Comment On Current Debate

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother Day,

I do indeed have various thoughts in response to your posting immediately above.  However, in this posting I wish only to respond unto the request that you presented at the conclusion of your posting.  Your request was as follows: 

Please, brother, stop trying to win the debate by grammatical argument - just read the Scriptures & accept what they say. 

My response to that request is as follows:

1.  It is not my motive to win a debate; rather, it is my motive to understand, communicate, and substantiate Biblical truth.

2.  Please, brother, stop trying to convince me to disregard precise grammatical analysis and presentation; for I fully recognize that it is through the precise grammar that we are able to "rightly divide" the precise communication and intention of what the Scriptures say when we read them.

Precision in Bible study is doctrinally and spiritually important.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Invicta]

 

Brother David,

First, the phrase "the covenant" in Daniel 9:27 grammatically indicates at least two things -- (1) The definite article "the" indicates that "the covenant" is a definitely specific covenant; (2) the fact that the word "covenant" is singular, not plural, indicates that "the covenant" is a singular covenant.  Thus the phrase "the covenant" grammatically moves us to seek for a specific, singular covenant in relation to the context of Daniel 9:27.  So then, what specific, singular covenant was Daniel referencing in Daniel 9:4?  Also, what specific, singular covenant was being referenced in Daniel 11:22?  Also, what specific, singular holy covenant was being referenced in Daniel 11:28?  Also, what specific, singular holy covenant was being referenced in Daniel 11:30?  Also, what specific, singular covenant was being referenced in Daniel 11:32?  I would dare to say, even as you have said previously, that Daniel was well aware of the specific, singular covenant about which the angel Gabriel was speaking in Daniel 9:27, especially in consideration of Daniel's own usage of that phrase at the beginning of his prayer in Daniel 9:4.

Second, concerning your reference to Romans 15:8 -- I am aware that you view the "he" of Daniel 9:27 as being "the Messiah the Prince," the Lord Jesus Christ.  I believe that you are aware that I do not agree with this viewpoint concerning the antecedent and definition for the "he" of Daniel 9:27.  However, for the sake of the following question, I shall accept your viewpoint for your position on the matter.  So then, do you believe that the phrase "the covenant" of Daniel 9:27 is equivalent to the phrase "the promises made unto the fathers" of Romans 15:8?  If so, which "fathers" are being referenced in Romans 15:8?  Do you believe that this is a reference unto God's covenant with the patriarchal fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?  Or, do you believe that this is a reference unto God's covenant with the exodus fathers, as created at Mount Sinai?

 

Third, your above comments appear to be based upon a perception that in some way the antecedent of a pronoun is required to be the subject of a verb.  Yet there is no English grammar rule whatsoever at all that requires the antecedent of any pronoun to be the subject of a verb.  On the other hand, it is an English grammar rule that the antecedent of a pronoun is to agree in gender and number with the pronoun.  Furthermore, it is a generally common practice (although not an established or absolute rule) that the antecedent of a pronoun is the closest possible (agreeing in gender and number) noun to the pronoun.

Finally, if it was your intention to emphasize every subject of every verb in those sentences, then your presentation should have been as follows:

25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Herein you will notice that I have added more subjects of verbs than you presented.  Herein also you will notice that I removed the first phrase that you emphasized, that is -- "the Messiah the Prince."  The reason that I removed this phrase is because it does not serve as the subject of a verb, but as the object of the preposition "unto" in the prepositional phrase "unto the Messiah the Prince."

Regardless of all that, the prince did come and his people did destroy the city and sanctuary in the war, against his orders. Daniel was perfectly correct it was the people, not the prince who destroyed the temple,  The end came suddenly, as a flood. The temple no longer there because today the temple where God lives is the church.  

1Co 3:16  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Co 3:17  If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
2Co 6:16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I will address the Romans question later.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Brother Day,

I do indeed have various thoughts in response to your posting immediately above.  However, in this posting I wish only to respond unto the request that you presented at the conclusion of your posting.  Your request was as follows: 

My response to that request is as follows:

1.  It is not my motive to win a debate; rather, it is my motive to understand, communicate, and substantiate Biblical truth.

2.  Please, brother, stop trying to convince me to disregard precise grammatical analysis and presentation; for I fully recognize that it is through the precise grammar that we are able to "rightly divide" the precise communication and intention of what the Scriptures say when we read them.

Precision in Bible study is doctrinally and spiritually important.

Thus saith the plow boy? The unlearned have not been able to rightly divide? Fishermen who never learned cannot understand the scriptures?

! Corinthians 2 -

     4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

[Alan]

Pastor Markle said, "My response to that request is as follows: 1.  It is not my motive to win a debate; rather, it is my motive to understand, communicate, and substantiate Biblical truth."

Brethren,

Pastor Markle adequately, in my opinion, fulfilled his stated above intention. He gave us the proper, and correct understanding of Daniel 9:24-27 and the related scriptures. He communicated them to us in a good manner, and he gave us the substantial biblical truth in order for us to understand it. He gave his stated reason for his grammatical analysis of Daniel 9:24-27 as being to give us a 'precise' interpretation. That was accomplished.

Pastor Markle reinforced my understanding of Daniel 9:24-27. He asked numerous good questions about Daniel 9:24-27 that were ignored or side-tracked, and not adequately answered by Covenanter. The grace that Pastor Markle exhibited was noteworthy of a man of God trying to teach good, sound doctrine among his detractors.

Furthermore, after reading and studying the exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27, and its related passages, by Covenanter, I have come to the conclusion that his interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, and its related passages, are in doctrinal error. His interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, Isaiah 53, the work of Christ on Calvary, the reason for His coming, His work and prophecy among the Jewish nation, and the fulfillment of other related scriptures concerning the Covenants of the Old Testament, is not correct.  

Pastor Markle was entirely correct when he tried to warn Covenanter, and the adherents of his unsound Biblical beliefs, that their method of dividing, and interpreting, the scriptures was erroneous. The basic problem of Covenanter, and the aherents of his teaching, is that they cannot properly, or as Pastor Markle wrote, "precisely," divide the scriptures. Pastor Markles warning was due out of a heart of love for the Lord and His people and is valid and warranted.

Alan

 

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2015 by Alan
spelling sentence deletion

[Genevanpreacher]

Here is my 'plain and simple' opinion:

Good ol' common sense country 'doctor of the scriptures' versus the complicated 'microsurgeon city educated college youngster'.

Little easier than most opinions.

One uses the ability of the understandable common sense.

One uses the 'pick apart the letters of the words' style of teaching following the precise 'orthography' of dispensationalism.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Here is my 'plain and simple' opinion:

Good ol' common sense country 'doctor of the scriptures' versus the complicated 'microsurgeon city educated college youngster'.

Little easier than most opinions.

One uses the ability of the understandable common sense.

One uses the 'pick apart the letters of the words' style of teaching following the precise 'orthography' of dispensationalism.

Brother "Genevanperacher,"

Well now, if I need heart surgery, I myself would certainly prefer whichever doctor or surgeon will be the most precise about the matter.

By the way, you certainly have it right when you accuse me of using "the 'pick apart the letters of the words' style" in Bible study to understand and teach it rightly; and I shall continue using this method of Bible study on the grounds of such passages as Deuteronomy 8:3; 12:32; Psalm 12:6; Proverbs 30:5-6; Matthew 5:18; 1 Corinthians 2:7-13; 2 Timothy 2:15; Revelation 22:18-19; etc.  Indeed, I would be happy to be known as a "jot and tittle" student of God's Holy Word.

Furthermore, I would dare to say that any believer who takes a "literalistic" approach (which is the most common approach among Independent Fundamental Baptists, at least in the U.S.) unto God's Holy Word will likely applaud my efforts in this manner.  For the conflict of disagreement is not primarily with our differences of viewpoint concerning prophecy overall or with our differences concerning individual passages in particular (although those differences certainly exist), but is primarily with our differences concerning the method of Bible study itself.  Even so, you yourself reveal this in your above comments by placing in contrast what you call your "understandable common sense" method of Bible study against what you call my "pick apart the letters of words" method of Bible study.  It is indeed and primarily a "method of Bible study" conflict.

On the other hand, you did not get it right when you accuse me of "following the precise 'orthography' of dispensationalism."  In order to do that, I would have had to have been precisely studying the precise declarations of dispensational authors.  Yet I did not engage in any study of any dispensational authors at all.  Rather, I engaged in the precise study of the precise grammatical and contextual declarations ("picking apart the letters of the words") of God's Holy Word as precisely inspired by God the Holy Spirit.

(edited to add the "jot and tittle student" comment)

Edited September 9, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Covenanter]

Let's make the difference really simple:

I believe that the force of OT prophecy concerns Jesus, his saving ministry, & the preaching of the Gospel to all nations, & should be understood as we are guided by Jesus himself in the Gospels, & by the Holy Spirit in the Epistles. When Jesus returns in glory for resurrection & judgement, he will establish the NH&NE wherein dwelleth righteousness. Tribulation occurs in the present age, but will end with his return. 

You believe that prophecy concerning Israel applies to Israel in future dispensations, so that the present Gospel age of grace is not the subject of OT prophecy. To quote from my summary: "The present Gospel age is thus in effect a gap in prophetic revelation between weeks 69 & 70 during which God is not dealing with Israel as a nation, but mainly the Gentiles, & any Jews who do repent & believe in Jesus Christ."

[Invicta]

English writer S P Tregelles 1813-1875, was accused by one writer of using a microscope for bible study, some use a telescope but we should just use our eyes. However Tregelles wrote

The Hope of Christ's Second Coming:

HOW IS IT TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE? AND WHY?

BY S. P. TREGELLES, LL.D.

Chapter IV  KNOWLEDGE OF PROPHETIC DETAILS NOT NECESSARY

It has sometimes been thought that a minute investigation of the details of Scripture prophecy is needful in order to form any judgment as to the manner in which the Scripture presents the second coming of the Lord; and thus, if prophetic details are not understood, or if there is a difficulty in the mind respecting them, the simple subject of the Lord's coming is either left as one on which no judgment is formed, or else there is an acquiescence of an indefinite kind in the opinions of someone who is supposed (perhaps truly) to be more instructed in Scripture. But while all prophetic details, if rightly learned from the Word of God, have their value in this as in other respects, so far from a knowledge of such minute points being needful as a pre-requisite, a definite apprehension of the manner in which the Lord's -second advent is taught in the Word of God, is the rather that which is indispensably necessary as the antecedent qualification; for thus a Christian mind may enter on the details of those prophecies which teach what shall be the future, whether of the Jews, the Gentiles, or the Church of God. This follows from that one event being the turning-point in the dispensational dealing of God. If, then, we have to learn anything as to the details of revealed truth, the primary point is, how our hope--the coming of the Lord Jesus--is set before us.

For if a detailed acquaintance with prophetic expectations is needful before the Lord's coming can be understood, how would it have been possible for the apostles, or for the Lord Jesus himself, to have taught anything on the subject? How could they have used it as animating hope, leading to watchfulness, sustaining under trial, or purifying the believer? But they did so use it as a fact, the reality of which was apprehended in such a manner that the circumstances could be taught and enforced as to their moral bearings. A marked instance of this is given in the conclusion of 1 Thess.*  The Apostle comforts the Thessalonian Christians concerning their departed brethren, teaching them (what they seem not to have fully known) that the whole "Church of the first-born" shall be gathered together at the coming of the Lord; the dead being raised, and the living changed. He then tells them how the Lord shall come: "The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."   And this the most uninstructed Christian may do who simply accepts the words of the Apostle as being the truth of God. The scene presented is the very reverse of secrecy: the Lord comes with a shout; His call shall wake the dead; but besides this, the voice of the archangel shall be also heard; and, as if the notion of publicity were intended to be specially enforced, there shall be the sounding of the trump of God. This is just what Christ has promised in Matt. 24.31, when He comes with the clouds of heaven. To say that this triple sound shall not be heard by all, would be a mere addition to Holy Scripture of a kind that contradicts its testimony. We might as well say that "every eye shall see Him" means that He shall only be visible to some few. Above shall be heard the shout, the voice, and the trumpet: on earth the graves of all the sleeping family of faith shall be opened; the sleepers shall arise: and then those living shall with them be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. This, as thus set forth, ought to be our hope. It may have been needful to teach the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord must still be waited for; that the falling away and the revelation of the man of sin had first to take place; but even these things connect themselves with the same hope; for this Head of evil is he "whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming. (2 Thess. 2.8.) "It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed." (2 Thess. 1.6,7.) Thus, at the revelation of Christ from heaven, there shall be rest for His Church, and the destruction of their oppressors. The date which the Spirit gives for both is the same. The Church is called to "patience of hope", and not to mere excitement of speculative expectancy. "The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ." (2 Thess. 3.5.)

====================================================

* The expression "we which are alive and remain" is what the Church may ever use; it has nothing to do with individual expectancy, but it is the language of corporate hope. "We shall be changed" (1 Cor. 15.52) is of precisely the same character: that portion of the one Church which is living at any given time may use it; for so long as we are alive we do, in fact, belong to the number of the living expectants in contrast to those who have fallen asleep. To suppose that he Apostle imagined when he wrote the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, that the coming of the Lord was so near that he would then be living, is to assume that before he wrote his second epistle he had received such light as to contradict his own previous teaching--a notion utterly subversive of the authority of the first epistle, and also contradictory to the teaching of that epistle itself (Chapter 5.1,2); contradictory also to the fact that he had taught the Thessalonians, when with them, some of the things which he enforces in the second epistle: "Remember ye not that when I was with you I told you these things." He must, therefore, have had all this light before he wrote his first epistle. "We," in corporate expressions, means that portion of the whole body to whom the term can apply. An Israelite will now say, "The Lord led us out of Egypt, and brought us through the Red Sea, and gave us the land which He sware unto our fathers"; but no one imagines that he applies this to himself, or to the generation of men now living. 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Invicta

[Genevanpreacher]

Brother "Genevanperacher,"

Well now, if I need heart surgery, I myself would certainly prefer whichever doctor or surgeon will be the most precise about the matter.

By the way, you certainly have it right when you accuse me of using "the 'pick apart the letters of the words' style" in Bible study to understand and teach it rightly; and I shall continue using this method of Bible study on the grounds of such passages as Deuteronomy 8:3; 12:32; Psalm 12:6; Proverbs 30:5-6; Matthew 5:18; 1 Corinthians 2:7-13; 2 Timothy 2:15; Revelation 22:18-19; etc.  Indeed, I would be happy to be known as a "jot and tittle" student of God's Holy Word.

Yes, I know. But your thinking that you are rightly dividing is flawed. You do divide the word of God. But not rightly.

 

Most people use this verse about rightly dividing and never look at the previous verse. Maybe a quick look?

14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Sounds like Paul encouraging Timothy to teach the people to not 'divide the word'. They evidently were dividing to subvert the hearers.

Subvert means to weaken or lessen the effect of something. That is what your 'grammar' dissection does. It makes those who do not know 'grammar' weaker in their ability to know 'fer sure' what the word of God says.

 

As for your view of OT not just being about the Lord Jesus and his propitiation being the culmination of all that was written -

2 Timothy -  Paul speaking about the OT (written of course before the NT was circulated) says -

 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

Hmm. Meat to chew on? Or reject?

[OLD fashioned preacher]

This is beginning to drift from comments on a "dispy" / "non-dispy" debate, to what is ALMOST (not quite, but getting closer than needs be) becoming a "literal rendering" / "coveys the message" type of yammer (though restricted to interpretation of text while retaining the same language).  Time to reign yourselves in.

 

 

 

 

[Covenanter]

This is beginning to drift from comments on a "dispy" / "non-dispy" debate, to what is ALMOST (not quite, but getting closer than needs be) becoming a "literal rendering" / "coveys the message" type of yammer (though restricted to interpretation of text while retaining the same language).  Time to reign yourselves in.

OK - I've got enough comments to make my final post in the debate.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

This is beginning to drift from comments on a "dispy" / "non-dispy" debate, to what is ALMOST (not quite, but getting closer than needs be) becoming a "literal rendering" / "coveys the message" type of yammer (though restricted to interpretation of text while retaining the same language).  Time to reign yourselves in.

Brother "Old Fashioned Preacher,"

I certainly respect the authority of your corrective above as coming from a moderator of the forum.  However, I am not at all certain that I am understanding the corrective itself.  Specifically, I am not certain that I understand your meaning in the phrase, "a 'literal rendering' / 'coveys the message' type of yammer."  At the present time, I am thinking that this phrase is referring to the discussion and debate that has arisen in this thread over the method of Bible study.  For my sake, would you be willing to provide a greater explanation and clarification as to your meaning in the corrective; for I certainly do not wish to cross any lines in the forum, and thereby sin against the rules and authority of the forum.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Brother "Old Fashioned Preacher,"

I certainly respect the authority of your corrective above as coming from a moderator of the forum.  However, I am not at all certain that I am understanding the corrective itself.  Specifically, I am not certain that I understand your meaning in the phrase, "a 'literal rendering' / 'coveys the message' type of yammer."  At the present time, I am thinking that this phrase is referring to the discussion and debate that has arisen in this thread over the method of Bible study.  For my sake, would you be willing to provide a greater explanation and clarification as to your meaning in the corrective; for I certainly do not wish to cross any lines in the forum, and thereby sin against the rules and authority of the forum.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

PM in transit

[DaveW]

I haven't logged in for some time, and have only looked at the actual debate thread itself.

The reason for this is that Covenanter, Invicta, and Genevan Preacher, were previously getting away with blue murder in their false teaching and misrepresentation.

It is apparent from this thread also that they are still simply allowed to push their vile false doctrines, and Genevan Preacher in particular has posted nothing in the last two pages of this thread except what can only be seen as personal attacks against brother Scott.

Add to this the misrepresentations of Bother Scott that both Covenanter and Invicta have added to Genevan Preacher's personal attacks, and there you have the reason that I have not logged on here, and why you will rarely, if ever again see me posting here.

I am disgusted that this can be allowed on a site that proclaims itself to be Independent Fundamental Baptist.

Liars and false teachers are allowed to do as they please, and good solid people are leaving because of it.

 

I have copied out the Debate thread and it will be invaluable in showing the ridiculous arguments and twisted interpretation that these replacement, covenant theologist cranks push.

And just so that I am plain about this - Covenanter, Invicta, and Genevan Preacher, the false teachers and liars referred to above can answer any way they like - I will not be back to visit this thread and read it so I don't care what you say about me.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Your responses will be missed DaveW. It helps to sharpen the wits, and at my age I need all the sharpening I can get.