Dispensationalist inconsistincies with and

[joshua_b]

Dispensationalism explained:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/image-a.jpg

…oh that explains it on MANY levels

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic—

You posted a website which has an article which it presents to show “gross anti-Christian tendencies”. I didn’t see anything anti-Christian in the article. Do you?

What is the evidence for your opinion that you stated in the last sentence I quoted here? I don’t share your opinion at all, but it’s you who made the uncharitable charge so the burden of evidence lies with you. You covered a broad group of people in saying “although Dispensationalists Christians say they love the Jewish people…” so to be fair I think your evidence needs to come from a wide variety of sources. While it’s true you are entitled to hold your opinions without evidence to back them up, when you broadcast an uncharitable charge in public, evidence should be given by a man of honor to justify publicizing his opinion, should it not?

Abide,

These are not my words. I quoted the article. What is considered anti-Christian is in red.
NOTE: the following article is presented to show the gross anti-Christian activities of some prominent New Evangelical Dispensationalists.*

The author outlines what the premise of who Israel is and who children of God are. The author goes on to outline in Red…common worship…common faith…common Bible…grace available without Jesus…commonality of the Spirit…this is the authors conviction not mine…

All I did was quote the author and then I added this…

Evangelical Free Churches are dispensational. Dispensationalists in their activity approach Judaism not as Judaism but a means to an end. This article discusses what is called “anti-Christian” activity.

It is my opinion that although Dispensationalist Christians say they love the Jewish people it is with the intent other than just to love them as people but a means to an end…thoughts.

So your thoughts are this in response to reading and studying the article. You can only do what you can do.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

I wouldn’t assume that all Dispensationalists are using the Jewish people as a means to an end; and I’m not quite sure why you think they are anti-Christian. Maybe I am misunderstanding their views.

I would say that there are some common threads found in the words of Pope John Paul II in Nostra Aetate:

**Nostra Aetate
Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
(October 28 1965)
**
. . . .4. Sounding the depths of the mystery which is the Church, this sacred Council remembers the spiritual ties which link the people of the New Covenant to the stock of Abraham.

The Church of Christ acknowledges that in God’s plan of salvation the beginning of her faith and election is to be found in the patriarchs. Moses and the prophets. She professes that all Christ’s faithful, who as men of faith are sons of Abraham (cf. Gal. 3:7), are included in the same patriarch’s call and that the salvation of the Church is mystically prefigured in the exodus of God’s chosen people from the land of bondage

On this account the Church cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament by way of that people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy established the ancient covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws nourishment from that good olive tree onto which the wild olive branches of the Gentiles have been grafted (cf. Rom. 11:1724). The Church believes that Christ who is our peace has through his cross reconciled Jews and Gentiles and made them one in himself (cf. Eph. 2:1416).

Likewise, the Church keeps ever before her mind the words of the apostle Paul about his kinsmen: “they are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race according to the flesh, is the Christ” (Rom. 9:4*5), the son of the virgin Mary. She is mindful, moreover, that the apostles, the pillars on which the Church stands, are of Jewish descent, as are many of those early disciples who proclaimed the Gospel of Christ to the world.

Link: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Nostra_Aetate.html
(I used this link to a Jewish site, because you can also see the Jewish response to the efforts of Pope John Paul II: Link: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/johnpaul.html

Does the Catholic Church hold that God abandoned His Covenant with Israel and His promise to save Israel?

Isaiah 45:

17 But Israel is saved by the Lord
with everlasting salvation;
you shall not be put to shame or confounded
to all eternity.

I’m confused???

pen

Pen,

I never said that I think they are anti-Christian, the author of the article says so. See my answer to Abide…for clarity on this.

 

[CopticChristian]

Also, the article you quoted comes from a website that also says,

“The Lord’s Supper, baptism, sacraments, morality, or good deeds cannot take the place of your paying the penalty for your sins. The Lord’s Supper is simply A REMEMBRANCE and not a “saving” rite. Nor can a solemn, sacred ceremony whereby believers REMEMBER the death of Jesus Christ until He returns, save you [see 1st Corinthians 11:23-26]. Baptism, likewise, is simply a picture of the believer’s identification with Christ by faith alone [see Romans 6:1-11].”
christianbeliefs.org/articles/cnbchsav.html

pen

Pen,

So it appears that you have discovered that these thoughts come from a Reformed perspective of sorts. It is difficult to assess from where they come from however this is my read. So your thoughts on this are that although the author states it is anti-Christian from their perspective it comes from a hidden bias. I find this common with many of the so called Christian communities.

 

[CopticChristian]

Anna–

So far as I understand, extreme supersessionism is not an official Catholic doctrine. Supersessionism—to one degree or another—has arguably been the main stream of Catholic and Orthodox doctrine since the days of the ECF’s. However, as far as I understand (and I could be wrong) Catholicism has backed off from declaring a definite position with regard to supersessionism, and Catholics are free to believe it or not believe it. Some Catholics seem not to have gotten the memo about this issue, and so they’ll go after even Catholics who don’t believe in supersesssionism.

Abide,

You are incorrigible enigmatic. I have posted previously when you spoke of supersessionism and pointed out that this is a Protestant invention. You say as far as you understand indicating you either did not read, did not believe, do not recall my posting on this in answer to your bringing this up before. You admit you could be wrong and you are as far as I am aware. You flippantly and sarcastically mention a memo…this is just a form of silent anger you know. I suggest you and Anna research Supersessionism and its origins. I will post later and see what you come up with. I spoon fed you on this once before and the only way for you to understand this is to look for yourself.

Until another time…

 

[Anna_Scott]

what are called “anti-Christian” activities.

christianbeliefs.org/articles/disp&jews.html

NOTE: the following article is presented to show the gross anti-Christian activities of some prominent New Evangelical Dispensationalists*.

The Sacramento meeting featured the presentation of an “Evangelical Christian Declaration of Support for Israel and the American Jewish Community.”

. . . .So your thoughts on this are that although the author states it is anti-Christian from their perspective it comes from a hidden bias. I find this common with many of the so called Christian communities.

Coptic,
My thoughts were not that the author’s comments come from a hidden bias (though, now that you mention it, that’s possible.) I was puzzled by your choice of websites to quote on the issue.

Actually, I think I completely misunderstood you intentions for the thread.

Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Reporter and discussion generator,

Really, I’m having to do some Internet searches to better understand what Dispensationalism really is.

I read one book, years ago, by John Hagee (I"m not a fan), who claimed that the Jews will be saved through a divine revelation that Jesus is the Messiah–I’m paraphrasing and it’s been years since I read the book. My Jewish friends told me about Hagee’s support for Israel, but they were cautious about his true motives.

Also, I remember Hal Lindsy, who wrote The Late Great Planet Earth----most of his assumptions and predictions did not come true–making him a false prophet. Though I think he has a TV show. Go figure.

I’ve heard about the Left Behind series, but have never read any of the books.

Since I grew up in the Baptist Church, I was taught the Rapture and numerous prophesies about Revelation, most of which I have discovered to be false.

Anglicans do not believe in the Rapture. Since I am a relatively new Anglican, I’m still sorting through many of the false teachings acquired during my life as a Baptist.

So cut me a little slack here, Reporter and Discussion Generator.

My understanding and beliefs are still evolving—hopefully closer to truth.

pen

Pen,

Dispensationalism is an eschatologic point of view. There are 4 and are noted in time as follows.

Historic Premillinialism some of the early father adopted this view
Amellinialism adopted by the OHCAC after condemning the Historic Premillinial view.
PostMillinial view appearing in the 1600 by the Reformed
Premillinialism invented by John Nelson Darby

Dispensationalism says there is plan A and plan B. God offered the Jews the kingdom, they rejected it…plan A and therefore we now have the church age “c” a parenthesis in time. It denies the authority of the Church and also denies Postmillinialism…

It includes all the whacko thinking of the rapture and all the charts that those that think Israel/dirt is part of God’s plan is needed to bring Jesus back……in other words they are helping God….

 

[Anna_Scott]

I suggest you and Anna research Supersessionism and its origins. I will post later and see what you come up with. I spoon fed you on this once before and the only way for you to understand this is to look for yourself. . . .

Coptic,
When have you spoon fed me on this thread topic?

Do I need to do an extensive study on the different understandings of Supersessionism and Dispensationalism, before you will answer any of my questions about what you post?

Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,
When have you spoon fed me on this thread topic?

Do I need to do an extensive study on the different understandings of Supersessionism and Dispensationalism, before you will answer any of my questions about what you post?

Anna

Anna,

This is addressed to Abide. You were mentioned only in the context of looking up the topic. The sentence that follows is not addressed to you…

I suggest you and Anna research Supersessionism and its origins. I will post later and see what you come up with. I spoon fed you on this once before and the only way for you to understand this is to look for yourself.

Note the sentence prior says you and Anna and then the next sentence is I spoon fed you…not you and Anna:thumbsup:

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

This is addressed to Abide. You were mentioned only in the context of looking up the topic. The sentence that follows is not addressed to you…

Note the sentence prior says you and Anna and then the next sentence is I spoon fed you…not you and Anna:thumbsup:

O.K. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,
When have you spoon fed me on this thread topic?

Do I need to do an extensive study on the different understandings of Supersessionism and Dispensationalism, before you will answer any of my questions about what you post?

Anna

Anna,

I suggest you just search Suppresessionism and Reformed…and then search Dispenationalsim and Darby or Darbyism…they are both Protestant thought processes…

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Anna,

I suggest you just search Suppresessionism and Reformed…and then search Dispenationalsim and Darby or Darbyism…they are both Protestant thought processes…

None of the church fathers taught that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and replaced (superseded) by the New Covenant in Christ?

 

[CopticChristian]

O.K. Thanks for clarifying.

Anna,

Here is a site that you can view to understand that the OHCAC does not see itself as replacing as the Reformed formulate in Supersessionism…rather fulfilling.

catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/01/catholic-church-is-israel.html

Consider that the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages…this counters the dispensational view. It was always there, just not seen and it denies replacement since it didn’t replace anything it fulfilled something that was always there and not understood…

There are no memo’s, there may be understanding, and the tragedy is that Supersessionism is falsely ascribed to the OHCAC as abide has done.

Here is a discussion concerning Supersessionism and is Protestant in nature attributing the beliefs to the ECF however notice that the OHCAC is not named and Calvin is…

theologicalstudies.citymax.com/f/Variations_within_supersessionism_for_ETS.doc

 

[joshua_b]

None of the church fathers taught that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and replaced (superseded) by the New Covenant in Christ?

The one who wrote the book of Hebrews covered this subject fairly well.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

The one who wrote the book of Hebrews covered this subject fairly well.

Indeed. My concern here is that supersessionism is being called an idea which originated within Reformed Protestantism. This is simply inaccurate. Though various traditions within Reformed thought have accepted it, it didn’t originate there whatsoever.

 

[CopticChristian]

Indeed. My concern here is that supersessionism is being called an idea which originated within Reformed Protestantism. This is simply inaccurate. Though various traditions within Reformed thought have accepted it, it didn’t originate there whatsoever.

Popularized…accepted…propagated…

 

[CopticChristian]

None of the church fathers taught that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and replaced (superseded) by the New Covenant in Christ?

Ig,

Protestants that write reach to the past as to its origin…not me…

theologicalstudies.citymax.com/f/Variations_within_supersessionism_for_ETS.doc

While punitive supersessionism was popular in the early church, several early church fathers also espoused economic supersessionism. Melito of Sardis, for example, declared:

 

[CopticChristian]

None of the church fathers taught that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and replaced (superseded) by the New Covenant in Christ?

This author disagrees…not me…

dbts.edu/pdf/rls/Vlach_ReplacementTheology.pdf

Belief in punitive supersessionism was common in the Patristic Era.

Hippolytus (c. 205), for example, promoted punitive supersessionism when he declared: And surely you [the Jews] have been darkened in the eyes of your soul with a darkness utter and everlasting. . . .Furthermore, hear this yet more serious word: “And their back do you bend always.” This means,in order that they may be slaves to the nations, not four hundred and thirty years as in Egypt, norseventy as in Babylon, but bend them to servitude, he says, “always.”17 Origen (c. 185–254), too, espoused a form of punitive supersessionism: “And we say with confidence that they [the Jews] will never be restored to their former condition. For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind. . . .”18 Lactantius (c. 304–313) also asserted that the Jews were abandoned by God because of their disobedience:

 

[joshua_b]

Indeed. My concern here is that supersessionism is being called an idea which originated within Reformed Protestantism. This is simply inaccurate. Though various traditions within Reformed thought have accepted it, it didn’t originate there whatsoever.

I think the discussion may be breaking down here due to a misunderstanding of terms. Supersessionism is one of those “loaded” terms that is not always used according to its strict academic definition.

There may have been theologians in the early Church that believed in elements of supersessionism, but it has not been the official teaching of the Church.

I think the dispensationalists got a hold of it and started turning it into doctrine, and that is where the association really stuck.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think the discussion may be breaking down here due to a misunderstanding of terms. Supersessionism is one of those “loaded” terms that is not always used according to its strict academic definition.

There may have been theologians in the early Church that believed in elements of supersessionism, but it has not been the official teaching of the Church.

I think the dispensationalists got a hold of it and started turning it into doctrine, and that is where the association really stuck.

Supersessionism was introduced in post #14…I have explained that the Church has no official teaching on this and the post states that the OHCAC has a memo…refer to that post for this topic. I believe it is as relevant as the article for Anna has stated she knows little of Dispensationalism and for that this post has been good.

I am concerned with those that embrace Dispensationalism covertly or overtly or without care. The Evangelical Free Church has it as part of their statement of Faith and it is glossed over noting that what is most important is a relationship with Jesus and yet is part of their statement of Faith…sort of makes you wonder what a statement of Faith is worth.