# Replacement Theology



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 23, 2015)

What is it & What isn't it....? Here's a blurb from Mr. Slick..... https://carm.org/questions-replacement-theology

must one hold to this perspective to be fully reformed and why? I tend to think we can become too dismissive of Israel.... Not that they are still Gods chosen nation but there is still a remnant that will come around and we should remain charitable to them as much as anyone, no?


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 23, 2015)

Also does Calvinism stand and fall with RT... ?


----------



## johnny (Aug 23, 2015)

There are some older threads on this subject which are worth reading,

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/51740-Replacement-Theology

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/33086-Replacement-Theology-Covenant-Theology


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2015)

There is no "replacement." The "inheritance" belongs to the "children," and the children are those who believe in the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, as Galatians 3:26-29 clearly teaches. By tracing the promise back to Abraham and identifying Christ as the seed, the Holy Spirit shows that believers in Christ are the true heirs of the promise and the true children of Abraham.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 24, 2015)

"Replacement theology" is generally a derogatory term used by dispensationalists who want to discredit covenant theology. Often they fail to understand the view held by most believers before dispensationalism came on the scene, which is not so much that the church replaces Israel, but that the promises made to Israel find their fullest realization in Christ and in all of his people who are now grafted in. This is not quite "replacement" theology. Rather, it might be better described as "fulfillment" or "expansion" or "joined in" theology. We believe God always had the big picture in mind and the big picture is a plan to redeem and bless all who come to Christ by faith, first the people of faith of the Old Testament and now all those who hear and believe the gospel as it is proclaimed to the entire world.

As for the blessings of the Old Covenant: the Mosaic Law, the Promised Land, the Davidic Kingdom. Even a cursory reading of the Prophets will show that those prophets understood these things to be pointing to an even greater obedience, land, and kingdom still to come—not for a church that replaces Israel, but for all those from the whole world who by faith are brought into the blessings first given to Israel.

There's nothing in this that suggests we shouldn't be charitable toward Jewish people, and much that might cause us to be hopeful about the eventual faith of many ethnic Jews. Still, we recognize that God's chief intent always has been to gather to himself _people of faith_, not to reward ethnicity. This is not a new plan of his that replaced an older one; it has always been his design. (If you doubt the importance of faith in the OT, start reading Deuteronomy. Or read anywhere in the OT, for that matter, but Deuteronomy would make an excellent start.)


----------



## Jack K (Aug 24, 2015)

The other day as a family, we were reading through one of the Old Testament passages that presents a brief geneology. My daughter commented that the geneology was boring, but might be cool if we were Old Testament Jews and it was part of our own family history. I corrected her immediately: "This _is_ our family history," I told her. "We who believe are children of Abraham. These are _our_ ancestors. We follow in their footsteps and receive what they were promised."

Such is how covenant theology people think, how we roll.


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 24, 2015)

OK, nothing controversial about that.... In fact, very Biblical


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 24, 2015)

The teaching of Romans 9-11 and of Covenant Theology is that Israel after the flesh, isn't replaced, but that a large part of them are cut out, and the remnant of believing Jews is joined by Gentiles in the New Testament Church or the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) - the Israel which belongs to God, in contradistinction to unbelieving Israel after the flesh which does not belong to God - where they have spiritual and ecclesiastical equality, the "mid wall of partition" between Jewish and Gentiles believers now being broken down (Ephesians 2).

In the OT system believers who didn't become full Jews by circumcision and various laws e.g. dietary were in a sense in a "second class" position.

Also, many but not all, who hold to Covenant Theology, believe that there will be a national conversion of Jews at some point in the future. So God is in a sense "still working" with the unbelieving Jews - as He is with all nations.

If God had finished with the Jews in every sense, would He not have allowed them to be completely destroyed in AD 70?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## kodos (Aug 24, 2015)

As Jack mentions, we see the Patriarchs as _our_ fathers in the faith. Paul cannot be more clear when he says:
*Galatians 3:7* - "Therefore know that *only *those who are of faith are sons of Abraham."

Notice too how Paul writes to the Church in Corinth:
*1 Corinthians 10:1* - "Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all *our fathers* were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses..."

See, the people of God of old, are _our fathers_. We are related to them in Christ. Just as surely as you and I, though we probably share little ancestry (well, at least up to around Noah or so  ), are surely brothers in Christ.

We believe that one has to be a Jew inwardly, not just externally. There are many who were grafted into the Church in all ages. See how Ruth was grafted in (Ruth 1:6). We believe that it is not ethnicity that makes one part of the People of God, but the profession of the true religion.

As an aside, it is always amusing to see dispensationalists sing "Father Abraham" with their children.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 24, 2015)

AJ Castellitto said:


> Also does Calvinism stand and fall with RT... ?


Others have articulated the problems with calling Covenant Theology "Replacement Theology".

That said, I think that properly understanding Covenant Theology is not merely central to Calvinism but understanding the Scriptures. Dispensationalism is, in my view, an aberrant theological view and it produces a hermeneutic (a way of interpretation) that severely cripples a person's understanding of Scripture.

If you look at the structure of the WCF and the Catechisms they present the nature of the Scripture, Creation, and then the Fall and the need for Covenant. Covenant is crucial for man to have fruition in God and, more specifically, Christ is the Mediator that makes that fruition possible. Everything flows out of the Mediatorial work that Christ performs as the mediator of the CoG.

Conceiving of covenants in the OT without Christ as the ultimate mediator proposes an ability of man to have fruition of God without Christ.

I also think that dispensationalism forces its adherents to be blind to or outright deny what the Apostles say so clearly when they speak of the ingrafting of the Gentiles. They refuse to acknowledge that Christ is the Israel that the nation was not and how the OT Scriptures, in types and shadows, prefigure what Christ would be. Instead of seing prophets, priests, and kings as not only important in their epoch but ultimately pointing toe Christ's work - these offices and works are almost ends to themselves. Israel exists, as it were, as a sealed unit with respect to prophecy so that where the Scriptures see the Son's work as fulfilling those offices and representing the elect of the physical Jews and then fulfilling the prophecies that the Gentiles would be grafted in, the dispensationalist refuses to acknowledge it. Israel and Church must be kept apart in their thinking and so they deny what is plainly taught by every Apostle - not two vines but one. Not two olive trees but one. Not two promises but one. Not multiple plans for redemption but one.

Finally, I ought to note the confusion that dispensationalism represents with respect to the moral law. Paul was a master theologian who, among other things, demonstrated not that the OT never really mattered but that it had its fulfillment in Christ. With that Biblical lens in view, we are able to properly apprehend how to apply the moral law to the Christian life. The CT paradigm of type and fulfillment never leaves us with the dilemma: "But that's the Old Covenant..." when it comes to the moral law. This is just another example where dispensationalism sows confusion where the Apostle Paul labored mightily to bring clarity.


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 24, 2015)

Nice! I hear what you are saying


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 24, 2015)

Thank you everyone! You all reminded me that the Gentiles were not swiftly accepted and embraced by the early jewish converts and how the apostles spoke out for the Gentiles as equal parts of Christendom.... And Christ is the key. Jews are apostate. Doesn't mean we should not reach out in love but they are still reporobate as much as anyone and often seem the most hardened to the gospel..... Where I get confused is I think there is a cultural aspect to their hardening and that's where the whole nation of Israel and their preserving cultural identity makes them even more resistant ..... It gets pretty dicey. We need the diplomatic skills of the great Martin Luther lol


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 24, 2015)

What about the Jews for Jesus? They should be on the front lines evangelizing to their hardened breathren, no? Or do they have some doctrinal issues themselves?


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 24, 2015)

He's not fully reformed, more Luther-Barth, but I appreciate some of the sentiment of Phillip Cary who views biblical election as good news.... I kind of agree that election was usually presented in a positive gospel light....well except Pharoah.... And maybe Esau? Or maybe not....?http://www.academia.edu/1966606/Reading_the_Cannaanite_Genocide


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 24, 2015)

Let me just add that I think Cary overstates his case..... Alot! But he makes an interesting point.... I think we often look down on the Jews but if it were not for God extending salvation to us where would we be?


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 24, 2015)

Here's another one from Cary that although did not threaten my belief that God is sovereign in all things made me start to second guess the definitive presentation of systematic Calvinism ..... http://www.academia.edu/761742/Augustinian_Compatibilism_and_the_Doctrine_of_Election


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2015)

AJ Castellitto said:


> I think we often look down on the Jews but if it were not for God extending salvation to us where would we be?



Hence the teaching of Romans 11, especially the warning of verse 20: Be not high-minded, but fear. There is also the hope that they shall be grafted into their own olive tree.


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 24, 2015)

....but I do realize systematic theology encompasses much more than just Romans 9..... The spiritual regeneration of the sinner on account of the shed blood of Jesus Christ is noted throughout scriptures


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 24, 2015)

AJ, I would ditch this Phillip Cary: “Jesus, a man who could do nothing to deserve being the Son of God, because he did not exist prior to being the incarnate Son of God)” p 24, "Augustinian Compatibilism and the Doctrine of Election". What have you to learn from such a man? There are good sources of understanding if you seek those divines that are trusted and sound in the Reformed tradition.


----------



## timfost (Aug 24, 2015)

AJ Castellitto said:


> He's not fully reformed, more Luther-Barth, but I appreciate some of the sentiment of Phillip Cary who views biblical election as good news.... I kind of agree that election was usually presented in a positive gospel light....well except Pharoah.... And maybe Esau? Or maybe not....?http://www.academia.edu/1966606/Reading_the_Cannaanite_Genocide



Unfortunately, Cary butchers the doctrine of election. It's not even remotely reformed.

However, the reformed doctrine of election is good news for the preacher of the gospel in this way: he knows that the preaching will produce fruit. Apart from election, the gospel would never fall on open hearts.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 24, 2015)

Jack K said:


> how we roll.


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Aug 25, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> AJ, I would ditch this Phillip Cary: “Jesus, a man who could do nothing to deserve being the Son of God, because he did not exist prior to being the incarnate Son of God)” p 24, "Augustinian Compatibilism and the Doctrine of Election". What have you to learn from such a man? There are good sources of understanding if you seek those divines that are trusted and sound in the Reformed tradition.



Yeah, he does seem to go off the deep end.....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 25, 2015)

AJ Castellitto said:


> What about the Jews for Jesus? They should be on the front lines evangelizing to their hardened breathren, no? Or do they have some doctrinal issues themselves?



I think, in general, that a lot of so-called "Messianic Jews" have theological issues. The first is that they stand apart from those that are simply "Christians". Paul would have opposed this sort of separate designation and Galatians is, in part, a repudiation of this "two classes" of Christian idea. A lot of this designation comes from the baggage that is historically associated with the term "Christian" since the Jews were not always treated very well.

The other problem that these sects have is the idea that they represent some sort of more fundamental understanding of Jesus' teaching because they are coming from a "Jewish" context. The Judaism they came out of, however, is a modern Judaism that represents sort of the theology of the Pharisees becoming institutionalized from the 2nd Century on. Thus, they aren't really representing the Judaism of Jesus' time.

Furthermore, in terms of who needs to learn from whom, it is the Christian Church that they need to learn from. Twenty centuries of theological controversy and a defense of orthodoxy are not something one can conveniently ignore. I think it's naive for "Messianic Jews" to assume they can just pretend as if Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, the Reformation, etc don't inform how we are to understand Christianity.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 30, 2015)

I've supported Chosen People Ministries. They follow a lot of Jewish customs as an ethnic way to reach out to Jews, but do NOT look down on Gentile Christians. I don't think Jews for Jesus officially does either. In fact, most MJ's I've run into who look down on "Christians" are Gentiles by blood anyway.

I for one strongly reject Dispensationalism, strongly support Covenant theology, but also strongly believe the day will come when the majority of national Israel will be grafted back into spiritual Israel (the Church) as brethren, not as a higher class. I pray to see that day in my lifetime.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2015)

Jonathan,

A friend in the ministry works with a lot of Jewish Christians. I didn't say they look down on us, per se, but they sort of buy into the notion that a lot of our doctrinal formulations owe to Greek thought. It's specifically on the nature of the Godhead that some tend to act as if their "Jewish" way of thinking gives them a way to approach areas of orthodoxy in a manner "unemcumbered" by Western orthoodoxy. My comments are not intended to articulate disdain or dislike for those who have turned to Christ but to remind all of us that the Christianity we believe is in need of some shot in the arm from those who come from a Jewish context.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 11, 2015)

Exploring the Jewish context of Christianity is extremely important. I like to think about it this way:

If an artist spent 10 years creating a masterful work, would you learn more by reading the 100 years of commentary on that work, or would you learn more by studying the mindset of the artist and his primary sources of inspiration that resulted in the work?

We also should seek to understand the Jewish faith of Jesus and the apostles.

We should not be arrogant with Israel. After all, the New Covenant was made with them, not with us Gentiles! There is a resurgence of Messianic Judaism that helps us correct our faulty understanding of much of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. By understanding the Jewish mindset of the apostles, we can better understand the Bible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 11, 2015)

pkananen said:


> Exploring the Jewish context of Christianity is extremely important. I like to think about it this way:
> 
> If an artist spent 10 years creating a masterful work, would you learn more by reading the 100 years of commentary on that work, or would you learn more by studying the mindset of the artist and his primary sources of inspiration that resulted in the work?
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree we should study the Jewish faith in Jesus' context. Edersheim's works and others are excellent resources toward that end. What I have pointed out, however, is that Judaism went through phases and the Judaism of Jesus' day is not the same that developed around the 2nd Century (a hardened form of Pharisaism) and continues to this day. We can't simply assume that Orthodox Jews stand in the tradition of the Jewish faith that existed in the first century of the Church. Further, even if it did, the impact of the New Testament upon that faith once for all delivered to the Saints underwent an extended period of unpacking as the Church wrestled with the full import of the foundation laid by the Apostles. The Church councils are not inventions of Western philosophy but arise out of a commitment to understand the nature of the Godhead and of Christ. We don't stand at a disadvantage having received centuries of Christian thought wrestling with the whole of Scriptures. Consequently, those who come out of modern Judaism may not rightly assume they stand in the tradition of the whole of God's counsel and have a lot to learn from the entirety of Church history.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 11, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > Exploring the Jewish context of Christianity is extremely important. I like to think about it this way:
> ...




I agree with that, but we also need to acknowledge how the Church has largely rejected its Jewish heritage, divested Israel from the promises God made to them, and has left a shameful wake behind it. I do believe that 'Replacement Theology' is a big problem in the church, by which we expect believing Jews to leave behind appropriate Jewish practice and we have essentially taught that Israel no longer has any standing promises from God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 11, 2015)

pkananen said:


> I agree with that, but we also need to acknowledge how the Church has largely rejected its Jewish heritage, divested Israel from the promises God made to them, and has left a shameful wake behind it. I do believe that 'Replacement Theology' is a big problem in the church, by which we expect believing Jews to leave behind appropriate Jewish practice and we have essentially taught that Israel no longer has any standing promises from God.


I don't know what "Church" you're referring to. What, exactly, do you think that Replacement Theology is? It's a moniker used to designate Reformed Covenant Theology as replacing the Jewish people with the Church. It has this view because it sees the promises made to Israel as not belonging to the people of God more broadly. Our Covenant theology does not see the Church as replacing Israel but as the Gentiles grafted in to the Promise made to the People of God. Abraham has one true Seed. This does not mean that there will not be a grafting back in of the physical descendants of Abraham but it still stands that there is one Covenant of Grace and not a separate Covenant that Israel still may look to.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 11, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with that, but we also need to acknowledge how the Church has largely rejected its Jewish heritage, divested Israel from the promises God made to them, and has left a shameful wake behind it. I do believe that 'Replacement Theology' is a big problem in the church, by which we expect believing Jews to leave behind appropriate Jewish practice and we have essentially taught that Israel no longer has any standing promises from God.
> ...



I agree with almost everything you said there. Of course God's promises to Israel stand. How could they not? He made them! I do agree that in Christ we are partakers of the promises of everlasting life through grace, as part of the commonwealth of Israel. But let's be clear - the promises were made to the house of Judah and the house of Israel. You are correct that we are grafted into Israel and get to share in these promises. But the promises were not made with the 'People of God', they were made to Israel.

Jeremiah 31 shows this very clearly, as does Paul in Romans 9:4.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 11, 2015)

pkananen said:


> I agree with almost everything you said there. Of course God's promises to Israel stand. How could they not? He made them! I do agree that in Christ we are partakers of the promises of everlasting life through grace, as part of the commonwealth of Israel. But let's be clear - the promises were made to the house of Judah and the house of Israel. You are correct that we are grafted into Israel and get to share in these promises. But the promises were not made with the 'People of God', they were made to Israel.
> 
> Jeremiah 31 shows this very clearly, as does Paul in Romans 9:4.



This is dispensational theology. Did you make your exception to the Westminster Standards on this issue known to your Session when you were ordained? Your ordination vows state that you receive the Westminster Standards.

You can quote verses all day long and you will interpret them in light of your dispensational hermeneutic. It is sub-Biblical.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 11, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with almost everything you said there. Of course God's promises to Israel stand. How could they not? He made them! I do agree that in Christ we are partakers of the promises of everlasting life through grace, as part of the commonwealth of Israel. But let's be clear - the promises were made to the house of Judah and the house of Israel. You are correct that we are grafted into Israel and get to share in these promises. But the promises were not made with the 'People of God', they were made to Israel.
> ...



I am not a dispensationalist. I try not to read the Bible with any sort of hermeneutic that will alter my understanding of the text in a way that dishonors God's words.

What specific part of my statement bothers you so much? Are you saying that believing Jeremiah 31:31-34 means I am proclaiming dispensational theology?



> 31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”



And then Paul says in the very clear context of his 'kinsmen according to the flesh':



> 4*They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5*To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.



What exactly do you think Paul is saying here that is different than how I am reading it?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Sep 11, 2015)

pkananen said:


> Of course God's promises to Israel stand.



Define Israel please.



pkananen said:


> But the promises were not made with the 'People of God', they were made to Israel.



Wow. As an ordained Deacon in the PCA you sure do not portray the standards you confess. Rich's comment stands in that we hope your session knows of your exceptions to the standards.



> Ch. 7
> 
> III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward (Sep 11, 2015)

pkananen said:


> I agree with that, but we also need to acknowledge how the Church has largely rejected its Jewish heritage, divested Israel from the promises God made to them, and has left a shameful wake behind it. I do believe that 'Replacement Theology' is a big problem in the church, by which we expect believing Jews to leave behind appropriate Jewish practice and we have essentially taught that Israel no longer has any standing promises from God.



You sound fairly orthodox in your dispensational theology. What would you say to this statement:

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 11, 2015)

I'm willing to talk to my pastor if I fall outside confessional standards. I'm still working through some of my beliefs on these matters and will bring them up when appropriate.

I do not see Israel as being debatable in definition. In the NT alone, Israel is mentioned 73 times. There is never a usage of Israel that contradicts the consistent meaning of the physical lineage of Jacob, through the promise given to Abraham.

I'm sincerely interested in understanding precisely what I stated that causes you to be concerned that my beliefs are unbiblical and troublesome.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 11, 2015)

Edward said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with that, but we also need to acknowledge how the Church has largely rejected its Jewish heritage, divested Israel from the promises God made to them, and has left a shameful wake behind it. I do believe that 'Replacement Theology' is a big problem in the church, by which we expect believing Jews to leave behind appropriate Jewish practice and we have essentially taught that Israel no longer has any standing promises from God.
> ...



I am not a dispensationalist. Interestingly enough, this statement in the confession is the one using the term dispensations. I believe that none, Jew or Gentile, is saved outside of the atoning work of Christ on the cross.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 11, 2015)

Sorry, brother. But much of what you say is very dispensational in tone and content. I think someone asked if you took an exception on these areas. If not, may ask if you did? Does your Session know of your views? In many Presbyteries in the PCA this simply wouldn't fly.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 11, 2015)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Sorry, brother. But much of what you say is very dispensational in tone and content. I think someone asked if you took an exception on these areas. If not, may ask if you did? Does your Session know of your views? In many Presbyteries in the PCA this simply wouldn't fly.



I have never considered myself a dispensationalist, and disagree strongly with several dispensational teachings. How am I a dispensationalist?

As I mentioned above, I plan on talking with my pastor about any perceived differences with the confession. I do have a point of difference with it when it comes to understanding the nature of the Old Covenant and New Covenant. As I look at the lives of the apostles, I do not see evidence in their actions and teachings that shows they felt that their Jewish worship system was dismantled.

How do we reconcile the ongoing Jewish practice in the temple by the apostles with the New Covenant instituted by Jesus? I know this question probably seems crazy, but when I read Acts I don't see them distancing themselves from Jewish worship, even as they preached the gospel.

I'm certain even asking this question will confuse some, but this is a legitimate issue I'd like to understand.


----------



## Jack K (Sep 11, 2015)

Peter:

It does sound like your thinking is out of accord with how Reformed people read the Scriptures, but I for one am not inclined to scold you for inquiring further. Let me, rather, explain what goes through my mind when I read the Jeremiah 31 passage you brought up. (I do not claim that my thinking represents the best Reformed scholarship on this passage. It may, in fact, be somewhat half-baked, as my training is only that of a layman. But it ought to give you some picture of how a Reformed guy tends to think when he reads a passage of that sort.)

I see in Jeremiah 31 that God will make a new covenant with the “house of Judah.” So who is this house of Judah? It does look, at first glance, like an ethnic designation. But I see more going on when I look closely at (1) the rest of the book of Jeremiah, (2) the rest of the Old Testament, and (3) the whole Bible including the New Testament.

A huge theme in the rest of Jeremiah is that it is not enough to be an ethnic Jew. Those trusting that their heritage will bring God’s deliverance are sorely mistaken. Ethnic Jews stand at the Lord’s house and recite their trust in it, but Jeremiah calls them to turn away from such empty words to true faith and repentance. The ethnic people group will not survive intact, but a remnant of faithful ones will stay true and return to claim God’s promises. In short, _faithfulness matters more than ethnicity_. This is well-established by Jeremiah’s middle chapters, where we get the appearance of the Righteous Branch who is the ultimate faithful man. It surely seems as if he and his people, the faithful remnant, are the ones in mind by the time we get to the promises of chapter 31. Even if they are not the entire “house of Judah,” they must be a significant part of it. The promises seem made first of all to people of faith, who are the true Israel, the surviving remnant.

The rest of the Old Testament supports this way of thinking. The majority of ethnic Jews never received lasting promises under the covenant. They became faithless and were exiled to be assimilated into the nations. Or they remained among God’s people but never knew him, as the prophets often warned. Meanwhile, people who were not ethnic Jews but did have faith were brought in to God’s covenant people, often playing major roles like Ruth and Rahab. The message is clear: when Moses challenged the people to faith, to choose life instead of death, he was setting the true bounds for the real people of Israel. _A true Israelite is one who has faith._ Ethnicity bring some benefits, but doesn’t by itself make you part of true Israel.

The onset of the New Testament sharpens this even more. Now all people of faith are clearly “grafted in.” All those with faith “are sons of Abraham.” This looks at first glance like an ethnic designation too, but clearly the chief concern is not biological heritage but rather faith. Faith defines a true Israelite, as it always has. And now the Righteous Branch spoken of by Jeremiah has come and set up his church. The church consists of those faithful to Jesus, who is the True Israel, the Lion of Judah himself. Surely all those who by faith belong to the Lion of Judah are included when the Bible speaks of a covenant with the house of Judah. How could you leave the brothers and sisters of the Lion of Judah himself out of his house? It is unthinkable!

So when I see Jeremiah 31 speaking of a new covenant with the house of Judah, I realize it’s talking about a covenant with people of faith. Ethnicity may play a role in some times and some cases, but faith is paramount. It always has been, so nobody's replacing anything with a new reality. Jeremiah himself saw it that way. The whole Old Testament confirms it. And the New Testament makes it clear that the house of Judah reaches its full glory under the Judaic King promised way back in Genesis: Jesus, who fills his house with all who come to him by faith.

In short, if we read “house of Judah” but fail to see the Lion of Judah and his house as part of the prophesy, our sight is woefully small. We’ve missed Jesus altogether, and that is a real shame.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 11, 2015)

I absolutely agree that inclusion into the nation of Israel was not based solely on ethnic consideration. Nevertheless, conversion through circumcision and the following of the law and being counted as part of the nation of Israel was absolutely required prior to the gospel going to the Gentiles. This status quo was exactly what Paul challenged in Ephesians 2. In fact, the synagogue actually had a physical demarcation where non-Jews were not allowed to cross - punishable by death! Christ broke down this wall of hostility and Paul was persecuted by Jews for allowing believing Gentiles into the temple or synagogue. This change in requirement did not erase a Jewish or Gentile distinction anymore than it eliminated gender distinction - it just made them equal in God's eyes. Granted, this was a difficult shift for many Jews, as dealt with in Galatians.

However, I can't agree with the idea that someone is "spiritually Jewish". We are not "true Jews". Jewishness always has been expressed physically, but not exclusively physically. The argument that Paul is making this equivalence in Romans 2:29 is pretty weak. First of all, he is talking to Jewish believers in this passage. He's just saying that outward Jewishness is not valuable without a heart devoted to God. To be clear, the good news of the gospel includes the fact that remaining a Gentile without conversion to Judaism is absolutely fine!

It is true that I really take issue with the idea that Israel is now only a spiritual construction. Paul makes it very clear in Romans 9-11 that physical Israel, although still largely in unbelief, will again turn to their savior. He never teaches that any of the nation's ultimate promises will not be held, just that many natural branches have been broken off temporarily. Who are we to alter God's word that he gave them?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 12, 2015)

Brother Peter,

Some respondents are hyperventilating about your views, but they shouldn't be. You were required to take a vow to support the doctrine of your church in order to be an officer. Your elders should have vetted you, and presumably they did so. No one on this board should be second-guessing your session, or playing Monday morning quarterback.

Your views would probably be "out of accord" with a strict reading of the Standards. But deacons aren't being appointed to an office with a teaching function, but service, "waiting tables" as the apostles called it, Act.6:2.

But even more to the point, the PCA merger/joining&receiving with the RPCES in the 1980s brought a number of churches into the denomination which had historic friendly ties with the premillennial and/or dispensational perspective. The idea that this minority view would not continue to have a degree of purchase to this day in the PCA is naive.

The way you describe your view, it sounds like an accommodated dispensational view. It would make sense to concede that much, in my opinion. You can scarcely have a "separate-but-equal" view, and not just admit that like all segregationist views, it is an example of formal unity without actually changing the distinction. Comparing the convenient, positive distinction of ethnicity (Jew/Gentile) to the essential distinction of sex (male/female) is disingenuous.

You are free to argue the former is still present, in spite of the obliteration of the distinction laid out by Paul in Eph.2. But don't be shocked by the near-blanket dismissal of your point.

Finally, the majority opinion within the Reformed faith is not well-expressed by the language "we're true Jews," or "spiritually Jewish." The ethnic freight of the identification forces Christians to identify as Christians, Act.11:26, and to be distinguished from those who claim the ethno-religious designation. On the other hand, it was reasonable for the Jewish apostles (all of them), in taking the faith of the Messiah to the nations, to make use of standard religious terminology flowing from the Old Covenant era.

Thus, we find the term "Gentiles," once a term within Judaism synonymous with "idolators," gets applied to those outside the church _generally;_ while those within it are excepted, even if their background is non-Jewish; eg. Eph.4:17; 1Ths.4:5; 1Pet.2:12; 3Jn.1:7.

Or, Paul (writing to a church almost completely Gentile/Roman in composition, the Philippians, writes 3:3, "WE are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." He's writing to people who are NOT circumcised (he's opposing Judaizing heretics), and telling the brethren (v1) they ARE circumcised--having the only circumcision that counts. So those who have the bodily mark, and glory in it, and identify themselves by it as God's chosen people--they aren't. The people Paul is writing to are; and that's his point in calling them (all, of them, regardless of their heritage, with the apostles) "THE circumcision."

In line with Rom.11, many Christians of all kindreds today pray particularly for the salvation of the "native olive branches," that many will be put back into the True Vine But for probably most of us, we are not persuaded that Israel's special work of bringing Messiah into the world has anything left undone. Fulfillment has surpassed all expectation, and new wineskins have been supplied.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 12, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Some respondents are hyperventilating about your views, but they shouldn't be.



I don't think I'm hyperventilating as much as expressing concern. 

I certainly don't have a concern thinking of the Jews as a distinct ethnic people, descended from Abraham, who may be ingathered at some future point. I don't know that I undestand fully how such a prophecy would unfold but that's the nature of prophecy. But let's also be clear - Paul compares those who trust in the flesh in Galatians to ISHMAEL (remember that guy who descended from Abraham). Paul is very clear that a focus on the flesh alone makes one the son of a slavewoman and not an heir. Thus, whatever people have by birth it is not the true circumcision and if God is going to graft them back _in_ it means that they have been cut off just as the Norther tribes were "not my people" in a Covenantal sense.

The concern I have depends on the nature of the dispensationalism but I, in general, find the view to have very serious repurcussions across several theological (and practical) places.

I find Machen's writing on the nature of Paul's religion to be one of the best summaries of why I'm alarmed by forms of dispensationalism. To read Paul with a dispensational lens is to sadly miss the import of much of what Paul writes because it's only after he explains such things can you fully embrace the Old Testament and not simply see the Christian Church as some sort of "come lately" addon to the plan of God. As Machen notes, if Christianity was not an ancient religion it would have been rejected by the Gentile world. For it to be ancient it had to be what the Old Testament "preached" but the Old Testament "preached" particularity and separation. A Gentile could become a Jew but Paul's theology (revealed by the Holy Spirit) was not to downplay OT revleation but to show how Christ fulfilled that Revelation. The impport of the OT is not overthrown but _fulfilled_ in Christ so that ceremonial and sacramental separtion are now fulfilled as a new epoch is ushered in the by person and work of Christ. Moses saw a copy of the heavenly sanctuary, which we now have full access into through the veil of Christ' flesh. The Shekinah glory which represented God's presence among His people is now seen as Christ indwelling His people. To start with "the prophecies are for the Jews" and blindly carrry that insistence into the NT is so sad. It's so impoverishing.

What kind of Book would Galatians be if dispensationalism is true? Paul: "No, you Gentiles. Don't you understand that circumcision is for Jews. You're in the Church age now. The End."

If the economy for the Jews was to continue then, theoretically, a Gentile could (as he always could in the past) become Jewish. Paul ought to have no objection with a man choosing to become circumcised because, after all, he's just going to be the kind of "Christian" who continues in the ceremonial practices of the Jewish religion. No big deal.

Yet this is precisely what Christ has come to fulfill. If we understand the sign of circumcision to have had sacramental import then that which the sign pointed to had come. Yes there was a time for an old economy to fade away but to live as if the sign itself was still of full import and all the ceremonial laws practiced is to say "Yeah I believe Christ but I'm not sure that he really fulfills all this ceremonial stuff I still prefer to practice."

Finally, let me just get at a very serious issue that one sees as the culture degenerates. Christians who _assume_ that if it's in the Old Testament the following hermeneutic: "Well, that's in the Old Covenant - we live by grace now." After all, the Law is for the Jews. Who can really tease out whether it's OK to sleep with an animal when it also says in the same Book that you're not supposed to sew two types of cloth together? Well, you see, Paul and the Apostles had an answer to such things but dispensational thinking allows the Apostles to be shouted down. The Laws of God for the People of God cannot serve its purpose as ordained by the Lord because of this hermeneutical grid thrust upon the text. When we understand that the Covenant of Grace is an ancient Covenant - that it was _OUR_ forefathers who fell in the wilderness because they did not believe the Gospel, then one will fully understand how impoverishing this view is.

I don't fret purely because someone is un-Confessional. I do think that if the Session never asked that he needs to be clear where he stands. That said, I hope for Peter's sake (not as an enemy but as a Brother) that he come to see that some of his views are clouding his vision and he's unable to really see the glory of Christ revealed from OT to NT. Yes, this even affects how one practices mercy.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 12, 2015)

Thanks for your concern, brothers. To be fair, some of my beliefs probably weren't the same when I was instated as a deacon. I will talk to my pastor after I work through these things.

There are some teachings that I have in common with dispensationalists. However, the true is same as you. There are also some very big distinctions between my beliefs and dispensationalism. I do not believe that God has two chosen peoples. I do not believe that he works only the church or Israel at a time. I do not believe in a pre-trib rapture of the church. I believe that Jews are saved ONLY through the blood of Christ.

I have been reading a lot of Messianic Jewish material and frankly I find it to better explain the continuity between the OT and NT than covenant theology does. You continue to frame my beliefs in a dispensational lens. Before you critique my beliefs, how much have you engaged with Messianic Jewish theology? The Messianic movement is attempting to reclaim the Jewish faith as practiced by the apostles. It is my opinion that much of the church is influenced by 2000 years of church history in a way that they wouldn't even recognize much of the Jewish practice of the early church. Is it scandalous for you to believe that the apostles who wrote the NT were Torah observant Jews who participated in Temple sacrifices as long as they were alive and the temple was standing? If this were true, how would you reconcile it with the Reformed tradition? I do believe that the NT records this fact, which tends to make many Reformed folks uncomfortable.

How do you reconcile these passages?




> Acts 2:46
> 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts...
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 12, 2015)

Brother Peter,

Our resident former-Messianic Jew, Jerusalem Blade, is in a better situation from which to critique the M-J movement than I am. As a convert to Christianity from Judaism, and dwelling for a time in the MJM, he came to the contrary conclusion from the one which is interesting/attracting you at the moment.

The biggest difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology comes well before the conclusions of each, which as you note can overlap in a certain kind of agreement. The major divide is found in the _a priori,_ the hermeneutical question. I'm not talking about the alleged "literal/figurative" contrast (which is frankly mythological); but a disagreement about how the Bible _as an integrated message_ should be read.

Your views are more distinct from the Scofield/Ryrie Dispensational stream; but less removed from others, such as Blaising and Bock, progressive Dispensationalists. Note of similarity between one prominent MJM teacher's views ("David Stern's Olive Branch Theology") and Progressive Dispensationalism is made on this page: http://www.theopedia.com/progressive-dispensationalism.

Yes, many things have changed in 2000yrs of NT history; time marches on. And, many things have managed to stay, and many other things that should not have moved have been restored. I have several children. They have all changed in many positive ways--DNA directed ways--since their birth; and many things are fundamentally unchanged, showing they are still the same people who were born a while ago. A couple of them have been in hospital for brief stays, getting put back to rights, getting "reformed" so to speak. But not being put back into an infant-state.

Simply noting that certain things have changed from an earlier time is a non-sufficient condition for determining if something needs to go back to _*exactly*_ the way it was. Such a move may be completely irrational and even harmful. The Bible itself records a developmental change before the OT/NT divide: the transition from wilderness-church (Act.7:38) to being settled-in-the-land. Initial conditions did not set the permanent pattern, except in essential ways. It would not be healthy for tribes in the land to continue to live in a military encampment surrounding the Tabernacle for generations. But note: God kept the Tabernacle for a while afterward--not because it was meant to be permanent, but because it was not time to put it away for good until Solomon's reign.

For the most part, the church does not need to resume the Jewishness of the recently inaugurated NT-age church. "When I became an adult, I put away childish things." The Jewish "pillars of the church" did not try to juice the youthful, gangly NT Body into faster development with steroids. They let the Jewish-dominated church live in its Jewish skin for a time; they let cultural Jews be Jews, but they did not promote the division. They encouraged Jews who wanted to leave the "unbearable yoke" (Act.15:10) of Judaism behind; and when Peter did a flip-flop in Antioch, Paul faced him and withstood his hypocrisy. Resuming the Judaistic practice after leaving it was the wrong direction of travel. And the destruction of the Temple was the definitive close of the old covenant era. There is no going back, any more than there was a going back to the Tabernacle (not even when the people left the land into a second wilderness experience, the Exile).

So no, it is no scandal to recognize the NT apostles for the Jews they were. It doesn't make me uncomfortable in the least. I recognize a distinction between *initial conditions* for the sake of _establishment,_ and *subsequent conditions* which are _normative_ for the duration. There was an initial Passover meal, and a memorial Passover that had a few differences. That's why the early church needed prophets: they didn't have the "perfect," the complete NT revelation for guiding them. That's why miracles, healings, and tongues were suitable for the early church, and passed away (as common occurrence) with the first-and-second generations of the Christian age. We now have the transforming Word in its fullness, along with the true record of its confirmatory external signs.

Maybe no one ever presented you with a robust explanation of the progress and changes to the nature of the church as Acts and the Epistles record the transition from Old to New Covenant age, as the Reformed Faith has traditionally understood it. But it is not as if this question is brand new to us. The folks who have founded these late movements to reinvent the church by an ahistoric leap backward, are basically arguing that the Radical Reformation exemplified by Carlstadt, the anabaptists and apocalyptists, were correct; and the magisterial Reformers (Luther, Bucer, Calvin, Bullinger, etc.) were wrong.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 12, 2015)

pkananen said:


> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, brother. But much of what you say is very dispensational in tone and content. I think someone asked if you took an exception on these areas. If not, may ask if you did? Does your Session know of your views? In many Presbyteries in the PCA this simply wouldn't fly.
> ...



I'm sorry if I can across as accusatory. I did not say you were a dispensationalist, but only that much of your dialogue had a dispensational slant to it. I think it's commendable that you wish to investigate these issues. I was a dispensationalist for a solid two plus years, so I do understand the system from within its own hermeneutic. 

I'm certain you've read these texts, but Romans 11, Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 clearly allow the inference that God has one covenant people which consists of persons from every ethnic or racial group; for lack of a better term these persons are "spiritual Jews"--a group comprised of all the elect including ethnic Jews, as well as Irishman, German women, Chinese girls, Nigerian boys et al. 

May I ask what your take on Rev. 2:9 and Rev. 3:9 is regarding "those who say they are Jews and are not..."? What is the ethnicity of these persons? If they are ethnically Jewish, and claim that identity, but are not Jews in God’s eyes, then how would that effect your interpretation?


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 12, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But even more to the point, the PCA merger/joining&receiving with the RPCES in the 1980s brought a number of churches into the denomination which had historic friendly ties with the premillennial and/or dispensational perspective. The idea that this minority view would not continue to have a degree of purchase to this day in the PCA is naive.



I have not seen much evidence of this, at least online. It seems to me that a big factor is that such views seem to be basically unwelcome at all of the seminaries, probably even Covenant, which as the RPCES seminary used to be known for its premillennialism through the teaching of J. Oliver Buswell, J. Barton Payne and others. I'm referring to ministers and to RE's I've encountered over the past decade. Among laymen and maybe deacons, it would not be surprising to see a greater diversity of views. And sometimes I have to remind myself that just because I don't see something online doesn't mean that it isn't out there. 

Perhaps the two most notable ministers who came into the PCA from the RPCES were Francis Schaeffer and James Montgomery Boice. Both are usually referred to as historic premillennialists. And they were in the sense that they upheld the unity of the covenant of grace, something a consistent dispensationalist (probably not even a progressive) cannot do. But both also espoused pretribulationism and never retracted it to my knowledge. (From time to time you'll see it stated that one or the other of them was post-trib, but I've never seen any direct evidence. I think it is often just assumed that they _must_ have been post-trib.) At one of the PCRT conferences, Boice invited Moishe Rosen of Jews for Jesus to speak. (The message is in the Bible Study Hour archives on OnePlace.com.) Several years ago, Boice's commentary on the Minor Prophets was positively reviewed in the OPC's magazine. The reviewer didn't mention Boice's premillennialism, much less his leaving open the possibility that the temple might be rebuilt. Perhaps he missed those pages! 

It can hardly be doubted that this issue is one reason (among several) why Francis Schaeffer decided to oppose the proposed merger of the RPCES and the OPC in 1975. It would have led to fighting the battles of the 30s and 40s all over again. 

Although it was found in the mainline PCUSA and PCUS, this theology is most closely associated with the Bible Presbyterian Church. Men like Schaeffer and Buswell who left the BPC did so out of disagreement with Carl McIntire's leadership and not over doctrinal differences. Dr. John Battle of Western Reformed Seminary (affiliated with the BPC) says that by the mid 20th Century, pre-tribulationism so dominated the BPC that there was some controversy when he named head of the seminary because he is post-trib. In a _JETS_ essay a few years back, Dr. Jeffrey Khoo of the BPC in Singapore referred to Buswell as having a covenantal ecclesiology and a dispensational eschatology. I guess that might be the best way to boil it down for those of us looking at it in retrospect. 

I'll add that the idea that ethnic Israel is to be restored to the land is not a dispensational distinctive even though that is mainly who espouses it today. It was commonly held by older covenantal premils like Spurgeon, Ryle and the Bonars and is espoused today by the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony. If I'm not mistaken, some postmils affirmed it as well. Most "historic premils" today differ from those of the 19th and early 20th Centuries on this.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 12, 2015)

Another type of "replacement theology" that too often isn't in view in these discussions pertains to worship. What I'm referring to is the Roman (and Eastern Orthodox) appropriation of aspects of temple worship such as priests sacrificing at an altar, incense and so on. This includes those Protestant churches who have retained Romish practices to varying degrees. I think the greater concern is a Romanizing tendency in Presbyterian and Reformed churches, from observing the church calendar (Lent most notably) to the FV.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 12, 2015)

Pilgrim said:


> I'll add that the idea that ethnic Israel is to be restored to the land is not a dispensational distinctive even though that is mainly who espouses it today. It was commonly held by older covenantal premils like Spurgeon, Ryle and the Bonars and is espoused today by the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony. If I'm not mistaken, some postmils affirmed it as well. Most "historic premils" today differ from those of the 19th and early 20th Centuries on this.



This is absolutely correct. I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can avoid creating a new version of the Jefferson Bible if you think Israel being back in their land is not part of God's ultimate plan. Isaiah 2, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 60, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36-48, Zechariah 12-14, Joel 3, Amos 9:13-15, Hosea 3 must be mutilated if we believe that Israel not being in the land is not God's final plan. Of course, we see this expectation by the apostles in Acts 1:6-7, and Jesus does not strike it down. In Acts 3:21 we see Peter confirm the restoration of all things according to the prophets. Do we really think that the Jewish apostles weren't reading their Jewish scriptures in a literal fashion regarding the land promises? God made these promises to Abraham that were very explicit, everlasting, and unconditional.

Whenever I raise these concerns with many people in our tradition, I feel like a I get a variant of "Did God really say....?"


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 12, 2015)

pkananen said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > I'll add that the idea that ethnic Israel is to be restored to the land is not a dispensational distinctive even though that is mainly who espouses it today. It was commonly held by older covenantal premils like Spurgeon, Ryle and the Bonars and is espoused today by the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony. If I'm not mistaken, some postmils affirmed it as well. Most "historic premils" today differ from those of the 19th and early 20th Centuries on this.
> ...



Very simply, they think it is incompatible with the Scriptures and the Reformed Faith. 

Right or wrong, you just have to know that you're going to receive a great deal of push back on this in Presbyterian and Reformed circles, just about as much as a 5 pointer would receive in "traditional" revivalistic Baptist or pentecostal circles. The theology I describe above is basically associated with a brand of New School Presbyterianism from a time that hath long been forgotten by most. (Most broadly evangelical Presbyterians today have gone off in a different direction.) These views on Israel are held by some in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster (and maybe North America) who seem to make up a sizeable portion of the constituency of the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony based on the number of speakers from that denomination that they have. But that denomination is generally at least as associated with fundamentalism as it is with the Reformed faith.

It is a good idea to read some opposing views just to see where they are coming from, if nothing else.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 12, 2015)

The irony in this is that Covenant Theology seems to not respect God's words in his covenants as fully as he stated them. And on top of that, we who believe in election really don't like the thought that God elected Israel to be grafted back in, with all of their promises intact! This to me is exactly what Paul warned about in Romans 11. God broke off some natural branches, which continues to this day - and he warned against arrogance against them that could result in us being broken off again.

Israel is not a perfect nation. They are overwhelmingly in unbelief. Satan tried to destroy them multiple times since they were scattered, and our country is giving Iran the bomb as we speak. Iran wants to destroy them within 25 years. It will be increasingly painful as believers to watch Israel continue in unbelief as the nations rally against them. However, we ultimately know that God's purpose in election will be realized. Is this not exactly what the scriptures say?




> Zechariah 12
> 10*“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. 11*On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12*The land shall mourn, each family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13*the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14*and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.






> Zechariah 14
> 14*Behold, a day is coming for the LORD, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. 2*For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3*Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4*On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. 5*And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.
> 6*On that day there shall be no light, cold, or frost. 7*And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light.
> 8*On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter.
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 12, 2015)

pkananen said:


> I don't see how you can avoid creating a new version of the Jefferson Bible if you think Israel being back in their land is not part of God's ultimate plan.


That's just an incendiary WP grenade tossed into the discussion.

Doesn't affect my asbestos skin, but if you are recriminated (by those of the dominant persuasion of the board), it might feel like you've been napalmed.

You absolutize the land promise. Fine. OK.

I say Heb.11:9-10 states explicitly that Abraham did not understand the promise of an eternal/permanent land to have a final earthly fulfillment, but only a heavenly one. So the land is a type, not the reality; and the reality has been settled in Christ, the inheritor of the whole land/earth/universe. And even this planet is a passing shadow compared to the new heavens and earth.

So, accusing them of taking scissors to their Bibles--those who see the types as incapable of sufficiently expressing the reality--merely highlights the difference between reading the OT as a book that belongs fundamentally to an earthly ethnic identity; and reading the OT in unity with the NT as the rightful property of God's forever-people, who have a common heritage--biologically in Adam; believingly in Abraham.

If God promises a plot of ground to Abraham, then promises him a broad land spread out to the NSE&W from where he stands and looks, and every inch his foot treads; if he further endows Abraham's Hope and Seed of Promise with the whole earth as a token of the inheritance soon to be granted in fullest measure--if HE that is Christ already possesses what God promised him through his father Abraham--why should we then assign Israel's preChristian hope of restoration respecting the land in a now limited and reduced fashion?

Besides, the OT itself tells us that the land promise to Abraham was fulfilled in the conquest: Josh.21:45 "Not one word of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass" (and 23:14).

We're coming back to the original claim: that the OT is self-explanatory. That view states that, for instance, the book of Hebrews does not definitively recast the land-promise--and all the rest of the OT hope--as fulfilled in the triumph of Jesus. This ends up being little different from the NT-as-parenthesis perspective. The NT's vision is "temporary" in this perspective, a "re-imagining" of the OT to console those who have Jesus, but no earthly glory from an earthly reign of the Son of David. The "permanent" perspective (so the claim goes) is that which belonged to those who were bound to the dim light of the types and shadows, which things require some kind of down-to-earth completion; or (it is alleged) the promises of God have failed.

Well, with all due respect, all the OT expectations were temporary and provisional in their original form. They were taught to people who had to deal with a "veiled" condition, who were not fully capable of appreciating the reality that could only be entered into when the Messianic age arrived.


You may not share this view, historic though it be and embedded in our Reformed faith-tradition. But your criticism just dismisses it out of hand, and that on the basis of a stipulated superiority of supposed "literalness." To this point in time, you don't seem aware of how the Reformed have argued this case. How can you evaluate it?

You don't; you just call it the "Jefferson approach." Nice.


----------



## rickclayfan (Sep 12, 2015)

Israel served one major purpose - to have Christ arise from their nation. The promise of the Seed was first made with Adam, then narrowed down to Shem, then Abraham, and then David. The hope of a coming Delivered was preserved in them. Hence God's faithfulness to them even amid their horrid apostasies. Once the Messiah came, the Old Covenant was dismantled and completely done away with the destruction of Jerusalem. Before, their exiles consisted of the whole nation being transported to a different land. But with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, they were dispersed among the nations and intermarried losing their distinctiveness. By their own standards, the Jews today are Samaritans. This is not to anti-semiticism, but merely a placing of them on the same level as all nations. God has gracious dealings with only people - the Church. He does not possess earthly favorites. The covenantal promises of old were made with the true Israel, those who followed the example of their father Abraham, who is the father of the faithful. He is not the father of the unbelieving, but of the faithful. Also, notice that Abraham is the father of many nations, not merely one particular nation. To end, reference Romans 2:28-29.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## rickclayfan (Sep 12, 2015)

Also, the promise of the covenant in Jeremiah 31 that is made with the house of Israel and Judah is applied to the Church (consisting of Jews and Gentiles) in Hebrews 8. By promising it to Israel & Judah and applying it to the Church, the two are equated.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## Edward (Sep 12, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Your views would probably be "out of accord" with a strict reading of the Standards. But deacons aren't being appointed to an office with a teaching function, but service, "waiting tables" as the apostles called it, Act.6:2.



Not a legitimate distinction as to the vows. The fact that the two sets of ordained officers are called to different officers and roles does not excuse one or the other from subscribing to the same standard in the PCA. Indeed, the examination is the same for both offices, and the vows vary only to the designation of the office. See PCA BCO 24. 

The tone of your comment suggests that you don't consider the orthodoxy of your deacons as important as the orthodoxy of your elders. If this is true, I would call on you to repent and to apologize to your deacons.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 12, 2015)

pkananen said:


> Thanks for your concern, brothers. To be fair, some of my beliefs probably weren't the same when I was instated as a deacon. I will talk to my pastor after I work through these things.
> 
> There are some teachings that I have in common with dispensationalists. However, the true is same as you. There are also some very big distinctions between my beliefs and dispensationalism. I do not believe that God has two chosen peoples. I do not believe that he works only the church or Israel at a time. I do not believe in a pre-trib rapture of the church. I believe that Jews are saved ONLY through the blood of Christ.
> 
> ...



It has helped me greatly, in interpreting what the Scriptures teach us, to understand that Acts is largely a historical book- descriptive, as a historical account (although those accounts do teach us many important things about God and his church), and not necessarily prescriptive like the Epistles.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 12, 2015)

Edward said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Your views would probably be "out of accord" with a strict reading of the Standards. But deacons aren't being appointed to an office with a teaching function, but service, "waiting tables" as the apostles called it, Act.6:2.
> ...



"I" don't have any deacons or elders. So, by your reasoning there's no one to whom I need repent or apologize.

According to the Word deacons needn't have the same level of theological acumen as elders. Both officers are bound to the same Standards, but that doesn't mean deacons must have exactly the same level of familiarity with them that should characterize the men actually charged with the duty of maintaining the church's doctrinal fidelity.

In the Reformed Church, new members typically take a vow to the church's confession, the same as their leaders. While, unlike the Reformed Church, our members do not take a membership oath to affirm the church's confession; if they did, we would not expect them to have the same level of commitment to them that their deacons vowed. Members all are presumably at different levels of "orthodox" understanding; the orthodoxy of the officers is "more important" than that of Joe Disciple, only in that Joe has a ways to go before he's officer material. Still, I don't think that the pew-sitter's "orthodoxy" is somehow unimportant.

What do you know about how I as a member of a session would go about vetting prospective deacons? Very little. Regarding the presenting of a man to the congregation to vote him into the office of deacon, my humble reluctance to second guess the wisdom of the session of Peter's distant congregation, extends to my reluctance to second guess the wisdom of the session of Edward's distant congregation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 12, 2015)

pkananen said:


> I have been reading a lot of Messianic Jewish material and frankly I find it to better explain the continuity between the OT and NT than covenant theology does. You continue to frame my beliefs in a dispensational lens. Before you critique my beliefs, how much have you engaged with Messianic Jewish theology? The Messianic movement is attempting to reclaim the Jewish faith as practiced by the apostles. It is my opinion that much of the church is influenced by 2000 years of church history in a way that they wouldn't even recognize much of the Jewish practice of the early church. Is it scandalous for you to believe that the apostles who wrote the NT were Torah observant Jews who participated in Temple sacrifices as long as they were alive and the temple was standing? If this were true, how would you reconcile it with the Reformed tradition? I do believe that the NT records this fact, which tends to make many Reformed folks uncomfortable.



So now the real Peter emerges. I checked your Bio yesterday because some things emerged that made me wonder what was going on.

Appears in your Bio you make it pretty plain that you're here because we poor Reformed folk haven't really studied the issue very carefully as to how the Jews fit into the Covenants. Your hubris is breathtaking.

Ask yourself this question: exactly how "old" is Messianic Judaism? Has it ever occurred to you that there have been men claiming that the Church is "slavish" to Western thinking and that they were trying to return the Church to its "Hebrew roots"?

What makes you think that a group of men, even if they are ethnically Jewish, have the ability to convert to the Christian faith less than 50 years ago and peer back into time to "return the Church back to its Jewish roots"?

I only have affection for anyone who is a Christian and have nothing at all against Jewish people. Absolutely nothing against them.

But I find it incredibly arrogant that the MJM assumes to itself some ability to stand outside of Church history and everything that the Lord has taught His Church for the past 2000 years and ascribe to them some authority.

Why stop here, Peter. What's their view of the Trinity? The Hypostatic Union? What, pray tell, may we learn from them since they don't need any Church councils or any of the trials and tribulations of Church history to come to true Biblical teaching. They simply transcend all of that because, presumably, they have a bead on what the Apostles really thought that the rest of Church history passed over.



pkananen said:


> The irony in this is that Covenant Theology seems to not respect God's words in his covenants as fully as he stated them. And on top of that, we who believe in election really don't like the thought that God elected Israel to be grafted back in, with all of their promises intact! This to me is exactly what Paul warned about in Romans 11. God broke off some natural branches, which continues to this day - and he warned against arrogance against them that could result in us being broken off again.



So now we come to what you really think of Covenant Theology. I really don't know if you realize that you are basically knocking out the very foundation of the ground on which you stand when you make statements like this. One of the foundational elements of Biblical theology is the nature of the Covenant of Grace. The Westminster standards note that man can have no fruition with the Creator except that He condescend by way of Covenant. It then unpacks the work of Christ as Mediator for the Covenant of Grace (of which the Mosaic is an administration).

You may think, in your limited reading of this issue and affinity for MJM readings, that you are just improving upon the edges but you are fundamentally altering the vary nature of salvation itself. Everything flows out of the nature of this Covenant and before you think you are able to simply point out Scripture verses, absolutize land promises (as if we've never read those verses before), you ought to do some deep study and understand how you're essentially destryong the very foundation of the Church you are ordained within. You may come to the full import of the direction you are heading but don't think you're trajectory is in the Reformed tradition. You will end squarely outside of it and I'm convinced, to my bones, that the Westminster Standards are a summary exposition of the Scriptures. You will therefore land outside of what the Scriptures teach not because the Reformed have no answers to your challenges but because you are enamored with a group with a short pedigree who thinks they're able to ignore Church history and transcend it.


----------



## Edward (Sep 12, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Both officers are bound to the same Standards, but that doesn't mean deacons must have exactly the same level of familiarity with them that should characterize the men actually charged with the duty of maintaining the church's doctrinal fidelity.



I remain in full disagreement with you on this. Our deacon candidates attend the same theological and BCO classes as the elder candidates, and take the same examination. Each office has separate breakout training for the specific roles. 




Contra_Mundum said:


> our members do not take a membership oath to affirm the church's confession; if they did, we would not expect them to have the same level of commitment to them that their deacons vowed. Members all are presumably at different levels of "orthodox" understanding; the orthodoxy of the officers is "more important" than that of Joe Disciple, only in that Joe has a ways to go before he's officer material. Still, I don't think that the pew-sitter's "orthodoxy" is somehow unimportant.



Thanks, I didn't realize that the OPC took such a casual view as to ordination for Deacons. Perhaps they have a distinctly different role in the OPC than they do in the PCA such that you see them merely in the role of "waiting tables" while the PCA gives us a broader role, under the supervision and authority of the session, but with independent duties. (PCA BCO 9-1 and -2) and recognizes it as an office spiritual in nature. 

I'll look at the OPC BCO to see if I can flesh out the differences. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> "I" don't have any deacons or elders.



So are you pastoring a mission church without officers, or are you disclaiming responsibility for the officers elected by the congregation and ordained and installed by someone else?


----------



## pkananen (Sep 13, 2015)

Brothers, I apologize for my tone and comments that were definitely a little incendiary. I am sincerely interesting in working through these topics. It would have been better for me to introduce myself before jumping right into this conversation and dropping bombs.

I will spend some time formulating my questions in a way that aren't accusatory right off the bat.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2015)

Ed,
I'm tired of your invidious characterization of things pertaining to me (and the OPC), things you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll save you some time. Here's some OPC BCO:


> FORM OF GOVERNMENT
> 
> Chapter X
> Ruling Elders
> ...





> FORM OF GOVERNMENT
> 
> Chapter XI
> Deacons
> ...





> FORM OF GOVERNMENT
> 
> Chapter XXV
> Electing, Ordaining, and Installing Ruling Elders and Deacons
> ...




****************************



Edward said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > "I" don't have any deacons or elders.
> ...


Neither.

The men of the congregation who fill these roles aren't "mine." I'm not their sovereign. I don't nominate them. I don't elect them. I participate in a process of oversight by the session, through which we all together evaluate candidates, and provide for their training and preparation where required by our Form of Government. I preside over the service where they take their public vows, and I ask them the stated questions from the BCO.

Once they are ordained/installed, they don't become "mine." They don't work for me. They don't answer to me, except as I sit in the council, one among many servants with a collective duty of oversight. They are the church's elders, the church's deacons.

You advised me to apologize to "my" deacons, if I rate their orthodoxy any less vital to church health than than I rate the orthodoxy of elders (I'm trying to supply your original comment with additional clarity). In light of the above, I consider your advice meaningless. And it would be absurd to think I consider the orthodoxy of anyone in the church "trivial."

As soon as you show me (chapter and verse, or chapter and paragraph) how I've slighted deacons generally, or OPC deacons in particular, I'll reconsider your advice.


----------



## Edward (Sep 13, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'll save you some time. Here's some OPC BCO:



Sorry, too slow. I looked last night, and there is a significant difference between the two denominations with regard to deacons. I was planning to devote some time after church to a new thread on the views toward deacons, and I might still do so looking at some other Presbyterian (in fact and in name) denominations. 

But the gentlemen in question is a PCA, not an OPC deacon, so our higher standards would apply. 

" Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first"



Contra_Mundum said:


> Neither.
> 
> The men of the congregation who fill these roles aren't "mine."



Although our pastor delegates the training of our officers to other ruling and teaching elders, I would hold him primarily, and the session secondarily responsible in any shortcomings as to their trainng and examination. And he is the one that presides over the ordinations. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> You advised me to apologize to "my" deacons, if I rate their orthodoxy any less vital to church health than than I rate the orthodoxy of elders (I'm trying to supply your original comment with additional clarity).



Yes, you did fully understand my comment and re-state it fairly. 




Contra_Mundum said:


> In light of the above, I consider your advice meaningless.



You are certainly free to do so. At my age, however, I have found it sometimes more beneficial to ponder on what my critics say than to listen to the sweet applause of my supporters. But I would not undertake to offer you advice on this, as I understand how you regard my opinions. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> As soon as you show me (chapter and verse, or chapter and paragraph) how I've slighted deacons generally, or OPC deacons in particular



Thought I had done so, but here, again:



Contra_Mundum said:


> Your views would probably be "out of accord" with a strict reading of the Standards. But deacons aren't being appointed to an office with a teaching function, but service, "waiting tables" as the apostles called it, Act.6:2.



and I'll add in this:



Contra_Mundum said:


> According to the Word deacons needn't have the same level of theological acumen as elders. Both officers are bound to the same Standards, but that doesn't mean deacons must have exactly the same level of familiarity with them that should characterize the men actually charged with the duty of maintaining the church's doctrinal fidelity.
> 
> In the Reformed Church, new members typically take a vow to the church's confession, the same as their leaders. While, unlike the Reformed Church, our members do not take a membership oath to affirm the church's confession; if they did, we would not expect them to have the same level of commitment to them that their deacons vowed. Members all are presumably at different levels of "orthodox" understanding; the orthodoxy of the officers is "more important" than that of Joe Disciple, only in that Joe has a ways to go before he's officer material.





Contra_Mundum said:


> What do you know about how I as a member of a session would go about vetting prospective deacons? Very little.



More than a little, based upon your posts here.




Contra_Mundum said:


> extends to my reluctance to second guess the wisdom of the session of Edward's distant congregation.



A VERY well done insult. I do appreciate your skill.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 13, 2015)

pkananen said:


> Brothers, I apologize for my tone and comments that were definitely a little incendiary. I am sincerely interesting in working through these topics. It would have been better for me to introduce myself before jumping right into this conversation and dropping bombs.
> 
> I will spend some time formulating my questions in a way that aren't accusatory right off the bat.



Peter,

I likewise apologize for my tone. I got a little over-zealous in my comments. I think you're genuinely trying to wrestle with some concepts and I'm duty bound to be patient with people toward that end. I probably get triggered a little too much by the standard appeals to land promises and the injunction that it's "obvious" that the Lord is making a promise that sticks only withe the physical descendants of Israel. I simply do not see it that way and I think several NT pericopes make plain that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise to his Seed is not, fundamentally, a land promise. I think even the prophecy of Ezekiel makes plain, in vivid imagery, how even the "temple" cannot be contained within the borders of Israel. There are so many direct and indirect inferences that make the Promise much larger than what the Jews might inherit in a small land parcel.

That said, I think it's pretty clear that the Reformed can differ a little about ethnic Israel. I certainly would not want to be on the side of any idea that simply dismisses as irrelevant that God probably has a plan to gather back in the branches that were broken off but I also see that as being brought back into the one Root of which they have been cut out. It's not healthy, in my view, to either dismiss them as irrelevant or "overplay" the Covenant promises and miss the import of Christ being the ultimate Nexus of that Promise. Hebrews, in my estimation, makes plain that even when the Israelites possessed the land they looked forward to an eternal rest - a heavenly country and that all who had faith would always look forward to a heavenly country and not find any ultimate fulfillment to God's Promise while the Curse remains until the Lord comes again.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I see a lot of Messianic Judaism as clinging to "weak and beggarly" elements of the world that were fulfilled in Christ. In their insistence on being distinctive they are not reforming or progressing Christianity but devolving and trying to go back to what the author of Hebrews would have reproved in the strongest possible terms. The injuction is precisely in seeing Christ as the fulfillment of all those types and that the heavenly worship is much more "real" and more excellent of a ministry than anything they possessed. It's the difference between clinging to the shadow when you have the ability to cling to the Person. 

When one looks at Romans 14-15, those who are "weak" are those who still maintain ceremonial scruples. It's understandable that a 1st Century convert to Christianity would find it difficult to cast off all cleanliness and ceremonial aspects. What's not understandable is to insist on a form of institutional weakness that insists that a Jewish convert is not a "Christian" but a "Messianic Jew" who will not only take on the scruples of a weak faith but perpetuate it as normative for the Jew who has been converted to Christ.

Finally, I'll just state a built in "allergy" to claims that people are recovering what the Church fully lost in the past. I stand in the Reformed tradition and not the Revolutionary tradition. Yes, in the course of time, there are heterodox elements that have crept into the Church and refomation is always necessary. Yet, the Reformers have never thought of themselves as creating ideas _de novo_ through academic investigation and peering with some 2000 year telescope to figure out what Christianity _really_ was like until (presumably) all traces of that orthodoxy rapidly disappeared from view and we have no evidence of its vestiges. There are all sorts of theories that posit that in one form or another. Consider, for example, N.T. Wright who claims to know the Jews of Paul's day better than Paul himself could express it. No, we can't possibly understand Paul's concern in Romans and Galatians and elsewhere without the aid of N.T. Wright's research into how the Jews *really* thought about grace and salvation. Only then are we able to bring Wright's understanding to the words of Paul and Christ to gain a "new perspective" on the Gospel. Why is this necessary? Because the Church was incapable of understanding Paul until N.T. Wright came around.

What I'm suggesting to Messianic Jews (not that they care what I suggest) is that they don't have any special warrant or infallible skill to pole vault over history or use a 2000 year telescope to determine what the _real_ perspective on Paul is. I show respect to the Jewish tradition of Jesus' day by looking at the centuries of development that occurred in the works of Edersheim and others who put Jesus and the Apostles in their Jewish context. I don't assume I have the right to ignore that history and make of that context what I want. I think some Messianic Jews take it as a given (as Liberals and cultists are prone to do) to assume that Church history and Christian thought bears no weight in the discussion. How could a Church, started by Jewish followers of Christ, simply veer into the Church history we have? Irrelevant. It's taken as a given that it jumped off the tracks in earliest records and that it's best to go back to uninspired Targum or other writings to determine who the Apostles {i]really[/i] were.

That, friend, is dangerous and I would entreat you to treat it as an inherently dangerous approach to Biblical truth.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2015)

Ed,
Quoting my words back to me isn't the "chapter and verse, or chapter and paragraph" I need, so to know what I might have to apologize for. As of now, you're just telling me you chose to take offense at my words. That's truly, seriously regretful; but I won't pretend that's an apology.

You're saying, "You should have a different opinion. I don't like it. Change your mind. If not, your character is suspect." Basis please?

You need to show, using Scripture and/or my governing documents, the _*substance*_ and _*manner*_ in which I've contravened them. Until then, far as anyone knows, you just have an attitude you're taking out on me.

OPC FG Ch.XXV, para.3 describes the general preparation for office-bearing required in our church. Deference to Scripture directions is evident in the text. Discretion is left to Sessions as to how this is accomplished. Maybe your congregation or the PCA as a whole has, in fact, "higher" standards than the OPC. I'm not sure how that measure can be made objectively. Does "standardized testing" equate to higher standards, or just alternative methodology? Sounds like a judgment call to me.




Edward said:


> But I would not undertake to offer you advice on this, as I understand how you regard my opinions.


But you already offered the advice. And in it, the deacons (presumably) of the congregation I serve you characterized as being in some sense my subjects, my minions; or that perhaps I considered them such and treated them as base inferiors. You certainly claim that my regard for these men is belittling, that I show poor regard for "my" deacons.

Since no one in a non-hierarchical denomination like mine (or yours) can "have" deacons in the sense you seem to present the notion, your advice is "meaningless" in that it lacks the cogency that would allow me the opportunity to supply a rational response.

You quote me, like my words are self-evidently crude and insulting, to deacons everywhere. Talk about a bad construction.

And this:


Edward said:


> A VERY well done insult. I do appreciate your skill.


Just so I'm clear:

By refusing to prejudice the Session that trained you, approved you, ordained and installed you to one of Christ's offices; by granting they have superior wisdom in all things pertaining to you, than I can hope to have through the impersonal medium of the internet, so prone to misjudgment and misunderstanding; thus have I insulted you.

Or was the insult, in your mind, daring to say the same thing about my respect for your Session, that I thought was appropriate for Peter's Session?



I'm pretty sure I'm treading the line of violating 2Tim.2:24, "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome...." So, I'm pretty much done defending myself.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 13, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > Brothers, I apologize for my tone and comments that were definitely a little incendiary. I am sincerely interesting in working through these topics. It would have been better for me to introduce myself before jumping right into this conversation and dropping bombs.
> ...



I understand your concern. We are all at risk of reading into the scriptures our particular pet theology or hermeneutic. It is too simplistic to leap over church history and pretend you've got it all figured out, and everyone before you was caught up by a spiritual stumbling block you've managed to avoid. But this also does not give us a right to shake off any challenges to longstanding tradition, either. After all, this is why we respect the Reformers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 13, 2015)

pkananen said:


> I understand your concern. We are all at risk of reading into the scriptures our particular pet theology or hermeneutic. It is too simplistic to leap over church history and pretend you've got it all figured out, and everyone before you was caught up by a spiritual stumbling block you've managed to avoid. But this also does not give us a right to shake off any challenges to longstanding tradition, either. After all, this is why we respect the Reformers.



Yes, but remember, the Reformers interacted with Church history _informed_ by the doctrinal and historical developments of Church history and not ignorant of it assuming that such history was captive to a Western philosophical tradition. I don't think the same can be said of much of Messianic Jewish studies. Ask your average Messianic Jew what his study of the Cappodocian Fathers consists of...


----------



## pkananen (Sep 13, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > I understand your concern. We are all at risk of reading into the scriptures our particular pet theology or hermeneutic. It is too simplistic to leap over church history and pretend you've got it all figured out, and everyone before you was caught up by a spiritual stumbling block you've managed to avoid. But this also does not give us a right to shake off any challenges to longstanding tradition, either. After all, this is why we respect the Reformers.
> ...



It's certainly a young tradition in its revived state, but you cannot dismiss that this was the apostolic practice. But the movement concedes that there are a lot of question as to how to pick up where the early church left off. But for Jews who know their Messiah, it is indeed commendable that they follow God's unique call for them.

If you're interested in engaging with the best overview on the subject, I'd recommend Rudolph's and Willitts' book Introduction to Messianic Judaism - Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations.


----------



## Edward (Sep 13, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> So, I'm pretty much done defending myself.



Then I expect I best not continue the exchange.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 14, 2015)

pkananen said:


> It's certainly a young tradition in its revived state, but you cannot dismiss that this was the apostolic practice.



I'm sorry but this is precisely the same reasoning that Pentecostals and Charismatics give. Just read Acts. We need to be just like them.

This is not how theology is done. 



pkananen said:


> But for Jews who know their Messiah, it is indeed commendable that they follow God's unique call for them.



that is precisely what is up for debate. Whether what they are doing is commendable or rebellious. You assume that the young movement is on the right track. I ask, again, whether this movement is a reformation movement or revolutionary. Have they even understood the early Church and its development to be able to interact with it? Does it occur to them that the Church grew out of Jews and Gentiles to what it became and why, if Messianic Judaism is normative for Jews, did it disappear? This has the marks of the way cults form.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 14, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > It's certainly a young tradition in its revived state, but you cannot dismiss that this was the apostolic practice.
> ...


I agree with this caution. We should indeed test their theology to see if it is Biblical. I cannot speak for all Messianic theology, but I have engaged with much of it that has deepened my relationship with Christ and my understanding of scripture.




Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > But for Jews who know their Messiah, it is indeed commendable that they follow God's unique call for them.
> ...



I have been a Protestant all of my life. I intend to continue it this tradition all of my life. But it is amazing how splintered Protestantism is. The PCA represents 1 of 6 Presbyterian denominations in the USA alone. We've had splits in the last 50 years. We also don't know if our young movement is on the right track. My point in saying this is that it hasn't exactly been a clean line of tradition from the early church, let alone the Reformation ourselves.

We know that there are mysterious reasons that God chose to let the Jews enter a time of hardness. I would not claim that Messianic Judaism has ever been normative for Jews. But the apostles were indeed Jews living Torah observant lives who knew their Messiah. We should be overjoyed when Jews today encounter their Messiah, and live out their calling accordingly.

We must remember that Jesus was a fully-observant Jew, as were the apostles, and that we are reading Jewish scriptures. If we remove the Jewish context they wrote from, we are in danger ourselves of misunderstanding scripture. As the increasingly-Gentile church left behind its Jewish roots, we have surely lost perspective that has harmed our theology.


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Sep 14, 2015)

Isn't there a prophetic element we are missing here...... That a remnant of the actual Jewish people will be converted..... So there will be faith but it will be possibly a short-term possibly semi-sporadic turning back unto the true God through Christ immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus.,..

I know we are not suppose to use current events to interpret scriptures.... But if the rest of the world continues to grow so dark and cold, the idea of an isolated Israel producing some true converts wouldnt seem so far fetched as far as an end times scenario is concerned..... This scenario does not take away from Reformed belief in any way as far as I can tell....?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 14, 2015)

pkananen said:


> I agree with this caution. We should indeed test their theology to see if it is Biblical. I cannot speak for all Messianic theology, but I have engaged with much of it that has deepened my relationship with Christ and my understanding of scripture.


It is precisely the "depth" of your appreciation for Scripture that has not yet been demonstrated. I see a lot of fairly unartful attempts to point to Jeremiah 31 and tell everyone how obvious something is or an appeal to the Acts of the Apostles and say: "See! Observant Jews!" Your line of argumentation is very crude and we haven't even gotten to issues of basic orthodoxy.

I'm actually more interested in knowing how this theology has affected your understanding of the historic formulations around the Godhead. Have you bought into the arguments about the Trinity and Hypostatic union too as "deepening" your relationship with Christ?



> I have been a Protestant all of my life. I intend to continue it this tradition all of my life. But it is amazing how splintered Protestantism is. The PCA represents 1 of 6 Presbyterian denominations in the USA alone. We've had splits in the last 50 years. We also don't know if our young movement is on the right track. My point in saying this is that it hasn't exactly been a clean line of tradition from the early church, let alone the Reformation ourselves.
> 
> We know that there are mysterious reasons that God chose to let the Jews enter a time of hardness. I would not claim that Messianic Judaism has ever been normative for Jews. But the apostles were indeed Jews living Torah observant lives who knew their Messiah. We should be overjoyed when Jews today encounter their Messiah, and live out their calling accordingly.
> 
> We must remember that Jesus was a fully-observant Jew, as were the apostles, and that we are reading Jewish scriptures. If we remove the Jewish context they wrote from, we are in danger ourselves of misunderstanding scripture. As the increasingly-Gentile church left behind its Jewish roots, we have surely lost perspective that has harmed our theology.



Yes, there is division withing Protestantism but I'm referring to the Reformed Confessions, which stands in 90% correspondence to the rest of catholic Christianity and the other soteriological emphases trace themselves back to the early Church.

I know you've apparently already drunk the Kool-Aid on this but I'm simply not persuaded that the Apostles, following the Resurrection, were following some sort of separated "Messianic Judaism" while setting up a Gentile Church that followed practices peculiar for the "Gentile Christians". I don't think you've had much training in hermeneutics or exegesis but the argument that we are to "read between the lines" and construct some sort of Messianic Judaism based on watching a few habits of Paul and Peter is the absolute worst form of Biblical exegesis and systematic theology I can imagine given that broader context and message of their ministry. It frankly reminds me of the Roman Catholics who insist to us that they are practicing an ancient devotion to Mary that has been believed and practiced since the early Church. It's so important, in fact, that its practice is conspicuously absent from the didactic teaching of the New Testament!


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Sep 14, 2015)

This is interesting Peter..... Wonder if what you are saying has some validity but of course I strongly agree with brother Rich's wise sentiments as well


----------



## pkananen (Sep 14, 2015)

AJ Castellitto said:


> Isn't there a prophetic element we are missing here...... That a remnant of the actual Jewish people will be converted..... So there will be faith but it will be possibly a short-term possibly semi-sporadic turning back unto the true God through Christ immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus.,..
> 
> I know we are not suppose to use current events to interpret scriptures.... But if the rest of the world continues to grow so dark and cold, the idea of an isolated Israel producing some true converts wouldnt seem so far fetched as far as an end times scenario is concerned..... This scenario does not take away from Reformed belief in any way as far as I can tell....?



There are approximately 20,000 Yeshua-worshipping Jews in Israel today.

What is the most contested piece of land in the world? If God has abandoned his land and his people Israel, then why are the darkest forces of humanity determined to make it their own today? If Israel represents all that God has cast aside, why has the evil of Islam set their sights primarily on Israel? Is Satan in conflict against Satan? And yes, Israel as a whole, continues to reject their savior.

This is what is inscribed on the inner octagon of the Islamic Dome of the Rock.

S In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has
no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has
Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.
SE Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be
on him, and may God have mercy. *O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
E nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of
Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit
from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)
NE better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is
in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is
sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a
N servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth
His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus
NW son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies,
and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of
the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
W When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.*
Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God (Himself) is witness that there is no God
save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,
SW the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book
differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso
disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) Lo! God is swift at reckoning!

The implications of this are too large to ignore. Satan has made his intentions known.

Joel 3, Zechariah 12-14, Ezekiel 37-38, and Daniel 12:2 all talk of Christ entering into judgment against Israel's enemies, who have divided up his land and killed his people. Israel will finally understand, in surviving remnant, the truth of their Messiah as they mourn over him.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 14, 2015)

pkananen said:


> If Israel represents all that God has cast aside...



To reject your ideas about the nature of the Covenants is not to reject the idea that God is preserving a remnant to be gathered back in. I still believe that the Gospel is to the Jew first and then to the Gentile but I don't believe that Jew and Gentile have separate Christianities. It is precisely because I believe Christ is the Elect One and that Jews and Gentiles are elected in Him as the Mediator that God is gathering all in.


----------



## rickclayfan (Sep 14, 2015)

pkananen said:


> AJ Castellitto said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't there a prophetic element we are missing here...... That a remnant of the actual Jewish people will be converted..... So there will be faith but it will be possibly a short-term possibly semi-sporadic turning back unto the true God through Christ immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus.,..
> ...


I was thinking the other day - what if the Dome of the Rock was sovereignly ordained by God to be placed and constructed where it is with the sole intention of preventing the Jews from building a temple on that site (making the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70 perpetual). This would be to curb further apostasy and delusion. May be a bit radical of a thought, but interesting nonetheless. Check out Owen's exposition of Genesis 49:10 in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, volume 1.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 14, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > If Israel represents all that God has cast aside...
> ...



I agree that they do not have separate Christianities.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 14, 2015)

Peter,

Does God have two peoples or one people?




pkananen said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > pkananen said:
> ...


----------



## AJ Castellitto (Sep 14, 2015)

Sorry this became such a heated thread, let me just add that everything Rich has said has been spot on! Let's not forget that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and it is finished..... There is no salvation outside of Christ and Covenant Theology is vital to our full understanding of scriptures and salvation.... God will take care of the rest in His own time.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 14, 2015)

rickclayfan said:


> I was thinking the other day - what if the Dome of the Rock was sovereignly ordained by God to be placed and constructed where it is with the sole intention of preventing the Jews from building a temple on that site (making the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70 perpetual). This would be to curb further apostasy and delusion. May be a bit radical of a thought, but interesting nonetheless. Check out Owen's exposition of Genesis 49:10 in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, volume 1.



This is where it gets interesting. The temple did not equate to delusion and apostasy for Jewish believers, even into the book of Acts well after Jesus had ascended into heaven. This is very clear in the Bible.

Remember John 2:17?


> 17*His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”



The early believers worshipped in the temple often: 

Acts 2


> 46*And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47*praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.



Acts 3:1


> Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.



Acts 5:42


> And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.



Acts 6 - Pay careful attention to what was done when Stephen was seized:


> 10*But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11*Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12*And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13*and they set up *false witnesses* who said, “*This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14*for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.*” 15*And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.



Acts 21 - Paul was so eager to show he had not rejected his Torah observance he paid for the offerings for 4 under a vow as they went to the temple.


> 17*When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18*On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19*After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20*And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, *“You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21*and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.* 22*What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23*Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24**take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses*, so that they may shave their heads. *Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.* 25*But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26*Then Paul took the men, and the next day *he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.*



Acts 21 - Paul is accused of violating the law. This is speaking of the breaking down of the wall of hostility as in Ephesians 2.


> 27*When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28*crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”



Acts 25 - In his defense before Caesar, Paul confirms he has not spoken against the temple:


> 7*When he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him that they could not prove. 8*Paul argued in his defense, “*Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple*, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.”



In short, the apostle who wrote most of the New Testament participated in temple life, including sacrifices and offerings. Does our theology accommodate this? Does our understanding of Paul's epistles support these events? In a later post I will provide my understanding of how this is reconciled with passages like Hebrews 8-10. But we cannot deny these events or downplay them.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 14, 2015)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Peter,
> 
> Does God have two peoples or one people?
> 
> ...



He has one people.


----------



## rickclayfan (Sep 14, 2015)

pkananen said:


> rickclayfan said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking the other day - what if the Dome of the Rock was sovereignly ordained by God to be placed and constructed where it is with the sole intention of preventing the Jews from building a temple on that site (making the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70 perpetual). This would be to curb further apostasy and delusion. May be a bit radical of a thought, but interesting nonetheless. Check out Owen's exposition of Genesis 49:10 in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, volume 1.
> ...



What need is there to seek reconciliation when we read in 1 Cor. 9:20, _"To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law."_? Your zeal to preserve that which God has abolished has led you to stand in contradiction to Scripture, especially Hebrews. I wouldn't not be surprised if your "reconciliation" (reinterpretation) of Hebrews 8-10 will just be a fine show of eisegesis. 

And, as was mentioned before, Acts is not a prescriptive, didactic book, but a historical, descriptive book. Let us not use the Charismatic hermeneutic here.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 14, 2015)

rickclayfan said:


> What need is there to seek reconciliation when we read in 1 Cor. 9:20, _"To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law."_? Your zeal to preserve that which God has abolished has led you to stand in contradiction to Scripture, especially Hebrews.



Have you forgotten about the time Paul opposed Peter to his face when he acted hypocritically around Jewish and Gentile believers? In fact, Paul wrote an entire book about this! So you're saying Paul condemned the hypocrisy so much he wrote Galatians, but then he had no problem doing it himself? This was a very calculated move on their part. Here are the words again:

They are all zealous for the law, 21 and *they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs*. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come...*Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.*

So Paul has an opportunity to clarify his position and he *intentionally* shows that what they have been told is wrong. This is not a case of becoming a Jew to win Jews.



rickclayfan said:


> I wouldn't not be surprised if your "reconciliation" (reinterpretation) of Hebrews 8-10 will just be a fine show of eisegesis.
> 
> And, as was mentioned before, Acts is not a prescriptive, didactic book, but a historical, descriptive book. Let us not use the Charismatic hermeneutic here.



We will see. Keep in mind this is not my private interpretation. I have no secret knowledge. But I have spent a lot of time reading and wrestling with this topic, and there is a lot of interesting work being done on this topic now.


----------



## rickclayfan (Sep 15, 2015)

pkananen said:


> Have you forgotten about the time Paul opposed Peter to his face when he acted hypocritically around Jewish and Gentile believers?



Your fight is not with me, but with Scripture. The words of 1 Cor. 9:20 are not my own, but God's. The verse clearly says that he observed the law to win them over. He was acting on the principles he set down in Rom. 14.

So in essence what you are trying to say is that the OT law in its fullness is still to be observed today?


----------



## pkananen (Sep 15, 2015)

rickclayfan said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > Have you forgotten about the time Paul opposed Peter to his face when he acted hypocritically around Jewish and Gentile believers?
> ...



Brother, thanks for engaging with me and maintaining a civil discourse. I hope this can be informative for all of us without being filled with tension or frustration.

It's not that simple. Paul said he became as a Jew to win Jews. Becoming "as a Jew" is not equivalent to Torah observance! You are making Paul out to be a hypocrite. The more reasonable answer is that you are reading into "become as a Jew" what is not actually there. Based on Paul's actions, he is observant of the law. And yet he must do more to "become as Jew". In his ministry, Jesus had plenty of corrections to Pharisaic Judaism as well, but he never broke Torah. The more likely answer is that there were Pharisaic or Rabbinic practices that went beyond Torah that Paul observed. Perhaps he indulged unbelieving Jews so as not to offend on these matter. Look at Mark 7 for an example:



> 7*Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2*they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3*(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders...
> 18*And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
> 19*since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)



Jesus was not declaring unkosher food clean, he was just rebuking the extraneous washings prescribed by the Pharisees.



rickclayfan said:


> So in essence what you are trying to say is that the OT law in its fullness is still to be observed today?



What was Paul's rule in all of the churches? Gentiles should remain Gentiles. Jews should remain Jews. God gave the Mosaic law to the Jews, not us. Remember the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? 

In modern times the Messianic community has been debating how to deal with this for many years, and there are various opinions. But there is no temple so Torah does not allow sacrifices anyway.


----------



## rickclayfan (Sep 15, 2015)

pkananen said:


> What was Paul's rule in all of the churches? Gentiles should remain Gentiles. Jews should remain Jews. God gave the Mosaic law to the Jews, not us. Remember the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? The Messianic community has been debating how to deal with this for many years, and there are various opinions.



Forgive my fervor and passion. It is in my nature to be so. Sometimes I may be a bit overzealous. You are wrestling with this issue. I would suggest you read Owen's Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This issue is too vast to cover in a forum. He will be of great assistance in your pursuit after the truth. Hebrews was written with the intention of encouraging the Jews to hold to their profession of faith and not return to Judaism. It will be quite a reading project, but if you are truly and sincerely seeking the truth, that should be no problem to you. Here's a link: http://www.heritagebooks.org/products/Hebrews%2C-7-volumes.html


----------



## Jerome Rosana (Sep 15, 2015)

I grew up in a southern bap 5- 12 years old (i remember somehow the teachings, i guess it is Premil Dispensational) 17-27 years old (10 yrs) i were in a wesleyan-arminian church (no doctrine of eschatology taught during sermons and discipleship classes in my entire life attending our local church) 
28 years old after I got married me and my wife converted to reformed and found out amillenialism/covenant theology/infant baptism...we find them more clearer and biblical and easier to understand the events in the bible. before I can not understand some new testament verses but when one of the URC pastor "Michael Brown" author of Sacred Bond came here to the Philippines for a 2 day conference... Covenant Theology was like A water inside a crystal clear glass...


----------



## pkananen (Sep 15, 2015)

Jerome Rosana said:


> I grew up in a southern bap 5- 12 years old (i remember somehow the teachings, i guess it is Premil Dispensational) 17-27 years old (10 yrs) i were in a wesleyan-arminian church (no doctrine of eschatology taught during sermons and discipleship classes in my entire life attending our local church)
> 28 years old after I got married me and my wife converted to reformed and found out amillenialism/covenant theology/infant baptism...we find them more clearer and biblical and easier to understand the events in the bible. before I can not understand some new testament verses but when one of the URC pastor "Michael Brown" author of Sacred Bond came here to the Philippines for a 2 day conference... Covenant Theology was like A water inside a crystal clear glass...



Sounds like you've had an interesting spiritual journey. When I came into the the Reformed tradition, I was thankful to learn about the doctrines of grace. This helped me understand so much about God's sovereign grace, the problem of evil, and how God can justly judge.

Making appeals to doctrine based on simplicity alone isn't very convincing, though. Universal reconciliation is a lot simpler to understand than the doctrines of grace, but it doesn't make it right. I like a lot of Covenant Theology, but there are parts of it that also can't provide answers to scripture, in my opinion.

To be clear, I have foundational problems with dispensationalism. I also have exegetical and hermeneutical problems with amillennialism, which I'm sure I'll be explaining at some point.


----------



## pkananen (Sep 15, 2015)

rickclayfan said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> > What was Paul's rule in all of the churches? Gentiles should remain Gentiles. Jews should remain Jews. God gave the Mosaic law to the Jews, not us. Remember the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? The Messianic community has been debating how to deal with this for many years, and there are various opinions.
> ...



I'm sure it's an edifying work. I probably won't get a lot of time to dig into it now, but I'll try and take a look.

Based on your description, it seems like Owen begins from the traditional perspective that Hebrews was written to keep Jewish believers from returning to Jewish practice, especially temple worship. I just showed you how this is inconsistent with Paul's actions, because he was eager to show that he *was* practicing Judaism. I am sure that most of the work is wonderful, but I'm quite familiar with the historical view on Hebrews.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 15, 2015)

pkananen said:


> rickclayfan said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking the other day - what if the Dome of the Rock was sovereignly ordained by God to be placed and constructed where it is with the sole intention of preventing the Jews from building a temple on that site (making the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70 perpetual). This would be to curb further apostasy and delusion. May be a bit radical of a thought, but interesting nonetheless. Check out Owen's exposition of Genesis 49:10 in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, volume 1.
> ...



I will be saving this particular post as an example of where really bad exegesis and hermeneutical method take a person. This is exact formula for error.

1. Start with a principle.
2. Take a historical narrative and _infer_ the principle.
3. Make a didactic principle out of the inferred principle.
4. Make that didactic principle the controlling principle by which one can even overshadow the clear didactic teaching of the Epistles.

This is precisely why you will not get any traction in your defective theology of the Covenants with people properly trained to handle the Word of God. You may capture the weak minded and unstable. This being a Confessional Board, guided by sound hermeneutical principles, does not abide with this folly.

You assume that what you learned before you came to the Reformed faith was the proper way to view the Scriptures and so everything that you might otherwise learn (in terms of proper methodology) is being pulled through the strainer of your Messianic Jewish methodology. I don't care how long you've been Reformed or how much study you've done - a poor method is a poor method. A defective hermeneutic is a defective hermeneutic.

I've been incredibly blessed by the works of Alfred Edersheim - a Jewish convert to the Reformed faith and a scholar in Jewish tradition. Whereas Edersheim has a healthy view of this tradition and provides a backdrop to the Scriptures (especially social life and the various writings and schools of thought that swirled around Jesus' day) he never takes the traditions as normative nor does he ever posit a "Messianic" Judaism.

In fact, the irony is that the Church has *always* had in its possession what worship "looked like" for the observant Jew. Where? The Scriptures themselves?! Why, how did we miss all this time what Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy commanded to the observant Jew? We had no idea that people made vows at the Temple in the times of Jesus. Where did that come from?!

In other words, we don't need some texts, lost from our common understanding, to interact with what the Apostles were doing. We don't need "Messianic Jews" to explain: "Now, you see, I know you guys have been captive for 2000 years to your Western traditions but what we see here is something that the Jews practiced at the time of the Temple."

We'll reply - "Yes, we know. We read about such things all the time. We understand what God required of His People. We take those Scriptures very seriously. We meditate on them. But we also read them in light of what the Apostles taught us about their shadowy fulfillment and how Christ broke down that wall of separation. We read about the destruction of the Temple and how Christ ultimately fulfills the vision of a people able to worship not in a copy of the heavenly sanctuary but, through the veil of Christ's flesh, in the heavenly sanctuary."

We'll also tell our Messianic Jewish friends that the Apostles didn't have any problem being called "Christians" and that they didn't separate themselves from Gentiles as a distinct group that still practiced their religion as if the Messiah had not come. We recognize that there is a transitory period where the Old Covenant is dying off and that even the author of Hebrews points that out. God did not choose to have the Temple destroyed at the moment Christ died and rose again but the curtain was torn. It was not unti 70 AD that the Temple was destroyed placing a PERIOD on the end of the Old Covenant era because, in case you didn't notice, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be an observant Jew without the physical Temple! How do we know that - you see, we read the Scriptures that were once for all delivered to the Saints.


----------

