Sola Scriptura. wrote: John UK, I don't understand why you have become so irritated and satirical in tone - you are usually of a calmer and more rational nature. I understood that this forum was a place where we - lesser theologians - could edify one another with our thoughts, as we are exhorted to do in the precious Scriptures which we are speaking of. As you yourself say: if you don't like it don't heed it. I'm sure we're all able to decide for ourselves what is helpful and what ain't.
Brother, If I may say a word in John's defense. John suffers from cluster headaches that at times are very painful and debilitating. This may answer his uncharacteristic behavior today.
While John and I disagree on many doctrines, he is still an adopted son of the Most High and a dear brother and I'd ask all to pray that he gets a good nights sleep and feels better tomorrow.
John UK wrote: Bro, I'm not sure I understand the first question. And the second one, having not studied this aspect of the typology, I am not able to answer at this time, although I do approve of the king being Christ over the one new man, made up from every nation on earth, such that there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
Sorry about the lack of clarity in my post and questions but rather than try to clarify, I think it better to let it lie.
However, I fully agree with the texts you quoted and your comments. They make it abundantly clear that the children of promise are so not because of genetics but because of God's mercy.
John UK wrote: All who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs of God's promise. What then of those Jews who reject Christ? They do not belong to Christ, they are not Abraham's seed, they are not heirs of the promise. Be not deceived by misinterpreting scripture. See Galatians 4:28.
Would you say that the Gentiles Paul was sent to were not descendants of Jacob.... say, the northern kingdom of the house of Israel?
Where/when does this prophetic promise come into play?
Ezek 37:21-22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
Two nations gathered into one with one king? Sound a little like Eph 2:15?
Dr. Tim wrote: When Jesus establishes His millennial kingdom in Jerusalem, it will be actual descendants of Jacob, and not Gentile Christians, inhabiting Palestine and surrounding areas. Unless all of Godâs prophets lied, of course.
It is a rare instance, if any at all, that God, through the prophets, made promises of blessings to anyone except the houses of Israel and Judah. Yet it can't be denied that the great multitude which no man could number (Rev 7:9-17) have been blessed with the gift of Christ's righteousness (white robes) alongside the 144,000 sealed Israelites. And I doubt you'd argue this scene was during the millennial reign of Christ but actually before.
So my point: Even though you and I, as children of promise, have no biblical claim to an inheritance of a dusty patch of real estate in Palestine, as promised in the prophets; we do have claim to the better promises and inheritance of the new covenant (Christ crucified), regeneration, circumcision of heart, eternal life, etc. which include the taking away of a stony heart and the giving of a new heart as evidenced by the great multitude of Rev 7.
How one reconciles the prophetic promises specific to Israel with the NT writings inclusive of non-Israelites is the question.
sc wrote: He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. This "prayer" language doesn't look to be very good as it is put in the context of seeking others benefit as opposed to oneself. ...seems to confirm that there is no legitimate prayer language as in praying in tongues.
I would agree that Paul was not establishing a principle for a prayer language that would stand for the next 2,000 years. He did say tongues will cease while 2,000 years later, different languages worldwide have likely increased. Where we probably disagree is what exactly this [unknown] tongue was that Paul spoke of.
Zeph 3:9 I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
And with that I'll take my leave. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
sc wrote: 14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. If Paul prayed in either language which he knew, he was not praying in tongues unknown himself.
SC, I've got to leave till this evening but a quick response.
As you may have noticed, I quoted from the ESV because it doesn't have the added word "unknown". It's not in the original Greek TR but was added by the KJV translators and raises unnecessary confusion in this discussion as you comment above demonstrates.
You made other points that I'd be willing to discuss but don't have the time right now.
As for the contemporary concept of praying/speaking in tongues: If we agree gibberish is unbiblical then it's a non-issue.
A final thought; Youth in Asia could apply the principle Paul set forth in 1 Cor 14:14-16 to himself. No doubt he speaks English and Chinese but if he prayed in English amongst a Chinese speaking group, his prayers would be unfruitful to them.
sc wrote: Lurker, how would that be applicable to one who is bi lingual? For they would understand either language in which they were praying? Isn't the point in 1 Corinthians 14:14 that one does not pray in a language which they do not know and therefore makes "praying" in tongues of no effect?
I think we agree that Pentecostal gibberish is unbiblical and that tongues is actually a known language but unknown to God's people.
1 Cor 14:14 (ESV) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
You concluded: "one does not pray in a language which they do not know..." I assume you arrived at this because Paul said his mind is unfruitful. But unfruitful to whom? Himself or others? Read on.
1 Cor 14:15-16 (ESV) What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
From this I believe it's clear that Paul was bilingual and determined that he would pray in Latin in private but in Greek when in the presence of those who did not understand Latin.
sc wrote: Thank you, June..but the Scripture cited by another is a play on words...obviously, one cannot pray in an unknown language for they would not know for that which they were asking. So the Scripture that another cited 1 Corinthians 14:14 King James Version (KJV) 14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. This is would not qualify as "praying" in tongues. Why would one pray in a foreign language of which they have no understanding?
Perhaps Paul was bilingual. Born a Roman citizen should be a clue.
And not telling you anything you don't already know; "[unknown] tongue" in the KJV is not in the Greek but added by the translators. Paul contrasts the language that God's people understood (prophesying, Greek) with an intelligible language they didn't understand (tongues, Latin).
A prophet doesn't foretell the future but rather speaks the revelation of God in the language of God's people. However, God's words most often foretold what was about to happen.
See Isaiah for "stammerers" (Is 32:4) and "stammering" (Is 28:11, 33:19) in context for more and note that Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 at 1 Cor 14:21 which makes it relevant to the tongues discussion.
Jim Lincoln wrote: This is basically a quote from an American sheriff whose is jurisdiction is along the border.
"Tony Estrada, Arizonaâs Santa Cruz County sheriff, agrees that people will still find a way through. âNo wall, no matter how beautiful, how big or how expensive is going to stop people that are desperate, people that are needy and people that are poor. âThese people are coming from thousands and thousands of miles at great expense and in great danger. They have been victimised most of the way. Do you think a wall is gonna stop them? No, itâs just going to be another obstacle.â
excerpt from, https://tinyurl.com/y87csaek (6 things that could topple Donald Trump's border wall) This is really an excellent article on the wall, and it appears to me more impartial than most. Also for once there are not distracting sidebar issues from the BBC on this particular article. So even if it is about a year-and-a-half old, it's quite pertinent at all six points should be looked at.
So even if the border wall was built, the number of illegal border crossing would remain unchanged?
And this sheriff's opinion is representative of all the sheriff's along the southern border?
It will be interesting to see who slithers out from under their rocks during the next six months to attempt to defeat Trump as Democratic candidates for POTUS.
One thing seems certain; the slide to socialism will come quickly after Trump's presidency and the younger generation seems all too willing to have it come and the liberals are all too eager to give it to them in exchange for their votes.
Benjamin wrote: John UK. You sound like someone who doesnât read or study the other side. Like a classic KJV onlyist you think that âwell all the modern translations are wrong and were put together by impostersâ is an argument. Itâs not. Itâs just an admission that you donât read the other side. You just listen to the tangents of other KJV onlyists. Your world is small, very small. Good luck telling Chinese, Arabic, basically anyone the Gospel. They have to learn English first I guess. You position is incoherent and stubborn this is why these convos never go well.
Full on KJV onlyism has baggage that I doubt anyone here agrees with completely. I suspect if you asked, John would say he is TR only as I am. The reason?
If we can agree that the Protestant Reformation was God's work, what came out of it that never existed before for English speaking people? A vernacular bible free from the dictates of church and state. That work began in 1526 with Tyndale's NT and culminated with the Geneva Bible in 1560 and the TR was the underlying Greek text. Competing Greek texts didn't show up for another 320 years.
So the question that needs asked: Did God have to wait until 1881 to begin perfecting the work He started in 1526?
Dr. Tim wrote: I think itâs clear that Jeremiah 30, and particularly verses such as 9, 10 and 16, tell of future events and not events that took place in Old Testament days.
I see your point on verse 9-10 for those who perceive the millennial reign of Christ as future. However....
Jer 30:16 Therefore all they that devour thee shall be devoured; and all thine adversaries, every one of them, shall go into captivity; and they that spoil thee shall be a spoil, and all that prey upon thee will I give for a prey.
....sounds a lot like:
Psalm 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
Eph 4:7-8 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Dr. Tim wrote: There is no secular nation of Israel. There is instead the onset of the regathering of Israel prior to the prophesied time of Jacobâs trouble. Read the Bible and burn your commentaries.
When I read the Jeremiah prophecy in context, the time of Jacob's trouble is the Babylonian captivity. What am I missing?
No contention, just wondering why we see things differently.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: it is a simple question brother, in Isaiah 49:6 to whom does the word "thee" refer? Because all Paul is doing is quoting the verse as the authorization for turning to the Gentiles.
If I may, I'd say "thee" in Is 49:6 is the same as in Is 49:8
Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
Heard thee. Helped thee. Would the second or third person of the trinity cry out to the first or second person of the trinity for help? For mercy? For redemption? For salvation from the wrath of the day of the Lord?
2 Cor 6:2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
Banging on wrote: Donât expect any answers. Notice how Pharisees are always fixating on the externals of religious observance.. donât touch this, donât eat that, donât drink this, donât keep any special times, days etc...
I've noticed, brother. And it all seems to be motivated by the actions of the RCC. If the RCC does it, real Christians can't. They are conducting themselves like the militant Puritans of the 16th and 17th centuries.
For the most part I've stayed clear of this thread as it's all silliness to me. But for those who fear "looking" like a Roman Catholic if they partake..... by all means shun the holiday like the plague. As for me, I know what God requires of me and I don't concern myself with what the weaker brethren or the unregenerate think of me.
Interestingly, I was thinking of the same "will worship" text. Makes a good showing in the flesh but does nothing to please God.
. . .
I praise God He called you and your husband out of the darkness of the RCC. I was never part of that evil institution but there isn't anyone who despises it more than I save God Himself.
June A. Nadolny wrote: Shaun Willcock wrote: Briefly, in reply to âLurkerâ below, John-UK answered correctly: he brought up the regulative principle. In the worship of the Lord, we are not to add our own ideas, thoughts, opinions. If it is commanded in the Word, then it is right; if it is not commanded, then it is not to be done. Sin is the transgression of Godâs law, yes; but one transgresses the law when one adds to it as well. For this is feeble man claiming to know better than God how God must be worshipped. It is in effect saying to Him, I will worship Thee, but as I see fit. This is sin.
1) Where is the regulative principle commanded in the word?
2) Who has said the observance of Christmas is worship? Or Christmas is perceived as a holy day? Or arguing that Jesus was actually born on Dec 25th?
It's easy to defeat strawman assumptions but to automatically pin those assumptions on everyone who disagrees with you is disingenuous and just plain dishonest.
Personally, I find it very offensive that you (and others) would attempt to bind my conscience to your ill founded convictions. If you and others are not sure of what God requires of you; that's your problem. Don't try to make it mine.