Amillennialism and Dispensationalism are both Anti-Semitic in their core ideology

[Diggindeeper]

All of those old covs were shadows of the ultimate restoration under a new cov.All nations would flow into it creating one new man.

It was suggested to me the other day that i was being antisemitic because i call the Messiah Jesus and not Yeshua....wow

I guess we could just call him 'Christ'.....

[ScottJohnson]

I am not saying that all amils are antisemitic, but the position that Israel has been replaced by the church leaves lots of room to displace the Jews.

Mmmmm. I'm kinda thinking straw man argument. Gentiles have joined with the Jews as partakers of God's eternal blessings in Christ. No one's been replaced.

If ethnic Jews and Jewish proselytes wish to practice Judaism, they're free to do so, but without the sacrificial rite, then honestly, what purpose does it serve.

....and to be clear, it wasn't the amillennialists that took that away from them.

Heb 8:6-13
(6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
(8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
(9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
(10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
(12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

This new covenant was made with Israel and Judah, God in His unfathomable wisdom thought it good that the nations join in on this one.

[sheina maidle]

It was suggested to me the other day that i was being antisemitic because i call the Messiah Jesus and not Yeshua....wow

When I was attending a Messianic congregation about 15 or so years ago, I actually got chastised for saying "Jesus Christ" instead of "Yeshua HaMashiach". It was about that time that the Lord began to lead me out of Messianic Judaism.

[sheina maidle]

I guess we could just call him 'Christ'.....

"Christ" is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning anointed, and refers to Jesus as the Messiah promised in O.T. Scripture.

[ScottJohnson]

Actually, I wonder why EVEN a Jewish person would want all that OLD stuff reinstated! I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. (Not even on a witch of a mother-in-law!)

I was just thinking that very same thing. You put the bondage of the law and the freedom we have in Christ side by side and it would seem that the freedom in Christ would win out every time. I never understood why anyone would allow themselves to be subject to any form of religious legalism.

And allow me to give you a hearty amen for your posts on this thread. You can't see it but right now I'm standing in front of my computer giving you a standing 'o'.

[Diggindeeper]

Well thank you, Scott. I admit its kind of long. And because its longer than 2 or 3 sentences, most probably won't even read them. Which is sad.

You can't put all that in 3 sentences, and I took my time to hunt scriptures and explain, but....it is longer than say...a third grade level. So, everyone won't read it........

[ScottJohnson]

Well thank you, Scott. I admit its kind of long. And because its longer than 2 or 3 sentences, most probably won't even read them. Which is sad.

You can't put all that in 3 sentences, and I took my time to hunt scriptures and explain, but....it is longer than say...a third grade level. So, everyone won't read it........

I read it and saved it for future references so it wasn't all for naught Judy.

[the rookie]

I am responding to this part simply because ... that's what people call me...

I love it! It's been a long time since I've mixed it up in here - I feel rusty

While I do believe the Bible teaches God has yet a future purpose with a national Israel, a nation; I have not found any scritpure that says God ever commanded followers of Christ to be busy bringing that purpose about.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that. I'm not postmillennial or anything near that viewpoint - which places the timing of the Second Coming in the hands of believers related to the Christianization of the earth. But in terms of participating / partnering with God related to the return of Christ, Acts 3:19-21 is a really clear passage from Peter delineating "our part" and "God's part" - by which, of course, God does the vast majority of the heavy lifting and we repent. The other relevant passage as it relates to "our part" (Gentile believers) related to Israel's destiny is the oft-debated "provocation of Israel to jealousy" passage in Romans 11, unto the "fullness of Israel".

So while I do believe that God is not finished with what I only know to call a 'national' Israel. I fully believe also that my concern is not to be trying to accomplishing His purposes for Him.

No. But classical dispensationalism as it has been popularly preached in America often has a pro-Zionist, anti-evangelism spin on it that translates practically to deep friendship with governmental, atheistic Jewish leaders in the land while shunning the messianic congregations (Jewish believers). And, as I said, there are the other problems that have emerged from dispensationalist ideas related to dual-covenant theory (Jews saved via Abrahamic Covenant / Gentiles saved via New Covenant). Dispensationalism has also historically shunned the Sermon on the Mount as applying to Gentile Christians as well, though many are moving away from that idea.

I do not believe He commanded Christians to do so. He commanded those in Christ Jesus to proclaim the Gospel. I simply don't know where God ever told Christians to attempt to MAKE His purposes come about-in regards to any future prophecies regarding a nation-Israel. He told believers in Christ Jesus to preach the Message of eternal life.

He didn't, yet the propping up of the State of Israel by dispensationalists has been knit to prophetic reasons and personal gain or blessing.

Personally speaking. I find the concept difficult, helping a group of people, that I am supposed to care about, rush on into the Day of the Lord- the time of Jacobs trouble.

"Woe to the man who desires the Day of the Lord ...... for it will be darkness"

Agreed, in fact, I find it subtly anti-Semitic.

[the rookie]

OK, I have no anger, but maybe a need to change my eschatological label, since I'm not wishing to be anti-semitic in any way.

I'm now simply a: non-dispensational, pessimistic postmillennialist.
(pessimistic because I believe things get worse, not utopianly better prior to Christ's Return)

Brother, I miss doing this with you!

And I love your term - very precise. Because the false optimism of true postmillennial dominionist viewpoints is very unhelpful.

I believe God's covenant people, the true Israel, will inherit all things, and will be the recipient of all fulfilled promises and covenants previously made, in the exact and perfect intent that the Lord plans for them to be fulfilled in; regardless of how clear or muddy we may or may not understand that to be.

I agree. And, happily, we are grafted into that covenant alongside of those who are "true Israel", or authentically Jewish - without becoming a kind of "spiritual Israel", which of course is where we part ways.

[divaD]

[QUOTE=Diggindeeper;2720228]Well thank you, Scott. I admit its kind of long. And because its longer than 2 or 3 sentences, most probably won't even read them. Which is sad.

/QUOTE]


I've read all your posts in this thread so far. I never found any of them to be too lengthy to read. I would know, since I simply don't bother reading real lengthy posts much of the time, no matter who writes them. I simply don't have the kind of focus I once had. Usually when I try reading something real lengthy, I tend to forget what I read before I even get half way thru it. I'm probably the only person in the world affected this way, but I can't help it. It seems to be out of my control. So when I see something real lengthy, I find it to be overwhelming, and not enlightening. But that's because of some of the reasons I already stated.

[the rookie]

Finally get the opportunity to rip into the Rookie and I just happened to be in a good mood. sigh

Seriously Scott, this makes me practically nostalgic

I appreciate the delicate way you presented this, but a covenant is generally an agreement between two or more parties. If one party does not fulfill their obligations from the agreement, they render said covenant, null and void.

A few problems -

God knew in advance that they would be unfaithful. Therefore, as it relates to the Abrahamic Covenant, "both parties" were technically God. As it relates to the Mosaic Covenant, God prophesied both Israel's future faithfulness and future unfaithfulness as it related to the only conditional covenant of the "big four". He foreknew that they would be unfaithful; yet also foretold the day of their faithfulness - which are Paul's big points in Romans 11. As it relates to the Davidic Covenant - well, we both know how that turned out (David was faithful, God was faithful); but then we have to debate the nature of the kingdom and the throne as it relates to fulfillment, which tends to go in circles.

With that said, I'm not aware of any covenants between God and His people, where the people maintained steller adherence to the language of the covenant. I'm also not aware of any covenants initiated by God, in which the end result was unconditional, would that not be a "promise"?

Depends. Paul seems to differentiate between "covenants" and "promises" - but says that the all pertain to ethnic Israel, and not Gentile believers as it relates to honor amongst the brethren and recognition of God's pattern and leadership in Romans 9.

One last point. To the best of my knowledge, the a-millennial doctrine acknowledges the fact that our faith, Christianity, was founded by a Jewish carpenter under divine influence, in a Jewish society, utilizing a rag tag group of Jewish men and a hand full of other Jewish people to spread the word about this Jewish carpenter's new 'way'.

That don't sound anti-Semitic.

The "new way" for those Jewish believers didn't look that much different than the "old way" in some ways; in other ways, radically different. But as it relates to the future, changing the terms God established related to promises and covenants that "pertain" to the Jews can be, yes, anti-Semitic.

[the rookie]

It is kind of you to assume the role of peacekeeper, but there is little in the way of facts to support your statements.

See, it's those kinds of statements that caused me to jump back in and wrestle with y'all. I may be a simpleton, but I have a few facts in my back pocket somewhere Ask David Taylor - he and I differ when it comes to eschatology (and that's about it), but he would be the first to say that I have some facts too...

You propose an interesting hypothesis, but I believe that in order to support your presumptions you would have to demonstrate that (1) Dispensationalists are not major players in the evangelizing of the Jews and (2) that Dispensationalists have the 'intent' of bringing Israel into tribulation.

No. I simply have to be able to examine dispensational ideas and their logical conclusions as they have been developed as it relates to what is now called "hyper-dispensationalism" (the "hyper" was added when some godly dispensationalists went, "uh oh" privately ); dispensational practice as it relates to modern Israel; dispensational behavior within Israel; and streams of dispensational preaching that express those kinds of ideas. I have to do it carefully because we have a strict policy of no-preacher-bashing in here - and besides, I happen to really like and respect many of the main dispensational preachers. I can also examine dual-covenant theory as well as it was developed in the overtly Zionistic culture of dispensational preaching.

Premillennial Messianic Jewish groups lead the way in evangelizing the Jews. The only serious anti-semitic charge that has been leveled against these groups is that they ARE proselyting the Jews. I am a part of one of these communities, and we have a few Jewish (unbelievers) people who visit our meetings.

Of course, and the difficult question to answer is, who is the exception and who is the rule? I'd be happy to let you pick which mainstream dispensational preachers you want to represent your viewpoints as the "rule" and overlook the exceptions - but the problem is that the exceptions are driving evangelical dispensationalism today (not as much as they used to, of course) and are on record saying some unhelpful things.

In contrast, the first amillennialist was arguably St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), In his writings, Confessions, 12.14, he says:"How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!"

I am not saying that all amils are antisemitic, but the position that Israel has been replaced by the church leaves lots of room to displace the Jews.

I will leave off from going into more detail, but these would be my primary refutations to your argument.

Sure. But my point is that both sides have weaknesses in their arguments that are either too pro-Zion or too anti-Zion. Therefore, guys like you should dial down in discussions.

[sheina maidle]

I love it! It's been a long time since I've mixed it up in here - I feel rusty



I'm not sure what you mean when you say that. I'm not postmillennial or anything near that viewpoint - which places the timing of the Second Coming in the hands of believers related to the Christianization of the earth. But in terms of participating / partnering with God related to the return of Christ, Acts 3:19-21 is a really clear passage from Peter delineating "our part" and "God's part" - by which, of course, God does the vast majority of the heavy lifting and we repent. The other relevant passage as it relates to "our part" (Gentile believers) related to Israel's destiny is the oft-debated "provocation of Israel to jealousy" passage in Romans 11, unto the "fullness of Israel".



No. But classical dispensationalism as it has been popularly preached in America often has a pro-Zionist, anti-evangelism spin on it that translates practically to deep friendship with governmental, atheistic Jewish leaders in the land while shunning the messianic congregations (Jewish believers). And, as I said, there are the other problems that have emerged from dispensationalist ideas related to dual-covenant theory (Jews saved via Abrahamic Covenant / Gentiles saved via New Covenant). Dispensationalism has also historically shunned the Sermon on the Mount as applying to Gentile Christians as well, though many are moving away from that idea.



He didn't, yet the propping up of the State of Israel by dispensationalists has been knit to prophetic reasons and personal gain or blessing.



Agreed, in fact, I find it subtly anti-Semitic.

I've been dispensational since 1975, I've been involved in Messianic Judaism for 15 years and came out because of the error of Galatianism. It is only recently that I have heard anything about Dispensationalism being anti-semetic. It was only when John Hagee's "Dual Covenant" theology became popular that I became aware of any hint of anti-semetism in Dispensational theology. Being a born again Jew, I would never align myself with a group of Christians who were anti-semetic. That being said, I believe your post is leaning heavily toward that "Dual Covenant" theology of John Hagee. I found an excellent article about this:

http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm

Dual Covenant theology is definitely anti-semetic because there is no emphasis to evangelize the Jewish people.

[Diggindeeper]

I've been dispensational since 1975, I've been involved in Messianic Judaism for 15 years and came out because of the error of Galatianism. It is only recently that I have heard anything about Dispensationalism being anti-semetic. It was only when John Hagee's "Dual Covenant" theology became popular that I became aware of any hint of anti-semetism in Dispensational theology. Being a born again Jew, I would never align myself with a group of Christians who were anti-semetic. That being said, I believe your post is leaning heavily toward that "Dual Covenant" theology of John Hagee. I found an excellent article about this:

http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm

John Hagee's teaching is definitely anti-semetic, even though he teaches a love for the nation of Israel, he has no desire to evangelize the Jewish people.

How can one love the Jewish people and at the same time, not want to evangelize them? Now that, I really don't get. I look forward to the time coming when I can meet and be with all those heroes and heroines of the faith.

[the rookie]

I've been dispensational since 1975, I've been involved in Messianic Judaism for 15 years and came out because of the error of Galatianism. It is only recently that I have heard anything about Dispensationalism being anti-semetic. It was only when John Hagee's "Dual Covenant" theology became popular that I became aware of any hint of anti-semetism in Dispensational theology. Being a born again Jew, I would never align myself with a group of Christians who were anti-semetic. That being said, I believe your post is leaning heavily toward that "Dual Covenant" theology of John Hagee. I found an excellent article about this:

http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm

John Hagee's teaching is definitely anti-semetic, even though he teaches a love for the nation of Israel, he has no desire to evangelize the Jewish people.

Well aware of the shortcomings of Pastor Hagee's ideas. And, I'm good friends with his old youth pastor - Pastor Hagee genuinely loves the Jewish people and would be shocked by what I am saying right now. But his loyalty to the system (without realizing it) isn't helpful in examining the weaknesses and consequences of the ideas he is espousing. The system produced the ideas as a logical conclusion. The ideas are anti-Semitic in nature - the person isn't, and doesn't see himself that way; but ideas have consequences - good ones and bad ones.