|
|
USER COMMENTS BY MURRAYA |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 9 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
5/9/08 3:20 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
On the contrary, Faithful Remnant, there was in my view plenty that was wrong with the Anglicans at that time. The Church of England was only ever a half-reformed church. It retained all the apparatus and structure of the Roman church, and had become under Archbishops Whitgift and Bancroft a persecuting power. Both these ecclesiastical gentlemen conducted crusades against godly Puritans, with the full blessing of the monarchs Elizabeth, and James I.As to doctrine, in the Jacobean period, and more especially under Charles I, and under the influence of Laudian Arminianism the Anglicans started to let go on sovereign grace, then also on justification by faith, and the sanctity of the Lord's Day. They brought in ritual, high altars, processionals, vestments, gesticulations etc. Archbishop Laud in particular conducted a repressive regime which brutally suppressed any worship or devotion not according to the Anglican rites, even to invading private homes. Next stop: the Star Chamber! So don't talk to me about the glories of Anglicanism in the Stuart period! And also: there's more to a church than a confession of faith, a piece of paper! |
|
|
5/8/08 9:36 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob/JD, "Men, it is impossible to rightly divide the word of truth if you ignore these covenants and fail to understand them."It's not that I ignore them (the covenants) at all, but it's that you with your Dispensational scheme distort them, and fail to see their progressive revelation and fulfilment. This distortion leads you to adopt a hermeneutic that entails reading the NT in the light of the OT, rather than (and properly) the other way around. One other thing: Regarding my point on James 1:1 and 1 Peter 1:1 you make this imbecilic reply: "Maybe you have insight that I do not have but that is not what the salutation says. James says to the 12 tribes scattered abroad! I accept that!" Very pious: you believe the statement and I don't (in your view)! But utterly ignorant of the basics of NT introduction. One looks not only at a superscription but the entire CONTENT of the epistle, one that is properly designated a General or Catholic epistle, i.e. to Christians generally. That content indicates that Peter speaks to NT Christians at large, not only Jewish ones, and those Christians are 'Disapora' as much as their OT counterparts. See any good book of NT Introduction. But of course that kind of investigation is off limits for you, I know. |
|
|
5/8/08 9:49 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob/JD, "Well, I haven't demonstrated any ignorance in the English language." ?? Pray, what is this supposed to mean in the present discussion?Regarding James 1:1 and 1 Peter 1:1 - Their addressees are clearly CHRISTIANS. They may well include Jewish Christians (almost certainly), but not exclusively so. And as exiles and strangers (1 Peter 2:11) they all too are 'Diaspora', in direct continuity with their OT counterparts (cf. 1 Chron.29:15; Ezek.3:11; Acts 15:21). Dispersion Jews were all over the ancient world by say, 400 B.C. Moreover, citing these two verses does not at all meet the issue of the Hosea prophecies. You have deftly sidestepped those. Your citation of Rom.11:26 does not meet the point I am trying to make. I too hold that there will be a mass-conversion of Jews to Christ before the return of Christ, but that is another issue. It will be a SPIRITUAL RESTORATION! I come back to my original point: Romans 11 says NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, about restoration to the land, and there would have been a prime place to mention it if such had been in Paul's purview. |
|
|
5/8/08 9:15 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob/JD, Your view on the status of Israel is really at the heart of the Dispensational issue (and for me, heresy).You assert: "It is already shown that they are the people of God whether in the land or out of it." Here you display your ignorance of OT history and prophecy. First, God rejected the northern tribes of Israel from being His people. See Hosea 1:9, where Lo' 'Ammi ("not My people) indicates that the covenant relationship is severed. Hence they were removed from their land (Hos.11:5; 2 Kings 17:22-23). And those tribes lost their identity as Israelites in the various lands where the Assyrians settled them. They had ceased to be His people, and were NEVER restored! Now notice another thing: God promises through Hosea a restoration (Hosea 1:10; 2:1, 23) but when Paul cites these very verses in Rom.9:24-26 he specifically says it is fulfilled "not only from among the Jews, but from among the Gentiles", i.e. the NT Church! This is the very "spiritualisation" you profess to reject, but then your quarrel is not with me but with the Apostle Paul. Do you want to call him an "unbeliever" too, because he contradicts your Dispensationalism?? On the southern Kingdom more anon |
|
|
5/7/08 8:08 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
rogerant, Thanks for the reassurance. I did not really think that you were advocating abolition of all Bible helps, but your clarification is welcome.Casob/JD, I have read through your responses this morning (my time), and I can only say that none of them answer the points I put to you. Let me reiterate them for you: 1. The covenant to give Israel the land was only ever conditional. See Deut.28:63-68. You have not even begun to grapple with with this one. 2. The covenant to give the land to Israel as per Gen.15:18 WAS fulfilled in the time of Solomon, as 1 Kings 4:21 indicates. And that was fulfilled to the letter: from the River of Egypt (the Wadi el-Arish) to the River Euphrates. But they lost that land through disobedience and unfaithfulness, as Deut.28 warned. 3. Although restored (partially) to the land in post-Exilic times, even enjoying a century of independence under the Hasmonaeans, they finally lost the land for good, again for unfaithfulness, climaxing in their killing of the Son of God. This is made clear in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matt.21:33-44), and Jesus' pronouncements of doom over Jerusalem (Matt.23:38; Luke 19:42-44). This is not unbelief, but simply reading the Scriptures on their own terms. |
|
|
5/7/08 5:59 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
rogerant, Careful! If you reject a chronology, and a geography, merely because it's (allegedly) "outside the Word", you isolate the Bible to a completely separate world, a cocoon which has no relation to the real world into which the Bible came. Are you seriously suggesting, for example, that the maps in the rear of every decent Bible publication should be torn out? Spare us!My quarrel with Casob/JD is not that he uses a chronology and maps, but the ones he utilises are outdated, whether Ussher for the chronology, or some century-old Bible map for geography. The advances made in the last century and a half in ancient world history, in archaeology, in identification of Biblical locations, in ancient literature and the like all help considerably in understanding of Scripture, and only a fool would reject it all out of hand. "Scripture alone" does not mean rejecting all Bible helps, whether maps, historical discussions, archaeology, backgrounds and so on. For example, who was the Pharaoh Hophra mentioned in Jer.44:30? Because this is a once-only reference to this Pharaoh it is to other sources that we must go for some background. |
|
|
5/6/08 3:21 AM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Casob/JD, Well, surprise, surprise! I thought you had given up on answering me or having any sort of discussion with me.You object to what you call a "snide remark" on exegesis not coming from your direction. It was not intended as a snide remark, but a simple statement of fact. I have observed repeatedly that all you can do is repeat Bible verses ad infinitum with a minimum of comment, and little understanding of what they mean; so little understanding of the rudiments of exegesis. Instead, you just get so hot under your proverbial collar that anyone could dare to counter your Dispensational system, that you indulge in your own share of fulminations and outrage. "The Abrahamic covenant had at least 14 provisions..." How about that! I know of four (or five), but fourteen!! Really, here again your Dispensational system controls interpretation, not the actual text. This sort of elaboration in the Dispy scheme is by the same token in parallel with the two, or perhaps three 'second comings', up to seven judgments (as you have indicated previously), three or four resurrections, which are really their own objections. To assert this sort of nonsense is to refute it. Ever heard of reductio ad absurdum? |
|
|
5/5/08 7:54 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Cont'd from previous post: 2. The promise concerning the land has been extended under the Gospel, see "world" in Rom.4:13. Moreover, when Paul discusses the restoration of Israel in Rom.11 he says nothing whatever about the land. His assertion, "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom.11:29) is in reference to their status as "beloved for the sake of their forefathers" (previous verse), not to any (alleged) irrevocable promise concerning the land. Paul would have known of the prediction of the Lord concerning the Temple's destruction, since his travelling companion Luke records it in his Gospel, but his concerns are elsewhere when he discusses the relation of the Jewish people to the salvation covenant, as with the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant in Gal.3:13-29 (nothing about the land there either!). In regard to these two prime passages, if what Dispensationals claim were at all true he would certainly have mentioned the land of Israel. One can imagine that if Ryrie, or Walvoord, or Pentecost were writing Romans 11 or Gal.3, and not the Apostle, they would not have hesitated to wax eloquent about the future land restoration, maybe even about the future state of Israel. This total disparity is something that Dispensationals must explain. |
|
|
5/5/08 7:23 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DJC49 wrote: I just wanna know what Joshua 21:43-45 means. I understand your frustration, DJC49, but if it's exegesis you're looking for, you will have to look elsewhere than Casob/JD. You will never get it from that quarter.As to the land, there are two basic points to be made: 1. Israel's tenure of the land was always conditional on obedience. See Deut.28:63-68. They were under a conditional covenant, one which they broke time and again until God cast them out of the land: first in 722 B.C. and thereafter for the northern kingdom; then in 586 B.C. with the southern kingdom. Then after a restoration where some of them were in their land again (it was only ever partial) they were evicted from the land for a second time, this time permanently. This is the clear teaching of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matt.21:33-46), fulfilled under the Gospel, and climaxed in 70 A.D. Also, this is when the prophecy about returning to Egypt in ships (Deut.28:68) comes in. This did not happen in the Babylonian Captivity, but it did in the wake of the Roman captivity: Jews in large numbers were taken as slaves to Egypt. more anon |
|
|
5/4/08 9:23 PM |
MurrayA | | Australia | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Preacher, I have read a good bit of Chilton, not every detail, but as much as I could stand, and my conclusion is that his approach is as much "looney tunes" in its own way as Dispensationalism.As I observed below, much depends on the date, and if his early dating is wrong then his whole thesis collapses. The argument is circular: the dating yields the interpretation just as the interpretation yields the date. The external testimaony to a date in the time of Domitian is very strong: Irenaeus, a member of Polycarp's congregation in his young days, who in turn knew the Apostle John in his own his early days. It is from these Johannine circles that the placement of Revelation in the time of Domitian comes. Attempts to place it earlier are much later. As to content the references about the Beast indicate a secular persecuting power, not Jewish, as indeed most responsible commentary has held. You complain that seeing it as futuristic ends up as nonsense. That is simply because we still live within history, and it is not finished yet. We don't even know how much there is to go. By analogy, I would imagine how a pious Jew in say 300 B.C. reading Daniel 11 would be nonplussed as to how to understand it and to fit it with the visions pertaining to earlier periods. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|