I have no clue why you responded to ClementofA's post in this way. You make a broad sweeping accusation about his entire post and then go off on some other tangent with more broad seeping accusations against the church in general and all the while say absolutely nothing about the point that your trying to make. At least that is discernible to me. In other words, if your going to respond to someone's post you should at least reply to something that is in their post.
IT'S ABOUT THE LAW - IT'S ABOUT SCHOLARSHIP
I replied to everything in Clement's post.
Here follows a summation of major points: the church, the issue of Law, doctrinal issues and a final point of suggested study.
Please read carefully.
If you don't understand something - ask either of us.
The Scripture
Your last point first;
Did you not read the quote from Jesus that I imprinted in RED? Please read it again.
"
I did not come to abolish the Law, I came to fulfill it." - Jesus as quoted by Matthew 5:17
The root the core the center of all Clement and I have been debating are issues peripheral to an understanding of THE LAW (the Torah or the Pentateuch or the first 5 books of the Old Covenant as it is known by those who read the Bible).
My post is meant to convey a singular neglect of the church with regard to its duty to educate its members in the use of basic interpretive tools and general Biblical knowledge. I'm sure Clement and I would agree on this point, if upon no other.
The Church
THE LACK of attention to scholarship on the part of the church results in error on a massive scale - including a denial of the mind of God. The church expends its energy exploring its own mind and traditions rather than that of the Most High. In other words, the church is infested with the cancer of conceit.
The average adult Bible Study (a misnomer if ever I heard one) is offered at a middle school level, which is why a minor percentage of members attend.
There is never any attempt to teach adults or high school students how to study. Do most Christians know how to perform a Word Study, an exegesis on any topic, or what a hermeneutic might be? [Clement knows. Do you?]
According to recent surveys, most Christians don't even read the Bible on a regular basis. Ignorance is not bliss. It is a reproach.
I rarely see rebuttal with any legitimate information. Most Christians reply upon subjective opinion, traditional views, buzz words, religious propagandistic slogans or personal preference on moral issues none of which are Biblical or attend to the mind of God. The church has become an ignorant mob led by self-aggrandizing ungodly men and women who care nothing for the spiritual welfare of those who gather with them. The men are concerned with money matters and the women with petty squabbles about unimportant peripheral issues. Nothing is really accomplished by either group. Evangelism and revival meetings, for example, have passed into history.
Read my posts. I attempt to support them with external references, not opinion alone.
Read Clement's posts. He attempts to support them with external references, not opinion alone.
Few others do this and that is my point today.
At this point someone is thinking, '
nobody is perfect and no church is perfect'. Such an attitude is not sufficient to justify negligence. The church acts as though stupidity is a virtue.
The Issue
We have now arrived at the core issue addressed by your post. You write that you don't understand the root of the exchange between Clement and I.
The core issue is THE LAW.
Clement and I are debating points of application of THE LAW. Ask him. He will tell you the same thing. Our disagreement is that we interpret the matter differently. Our problem seems to be that we are literally shooting over everyone's head. We are engaged in a rapid exchange that has left everyone else in the dust. For my part, I apologize for this lack of consideration for those who read.
This is why I began my post with a quote from Matthew 5:17. This is why I attacked the dysfunctional religious attitudes and ideologies promoted throughout the church today. This is why I continually reiterate my statements in different words. Do you not understand who the audience is here?
Now that we have completely left the rails on the subject, I wish to make an attempt to return to the subject at hand - the doctrines of Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology.
* * * * *
Replacement Theology generally states that the church has replaced ancient Israel as God's chosen people. That the church is now an invisible representation of both the Kingdom of God and Israel.
Clement provides an abundance of information to explain and expand on the idea. I reject it outright because it is anti-semitic as well as a total misinterpretation of the flow of history both ancient and modern. I've had personal discussions with adherents of this dogma who absolutely refuse to admit the existence of the modern State of Israel or the right of Jews to claim a homeland on the land God gave to them
(*). Clement hasn't gone that far, but others have done so in my presence. The ideology is irresponsible erroneous and racist in the extreme.
Dispensationalism as an ideology is a confused mess.
There are at least two or perhaps three different doctrines that identify themselves as dispensationalism, each of which refutes the other.
I confess that I don't have a solid grip on two of the doctrines of Dispensationalism so I will focus on the most popular one.
Clement and I have been discussing the version that is most often taught in the First Church of Ignorant Christians. The dogma was arranged in its current form by John Nelson Darby, whose original intent was to arrange history in a linear more easily understood manner utilizing logical separations in Biblical events rather than secular ones. This attention to organization of history is the framework upon which Darby hung his other dogma.
Darby organizes his Biblical interpretations by pivoting his graphic and his narrative on the historic event of the crucifixion. In JND's mind, all doctrine is either BC or AD - before the Law & after the Law. Thus he justifies terrible errors in his assertions. It is not Biblical.
Darby is neither theologian nor historian, consequently he goes off the road into total error. He is simply wrong. Why? Because the Law is not dead. The Law is not divided upon the cross. Our calendar may be divided, but the redemptive work of God is not.
Both JND and the church support an egregious error because
the cross does NOT break or destroy God's Law. The cross fulfills God's Law. Hence I quote Jesus in Matthew 5:17.
When Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law, Christians generally reply (stupidly but with great sincerity) that I've quoted the passage out of context. They say this because they do not know the Law. They display to all the world their own lack of knowledge and their support of slogans and buzz words which are not Biblical.
When Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, Christians generally have nothing to say because not knowing the Law they have no idea what Christ was talking about. Don't feel bad. His disciples didn't understand it either until it was in their face. Even then one or two had trouble getting a grip on it.
FINALLY
Here's a Sunday school question for you to answer.
If Jesus did not abolish the Law, but came to fulfill it -
what Law is now in effect?
Hint #1: The Law stands unbroken, not destroyed.
Hint #2: The gospels speak of a New Law. All the epistles explain its details.
Hint #3: It is not love or prosperity. It has nothing to do with situation ethics or political correctness.
Hint #4: It's not about memorizing scripture passages.
What is it?
What is the New Covenant that does not abolish the law, but fulfills it?
that's me, hollering from the choir loft....
(*) Even the Qur'an states the Children of Israel have a right to the land granted to them by Allah. Quotes can be supplied upon request.