SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Israel, the Church and Eschatology

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Israel, the Church and Eschatology

docs,

Continuiing our disussion:

The question I think we are going to grapple with is whether God has two people and two covenants and two plans and some promises are found outside of Christ or does He just have one people and one covenant.

Some good parameters for our discussion and some housekeeping that invariably needs to be done as they are obviously "elephants in the room" is that we need to discuss controversial subjects. I watched another Stephen Sizer, (still looking for elements of anti-semitism) and I have taken from his presentation some things that we will eventually have to talk about.

"We need to talk about whether misguided Christians have perpetuated the conflict in Israel." (I would add that we also need to repudiate racism against the Jewish people which going a little further, Stephen also says).

""And we need to be honest about our "baggage" (presuppositions). We all have baggage which are things that we have been taught by our spiritual leaders, or books or any number of sources. For instance if you think the world is going to end soon in an apocalyptic war, then you won't be too interested in a peace process and that kind of goes against us as Christians being "peacemakers.""

""Was the coming of Jesus the fulfillment or the postponement of the promises God made to Abraham. This question alone admittedly does divide us into two groups. Lets seek to understand why. Some see Jesus as the fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures while others see the coming of Jesus and the birth of the Church as the postponement of those promises. John Nelson Darby said "the Church was a parenthesis to God's continuing purposes on earth.""

My comment: Christians and Christian leaders in the past have brought harm to the Jews and Christians and Christian leaders today are bringing harm to non-Jews. Seems that misguided Christians have brought or are presently bringing harm to both sides in the conflict. For this reason alone even if I did not list any others, we need to have this discussion so that we can be instrumental in bringing change within our own church.

"Let us also agree that racism is a sin and anti-semitism must be repudiated unequivocally. We must repudiate and distance ourselves from the extreme elements on both sides that have engaged in these two things if we are going to be able to have a debate in Christian love."

"And we cannot confuse apples with oranges. Anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-semitism. Criticizing a political system as racist is not racist. Judaism is a religious belief, Israel is a sovereign nation, Zionism is a political system. These are not synonymous. I respect Judaism, I repudiate anti-semitism, I encourage inter-faith dialog, I defend Israel's right to exist within borders that the international community recognizes."

docs or anyone else that would like to dialog in peace?
Do you have any problems with these topics/parameters and would you like to add more? Of course this is not to say that the conversation cannot be dynamic and that we cannot add to it as we go along.

I would also add and I think I have the support of those who do want to participate in this discussion that if anyone else cannot abide this topic for whatever reason and your only impulse is to hurl "flaming missiles" so as to censure us, please exercise self-control.

Let's try to believe the best about each other and not group one another in "extreme camps."

 2015/11/2 8:52









 Re: The One New Man and Covenants Made with Israel - Part II

Let me just reiterate because I may not have made myself clear, that I think everyone wants this to primarily be a Biblical discussion and it is not intended to be political though we may lightly touch other aspects because it is just the nature of this discussion. I think and hope everyone can agree that everyone supports Israel's right to exist so I want to diffuse any potential misunderstanding on that. God obviously allowed the nation of Israel to be created in the land and it will be interesting to hear different ideas why people think God has allowed this. We already know that one viewpoint is that it is the fulfillment of Scripture.

 2015/11/2 9:12









 Re:

A good place to start (from discussion with docs in another thread).

What does "God isn't done with Israel, yet", mean?

docs, correct me if I am wrong, but are you referring to this Scripture?

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.

 2015/11/2 9:24
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2156


 Re: A good place to start

A good place to start (from discussion with docs in another thread).

What does "God isn't done with Israel, yet", mean?

docs, correct me if I am wrong, but are you referring to this Scripture?

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.

Doc: Work is beckoning this morning bro so I need to be on. But I'll try and get back to you. I am finding these discussions helpful and I have no problem with anyone personally even though this subject tends toward high emotion.

Rom 11:1 is part of what I base my view on but what glory will God get if Israel is left dispersed and in exile in the nations? The scriptures regarding this exile are taken as literal so why aren't the scriptures portraying a literal return one day (with a heart circumcised in Christ) also taken as literal? Moses prophesied of tribulation and distress to last for Israel even into the last days. God's dealings with Israel are not over.


_________________
David Winter

 2015/11/2 9:34Profile









 Re:

Work is beckoning to me, also. Till next time.

 2015/11/2 9:53
Oracio
Member



Joined: 2007/6/26
Posts: 2094
Whittier CA USA

 Re:

Since I don't have the time right now to work on that piece I had mentioned, I thought I'd share this message by Tim Conway in case anyone is interested. I thought he did a great job at expounding on the crucial Ephesians passage dealing with the Jew/Gentile New Man. No pressure though, I know it's not the same as reading a personal post.

http://illbehonest.com/one-new-man-in-the-place-of-the-two-part-4

For those who cannot get YouTube vids, there is also a tab for the mp3 audio on that page.


_________________
Oracio

 2015/11/2 22:38Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2156


 Re: Oracio, you didn't tell me Tim Conway was funny

I finally found him. You didn't tell me was a hoot!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfTyEtVIe84&list=RDbfTyEtVIe84#t=O


_________________
David Winter

 2015/11/3 8:09Profile









 Re:

moving on...

Here is an great example of an excellent debate with Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Don Preston, regarding Israel and the Church and Eschatology. (I decided to rename the thread as this name seems more appropriate).

Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Don Preston Debate Israel and Eschatology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1fP1xB1gsM

Very insightful comments below the video, also by the listeners (on both sides of the debate).

Also, good example on how they maintained the debate according to hermeneutical principles, only. I definitely learned something in that area, too. :-)

 2015/11/3 12:36
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


  docs

docs wrote :
///I finally found him. You didn't tell me was a hoot!///


I can not download the youtube so I do not know if you where reffering to Tim Conway the comedian if so he is different from Tim Conway the preacher,

Tim Conway the preacher is kind of running in the same circle as Paul Washer, John Piper etc.

I am able to get the MP3 thank you Oracio.

 2015/11/3 12:46Profile









 Re: Hyperpreterist Don Preston and resurrection denying

Another really bad apple to quote from:

Hyperpreterist Don Preston has for a long time attempted to portray his views within the Evangelical Christian umbrella. However, he understands that his Christological view bares nothing in common with doctrine of Christ Jesus as defined by Scripture and espoused by Evangelical Christianity. Thus, Mr. Preston has not been upfront regarding his doctrine of Christ and normally if brought up seeks to change to a different issue often arguing that there is no relevance with his eschatological view. As a result of Mr. Preston’s less than forthright representation of his views which seems to be carefully word in public, he was invited to a forum of Evangelical Christians held at Criswell College discussing the major millennial views representing the modern Christian Church.

Mr. Preston represented the invitation, as, “the preterist movement has caused the scholarly world to pay attention and to realize that Covenant Eschatology has, to cite Andrew Perriman, “a rightful place at the table” in serious discussions on eschatology, and specifically with regard to the preterist view of “The Millennium”.” However, nothing could have been further from the truth.

When Criswell College learned of Mr. Preston’s Christological views and what he had written above, they requested Mr. Preston remove his claim (see above) which falsely represented the situation. Criswell College advised Mr. Preston that he should retract what he had stated and place the following on his website: “Criswell College does not believe preterism is an academically or biblically defensible position or that it deserves a place at the table. We do recognize that preterism has a following and we believe those followers deserve to know the error of the doctrine with which they are being misled.”

Mr. Preston did amend his claim, but the manner in which he represented Criswell’s position in lieu of his prior claim demonstrates his underhandedness. Mr. Preston’s amendment read, “Make no mistake, we are not suggesting that Criswell Bible College, or any of its faculty are in agreement with or sympathizes with the full preterist view of eschatology.”

No kidding Dishonest Don, everyone knows Evangelical Christians “disagree” with “full” aka hyperpreterism. The point, however, is that the academic institution didn’t believe the view was due a place at the Evangelical table and that was not why Preston was invited in the first place. And had Mr. Preston been forthright about his heretical views regarding the doctrine of Christ Jesus he would have never been invited in the first place. Furthermore, why wasn’t Mr. Preston forthright with the College’s position and with what they requested to be posted? With that, due to the invitation, Criswell was faced with two choices, cancel Mr. Preston’s invite at a very late date or expose him for the heretic he in fact is. Criswell chose the latter path and was successful in securing Mr. Preston’s confession as to his heretical position regarding Christ Jesus to the horror of those attending the debate who are Christians.

Mr. Preston has finally gone on record! Mr. Preston claims Christ Jesus no longer possesses the body of His birth and resurrection. Mr. Preston attempts to downplay the implication of his heresy by qualifying his position as a “physical” body, but this is simply more intellectual dishonesty on his part. Webster’s 1830 definition of the term “body” is, “The frame of an animal; the material substance of an animal, in distinction from the living principle of beasts and soul of man”, “Matter, as opposed to spirit”, “any extended solid substance”. The fact is human bodies are “physical”. Inherent within the concept of a human body is the concept of “physical”. Thus when Dr. Kenneth Gentry points out Paul in, Col 2:8, 9, explains Christ Jesus has His body, Paul is referring to the fact Christ Jesus possesses the human body of His birth and resurrection. If Christ Jesus no longer has the body of His birth and resurrection, He is no longer human.

The implication of Mr. Preston’s view, whether he wants to admit it or not is that the historical Christ Jesus no longer exists. In other words, according to Mr. Preston, Christ Jesus temporally made use of a human body, the incarnation was only temporary! This, of course is essentially the same position held by the second century docetics, “Doceticism refers to the doctrine that the manhood of Christ was apparent not real, that as in some Greek myths, a divine being was dressed up as a man in order to communicate revelations, but was not really involved in the human state…” 1 According to Dr. Roger E. Olson, “…sophisticated doectics held a dualistic Christology that strongly distinguished between “Christ”, a heavenly, spiritual redeemer and “Jesus,” the human taken over by the Christ and used as his instrument for a time on earth.” 2 Indeed, this is the Christ of Mr. Preston, a Christ who no longer possesses the body of His birth and resurrection. The fact of the matter is Mr. Preston is advocating a “sophisticated” heretical view which dates back to the second century. The logical implication is that Christ is no longer the God-man. That is damnable heresy and Criswell knew it and called Preston on it.

Orthodox Evangelical Christianity owes Criswell College a hearty thank you. Criswell College was able to do something no one else within the community has been able to do. That is, they were able to get Mr. Don Preston to go on record regarding his heretical docetic doctrine of Christ, which lies at the core of his heretical “Gnostic like” teachings. Mr. Preston is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to mislead people by skirting the issue hiding the fact he denies a core tenet of Evangelical Christianity as proclaimed by Scripture. Mr. Preston is not entitled to a position at the Evangelical table as he denies a core tenet of Christianity as defined by Scripture. Preston, the word is out about your theology. You are not within the Evangelical and orthodox camp, you are outside of the Church of Jesus Christ. ..."

 2015/11/3 12:50





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy