Posted on 11/22/2016 7:11:20 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Your doctrine needs examination, I believe.
The promise of 2 Chron. 7:14 is to Israel alone, in the land, under His OT king, under the Law, with a stone tablet as the sign of their now-dead covenant. It is not a promise made to Christians, whose country and citizenship is in Heaven, whose King is Christ Jesus, whose law is the Law of The Spirit, of Life in Christ Jesus, the sign of which is the new wine representing His shed Blood, once for all.
On earth, we are merely ambassadors of the Country Above. And while here, we will suffer whatever ongoing judgment He brings against America's ungodly occupants.
Go look at the Syrian Christians who this moment have ISIS as their earthly master, and you will learn something important.
And do get the 33 page treatise authored by C. I. Scofield as to rightly dividing the Word of Truth. It's still available. At least read it and critique it as you desire, with a Biblical hermeneutic.
Nope. I think I'll stay right here and stand for the Bible versus its misinterpreters.
Old Testament experiences in the flesh carry over frequently into New Testament experiences in the spirit.
We can back this theology up by other means: A disobedient church is going to have trouble sharing salt and light.
Therefore YOUR doctrine needs examination, I believe!
And are you on every jot and tittle of Scofield? And if so, why (it isn’t scripture)?
I humbly submit that you are standing for your ego on the bible, rather than actually tracing through God’s blessings and seeing the marvelous parallels between the two peoples of God.
““the gatekeeper that watched over New York” at 9/11 who will watch over the Nation.”
It’s true that it might also be referring to Giuliani. I hope he does get a major security-related position. He’s one tough nut and 9/11 almost wiped him out.
I remember hearing Kim Clement last year referring to Trump as a “king of New York”, which caught my attention as the phrasing was interesting. That would make Trump a gatekeeper as well.
Last June, Kim had a prophetic nudging to head to NYC and meet with Donald Trump, only to find out that was the day Trump announced his presidential campaign. So Kim went and prophesied in front of various NYC sites including Trump Tower, but not so much about the election. I think if Kim hadn’t been felled by the cancer, Kim would have met with Trump, like many prophets did, and anointed him to be the President. I hope Kim got to know Trump won before he died. It would have made him happy.
Look, I don’t really want to be a hard-ass about this.
However, the tone of the bible is to give a reason for the hope that dwells within us, with meekness (don’t go out of control) and respect (don’t be bull in china closet busting stuff).
We can get SO lost in formalities of wording and definitions that we forget what the witness is there for in the first place. It isn’t so theologians can tickle their prides about what they know.
There are certain broad principles of divine life that can be traced through the entire scripture and that are never violated. “There is no law against God’s love.”
True enough, we don’t have a literal promise to a church here. Ain’t going to say otherwise, either. However we DO have a beautiful illustration of a grace principle that when applied to the church, plays out exactly like I have said. And then when it does, we can follow the consequences to the place in which it lives. By way of applying the analogy, we can and do have the right to use that verse. Not as direct promise, but as illustration of principle. I am surprised you aren’t getting that. I would have expected to see a caution against a literal application then an exhortation to see, appreciate, and use the principle.
I would posit that this seems to be such a significant spiritual event that it, as analogous events are shown in scripture, will cause young men to see visions and old men to dream dreams.
And that Trump is not a cause here, but something that is moved by its cause.
Extra-scriptural prophecies need to be taken with a pound of salt. They could be partly wrong. They could be okay from the view point of parable, but still possible to take too far. If correct, they will match up to bible principles and will also play out in real life.
If events are inspired of God, they will obey the principles of divine love. The moment they start becoming about the glory of other entities, we’ve entered a devilish distortion. I see a mix of the two going on here. Donald Trump is still a sinner (no surprise). He won’t do everything perfectly, sometimes not even close to it. But if he is being moved by a larger divine force and plan, we will see allowances made even for his sin without ruining the plan.
Don’t forget to look at all of this from the standpoint of God’s love. Once you know what the chief playwright has foremost in mind, you can see His fingerprints the most clearly.
It’s true what you say. We are in amazing times and times so strange I never would have believed it if I had been able to foresee the future when I was younger.
As for Trump, those prophetic voices who met him, anointed and prayed over him say he’s a baby Christian but growing in the faith. He is truly a friend to evangelicals and has quietly been that for many years. I am ecstatic that there will be prayer and praise to God in the WH again, with prophets being able to freely enter and advise leadership. This will bless America, I have no doubt.
What you want to know eludes me here. I was referring to the publication "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth." Is that what you wish to discuss?
You referred me to a screed of Scofield apparently as if that put forth the entirety of what you had to say.
No wonder your son had so much trouble relating to you. I wouldn’t let anything entirely speak for reality but the scripture itself. Not even the best theology book we know, or think we know.
I would warn against a view of scripture that puts propositional truth ahead of illustrational truth. If this is where Scofield is going (resulting in discourses that look more like citation-packed Supreme Court opinions than the kind of discussion that takes place in the bible itself) then all I say is: I go a different place. God forced me into it. I tried a propositional truth only view of scripture as a new Christian, and very quickly landed on my spiritual rear end with the issue of the “unforgivable sin.” That can’t be dealt with 100% propositionally. It is a test of knowing Jesus from the heart.
Maybe not, but your generalities in this post are so diffuse that I can't make out what you are saying. Be specific. For instance, here is a specific statement:
"Just as it is necessary to understand the New in order to understand the Old Testament, It is necessary to understand the Old in order to properly interpret the New Testament. It is necessary to be familiar with the Old Testament statutes, judgments, commandments, and culture in oirder to accurately interpret and apply the New Testament. However, though the Old Testament is profitable for us and we need to study it to grasp the full significance of the New Testament, we must be careful in applying its teachings to the New Testament children of God. Only when the same set of circumstances, which pertained at the time of instruction or at the occasion that Old Testament promises were given, also prevail today can we claim their application for God's people today. So often a verse of Scripture is taken out of its context and claimed as one of God's promises for us today when in reality it was given to the people of Israel in particular circumstances for that specific time. This is not a proper way to handle nor to interpret God's Word. The child of God must never mishandle the Word of God in this way."
This can be made more specific. The quotation from 2 Chronicles 7:14 is extracted from the context of God's verbal response to Solomon's public prayer for God's blessings, at the time of the dedication of the First Temple, after God's glory and smoke descended and occupied the temple, and was seen by all the people. The answer came to Solomon, when the LORD (Jehovah) appeared to him at night, saying that He had heard Solomon, had chosen the Temple as His earthly abode, designated it as the place where sacrifices (for sin) were to be made, and then issued a list of conditions and stipulations so particular and precise that it is impossible to think that the content of the promise about the conduct of His People Israel could be applied anywhere else on earth, to any other people, for any other purpose than averting physical damage to the land by plant diseases, weather conditions, or geological upsets inflicted by Jehovah Himself as a judgment of the behavior, not of the conduct of Gentiles living in the land, but of the Israelites themselves. My man, this could only be applied where the same circumstances and conditions were duplicated! It is simply not possible that the promise exracted from this context could ever be applied to our country today! To attempt to do so is really, really asinine. To state it plainly:
"Great care should be taken that we do not act in presumption rather than in faith. It is imperative that certain principles or rules of interpretation be followed in order to understand accurately what God has said and not what anyone thinks God has said. In order to properly understand and accurately interpret Scripture a primary principal must be obseved along with some general rules."
"The primary principal which must be observed in order to accurately interpret the Bible is, "All Scripture has one primary interpretation and only one to which its context lend itself." Scripture has only one mraning! Every statement of Scripture has only one sense. There are many secondary applications which are often made. These saeem to apply to certain circumstances in life so the individual believes that God is speaking to him alone. But in such cases, it does not follow that this may mean the same thing to someone else, nor that the application is proper. Because a verse of Scripture stands out of a passage and seems to relate to certain present circumstances, it does not mean that it is God's specific direction for the reader. It may be what God wants. But it can only be properly attributed as direct guidance from God if in fact the circumstances in the context are similar to the circumstances in the reader's life. Secondary applications which can be made legitimately are in keeping with the context, similar circumstances, and the one specific, intended meaning."
(The excerpts in quotes are from the very beginning of the first book of "HOW TO MATURE IN CHRIST, First Stage: Babes (Learning to Grow in Christ" by Fred Wittman, pages 10-11 which I use in personal discipleship of new Christians.
Now I am not saying that prayer of Christians in faith to The Father is not to be undertaken. What I am saying is that 2v Chronicles 7:14 makes no promise to the American people, or about our country, or that prayer regarding elections not put into practice by voting has no real effect. We should not hold forth that Old Testament Scripture as being in relationship in any way to affecting the outcome of the election.
We can get SO lost in formalities of wording and definitions that we forget what the witness is there . . .
It is precisely why God has written down the words with specific arrangement and interpretation that He intends to communicate His mind and Will for us. To neglect this work of interpreting a passage would be to just consign a passage tothe realm of popular human opinion, which can be, and usually is quite different than the Divine meaning involved. To say otherwise is fatuous.
We can get SO lost in formalities of wording and definitions that we forget what the witness is there
I don't know what you want me to infer from this, but I can tell you that without righteousness, and that the first attribute to be established, there can be no love of the Christian kind.
I am surprised you aren’t getting that.
Don't be surprised in this Lotz issue. There is no analogy at stake here, no matter how much anyone insists, There is no corollary or comparison th the verse in question explaining anything of Trump's election.
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.