|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rapture?
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
again, you are going to have to argue that explicitly verse by verse from Romans 11 for me. I don't think you can
Ro 11:1 The Jews are not rejected or supplanted
11:12,13 their fulfilment,their acceptance is anticipated
11:17 gentiles are partakers of the rich root of the olive tree
11:24 the natural branches shall be grafted into their own olive tree (whose?)
11:29 the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable(ie the promises to the Jews are not revoked)
Where do I find in the Bible that we are joined to God by the covenants?
I think Romans 4:13 is a good place to begin.
The promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be HEIR OF the WORLD..was through the righteousness of faith. The import here is that God made a covenant with Abraham and his offspring the Jews. He has extended this to include not only Jews but ALL who believe. Christ was sent, remember to the lost sheep of the house of Israel but then later God demonstrated in Acts in the incident of Cornelius, that it was not only to Jews that the Holy Spirit was given.
It is clear then that gentiles are also partakers. The link of all this to Abraham's covenant is summed up in the word faith; Ro4:16 the promise may be certain..to those..who are of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all.
However, the real point of issue is who the NEW covenant is with. Jesus at the last supper spoke of the new covenant in his blood. There is only one NEW covenant in scripture found in Jeremiah 31:33. It is with the house of Israel,NOT the church. This covenant was about heart change in for Israel. I believe that the inauguration of this will be the trigger of the second coming see Zech chs12,13. This poses the question of whether the present church, obviously mainly Gentiles, participate presently in new covenant blessings. I think we do as shown in Hebrews 12:22-24 where it says we have come to Mt Zion on the basis of the sprinkled blood. We therefore benefit now but there is a future inauguration when the entire remnant of Israel will enter into this covenant as well.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
ISTM that what we're seeing here is the development of the idea from a tribal God, who's only on the lookup for his own people, and may be actively hostile to others (in other words, embodying the attitude of the tribe) and a universal God who is creator and Lord of all. The gods of other nations go from being rival gods to gods who are much weaker (my God's bigger than your god!) to being not gods at all - effectively demonised.
The place of the Jews in this therefore changes. At the beginning they're the only people who matter - how else could you have the Joshua genocide narratives if you considered the Canaanites as people rather than Enemies Of My Tribe? Then they become a chosen people amongst other peoples who are also created by God but don't know it or know God. Ultimate the idea that one group is by virtue of their ethnicity somehow superior or special is one that has to fall; from our viewpoint it's basically racism and it's surprising to me that there are still Christians in this day and age who want any truck with it. This is my understanding of John the Baptists ranting about children of Abraham and God being able to turn rocks into children for Abraham. It doesn't matter. No-one is special; no-one gets special dispensation.
At least, that's how I see it.
Yes I see your point. It is interesting that the Yhwh of the OT specifically claims not to be tribal but to be the creator of all and the dictator of all which means he claims management of history entire while limiting himself to a particular tribal group, Jews, for the purpose of demonstrating his character to the wider body of humanity. Incidentally, you know my thoughts from afar about his alleged genocidal predilections but we need not go into that here.
I think in one sense no one is special but in another, specialness is dictated by one's heart. The hardness or softness of heart towards the Lord is one's own choice it seems to me and he accepts or rejects all on that basis certainly not on the basis of ethnicity. " If you should today hear his voice do not harden your heart " as it says in Hebrews.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Jamat, it seems to me that you are just not coming to terms with what I'm saying about the 'Rapture' issue.
There is only one reason to believe in the scheme of a 'Rapture of the Church' followed by several further years of earthly history before a further separate 'Day of the Lord' return of Jesus.
That reason is NOT a reason drawn from Scripture itself, it arises from the *assumption*, initially made by Irving and followed by Darby & Co, that we are positively required to expect the Second Coming 'any minute now'.
IF accepted, that in turn leads to the necessary conclusion that there 'must be' a further/extra period of history after the Rapture in which prophecies can come to pass which have not been fulfilled already but don't belong after that 'Day of the Lord'.
I don't accept that view. I accept the view implied by Paul's interpretation of the 'Man of Lawlessness' that if such unfulfilled prophecies exist, then "the end is not yet". The prophecies in question may still be fulfilled in a very short time, especially in our modern world with its speedy travel and communications, so there is no cause for complacency as Christians await that ONE day of fulfillment.
I might also make the points that
1) There is enough uncertainty about some of those prophecies and what would constitute a fulfilment that it is still possible that Jesus might return almost 'any minute now'; but again, as a single event, not the double event separated by years that is envisaged by dispensationalists and the 'Left Behind' school of thought. And
2) We in any case need to be ready for the possibility that we may personally die unexpectedly 'any minute now' long before Jesus returns. I've been particularly conscious of that possibility since being knocked down by a car while crossing a road a few years ago; again, no cause for complacency....
I can find no reason in Scripture to separate the day of Jesus' return for his people in I Thess 4 from the 'day of the Lord' in I Thess 5. That phrase 'peri de' is used elsewhere in Scripture and simply means 'but concerning....' It is simply not strong enough to require chs 4 and 5 to be about totally different subjects.
It is a perfectly natural reading to see Paul in ch4 dealing with the event in terms of Jesus coming for his people, and then to move on in ch5 to point out that He doesn't really need to give them information on times and seasons - they 'already know' that this event will come 'like a thief in the night'. Disastrously for the unbelieving world, but no such shock and terror for God's expectant people.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
I can find no reason in Scripture to separate the day of Jesus' return for his people in I Thess 4 from the 'day of the Lord' in I Thess 5. That phrase 'peri de' is used elsewhere in Scripture and simply means 'but concerning....' It is simply not strong enough to require chs 4 and 5 to be about totally different subjects
I think this turns on the word assumption that can suggest imposing an idea not inferred from the text. Well we are enjoined and the apostolic church expected a quick return. It is interesting though that Jesus said in Acts that it was not for his closest friends to know times and seasons that the father alone knows. He said earlier that not even the son knows and here we are in the 21st century. Paul says in 1 thes 5,
"Now concerning the times and seasons.."
These times and seasons are an interesting thing as they obviously pertain to God's intended actions. It seems that the assumption here is about things not revealed. We do not know when the setting up of the Kingdom will be. We DO know that it will come at a climactic turbulent time in history. We also know from Zechariah that it will take the form of a rescue of national Israel and a judgement of evil.
We are told in John 14 that Jesus will come for the church to receive it unto himself. We are told in 1Cor15:51 that we will not all sleep but we shall all be changed. This change is also is signalled in 1Thes 4:15-17. But it is not signalled in 1Thes 5:1-5.
On what basis do you say The words "Now concerning" are not strong enough? How 'strong' must it be to suggest; 'I've dealt with that point ,now I'm moving the discussion along'? ISTM that Paul is doing just that. He has dealt with the fear of death question the Thessalonians had. Now he is dealing with the statements of mischievous false teachers that the 'Day of the Lord' has come already.
My question is how how is that unreasonable? Where is the unwarranted assumption I am making to read it that way?
[ 21. December 2016, 18:15: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On what basis do you say The words "Now concerning" are not strong enough? How 'strong' must it be to suggest; 'I've dealt with that point ,now I'm moving the discussion along'? ISTM that Paul is doing just that. He has dealt with the fear of death question the Thessalonians had. Now he is dealing with the statements of mischievous false teachers that the 'Day of the Lord' has come already.
My question is how how is that unreasonable? Where is the unwarranted assumption I am making to read it that way?
There is nothing unwarranted at all in the way you put it there.
What is unwarranted is your insistence, on the sole basis of the phrase "peri de", that this "day of the Lord" is a chronologically separate event from the parousia.
"Peri de" means, as I understand it, and you seem to too, "now, about...". Nothing more, nothing less.
(I've seen your comments on Rom 11 but for various reasons have not had time to address them yet, I will try to do so soon)
[ 21. December 2016, 19:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
I think this turns on the word assumption that can suggest imposing an idea not inferred from the text. Well we are enjoined and the apostolic church expected a quick return.
Yes, by using the word 'assumption' I did indeed mean that Irving and Darby following him "imposed an idea not inferred from the text".
Yes we are enjoined to be watchful and expectant; yes, the apostolic church expected a quick return of their Lord. But equally clearly
a) there is a level of such expectancy which actually harms the effectiveness of the Church in its mission in the world - as had happened to the Thessalonians requiring Paul to write to them.
b) As Paul pointed out, there is an issue of the prior unfulfilled prophecies like that of the 'Man of Lawlessness' - and Paul clearly expects that the church on earth at the time of the Rapture will have seen those events, and there is nothing in his actual words to suggest that they will only see them from heaven after being raptured; it's "You will see that and until you see it you can be sure the end is not yet".
c) The 'assumption' in question is that we are not merely to expect a 'quick return', but we are to live in constant 'red alert' expectancy of a return 'any minute now'. And that assumption goes way beyond anything in Scripture especially when you factor in Paul's words about dealing with unfulfilled prophecy.
The problem is that if, like Irving and Darby, you insist that expectation can only be in terms of something that must be able to happen 'any minute now' then you also force on yourself that (apparent!) necessity to create a 'post-Rapture' period in which the unfulfilled prophecies can happen. Whereas the principle to be derived from Paul's advice and his hermeneutic is precisely to be aware of the prophecies, pull back from 'red alert' while by no means becoming complacent, and let the prophecies be fulfilled in their due time - in the case of the prophecy of Israel's return to the land, in 1948.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
What is unwarranted is your insistence, on the sole basis of the phrase "peri de", that this "day of the Lord" is a chronologically separate event from the parousia.
Well it may be or not. I do not know. Personally, I doubt it. The second coming is ISTM a totally predictable event. We need armies surrounding Jerusalem led by the man of sin,a global dictator who has broken a covenant with Israel and turned on them, a repentant national Israel and a wrecked world, BEFORE it can occur.
Steve, I do not understand imminency in terms of time or timing. The rapture is imminent because no prophetic event is scheduled to occur beforehand. Thus, imminency means it could have occurred any time since the day of Pentecost. Obviously it hasn't and lots of Jesus' parables seem clearer in that light. EG. The story of the landowner that goes on a long journey and leaves servants in charge but then returns demanding a reckoning.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
What is unwarranted is your insistence, on the sole basis of the phrase "peri de", that this "day of the Lord" is a chronologically separate event from the parousia.
Well it may be or not. I do not know. Personally, I doubt it. The second coming is ISTM a totally predictable event. We need armies surrounding Jerusalem led by the man of sin,a global dictator who has broken a covenant with Israel and turned on them, a repentant national Israel and a wrecked world, BEFORE it can occur.
Steve, I do not understand imminency in terms of time or timing. The rapture is imminent because no prophetic event is scheduled to occur beforehand. Thus, imminency means it could have occurred any time since the day of Pentecost. Obviously it hasn't and lots of Jesus' parables seem clearer in that light. EG. The story of the landowner that goes on a long journey and leaves servants in charge but then returns demanding a reckoning.
Yes, the 'Second Coming' requires certain prophecy to be first fulfilled, though the exact day will still be uncertain till it actually happens. But the watchful and expectant Christians who are present on that day will not be catastrophically taken by surprise in the same way that the disbelieving world will, when what the world may see as their moment of triumph is suddenly reversed by Jesus' return.
And as far as I can tell from Scripture, the "watchful and expectant Christians who are present on that day" are so present because there will NOT have been an intermediate event that removes all the Christians from the world. The 'Rapture' and the 'Second Coming' are the SAME EVENT, occurring on the same day. On that day believers will be caught up to meet Jesus, and unbelievers will despair.
Some believers will presumably, in the natural course of events, be literally asleep at that Return, and will be briefly disconcerted till they fully awake and realise what is happening; I don't think Paul's reference to sleep in I Thess 5 refers to that natural sleep, but rather to the spiritual sleep of unbelief.
Likewise I suppose there may be some Christians who haven't been totally watchful and will be considerably disconcerted by the event; but again, once they realise what's happening, no problem - or not comparable to the problem faced by unbelievers!
And I guess there will be many nominal Christians for whom the event will devastatingly reveal the unreality of their faith, and they will realise they are lost; and a major point in the call to be watchful and expectant is also a call to make sure that your faith is the real thing, and not a complacent worldly nominalism.
But the point is precisely that the Second Coming is a SECOND Coming; it is not, as the 'Left Behind/Rapture' interpretation represents it, a 'Third Coming' years after the supposed 'Rapture of the Church'. Ipso facto, the events that must be fulfilled for the Second Coming to be possible must also be fulfilled before the 'Rapture', precisely because that is NOT a separate event but an integral part of the Second Coming.
The natural reading of I Thessalonians is of a single event, occurring on one day; and I know of no Biblical passage that contradicts that interpretation. The alternative "Rapture years before the 'Day of the Lord'" interpretation only needs to exist because the text has had imposed upon it that assumption, going back to Irving, that the Second Coming 'must be any-minute-now', and those holding that belief have been forced to hypothesise an intermediate post-Rapture period to accommodate assorted so-far-unfulfilled prophecies.
IF we are the generation alive at the last days we will see the 'Man of Lawlessness' and the other prophecies fulfilled before Jesus returns.
I do, mind, have a query about this...
quote:
We need armies surrounding Jerusalem led by the man of sin,a global dictator who has broken a covenant with Israel and turned on them, a repentant national Israel
As I've said, I think it highly probable that there will be a mass turning of Jews to their Messiah/King Jesus before his return. I'm much less certain that that event actually requires an earthly nation of Israel; though I can see how disillusion with the reality of the earthly nation may be a considerable factor in pointing Jews worldwide to Jesus.
quote:
a global dictator who has broken a covenant with Israel and turned on them
I'd need Scripture references for that detail, especially in view of my next comment....
quote:
We need armies surrounding Jerusalem led by the man of sin
Do we need literal armies surrounding a literal Jerusalem in a literal nation of Israel? In Hebrews 12; 22, the writer tells converted Jews that they have
quote:
come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Heb 12:22-24 (NIV)
Here, in line with other teachings of the epistle about the relationship of ethnic Israel to Jesus, 'Zion/Jerusalem' is identified with the church/ekklesia, the body of Christians. Is the 'man of sin' and his armies attacking a literal Jerusalem in the literal land of Israel? Or is he in fact attacking the church, worldwide, God's holy nation in this age?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Jamat, I'm sorry it's taken me some time to get back to you about Rom 11.
The way I read it hinges on verses 23-24: quote:
23 And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.
The crucial part of this to my mind is "if they do not persist in unbelief". This tallies with what Paul says in verse 5, echoing the faithful prophets in Elijah's time, "there is a remnant, chosen by grace", and verse 7, "Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened".
In other words, Paul points to the fact that throughout Israel's history, there were those who believed (by faith) and those who were hardened, fell away, and did not believe (v20).
There has always been a "remnant" of the "elect", all the way through history, distinct from any external organisation be it the people of Israel or the earthly expression of the Church.
This is what I and others here mean by the "Church Universal" or the "city of God/bride of Christ" or the "heavenly Zion", spanning all ages.
From this it follows that the "root" or "natural olive tree" is that of justification by faith, a "tree" made up of those who "walk with God".
As I see it Paul is saying that in some ways this ought to be part of natural Israel's "DNA" because they have a whole legacy of God dealing with them and with particular individuals in their midst to draw on; they ought to "get it" more easily.
I believe the "gifts and calling of God" not to apply mechanically and legalistically to every last person who calls themselves a Jew but to those of Israel who Paul foresees turning to Christ on a massive scale before the end comes.
As argued before by me and others, similarly I see the promises regarding the land to be subsumed in the better, spiritual inheritance of which the land was only a type or shadow.
Admittedly Paul's argument is hard to follow and open to diverse interpretation. As I said you can sense him struggling with the very paradox we are arguing about himself, although I think he comes down firmly on the side I prefer ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
Sorry not to do this more justice but that's all I have time for right now.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Paul is at the beginning of the trajectory of Jesus. Of salvation. We don't, can't think like him now. He feared that Jews who rejected Christ were damned beyond this dim scintilla of a life. They weren't. They aren't. They won't be. Nobody will be. Paul did an excellent job, the best possible job of wrestling his way part way out of the chrysalis of his culture, to crack it open from the inside at least, trying to find a way to see salvation for his people. Thanks to his efforts, we can see much further. Through a glass brightly.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Paul is at the beginning of the trajectory of Jesus. Of salvation. We don't, can't think like him now.
So how is it I can follow his train of thought, at least in part?
I simply don't agree that thought processes are so totally culture and context-bound as you seem to think.
The Bible and its reasoning might be hard to understand properly and impossible to understand fully, but they are not completely opaque to us.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Martin - you would be able to follow Paul a lot better if you did not assume that he held to some form of double predestination. I realise it forms some part of your history, but reading that back on to him is hardly helpful here.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This will be good H Ron B, Eutychus. But it'll take me a while!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Martin - you would be able to follow Paul a lot better if you did not assume that he held to some form of double predestination. I realise it forms some part of your history, but reading that back on to him is hardly helpful here.
I realize now there's no need for a full study here of Romans 8-11 and Ephesians 1, although I'm more than happy to do that if necessary.
What makes you think I've ever thought that? I never have. I see Paul struggling with damnationism and mainly overcoming it. So as I have never ascribed any form of double predestination to Paul, what in my history made you think I did? And what is the form you adduced? And as I didn't, what yet lacks in my following of Paul?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Paul is at the beginning of the trajectory of Jesus. Of salvation. We don't, can't think like him now.
So how is it I can follow his train of thought, at least in part?
I simply don't agree that thought processes are so totally culture and context-bound as you seem to think.
The Bible and its reasoning might be hard to understand properly and impossible to understand fully, but they are not completely opaque to us.
I don't see the problem. I'd like to see any evidence that expressed, articulated thought processes transcend culture - apart from Jesus' of course! And I completely agree with the paragraphs either side shorn of the false dichotomy, the false syllogism. The fact that we don't think like him doesn't mean we can't understand him. We aren't damnationists. He had feared for his people, that they were damned. We know they aren't.
... and in the final analysis I don't think he did either. He may never have done in fact, but his complex writing may encapsulate, recapitulate his own journey.
Although there is a caveat for salvation or rather damnation still in Paul:
Romans 11:23 (NIVUK) And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Unless his imagination allowed for postmortem salvation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Message received Martin. Will need to get back to you (which I shall try to do) later as may need to go out shortly.
(PS your mailbox is full!)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'd like to see any evidence that expressed, articulated thought processes transcend culture (...) The fact that we don't think like him doesn't mean we can't understand him.
In the absolute we obviously can't be sure we think like our next-door neighbour let alone someone a couple of thousand years ago. But indeed, we may well understand them.
How much we can or should dismiss what we think they're saying on the basis of their time and context is beyond the scope of this discussion.
The point in this discussion that has taken us to Rom 11 is whether Paul envisages a destiny for the Jews separately from the NT people of God.
As outlined in my post before last, I understand Paul to see both believing Jews and Gentiles as being justified by faith, forming part of the same, single body of Christ/city of God, and not two separate entities or categories of God's people as dispensationalism claims.
In short, I believe Rom 11 does not offer support for dispensationalist views.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I really don't see what the problem is in Paul.
“Have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (11:11-12)
verse 23, “And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”
So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” (verses 25-27)
God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (verses 32-33)
So despite what looks like a caveat for damnation in v. 23, Paul is reaching for universal salvation for the Jews and therefore for everyone.
That cannot possibly be achieved in this ignorant scintilla of existence. Postmortem salvation is implicit here, on the trajectory. So yes, God's plan in which there is NO historical damnation of the Jews except contingently, despite Paul and the prophets all reading that in to history, let alone on Judgement Day, is to save all beyond the little flock.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I really don't see what the problem is in Paul.
The "problem" in Paul, in the context of this thread, is that it has been alleged, mistakenly in my view, that Rom 11 offers evidence of the Jews being God's original chosen people and beneficiaries of salvation, with the Gentiles being a temporary adjunct to that people following the Jews' rejection of Jesus. That is all.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ohhhh. Is that all? It's not in there at all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That is all that is relevant in the context of this specific discussion, which is whether Romans 11 offers convincing support for a dispensationalist hermeneutic. In my view it does not.
I'm not being drawn into discussing anything else it might or might not mean here.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Good for you that man! Aye, dispensationalism is Ptolemaic un-Occamian shit we make up.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In the three to seven dispensations the cart of the evolving, cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God is put before the horse of ineffable, immutable God by historical-grammatical interpretation coupled with progressive revelation as seen in the historical development of the covenants.
It is quite astoundingly idolatrous.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Martin - you would be able to follow Paul a lot better if you did not assume that he held to some form of double predestination. I realise it forms some part of your history, but reading that back on to him is hardly helpful here.
I realize now there's no need for a full study here of Romans 8-11 and Ephesians 1, although I'm more than happy to do that if necessary.
What makes you think I've ever thought that? I never have. I see Paul struggling with damnationism and mainly overcoming it. So as I have never ascribed any form of double predestination to Paul, what in my history made you think I did? And what is the form you adduced? And as I didn't, what yet lacks in my following of Paul?
(Back again - apologies for the delay. Blame the New Year)
I guess it hinges around this use of "damnationism".
The thread is about the rapture, and whether this can be accomodated by Jewish thought as well as the NT.
Jews didn't believe the world was coming to an end. What they did believe was that the coming of the messiah would bring The Day of the Lord, whence injustice would cease and God would reign over the whole earth. (Very short-form version of course).
So I don't think Paul struggles with damnationism. What he probably does struggle with is understanding what The Day of the Lord (having understood Jesus to be the messiah) could mean in the context of a world that continued with palpable injustices. The usual way of explaining it is the "here yet not yet here fully" sort of thing. More specifically that since belief is a gift from God, those that believe already possess the Spirit of God who is the giver of life. So not so much about God damning people but that the believer should not imperil themselves by throwing the gift of life away. (The Pauline letters are all written to believing communities).
Put bluntly, I'm struggling to see where the concept of damnationism can come from other than double predestination. I had thought that from earlier posts of yours that you had formerly been in rather evangelical circles, and I had assumed that that was the form of damnationism you were rejecting, hence my comments. Naturally, if I have misconstrued the situation then I apologise.
Though I can't see where else damnationism may arise, save for the medieval catholic church which had a separate strain of that, which seems unlikely.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You are a gentleman and a scholar and not for the first time.
Although I tried to embrace Anglican evangelicalism for a handful of years, I never embraced any form of predestinarianism, thanks to inoculation by, of all things, Armstrongism for a quarter of a century, which despite getting everything else wrong, got the big-mindedness of God right.
I see damnationism throughout the NT, starting with Jesus Himself of course, who threatened even the disciples with Hell for not being evangelical. Typical hyperbole on His part I'm sure, but there's more than an edge of belief to it I reckon. As in PSA. One cannot pretend to be mad for long without going mad: One cannot use the language, beliefs of a culture without meaning them, even when transcending them. Paul couldn't not have imbibed these late Jewish beliefs, reinforced by Jesus whilst incidentally transcending them, as in twice promising Sodom and Gomorrah a more bearable judgement than the obviously still bearable judgement of disbelieving Jewish cities. All in the same context of threatening the disciples.
Coherency wasn't a big deal.
So I see it implicitly here: Romans 11:23 “And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”. If Jews (or anybody else) do persist in unbelief, they will not be grafted in. Unless of course Paul was only talking about this life. As in the next, even Sodom and Gomorrah are grafted in.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You are a gentleman and a scholar and not for the first time.
Host hat on
Martin, refrain from personal remarks, even complimentary ones.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ma'am.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eytychus:This is what I and others here mean by the "Church Universal" or the "city of God/bride of Christ" or the "heavenly Zion", spanning all ages
Yes, I am aware you see "church" anywhere in the Bible you see "saints" "people of God" or "Israel".
This is certainly a common hermeneutic but not one that stands up to contextual scrutiny. Jesus said in Matt 18
"I WILL build my church" He did not anywhere suggest that he would continue to build what was there already but that he would (future tense) create a new entity. This duly happened in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit fell upon that group of 120.
There IS certainly a people of God spanning all ages but this does not necessarily mean they are all in one category. Why should they be?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
In the three to seven dispensations the cart of the evolving, cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God is put before the horse of ineffable, immutable God by historical-grammatical interpretation coupled with progressive revelation as seen in the historical development of the covenants.
It is quite astoundingly idolatrous.
Martin, this sounds like a new kind of Gnosticism where you speculate on the nature of God, the nature of Judaistic thinking, none of which you can be sure of apart from the scriptures which you divorce your thinking from. Then you proceed to extrapolate from this very dubious basis a universalist conclusion that flies in the face of most of what Jesus taught about the consequences of sin.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm sorry mate, I don't see the connection.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Martin 60: It is in basing your theology in an evolving cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God. If you do this then you are hiding a series of steps in your thinking. This cultural understanding has evolved from what to what exactly? Whatever it is, it cuts you loose from the text and requires you to enter speculative territory.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Eytychus:This is what I and others here mean by the "Church Universal" or the "city of God/bride of Christ" or the "heavenly Zion", spanning all ages
Yes, I am aware you see "church" anywhere in the Bible you see "saints" "people of God" or "Israel".
This is certainly a common hermeneutic but not one that stands up to contextual scrutiny. Jesus said in Matt 18
"I WILL build my church" He did not anywhere suggest that he would continue to build what was there already but that he would (future tense) create a new entity. This duly happened in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit fell upon that group of 120.
There IS certainly a people of God spanning all ages but this does not necessarily mean they are all in one category. Why should they be?
I might agree if 'church' were a totally new term in NT times; but it ain't. OK, the Greek word for it, ekklesia, is newish, but as we discussed a page or so back, it was the LXX OT word for the 'congregation' of Israel, and could also apparently be used as a word for 'synagogue'. Our use of the differently derived word 'church' (from 'kuriakos', "the Lord's", abridged from 'the house of the Lord) to translate [I]ekklesia[I] disguises this and can distort our interpretation.
Another distorting factor is that our relationship to the Jewish people has changed since NT times; in all kinds of ways.
To Peter - a Jew himself - it is clear that Christians were seen (I Pet 2; 9) as a body continuous with the OT Israel, of which he uses OT descriptions about the chosen people, the holy nation, etc. Yes, the ekklesia now includes Gentiles, and it is the ekklesia of the Messiah/Christ Jesus - but it is simply God's people, not a separate entity.
As Paul expresses it, some of the ethnic Jews have stumbled at this and have disinherited themselves while many Gentiles have joined the faithful Jews who do follow King Jesus. By God's grace many of them continue to be saved - but by grace and love, not covenanted right; and there will, at least in some prophetic interpretation, come a time when the mass of the Jews will return to God in Christ. But the idea of the Church as a separate thing discontinuous from the OT people is contradicted over and over by texts which stress the continuity.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Sorry Steve, but the various semantic reasonings are beside the point. Can you deal with the fact thatJesus clearly stated his intention to create a future entity?
As for Peter, he sees the church as an analogous group to Israel, one with similarities and certainly principles in common such as the importance of trust and obedience but this is not a continuous group unless you make some pretty big assumptions.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
this is not a continuous group unless you make some pretty big assumptions.
Can you list what you think these assumptions are?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin 60: It is in basing your theology in an evolving cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God. If you do this then you are hiding a series of steps in your thinking. This cultural understanding has evolved from what to what exactly? Whatever it is, it cuts you loose from the text and requires you to enter speculative territory.
What steps? There is no alternative to cultural evolution but magic. I have no faith in that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin 60: It is in basing your theology in an evolving cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God. If you do this then you are hiding a series of steps in your thinking. This cultural understanding has evolved from what to what exactly? Whatever it is, it cuts you loose from the text and requires you to enter speculative territory.
What steps? There is no alternative to cultural evolution but magic. I have no faith in that.
But to say so, ie that an OT prophet or Paul or The Lord Jesus himself is talking out of a frame of which they were unaware and cannot possibly apply now is a huge assumption. It also gives you the power to decide what parts of what they said cannot apply. These subjective decisions of what to include and what to ignore are the hidden steps. You are denying the ability of God himself, in framing his words in the Bible, to step out of culture. I'm minded of the sentence in Psalms, "Thy word is forever settled in heaven."
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
this is not a continuous group unless you make some pretty big assumptions.
Can you list what you think these assumptions are?
That the saved Jews under Mosaic law are in the same category as NT believers? If so then they are part of the bride of Christ which cuts across Paul in Ephesians.
The big one is that the various watersheds of Biblical history signalled by the covenants God made at those critical points create a single group of people. How can one say Abraham or Enoch or Noah is a member of the church when at that point there was no church? Obviously, all are part of God's people for their time but not part of the same groups as each other or ourselves or whatever future groups occur like the tribulation saints. To say so ignores the contextual covenants that set rules for their relationship to God. Abraham had to circumcise his males for instance but do we?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That the saved Jews under Mosaic law are in the same category as NT believers?
What do you mean by "saved under Mosaic law"?
Do you mean "saved by virtue of the Mosaic law?" If so, you are arguing against the entire New Testament and notably Romans 4, as I have pointed out before. quote:
If so then they are part of the bride of Christ which cuts across Paul in Ephesians.
How does it cut across Paul in Ephesians when he explicitly says the work of Christ is to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile? The bride of Christ is simply an image of the people of God, all saved on the same basis, that of justification by faith, throughout the ages.
quote:
To say so ignores the contextual covenants that set rules for their relationship to God.
Again, you are implying there are multiple paths to salvation and that justification by faith is just one. Is that what you believe?
quote:
Abraham had to circumcise his males for instance
Not for the purposes of being justified as Romans 4 makes abundantly clear.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Martin 60: It is in basing your theology in an evolving cultural understanding of the Judeo-Christian God. If you do this then you are hiding a series of steps in your thinking. This cultural understanding has evolved from what to what exactly? Whatever it is, it cuts you loose from the text and requires you to enter speculative territory.
What steps? There is no alternative to cultural evolution but magic. I have no faith in that.
But to say so, ie that an OT prophet or Paul or The Lord Jesus himself is talking out of a frame of which they were unaware and cannot possibly apply now is a huge assumption.
The only possible assumption (unless the rocks lie, unless God lies), which, as you demonstrate, is huge in its impact. Everybody is talking out of a frame of which they were unaware even if they are aware of it in theory. Quite a pit of cognitive dissonance that you're staring in to there isn't it Jamat? Scary.
quote:
It also gives you the power to decide what parts of what they said cannot apply.
Of course it does. Genocide does not apply. Murdering homosexuals does not apply.
quote:
These subjective decisions of what to include and what to ignore are the hidden steps.
The subjective is real and that which is hidden is revealed. I hide from nothing.
quote:
You are denying the ability of God himself, in framing his words in the Bible, to step out of culture. I'm minded of the sentence in Psalms, "Thy word is forever settled in heaven."
I deny no such thing. His words aren't in the Bible. Ours are.
[ 06. January 2017, 09:15: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
As for Peter, he sees the church as an analogous group to Israel,
I don't think I can agree with that. Peter actually addresses his fellow church members as "A chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people". He isn't saying that they - including ethnic Jews like himself are merely 'analogous to' Israel - he is describing them as Israel. Gentile and Jew are together God's people, inheriting the promise to Abraham as Paul also says.
There is certainly a new element in the church with the incorporation of the Gentiles - but it is still the continuity that the NT emphasises, and the breaking down of the division between Jew and Gentile in ways it simply doesn't make sense to reverse.
I can't recall how much has been made of it in this thread, but there is sometimes talk as if the church era was a 'parenthesis', a kind of extra to a temporarily failed main plan for Israel. But as I read it, going right back to Abraham and the promise to bless the nations through him, it is almost (though not quite!) Israel which is the parenthesis, a period in which God, while not totally ignoring the rest of the world, concentrates his purpose on Israel in order to clarify and show his plan to save all, not just as an abstract idea but as something seen in a specific history, with historic evidence of its preparation and consummation.
In effect, the main thread, the overruling and key thread, is resumed with Jesus.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Steve, the epistle of Peter is specifically directed those who reside as aliens throughout Pontus, Capadocia,Asia, Galatia and Bithynia. IOW to Jewish Christians not gentile church members. This does not mean it applies only to them but it does suggest a bias towards them, consequently the understandings of chosen race,royal priesthood, holy nation etc are probably Jewish expectations primarily. The church as a whole is not usually seen as a nation for instance. I think a good case can be made as stated above, for Jewish Christians being a bit separated from ,though not privileged above, gentile ones. Paul seemed for instance to circumcise Jewish converts but not gentile ones.
Fructenbaum, whom I highly rate, takes this line in his commentary on 1 Peter. The following is a comment by a third party on this.
"The Ariel Bible Commentary incorporates the Messianic Epistles. One of the Commentaries in that volume is 1 Peter by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. It is a well-written exegesis of the original language of 1 Peter. Fruchtenbaum does not analyze every verb tense, voice and mood, like A.T. Robertson, but sufficiently addresses the most important and helpful interpretive issues.
With Fruchtenbaum’s Jewish background and doctoral studies, he is well-equipped to highlight the Jewish nature of this epistle, which was written to the elect in the Diaspora."
[ 07. January 2017, 08:36: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The church as a whole is not usually seen as a nation for instance.
Unless you were moving in Evangelical or Charismatic circles in the 1970s. The church as a nation was pretty standard teaching for them then.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
the epistle of Peter is specifically directed those who reside as aliens throughout Pontus, Capadocia,Asia, Galatia and Bithynia. IOW to Jewish Christians not gentile church members.
Now that (second sentence and especially the second half of the second sentence) is a massive assumption. Nowhere does it say the text is directed at Jewish Christians alone.
Even if it were, there is nothing to suggest they have a separate inheritance or destiny from the people of God as a whole.
quote:
With Fruchtenbaum’s Jewish background and doctoral studies, he is well-equipped to highlight the Jewish nature of this epistle, which was written to the elect in the Diaspora.
Precisely. To the "elect", not just the Jewish elect.
Or are you once again playing with separate categories of the "elect"?
quote:
Paul seemed for instance to circumcise Jewish converts but not gentile ones.
We have discussed this before, and you have not come up with a single instance apart from the exceptional case of Timothy, or explained Paul's vehement denial of preaching circumcision.
Note that as far as I can see, Fruchtenbaum argues for ongoing circumcision for Jews on the basis of national identity, not as playing any part in salvation or eschatology.
I would also like some answers to my questions here.
[ 07. January 2017, 11:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jamat
The ball's in your court from me too.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Jamat, Paul in Ephesians gives us the same message as Peter - only he indisputably in the context is addressing Gentiles about this New Covenant unity of God's people;
quote:
11 Wherefore, remember, that ye were once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, 12 that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world; 13 and now, in Christ Jesus, ye being once afar off became nigh in the blood of the Christ, 14 for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, 15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace, 16 and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it, 17 and having come, he did proclaim good news--peace to you--the far-off and the nigh, 18 because through him we have the access--we both--in one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, 20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner -stone, 21 in whom all the building fitly framed together doth increase to an holy sanctuary in the Lord, 22 in whom also ye are builded together, for a habitation of God in the Spirit. Eph 2:11-22 (YLT)
GOD has broken down that wall of separation to bring Jew and Gentile together - and I think that there's a text from a different context which is nevertheless thoroughly applicable
quote:
what therefore God did join together, let not man put asunder.' Mark 10:9 (YLT)
On top of which, as far as I can see the ONLY reason for 'needing' to separate Jew and Gentile in the present has to do with the supposed different destinies in the 'Rapture/Tribulation' scenario which I can't find in Scripture and which I know historically is owed to clear misinterpretation by early 19th century figures. Without that dodgy interpretation, this joint destiny of believing Jews and Gentiles, and the continuity of God's Old and New Testament people, is all that is needed.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Steve, that just isn't arbitrarily verbosely complex enough! Not by a country mile! That's a bluddy great chunk of Ephesians mind.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
@Eutychus
quote:
Do you mean "saved by virtue of the Mosaic law?"
No, I mean saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance. As Stated before, the clear teaching of Paul is that no one can be justified by the works of the law.
quote:
How does it cut across Paul in Ephesians when he explicitly says the work of Christ is to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile? The bride of Christ is simply an image of the people of God, all saved on the same basis, that of justification by faith, throughout the ages.
We disagree here as to the bride. I do not know how to visualise a corporate bride but see a special category of believers, the true church, in a relationship with Christ in the future kingdom that will necessarily exclude other categories of true believers. quote:
Again, you are implying there are multiple paths to salvation and that justification by faith is just one. Is that what you believe?
I am not implying multiple paths to salvation. There is one path, by grace through faith and all saints past,present or future look back or forwards to the cross as the pivot of the deal quote:
not for the purposes of being justified as Romans 4 makes abundantly clear
Agreed. Circumcision was merely a sign he accepted the deal. It was done as an act of faith. In itself or done for any other reason, it holds no significance. quote:
..that (second sentence and especially the second half of the second sentence) is a massive assumption. Nowhere does it say the text is directed at Jewish Christians alone.
Even if it were, there is nothing to suggest they have a separate inheritance or destiny from the people of God as a whole.
Only Jews would be part of the dispersion would they not?
Your second point is incorrect. Jews are promised a preeminent place in the future kingdom in multiple places in the OT. Many scriptural references are possible but for starters, Is9:7 "there will be no end to the increase of his government or of peace on the throne of David and over his kingdom" quote:
Precisely. To the "elect", not just the Jewish elect.
Or are you once again playing with separate categories of the "elect"?
I think elect is used here to distinguish believing from unbelieving Jews. quote:
We have discussed this before, and you have not come up with a single instance apart from the exceptional case of Timothy, or explained Paul's vehement denial of preaching circumcision.
Note that as far as I can see, Fruchtenbaum argues for ongoing circumcision for Jews on the basis of national identity, not as playing any part in salvation or eschatology.
I think that that one instance, establishes a principle here, Paul circumcised Jewish converts to protect his reputation and to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant. It was decided by the council of Jerusalem in Acts that gentiles need not be circumcised but the Jewish converts however were to undergo it. See Acts 15:19. There is an inference here that the two were separate categories of believer in the thinking of the apostles. quote:
n top of which, as far as I can see the ONLY reason for 'needing' to separate Jew and Gentile in the present has to do with the supposed different destinies in the 'Rapture/Tribulation' scenario which I can't find in Scripture and which I know historically is owed to clear misinterpretation by early 19th century figures. Without that dodgy interpretation, this joint destiny of believing Jews and Gentiles, and the continuity of God's Old and New Testament people, is all that is needed.
Steve, I agree that Christian Jews and gentiles are both in the church. I think scripture shows though that there are some differences not of course as to value before the Lord but I think the passage you quoted from Ephesians shows God including Gentiles into Jewish covenants. There is NO covenant between God and the church and gentile Christians have not superseded this role explained by Paul. The church was primarily a Jewish entity. Jesus was a Jew who came in response to Jewish prophecies to fulfil Jewish expectations. Pity they did not recognise their messiah but they will one day. You do not seem to be able to refute the idea of different categories of Gods people but only to assert what you think, i.e. One continuous people. This makes OT people members of a church that does not yet exist and it also devalues the role of Israel when 70 percent of the Bible is about Israel.
Without rehashing the idea that you think Darby was a 19th century heretic, I think that without his insights which are now accepted by large numbers of reputable people and establishments who have refined them to create a coherent,inclusive theology, e.g. Robert Anderson,Walvoord, Fruchtenbaum,Chuck Missler, Jacob Prasch, Dallas T Seminary included, all we have is confusing questions. I'm sorry he wrote in 1830 but so did Charles Darwin.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Eutychus
quote:
Do you mean "saved by virtue of the Mosaic law?"
No, I mean saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance. As Stated before, the clear teaching of Paul is that no one can be justified by the works of the law.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) If no one can be "justified by the works of the law", how can being saved by faith be a consequence of being part of a remnant that "demanded Mosaic observance"?
Your statement here characterises the inherent contradiction in your position.
quote:
I do not know how to visualise a corporate bride but see a special category of believers, the true church, in a relationship with Christ in the future kingdom that will necessarily exclude other categories of true believers.
The "bride" is a metaphor. Visualising it is no more critical than visualising, say, the "bosom of the Father". The question is what this metaphor refers to. There is nothing at all to suggest that it "necessarily excludes other categories of true believer". quote:
There is one path, by grace through faith and all saints past,present or future look back or forwards to the cross as the pivot of the deal
You keep asserting that, but saying that for some people it also "demanded Mosaic observance" or that some categories of "true believer" are excluded from the "bride" (which quite clearly represents all those for whom Christ died) very much suggests otherwise. quote:
Circumcision was merely a sign he accepted the deal. It was done as an act of faith.
As far as I can see it was done as an act of obedience. Can you point to anywhere it is said to be an act of faith, or required of Jewish believers as an act of faith? I think not. quote:
Only Jews would be part of the dispersion would they not?
The word dispersion is not in the text. 1 Peter 1 addresses the epistles to "God's elect, scattered...". It is an argument from silence to say they are only Jews, and if you make that assumption you have also to assume that only the Jews are God's elect. The text can quite simply mean all believers scattered throughout the region. This holds good even if Peter's main focus is Jewish believers.
quote:
Your second point is incorrect. Jews are promised a preeminent place in the future kingdom in multiple places in the OT.
The overriding problem we both have is that this reading is countered by the straightforward reading of the NT, such as the passage in Ephesians Steve Langton cited (which you'll notice also refers to strangers and pilgrims and quite unequivocally refers to both Jew and Gentile as such).
As I see it there are two ways of resolving this tension.
Either we take the NT as introducing more revelation by virtue of which the disciples and early church came to grips with the realisation that God's plan was in fact for all nations, and that the promises to the Jews had in fact a greater, non-physical, broader application than their forefathers had anticipated (even if the Jewish people were still to have a special place in God's heart), such that they were subsumed (and not "replaced by") into a much bigger, more diverse, even more glorifying-to-God people of every nation tribe and tongue.
Or we choose to interpret the NT in the light of a certain understanding of the OT and come up with a system which has the advantage of maintaining a "straightforward" reading of OT promises to the "house of David", "people of Israel" and about the Land, and so on, but which has the disadvantage of making the NT incredibly complicated to understand, with multiple categories of believer, etc., and generally running counter to its overwhelming message.
For instance...
quote:
I think elect is used here to distinguish believing from unbelieving Jews.
What grounds, other than the fact that this interpretation is required for your hermeneutic to work, do you have for this assertion? quote:
I think that that one instance, establishes a principle here, Paul circumcised Jewish converts to protect his reputation and to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant.
That is not just speculation, it's the opposite of what the Scripture says.
As I have pointed out twice already, in Galatians Paul dismisses the rumour that he preached circumcision saying that if he did so, he would not be being persecuted for preaching Christ. And when he circumcises Timothy, Acts 16 indicates this is so as not to be a stumbling-block to the Jews he was trying to reach, not to "fulfil a covenant".
Paul further points out in Galatians 2:3 that Titus, who was travelling with him, was not required to be circumcised. quote:
It was decided by the council of Jerusalem in Acts that gentiles need not be circumcised but the Jewish converts however were to undergo it. See Acts 15:19.
This is total bullshit.
Acts 15 says nothing at all about Jewish converts having to undergo circumcision. Acts 15:19 is talking about Gentile converts!
The upshot of the debate is to place a minimum of restrictions on non-Jewish believers, restrictions imposed as I understand it to prevent them being stumbling-blocks to Jewish believers.
In other words, on grounds of respecting others' consciences, not grounds of fulfilment of any covenant. quote:
There is an inference here that the two were separate categories of believer in the thinking of the apostles.
There were two separate categories of believer in terms of ethnic and religious background: those from a Jewish background and the Gentiles.
To me a major theme in Acts and most of the epistles is how the early church comes to terms with this state of affairs and realises that God's New Covenant is indeed New and for those from any and all backgrounds.
To argue the opposite, as you are doing, is a travesty of the Good News. quote:
There is NO covenant between God and the church
quote:
The church was primarily a Jewish entity.
Only because most of the first converts were Jews. See above. quote:
Without rehashing the idea that you think Darby was a 19th century heretic, I think that without his insights which are now accepted by large numbers of reputable people and establishments who have refined them to create a coherent,inclusive theology
Dispensationalists are a tiny proportion of those professing to be Christians. The innovative nature of Darby's ideas should give major cause for concern when it comes to testing for orthodoxy - a test which does not apply to Darwin.
[ 08. January 2017, 07:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Maybe somebody can help me out here. What on earth is "circumcizing Jewish converts" supposed to mean? If they were Jewish and male, they were already circumcized.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
youur statement here characterises the inherent contradiction in your position.
No, it means you don't understand it. The observance of the law for them was a demonstration of faith quote:
the "bride" is a metaphor
I agree it is metaphor but disagree it is merely metaphor. Metaphor portrays literal realities. Obviously that reality is at present unknowable quote:
some categories of "true believer" are excluded from the "bride
Not so. The church is the bride but OT saints are not part of the church so not part of the bride. quote:
As far as I can see it was done as an act of obedience. Can you point to anywhere it is said to be an act of faith, or required of Jewish believers as an act of faith? I think not.
Any act of obedience is also an act of faith.
quote:
The text can quite simply mean all believers scattered throughout the region
contextually I think it is most likely that the scattered ones are Jewish Christians. Of course you can disagree if your hermeneutic demands it. quote:
Or we choose to interpret the NT in the light of a certain understanding of the OT and come up with a system which has the advantage of maintaining a "straightforward" reading of OT promises to the "house of David", "people of Israel" and about the Land, and so on, but which has the disadvantage of making the NT incredibly complicated to understand
Well, to me this is just an excuse not to take Jewish references in the OT seriously as it does not suit the chosen hermeneutic. Nothing counter to the thrust of the NT is suggested. This is overgeneralising and vague. BTW what comes first? new or Old? quote:
What grounds, other than the fact that this interpretation is required for your hermeneutic to work, do you have for this assertion
It follows from the context. The epistle of 1 Peter is written in the first instance to Jewish Christians. You may not agree but it is. quote:
that is not just speculation, it's the opposite of what the Scripture says.
No, he deals with the circumcision question as does the church by agreeing Jewish believers keep circumcision but gentile believers are free from this obligation. If he did not circumcise Titus, it was because he was not Jewish he was Greek as the text clearly states. quote:
Acts 15 says nothing at all about Jewish converts having to undergo circumcision. Acts 15:19 is talking about Gentile converts
I did not say it did. What I said was that the council distinguished Jewish from gentile believers quote:
There were two separate categories of believer in terms of ethnic and religious background: those from a Jewish background and the Gentiles.
To me a major theme in Acts and most of the epistles is how the early church comes to terms with this state of affairs and realises that God's New Covenant is indeed New and for those from any and all backgrounds.
To argue the opposite, as you are doing, is a travesty of the Good News.
I agree with this and would not argue against it. Certainly, the gospel is available to all ethnicities. Thank God! quote:
Dispensationalists are a tiny proportion of those professing to be Christians. The innovative nature of Darby's ideas should give major cause for concern when it comes to testing for orthodoxy - a test which does not apply to Darwin.
Maybe that tiny portion makes more sense of scripture than anyone else. I was not always a dispensationalist. What clarified my mind was going to a study by Fruchtenbaum. Do you not think the 'This can't be right no one thought of it till the 19th century' argument is a bit pathetic? First, you don't really know that, it is assumed and second, doctrines should stand or fall on their merits, not on the basis of when they might have come to light or not as the case may be. That is just a big non sequitur to my mind.(And I do not believe in Darwinism. Just for the record.)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
