ECT Ryrie's doctrine of two peoples and two programs

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Dr Ryrie at DTS wrote D'ISM TODAY. The 'sine qua non' of D'ism, he said, is that there are two peoples and two programs that are totally separate in the Bible. Israel and Christians.

No one can get through Is 9 and how the NT uses Is 9 and agree with Ryrie.

Choose today: Ryrie or the apostles.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
Dr Ryrie at DTS wrote D'ISM TODAY. The 'sine qua non' of D'ism, he said, is that there are two peoples and two programs that are totally separate in the Bible. Israel and Christians.

No one can get through Is 9 and how the NT uses Is 9 and agree with Ryrie.

Choose today: Ryrie or the apostles.
Click to expand...

Neither...rather, The Apostle (singular) Rom. 11:13.

Act 17:11, 12.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Dr Ryrie at DTS wrote D'ISM TODAY. The 'sine qua non' of D'ism, he said, is that there are two peoples and two programs that are totally separate in the Bible. Israel and Christians.
Click to expand...

Anyone with a good knowledge of the Bible knows that Ryrie is correct. The Scriptures reveal that when the nation of Israel was in a covenant relationship with the LORD the children of Israel were a special people unto Him:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut.7:6).​

On the other hand, during the Church age there are no special people unto the LORD except for believers and in the Body of Christ there is no distinction between the Jews and those of other nationalities:

"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all" (Col.3:10-11).​

In his comments on these verses Norman L. Geisler writes the following:

"In Christ distinctions are removed. These include national distinctions (Greek or Jew...); religious distinctions (circumcised or uncircumcised)..." (Norman L. Geisler, "Colossians," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Colorado Springs: ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], 681).

These facts serve to prove that when the LORD's program for Israel is in view then that program cannot be about the Body of Christ because His two different programs are mutually exclusive. In other words, when the Divine plan toward Israel is in effect then the children of Israel are above all people on the face of the earth so therefore it is impossible that at the same time the Divine plan is also toward the Body of Christ where there is no difference between the Jews and the Gentiles.

Of course all these facts mean nothing to the Preterists because even though they claim to believe the Bible they prove over and over that they don't.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Anyone with a good knowledge of the Bible knows that Ryrie is correct. The Scriptures reveal that when the nation of Israel was in a covenant relationship with the LORD the children of Israel were a special people unto Him:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut.7:6).​

On the other hand, during the Church age there are no special people unto the LORD except for believers and in the Body of Christ there is no distinction between the Jews and those of other nationalities:

"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all" (Col.3:10-11).​

In his comments on these verses Norman L. Geisler writes the following:

"In Christ distinctions are removed. These include national distinctions (Greek or Jew...); religious distinctions (circumcised or uncircumcised)..." (Norman L. Geisler, "Colossians," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Colorado Springs: ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], 681).

These facts serve to prove that when the LORD's program for Israel is in view then that program cannot be about the Body of Christ because His two different programs are mutually exclusive. In other words, when the Divine plan toward Israel is in effect then the children of Israel are above all people on the face of the earth so therefore it is impossible that at the same time the Divine plan is also toward the Body of Christ where there is no difference between the Jews and the Gentiles.

Of course all these facts mean nothing to the Preterists because even though they claim to believe the Bible they prove over and over that they don't.
Click to expand...





It fails Isaiah 9. And how the NT uses Isaiah 9.

None of my last 5 threads have used the acronym that Sherman banned
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
As usual you just ignore the points that destroy your mistaken ideas!

Are the children of Israel a special people unto the LORD now? Were they in the past?
Click to expand...





No, those passages show how far back 'faith alone' is the criterion; I didn't avoid anything. I tested your theory. That is why Paul says what he does in rom 9. He is not validating the race; he is showing that it was 'faith alone' back then (in Abraham's time) too.

What race was Abraham the moment before he believed the Gospel? Persian.




None of my past 5 threads use the acronym banished by Sherman.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Explain. I only see one Isaiah 9 quote...in Matthew.
Click to expand...





It is Isaiah saying clear back then that the Gentiles will be reached,, that the ultimate blessing of Messiah is victory over death, that this Child is also the Father of Eternal Life. What else do you need to know.

The Isaiah passage even becomes the explanation for him being in "gentile" territory.

The Isaiah passage would not exist if it were not for the expected Child of Gen 3,4; the Hebrew for the reference in ch 4 actually has Eve saying: "I have born a child--the Lord'--thinking it was already happening.

How is it that you have no grasp of the whole chapter of Is 9? Does every word of Isaiah 9 have to be there in Matthew to have an impact? No. Do you think that Matthew was just memory-challenged and didn't put in 'Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Father of Eternity' and so it LITERALLY cannot be about Christ, because it is not exactly there?

Have you published a paper on this showing that those names cannot possibly be about Christ?

Do you see how you sound in all the corners you back yourself into? Let the NT go wild; it is awesome.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
I want to know why the "real writer and grammar scholar" does not use a question mark for a sentence that is a question.
Click to expand...






Do you have a real question or have you just decided to copy the communist/Marxist way of answering things like this with non-issues and insults? this is a HOBBY. It is not professional writing.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner, I asked you the following question:

Are the children of Israel a special people unto the LORD now? Were they in the past?

Here is your brainless answer:

Interplanner said:
No, those passages show how far back 'faith alone' is the criterion;
Click to expand...

You say no but the Scriptures reveal that when Israel was in covenant relationship with the LORD they were indeed a special people unto Him:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deut.7:6).​

You have been trained to ignore or pervert any verse which does not conform to your preconceived ideas!
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
I've been trained to find the passages where the problem is actually discussed by the NT, not where I think I might have something in the OT. The answer is clear--not all Israel are the Israel that matters. So in the Deut passage, it wasn't about the whole race forever for all time. It was also about those who had faith.

That's why Rom 9 makes the distinctions from the race or the descendancy that it does. Do you mean you don't know that it is doing that?
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
I've been trained to find the passages where the problem is actually discussed by the NT, not where I think I might have something in the OT. The answer is clear--not all Israel are the Israel that matters. So in the Deut passage, it wasn't about the whole race forever for all time. It was also about those who had faith.

That's why Rom 9 makes the distinctions from the race or the descendancy that it does. Do you mean you don't know that it is doing that?
Click to expand...

Then you were improperly trained.

Never mind the literal fact that their are 39 Books in the OT and that all of them concern that one nation ALONE.

No, IP, in this case, that passage cited by Jerry "means what it says."

You are simply too deeply entrenched in your error about that.

Romans 11:30 For as ye in TIMES PAST have not believed God, yet have NOW obtained mercy through their unbelief:

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being IN TIME PAST Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 2:12 That AT THAT TIME ye WERE WITHOUT Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having NO HOPE, and WITHOUT God in the world:

2:13 But NOW in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes WERE far off ARE made nigh by the blood OF CHRIST.

Acts 17: 11, 12.
 
Last edited:
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh wrote:
and that all of them concern that one nation ALONE.




Super lie. What race was Abraham before he believed? Persian.
why did Mt 4 quote Is 9 about Jesus living in Galilee? Because it was 'gentile' and so was Syria and the Greek Decapolis area and Trans-Jordan. Yet Isaiah said that how many centuries in advance? Why would Isaiah talk to us about a 'child' to be born--7 centuries later? The same reason as Eve? I've 'born a child--the Lord'!
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Danoh wrote:
and that all of them concern that one nation ALONE.




Super lie. What race was Abraham before he believed? Persian.
why did Mt 4 quote Is 9 about Jesus living in Galilee? Because it was 'gentile' and so was Syria and the Greek Decapolis area and Trans-Jordan. Yet Isaiah said that how many centuries in advance? Why would Isaiah talk to us about a 'child' to be born--7 centuries later? The same reason as Eve? I've 'born a child--the Lord'!
Click to expand...

Gentile salvation through the rise of Israel was prophesied. So?
 
Jacob

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Danoh said:
Neither...rather, The Apostle (singular) Rom. 11:13.

Act 17:11, 12.
Click to expand...

I am not a Christian. I am Jewish. I do accept Matthew through Revelation.

Hebrews 3:1 NASB - Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;

Shalom.

Jacob
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Jacob said:
I am not a Christian. I am Jewish. I do accept Matthew through Revelation.

Hebrews 3:1 NASB - Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;
Click to expand...

Do you think that the Lord Jesus is Israel's promised Messiah?
 
D

Danoh

New member
Jacob said:
I am not a Christian. I am Jewish. I do accept Matthew through Revelation.

Hebrews 3:1 NASB - Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;

Shalom.

Jacob
Click to expand...

Now repeat that over and over, at the same time you bang your head on The Wall.

Won't bring you closer to God - but it should make you feel better each time you stop. :chuckle:

I know...you "don't understand..."

And yet here you are - despite that repeated "don't understand" confession of yours - ever attempting to teach anyone anything.

Talk about being clueless about...being clueless. :doh:

Ya might do well simply to stick to sharing what you have learned about from The Law.

I mean that.

As that is what you have chosen to largely focus on.

Thank God for Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead. :thumb:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top