Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonWhat is what? Are you finally admitting it is a leading question?
No, I'm saying it is an important first step in the discussion.
That is too bad. For it is high time you admitted that it is a
leadinq question, NOT "an important first step in the discussion."
I once posted a paper on methodology. Or moderator warned me that most
people wouldn't understand it. He was right. It seems as if even the
great EO apologist, Matthew, doesn't understand it either. It is not
leading. It is foundational. You might know some Greek but it appears
you don't know linquistics.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comMy position rests on the grammatical/historical -literal
interpretation of the text.
So you love to repeat. But I am not the only one who sees through
this. If you _really_ want "an important first step in the
discussion", start by recognizing this BASIC fact.
There is nothing "grammatical/historical -literal" about a
_parenthetical_ Church, nor can there be. Just as there is nothing
"grammatical/historical -literal" about your fictitious distinction
between "bride of Christ" and "wife/bride of YHWH".
Okay, you've made a declaration. Now prove it! But you're never up to
that task, are you? How convienent. It is so easy to ridicule and to
throw out little tacks all across the road, but substantiation appears
beyond you.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comYou position rests on the allegorical methodology.
This is wrong in two ways. First of all, there are many other exegetes
(and notice that unlike you, I know this is a noun) who reject
allegorical methodology, who agree with me in condemning
dispensationalism.
So what? How many different camps stood against Paul. Again, just
look at Galatians. Numbers NEVER count. Remnant is always small. But
you constantly bring this up as if this were some sort of
substantiation. Most people in the world are not born again
Christians. Does that nulify the fact that only the regenerate will
enjoy the wonders of heaven? The more you write the less you seem
qualified to debate.
Post by Matthew JohnsonAnd they even agree with me that your interpretation
is NOT "grammatical/historical -literal". Secondly, you have no
grounds for rejecting allegorical methodology.
The burden of proof lies at your door, not mine. As I've countless
times asked, "Why, at the time of their writing, where the books of the
bible always in the common tongue?" To amplify this thought is Daniel
which has the first 7 chapters written in Aramaic, the common tongue of
Babylon. The remaining chapters, which were specific to Israel, are
written in Hebrew.
The primary reason for rejecting allegorical interpretation is that
there are no final standards. In explaining this weekend, the
differences between traditional, modern and postmodern reality, I now
see that allegorism can fit the two later paradigms. I illustrated the
differences by refering to a baseball umpire. The traditional umpire
would claim, "I call them as they are." The modern umpire would claim,
"I call them as I see them." The postmodern umpire would claim, "They
aint noth'n until I call them." There are few restraints placed on
the allegorical model. It is pointedly relativistic in nature. How
many various models are there within the allegorical school? As many
as there are using it I suppose. In looking at the Jewish use of
allegorical interpretation, one sees the many different opinions that
rise out of its implimentation. All one has to do is follow the
various theological debates that have occurred down through the history
of the Church over this allegorical school verses that. There is no
great harmony within that hermeneutic. So, once again, it is up to you
show the common man why we shouldn't read the scriptures normatively.
To enforce the allegorical methodology once again takes the scriptures
out of the everyday Joe. For inorder to remain somewhat unified, an
elite must step forward and claim that their interpretation is the
correct one. This was never the intent of Scripture.
In Gal 4:24 Paul states that the story of Hagar and Ishmael and Sarah
and Isaac are an illustration. There is no casting of doubt on the
historical actuality of the persons or the events. An allegory is a
statement of facts which is to be understood literally and yet requires
or justly admits a moral or a figurative interpretation. In the
context, Paul uses the figuration to prove his argument that the law is
superseded by grae. Hagar is representative of the covenant of law
given at Sinai. But the use of an allegory is significantly different
and to be distinquished from the allegorical method of interpretation.
The rejection of Ishmael point to a rejection of those who are merely
children of the flesh while Isaac represents those who are both,
children of the flesh and children by faith.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comMy point was that you must first show that the normative reading of
the primary passages in question is incorrect.
And my point is that what you call 'normative' is NOT. Also, that by
phrasing the question this way, you ARE asking a leading question.
Never capable of just answering the question, are you.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comTo do this, you must substantiate the allegorical methodology and its
presumptions when addressing prophetic passages. This you continue
to fail at doing. You trying the old, "Oh look over there," to turn
attention away from the issue at hand.
This is utter nonsense. I do no such thing. Rather, that is what YOU
do whenever you launch into one of your anti-catholic diatribes.
All of which I have attempted to provide a basis for. When arguing
that Peter was never in Rome and therefore couldn't be the "First Pope"
and therefore the whole apostolic succession thing being a sham, I gave
a scriptural accounting of Peter's travels and times required to make
them. I substantiated the claim. But this you never seem capable of
doing. Just look at this "rebuttal." What have you provided beyond
bare negation? Talk about throwing stones while living in a glass
house!
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comProbably less than a half dozen times in almost 20 years, has he done
so.
He should do so more often. The bad influence you have on the group
may sway him to start doing it more often.
I would be more than willing to be prohibited from posting if it meant
the same for you. I wouldn't like it but for the sake of the group, I
would bow to it. Your sort of antagonism does nothing for the cause of
Christ. There is no fruit of the Spirit in your caustic inuendoes and
out right elitism. For the most part, I have tried simply to debate
the issues, not the "spirit" of your replies. But of late, I haven't
had to call you on your lack of spiritual kinsmanship because others
have been speaking out against it themselves. It really bothers me
just how much this NG has changed since you came on board. And I'm
not claiming any sort of beyond the pale on my part. But there is a
noticeable difference between the spirit of your posts and most others.
.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comwell here it comes back at you. "Allowance" is exactly what
dispensationalism adheres to.
Well so WHAT if that is "exactly what dispensationalism adheres to."?
You still adhere fallaciously.
But I can support from the Pauline argument in Galatians. Therein he
refers to the Abrahamic covenant wherein Gentiles have a chance of
being included within the scope of its blessing (but not in any sort of
replacement theology) .
Post by Matthew JohnsonAnd in order for your accusation of
"straw-man" to hold water, you would have to have a _genuine_
distinction between 'allowance' and 'indication'. But this you cannot
do.
An "indication" would be contextually evident. But seeing as how the
Church was not revealed until hundreds of years later, that is
something of an imposibility. An "allowance" is a provision which is
not understood or revealed until later. There is a basic difference if
you will but admit to it.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comNowhere in Gen 12 is there ANY "indication" that, as you put forth,
that the Gentiles would not only be blessed for blessing Israel, they
would actually become Israel itself.
You have changed the topic. You are "moving the goalpost". It is NOT
necessary such detail be present in Gen 12 for Gen 12:3 to be an
indication of the Church.
"indication" not "allowance." Come on. Stop with the factionism which
disallows for any harmony whatsoever.
Post by Matthew JohnsonIn fact, if we just _look_ at the whole verse, we can _easily_ see
I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse;
and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves."
(Gen 12:3 RSVA)
End quote-----------------
But HOW have all the "families[sic] of the earth" been blessed by/in
Abraham? Through the Church, since we are sons of Abraham through
Don't see how illogical your interpretation is? The blessing come
because there is a distinction between the Gentiles and Israel (yet in
the loins of Abraham). This is part of the Pauline argument in
Galatians. How can there be a blessing unless there is a distinction
between the two? Your stated position requires of the Church to be
both the basis for and the receipent of at one and the same time. This
is not reasonable.
Post by Matthew JohnsonThus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as
righteousness." So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of
Abraham.
Faith alone as Paul argues in Galatians.
Post by Matthew JohnsonAnd the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying,
"In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are men
of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. (Gal 3:6-9 RSVA)
End quote-----------------
Gal 3&4 are the doctrinal chapters of this letter. He seeks to
illustrate that Abraham was declared righteous before the giving of the
law therefore salvation has no works required of it. Basically, he is
distinquishing the sacrifice of Cain vs Abel's.
Abraham's act of faith is not to be looked upon as being meritorious.
He believed God and his act of faith *was credited to him* which then
resulted in the declaration. God deemed Abe's act of faith as that
which made it possible for Him to give him salvation. Justification is
the act of God. It is the removal of guilt from the sinner and the
penalty incurred thereby, bestowing a positive righteousness, Christ's
righteousness, in whom the believer stands, not only innocent and
uncondemned, but actually righteous in point of law for time and for
eternity. This is what God did for Abraham on account of his faith.
Equally so, this is what the Judaizers were attempting to merit for
themselves except by a measure of good works added to their faith.
Translation: Just as Abraham believed God, and his act of faith was
credited to him, resulting in [his] righteousness. (v6) You perceive,
therefore, that those who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham. (v7)
And the scripture forseeing that on a basis of faith God justifies the
Gentiles, announced the gospel beforehand to Abraham, namely, all the
gentiles shall be blessed in you. (v8)
The "would justify" are in the present tense indicating that Paul was
here thinking of a general principle, a rule of action which God
operates for all time. THE condition on which a person is declared
just, is faith -period!
Now on to v 15. "Covenant" is diatheke, which means "to place between
two" in verb form. Formally it refers to the act whereby one of the
two parties places between them something to which he obligates
himself. It is an engagement, if you will, on the part on one party
which is entered into with the second party promising to do thus and
so. In refering to the Abrahamic Covenant, it speaks of the agreement
which God entered into with Abraham whereby He promises to justify him
based on his act of faith when He Himself would one day offer up
Himself as an atonement. This covenant or agreement was made by God.
The context of the argument, however, is that just because the Mosaic
Covenant was made later, it did not invalidate the original covenant.
The word "confirmed" is in the perfect tense. Simply put, the matter
is closed. Therefore, "noman annuls it nor adds stipulations to it."
The doctrine point is that works cannot be added to faith as a new
condition for justification because in doing so, it would nulify the
contract. To add any sort of dependency other than faith, necessarily
leads to the abandonment of faith. Thus Paul's argument declares that
anyone who would seek to establish the new rule of works plus faith,
remains outside of the original covenant and therefore yet remains in
his sin and the guilt and condemnation thereof.
V 16 grants the definition of the blessing. It is ONLY by the Gentiles
placement in Christ (seed), that a blessing is gained.
In v 18, neither "law" or "promise' have the definite article which
renders them to speak of two opposing principles.
"Charizomai" speaks of a spontaneous gift of unmerited generosity.
There are no strings attached. It is purely by grace, a free act of
one who gives something with no thought or allowance of repayment.
This word militates against any who would add to sola fide. The whole
point of the Pauline argument is that faith has always been the sole
means of obtaining salvation. The only noted difference is that in the
old dispensation, the believer looked forward to its accomplishment but
in the new dispensation, it is a historic fact.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonFor I do no wish you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers; so
that you not think too highly of yourselves, that a hardening
happened in Israel for a time, until the full number [of the
Gentiles] come in.
Ya, so?
If you would pay attention instead of whining your false accusations,
you would know the answer to your question. I say "for a time", you
say "in part".
You like to buttress your arguments with the thought that the opinions
of others largely stand in your favor. However, that is not the case
in this incident. Here the majority, the favored view, is that "in
part" is more in keeping with the argument not to mention the prophetic
record.
Post by Matthew JohnsonOf course, you and I agree that in factg, it is "for a
time". What we do not agree on is VERY relevant to your claim that it
means "in part". For if it means "in part", then you can find some
small support for your claims concerning Israel. But you find MUCH
less, even NONE if it really does mean exclusively "for a time".
Again, one must look at the entire scoup of Paul's introduction of
Israel into the argument of election PLUS the entire prophetic record
which consistently states that "He shall purify the sons of Levi."
Israel remains in the plan of God and the election of the remnant is as
sure as the believers of the Church age.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by l***@hotmail.comPost by Matthew JohnsonWhere is this remnant now? Who are they? Messianic Jews, according
to your theory?
Certainly. They are "in Christ." They are part of the Church.
However, they do not lose their distinction of being the "Israel of
God." You apparently do not know many Messianic Jews or what they
believe.
Since you admire them so much, I know that they must be evil;)
And since you do not admire them so much, you lose out on the blessing
of Gen 12:3, don't you!