The first article (The Promise to Abraham) is the perfect illustration of reading the NT back into the Old. Curtis cant go 1 paragraph without bringing some NT thought into a very straightforward promise to Abraham.
Lets explore the first few sentences from that article ...
God made a promise to Abraham: “In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen.12:3). Later he repeated the promise, “because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22:18). What of this promise? Was it fulfilled? Or is it yet to be realized in some material sense? Gross confusion prevails. The tragic result is that Christians look for a fulfillment which will not come, because they look for the wrong kind of promise. People keep getting this original promise to Abraham mixed up with the Law given to Moses and with the land of Canaan in which the Israelites established a nation.
The covenant to Abraham is separate from the Mosaic covenant, no one is getting the two mixed up, except perhaps Curtis.
But the promise to Abraham had nothing to do with the law nor with national Israel. Paul explained, “For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of Faith” (Rom. 4:13). Three things are revealed here: 1) That the promise has nothing to do with the law, 2) That it does have to do with inheriting the world, and not a mere fraction of it, and 3) The it is through faith, and not through racial descent. Jesus said that Abraham “rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56, cf. 8:44). Obviously Abraham understood that the promise that he was to be the father of many nations and that all families should be blessed through him was a promise concerning Christ and the salvation he would purchase for believers.
Again, notice how to the non-dispensationist, the interpretation of the OT text must be injected with the New Testament understanding of that text. Not only that, but Curtis has also missed the entire point of what Paul was saying in Romans, i.e., justification by faith alone. He just keys on the word "law," finds a NT passage that contains the word "law," and tries to harmonize the two passages.
The second highlighted section of Curtis' argument highlights what happens when you read the NT back into the Old ... you begin to insert ideas that are foreign to the text. There is nothing in the text of Genesis 12 or 17 that suggests that Abraham understood the covenant that God made with him as anything but a promise that he would be the father of a great nation and that nation would possess certain boundaries. Where in the text of Genesis 12 or 17 does it even remotely suggest that Abraham forsaw and understood that the covenant he made with God was really the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31?
My patience has run out reading this stuff. Perhaps we should just rejoice that our names are written in heaven.
I'm amazed that you put forth like you understand the Gospels and the rest of the writings of the NT. You are far from understanding the OT and the NT's explanation of the prophecies of the OT.
You are saying that Jesus and the writers of the NT were building strawman arguments by referencing the OT and applying it to what they said! Amazing, that's all I can say. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for saying that our analysis is vapid at best and dishonest at the worst!
The covenant to Abraham is separate from the Mosaic covenant, no one is getting the two mixed up, except perhaps Curtis.
More strawman argument from you. How do you face yourself in the morning? Curtis (which I agree with here) is not mixed up at all - it is you that is saying he is even though his words are plain enough in showing that he does not mix up the two promises as you say he does! Ridiculous! Don't you understand what you read, or are you just itching for an argument?
Curtis says: But the promise to Abraham had nothing to do with the law nor with national Israel. Paul explained, “For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of Faith” (Rom. 4:13). Three things are revealed here: 1) That the promise has nothing to do with the law, 2) That it does have to do with inheriting the world, and not a mere fraction of it, and 3) The it is through faith, and not through racial descent. Jesus said that Abraham “rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56, cf. 8:44). Obviously Abraham understood that the promise that he was to be the father of many nations and that all families should be blessed through him was a promise concerning Christ and the salvation he would purchase for believers.
Again, notice how to the non-dispensationist, the interpretation of the OT text must be injected with the New Testament understanding of that text.
You in effect are calling Jesus Himself a non-dispensationalist, which I agree with. After all, it was Jesus Himself that brought up Abraham, saying that "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. (John 8:56, and also read verses 57-58!). Apparently you don't believe Jesus Himself! He injected His take on Abraham - so, he is a strawman builder? Ridiculous!
Not only that, but Curtis has also missed the entire point of what Paul was saying in Romans, i.e., justification by faith alone. He just keys on the word "law," finds a NT passage that contains the word "law," and tries to harmonize the two passages.
FYI, Paul does not say by "faith alone". Read Rom. 4:9-5:1 and weep. Curtis is exactly right in what he said in that article! It's just like saying that belief requires obedience to the Gospel - a fact that was first espoused by Jesus Himself in the Gospel: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). Keeping Christ's commandments is obedience, and if you believe in Him you love Him and the Father.
The second highlighted section of Curtis' argument highlights what happens when you read the NT back into the Old ... you begin to insert ideas that are foreign to the text.
Curtis' statement is right on. It's exactly what Paul was trying to get across to his readers - which you apparently aren't. Curtis is actually putting in different words what the Apostel Paul was saying about Abraham Where in the text of Genesis 12 or 17 does it even remotely suggest that Abraham forsaw and understood that the covenant he made with God was really the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31?
I doubt that Abraham saw and/or understood that Jeremiah was going to write about a New Covenant. Jesus said that Abraham “rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56, cf. 8:44). Is that too hard to understand? Is what Paul said also to hard for you to understand? If not, then Curtis is right and you seem to be looking for an argument based upon a speculative theology of dispensationalism.
My patience has run out reading this stuff. Perhaps we should just rejoice that our names are written in heaven.
My thoughts exactly on what you wrote :-)
“Replacement theologians call it the “secret rapture” (none of us pre-trib rapturists call it that) and then use scripture to show there is nothing secret about it ... “
Maybe you don’t call it a “secret rapture” but many Pre-trib rapturists DO call it that. I was brought up with the Plymouth Brethren so it’s something I am all too familiar with. I had major difficulty trying to convince my late Dad that the Bible never mentions a SECRET rapture - the Brethren had never even considered the possibilty. And the use of the word ‘replacement” is dishonest. The church is made up of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. No-one is being replaced. We are dealing with completion, not replacement.