Is Christian zionism sound doctrine?

[B. W.]

Here is another Link to the Hebrew 4 Christian website to another Article that Addresses some heavy stuff and causes us all to pause for a moment - reflect what we really believe - very well written and some may find somewhat controversial too:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... endom.html

I have attached the PDF file as well - good for reference purposes ...

I posted this Link on the "Dispensationalist Flawed" thread... and setting it forth here as well - very well done article concerning this topic as well...

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... srael.html
-
-
-

[puritan lad]

Here is another Link to the Hebrew 4 Christian website to another Article that Addresses some heavy stuff and causes us all to pause for a moment - reflect what we really believe - very well written and some may find somewhat controversial too:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... endom.html

I have attached the PDF file as well - good for reference purposes ...

I posted this Link on the "Dispensationalist Flawed" thread... and setting it forth here as well - very well done article concerning this topic as well...

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... srael.html
-
-
-

With all due respect, the very foundations of this article are nonsense. But it does show that what I claimed about the dispensational hermeutic is true. Consistently applied, it would result in a rejection of Christ in favor of Judaism. After all, if we are going to reject the NT claims concerning OT prophecy, why leave out the Messianic prophecies? Clearly the Jews got these wrong. So why trust them with any others?

Secondly, Covenant Theologians do not use the allegorical hermeneutic. We use the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, as opposes to the "literal" hermeneutic that Dispensationalism claims to espouse. (They certainly do not take the time frame references literally, while Covenant Theologians do). The Covenant approach not only let's language be language (literal or otherwise), but does not demote the New Testament claims to the opposition of Judaistic challenge.

The problem with the Dispensational approach is that they clearly beg the question when it comes to determining the "original intent" of the OT prophet, as if they have some special insight into the mind of that prophet. As Christians, however, that should never be an issue when the NT gives the fulfullment of that prophecy. Since, contrary to the claims of the article, it is not possible for the NT to be wrong, we have to conclude that the New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy IS the literal fulfillment.

This problem is clearly exhibited in the other thread, where jlay claims that the OT does not teach justification by faith. Paul says that it did. Is the NT an authoritative source for interpreting OT prophecy, or do we beg the question in regards to the prophets original intent?

[B. W.]

With all due respect, the very foundations of this article are nonsense. But it does show that what I claimed about the dispensational hermeutic is true. Consistently applied, it would result in a rejection of Christ in favor of Judaism. After all, if we are going to reject the NT claims concerning OT prophecy, why leave out the Messianic prophecies? Clearly the Jews got these wrong. So why trust them with any others?

Secondly, Covenant Theologians do not use the allegorical hermeneutic. We use the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, as opposes to the "literal" hermeneutic that Dispensationalism claims to espouse. (They certainly do not take the time frame references literally, while Covenant Theologians do). The Covenant approach not only let's language be language (literal or otherwise), but does not demote the New Testament claims to the opposition of Judaistic challenge.

The problem with the Dispensational approach is that they clearly beg the question when it comes to determining the "original intent" of the OT prophet, as if they have some special insight into the mind of that prophet. As Christians, however, that should never be an issue when the NT gives the fulfullment of that prophecy. Since, contrary to the claims of the article, it is not possible for the NT to be wrong, we have to conclude that the New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy IS the literal fulfillment.

This problem is clearly exhibited in the other thread, where jlay claims that the OT does not teach justification by faith. Paul says that it did. Is the NT an authoritative source for interpreting OT prophecy, or do we beg the question in regards to the prophets original intent?

No - you are seeing it wrong...

We are one in Christ...

That's the message...
-
-
-

[puritan lad]

No, we are not. Judaism rejects Christ. That's the point. As such, they have no part in any covenant until they repent and turn to Christ.

"No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:23)

Any hermeneutic that is based upon the possibility that the NT is wrong is one that Christians need to avoid like the plague.

[Gman]

No, we are not. Judaism rejects Christ. That's the point. As such, they have no part in any covenant until they repent and turn to Christ.

"No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:23)

Any hermeneutic that is based upon the possibility that the NT is wrong is one that Christians need to avoid like the plague.

True, however, what Paul seems to be advocating here is not a total rejection but a blindness.

Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

Therefore it could be possible that God is waiting on them (the Jewish remnant).. Again I don't know because I'm not God..

[Gman]

It seems to me that God doesn't want us to be arrogant about this Romans 11:18... But to... Actually... Hold their hands through this process of fulfilled sanctification??

Don't know..

[B. W.]

No, we are not. Judaism rejects Christ. That's the point. As such, they have no part in any covenant until they repent and turn to Christ.

"No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:23)

Any hermeneutic that is based upon the possibility that the NT is wrong is one that Christians need to avoid like the plague.

You are seeing things wrongly and reading into something not intended and not really there either...

We are made one in Christ...

Do you have any clue as to what that means?
-
-
-

[puritan lad]

No, we are not. Judaism rejects Christ. That's the point. As such, they have no part in any covenant until they repent and turn to Christ.

"No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." (<A class=lbsBibleRef href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20John%202.23" target=_blank lbsReference="1 John 2.23|NASB">1 John 2:23</A>)

Any hermeneutic that is based upon the possibility that the NT is wrong is one that Christians need to avoid like the plague.

You are seeing things wrongly and reading into something not intended and not really there either...

This is from the link you posted. I'm not sure what else to think of this...

"To understand part of this mystery, we have to back up and think about theological presuppositions. In particular, we have to revisit the basic assumptions theologians make when they read the Jewish Scriptures. Many Christian theologians assume a "New Testament priority" when reading the "Old Testament." Simply put, this means that they apply the terms of the Greek New Testament as they "read backwards" to the Old. As I have said elsewhere, however, while it's possible that the Old Testament is true and the New Testament is not, it's impossible for the New Testament to be true if the Old Testament is not. In other words, we must first take pains to understand the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures -- and especially the Hebraic mindset -- before we draw our conclusions about the meaning of the New Testament.

How else are we supposed to think of this nonsense? Should our interpretative approach consider the possibility that the New Testament is not true? The Hebraic mindset does not understand the Old Testament, because they reject Christ.

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me." (John 5:46)

[We are made one in Christ...

Do you have any clue as to what that means?

We are made one ONLY if they are Christians. If they reject Christ, then they are not one with us, period.

[Gman]

Whether anyone here is a preterist, a dispensationist, white, black, purple or pink, it still appears that we are to help the Jews...

Romans 15:27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.

Now if that involves helping them build the temple is another question.. But we are there to help protect them...

[zoegirl]

that's certainly true, but that wasn't even up for debate, was it?

[puritan lad]

Whether anyone here is a preterist, a dispensationist, white, black, purple or pink, it still appears that we are to help the Jews...

Romans 15:27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.

Now if that involves helping them build the temple is another question.. But we are there to help protect them...

Uh. No. At least not any more than we owe aid to needy Gentiles. Paul was taking up a collection for Jewish Christians, not just Jews in general, on his way to Spain. To rip this verse out of it's historical context to support any sort of pro-zionist philosophy is a sloppy handling of Scripture at best.

"I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while. At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. When therefore I have completed this and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will leave for Spain by way of you." (Romans 15:24-28)

[zoegirl]

yes, we are to helpful to those who need help

[Gman]

that's certainly true, but that wasn't even up for debate, was it?

Not according to PL...

[Gman]

Uh. No. At least not any more than we owe aid to needy Gentiles. Paul was taking up a collection for Jewish Christians, not just Jews in general, on his way to Spain. To rip this verse out of it's historical context to support any sort of pro-zionist philosophy is a sloppy handling of Scripture at best.

"I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while. At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. When therefore I have completed this and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will leave for Spain by way of you." (Romans 15:24-28)

No... But we are to be "especially" good unto those who are of the household of faith..

Galatians 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

Looks like we are fellow heirs with the Jews...

Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Romans 11:17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,

Romans 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,

[Gman]

We are made one ONLY if they are Christians. If they reject Christ, then they are not one with us, period.

That's the problem.. Some have been blinded, but we have to wait for them to realize this.. Romans 11:7

In other words, we were once blind and God waited for us to repent, now God asks us to be patient with them so that they will repent.. We have to hold their hands through it.

Be careful.