The Nation of Israel

And let us not forget the rest of the verse:

"but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."

 

Right, the Jews ruled over the land briefly, but I cannot see that they ever called the land Israel and ever inhabited the land. As I understand it, Israel will go from the Nile River to the Euphrates River as her own boundaries. Am I wrong on this? You Arabs, sell out and move on!

 

Obviously, this thread should be moved to a theology forum now. We have left politics long ago.

 

All through the prophets, in place too numerous to mention here. It is impossible to read the prophets with an open mind and not see the land promises. Start with the New covenant itself in Jer 31. You can find it in many other prophets as well.

It is not a Darbyite premise. The distinction between Israel and the church is the clear teaching of Scripture. But the fact remains that even if the church is incorporated into Israel, the promises made to Abraham and reiterated throughout the OT are still good promises. God did not change them. Therefore, God's promise to give the land to the descendants of Abraham forever to live in is still a promise of God. Since God is faithful, that promise must be fulfilled.

As for the promise itself, you quoted two passages that do not say the promise was fulfilled. Look at them, and especially the highlighted portions.

Genesis 15:18 (KJV) In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

1 Kings 4:21 (ESV)
Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.

2 Chron. 9:26 (ESV)
And he ruled over all the kings from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt.

YOu can see that the promise was to the "river of Egypt," your supposed fulfillment was to the "border of Egypt." The promise was also an eternal promises; your supposed fulfillment was not eternal. The promise was also to inhabit and possess the land; your supposed fulfillment was simply to "rule over." As you can see, there are clear differences that show the promise has not yet been fulfilled.

 

Sorry, but I disagree with your Darbyite interpretation, Pastor Larry.

Also, the river of Egypt that is referred to is on the border of Egypt -

www.botcw.com/bible/kjv/easton/east3139.htm

This is my final post on this non-politics thread in the Politics Forum.

Now, back to politics and news.

 

IT is not my "Darbyite" interpretation. It preceded Darby by thousands of years. In fact, it dates all the way to the OT times. It puts me in pretty good company.

The river of Egypt is likely not the Wadi el'arish, though that is a possibility. IT would have not have been a common landmark, since it is a river only during the rainy season. But even at that, the promise was to own and inhabit, not merely to rule over. Your position simply does not listen to the words of Scripture.

 

Some information about this covenant theologian:

And more...

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/bonhoeffer/general.htm


The point is, as I have shown on previous posts, that the doctrine of Replacement Theology is attributed to Augustine in direct opposition to what the early Church Fathers believed, and Christianity swung away from it's roots to follow in his footsteps about the "Christ killers" to embrace this anti-Biblical doctrine, which is anti-Semitic at its core, and caused the deaths of untold thousands, yea, even millions of Jews through the ages by those who proclaim the Name of Jesus Christ.

If this doctrine had caused the deaths of untold millions of any other ethnic group, the Church would be condemned and it would be anathema to embrace such a belief.

I have given links to show Replacement Theology is a "fringe" belief, out of step with mainstream Baptists in America, including the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest denomination of Baptists in America, and yet, even with that, the doctrine of Replacement Theology is still embraced and even defended on this Baptist board. That is truly disturbing.

You can challenge me on any other point running the whole spectrum. But when it comes to proclaiming the truth about Replacement Theology, which I have shown through many links posted, I will not back down. I may leave and shake the dust from my feet, but I will not back down when it comes to Israel and the Jews and the Abrahamic Covenant. God said it is an everlasting covenant. No Augustine or anyone else can change that fact. </font>[/QUOTE]But he was not in any way dispensational, and gave his life defending the Jewish people. I ALREADY SAID that I am not defending his theology. Just pointing out that your charge that non-dispensationalists are anti-Semitic is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. It's sad that you can take enough time to research the information to tear him apart, yet cannot even consider this simple point. Do you really care about the Jewish people, or simply your shallow opinions of eschatology?

 

Contrary to what you read here, you don't have to wallow waist-deep in ignorance to be pre-millennial.

 

And let us also not forget what Paul said in Romans Chapter 11:

Rom.11
[1] I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
[2] God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.


And, Ken, thank you for pointing that out about Justin Martyr. Augustine made the idea popular where the idea of anti-Semitism caught on within the Church. Let us go back to the First Century Early Church Fathers for more insight. After all, some of them would have been taught directly by some of the Apostles!

 

Looks like I need to add this post.

Justin Martyr - born about 100 A.D.

Augustine - born in 354 A.D.

Why you think that Augustine influenced Justin Martyr is simply beyond my
understanding.

 

They couldn't read?

 

Okay. You're saying that Augustine was influenced by Justin Martyr.

Sorry, I thought you were saying that Justin Martyr was influenced by Augustine.

 

PJ, you wrote: "But he was not in any way dispensational, and gave his life defending the Jewish people. I ALREADY SAID that I am not defending his theology. Just pointing out that your charge that non-dispensationalists are anti-Semitic is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. It's sad that you can take enough time to research the information to tear him apart, yet cannot even consider this simple point. Do you really care about the Jewish people, or simply your shallow opinions of eschatology?"

The problem with your case is that you have chosen a liberal or a heretic and called him anti-dispensational. Yeah, he might have been anti-dispensational. Most liberal theologians would be I guess; I really don't know. Frankly, I regret to say it in view of the tragedy of his death, but I would call him a heretic myself. I myself am a modified dispensationalist since I believe in the post-tribulation rapture, but I agree with Lady Eagle on the current position of Israel. My objection to the Arabs in Israel is that they are there illegally because of lax enforcement of the League of Nations Mandate probably caused by Arab oil blackmail of the West. Furthermore, I think that a new Arab state would have no economic foundation since neither the USA nor Europe are wealthy enough to continue to subsidize the Arabs forever. The Arabs need to move on.

 

http://www.biblicist.org/bible/abe.htm

 

CMG, you make good points that I don't wish to debate...not because I agree with all of them, but because I don't have the interest to spend the time, and because it's such an emotional issue with some that it can't be rationally discussed.

However, as I said several times, I don't defend all or even most of Mr. Bonhoeffer's theology. My ONLY POINT was how wrong it is to attribute anti-Semitism to folks based on their eschatological viewpoint.

It's incorrect, unkind, unfair, intellectually empty, wrong, unGodly, and unbiblical.