Sadly, the constructs of men (CF's, creeds, systematic theologies, commentaries, etc.) continues its work of division amongst those whom God has made to stand in His sight as one new man in Christ by His free gift upon regeneration. It's been going on for centuries.
I wonder how God will look on this come judgment day..... brothers/sisters casting away brothers/sisters over petty disagreements which have no eternal consequence.
MS wrote: Also wanted to give an update on our great g-child whom I asked for prayer months ago... âChristopherâ is due any day now.
Great news sister.
June A. Nadolny wrote: Ps. 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Commentary by: Charles H. Spurgeon
Thanks for that commentary, June.
If I'm not mistaken, that's the third commentary on Psalm 51:5 you've posted and all three have the same in common:
1) All obviously uphold and promote the doctrine of imputation of original sin.
2) All are reformed.
3) All willfully ignore Psalm 139:13-16.
How is it possible to say 'I love God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength' yet willfully ignore a portion of the word He inspired because it casts a cloud of doubt over a man's doctrine? Seems a bit hypocritical to me which is why I will never associate myself with the reformed label. Still, I've never denied anyone the right to be wrong.
MS wrote: I can attest to that Bro. Lurker. You and Bro. James have been misrepresented, slandered, and gossiped about for days on this thread, while you both have been patient and gracious in your comments. IMO you both warrant an apology from J-UK. Back to hibernation mode.
Thank you sister MS. You are appreciated. And thanks to Ladybug and others who may disagree with me doctrinally but recognize that God has not been honored by what has been going on here.
June A. Nadolny wrote: Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Are you absolutely certain that David was speaking of his own sin and iniquity and not his mother's?
Ps 139:13-16 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
A sin ridden, dead on arrival, fetus written in the book of life?
John UK wrote: Lurker, note, this statement comes just before Paul launches into his testimony of meeting the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Acts 26:8 KJV (8)Â Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? To my mind, Paul seems to be thinking of the resurrection of Christ....
"To my mind..."?
Okay John. You've made it abundantly clear that you will not engage legitimate biblical questions but will ever practice deflection and diversion.... So be it.
Have a great rest of the day.
. . .
You can ask me about my beliefs if you want. I don't bite. The answer is NO, I'm not Arminian.
John just can't get over the fact that his version of original sin isn't biblical and he can't convince me otherwise. That's why he falsely accuses me of such things as humanist, cultish, mysticism, etc, etc. to which I won't even dignify with an objection. It doesn't bother me. God knows my heart.
John and I have been on the comment board for around 13 years and have discussed about everything there is to discuss. There are a few here who know both of us well and our beliefs and if they had a mind to speak up I believe would say that I'm none of the things John accuses me of.
John UK wrote: Anna and Zacharias and John Baptist were not from the tribe of Judah, and my dear friends James and Lurker claim that they are not therefore Jews and all like them are mentioned in Ephesians 2:11 where they are called uncircumcised Gentiles. So that in Ephesians 2:15, the twain who are brought together in Christ, are people like "Anna and Zacharias" (who emerged from the ten tribes) and the two other tribes of the southern kingdom, thus making one new man.
If I actually believed you were interested in reconciling God's prophetic promise to gather the two nations of Israel into one with the NT writings, I'd be more than happy to help; but you're not. So let's take your view of Eph 2:15 and run with it.
Acts 26:6-8 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?
Twelve tribes, instantly serving God, looking forward to the resurrection of the just and unjust in hope.
How can that be, John, if the prophetic promise hadn't even come to pass? Help me out
John UK wrote: Thanks Lurker. I don't understand your question, so am unable to answer it. Back to normal.
No problem. Just ignore what follows which may be of help to others.
. . .
The promises God gave to Abraham flowed through Isaac and Jacob. Jacob was given the name of Israel after his struggle with an angel.
Jacob had twelve sons who were the patriarchs of the nation of Israel. Israel remained a united nation until shortly after the death of King Solomon. At that time Israel was divided into two kingdoms with Judah and the absorbed tribe of Benjamin becoming the southern kingdom of Judah and the remaining ten tribes becoming the northern kingdom of Israel.
The northern kingdom was then referred to as either Israel or the house of Israel while the southern kingdom was referred to as Judah or the house of Judah. These designations are consistent throughout the prophets.
The northern kingdom was eventually given to Assyrian captivity and cast off by God and not a people of God. Yet God promised He would gather them again and join them to the southern kingdom as one people with David as their king.
The term Jew is derived from Judah and points to the house of Judah while the term Israelite refers to all of Jacob's progeny.
John UK wrote: Lurker, I realised as soon as I began this study, that definition of terms is required. So excuse me for asking, but: 1. a) Are you asking, considering that the Israelites were twelve tribes in toto, the ten tribes separated in the north, were Jews? b) At the time of the writing of the NT? 2. By Jews, do you mean physical descendants of Abraham, of whatever tribe? Or Israelites in general? Or people of the two tribes in the southern kingdom?
I appreciate your questions and desire to better understand biblical terms such as Jew, Israelite, Israel, Judah, house of Israel and house of Judah but I trust you'll understand I'm reluctant to be the one to offer instruction.
That said, I'm glad you realize the importance of the biblical terms and that getting them confused or wrong leads to fruitless conversations where we are just talking past each other.
I think my position has already been made clear since I asked the question. But you need to satisfy yourself of the proper meaning of the terms and that best from the bible. Sister B. offered an excellent summary. You could search the internet (origin of the word Jew) which has some good help. Or I would be willing to offer my understanding of the terms I mentioned later tonight.
Dr. Tim wrote: Okay, I see what youâre getting at, Lurker. But remember that the Samaritans and Judaites had a common ancestry. It was their âfather Jacobâ who gave the Samaritans the well. They were ethnically connected if religiously separated.
Thanks for your reply, Doc. My question wasn't meant to be a "gotcha" but there seems to be differing opinions of what constitutes a Jew and those differences are causing discussions to be fruitless at best. I agree that both kingdoms has a common patriarch in Jacob/Israel.... hence, Israelites all. But not Jews all.
. . .
Sister B., Thank you for the most excellent post regarding what the bible says about Israelites/Jews. Absolutely right on the mark.
. . .
John, Take all the time you need to research the subject but I'd encourage you to avail yourself to sister B's comment as well. Now it may spook you and make you wary that I'd agree with sister B., as we've disagreed on many other things, but on this subject I believe she has nailed it true to scripture.
My only purpose in asking the question is to try to get to the bottom of what happened yesterday. I may have misunderstood your comments but there is really no way of knowing without agreement on the words and terms we use.
I must be a brute for punishment but I reviewed this thread to see if I could figure out why it went crossways and came across this:
John UK wrote: Go to my post of 1/26/19 1.47pm and read it, please. Lurker came back with: "Two nations gathered into one with one king? Sound a little like Eph 2:15?" I came back with: "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." James, you came back with: "The two nations gathered into one sounds like the house of Israel walking together with the house of Judah to me Bro. spoken of here in Jeremiah." Note, Ephesians 2:15 KJV (15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; Now see my reasoning of scriptures, James? In Ephesians 2:11, it is clear who Paul is speaking to - GENTILES (not Jews).
Are you of the opinion that the ten tribes of the northern kingdom were Jews? I don't need a 1300 character rant that says nothing. A simple yes or no will do.
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.