Are the Modern-Day Jewish.....

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by ktn4eg, Jul 17, 2013.

  1. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    ......Dwellers in Israel Under Any of the Obligations of the OT Law?

    I know that as far as the sacrificial elements of the OT Law, that'd be impossible to carry out (& of course, not needed since Calvary), but what about the other aspects of the law--especially those dealing with its societal aspects.

    Your thoughts?
     
  2. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    It depends on what you think happened to OT Israel.

    Also, it is important to distinguish the tribe of Judah and the Second Temple Judaistic forms from the OT system.

    If the Levitical law was strictly for the Nation of Israel, I'd say that nation passed away and no longer exists ethnically. The Church is the spiritual, or the true, Israel under the New Covnenant.

    Well, I've said enough controversial stuff...that's a good question btw. :)
     
  3. Fred's Wife

    Fred's Wife
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 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.
    Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
    Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
    Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
    Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

    Who/what is the "remnant according to the election of grace"?

    There is no way that present day Israel has "passed away and no longer exists ethnically". To say that the church is "the spiritual or the true Israel under the New Covenant" is replacement theology.

    Romans 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.
    Romans 11:26 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:
    Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
    Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
    Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

    Which "Israel" will be saved? It is not the "church" as spiritual or true Israel. The true church is the body of Christ made up of regenerated (born again) members (Jew and Gentile)...so why would this "Israel" need to be saved?
     
  4. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    109
    I don't do this debate anymore but I used to. :smilewinkgrin:

    Thought I would share these from my notes on this subject:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=40448&postcount=12
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=40450&postcount=14
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=40452&postcount=16
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=40455&postcount=19
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1094333&postcount=39
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1095650&postcount=50
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1095652&postcount=51
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1096853&postcount=69
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1096862&postcount=70

    FWIW :wavey:
     
  5. Fred's Wife

    Fred's Wife
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    I looked over those links and I will have to respectfully disagree.
     
  6. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    109
    Wow! In 4 minutes! Okay...:confused:

    You got a fast sharpening stone there girl! ;)
     
  7. Fred's Wife

    Fred's Wife
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't read them all through, but I skimmed through them and picked up on what you were saying...that is why it took only 4 minutes.

    I'm a premillennial dispensationalist and I believe there is a distinction between the nation of Israel and the Church/body of Christ. It was apparent that you don't believe as I do...therefore I will respectfully disagree with you. I'm not into the debate scene on this issue.
     
  8. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    109
    Okay. But what I was addressing was what Israel means and why it can be interpreted as all those of faith both NT and NT - once fully revealed - progressively. A whole lot of personal study went into that meaning. I went into this with an open mind although admittedly with some strong objections to what I had been being taught of the dispy system.

    I don't hold to an eschatological systematic view, probably never will, although will admit to a strong hold to progressive covenant theology. I am also very against dual-covenant theology - aka -premillennial dispensationalism. No millennial view for me though. I'm not into debating it anymore, too many hard feelings arise because some (of my best friends) are VERY into their dispy stuff.

    P.S. it isn't as important to me, I don't think we can really figure it out, I just know I'll be ready when the Anti-Christ comes like we've been warned to be - and definitely no any moment fly away escape doctrines for me. :saint:
     
    #8 Benjamin, Jul 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2013
  9. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    The dwellers in Israel who aren't christians, who are still looking for the Messiah's coming(1st time, that is), are still under the Law, imo. The Law brings us to Christ, and grace through faith places us in Him. They are rejecting that Jesus is the Messiah, therefore, no faith, and no grace.
     
  10. Fred's Wife

    Fred's Wife
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your honest response..and thank you for being gracious in the manner in which you did respond. I do appreciate that. :)

    Dual covenant theology is not premillennial dispensationalism. Dual covenant is what is being taught by John Hagee. That is not what I believe. John Hagee doesn't believe in evangelizing the Jews because they already have a "covenant" (Abrahamic) and that covenant will supposedly save them w/o believing on Jesus Christ. Dual covenant theology is a very dangerous and heretical teaching.

    The Other Gospel of John Hagee

    I believe that Israel is back in their own land in unbelief....a fulfillment of the "dry bones" prophecy in Ezekiel 37. I also believe there will be a 7 year tribulation period and the focus of that tribulation (time of Jacob's trouble--Jeremiah 30:7) is national Israel. The church will not be present on the earth during this 7 year period. At the conclusion of this tribulation, Jesus Christ will return to this earth and set up His earthly 1,000 year kingdom where He will rule on David's throne from Jerusalem.

    God will literally fulfill ALL His promises to the nation of Israel. Daniel 9:24-27 is God's timetable and it is very precise and exact.
     
    #10 Fred's Wife, Jul 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2013
  11. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    109
    Just a quick reply, I don't think Dual convent theology can be avoided with such a system...that is what turned me against it so strongly. It is based on Scofield's principles of "rightly dividing" the Word of God for a reason...that's it...:)

    I'm done, good luck.
     
    #11 Benjamin, Jul 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2013
  12. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Believe it or not, I agree. There is only one source of salvation, and that is Jesus Christ. The OT and NT are in perfect harmony. Your word "progressive" describes it very well. Romans to me makes it clear that there in no Jew or Greek in Jesus Christ. How that effects the sequence of end time events, not quite sure. For years, I bought into the Hal Lindsey theories.

    Jerry Falwell and John Hagee have been accused of dual covenant theology. Falwell flat out denies it, and Hagee does so to a degree.

    http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13819/hagee-falwell-deny-endorsing-dual-covenant

    It surprises me that the debate of dispy and covenant has not had more threads like the ever present ad nauseam Calvinist-free will debates. The differences are just as sharp. In fact, I read an article the other day that the Calvin debate transcends the covenant debate. That is, some who hold to Calvinism are dispy, and some covenant. The same exists for the free will side, some hold to dispy, and some covenant.

    Dispensationalism is also an odd cat in many ways. It lends itself in many ways to Calvinism, yet is reject by most Reformed churches. It would seem to not fit well with Arminianism, yet is popular among the Pentecostal/charismatic bunch.

    I remember a few years back John MacArthur mustered as much brass as he could and gave a lecture to a room full of Covenantal Calvinists titled, ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Dispensationalist.’ The response was strong, with some Calvinists writing online articles against him and others writing complete books against him.

    But I think MacArthur’s main point has merit to his claim.

    Dispensationalism as a system of theology holds to a view of predestination matched only by that of Calvinism, at least in so far as Israel is concerned. It teaches that all Israel will be saved. Every last one. Every descendant of Abraham. Every blood relative. No matter how they lived on earth. In the end, they will someway, somehow, be saved. Why? Because they are the elect of God. Israel.

    Calvinism and Dispensationalism are a perfect match when discussing election.

    Calvinism and Dispensationalism are also a good match when discussing ethics.

    See, Calvinism is also an odd cat in some ways. It is a biblical system to a great extent. But soon after laying it’s biblical and hermeneutical foundation it is forced to fill in the blanks and draw many unbiblical conclusions, compelled by logic. Putting aside for a moment it’s logical conclusions about God’s character (which is a devastating conclusion that most Calvinists would rather not acknowledge), Calvinism of all stripes seem to agree (as far as I am aware) that regeneration (born again) comes before faith and repentance which flatly contradicts the testimony of the scriptures (John 3:5, 16; Acts 2:28).

    In it’s fear of anything that smacks of works-based salvation it creates problems with the concept of faith (which is a verb) and repentance (another verb) or anything, really, the might hint at not being “all of grace.”

    In this regard Calvinism makes for another great bedfellow with Dispensationalism. This is because Dispensationalism teaches that the Sermon on the Mount is not a part of the gospel of Jesus, defined as salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

    Charles Ryrie, avowed Dispensationalist and Calvinist says it bluntly enough. In responding to the claim that the Sermon on the Mount is “pure gospel,” he writes:


    “Granted, the discourse contains several pointed invitations, but invitations to what? To believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again? Impossible to prove. To repent? Definitely. Who were to repent? The Jewish people to whom He was speaking. About what were they to repent? About their disobedience to God’s law. What law? The law of Moses… If the Sermon is ‘pure gospel,’ is it not presenting a works-salvation gospel?” (Dispensationalism, p. 110-111)

    That paragraph is so packed with erroneous assumptions; erroneous assumptions about Israel, about the mission of Christ, about salvation, about the gospel. But it is, or seems to be, a natural conclusion to draw if one were a Calvinist who feared anything that smacked of works based salvation.

    But what I find extremely odd about all of this talk is the fact that Pentecostals and Charismatics have jumped on board with Dispensationalism (accept, of course, the newly embraced Charismatic and Pentecostal Calvinists like C.J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris and James Smith, which is not odd at all!). Traditionally Pentecostal theology has been Wesleyan, which happens to be a branch of Arminianism. Since Arminian theology sees faith as a gracious gift of God, not a work unto salvation, and since it places faith in its proper place, prior to or simultaneous with the new birth. Since Arminian theology does not require a knee-jerk reaction or ostentatious fear of works being snuck in through the back door. And since Arminians reject the kind of election that Calvinists subscribe to. Dispensationalism and Arminianism make bad bedfellows.

    snips from I remember a few years back John MacArthur mustered as much brass as he could and gave a lecture to a room full of Covenantal Calvinists titled, ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Dispensationalist.’ The response was strong, with some Calvinists writing online articles against him and others writing complete books against him.

    But I think MacArthur’s main point has merit to his claim.

    Dispensationalism as a system of theology holds to a view of predestination matched only by that of Calvinism, at least in so far as Israel is concerned. It teaches that all Israel will be saved. Every last one. Every descendant of Abraham. Every blood relative. No matter how they lived on earth. In the end, they will someway, somehow, be saved. Why? Because they are the elect of God. Israel.

    Calvinism and Dispensationalism are a perfect match when discussing election.

    Calvinism and Dispensationalism are also a good match when discussing ethics.

    See, Calvinism is also an odd cat in some ways. It is a biblical system to a great extent. But soon after laying it’s biblical and hermeneutical foundation it is forced to fill in the blanks and draw many unbiblical conclusions, compelled by logic. Putting aside for a moment it’s logical conclusions about God’s character (which is a devastating conclusion that most Calvinists would rather not acknowledge), Calvinism of all stripes seem to agree (as far as I am aware) that regeneration (born again) comes before faith and repentance which flatly contradicts the testimony of the scriptures (John 3:5, 16; Acts 2:28).

    In it’s fear of anything that smacks of works-based salvation it creates problems with the concept of faith (which is a verb) and repentance (another verb) or anything, really, the might hint at not being “all of grace.”

    In this regard Calvinism makes for another great bedfellow with Dispensationalism. This is because Dispensationalism teaches that the Sermon on the Mount is not a part of the gospel of Jesus, defined as salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

    Charles Ryrie, avowed Dispensationalist and Calvinist says it bluntly enough. In responding to the claim that the Sermon on the Mount is “pure gospel,” he writes:


    “Granted, the discourse contains several pointed invitations, but invitations to what? To believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again? Impossible to prove. To repent? Definitely. Who were to repent? The Jewish people to whom He was speaking. About what were they to repent? About their disobedience to God’s law. What law? The law of Moses… If the Sermon is ‘pure gospel,’ is it not presenting a works-salvation gospel?” (Dispensationalism, p. 110-111)

    That paragraph is so packed with erroneous assumptions; erroneous assumptions about Israel, about the mission of Christ, about salvation, about the gospel. But it is, or seems to be, a natural conclusion to draw if one were a Calvinist who feared anything that smacked of works based salvation.

    But what I find extremely odd about all of this talk is the fact that Pentecostals and Charismatics have jumped on board with Dispensationalism (accept, of course, the newly embraced Charismatic and Pentecostal Calvinists like C.J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris and James Smith, which is not odd at all!). Traditionally Pentecostal theology has been Wesleyan, which happens to be a branch of Arminianism. Since Arminian theology sees faith as a gracious gift of God, not a work unto salvation, and since it places faith in its proper place, prior to or simultaneous with the new birth. Since Arminian theology does not require a knee-jerk reaction or ostentatious fear of works being snuck in through the back door. And since Arminians reject the kind of election that Calvinists subscribe to. Dispensationalism and Arminianism make bad bedfellows.

    http://covenantoflove.net/theology/should-every-self-respecting-calvinist-be-a-dispy/ snips from

    Because of the above examples, it would be fascinating to study famous theologians who were Reformed, both dispy and covenant, and Ariminian, who also are dispy and covenant. It seems to me from what little has been said, many Calvinists hold to covenant (not dual) theology on this board. In certain ways however, dispy and Calvinism agree.

    Benjamin, I know you said above you did not care to debate this subject, but would appreciate your views on how Calvinism and Arminianism line up with covenant and dispy.
     
    #12 saturneptune, Jul 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2013
  13. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    They may think that they are under obligation to follow the Mosaic Law, but they really aren't. The Old Covenant has passed away and the New Covenant is the administration for God's people today. (Of course God's people is the church, not a political nation.)
     
  14. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Remnant in the NT carries historic meaning for those OT saints delivered to salvation and the blessing of the New Covenant mercies to believers from the NT on.

    Well, I hold to replacement (or supersessionist) theology.

    As we look at the OT the Nation of Israel ends as a complete nation with the abandonment of its tribes and consolidation of the remaining Israelites into the tribe of Judah. I'm pretty firm in my position here. While I'm happy to talk about it, I've done significant work in defining and working out many of these terms.

    And its a fair question. One of the primary challenges to any view is the larger context of Paul's point in writing Romans, to remind the Gentile believers in Rome to be thankful for the Jewish believers in Jesus for how their historic lineage carried the message of the Messiah through the ages. In this way there isn't a dual covenantal system set up, which any kind of classical dispsenational system utlimately ends up with, instead it is the recognition that in the economic soteriology of biblical history there is a move from the chosen people of Israel to the broader inclusion and purpose of salvation for all people.

    Jesus didn't come to set up the new Israel but the true Israel.

    The Church is the true Israel in the world, taking the commission (though not inherently the promises) of being a people for all nations, going to all nations, with the means of proclamation to all nations.

    More specifically about Israel, as we look at the end of 2 Chronicles (36:15-21) we see that what ever remnant remained from the divided kindgom stage was wipe away because of their pagan ways and continued apostasy. Then we enter the Babylonian captivity, followed by the Persian oppression, Greek conquering, and Roman rule. Israel no longer exists historically, one might postulate that once we get into the divided kingdom stage the national, coporate identity begins to disappear in the Northern Kingdom. Thus, but the NT Israel exists only in the preserved remnant of Judah. Israel no longer exists, it has no claim to the land, it has only one opportunity...salvation in the Messiah.
     

Share This Page

Loading...