The Roots of Christian Zionism: How Scofield Sowed Seeds of Apostasy

[NotUnderLaw]

I don't even care. I just dislike the general tendency to bash another people's belief systems. If someone came here misrepresenting calvinism, I'd say the same thing and defend the calvinist beliefs, even though I don't agree with calvinism. Dispensationalism gets a bad rap because nearly everything falls under it's umbrella today. Like I said, what it originally was, in the writings of men like C H McKintosh and Darby, was not anything like it was today. Even dispies like Ryrie have little semblance to the modern doomsday culture that permeates many dispensationalist circles.

There are many promises to national Israel that were never fulfilled. Like this one.

Quote:“‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. 30 I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. 32 I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign LORD. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, people of Israel!

Now, I won't deny that Paul (or the author of Hebrews) restates a portion of this verse. But the fact remains that they didn't quote the whole thing, because the whole thing doesn't apply to spiritual Israel. It is, in my understanding, talking about an unconditional promise to national Israel that they will be restored, their name will not suffer disgrace amongst the nations because of famine, and they will repent. This is not a verse/chapter aimed at Christians. And there are many verses like that that support a dispensational view of the scriptures. I've already stated I don't really take a dispensational position so much anymore, because I see only two ages really - prior to the cross and after the cross. Dispensationalism also does not take into account gentiles prior to the cross.

I just think it's a bit of a crock for people to assume they know everything about dispensationalism and bag on it, when if someone did that with their belief, and presented a caricature of it, they would be pretty pissed too.

If someone came and said "covenant theology is dumb because they believe in a covenant of works and that is work salvation" it would show a complete misunderstanding of covenant theology (and yet I have seen this arguement on other forums, and it is embarassing).

I see one people of God today, yet I am not a covenant theologian either (or any kind of theologian, but you get my point ).

[Presbygirl]

(02-21-2012 09:15 PM)redbeardiam Wrote:  

Quote:Believers are "Israel."

Presbygirl, I was waiting to see who would poke that stick in there. Troublemaker.

(02-21-2012 08:59 PM)NotUnderLaw Wrote:  Yep. "Israel", but not Israel as a nation. And that's the issue. Because there is a spiritual Israel of God and a physical Israel, and God made promises to both, some of which were never fulfilled, although they were clearly made to physical Israel.

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from reading the NT authors.

Most of the promises made to national Israel were conditional upon their obedience. The New Testament speaks of others as being fulfilled in Christ. The New Testament clearly portrays one people of God, saved by grace through faith, throughout history. The image is not of Israel being replaced, but of believing gentiles as being grafted into (true, believing) Israel.

Dispensationalist theology tends to view the New Testament through the lens of the Old. Those who see one people of God look at the Old Testament through the lens of the New.

Well, somebody had to state what is OBVIOUS! And I concur with everything you said Red! **warning, all of this has been MAJORLY discussed here before**

[Presbygirl]

(02-21-2012 09:27 PM)NotUnderLaw Wrote:  I don't even care. I just dislike the general tendency to bash another people's belief systems. If someone came here misrepresenting calvinism, I'd say the same thing and defend the calvinist beliefs, even though I don't agree with calvinism. Dispensationalism gets a bad rap because nearly everything falls under it's umbrella today. Like I said, what it originally was, in the writings of men like C H McKintosh and Darby, was not anything like it was today. Even dispies like Ryrie have little semblance to the modern doomsday culture that permeates many dispensationalist circles.

There are many promises to national Israel that were never fulfilled. Like this one.

Quote:“‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. 30 I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. 32 I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign LORD. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, people of Israel!

Now, I won't deny that Paul (or the author of Hebrews) restates a portion of this verse. But the fact remains that they didn't quote the whole thing, because the whole thing doesn't apply to spiritual Israel. It is, in my understanding, talking about an unconditional promise to national Israel that they will be restored, their name will not suffer disgrace amongst the nations because of famine, and they will repent. This is not a verse/chapter aimed at Christians. And there are many verses like that that support a dispensational view of the scriptures. I've already stated I don't really take a dispensational position so much anymore, because I see only two ages really - prior to the cross and after the cross. Dispensationalism also does not take into account gentiles prior to the cross.

I just think it's a bit of a crock for people to assume they know everything about dispensationalism and bag on it, when if someone did that with their belief, and presented a caricature of it, they would be pretty pissed too.

If someone came and said "covenant theology is dumb because they believe in a covenant of works and that is work salvation" it would show a complete misunderstanding of covenant theology (and yet I have seen this arguement on other forums, and it is embarassing).

Keep in mind the Israelites had intermarried time and again and so therefore Israel as a "nation" is not "pure.". The "nation" of Israel is Gods "chosen people" then and now. What exactly is it that God would want to give the Jews of today that He doesn't want to give to the rest of us?

[redbeardiam]

(02-21-2012 09:27 PM)NotUnderLaw Wrote:  I don't even care. I just dislike the general tendency to bash another people's belief systems. If someone came here misrepresenting calvinism, I'd say the same thing and defend the calvinist beliefs, even though I don't agree with calvinism. Dispensationalism gets a bad rap because nearly everything falls under it's umbrella today. Like I said, what it originally was, in the writings of men like C H McKintosh and Darby, was not anything like it was today. Even dispies like Ryrie have little semblance to the modern doomsday culture that permeates many dispensationalist circles.

I was raised with dispensationalist theology. I read Ryrie's systematic theology when I was 12. Every theological system is subject to abuse... some just make it easier than others. Clearly, not all or most dispies are extremists. BUT it's hard to be a dispensationalist and not unconditionally support the nation of Israel.

Quote:There are many promises to national Israel that were never fulfilled. Like this one... Now, I won't deny that Paul (or the author of Hebrews) restates a portion of this verse. But the fact remains that they didn't quote the whole thing, because the whole thing doesn't apply to spiritual Israel.

Or the author of Hebrews knows that referencing that passage partially is enough to let his audience know that he is reinterpreting/applying it broadly.

Quote:I just think it's a bit of a crock for people to assume they know everything about dispensationalism and bag on it, when if someone did that with their belief, and presented a caricature of it, they would be pretty pissed too.

I know, right? Being calvinist in my theology, I kinda get this all the time.

[That'sWhatItSays]

(02-21-2012 05:35 PM)artsim Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 04:59 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Christ is going to return and establish his reign from Jerusalem, so I guess we should be concerned about what's going on in Israel. A lot of the "gung ho" Israel stuff is kind of misplaced, though.

From what I can tell the overwhelming majority of Christians don't believe what you just said and haven't throughout history. Dispensationalism appears to be primarily an American phenomenon. The Zionism part is particularly bad because you have Christians enthusiastic about OT sacrifices being reinstated and other such nonsense. The support of Israel, regardless, of their behavior and policies, is bad enough.

Of course, at one point in time, you were considered a flaming preacher of reform and righteousness if you opposed transubstantiation and indulgences. The "church" had gotten so deeply enmeshed in its traditions and private interpretations that we needed a true reinterpretation of everything we ever thought we knew, a la Descartes. The Protestants did much good, but not nearly enough. Fundamentalists and Baptists did okay, but introduced their own private interpretations and biases into the Bible as well. We all do, I suspect. Dispensationalism, however, stands on its own Biblical merit.

Why was Peter preaching from Joel about signs and wonders at Pentecost? Why did God save Paul when he already had the twelve fulfilling the Great Commission? Why was Peter surprised at the household of Cornelius in Acts 10? When was the time of Jacob's trouble (Jeremiah 30) fulfilled? Did Daniel's Seventy Weeks run out? Etc...

[Elijah Craig]

Oh look, someone dropped the A bomb.

[redbeardiam]

(02-21-2012 10:27 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 05:35 PM)artsim Wrote:  From what I can tell the overwhelming majority of Christians don't believe what you just said and haven't throughout history. Dispensationalism appears to be primarily an American phenomenon. The Zionism part is particularly bad because you have Christians enthusiastic about OT sacrifices being reinstated and other such nonsense. The support of Israel, regardless, of their behavior and policies, is bad enough.

Of course, at one point in time, you were considered a flaming preacher of reform and righteousness if you opposed transubstantiation and indulgences. The "church" had gotten so deeply enmeshed in its traditions and private interpretations that we needed a true reinterpretation of everything we ever thought we knew, a la Descartes. The Protestants did much good, but not nearly enough. Fundamentalists and Baptists did okay, but introduced their own private interpretations and biases into the Bible as well. We all do, I suspect. Dispensationalism, however, stands on its own Biblical merit.

This screed could have been written by past me. Remembering that kinda makes me sad.

Quote:Why was Peter preaching from Joel about signs and wonders at Pentecost?

Because God was (and is, some of us would add) pouring out his Holy Spirit on the church in a new way, fulfilling Joel's prophecy.

Quote: Why did God save Paul when he already had the twelve fulfilling the Great Commission?

I dunno. Because he could? Because he wanted him to write the New Testament? Certainly has nothing to do with dispensationalism.

Quote:Why was Peter surprised at the household of Cornelius in Acts 10?

Because he had not come to terms yet with the fact that Jews and Gentiles were on equal footing in Jesus.

Quote: When was the time of Jacob's trouble (Jeremiah 30) fulfilled?

My guess would be the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Quote: Did Daniel's Seventy Weeks run out?

Quick! Somebody get this man a prophecy chart!
Seriously though... Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the dispensational idea that there was some random indeterminate and unpredicted period dropped in there after the next to last week has zero textual support.

[NotUnderLaw]

The original post in this thread is just inflammatory and unneeded. Is this forum a place for calvinists/covenant only, or is it a place for all others too?

If I go and make a thread saying "calvinists use a catechism written by a man who set people on fire", it would be about as accurate as the OP, and just as bad.

Also, I don't see what a man's credentials have to do with the accuracy or innacuracy of his biblical commentary. I don't own a Scofield, but I don't think that him being a convicted criminal would affect it. Moses and Paul were both and wrote more authoritative stuff than Scofield ever did.

[Presbygirl]

(02-22-2012 12:59 AM)NotUnderLaw Wrote:  The original post in this thread is just inflammatory and unneeded. Is this forum a place for calvinists/covenant only, or is it a place for all others too?

If I go and make a thread saying "calvinists use a catechism written by a man who set people on fire", it would be about as accurate as the OP, and just as bad.

Also, I don't see what a man's credentials have to do with the accuracy or innacuracy of his biblical commentary. I don't own a Scofield, but I don't think that him being a convicted criminal would affect it. Moses and Paul were both and wrote more authoritative stuff than Scofield ever did.

Awww, come on! Who's being imflammatory now by talking about people who set people on fire, huh?? Seriously, I can't speak for everyone, but many here just like good lively debate and food for thought.

[Scorpio]

(02-21-2012 10:55 PM)redbeardiam Wrote:  Quick! Somebody get this man a prophecy chart!

One of my favorites......