Pat... you just need to SHUT UP sometimes. Sheesh...
Pat Robertson said that God judged Ariel Sharon for "splitting up His land".
God split the curtain of the Temple when Jesus died, signifying that the old laws and customs were no longer necessary. Someone had paid the price, and now God was going to come into each life.
The LAND of Isreal is not sacred anymore. God isn't concerned about the land, He is concerned about the heart, the life of each person. He doesn't live in Isreal, He lives IN YOU. I got news for you... the Jews are not God's chosen people anymore. Sure, they have a wonderful history, but CHRISTIANS are God's chosen people now. And that is not a race based designation, that is a HEART based designation. Some Jews still are God's people. Many are not. That doesn't mean they don't deserve their own land, but it also doesn't mean they have a divine right to all of it. They were given the land by the British, who took it from the Arabs who were living there. And they need to either learn to live with them, or to split the land up, which is what Sharon decided to do.
This isn't God's judgement, just like Hurricane Katrina wasn't God's judgement. It is the natural course of life, and it is something God will use to accomplish His purpose.
Anyway, I think Pat Robertson needs to shut up sometimes. This is the third or fourth time he has said something really dumb very publicly, and it isn't helping him, his ministry or true Christianity. It just comes across as judgemental and pathetic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I agree that Pat Robertson should have kept his mouth shut. And that his statement is flat wrong.
Most of the rest of your article, I believe, is wrong. I doubt you want a discussion of that here.
You are a dispensationalist, I am a covanentalist. You belive that God will reinstate Isreal and fulfill His plan, I belive He already fulfilled it, and that Isreal is just another country.
So yeah, no I don't want a discussion on that:) We both know the other thinks differently, and we both think the other is wrong:D
If your are a "covenantalist," then why do you think the Jews are not God's people? Didn't He make His covenant with Abraham and Christians are adopted into that family? "The Jew first and then the Gentile." Wouldn't that mean the Jews are still God's people? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I was just wondering what exactly a covenantlist was.
There is now neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. The message came to the Jews first, then to the Gentile, that doesn't mean that the Jews have some special first place. Most of them don't even acknowledge God, and certainly not His son.
I follow Covanent theology (for the most part) which says that God has one over arching plan through history. The name comes from the belief that God has given covanents throughout history. One to Adam (the covanent of works) which was broken. He then gave the covanent of grace, which was fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
There have been other covanents within the covanent of grace for other things, including the covanent of Abraham, but the plan has stayed the same. The Jews didn't fulfill the Abrahamic covanent (or at least, certain elements of it) so they were incorporated into the more general fulfillment of the covanent of grace. The only way to come to God now, is through His son, not through any sacrifice or anything else.
Dispensationalists view the church as a "parenthesis" in history, God is gathering the Gentiles to Him, and then He will reinstate the temple sacrifice system. This requires a temple, which requires Levites, and requires Jews to be in Jerusalem etc...
I think that is wrong, because God has one plan. The Jews rejected Christ when He came, and so God moved on, as it were, and opened up salvation to all. Christ fulfilled the law, so it is no longer needed in that form. The heart issues behind the laws still are, i.e. don't commit adultery is now don't lust at all, but the outward form is done away with. There is no need for sacrifice anymore.
So yes, Christians are adopted into the Abrahamic family (we are now the sons of Abraham when we accept Christ, who was a decendant of Abraham) but the criteria has changed from race based to heart based. I just believe it is scriptural that it won't change back again.
The Jews, though they have a wonderful history, do not have any special or different way to come to God because of that. They still have to accept Christ. The old way is done away with. God still loves them, but not more or less than He loves me or you.
So there is the crux of the issue. If God has opened up salvation to all, and we don't need a temple anymore... then there is no special "need" for Isreal.
Now, that said I don't think it is a bad thing Isreal exists, and I am very much pro Isreal. But I also know that the Palestinians are people too, and that their land WAS taken away. That is the problem. The superpowers came in and divided up the land willy nilly. This has created many of the problems we see now.
There are alot of proponents of covanent theology (in fact, dispensationalism didn't really exist until after the late 1800's, and only gained popularity after WWI and especially during the Cold War). In general, the Presbyterian denomination, and many of the other, older denominations, hold to that view of theology. The Baptists hold to dispensationalism (and many of the denominations that sprang from it). Now, men like J.I. Packer and Merideth Kline hold to that view.
There are alot of books and resources on Covanent theology and the ways it differes from Dispensational theology (which isn't as much as you might think, it just comes out at different times).
I totally agree with your last paragraph.
Poor Pat is becoming a caricature of himself. Soon, no one will take any of his comments seriously.
For the record, your encapsulation of my theology is a bit weak. Probably because despite being well-read (generally) in philosophy, I am not well-read in theology.
My view is that God does not change His mind (you'll find that quite well-documented in scripture) and that while Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, He in no way eliminated it for the Chosen People. Thus, Israel will have a special place in the New Heaven and New Earth - indeed the New Jerusalem will descend from Heaven itself - but that in no way means that the Christians will be placed "under the temple and sacrifice system." In fact, there seems to be no evidence that in the Eternal State there will be sacrifices by either Christians or Jews or anyone. But there is plenty of evidence of an exalted place for the Jewish people - something comparable to the role of the Levites in the Hebrew structure. Consider that the only folks we KNOW wind up in heaven-proper are the 144,000 who are all male Jews.
Anyway, I'll let it go at that. It is dangerous to try and summarize someone else's theology. ;-)
Well, that is where I disagree:) I don't think there are two ways to God, I think there is only one (which is also well documented in scripture). And therefore the way to God through Christ is the same for all, regardless of race.
Also... there are ALOT of differing views on the 144,000 and what that is referring to.
There is some place for the Jewish people. Does that mean those that were righteous under the law pre Christ or post?
And that is the difference. And theologians much more well versed than me have strong beliefs on both sides:)
So... though I hold to a more Covanent view, I also know that I really can't be positive.
It doesn't affect to much in life. All Christians agree that everyone comes to God through faith in Christ (at least at the present time). The difference is in end times theology, which I find to be based on very vague evidence on all sides.
Jews = Salvation looking towards Christ, as demonstrated by Temple rite.
Christians = Salvation looking back at Christ, as demonstrated by baptism, Communion, etc.
Either way, we do agree that Pat Robertson did more harm than good with his comments. Sugh.
Well, thank you for explaining your theology. I don't necessarily agree with it, but at least now I kind of understand where you're coming from.
I really hate to way in on this but I feel compelled to put down my Left Behind novel and do so. Let me first confess that I’m not sure I know exactly what the owner of this blog believes, is seems sort of a hybrid but I get the gist. Secondly without apology I’m a firm believer in Dispensational Theology. I have always held to this view being raised in the Evangelical Free denomination although I didn’t know what it was called until college. Besides Dispensationalism the other major theological construct is usually called Reformed Theology. The use of the term “covenants” or covenant theology” I believe is confusing. The confusion comes because of the distinction between biblical covenants and so called theological covenants. Dispensationalists in fact hold firmly to biblical covenants found in scripture such as the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31. So called theological covenants are not referred to in scripture and thus the confusion. There are certain biblical covenants that were conditional and others that were unconditional. Dispensationalist believe the unconditional ones such as the Abrahamic concerning the land promises made by God and the Davidic concerning the kingdom were never completely fulfilled and therefore parts are still yet future. This is the crux of the issue of the blog post because if these unconditional covenants have not been fully realized by the Jews there is still a literal fulfillment yet coming. We will not solve this in a couple blog posts since people have been disagreeing over this for centuries.
In conclusion I keep coming back to Acts 1:6-7 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. Many times Jesus scolded the disciples because they didn’t “get it”. Here the disciples are asking Jesus plainly if the promised Davidic kingdom is going to be re-established by Jesus AT THIS TIME. Jesus had the perfect opportunity at that time say “are you guys kidding you still don’t understand that the kingdom is not physical but spiritual!” But he didn’t. He didn’t tell them they were wrong. He didn’t tell them they had misunderstood. What he did say was that it was not for them to know because it was in the Father’s hands to set it up in His timing. This is just one example but I believe in this passage we get it from Jesus’ own mouth. The Davidic Kingdom of Israel, over which he will be king, check the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, is still yet future and is physical, although in some aspects spiritual, not only spiritual.
Well it’s getting late and I really must get back to my Left Behind novel.
One last thing while Reformed Theology may have its beginning slightly before the formalization of Dispensational Theology none of the great church confessions mentioned it until the Westminster Confession in 1647 which places it slightly before JN Darby. (Charles Ryrie Dispensationalism Today pg 179). The argument of history is weak and not really relevant. Remember the Roman Catholic Church has a great history but neither of us conversing believes Rome would be more correct simply because it is older than Protestantism.
Covanent Theology is Reformed Theology, sorry for the confusion. And yes, I generally hold to it (I tend towards a Biblical theology, i.e. that I don't make the Bible fit into my theology, I make the theology fit into the Bible, hence the "hybrid")
Suffice to say, I don't agree with the argument that Jesus says, based on a somewhat enigmatic statement, that there will be a physical kingdom of Isreal as the disciples knew it. He doesn't. He says it isn't for you to know. I take it as, it isn't for you to know. I think he is referring more generally to the kingdom of heaven on earth, which is for all Christians not just Jews, and which doesn't require the sacrificial system and laws.
Ultimately, you may be right. This whole set of posts was confusing (I apologize... to many thoughts to little time).
I am not, generally, a person who blindly believes anything. As I said above, I am more concerned that theology fit with what I understand from the Bible. Hence, my theology changes over time. It also means that I don't place stock in things that aren't revealed.
I may be wrong (I think I probably am!) on this stuff. However, the reformed position tends to fit in better with what I understand.
Ultimately, I still support peace in the middle east. And I think that concentration should be placed on Christian living and the things that matter, not the end times or future state of Isreal.
In conclusion... sorry, I should have left a bunch of stuff out of that post, but... such is life:)
This is a good little discussion we are having. But if we are going to continue it we must be fair to the biblical text. Please go back and reread Acts chapter 1 and then reread your last post. I think you totally missed the point. The disciples asked if Jesus was going to at that time "restore the kingdom to Israel?" A plain reading of that passage could in no way be construed to insinuate a heavenly or spiritual kingdom. The disciples were asking about the "restoration" of a kingdom "to" Israel. You can't restore a spiritual kingdom which had not previously existed. It seems pretty clear, and not enigmatic (mysterious) even a little bit, that the disciples are asking about the literal earthly kingdom of Israel. You may disagree with this, or think the disciples misunderstood the kingdom, but let’s be fair that is what the disciples asked.
Furthermore Jesus doesn’t respond, as you insinuate, that the kingdom isn’t for them to know, he responds that the timing of the restoration isn’t for them to know. Its fine to disagree but we won’t be able to continue this discussion of we aren’t fair with a plain and literal interpretation of the scripture.
You also seem to be hung up on the possibility of the sacrificial system being reinstituted. We know plainly from Hebrews 10:4 that sacrifices were nothing more than an annual reminder of sins (Leviticus 16) and that the blood of animals could never take away sins. Since the sacrificial system was never a means of salvation it is not likely that the practice of such could in anyway be an affront to Christ and his finished work. I’m sure if the Ark of the Covenant were found today the Day of Atonement would be reestablished in a NY minute. Let’s keep in mind the only reason that sacrifices stopped and the Day of Atonement ceased is because the objects necessary for sacrifice are missing. I don’t recall a command of God ending the practice.
Awaiting your consideration.
Read Berkhof. He answers all of that and more.
The disciples ask if "at this time you will restore the kingdom to Isreal" and Jesus answers plainly, the timing isn't for you to know, and you will recieve the Holy Spirit in the future.
He is clearly saying that they misunderstand the nature of the kingdom he will establish, and that he will send the Spirit to them later. Scott gives this reading in his commentary, and Berkhof supports it in Systematic Theology.
Also, on the sacrificial system idea... you are right re Leviticus. But, the evidence is that God allowed it to be destroyed, bringing up the question of why He would do that when He was going to restore it back again? And why would he want to anyway, if it is just a symbol and doesn't lead to salvation?
My reasons for believing Reformed theology stem from what I have read, heard and who I respect as teachers. I grew up with it, my Sunday school teachers were the wives of professors at Gordon Conwell.
I find dispensational premillenialism to be convoluted, requiring two separate kingdoms of God (one that is on earth, populated by Jews, one in heaven populated by Gentiles) I find it requiring double fulfillment of prophecy, I find it requiring convoluted readings of prophecies, including overly literal readings of a very symbolic enigmatic book (Revelation). I think the covanents with the Jews were conditional, and were broken by them. I find it requiring me to fit the Bible to it, rather than the other way around.
All that said... I do not think I know everything, and go farther to say that I assume I am wrong on some things.
You may be right. I may be right. This is one major difference between Reformed and Dispensational theology.
I think we need to major on what is truly important, and leave the speculation on end times up to theologians who know more:)
Thanks for the tip concerning Berknof’s Systematic Theology. I just sent PD an email to see if he has a copy I can borrow. I’m interested to see how he handles the Acts passage. Honestly I will be surprised if he has a good argument against a literal earthly kingdom from this passage. It seems plain to me that the disciples were referring to the literal earthly kingdom that Jesus had told them about many times (Matthew 19:28). If things had changed with the kingdom program I believe Jesus would have certainly corrected them.
I got Berkhof's Systematic Theology from PR, PD didn't have a copy. I scanned the section on escatology where he argues against Premil and Postmil but didn't see where he "answers that and much more", a reference to Acts 1. Did you have a specific chapter in mind? If you could give me a chapter or page number that would be helpful. I'm into it now and would like to try to get to the bottom of it this weekend without reading the entire volume.
I may have read the interpretation of Acts in Scott's commentary on the Bible (a really old one from like 1865 or something)... I thought it was in the eschatology chapter in Berkhof, but I must have been overzealous...
I just liked what Berkhof had to say about pre and post mil and his view on it the end times. I think, regardless of Acts 1 being the words of Christ, that you can't base an entire system of belief on one verse in one chapter when there are other statements by Christ that are construed or can be construed other ways (the Olivet discourse to name one) and when that specific verse is construed other ways as well. Berkhof brings up very cogent and compelling arguments against that I have not heard satisfactorily answered.
I think I was a bit hasty on that one post about Berkhof answering that specific verse, which was why I posted again (should have deleted the first).
From what I have read and those I have talked to, I TEND toward the Reformed position on many things. It may be what I have read, but I have read quite a few Dispensational works as well (lets face it, it is more popular).
However, I have only a really passing knowledge of theology. I don't think, no matter how brilliant, that anyone can get it all right. There is to much we can't know, and inevitably EVERY system breaks down. I have the knowledge I feel comfortable with to make the decisions that are important... Mere Christianity as it were... but I haven't had enough motivation to really dig in deep on alot of unknown things like eschatology.
Sometimes I get a bit rash and post or mention things I don't have enough knowledge about, and I end up getting in discussions like this one, where I wasn't really prepared to, or desirious of, getting into it that much. I tend to a view that isn't all that popular in many circles I travel in.
I have been realizing for a while now, even through this discussion though not only from it, that I need to concentrate on the Bible and how it applies to my life, and how I can live for Christ, rather than concentrating on haveing a perfect systematic theology and eschatology. The Bible should control, not the theological system. And eschatology has been argued for centuries and still has brilliant people on both (or all three) sides. So apparently it isn't all that important to your every day Christian walk.
I am willing to casually talk about this if you want, but at this point I think you would be better served to read and talk with people that have a better knowledge than me.
By the way, I may have come across as dismissing Dispensationalism, and that may have also come across as dismissing you because of that... I did NOT mean that and I apologize if I came across that way. I know you, and I know your backround, (you too Nomad:) and I would never insult your intelligence. You are older and wiser than me, and that counts for alot.
Post a Comment