SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The Fallibility of the Early Church Fathers: Why Christians Should Look to the Bible Alone....

Print Thread (PDF)

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



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2753


 Re: proudpapa

/Does Reggie Kelly also point out that pre-nicene's understanding of the millennium did not include the restoration of Israel of the flesh?

What exacltly do you mean by that question, especially the phrase "restoration of Israel after the flesh?" Can you state in more detail what you mean when you state they did not believe Israel after the flesh would be restored?

Thank you.

Justin Martyr - "We Christians are the now the true Israelitic race."

Obviously, Brother Justin had stopped reading his Bible ALONE and was forming his teaching from somewhere else. Because of Gentile ascendancy in the early church it was not uncommon after the first century for the church to refer to itself as the 12 tribes of Isarel. Problem was, it just didn't come from the Bible ALONE.


_________________
David Winter

 2017/2/17 9:36Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2256
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Two observations I would like to make.

First, I don't think it is so much that the New Testament is "binding" but the writings of the Antenicene fathers is not. It is that the New Testament is inspired and the writings of the fathers is not necessarily so. What the Holy Spirit directly inspired is infallible. What the early fathers wrote, though perhaps very useful, is not infallible.

Second, I agree with the statement that you cannot divorce the symbol from the reality, nor the reality from the symbol. But that statement does not mean that both the symbol and the reality have the same effect. I am not saved by being physically immersed in water baptism. I am saved by believing on the work of Jesus Christ, repenting of my old ways (dying), and being regenerated by His Holy Spirit. Yet there is a spiritual identification with the work of the cross and the resurrection in my life that takes place as I follow Christ in obedience in water baptism that has a profound effect upon my spiritual life. So, water baptism is not essential to salvation, but to be regenerated and then refuse to partake of the symbol of the glorious work that has been done in your life seems to me a bit odd in perhaps incongruous with what has just happened in your life.


_________________
Travis

 2017/2/17 10:05Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

RE: /// Obviously, Brother Justin had stopped reading his Bible ALONE and was forming his teaching from somewhere else.///

I Believe Brother Justins understanding is consistant with what everyone with the exception of an ambiguous quote from Ishodad of Merv taught concerning the Subject for over the first 1,000 years of recorded Church history.

Tertullian as well as Augustine taught that Esau represented "Israel of the flesh" and that Jacob represented "The Church"

ADD :

Dialogue Of Justin Philosopher And Martyr With Trypho - Justin Martyr
add : https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/bible_books/?view=book&book=36

An Answer To The Jews - Tertullian
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/bible_books/?view=book&book=60

 2017/2/17 10:17Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2753


 Re:

/Tertullian as well as Augustine taught that Esau represented "Israel of the flesh" and that Jacob represented "The Church"/

Do their famous names automatically make them correct? Augustine also taught that all married sex outside of the purpose of procreation was sinful. Besides, there is not one instance in the entire New Testament where the word Israel or Israelite is used to describe the church. If Jacob represents the Church we won't find it backed up by the New Testament.



_________________
David Winter

 2017/2/17 10:32Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

RE : /// Do their famous names automatically make them correct?///

Case in point
Of the subject of this thread.

If they where wrong on this subject than there is no reason to believe that they where correct on any subject !

add : ( I am not insinuating that they where wrong about everything just making a point that they are not authoritative on anything.)

 2017/2/17 10:35Profile









 Re:

When did the early church fathers appear on the scene in church history? Was it shortly after the 1st century?

Brother Blaine

 2017/2/17 10:40
drifter
Member



Joined: 2005/6/6
Posts: 1025
Campbell River, B.C.

 Re:

"Justin Martyr - "We Christians are the now the true Israelitic race.""

"This is what the Lord says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares the Lord. Jeremiah 31:37
"And so all Israel shall be saved" Romans 11:26
(And the whole 11th chapter of Romans)
And many, many other verses.

Justin Martyr was dead wrong.


_________________
Nigel Holland

 2017/2/17 11:10Profile









 Re:

Brothers just curious. When the church fathers come on the scene? When did the church start looking to the church fathers in place of the Bible?

Bro Blaine

 2017/2/17 11:29
savannah
Member



Joined: 2008/10/30
Posts: 2265


 Re: What saith the Scriptures




Orthodox Jewish Bible -
Gal. 6
15 For neither bris milah is anything, nor fehlt (the lacking) of bris milah, but a Bri'a Chadasha (New Creation). 16 And as many as stay in line with the Derech HaYashar (Straight Way) of these divrei torah, Shalom Hashem and Chesed Hashem be upon them, and upon the Yisroel of Hashem )[See Ro 2:28-29].

17 For the rest, let no one give me any more tzoros; for I bear in my basar the chabburot haJoshua (wounds, stripes of Joshua YESHAYEH 53:5).

18 Achim B'Moshiach, the Chen v'Chesed Hashem of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Joshua Adoneinu be with your neshamah. Omein. )[T.N. GALATIANS WAS PROBABLY WRITTEN AROUND 49 C.E. JUST AFTER RAV SHA'UL'S FIRST SHLICHUS JOURNEY. IT WAS PROBABLY WRITTEN FROM ANTIOCH IN SYRIA. THE CHUKIM OF THE TORAH ALONG WITH BRIS MILAH ARE THE COVENANT PRIVILEGES GIVEN BY HASHEM TO PRESERVE THE EXISTENCE OF YEHUDIM AS A PEOPLE (SEE AC 21:20-26;16:1-3); HOWEVER, AS INDIVIDUALS, JEWS AS WELL AS NON-JEWS MUST NOT TAKE THEIR EYES OFF SAVING FAITH'S ALL-IMPORTANT ETERNAL BRIS MILAH EXCISION OF THE UNREGENERATE " BASAR," WHICH EXCISION IS HITKHADSHUT REGENERATION AND REBIRTH IN MOSHIACH IN THE RUACH HAKODESH, THE ONLY SALVATION FOR ABRAHAM NO LESS THAN FOR ALL ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN. SEE YN 3:3 AND COL 2:11-13.]

Galatians 6:15,16

For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; instead, a new creation.

And as many as those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

 2017/2/17 11:58Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2753


 Re: New Testament use of the word Israel and Israelite(s)


New Testament Usage of the word Israel and Israelite(s)

We will turn to the word Israel or Israelite(s) as used in the New Testament. There are seventy-seven passages where these words occur in the New Testament. In nine cases these are direct quotations of Old Testament Scripture verses, and in every instance the meaning in the New Testament is precisely the same as the Old. There are sixty-eight passages beyond that which are not quotations from the Old Testament, but in all these cases the use in the New Testament agrees with that of the Old.

There remain, therefore, only two passages in the New Testament where Israel is used in a special sense. As with the word Jew, this special New Testament usage of Israel does not extend but restricts the application of the word.

The first such restricted use is found in Romans 9:6-9, where Paul explains that even though Israel did not in many instances receive or obey the word of God, this does not mean that the word of God had no effect:

“For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac shall your seed be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “at this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

Paul explains here that to be descended from Israel – that is, from Jacob – is not sufficent. To qualify for God's promised blessing, a person must also demonstrate the same faith that characterized Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, otherwise, he or she is not really entitled to the name Israel.

It should be emphasized once again that Paul is not extending the use of the word Israel to include all believers, irrespective of national origin. On the contrary, he is restricting its use to include only those descendants of Israel who are in the faith of the Messiah. It is an error to suggest that in this passage Paul uses the word Israel to describe all believers.

In other places in Romans 9, Paul uses Israel in the normal sense of all who are descended from Abraham, Issac and Jacob. In verses 3-5, for instance, he says:

'For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; ogf whom are the fathers andfrom whom, according to othe flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Here Paul identifies as Israelites those who have actually rejected the Messiah. Nevertheless he calls them his countrymen. “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for [them], he writes. In other words, Paul wished he could take their place of unbelief and rejection by God. Paul is obviously usng the name Israel or Israelites here to describe all those descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whether they are believers or unbelievers. This the normal use throughout the New Testament.

The Israel of God

The other passage in which Paul uses Israel in a restricted is Galatian 6:15-16:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avail;s anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and the Isarel of God.

Paul is talking about two kinds of people. On ther one hand are those who, without a background in circumcision or Judaism, have expereinced the new birth and are walking in the new creation. On the other hand, are Isarelites by natural descent who have remained in the faith that was the mark of their ancestors and through that have faith have embraced Jesus as Messiah, thus entering into the new covenant. Paul calls this group of people “the Israel of God.” What really matters, Paul is saying is not some religious rite but a creative act of God in the heart genertaed by the new covenant.

It is interesting, however, that the New International Version, one of te most widely used modern versionns, departs from normal translation principles at this point.Verse 16 in that version reads: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Isarel of God” (italics added). Even has been substituted for the normal and. Meaning what? That those who walk according to this rule are “the Israel of God,” whether they are Jews or Gentiles.

This substitution is based not on linguistic grounds but on theological grounds. The Greek word is kai. You would have to search the New Testament to find placed where that word is legitimately translated “even” - probably fewer than one in five hundred occurrences. Overwhelmingly, kai is translated “and.” What prompted the translators to chane and to even on this occasion? Apparently the old tradition that all believers are the “Israel of God.” This thinking has so influenced Christians that they will change the plain meaning of a text to fit in line with their theology!

This is not an attack on the NIV translators, who on the whole have produced an excellent version. It serves merely to illustrate the extent to which this “spiritual Israel” theory has penetrated the thinking of the church, producing attitudes and forms of thought which have no solid basis in the Scriptures.

There is an important reason why Paul makes a distinction in Galatians 6:15-16 between believers from Gentile and Jewish backgrounds. Gentiles, on the other hand, had become Christians by a single supernatural transformation that had taken place in their hearts . They had no previous background knowledge of the one true God. For Jews, on the othe hand, their faith in the Messiah was the culmination of a historical process that was initiated at the exodus from Egypt and then developed over many centuries through the ministry of God- appointed rulers, prophets and priests.

The spiritual condition of the Gentile world at the time of the writing of the New Testament could be compared to a field that had been left in its natural wild condition, never having been cultivated. A Gentile's conversion to Christ represented a direct intervention of God in one whose heart had not been prepared by a Jewish heritage.

The Jewish people, on the other hand, were a field that had been carefully cultivated over many centuries. For this reason, during the period of His ministry that was confined to Israel, Jesus said to His disciples: “I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered their labors” (John 4:38). The disciples were reaping in a field that had been cultivated over many centuries by a long succession of God's servants.

The terminology that Paul uses in Galatinas 6:15-16 brings out the distinction between the backgrounds of Gentile and Jewish believers. For both there was a personal encounter with the Messiah which transformed their lives. For Genties this was a intervention of God, without any historical process of preparation. But for Jews the encounter was the culmination of ahistorical process that had been going on for many centuries. It was appropriate, therefore, to describe them not just as Israel, but as the Israel of God. Their faith in the Messiah represented the fulfillment of the purpose for which God had brought Israel into being.

It must be emphasized, however, that these verses in Galatians do not by any means represent the normal use of Israel in the New Testament.


_________________
David Winter

 2017/2/18 6:46Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy