What is Heresy?

[JesusFan]

Exactly.

Dispensational Premillennialism says Israel will have to perform works before it can and will be saved. It will have to recapture all its promised land, build another temple, reconstitute the Levitical priesthood, and reinstitute animal sacrifices (the lasrt three of which woill be abominations because Christ has already fulfilled those foreshadows and they are no longer needed or wanted), and once Jesus has established his kingdom on the earth it will take generations living under a righteous government to mature into salvation.

One means of salvation for you and I, and another means of salvation for the Jews.

Well, you've contradicted yourself. You've said it's not a problem to have works earn salvation but then stated your own salvation required no works of your own. I've worked with the latter because that is the correct view. The problem is you not performing any works, you relying solely on the work of Christ is not what DPism teaches Israel must do. Israel must do a bunch of stuff and then rely on Jesus. Works+grace.

Nope. You are to understand my posts were not correctly understand and you should go back and re-read them until you do.

Classic Dispy though states that national israel shall be reborn as a nation unto Yaheweh right at the Second Coming event

 

[EarlyActs]

Well, here is a sample paragraph from the book in question:

"Page 122:

"What Paul means by justification . . . is not “how you become a Christian," so much as “how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family. . . . [Justification]" is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences."

allright, and this may help you understand his point: have you ever noticed that in order to turn Romans into 'how you become a Christian', people invented "The Romans Road"?

What was the Romans Road? It was a set of isolated verses (4 I think) that were points to be made to 'close the deal' on becoming a Christian. They even used the end of ch 6 apart from its Christian context of answering why a Christian would still desire to sin, and setting up ch 7.

You see, the educational level of the West has drooped so far, that these great classics (as literature goes, Romans bounces down from the top) get oversimplified, turned into something trite or rote, and are much different in reality.

After the eviction of Jews (inc Chr Jews) from Rome by Claudius, those church groups were non Jews. Then Jews were allowed back. This was a new version of the Jew-Gentile problem; most of the time Paul had to deal with Jews coming into his groups outside Israel and adding a few Judaist requirements to Christ-faith, the amazing message that Christ's event itself was justification and membership. Or a lot!

But this time, people who had been fellowshipping came back to groups and they could hardly believe that the group was operating just fine without them.

So Paul clarified that there was such a common basis in Christ, and no partiality, and no distinction.

Back to the Romans Road problem; modern 'deal-closers' want a 'moment' when you became a Christian and think Romans is basing everything on that moment. Everything about being changed (they seldom know that justification is about the debt-aspect of sin).

Instead Romans is a declaration that an event took place in history (ch 3) that provides justification from our sin-debt, an event as large as the invasion of sin itself, and larger than the coming of the Law, which could only sharpen a focus on sin for one group directly.

Perhaps this is best seen as in Rom 5B. Ask yourself, what day did you become a sinner? The text's answer is the day of Adam's sin. That event was also historic and also outside your experience, technically.

I just started "The Vision Of Ephesians" by Wright and was checking to see if he caught v1, about the missing destination of the letter. He did. The best manuscripts have no destination, and the critical conclusion about this is that the courier filled in the name of the city as he traveled around with copies.

Ephesians does not use the term justification, but it does declare that all believers, across the race line, share in the covenantal promise in Christ, and are thus members, sharers in inheritance etc. It is very thick on this in ch 2B--3A. The 'mystery' was not that this era was coming, but that it was not through the Law as Judaism thought. It was through the Gospel.

That's why you can express justification even without using the term. I have a study of the 4 "pastorals" and they are a terrific creative unity: Gal is heavy on justification; Phil brings it in but only in ch 3; Col uses a play on the term 'credited' by saying the Judaizers discredit the believers; and Eph does not use it but is all about it.

So in conclusion, I would say the modern 'deal-closers' have done quite a bit of damage to the texts by insisting on a 'moment' when a person is a Christian as the meaning of justification, when in fact it is the historic event made possible in what Christ did, ever available for our sin-debt. The Judge of all stepped down to be the one Judged, for all who believe.

 

[EarlyActs]

Check it out, maybe you disagree?

See post 162. I am a NT background scholar and found the 'blank' in Ephesians 40 years in studies. I thought it would be better understood by now.

 

[JesusFan]

allright, and this may help you understand his point: have you ever noticed that in order to turn Romans into 'how you become a Christian', people invented "The Romans Road"?

What was the Romans Road? It was a set of isolated verses (4 I think) that were points to be made to 'close the deal' on becoming a Christian. They even used the end of ch 6 apart from its Christian context of answering why a Christian would still desire to sin, and setting up ch 7.

You see, the educational level of the West has drooped so far, that these great classics (as literature goes, Romans bounces down from the top) get oversimplified, turned into something trite or rote, and are much different in reality.

After the eviction of Jews (inc Chr Jews) from Rome by Claudius, those church groups were non Jews. Then Jews were allowed back. This was a new version of the Jew-Gentile problem; most of the time Paul had to deal with Jews coming into his groups outside Israel and adding a few Judaist requirements to Christ-faith, the amazing message that Christ's event itself was justification and membership. Or a lot!

But this time, people who had been fellowshipping came back to groups and they could hardly believe that the group was operating just fine without them.

So Paul clarified that there was such a common basis in Christ, and no partiality, and no distinction.

Back to the Romans Road problem; modern 'deal-closers' want a 'moment' when you became a Christian and think Romans is basing everything on that moment. Everything about being changed (they seldom know that justification is about the debt-aspect of sin).

Instead Romans is a declaration that an event took place in history (ch 3) that provides justification from our sin-debt, an event as large as the invasion of sin itself, and larger than the coming of the Law, which could only sharpen a focus on sin for one group directly.

Perhaps this is best seen as in Rom 5B. Ask yourself, what day did you become a sinner? The text's answer is the day of Adam's sin. That event was also historic and also outside your experience, technically.

I just started "The Vision Of Ephesians" by Wright and was checking to see if he caught v1, about the missing destination of the letter. He did. The best manuscripts have no destination, and the critical conclusion about this is that the courier filled in the name of the city as he traveled around with copies.

Ephesians does not use the term justification, but it does declare that all believers, across the race line, share in the covenantal promise in Christ, and are thus members, sharers in inheritance etc. It is very thick on this in ch 2B--3A. The 'mystery' was not that this era was coming, but that it was not through the Law as Judaism thought. It was through the Gospel.

That's why you can express justification even without using the term. I have a study of the 4 "pastorals" and they are a terrific creative unity: Gal is heavy on justification; Phil brings it in but only in ch 3; Col uses a play on the term 'credited' by saying the Judaizers discredit the believers; and Eph does not use it but is all about it.

So in conclusion, I would say the modern 'deal-closers' have done quite a bit of damage to the texts by insisting on a 'moment' when a person is a Christian as the meaning of justification, when in fact it is the historic event made possible in what Christ did, ever available for our sin-debt. The Judge of all stepped down to be the one Judged, for all who believe.

NT Wright would be a valid source regarding the physical resurrection of Jesus, but as an expert on Pauline Justification, he woudlNOT be seen as being someone to get theology from, as he basically totally misunderstands what Paul meant in His epistles regarding justification and salvation

 

[CrowCross]

Classic Dispy though states that national israel shall be reborn as a nation unto Yaheweh right at the Second Coming event

As I said to another poster..... BTW, I see the term "Dipsy" as being derogatory. It has the connontation of one being a "dip" or a dippy person meaning "the image of a head that is ‘not screwed on’ and thus moves up and down like a bird dipping its beak"

 

[Arial]

No it doesn't. Put down your kool-aid.

Though this is a post that should be entirely deleted I am red lettering the offending, rule breaking parts and showing you what is wrong with it and what should be done instead, in hopes that you can understand your errors and not continuously repeat them. The above response by you is an unnecessary and inflammatory remark. Instead of doing that, after you said "No it isn't" forum etiquette and rules require that you then explain what dis/premil does state if it does not say that Israel will have to perform works in order to be saved.

LOL....OK, if YOU say so....LOL

Instead of just laughing in derision, you must show where the dis/premil view does not require Israel to do those things given by @Josheb and what it says instead.

That's not what I stated. I said..."The only works performed concerning my salvation was the works Jesus did in my place."
You then in a deceitful manner added words to my thought and then presented it as fact.

Here not only do you make a personal accusation against a member, but you presume to know his motives which you cannot know. It is in response to a post that said nothing about you but about the teachings and theology of dis/premi. The poster commented` on two statements; one being your statement that would contradict the dis/premil view. It goes back to post #155 and the conversation that followed. The confusion and disconnect on your part come from you having never addressed the things that were said about the dis/premil view and simply responded to them with pithy quips and insults.

A response of derision instead of recognizing and either acknowledging or rebutting the claim. Plus, it is quoted out of context. The context shows that your personal belief of salvation without works, contradicts the teaching of dis/premil. Which of course would destroy your earlier claim that Josheb in a deceitful manner added to what you said and presented it as fact. Whether that was intentional deceit on your part or not, I cannot say. But the exchange became deceitful. what should have been done if you disagree is show where the teaching of di/premil that was presented is incorrect.

Did you make up the stuff you posted or did you read it somewhere?

Snide and insulting come back that in no way deals with anything that was said that you announce is made up in your opinion.

I strongly suggest you take this to heart as explaining the proper and Christian fellowship way of posting. Both as being in accordance with the forum rules and the instruction given to us in God's word on how his children are to interact with one another in obedience to him. You have three demerits for this post, and they will hang around for a couple of months simply because you have failed to heed all other warnings. It is this blatant and ongoing disrespect of forum rules and members that has made this public correction necessary.

 

[JesusFan]

As I said to another poster..... BTW, I see the term "Dipsy" as being derogatory. It has the connontation of one being a "dip" or a dippy person meaning "the image of a head that is ‘not screwed on’ and thus moves up and down like a bird dipping its beak"

I do not mean it to be such, as that term is pretty much accepted on Boards for that type of theological viewpoint

 

[Arial]

@Josheb said,,,,and I quote"Dispensational Premillennialism says Israel will have to perform works before it can and will be saved."

I responded with him following his cult like narrative and extreme hatred for dispensationalism by pointing out he's drinking the kool-aid.

Basically Josheb LIED. Josheb used this lie to put down a believer in Jesus Christ because they disagree with his false theology.

YOU @Arial didn't even investigate the lie Josheb was presenting.

Then in an attempt to further discredit a believer in Jesus Christ he wanted to make it sound like I was saying works produced salvation.

Then you Arial strap on your badge and scold me? Seriously?

I did investigate it. I included my investigation with my post. You seem to have extreme difficulty following a train of thought. It would help if you slowed down and paid attention to what was being said when you read a post. Another three points for all the rule violations in that post which will be deleted.

 

[Josheb]

Classic Dispy though states that national israel shall be reborn as a nation unto Yaheweh right at the Second Coming event

Is that heresy, or not?

 

[Arial]

Classic Dispy though states that national israel shall be reborn as a nation unto Yaheweh right at the Second Coming event do

Where does the Bible say that though?

 

[JesusFan]

Where does the Bible say that though?

Good question, as they would see that as when he returns they will mourn over him as applying salvation towards the Jewish people alive at that time, and to have a fountain of salvation then opened up in Jerusalem

 

[Arial]

Good question, as they would see that as when he returns they will mourn over him as applying salvation towards the Jewish people alive at that time, and to have a fountain of salvation then opened up in Jerusalem

Is that a presuppositional interpretation of what the Bible says, or is it what the Bible says? I did ask what the Bible says and not what "they" see.

 

[JesusFan]

Is that a presuppositional interpretation of what the Bible says, or is it what the Bible says? I did ask what the Bible says and not what "they" see.

That is what the bible states, and comes back to how one is filtering those scriptures wither as a Dispy or Covenant theology position?

 

[Josheb]

Classic Dispy though states that national israel shall be reborn as a nation unto Yaheweh right at the Second Coming event

Is that heresy, or not?

Where does the Bible say that though?

Good question, as they would see that as when he returns they will mourn over him as applying salvation towards the Jewish people alive at that time, and to have a fountain of salvation then opened up in Jerusalem

Is that a presuppositional interpretation of what the Bible says, or is it what the Bible says? I did ask what the Bible says and not what "they" see.

That is what the bible states, and comes back to how one is filtering those scriptures wither as a Dispy or Covenant theology position?

I asked, "Is it heresy or not?" because if the statement is not heresy then it's off-topic. This op is specifically about heresy and the op asks specifically about Dispensationalism. I think we can all agree there are some things with Dispensational Premillennialism that are taught correctly. It's their heretical content that is the subject of this discussion.

I read you, @JesusFan, saying "That is what the Bible states...." but I do not think that is correct. Would you mind showing me (and @Arial) where the Bible states national Israel shall be reborn as a nation unto Yahweh right at the Second Coming event? Or perhaps clarify that statement if the statement isn't what you meant? I am asking for where the Bible states that, not where such a thing can be inferred from what is stated.

 

[Carbon]

As I said to another poster..... BTW, I see the term "Dipsy" as being derogatory. It has the connontation of one being a "dip" or a dippy person meaning "the image of a head that is ‘not screwed on’ and thus moves up and down like a bird dipping its beak"

I agreed not to use it when referring to you because you found it insulting. But to use the term instead of spelling out the whole word “dispensationalism?” For identifying the position, I see nothing wrong with it

 

[EarlyActs]

NT Wright would be a valid source regarding the physical resurrection of Jesus, but as an expert on Pauline Justification, he woudlNOT be seen as being someone to get theology from, as he basically totally misunderstands what Paul meant in His epistles regarding justification and salvation

For example? It may be that he is referring to an important result but not defining it.

I would also say that anyone thinks justification is an experience is unreliable. It is certainly a knowledge of what God accomplished historically and preemptively but not an individual experience. Notice this from Is 53: By his experience, my servant will justify many.

In Is 53 , justification is thus made a synonym for all of its salvation terms: chastisement that pacifies, atonement, etc.

 

[CrowCross]

I agreed not to use it when referring to you because you found it insulting. But to use the term instead of spelling out the whole word “dispensationalism?” For identifying the position, I see nothing wrong with it

Why not use "DPism" like other posters?

 

[EarlyActs]

Well, here is a sample paragraph from the book in question:

"Page 122:

"What Paul means by justification . . . is not “how you become a Christian," so much as “how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family. . . . [Justification]" is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences."

In the Bible church I was raised in, the “Roman’s Road” was well known, but no one ever expounded Rom 3B or Gal 3-4 or Acts 13 on justification .

Wrights expression ‘so much as…’ is a relative connection , in relating an initial individual decision about Christ to the solving of conflict between Jewish and non-Jewish believers, Wright is right to say justification makes that basis of membership clear.

Maybe a good study task would be to compare how many verses are spent on the doctrine proper (Rom 3B) compared to its effect as the basis of fellowship in ch 4, 9, 10, 15, Gal 3-4. Or its protective function for believers against the spiritual slavery of the law. For life.

In Phil 3 you have yet another use: to ward off the fellowship-destroying belief about justification in Judaism. That is, the use of justification to Paul there is still not ‘how does a person become a Christian’ as much as how does Judaism’s ‘garbage’ ruin your fellowship as believers? Which I suppose is an enslavement theme again.

Either way, this very different from a trite formula that sets up an individual decision to be a Christian. Which is all that mattered to the Romans Roadsters and their list:
1:16
3:20
6:23
10:9

To agree to those is good, but it is not at all the totality of Paul’s concern in Romans.

 

[Carbon]

Why not use "DPism" like other posters?

When referring to the position, dipsy works for me. Others understand what I’m referring to as well. I don’t see the harm

 

[CrowCross]

When referring to the position, dipsy works for me. Others understand what I’m referring to as well. I don’t see the harm

Because dipsy is a derogatory term used by those who mock dispensationalism. Guys like you want to claim it's only "shorthand"....I see no harm.
As I have told you before... It has the connotation of one being a "dip" or a dippy person meaning "the image of a head that is ‘not screwed on’ and thus moves up and down like a bird dipping its beak"

Then again I'd rather be dippy than one who "aligns with the coven".