From: REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dispensationalism: Distinctives of Church
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:09:38 GMT
Organization: Fermilab

In article <Jul.20.02.03.14.1992.5709@dumas.rutgers.edu>
wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:

>We might say that the old covenant finally disappeared with the 
>destruction of the temple in 70 AD.  And if the old covenant has
>disappeared, then what of the old covenant promises of land (Israel)
>and so forth that are so important to millenialism?

Context, context, context.  Hebrews is dealing with Jews who are going back to
temple practices, you know, Mosaic covenant!  That is the covenant that was
being done away with, as Paul noted in Romans.  It wasn't being nulified as
having been wrong or wronged, rather God's plan for salvation had changed as it
has through out history.  By faith, sure, as it has always been.  But faith
doesn't save you! It is only the means by which you obtain salvation.  The
basis is the work accomplished on the cross.


>I have to dispute the significance of "the mediatorial ministry of
>Israel".

Did not the scriptures come via the Jews, OT and NT alike?  Did not the messiah
come via the Jews?  Where not the apostles Jewish and did not they take it to
the Gentiles?  To the Jew first and then to the Gentiles!


>History has shown that the conversion of the gentiles was accomplished
>by the church.

Baking powder!  Re-read what was written and try to understand what is being
said.  From the Jewish perspective, it was always to be through them that
salvation was to come to the gentiles, and so it was.  However, as noted in
Acts, Christianity was not a Jewish sect. It was to become distinct.  This was
not taught in the OT therefore even Peter had trouble coming to terms with
this.
 
>>Rex>  This indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the seal and earnest of God is
permanent despite sinful deeds by the indwelt believer (I Cor. 6:19-20) that
grieve the Spirit (Eph. 4:30). The ascended Lord Jesus Christ also indwells the
believer

>How many false doctrines do I have to take on at one time?

Pray tale, what false doctrine!  If you read your Greek NT you will see that
the indwelling of the HS is different in the NT than in the OT.  In the OT He
came and went, therefore David cries for the Lord not to take the Spirit for
him because of his sin.  Samson is another example.  There are many.  In the NT
however, the indwelling of the HS is once and for all. The tenses are
punctilar.  Also the illustration of "baptidzo" is that once baptized,
separation is impossible.  An illustration would be putting the ingredience of
a cake together and then cooking, and then trying to separate the ingredience
again.  It can't be done for they have become "baptized."
The problem lies in the fact that people get sealing & fulness of confused. 
They are not the same, nor are they scripturally taught to be one and the same
act.  


>The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is synonymous with faith.

Synonymous!  Again it is the object of faith that is the basis, and faith is
only the means by which it accomplishes it out working. People put their faith
in all kinds of things, even the church, but people can be sincerely wrong.
Also don't mix up the fruit of the Spirit with the gifts of the Spirit. 
Everyone has the fruit of the Spririt and are to manifest them, however, no one
has all the gifts of the Spirit but some with this one and some with that one. 



  Jesus
>said in the parable of the sower, that some will believe for 
>a while, and yet lose faith; some because their faith has no 
>root, some because "as they go on their way they are choked by
>life's worries, riches, and pleasures, and they do not mature."

So? Context, context, context.  Who was he speeking to?  It may have secondary
or even tertiary application to the church, but He is specifically speaking to
the OT Jews. The dispensational change of the coming ministry of the HS had not
taken place yet.  Christ was still on earth. Read 1st John..."that you may KNOW
that you have eternal life."  Funny, but that doesn't sound like a feeling that
comes and goes.  The whole epistle of 1st Jn speaks to this very point.  If you
sin you have an advocate, a mediator of the New Covenant.  Its not like I'm
saved this minute and the next I'm not and then I am and then I'm not and then
I am and then I'm not....oh no then He comes and at that moment I'm not!  Where
is the peace with God?  Where is the joy?  Where is the difference between the
OT law and this new NT law system of works you are placing us under?
>
>The doctrine of election, I am told by my pastor, was always taught
>to believers under persecution.  It was given as a message of 
>comfort, encouraging them to persevere in faith.  This was the
>case with the Ephesians, in particular.  We should not take
>the doctrine out of that context.

As a friend of mine would say,  "Say What?"  

>To approach the subject from a different angle, if you would
>say, `once elected, always elected,' who could argue with you?
>But who knows the will of God for the future?

I do in the area's of specific revelation. When He says He will accomplish this
thing or that, He will, so why this variable future? He is not a wimsical God
is He?  This whole idea of election isn't just to be claimed by those who are
at the moment under persecution.  It may have been developed as a doctrine at
that point in time, but it's a promise that transcends time.  "Chosen before
the foundation of the world."
When teaching this in SS I always make it a point that it is taught only to
those who are 1) saved, and 2) on the path of spiritual maturity.  Other wise,
it leads to misunderstanding and trouble.  


>Who knows who will persevere in faith?  Who can really know if they
>are one of God's elect?  

I might, and I do.  But you see my brother  -"election" isn't based on *my*
faithfulness but on *His* faithfulness.  Read the end of Rom 8 and try and find
"I" in there.  It is He who brings me to fruition.  Do I have a part, you bet
'ca.  The problem lies in the fact that people talk from two different vantage
points at the same time.  I try to explain it this way. You're stand at a great
door way, and over it reads, "Who So Ever Wills" and so we pass through, yet as
I turn back and view it from the other side it says, "Chosen Before The
Foundation Of The World." It's all in the way you view it, 1) from man's
perspective, or 2) from God's.

>We do want to stress God's promise, `everyone who believes on him
>[Christ] has eternal life.'  But eternal life can be lost through
>unbelief.  And persistent, unrepented sin can kill faith.

Wrong.  Again read Rom 8.  "Neither LIFE nor death can separate me."  Nothing
in this life can separate me, not even myself.  The problem is as you quoted
above, sometimes people get caught up in emotionalism and make a confession but
have no idea what it is they're confessing or to WHOM, there fore the wither
and die.  This is the Church's fault and those who don't preach the whole
gosple will have to give an account for it.  That is why we "Fundamentalist"
preach a personal relationship with the Person of God.  Its one on one and just
as you can be unfaithful to your wife, so we can be unfaithful to our God. 
However a writ of divorce need not be written and God has so chosen never to
write one to those who make up the Church.

...because in that WHILE we were yet sinners...
If He gave His very best for you, His Son, will He not give the rest!

Rex