Comment On Current Debate

[Alan]

Thanks Pilgrim,

Alan's denunciation of Geneva was for a quotation of Scripture that supported his comment. Geneva could have added 1 Peter 2:9-10 which confirms that Hosea was understood by Peter and Paul to be being fulfilled by the Gospel.

Also, Peter understood the "holy nation" prophecy of Exo. 19:5-6 as being fulfilled in the people he was writing to - the first century church of Jew and Gentile believers.

Remember it's all to be fulfilled in 70 weeks - Calvary being the central event. 

​Covenanter,

My post was entirely correct and I gave the scriptural interpretation of Hosea 1:9-11 and Romans 9:24-26.

Also, I proved in my previous post that my words were taken out of context as I dedounced the doctrine as falsehood. Your comment about me is not the truth.

Also, 1 Peter 2:9 and 10 still supports the previous correct interpretation of Hosea 1:9-10 and Romans 9:24-26.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Genesis 22:18 – “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”  (That is – in and through Abraham’s seed “all the nations of the earth” would be blessed with some form of blessing from the Lord God.  Yet what that form of blessing would be is not at all specified.  Nor are we even informed that that form of blessing would be plural.)

Genesis 26:4 – “And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”  (That is – in and through Isaac’s seed “all the nations of the earth” would be blessed with some form of blessing from the Lord God.  Yet what that form of blessing would be is not at all specified.  Nor are we even informed that that form of blessing would be plural.)

Genesis 28:14 – “And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”  (That is – in and through Jacob’s seed “all the families of the earth” would be blessed with some form of blessing from the Lord God.  *Yet what that form of blessing would be is not at all specified.  Nor are we even informed that that form of blessing would be plural.)

 

Just a comment here on Scott's latest post in the debate.

Just in what way are the people mentioned above gonna be a blessing on the "nations" and "families" of the earth?

Because through them God was going to give the gospel of salvation, through their 'flesh', later in time, that we know as Jesus Christ.

That was the purpose of God's 'peculiar' and 'chosen' people.

That was fulfilled. And through that fulfillment salvation has also made of 'two people' one people, Jew and Gentile, (and all the other Israelites that were not part of the tribe of Judah called 'Jews'). All the families were and are now blessed by the obedience of the people of God. And God blessed all Israel as well as all mankind that would believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour.

* As for this statement - it is obviously salvation.

[Alimantado]

And, as per your definition, the fabrication that

Hosea 1:9

that the church took over the promises of God is a fabrication, an untruth, a lie.

Please take special notice. I said the doctrine was a falsehood and an unbelief, I did not say, nor imply, that Genevanpreacher started the falsehood. You twisted my words to imply I called Genevanpreacher a liar. You highlighted the portion, "falsehood and unbelief," but you did not highlight, "That statement is a falsehood and unbelief." That, to me is a deliberate twisting of the words I wrote and may be, by some folks, a libel and an un-Christian character trait.

Gotta agree with ThePilgrim on this one. Where I come from, the word "falsehood" is synonymous with "lie", and when someone declares that another person's statement is a lie/falsehood, then the obvious, common-sense implication is that the person telling the lie is a liar. If I wanted to say any less than that, for example that I thought the person was being deceived by someone else's lie, then I'd want to stress that very clearly.

As for the idea that because ThePilgrim only highlighted one part of Alan's sentence he was deliberately trying to obscure the other part and so make it seem like Alan was calling GP a liar, if that's true then it means that ThePilgrim's plan must have been for the reader only to see the words "falsehood and unbelief". But how would that succeed, given that as a stand-alone sentence those words mean nothing at all? Obviously ThePilgrim was trying to highlight the use of some specific words within a sentence.

Oh and one more thing: by listing 'falsehood', 'fabrication' and 'untruth' alongside each other, it looks like Alan is saying that an 'untruth' is another form of deceit. Whether that was his meaning or not, I'll say that I don't think it is. Someone can tell an untruth without intending to deceive--if they did I wouldn't call them a liar or call what they said a 'falsehood'.

[Alan]

My original statement concerning Pastor Markles fine exposition of Daniel 9:24-27 still holds true. Pastor's Markles excellent analysis of Genesis 12:1-3, Isaiah 49:8 Jeremiah 31:35-35 and his exceptional exposition of Hosea 1:9-11 is completely doctrinally correct. 

My statement concerning Hosea 1:9-11 and my remarks on Romans 9:24-46 is also doctrinally correct.  It also seems to me that due to the fact that you cannot find fault with the exposition of Daniel 9:24-27 in connection with Hosea 1:9-11 you try and get off the subject.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Alan
revise

[DaveW]

That's one of the things I love about this place - someone points out a false teaching and somehow ends up being the bad guy.....

 

If he has lied then that makes him a liar - not the first time, won't be the last time.

If someone twists Scripture to suit their own nefarious means and purposes, that makes them a false teacher. Not the first time, won't be the last time.

 

Now how about instead of all the false indignation you answer the charges?

[Alimantado]

Alan said,

"That statement is a falsehood and an unbelief in the prophecies of Hosea, specificly, Hosea 1:10 and 11."

That is the complete statement. The false hood and the lie is referring to the statement; not any one person.

The next sentence reads,

"It is a historical falsehood as the restoration as promised by God in Hosea 1:10 and 11 never occured either physically or spiritually up to today in history. "

I stated that it was a historical falsehood. Whidh is true. the statment was a historical falsehood. Again, I did not say anyone's name.

 

And as I already said, where I come from, if someone declares that what another has just said (i.e. a statement) is a lie, then the obvious and common-sense implication is that the person saying it is a liar. For this reason, I say that if you were trying to point out that GP was inadvertently propagating someone else's lie, then you were unclear.

John: "The service started half-an-hour late last Sunday and there were no hymn books."

Dave: "What a pack of lies!"

John: "You're saying I'm a liar?"

Dave: "How did you get that idea? I called the statement a lie. I didn't specifically say your name."

I think if we overheard that conversation we'd be calling Dave an A+ politician, wouldn't we?

 

 

 

 

[Alan]

DaveW,

Thank you for the encourageing words.

Brethren,

Let's get back on topic.

[Alimantado]

That's one of the things I love about this place - someone points out a false teaching and somehow ends up being the bad guy.....

If he has lied then that makes him a liar - not the first time, won't be the last time.

​Well if someone was to point out a false teaching but call another a liar in the process when the fellow was merely expressing genuinely-held beliefs, that would be one way to somehow end up being a bad guy...

Or to put it more simply: if someone's wrong but isn't lying, they shouldn't be called a liar. QED.

[Covenanter]

​Well if someone was to point out a false teaching but call another a liar in the process when the fellow was merely expressing genuinely-held beliefs, that would be one way to somehow end up being a bad guy...

Or to put it more simply: if someone's wrong but isn't lying, they shouldn't be called a liar. QED.

The whole thread is to discuss/debate sincerely held, but differing understandings of Scripture, specifically Dan. 9:24-27 .

Alan's assertions about which teacher is correct are invalid. Alan is simply expressing his opinion, but using offensive language because he believes he is right.

No, Alan, you are seriously wrong, because you are imposing your personal interpretation of OT prophecy on the clear teaching of the inspired Apostles. 

[MountainChristian]

Here is a big problem I see in the debate. 

1st time Ian said thy people was everyone, Scott said thy people was Jews. 2nd time Ian said thy people was all of Abraham's descendants, Scott said it was the Jews. 3rd time Ian and Scott agreed its the Jews. 4th time Ian is back to they people being everyone, Scott remains with the Jews. When discussing 70AD, Ian points back to "Jews" only as thy people. Israel disbanded as a nation, Jerusalem destroyed, the Temple burnt, all of it Jewish. Scott is sticking with the Jews. So the whole doctrine falls apart because thy people needs to mean two groups for Ian, Christians for promises and Jews for punishments. So as it stands Ian is defeating himself. 

 

 

[Covenanter]

Here is a big problem I see in the debate. 

1st time Ian said thy people was everyone, Scott said thy people was Jews. 2nd time Ian said thy people was all of Abraham's descendants, Scott said it was the Jews. 3rd time Ian and Scott agreed its the Jews. 4th time Ian is back to they people being everyone, Scott remains with the Jews. When discussing 70AD, Ian points back to "Jews" only as thy people. Israel disbanded as a nation, Jerusalem destroyed, the Temple burnt, all of it Jewish. Scott is sticking with the Jews. So the whole doctrine falls apart because thy people needs to mean two groups for Ian, Christians for promises and Jews for punishments. So as it stands Ian is defeating himself. 

 

 

Such a post would only be significant if exact quotes were provided. You've misunderstood, misinterpreted and misquoted.

[Genevanpreacher]

How about this - Romans 4:13 - Sounds like Abraham and his fellow believers through faith, were gonna inherit the earth -

  For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

That is an end result of salvation. All who are saved get the same thing. Not just Abraham and his people Israel, gentiles who become believers in Jesus Christ also inherit the same things.

[DaveW]

Such a post would only be significant if exact quotes were provided. You've misunderstood, misinterpreted and misquoted.

No he hasn't  - this is the exact crux of the matter which you are trying desperately to avoid.

To provide exact quotes would be quote just about every debate post, which is impractical.

[Alan]

The whole thread is to discuss/debate sincerely held, but differing understandings of Scripture, specifically Dan. 9:24-27 .

Alan's assertions about which teacher is correct are invalid. Alan is simply expressing his opinion, but using offensive language because he believes he is right.

No, Alan, you are seriously wrong, because you are imposing your personal interpretation of OT prophecy on the clear teaching of the inspired Apostles. 

​Covenanter,

Permit to differ with you on this matter. I was not using offensive language. Some might consider your statement a slander and a libel statement as it has not been proven. But, I will forbear calling it as such. And, as I previously stated, but was totally ignored by you, is the posting on Hosea 1:9-11 and Romans 9:24-26 is both historically and doctrinally correct. I would sincerely appreciate it you would stop your personal anomosity against me.

You have not proven I was seriously wrong, or, that it only my opinion. In fact you ignored the posts because you cannot refute the correct dividing of the scripture concerning the future restoration of the nation of Israel.

Also, I will also add another clear teaching, "of the inspired Apostles," to further give proof that the Gentiles, the Church, is "grafted into," the nation of Israel and does not replace the nation of Israel in any sense of the word. "Ephesians 3:6, "That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel."

According to Paul the Apostle (it is not my opinion in the matter), The Gentiles are "fellow-heirs." The church is a fellow heir of the nation of Israel, and the promises of God, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2015 by Alan
spelling

[Covenanter]

Alan, I fully agree with your last two paragraphs. They show that Israel and the church comprise one body, one redeemed people of God. 

However, both Paul and Peter clearly apply Hosea to the calling of the Gentiles, not excluding the Jews.