ECT Dispensationalism and the Teachings of Christ and Paul On the Pharisee Religion

[northwye]

Dispensationalism and the Teachings of Christ and Paul On the Religion of the Pharisees

In Philippians 3: 2-9 Paul says "Beware of dogs, beware of
evil workers, beware of the concision. 3. For we are the
circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ
Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4.Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other
man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5. Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe
of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a
Pharisee;
6. Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the
righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7.But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency
of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the
loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9.And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is
of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith:"

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says concision is from
katatome, number 2699, a cutting down, to mutilate.

Jesus Christ teaches in Matthew 16: 6, "Take heed and beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." In Matthew 9: 11 the Phrisees
complained that Christ ate with publicans and sinners. They, however, did not
interact with non-religious people. Christ didn't avoid sinners, he knew he had
to interact with them in order to give them the truth.

Christ says directly to the Pharisees in John 8: 44 "Ye are of your
father the devil..."

The religion of the Pharisees didn't end at the Cross. It has continued on to the present time.

On http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt01.html

they say "the missing link in Christian understanding on the subject
of "Pharisees" is best supplied by the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
(1943): The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without
a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading
ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent,
of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the
largest and most important single piece of that literature … and the
study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.

Concerning the Pharisees, the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia says: With the
destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.) the Sadducees disappeared
altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands
of the Pharisees. Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the
Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the
Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin
of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older priestly
tradition (Abot 1:1). Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and
the life and thought of the Jew for all the future."

In Christ's time the Pharisees were the leaders of most of the Jews.
There were a small number of Jews who were faithful to the Lord, such
as the two mentioned in
Luke 2: 25 and 2: 36, Simeon and Anna, and others. In modern times, as
the sources quoted above say,
Talmudic Judaism is derived from the religion of the Pharisees of the
First Century.

Talmudic Judaism is fundamentally based upon the bloodline. This is
an interpretation of Genesis 13: 16, Exodus 32: 13, and Numbers 23:
10. Genesis 17 presents the promises of God to Abraham that he and
Sarah will have a child, Isaac, even though she was too old to have
children. "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."

Genesis 17: 10-11 says "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."

Talmudic Judaism, from the First Century Pharisees, is not the remnant of Old Covenant Israel seen in Romans 11: 1-5. This remnant of Old Covenant Israel was transformed and made into a new creation by the Holy Spirit. It was made by Christ into the beginnings of the New Covenant.

Talmudic Judaism then can be seen as being the multitude of Old Covenant Israel.

Dispensationalists place emphasis upon their interpretation of Romans 11: 25-26, that it is the multitude of Israel of the flesh (I Corinthians 10: 18) that is the "all Israel shall be saved."

And the founders of dispensationalism taught that Old Covenant Israel, apparently the multitude, rather than a remnant, is to continue to exist.

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..

John Darby 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, or Old Covenant Israel. The church, for Darby exists mainly to "give fuller character and meaning to all physical Israel."

Dispensationalism becomes Another Gospel (II Corinthians 11: 4) when it changes the New Testament doctrines given in Hebrews 8: 6-7, 13 and II Corinthians 3: 7-11 and postulates that Old Covenant Israel will continue and be fully restored sometime in the future.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And the founders of dispensationalism taught that Old Covenant Israel, apparently the multitude, rather than a remnant, is to continue to exist.

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..

The following prophecies represent an integral part the promises which were made by the LORD in regard to Israel and the land:

"My eyes will watch over them for their good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up and not tear them down; I will plant them and not uproot them" (Jer.24:6).​

The LORD promises that He will bring the Israelites back to the land and will not uproot them. We see the same promises repeated by the prophet Amos:

"I will bring my people Israel back from exile.'They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,' says the LORD your God" (Amos 9:14-15).​

These prophecies were certainly not fulfilled at any time in the first century because as late as the second Jewish revolt (A. D. 132-135) the Jews were excluded from Jerusalem upon penalty of death.

Now let us look at the "land" promises of the LORD under the Davidic covenant:

"Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David...I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime" (2 Sam.7:8,10).​

There has never been a time when the children of Israel were brought back to the land which the LORD gave to Jacob and were moved no more, unless that prophecy is being fulfilled right now. And there has never been a time when they were brought back to the land and were moved no more and the Israelites were not afflicted by their enemies because at this time they are being afflicted by their enemies. Therefore, we can understand that in the future these prophecies concerning Israel and the land will be fulfilled. After all, the LORD said that He would not alter the promises He made to David and He also said that He will not lie to David:

"I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant...I will not take my love from him, nor will I ever betray my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered. Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness-- and I will not lie to David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).​

According to those who deny the basic teaching of dispensationalism concerning Israel and the promised land the LORD lied to David because they teach that He will never fulfill the promises which He made to David concerning the land.

 

[northwye]

Many Dispensationalists saw the creation of the nation of Israel in 1948 as a fulfillment of the land promise.

Clearly the creation of the nation of Israel in 1948 did not involve a spiritual awakening in the Talmudic Judaism in that nation.

Nor did the creation of the nation of Israel involve a restoration of the Temple, animal sacrifice, etc of Old Covenant Israel before Christ.

What Romans 11: 25 is thought by dispensationalists to mean is that when all the Gentiles are saved that God intends to save, then there will be a spiritual restoration of Israel, not as a return to the Temple, animal sacrifice etc system, but that Israel will accept Christ then and be transformed as were that Remnant in Romans 11: 1-5.

There is a huge difference between restoring Old Covenant physical Israel as it existed before Christ and for Israel to be saved by faith in Christ, when their unbelief will become belief. There is confusion here by dispensationalism.

Rejecting New Covenant doctrine such as Hebrews 8 and II Corinthians 3 is a serious thing.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Many Dispensationalists saw the creation of the nation of Israel in 1948 as a fulfillment of the land promise.

Why do you change the subject and just ignore the verses which I quoted, especially the LORD's promise to David concerning the land?

 

[northwye]

The dialectic works better when one liners or just a few lines are focused upon. This is why those who use the dialectic separate out only small portions of an opponent's post to focus upon.

The use of the dialectic on TOL by dispensationalists is interesting. The dialectic is a way of making an argument or a quarrel - in a somewhat systematic way. It is making an argument and counter arguments, all within a dialogue. If you get into the didactic, then this is a violating of the rules of engagement of the dialectic, and if your argument has several points this is seen by the opponent also as a kind of violation of the rules of engagement.

And the object of the dialectic is to continue the argument or quarrel, so that there is an opportunity to gradually move the opponent off his position, which in the case of New Testament doctrine as the thesis and dispensationalist doctrine as the opposition or anti-thesis is to make New Testament doctrine less and less believable and dispensationalist doctrine more and more believable. This is all done by the dispensationalist while he tries to avoid directly dealing with what the New Testament verses supporting a doctrine say, that is, what the meaning of New Testament texts is.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The dialectic works better when one liners or just a few lines are focused upon. This is why those who use the dialectic separate out only small portions of an opponent's post to focus upon.

Why do you change the subject and just ignore the verses which I quoted, especially the LORD's promise to David concerning the land?

 

[northwye]

I am not a dispensationalist and so am not bound by the rules of engagement of the dialectic. I do try to avoid attacking others personally.

 

[glorydaz]

The dialectic works better when one liners or just a few lines are focused upon. This is why those who use the dialectic separate out only small portions of an opponent's post to focus upon.

The use of the dialectic on TOL by dispensationalists is interesting. The dialectic is a way of making an argument or a quarrel - in a somewhat systematic way. It is making an argument and counter arguments, all within a dialogue. If you get into the didactic, then this is a violating of the rules of engagement of the dialectic, and if your argument has several points this is seen by the opponent also as a kind of violation of the rules of engagement.

And the object of the dialectic is to continue the argument or quarrel, so that there is an opportunity to gradually move the opponent off his position, which in the case of New Testament doctrine as the thesis and dispensationalist doctrine as the opposition or anti-thesis is to make New Testament doctrine less and less believable and dispensationalist doctrine more and more believable. This is all done by the dispensationalist while he tries to avoid directly dealing with what the New Testament verses supporting a doctrine say, that is, what the meaning of New Testament texts is.

Rather it's a way to highlight a sentence within a sentence that too many people miss.

It's easy to get lost along the way from the beginning of a sentence to it's end. Focus is very important.

 

[northwye]

"Rather it's a way to highlight a sentence within a sentence that too many people miss.

It's easy to get lost along the way from the beginning of a sentence to it's end. Focus is very important. "

Yes, many people now have short attention spans, and are unable to make much sense of a chapter long essay because of their short attention spans, or understand a longer sentence.

Short attention span may help prevent many people from understanding what the dialectic is. But even those who have somewhat longer attention spans may have a hard time in understanding what the dialectic is.

There is probably very little cognitive experience that helps people learn what the dialectic is.

Dean Gotcher says the dialectic is argument from one's feelings rather than from the use of commonsense logic in making arguments.

Gotcher points this out in one of his Audios on Carl Rogers. Gotcher said that Abraham H. Maslow created theories about the self-actualized person, and on other topics of Humanistic Psychology, but that Rogers practiced the dialectic in his psychotherapy. Rogers was a major leader of the Encounter Group Movement. Rogers was earlier a psychotherapist who used a procedure similar to the dialectic. Rogers was interested in how people feel about something or someone, not in how they think about things.

Yet on Christian forums the use of the dialectic is more deliberate and systematic as a procedure to win in a quarrel.

 

[glorydaz]

"Rather it's a way to highlight a sentence within a sentence that too many people miss.

It's easy to get lost along the way from the beginning of a sentence to it's end. Focus is very important. "

Yes, many people now have short attention spans, and are unable to make much sense of a chapter long essay because of their short attention spans, or understand a longer sentence.

Short attention span may help prevent many people from understanding what the dialectic is. But even those who have somewhat longer attention spans may have a hard time in understanding what the dialectic is.

There is probably very little cognitive experience that helps people learn what the dialectic is.

Dean Gotcher says the dialectic is argument from one's feelings rather than from the use of commonsense logic in making arguments.

Gotcher points this out in one of his Audios on Carl Rogers. Gotcher said that Abraham H. Maslow created theories about the self-actualized person, and on other topics of Humanistic Psychology, but that Rogers practiced the dialectic in his psychotherapy. Rogers was a major leader of the Encounter Group Movement. Rogers was earlier a psychotherapist who used a procedure similar to the dialectic. Rogers was interested in how people feel about something or someone, not in how they think about things.

A short attention span has nothing to do with why a Dispensationalist will highlight words or sentences within a post. It's because people have certain texts over and over and still fail to see the treasure within. It's a matter of FOCUSE.

 

[northwye]

"Liberals don’t believe there is such a thing as “fact” or “truth.”
Everything is a struggle for power between rival doctrines." Ann Coulter

Though the content of argument is different between the political and the religious, the procedure of the dialectic can be similar.

"A short attention span has nothing to do with why a Dispensationalist will highlight words or sentences within a post."

This is an example of the dialectic in not accurately representing something that was said, such as understanding what the dialectic is.

 

[glorydaz]

"Liberals don’t believe there is such a thing as “fact” or “truth.”
Everything is a struggle for power between rival doctrines." Ann Coulter

Though the content of argument is different between the political and the religious, the procedure of the dialectic can be similar.

"A short attention span has nothing to do with why a Dispensationalist will highlight words or sentences within a post."

This is an example of the dialectic in not accurately representing something that was said, such as understanding what the dialectic is.

And that pertains to Dispensationalists how?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And the founders of dispensationalism taught that Old Covenant Israel, apparently the multitude, rather than a remnant, is to continue to exist.

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..

The following prophecies represent an integral part the promises which were made by the LORD in regard to Israel and the land:

"My eyes will watch over them for their good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up and not tear them down; I will plant them and not uproot them" (Jer.24:6).​

The LORD promises that He will bring the Israelites back to the land and will not uproot them. We see the same promises repeated by the prophet Amos:

"I will bring my people Israel back from exile.'They will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,' says the LORD your God" (Amos 9:14-15).​

These prophecies were certainly not fulfilled at any time in the first century because as late as the second Jewish revolt (A. D. 132-135) the Jews were excluded from Jerusalem upon penalty of death.

Now let us look at the "land" promises of the LORD under the Davidic covenant:

"Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David...I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime" (2 Sam.7:8,10).​

There has never been a time when the children of Israel were brought back to the land which the LORD gave to Jacob and were moved no more, unless that prophecy is being fulfilled right now. And there has never been a time when they were brought back to the land and were moved no more and the Israelites were not afflicted by their enemies because at this time they are being afflicted by their enemies. Therefore, we can understand that in the future these prophecies concerning Israel and the land will be fulfilled. After all, the LORD said that He would not alter the promises He made to David and He also said that He will not lie to David:

"I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant...I will not take my love from him, nor will I ever betray my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered. Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness-- and I will not lie to David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).​

According to those who deny the basic teaching of dispensationalism concerning Israel and the promised land the LORD lied to David because they teach that He will never fulfill the promises which He made to David concerning the land.

 

[northwye]

A question was asked a few posts back what the dialectic has to do with dispensationalism.

What exactly is being asked about the relation between the dialectic and didpensationalism? The dialectic refers to a way of making an argument, while dispensationalism is a Church theology which has changed some of the fundamental doctrines of the New Testament, and so it is a set of doctrines, not a method for promoting those doctrines.

The question could be asked about what is the relation between the dialectic as a way of making an argument and the doctrines of dispensationalism.

But as Gotcher points out below the dialectic is more than just a method of making an argument. The dialectic is also a rebellion against the authority of God and his Word. Its an attitude.

I want to go back to the expert on the dialectic Dean Gotcher. I don't know what Gotcher's original theological or denominational affiliations were. I know that he was trained in one or more Protestant Bible College in Christian Education, and that he is in his mid or late sixties. He is from Kansas.

https://www.authorityresearch.com/A...he_Great_Commission_is_didactic_not_dialectic.

"The Great Commission is didactic not dialectic.
Church Growth and Emerging Church ministers are getting it wrong.
They are by their own nature Apostate (using the diaprax method: substituting teaching truth with dialoguing opinions).

They error, not knowing the scriptures.
Matthew 28:19, 20

"Go ye therefore, and teach (μάθητεϋώ: to instruct, make disciples, make pupils of) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching (διδάσκώ: didasko, i.e. didactic; to impart instruction, instill doctrine, to explain or expound, to teach) them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen" Matthew 28:19, 20

There is no middle ground (room for discourse) in a didactic, deductive, patriarchal paradigm (commands based). Break one part of the law and you break it all. Discourse will not change the outcome, only repentance will. The situation is antithesis, dualism; obey me and you will be blessed or disobey me and you will be cursed, black or white, right or wrong, heaven or hell, sheep or goats, saved or lost, Christ or Belial, something is one way and can not be any other way, etc. Except or repentance, we have nothing we can bring before God for our disobedience. We most recognize and praxis our total dependence upon him for our obedience.

"Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known." Deuteronomy 11:26-28 Deuteronomy 27:15-26

The Great Deception is dialectic.

While truth liberates (frees the soul from man's temporal, enslaving carnal nature), truth also alienates (frees the soul from the acceptance of those who seek harmony/peace with the world, i.e. man's temporal, carnal nature).

Didactic Paradigm: God (our creator) is the measure of all things.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:4

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 1 Corinthians 3:18-19

"For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." Galatians 6:3

Dialectic Paradigm: Man (the creation) is the measure of all things.

"Every class lacks the breadth of soul which identifies it with the soul of the people, that revolutionary boldness which flings at its adversary the defiant phrase; I am nothing and I should be everything." "The only practically possible emancipation is the unique theory which holds that man is the supreme being for man." Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'

"Man has only to understand himself, to take himself as the measure of all aspects of life, to judge according to his being, to organise the world in a truly human manner according to the demands of his own nature, and he will have solved the riddle of our time. But there is no other salvation for him, he cannot regain his humanity, his substance, other than by thoroughly overcoming all religious ideas and returning firmly and honestly, not to 'God', but to himself." Frederick Engels The Condition of England A review of Past and Present, by Thomas Carlyle, London, 1843 Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, 1844"

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Your method of interpreting the Scriptures is to believe everything in the Bible which agrees with your preconceived ideas and to ignore everything that doesn't.

 

[northwye]

Gotcher writes that "THE DIALECTICAL PROCESS IS SO-CALLED SCIENCE

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20, 21

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. 1 Corinthians 3:18-21

In the didactic, patriarchal paradigm analysis reveals whether you know the truth, whether you heard it (ears that can hear―faith comes by hearing), and whether you comprehend the truth (based upon obedience, not based upon intellectual-experiential understanding, i.e. Gnostic). You must obey the truth (faith, belief), and apply the truth as directed (be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only)."

"Obedience towards God is not possible in our flesh, it is only available to us in the person of God's Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, who sanctifies us (Jesus as Lord), can only dwell within us when we have been redeemed by the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus (Jesus as Savior). The Son of God redeems us from condemnation, condemnation upon all who either reject God and his law or try to obey it in their own effort, i.e. legalism or licentiousness. What is not possible in our natural self is only possible in God's work in us, i.e. we are saved by faith and not by works. "

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You obviously care nothing about an intellectual discussion on this subject.

 

[northwye]

As far as I know Dean Gotcher has not dealt specifically with dispensationalism, unlike James Lloyd who is under the influence of Gotcher.

But Gotcher provides us with a very good set of ideas for revealing the rebellion of dispensationalism against some basic New Testament doctrines. The Protestant doctrines which we inherited came out of the Reformation which grew from the work of Bible scholars of the Northern Renaissance - or Erasmus. After the original work of men like Martin Luther, William Tyndale and John Calvin, successors created a more systematic partly man made theology from that original work, and part of this systematic theology is known as Five Point Calvinism. Dispensationalism was a man made systematic theology from its start.

See https://www.authorityresearch.com/Articles/Dialectical Christianity.html

"Dialectical Christianity: the praxis of heresy, by Dean Gotcher" By the Greek "praxis"
he means practice.

Gotcher does not get into any specific practice of heresy, of which
dispensationalism is one type, though the most popular now. Heresy has to be defined as holding to doctrines that are contrary to the doctrines of the New Testament, and/or oppose some basic doctrines of the New Testament - such as the doctrines given in Hebrews 8: 6-7, 13 and II Corinthians 3: 7-11

In the New Testament heresy is used four times, in Acts 24: 14, I Corinthians 11: 19, in Galatians 5: 20 and in II Peter 2: 1. For example II Peter 2: 1 says "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

Heresies is from αιρεσεις. See https://biblehub.com/greek/139.htm

"(Strong"s Number) 139. hairesis, Definition: choice, opinion
Usage: a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention."

Then Dean Gotcher says "Dialectical trickery can only be accomplished by shifting a person's paradigm from an obedience-based environment (Jesus Christ in the wilderness) to an evaluation based environment."

Gotcher uses Genesis 3: 1-7 as an example of Dialectical Trickery."

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

"Example of dialectical trickery used in the court system.

The Law:
"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic friction's and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, (1941)

The dialectical trickery of the court
"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, (1973)"

The dialectic is opposition to God and to the Word of God, including the morals stated in the word of God. Our Common Law was substantially derived from that Moral Law given by God. But the Supreme Court decision in 1973 making abortion legal in the U.S. was based upon a rebellion against God and his Word and moral law, as the legalization of abortion was based upon the eugenics movement.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But Gotcher provides us with a very good set of ideas for revealing the rebellion of dispensationalism against some basic New Testament doctrines.

Like what?

What does Gotcher say about the meaning of Paul's words in the following passage?:

"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. 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" (Ro.11:25-26).​

 

[northwye]

On Romans 11: 25-26 I am not sure that Gotcher would say. I will ask him and see if he will answer.

I am pretty sure he knows what Calvin's view of Romans 11: 25-26 is, though I do not think he is a follower of Calvin in general.

Romans 11: 26, is a text which has to be interpreted by use of other texts in Romans 11, especially Romans 11: 17-24. If interpreted as dispensationalism does, as standing alone, and as saying that "all Israel" is the multitude of physical Israel, then there is a contradiction with Romans 11: 17-24. How can some of Old Covenant Israel, as a multitude, be broken off the Good Olive Tree, but then all the Multitude of Old Covenant Israel are saved. This has to be interpreted by common sense logic, which is what Calvin does in saying that in verse 26 "all Israel" refers to all who are saved, which would agree with what Paul says in Galatians 6: 15-16 that all those who are a new creation - regardless of their genetics - belong to the Israel of God. But being in rebellion against this kind of doctrine, dispensationalism cannot go there.