An Example of the Use of the Dialectic To Argue Against Scripture

Posted : 13 Mar, 2013 07:31 AM

What is the dialectic? It is something that is not easy to understand

when the concept is new to a person.



In the dialectic as seen by Hegel, there is first the thesis and then

its opposition, the anti-thesis, and finally the synthesis.



This opposition can be seen also as absolute truth or absolute

morality being the thesis, and emotional attachments to relationships

the anti-thesis. The synthesis in Transformational Marxism is a

victory for feelings, for relationships over absolute truth and

absolute morality.



The absolute truth given to us in scripture by God the Holy Spirit is

fact. But facts, as the thesis in a debate, can threaten people's

relationships. And people have strong feelings about their

relationships. Many Christians have strong feelings toward their

churches, their pastors and priests, and have loved ones in their

congregations.



When truth conflicts with feelings, the feelings are the anti-thesis.

Among the movements within American psychology of the fifties and

sixties that the Transformational Marxism led by the professors of the

German Frankfurt School made use of was the self psychology of Carl R.

Rogers and A.H. Maslow. Carl Rogers taught that feelings are most

important, and are more important than knowing or cognitive

competence. Rogers always referred his clients back to "what do you

feel?"



When the feelings of relationships with theologies, with

denominations, churches and people in these structures conflict with

the facts of scripture, then the dialectic process of argument against

the facts often begins.



Here is an example of a possible use of the dialectic to argue against

some of Paul's doctrines as part of his revelation given him by the

risen Christ (Acts 26: 15-18).



John Darby, the father of the man made theology called

dispensationalism, said that the

"Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no place on the

earth... [Though] making a most constructive parenthesis, it forms no

part of the regular order of God's earthly plans, but is merely an

interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to

them..."



John. N. Darby, 'The Character of Office in The Present Dispensation'

Collected Writings., Eccl. I, Vol. I, p. 94.



"Them" are all physical Israel. The church, for Darby exists to "give

fuller character and meaning to all physical Israel." Darby, known as

the Father of dispensationalism, thought that the purpose of the

Christian church, the ekklesia as a meeting, assembly or congregation

of Israel reborn in Christ, the Israel of God, made into The Body of

Christ like the Catholic capital C Church, was to honor all physical

Israel. The dispensationalists say that God's people the Jews are

earthy. They are involved in physical and literal things, like the

blood sacrifice of animals, a literal bloodline from Abraham,

circumcision, and a physical temple building.



Lewis S. Chafer, follower of C.I. Scofield and founder of Dallas

Theological Seminary, insists that dispensationalism: "... has

changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting

writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both

the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity

to come.."

Lewis. S. Chafer, �Dispensationalism,� Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October

1936), 410, 416, 446-447



So, Chafer tells us that the man made theology called

dispensationalism made scripture into an "easily assimilated" system.

And since this man made theology is easier to understand and remember

than the complexity of scripture, with some disagreements between

teachings under thd Old Covenant with doctrines in the New Testament.

But in simplifying the doctrines of scripture, John Darby, C.I.

Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer themselves decided that physical Israel

remains God's chosen people, a man made doctrine that does not accept

or understand the transformation of physical Israel into an Israel

reborn in Jesus Christ (John 3: 1-7).



Charles Ryrie writes in his book, Dispensationalism Today (Moody,

1965, pp. 44, 45):

"The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is

pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly

people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the

other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly

objectives involved, which is Christianity� . . . This is probably the

most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a

dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and

conclusive. A man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will

inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who

does, will."



J. Dwight Pentecost is another dispensationalist theologian who in his

book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church

and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.

The church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament. This mystery

program must be completed before God can resume His program with

Israel and bring it to completion. These considerations all arise from

a literal method of interpretation."

(page 193, J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965).



Charles C. Ryrie (born 1925) says:

"basic promise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed

in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction

throughout eternity." Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today,

1966, pp.44-45.



In his book, Dispensationalism (1966), Charles Ryrie says "The

essence of Dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel

and the church."

(page 3, "Dispensationalism")



"The nature of the church is a crucial point of difference between

classic, or normative, dispensationalism and other doctrinal systems.

Indeed, ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church, is the touchstone

of dispensationalism(and also of pretribulationalism)."

(page 123, Charles Ryrie Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press,

[1966], 1995)



In classical dispensationalism God has two groups of people, all

physical Israel, who

remain the chosen people, and the ekklesia, the meeting, the assembly,

which William Tyndale

consistently translated as congregation, and not as church.



The classical dispensationalists - John Darby, C.I. Scofield, and Lewis

S. Chafer - insist that "Israel" in scripture

always means physical Israel, the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac and

Jacob. Israel, for the dispensationalists cannot mean anything other

than all physical

Israel. And the dispensationalists do not separate the remnant of

physical Israel,

which Hebrews 11 identifies as being a small number who had faith,

from the various forms

of false doctrines and false practices of physical Israel, including

Talmudic Judaism, and the religion of the Pharisees of Christ's time.



Suppose that a Christian who wants to follow scripture instead of man

made theology points out that Jesus Christ in John 10: 16, teaches as

fact that "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them

also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be

one fold and one shepherd."



The Christian who has a love for the truth of God's word instead of

man made theology might also cite Paul in Romans 12: 4, I Corinthians

10: 17, Galatians 3: 28, Ephesians 2: 14-16, and Ephesians 4: 4 all of

which say there is one Body of Christ, not two.



For example, Paul in Romans 12; 4 says "For as we have many members in

one body, and all members have not the same office:" And "There is

neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is

neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3: 28



"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the

middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh

the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for

to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross,

having slain the enmity thereby:" Ephesians 2: 14-16



And in Ephesians 4: 4 Paul says "There is one body, and one Spirit,

even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;"



Here is where the dialectic may begin as an argument against the facts

of scripture and "it is written," in order to defend the man made

theology and its follower's feeling relatrionship with that theology."



The defender of the theology of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S.

Chafer will say that God is going to save physical Israel in the

future, and then there will be one fold, and one Body of Christ. The

defender of the theology may or may not cite scripture which he thinks

proves that God will save physical Israel in the future.



The problem is that no matter what the defender of dispensationalism

says in trying to argue against the doctrine of the New Testament that

there is one body, the New Testament doctrine that Christ has one

fold, one body,is still fact. He has not overthrown the doctrine by

his dialectic.



Romans 11: 25-26 says "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be

ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;

that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the

Gentiles be come in.

26.And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall

come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from

Jacob:"



Is this a prophecy saying that sometime in the future all Israel,

meaning all Jews, or all living then, or some of those living at that

time will be saved as those under the influence of John Darby, C.I.

Scofield, Lewis S. Chafer and others of dispensationalism have said?

Or, do we interpret Romans 11: 25-26 by other scripture?



The issue of Romans 11: 26, "All Israel shall be saved," is which

Israel is Paul taking about? He is not exaggerating and saying all

Israel will be saved to make his point. We have to assume he means

everyone of one of these Israels shall be saved. All who belong to the

elect are of Israel reborn in Christ (John 3: 1-7), and all who are

saved are of Israel. The theology of Darby and others. however,

insists that when Israel appears in scripture, it must always mean

physical Israel.



Remember that John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer stated as

one of the starting assumptions of their theology that the word Israel

must always mean physical Israel, and never another Israel, the one

reborn in Jesus Christ (John 3: 1-7). Paul almost always means

physical Israel when he uses the word Israel. But his statement that

"And so all Israel shall be saved" can be seen to show us that here he

is not talking about physical Israel, but the other Israel he wrotes

about in Romans 9: 6-8, in Galatians 4: 25-26, and supported by Romans

2: 23-29.



However, Paul is not teaching that God has two Israels as his people,

or two saved Israels. He is not saying God has two Israels, but is

talking about physical Israel as a house different from Israel reborn

in Christ. Paul is teaching that there is one saved Israel, one saved

Body of Christ, as he says in Romans 9: 8, "That is, they which are of

the flesh, these are not the children of God." And he affirms in

several texts which are listed above that there is one Body of Christ,

not two.



"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are

not all Israel, which are of Israel. Neither, because they are the

seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed

be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these

are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are

counted for the seed." Romans 9: 6-8



In I Corinthians 10: 18 he writes also about "Israel after the flesh."

Here again, he is saying that physical Israel is different from

another Israel he identifies in Romans 9: 8, in Romans 2: 28-29 and in

Galatians 4; 25-26.



"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the

one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem

which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us

all." Galatians 4: 24-24



Paul is using Jerusalem as a metaphor for Israel. There are two

Israels here to make the point that physical Israel is not the Israel

of God. The Israel of God (Galatians 6: 16) is the Jerusalem which

is above, is free, and is the mother of us all. Physical Israel is

not the mother of Paul after his conversion on the Road to Damascus

and after the risen Christ gave him the revelation shown in Acts 26:

16-18.



Romans 2: 23-29 says "Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through

breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is

blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if

thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law,

shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the

law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress

the law?

28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that

circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that

of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is

not of men, but of God."



Again, Paul is using a kind of metaphor, here the Jew, to stand for

Israel. And again, as in Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 4: 25-26 Paul

presents two Israels, one old physical Israel, and the other Israel

reborn in Christ. The true Jew, the true person of Israel reborn in

Christ is a Jew inwardly, in the spirit, but a Jew outwardly, that is,

one who is only a physical Jew, and not reborn in Christ, is not a

true Jew any longer.



The defender of dispensationalism may continue the quarrel by saying

that Paul in Romans 11: 23-24 says "And they also, if they abide not

still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them

in again. For it thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by

nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree:

how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted

into their own olive tree?" to support the theory that physical

Israel will be saved at a future time. But Paul is not talking about

the entire house of Israel being grafted back into that olive tree all

at once in the future. He is saying that individuals of physical

Israel can be reborn in Christ and saved and he welcomes them because

he has a desire for them to be saved.



In Romans 11, Paul tells us that because of unbelief those in

physical Israel were broken off the good olive tree whose root is

Jesus Christ (Romans 11: 16). Romans 11: 17, 19, 20 say that "because

of unbelief they were broken off." "They" are those in physical Israel

who rejected Christ and his doctrines, or Gospel. And in Romans 11: 5

Paul says at that time there was a remnant according to the election

of grace. He means that only a small number in physical Israel

accepted Christ. And that only a remnant accepted Christ means that

more were broken off than were made members of the elect. However,

Matthew 15: 24, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of

Israel" was fulfilled in the remnant which accepted Christ in the

First Century.



In Romans 11, when a member of physical Israel is transformed by being

born again in Christ, and comes out of the Old Covenant and its shadow

(Hebrews 10: 1, Colossians 2: 17) practices and doctrines - entry into

the kingdom of God by a literal and physical blood line from Abraham,

animal sacrifices, circumcision, the temple system, etc - he continues

being in Israel. But those of physical Israel in Romans 11: 17,

19, and 20 who rejected Christ were cut off. "Behold, your house is

left unto you desolate." Matthew 23: 38



Those as a remnant of physical Israel who accepted Christ continue in

Israel, but this is now Israel reborn in Christ, the Israel of God

(Galatians 6: 16). After this happens, there is no more physical

Israel as a people of God. Has God gone back on his promises to

Israel (Numbers 14: 34)? No, he changed Israel, and allowed all those

in old physical Israel to enter into that changed Israel who would

accept Christ.



There is an answer to the apparent contradiction in scripture between

God's statements about Israel being his inheritance (Isaiah 19: 25),

and that he will have mercy on Jacob and choose Israel (Isaiah 14: 1)

and the statements that God has divorced Israel (Isaiah 50: 1),

Jeremiah 3: 8), and that the end is come on Israel and that God will

destroy Israel (Amos 8: 2, Amos 9: 8-9), that Jerusalem (Israel) is

left desolate (Matthew 23: 38), that the children of the kingdom shall

be cast out into outer darkness" (Matthew 8: 11-12), and the

statement

of Christ in Matthew 15: 24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of

the house of Israel, indicating that physical Israel as a house then

was then lost.



Remember that Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has

"...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting

writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both

the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity

to come.." Part of what Chafer thought was "a mass of more or less

conflicting writings" is the contradictions between the doctrines of

the Old Covenant and those of the New Covenant. Hebrews 10: 9 says

"He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Christ

did away with the Old Covenant and established the New Covenant, in

which physical Israel was transformed.



The theology of Darby, Scofield and Chafer leads people

away from seeing the answer to this apparent contradiction because the

theology does not acknowledge that in the change from the Old Covenant

to the New, Israel was re-defined by God and the chosen people are no

longer physical Israel but that Israel of I Peter 2: 5-9 which is a

spiritual house. The chosen people, or chosen generation, in I Peter

2: 9 are the Christians.



Physical Israel was transformed into the spiritual house of I Peter 2:

5, which can also be called Israel reborn in Jesus Christ, the Israel

of God (Galatians 6: 16) and all Israel of Romans 11: 26. God turned

Israel upside down. But the theology of Darby et al has tried to turn

it back the way it was before God turned it upside down.



Starting in II Kings 21: 13, then moving to Isaiah 29: 16, which

points to the parable of the potter of Jeremiah 18: 1-6, there is in

the Old Testament a thread of prophecy about the coming transformation

of physical Israel to what Peter in I Peter 2: 5-9 calls a spiritual

house. Hosea 2: 23 is one part of this thread on the transformation of

Israel. God said in the Old Testament that he was going to bring

non-Jews into his kingdom.



"And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the

plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man

wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down." II Kings 21:

13



"Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and

turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants

thereof." Isaiah 24: 1



"Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the

potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me

not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no

understanding?" Isaiah 29: 16



Isaiah 29: 16 refers back to II Kings 21: 13 and forward to Jeremiah 18: 1-6.



"The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise, and go

down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my

words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he

wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was

marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel,

as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord

came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this

potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand,

so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel." Jeremiah 18: 1-6



In the parable of the potter God the potter made one pot on his

potter's wheel which was marred and he then figuratively took that

same lump of clay and made a different and better pot. God did not

set aside the first pot which was marred and replace it with another

pot. He re-made the first pot out of the same clay, meaning he

re-made physical Israel into a spiritual house reborn in Jesus Christ.

To say this this is replacement theology is false.

Post Reply