Israel "is the only nation in the world that has the promise of God's protection"

Iran may not be a match for Israel, for the US, and certainly is no match for God. I support Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East and oppose those who want to annihilate Israel.The nation of Israel created in 1948, however, is not the people of God or fulfillment of prophecy. I see no biblical promise that protects Israel as presently constituted (and this regardless of what one believes about a future Israel),

U.S. Christianity’s love affair with present day Israel may be one of its most bewildering, inconsistent positions.

[GregH]

U.S. Christianity’s love affair with present day Israel may be one of its most bewildering, inconsistent positions.

I would be interested in knowing your reasons why.

I support Israel, America supporting Israel, and moving our Embassy to Jerusalem.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May they prosper who love you. -Psalm 122:6 NKJV

David R. Brumbelow

There is the possibility that the Israel formed in 1948 was not the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

… we can count on the amill/replacement theology guys to post some of the first comments.

Whether intended or not, this makes it look like this is the new, cool fundamentalist position.

I fear that it influences the younger readers. Most likely, they have not seen the other side taught or modeled with great skill, and many are already looking for affirmation for their newfound zeal for the “T4G” approach to Christianity.

I suspect, however, that the replacement view does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of SI’s constituency.

For the record and to prevent my being shunned, I’m pre-mill.

I don’t like Jeffress’ sycophantic love affair with President Trump. But, I can’t find anything wrong with the statements in the graphic (above).

[Paul J. Scharf]

… we can count on the amill/replacement theology guys to post some of the first comments.

Whether intended or not, this makes it look like this is the new, cool fundamentalist position.

I fear that it influences the younger readers. Most likely, they have not seen the other side taught or modeled with great skill, and many are already looking for affirmation for their newfound zeal for the “T4G” approach to Christianity.

I suspect, however, that the replacement view does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of SI’s constituency.

Last I checked, except for the 2nd coming of Christ, eschatological positions were not a big part of the Fundamentals. In my mind, the bigger threat faced by pre-mill fundamentalists is not hearing comments by amillenialists, but rather that we will forget that argumentum ad populum is indeed a basic logical fallacy, really more suitable for the feud over the basketball court by the Sharks and the Jets than for serious theological discourse.

[Paul J. Scharf]

… we can count on the amill/replacement theology guys to post some of the first comments.

Whether intended or not, this makes it look like this is the new, cool fundamentalist position.

I fear that it influences the younger readers. Most likely, they have not seen the other side taught or modeled with great skill, and many are already looking for affirmation for their newfound zeal for the “T4G” approach to Christianity.

I suspect, however, that the replacement view does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of SI’s constituency.

Can we also count on classic or otherwise dispensationists to whine about influences on the younger readers? The quote in and of itself is fine if we’re talking about who’s a match for whom. Of course, Israel is only a match for Iran because of US support.

But all that’s besides the point. And apart from counting constituency noses which means nothing. The point was the title that Israel is the only nation that has the promise of God’s protection. I may be wrong but I don’t think all dispensationalists believe that present-day Israel is a fulfillment or prophecy of holds special status in their state of unbelief. Even don’t shun me premil Paul S. questions that.

To be sure, Jeffress represents a strain of off-balance dispensationalism that puts unnecessary emphasis on the modern State of Israel.

Bert, I think you misread my post entirely. Who said that the majority view is correct? My point was that the replacement guys see an opportunity to make inroads here on a discussion on a site that, by the majority of its contributors and advertisers, for instance, does not promote their view. It would be like me jumping out to post on a Reformed theology site.

Steve, I do not think it is fair to call such an observation whining.

The traditional dispensational view, as far as I have heard it espoused by every single one of its leading teachers (too many to list), is that modern-day Israel is the Israel of Ezekiel 36 and 37:1-2—returned to the land in unbelief and an unregenerate state, in preparation (“stage-setting”) for regeneration and possession of the land in belief.

Go ahead and list for me all the great dispensational teachers who proclaim that modern-day Israel has no relation to the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Then we’ll start counting noses.

My dispensational teachers frequently said that after the ascension of Christ the next thing on God’s prophetic calendar was The Rapture and, maybe, Israel’s establishment and implementation of underskin identification devices and bar codes and the rebirth of Russia and the rise of China and the European Common Market and the blood moons and the Andromeda Effect…………..

I’m an Maranatha Seminary grad, and was taught a reasoned and passionate form of dispensationalism there (thanks, Dr. Oats!) and I’ve never heard what you wrote (below):

The traditional dispensational view, as far as I have heard it espoused by every single one of its leading teachers (too many to list), is that modern-day Israel is the Israel of Ezekiel 36 and 37:1-2—returned to the land in unbelief and an unregenerate state, in preparation (“stage-setting”) for regeneration and possession of the land in belief.

I think we come from different dispensationalist camps. I am grieved that so much of dispensationalism is stereotyped as “Left Behind: theology. There are good, solid, wonderful teachers out there who do outstanding jobs defending the system. Robert Thomas’ Revelation commentary is the best thing on Revelation I’ve ever read. Mike Vlach is doing outstanding work. Leon Wood, Peter Steveson, Walvoord, Gleason Archer (EBC) and Dwight Pentecost (BKC) all contributed outstanding commentaries on Daniel. There are responsible teachers out there. Unfortunately, there are more John Hagee’s than Dwight Pentecost’s around.