|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Daniel 9:24-27
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
...as in replacement theology,...
NOT replacement theology, CONTINUITY theology. Remember that Israel rejecting the Messiah is outside the covenant anyway....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This confusion was Augustine’s approach and has led directly to the antisemitism that led Pope Pius 12 to bank roll the Nazi party and later create rat lines for thie war criminals.
Just what is the evidence behind both of these assertions please?
[ 21. February 2018, 01:47: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jamat;
quote:
...as in replacement theology,...
NOT replacement theology, CONTINUITY theology. Remember that Israel rejecting the Messiah is outside the covenant anyway....
Continuity theology? Well that’s a new thought. Does it still ignore the covenant promises to Israel? God has no specific covenant in scripture with the church does he? The only covenant statement of the NT refers to the ‘new’ covenant at the last supper but this seems to be the basis for the Jeremiah 31 new covenant..which is specifically with the house of Israel. Paul in Romans 9-12 references the covenants as belonging to Israel of which gentile believers are partakers..not takers over.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This confusion was Augustine’s approach and has led directly to the antisemitism that led Pope Pius 12 to bank roll the Nazi party and later create rat lines for thie war criminals.
Just what is the evidence behind both of these assertions please?
If you want a snapshot, maybe look at the book by Aaron’s and Loftus called Unholy Trinity or the1994 Pimetime live documentary with Sam Donaldson called The Last Refuge.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Those sit ill with the first encyclical Pius XII (not 12 please) wrote; his Christmas message in 1942; his protests at the deportation of Jews from France; and his actions in Hungary which contributed to the cessation of the removal of Jewish people from Hungary to death camps in Poland. There are numerous other examples not mentioned in the book you refer to, which seemed to me at the time to be polemical works rather than historical.
HH could have spoken more often and more publicly than he did. OTOH, he made numerous objections of a less public nature, but to those promulgating the policies and putting them into effect.
What evidence is there of the rat lines he allegedly organised or even condoned? There's no doubt that some clergy and others in orders were involved with these, but so far there's no evidence of either action or condonation by HH. If there's been none so far, there's unlikely to be any in the future.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
What evidence is there of the rat lines he allegedly organised or even condoned
You can do your own research..for me, his protestations and his actions do not line up. History can be a bit stubborn really. The Vatican supported the Nazis and did not take a step to stop the holocaust..but then neither did lots of others.
But just imagine the effect of a strong word from Pius 12 on all those Catholic German soldiers.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Would you say that the King-Emperor at the time was George 6? I thought not.
As to your first - i've read this over the last 30 years or more. You're making a strong assertion, it's up to you to produce evidence in support.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
Continuity theology? Well that’s a new thought. Does it still ignore the covenant promises to Israel?
It may be a new name for it - but definitely not a new thought. Is Hebrews not in the Dispensationalist Bible?
The Church, comprising Jews who follow the Messiah plus Gentile converts adopted into Abraham's people, is "...a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people..." in continuity with the OT people of God since in Christ God broke down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2; 11-22). In Christ Jew and Gentile are equal in the Church which fulfils the ancient promise of blessing to 'all the families of the earth' through Abraham. Are you really happy to put asunder that which God has so emphatically joined?
Romans does indeed say that Gentiles are partakers of rather than takers over - but it also has the image of the ONE 'olive tree' into which the Gentiles are grafted, but from which, for now, disobedient Jews who reject Jesus are cut off. It is still ONE olive tree, not two.
This certainly becomes confused in Augustine and generally in the churches since the fourth century CE which attempted to create kingdoms 'of this world' for Jesus and rather inevitably saw Jews as dissenters to be persecuted. Agreed that RC attitudes to the Jews have been pretty awful and Pope Pius got it wrong - though like many even in Germany, not sure he fully realised how bad things were till after the war. Not really prepared myself to follow that tangent....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Would you say that the King-Emperor at the time was George 6? I thought not.
As to your first - i've read this over the last 30 years or more. You're making a strong assertion, it's up to you to produce evidence in support.
Gee D if that is true, you will already know anything I might say and your views will already be set in concrete so I will not waste my time. I realise many wish to sanitise Pacelli. I do not think history does so.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
. Are you really happy to put asunder that which God has so emphatically joined?
Steve, with regard to olive trees, Paul says there is one,it is Jewish and the gentiles are grafted into it. The baseline teaching of Paul is that God in Christ has eliminated barriers that kept the gentiles from fellowship with him. It does not thereby imply that the Jews are set aside in favour of the church which some ( not you) might think. But nor does it mean that both groups are subsumed into an amorphous conglomerate where Jewish identity is swallowed into a new spiritual entity called the church. To teach that makes the whole corpus of God’s promises to national Israel in the Old Testament wrong. It makes God a liar.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
What evidence is there of the rat lines he allegedly organised or even condoned
You can do your own research..for me, his protestations and his actions do not line up. History can be a bit stubborn really. The Vatican supported the Nazis and did not take a step to stop the holocaust..but then neither did lots of others.
But just imagine the effect of a strong word from Pius 12 on all those Catholic German soldiers.
Who?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Would you say that the King-Emperor at the time was George 6? I thought not.
As to your first - i've read this over the last 30 years or more. You're making a strong assertion, it's up to you to produce evidence in support.
Gee D if that is true, you will already know anything I might say and your views will already be set in concrete so I will not waste my time. I realise many wish to sanitise Pacelli. I do not think history does so.
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
What evidence is there of the rat lines he allegedly organised or even condoned
You can do your own research..for me, his protestations and his actions do not line up. History can be a bit stubborn really. The Vatican supported the Nazis and did not take a step to stop the holocaust..but then neither did lots of others.
But just imagine the effect of a strong word from Pius 12 on all those Catholic German soldiers.
I think that there is a case that Pope Pius XII equivocated like a motherfucker, to quote Biubbles from the Wire. To say that the Vatican supported the Nazis is basically to slide into lizard territory. Pius basically thought that the Nazis were wrong, but hesitated to go out on a limb. lest he condemned the Nazis and condoned the Stalinists. But his radio broadcast of 1942 was taken by the RSHA as condemning Nazi policy towards Jews and others and Pius understood and intended the broadcast in that way. I have no brief for the Papacy in the 1940s (or for that matter in the present day, very much) but to treat them as Nazis in cassocks, is to disregard the historical evidence.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
AIUI he hesitated to condemn the Nazis because it might lead to persecution of Catholics in the areas the Nazis controlled.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I will break my Lenten Ship fast to make this single observation.
How come Catholics and anyone else Jamat disagrees with have 'an agenda' but somehow Jamat himself doesn't?
Funny that ...
Oh, silly me. I forgot. He goes by the plain meaning of scripture so can't possibly have one ...
I'll get my coat ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Host hat on
Here is the text of Ephesians 2:11-22.
When you cite a Bible passage either provide a link to the text or post it directly. Some people read the boards in locations where they do not have access to a Bible.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Your concern,not mine. It is a tangent. There is evidence but as I say, you probably know already but are only playing debating games here that do not interest me.
“The Vatican was among the first to know of the genocidal programs, authoritative information was sent to the Vatican by its own diplomats in March 1942”..Michael Berenbaum ‘The World Must Know’ 1993 P156
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Jamat
EPHESIANS 2; 11-22
Steve, I already explained that in my previous post. That Christ made Jew and Gentile one in terms of their access to God is not the issue, the issue is whether Jews are now no longer a separate entity in God’s view. That is not the case, they ARE still the primary olive tree, To them belong the covenants.
Look at Gal 6:16
“And upon those who will walk by this rule,peace and mercy be upon them,and upon the Israel of God”
Those who will walk are the gentile church, the Israel of God are the Jewish church. Why else would Paul delineate them?
[ 22. February 2018, 05:36: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Jamat
EPHESIANS 2; 11-22
Steve, I already explained that in my previous post. That Christ made Jew and Gentile one in terms of their access to God is not the issue, the issue is whether Jews are now no longer a separate entity in God’s view. That is not the case, they ARE still the primary olive tree, To them belong the covenants.
Look at Gal 6:16
“And upon those who will walk by this rule,peace and mercy be upon them,and upon the Israel of God”
Those who will walk are the gentile church, the Israel of God are the Jewish church. Why else would Paul delineate them?
1)The Ephesians passage could hardly be more emphatic in stating that 'in Christ' the former two are made one, fellow citizens, of 'one family' and so on. It is not just that the separation from God is broken down, it is very much the separation of Israel from the Gentiles which is gone.
2) In Paul's image of the olive tree he makes clear that the disobedient - those who reject the Messiah -are cut off. And ipso facto forfeit covenant rights as such, though they are not entirely cast off.
3) Gal 6;16
Looks to me like Paul is using here the Hebrew device of parallelism, that "those who will walk by this rule" are the same as "the Israel of God". Not separately delineating two separate parties, but describing the one group in two different ways.
The previous verses giving 'this rule' conclude with "for neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation". Those born anew by faith are equally God's people regardless of circumcision or uncircumcision, Jewish or Gentile ethnicity.
And going back to a previous post, you referred somewhat slightingly to "...an amorphous conglomerate where Jewish identity is swallowed into a new spiritual entity called the church". Though obscured in the KJV, apparently by said King James' political wishes, the word 'church' in the NT is 'ekklesia' - that corresponds to the Hebrew 'qahal', which means 'congregation', the 'assembly' of Israel.
The 'church' is not "a new spiritual entity" but in continuity with that 'congregation' (and BTW was translated accordingly by Tyndale). Not 'amorphous', but an expanded 'congregation' including faithful Gentiles but excluding faithless ethnic Jews.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
the separation of Israel from the Gentiles which is gone.
Sorry Steve, that is untrue.
You cannot deal adequately with Galatians 6:16 that way. It clearly sets up 2 groups otherwise Paul is being nonsensical.
Regarding Ephesians 2, you fail to make a distinction between spiritual unity and physical unity. I repeat one more time..
Ephesians tells us that the barrier between the gentile and the Jew is gone.
What was that barrier? It is that Christ has taken away the exclusivity of Jewish access to God. Now all can come via Calvary. However, this does not mean that ‘God has rejected his people whom he foreknew,’ (Romans 11:2) they are still set apart for their promised destiny.
This is clear in Romans11:26-29.“The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable”
This means, that natural Israel is not permanently rejected and by implication, it means that natural Israel is NOT replaced or superseded by the church.
What then is the church? Ephesians tells us it is “an administration suitable to the fullness of the times”...it is an interregnum, an interlude to temporally meet a need until God sets up a permanent kingdom through the second coming of Christ.
What is that need? It is to allow us gentiles to come into relationship with the father through Christ’s death on Calvary.
To rightly grasp the truth of scripture, natural Israel must be kept separate from the church. Darby, Irving and Andersen are correct and no misstep occurred.
It is very hard to change one’s view once it is entrenched. And as we get older, it gets harder and harder. The only thing that can do it is the word of God and for him to penetrate our hearts with his word we must humble them.
[ 22. February 2018, 13:54: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bollocks.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Is that a theological term?
So your entrenched views on this issue aren't entrenched and becoming less flexible as you get older, Jamat but other people's are?
Those who take a different view to you aren't being humble but you are?
Is that what you are telling us?
Is this chutzpah I see before me?
Is this a Uriah Heep humility or the genuine article?
Were Darby, Irvine and Andersen being humble or presumptuous in their quirky innovation?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is that a theological term?
So your entrenched views on this issue aren't entrenched and becoming less flexible as you get older, Jamat but other people's are?
Those who take a different view to you aren't being humble but you are?
Is that what you are telling us?
Is this chutzpah I see before me?
Is this a Uriah Heep humility or the genuine article?
Were Darby, Irvine and Andersen being humble or presumptuous in their quirky innovation?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Apologies..Accidental slip of the keys above.
Nothing there that really needs a response.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Your concern,not mine. It is a tangent. There is evidence but as I say, you probably know already but are only playing debating games here that do not interest me.
“The Vatican was among the first to know of the genocidal programs, authoritative information was sent to the Vatican by its own diplomats in March 1942”..Michael Berenbaum ‘The World Must Know’ 1993 P156
That quotation from Berenbaum in no way supports any assertion that HH organised rat runs for escaping Nazis. In any event, I've already referred you to Pius XII's first encyclical, written rather well before March 1942; I've also noted the Christmas Message of 1942 which picked up these reports and suggest that you try to read it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Apologies..Accidental slip of the keys above.
Nothing there that really needs a response.
In your humble opinion?
Or from your entrenched position?
Which is it?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Your concern,not mine. It is a tangent. There is evidence but as I say, you probably know already but are only playing debating games here that do not interest me.
“The Vatican was among the first to know of the genocidal programs, authoritative information was sent to the Vatican by its own diplomats in March 1942”..Michael Berenbaum ‘The World Must Know’ 1993 P156
All Western governments knew as soon as the camps were constructed and everything that happened there as soon as it happened. That intel was secret and kept secret for 20 years. It took decades for accounts to be published. NOTHING was in the media (BBC of course) until Belsen was liberated.
They ALL knew everything at the time.
So why single out the RCC?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Is that a rhetorical question?
Jamat grew up RC and moved over to conservative evangelicalism. So it suits his personal narrative to disparage his former affiliation at every opportunity, whether justifiably or not.
Other people do the same thing in reverse or similar things in parallel.
Move along, there's nothing to see here ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Your concern,not mine. It is a tangent. There is evidence but as I say, you probably know already but are only playing debating games here that do not interest me.
“The Vatican was among the first to know of the genocidal programs, authoritative information was sent to the Vatican by its own diplomats in March 1942”..Michael Berenbaum ‘The World Must Know’ 1993 P156
That quotation from Berenbaum in no way supports any assertion that HH organised rat runs for escaping Nazis. In any event, I've already referred you to Pius XII's first encyclical, written rather well before March 1942; I've also noted the Christmas Message of 1942 which picked up these reports and suggest that you try to read it.
That the ratlines existed is reasonably well attested, as is the fact that Pius XII knew about them. The idea that the Holy Father organised them, OTOH, is completely bonkers.The thing is that you could turn up at the Vatican and complain that you were a victim of communist persecution and someone would rustle you up a plate of linguini whilst you waited for them to sort out your trip to Argentina. It was hardly the Catholic Church's finest hour, but, to be fair it had more to do with anti-Communism than anti-Semitism.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, that's the sort of thing that happened, and far more likely in Turin or Milan than Rome. Payback time for the violence the Fascists had inflicted on the Left in the early 20s. More Italians than Germans were helped this way IIRC.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
What is that need? It is to allow us gentiles to come into relationship with the father through Christ’s death on Calvary.
And do the Jews of 'natural Israel' somehow "come into relationship with the father" by any other means than Christ's death on Calvary?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Host hat on
If you want to discuss Vatican policy during the Nazi period, start a thread in Purg. This doesn't belong here.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye G. It's theological. And as for rhetorical, why do you ask?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
the separation of Israel from the Gentiles which is gone.
Sorry Steve, that is untrue.
You cannot deal adequately with Galatians 6:16 that way. It clearly sets up 2 groups otherwise Paul is being nonsensical.
It would seem rather nonsensical for Paul to say "neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" and then still divide Gentile from Jew in the next verse! It makes perfect sense to say as a parallelism "Peace and mercy on all who follow this rule, and on the Israel of God" as different descriptions of the same community.
Following through Paul's entire argument in the epistle he says, in effect, that it is those of faith who are true sons of Abraham, whether circumcised Jews or uncircumcised Gentiles (the 'Israel of God' actually as opposed to natural Israel!). If anything it is the period of the Law that Paul sees as the temporary thing! But now that period is over,
"...in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, ...slave...free, ...male...female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise"
(Gal 3; 26ff)
quote:
Regarding Ephesians 2, you fail to make a distinction between spiritual unity and physical unity. I repeat one more time..
Ephesians tells us that the barrier between the gentile and the Jew is gone.
What was that barrier? It is that Christ has taken away the exclusivity of Jewish access to God. Now all can come via Calvary. However, this does not mean that ‘God has rejected his people whom he foreknew,’ (Romans 11:2) they are still set apart for their promised destiny.
That is not what Eph 2; 11-22 actually says.
quote:
This is clear in Romans 11:26-29.“The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable”
This means, that natural Israel is not permanently rejected and by implication, it means that natural Israel is NOT replaced or superseded by the church.
As I've said, 'natural Israel' is neither 'replaced' nor 'superceded' by the church - the two bodies are, exactly as Paul says in Ephesians, one body, the church in complete continuity with the OT Jews.
The argument in Romans is not some idea that 'natural Israel' somehow has a separate destiny from those who have followed Christ. He is arguing indeed that God has not totally cast them off; but their destiny is to become Christians or to be lost. As the writer to the Hebrews puts it, "How shall (they) escape if they neglect so great a salvation?" Note that right back in the beginning of ch2 he reminds them that "by no means all who descend from Israel are Israel's...."
quote:
What then is the church? Ephesians tells us it is “an administration suitable to the fullness of the times”...it is an interregnum, an interlude to temporally meet a need until God sets up a permanent kingdom through the second coming of Christ.
That isn't an exact quote from Ephesians as far as I can find; rather than guess what you're after there can you give me a more detailed version, please?
As for a 'permanent kingdom through the second coming of Christ', well I believe that myself but I thought Dispensationalists taught only a temporary kingdom in the form of the Millennium?
quote:
What is that need? It is to allow us gentiles to come into relationship with the father through Christ’s death on Calvary.
To rightly grasp the truth of scripture, natural Israel must be kept separate from the church. Darby, Irving and Andersen are correct and no misstep occurred.
If by 'natural Israel' you mean those Jews who don't accept Jesus as Messiah, then clearly they are separate from the church - and also sadly separate from the covenant and ipso facto from God. By GRACE - ie, not as of RIGHT - God will restore Israel by leading them to faith and re-uniting them with his people the Church. (And I remind you that 'church' is not an alien word in relation to Israel - the 'ekklesia' in the LXX is precisely the 'assembly' or 'congregation' of Israel)
quote:
It is very hard to change one’s view once it is entrenched. And as we get older, it gets harder and harder. The only thing that can do it is the word of God and for him to penetrate our hearts with his word we must humble them.
Should perhaps point out that my views were not 'entrenched' one way or other till I was in my 20s; though I certainly found Dispensationalism confusing! That confusion was relieved when I learned more of the story of Irving and Darby and was able to understand where and why they made their (very definite) misstep in understanding prophecy.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
[B] makes perfect sense to say as a parallelism "Peace and mercy on all who follow this rule, and on the Israel of God" as different descriptions of the same community[B]
Steve this comes down to whether we have to make sense of what he says, exegete what he says. You are doing the former
Regarding your overall argument:
it is true that dispensationalism stands entirely on a distinction between natural Israel and the NT church. This is true despite the obvious fact that the two are, in the present aeon combined into a spiritual entity where both partake of the benefits of Christ. That is essentially what Paul teaches both in Eph 2 and Romans 9,10 and 11.
If that distinction is not allowed in one’s theology then, despite any protestation, one is committing to replacement theology as a logical extension. This thinking has inexorably led to antsemitism through the centuries.
If on the other hand, one allows for the distinction,then it becomes quite reasonable to say with Paul that natural Israel is temporarily blinded..as a nation, notwithsanding, individual Jews can be saved, until, the ‘times of the gentiles’ are fulfilled. Indeed he teaches an ultimate national salvation for them when they recognise their messiah. This is taught in Zechariah as well.
To say national Israel is no longer a factor in God’s agenda because they are now integrated into the church,is to invert things. It means that the promises to Israel,yet unfulfilled, cannot be fulfilled and thus,God is a liar. It is this charge Paul refutes..”God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew”.
It is true Darby was a flawed and autocratic individual who created great division in the church of his day. However, for me, his grasp of these things was not flawed,not a misstep. The misstep was made far earlier, by Augustine. The reformation maintained his theology in regard to eschatology and this has continued.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bollocks.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think we'd be hard-pushed to find anyone pre-Augustine who thought like Darby. At times some of the Fathers can sound somewhat Millenarian, but we don't find any of the elaborate pre-tribulation Rapture business until the 1830s.
If we are going to blame Augustine for mis-steps, then I think his eschatology would be among the least of our worries ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think we'd be hard-pushed to find anyone pre-Augustine who thought like Darby. At times some of the Fathers can sound somewhat Millenarian, but we don't find any of the elaborate pre-tribulation Rapture business until the 1830s.
None of which is news. You could say, in essence, same thing regarding the reformers. We do not find any concerted challenge to the RCC monopoly on God’s grace until the reformation.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
We do not find any concerted challenge to the RCC monopoly on God’s grace until the reformation.
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Copts, Waldensians, Hussites and others would likely disagree with you about that, and justifiably so.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
RCC monopoly! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
RCC monopoly!
What do you get if you pass “Go”?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
makes perfect sense to say as a parallelism "Peace and mercy on all who follow this rule, and on the Israel of God" as different descriptions of the same community
Steve this comes down to whether we have to make sense of what he says, exegete what he says. You are doing the former.
You were the one who spoke of my interpretation as 'nonsensical' I think.... It does, I also think, help if our exegesis does make sense.
My exegesis took account of that slightly odd phrasing 'the Israel of God' - that is, in Christ Gentiles are 'co-heirs' of the promises making ONE people, all Israel though some natural and some 'adopted'.
quote:
Regarding your overall argument:
it is true that dispensationalism stands entirely on a distinction between natural Israel and the NT church. This is true despite the obvious fact that the two are, in the present aeon combined into a spiritual entity where both partake of the benefits of Christ. That is essentially what Paul teaches both in Eph 2 and Romans 9,10 and 11.
I also in fact make a distinction between 'natural Israel' and 'the Church'. It is the distinction between 'The Church' as the assembly of God's faithful people, Jew and Gentile made one in Christ, and a 'natural Israel' of those Jews who reject God's Messiah and are faithless and so outside the covenant and its promises.
For the faithful the promises are not just fulfilled but 'hyper-fulfilled', in this world or the new heavens and new earth, as is explained at length in Hebrews. For the currently faithless there is salvation only in faith in Christ and they are, without that faith, simply not entitled to the promises anyway.
quote:
If that distinction is not allowed in one’s theology then, despite any protestation, one is committing to replacement theology as a logical extension. This thinking has inexorably led to antsemitism through the centuries.
I repeat CONTINUITY THEOLOGY. The Church, Jew and Gentile combined in faith, is in continuity with OT Israel. Those Jews who reject Jesus cut themselves off from the 'Qahal/Ekklesia/Congregation' of God's people and ipso facto have no covenant rights or promises to rely upon, though God may be gracious despite their failure.
What has led to 'anti-semitism' was the idea of setting up 'Christian states' in which Jews as dissenters would inevitably be seen as traitors to be persecuted. Avoid that step and Christians and Jews will both be dissenters, without power to persecute each other, and seeking instead to persuade with love.
quote:
If on the other hand, one allows for the distinction,then it becomes quite reasonable to say with Paul that natural Israel is temporarily blinded..as a nation, notwithstanding, individual Jews can be saved, until, the ‘times of the gentiles’ are fulfilled. Indeed he teaches an ultimate national salvation for them when they recognise their messiah. This is taught in Zechariah as well.
Dispensationalism not necessary to believe that. IF by 'natural Israel' you mean those who have rejected the Messiah Jesus, yes they are temporarily blinded, yes in the meantime individuals may be saved, and yes somewhere towards the end of the present age the nation as a whole will finally, by the grace of God rather than by covenant right, see the error of rejecting Jesus and will be saved by faith in Christ.
quote:
To say national Israel is no longer a factor in God’s agenda because they are now integrated into the church,is to invert things. It means that the promises to Israel,yet unfulfilled, cannot be fulfilled and thus,God is a liar. It is this charge Paul refutes..”God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew”.
Are you sure Hebrews hasn't somehow been left out of Dispensationalist Bibles?
I'm a bit puzzled what these promises are that won't be fulfilled; and also it would seem an empty fulfilment unless those receiving the fulfilment are also eternally saved....
quote:
It is true Darby was a flawed and autocratic individual who created great division in the church of his day. However, for me, his grasp of these things was not flawed,not a misstep. The misstep was made far earlier, by Augustine. The reformation maintained his theology in regard to eschatology and this has continued.
While I do indeed feel that this separation of 'natural Israel' is a misstep, it is a minor one compared to the big misstep which resulted in the whole rapture etc scheme.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I get the impression, Steven, that Christian anti-Semitism predates Constantine and the 'Christian state's thing, so your neat catch-all schema of the source of all ills doesn't quite fit ... any more than Jamat's narrow reductionism in boiling everything down to some kind of progression from the RCC to the Reformers and from thence to 19th century eschatological speculations.
It may make for a neatly manageable set of index cards, but as ever, real life is a lot more messy and complex than that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And simpler. Once the apophenia is cut out.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Steve Langton:
quote:
My exegesis took account of that slightly odd phrasing 'the Israel of God' - that is, in Christ Gentiles are 'co-heirs' of the promises making ONE people, all Israel though some natural and some 'adopted
The Israel of God in Gal 6:16 signified saved Jews...and in Christ, all people can be one people in a spiritual sense, certainly, because all who accept Christ as saviour are members of the true church. However, YOUR interpretation or eisigesis is dictated by your assumption that Jew and Gentile actually have the same destiny. In fact Paul obviously separates saved Gentiles and saved Jews. That is what the text says. Yet both, in this aeon, are one people. In a future era, it is a different story.
quote:
‘natural Israel' of those Jews who reject God's Messiah and are faithless and so outside the covenant and its promises.
OK , but God is faithful to his promises and the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional. The fact that nationally speaking they are blinded does not mean that they have lost their destiny as a nation. They are temporarily excluded from the benefits of the covenant but the covenant is not thereby nullified. This is very plain in Romans 11:28.
quote:
What has led to 'anti-semitism' was the idea of setting up 'Christian states' in which Jews as dissenters
Well if you blame the Jews for the death of Christ, that is where it begins.
quote:
.. a bit puzzled what these promises are that won't be fulfilled; and also it would seem an empty fulfilment unless those receiving the fulfilment are also eternally saved
There is a national salvation of Israel promised in scripture. There is no puzzle. Many covenant promises in scripture have no obvious fulfilment yet therefore they must be future. There are many but Is 59:20-60:14 is representative. It is a clear promise to national Israel once they have repented and recognised Jesus as their messiah that they will be the centre of earthly government in God’s kingdom, probably the millennium reign.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I get the impression, Steven, that Christian anti-Semitism predates Constantine and the 'Christian state's thing, so your neat catch-all schema of the source of all ills doesn't quite fit ...
'Steve' please, or 'Stephen' if you insist on being formal....
There would no doubt be some racial anti-Semitism among Gentile converts - but bear in mind that in the first few centuries they were essentially joining a Jewish sect with an emphatically Jewish Messiah and original leaders such as Peter and Paul. If you were seriously racially anti-Semitic could you do that?
Thus at least in the first couple of centuries, what is going on is not racial disagreement but religious disagreement. The disagreement is between Christians who, of whatever ethnicity, accepted Jesus the Jewish Messiah as Lord, and on the other hand Jews who had rejected Jesus as a heretic and who, bear in mind, were often active persecutors of Christians. It superficially appears 'racist' simply because Judaism is so much the religion of one race/ethnic group. A similar confusion could arise in other cases where a religion is very much identified with one race - eg Hinduism with Indians or Shinto with Japanese.
So long as Christianity remained itself a dissenting group within society, and very conscious of its Jewish roots, racial anti-Semitism would be restrained. But in the national church created after Constantine, with a whole Empire of nominal Christians and Jews as a minority dissenting group, anti-Jewish feeling would be heightened and become increasingly racist.
I agree it's not absolutely 'black-and-white' - but I think my basic point still stands.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Jamat, given the imminent changes on the Ship, I think we'll have to follow this up in a new thread on the new Ship....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Except that the 2nd century Epistle of Barnabas could be regarded as fairly anti-Semitic too ...
Ok, so it's target is 'Judaising' Christians, which was an issue the apostle Paul had in the previous century of course.
But I'm not sure your neat distinction between religious and ethnic arguments/issues applied quite so discernibly or clearly back in those days.
I'm not trying to excuse the marginalisation and persecution of Jews in post-Constantinian, post-Theodocian Christendom. I'm simply suggesting that things aren't as clear-cut as some of us here like to make out.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
[QB]But I'm not sure your neat distinction between religious and ethnic arguments/issues applied quite so discernibly or clearly back in those days.[/B]
Actually I'm pretty sure myself it wouldn't be all that neat a distinction. To start with, the Jews of that time were pretty much pro-Jewish racists themselves. Over the years the balance changed from Jews using Roman authority to persecute Christians themselves to Jews themselves in a difficult position after the Jewish wars, and by the mid-C2 there were few Jewish converts.
And if you think about it all kinds of other complications over the years....
But certainly NT Christianity is not racially anti-Semitic and realistically can't be, given the Jewish origins of Christianity.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
