Subnostr

Don't put words in my mouth. I see that you are acquainted with the strawman. I never stated, or even implied, that the promises were only about the land. As I recall, I started this conversation with a post about the land grant and it is my impression that you have introduced an assortment of other issues into the mix. Is that because there is no clear scriptual obviation of the land grant as it is clearly stated? You seem to treat the entire OT as an allegory in order to get around the plain meaning of the words. Do you think that the words were incorrectly translated, that eternal does not mean eternal? That the Jews were disciplined for a time by removal from the land does not obviate the land grant just as God's discipline of Christians does not obviate their salvation or their title to real estate in the New Jerusalem. God's gifts are irrevocable. Do you think there is a translation error in Romans 11, that irrevocable means revocable? Yes, the Jews were disciplined for a time but the Scriptures prophesied that they would be regathered in a particular parcel of real estate and indeed they have been.

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 2y ago

Woah, brother, I was not putting words in your mouth. I do not mean to offend. My point was to say that these are Paul's words, not mine. The land grant was not removed it was expanded to include the entire world. And the culmination of all the promises to David, to Israel, to Abraham, and back to Gen. 3:15 culminate in the receiving of the Spirit by faith, and are fulfilled in Christ--the offspring of Abrahamto whom the promises were given. This is not to misapply a metaphor. I'm not trying to start a fight here, only get at the true teaching of the whole counsel of God, and reading the OT in light of the NT and not the reverse.

✌

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 2y ago

Would I be incorrect to assume your view is some form of premillennial dispensationalism? Honest Q.

Veritas ✝️🇺🇲⚓⚡💊 2y ago

Do you ask that question to put me in a category so you can categorically dismiss my arguments? Is that an ad hominem argument? I prefer to focus on the issue at hand. Please don't take offense. I've worked as an attorney in litigation for decades and I've come to view argument as an essential tool to find the truth. It's basically the Socratic Method. It's been employed as a means of seeking the truth for thousands of years but I have found that it isn't very efficient if the interlocutors go off on tangents and don't stay focused on the issue at hand. We don't seem to be making much headway on the land grant issue. How about I just say, "Bless You Brother" and give it a rest for now?

freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg 2y ago

No: I asked because labels and categories can function as conversational shorthand; they can sometimes come pre-packaged with other positions which, once discovered, may get closer to the issue at hand. Presuppositions matter: if there is disagreement downstream, the real source of disagreement may be somewhere upstream. Call it a kind of root cause analysis.

✌🏻