another reformed/dispy thread...I have some questions.

[bfrank]

I'll be the first to admit I am relatively weak in eschatology and I have been in dispensational circles for the better part of my sanctified life. I have been studying this much more lately...writings, works of the Reformers etc.

That being said, I see some common themes...

- both camps accuse the other of a faulty hermeneutic
- both camps accuse the other of eisogesis
- both camps pick and choose what should be literal and what should be figurative or allegory, based on their hermeneutic
- both camps have extremes and moderates
- both camps put much emphasis in picking apart the others arguments, thus claiming expertise in both sides...which may or may not be the case.
- both camps are overwhelmingly convinced that their camp is right...
- I see strengths and weaknesses of the arguments of both camps

I'm sure there are others but that is what comes to mind off the top of my head. It is quite obvious both cannot be right...and I know the consensus on this board, that is the main reason I am here.

I honestly have no opinion at this present time. I've prayed that the Lord would "wipe the slate clean" as it were, that I might be teachable without bias.

If the Reformed camp is truly the one with the least error, what do we do with Israel and all that is going on and has been going on? I am not familiar with the Reformed positon on this issue. Or is there a position at all?

Similarly, what do we do with the RCC and all its snares and entanglements?

In speaking of extremes, experience dictates that where the Arminian screams..."free grace, free will" and falls into error, the Calvinist likewise screams "doctrine, confessions, creeds" and becomes enslaved to it.

Make no mistake, I am not anti-doctrine. I realize the catholic Church is weak because of the absence of doctrine.

I am curious however about Israel and the RCC.

[armourbearer]

Originally posted by bfrank
If the Reformed camp is truly the one with the least error, what do we do with Israel and all that is going on and has been going on? I am not familiar with the Reformed positon on this issue. Or is there a position at all?

There are three strands, all based on different interpretations of "all Israel" in Rom. 11.

1. Israel is national Israel, and a latter day national turning to Christ is expected. This is traditional. Some go so far as to include a return to national boundaries, but this is not common, and perhaps led to a revival of 19th century chiliasm.

2. Israel is national Israel, and they have been coming to Christ through the centuries. This is revised traditional, but does not really account for the hardening in part and its taking away.

3. Israel is the church. This is in keeping with the idealism of amillennial interpretation, but does not really do justice to the fact that Israel is considered ethnically throughout chapters 9-11 of Romans.

The best commentary I have read on Romans 11 is John Murray's, and I don't believe his exegesis and support for position 1 can be overturned.

[Wannabee]

Good challenge Burt. And I like Matthew's answer.

One quick comment on "If the Reformed camp is truly the one with the least error, what do we do with Israel and all that is going on and has been going on?." If you are speaking of modern events in relation to Israel then I would say that there is no opinion. Most dispies would disagree and claim that Israel's occupation of the Promised Land is in accord with the fulfillment of Phrophecy and a precursor to the tribulation, or at least the rapture. However, this is not the only position held by dispies. Some would claim that, while Israel does have a future (as Matthew pointed out), the current situation in Israel has no clear biblical significance. MacArthur recently made some statements along these lines in reaction to a flurry of questions when tensions recently excalated in Israel.

For the amil the point is moot. From their perspective the church is Israel so there is no ethnic significance to Israel at all, so modern events are simply that, with no biblical significance at all.

Blessings

[Edited on 8-22-2006 by Wannabee]

[armourbearer]

The downside for the premillennialist is that he is bound to look for a political fulfilment of Israel's future, and hence the evangelical means which the apostle posits throughout Rom. 9-11 are irrelevant. The optimistic amillennialist and postmillennialist is content to use the evangelical means, knowing that ethnic Israel's future is one of participation in the spiritual kingdom of Christ with the Gentiles.

Better to join the apostle Paul and espouse realised millennialism which acknowledges rest in Christ is the true land of Canaan, and the temple has been rebuilt amongst those who worship in the Name of Christ, and offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Him.

BTW, Burnie is my location, not my name.

[Cheshire Cat]

Yes, I am eschatologically confused.... I don't hold to any positon at the moment...

[jaybird0827]

Have you ever read G. I. Williamson's Study Guide to the Confession of Faith? He includes an excellent (IMO) article in his explanation of WCF ch XXXIII, Of the Last Judgment, of the various positions.

When I studied this chapter for the first time many years ago, it was the first time I began to get my head straight about eschatology. Eventually I arrived at the conclusion that my elders call an "optimistic amilennialism."

I don't think that you should stop there, but I think it's one of the best starts that you can get.

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray is a helpful book which shows the postmillennial eschatology of the Puritans and how that led them to pray for the conversion of the Jews as promised in Romans 10-11.

Loraine Boettner's The Millennium compares the major eschatological views well, and William Symington's Messiah the Prince and J. Marcellus Kik's An Eschatology of Victory demonstrates that God reigns even now and is subduing nations and people unto himself (1 Cor. 15.25; Heb. 2.8; Ps. 22.27-28; Ps. 110; et al.).

The Westminster Larger Catechism helps us to understand what is meant by the dominion of Christ the King that now is and what is signified by the petition "thy kingdom come":

Q191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
A191: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come,)[1] acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan,[2] we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed,[3] the gospel propagated throughout the world,[4] the Jews called,[5] the fulness of the Gentiles brought in;[6] the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances,[7] purged from corruption,[8] countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:[9] that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted:[10] that Christ would rule in our hearts here,[11] and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:[12] and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.[13]

1. Matt. 6:10
2. Eph. 2:2-3
3. Psa. 67:1, 18; Rev. 12:10-11
4. II Thess. 3:1
5. Rom. 10:1
6. John 17:9, 20; Rom. 11:25-26; Psa. ch. 67
7. Matt. 9:38; II Thess. 3:1
8. Mal. 1:11; Zeph. 3:9
9. I Tim. 2:1-2
10. Acts 4:29-30; Eph. 6:18-20; Rom. 15:29-30, 32; II Thess. 1:11; 2:16-17
11. Eph. 3:14-20
12. Rev. 22:20
13. Isa. 64:1-2; Rev. 4:8-11

[Edited on 8-21-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
Yes, I am eschatologically confused.... I don't hold to any positon at the moment...

At least you are honest and not subscribing to some discipline by ignorant default! Praise God.

[Cheshire Cat]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

At least you are honest and not subscribing to some discipline by ignorant default! Praise God.

Yes, that was a couple of weeks ago.

[JohnV]

A Dispensationalist once asked me what I thought of the "Israel situation" in relation to Scripture. My answer was to ask him in return if he had any knowledge of Israel returning, not to the promised land so much as returning to God religiously. Were they accepting Jesus as Saviour as a nation? Even as significant sections of the nation? Or was part of Israel called "Christian" because it was Western and capitalistic in basis (politically Christian) more than it was truly (religiously) Christian? I told him that I wasn't interested in his prophecy conundrums until I saw a connection with a return to God, not just to the holy land.

I don't know if I was right about it. Yes, I lean towards Amillennialism, but I don't confine Romans 9-11 to referring only to the NT church; in context it is referring predominantly to the Jewish people. But the Bible is also clear that we are one nation, not two, when it comes to being God's people. So I interpret it, yes, to ethnic Israel, but also coming into union with the NT church. I've never understood the Amillennnial position differently.

Simply referring to the nation Israel as returning to Palestine doesn't fill the meaning of Scripture for me. ITs not enough.

As to the Roman Catholic Church, well it couldn't be a false church unless it could be duly accredited as a church. What we see is all the warnings against apostasy being fleshed out through the RCC; it is not some nebulous situation that we can arbitrarily accuse people with, but we have bona fide examples of it happening in the Church. Not only has it taken hold in some sectors in the Church, but has taken root in significant and even major parts in the Church.

It isn't good enough, that is, to simply define the RCC as a false church. That doesn't really help us as a church to ward off those apostasies which attack the Church when she is weakest in those areas. It isn't good enough simply to accuse others. We have to be on guard ourselves, and not stand on our abilities to see apostasies elsewhere.

I don't agree with the Rick Warrens of this world, but I don't think for one minute that my position as a Christian is a basis to be sarcastic about their positions. In the same way, I see too much reinvention of the RCC apostasy in our own circles to be poking an accusing finger at our former mother church. Just because its been hundreds of years since the Reformation does not mean that we have to cease praying for them as the Reformers (our spiritual forefathers) prayed for them. She is a living example of the Biblical warnings of departures from the faith. But so are the Rick Warrens.

The RCC is simply a NT split Israel: still part of the covenant by heritage, but living apart from it through departure from doctrinal bindings. If we are looking for Israel to return in faith, then we should also be looking for the RCC to be returning in faith in the same way. I don't see these as separate, as the Dispensationalists do: the prophecied return likely won't have the two as exclusive of each other, but inclusive of each other. No matter what people say, the Bible says that the way into the covenant has been opened to us who are not Jews; so it can also be opened up again in the last days to those who are Jews. It can also be opened up again to the descendents of those who have fallen away.

God will visit our sin upon us to the third and fourth generation, but keeps covenant to the thousandth generation of those who love Him. Since Christ's time the world has generated about eighty or so generations. I'm not saying that we need to go to a thousand before prophecy is fulfilled, but that God is able to call to Him those whom He has elected, even if they are Jews or Catholics. So it should not suprise us to see such things being prophecied in the Bible.

I may be way out in left field here, but that's how I look at it.

[turmeric]

I like it, I like it!

[gregbed]

Here is a excellent article from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society on Romans 11 by Ben Merkle. It's titled "Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel". He puts forth a serious challenge to a lot of the presuppositions people (especially ones like me) bring to this text. JETS for free, the internet at its best.
I feel like Hans Solo firing up the Millennial Falcon everytime I try to paste a clip, but here goes:

http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/...9-721_JETS.pdf

[Wannabee]

Originally posted by armourbearer
BTW, Burnie is my location, not my name.

Hehe.... sorry.... ahem....

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by armourbearer

There are three strands, all based on different interpretations of "all Israel" in Rom. 11.

1. Israel is national Israel, and a latter day national turning to Christ is expected. This is traditional. Some go so far as to include a return to national boundaries, but this is not common, and perhaps led to a revival of 19th century chiliasm.

2. Israel is national Israel, and they have been coming to Christ through the centuries. This is revised traditional, but does not really account for the hardening in part and its taking away.

3. Israel is the church. This is in keeping with the idealism of amillennial interpretation, but does not really do justice to the fact that Israel is considered ethnically throughout chapters 9-11 of Romans.

The best commentary I have read on Romans 11 is John Murray's, and I don't believe his exegesis and support for position 1 can be overturned.

Does anyone know of a commentary that affirms "all Israel" as being national or racial that also accounts for the decidedly non-biblical nature of modern "Israel", and which also deals with the "progress" of Judaism over the last 2000 years?

When one affirms that "all Israel" will be saved what are they really saying? Does this mean that a majority of those who call themselves "Jews" will be converted to Christ?

As an example, there are many converts to Judaism running around today. It seems to be a popular thing in some circles. Does a convert to modern Judaism, or the descendent of a convert to Judaism, get included in Paul's statement regarding "all Israel"?

I admit I struggle with any notion of "national Israel" after almost 2000 years since the end of the old covenant.

[JohnV]

Originally posted by armourbearer
The optimistic amillennialist and postmillennialist is content to use the evangelical means, knowing that ethnic Israel's future is one of participation in the spiritual kingdom of Christ with the Gentiles.

Matthew of Burnie:

Can you tell me what an "optimistic amillennialist" is? I know its supposed to refer only to a view of future history, but it still doesn't make sense to me. The adjective is not needed at all. Its not like there can be such a thing as a pessimistic ammillennialism, is it? That's what I really cannot comprehend, such a thing as a pessimistic Christian eschatology of whatever stipe: it doesn't exist, indeed, it cannot exist.

[armourbearer]

JohnV,

I think the "optimistic" tag became necessary because of the tendency in the more popular amils, e.g. Hendriksen, to present a bleak view of this world's future history. Proper amil, according to Hoekema, should teach mutual intensification of good and evil as the age progresses, but most amils only teach the intensification of evil, and the good part is confined to preaching the gospel to all nations. An optimistic amil is able to speak of "the Christianisation of the world," as Geerhardus Vos did.

[JohnV]

Whether or not there are a Hendriksen and Hoekema shouldn't make a difference. If evil intensifies, how is that pessimistic? If the gospel is no longer acceptable to people's ears, how is that pessimistic? Wasn't that also the case in Jesus' time? And wasn't the hope of all Israel an "optimistic" one that never happened? If Jesus had laid out for His disciples exactly what He was going to do wouldn't that have been regarded as pessimistic too, compared to the optimistic view prevailing at the time?

Do you see what I am getting at? The words, "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are pejorative terms added by people. It is an off-handed slight against others' views and beliefs, without actually calling it wrong. If someone like Hendriksen thinks that evil will intensify, does that mean that he is being pessimistic about the eschatological hope in any way at all, even historically? I don't think so. At least I can't see it. Some people have glorious hopes, and they might like to add those hopes to Biblical prophecy. But if I don't share those hopes, that doesn't mean that I'm pessimistic by Biblical standards? I mean, its not like any one has any fear that evil will win out in the end. All such predictions only mean that evil will be revealed, not that it will be in any way victorious.

[armourbearer]

I think there is such a thing as a pessimistic view according to biblical standards. You can press the "will He find faith" out of context. You can also describe the intensification of evil too intricately, and not equally show what the intensification of good means. A separatist worldview can develop which sees the institutions of society as radically evil, and therefore to be divided from, thus nullifying the good which Christianity can bring to them.

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by JohnV

Matthew of Burnie:

Can you tell me what an "optimistic amillennialist" is? I know its supposed to refer only to a view of future history, but it still doesn't make sense to me. The adjective is not needed at all. Its not like there can be such a thing as a pessimistic ammillennialism, is it? That's what I really cannot comprehend, such a thing as a pessimistic Christian eschatology of whatever stipe: it doesn't exist, indeed, it cannot exist.

My understanding of the term is that your garden variety amil believes in a steady state between good and evil, neither gaining the upper hand in history. Things don't get any better or worse over time.

Your optimistic amil believes in the progress of the gospel over and against evil. Things will get better. However, the difference between an optimistic amil and a postmil is that the amil does not believe his optimistic view is required by Scripture.

At least that is how one optimistic amil explained it to me.

[kceaster]

I'm with everyone else who talks about the spiritual return of Israel. And to be honest, I'm not sure that ethnic Israel is even connected to Israel of Jesus' day. The Jews of today can't even sacrifice to atone for their sins. I don't see how that makes them God's people any more than a muslim.

I think that they are neo-jews, just as some day there may be neo-christians (or possibly, there already are). But they do not follow the laws of Moses. They can't if they have no way of atoning for sins. So this return to Palestine by an ethnic group has no bearing on Revelations at all, if there is no longer a physical nation. I do not think the Bible would speak of a people who were not following the Scriptures of the OT. So, even though I can't be sure about this, I think the tribulation fits squarely in the past and not the future. Or, perhaps the whole perfect 7 years is played out over many years. In any case, unless Jews are turning to Christ, and that includes the ones in Palestine right now, then they can't be the Jews of the Bible. Just because they call themselves Jews and live where other Jews have lived, does not make them the people talked about in Revelation.

I think the biggest problem with Dispensationalism is that they are looking with 21st eyes on a puzzle that has long since been solved or they are using their knowledge of current events as a framework over the Scriptures instead of the other way around. It is one thing to say that the Jews will be converted. But if these people in Palestine are not really Jewish, then we are getting all worked up about something that will never prove to be true.

Catholics of the year 999/1000 proved that you cannot use your knowledge of current events to prove Scripture. They all thought that time would end then. But obviously 1000 years does not mean what they thought it meant. Same thing with Dispensationlists and anything having to do with end times.

In Christ,

KC

[JohnV]

Originally posted by armourbearer
I think there is such a thing as a pessimistic view according to biblical standards. You can press the "will He find faith" out of context. You can also describe the intensification of evil too intricately, and not equally show what the intensification of good means. A separatist worldview can develop which sees the institutions of society as radically evil, and therefore to be divided from, thus nullifying the good which Christianity can bring to them.

What you're talking about is people's opinions. The millennial view is only a part of the whole eschatological picture, and cannot be normative to it. Speaking of a "pessimistic Amillennialism" is like speaking of an unnecessary necessity: its calling it a pessimistic optimism.

I've only ever seen the term used as pejorative term. I still cannot imagine why any view of the millennium would be deemed pessimistic. Yes, I can see it being charged to those whose faith does not really show an assurance of salvation; but that has everything to do with faith itself, and only reflects in the millennial view.

It seems to me that the idea of a pessimistic or optimistic description of the Amillennial view comes out of the prevailing "cart before the horse" theology we see so much of today: theologies standing squarely upon theoretics instead of revelation. (I'm thinking of Reconstructionism in the Reformed camp particularly, with its five-point platform all standing upon speculative theories, on non-doctrinal tenets: i.e., Presuppositionalism, Postmillennialism, Theonomy, Dominion Theology, and Calvinistic soteriology. Notice especially the last one, that it is not called Biblical soteriology. The Reformed Church would never acknowledge the former term, for as soon as she does she no longer is Reformed.) I do not see it coming out of a study of Amillennialism itself. Even the gloomiest future outlook does not entail a pessimistic view of the future for the faithful. It only has to do with this world, but not with our citizenship in the City of God.

Peter speaks of this world being reserved for fire; is that pessimistic? He says that the earth and all the works that are upon the earth will be burned up; is that pessimistic? I can see that it doesn't share the same aspirations as some people, but that doesn't make Peter's views pessimistic. That is nothing more than the fallacy of supposedly taking the higher ground, namely, optimism is better than pessimism, therefore the optimists are right. This has nothing to do with revelation on the subject of the end times, but is only imposition of men's theories upon it.

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by JohnV

It seems to me that the idea of a pessimistic or optimistic description of the Amillennial view comes out of the prevailing "cart before the horse" theology we see so much of today: theologies standing squarely upon theoretics instead of revelation. (I'm thinking of Reconstructionism in the Reformed camp particularly, with its five-point platform all standing upon speculative theories, on non-doctrinal tenets: i.e., Presuppositionalism, Postmillennialism, Theonomy, Dominion Theology, and Calvinistic soteriology. Notice especially the last one, that it is not called Biblical soteriology. ...

Just for the record, the five points are:
1. Calvinistic Soteriology
2. Covenant Theology
3. Presuppositional Apologetics
4. Postmillennialism
5. Theonomic Ethics

By your logic wouldn't we be forced to refers to these areas as:
1. Biblical Soteriology
2. Biblical Theology
3. Biblical Apologetics
4. Biblical Eschatology
5. Biblical Ethics

Gets a bit nondescript.

Not trying to change the subject or argue Reconstruction, but I'm not sure I follow the labeling argument as applied to amillennialism.

[JohnV]

Kevin:

I agree with you that the Bible's concern is the return of Israel to God, not merely to the land of promise. I agree that the return to the land of promise without a return to God is not significant. But I think that if you remove the distinction altogether that it makes Romans 9-11 meaningless. The distinction is still there, and is still in place. During the Apostles' time they were talking about the Gentiles being ingrafted into the covenant through Christ; that we were allowed to join the Jews as God's people. In our time we would be talking about the Jews joining the Christians as God's people, or of returning to the status of God's people through faith. Not joining or rejoining, but returning. It cannot be like it was in the OT, except that what was intended by the OT finds its fulfillment in the NT. And the Jews will come to that point where they will be returning. They cannot accept the OT without accepting the NT, because its all one revelation, not two. The returning of the Jews cannot be seen as anything else but a returning to God's ways; and God made His ways known more fully through Christ. So the Jews too will be saved by grace through faith just as we are. That was God's intent from the start.

So the Jews returning to OT times is not what is talked about in Romans either. It is neither a return to the promised land nor a return to the sacrifices. It is a return to God that is meant. After that it may entail a return to the promised land, but Hebrews says that if God had intended Palestine to be the place of rest, then He would not have promised a Sabbath beyond that.

And that means an acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Salvation is by no other means. Not even for the Jews. But they are still the specific race of people chosen by God as His own. That cannot be nullified by men. And it seems that Romans means to honour that distinction.

[tcalbrecht]

Turretin was amillennial in his eschatology, having been described as "more of a gloomy amillennialist." Turretin was convinced that the true believers were to be a small and frequently assailed lot; thus he "cultivated an inner piety and the hope that Christ would soon return to deliver His people from all their miseries." However this type of pessimism was unknown to Hodge, and so, "one of the most striking turnabouts --illustrative of the radically different theological worlds or Turretin and Hodge-- occurs in Princeton's (and Hodge's) departure from Turretin's eschatological pessimism."

THEONOMIC POSTMILLENNIALISM: A Continuation Of The Princeton Tradition?

[JohnV]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Just for the record, the five points are:
1. Calvinistic Soteriology
2. Covenant Theology
3. Presuppositional Apologetics
4. Postmillennialism
5. Theonomic Ethics

By your logic wouldn't we be forced to refers to these areas as:
1. Biblical Soteriology
2. Biblical Theology
3. Biblical Apologetics
4. Biblical Eschatology
5. Biblical Ethics

Gets a bit nondescript.

Not trying to change the subject or argue Reconstruction, but I'm not sure I follow the labeling argument as applied to amillennialism.

That misses the point, Tom. Biblical Eschatology, for example, here means Biblical Postmillennialism, for Amillennialism and Premillennialism are also Biblical. What I was referring to was that the foundations of the view are speculative, based upon man's theories and interpretations, but not upon solid truths. No matter how solidly you build the house, if you build it on sand its standing is tenuous. This five-point Reconstructionism has openly confessed that its stucture is the thing that holds it together, and that its foundations are all on speculative grounds. The millennium and apologetics are theoretical: they are not doctrinal. I was referrin to a theology based upon non-doctrinal tenets. It does not matter whether you put the word "Biblical" in front of them, because we all know that the Bible is not direct on these matters, and that these do not come out of good and necessary inference. The Church has declared that these are matters of adiaphora, not points of orthodoxy. So to build a theology upon them is "cart before the horse" theology.

That was the point I was making: the idea of a "pessimistic" Amillennialism is a putting of people's personal aspirations before Biblical revelation, imposing them upon the things revealed by God. The aura of the term seems to imply that an optimistic millennial view trumps a pessimistic millennial view. I don't see where either has any bearing on the facts of the case, either good or bad.

[Ivan]

Turretin was amillennial in his eschatology, having been described as "more of a gloomy amillennialist." Turretin was convinced that the true believers were to be a small and frequently assailed lot; thus he "cultivated an inner piety and the hope that Christ would soon return to deliver His people from all their miseries."

Interesting...then I may indeed be an amillennialist! I may sound bright and cheery most of the time, but I'm not really deep down.

[Edited on 8-23-2006 by Ivan]

[kceaster]

Originally posted by JohnV
Kevin:

I agree with you that the Bible's concern is the return of Israel to God, not merely to the land of promise. I agree that the return to the land of promise without a return to God is not significant. But I think that if you remove the distinction altogether that it makes Romans 9-11 meaningless. The distinction is still there, and is still in place. During the Apostles' time they were talking about the Gentiles being ingrafted into the covenant through Christ; that we were allowed to join the Jews as God's people. In our time we would be talking about the Jews joining the Christians as God's people, or of returning to the status of God's people through faith. Not joining or rejoining, but returning. It cannot be like it was in the OT, except that what was intended by the OT finds its fulfillment in the NT. And the Jews will come to that point where they will be returning. They cannot accept the OT without accepting the NT, because its all one revelation, not two. The returning of the Jews cannot be seen as anything else but a returning to God's ways; and God made His ways known more fully through Christ. So the Jews too will be saved by grace through faith just as we are. That was God's intent from the start.

So the Jews returning to OT times is not what is talked about in Romans either. It is neither a return to the promised land nor a return to the sacrifices. It is a return to God that is meant. After that it may entail a return to the promised land, but Hebrews says that if God had intended Palestine to be the place of rest, then He would not have promised a Sabbath beyond that.

And that means an acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Salvation is by no other means. Not even for the Jews. But they are still the specific race of people chosen by God as His own. That cannot be nullified by men. And it seems that Romans means to honour that distinction.

John, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't believe that these people over in Palestine, or anywhere else for that matter, are familially Israel. I think that there are no more physical descendants of Abraham (except for the Christian kind). It would be impossible to prove either way as I do not believe that there are any more records. But that is what I was meaning. I didn't mean they had to return to the old ways in order to be God's people. I'm saying that if they were Jewish in that sense, it might be easier to say that Revelations is future. But if there really are no more Jews, then the 7 years is past.

Blessings,

KC

[Barnpreacher]

How can it truly be argued that Israel in Romans 11 is not a reference to ethnic Israel? Paul puts a distinction between the Church and ethnic Israel in Romans 11 or else it makes no sense to make the distinction he is making. If the salvation of Israel in verse 26 doesn't occur at a later time (after the fulness of the Gentiles) then why does Paul even bring up this "other" Israel? Why doesn't he just keep making reference to the Church?

Now this may be getting a little off topic, but does not this distinction in Romans 9-11 between ethnic Israel and true Israel prove that the Church does not replace ethnic Israel in Gods' mind? If this is true then why would the Church baptize our infants? Circumcision was a sign and seal to ethnic Israel. The Church is not ethnic Israel, the Church is the true Israel. So, is baptism not for those members of true Israel?

I'm not trying to argue the correlation between circumcision and baptism, rather how far that correlation is taken. If the church replaces ethnic Israel then I can definitely see the argument for paedobaptism. But Romans 11 seems to indicate that God has not put away ethnic Israel, but for the time. Hence, there is a difference between true Israel and ethnic Israel still today. So, why baptize infants?

[armourbearer]

This thread seems to have passed me by overnight. Just quickly, I don't think any negative statements which the Scriptures make can be called pessimistic. The point is that some amils formulate their view of what will take place before the conflagration/consummation in a pessimistic way. E.g., the few saved is taken universally as over against Judaistically, which is its context. "Will he find faith?" is given a resounding "hardly." The passages about persecution are highlighted to give the picture that Christians will be hunted down by society, and thus unable to effect any lasting Christian influence on its institutions. I call that a pessimistic interpretation of Scripture, especially when there are promises concerning all Israel, the fulness of the Gentiles, the putting down of Christ's enemies, and of the nations paying homage to Christ, which should naturally lead us to expect the great and wonderful works of God to be manifested for the good of this world.

[armourbearer]

Mr. Swanson's article has not done justice to Francis Turretin's view. See Institutes, vol. 3, pp. 54, 55. He writes, contrary to one of the Romanist's marks of the true church, its earthly splendour: "If any splendour and conspicuousness is to be understood, it is not to be extended to all the times of the church; rather it has reference to these four things most especially in which she ought to be more conspicuous." He subsequently mentions,
1. "The beginning of Christianity by the calling of the Gentiles."
2. "The progress of the same Christianity when it was wonderfully increased and manifested."
3. "The general conversion of the Jews in the end of the world, after the fulness of the Gentiles will come in. At this time the prophets (and after them Paul) promise distinguished glory to the church which will be like a resurrection from the dead (Rom. 11:15). Paul testifies that Isaiah referred to this in chapter 60, when he refers to this the prophecy immediately preceding (Is. 59:20, 21) in Rom. 11:26."
4. In the end of the world, by the glorious resurrection and consummation of eternal happiness."

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by kceaster

John, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't believe that these people over in Palestine, or anywhere else for that matter, are familially Israel. I think that there are no more physical descendants of Abraham (except for the Christian kind). It would be impossible to prove either way as I do not believe that there are any more records. But that is what I was meaning. I didn't mean they had to return to the old ways in order to be God's people. I'm saying that if they were Jewish in that sense, it might be easier to say that Revelations is future. But if there really are no more Jews, then the 7 years is past.

Blessings,

KC

This reminds we of the tussle back in the early '90s between Steve Schlissel and James Jordan. Jordan had the audacity (in Schlissel's mind) to suggest a preterist interpretation of Romans 11. Part of Jordan's argument, as I recall, was the proximate relationship between old covenant and new covenant. Paul lived among old covenant Jews. In fact he was one himself, visiting the temple and observing the sacrifices. It was these emblems of the old covenant animated by the Word of God that Paul figured would drive his brethren after the flesh to Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 3:1).

There are no old covenant Jews today. (I think Jordan went even further to suggest that most Jews today are not lineal descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob and thus not children of the covenant in any real sense.) The types of the old covenant, those schoolmasters to drive folks to Christ, no longer exist. They have been replaced by ordinances of rabbinic origin, some explicitly given to mask the messiahship of Jesus Christ.

And if taken futuristically, where do converts to Judaism over these last millennia fit into the promise? Would an Elizabeth Taylor or Dr. Laura be the object of God's attention from Romans 11? What about secular and atheistic Jews?

Schlissel, with his Jewish background, was quite offended. I can't recall if he invoked the term "anti-Semite" to describe Jordan's views, but he came very close.

I personally am not convinced that Pauls' reference to "that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" requires us to think that something extreme is going to happen to the Jewish nation after "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in". I'm not convinced from the language or context indicates that there is a time period after this time.

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Mr. Swanson's article has not done justice to Francis Turretin's view.

My point had to do with the appellation "gloomy amillennialist" that was applied to Turretin (not by Swanson).


"There certainly appears to be a fear of success lurking in the background of such views." (Doug Jones to Lee Irons)

[JohnV]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

My point had to do with the appellation "gloomy amillennialist" that was applied to Turretin (not by Swanson).


"There certainly appears to be a fear of success lurking in the background of such views." (Doug Jones to Lee Irons)

That is what I object to as well, Tom. I cannot see how any of this is either gloomy or pessimistic in a Biblical sense. It is only gloomy or pessimistic by standards imposed by people's own views. If it is Christ's will that evil will assert itself to fulfill Scripture and to give glory to the Father, and this is the proper interpretation of what He has given us in His Word, then how is hoping for it a pessimism? It simply is not pessimistic.

Just because it doesn't meet the standards of others, it is in itself not pessimistic or gloomy. It is clear to me that the appellation refers only to the comparison of men's theories, the expectations which men impose upon Biblical revelation, and how they judge or misunderstand each other. It has nothing to do with revelation on the matter itself.

[armourbearer]

Just because it doesn't meet the standards of others, it is in itself not pessimistic or gloomy. It is clear to me that the appellation refers only to the comparison of men's theories, the expectations which men impose upon Biblical revelation, and how they judge or misunderstand each other. It has nothing to do with revelation on the matter itself.

John,

The revelation gives us to believe one thing, not two. So if a person provides a more negative interpretation than what the Scriptures actually teach, that must be regarded as pessimism, according to Scriptural standards.

For instance, if some person started telling us that the beast of Revelation is the one world government, and that the barcode system is the mark of the beast, therefore we should run to the hills and grow vegies -- besides calling him raving mad, you would also regard his interpretation of Revelation as pessimistic; especially considering that the Revelation gives us hope that "all nations shall come and bow down before" God.

[JohnV]

I would agree with that, Matthew. I wouldn't call him raving mad, but I agree with that. But if I believe, for instance, that the world is being stored up for fire instead of being stored up for a Christian world government, that is neither mad nor pessimistic. All it is is believing what it says in Peter. All I'm doing is ignoring some passages, perhaps, while others are ignoring other passages. Or, to be more precise, I would be emphasizing some passages while others are emphasizing other passages. No one really knows which passages require more emphasis, because we are missing the main ingredient in knowing what will happen, namely the historical context. Each generation has made its predictions based upon their historical context, only to be replaced by the next generation.

Sixty years ago people were sure that Hitler was the antichrist. Two things that cannot be ignored is that he was inhumanly cruel, just like the antichrist would be, and that his spirit still lives on even in the descendents of those on whom he practiced his inhumanity on. Dr. Henry Morganthaler is Canada's abortion doctor, has roots in the Nazi concentration camps, and has presumably killed almost as many people has Hitler, people who were even more helpless to do anything about it than Hitler's victims. And he does so while society smiles upon him. Yet in spite of that, our view of who the antichrist is has changed since Hitler's time. If someone like Warfield had predicted such a future for our society in his time, would he have been a pessimist? Is seeing something obvious coming being pessimistic? Is believing the signs being pessimistic? Is believing God's Word a certain way being pessimistic? I don't believe so.

I just don't see how the term applies to even a historical view which sees evil asserting itself, if it is believed because the Bible says so, not because a person is characteristically pessimistic. I think that it is only a pejorative term, and nothing more.

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by JohnV]

[kceaster]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

This reminds we of the tussle back in the early '90s between Steve Schlissel and James Jordan. Jordan had the audacity (in Schlissel's mind) to suggest a preterist interpretation of Romans 11. Part of Jordan's argument, as I recall, was the proximate relationship between old covenant and new covenant. Paul lived among old covenant Jews. In fact he was one himself, visiting the temple and observing the sacrifices. It was these emblems of the old covenant animated by the Word of God that Paul figured would drive his brethren after the flesh to Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 3:1).

There are no old covenant Jews today. (I think Jordan went even further to suggest that most Jews today are not lineal descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob and thus not children of the covenant in any real sense.) The types of the old covenant, those schoolmasters to drive folks to Christ, no longer exist. They have been replaced by ordinances of rabbinic origin, some explicitly given to mask the messiahship of Jesus Christ.

And if taken futuristically, where do converts to Judaism over these last millennia fit into the promise? Would an Elizabeth Taylor or Dr. Laura be the object of God's attention from Romans 11? What about secular and atheistic Jews?

Schlissel, with his Jewish background, was quite offended. I can't recall if he invoked the term "anti-Semite" to describe Jordan's views, but he came very close.

I personally am not convinced that Pauls' reference to "that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" requires us to think that something extreme is going to happen to the Jewish nation after "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in". I'm not convinced from the language or context indicates that there is a time period after this time.

I guess that's where I'm coming from too, although I hadn't heard that argument of Jordan's before.

I just have a hard time believing that the Jews of today, "have a special place in God's heart," as my mother tries to remind me. Why would He have a special place in His heart for these people? And yes, I understand grace means that no one can merit anything before God. But at least in Israel's (of the Bible) history, there was always a remnant who were faithful to God, who did as He commanded. There are NO Jews today, even the orthodox, who follow the OT Scriptures. If there was a Jewish Reformation, like the Protestant one, then I might see some glimmer of hope for these people. If they stopped following the "infallibility" of the rabbinic tradition and realize that inspiration and infallibility stopped with Malachi, there might be hope for them. And that doesn't mean that if they follow the old ways, then they're saved. But it certainly has a biblical foundation for their conversion to Christianity later on. The Jews who convert today are not fulfilling end times prophecy any more than gentiles who convert.

This whole thing pivots on God having two modes of salvation, and that just won't work. Those who are "friends" of the Jews today, really believe that God is going to go back to plan "A" at some point in the future. That plan "A" is not Christianity, therefore, it is not salvific because salvation is by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone.

This is not anti-semitism, this is the truth of the gospel. And that is exactly what Paul was trying to get at. Being a physical son of Abraham is not what saves you. If the Jews of today hold a special place in God's heart because at some future point He's going to save them while in their Judaism, then Paul's words are meaningless.

If I were evangelizing a Jew today, I would not point them to a future time when "their people" are going to be converted to Christianity. I would deal with the sinner as he is right now. It has nothing to do with his religion. The Jews of today are not "pre-Christian" merely on the basis of their religion. In Jesus and Paul's day, I would say they were. But almost 2000 years of rabbinic tradition erases their close ties to the gospel. Because I believe that, I cannot espouse that God has a special plan in the future for the Jews of today. Many of them may be converted if God is gracious, but that is not in fulfillment of end times prophecy. To me, the special plan God has for the Jews ended long ago.

And I'm not espousing replacement theology either. All men are sinners. That is genus and species. There are no special categories in salvation. Oh, we make them and with good reason from the Scriptures. There is a special category for the children of the covenant. But it is external only. It does not translate into a guarantee of salvation for a certain group. The only group guaranteed salvation in this day and age is "all who call upon the Lord will be saved." Of course we know that this is qualified by the secret counsel of God's will, but it is a guarantee for those He has predestined to become the sons of God.

In Christ,

KC

[JohnV]

Kevin:

I think you're making an error in thinking. What you call "plan A" never did exist; there never was such a thing. What this implies is that somehow what the orthodox Jews are saying is correct, or was correct at one time. It never was. Their religion always has been wrong. Christ's atonement was always Plan A, and it never was any different. Your meaning seems to imply that, if the Jews return to God, there will come into existence a second way of salvation, a way that the Jews themselves thought up instead of God.

Neither the Dispensationalists nor the Jews have that prerogative, to invent a way of salvation that never was. I think that you are justifying their understanding, and then rejecting it. What we are saying is that their understanding of such a return never was right, not even in the OT times. There is no "Jewish" way of salvation other than the one we are acknowledging now in the Reformed churches. It is the same salvation that Abraham received.

So in a way you are right, that such Jewishness does not exist, and never did exist. But that doesn't mean that there are no Jews today, ethnicly speaking. And that doesn't meant that they can't convert back to God after all these centuries. It is impossible, in my view, that Romans can be talking about a return of the Jews to an OT salvation that never existed in the first place. It all pointed to Christ even then, and the sacrifices were meaningless without their pointing to Christ, so how can they be reintroduced apart from the Christ now? No, if that were the case, that the Jews return to the sacrifices without the Christ, then it would be a new thing, not a reintroduction of an old thing. So such Jewishness never did exist, and does not exist today, and will not exist in the future. God will not be reconciled to Pharisaism, and Jesus will not have to apologize to the religious leaders of His time for the things He said to them, nor for saying that apart from Him there is no salvation. That never was the intent of the OT, and cannot possibly be what is entailed in a possible return of the Jews.

[JohnV]

As far as the idea of pessimism is concerned, I went back to the book of Jeremiah this morning in my devotional. He prophesied what his contemporaries called doom and gloom, charging him with inciting discouragment among the people. He wasn't being optimistic, and therefore had to be wrong, they seemed to be saying. But all he was doing, as he told them in his defence, was telling them what God told him to say. In fact, he was the only one giving some ray of hope, even though the other prophets were prophecying all kinds of rosy things for to tickle the ears. Even to the last he said to king Zedekiah that God was still holding His hand open to him, if he would obey. But Zedekiah just could not accept the doom and gloom of Jeremiah's prophetic message, he just could not accept the message of the destruction of Jerusalem as being from God because it was not in line with his understanding of the Scriptures.

The question I have is: was Jeremiah pessimistic in his messages? Was Jeremiah wrong, just because he was pessimistic? That seems to be what his comtemporaries were saying. What I am saying is that, though he preached doom and gloom, yet his message was the only truly optimistic one, because it was rooted and grounded in God's righteousness and truth.

Don't get me wrong, for it may yet be that the so-called "optimistic Amillennialism" and Postmillennialism is right. But you cannot suggest that the so-called "pessimistic Amillennialism" is wrong solely upon the basis that it is pessimistic by your standards. From where I stand I see it as much more gloriously optimistic than that which the triumphalists I had dealings with could even imagine.

But even so, all we are talking about is when the end of the millennium will occur, not pessimism or optimism. If we think that we are near the end of the millennium or that it still has to begin, or that we are in the middle of it, that is quite a difference, and will manifest itself in how the future is seen from here on out. So if the "optimistic Amillennialist" wants to talk about the same thing as the "pessimistic Amillennialist", then lets not talk about optimism or pessimism, but about what the end will be according to Scripture, not about how we see the future from our present situation.

And, finally, to reiterate: what is so different in our time? Is not so that our society is doing today far worse than that which Hitler perpetrated in his time? Where can the little babies hide? Not in some obscure attic, but perhaps behind the liver or kidney? Can the little babies write letters to the editor, protesting their plight? Can they write journals and secretly smuggle them out to the free world? Can they form underground resistence movements against their torturers? They are even more helpless, and do not have a sympathetic ear from the very societies that judged Hitler. And Hitler condemned homosexuals, but our society blesses them for their perversions. This the truth, and not doom an gloom. It's what is happening. If someone like Warfield had said that things were going to get worse, would he have been wrong on the grounds that he was being pessimistic? Hardly. If he had said that, he would have been the one who was being truly optimistic, because he would have been offering a hope of a solution; a real and true one, and not one grounded in prophetic optimism and man's presuppositions.

So I cannot accept that there is such a thing as a pessimistic Amillennialism, and that it is incorrect to label it as such on the slim grounds that it does not paint a rosy picture of the future. I think it is a wrongful discription of it, a pejorative one.

[kceaster]

Originally posted by JohnV
Kevin:

I think you're making an error in thinking. What you call "plan A" never did exist; there never was such a thing. What this implies is that somehow what the orthodox Jews are saying is correct, or was correct at one time. It never was. Their religion always has been wrong. Christ's atonement was always Plan A, and it never was any different. Your meaning seems to imply that, if the Jews return to God, there will come into existence a second way of salvation, a way that the Jews themselves thought up instead of God.

John, I wasn't claiming that a plan "A" did exist. But for the Dispensationalist, it must. Plan "B" is the church according to them as well.

Neither the Dispensationalists nor the Jews have that prerogative, to invent a way of salvation that never was. I think that you are justifying their understanding, and then rejecting it. What we are saying is that their understanding of such a return never was right, not even in the OT times. There is no "Jewish" way of salvation other than the one we are acknowledging now in the Reformed churches. It is the same salvation that Abraham received.

Again, salvation is through Christ alone. But Dispensationalists treat Jews as pre-Christians or as people who have another way of salvation because of their Jewishness. I reject both. They are sinners like everyone else. I do not believe the Jews of today are the Jews spoken of in the Bible.

So in a way you are right, that such Jewishness does not exist, and never did exist. But that doesn't mean that there are no Jews today, ethnicly speaking. And that doesn't meant that they can't convert back to God after all these centuries.

What makes a Jew a Jew of the Bible, or in other words, a Jew that the NT writers had in mind? If we say that a Jew will return back to God after all these centuries, we're assuming a fulfillment of biblical prophecy concerning Jews, when it could be just a sinner being converted.

The presupposition is that the ethnic people of the political nation of Israel today are spoken of in Revelation. I reject that because there is no good reason to believe that it is the same group. External features does not a Jew make.

It is impossible, in my view, that Romans can be talking about a return of the Jews to an OT salvation that never existed in the first place.

However, it is quite impossible to return to God if one has never been part of the group that went from Him. There is no return but a turn, just like a Gentile.

It all pointed to Christ even then, and the sacrifices were meaningless without their pointing to Christ, so how can they be reintroduced apart from the Christ now?

I'm not suggesting that they should be. But it is, I believe, a tenet of Dispensationalism.

No, if that were the case, that the Jews return to the sacrifices without the Christ, then it would be a new thing, not a reintroduction of an old thing. So such Jewishness never did exist, and does not exist today, and will not exist in the future. God will not be reconciled to Pharisaism, and Jesus will not have to apologize to the religious leaders of His time for the things He said to them, nor for saying that apart from Him there is no salvation. That never was the intent of the OT, and cannot possibly be what is entailed in a possible return of the Jews.

I agree with you. However, I would go back to what makes a Jew a Jew? If they don't resemble the people of the OT in their theology at all, then I don't see how a Dispensationalist is looking for their conversion during a future tribulation.

I can point to a moving vehicle and call it a volkswagen. But if it looks like a Ford, I'm not going to be looking for it to convert to one according to a prophecy.

Such is the danger of trying to fit modern day entities on 2000 year old prophecies.

In Christ,

KC

[JohnV]

I can see what you're saying, Kevin, but I still get the notion that you seem to think that Jews who belonged to God and confessed Him never did exist. They did exist. Those are the real OT Jews, and they can come back to Him. The Jewishness which the Dispensationalists have in mind is not in line with Scripture at all. I agree with you that those Jews have no place in revelation and prophecy. But why could it not be that people of Abraham's and David's faith, who have the same geneological history, come to the faith? Would that not be a "return of the Jews"? Would it not make more sense to us that this is the type of thing that revelation is speaking about? And it this were the case, would it really matter at all whether they have an accurate lineage to prove their ethnicity? I agree with you that the door will be open regardless of ethnic background, but why would we not be happy for the fact that especially those people which God had chosen for Himself through Abraham, and through which the Christ came, namely the Jews, return to that faith which has been opened up to us who are clearly ethnically Gentile?

I think we are saying the same thing, Kevin. What I am trying to do is to peel off the accumulated additions, and go back to the plain text. We can forget the Dispensationalists, because the Jewishness that they speak of is not even a consideration. There is no such thing as another way of salvation just for the Jews. All along it was the way the OT and which the NT revealed to us, and nothing else. That was Abraham's and David's religion, and is ours as well; the difference is that they lived before the revelation of Christ, and we after; they lived under the promise of a Saviour, and we under the realization of the Saviour.

But there are still ethnic Jews today, and that very name still speaks of a chosen people by God. I don't see why it is not possible that the Bible could speak of a return of the Jews to the true righteousness of God, to His covenant. It would not entail a different covenant at all, otherwise the concept of fulfilment of the OT covenants found in Hebrews loses its meaning. It seems to me that denying that this refers to ethnic Jews amounts to the same thing as what the Dispensationalists assert, only then denying the reference instead of affirming it.

In other words, I don't necessarily disagree with the Dispensationalists that Romans 9-11 refers to ethnic Jews; I disagree with what they impose upon it.