TrustAndObey

Quote

Although this rendering is grammatically possible, the more strictly accurate translation, and the one adopted by nearly all the oldest and most trustworthy versions (for example, the Syriac and the Vulgate), and by a great many of the principal expositors in all ages (for instance, by such teachers as Origen, Theodoret, Grotius, Luther, Meyer, Ellicott, and Alford), runs as follows: "Every scripture inspired by God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof," &c.

TLC: 

What difference does it make to the topic of dispensationalism? (None whatsoever, as far as I can tell.)  In fact, it doesn't appear to me to make much difference most anywhere else either.

T&O:

Whether it makes any difference to you or your thoughts concerning dispensationalism makes zero difference to me.  

But since there are many in the dispensational view that hold that the Tanakh is not applicable to them or this "age", this is a rather decent verse stating just how applicable the Tanakh is to both Timothy and us today.  As it states rather plainly that the "theopneustos" writings are applicable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.  And these writings, as the verse prior to this states, were one's Timothy had known from a youth. "Holy" Writings that are able to make one wise unto salvation through trust in the Messiah.  I would say that puts quite a bit of cohesion to both what was written of old, and what Paul was writing at the time.

At any rate, my response was for waysider who was using the verse to show that Paul was marking his writings as "theopneustos", whereas I don't see that verse supporting it.

On 7/15/2018 at 1:55 PM, waysider said:

II Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is God-Breathed (theopneustos)".

I'm not so certain I really favor that "translation"...  I think it could be understood a couple other ways...  According to "Elliot's Commentaary" it reads:

Quote

Although this rendering is grammatically possible, the more strictly accurate translation, and the one adopted by nearly all the oldest and most trustworthy versions (for example, the Syriac and the Vulgate), and by a great many of the principal expositors in all ages (for instance, by such teachers as Origen, Theodoret, Grotius, Luther, Meyer, Ellicott, and Alford), runs as follows: "Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof," &c.

Thus, the emphasis, and the point is not as to marking what is "theopneustos", but that whatever is "theopneustos" has a purpose.. The question of what is "theopneustos" is still left open.

Another view from Greek, is that there are 2 things noted.. Both are types of "writings" - (graphe),  as in "Every God inspired and profitable writings are for doctrine, for reproof, ....."

Again, nothing is being labelled as "theopneustos", but whatever is, along with "other" profitable" writings are once again for a reason...

On 7/9/2018 at 12:18 PM, TLC said:

Let's try looking at this from another angle.  Do you see or think of yourself as your father's seed?  Surely each of us were, and in a certain sense one might even say of themselves, "I am my father's seed."  Is that literally true now?  Do you see of think of yourself as a wee little sperm, with a wiggly tail? Of course not.

Maybe you get the point. Or, maybe not.  You tell me.  But as I see it, seed is seed.  It dies.  It becomes something new.  And when it does, it's no longer actually seen or thought of as "seed," except in a historical (or history looking forward) sense.           

Maybe I understand your thinking. It's not thought of as seed, except it is with a caveat.. I guess as long as it makes sense to you. 

While you're right, that seed is seed. But like many words, it has different shades of meaning depending on context, so I'm not so certain I would try and paint everything with such a wide brush as only this one "exception" in historical/looking forward sense. As I would tend to also think that God uses it, like so many other things, in more than one sense at the same time. 

On 7/5/2018 at 6:52 PM, TLC said:

says who? I disagree.

You disagree that we have all been called to function as priests..  Would it be because you have a different view of what a priest is? Or because the definition doesn't seem to fit those called of God?  And to help clarify, the word priest (kohen in Hebrew) is rooted in the meaning of one who stands sure, as a support for others.  Long before Christ, the Roman kings were given the honorific title of the great priest, not solely because they were over all "religious"  priests but also because they stood and gave support for the people they ruled.  Would you not say that we are called to give support and help to one another? To at times provide surety to those in need?

On 7/5/2018 at 6:50 PM, TLC said:

When seed is planted, it dies.  I take it you have never farmed, or gardened, or for that matter... know an awful lot about agriculture in general.

I've made no boasts or claims of my agricultural knowledge.  In fact, in all categories of life, I consider myself unknowledgeable, with "novice" being an overstated title.

And yes, John 12:24 does state rather plainly "that a seed dies", only the death of seed wasn't questioned, it was your emphasis on "not remaining"..  Since in your words the "seed does not remain", and the "seed" is Christ. Thus my question, so according to you does Christ not remain?  Or is Christ not the seed of Abraham? 

On 7/5/2018 at 6:34 PM, Infoabsorption said:

The time references will forever be debated by futurists and preterists. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I didn't become a partial preterist on the time statements alone. Certain parallels between old and new testament verses clarified some questions I had when I was a dispensationalist.

In Daniel 12, Daniel is given a specific revelation about his people Israel. In the vision one "person" asked the man in linen " “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled? " The reply was " It will be for a time, times and half a time.^[b] When the power of the holy people(Israel) has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.” Then Daniel asks:  “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?” The reply was:  “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end.

So we can deduce from the text that at the time of the "end" the power of Daniel's people Israel will be "broken" and Daniel is told that the prophecy will not occur in his lifetime because of the figurative phrase "words are rolled up and sealed". It says Daniel will rest(physically die) then be resurrected at the end of the 1335 days to receive his spiritual inheritance. The countdown of the 1335 days is triggered when the daily sacrifice is abolished and abomination of desolation is set up. It is not clear if both events happen at the same time or the countdown is between the 2 events. If you look at recorded history of Israel known as Judea at that time, the daily sacrifice offered in the temple in Jerusalem was stopped on 3 separate occasions during the Zealot rebellion from 66-70 AD. The 1st sacrifice on behalf of the Roman emperor was stopped in August of 66AD by the Zealots, then it was briefly stopped during the temple siege by the Zealots in 68AD, then it was stopped completely by the Roman army in 70AD. I don't know which of the abolished temple sacrifices we should start the countdown from but I suspect that the "end of days" Daniel was told would happen happened between 70 & 74 AD. And the power of Israel was broken in 70AD. I don't believe that this is a future Israel. The historical record is just too close to the biblical account.

A  parallel to Daniel 12:9 is Revelation 22:10:  Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. This is not just a time statement but John is told not to seal the words of the prophecy because the events were to occur at least in his lifetime. I don't believe a case can be made that it's just a window of time that could be thousands of years in length or the same phrase that was used in Daniel would not have been used in Revelation.
 

I'm glad to see you added the prefix "partial" to preterist... As full preterism make no sense to me, so I won't bother you with those questions, since you don't believe it either.. And I can't say I'm a full futurist either...  Eschatology as whole is not something I place much thought or diligence into figuring out.

On 7/5/2018 at 12:49 PM, Infoabsorption said:

The discussion was about Hebrews 8 and the 2 covenants...the new covenant in Christ being far superior. Then in the next chapter it says: " Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary". The point I was trying to make is that certain aspects of the law are certainly still in effect such as the ten commandments, but God isn't requiring  anybody (Jew or Gentile) to sacrifice animals on an altar anymore. That is the aspect of the Law( old covenant) I think Hebrews is talking about..the earthly temple in Jerusalem and the system that supported it. Why does Hebrews mention the temple and the high priests and the temple procedures and then contrasts that with Christ being the high priest and going through a greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands? Maybe it's just me but I think the big message of Hebrews is "an earthly temple built with hands is not needed anymore and is about to disappear"...  in other words 70AD. 

I think I am understanding a bit where you're coming from.  But I tend to disagree.. You say that "certain aspects of the law are certainly still in effect" and mention the ten commandments.. But others are not... How does one decide what isn't in effect and which is?  Just because the physical temple is rubble at the moment, and Jews refuse to offer sacrifices until it is rebuilt (which I think it will), what actually says the laws requiring them are not in in effect while the "other" laws are?   And which ten commandments? You know the list of commandments in the scriptures where it uses the label "ten commandments" (Deut 34) is wholly different than the usual one Christians list.

On 7/6/2018 at 1:02 AM, TLC said:

You said, "It is by His grace and His gift that is promised."

After noting that I understood you intended "it" to be referring to salvation, I asked for clarification on what you thought or meant by "His gift that is promised" (given that it referred rather specifically to salvation.)  But, when you ran around the barn and then went out to pasture to pick daisies and sing to the trees, I was quite lost as to what you were doing (and talking about) and pretty much figured you either didn't have a clue what was asked or were purposely avoiding it. (Either one bringing an end to the matter.)

So in not so many words, you didn't quite grasp my "supposed" clarification of "His gift that is promised"?  Seeing that it was my attempt at clarification, and it didn't seem to do that, maybe you can explain what you don't understand..

His gift? Yes, salvation... You understand I don't use the term salvation as being just one event, yes? Not one future event, nor past, nor present. But many events. Understandable? 

On 7/2/2018 at 5:22 PM, Infoabsorption said:

Maybe it's just me but it sure seems like Hebrews is talking about the soon end(at the time Hebrews was written) of the earthly temple system that occurred in 70AD. Hebrews 8:13 in this context then makes perfect sense: what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready(Gr. "engys" near,soon) to vanish away.

While there are lots of passages throughout the scriptures that point to a "soon", "at hand", "little while" aspect to the "end times", and I realize those taking them literally from the perspective of a timeline of all history can see it as either failed prophecies or the different "preterist" views.  I don't think they "must" be understood that way alone.

Much like many prophecies throughout, they had a literal "current" understanding  and a future understanding. Call them physical vs spiritual, or whatever depending on the prophecy. But even Haggai 2 talks about the end coming in a short time. Yet that was at least 500 years before the 70AD destruction of the 2nd temple. Half a millennium doesn't sound like a "little while" to me, but in God's perspective, 1 day is as a thousand, yes?  I tend to see most of these are they are coming shortly in the perspective of my life's timeline.. Which if we live to 100, that makes it much sooner than 500 years!  Very soon. At hand. And well, the end is coming!

On 7/2/2018 at 4:17 PM, Infoabsorption said:

Here's another perspective to consider. Could the covenant and the law be 2 separate things? The law being just one aspect of the covenant?

The word law is such a diverse topic, used in so many different contexts, that no doubt it at times is just one aspect of a covenant. 

But I think that it is just too big a topic to add to this discussion that I don't believe would help.. But maybe you're thinking it does?  Maybe help guide us a bit into your thinking?

On 7/2/2018 at 2:53 PM, TLC said:

As for covenants, and one of them being the law, I guess I just don't see there being only two.

And the questions in your last paragraph are rather mixed up (and far less than clear.)  Do I see myself as Abraham's seed?  Yes.  But evidently not in the same sense that you might think of it.    

Whether you see 2 or lots of individual ones really isn't so much the point.  God says things in so many ways, and the repeats, I think, are just so those who seek Him will always find something that they grasp.  Much like all the different forms of Dispensations and Covenant theology.. I don't think any of them or any of us have a corner on understanding the depth of God's plan. But I think we can all agree, God has a plan yes? 

To me, it's just sad that many think God has different plans that cause division in the end. The us vs them mentality. The church is divided. Jews are divided. God's people are divided. Not because of God, but because we put doctrine where it doesn't belong. God gave it to guide us to Him and to Christ. Not to divide ourselves.  We have all been called to function as priests, all been called to serve(minister).  The covenants are God's promises we can depend upon. Christ being one of them, the law the other.  To squabble over whether that includes God's covenant given to Abraham, to Adam, to David, to Noah, to Jacob,  to Moses, makes little difference to me.

And you say you see yourself as Abraham's seed in a different sense, would you care to elaborate?

On 7/2/2018 at 2:25 PM, TLC said:

Of course it is, and I'm not mixing things up (except maybe in the heads of a few others here that have never considered it like this before.)  Seed doesn't remain as "seed" after it germinates and grows. (see John 12:24.)  The references you gave are to what was previously promised (in the future, from those it was given to.)

I must not be understanding what you are defining here.  "Seed" has always been Christ.. So, what is it again that doesn't remain? Christ?  And John 12:24 doesn't refer to seed "not remaining", only to it producing fruit...

Quote

Seems to me like you're only thinking about it from an earthly (sensual) perspective. But, you obviously got it all figured out, so let's leave it at that.

Actually what I referenced, Ephraim and Judah, Israel and Judah is what the scriptures state. And as usual in the scriptures, just as Abraham's seed, there is a physical truth and there is a spiritual truth.  David's son that was prophesied to die, was both a physical and spiritual. His temple, physical and spiritual.  This continues from the heavens and earth all the way to the end.

On 7/2/2018 at 1:35 PM, Infoabsorption said:

Then how do you explain Hebrews 8:13?

In case no one answered this, Hebrews 8:13 just says, "When He[G-d] said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."..

As it says, it is growing old and ready to disappear [NASB]... That is, the covenant that brings death, the old covenant of the law.  So until you find death no longer happening on this earth, you can pretty much guarantee it is still in effect. As the christian writings state, "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;" and "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."  The latter describing the 2 covenants using the word law[nomos], since a covenant can not be changed or broken until fulfilled.

On 7/2/2018 at 4:14 PM, TLC said:

You're talking in circles, away from any direction I can make any kind of sense of. 

If I'm talking in circles for you, then feel free to point out what doesn't make sense..

On 7/2/2018 at 3:45 PM, chockfull said:

So, prize-winning 500 kilo watermelons in the Garden of Eden?  And we just have to suffer and get by with the 5 kg ones today?

Come on now, the farmer's market is in full swing with some of the greatest delicacies in all of life.    Don't be raining on my parade LOL.  

Also, I did see on CBS news a contradictory viewpoint at least with one crop:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-far-more-potent-than-it-used-to-be-tests-find/

 

I'm not sure I would call that "contradictory"..  Since the world began, people have been breeding plants and animals for certain traits.  That article just shows the progression of THC content in the marijuana plant.  That's not even close to what I was talking about.  This isn't about breeding, this is about worldwide decline.  And I would have no doubt that our "breeding" for certain traits plays into ruining the nutritional value of plants.  Whether breeding for brighter reds or more output, as a whole, our organic food is not as healthy as it used to be.  And as most point out, it just means we have to eat more fruits and veggies than we used to.. So enjoy that 5kg watermelon!

As an aside, in Numbers 13, it talks of them butting down a cluster of grapes and having 2 people carry it on a pole. Now, was that really just one cluster?  Were they just being fancy in displaying it? We really don't know.. But seeing that the world record is almost 21lbs for a cluster of grapes, it's not too far to think it could have been a single cluster needing 2 people to carry on a pole.

On 7/2/2018 at 3:34 PM, chockfull said:

I'm not so sure I am really liking the whole concept of living in a "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome Time" where everything around me is cursed, polluted, and barren.  I like to grow lettuce, tomatoes, and herbs, and cook food.  I know everyone says that seed company Monsanto is born of the devil or something but they could just be engineers too.  

The American Indians had a much more peace producing mental image, of "Mother Earth" who provides for us and we interact with.  

Would those two mental models be called an "innately negative model" versus an "innately positive model"  ????

I understand what you're saying.  Will it ever get as bad as the Thunderdome?! Who knows.. It certainly isn't headed in the right direction.

Monsanto (now part of Bayer) has good and bad employees like all others. Those looking for money, and those just doing their job needing to make a living. Some brilliant scientists and genetic engineers. But then, God created those seeds with more thought than all mankind put together, so I doubt their resulting product will end up being any better for the entire worldwide eco-system.  Especially since the majority of companies are in the end, for profit.

I woukln't lump all American natives together either.  Some were all about ravaging the other tribes, while others were great lovers of nature. The earth God gave to help sustain us.  Plants and animals give their lives every day that we may live. While most never think about what it costs daily to keep humanity alive.

But then, what does this have to do with salvation?!  The world needs saved?! 

26 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Would it be similar to the use of term "earthly family".  Because, nobody out there would understand what you meant if you said "biological family".

 

Yes, the ol' us vs them.. Distinctions and separations.  Not that there isn't a "set apart" body of Christ.. But then, that's God's separation not man(woman) made and since we know not the heart of humans,  it's outside us. 

Didn't someone do a topic once on defining cults.. I kind of recall that "us vs them" doctrine being a primary mover.. Even non-Christians would agree we all came from the same origin, share the same, and ought to be here to help one another..

On 6/29/2018 at 7:23 PM, TLC said:

I might be able to better get what you're thinking is if you had been a bit more explicit on the details.  When you say, "another covenant was made"... seems you might be referring to the law (of Moses)? I'm a bit lost.  Isn't that which he gave to Israel patterned after that (heavenly) which already was?

"another covenant", can be referred to as a covenant with it's basis in law. A covenant based on conditions. It is this covenant given to Adam and Eve, that once they failed to heed those conditions, they were kicked out of the garden.

Quote

 

Hmm... now it seems you have it backed up to Adam, at the beginning.  Okay, let's go with that.  What isn't clear, though, is whether you're thinking of one covenant with two sides (one side life, one side death), or two covenants (one all good - of life, another all bad - of death.)  Seems like you want it to be two covenants, one given to one group of people, the other given to a different group of people in different ways.

 

There are 2 covenants. Galatians 3 sets these forth. The one of promise, which Christ is the mediator of, which is by promise. The other has it's basis in the law. They both have been in effect. And they both are important until death has had it's final defeat. They both are good.  Just because the law brings death, Romans still says it is considered good. And as Galatians 3 states, is it against the promies of God? No, it's not. They both are entirely important. But for different reasons. They are both entirely for everyone and for our benefit. But we, who are in Christ, have died to the one, that we might be made alive by the other.

Quote

 

If we left off calling this (whatever it is you're after here) a "covenant," it might actually make more sense to me.  Death, which was in place (or "in effect") with Adam does indeed continue on through now.  (even as it is written, it is appointed unto men once to die...)

 

You are welcome to call it whatever you desire. A rose is still a rose by any other name. It is translated as a covenant in the Tanakh and as a testament sometimes in the Christian writings in English (thus the new testament instead of new covenant).

Quote

 

The general direction of that makes sense enough to me, but not the specifics.  I'm more inclined to think of it as two sides of the coin, one side being the earthly, the other the heavenly.  And I see the "Israel of God" not (completely) restricted to the genetic descendants of Abraham, but as being the flesh and blood people accepting/trusting in the promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ (who, as we know, was and will be plainly revealed and made known in the physical world.)  Still, it is all by their senses.  An earthly, sensual, and "believing" people of God (and primarily, though not necessarily exclusively, the genetic descendants of Abraham.  Might include those in white robes mentioned in Rev.7:13.)

 

Am I misunderstanding you, in that you don't see those that trust "in the promised Messiah" as including you in that "Israel of God?? Since you do believe in Christ, yes? Messiah and Christ are just Hebrew/Greek words regarding the same thing.  But you do see yourself as the "seed of Abraham" (according to Gal 3) yes?

On 6/29/2018 at 7:23 PM, TLC said:

you real sure 'bout that?  'cause my Bible says that God quite intentionally separated Israel from all the other nations of the world.  Why? Or what for, if (as you say) He has only one group?

Yes, I'm sure.  And I don't think one reason would be sufficient. There are quite a few. But one of the reasons, was as a shadow. For His people. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel (Rom 9). But God has and will intentially separate His people from all the "other" peoples of this earth.  Israel was the name given to the man, Jacob. He came from Isaac, a shadow of Christ. And Jacob, a man of the flesh, who, like all men of the flesh wrestle against God (figuratively, as Hosea says Jacob wrestled with an angel, while Jacob says He saw God face to face), just as we all fought with God until just as Jacob did, were blessed of God and stopped wrestling, and on account of this, was renamed Israel. Jacob's change into Israel was a shadow of all those who put their trust in God.

Quote

 

Besides, don't you think it a bit strange that God would tell Abraham that He would multiply "thy seed" both as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the sea shore? Ever wonder why they are added together, rather than given as one or the other.  Furthermore, what's this "marriage of the Lamb" in Revelations 19 all about if there's really only one?

 

You're mixing things up there.. Don't forget that Paul spoke of "thy seed" as being singular. That is referring to Christ. The seed that was promised to Adam and Eve. The seed that was prophesied of old. And in "thy seed" shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. All the nations (Israel didn't exist then).  But Abraham had 2 sons, yes? Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac had 2 sons, yes? Esau and Jacob? The former being of the flesh, the later - chosen by God.  And the Jews and other nations have been united under that seed. Abraham's seed, which is us united in Christ.

And maybe I forgot something, but doesn't marriage imply a joining together of 2 things into one?  What 2 things would that be?  Jews and Gentiles? Nope.. That was done in Christ.  Could it be Ephraim and Judah?! No doubt there. For Israel and Judah shall be united once again. And the marriage shall be a fulfilling of one of God's great promises to His people, that is, all who put their trust in him(the corenerstone of Zion / Christ / lion of the tribe of Judah), for they shall not be put to shame.

On 6/29/2018 at 5:20 PM, TLC said:

Mind if I parse a few things from that?  Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding, or if you intended it as (or to mean) something else.

"It" - meaning salvation (which generally and basically speaking, I would take to mean the attainment of eternal life.)

"by His grace" - I'll agree that without His grace, it's not happening."

"and His gift that is promised"  -  it's actually very unclear to me exactly what you think this is, and/or what you intend it to refer to.  If something (whatever it is) is only promised, then it's yet to be received.

"mental beliefs" -  Believing (from what I understand of it) doesn't originate (or exist) in the mind (i.e., our thinking, or thoughts.)  It's much deeper than that.  It's an issue of (and resides in) the heart.  How things can, do, or might enter the heart (and how it is different from the mind) is a study in and of itself... something which far too few ever give much thought or enough consideration to.  And yes, man is ultimately accountable for what he allows and holds in his heart.  In other words... what he believes. 

"It" is salvation in any sense. Past, present, or future. Tiny or Large. Any and all, by His grace and promise, his gift.

And, "it" has been promised and fulfilled many a times over in varied ways. Just as much as "it" refers to current, and there are future promises. Again "it" is not one specific thing outside of God's deliverance, His saving, and His restoration in part or in whole. Gifts of healing.  Gifts of rescue. Gifts of God.. By His grace and promise. But of course, since the word "salvation" is singular, we use singular nouns of "gift" and "promise", but it gets a bit tough when speaking of a myriad of things that are considered as His salvation.

"Believing" is an English word with many views or "feelings" attached to it. Thanks for sharing yours.

On 6/29/2018 at 4:48 PM, TLC said:

Perhaps what something looks like and what it's called can vary quite a bit... depending on whether you consider the path (that was) as being fixed (only one way for it to happen), or whether any room for any tweaking is allowed along the way.   I'm sure Bobby Fischer had a plan when he played Spassky in '72.  Was Spassy forced to take the rook on his 3rd from last move? Yeah, looked like it at that point.  No other way would work or make sense. Did Fischer know he was going to win before Spassky made that move? Of course.  Did Spassky know it?  Evidently not.  How far ahead did Fischer see it?  Don't know.  Maybe how "fixed" we see things depends a bit on a few things... like when and where we view it from.  And I have no doubt that God sees things so far out in front of anyone else that it can be said that He declares the end (e.g., ...I win by checkmate) from the beginning.  Doesn't mean there aren't any tweaks along the way... it simply means He knows what the end will be and how to get there.    

While I can't say much in regard to chess, novice would be an overstatement. I don't think either of us would be saying that God is just playing a big galactic game with us as actors or pawns in that game, would we?

On 6/29/2018 at 11:04 AM, TLC said:

Perhaps it is rather difficult to imagine what it must have been like prior to the flood, and the change afterwards. (Hence, the reason for his name.  see Gen. 5:29.)
Frankly, I am amazed at what can grow and come out of a garden so quickly at times, with such little effort on my part.  And, I think if you follow the context of what is written in Isaiah 24, it looks to me more like the curse spoken of there is the result of a defiling of the earth by its inhabitants (because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant...)

Yes, it's rather impossible to know many specifics of the past.  And while God's creation "still" can amaze us, it is very much "still" cursed because of it's inhabitants as Isaiah 24 AND Genesis 3 says. So I'm glad you agree, it's still cursed! Because of it's inhabitants.. And they both say just that. It hasn't been fixed. While I love how plants are still able to grow. The ground has had it's minerals and nutrients leeched, and most "fruit" from the ground no longer contains all that it used to in times past. Fertilizers are used to try and add some back in, but no human is able to put humpty dumpty back together again. It's broke, it's cursed, has been since Adam and Eve turned from trsting God. Yes, it's our fault!

Just one source out of a million of the decline of plant nutrients.. And that's just in the past 50years. How about the last 1000s? I'm sure we'd all be amazed at how much plants are really lacking, and yet amazed that God's creation still is able to keep us alive! That's some awesome foreplanning!
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/a-decline-in-the-nutritional-value-of-crops.html

Quote

 

And it appears to me that you've only talking semantics.  Regardless of what salvation is about, if it's about anything, it's conditional.  
Are you a universalist? (You don't much sound like one, but thought I'd better ask.)

 

Conditional.. Only in the sense that it is conditioned on God fulfilling His promise, that blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.  And even on that alone, we have confidence in His salvation.  No need to play semantics, or add conditions.  Granted, God has given us much more, and everything He has said and given we can trust in.

And it really would depend on your definition of a universalist.

I debated whether I should wade into this discussion, not really knowing whether I'd have the proper time to respond.. But I wanted to at least throw out a "different" view for whatever it's worth.. To me, the different Dispensational and Covenantal theologies (since there are a myriad of both)  never seem to fit completely for me..

Most "Covenant Theologies" went out the door (or at least out of favor) after World War 2, the reason being that most(not all) espoused replacement theology. That is, Israel was replaced with the Church, which in light of the Holocaust was a big big No No (think Anti-Defamation League). And so what took it's place was Dispensational theology, the young hatchling that had been gaining momentum in the early 1900s.  If nothing more than the reason that at least now God has 2 blessed groups, the Israel of old (to be returned in the later ages) and the Church.

My problem with both of these, the replacement theology of some Covenant beliefs, and the way Dispensations relates to these 2 different groups, seems to once again paint God as one who discriminates with different plans for different races or groups of people. Personally I don't see the christian bible agreeing on this.  While there is no doubt (in my mind at least) that God works with individuals or groups differently at times, giving each different affairs to handle on this earth(oikonomos) . But the plan of God, as represented in the Tanakh and christian writings, from the beginning has not been one of segregation, but one of uniting. There is one God, and one Lord. One Body and one Spirit. There is not Jew and Gentiles. There is one. That has been God's aim. His people. His congregation of the the righteous. And it is this congregation that has been given many different names. Whether it be Israel or the new creation, it is the same thing being mentioned. Mostly figuratively in the Tanakh and once the secret was revealed, it was given more descriptions.  It had to remain a secret in the past, so the Tanakh describes this "shadow", this secret that God kept. It wasn't a thing called grace. He already spoke of grace. It wasn't the gentiles will be saved, this was spoken of too. It was Christ. It was our Lord, within whom the whole congregation of those who put their trust in Him (gentile or judean) would live.  This is the secret Ephesians 3 speaks (at least for me).

God has only one group. One plan. One people. His people.  And he made a covenant a covenant that was based on a permanent promise. Now as time progressed, he re-iterated this self-same covenant with different people. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, including creation itself.  But another covenant was made. A covenant that brings death. A covenant of old. And it is passing away, but has not. Fur until the death has been destroyed, this covenant of old, also given to different people in different ways, is rather important. It was made with Adam and Eve at the beginning. It was given to the nation called Isael in the form of what is called Moses's law.  And yet, all those to whom this covenant was NOT given (as spoken in Romans) still died because of it.  Because it is still in effect, people still die. And Christ came to redeem us. By making the new way plain. By uniting all things under him. Not by keeping old man made distinctions. But one man. One spirit. One body. One new covenant that the scriptures say Paul ministered.  The old covenant of the law still has a purpose, still is in effect, and one of those purposes is to bring us unto Christ.  But once we have found our Lord, there is no need for the law. And He has given us new life. Life that the new covenant gives in him.

And at least for me, this is what the scriptures speak of.  Divsions and discriminating is the opposie of what the God of my Lord spoke of.   Jesus spoke before his death in a prayer to our Father, that we would be one.  Yet we are divided.  And if our understanding of scripture divides groups up, you have a salvation for Israel and a salvation for the Church. And now Christ also is divided. The word covenant in the Hebrew language actually doesn't mean covenant. It means a division. It means a cutting. But it also means the best choice.. The choice between those 2. Heaven or earth.  Old or the new covenant.  Israel of the flesh or Israel of God.  Ephraim or Manasseh.  God's people united under the lordship and direction of His annointed or united with the world. That is our covenant choice God has given and does not change. One that is permanent and one that is conditional which no man can obtain life by.

Forgot.. A chart.. Not one I made, not necessarily 100% accurate, but good enough for the topic at hand.

Covenants_Chart.pdf

On 6/27/2018 at 9:52 AM, TLC said:

Your saying that God always had it planned "one way" appeared to going that direction, and I didn't see where or how you left room for free will.

Glad I could clear that up for you.  I think it's a rather large leap to jump from God having a plan, to us being without our own will just acting out said plan. Especially since part of that plan was not just for the messiah that would redeem us, but also for all whom were to be redeemed, which certainly weren't just robots playing a role in His galactic movie. I'm pretty sure we all can agree on that, yes?

On 6/27/2018 at 9:40 AM, TLC said:

True, hasn't been since Noah.

So what would you call the polluted ground we live on?  Blessed?  While the earth may not have been "cursed again" by God since Noah, it certainly hasn't been restored, which leaves it rather still cursed.  I would think that was rather plain to see in life. Thus my "sarcasm".. Not directed at you, nor to your belief, which I actually didn't realize you had, so if my sarcasm offended you, I apologize. But even Isa 24 speaks of a curse devouring this earth, and Romans 8 continues that theme.

Quote

 

Nothing is finished.  I was fishing for a better or more detailed view of exactly what "trust" God means to you, and/or what you think it means to anyone else. And, your quotes are quite out of synch, and your questions don't have a short answer aside from noting that salvation involves both what's already done and what is yet to come.

 

You were fishing for a better answer.. And my "better" answer is, "does one exist?"... I don't believe one does, but feel free to share your own.  While people all day long wish to talk about "conditions" for salvation, it has never been about meeting conditions. God has promised it, made it available to all. It is by His grace and His gift that is promised. And it certainly isn't based on our thoughts, our works, and certainly not our mental beliefs. While I realize many like to say, do (A) and (B) and you'll be saved. And there's no doubt we read it in the scriptures, but there's context to that. There was no pat answer even our Lord gave when asked this question. He gave different answers to different people. Why? Because it's not about (A) or (B), it's about the heart. And no law, which is what (A) and (B) represent, can save.  So if you're asking me to define (A) or (B), it isn't going to happen.

But we are defining salvation, yes? So, I think it'd be good to take the time to define what this "salvation" involves. Whether past/present/future. What are these verses showing past/present/future involving