Isa. 59 & Rom. 11 ("and thus all Israel will be saved" in context)

Deleted, I'll try and be nice.

 

asterisktom:

Well done:thumbs:

peace to youraying:

 

The above is what is called in laymen's terms "the nub".

As I have mentined Tom in past postings, I'm a dispensationalist in the process of expanding my horizons and as such studying Riddlebarger. In his book A case for Amillennialsm, page 27 he writes "Dispensationalism is clearly on the wane in academic circles". Of course Riddlebarger is no friend of preterism either but the ratio of ink devoted to slaying the giant (dispies) vs. preterists is fairly large. So, I'm giving you credit for being ahead with respect to the academic curve.

I enjoy your posts so please don't take me seriously as I'm just an armchair theologian wannabe. But let me say this, I have spent more time and effort by far with Riddlebarger than Ryrie and the more I read, the less inspired I become. I understand you have a difference of opinion with Riddlebarger but I think you have more in common with him than with Chafer as the nub illustrates.

Take care,

Thomas

 

Well said Sir.

Realizing that we are talking apples and oranges, I'm beginning to mentally come to the conclusion that Riddlebarger's eschatology is really no eschatology at all. His book is a poor choice for someone looking to learn about Amillinnialism because he is basically writing to people who already are amil. And here I am, just a simple laymen occupying a pew. It is true that I have a secular B.S. degree and I took one (1) class at Philidelphia College of Bible in the early 1990s. But I'm not anything like what a knowledgable person should be for having been a born again Christian for almost 35 years.

True confession, I have experienced periods lasting several years that I didn't read one verse of the Bible. The Lord though pulls me back into his loving arms. From the beginning, even before I accepted the Lord as my Savior and even before I had any concept of doctrine, I had this personal need to know the basis of the Christian faith. One day, before I knew what the gospel was or even knew a christian personally, I got into my car and went to a Christian bookstore and bought a Bible. This was the beginning of my on again/off again quest to understand what God really expects from me.

So, I study theology on my own as I don't know anyone (even my pastor whom I've known and loved for over 20 years) who spends as much time trying to understand the various schools of thought. Not that I've come very far in this quest. But I cannot accept as an answer to a question, an answer such as "historical protestant teaching has always held..." or "the reformers believed....". No, God gave us a book and He wants us to study it and He wouldn't have given us this book only to confuse us.

In times past, when God acted, it was a spectacular event. When the Red Sea parted, when the walls of Jericho fell, when the flood came, it was spectacular. And these events had different meaning to folks based on their standing before God. So, when The Lord Jesus returns for his own, it will be spectacular, just as the Bible says.

And that Sir, is my opinion on the matter.

Take care,
Tom

 

May I recommend 2 books that shook my world, very similar to the world you are now in. This book changed me radically as soon as I began reading it: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0915815354/?tag=baptis04-20

It not only taught me eschatology from a different perspective it taught me how to interpret the Bible. Something our good SBC pastors never seem to get around to doing.

Once I absorbed that book, I then took the next logical step which is found here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0938855263/?tag=baptis04-20

These are two cornerstone books for me. I promise you you will not be bored reading these two gems. In fact, I think in the revised edition of Who is this Babylon, he takes on Riddlebarger's Amillinnialism. Food for thought.


Actually he takes on Riddlebarger in this revised book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979933765/?tag=baptis04-20

 

Hi Grasshopper,

I appreciate your taking the time to respond. From reading the reviews on Amazon I get the impression that the books you recommend are preterest. Correct me if I'm wrong. What I want to do is crack one nut at a time and that is Amillennialism. My complaints with Riddlebarger preaching to the choir isn't as much of a problem for me personally as I have quite a few of the books in his footnotes and can read the source material in context for myself. I started reading this book 7 weeks ago and still have about 2o pages to go. It is slow and tedious work to comprehend the discussion and fully digest everything. When I'm done, hopefully by the end of the week, I'm going to have to re-read it to fill-in some of the blanks. It is an enlightning book but not for the reasons I immagine the author envisioned.

What Riddlebarger does though is takes a concept like the "already-not yet" doctrine, explains it in a few short paragraphs which fails to convince me, then he builds his entire case based on agreement with this baseline doctrine.

To me there is a difference between being concise and accesssable and fluffing over an important doctrine. Without going into specifics, he does what he accuses his opponents of, that is playing fast and loose with the facts and he misrepresents his opponents theology as a matter of practice. Some of what he writes is in my opinion borderline unchristian. And you would think that due to his chosen subject, there would be some discussion about the dispensationalist view on the tribulation. There really isn't much on this.

Riddlebarger, like many non-dispensationalist take the Tim LaHays of the world to task for their end times views. While I have not read the left behind books, I do know that they are fictional accounts and yet they are being treated as theology.

I do have the Tim LaHay Prophecy Study Bible and if LaHay was a date setter, one would think that this would be the place for him to do it. He does not, and in a discussion about the modern state of Israel, a time-line of the Zionist movement is given but there is no commitment to the concept that the present state of Israel is "it". There are no ( i think) refrences or footnotes citing LaHay or Jenkins and maybe one or two to Lindsey in a book with 1000s of footnotes, what does that tell you?

I hope that I'm not coming across as a shill for a doctrine. I'm truly trying to understand Amill and in time will address preterism. I'm also looking into the early church fathers as my main question has more to do with the question of "true Israel" and not the 1000 years.

Have a great day,
Tom

 

If you enjoy listening, here is Riddlebarger teaching on A-Mill:

http://www.monergism.com/directory/...chatology/Riddlebarger-on-Amillennialism-101/

 

Tom,
To try to get back on topic (sorry for taking this thread on a joy-ride). This is what you are asking me to believe, I add words in italics to make a point:

Acts 1:4-12

4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave spiritual Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

6 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to spiritual Israel?"

7 He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in spiritual Jerusalem, and in all spiritual Judea and spiritual Samaria, and to the ends of the spiritual earth."

9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.

11 "Men of spiritual Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

12 Then they returned to spiritual Jerusalem from the hill called the spiritual Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the spiritual city.

In my opinion, if you are going to apply spiritual to some things, why not to everything, would not consistency demand it? Is this correct? No? If the deciples were standing on a literal mound of olives [vs. 12] in a literal city [vs.4] in a literal country of Israel [vs.4], then why not a literal kingdom [vs.6]?

Thanks,
Thomas

 

In this verse the apostle Paul clearly connects the future conversion of the Jews with the expectation of the Second Coming of Christ.

 

IMO, the Holy Spirit makes a clear distinction between spiritual and physical Israel throughout the scriptures in the simple distinction that there is NEVER any condemnation on spiritual Israel, but physical Israel is cursed in every way. Period. Only comfort to spiritual Israel.

 

Go ahead Brother, make your case. You have my complete attention.

 

Well Brother, I really don't know how to begin to make my case; maybe start with the book of Isaiah. I don't believe it to be a coincidence that Isaiah is 66 chapters long which coincides with the 66 books of the the Bible, and that the 40th chapter begins with 'Comfort ye, comfort ye my people', as opposed to the previous 39 chapters which are filled with doom and gloom.

 

Tom I'm sure can give a more scholarly response than this, but here are a few thoughts.

There is a clear usage of type/anti-type found in scriptures. Physical events, peoples, activities point to future spiritual realities. That is what the Old Covenant was, a physical type of future spiritual realities. Law written on stone points to Law written on the heart, circumcision of the flesh points to circumcision of the heart, etc......(see Hebrews). So also the nation of Israel typifies the spiritual fulfillment that is the Church.

Paul in Galations 4 tells us that the physical Jerusalem was representative of the Old Covenant and in bondage under the Law. However he shows us that there is a New Jerusalem that is "the mother of us all". That heavenly Jerusalem is the new covenant aka Mt. Zion. You have come to Mt Zion: http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-hebrews-12-22-24.htm


You asked this:

Could not the same question be asked of those on the other side? Are we to say this is not spiritual water:

Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Joh 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

Is this a different water than what is found in Revelation:

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

This water comes from a river that flows from the Throne of God. (Rev 22:1)

The Throne of God found in the New Jerusalem:

Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

This New Jerusalem is the Church:

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

It seems as the Old transfered into the New so also the nature changed from physical to spiritual.

Paul shows us this by identifying who is a descendant of Abraham:

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We are Israel.

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

You said this:

1st, Daniel tells us when the Kingdom was to come. Secondly how would one not see a physical Kingdom?

Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

 

I do understand my Brother your situation. One of the complaints I have with Dr. Riddlebbarger is he starts out by informing the novice reader that everyone sees their theology through a lens of conditioning (my paraphrase). What he doesn't say is that everyone doesn't include himself.

I like a theological debate just as much as anyone else. While dispensationalism isn't perfect, it tries to be consistant as much as possible and literal when possible. At the end of the day though it's what the Bible teaches, not a systematic theology book.

It is hard to change views held for years, i know. And it isn't easy to be the object of ridicule and it's easy to ridicule dispensationalist. What I don't care for personally is the person, like Riddlebarger who states from the start that he used to be a dispensationalist as if that has some extra bamm. No, take in the arguements, weigh all the data and make a decision. If a better arguement comes along, modify as necessary. I'm finally at the point in my life that I don't feel the need to "win" every arguement as long as I'm not loosing the arguement I have with myself.

While I think there isn't enough emphasis on theology these days, the real issue is are confessing you need and are you trusting in the shed blood of the only Son of God?

Grasshopper, I will read your post later.

Thaks,
Thomas

 

I'm sorry Thomas, I've never read Dr. Riddlebbarger, so I can't relate with you on this. I may expand my horizons though, but if I do, I think I'll begin with Sproul.

Amen Brother, be true to yourself (in your case it'll most likely be the Spirit).

 

What bothers me more as a pre-miller more than what you stated above is exactly "how" some of these people supposedly "held" to their former position of dispensationalism in the first place. When I dig deeper, I sometimes find out that they really had no hermeneutical foundation for it at all. They had just read "books". Swayed by whatever "winds" were blowing behind them from reading those "books", they accumulate teachers who match their currently favored pre-suppositions. Of course, the same can be said of others who hold other eschatological positions also.

It wasn't this way with me. My foundational hermeneutics were founded and grounded as pre-mill from the starting gate over 35 years ago. To me it was simple (as God says He uses to confound the world). There was an Israel in the Old Testament who were given Promises. God is either done with them or He isn't. He will either fulfill those promises to that "Israel" or He won't. For me, adhering to the literal/historical/grammatical method of interpretation and contexts founded on that hermeneutic have never failed me. Anything else associated with pre-mil (dispensationalism, "rapture" timing, etc.) is a matter of constant testing and revisiting by me and will continue to be so.

You sound like you are seeking that "peace" like I was. I hope you find it. I have.

 

And this Sir brings us back to my post #5, the "nub".