ECT NT Eschatology Prop # __: "Saved" in Romans 11 (Isaiah) is justification from sins

[Interplanner]

NT Eschatology Prop # __: "Saved" in Romans 11 (Isaiah) is justification from sins

The wobbly position of D'ism is that 1, it desperately needs Rom 11 as a proof text (actually just v26), which it tries to balance precariously on 'saved' being a restored theocracy in Judea.

This is not what Isaiah meant. Paul did not depart from what Isaiah is quoted for, and saved in all of Romans is not a restored Judaistic theocracy. The new covenant is the taking away of sins (like John the Baptist announced). The new covenant is in place, and Paul and company worked in it.

Everything is concluded, even what was promised to Israel; God's gifts are irrevocable and it was justification. He has bound all mankind over to sin, to have mercy on them all if they believe. God will judge this world through the Man Christ, Acts 17, without any reference to Israel.

 

[turbosixx]

I agree. Paul wasn’t talking about something in the future. It’s obvious from looking at the first verse. Paul say God hasn’t rejected his people, look at me I’m proof.

 

[Danoh]

I agree. Paul wasn’t talking about something in the future. It’s obvious from looking at the first verse. Paul say God hasn’t rejected his people, look at me I’m proof.

Yeah, ok, so "how much more their fulness" which hasn't yet happened when Paul penned that, was not future.

And the word "again" is also nowhere in any of those passages in Romans 11.

And - o never mind, o incompetent one.

 

[turbosixx]

Yeah, ok, so "how much more their fulness" which hasn't yet happened when Paul penned that, was not future.

What riches did the world and Gentiles get that the Jews did not?
12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!

What was their failure?

o incompetent one.

Is this really necessary? Do you feel better about yourself?
2 Tim. 2:24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition,

 

[Interplanner]

Again? What again?

Rom 11 is prodding not prediction. That's why the warnings are so severe about being lopped off.

'Saved' is not a theocracy in Judea.

And, in case we forget, Israel is not the ethne. It is those who have faith and includes Gentiles, 9:6 and 26.

D'ism has soooo much to learn.

 

[Faither]

The wobbly position of D'ism is that 1, it desperately needs Rom 11 as a proof text (actually just v26), which it tries to balance precariously on 'saved' being a restored theocracy in Judea.

This is not what Isaiah meant. Paul did not depart from what Isaiah is quoted for, and saved in all of Romans is not a restored Judaistic theocracy. The new covenant is the taking away of sins (like John the Baptist announced). The new covenant is in place, and Paul and company worked in it.

Everything is concluded, even what was promised to Israel; God's gifts are irrevocable and it was justification. He has bound all mankind over to sin, to have mercy on them all if they believe. God will judge this world through the Man Christ, Acts 17, without any reference to Israel.

You said to have mercy on them all if they "believe"? Is this the answer to the question i've been asking you for the last month? Have you built your whole understanding on a mistranslation?

I'm assuming D'ism is dispensationalism. Agnosticism is someone who never stands on anything, their constantly moving from place to place never committing themselves to anything. As a result , you can never pin them down. Sound framiliar?

 

[Interplanner]

You said to have mercy on them all if they "believe"? Is this the answer to the question i've been asking you for the last month? Have you built your whole understanding on a mistranslation?

I'm assuming D'ism is dispensationalism. Agnosticism is someone who never stands on anything, their constantly moving from place to place never committing themselves to anything. As a result , you can never pin them down. Sound framiliar?

You are pitching self-generated 'surrender.' Faith, which also surrenders, is a gift of God, Eph 2, compelled by the Gospel in those God has called. He uses it to contrast with the works of Judaism, usually the ceremonial and dietary, but sometimes even some crusty ethical positions. It does not first of all have the 'surrender' meaning you are trying to sell us on, and that is for the historical reason that Paul is answering the Judaism he grew up in.

You make it sound like the Bible was written in the 20th century during an apathetic period.

Yes on D'ism. You got that.

What is the explanation of Agnosticism for? It's not a topic here. So, no, it does not 'sound familiar' which seems to be your back-handed way of belittling me. I do know exactly what my positions are. THe ten propositions does not show hesitation, as you can see. They have been worked out over 40 years of study and interaction.

I listened to a D'ist do an hour on Joel 3 last night, and the last thing he said was 'I hope that makes sense.' Does that sound like the passion of the apostles? No! It has no place in Christian operations.

 

[Faither]

You are pitching self-generated 'surrender.' Faith, which also surrenders, is a gift of God, Eph 2, compelled by the Gospel in those God has called. He uses it to contrast with the works of Judaism, usually the ceremonial and dietary, but sometimes even some crusty ethical positions. It does not first of all have the 'surrender' meaning you are trying to sell us on, and that is for the historical reason that Paul is answering the Judaism he grew up in.

You make it sound like the Bible was written in the 20th century during an apathetic period.

Yes on D'ism. You got that.

What is the explanation of Agnosticism for? It's not a topic here. So, no, it does not 'sound familiar' which seems to be your back-handed way of belittling me. I do know exactly what my positions are. THe ten propositions does not show hesitation, as you can see. They have been worked out over 40 years of study and interaction.

I listened to a D'ist do an hour on Joel 3 last night, and the last thing he said was 'I hope that makes sense.' Does that sound like the passion of the apostles? No! It has no place in Christian operations.

I was comparing D'ists to good ole agnosticism. They are the same, just re raped.

 

[Faither]

You are pitching self-generated 'surrender.' Faith, which also surrenders, is a gift of God, Eph 2, compelled by the Gospel in those God has called. He uses it to contrast with the works of Judaism, usually the ceremonial and dietary, but sometimes even some crusty ethical positions. It does not first of all have the 'surrender' meaning you are trying to sell us on, and that is for the historical reason that Paul is answering the Judaism he grew up in.

You make it sound like the Bible was written in the 20th century during an apathetic period.

Yes on D'ism. You got that.

What is the explanation of Agnosticism for? It's not a topic here. So, no, it does not 'sound familiar' which seems to be your back-handed way of belittling me. I do know exactly what my positions are. THe ten propositions does not show hesitation, as you can see. They have been worked out over 40 years of study and interaction.

I listened to a D'ist do an hour on Joel 3 last night, and the last thing he said was 'I hope that makes sense.' Does that sound like the passion of the apostles? No! It has no place in Christian operations.

I'm pitching self gererated "surrender"? Come on interplanner, you darn well know i've always started the process by the drawing by the Father. Nobody comes to Christ unless the Father draws them. "they have to want to".

Even though you haven't given me a very good chance to have a discussion with you, i respect the fact you don't personally attack me. My understandings are first gleaned out of the old texts, not something new. Second, i have the personal experiences of a relationship with Christ, that happened before in knew anything about Him. Third, i also think by your unwillingness to talk about "pisteuo", you are validating the fact that i'm making a valid point. Maybe you just hearing what i've presented to you is the whole purpose of our paths crossing, no discussion necessary. Just don't examine the messenger because you'll no doubt find alot to dislike. But the message, "pisteuo" and what it really means, that you need to examine as if your life depended on it.

 

[Interplanner]

I'm pitching self gererated "surrender"? Come on interplanner, you darn well know i've always started the process by the drawing by the Father. Nobody comes to Christ unless the Father draws them. "they have to want to".

Even though you haven't given me a very good chance to have a discussion with you, i respect the fact you don't personally attack me. My understandings are first gleaned out of the old texts, not something new. Second, i have the personal experiences of a relationship with Christ, that happened before in knew anything about Him. Third, i also think by your unwillingness to talk about "pisteuo", you are validating the fact that i'm making a valid point. Maybe you just hearing what i've presented to you is the whole purpose of our paths crossing, no discussion necessary. Just don't examine the messenger because you'll no doubt find alot to dislike. But the message, "pisteuo" and what it really means, that you need to examine as if your life depended on it.

Don't base anything this major on experiences. It is too easy to have our immediate experience blind us to what a text is saying. Which is probably why there is the details about the experiences of Paul to tell us why he would contrast faith and works, which is his main contrast. What he is saying was for Judaism first of all, not affluent, self-satisfied people in modern America. Good exegesis is always historically informed.

 

[Faither]

Don't base anything this major on experiences. It is too easy to have our immediate experience blind us to what a text is saying. Which is probably why there is the details about the experiences of Paul to tell us why he would contrast faith and works, which is his main contrast. What he is saying was for Judaism first of all, not affluent, self-satisfied people in modern America. Good exegesis is always historically informed.

For a solid month I base my entire understanding on the definition of the Greek word "pisteuo", and you don't say a word about it. I say i have experiences to back up those definitions, and in an hour you say i'm basing everything on my experiences. You've been doing a dance with me for weeks, why won't you talk about 'pisteuo"?
I've asked you alot of questions you haven't answered. We "can" have a civil interaction about this word. Will you give it a try?

 

[Interplanner]

I did next door.

The key passage for you is Gal 2:20. Not only because Paul is 'dying' to Judiasm, but because Christ had to 'pistis' for us. He was reliable about things he promised. (Paul is not talking about his own death there nor any other believers death or surrender). But we as believers live by the surrender of Christ.

You have been talking about a believer's effort to surrender. They should but that is not what Paul says we live by. You need to come to terms with the objective meaning of Christ's sacrifice as declared in the NT. Faith is empty hands being filled with things from someone else. Yes, some pride (about asking for help) must be surrendered.

But in general in the NT, the first place we must go is Paul's own departure from Judiasm, because he created (humanly speaking) the distinction between faith and works.

(I did better at the other thread than just now.)

You are concerned about effects but don't know the dynamics of cause and effect and so you are trying to get an effect to happen on its own, on a believer's own.

 

[Faither]

I did next door.

The key passage for you is Gal 2:20. Not only because Paul is 'dying' to Judiasm, but because Christ had to 'pistis' for us. He was reliable about things he promised. (Paul is not talking about his own death there nor any other believers death or surrender). But we as believers live by the surrender of Christ.

You have been talking about a believer's effort to surrender. They should but that is not what Paul says we live by. You need to come to terms with the objective meaning of Christ's sacrifice as declared in the NT. Faith is empty hands being filled with things from someone else. Yes, some pride (about asking for help) must be surrendered.

But in general in the NT, the first place we must go is Paul's own departure from Judiasm, because he created (humanly speaking) the distinction between faith and works.

(I did better at the other thread than just now.)

You are concerned about effects but don't know the dynamics of cause and effect and so you are trying to get an effect to happen on its own, on a believer's own.

interplanner, do you or do you not accept the definitions of the Greek word "pisteuo"? You can't take a position on rejecting them and build a legitimate argument. You've seen the definitions i've posted many times, yes or no. take a stand.

irst thing, "pistis" is a noun. "pisteuo" is the corresponding "verb" to that noun. You can't have pistis without pisteuo carrying it out. A verb is an action word.

Second,I have not created, made, enforce, or judge the "surrender" that GOD has put in between Grace and us.
What you see as a preoccupation with surrendering, is simply an effort to drag you and others to just see the truth of just one word. If you could see that, maybe at some point you actually would surrender you life to Christ, which is only the start of the Salvation journey. Without a continual surrender, the Spirit of Christ, Christ, and His word, are not yours to claim or talk about. Rom. 8:9

Third, if history doesn't line up with the precise words of the origonal texts and their definitions, i would look at the history your perceiving as wrong.

fourth, the first rule of interpreting Scripture (which by your own words is not yours yet) is, you don't take a Scripture that your not certain about, and with it knock down a mountain of Scripture you are certain about. Instead, you try and take the uncertain Scripture and fit it into the mountain of Scripture you are certain about. I've provided you with that necessary information.
I kind of thought you would have a better understanding than to base it on a Scripture that have most the Bibles saying "in Christ", and a few that say "of Christ." I can save you a lot of work by telling you "in Christ" is the correct words used in the ancient texts.

Please don't take my directness as argumentative or condescending. I'm really just trying to help you.

 

[Faither]

Interplanner, have you ever seen the movie "they live"? It's a good fairly old flick, but has a great seine in it. Accidentally, this guy finds a pair of sunglasses. And when he puts them on, he sees a entire new reality. He sees that there are things happening right under the peoples noses, and they can't see it unless they are wearing the sunglasses.
After he freaks out at what he sees, he tries to tell his only friend whats happening all around them, and that he has to put on the sunglasses to see it. Well the friend won't have any part of it. They go on to have about a 10 minute brawl, beating the living daylights out of each other. At the end of the brawl, the guy finally puts the sunglasses on his friend, because he can't deffer himself anymore, and sees all the things he couldn't see before.

This is you and me interplanner. I know something you don't! But instead of me beating you to a pulp and forcing you to look through the sunglasses, this is of God! You have to want to put them on.

 

[Interplanner]

interplanner, do you or do you not accept the definitions of the Greek word "pisteuo"? You can't take a position on rejecting them and build a legitimate argument. You've seen the definitions i've posted many times, yes or no. take a stand.

irst thing, "pistis" is a noun. "pisteuo" is the corresponding "verb" to that noun. You can't have pistis without pisteuo carrying it out. A verb is an action word.

Second,I have not created, made, enforce, or judge the "surrender" that GOD has put in between Grace and us.
What you see as a preoccupation with surrendering, is simply an effort to drag you and others to just see the truth of just one word. If you could see that, maybe at some point you actually would surrender you life to Christ, which is only the start of the Salvation journey. Without a continual surrender, the Spirit of Christ, Christ, and His word, are not yours to claim or talk about. Rom. 8:9

Third, if history doesn't line up with the precise words of the origonal texts and their definitions, i would look at the history your perceiving as wrong.

fourth, the first rule of interpreting Scripture (which by your own words is not yours yet) is, you don't take a Scripture that your not certain about, and with it knock down a mountain of Scripture you are certain about. Instead, you try and take the uncertain Scripture and fit it into the mountain of Scripture you are certain about. I've provided you with that necessary information.
I kind of thought you would have a better understanding than to base it on a Scripture that have most the Bibles saying "in Christ", and a few that say "of Christ." I can save you a lot of work by telling you "in Christ" is the correct words used in the ancient texts.

Please don't take my directness as argumentative or condescending. I'm really just trying to help you.

Do you have 4 years in Greek after an initial college level intro? It can help. You don't isolate things like 'pistis' from its verb form, especially in verses like Gal 2:20 where Christ 'pistises' for us. that's what saves us. Christ surrendered for us and that is what is imputed to us.

Maybe what you need to do is realize what imputation is. There is a type of surrendering in light of it, but you would never say what you do about the sufficiency of surrendering; the real substance is in the value of what got imputed to us.

The unique thing about the history we are looking at is that it is Paul's conversion. What he meant by 'works of the law' is what we should mean. What he meant by faith must contrast correctly with those, because he was always contrasting them.

 

[Faither]

Do you have 4 years in Greek after an initial college level intro? It can help. You don't isolate things like 'pistis' from its verb form, especially in verses like Gal 2:20 where Christ 'pistises' for us. that's what saves us. Christ surrendered for us and that is what is imputed to us.

Maybe what you need to do is realize what imputation is. There is a type of surrendering in light of it, but you would never say what you do about the sufficiency of surrendering; the real substance is in the value of what got imputed to us.

The unique thing about the history we are looking at is that it is Paul's conversion. What he meant by 'works of the law' is what we should mean. What he meant by faith must contrast correctly with those, because he was always contrasting them.

Do you agree with these definitions of the word "pisteuo" of the strongs and vines Greek dictionary's?

Strongs: "pisteuo" "means not just to believe, but also to place confidence in". "Reliance upon", "commit unto", "commit to ones trust", "be committed unto".

Vines: " A personal surrender to Him", "and a life inspired by such surrender."

YES OR NO!

 

[Faither]

Do you have 4 years in Greek after an initial college level intro? It can help. You don't isolate things like 'pistis' from its verb form, especially in verses like Gal 2:20 where Christ 'pistises' for us. that's what saves us. Christ surrendered for us and that is what is imputed to us.

Maybe what you need to do is realize what imputation is. There is a type of surrendering in light of it, but you would never say what you do about the sufficiency of surrendering; the real substance is in the value of what got imputed to us.

The unique thing about the history we are looking at is that it is Paul's conversion. What he meant by 'works of the law' is what we should mean. What he meant by faith must contrast correctly with those, because he was always contrasting them.

No , i don't have a college degree and 4 years in Greek , whatever that means.

I have studied under a Stanford level college professor for 30 years. Those 30 years have been focused on NT Greeks words and there definitions. My teacher also has the largest collection of Biblical manuscripts in private hands behind the Vatican. Those manuscripts are what he's been teaching out of for 25 years before His home coming.

Do you agree with the definitions? IF! You can say yes, then we can move forward on how the words are used and who is using them. If you say no, your just going to play an game i have no interest in.

 

[Danoh]

By your own blind words "Faither..."

For the Vatican's own extensive collection is certainly "no assurance" the Vatican is on the right page.

Oy vay...

 

[patrick jane]

No , i don't have a college degree and 4 years in Greek , whatever that means.

I have studied under a Stanford level college professor for 30 years. Those 30 years have been focused on NT Greeks words and there definitions. My teacher also has the largest collection of Biblical manuscripts in private hands behind the Vatican. Those manuscripts are what he's been teaching out of for 25 years before His home coming.

Do you agree with the definitions? IF! You can say yes, then we can move forward on how the words are used and who is using them. If you say no, your just going to play an game i have no interest in.

Lay off the Greek until you can grasp English

 

[Interplanner]

What about what Paul means when contrasting faith and works of the Law? is there any other more fundamental contrast in Paul's own life, not to mention his teaching?