Posted on 06/14/2010 3:28:41 PM PDT by Ken4TA
How do you reconcile that with all the other verses referring to the Church as composed of "nations", other than to realize that he is referring to the Jewish believers here in his first epistle.
After all, he is quoting Deuteronomy 7:6 which said that the children of Israel would be a "special people to him above all the people who are on the face of the earth."
I Peter was written to the "sojourners", the Jewish believers scattered and being scattered again throughout that area of Asia Minor due to the conflict with Rome in Judea and the ongoing diaspora. In the letter he even tells them to "have your behaviour honest among the nations".[I Peter 2:12]
Count all the places in Scripture where the Church is referred to as a community of "nations" and that's the only way to reconcile those verses with Peter's first epistle. Afterall, Peter was there on the day when Jesus answered the disciples' collective question about when He would "restore again" the Kingdom to Israel", and when Jesus answered it saying that the time for that is in His Father's hands.
And where do you find "future nation of Israel" that you say Peter revealed?
Acts 15:14-17 -- the words of the prophets as it is written.
I’ve read and know the Book of Daniel and there is not a single verse that mentions specifically “house of Israel” or “house of Judah” having been united since 721 BC. You need to look somewhere else, but you will never find the answer to my question in the Bible. Keep searching.
Blessings in your search for TRUTH.
Right, the Book of Daniel is not specific on this. Both of these "houses" were taken captive: the first ten by the Assyrians and the last two by the Babylonians. When Cyrus gave the order for the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem, a remnant of all the twelve tribes returned, but most of them remained in Babylon. Watch for my next thread topic :-)
How do you reconcile that with all the other verses referring to the Church as composed of "nations", other than to realize that he is referring to the Jewish believers here in his first epistle.
After all, he is quoting Deuteronomy 7:6 which said that the children of Israel would be a "special people to him above all the people who are on the face of the earth."
Yes, Peter is writing to those who left Judahism and turned to Christianity; those who were dispersed into the locations he mentions because of the persecutions aimed at them in Jerusalem. The gentile Christians are joined with them in that "holy nation" mentioned in Verse 9 above which is not a quote from the OT. About Deut. 7:6 - Peter never quoted it in either of his two letters.
Count all the places in Scripture where the Church is referred to as a community of "nations" and that's the only way to reconcile those verses with Peter's first epistle.
Hmmm..."community of nations": where did I say anything like that? Please don't put words in my mouth (typing). Christians of all nations are joined in the nation Christ created - the universal "church". Nations don't come together in any way...it's the people who do - and in this case, only the people of God who are joined together into one nation. Is that too hard to understand? Hmmm...maybe it could be stated better, maybe not. Whatever...
ME: And where do you find "future nation of Israel" that you say Peter revealed?
Acts 15:14-17 -- the words of the prophets as it is written.
I agree with Peter's words 100%! Gentiles are added to the new nation of Israel, which is the "assembly of called out ones" in His name. It is erroneously called the "church", but because of the infirmity of the flesh, most Christians use it. It is the restoration of the "house of David", of which, Jesus Christ is now seated on "Davids throne" in heaven - that may be too much for you to stomach, but it is very Scriptural. In the series of articles I'm willing to post to a thread this will be expounded upon to some extent, so I'm not going to attempt to explain it is some short post to anyone. Sorry, but that's the way it is :-)
It's only scriptural if the words of prophets like Jeremiah 3:16-17 are ignored:
"And at that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall be gathered unto it ..."
It's only scriptural if the words of prophets like Jeremiah 3:16-17 are ignored: "And at that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall be gathered unto it ..."
It's scriptural! And true! Jeremiah's words referred to a previous time period, and it came true.
I guess Jesus and the Apostles standing on the Mount of Olives in Acts 1 must have missed that history lesson, right???
Maybe they knew history better than you or me?
And what origins would that be?
Ribera, a Jesuit priest, wrote of a future antichrist in the 17th century which was translated into English in the 18th century, and in the 19th century (1830) Edward Irving preached his dispensational theories which culminated in prophetic conferences. In the church Irving pastored, a Miss Margaret McDonald gave a prophecy in which she spoke of Christ's visible second coming - but in continuing she began to speak of another coming, a coming that was secret and would result in the rapture of believers only; those who were left had to face tribulation.
This spread to the "Plymouth Brethren" church and let to John Nelson Darby systemizing this new doctrine. He wrote over 30 volumes of 600 pages each concerning this new theological theory. Following him, Charles Henry Mackintosh, simply known as C.H.M., popularized the spread of dispensationalism. William Blackstone wrote a book untitled "Jesus is Coming" which taught the secret rapture theory. Next came probably the largest single factor that spread that theory - the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.
Naw, this dispensational theory is a recent addition to the topic of the return of Jesus - and has caused so many other theories to pop up that it is ridiculous to the extreme. In all respect to those who hold to this doctrine, some of my best friends being in that number, I am fully convinced that it lacks a solid scriptural foundation. It is a theory based on a faulty method of interpretation.
This Curtis fellow you keep posting has an impressive array of articles, but if they mis-represent positions and are full of shotty exegesis (which they are) then its a pile of bits at a link. Replacement theology is not true theology, it ignores the priority of the OT text in OT interpretation.
Replacement theology it is not! I would dare you to write on any of the topics he has written on with such clarity. None of what he wrote is new - it's been proclaimed for centuries by various individual who were, so it seems, persecuted and put to death quite often. It upset the ecclesiastical establishment so much that they did all they could to silence it - without success I may add. In fact, most of todays theologians and writers stay away from addressing what he and many others have to say about many topics, including the destiny of man. Replacement theology is dispensationalism, pure and simple; and it uses a rubber dictionary - as FR Quix likes to say.
Hmmm...the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, Canada, etc., they are all going to fit into Ezekiel's temple? Never! As with others, you use the word nation instead of its people. The scriptures mean the people of all the nations, which again would never fit into Ezekiel's temple - there would be too many of them. However, all of the people of the world, past, present and future could fit into the new nation created by Jesus - for his kingdom is not of this world, but is within each and every person who belongs to Him. A new world in new heavens will be our home. That is the promise of God. Not only that, but its inhabitants will never die, for they will be immortal. Praise God for His promise!
Yes, during the thousands of years of Rev. 20, we Christians will be here on earth - and Jesus the Christ of God is the one reigning.
And yes nation means all people groups. But the bible still says that they will give homage to Christ with memorial sacrifices in Ezekiel's temple in the Millennium. If the prophecies of the millennial temple are not true then most of the OT prophets are false prophets along with Isiah and that Jesus was not the Christ.
In my opinion you're reading way too much into what is actually said. You have yet to explain these so-called "memorial sacrifices" in light of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross which was once for all times completed!
I am fully convinced that it lacks a solid scriptural foundation. It is a theory based on a faulty method of interpretation.
On the contrary, your side is the one that abandons solid theological method.
Dispensationalism begins with the development of a Biblical theology of the OT based on the grammatical-historical approach to the OT text. Then a Biblical theology of the NT based on the NT text is constructed; then all results are synthesized into a systematic theology.
Non-dispensationalists start with a Biblical theology of the NT, then construct a Biblical theology of the OT based; not on the OT text, but on the NT understanding of the OT text. Then systematic synthesis.
This gives you the justification you need to trash the OT covenants as fulfilled by the church, or the silly position of "it all happened in AD 70."
Replacement theology it is not! I would dare you to write on any of the topics he has written on with such clarity.
Clarity? That is not the issue, sure he can write with clarity, but the theological method and interpretive conclusions he reaches are aberrant. Who cares if he can communicate false doctrine clearly.
Replacement theology is dispensationalism
lol ... you're the first person to claim that.
On the contrary, your side is the one that abandons solid theological method.
That's the argument that is advanced all the time - By both sides (and various other groups)! The only way for any group is to display and present for study what they see of the future; which is the main part of the arguments.
Dispensationalism begins with the development of a Biblical theology of the OT based on the grammatical-historical approach to the OT text. Then a Biblical theology of the NT based on the NT text is constructed; then all results are synthesized into a systematic theology.
I haven't got all that much against dispesations revealed in the OT; it's just that Dispensationalists make mountains out of mole hills - they start with an ant hill and pile loads of dirt and rock on it. There is so much wrong with the theology of a lot of groups; Dispensationists have carried a lot of false teachings on the destiny of man that it makes one wonder who is actually following a grammatical-historical based approach in their theology.
Non-dispensationalists start with a Biblical theology of the NT, then construct a Biblical theology of the OT based; not on the OT text, but on the NT understanding of the OT text. Then systematic synthesis.
In this I think you are wrong again. Think: what did the writers of the NT understand from what is recorded in the OT? They applied much of the OT to events recorded in the NT. Do you think they then systematically synthesized thier teachings?
Clarity? That is not the issue, sure he can write with clarity, but the theological method and interpretive conclusions he reaches are aberrant. Who cares if he can communicate false doctrine clearly.
Wrong! Clarity, as Curtis uses it, is explaining certain things so that the simplest individual can understand it. I've read some of his in-depth exegesis and it is up-to-par with the most educated theologians and translators of Scriptures that I have read - and I've read works from almost all the groups found in Christianity. As for "Who cares", there are millions who do! If you don't, that's no big loss.
"Replacement theology is dispensationalism"
lol ... you're the first person to claim that.
LOL...nope. I just quoted, in simple words, what thousands have stated in those words and have expounded upon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.