This is an issue that I would assume has been discussed here in the past. However, I seem to have missed it, so here goes!
Below is a link to an article by a guy called Fred Zaspel (who is a Calvinist, by the way). Monergism.com links to a bunch of his stuff, including this essay.
Zaspel is neither dispensationalist nor amillenialist; some places call him NCT, while Monergism.com calls him historic premillenialist.
Anyways, the article is called "Jews, Gentiles, & the Goal of Redemptive History: An Exegetical & Theological Analysis of Romans 9-11." His main point in the essay is to show that to maintain a future for national Israel (note: this guy is not a classical dispensationalist) is not driven by extraneous theology but is exegetically demanded by this chunk of scripture. He goes on to demonstrate that the amillenialist interpretations of Romans 9-11 are driven by extraneous theology, rather then an unbiased exegesis of the text itself, and gives examples of amillennialists saying as much about each other's arguments.
Anyways, Zaspel's points seem rock-solid to me, but then again, I've never engaged in any serious dialogue on this subject before. So, for those of you who are amillennialists, I am curious: after reading this article through, why do you disagree? What drives you to hold to amillennialism? Why is Zaspel wrong?
Why would I choose to be in error? Have you seen the Highway's Eschatology section? Before becoming committed to a particular view in Eschatology I would study out the issue thoroughly, which I believe is the intent of your post..... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> Yes, Zaspel is NCT. IMO Zaspel's New Covenant Theology downplays the role of the Law in the Christian's sanctification and thus this will effect his eschatology. Zaspel's complete Eschatology section may be found here and his articles on others here.
In 1 Peter 2:9—10, the apostle gives a summary statement regarding the New Testament church. Writing to the scattered believers and churches throughout Asia Minor, Peter defines the new covenant church in terms drawn from the old covenant descriptions of the people of Israel:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.7
What is so remarkable about this description of the church is that it identifies the church with the exact terminology used in the Old Testament to describe the people of Israel with whom the Lord covenanted. The best reading of this language takes it literally to mean that the new covenant church is altogether one with the old covenant church. The Lord does not have two peculiar peoples, two holy nations, two royal priesthoods, two chosen races — he has only one, the church of Jesus Christ.
WOW!!!
That is the point exactly!!
Now go to Matthew 21: 33 - 46 and you can see the parable where the Lord told the Jews that the theocratic kingdom was going to be taken from them and given to this "new nation".
That is why I have to be Catholic. The parable shows us a kingdom which is physical, seen, and earthly. There is no warrant to understand the Church in a paradigm other than that which existed in the Old Covenant. The administration of the Church changed....the Church's nature, however, did not. It is still physical, earthly, and seen.
And that is one of many reasons why I am a Preterist.
In 1 Peter 2:9—10, the apostle gives a summary statement regarding the New Testament church. Writing to the scattered believers and churches throughout Asia Minor, Peter defines the new covenant church in terms drawn from the old covenant descriptions of the people of Israel:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.7
What is so remarkable about this description of the church is that it identifies the church with the exact terminology used in the Old Testament to describe the people of Israel with whom the Lord covenanted. The best reading of this language takes it literally to mean that the new covenant church is altogether one with the old covenant church. The Lord does not have two peculiar peoples, two holy nations, two royal priesthoods, two chosen races — he has only one, the church of Jesus Christ.
WOW!!!
That is the point exactly!!
Now go to Matthew 21: 33 - 46 and you can see the parable where the Lord told the Jews that the theocratic kingdom was going to be taken from them and given to this "new nation".
That is why I have to be Catholic. The parable shows us a kingdom which is physical, seen, and earthly. There is no warrant to understand the Church in a paradigm other than that which existed in the Old Covenant. The administration of the Church changed....the Church's nature, however, did not. It is still physical, earthly, and seen.
And that is one of many reasons why I am a Preterist.
Please provide us with Rome's authoritative, infallible interpretation of the text of Matt. 21:33–46. After all, you can't properly interpret it.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Well, I'll definately read those two articles. Anybody care to wrangle with Zaspel's exegesis? (Or perhaps, as Joe seemed to be saying, that's been done and I need to go looking...?)
There is nothing which prevents me from reading the Bible and coming to my own conclusions regarding a passage of scripture. What is prohibited is that I sit down and come up with some sort of esoteric interpretation which opposes 2000 years of teaching, much as Luther, Calvin, and the other deluded Reformers did, and then try to insist that my interpretation and not that of the Church is correct.
As far as I know, the Church allows for various eschatological interpretive grids: ammillenialism, Preterism, Post Millenialism. You could even be a Premillenialist I suppose, if you were that stupid as to be a Catholic and believe that your Church is the "whore of the book of revelation" as most premillenialists do.
We were having a fairly decent discussion on the other thread. Why all of a sudden you gotta be a wise acre?
There is nothing which prevents me from reading the Bible and coming to my own conclusions regarding a passage of scripture. What is prohibited is that I sit down and come up with some sort of esoteric interpretation which opposes 2000 years of teaching, much as Luther, Calvin, and the other deluded Reformers did, and then try to insist that my interpretation and not that of the Church is correct.
Deluded Reformers indeed! You sir are the one who is deluded. Apparently you have not understood nor embraced the Reformation. Unfortunately you are among people here on the Highway who embrace it and thank God for it.
It doesn't matter how many thousands of years the Catholic church has been in darkness the length of time doesn't make them right. The important thing is that the errors which bound the church in former times have been broken when God revealed through Luther and Calvin that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. Not of works lest any man could boast.
The Catholic church has denied that Scripture is alone God's revelation to man but has added traditions and practices which deny this truth. You will not find people here on the Highway who will tolerate this nonsense for very long.
May I suggest that you take to heart what Kyle has written here and in other threads to you. He and others have refuted every argument you've had and provided you with truth. If you refuse to accept their admonitions you sir are the poorer for it. May God have mercy on your soul.
There is nothing which prevents me from reading the Bible and coming to my own conclusions regarding a passage of scripture. What is prohibited is that I sit down and come up with some sort of esoteric interpretation which opposes 2000 years of teaching, much as Luther, Calvin, and the other deluded Reformers did, and then try to insist that my interpretation and not that of the Church is correct.
To be consistent with your position on infallible authority, you ought first to learn Rome's interpretation of any given passage, so that you may know for certain that you understand it correctly. After all, studying privately could lead you to some very dangerous conclusions, as we all know.
Quote
As far as I know, the Church allows for various eschatological interpretive grids: ammillenialism, Preterism, Post Millenialism. You could even be a Premillenialist I suppose, if you were that stupid as to be a Catholic and believe that your Church is the "whore of the book of revelation" as most premillenialists do.
Is the Pope incapable of infallibly interpreting those passages related to eschatology? If not, why does he not infallibly relate to all the meaning, so that we may no longer be in the dark about what the future holds?
Quote
We were having a fairly decent discussion on the other thread. Why all of a sudden you gotta be a wise acre?
This goes directly to the heart of your position and the position of Rome regarding her infallible ability to interpret Scripture. If you aren't looking to Rome first, then you simply cannot know whether you are understanding the meaning of Scripture properly. Note, however, that this is your own position, not mine, although I must say that I think your interpretations are off in several areas. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
To be consistent with your position on infallible authority, you ought first to learn Rome's interpretation of any given passage, so that you may know for certain that you understand it correctly. After all, studying privately could lead you to some very dangerous conclusions, as we all know.
It is one thing to come to a conclusion which is "dangerous", it is quite another to think in self-conceited pride that my interpretation is more accurate than that of 2000 years of men far more holy, wise, and learned than I. Luther didn't even know the Greek very well, yet he invented a system of justification which the Early Fathers, who spoke the languge fluently, never saw in the scriptures nor learned from the lips of the Lord Himself. Makes ya wonder.
Quote
Is the Pope incapable of infallibly interpreting those passages related to eschatology? If not, why does he not infallibly relate to all the meaning, so that we may no longer be in the dark about what the future holds
First of all, the duty of the office of the papacy is not defined in terms of coming up with new doctrine or inventing doctrine on one's own, unlike that of Protestantism which has had a penchant for that for the last 500 years.
Any doctrinal disputes are first brought to council (remember the Jerusalem Council in Acts?) and then, after a conclusion is reached, given to the Holy Father for final review and approval. The pope is not a dictator who can make up doctrine as he goes along.
Secondly, there has been no real need to define Eschatology in the same manner that there was the nature of Christ in the Nicene Council. This is perhaps because any understanding of Eschatology ultimately has little bearing on one's salvation, whereas the understanding of Who Jesus is has a major and profound impact on one's salvation.
Quote
Note, however, that this is your own position, not mine, although I must say that I think your interpretations are off in several areas.
Well, I'm a convinced Preterist. I hear that a lot.
Ummm... I know theat everybody is entitled to their beliefs, but I really don't want this thread to get high-jacked. Perhaps discussing Catholic eschatology would be better suited on another thread. I'd still love to see some interaction with Zaspel's exegesis itself.
It is one thing to come to a conclusion which is "dangerous", it is quite another to think in self-conceited pride that my interpretation is more accurate than that of 2000 years of men far more holy, wise, and learned than I. Luther didn't even know the Greek very well, yet he invented a system of justification which the Early Fathers, who spoke the languge fluently, never saw in the scriptures nor learned from the lips of the Lord Himself. Makes ya wonder.
Do you yourself know Greek well enough to interpret the writings of the Greek Fathers in the original? If not, I suggest you lay off Luther, because you can hardly tell us what precisely they even believed. And, at any rate, you rely on Rome for it.
Quote
First of all, the duty of the office of the papacy is not defined in terms of coming up with new doctrine or inventing doctrine on one's own, unlike that of Protestantism which has had a penchant for that for the last 500 years.
Oh, please. It's a wonder you were ever a Protestant seeing how desperately you misunderstand and misrepresent Protestantism.
Quote
Any doctrinal disputes are first brought to council (remember the Jerusalem Council in Acts?) and then, after a conclusion is reached, given to the Holy Father for final review and approval. The pope is not a dictator who can make up doctrine as he goes along.
I don't see Peter acting as the final reviewer of the Jerusalem Council's declarations, do you? In fact, if any one person acted as final arbiter, it rather seems that it was James. But guess what? Within Protestant denominational bodies, doctrinal disputes are frequently brought before a general assembly of the church. That's how the Presbyterians do it, is it not?
Quote
Secondly, there has been no real need to define Eschatology in the same manner that there was the nature of Christ in the Nicene Council. This is perhaps because any understanding of Eschatology ultimately has little bearing on one's salvation, whereas the understanding of Who Jesus is has a major and profound impact on one's salvation.
The question of whether there existed a necessity is not what I'm after. What I'm after is why the Pope does not use the power of his infallible office to finally teach the church the definite eschatological truths revealed in Scripture, thus to further edify and unify the church.
Quote
Quote
Note, however, that this is your own position, not mine, although I must say that I think your interpretations are off in several areas.
Well, I'm a convinced Preterist. I hear that a lot.
I wasn't after your preterism.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
In 1 Peter 2:9—10, the apostle gives a summary statement regarding the New Testament church. Writing to the scattered believers and churches throughout Asia Minor, Peter defines the new covenant church in terms drawn from the old covenant descriptions of the people of Israel:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.7
What is so remarkable about this description of the church is that it identifies the church with the exact terminology used in the Old Testament to describe the people of Israel with whom the Lord covenanted. The best reading of this language takes it literally to mean that the new covenant church is altogether one with the old covenant church. The Lord does not have two peculiar peoples, two holy nations, two royal priesthoods, two chosen races — he has only one, the church of Jesus Christ.
Most historic premill folks (and progressive dispy folks for that matter) will agree that there is only ONE people of God and that national/ethnic Israel, as they currently stand in unbelief, are enemies of the cross. This argument kinda proves that air exists. Most of these articles attack dispensationalism, but never take the time to interact with historic premill or with the fact that Paul's entire talk in Romans 9-11 has to do with his sadness for his brethren according to the flesh - ETHNIC ISRAEL. Even in the beginnings of chapter 11, it's clear that's who he's talking about. And although all Israel is NOT presently saved (only a remnant, if one believes Romans 11), eventually all Israel WILL be saved (25-26).
Let us not be so ready to throw away good theology (premillennialism) along with bad theology (dispensationalism).
OS_X quipped: And although all Israel is NOT presently saved (only a remnant, if one believes Romans 11), eventually all Israel WILL be saved (25-26).
That begs the question, which is who or what is the "Israel" that Paul is referring to in verse 26? Does God have a "special" love for the nation of Israel? or does God's love and future belong to spiritual Israel, i.e., those whose father is Abraham by faith in Christ? (Gal 3:29)
I would contend the latter and believe that Lee Iron's has rightly exegeted Rom 11:26 as opposed to those of all camps who think that physical Israel has a special role in God's eschaton.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)