What would a theocracy look like?

Joe Carter looks at the “theophobes” who are all worried about America becoming a theocracy, as if evangelicals who don’t even believe in a central church authority would institute a central government authority.   He tries to calm their fears, pointing out that the number of “Reconstructionists” who might be interested in going for a theocracy is so small they could all fit into the conference room of a Holiday Inn in Helena, Montana.

But then he launches into a thought experiment, wondering what such a theocracy would look like:

What would the nation look like if we became the Dominionist States of America?

Here is the most plausible scenario I can imagine:

• After agreeing that it’s no longer applicable to a country that was founded by Unitarians and Deists, the term “Christian nation” is forbidden from being used in reference to the pre-dominionist era (i.e., from 1776-2012).

• The Marriage Protection Amendment is added to the U.S. Constitution, setting gay rights legislation back to the regressive year of 2003. The Human Life Amendment is stalled in Congress as pro-life factions fight over which of the 330 previously submitted proposals should be implemented.

• A revision is made to the First Amendment in which the words “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise of religion” is underlined and put in bold font. High school valedictorians—whether Christian, Muslim, or Jew—are extended the same right to pray at graduations as Supreme Court justices and members of Congress have had throughout our country’s history.

• A national ban on pornography is implemented. The prohibition has a negligible effect since there is already more porn on the hard drives of computers in Christian homes than was produced from the death of Caligula to the birth of Hugh Hefner.

• Creationism and Intelligent Design theory are included alongside the theory of evolution in school curricula. Students are forced to learn three theories, the details of which they’ll have forgotten about by graduation day.

• Congress passes the Christian Television Act which requires (a) every show must have as many Christian characters as homosexual characters, (b) Catholic characters must not be limited to elderly Latino women, Irish priests, and lapsed nuns, and (c) CBS must bring back Touched by an Angel.

And . . . well, that’s about the most that could ever happen.

Perhaps my ability to imagine a more robust form of Christian theocracy is dulled by the fact that I know so many actual Christians. The average Christian in America isn’t all that radical, which is why I think my list is a fair representation of the worst-case scenario. We would not have a zombified R.J. Rushdoony returning from the dead to stone men who lie with men and children who lie to their parents. We’d merely have average Christians acting much like average Christian acts now.

Most Christians merely want a return to the standard of public morality that prevailed during the country’s first two hundred years. As Ramesh Ponnuru has said about the “values voter” hysteria of 2004, “Nearly every one of these policies—and all of the most conservative ones—would merely turn the clock back to the late 1950s. That may be a very bad idea, but the America of the 1950s was not a theocracy.”

Indeed it is not. America was not a theocracy in 1950 and it won’t be a theocracy in 2050. Everyone, even the theophobes, knows this is true. The fact is that the journalists behind God Scare 2011 really aren’t concerned about dominionism. They aren’t really afraid that America is hurtling toward theocracy; they merely fear that our nation is drifting away from their goal of a secularacracy.

They need not worry. We’ll get there soon enough. And many Christians will be leading the way.

via What If America Did Become a Theocracy? | First Things.

Good new words:  Theophobe!  Secularacracy!

Seriously, do you think this is anything the left or anyone else really needs to worry about?  What are the prospects of us conservative Christians taking over the country and dismantling the Constitution?  (I thought we were the ones trying to defend the Constitution!)  To be sure, there are  theological dangers of a social gospel of the right, but aren’t those  far greater than any political danger?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    Where would one have chosen to live in the ’50′s: secular USSR or “Christian” USA. Just askin’.

  • Pete

    Where would one have chosen to live in the ’50′s: secular USSR or “Christian” USA. Just askin’.

  • SKPeterson

    The only reason the theophobes are raving is abortion. Everything else is window dressing. Public opinion has slowly begun to turn away from legalizing any and all, and has shifted toward allowing the states to apply restrictions on late-term abortions, parental notification, protecting minors, etc. All of these things are apparently anathema to the pro-abortion crowd, so they descend into rabid, fevered talk of theocracy.

  • SKPeterson

    The only reason the theophobes are raving is abortion. Everything else is window dressing. Public opinion has slowly begun to turn away from legalizing any and all, and has shifted toward allowing the states to apply restrictions on late-term abortions, parental notification, protecting minors, etc. All of these things are apparently anathema to the pro-abortion crowd, so they descend into rabid, fevered talk of theocracy.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    The only theocracy on the horizon that liberals need to worry about is an Islamic one. And they will usher it in. Seriously. A vacuum must be filled.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    The only theocracy on the horizon that liberals need to worry about is an Islamic one. And they will usher it in. Seriously. A vacuum must be filled.

  • Lou

    I do not think that Joe Carter’s articles are being helpful at all in all of these controversies. He strikes me as soneone with his head in the sand and who relentlessly defends fringe Christian radicalism in the Republican party. I have stopped listening/reading his stuff, because it’s essentially a broken record from my perspective. His view is Kuyerian/worldviewist anti-two kingdom (which is why I don’t understand Mr. Veith’s alignment).

    True, the “theological dangers of a social gospel of the right” are far greater at this point than any political danger? But Carter’s vision of what an actualized Reconstructionist/Dominionist government would be is not at all in line with their teachings. Perhaps Carter is a reconstructionist-lite and that is his vision.

    Seriously, we Biblical Christians need to much more vigilant about addressing the lunatic fringe in our circles instead of sticking our head in the sand, like Carter, and pretending that it doesn’t exist.

    Dominionism and Reconstructionsim have been around longer than 2011 and they have been a public concern since this article from 1994:
    http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

  • Lou

    I do not think that Joe Carter’s articles are being helpful at all in all of these controversies. He strikes me as soneone with his head in the sand and who relentlessly defends fringe Christian radicalism in the Republican party. I have stopped listening/reading his stuff, because it’s essentially a broken record from my perspective. His view is Kuyerian/worldviewist anti-two kingdom (which is why I don’t understand Mr. Veith’s alignment).

    True, the “theological dangers of a social gospel of the right” are far greater at this point than any political danger? But Carter’s vision of what an actualized Reconstructionist/Dominionist government would be is not at all in line with their teachings. Perhaps Carter is a reconstructionist-lite and that is his vision.

    Seriously, we Biblical Christians need to much more vigilant about addressing the lunatic fringe in our circles instead of sticking our head in the sand, like Carter, and pretending that it doesn’t exist.

    Dominionism and Reconstructionsim have been around longer than 2011 and they have been a public concern since this article from 1994:
    http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

  • Kirk

    @3 Yes, we must all be very concerned that the 0.6% of our population made up of Muslims will some how exert enough influence and authority to place the other 99.4% of us under their dominion. I’m terrified.

    Seriously though, if you take the most positivist, light hearted version of an American theocracy, Joe Carter paints an accurate picture of it. To get a more accurate picture, I think we should look at existing American theocracies: churches, schools and homes. Taking the values enforced in these mini-theocracies, I think you can extrapolate them to see the sort of laws that a dominionist would actually like to see enforced.

    But, more to the point, I don’t think that dominionism is a viable political movement. It’s the realm of a few nut jobs from Texas and the midwest. Little more than a shameful blip. I agree with Joe in that I don’t think that most conservative Americans want a theocracy. I disagree that they know what they want because they (“they” does not include the people on this blog) are so inconsistent in actually stating it.

  • Kirk

    @3 Yes, we must all be very concerned that the 0.6% of our population made up of Muslims will some how exert enough influence and authority to place the other 99.4% of us under their dominion. I’m terrified.

    Seriously though, if you take the most positivist, light hearted version of an American theocracy, Joe Carter paints an accurate picture of it. To get a more accurate picture, I think we should look at existing American theocracies: churches, schools and homes. Taking the values enforced in these mini-theocracies, I think you can extrapolate them to see the sort of laws that a dominionist would actually like to see enforced.

    But, more to the point, I don’t think that dominionism is a viable political movement. It’s the realm of a few nut jobs from Texas and the midwest. Little more than a shameful blip. I agree with Joe in that I don’t think that most conservative Americans want a theocracy. I disagree that they know what they want because they (“they” does not include the people on this blog) are so inconsistent in actually stating it.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    One does not need a majority to overthrow a nation.

    At any rate, the problem with a theocracy is that it oftentimes is accompanied by a “salvation through nationalization” or “salvation by legislation” mentality. It ignores the real issue: that man is unregenerate, born in sin and under the judgment of a holy God, and can only escape this judgment through the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    One does not need a majority to overthrow a nation.

    At any rate, the problem with a theocracy is that it oftentimes is accompanied by a “salvation through nationalization” or “salvation by legislation” mentality. It ignores the real issue: that man is unregenerate, born in sin and under the judgment of a holy God, and can only escape this judgment through the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Haven’t most societies in someway been theocratic and nationalistic? The people were united by blood and religion. Countries that have nothing to unite them except prosperity are pretty vulnerable when that prosperity is gone and all the little groups turn on one another.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Haven’t most societies in someway been theocratic and nationalistic? The people were united by blood and religion. Countries that have nothing to unite them except prosperity are pretty vulnerable when that prosperity is gone and all the little groups turn on one another.

  • Michael Z.

    Carter’s strongest point here is his jibe about most American Christians hating the very thought of an organized national religious power.
    I think that the reason the “theophobes” get so scared is that this is exactly what they want to do to us. They want to use the government power to impose their code on Christians. So of course they think we are operating from the same premise and want to use the government against them.

  • Michael Z.

    Carter’s strongest point here is his jibe about most American Christians hating the very thought of an organized national religious power.
    I think that the reason the “theophobes” get so scared is that this is exactly what they want to do to us. They want to use the government power to impose their code on Christians. So of course they think we are operating from the same premise and want to use the government against them.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I think if the theophobes fear came true the 1st amendment would be amended to read “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise of Christian religion”, Carter, I think forgot that one of the key features of Dominionists is the enforcement of the Ten Commandments by the government. Otherwise, I think he is spot on and was good for a laugh.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I think if the theophobes fear came true the 1st amendment would be amended to read “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise of Christian religion”, Carter, I think forgot that one of the key features of Dominionists is the enforcement of the Ten Commandments by the government. Otherwise, I think he is spot on and was good for a laugh.

  • DonS

    That was funny stuff, and a good morning laugh.

    Most Christians I know don’t even want the things Joe listed. They just want the courts to stay out of things they have no business interfering with, and they want to be left alone by the government, free to raise their children and live their lives in accordance with their conscience.

  • DonS

    That was funny stuff, and a good morning laugh.

    Most Christians I know don’t even want the things Joe listed. They just want the courts to stay out of things they have no business interfering with, and they want to be left alone by the government, free to raise their children and live their lives in accordance with their conscience.

  • John C

    Well may you scoff, Dr Luther, but Rick Joyner of Morning Star Ministries thinks the “next great awakening” will soon be upon us. He reckons NFL games will be cancelled because all the players and fans will be too busy attending revival meetings but the stadiums will not be empty because, without the owner’s knowledge, they were built for revival.

  • John C

    Well may you scoff, Dr Luther, but Rick Joyner of Morning Star Ministries thinks the “next great awakening” will soon be upon us. He reckons NFL games will be cancelled because all the players and fans will be too busy attending revival meetings but the stadiums will not be empty because, without the owner’s knowledge, they were built for revival.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @11 So just exactly what kind of incense do they burn at Morning Star?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @11 So just exactly what kind of incense do they burn at Morning Star?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I get that most Evangelicals are not Reconstructionists. And I don’t personally fear some kind of Reconstructionist takeover in this country. But I’m not sure that pointing out how few Reconstructionists there are constitutes solid evidence that they wouldn’t be able to take over.

    I mean, how many Germans were there who truly believed in the whole Nazi ideology, not just agreeing with parts of it? How many people living in Russia adhered strongly to Communist ideals? Point being, a relatively small group can take over a country if their compatriots are scared or upset, and if the group appeals to their compatriots’ needs.

    I wouldn’t expect any hypothetical Reconstructionist takeover to come about via Reconstructionism’s explicitly winning people’s hearts and minds. Rather, I would expect us to elect a leader who appealed to fear of a declining culture, playing off of fears of a Muslim fifth column. His actions might be prompted by his own Reconstructionist ideas, but those fears are larger than that. While some Christians and non-Christians might sound alarms about this hypothetical leader’s dangerous philosophy/theology, most people would gladly ignore it, provided that the leader was (lowercase-C) charismatic enough and appeared to be strongly addressing the issues of Islam and culture decline.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I get that most Evangelicals are not Reconstructionists. And I don’t personally fear some kind of Reconstructionist takeover in this country. But I’m not sure that pointing out how few Reconstructionists there are constitutes solid evidence that they wouldn’t be able to take over.

    I mean, how many Germans were there who truly believed in the whole Nazi ideology, not just agreeing with parts of it? How many people living in Russia adhered strongly to Communist ideals? Point being, a relatively small group can take over a country if their compatriots are scared or upset, and if the group appeals to their compatriots’ needs.

    I wouldn’t expect any hypothetical Reconstructionist takeover to come about via Reconstructionism’s explicitly winning people’s hearts and minds. Rather, I would expect us to elect a leader who appealed to fear of a declining culture, playing off of fears of a Muslim fifth column. His actions might be prompted by his own Reconstructionist ideas, but those fears are larger than that. While some Christians and non-Christians might sound alarms about this hypothetical leader’s dangerous philosophy/theology, most people would gladly ignore it, provided that the leader was (lowercase-C) charismatic enough and appeared to be strongly addressing the issues of Islam and culture decline.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    I’m with those who think the idea of a theocracy is a remote fear.

    That said, I think we need to be more realistic about what happens when people do take power. What we were given was a list of policies that might happen. And that’s conceivably an accurate list if what usually happened was that policies made it from the think tank to the legislature with some compromises so as not to scare too many people. And perhaps that’s what it would look like at the start of the revolution.

    But what happens as time goes on is that candidates need to set themselves apart from each other. So one markets himself as the more moderate candidate, and the other as the more extreme candidate. But perhaps at a given point the extreme candidate is the only one who agrees with the voters on what they think is a more important issue. Some issue of war and peace, for example. They vote him in, and everything becomes more extreme.

    And what happens after a generation of youth are raised under this? What do they support?

    The dynamics of politics would not be missing from a theocracy. But you probably would have a new dynamic where the stifling of dissent would be seen as a virtue, and would also be a convenient political tool for whoever was in office at the time. Both the moderates and extremists would use it. The moderates would silence their opponents in the name of Christian liberty. The extreme in the name of purity.

  • http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

    I’m with those who think the idea of a theocracy is a remote fear.

    That said, I think we need to be more realistic about what happens when people do take power. What we were given was a list of policies that might happen. And that’s conceivably an accurate list if what usually happened was that policies made it from the think tank to the legislature with some compromises so as not to scare too many people. And perhaps that’s what it would look like at the start of the revolution.

    But what happens as time goes on is that candidates need to set themselves apart from each other. So one markets himself as the more moderate candidate, and the other as the more extreme candidate. But perhaps at a given point the extreme candidate is the only one who agrees with the voters on what they think is a more important issue. Some issue of war and peace, for example. They vote him in, and everything becomes more extreme.

    And what happens after a generation of youth are raised under this? What do they support?

    The dynamics of politics would not be missing from a theocracy. But you probably would have a new dynamic where the stifling of dissent would be seen as a virtue, and would also be a convenient political tool for whoever was in office at the time. Both the moderates and extremists would use it. The moderates would silence their opponents in the name of Christian liberty. The extreme in the name of purity.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I mean, how many Germans were there who truly believed in the whole Nazi ideology, not just agreeing with parts of it? How many people living in Russia adhered strongly to Communist ideals? Point being, a relatively small group can take over a country if their compatriots are scared or upset, and if the group appeals to their compatriots’ needs.

    compare with

    Yes, we must all be very concerned that the 0.6% of our population made up of Muslims will some how exert enough influence and authority to place the other 99.4% of us under their dominion. I’m terrified.

    Let’s disregard for a minute our personal feelings about Christians, Muslims, Nazis and Bolsheviks, and whether living under the totalitarian rule of one of them would be desirable. Now, the point is just whether a small group of fanatics can get tacit approval of the majority. Experience seems to say yes.

    Aside. Now, I don’t know whether folks would consider Europe after Constantine a sort of theocracy, but the Christian religion was definitely part of the official political states of Europe. In England for a long time, the majority of folks in parliament were clergy. I think most feel that the melding of politics with religion wasn’t so good for either.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I mean, how many Germans were there who truly believed in the whole Nazi ideology, not just agreeing with parts of it? How many people living in Russia adhered strongly to Communist ideals? Point being, a relatively small group can take over a country if their compatriots are scared or upset, and if the group appeals to their compatriots’ needs.

    compare with

    Yes, we must all be very concerned that the 0.6% of our population made up of Muslims will some how exert enough influence and authority to place the other 99.4% of us under their dominion. I’m terrified.

    Let’s disregard for a minute our personal feelings about Christians, Muslims, Nazis and Bolsheviks, and whether living under the totalitarian rule of one of them would be desirable. Now, the point is just whether a small group of fanatics can get tacit approval of the majority. Experience seems to say yes.

    Aside. Now, I don’t know whether folks would consider Europe after Constantine a sort of theocracy, but the Christian religion was definitely part of the official political states of Europe. In England for a long time, the majority of folks in parliament were clergy. I think most feel that the melding of politics with religion wasn’t so good for either.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And is it me, or does Carter do a bait-and-switch in his article? He begins like this:

    What would the nation look like if we became the Dominionist States of America?

    But he concludes his Gedankenexperiment with:

    Perhaps my ability to imagine a more robust form of Christian theocracy is dulled by the fact that I know so many actual Christians.

    So … was he imagining a Dominionist theocracy, or merely a Christian one? Appears to me he was envisioning a theocracy as patterned after most Christians he knows, who are not Dominionists/Reconstructionists/whatever.

    Anyhow, from discussions I’ve had with many Evangelicals, I’m not at all comforted by the understanding many of them have of how the Old Testament — laws, promises, and everything — applies to the modern day, especially to our country. I’ve run across too many Evangelicals who think that any command in the Old Testament can be taken out of context and applied to Christians — for example, prohibitions of tattoos. And a large chunk of them are likewise confused about the Sabbath — which day it is, whether Christians need to observe it, and how. It’s not hard for me to imagine an Evangelical theocracy (to say nothing of a more hard-line Dominionist/etc. one) in which tattoos would be outlawed, there would be a death penalty for homosexual sex and those who practice sorcery/magic/the occult, and businesses would not be able to operate on Sunday. As a starter. It’s in the Bible, after all.

    After agreeing that it’s no longer applicable to a country that was founded by Unitarians and Deists, the term “Christian nation” is forbidden from being used in reference to the pre-dominionist era

    See, this is just naive. Carter thinks that Evangelicals overwhelmingly (universally?) believe that the USA was “founded by Unitarians and Deists”? Is he sure he’s talked to lots of them? Because I have, and many of them think the whole Deist argument is liberal-secular revisionism, and not history. They don’t believe, nor can they apparently fathom, that Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Christian as they understand the term.

    A national ban on pornography is implemented. The prohibition has a negligible effect since there is already more porn on the hard drives of computers in Christian homes than was produced from the death of Caligula to the birth of Hugh Hefner.

    Again, this is naive. It may have a “negligible effect” on the amount of pornography, but the ban would almost certainly have a very intrusive effect on the nation. I mean, there’s probably lots of pornography on computers in hard-line Muslim theocracies, as well, but the noticeable effect there is on freedom of speech, with people being arrested for whatever the police consider “indecent”. I expect it would be the same with a Christian theocracy. Theocracies just heighten hypocrisy, it seems.

    I really think Carter is intentionally not flexing his creative muscle very much here. I mean, he imagines a government that is somehow totalitarian enough to require TV shows to meet religious quotas, but is also not totalitarian enough to simply forbid teaching of evolution outright? He’s not even trying.

    Carter’s whole point is to make it sound like it would be all sunshine and roses, just like all of ten years ago. He’s soft-pedaling the very concept of a Christian theocracy. Presumably, because he’s a little soft on the idea himself.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And is it me, or does Carter do a bait-and-switch in his article? He begins like this:

    What would the nation look like if we became the Dominionist States of America?

    But he concludes his Gedankenexperiment with:

    Perhaps my ability to imagine a more robust form of Christian theocracy is dulled by the fact that I know so many actual Christians.

    So … was he imagining a Dominionist theocracy, or merely a Christian one? Appears to me he was envisioning a theocracy as patterned after most Christians he knows, who are not Dominionists/Reconstructionists/whatever.

    Anyhow, from discussions I’ve had with many Evangelicals, I’m not at all comforted by the understanding many of them have of how the Old Testament — laws, promises, and everything — applies to the modern day, especially to our country. I’ve run across too many Evangelicals who think that any command in the Old Testament can be taken out of context and applied to Christians — for example, prohibitions of tattoos. And a large chunk of them are likewise confused about the Sabbath — which day it is, whether Christians need to observe it, and how. It’s not hard for me to imagine an Evangelical theocracy (to say nothing of a more hard-line Dominionist/etc. one) in which tattoos would be outlawed, there would be a death penalty for homosexual sex and those who practice sorcery/magic/the occult, and businesses would not be able to operate on Sunday. As a starter. It’s in the Bible, after all.

    After agreeing that it’s no longer applicable to a country that was founded by Unitarians and Deists, the term “Christian nation” is forbidden from being used in reference to the pre-dominionist era

    See, this is just naive. Carter thinks that Evangelicals overwhelmingly (universally?) believe that the USA was “founded by Unitarians and Deists”? Is he sure he’s talked to lots of them? Because I have, and many of them think the whole Deist argument is liberal-secular revisionism, and not history. They don’t believe, nor can they apparently fathom, that Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Christian as they understand the term.

    A national ban on pornography is implemented. The prohibition has a negligible effect since there is already more porn on the hard drives of computers in Christian homes than was produced from the death of Caligula to the birth of Hugh Hefner.

    Again, this is naive. It may have a “negligible effect” on the amount of pornography, but the ban would almost certainly have a very intrusive effect on the nation. I mean, there’s probably lots of pornography on computers in hard-line Muslim theocracies, as well, but the noticeable effect there is on freedom of speech, with people being arrested for whatever the police consider “indecent”. I expect it would be the same with a Christian theocracy. Theocracies just heighten hypocrisy, it seems.

    I really think Carter is intentionally not flexing his creative muscle very much here. I mean, he imagines a government that is somehow totalitarian enough to require TV shows to meet religious quotas, but is also not totalitarian enough to simply forbid teaching of evolution outright? He’s not even trying.

    Carter’s whole point is to make it sound like it would be all sunshine and roses, just like all of ten years ago. He’s soft-pedaling the very concept of a Christian theocracy. Presumably, because he’s a little soft on the idea himself.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Pete asked (@1):

    Where would one have chosen to live in the ’50′s: secular USSR or “Christian” USA. Just askin’.

    To which I would ask you in turn, Pete: Where would you have chosen to live in 2007, secular Finland or Christian Zimbabwe? Just askin’.

    As to Lou’s point (@4) that “Dominionism and Reconstructionsim have been around longer than 2011″, it’s true, as this snippet from Wikipedia notes:

    In the late 1980s and early 1990s Olasky edited the 16-book Turning Point Christian Worldview series funded by Howard Ahmanson, Jr.’s Fieldstead Institute, which champions and funds the cause of “total integration of Biblical law into our lives.” Ahmanson has funded four of Olasky’s books, and Michelle Goldberg, author of the book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, places Olasky in a crucial role in the Christian reconstructionism and dominionism movements, saying “I’m not sure whether he actually identifies himself as a Christian reconstructionist, but he’s very close to Christian reconstructionism.”

    Apparently this Olasky fellow is editor-in-chief of WORLD magazine and teaches at Patrick Henry College. Hmm … WORLD magazine and Patrick Henry College … that rings a bell for some reason … oh well.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Pete asked (@1):

    Where would one have chosen to live in the ’50′s: secular USSR or “Christian” USA. Just askin’.

    To which I would ask you in turn, Pete: Where would you have chosen to live in 2007, secular Finland or Christian Zimbabwe? Just askin’.

    As to Lou’s point (@4) that “Dominionism and Reconstructionsim have been around longer than 2011″, it’s true, as this snippet from Wikipedia notes:

    In the late 1980s and early 1990s Olasky edited the 16-book Turning Point Christian Worldview series funded by Howard Ahmanson, Jr.’s Fieldstead Institute, which champions and funds the cause of “total integration of Biblical law into our lives.” Ahmanson has funded four of Olasky’s books, and Michelle Goldberg, author of the book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, places Olasky in a crucial role in the Christian reconstructionism and dominionism movements, saying “I’m not sure whether he actually identifies himself as a Christian reconstructionist, but he’s very close to Christian reconstructionism.”

    Apparently this Olasky fellow is editor-in-chief of WORLD magazine and teaches at Patrick Henry College. Hmm … WORLD magazine and Patrick Henry College … that rings a bell for some reason … oh well.

  • Grace

    World Magazine Blog and this blog were once together on World Magazine.

    Dr. Marvin Olasky is a very learned and interesting man. He is no lightweight when it comes to journalism

  • Grace

    World Magazine Blog and this blog were once together on World Magazine.

    Dr. Marvin Olasky is a very learned and interesting man. He is no lightweight when it comes to journalism

  • mendicus

    PMH@3 and sg@7 make points that, I think rightly, indicate that this is a more interesting problem than some allow. sg is correct that most civilizations historically have significantly joined religion and policy. In the absence of a basis in religious (and ethnic) unity, America has sought unity on other bases, perhaps mainly nationalism and liberty. Our concept of liberty, in turn, has depended implicitly on a substantial degree of ethical homogeneity. Where we’ve lacked that common ground, such as in the cases of slavery in the 19th century and alcohol in the early 20th, our country and liberty have faced great challenges.

    Today we find enormous (unprecedented?) ethical diversity, and simultaneously we’re struggling to find a common understanding of liberty itself. Perhaps coincidentally, as a country we’re moving closer to the brink of financial ruin. There is, increasingly, a void. PMH rightly notes that the void must be filled, and that Islam may become poised to fill it. It is the explicit goal of Islam that the entire world be brought within Islamic socio-political order. This view is shared among jihadists and modernists alike (compare the writings of Sayyid Qutb and Fazlur Rahman on this point), they differ mainly as to means. What the American Left doesn’t seem to realize is that the means of achieving the Islamicization of America includes using our institutions and liberties to achieve their theocratic goals. So the inability of Islam to fill the void today does not mean we shouldn’t be vigilant against its doing so tomorrow.

    Interestingly, some Muslims point to America’s corruption as evidence that liberty is a fool’s fantasy. Much as I love liberty and long for it to flourish, I’m not sure the evidence is against them.

  • mendicus

    PMH@3 and sg@7 make points that, I think rightly, indicate that this is a more interesting problem than some allow. sg is correct that most civilizations historically have significantly joined religion and policy. In the absence of a basis in religious (and ethnic) unity, America has sought unity on other bases, perhaps mainly nationalism and liberty. Our concept of liberty, in turn, has depended implicitly on a substantial degree of ethical homogeneity. Where we’ve lacked that common ground, such as in the cases of slavery in the 19th century and alcohol in the early 20th, our country and liberty have faced great challenges.

    Today we find enormous (unprecedented?) ethical diversity, and simultaneously we’re struggling to find a common understanding of liberty itself. Perhaps coincidentally, as a country we’re moving closer to the brink of financial ruin. There is, increasingly, a void. PMH rightly notes that the void must be filled, and that Islam may become poised to fill it. It is the explicit goal of Islam that the entire world be brought within Islamic socio-political order. This view is shared among jihadists and modernists alike (compare the writings of Sayyid Qutb and Fazlur Rahman on this point), they differ mainly as to means. What the American Left doesn’t seem to realize is that the means of achieving the Islamicization of America includes using our institutions and liberties to achieve their theocratic goals. So the inability of Islam to fill the void today does not mean we shouldn’t be vigilant against its doing so tomorrow.

    Interestingly, some Muslims point to America’s corruption as evidence that liberty is a fool’s fantasy. Much as I love liberty and long for it to flourish, I’m not sure the evidence is against them.

  • Grace

    Marvin Olasky is the Editor and Chief of World Magazine.

    Dr. Olasky has authored over twenty books.

    World Magazine Blog – http://online.worldmag.com/

  • Grace

    Marvin Olasky is the Editor and Chief of World Magazine.

    Dr. Olasky has authored over twenty books.

    World Magazine Blog – http://online.worldmag.com/

  • mendicus

    tODD@16
    You’re right. I don’t think Carter’s trying hard at all. There is much to be feared in an Evangelical or Dominionist theocracy, not least the extreme secularist backlash that would follow four years of moralistic overreaching.

  • mendicus

    tODD@16
    You’re right. I don’t think Carter’s trying hard at all. There is much to be feared in an Evangelical or Dominionist theocracy, not least the extreme secularist backlash that would follow four years of moralistic overreaching.

  • Cincinnatus

    Ok, but seriously folks. The Dominionist/theonomist/theocratic issue is, in fact, a non-issue that was constructed by partisan hacks in the media commentariat who a) needed a sensational story during a slow news week and b) wanted to incite baseless fear in the electorate/readership. Let’s be honest.

    It’s interesting in its own right to discuss what Dominionism means, theoretically and practically, but let’s sever such a discussion from even the remotest possibility of occurrence within our lifetimes.

  • Cincinnatus

    Ok, but seriously folks. The Dominionist/theonomist/theocratic issue is, in fact, a non-issue that was constructed by partisan hacks in the media commentariat who a) needed a sensational story during a slow news week and b) wanted to incite baseless fear in the electorate/readership. Let’s be honest.

    It’s interesting in its own right to discuss what Dominionism means, theoretically and practically, but let’s sever such a discussion from even the remotest possibility of occurrence within our lifetimes.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, and to answer your question about Nazis, tODD: lots of Germans signed on to the Nazi movement wholeheartedly for a variety of complicated reasons. In short, Nazism was a populist movement. The most strident opposition to Nazism came at first from German elites who, by definition, are a minority of the population. The Nazis were only allowed into the Weimar government in the first place out of a vain hope that it would give vent to populist angst and disperse the movement.

    Communion in Russia was also quite popular, riding on a wave of populist fervor. But, per Lenin’s insistence, communism-in-practice has generally prioritized the importance of a “vanguard” of elites who would lead the population into an ideology they do not fully understand themselves.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh, and to answer your question about Nazis, tODD: lots of Germans signed on to the Nazi movement wholeheartedly for a variety of complicated reasons. In short, Nazism was a populist movement. The most strident opposition to Nazism came at first from German elites who, by definition, are a minority of the population. The Nazis were only allowed into the Weimar government in the first place out of a vain hope that it would give vent to populist angst and disperse the movement.

    Communion in Russia was also quite popular, riding on a wave of populist fervor. But, per Lenin’s insistence, communism-in-practice has generally prioritized the importance of a “vanguard” of elites who would lead the population into an ideology they do not fully understand themselves.

  • DonS

    What Cincinnatus said. This “Dominionist” scare is political hackery of the worst order. Mendicus @ 19, what is your prescription, if you think the Muslims are right in asserting that liberty is a bad thing? Isn’t individual liberty, and the rights guaranteed to individuals under our Bill of Rights the bulwark against the imposition of an authoritarian society, of any stripe? Certainly, stripping away individual liberty will not secure us from authoritarianism.

    And if your fear is that financial ruin might provide a void that could somehow be filled with Christian dominionism, Islam, or some other theocratic authoritarian regime, in the manner that Nazi-ism filled a void in 1933 Germany, then isn’t our best remedy to engage our government in correcting its ruinous debt policies which are hurtling us toward this ruin, and actually turning our government toward being an enabler of economic growth and sound policy? What a concept that would be!

  • DonS

    What Cincinnatus said. This “Dominionist” scare is political hackery of the worst order. Mendicus @ 19, what is your prescription, if you think the Muslims are right in asserting that liberty is a bad thing? Isn’t individual liberty, and the rights guaranteed to individuals under our Bill of Rights the bulwark against the imposition of an authoritarian society, of any stripe? Certainly, stripping away individual liberty will not secure us from authoritarianism.

    And if your fear is that financial ruin might provide a void that could somehow be filled with Christian dominionism, Islam, or some other theocratic authoritarian regime, in the manner that Nazi-ism filled a void in 1933 Germany, then isn’t our best remedy to engage our government in correcting its ruinous debt policies which are hurtling us toward this ruin, and actually turning our government toward being an enabler of economic growth and sound policy? What a concept that would be!

  • –helen

    “The only theocracy on the horizon that liberals need to worry about is an Islamic one. And they will usher it in. Seriously. A vacuum must be filled.”

    “Yes, we must all be very concerned that the 0.6% of our population made up of Muslims will some how exert enough influence and authority to place the other 99.4% of us under their dominion. I’m terrified. –sg

    Perhaps you should be. How long has it taken for the “tail to wag the dog” in the UK? or in Canada? (What is the current percentage of Muslims in Canada? What do you think it will be in another generation of their multiplying and native Canadians not replacing themselves?)

    [Of course, in the US the Hispanics may keep ahead of the muslims.]

    At the risk of being called names for making an observation:
    what percentage of Jews has contributed to our being led around by the nose by Israel since WW II?

  • –helen

    “The only theocracy on the horizon that liberals need to worry about is an Islamic one. And they will usher it in. Seriously. A vacuum must be filled.”

    “Yes, we must all be very concerned that the 0.6% of our population made up of Muslims will some how exert enough influence and authority to place the other 99.4% of us under their dominion. I’m terrified. –sg

    Perhaps you should be. How long has it taken for the “tail to wag the dog” in the UK? or in Canada? (What is the current percentage of Muslims in Canada? What do you think it will be in another generation of their multiplying and native Canadians not replacing themselves?)

    [Of course, in the US the Hispanics may keep ahead of the muslims.]

    At the risk of being called names for making an observation:
    what percentage of Jews has contributed to our being led around by the nose by Israel since WW II?

  • mendicus

    DonS@24, I didn’t say liberty is a bad thing, I said it might be a fool’s fantasy. What I’m getting at is that we, as a fallen race, might not have the capacity to sustain self-governance. I’m not saying authoritarianism is any better, indeed I think it’s immeasurably worse. But it might be more sustainable in that it requires only the effective use of force rather than a broad-based moral decency. In short, we as human beings might not be good enough for liberty, and so be stuck with authoritarianism.

    I agree with you on all other points.

  • mendicus

    DonS@24, I didn’t say liberty is a bad thing, I said it might be a fool’s fantasy. What I’m getting at is that we, as a fallen race, might not have the capacity to sustain self-governance. I’m not saying authoritarianism is any better, indeed I think it’s immeasurably worse. But it might be more sustainable in that it requires only the effective use of force rather than a broad-based moral decency. In short, we as human beings might not be good enough for liberty, and so be stuck with authoritarianism.

    I agree with you on all other points.

  • Kirk

    @25

    I wasn’t aware the England and Canada were Muslim Theocracies.

  • Kirk

    @25

    I wasn’t aware the England and Canada were Muslim Theocracies.

  • Kirk

    And also, I would place the blame for the United States’ support of Israel on dispensationalist evangelicals than on Jewish Americans.

  • Kirk

    And also, I would place the blame for the United States’ support of Israel on dispensationalist evangelicals than on Jewish Americans.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kirk (@27), don’t you mean al-Qa’anada?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kirk (@27), don’t you mean al-Qa’anada?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dangit! I’m never the first to think of something!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dangit! I’m never the first to think of something!

  • Lou

    DonS #24 and Cincy #22 – I totally disagree with and think you both are completely deceived ref: “This ‘Dominionist’ scare is political hackery of the worst order.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. We need to stop burying our head in the sand and get Biblical about these heretical views, rather than ignoring or endorsing them.

    #1, As I mentioned, Dominionism and Reconstructionism has been on the political radar for decades. One of the best studies I’ve seen from the opponents was written in 1994 and still holds true today.:
    http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

    #2, Dominionist/Reconstructionist views, as others here have mentioned above, have had an emerging and pervasive influence within conservative Christian churches. While most parisioners/church members may not state outright that they ARE “reconstructionist” by label, many have had obscured and heretical theological understandings about the interaction between Biblical law in the OT and NT verses our modern application of these principles in the various spheres of life. Their gross misunderstandings have been fed by false teaching distributed to them, not from pulpits, but rather from TV and internet, as well as para-church networks, such as homeschooling materials, worldview conferences, advocates of family integrated worship movements, and an endless host of other para-ministries that they support or belong to that outside the oversight of their ordained church leadership.

    #3 Also, as others above have mentioned, the rise of Nazism is a perfect illustration of how an ideology held by a small minority of the population can and did manipulate not only public perception, but also gained the Church’s sanction of their nationistic religion.

    More to say on the topic, but this needs to be addressed and rebuked by leaders in Christ’s church — not ignored or endorsed, which is what both of you and Joe Carter are doing.

  • Lou

    DonS #24 and Cincy #22 – I totally disagree with and think you both are completely deceived ref: “This ‘Dominionist’ scare is political hackery of the worst order.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. We need to stop burying our head in the sand and get Biblical about these heretical views, rather than ignoring or endorsing them.

    #1, As I mentioned, Dominionism and Reconstructionism has been on the political radar for decades. One of the best studies I’ve seen from the opponents was written in 1994 and still holds true today.:
    http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

    #2, Dominionist/Reconstructionist views, as others here have mentioned above, have had an emerging and pervasive influence within conservative Christian churches. While most parisioners/church members may not state outright that they ARE “reconstructionist” by label, many have had obscured and heretical theological understandings about the interaction between Biblical law in the OT and NT verses our modern application of these principles in the various spheres of life. Their gross misunderstandings have been fed by false teaching distributed to them, not from pulpits, but rather from TV and internet, as well as para-church networks, such as homeschooling materials, worldview conferences, advocates of family integrated worship movements, and an endless host of other para-ministries that they support or belong to that outside the oversight of their ordained church leadership.

    #3 Also, as others above have mentioned, the rise of Nazism is a perfect illustration of how an ideology held by a small minority of the population can and did manipulate not only public perception, but also gained the Church’s sanction of their nationistic religion.

    More to say on the topic, but this needs to be addressed and rebuked by leaders in Christ’s church — not ignored or endorsed, which is what both of you and Joe Carter are doing.

  • Grace

    Helen @ 25

    At the risk of being called names for making an observation:
    what percentage of Jews has contributed to our being led around by the nose by Israel since WW II?

    Homes, businesses, synagogues burned to the ground – jewelry, valuable art stolen from the Jews as they were marched off to the ghettos, and then transported by train to the camps – families separated, some gassed and burned in the ovens, and other made to work, or other projects the Nazi’s had in mind.

    What percentage of Nazi’s contributed to the slaughter of 6 million Jews? Who was their leader, and why did they follow such a gruesome road – Romans 13 isn’t an answer, but is used to explain away the holocaust!

    Who’s nose was eliminated, by the gas chambers, camps, who’s bodies were surgically castrated, to name but just one ugly way without anesthesia to be tormented?

    What’s that about “being led around by the nose” ?

  • Grace

    Helen @ 25

    At the risk of being called names for making an observation:
    what percentage of Jews has contributed to our being led around by the nose by Israel since WW II?

    Homes, businesses, synagogues burned to the ground – jewelry, valuable art stolen from the Jews as they were marched off to the ghettos, and then transported by train to the camps – families separated, some gassed and burned in the ovens, and other made to work, or other projects the Nazi’s had in mind.

    What percentage of Nazi’s contributed to the slaughter of 6 million Jews? Who was their leader, and why did they follow such a gruesome road – Romans 13 isn’t an answer, but is used to explain away the holocaust!

    Who’s nose was eliminated, by the gas chambers, camps, who’s bodies were surgically castrated, to name but just one ugly way without anesthesia to be tormented?

    What’s that about “being led around by the nose” ?

  • Kirk

    @32:
    Now, that’s just bad logic. The Holocaust, therefore the Jewish State may lead the US on whatever foreign policy adventures it sees fit.

  • Kirk

    @32:
    Now, that’s just bad logic. The Holocaust, therefore the Jewish State may lead the US on whatever foreign policy adventures it sees fit.

  • Grace

    Kirk @28

    And also, I would place the blame for the United States’ support of Israel on dispensationalist evangelicals than on Jewish Americans.

    Supporting Israel is not just Evangelicals or those who are dispensationalist. It is the right thing to do, the Jews deserve their homeland whether you like it or not. The USA supported the Jews during WW2 and continue to this day, that isn’t going to change no matter how jealous the rest of the world becomes over Jerusalem, Israel and the Jews.

    It is “JEALOUSY,” that is what ignited the flame of Nazism, and others before them. It was extinguished in 1945, but it flickers and burns deep within the jealous heart of many -

  • Grace

    Kirk @28

    And also, I would place the blame for the United States’ support of Israel on dispensationalist evangelicals than on Jewish Americans.

    Supporting Israel is not just Evangelicals or those who are dispensationalist. It is the right thing to do, the Jews deserve their homeland whether you like it or not. The USA supported the Jews during WW2 and continue to this day, that isn’t going to change no matter how jealous the rest of the world becomes over Jerusalem, Israel and the Jews.

    It is “JEALOUSY,” that is what ignited the flame of Nazism, and others before them. It was extinguished in 1945, but it flickers and burns deep within the jealous heart of many -

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@34), pretty sure you just proved Kirk’s point (@28).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@34), pretty sure you just proved Kirk’s point (@28).

  • Grace

    Todd @35

    I don’t believe I proved Kirk’s point at all. There are many Americans who are not Evangelical or Dispensational who support Israel.

  • Grace

    Todd @35

    I don’t believe I proved Kirk’s point at all. There are many Americans who are not Evangelical or Dispensational who support Israel.

  • DonS

    Lou @ 31: I’m not endorsing heretical views allegedly held by some, I’m ignoring them. That’s a big difference. I can’t be responsible for or concerned about the wacko views of each tiny fringe group in America, on either the left or the right. If these so-called “reconstructionists” are having an influence in bringing America back under biblical values, either conventional or heretical, it’s not at all apparent, meaning that they must be terribly ineffective. You cited one article from a “progressive” source almost twenty years old. That article cites support for capital punishment as one piece of evidence of reconstructionist views, apparently on the basis of the Old Testament’s call for capital punishment! I’m not impressed.

    Most Christians I know, and that are on the public scene, are just fighting to keep the secularists from eradicating the last vestiges of Judeo-Christian heritage from our culture, and to ensure that Christians can be allowed to continue to freely practice their faith without having to give up their business or go into hiding. The radicalism is much more on that side of the political aisle.

  • DonS

    Lou @ 31: I’m not endorsing heretical views allegedly held by some, I’m ignoring them. That’s a big difference. I can’t be responsible for or concerned about the wacko views of each tiny fringe group in America, on either the left or the right. If these so-called “reconstructionists” are having an influence in bringing America back under biblical values, either conventional or heretical, it’s not at all apparent, meaning that they must be terribly ineffective. You cited one article from a “progressive” source almost twenty years old. That article cites support for capital punishment as one piece of evidence of reconstructionist views, apparently on the basis of the Old Testament’s call for capital punishment! I’m not impressed.

    Most Christians I know, and that are on the public scene, are just fighting to keep the secularists from eradicating the last vestiges of Judeo-Christian heritage from our culture, and to ensure that Christians can be allowed to continue to freely practice their faith without having to give up their business or go into hiding. The radicalism is much more on that side of the political aisle.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I admit I don’t know Jack about dominionism, and maybe I am missing something, but how is Christian dominionism really much more that a Christian utopianism? I mean folks criticize the left for unrealistically trying to create utopias, but this just looks like Christians trying to come up with their own version.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I admit I don’t know Jack about dominionism, and maybe I am missing something, but how is Christian dominionism really much more that a Christian utopianism? I mean folks criticize the left for unrealistically trying to create utopias, but this just looks like Christians trying to come up with their own version.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @28 I am glad you qualified your statement. True Evangelicals only hope for peace in the region and don’t care a whit who lives there.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @28 I am glad you qualified your statement. True Evangelicals only hope for peace in the region and don’t care a whit who lives there.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@37), are you still taking umbrage at the “Culture Warrior” label? Because you pretty much spelled it out here:

    Most Christians I know, and that are on the public scene, are just fighting to keep the secularists from eradicating the last vestiges of Judeo-Christian heritage from our culture, …

    Seemingly with approval on your part.

    That appears to reflect an odd view of what Christianity is, to me.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@37), are you still taking umbrage at the “Culture Warrior” label? Because you pretty much spelled it out here:

    Most Christians I know, and that are on the public scene, are just fighting to keep the secularists from eradicating the last vestiges of Judeo-Christian heritage from our culture, …

    Seemingly with approval on your part.

    That appears to reflect an odd view of what Christianity is, to me.

  • DonS

    tODD, as you well know, my objection to the “Culture Warrior” label was its one-sided application to those on the right, while ignoring the culture warriors of the left, the aggressors in the culture war.

    Who said that my statement was a view of what Christianity is?

  • DonS

    tODD, as you well know, my objection to the “Culture Warrior” label was its one-sided application to those on the right, while ignoring the culture warriors of the left, the aggressors in the culture war.

    Who said that my statement was a view of what Christianity is?

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Okay, then DonS (@41), would you agree that you, and “most Christians [you] know”, are culture warriors?

    Who said that my statement was a view of what Christianity is?

    You did, I’d argue. You’re telling us what “most Christians” do, in the same comment in which you are explicitly ignoring the actions of those on the “fringe”. Pretty certain you’re defining what is normal for Christians.

    My question, then, is: why do you apparently think Christianity is about cultural “vestiges”?

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Okay, then DonS (@41), would you agree that you, and “most Christians [you] know”, are culture warriors?

    Who said that my statement was a view of what Christianity is?

    You did, I’d argue. You’re telling us what “most Christians” do, in the same comment in which you are explicitly ignoring the actions of those on the “fringe”. Pretty certain you’re defining what is normal for Christians.

    My question, then, is: why do you apparently think Christianity is about cultural “vestiges”?

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    @5 Travelled to the UK or W. Europe lately? (I’m not American, so my comments were not specifically about the US – should have said.)
    Islam is a totalitarian ideology with no recognition of separation of ‘church and state’ and no recognition of an inherent right to dissent. What’s more its perspective is global, not national. In my experience, even moderate Muslims are propelled by their faith to support the goal of total Islamicization of any society they live in. The rhetoric and tone change gradually as the community increases as a percentage of the larger population. There are already parts of UK cities where police dare not go and Islamic law and culture prevail – polygamy, child-brides, sharia, the call of the minaret where church bells once tolled. The moral vacuum at the heart of post-Christian Western society is exposed to this ideology.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    @5 Travelled to the UK or W. Europe lately? (I’m not American, so my comments were not specifically about the US – should have said.)
    Islam is a totalitarian ideology with no recognition of separation of ‘church and state’ and no recognition of an inherent right to dissent. What’s more its perspective is global, not national. In my experience, even moderate Muslims are propelled by their faith to support the goal of total Islamicization of any society they live in. The rhetoric and tone change gradually as the community increases as a percentage of the larger population. There are already parts of UK cities where police dare not go and Islamic law and culture prevail – polygamy, child-brides, sharia, the call of the minaret where church bells once tolled. The moral vacuum at the heart of post-Christian Western society is exposed to this ideology.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The moral vacuum at the heart of post-Christian Western society is exposed to this ideology.

    Okay, you lost me here.

    What does that mean?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The moral vacuum at the heart of post-Christian Western society is exposed to this ideology.

    Okay, you lost me here.

    What does that mean?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “My question, then, is: why do you apparently think Christianity is about cultural “vestiges”?”

    Nah, just that Christians tire of the petty mean spirited jerks who think that Christmas trees are too religious for the public sphere. Heck, I know atheists who are sick of that kind of non sense. They love Christmas even though they aren’t believers, and they like the cultural aspects of a common culture that is moral and ethical etc. That is the kind of culture that developed in the Christian West high trust societies. Nice people like that kind of stuff even if they personally don’t have faith.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “My question, then, is: why do you apparently think Christianity is about cultural “vestiges”?”

    Nah, just that Christians tire of the petty mean spirited jerks who think that Christmas trees are too religious for the public sphere. Heck, I know atheists who are sick of that kind of non sense. They love Christmas even though they aren’t believers, and they like the cultural aspects of a common culture that is moral and ethical etc. That is the kind of culture that developed in the Christian West high trust societies. Nice people like that kind of stuff even if they personally don’t have faith.

  • helen

    sg @ 44
    “The moral vacuum” means that UK and most of Europe still has churches, but no congregations.

    Grace, et al….
    The Jews of Europe had lives and property taken away from them.
    They’ve been collecting reparations of all sorts ever since.
    How does that justify taking Palestinians’ property away from them, without recompense?

    [My original remark may have been off topic (or not). I was only trying to show that a very small group may dictate policy. E.g., how many members of ACLU does it take to remove the 10 Commandments from court houses, or crosses from long time public memorials?] I won’t say anymore about them.

    I’ll concede an “evangelical” obsession with bringing about Armegeddon by their own efforts.
    But I don’t think all evangelicals are anxious for that. Am I wrong?

    In the UK, muslim women may publicly identify in dress, etc. with their faith.
    Meanwhile Christian women get fired from public employment for wearing a cross necklace.

    (We have at least one muslim controlled town in Michigan, if you can believe anything in the papers.)

    I met one German refugee here from the Russian sector who said “We voted for Hitler because he promised jobs.” That should inspire at least a little thought!
    I met another, very old, who was noisily bitter because his ancestral property had been ceded from Germany to Poland after WW II. He didn’t mention that Poland lost as much or more to Russia (or that Poland didn’t start the war). [My grandmother's birth place in Pomerania is probably Polish, come to think of it. Hardly the fault of the Poles!]
    If I haven’t stepped on enough toes yet, Perry’s sort of theocracy probably would not allow Roman Catholic characters on TV at all. Or Lutherans, (who are just a subset of Roman Catholics anyway)! Sorry, Bing!

    I shall no doubt wish I’d edited this in the a.m.!

  • helen

    sg @ 44
    “The moral vacuum” means that UK and most of Europe still has churches, but no congregations.

    Grace, et al….
    The Jews of Europe had lives and property taken away from them.
    They’ve been collecting reparations of all sorts ever since.
    How does that justify taking Palestinians’ property away from them, without recompense?

    [My original remark may have been off topic (or not). I was only trying to show that a very small group may dictate policy. E.g., how many members of ACLU does it take to remove the 10 Commandments from court houses, or crosses from long time public memorials?] I won’t say anymore about them.

    I’ll concede an “evangelical” obsession with bringing about Armegeddon by their own efforts.
    But I don’t think all evangelicals are anxious for that. Am I wrong?

    In the UK, muslim women may publicly identify in dress, etc. with their faith.
    Meanwhile Christian women get fired from public employment for wearing a cross necklace.

    (We have at least one muslim controlled town in Michigan, if you can believe anything in the papers.)

    I met one German refugee here from the Russian sector who said “We voted for Hitler because he promised jobs.” That should inspire at least a little thought!
    I met another, very old, who was noisily bitter because his ancestral property had been ceded from Germany to Poland after WW II. He didn’t mention that Poland lost as much or more to Russia (or that Poland didn’t start the war). [My grandmother's birth place in Pomerania is probably Polish, come to think of it. Hardly the fault of the Poles!]
    If I haven’t stepped on enough toes yet, Perry’s sort of theocracy probably would not allow Roman Catholic characters on TV at all. Or Lutherans, (who are just a subset of Roman Catholics anyway)! Sorry, Bing!

    I shall no doubt wish I’d edited this in the a.m.!

  • helen

    The “bold” should have begun and ended with one sentence: “That should inspire at least a little thought.”
    Sorry!

  • helen

    The “bold” should have begun and ended with one sentence: “That should inspire at least a little thought.”
    Sorry!

  • John

    I’m going to go the opposite direction of tODD @13, and say that the danger is not in Dominionists or reconstrucitonists “taking over” at all, but rather is in the ideas underlying these movements and the ways that they will will get subtly sucked into politicking in order to appeal to a voter base.

  • John

    I’m going to go the opposite direction of tODD @13, and say that the danger is not in Dominionists or reconstrucitonists “taking over” at all, but rather is in the ideas underlying these movements and the ways that they will will get subtly sucked into politicking in order to appeal to a voter base.

  • Lou

    Guys (and gals),
    Here is a brand new, hot off the presses, well-researched article on Dominionism from the Discernment Research Group (Discernment Ministries):
    http://herescope.blogspot.com/2011/09/who-invented-dominionism.html

    100% nails it.

  • Lou

    Guys (and gals),
    Here is a brand new, hot off the presses, well-researched article on Dominionism from the Discernment Research Group (Discernment Ministries):
    http://herescope.blogspot.com/2011/09/who-invented-dominionism.html

    100% nails it.

  • Grace

    Helen @46

    “Grace, et al….
    The Jews of Europe had lives and property taken away from them.
    They’ve been collecting reparations of all sorts ever since.

    Reparations will never repay the pain and sorrow over losing loved ones. There isn’t enough money to cover what was done to the Jews during and before the Holocaust.

    Yet you have the nerve to even mention “reparations”! As if the debt has been, or could be paid in full.

    My husband and I were waiting for a meeting, an elderly couple were sitting near by, the subject of Auschwitz came up, the wife mentioned that her husband had endured the evils of that horrid place.

    Auschwitz concentration camp
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp

    You Helen, believe Reparations paid the debt?

    God promised Israel to the Jews, it was an Everlasting Covenant whether you like it or not. Israel is not negotiable, God keeps HIS Word.

    26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
    27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    28 And the heathen shall know that
    I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
    Ezekiel 37

    “everlasting covenant”
    “set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.”
    “my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.”

    This is God’s Covenant with Israel for “evermore” and “everlasting”- They are His chosen people!

  • Grace

    Helen @46

    “Grace, et al….
    The Jews of Europe had lives and property taken away from them.
    They’ve been collecting reparations of all sorts ever since.

    Reparations will never repay the pain and sorrow over losing loved ones. There isn’t enough money to cover what was done to the Jews during and before the Holocaust.

    Yet you have the nerve to even mention “reparations”! As if the debt has been, or could be paid in full.

    My husband and I were waiting for a meeting, an elderly couple were sitting near by, the subject of Auschwitz came up, the wife mentioned that her husband had endured the evils of that horrid place.

    Auschwitz concentration camp
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp

    You Helen, believe Reparations paid the debt?

    God promised Israel to the Jews, it was an Everlasting Covenant whether you like it or not. Israel is not negotiable, God keeps HIS Word.

    26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
    27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    28 And the heathen shall know that
    I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
    Ezekiel 37

    “everlasting covenant”
    “set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.”
    “my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.”

    This is God’s Covenant with Israel for “evermore” and “everlasting”- They are His chosen people!

  • Grace

    Helen @ 46

    If I haven’t stepped on enough toes yet, Perry’s sort of theocracy probably would not allow Roman Catholic characters on TV at all. Or Lutherans, (who are just a subset of Roman Catholics anyway)! Sorry, Bing!”

    Pure nonsense – - the tragedy is, you believe it. You haven’t as you say “stepped on enough toes yet” … what you’ve done is stepped in the mud, and and now continue to slide around in it, “toes” and all!

  • Grace

    Helen @ 46

    If I haven’t stepped on enough toes yet, Perry’s sort of theocracy probably would not allow Roman Catholic characters on TV at all. Or Lutherans, (who are just a subset of Roman Catholics anyway)! Sorry, Bing!”

    Pure nonsense – - the tragedy is, you believe it. You haven’t as you say “stepped on enough toes yet” … what you’ve done is stepped in the mud, and and now continue to slide around in it, “toes” and all!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh good. Something set Grace off again (@50).

    Well, since we’re traveling well-worn ground, I’ll just post links to my responses to Grace from the last several times she quoted from Ezekiel 37 in an attempt to prove something about the modern political state of Israel.

    A response from May 25, 2011.

    A response from August 27, 2011 (see SK’s before mine, as well, on that thread).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh good. Something set Grace off again (@50).

    Well, since we’re traveling well-worn ground, I’ll just post links to my responses to Grace from the last several times she quoted from Ezekiel 37 in an attempt to prove something about the modern political state of Israel.

    A response from May 25, 2011.

    A response from August 27, 2011 (see SK’s before mine, as well, on that thread).

  • Grace

    It’s telling that so many here believe they have taken the place of Israel, that all God’s statements regarding an “EVERLASTING COVENANT” can be discarded —

    Ezekiel 37 stands, God didn’t make an Everlasting Covenant, and then go back on HIS Word.

    Jealousy of the Jews, and their land Israel, is obvious. Hatred and jealousy go hand in hand.

  • Grace

    It’s telling that so many here believe they have taken the place of Israel, that all God’s statements regarding an “EVERLASTING COVENANT” can be discarded —

    Ezekiel 37 stands, God didn’t make an Everlasting Covenant, and then go back on HIS Word.

    Jealousy of the Jews, and their land Israel, is obvious. Hatred and jealousy go hand in hand.

  • Grace

    My post @ 53 should have read:

    Hatred and jealousy often go hand in hand.

  • Grace

    My post @ 53 should have read:

    Hatred and jealousy often go hand in hand.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@53):

    It’s telling that so many here believe they have taken the place of Israel

    No, not “taken the place of Israel”, but are Israel. You really should try reading more of the Bible than just Ezekiel 37. You clearly haven’t read — or, at least, understood — Paul’s letter to the Romans, and what he says about Israel. You know, “ingrafted branches”, all that? Do you think I’m trying to trick you by getting you to read the Bible?

    I mean, you talk about God’s promises, but, really, please, read Romans. Here’s a very relevant section of chapter 9:

    But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

    In short, you don’t appear to know to whom the promises of Ezekiel 37 apply. You appear to think that it applies only to people of certain genealogical descent, or who live in a particular patch of land, and not those who, by faith, believe God’s promises. If so, that would directly contradict what God tells us through Paul in Romans 9.

    No one is saying God went “back on HIS Word”. One more time: “It is not as though the word of God has failed … It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”

    Jealousy of the Jews, and their land Israel, is obvious. Hatred and jealousy go hand in hand.

    Please. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You can feel free to slander everyone here (and make not-so-subtle allusions to that favored dead horse of yours, Lutherans and the Jews), but that doesn’t make it true.

    Please, Grace. Read the Bible passages I pointed you to.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@53):

    It’s telling that so many here believe they have taken the place of Israel

    No, not “taken the place of Israel”, but are Israel. You really should try reading more of the Bible than just Ezekiel 37. You clearly haven’t read — or, at least, understood — Paul’s letter to the Romans, and what he says about Israel. You know, “ingrafted branches”, all that? Do you think I’m trying to trick you by getting you to read the Bible?

    I mean, you talk about God’s promises, but, really, please, read Romans. Here’s a very relevant section of chapter 9:

    But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

    In short, you don’t appear to know to whom the promises of Ezekiel 37 apply. You appear to think that it applies only to people of certain genealogical descent, or who live in a particular patch of land, and not those who, by faith, believe God’s promises. If so, that would directly contradict what God tells us through Paul in Romans 9.

    No one is saying God went “back on HIS Word”. One more time: “It is not as though the word of God has failed … It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”

    Jealousy of the Jews, and their land Israel, is obvious. Hatred and jealousy go hand in hand.

    Please. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You can feel free to slander everyone here (and make not-so-subtle allusions to that favored dead horse of yours, Lutherans and the Jews), but that doesn’t make it true.

    Please, Grace. Read the Bible passages I pointed you to.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    You can tout Replacement Theology, that is one of the excuses used for centuries, and implemented over 70 years ago – I don’t agree with it.

    There is a rising roar, just as it was before Hitler and Nazi Germany, to make such a pronouncement that the Church is Spiritual Israel which is FALSE. Israel (Jews) are not just spiritual, they are a people whom God made and EVERLASTING COVENANT WITH.

    7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

    8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
    Genesis 17

  • Grace

    tODD,

    You can tout Replacement Theology, that is one of the excuses used for centuries, and implemented over 70 years ago – I don’t agree with it.

    There is a rising roar, just as it was before Hitler and Nazi Germany, to make such a pronouncement that the Church is Spiritual Israel which is FALSE. Israel (Jews) are not just spiritual, they are a people whom God made and EVERLASTING COVENANT WITH.

    7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

    8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
    Genesis 17

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @tODD, you see if you write it in all caps it means you are more right. Ugh, I wish I had my notes with me. Many passages in Isaiah that make it pretty clear Israel doesn’t mean what Grace thinks it means. Speaking of which, I wonder according to the dual convenantists can we expect to see a zombie David?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @tODD, you see if you write it in all caps it means you are more right. Ugh, I wish I had my notes with me. Many passages in Isaiah that make it pretty clear Israel doesn’t mean what Grace thinks it means. Speaking of which, I wonder according to the dual convenantists can we expect to see a zombie David?

  • Grace

    Century @ 57

    Century, what do you think the passage in Revelation says? Is it literal, or is it figurative?

    The twelve tribes of Israel, sealed. They are literal Jews, they are not Gentiles.

    4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

    5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

    6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

    7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

    8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. Revelation 7

    The twelve mentioned above are all virgin Jewish males from the twelve tribes of Israel.

    Jesus chose twelve Disciples/Apostles – they too were Jewish, they were not Gentiles.

  • Grace

    Century @ 57

    Century, what do you think the passage in Revelation says? Is it literal, or is it figurative?

    The twelve tribes of Israel, sealed. They are literal Jews, they are not Gentiles.

    4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

    5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

    6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

    7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

    8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. Revelation 7

    The twelve mentioned above are all virgin Jewish males from the twelve tribes of Israel.

    Jesus chose twelve Disciples/Apostles – they too were Jewish, they were not Gentiles.

  • Grace

    Century, what do you think the passage in Revelation says? Is it literal, or is it figurative? God is not through with the Jews, as it’s perfectly clear that in the end there will be twelve,

    The twelve tribes of Israel, sealed. They are literal Jews, they are not Gentiles.

    4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

    5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

    6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

    7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

    8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. Revelation 7

    The twelve mentioned above are all virgin Jewish males from the twelve tribes of Israel.

    Jesus chose twelve Disciples/Apostles – they too were Jewish, they were not Gentiles.

  • Grace

    Century, what do you think the passage in Revelation says? Is it literal, or is it figurative? God is not through with the Jews, as it’s perfectly clear that in the end there will be twelve,

    The twelve tribes of Israel, sealed. They are literal Jews, they are not Gentiles.

    4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

    5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

    6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

    7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

    8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. Revelation 7

    The twelve mentioned above are all virgin Jewish males from the twelve tribes of Israel.

    Jesus chose twelve Disciples/Apostles – they too were Jewish, they were not Gentiles.

  • kerner

    Grace:

    “26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
    27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Ezekiel 37:26-27

    The God who said that is not the god that most Israelis worship. The God who said that died on the cross for their sins. For any Israeli who does not worship the God who died for him (Jesus) how can it be said that that Israeli is one of “God’s people”? How can you say that God (the real God, the triune God) is the god of someone who does not worship Him?

    The problem with your argument is that when you say God, and when a non-Christian Jew says god, you are not talking about the same person. No one can be saved by believing in a god other than the true God who became a man and died for our sins and who comforts us by His Holy Spirit. Anyone who rejects God cannot be one of “His people”. I’m sure there remain actual descendants of Abraham who worship the true, triune, God, but most Israeli’s are not among them.

  • kerner

    Grace:

    “26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
    27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Ezekiel 37:26-27

    The God who said that is not the god that most Israelis worship. The God who said that died on the cross for their sins. For any Israeli who does not worship the God who died for him (Jesus) how can it be said that that Israeli is one of “God’s people”? How can you say that God (the real God, the triune God) is the god of someone who does not worship Him?

    The problem with your argument is that when you say God, and when a non-Christian Jew says god, you are not talking about the same person. No one can be saved by believing in a god other than the true God who became a man and died for our sins and who comforts us by His Holy Spirit. Anyone who rejects God cannot be one of “His people”. I’m sure there remain actual descendants of Abraham who worship the true, triune, God, but most Israeli’s are not among them.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Grace – a couple of things, first notice the named tribes in Revelation do not match with the sons of Jacob, two have been replaced. Israel doesn’t mean what you think it means. Also virgin men, seriously?

    Second, I am going to point out a remarkably similar passage in Ezekiel.

    And the Lord said to him, “Pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.” 5 And to the others he said in my hearing, “Pass through the city after him, and strike. Your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity. 6 Kill old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women, but touch no one on whom is the mark. And begin at my sanctuary
    Ezekiel 9:4-6

    The underlying Hebrew for what is translated mark isn’t actually the word for mark. In the Hebrew it is simply the Hebrew letter taw, archeological evidence has shone that taw in the time Ezekiel was writing looked rather different than the “modern” taw it in fact looked rather remarkably like the cross. In essence, these folks are marked with the cross, much like the vision in Revelation.

    The mark and the differences in the named tribes means that Israel does not mean what you think it means.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @Grace – a couple of things, first notice the named tribes in Revelation do not match with the sons of Jacob, two have been replaced. Israel doesn’t mean what you think it means. Also virgin men, seriously?

    Second, I am going to point out a remarkably similar passage in Ezekiel.

    And the Lord said to him, “Pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.” 5 And to the others he said in my hearing, “Pass through the city after him, and strike. Your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity. 6 Kill old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women, but touch no one on whom is the mark. And begin at my sanctuary
    Ezekiel 9:4-6

    The underlying Hebrew for what is translated mark isn’t actually the word for mark. In the Hebrew it is simply the Hebrew letter taw, archeological evidence has shone that taw in the time Ezekiel was writing looked rather different than the “modern” taw it in fact looked rather remarkably like the cross. In essence, these folks are marked with the cross, much like the vision in Revelation.

    The mark and the differences in the named tribes means that Israel does not mean what you think it means.

  • kerner

    Another thing about those 144,000. The 12 tribes of Israel no longer exist as political or social units. I don’t think any modern Jew claims to know which tribe his ancestors belonged to, Frankly, I thought all that got lost as far back as the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities ca 720-510 BC.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Captivity_of_Israel

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity

    This is not to say that God could not find the descendents of all these tribes, including the lost ones. But no one alive today knows who bellonged to which tribe anymore, or whether they are self-identify as Jews any more. And this is not even to consider all the Jews who believed in Jesus, intermarried with other Christians and became “God’s people” in the true sense of the term.

  • kerner

    Another thing about those 144,000. The 12 tribes of Israel no longer exist as political or social units. I don’t think any modern Jew claims to know which tribe his ancestors belonged to, Frankly, I thought all that got lost as far back as the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities ca 720-510 BC.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Captivity_of_Israel

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity

    This is not to say that God could not find the descendents of all these tribes, including the lost ones. But no one alive today knows who bellonged to which tribe anymore, or whether they are self-identify as Jews any more. And this is not even to consider all the Jews who believed in Jesus, intermarried with other Christians and became “God’s people” in the true sense of the term.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Interesting points on the freedom to spread the Gospel were made by a lawyer on Issues Etc. discussing current trends in religious freedom around the world. He noted that if the current government of Israel is hostile to the spread of the Gospel, that should make Christians stop and think.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Interesting points on the freedom to spread the Gospel were made by a lawyer on Issues Etc. discussing current trends in religious freedom around the world. He noted that if the current government of Israel is hostile to the spread of the Gospel, that should make Christians stop and think.

  • Grace

    Paul states:

    1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

    3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

    4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

    5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Romans 11

    Century @ 61

    “a couple of things, first notice the named tribes in Revelation do not match with the sons of Jacob, two have been replaced.

    That is true, two of them have been replaced. I answered this same question last year.

    The tribes of Dan and Ephraim are not mentioned in Revelation 7. Both tribes were guilty of leading the nation into idolatry. Dan was the first tribe that fell into idolatry Judges 18:30 – The tribe of Dan later became the headquarters for calf worship 1 Kings 12:28-30 – Dan is given priority in the Millennium – see Ezekiel 48 this reveals the grace of GOD can reach down and meet the needs of any sinner. The tribe of Dan is in the Millennium, but they are not sealed for the purpose of witnessing during the time of The Great Tribulation.

    Ephraim was also guilty of idolatry. In Hosea 4:17 “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.” That has reference to the entire northern kingdom of Israel, but remember that Ephraim was the leader there.

    In the list of the 144,000 who will be sealed, Joseph takes the place of Ephraim, Dan is replaced by Levi. Levi was the priestly tribe, and they are going to be witnesses in The Great Tribulation.

    Israel doesn’t mean what you think it means. Also virgin men, seriously?

    Yes, Century – “virgins”

    These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. Revelation 4:14

  • Grace

    Paul states:

    1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

    3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

    4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

    5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Romans 11

    Century @ 61

    “a couple of things, first notice the named tribes in Revelation do not match with the sons of Jacob, two have been replaced.

    That is true, two of them have been replaced. I answered this same question last year.

    The tribes of Dan and Ephraim are not mentioned in Revelation 7. Both tribes were guilty of leading the nation into idolatry. Dan was the first tribe that fell into idolatry Judges 18:30 – The tribe of Dan later became the headquarters for calf worship 1 Kings 12:28-30 – Dan is given priority in the Millennium – see Ezekiel 48 this reveals the grace of GOD can reach down and meet the needs of any sinner. The tribe of Dan is in the Millennium, but they are not sealed for the purpose of witnessing during the time of The Great Tribulation.

    Ephraim was also guilty of idolatry. In Hosea 4:17 “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.” That has reference to the entire northern kingdom of Israel, but remember that Ephraim was the leader there.

    In the list of the 144,000 who will be sealed, Joseph takes the place of Ephraim, Dan is replaced by Levi. Levi was the priestly tribe, and they are going to be witnesses in The Great Tribulation.

    Israel doesn’t mean what you think it means. Also virgin men, seriously?

    Yes, Century – “virgins”

    These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. Revelation 4:14

  • helen

    Oh, my! All that out of suggesting [to sg] that a small group can wield a lot of power?
    Does Grace believe that only Jews will go to heaven, then?

    My recently deceased colleague, a Jew from Boston whose avocation was reading the early rabbis, told me that none of the present “Israelis” were really Jews. Since the diaspora they simply had been intermingled too much with other races to know their roots.
    [One might add that they do not believe the Old Testament, except the "excuse for a land grab parts", and most of them do not believe in the God of the OT. They do not believe in the Christ, the Son of God. For this reason, Christ said the temple would be razed, and it was. They would be scattered, and they were.]

    You need to read to the end, Grace.
    All of those old testament covenants are limited by “If you keep my word and remember my commandments to do them, you will be my people and I will be your God.” The promise of the Messiah is distributed from Genesis to Malachi. God’s people are those who believe in Him.

  • helen

    Oh, my! All that out of suggesting [to sg] that a small group can wield a lot of power?
    Does Grace believe that only Jews will go to heaven, then?

    My recently deceased colleague, a Jew from Boston whose avocation was reading the early rabbis, told me that none of the present “Israelis” were really Jews. Since the diaspora they simply had been intermingled too much with other races to know their roots.
    [One might add that they do not believe the Old Testament, except the "excuse for a land grab parts", and most of them do not believe in the God of the OT. They do not believe in the Christ, the Son of God. For this reason, Christ said the temple would be razed, and it was. They would be scattered, and they were.]

    You need to read to the end, Grace.
    All of those old testament covenants are limited by “If you keep my word and remember my commandments to do them, you will be my people and I will be your God.” The promise of the Messiah is distributed from Genesis to Malachi. God’s people are those who believe in Him.

  • Grace

    helen @

    Does Grace believe that only Jews will go to heaven, then?

    That’s nonsense – you SHOULD know better, or maybe you don’t.

    ” a Jew from Boston whose avocation was reading the early rabbis, told me that none of the present “Israelis” were really Jews. Since the diaspora they simply had been intermingled too much with other races to know their roots.”

    Your friend was not very educated in Judaism. I’ve lived and worked among the Jews for years, I’ve never heard one Jew say anything such as you have posted… that’s not to say there aren’t others who are Jews who wouldn’t agree with you.

    Study Helen, rather than bluffing your way through.

    From your post, I doubt you have known very many Jewish people, or those who are Orthodox, those who go to Temple, send their children to Hebrew school, etc.

    “[One might add that they do not believe the Old Testament, except the “excuse for a land grab parts”

    That is blatantly false, you know not of what you speak.

  • Grace

    helen @

    Does Grace believe that only Jews will go to heaven, then?

    That’s nonsense – you SHOULD know better, or maybe you don’t.

    ” a Jew from Boston whose avocation was reading the early rabbis, told me that none of the present “Israelis” were really Jews. Since the diaspora they simply had been intermingled too much with other races to know their roots.”

    Your friend was not very educated in Judaism. I’ve lived and worked among the Jews for years, I’ve never heard one Jew say anything such as you have posted… that’s not to say there aren’t others who are Jews who wouldn’t agree with you.

    Study Helen, rather than bluffing your way through.

    From your post, I doubt you have known very many Jewish people, or those who are Orthodox, those who go to Temple, send their children to Hebrew school, etc.

    “[One might add that they do not believe the Old Testament, except the “excuse for a land grab parts”

    That is blatantly false, you know not of what you speak.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @ Grace, and then Paul goes on to describe how a great many of them are cut off from Israel because of their unbelief.

    Also there is no Revelation 4:14

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @ Grace, and then Paul goes on to describe how a great many of them are cut off from Israel because of their unbelief.

    Also there is no Revelation 4:14

  • Grace

    Century 67

    You are right, a typo :)

    These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
    Revelation 14:4

    “Grace, and then Paul goes on to describe how a great many of them are cut off from Israel because of their unbelief.”

    The POINT BEING – - – God has NOT cast away his people. the Isralites. Paul made this very clear in Romans 1. A passage a great many would like to avoid!

    Saint Paul stated: ——- I say then,Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
    Romans 11:1

  • Grace

    Century 67

    You are right, a typo :)

    These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
    Revelation 14:4

    “Grace, and then Paul goes on to describe how a great many of them are cut off from Israel because of their unbelief.”

    The POINT BEING – - – God has NOT cast away his people. the Isralites. Paul made this very clear in Romans 1. A passage a great many would like to avoid!

    Saint Paul stated: ——- I say then,Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
    Romans 11:1

  • Grace

    Post 68 should read:

    Paul made this very clear in Romans 11. A passage a great many would like to avoid!

  • Grace

    Post 68 should read:

    Paul made this very clear in Romans 11. A passage a great many would like to avoid!

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @69 Nobody is avoiding it, we just happened to understand when Paul later states they were cut off for their unbelief. It isn’t that God abandoned them, but they abandoned God, whoring themselves off to a god of their own creation that happens to share the name of the Church, Israel.

    The whole virgin thing in ch 14 is a continuation of the biblical imagery of the church as the chaste bride, not a 144,000 virgin Jewish men.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @69 Nobody is avoiding it, we just happened to understand when Paul later states they were cut off for their unbelief. It isn’t that God abandoned them, but they abandoned God, whoring themselves off to a god of their own creation that happens to share the name of the Church, Israel.

    The whole virgin thing in ch 14 is a continuation of the biblical imagery of the church as the chaste bride, not a 144,000 virgin Jewish men.

  • Grace

    Century @70

    Those who do not believe, be they Jews or Gentiles are not going to inherit Eternal Life. Those who don’t believe, be they Jews or Gentiles have abondoned God, they have gone their own way.

    Having stated all of the above, Israel as a people, being Jews still exists – Paul makes this clear in Romans 11:1 -

    Revelation 7 and 14 are not ‘imagery, as you would like to re-design it. The 144,000 Jews, the tribes of Israel are literal – Tribes are never spoken of in the Word of God as figurative, they are ALWAYS literal.

  • Grace

    Century @70

    Those who do not believe, be they Jews or Gentiles are not going to inherit Eternal Life. Those who don’t believe, be they Jews or Gentiles have abondoned God, they have gone their own way.

    Having stated all of the above, Israel as a people, being Jews still exists – Paul makes this clear in Romans 11:1 -

    Revelation 7 and 14 are not ‘imagery, as you would like to re-design it. The 144,000 Jews, the tribes of Israel are literal – Tribes are never spoken of in the Word of God as figurative, they are ALWAYS literal.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@71),

    Revelation 7 and 14 are not ‘imagery, as you would like to re-design it.

    Oh, really? So the earth literally has four corners? And Jesus is literally a lamb? And the earth has a literal vine? And angels are, for some reason, commanded to gather literal clusters of grapes, which, for some reason, contain literal blood in them?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@71),

    Revelation 7 and 14 are not ‘imagery, as you would like to re-design it.

    Oh, really? So the earth literally has four corners? And Jesus is literally a lamb? And the earth has a literal vine? And angels are, for some reason, commanded to gather literal clusters of grapes, which, for some reason, contain literal blood in them?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I think we’re getting distracted here.

    Grace (@56), I had to look up “Replacement Theology”, which appears to be some label you’ve slapped on my quotes from Romans in an attempt to deny what Paul has plainly written. I’m not making “excuses”, I’m reading what God inspired Paul to write.

    It occurs to me that you’ve missed the point that it’s not that Christianity “replaces” the Israelites. Again, it has always been about those who, by faith, believe in God’s promises. That goes for those in Israel who believed, and those in the Christian Church who believe. The Church contains many of Jewish descent, of course: the Bible tells us about the Israelites who believed in God’s promises. As it also records the many more who did not.

    Still, I think this statement of yours is quite obviously at odds with what God inspired Paul to write to us in Romans:

    There is a rising roar, just as it was before Hitler and Nazi Germany, to make such a pronouncement that the Church is Spiritual Israel which is FALSE.

    Yeah, you’ve clearly got some issues with the whole Nazi thing, and however well-intentioned you may be, don’t think that makes your statement true. This is the truth:

    Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.

    And again:

    It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

    Once more:

    Some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I think we’re getting distracted here.

    Grace (@56), I had to look up “Replacement Theology”, which appears to be some label you’ve slapped on my quotes from Romans in an attempt to deny what Paul has plainly written. I’m not making “excuses”, I’m reading what God inspired Paul to write.

    It occurs to me that you’ve missed the point that it’s not that Christianity “replaces” the Israelites. Again, it has always been about those who, by faith, believe in God’s promises. That goes for those in Israel who believed, and those in the Christian Church who believe. The Church contains many of Jewish descent, of course: the Bible tells us about the Israelites who believed in God’s promises. As it also records the many more who did not.

    Still, I think this statement of yours is quite obviously at odds with what God inspired Paul to write to us in Romans:

    There is a rising roar, just as it was before Hitler and Nazi Germany, to make such a pronouncement that the Church is Spiritual Israel which is FALSE.

    Yeah, you’ve clearly got some issues with the whole Nazi thing, and however well-intentioned you may be, don’t think that makes your statement true. This is the truth:

    Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.

    And again:

    It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

    Once more:

    Some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree.

  • Grace

    I am surprised, but shouldn’t be – that there are those who have no clue or knowledge as to what “Replacement Theology” is.

    The piece below will enlighten those who aren’t aware of what “Replacement Theology” is

    Replacement Theology

    Its Origins, Teachings and Errors

    By Dr. Gary Hedrick, President of CJF Ministries

    “These are challenging and confusing times. With all the numerous and varied “winds of doctrine” that are blowing around us these days, many Christians find it difficult to discern the difference between truth and error. Here at CJF Ministries, one error we frequently encounter is Replacement Theology. Actually, it’s nothing new: in fact, it’s been around for centuries. Some of its roots are traceable to the writings of some of the Early Church fathers. And even today, oddly enough, this pernicious error is taught as a fact in many Bible colleges and seminaries worldwide. So let me ask you – how much do you know about Replacement Theology? If you were called upon to refute it, could you?

    http://www.shema.com/Combating%20Replacement%20Theology/crt-004.php

  • Grace

    I am surprised, but shouldn’t be – that there are those who have no clue or knowledge as to what “Replacement Theology” is.

    The piece below will enlighten those who aren’t aware of what “Replacement Theology” is

    Replacement Theology

    Its Origins, Teachings and Errors

    By Dr. Gary Hedrick, President of CJF Ministries

    “These are challenging and confusing times. With all the numerous and varied “winds of doctrine” that are blowing around us these days, many Christians find it difficult to discern the difference between truth and error. Here at CJF Ministries, one error we frequently encounter is Replacement Theology. Actually, it’s nothing new: in fact, it’s been around for centuries. Some of its roots are traceable to the writings of some of the Early Church fathers. And even today, oddly enough, this pernicious error is taught as a fact in many Bible colleges and seminaries worldwide. So let me ask you – how much do you know about Replacement Theology? If you were called upon to refute it, could you?

    http://www.shema.com/Combating%20Replacement%20Theology/crt-004.php

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    My first question is, what mail order diploma mill did Gary get his “doctorate” from. That is a very poorly researched article. Marcion, was condemned by the church as a heretic for the very things he cites as wrong as Marcion and as such has no real impact on the church other than the church affirming particular books as Scripture. I am not surprised in that the only thing he seems to know about Luther is the book “On the Jews,” it seems the cracker jack researchers never make it past that to see what else Luther had to say. He completely missed the fact that Justin Martyr wrote about the fact the church and Israel are synonymous and I found that information with five minutes worth of work. The Scribner quote is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. You would think a “Doctor” would know to do better research than read what others said about something somebody else wrote.

    I am finally in my office with a few moments to spare so I will be posting some of my notes on this topic. I would apologize in advance for the length but it’s not my fault there is so much evidence concerning the Church as Israel. I will apologize for them being rough, they are just notes.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    My first question is, what mail order diploma mill did Gary get his “doctorate” from. That is a very poorly researched article. Marcion, was condemned by the church as a heretic for the very things he cites as wrong as Marcion and as such has no real impact on the church other than the church affirming particular books as Scripture. I am not surprised in that the only thing he seems to know about Luther is the book “On the Jews,” it seems the cracker jack researchers never make it past that to see what else Luther had to say. He completely missed the fact that Justin Martyr wrote about the fact the church and Israel are synonymous and I found that information with five minutes worth of work. The Scribner quote is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. You would think a “Doctor” would know to do better research than read what others said about something somebody else wrote.

    I am finally in my office with a few moments to spare so I will be posting some of my notes on this topic. I would apologize in advance for the length but it’s not my fault there is so much evidence concerning the Church as Israel. I will apologize for them being rough, they are just notes.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The insistence that Israel refers to a physical country fails to recognize that Scripture frequently used it differently. The word Israel has several meanings; it refers to the man Jacob, It refers to his descendents, it refers to the kingdom under Saul and David, it refers to the northern kingdom
    Church has understood themselves as Israel the descendants of Abraham long before Augustine. “There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing” (I thus addressed him), “but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now19681968 Editors suppose that Justin inserts a long parenthesis here, from “for” to “Egypt.” It is more natural to take this as an anacoluthon. Justin was going to say, “But now we trust through Christ,” but feels that such a statement requires preliminary explanation. —(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest 200 of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law—namely, Christ —has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says: ‘Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, ye kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shall be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in Mine arm?’19691969 According to the LXX, Isa. li. 4, 5. And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt’19701970 Jer. xxxi. 31, 32. ). If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed. Justin Martyr Letter to Trypho (100-160AD)

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The insistence that Israel refers to a physical country fails to recognize that Scripture frequently used it differently. The word Israel has several meanings; it refers to the man Jacob, It refers to his descendents, it refers to the kingdom under Saul and David, it refers to the northern kingdom
    Church has understood themselves as Israel the descendants of Abraham long before Augustine. “There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing” (I thus addressed him), “but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now19681968 Editors suppose that Justin inserts a long parenthesis here, from “for” to “Egypt.” It is more natural to take this as an anacoluthon. Justin was going to say, “But now we trust through Christ,” but feels that such a statement requires preliminary explanation. —(for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest 200 of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law—namely, Christ —has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance. Have you not read this which Isaiah says: ‘Hearken unto Me, hearken unto Me, my people; and, ye kings, give ear unto Me: for a law shall go forth from Me, and My judgment shall be for a light to the nations. My righteousness approaches swiftly, and My salvation shall go forth, and nations shall trust in Mine arm?’19691969 According to the LXX, Isa. li. 4, 5. And by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt’19701970 Jer. xxxi. 31, 32. ). If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed. Justin Martyr Letter to Trypho (100-160AD)

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Matthew demonstrates the correlation between Israel and Jesus. Note how Jesus’ early life mirrors exactly the early history of the people of Israel. In fact, a good part of Matthew is the demonstration that Jesus is Israel.
    Luke ties the events of the crucifixion with the Exodus, this is lost in most English translations, but can be seen in the Greek as the Greek uses the word Exodon

    Revelation – the 144000, notice that the names of the tribes are different. Also note the symmetry of the numbers is reflective of the army in Num 31:4-6. This is a description of the church militant aka the Church on earth.
    Paul’s imagery of the olive tree reflects Jesus’ teaching “I am the vine and you are the branches” The mystery of all Israel being saved is all the branches grafted into Christ (natural and unnatural) through faith.
    Jesus and the Canaanite woman – I came only for the broken sheep of Israel” If she is not of Israel, why did Jesus heal her daughter?
    Two covenant theology teaches the cross is a plan b, but OT and Jesus’ testimony makes clear it was intended from the start
    The sign of the snake, the sign of Jonah.
    Psalm 22 – a lament of David, describes the scene of the crucifixion.
    Ezekiel 36:19-38 – double duty, the return of Israel from exile in Babylon and the church (washing in the water = baptism)
    Finally, the interpretation that “all Israel” means Israel after the flesh conflicts also with the remoter context, with the whole exposition of the Apostle from ch 9 on. In ch 9:1-5 we have the Apostle’s pathetic lamentation over Israel’s unbelief and doom. He even says that he could wish to be banned from Christ for his kinsmen after the flesh. But immediately he also states that the unbelief and doom of the majority of Israel does not prove that God’s promise to Israel had come to naught. For “they are not all Israel which are of Israel,” “the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” of Abraham. Just as clearly the Apostle states (ch. 9:27 ff.) that of the great number of the children according to the flesh (of Israel “as the sand of the sea”) only “a remnant shall be saved.” From ch 9:30 ff. through ch. 10, he demonstrates that everything depends on faith and that Israel, in spite of God’s efforts to win over that disobedient nation, refused to believe. – Francis Pieper – Christian Dogmatics Vol 3 pg 533

    One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Matthew demonstrates the correlation between Israel and Jesus. Note how Jesus’ early life mirrors exactly the early history of the people of Israel. In fact, a good part of Matthew is the demonstration that Jesus is Israel.
    Luke ties the events of the crucifixion with the Exodus, this is lost in most English translations, but can be seen in the Greek as the Greek uses the word Exodon

    Revelation – the 144000, notice that the names of the tribes are different. Also note the symmetry of the numbers is reflective of the army in Num 31:4-6. This is a description of the church militant aka the Church on earth.
    Paul’s imagery of the olive tree reflects Jesus’ teaching “I am the vine and you are the branches” The mystery of all Israel being saved is all the branches grafted into Christ (natural and unnatural) through faith.
    Jesus and the Canaanite woman – I came only for the broken sheep of Israel” If she is not of Israel, why did Jesus heal her daughter?
    Two covenant theology teaches the cross is a plan b, but OT and Jesus’ testimony makes clear it was intended from the start
    The sign of the snake, the sign of Jonah.
    Psalm 22 – a lament of David, describes the scene of the crucifixion.
    Ezekiel 36:19-38 – double duty, the return of Israel from exile in Babylon and the church (washing in the water = baptism)
    Finally, the interpretation that “all Israel” means Israel after the flesh conflicts also with the remoter context, with the whole exposition of the Apostle from ch 9 on. In ch 9:1-5 we have the Apostle’s pathetic lamentation over Israel’s unbelief and doom. He even says that he could wish to be banned from Christ for his kinsmen after the flesh. But immediately he also states that the unbelief and doom of the majority of Israel does not prove that God’s promise to Israel had come to naught. For “they are not all Israel which are of Israel,” “the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” of Abraham. Just as clearly the Apostle states (ch. 9:27 ff.) that of the great number of the children according to the flesh (of Israel “as the sand of the sea”) only “a remnant shall be saved.” From ch 9:30 ff. through ch. 10, he demonstrates that everything depends on faith and that Israel, in spite of God’s efforts to win over that disobedient nation, refused to believe. – Francis Pieper – Christian Dogmatics Vol 3 pg 533

    One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the Messiah who has come, the Orthodox Jews dream of a return to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple with its worship (Zionism), and the Reform Jew envision a spiritual domination of the world by Jewish intellectual superiority and erudition, to be achieved by means of a Jewish university on the Mount of Olives. – Francis Pieper – Christian Dogmatic Vol 3 p 534

    Ezekiel 9:1-11 Describes an event similar to the event in Revelation people with the mark are spared. Ezekiel adds detail by describing the mark as taw. Taw in preexilic semitic writings looked like (+) or (x) remarkably similar to the cross. Cross is already a symbol of redemption in the prophets.

    Isaiah 2
    Vs 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, – KJV
    It shall come to pass in the latter days – ESV
    Literally translated “It shall come to past in the end of days.”
    Last day prophecy, this is the final day. This is the day the world as we know it ends and God restores all creation.

    Isa 11:10-16
    The use of parallelism suggests that the nations, Israel, Judah are related likely synonyms.
    Likely a tw fold realization Crucifixion and last day.

    Isaiah 9
    Jesus ministering in Galilee is not just about Geography but also a revelation that the Zeal of Yahweh is now at work in History establishing the rule of justice and righteousness of the promised Davidic kingdom. Matthew makes it pretty plain by directly referencing isa 9 as he reports these events.

    Isaiah 42 – Jesus light to the gentiles, he is given as a covenant on him is all God’s glory

    Isaiah 49 – Jesus is called Israel. Then he speaks of gathering Israel/Jacob back to himself.
    Isaiah 49 is directly referenced in Revelation 7 where it makes clear that those who are called are the one who feel no heat etc. are those washed in the blood of the lamb, who according to Isaiah is Israel
    Zion receives children she didn’t know, these are the ones called by the sign that was lifted up, they are the ones called out of the nations. The sign by the way is the resurrection, remember “Only the sign of Jonah will be given”

    Isaiah 52 Is referenced by Paul in Rm 10 The goodnews proclaimed to Zion is the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul goes on to clarify that Zion or Israel as he puts it is the gathering of those whose faith is in Christ. Paul in describing this reality picks up on an image that began in Isaiah “like a young plant”, in Paul’s writings the young plant is an olive tree. The young plant or olive tree is the one who was wounded for our transgressions. Contrary to the dispensationalists (the people who wrote the notes in your study bible) the tree is Jesus and that is what the church has always taught because it is the testimony of scripture.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the Messiah who has come, the Orthodox Jews dream of a return to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple with its worship (Zionism), and the Reform Jew envision a spiritual domination of the world by Jewish intellectual superiority and erudition, to be achieved by means of a Jewish university on the Mount of Olives. – Francis Pieper – Christian Dogmatic Vol 3 p 534

    Ezekiel 9:1-11 Describes an event similar to the event in Revelation people with the mark are spared. Ezekiel adds detail by describing the mark as taw. Taw in preexilic semitic writings looked like (+) or (x) remarkably similar to the cross. Cross is already a symbol of redemption in the prophets.

    Isaiah 2
    Vs 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, – KJV
    It shall come to pass in the latter days – ESV
    Literally translated “It shall come to past in the end of days.”
    Last day prophecy, this is the final day. This is the day the world as we know it ends and God restores all creation.

    Isa 11:10-16
    The use of parallelism suggests that the nations, Israel, Judah are related likely synonyms.
    Likely a tw fold realization Crucifixion and last day.

    Isaiah 9
    Jesus ministering in Galilee is not just about Geography but also a revelation that the Zeal of Yahweh is now at work in History establishing the rule of justice and righteousness of the promised Davidic kingdom. Matthew makes it pretty plain by directly referencing isa 9 as he reports these events.

    Isaiah 42 – Jesus light to the gentiles, he is given as a covenant on him is all God’s glory

    Isaiah 49 – Jesus is called Israel. Then he speaks of gathering Israel/Jacob back to himself.
    Isaiah 49 is directly referenced in Revelation 7 where it makes clear that those who are called are the one who feel no heat etc. are those washed in the blood of the lamb, who according to Isaiah is Israel
    Zion receives children she didn’t know, these are the ones called by the sign that was lifted up, they are the ones called out of the nations. The sign by the way is the resurrection, remember “Only the sign of Jonah will be given”

    Isaiah 52 Is referenced by Paul in Rm 10 The goodnews proclaimed to Zion is the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul goes on to clarify that Zion or Israel as he puts it is the gathering of those whose faith is in Christ. Paul in describing this reality picks up on an image that began in Isaiah “like a young plant”, in Paul’s writings the young plant is an olive tree. The young plant or olive tree is the one who was wounded for our transgressions. Contrary to the dispensationalists (the people who wrote the notes in your study bible) the tree is Jesus and that is what the church has always taught because it is the testimony of scripture.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Please disregard the comment in the () in the above comment. I forgot to delete that out of my notes.

    Matthew 15:21-28
    And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the broken sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

    Two things
    1st Jesus as the Son of David has vast import. As the Son of David, Jesus is the rightful prophesied heir to David’s throne. Coupled with the statement the reign of God/heaven is here and His refusal to be made king of the physical nation of Israel gives substance to the fact it was always about more than the land. It also means the prophesied reign had begun; it is not a future event. It was already beginning. He is already gathering the peoples; this brings me to the second point.

    The exchange between Jesus and the Canaanite women shows that Israel means more than the Jewish nation. If Jesus only came for the broken sheep of Israel, why did He heal the daughter? He didn’t do it because of her faith. The text never says that the only thing that can be concluded is that the Canaanite woman is one of the broken sheep of Israel. It is a fact that is reinforced by her statement in response to Jesus. One doesn’t accent to taking the label of dog if one is healthy and whole only the broken would acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ statement.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Please disregard the comment in the () in the above comment. I forgot to delete that out of my notes.

    Matthew 15:21-28
    And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the broken sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

    Two things
    1st Jesus as the Son of David has vast import. As the Son of David, Jesus is the rightful prophesied heir to David’s throne. Coupled with the statement the reign of God/heaven is here and His refusal to be made king of the physical nation of Israel gives substance to the fact it was always about more than the land. It also means the prophesied reign had begun; it is not a future event. It was already beginning. He is already gathering the peoples; this brings me to the second point.

    The exchange between Jesus and the Canaanite women shows that Israel means more than the Jewish nation. If Jesus only came for the broken sheep of Israel, why did He heal the daughter? He didn’t do it because of her faith. The text never says that the only thing that can be concluded is that the Canaanite woman is one of the broken sheep of Israel. It is a fact that is reinforced by her statement in response to Jesus. One doesn’t accent to taking the label of dog if one is healthy and whole only the broken would acknowledge the truth of Jesus’ statement.

  • Grace

    Century @ 75

    “My first question is, what mail order diploma mill did Gary get his “doctorate” from. That is a very poorly researched article. “

    Of course you would post such a comment, you don’t agree with his views, anymore than he would agree with yours. It isn’t poorly researched, it’s very good – the problem you have is, you don’t agree with it.

    As far as the “order diploma mill” remark, you might ask that of many who believe they have arrived, and yet understand very little !

  • Grace

    Century @ 75

    “My first question is, what mail order diploma mill did Gary get his “doctorate” from. That is a very poorly researched article. “

    Of course you would post such a comment, you don’t agree with his views, anymore than he would agree with yours. It isn’t poorly researched, it’s very good – the problem you have is, you don’t agree with it.

    As far as the “order diploma mill” remark, you might ask that of many who believe they have arrived, and yet understand very little !

  • Grace

    Century @ 78

    “One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the Messiah who has come, the Orthodox Jews dream of a return to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple with its worship (Zionism), and the Reform Jew envision a spiritual domination of the world by Jewish intellectual superiority and erudition, to be achieved by means of a Jewish university on the Mount of Olives. – Francis Pieper – Christian Dogmatic Vol 3 p 534

    You are proud of that statement?

    You have made my point, in more ways than one!

  • Grace

    Century @ 78

    “One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the Messiah who has come, the Orthodox Jews dream of a return to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple with its worship (Zionism), and the Reform Jew envision a spiritual domination of the world by Jewish intellectual superiority and erudition, to be achieved by means of a Jewish university on the Mount of Olives. – Francis Pieper – Christian Dogmatic Vol 3 p 534

    You are proud of that statement?

    You have made my point, in more ways than one!

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st century

    @grace Proved that you and other two covenantists are leading people to sin? Why yes I guess I just did.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st century

    @grace Proved that you and other two covenantists are leading people to sin? Why yes I guess I just did.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st century

    In regards to Gary, if he had actually done research I could disagree without disdain. However, he did not. If he had done research he would have found the Justin Martyr quote that negated one of his proofs. It only took me 5 minutes to find on ccel.org

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st century

    In regards to Gary, if he had actually done research I could disagree without disdain. However, he did not. If he had done research he would have found the Justin Martyr quote that negated one of his proofs. It only took me 5 minutes to find on ccel.org

  • helen

    Grace @ 66
    Your friend was not very educated in Judaism. I’ve lived and worked among the Jews for years, I’ve never heard one Jew say anything such as you have posted… that’s not to say there aren’t others who are Jews who wouldn’t agree with you.

    Dear lady!
    My friend was the Hebrew bibliographer at the University of Texas. Due to his efforts we probably have the largest collection of Jewish literature west of the Mississippi, since he was instrumental in securing several endowments to that end. Moreover, he read the things he cataloged.

    “Not very educated!” Dear me! :(

    Since this is not the topic here, I will not answer you again.
    God bless!

  • helen

    Grace @ 66
    Your friend was not very educated in Judaism. I’ve lived and worked among the Jews for years, I’ve never heard one Jew say anything such as you have posted… that’s not to say there aren’t others who are Jews who wouldn’t agree with you.

    Dear lady!
    My friend was the Hebrew bibliographer at the University of Texas. Due to his efforts we probably have the largest collection of Jewish literature west of the Mississippi, since he was instrumental in securing several endowments to that end. Moreover, he read the things he cataloged.

    “Not very educated!” Dear me! :(

    Since this is not the topic here, I will not answer you again.
    God bless!

  • kerner

    Grace:

    I don’t know whether DL21stC is proud of his statement or not. But, if Jews don’t repent of their sins and believe in the Messiah who has come, aren’t they lost in Hell forever like evryone else? Are you saying that there is an alternate way to salvation?

  • kerner

    Grace:

    I don’t know whether DL21stC is proud of his statement or not. But, if Jews don’t repent of their sins and believe in the Messiah who has come, aren’t they lost in Hell forever like evryone else? Are you saying that there is an alternate way to salvation?

  • Grace

    helen

    @ 65 “My recently deceased colleague, a Jew from Boston whose avocation was reading the early rabbis, told me that none of the present “Israelis” were really Jews. Since the diaspora they simply had been intermingled too much with other races to know their roots.”

    And now this from #84

    <i."My friend was the Hebrew bibliographer at the University of Texas."

    I don’t buy it.

  • Grace

    helen

    @ 65 “My recently deceased colleague, a Jew from Boston whose avocation was reading the early rabbis, told me that none of the present “Israelis” were really Jews. Since the diaspora they simply had been intermingled too much with other races to know their roots.”

    And now this from #84

    <i."My friend was the Hebrew bibliographer at the University of Texas."

    I don’t buy it.

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 85

    YOU WROTE: “Are you saying that there is an alternate way to salvation?”

    Anyone who doesn’t accept Christ as Savior will not receive Eternal Life with Christ – there is no reason for you to ask me such a foolish question.

    Read the piece over that Century posted @71 and I reposted @81:

    One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the Messiah who has come, the Orthodox Jews dream of a return to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple with its worship (Zionism), and the Reform Jew envision a spiritual domination of the world by Jewish intellectual superiority and erudition, to be achieved by means of a Jewish university on the Mount of Olives.“ –

    Francis Pieper – Christian Dogmatic Vol 3 p 534

    There also is no reason why the Jews were not welcome back to their land because they did not believe in Jesus as Messiah. I pray they all come to know HIM.

    Would you rather the Muslims have the land?

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 85

    YOU WROTE: “Are you saying that there is an alternate way to salvation?”

    Anyone who doesn’t accept Christ as Savior will not receive Eternal Life with Christ – there is no reason for you to ask me such a foolish question.

    Read the piece over that Century posted @71 and I reposted @81:

    One of the many deplorable consequences of the World War is the promise of the Allies to give Palestine to the Jews as their national home. Instead of repenting of their sins and believing in the Messiah who has come, the Orthodox Jews dream of a return to Palestine and the rebuilding of the Temple with its worship (Zionism), and the Reform Jew envision a spiritual domination of the world by Jewish intellectual superiority and erudition, to be achieved by means of a Jewish university on the Mount of Olives.“ –

    Francis Pieper – Christian Dogmatic Vol 3 p 534

    There also is no reason why the Jews were not welcome back to their land because they did not believe in Jesus as Messiah. I pray they all come to know HIM.

    Would you rather the Muslims have the land?

  • Grace

    Century @82

    YOU WROTE: “@grace Proved that you and other two covenantists are leading people to sin? Why yes I guess I just did.”

    No, I’m not leading anyone to sin – perhaps you should check yourself, before you make such an accusation against me -

  • Grace

    Century @82

    YOU WROTE: “@grace Proved that you and other two covenantists are leading people to sin? Why yes I guess I just did.”

    No, I’m not leading anyone to sin – perhaps you should check yourself, before you make such an accusation against me -

  • kerner

    Grace:

    Anyone who doesn’t accept Christ as Savior will not receive Eternal Life with Christ – there is no reason for you to ask me such a foolish question.

    If someone can’t receive eternal life with Christ, how is that person “one of God’s people”?

    Would you rather the Muslims have the land?

    Who cares who owns a particular piece of land? If someone receives eternal life in Christ, or if he goes straight to Hell, what difference does it make where he lived or what land he owned?

    If two groups of unbelievers are fighting over land, why should a Christian’s concern be which unbelieving side wins? Shouldn’t our concern be to preach the Gospel to both sides and to try to win as many souls as we can from both sides for Christ.

  • kerner

    Grace:

    Anyone who doesn’t accept Christ as Savior will not receive Eternal Life with Christ – there is no reason for you to ask me such a foolish question.

    If someone can’t receive eternal life with Christ, how is that person “one of God’s people”?

    Would you rather the Muslims have the land?

    Who cares who owns a particular piece of land? If someone receives eternal life in Christ, or if he goes straight to Hell, what difference does it make where he lived or what land he owned?

    If two groups of unbelievers are fighting over land, why should a Christian’s concern be which unbelieving side wins? Shouldn’t our concern be to preach the Gospel to both sides and to try to win as many souls as we can from both sides for Christ.

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    YOU WROTE: “If someone can’t receive eternal life with Christ, how is that person “one of God’s people”?”

    God made the choice as to who HIS chosen people are, we cannot change that.

    The Jews were always God’s chosen people.

    As Saint Paul states:

    1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

    3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

    4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

    5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Romans 11

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    YOU WROTE: “If someone can’t receive eternal life with Christ, how is that person “one of God’s people”?”

    God made the choice as to who HIS chosen people are, we cannot change that.

    The Jews were always God’s chosen people.

    As Saint Paul states:

    1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

    3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

    4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

    5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Romans 11

  • kerner

    Grace:

    YOU WROTE: “If someone can’t receive eternal life with Christ, how is that person “one of God’s people”?”

    God made the choice as to who HIS chosen people are, we cannot change that.

    The Jews were always God’s chosen people.

    But chosen for what? To live on a particular piece of land and then go to Hell? Since when is that God’s definition of “His chosen people”? Or anybody’s definition of “God’s chosen people”, for that matter.

  • kerner

    Grace:

    YOU WROTE: “If someone can’t receive eternal life with Christ, how is that person “one of God’s people”?”

    God made the choice as to who HIS chosen people are, we cannot change that.

    The Jews were always God’s chosen people.

    But chosen for what? To live on a particular piece of land and then go to Hell? Since when is that God’s definition of “His chosen people”? Or anybody’s definition of “God’s chosen people”, for that matter.

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    You were the one who wrote in post #89 : “If someone can’t receive eternal life with Christ, how is that person “one of God’s people”?”

    And now you attribute that to me in post # 91 :lol: – YA GOTTA BE CLEAR, you’re mixing it up!

    YOU WROTE:

    But chosen for what? To live on a particular piece of land and then go to Hell? Since when is that God’s definition of “His chosen people”? Or anybody’s definition of “God’s chosen people”, for that matter.

    “But chosen for what?”

    God’s ways are much higher than mine or yours. If you cannot figure it out, and I cannot either, that doesn’t mean God has made a mistake, or what HE states is figurative, ….. we don’t know.

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    You were the one who wrote in post #89 : “If someone can’t receive eternal life with Christ, how is that person “one of God’s people”?”

    And now you attribute that to me in post # 91 :lol: – YA GOTTA BE CLEAR, you’re mixing it up!

    YOU WROTE:

    But chosen for what? To live on a particular piece of land and then go to Hell? Since when is that God’s definition of “His chosen people”? Or anybody’s definition of “God’s chosen people”, for that matter.

    “But chosen for what?”

    God’s ways are much higher than mine or yours. If you cannot figure it out, and I cannot either, that doesn’t mean God has made a mistake, or what HE states is figurative, ….. we don’t know.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, I can’t help but notice that you really haven’t addressed my points here.

    At some point (@74), you decided to make your point about whether I should or shouldn’t know what “replacement theology” was about, citing some man or other, rather than addressing the Scripture passages I quoted (@73) that clearly refute your position.

    To say nothing of the many, many Scripture passages that DLit2C cited (@76-79, which, unfortunately, were rather sloppy and hard to read). You ignored those, as well, choosing instead to focus (@80) on things like DLit2C’s “diploma mill” comment.

    And when Helen made her point (@65), you all but called her a liar (@86).

    Do you see the pattern here? You choose to get offended, rather than engage the actual points being made. It kinda seems like you don’t have a real response, when you do that.

    I don’t mind having an actual discussion about the issues here. But if you’re ultimately just going to get all huffy when the debate gets feisty and completely fail to engage comments directed at you except to demonstrate your offense, then there’s no point us having it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, I can’t help but notice that you really haven’t addressed my points here.

    At some point (@74), you decided to make your point about whether I should or shouldn’t know what “replacement theology” was about, citing some man or other, rather than addressing the Scripture passages I quoted (@73) that clearly refute your position.

    To say nothing of the many, many Scripture passages that DLit2C cited (@76-79, which, unfortunately, were rather sloppy and hard to read). You ignored those, as well, choosing instead to focus (@80) on things like DLit2C’s “diploma mill” comment.

    And when Helen made her point (@65), you all but called her a liar (@86).

    Do you see the pattern here? You choose to get offended, rather than engage the actual points being made. It kinda seems like you don’t have a real response, when you do that.

    I don’t mind having an actual discussion about the issues here. But if you’re ultimately just going to get all huffy when the debate gets feisty and completely fail to engage comments directed at you except to demonstrate your offense, then there’s no point us having it.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Grace, from @64 am I do understand that God has broken his covenant with Dan and Ephraim? And that he has replaced them with other tribes? Please explain this to me.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Grace, from @64 am I do understand that God has broken his covenant with Dan and Ephraim? And that he has replaced them with other tribes? Please explain this to me.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, I’m still trying to understand your point here, Grace. Best I can tell, it’s that, if we don’t agree with your political views on the nation of Israel that was created in 1948, then we are guilty of (@53):

    Jealousy of the Jews, and their land Israel, is obvious. Hatred and jealousy often go hand in hand.

    Which isn’t even a theological argument, much less a scriptural one. You’re just accusing people — people you don’t even know — of having ulterior motives. I’m still trying to figure out why, exactly, I would be “jealous” of the Jews and their land. Your description of what’s supposedly motivating me is hardly compelling.

    Then, apparently behind all that is your belief (@56) that it is “FALSE” that “the Church is Spiritual Israel”. Again, Romans 9 appears to very plainly contradict your claim here.

    What’s curious is that you attempted to prove your point (@56) that “Israel (Jews) are not just spiritual, they are a people whom God made and EVERLASTING COVENANT WITH” by quoting Genesis 17:7-8. You may have noticed that, at that point, Abraham wasn’t even a Jew, as he wasn’t circumcised. Not a small point, as Paul explains in Romans 4.

    Then you keep quoting Romans 11 (while, again, continuing to seemingly ignore Romans 9) at us, as if we, who you label as “replacement” theologians, somehow denied that Jews could also come to salvation by faith in Christ. Or at least, that seems to be what you and other people you cite believe.

    For the record, of course Jews can come to salvation through faith in Jesus. Paul did, as did, well, pretty much most people mentioned in the New Testament. And this is proof, as Paul points out in Romans 11, that God wasn’t done with them.

    But here’s the thing. You appear to read Romans 11:2 as if it said, “God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew” (quoting from your favored KJV to show that my point is not translation-dependent). It doesn’t. The comma matters. No, it says, “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew”. That is to say, those Jews God “foreknew” (aka predestined) were not “cast away” from God merely for being of Jewish descent. No, he called to faith both Jews and Gentiles.

    But nowhere does Romans 11 say that God foreknew all Jews. In fact, Romans 11 makes clear that “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

    So what is your point? We appear to agree (@71) that most Jews will not be saved, but those that will will be saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Or do we?

    But here’s where we disagree. I side with Paul, who says that:

    Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

    So the Jews who reject Jesus as their savior are not Israel, but the Christians who do, by faith, believe in Jesus as their savior are Israel. Paul says it quite clearly.

    Any argument you make will, at some point, need to address this point of Paul’s. You have not, yet.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, I’m still trying to understand your point here, Grace. Best I can tell, it’s that, if we don’t agree with your political views on the nation of Israel that was created in 1948, then we are guilty of (@53):

    Jealousy of the Jews, and their land Israel, is obvious. Hatred and jealousy often go hand in hand.

    Which isn’t even a theological argument, much less a scriptural one. You’re just accusing people — people you don’t even know — of having ulterior motives. I’m still trying to figure out why, exactly, I would be “jealous” of the Jews and their land. Your description of what’s supposedly motivating me is hardly compelling.

    Then, apparently behind all that is your belief (@56) that it is “FALSE” that “the Church is Spiritual Israel”. Again, Romans 9 appears to very plainly contradict your claim here.

    What’s curious is that you attempted to prove your point (@56) that “Israel (Jews) are not just spiritual, they are a people whom God made and EVERLASTING COVENANT WITH” by quoting Genesis 17:7-8. You may have noticed that, at that point, Abraham wasn’t even a Jew, as he wasn’t circumcised. Not a small point, as Paul explains in Romans 4.

    Then you keep quoting Romans 11 (while, again, continuing to seemingly ignore Romans 9) at us, as if we, who you label as “replacement” theologians, somehow denied that Jews could also come to salvation by faith in Christ. Or at least, that seems to be what you and other people you cite believe.

    For the record, of course Jews can come to salvation through faith in Jesus. Paul did, as did, well, pretty much most people mentioned in the New Testament. And this is proof, as Paul points out in Romans 11, that God wasn’t done with them.

    But here’s the thing. You appear to read Romans 11:2 as if it said, “God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew” (quoting from your favored KJV to show that my point is not translation-dependent). It doesn’t. The comma matters. No, it says, “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew”. That is to say, those Jews God “foreknew” (aka predestined) were not “cast away” from God merely for being of Jewish descent. No, he called to faith both Jews and Gentiles.

    But nowhere does Romans 11 say that God foreknew all Jews. In fact, Romans 11 makes clear that “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

    So what is your point? We appear to agree (@71) that most Jews will not be saved, but those that will will be saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Or do we?

    But here’s where we disagree. I side with Paul, who says that:

    Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

    So the Jews who reject Jesus as their savior are not Israel, but the Christians who do, by faith, believe in Jesus as their savior are Israel. Paul says it quite clearly.

    Any argument you make will, at some point, need to address this point of Paul’s. You have not, yet.

  • Grace

    John @ 94

    YOU WROTE: “I do understand that God has broken his covenant with Dan and Ephraim? And that he has replaced them with other tribes? Please explain this to me.”

    Was it a covenant John between God, …. Dan and Ephraim? The tribe of Dan is in the Millennium, but they are not sealed for the purpose of witnessing during the time of The Great Tribulation.

    I have already answered this in post 64

    “That is true, two of them have been replaced. I answered this same question last year.

    The tribes of Dan and Ephraim are not mentioned in Revelation 7. Both tribes were guilty of leading the nation into idolatry. Dan was the first tribe that fell into idolatry Judges 18:30 – The tribe of Dan later became the headquarters for calf worship 1 Kings 12:28-30 – Dan is given priority in the Millennium – see Ezekiel 48 this reveals the grace of GOD can reach down and meet the needs of any sinner. The tribe of Dan is in the Millennium, but they are not sealed for the purpose of witnessing during the time of The Great Tribulation.

    Ephraim was also guilty of idolatry. In Hosea 4:17 “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.” That has reference to the entire northern kingdom of Israel, but remember that Ephraim was the leader there. “

    John you would need to read the passages of Scripture noted above.

  • Grace

    John @ 94

    YOU WROTE: “I do understand that God has broken his covenant with Dan and Ephraim? And that he has replaced them with other tribes? Please explain this to me.”

    Was it a covenant John between God, …. Dan and Ephraim? The tribe of Dan is in the Millennium, but they are not sealed for the purpose of witnessing during the time of The Great Tribulation.

    I have already answered this in post 64

    “That is true, two of them have been replaced. I answered this same question last year.

    The tribes of Dan and Ephraim are not mentioned in Revelation 7. Both tribes were guilty of leading the nation into idolatry. Dan was the first tribe that fell into idolatry Judges 18:30 – The tribe of Dan later became the headquarters for calf worship 1 Kings 12:28-30 – Dan is given priority in the Millennium – see Ezekiel 48 this reveals the grace of GOD can reach down and meet the needs of any sinner. The tribe of Dan is in the Millennium, but they are not sealed for the purpose of witnessing during the time of The Great Tribulation.

    Ephraim was also guilty of idolatry. In Hosea 4:17 “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.” That has reference to the entire northern kingdom of Israel, but remember that Ephraim was the leader there. “

    John you would need to read the passages of Scripture noted above.

  • kerner

    Grace:

    @90 you quoted RTomans !! as follows:

    1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

    3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

    4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

    5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Romans 11

    You are onto something there. Consider this. Even in the Old Testament, God never regarded the Israelites as a unified group. He always differentiated between believing Israelites and the Israelites who had fallen away. That’s why St. Paul talks about a “remnant”, comparing the “remnant” of the 1st century to the “remnant” in Elijah’s day. Our Lord Himself sponk in very harsh terms of the Jews who rejected him:

    29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

    33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

    37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ Matthew 23

    Just look at all the bad things that are in store for those who reject God:

    1. condemned to Hell, v.33
    2. all righteous blood shed on earth will come on them, v.35
    3. Their house left desolate, v.38

    They won’t be his people anymore until they come back to Him; till they say “Blessed is he (Jesus) who comes in the name of the Lord.”

    But in the 1st Century, as in all previous eras when many Israelites fell away, there was a Remnant, and that remnant had a name. They were called, “Christians”.

    Then something different happened. Just as many Jews persecuted those faithful to God, Gentiles started becoming converted to the Faith in large numbers. Numbers so great, that the Jewish believers weren’t sure how to handle it. We can read about it in Acts, and also in Galatians, where Pail explained what was going on:

    11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
    14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
    ” Galatians 2

    We see here that the Jews who were faithful to God (the Christians) began to separate themselves from the non-Jewish believers, but they were rebuked for it. Further, Paul rebuked the Galatians who were doing the same thing:

  • kerner

    Grace:

    @90 you quoted RTomans !! as follows:

    1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

    3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

    4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

    5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Romans 11

    You are onto something there. Consider this. Even in the Old Testament, God never regarded the Israelites as a unified group. He always differentiated between believing Israelites and the Israelites who had fallen away. That’s why St. Paul talks about a “remnant”, comparing the “remnant” of the 1st century to the “remnant” in Elijah’s day. Our Lord Himself sponk in very harsh terms of the Jews who rejected him:

    29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

    33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

    37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ Matthew 23

    Just look at all the bad things that are in store for those who reject God:

    1. condemned to Hell, v.33
    2. all righteous blood shed on earth will come on them, v.35
    3. Their house left desolate, v.38

    They won’t be his people anymore until they come back to Him; till they say “Blessed is he (Jesus) who comes in the name of the Lord.”

    But in the 1st Century, as in all previous eras when many Israelites fell away, there was a Remnant, and that remnant had a name. They were called, “Christians”.

    Then something different happened. Just as many Jews persecuted those faithful to God, Gentiles started becoming converted to the Faith in large numbers. Numbers so great, that the Jewish believers weren’t sure how to handle it. We can read about it in Acts, and also in Galatians, where Pail explained what was going on:

    11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
    14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
    ” Galatians 2

    We see here that the Jews who were faithful to God (the Christians) began to separate themselves from the non-Jewish believers, but they were rebuked for it. Further, Paul rebuked the Galatians who were doing the same thing:

  • kerner

    continued:

    3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced[b] so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[c]
    7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith
    ” Galatians 3

    16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”[i] meaning one person, who is Christ. “Galatians 3

    26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3

    I don’t know how Paul could be any clearer. What makes a person “Abraham’s seed” (Israel) is that person belonging to Christ. Being born a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh means nothing.

    Remember what John the baptist said of the pharisees who relied on their ancestral conection with Abraham:

    9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. ” Matthew 3

    Passage after passage; John the Baptist, St. Paul, and Jesus himself make it very clear that God’s covenant is with those who believe and follow Him; Jews and Gentiles alike. Those who reject Him are NOT His people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

  • kerner

    continued:

    3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?[a] 4 Have you experienced[b] so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[c]
    7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith
    ” Galatians 3

    16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”[i] meaning one person, who is Christ. “Galatians 3

    26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3

    I don’t know how Paul could be any clearer. What makes a person “Abraham’s seed” (Israel) is that person belonging to Christ. Being born a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh means nothing.

    Remember what John the baptist said of the pharisees who relied on their ancestral conection with Abraham:

    9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. ” Matthew 3

    Passage after passage; John the Baptist, St. Paul, and Jesus himself make it very clear that God’s covenant is with those who believe and follow Him; Jews and Gentiles alike. Those who reject Him are NOT His people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

  • kerner

    oops, I see a few typos, and the italics were supposed to end after “Matthew 3″. sorry.

  • kerner

    oops, I see a few typos, and the italics were supposed to end after “Matthew 3″. sorry.

  • Grace

    Kerner @97

    YOU wrote: “Grace:

    @90 you quoted RTomans !! as follows:

    Kerner, I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve, HOWEVER, There was nothing about “RTomans” in anything I posted. I posted Romans 11.

    You’re posts are scrambled, and inaccurate!

  • Grace

    Kerner @97

    YOU wrote: “Grace:

    @90 you quoted RTomans !! as follows:

    Kerner, I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve, HOWEVER, There was nothing about “RTomans” in anything I posted. I posted Romans 11.

    You’re posts are scrambled, and inaccurate!

  • kerner

    “RTomans” was just a typo, Grace. Leaving my typing skills aside, what’s wrong with my posts? Thay are straight out of the Bible.

  • kerner

    “RTomans” was just a typo, Grace. Leaving my typing skills aside, what’s wrong with my posts? Thay are straight out of the Bible.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well, Grace (@100), you’ve done it again (@93).

    Kerner offered you two lengthy, Scripture-filled comments, and you ignored everything he said and chose to focus on his typos. Sort of quintessential nitpicking behavior, that, don’t you think?

    And, of course, you also got huffy: “You’re posts are scrambled, and inaccurate!”

    (Really, people who spell “your” as “you’re” are in little position to critique proper typing.)

    But it’s quite obvious you have no response, no defense, nothing of substance to say here. Which is sad. We could have an actual discussion about what Scripture teaches us about Israel and the Jews. But you don’t want to have a discussion, do you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well, Grace (@100), you’ve done it again (@93).

    Kerner offered you two lengthy, Scripture-filled comments, and you ignored everything he said and chose to focus on his typos. Sort of quintessential nitpicking behavior, that, don’t you think?

    And, of course, you also got huffy: “You’re posts are scrambled, and inaccurate!”

    (Really, people who spell “your” as “you’re” are in little position to critique proper typing.)

    But it’s quite obvious you have no response, no defense, nothing of substance to say here. Which is sad. We could have an actual discussion about what Scripture teaches us about Israel and the Jews. But you don’t want to have a discussion, do you?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Sorry about the formatting mess in my posts. I didn’t catch it until a few posts in that some of my formatting in Word wasn’t making it over, but that is what I get for being lazy and copy/pasting what really is just rough notes done as prep work.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    Sorry about the formatting mess in my posts. I didn’t catch it until a few posts in that some of my formatting in Word wasn’t making it over, but that is what I get for being lazy and copy/pasting what really is just rough notes done as prep work.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X