Perhaps our disagreement here is related to differences between our underlying foundations?
Please understand that I eschew all the doctrines and traditions of men – whether the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, etc. I do not include the scribes of Scripture in this category because they wrote as the Spirit led them, God’s words not their own – such that until there is a new heaven and a new earth, not a jot or tittle of the law will pass away until it is fulfilled (Matt 5:18).
Likewise, please understand that my epistemology (how I know what I know and how sure I am that I know it) - is strictly ordered as follows:
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another; i.e., Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know.…
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I’m happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that.…
11. Determined facts: I accept something as fact because of a consensus determination by others, positive (affirmation) or negative (veto); i.e., I trust that these fact finders collectively know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
Thus I do not rely on others’ interpretation of Scriptures but rather lean on the Spirit to bring the passages alive within me according to His will. This living nature of the Scriptures is both what separates them from all other ancient manuscripts which are merely text on paper --- and also is the authentication by God as the author of them.
To answer your question concerning Galatians 3:28, the leaning I have in the Spirit is that it is speaking of Christians, the body of Christ:
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. – Romans 11:18-28
ANOINTEDLY MASTERFUL AS USUAL.
THANKS TONS.
By contrast, the passage in Jeremiah 31 (excerpted at post 306) is speaking of the nation of Israel. Likewise this passage from Romans 11:
One problem with this interpretation is that Jer. 31 does not exist in a vacuum. It has been intrepreted for us in the New Testament, especially by Jesus Himself.
"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:26).
The central theme of Jer. 31 is the new covenant. Jesus's disciples at the last suppoer could hardly have missed the signifiance of His words, and the linkage to what was promised by the prophet Jeremiah.
By linking His own sacrifice -- made for all types of men from all peoples and races -- to the phase "new covenant" He universalize the words of the prophet to include all those who have their sins remitted by His blood. Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant made with His people (Heb. 9:15). It is not limited by race.
Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, adds emphasis to the fact when he recount Jesus's words in 1 Cor 11.
"In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'"
Paul is speaking to a congreation made up mainly of gentiles. He mentions the "new covenant". So the promise of the new covenant as given in Jeremiah cannot be limited in any way to national Israel.
This is the inevitable conclusion when you read the Old Testament in light of the fuller revelation given to us in the New Testament.
Now that makes for an interesting post! First and foremost, because you are self-aware of how your personal epistemology works. I've only met a few Christians who have ever considered it that deeply, and fewer still who have gone ahead and categorized it as you have!
As for me personally (and I suspect this might be generally true for Calvinists), mine reverses #1 and #2. Not because I discount personal revelation per se, but because of how it's received - it's experiential by nature. Being a Calvinist, I hold my own senses and powers of reasoning suspect, given my belief in Total Depravity. I've been fooled by the Adversary often enough, through my own emotions and senses, that I have learned not to trust them w/o matching my experiences with God's written word. Thus, your "indirect knowledge" becomes my primary knowledge, and any "direct revelation" I might receive is held subservient to it.
That's not a criticism of your own experiences, BTW, nor an argument of your ordering. I'm just saying that I appreciated the insight into how you think through things, and to offer you some insight into how this Calvinist keeps his own thoughts ordered/captive, and his head on straight.
Of course, you are quite welcome.
I did mean what I said, when I said that an unwillingness to self-critically evaluate an opposing perspective (which is what I get from you, A-G; perhaps I am wrong) is an obstacle of Pride which prevents Learning. As one who has personally experienced deliverence from the Disensationalist/Pre-Trib/Pre-Mill Prophecy Complex, I know how easy it can be to fall into the trap of thinking that "you've already got it figured out". I've been there, done that, read all the books, know it like the back of my hand.
And I must confess that I got the same Prideful sense of "Already Got It All Figgered Out" from you, in your #306, when you didn't even bother to address the central point of my Argument (See, I agree that God will fulfill all His Promises to Israel. The Question is, "Who is God's Israel"?)
To your credit, however, you have been a very good sport in receiving my criticisms -- much better, in fact, than some of your Would-Be Defenders.
I can applaud that, at least.
Perhaps our disagreement here is related to differences between our underlying foundations? ~~ AG
Um... yeah. That's sorta my whole point, yes.
Please understand that I eschew all the doctrines and traditions of men – whether the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, etc.
2.) And in the Second Place -- How Dare You?! Such an Antinomian-Individualist Perspective makes an absolute mockery of Jesus Christ's Institution of The Church as a Collective Family, and as a counter-cultural Revolutionary Army, trained and regulated by His Under-Shepherds, the Presbytery and Diaconate. How Dare You cast aside the teachings of 2,000 years worth of Christian Pastors, as if they were so much irrelevant Pagan Sanskrit? If that is your attitude towards the Magisterial Teachings of the Church Fathers, why even bother to Take Notes when your own Local Pastor is preaching a Sermon? Heck, why bother attending a Sermon at all?
The fact of the matter is this, Alamo-Girl -- you are influenced by everything you have ever read or heard in any way since you were a very little girl, and you ARE CHOOSING to remain un-critically beholden to the Disensationalist/Pre-Trib/Pre-Mill Prophecy Complex without giving any serious consideration whatsoever to the proper Biblical Alternative (which is why you say, "All of the above is just for the record – I do not wish to argue it further"; and as I say, I think that such close-mindedness is Intellectually Prideful. Just My Opinion, of course).
In closing, I will not seek "to argue it further" either, if that is your preference.
I am always willing to go head to head, Iron sharpening Iron, for the sake of Learning God's Word.
But, if that is not your desire -- hey, I'm a Calvinist. I don't believe that I can force these things.
Best, OP