Theology Club: Blinding of Israel

[Idolater]

Yep. Therefore, we need to be smart enough to see who is being addressed, and the time period that is being discussed.

Some things are so obvious, it should go without saying. Too many folks aren't reading the word as it's written while seeing who it is being directed to.

That's part of it. You suppose or probably 'presuppose' who the audience is as you read. You're begging the question that you've correctly identified the audience, along with everything else, every little detail about the verse, whenever you set out what it means, because it's always what it means within a school of thought, a theory, or through a 'lens'.

We just want the right lens. Then we can read the Scripture correctly. And live the Christian life correctly. We anticipate the end of time correctly.

There's a lot 'riding on' theology, which is why 'Theology Online' is so important.

 

[Tambora]

Reminds me of John MacArthur. He did that, he went line-by-line, for decades, before he realized that his overall understanding of the Scripture was something he called 'leaky Dispensationalism', and he wound up taking Calvinism seriously. I don't know what he 'identifies as' today, but your desire here to go through the whole Scripture line-by-line reminded me of MacArthur.

Yeah, the oldies like John MacArthur, Chuck Missler, Chuck Smith, etc. did that a lot.
I loved it!
But yeah, they would rubber band it at times and stretch it to the limits!
But you definitely knew the whole book afterwards and could spot those times when you thought "Hold on, I don't think the context is going in that direction".
In other words, you learned where the problematic verses were that people twist to the advantage of their ism, even your own.
Let's face it, no matter what ism you hold to you know there are certain verses that are a bit difficult to link up towards your ism.
But you find a way no matter how far you have to stretch to do it.
Why?
Because if you don't, your ism may come crumbling down like a house of cards.
And lo and behold you are going to have to read scripture again with a different perspective.
We can't have that! That's too much trouble!

You can't do 'line-by-line' somehow 'above' or apart from your overall understanding of the Scripture. It's impossible to. You need a 'paradigm' or lens through which you're reading line-by-line, and so if you go line-by-line you're only going to be sketching out what your overall understanding of the Scripture is, because it's all going to be according to how it 'fits in' with your overall understanding of the Scripture is, which is, as I'm sure JR could tell you, begging the question.

So when you're done going line-by-line, you're going to be debating theories, or schools of theology.

Here's a thought experiment.

Approach the Bible as you would any book of short stories, or a novel about supernatural phenomenon and mystical creatures among mankind in ancient cultures.
Sorta like reading Game of Thrones and imagining you are there.

You already know the Bible is inspired and real historical events, but just read it with new eyes for once as just a story to see if any of your perspectives of the message it is sending change a bit.
I actually loved trying this, as I think modern man has done it's best to paint it as privative native imaginations and explain them away with natural scientific explanations.
You kinda start to forget the battle of those creatures of light and darkness are still real and among us.

 

[Tambora]

So, the Jews wait for their salvation,

Ummm, I thought it was the "promise".

and we wait for our resurrected bodies.

Which is also a promise.

Sounds alright, but I'm not sure that the redemption of our bodies would be considered a "promise".

Right, definitions change depending on what ism you want it to adhere to.
Every ism I know does that when necessary to uphold their ism.
In your ism we don't have a promise of our corruptible bodies changed to incorruptible.
It will have to be called by some other word that has the same result.

 

[Tambora]

Maybe she's playing devil's advocate. She's making us share the hope that's in us.

I'm not doing that.
I don't want folks to become stagnate in their search for truth as if they have already learned all they need to know about the salvation of our great God and Savior.
There's layers upon layers in scripture meanings.

 

[Idolater]

Yeah, the oldies like John MacArthur, Chuck Missler, Chuck Smith, etc. did that a lot.

MacArthur was my favorite of those, I also liked Chuck Swindoll. J. Vernon McGee was a kick as well. But eventually I started to look to see the things they'd say that revealed their theology.

I loved it!
But yeah, they would rubber band it at times and stretch it to the limits!

MacArthur didn't do that, but he basically 'backed himself into' some sort of Dispensationalism, in avoiding dealing with theology, he with all his education and his sharp mind and his work ethic was some sort of Dispensationalist by default.

It's a powerful witness to Dispensationalism, giving 'the devil' his due. If you deliberately try to avoid theology, but you believe the Word of God is rock solid truth, and you study the Greek dutifully, and if you study the King James Bible, then Dispensationalism of some sort is destined for you.

But you definitely knew the whole book afterwards and could spot those times when you thought "Hold on, I don't think the context is going in that direction".
In other words, you learned where the problematic verses were that people twist to the advantage of their ism, even your own.

Yeah. You see it, as an issue for the first time. Once you understand that nobody is coming from some sort of 'theological neutrality' because no such thing exists. You're either a Calvinist of some sort or you're not. Not neutral. It's a definite yes or no.

Let's face it, no matter what ism you hold to you know there are certain verses that are a bit difficult to link up towards your ism.
But you find a way no matter how far you have to stretch to do it.
Why?
Because if you don't, your ism may come crumbling down like a house of cards.
And lo and behold you are going to have to read scripture again with a different perspective.
We can't have that! That's too much trouble!


Here's a thought experiment.

Approach the Bible as you would any book of short stories, or a novel about supernatural phenomenon and mystical creatures among mankind in ancient cultures.
Sorta like reading Game of Thrones and imagining you are there.

You already know the Bible is inspired and real historical events, but just read it with new eyes for once as just a story to see if any of your perspectives of the message it is sending change a bit.
I actually loved trying this, as I think modern man has done it's best to paint it as privative native imaginations and explain them away with natural scientific explanations.
You kinda start to forget the battle of those creatures of light and darkness are still real and among us.

The big picture, panoramic view of the Bible has for some a very Israel-heavy element, but for many the Jesus-heaviness overwhelms the Israel-heaviness and it's a blowout, hands down.

Aside from someone trying to reconcile the fate of the 'house of Israel' ("Israel" itself becomes difficult to define by the time the New Testament events occurred) in the Old Testament with the New, our arguments are about our theology because our theology is in part exactly what we think of the Jesus-heavy New Testament. Like is He God? That sort of thing.

What the earliest Church thought about Jesus isn't deciding for me, my mind is open to the Scripture completely, but I definitely looked into what the Church thought about Jesus, and they all had Him as God way early on, so I started to trust that they weren't all idiots.

I don't think the Apostles were idiots either, even Peter, although he learned lessons the hard way----the embarrassing way, so that we have been reading of his early flaws in life for going on 2000 years now.

 

[Tambora]

edit
wrong thread

 

[glorydaz]

Ummm, I thought it was the "promise".


Which is also a promise

This is the only promise Paul speaks of. As per 2 Cor. 7:1

2 Cor. 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Right, definitions change depending on what ism you want it to adhere to.
Every ism I know does that when necessary to uphold their ism.
In your ism we don't have a promise of our corruptible bodies changed to incorruptible.

I think you have "ism" stuck on your brain.

It will have to be called by some other word that has the same result.

Why don't we let scripture decide.

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[musterion]

I'm not doing that.
I don't want folks to become stagnate in their search for truth

Paul said the revelation of the mystery IS the fullness of God's word to us. There IS nothing beyond it from God for us.

The real Tambora knew that.

as if they have already learned all they need to know about the salvation of our great God and Savior.

No, you want people to share your fear that He'll cast you into Hell if you get out of line now or in the Tribulation, which denies the gospel of grace. The Tambora we used to know NEVER would have said the things you have.

There's layers upon layers in scripture meanings.

To be found outside of the Bible, too?

We are not fooled. You are not Tambora.

 

[Arial]

Reminds me of John MacArthur. He did that, he went line-by-line, for decades, before he realized that his overall understanding of the Scripture was something he called 'leaky Dispensationalism', and he wound up taking Calvinism seriously. I don't know what he 'identifies as' today, but your desire here to go through the whole Scripture line-by-line reminded me of MacArthur.

The last book I read of MacArthur's, which has been awhile back, he said he was some form of dispensationalism (he said what form but I no longer recall.) I do know from the MacArthur NKJV Study Bible, which I have and have read, he believes in the reinstatement of the animal sacrifices in a literal thousand year reign and the restoration of Israel at that time. The NT notes mostly line up with what is called Calvinism.

Not all isms are wrong simply because an ism has been attached to whatever it is. And ism is often attached to something that it should not be attached to---as in Calvinism which is reduced to the five points of the tulip, which is actually only a part of, and a very small part at that, of the whole, which is Reformed Theology. Reformed at its core a concerted attempt to bring Christianity back under the umbrella of scripture alone, and that consistent with in particular apostolic teaching on salvation. The doctrines of God and Christ. Many of the isms that are brought forth that also remain truly Christian, are dealing with other than the salvational core and necessary doctrines for salvation. And needn't be fought over really---but are.

You can't do 'line-by-line' somehow 'above' or apart from your overall understanding of the Scripture. It's impossible to. You need a 'paradigm' or lens through which you're reading line-by-line, and so if you go line-by-line you're only going to be sketching out what your overall understanding of the Scripture is, because it's all going to be according to how it 'fits in' with your overall understanding of the Scripture, which is, as I'm sure JR could tell you, begging the question.

Not necessarily, though I admit it is extremely difficult. The thing is each truth presented in the Bible has one meaning, and that is the meaning that God meant. There may be various applications, but one meaning. And no one yet has and never will, get everything right. The means of salvation are clear. I like what Tambora said about reading it like a series of short stories because it presents it as reading the Bible like we would read any other book. It is a book after all, written by various authors, but nevertheless, because God is the ultimate author, the entire Bible is one long but unified saga, entirely consistent with itself from beginning to end. And like any other book, it has a beginning, a middle, and an end, with characters and drama etc. It is one story unfolding. There is a section towards the end of this story, that is a series of letters written to specific people, but chock full of precious truths and warnings and solutions.

Each letter was intended to be read aloud and all of a piece. We should do this at least once, or occasionally. It really clears things up. And then we come to the last chapter of the whole book, the book of Revelation, which actually could be seen as the movie version of the whole, of all that came before, condensed and put in visual form with the epilogue shown rather than told.

 

[Arial]

@Idolater

Here's a thought experiment.

Approach the Bible as you would any book of short stories, or a novel about supernatural phenomenon and mystical creatures among mankind in ancient cultures.
Sorta like reading Game of Thrones and imagining you are there.

You already know the Bible is inspired and real historical events, but just read it with new eyes for once as just a story to see if any of your perspectives of the message it is sending change a bit.
I actually loved trying this, as I think modern man has done it's best to paint it as privative native imaginations and explain them away with natural scientific explanations.
You kinda start to forget the battle of those creatures of light and darkness are still real and among us.

I like this. Every Christian, I think, would also benefit greatly from periodically reading the Bible cover to cover, and reading it like we would read any other book.

If we read the Bible remembering that the main character is God, and that the book as it goes along reveals this character more and more, and that that is the purpose of the Book, it helps our understanding.

This book contains two parts---Book One and Book Two in the same way that some novels might. It is the same integrated story, but expanded. We come to the end of Book One wondering but how? Who? Is there any hope for the people? What happens next? We see things being pointed to, partly revealed in Book One, hinted at, promised, that this God will do, some hope for what appears hopeless.

So we move on deeply curious and involved to Book Two and see the main character actually comes into this great saga of tragedy being played out on earth among men, as a man. Son of God, Son of Man He is known as. And we learn as we read that this, this is that Messiah, that Savior. And the story moves forward.

 

[Tambora]

Paul said the revelation of the mystery IS the fullness of God's word to us. There IS nothing beyond it from God for us.

The real Tambora knew that.

No, you want people to share your fear that He'll cast you into Hell if you get out of line now or in the Tribulation, which denies the gospel of grace. The Tambora we used to know NEVER would have said the things you have.

To be found outside of the Bible, too?

We are not fooled. You are not Tambora.

This just shows what a foolish man you are being and how your doctrine contradicts itself.

I make the point that one cannot have salvation unto eternal life if they turn from believing faith in YHWH alone to unbelieving faith in rebellion to YHWH.
You argue against it and say anyone can have believing faith in YHWH alone for a short time and then abandon it to unbelieving faith in rebellion to YHWH and believe in whatever they want to and still be granted eternal life.
Since you admit there was a time when I believed then I should be in like Flint and nothing I believe in after that can change it.

 

[Tambora]

This is the only promise Paul speaks of. As per 2 Cor. 7:1

So you don't think Paul's teaching promises us that our corruptible bodies will someday be changed to incorruptible just because he didn't use the specific word of "promise" in the verse that tells us it will happen.
What do you think he meant by it? A maybe?

 

[glorydaz]

So you don't think Paul's teaching promises us that our corruptible bodies will someday be changed to incorruptible just because he didn't use the specific word of "promise" in the verse that tells us it will happen.
What do you think he meant by it? A maybe?

I think you're trying to include us in the promises made to Israel, and that's simply wrong.
There are plenty of facts in the Bible. You can call hell a promise, too, but that isn't what scripture is talking about with the promises.

 

[glorydaz]

This just shows what a foolish man you are being and how your doctrine contradicts itself.

I make the point that one cannot have salvation unto eternal life if they turn from believing faith in YHWH alone to unbelieving faith in rebellion to YHWH.
You argue against it and say anyone can have believing faith in YHWH alone for a short time and then abandon it to unbelieving faith in rebellion to YHWH and believe in whatever they want to and still be granted eternal life.
Since you admit there was a time when I believed then I should be in like Flint and nothing I believe in after that can change it.

You never used to use the term YHWH. You used to talk about Jesus.
I'm not convinced you are the Tambora we once knew.

Yep, coming on here and preaching members of the body of Christ can lose their salvation is a big tell.

 

[Tambora]

You never used to use the term YHWH. You used to talk about Jesus.

ROFL!
Jesus is YHWH.

I'm not convinced you are the Tambora we once knew.

Yep, coming on here and preaching members of the body of Christ can lose their salvation is a big tell.

Just have a mod check my IP so ya'll can stop this nonsense.

 

[Tambora]

I think you're trying to include us in the promises made to Israel, and that's simply wrong.
There are plenty of facts in the Bible. You can call hell a promise, too, but that isn't what scripture is talking about with the promises.

So you don't think we are promised to have our corruptible bodies changed to incorruptible.
OK.
But I certainly do.

 

[glorydaz]

So you don't think we are promised to have our corruptible bodies changed to incorruptible.
OK.
But I certainly do.

Not every fact in the Bible is a promise.

You'll come up with a big list if you count the promises given to the Jews.
I think that's what you're avoiding.

 

[musterion]

Funny thing. Those who insist "every promise in the Book is mine!" always come up with excuses or go silent whenever God doesn't cough up what they claim from Him.

 

[Idolater]

@Idolater

I like this. Every Christian, I think, would also benefit greatly from periodically reading the Bible cover to cover, and reading it like we would read any other book.

If we read the Bible remembering that the main character is God, and that the book as it goes along reveals this character more and more, and that that is the purpose of the Book, it helps our understanding.

This book contains two parts---Book One and Book Two in the same way that some novels might. It is the same integrated story, but expanded. We come to the end of Book One wondering but how? Who? Is there any hope for the people? What happens next? We see things being pointed to, partly revealed in Book One, hinted at, promised, that this God will do, some hope for what appears hopeless.

So we move on deeply curious and involved to Book Two and see the main character actually comes into this great saga of tragedy being played out on earth among men, as a man. Son of God, Son of Man He is known as. And we learn as we read that this, this is that Messiah, that Savior. And the story moves forward.

But that's what I was talking about with @Tambora we were mentioning the Bible preachers we've listened to and how they've all done just that, but also we even have here at TOL Bob Enyart (of happy memory) and Saint John W who both did the same thing. When read as a book, for certain people, when studying the King James Bible, the overall panoramic picture that the Bible paints is some sort of Dispensationalism.

When I did it, due to my extremely pronounced desire to see God get His 'due', and when exposed to Calvinism, I thought the Bible 'painted' a Calvinist picture.

This is one way that we arrive at these different schools of theology, or different theologies, is to read the Bible through like a book and base your theology on how you perceive that the book reads.

 

[Arial]

When read as a book, for certain people, when studying the King James Bible, the overall panoramic picture that the Bible paints is some sort of Dispensationalism.

There are dispensations (God dealing with humanity in different ways) in the Bible. Dispensationalist use this as an interpretive tool to arrive at their doctrines and beliefs particularly regarding the nation state of Israel and the Jews. It is not a valid interpretive tool because it leads back to the very thing that Jesus came to both resolve, and the misunderstanding cleared up that Israel had. That being that the Messiah would come to restore and fulfill the kingdom of the nation state of Israel.