6th Day 53%! Bob with Gary Demar Pt. 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
6th Day 53%! Bob with Gary Demar Pt. 2

This is the show from February 9th, 2007.

SUMMARY:

* Does the Fig Tree Represent Israel? Jesus warned by parable that after His three years of earthly ministry to Israel, that nation would have one more year of mercy to accept their resurrected Messiah, otherwise He would cut off their national covenant. Luke 13:6-9 "He also spoke this parable: 'A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, 'Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?' But he answered and said to him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.'"
Jesus came for the three years of His earthly ministry to Israel! As He said in Mat. 15:24, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (That is, Jesus died for the sin of the world, but He was sent by His Father specifically to "the house of Israel!") Thus it was from Israel that Christ sought for the fruit of faith, and found none. And it was Israel He threatened to cut off. So, a year after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, national Israel had utterly rejected its Savior. Thus as a nation, Israel lost its status with God under the Covenant of Circumcision.

* Who was Cut Off in Romans 11? The Apostle Paul explains in Romans 11 (vv. 15, 21-25, 30) that Israel was cut off for unbelief, and yet, that God is able to graft them back in again, and He will, when the fullness of the Gentiles (the Body of Christ) comes in! Demar says that Romans 11 teaches the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise that salvation would come to the Gentiles, however what he misses is that God's hope was to bring salvation to the Gentiles through national Israel! However, since they rejected their Messiah, God brought salvation to the Gentiles in spite of Israel, for the Gentiles "have now obtained mercy through their [Israel's] disobedience," and "their [Israel's] being cast away is the reconciling of the world!" Gary Demar agreed that national Israel was cut off from their covenant relationship with God, but then He added that they would never be grafted back in again. However, Paul wrote that we "should not be ignorant," and should realize that though they were cut off, "God is able to graft them in again," for what "has happened to Israel [has happened only] until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in!"

* Does the Bible Represent Israel with a Fig Tree? As heard in Part I, Gary Demar disagrees with Bob and others who say that the Bible frequently uses a "fig tree" as a symbol of national Israel. But consider this excerpt from Bob Enyart's best-selling manuscript, The Plot:

- "I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstfruits on the fig tree..." Hosea 9:10
- "Thus said the Lord, the God of Israel: ‘Like these good figs, so... are [those] carried away captive from Judah... I will bring them back to this land... And as the bad figs... are... Jerusalem...'" Jer. 24:5-8
- [The Lord will make Israel] like rotten figs that cannot be eaten, they are so bad. Jer. 29:17
- [A nation] has laid waste My vine, And ruined My fig tree [describing Israel's destruction]. Joel 1:7
Both the vine and the fig tree sprout from the earth, from the soil beneath the land of Israel. God expected Israel, the people of the promised land, to bear fruit to Him just as both the vine and the fig tree (Song 2:13) bear fruit. Working with these symbols, God would sometimes bless or curse the fruit of the vine and the fig tree as a sign of His regard for Israel. God used good fruit or bad fruit in prophecy to represent His intentions toward the Jews. (Scripture commonly includes figs representing the blessing or cursing, etc., of the land of Israel as in Joel 1:12; 2:18 with 22-23; Num. 13:23; 20:5; Deut. 8:8; 1 Kings 4:25; Jer. 5:17; 8:13; Hosea 2:12; Amos 4:9; Haggai 2:19; Micah 4:4-5 and Zech. 3:10.) [End of Excerpt]

* Thanks to You!: Our annual BEL February telethon is going great thanks to our listeners! Already they have given 53% ($13,325) of the vital telethon goal of $25,000!

Today's Resource: If you would like to help keep Bob Enyart Live airing for another year on the most powerful Christian radio station in America, the 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT, please consider giving to the BEL Telethon either online, or by calling the BEL Cabin at 800-8Enyart (836-9278), or you can subscribe to the BEL Bible Study Albums, Bob's monthly Sermons, or our brand new service, the BEL Televised Classics! The mailman will deliver DVDs to your door of 4, 8, or 16 classic BEL TV shows a month for $24.99, $34.99 or $49.99 (only $3.13 per show)! Just call us or click BEL Televised Classics!
 

Christendom

New member
Matthew 24 is fulfilled

Matthew 24 is fulfilled

This show seemed to get off of the original topic (Matthew 24) and jumped around to a lot on non relevant scriptures. I would of really like to hear Bob's comments on Matthew 24 up against Gray Demar's position (which is exegetically sound).

Questions like:
Does the Fig Tree Represent Israel?
Who was Cut Off in Romans 11?

Do not address the preterist position, nor does a discussion of them support or refute either a dispensational or a covenant theology position.

Plenty of Covenant theologians will agree with Bob and say that:
Yes sometimes a fig tree does represent Israel, and yes, perhaps (national) Israel was cut off and will be grafted back in again. But neither of these really deal with the heart of the issue and differences between the futurist's (within the dispensational camp) and preterist's (within the covenantal camp).

The differences have to be determined on strictly exegetical grounds. That is why Matthew 24 is such a good place to start. We can go verse by verse and argue the points based on exegesis (if we stick to good hermeneutical priciples) and not mere speculation.

Is anyone willing to do this?

As a partial preterist and advocate of covenenat theology (anti dispensational) and a big fan of Gary Demar, I would like to go through Matthew 24.

I say all of Matthew 24 is fulfilled and am confident that this is the biblical and most sound exegetical position.

Of course the other dispensational verses should be dealt with as well, Romans 11, Daniel 9, etc. (at some point) but sticking to a consistent debate within a single portion of scripture first will really help determine who's hermeneutic is correct.


As a former dispensational and futurist myself (and armenian), I am somewhat familiar with the arguments, and am utterly conviced that they are both false and have been a hindrance to the Church as a whole. I believe that getting back to a sound and consistent system of doctrine is essential for the advancement of the kingdom of Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria
 

Christendom

New member
Toast said:
Question for you Christendom. Do you think believers today should keep the mosaic law?

Please define your terms.

What do you mean by Mosaic Law, do you mean the Moral Law of God, do you mean the judicial law as found in the Septuagint, do you mean the ceremonial Law, the dietary law, the levitical priesthood, etc.


I believe the Moral Law of God is absoulute and unchangeable. Therefore yes I believe believers should keep his Law, and so should all men.
 

Toast

New member
Okay, I'll clarify. What I mean is do you believe that believers today should keep the multitude of laws that God gave Israel, ie. laws toward God, laws toward man, the laws which govern how the priesthood should function, the dietery commands, etc.. So what I'm asking is, do you believe that God expects us today to obey all of those commands that He gave to Moses for Israel, aka the Mosaic Law?
 

Christendom

New member
Toast said:
Okay, I'll clarify. What I mean is do you believe that believers today should keep the multitude of laws that God gave Israel, ie. laws toward God, laws toward man, the laws which govern how the priesthood should function, the dietery commands, etc.. So what I'm asking is, do you believe that God expects us today to obey all of those commands that He gave to Moses for Israel, aka the Mosaic Law?


We are to obey the summation of the law which is to Love God with all your heart mind and strength, and love you neighbor. The whole law (moral law) hangs on these commands, so yes, we especially as Christians should obey the moral Law.
The law of God is a revelation of God's holy character which is eternal.

Being I am a theonomist and hold a high view of the law (as all the saints of scripture do) then there is much more that could be said.

Please let me in on your point or purpose of asking such questions as it relates to the topic of this thread.
 

Toast

New member
Believe me, this question is extremely relevant to this topic. But I'm still not satisfied with your answer. Do you keep all of those laws which Moses commanded Israel to follow, not just the moral ones, but also the multitude of symbolic commands, the various washings, dietery commands, etc, which Jesus and His disciples followed?
 

Christendom

New member
Toast said:
Believe me, this question is extremely relevant to this topic. But I'm still not satisfied with your answer. Do you keep all of those laws which Moses commanded Israel to follow, not just the moral ones, but also the multitude of symbolic commands, the various washings, dietery commands, etc, which Jesus and His disciples followed?

I do not keep the ceremonial law as a whole, but only as it has been fulfilled in Christ, and namely the administration of the sacraments, which is the only "ceremony" which remains.
 

Toast

New member
Great, now just lemme ask you this. So you do acknowledge that it seems God occasionally, for whatever reason(s), changes the rules which He wants believers to live by in The Bible? If you can answer this question, I'll get to my point. :)
 

Christendom

New member
Toast said:
Great, now just lemme ask you this. So you do acknowledge that it seems God occasionally, for whatever reason(s), changes the rules which He wants believers to live by in The Bible? If you can answer this question, I'll get to my point. :)


No....He does not change the "Rules" (your word not mine). The rule is simple "the Just shall live by faith" and "Man shall live by every word that procedeeth out of the mouth of God".

I have already said that his Law eternal and absolute. That is the standard that we are to live by for all eternity.


I will agree that God changes the way he "deals" with people, but not the rules.
 

Toast

New member
So, for instance, you would not consider the following example to be a changing of the rules:

God told Noah that He gave man all living creatures for food. But, when He gave the law of moses to the Israelites, He permitted them to eat only certain animals. Thats not a changing of the rules?
 

Christendom

New member
Toast said:
So, for instance, you would not consider the following example to be a changing of the rules:

God told Noah that He gave man all living creatures for food. But, when He gave the law of moses to the Israelites, He permitted them to eat only certain animals. Thats not a changing of the rules?

I don't like the term "rules", being I have already stated that there is one eternal Law of God.
But to get this conversation rolling, I will play into this with your terms. God establishes institutions and "rules" as he see's fit. God changes external regulations. (an example being a fulfilling of the "rule" of circumcision, in regeneration)
 

Toast

New member
Thanks. Getting to my point. You say that your anti-dispensational, but I wonder if you exactly understand what we're all about. You seem to agree with the underpinnings of our understanding of God's word. That God has the freedom, power, and authority, to make decisions, conditional agreements, and change the way He wants to deal with individuals, or groups of people, for various reasons. What I'm getting to is, if God promises Israel a kingdom, and, for instance, part of that process is bringing them through the tribulation, if they are unfaithful, as a verse in Jeremiah suggests, He has the freedom and right to reconsider the good He planned for them. So, as Romans says, He cut them off and at least temporarily has postoned His plans for them, until He's finished with us. So, if He wants to postpone the tribulation til later, He has the right to do that. I think you should be a bit more open minded about this matter. Thats all I'm saying.
 

Christendom

New member
Toast said:
What I'm getting to is, if God promises Israel a kingdom, and, for instance, part of that process is bringing them through the tribulation, if they are unfaithful, as a verse in Jeremiah suggests, He has the freedom and right to reconsider the good He planned for them. So, as Romans says, He cut them off and at least temporarily has postoned His plans for them, until He's finished with us. So, if He wants to postpone the tribulation til later, He has the right to do that. I think you should be a bit more open minded about this matter. Thats all I'm saying.

God has promised Israel a kingdom, and one of David's descendants is ruling and reigning in that Kingdom right now, namely Jesus Christ.

Tribulation??? What tribulation are you talking about. There has been troubles and tribulations all over the world since time began....again, define your terms.

If who is unfaithful??? We are all born as sinners, jew and gentile alike. We are all unfaithful. Christ is the only one who is faithful, and he is the only covenant keeper.

All people, jew and gentile are "cut off" from God because all men have sinned in Adam and all have broken covenant. It makes no difference wether a jew or a gentile nation one day comes into the covenant of grace. How does the fact that one day, the Jews in general (along with China, Mexico, etc.) will one day come to faith in Christ prove the dispensational system.
As a post-mill I believe that one day all nations will come into the covenant of grace, that of course includes a Jewish nation. This does not make me a dispensational just becuase jews will one day believe.


Talking about Jews one day believing the gospel is way off topic. There have always been jews that believed the gospel.

The main point at hand is the futurist (dispensational) interpretation of Matthew 24, that has no exegetical support.

I used to be a dispensational, so you can see that my mind has been very open already. I used to be opened minded about immorality until I became a Christian, now I know the truth, so why would I want to go back to being opened minded about immorality again. Same with dispensationalism.
 

ApologeticJedi

New member
There is a problem for many with the Bible that goes like this.

1) Jesus predicts an end times in their lifetime.
2) The things that he prophesied obviously did not happen.

Some dispensationalists deny the first (and they look foolish for doing so), trying to say that Jesus meant something else by "this generation" than what Jesus obviously did.

And men like Demar deny the second (which makes him look foolish), and try to spiritualize some of the predictions that Jesus made and that OT prophesies make and say "Well the sun really means this ...."

So both denials force someone to alter the common reading of these passages. Both are actually true - Jesus predicted it and it didn't happen. If you don't know why, or if you think that can't happen, then you are unfamiliar with some of the major underlying points of the Bible.
 
Last edited:

Aethril

New member
Favorite Quotes!

Favorite Quotes!

Gary: “let’s be clear here, that Israel did not reject Messiah”

Bob: “well the Jewish nation never became Christian”

ROTFL
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I wish Gary would have stopped to listen.....

It took Gary a show and a half to finally acknowledge (kinda, sorta) that Bob agreed that "This generation" meant "this generation". :doh:

NOTE TO GARY....
Gary, slow down... take a deep breath.... and listen to your opponent, it will make for a MUCH better understanding and discussion on your part.
 

PKevman

New member
It is hard to communicate with someone when you are too busy over talking them and not listening to a word they are saying. I think that Gary was actually kind of rude, but Bob handled it quite well.
 

Christendom

New member
Aethril said:
Gary: “let’s be clear here, that Israel did not reject Messiah”

Bob: “well the Jewish nation never became Christian”

ROTFL


If Israel would of rejected the messiah, then there would be not such thing as the church. It is obvious that Israel has not rejected the messiah. Saying that Israel rejected the messiah is a theological contradiction.

Aethril said:
“well the Jewish nation never became Christian”

Well the nation of Japan never becam Christian (yet) either; so, what's your point.


THE NEW COVENANT WAS MADE WITH "ISRAEL", IF ISRAEL REJECTED THE MESSIAH, THEN THERE IS NO NEW COVENANT, AND IF THERE IS NO NEW COVENANT THEN YOU ARE ALL STILL IN YOUR SINS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top