Friends of Israel

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Does anyone know much about the ministry "Friends of Israel". They produce a magazine called "Israel my glory" which spends a lot of energy attacking Covenant theology (though I note much of it is based on poor exegesis).

They seem more dispensational than MacArthur
Home | Friends of Israel
 
They're Dispensational.

It's better to understand the Bible and Jewish missions in terms of Covenant Theology.

It's not only that the Jews are beloved for the patriarchs' sakes, as the Apostle said, with these Dispensational - so-called "Christian Zionist" - people. But Israeli life and politics must be thoroughly and constantly scrutinised, current Israeli policy on the Palestinians must not be critiqued by Jew or Gentile (whether Christian or not), it's somehow very important to God's plan that Israel should occupy the West Bank, and every major or minor excitement in the region means that our Lord is coming back tomorrow!
 
So what do these people have against covenant theology? I thought most evangelicals are pro-Israel and Zionist. What is the logical connection between considering one's children to be in the covenant and one's view of political Israel? The one is a theological, the other a political opinion.

Regarding dispensationalism, it seems to me that most of the PB official stance is strongly dispensational; dispensational arguments are very commonly used. Musical instruments are sanctioned in the OT, yet a capella is mandated by some Reformed. Polygamy is not only sanctioned but mandated under some circumstances in the OT, yet it's a dirty word. Even the casting out of demons in the NT is now a no-no for many, as is any use of tongues, healings, and prophecy. Perhaps I'm not understanding the term correctly. Pardon my ignorance and please enlighten me. How can one be radically cessationist on the basis of theological tradition (which seems to be the majority view of the PB) and NOT be dispensational?
 
I wonder if they help all the Jews immigrate to Israel from all over the world? If so did they not read the last book of the bible and see what happens to them?
 
How can one be radically cessationist on the basis of theological tradition (which seems to be the majority view of the PB) and NOT be dispensational?

I think you are confusing dispensations with Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a systematic theology popularised by Darby in the eighteen hundreds and promulgated throughout the mainstream Christian church through Scofield (amongst others) and his so called "Scofield Reference Bible" or "Scofield Study Bible".

Dispensationalism teaches a different salvific plan in any number of "dispensations" - maybe 5,6 or 8 (or whatever). Most importantly to Dispensationalism, Israel is like a parenthesis around the church. This is the breeding ground of movements such as the Messianic Jews and Christian Zionism.

Covenant Theology recognises the continuity of God's dealing with His people. CT sees the gentiles grafted into the covenantal promises and views the church visibly present in the nation of Israel in the Old Dispensation/Testament but no longer limited to one nation in the new. CT views the invisible church as being made up of all true believers throughout time no matter their nationality.

Because CT rejects the notion of a different salvific plan at different times, Dispensationalists label CT as "replacement theology" and reject it violently. However CT never asserts that the church has replaced Israel - it simply asserts that Israel is/was the church and that in the NT believers from all nationalities have been grafted in.

When you see PB members talking of dispensations, they are not speaking in the manner of Dispensationalists but talking to the major dispensation we have in scripture - Old and New. In the New Testament dispensation, certain things (like the ceremonial law) have been fulfilled and so we no longer see animal sacrifice for example, in the new dispensation (New Testament period we are now in).

Dispensationalists will argue that in a coming dispensation God will shift gear, having dealt with the Gentiles and will resume His salvific plan for the Jews :(
 
it seems to me that most of the PB official stance is strongly dispensational

While there are a few Dispensationalists here, they are in a decided minority and such a position is contra-confessional. Living in the heartland of dispensationalism (Dallas Theological Seminary is a major focal point of the movement), I see them as a great a threat to the church as are the FV folks. I recall a post where we were asked to play nice with the Dispensationalists here, and I've generally tried to do so. But if PB were 'strongly dispensational', I'd be gone in short order, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
 
How can one be radically cessationist on the basis of theological tradition (which seems to be the majority view of the PB) and NOT be dispensational?

I think you are confusing dispensations with Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a systematic theology popularised by Darby in the eighteen hundreds and promulgated throughout the mainstream Christian church through Scofield (amongst others) and his so called "Scofield Reference Bible" or "Scofield Study Bible".

Dispensationalism teaches a different salvific plan in any number of "dispensations" - maybe 5,6 or 8 (or whatever).

That line has been dropped by recent dispensationalists (cf. Blaising and Bock's review in Progressive Dispensationalism). Even Anthony Hoekema admitted today's dispensationalists do not teach that view. Even Ryrie was backing away from it in the 1970s. Scofield started that mischief with his watershed bible notes. Further, there are old-school Dispensationalists (Scofield), Classical (Walvoord), Revised (Ryrie), and Progressive (Blaising). The latter three do not hold to multiple views of salvation.
 
So what do these people have against covenant theology? I thought most evangelicals are pro-Israel and Zionist. What is the logical connection between considering one's children to be in the covenant and one's view of political Israel? The one is a theological, the other a political opinion.

Regarding dispensationalism, it seems to me that most of the PB official stance is strongly dispensational; dispensational arguments are very commonly used. Musical instruments are sanctioned in the OT, yet a capella is mandated by some Reformed. Polygamy is not only sanctioned but mandated under some circumstances in the OT, yet it's a dirty word. Even the casting out of demons in the NT is now a no-no for many, as is any use of tongues, healings, and prophecy. Perhaps I'm not understanding the term correctly. Pardon my ignorance and please enlighten me. How can one be radically cessationist on the basis of theological tradition (which seems to be the majority view of the PB) and NOT be dispensational?

It's true that as Covenant Theologians we recognise different religious dispensations or administrations, but the essence of the Covenant of Grace remains one.

Dispensationalists believe that God has got a unique plan for the Jews vis-a-vis the Church, whereas Covenant Theologians, believe that Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ are the one "Israel of God", and unconverted Jews (natural branches that have been cut off) will find their salvific fulfillment not in returning to Israel, taking possession of all of ancient Israel or rebuilding the Temple and ceremonial system, but in believing in Christ.

Many Covenant theologians are very sympathetic to the political situation of the Israelis and how difficult and potentially dangerous it is for them to make (especially land) concessions for peace. But Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists see theological reasons why Israel should never give the Palestinians a state in the West Bank. There are no such theological reasons.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
Mary, it is proper covenant theology to put Christ at the center and to see some eras as looking forward, some as contiguous with, and some as after His completed work -- and to see that God works differently in those eras. Christ is the focal point: that focal point is lost if there are no differences in how God worked leading up to Christ's victory, ongoing with it, and after: if it's all the same whether He came and died and rose and fulfilled the law and overcame the world or not, then Christ hasn't actually accomplished or been victorious over anything.

edit: it helps me to think of it this way (though I feel certain that in explaining this I will say something that would be better said by a real theologian) --

If you draw a line and then draw a man in the center of the line, and you want all the other people on the line to be looking at him (because the whole point of drawing the line at all is to make him pre-eminent), -- the other figures along the line will necessarily be drawn facing different directions, depending on where they are in relation to that central man. If they come before him on the line, they will be looking forward. If they are drawn in beside him, they will be looking across. If after, they will be looking back.

Christ and His work in history is the object of our faith. God has so structured the 'posture' of how we practice faith in the different eras that it emphasises that Christ is the object -- all throughout history -- we aren't all simply looking forward, or all simply looking across, or all simply looking back. If everyone along the line simplistically faces the same direction as everyone else in the name of faith in the same individual -- they would actually be in many cases, looking away from him, simply imitating a posture that has lost its purpose.

It's not a complete illustration -- for it isn't as though we don't still look forward to the return of Christ in our day. But how we practice our faith emphasises that Christ has already come to us, and accomplished everything necessary to our salvation -- as the practice of earlier generations emphasised that they still needed the salvation He was to come and accomplish -- or, in the apostolic era, that He was actually their contemporary, had actually commissioned them personally, and was at work in their particular era in an especially immediate way.

Again, I'm sure that could be said more accurately in many respects by others here: it's an idea that helps me to grasp a truth more readily.

Some relatives have always received this magazine. Life experiences have brought them to a greater rest in and focus on Christ's finished work in their faith (in which they have been a comfort to me) -- but growing up, I remember a lot of focus not so much on what Christ had done for us, as on something I don't fully understand relating to politics and Israel which we were supposed to still be accomplishing. I don't recall their being cessationists. That probably serves to illustrate some of the other answers in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Progressive Dispensationalism

If you want to make a PD squirm, ask them to distinguish between PD and Historic Pre-mil. It does provide a refuge for those who see the bankruptcy of Scofieldism/Chaferism but who work at Dispensational only institutions.
 
Progressive Dispensationalism

If you want to make a PD squirm, ask them to distinguish between PD and Historic Pre-mil. It does provide a refuge for those who see the bankruptcy of Scofieldism/Chaferism but who work at Dispensational only institutions.

True, which is why B/B were annoyed with those Dispensationalists who called Ladd a closet-amil. Still, I don't think Scofield is the representative view at Dispenational institutions. Michael Vlad, Master's Seminary, has advanced the argument that most dispie institutions would follow closer to Pentecost/Ryrie.
 
How would you summarise Pentecost/Ryrie's dispensationalism?

I am more familiar with Ryrie than Pentecost, but one of them either posited two New Covenants (since the land-promises in Jeremiah and Ezekiel haven't been fulfilled) or a "phantom new covenant" for the Church (we get the spiritual blessings but not the full land blessings). Progressive Dispensationalists called them on that, since the Bible nowhere speaks of Two New Covenants or a Phantom Covenant. To be fair, for all of the inconsistencies, they are positing salvation by grace.
 
So what do these people have against covenant theology? I thought most evangelicals are pro-Israel and Zionist. What is the logical connection between considering one's children to be in the covenant and one's view of political Israel? The one is a theological, the other a political opinion.

Regarding dispensationalism, it seems to me that most of the PB official stance is strongly dispensational; dispensational arguments are very commonly used. Musical instruments are sanctioned in the OT, yet a capella is mandated by some Reformed. Polygamy is not only sanctioned but mandated under some circumstances in the OT, yet it's a dirty word. Even the casting out of demons in the NT is now a no-no for many, as is any use of tongues, healings, and prophecy. Perhaps I'm not understanding the term correctly. Pardon my ignorance and please enlighten me. How can one be radically cessationist on the basis of theological tradition (which seems to be the majority view of the PB) and NOT be dispensational?
As has been noted, there is a difference between dispensations and Dispensationalism.

For example,
DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY

AMR
 
Regarding dispensationalism, it seems to me that most of the PB official stance is strongly dispensational; dispensational arguments are very commonly used. Musical instruments are sanctioned in the OT, yet a capella is mandated by some Reformed. Polygamy is not only sanctioned but mandated under some circumstances in the OT, yet it's a dirty word. Even the casting out of demons in the NT is now a no-no for many, as is any use of tongues, healings, and prophecy. Perhaps I'm not understanding the term correctly. Pardon my ignorance and please enlighten me. How can one be radically cessationist on the basis of theological tradition (which seems to be the majority view of the PB) and NOT be dispensational?

Covenant theology does not deny the movement of redemptive history, but maintains its overarching and underlying theological unity. A failure to recognize differences is every bit as serious an error as dispensationalism's exaggeration of it. One of the constant concerns in the NT is to persuade those from a Jewish background that things really have changed and can't ever be the same again. Thomas Manton on Ephesians 2:10 may be useful.

‘We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus,’ who is the head of the new world, or renewed estate. All things are new in the kingdom of Christ; there is a change of everything from what it was before. There is a new Adam, which is Jesus Christ; a new covenant, which is the gospel; a new paradise, not that where Adam enjoyed God among the beasts, but where the blessed enjoy God among the angels; a new ministry, not the posterity of Aaron or tribe of Levi, but a ministry of reconciliation, put into their hands whom God hath qualified and fitted to be dispensers of these holy mysteries; new ordinances, ‘We serve God not in the oldness of the letter, but the newness of the spirit;’ therefore, if we be in Christ, we must be new creatures. We are both obliged and fitted by this new estate to be so. Some are in Christ externally by baptism and profession; they are visibly in covenant with him, and de jure, of right, are bound to be new creatures. Others are in Christ by real internal union. These not only ought to be, but de facto are, new creatures; they are made partakers of his Spirit, Rom. 8:9, and by that Spirit they are renewed and sanctified. Well, then, since there is a new Lord and a new law, all is new; there must be a new creation; for as the general state of the church is renewed by Christ, so is every particular believer.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top