In article <813ai.11395$***@trnddc03>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonWe have been over this before. Abraham (Jn 8:56) and David did not
interpret these covenants as carnally as you do.
Carnally? What, did you learn a new word today? Carnally?
Yes, carnally. It is carnal. Just as your childish snipe, "did you
learn a new word today" is carnal.
Post by l***@hotmail.comYou are so quick to make judgments and talk down to everyone here.
Am I? Then how do you always beat me to it? Oh, don't tell me, let me
guess: you have a keen eye for others' 'offenses' but never see your
own.
Post by l***@hotmail.comWhen are you going to display any fruit of the Spirit?
I already have. But true to form, you missed it completely. You
remind me of that political cartoon during the Nixon impeachment,
when a pro-Nixon senator was depicted with a bag over his head in
front off mountains of evidence, saying "I don't see any evidence".
The only 'proof' you ever display in this NG, Loren, if proof that
there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Post by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonWhat is more, in that same passage referred to above, Christ was
_highly_ critical of that carnal interpretation. But in your zeal
for the self-delusion that is 'dispensationalism', you fail to
notice this.
Dispensationalism is quite biblical sound.
No, it is not. That is why you could not answer the passages I referenced.
Post by l***@hotmail.comUnlike your system of theology,
But of course, you do not even know that "my system" even IS. You
think you do, but no, you do not. Instead, you keep on coming back to
the same straw-man argument version of it.
Then again, what else can we expect out of someone who fails to
understand even the New Testament's use of allegorical (especially
typological) methods of interpretation?
Perhaps your confusion would not be quite so bad if you would finally
do what I have been reminding you you need to do for years: instead of
giving _other_ people reading assignments, do your own homework: read
Lossky, not Clendenin.
Post by l***@hotmail.comit does not ___***HAVE***____ to resort to spiritualizing the text to
make it say what you wish it
But the only difference between dispensationalist 'hermeneutics' and
what you mock here is the precise 'resort': instead of 'spiritualizing',
you are selectively literal, _ignoring_ all the clear evidence that
the Church is the New Israel, and that there is NO 'parenthesis'
between the 'dispensations'.
Despite your pretty words claiming to be fully literal, you _depart_
radically from any literal hermeneutic whenever you call the Church a
'parenthesis'. Only by boldly disregarding the obvious context is it
possible to claim that the New Testament teaches a 'parenthesis'.
Post by l***@hotmail.comto say inorder to remain consistent to your presuppositions.
Did you learn a new word today, Loren? 'Presuppositions', indeed! You
use this word "in and out of season", mostly out.
Post by l***@hotmail.comDispensationism simply allows the text to be read normally.
No, it does NOT allow it to be "read normally". There is nothing
_normal_ about dipsensationalism's 'parenthesis', nor about the
attempt to replace the parenthesis with "progressive
dispensationalism". These are nothing but excuses to cover up the
basic inconsistencies in dispensationalism.
The most glaring of these is that the New Testament teaches the Church
is the New Israel, the Body of Christ, founded to last forever (Mt
16:18)
But this basic NT truth is too embarrassing for dispensationalists, so
you have to invent fictions such as a finite 'Church Age' or a "Church
as parenthesis", _clearly_ contradicting the NT.
Post by l***@hotmail.comAgain, there has never been any rebuttal to George Peter's
"Theocratic Kingdom".
There has never been any rebuttal to St. Andrew of Crete's commentary
on the Book of Revelation either. But I don't see you holding it up as
irrefutable.
Post by l***@hotmail.comAnd he wasn't even a dispensationalist.
First 69 weeks of Daniel's 70 week prophecy was fulfilled literally.
No, it was not.
Post by l***@hotmail.comALL Messianic prophecies were fulfilled literally.
No, they were not. I already gave you one that was not. You snipped
the reference without replying.
[snip]
Post by l***@hotmail.comWhere is your proof? Where are your arguments? Where have you
proposed at counter proposal with buttressing supportive arguments?
Where is all these years have you ever produced them?
Yes, I have. You ignored them, pretending they were not there,
launching into angry, heated diatribes like this one instead of
addressing the arguments. And then, as if to emphasize your own
dishonesty, you cry out "where is your proof?"
Post by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comAnd who were they given to? Christ is not offering the kingdom to
the Church because the Church had not even yet been revealed.
You are relying on a "distinction without a difference": the Church
IS the New Israel.
And what do you have to support such a position? Gal 6:16? Hardly.
This shows how poorly you understand "such a position". There is much
more than just Gal 6:16.
Post by l***@hotmail.comIt supports you neither contextually, argumentively, expositionally
nor linguistically.
This has got to be the worst tricolon I have ever seen. You have
confused hermeneutics with 'proof-texting'. Maybe YOU only understand
proof-texting, but the rest of us in the NG know better.
After all, until you piped up, I had never heard _anyone_ try to argue
exclusively on the basis of this verse, that the Church is the New
Israel. So for you to pipe up claiming it can't be done is just
another example of your sick love for "straw-man" arguments.
Besides: even if the tricolon _were_ any good, it would have to be
applied to your _own_ argument. For as we shall see below, it is
_your_ interpretation that is supported "neither contextually,
argumentively[sic!], expositionally nor linguistically".
Post by l***@hotmail.com"Kai" is the conjunction.
This is a good example of how you do not know Greek. KAI is a
_particle_. As a particle, is is sometimes used adverbially, sometimes
as a conjunction.
Post by l***@hotmail.com"Them and the Israel of God."
Not so fast. You have to first prove that this is the conjunctive use of
the _particle_ KAI rather than the adverbial. But you are a long way
from doing that.
Post by l***@hotmail.com"Them" are the Gentiles"who walk by this rule" [i.e. sola fide].
And no, that is not what "this rule" refers to. This is an example of
how your reading is NOT "contextually supported". "This rule" must
instead refer to Gal 6:15, the preceding verse: "neither circumcision
counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but A NEW CREATION".
Of course, this understanding is _fatal_ to dipsensationalism, since
in truth, you _deny_ the teaching of Paul that this NEW CREATION is
all that matters, that this NEW CREATION is the CHURCH.
But your errors do not stop there. It is _you_ who is ignoring the
context when you say it refers eclusively to the _Gentiles_ who walk
according to the rule. The context shows it must refer to ALL who walk
by the rule, who are the "new creation".
Post by l***@hotmail.comThey are distinct from the believing remnant of Israel as taught by
Paul in Rom 9-11 as well.
That is NOT what Rom 9-11 teach. No, Rom 9-11 also teach that there is
a one new creation of the body of believers, Jew and Gentile, the
Church.
How could you _miss_ this? It should have been clear even from just
one of these verses, namely:
For, "every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved."
(Rom 10:13 RSVA)
It does not say "every one of the Jews", it does not say "every one of
the Gentiles"; it says "EVERY ONE".
But if that was not clear enough, it should have been made clear by
reading this together with the preceding verse:
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek[gentile]; the same
Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon
him. For, "every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be
saved." (Rom 10:12-13 RSVA)
Did you see it this time? It says "NO distinction". In what? Why, in
the Church, of course.
But of course, you have squeezed your eyes shut too tightly, using
those dispensationalist blinders, determined to avoid seeing the truth
of the Gospel. Why you are so determined to be a latter-day Judaizer
is the mystery to me.
Post by l***@hotmail.comAt best, you have but this one verse to build your case.
Not true. Only in your very broken straw man argument is this
'true'. "My case" is built not just on Gal 6:16, but on the MANY
verses where Paul describes the Church as ONE, made up of male and
female, Jew and Gentile, rich and poor.
Post by l***@hotmail.comDoctrine is never built upon one verse.
You should show some awareness of this principle in your own
'hermeneutics', Loren. Neither I nor the Fathers whose interpretation
I follow ever "built it on one verse". Take a look, for example, at
Eph 2:14:
For he is our peace, who has made us both [Jew and Gentile] one, and
has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, (Eph 2:14 RSVA)
But you insist on setting up a new dividing wall, thus proving
yourself an enemy of Christ and His Church.
Indeed, after these verses, for you to claim that Paul teaches aa
_distinction_ between the two [Church and Israel of God] is the depths
of absurdity and the height of audacity'.]
Post by l***@hotmail.comThe OT has too many verses declaring that God will never forsake the
Jew even in their unbelief.
None of which you understand.
Post by l***@hotmail.comThat is because Israel is an elect *nation.*
And within that election is also the election of a remnant of
individuals. THAT, my unbelieving friend, is the true Israel of God.
It is you, not I, who is the unbeliever, since you reject the teaching
of Paul, even the teaching of the whole NT, that the Church
(i.e. those who follow the "this rule" of Gal 6:15) is the NEW
CREATION of Gal 6:15.
Post by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonThere is ONE "Kingdom of God" He speaks of in Chapter 12, and it
is this same Kingdom mentioned in the next Chapter. >> >A
careful study of "the kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven"
"Careful study"? Dipsensationalists compulsively _avoid_ "careful
study" of the issue.
Where is your proof? Where are your arguments? Where have you
proposed a counter proposal with buttressing supportive arguments?
Where is all these years have you ever produced them?
Why are you repeating yourself? My previous answer still stands. Your
vain repetition accomplishes nothing except to show off your
incompetence.
Post by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comreveals that at times they are interchangeable while at other times
they are distinct.
Well, guess what: this is one of the times they are interchangeable.
Where is your proof? Where are your arguments?
All over the place. Open your eyes and see.
Post by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comHowever, the kingdom hope of Israel was the fulfillment of the
land, throne and "kingdom" 2 Sam 7. Look at the "I will"s and
note the absence of any conditions.
Ah, but if you insist on reading them so literally, and as really
being not subject to any conditions, then they are FALSE. For the
people Israel have been very much oppressed since that time; nor is
Israel now ruled by the house of David. But He said that house
would rule forever (2 Sam 7:16).
WHEN? When will the house rule forever?
Didn't you read the verses? The interpretation is clear, as Keil &
Delitzsch explain:
The kingdom of God in Israel first acquired its rest and consolation
through the efforts of David, when God had made all his foes subject
to him and established his throne firmly, i.e., had assured to his
descendants the possession of the kingdom for all future time.
[Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament]
Post by l***@hotmail.comThe covenants were given as promises of a future fulfillment.
Newsflash: the house of David was -already- ruling. The promise of
eternal rule of that house was given starting right away. Again, see
the K&D citation above. But it was NOT eternal, since Herod the Great
was not of the House of David. There is a gap between the last earthly
king of that house and Christ.
Post by l***@hotmail.comWhat of the promise given to Abram in Gen 15.
What of it? This does not make your case. As Paul made so clear, that
'seed' (in Gen 15:5) refers to Christ (whose body is the Church), NOT
to the nation of Israel according to the flesh:
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the
children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as
descendants. (Rom 9:8 RSVA)
WE, the Church, are those "children of the promise". As for the rest
of the chapter, the land _was_ given; that promise was long ago
fulfilled. But it was NOT promised to be given forever.
[snip]
Post by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonAnd don't think you can weasel out of this by referring to Christ's
being of David: for there is a GAP between the last Davidic king and
the birth of Christ.
What was given as the test of a prophet as written by Moses?
That is neither here nor there.
Post by l***@hotmail.comIt was that a generational prophecy was given to validate the future
promise. Even Christ, as Prophet, used this paradigm in the reading
of Isa 61 and stopping in the middle of the verse because He was
declaring a gap between "proclaiming the favorable year of the Lord"
and that of "the Day of Vengeance of our God."
He made no such proclamation. This is just dispensationalist
imagination run amuck.
Post by l***@hotmail.comAnd casual student of the flow of prophetic history would know that
there are gaps and there are elaborations or further defining of some
prophecies. Compare Gen 3:15 with Isa 53.
And in case you didn't know, this is _exactly_ why it has long been so
_controversial_ that Gen 3:15 and Isa 53 refer to the same
prophecy. So no, this does _not_ support you.
Post by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comAgain, you press forth an objection without any proposition
support for that objection.
"Proposition support"?
Post by l***@hotmail.comAgain you fail in proposing a counter offer and support of that
position.
Nonsense.
Actions speak louder than words. You produce neither.
Yes, actions do speak louder than words. And your actions in this NG
are so full of lies, they speak louder than your other words.
[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)