not now by its age, but by the end of things. And do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an earlier departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent?
We should consider, dearly beloved brethren — we should ever and anon reflect that we have renounced the world, and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers. Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world, and restores us to paradise..." (Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise VII, 25-6).
We should consider, dearly beloved brethren — we should ever and anon reflect that we have renounced the world, and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers. Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world, and restores us to paradise..." (Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise VII, 25-6).
Justin Martyr:
"Wherefore God delays causing the confusion and destruction of the whole world, by which the wicked angels and demons and men shall cease to exist, because of the seed of the Christians, who know that they are the cause of preservation in nature. Since, if it were not so, it would not have been possible for you to do these things, and to be impelled by evil spirits; but the fire of judgment would descend and utterly dissolve all things, even as formerly the flood left no one but him only with his family who is by us called Noah" (Second Apology, Chap. VII).
Iranaeus:
"Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons 'as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance — in fact, as nothing;' (Isa_40:15) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.' (Matt 24:21) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption" (Against Heresies, Book V, Ch. XXIX, 1).
Shepherd of Hermas. etc.
So when did it get set up? Paul teaches that it was set up in the past.
Well, my apologies! I have heard of Machen and Van Til, but never Oswald Allis. Being a Brit, I am not as familiar with American theologians as I should be."In 1929, Allis, J. Gresham Machen, Robert Dick Wilson and others founded Westminster Theological Seminary." - Wikipedia, Oswald Thompson Allis - Wikipedia
So I should read someone else on C. T....Someone who didn't found Westminster Theologocial Seminary...
However, the facts do not change. If he claimed that the Abrahamic Covenant is 'cancelled' or 'abolished,' he was wrong. He may well have said that it was 'fulfilled' by or 'subsumed' in the New Covenant, but that's a different matter. I wonder if you can provide me with a quotation.
Since you are a Baptist, you should read Baptists on C.T. The 1689 Federalism website has much good material.
Pages 34-6; 57-8. I would rather not type it out right now. Maybe later. You can check the book out and look at some of the pages here
Last edited:
Might have to give that a look. Since you are likewise a baptist, did you know that the original baptists were premillennial?
Interesting an "amill" would take such a stand. Thanks for the reference.
Say What???Might have to give that a look. Since you are likewise a baptist, did you know that the original baptists were premillennial?
1689 Federalism
If you are speaking of the Anabaptists, some of them certainly were, but the theology of most of them left much to be desired. I look to the 17th Century Particular Baptists as my spiritual forebears, and they were all covenantal.Since you are likewise a baptist, did you know that the original baptists were premillennial?
BTW, Baptist covenant theology differs at certain points from the Presbyterian version. Men like Turretine and Witsius (and Alliss?) saw all the covenants as basically one. The Baptists (Kiffin, Keach, Coxe etc.) saw a greater contrast between the Mosaic and New Covenants.
Why are you choosing to take the words of these men out of their context? I will grant that these were pre-mil doctrines, but they are far from pre-trib. Your post is a dishonest rendering of the the teachings of these men. I take it this is the type of thing we can expect from you?
Here is the fuller context (what you corrupted either intentionally or out of ignorance):
Justin Martyr
“O unreasoning men! Understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonored, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians, who, having learned the true worship of God from the law, and the word which went forth from Jerusalem by means of the apostles of Jesus, have fled for safety to the God of Jacob and God of Israel.” – (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho)
Irenaeus
“But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is. The name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed.” (Irenaeus, The Writings of Irenaeus Book III)
“And therefore, when in the end the church shall suddenly be caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be,’ For this is the last context of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies…..and you are reading into the text “caught up” and ignoring the remainder of Irenaeus’ words….which is poor scholarship on your part).
Cyprian
“And this, as it ought always to be done by God’s servants, much more out to be done now – now that the world is collapsing and is oppressed with the tempest of mischievous ills; in order that we who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. If in your dwelling the walls were shaking with age, the roofs above you were trembling, and the house, now worn out and wearied, were threatening an immediate destruction to its structure crumbling with age, would you not with all speed depart? If, when you were on a voyage, an angry and raging tempest, by the waves violently aroused, foretold the coming shipwreck, would you not quickly seek the harbor? Lo, the world is changing and passing away, and witnesses to its ruin not now by its age, but by the end of things. And do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an earlier departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? We should consider, dearly beloved brethren – we should ever and anon reflect that we have renounced the world, and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers. Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world, and restores us to paradise and the kingdom. ( Cyprian, Treatise VII: On the Mortality)
“If, therefore, we also live as dedicated and devoted to God – if we make our way over the ancient and sacred footsteps of the righteous, let us go through the same proofs of sufferings, the same testimonies of passion, considering the glory of our time the greater on this account, that while ancient examples may be numbered, yet that subsequently, when the abundance of virtue and faith was in excess, the Christian martyrs cannot be numbered, as the Apocalypse testifies and says: “After these things I beheld a great multitude, which no man could number, of every nation…And he said unto me, These are they who have come out of the great tribulation and have washed their robes…” but if the assembly of the Christian martyrs is shown and proved to be so great, let no one think it a hard or difficult thing to become a martyr, when he sees that the crowd of martyrs cannot be numbered…In persecutions, earth is shut up, but heaven is opened; Anti-Christ is threatening, but Christ is protecting; death is brought in, but immortality follows; the world is taken away from him that is slain, but paradise is set forth to him restored; the life of time is extinguished, but the life of eternity is realized. What a dignity it is, and what a security, to go gladly from hence, to depart gloriously in the midst of afflictions and tribulations; in a moment to close the eyes with which men and the world are looked upon, and at once to open them to look upon God and Christ! Of such a blessed departure how great is the swiftness! You shall be suddenly taken away from earth, to be placed in the heavenly kingdoms.” (Cyprian, The Treatises of Cyprian)
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]quit derailing my thread mister administrator. I'll discuss this besides-the-point issue with you on another thread if I do decide to. I've already noted SO MANY times on this forum that these church fathers differ from present day dispensationalists. Quit the red herrings and straw men and get back to the OP.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those "red hearings" and "straw men" are facts that disprove YOUR statements that YOU introduced into this thread. YOU, not I, brought up pre-trib. You, not I, claimed most, if not all, early church fathers were pre-trib. YOU, not I, took the "offer one line and twist it until it fits" approach, hoping no one would notice. My reply disproved YOUR statements. You seem unable to face them so you pretend they don't exist. BUT LET"S LOOK AT HOW THIS "RED HERRING" CAME TO BE:
YOU said:
And I RESPONDED to what YOU posted by asking that you:
It is, of course, neither a straw man argument nor a red herring. It is not a straw man argument because the evidence of the denouncement is plain. All three you mentioned were not pre-trib but instead believed the church was going through the tribulation. It is not a red herring because YOU introduced the topic by YOUR claim.
Every time you are caught in a place where you cannot defend YOUR STATEMENTS you curl up and accuse others of straw man arguments and red herrings. You are that boy that cried wolf, making so many false assertions that nothing you present can be taken at face value. If you are willing to make false claims about the views of these three men, when their views are not an authority and pre-trib isn’t the thrust of the argument, then just how far will you go to support claims more central to the OP?
There is an OT expression – “gird up your loins”. Here we’d just say “man up”. Or, of course, you can just plug your ears, kick up dust, and cry "red herring! Straw man!" and hope it will conceal the error. But just remember that YOU brought the thread here by YOUR statement. I responded to YOUR error.
Paul does teach that the Abrahamic covenant was set up in the past. But he does not teach that this was a covenant of nationalities (of Gentiles on one side and Jews on another). The Object of this covenant is the Promise, the Seed (singular) who is indeed a Jew (to the Jew's first, and then the Gentiles). But to Abraham there was no Israel (Jacob/Israel was one of Abraham's grandchildren). Paul goes back to that covenant and declares (although you disagree) that the Seed is Christ and the children are those who believe.
I also believe that God has a purpose for Israel (as a nation) that will come to pass in the future. A belief that God has a future for Israel (as a nation) is not dependent on restricting the Abrahamic Covenant to Jacob and his descendants. Abraham was not a Jew. He was not an Israelite. Abraham was not even the "father" of the Jews (in terms of sole lineage). That would be Jacob (whom God chose and changed his name to Israel, and whose descendants are the twelve tribes of Israel).
You can't go back to Abraham and restrict that covenant to a future (to that time) people because it would exclude Abraham himself. Abraham had Isaac. God established his covenant (within the Abrahamic Covenant) with Isaac (for it is through Israel the Seed will be delivered). And God established his covenant with Jacob (Israel). Again, within the Abrahamic Covenant. But the Object of the Abrahamic Covenant is not provision for national Israel, but salvation to the world. And if you cannot understand that simple point, then you are wrong even in your dispensationalism.
Still seems that paul saw spiritual israel as being saved remnant Jews, who were placed into the Church along with the gentiles!
- Status