Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[CCWoody]

Evidently xzins has absolutely zero education of what makes one a Liberal or Conservative. This is ~REALLY~ funny to read. I bet he actually thinks that the lurkers are laughing with him about this Conservative/ Liberal thing instead of at him. And he picked FR, which is a site full of politically savy people, to do this.

[xzins]

I like that for the amill heaven of Isaiah 65, ftD and Dan.

God tells the folks in the new heavens about infants dying and oldtimers dying even though he's said no more death. But it's not REAL the amills tell us....it's an ALLEGORY.

A death threat (does he really mean it? does he...or doesn't he?)

NEW HEAVENS AND NEW THREATS. It's not NHNE. With them it's NHNT!!

[BibChr]

But, really, can we stick to one passage at a time?

Absolutely!

So that takes us past your 1 Thesslonians diversion to my posting #259, which STILL has not been answered (nor even thought about, judging by your last).

Stick to the passage, please. I'll await your answer.

Dan

[CCWoody]

Beam me up Scotty, there no intelligent life down here!

[Wrigley]

LOL.

[CCWoody]

The passage may mean what it clearly says and is true, in which case Israel FOREVER has a future.

There, I answered it again. The problem is, as I pointed out to you earlier is that you don't know what Israel is.

[BibChr]

I certainly do know. The passage makes it clear -- if we apply the reformed principle of grammatico-historical exegesis to the passage. There is no serious doubt that the readers (and Jeremiah himself) would have interpreted the words in a national sense.

Evidently, God Himself interpreted Himself the same way, for He expressly says:

"...From being a nation before Me forever"

(Jeremiah 31:36). There is no ambiguity in the text. God affirms what the neo-Romanist denies: that the literal nation of Israel has an eternal place in His plan, as defined by the Abrahamic and successive covenants.

This interpretation is tested by the question, "Had God meant the literal nationa of Israel, could He have stated it more plainly?" Then you look at the immediate context, with specific and known LITERAL place-names, or the context of the book, with its constant focus on the literal nation, the impression is further strengthened.

If the issue were, "What does the Bible say?", the discussion would be ready to move onto another issue.

Howeer, for some the issue seems to be, "How do I rationalize my neo-Roman, Platonist approach to parts of Scripture?" There, I can't help you.

Dan

[CCWoody]

The "land promise", which is so key in this passage of scripture, was actually promised to only 2 individuals: Abraham and Christ.

The problem you are stuck in is the fact that you are evidently making some kind of blood relationship more important than the spiritual relationship in this promise as you specifically exclude anybody who does not have the right blood in their veins. Thus, you wrongly understand who Israel is.

[Revelation 911]

Do you think that you can ask such questions and have people not see the venom behind them?

LOL - naw -

[BibChr]

The problem you are stuck in is the fact that you are evidently making some kind of blood relationship more important than the spiritual relationship in this promise....Thus, you wrongly understand who Israel is.

Actually, it is much simpler than that.

What I do is approach this passage, as I approach the entire Bible, with the premise that the Bible is the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God. I let it teach me. When I do that, a passage like this, given in plain, unadorned, common speech to plain, unadorned, common people, is... well, plain and unadorned.

So you see, I get this idea about a national future for Israel from God Himself, who chose these words to convey His purposes. It is, after all, a passage rife with place-names. Look at it this way:

27 "...the house of Israel and the house of Judah.... ...31 ...the house of Israel and ...the house of Judah....33 ....the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever." 37 Thus says the Lord: "If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the Lord. 38 ...the city shall be built for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The surveyor's line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. 40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."

What does all that mean?

I say, "It is THE WORD OF GOD: it means what it says."

What do you say?

Dan

[xzins]

Simple, unadorned bible.

Awesome, Dan.

Amen!!

[CCWoody]

What do you say?

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.

For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So, Dan, you can continue with your insistence that the important thing here in this passage is the blood relationship for determining who Israel is, but I will stick to what the scriptures say is important. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the [biological] seed of Abraham.

Woody.

[BibChr]

Let me quote you to yourself:

CCWoody: But, really, can we stick to one passage at a time?
(From post #457)

So, what does Jeremiah 31:27-40 mean? Does it mean what it says? Which is just another way of asking...

Is the Bible the plenarily, verbally inspired and inerrant Word of God? Or is it a secret codebook?

Dan

[BibChr]

Thanks for the encouraging word. I don't find this a joyous dialogue; being Reformed, it saddens me to run into "Reformeds" who prefer tradition over Biblical reform.

Dan

[CCWoody]

Let me quote you to yourself: CCWoody: But, really, can we stick to one passage at a time? (From post #457)

I am sticking to one passage at a time. We are discussing Jeremiah 31. Are ~you~ familiar with the idea that scripture interprets scripture?

If so, please go back to my previous post and address the argument made. The land promise, i.e. "nation of Israel" must be interpreted in light of what a much better theologian than you or I had to say about it. This promise was made exclusively to two people, Abraham and Christ. And anybody who is a child of Promise and not a child of blood is a part of that deal.

This idea made the Jews of Christ's day really mad when, despite their blood ties to Abraham, Jesus made it abundantly clear that they actually had Satan for their father. And it trips up you modern day dispensationalists as well, who think that there is something special about genealogies?

Woody.

[editor-surveyor]

Stop the tap dance Jean.

Trees, in general, live for thousands of years. - From the frail, mortal human perspective, they might as well be immortal. How does this equal dying to you?

You are either deeply confused, or sadly deceptive and disingenuous. I won't venture a guess as to which.

Tell us: (you've side-stepped this before)
When will the child play over the hole of the Asp?

When will the prohecies at the end of Ezekiel be fulfilled?

Are they just 'throw-aways' that the Lord stuck in there in case things didn't work out for his son the first time around?

Do they fit the Rev 20 syndrome, ie. they don't fit your theology so they're not to be understood as written?

[BibChr]

Scripture interprets Scripture, but it does not contradict, violate, or empty Scripture of meaning, as you suggest.

Let me try to be plain, to blow (God willing) through the traditionalism that holds you captive as surely as any of Luther's or Calvin's original Romanist hearers.

Take God at His word and Jeremiah is saying, beyond reasonable doubt, that the nation of Israel has an eternal place in the plan of God as a nation, no matter what it does.

Now, listen carefully:

If Paul is saying anything that contradicts Jeremiah's prophecy guaranteeing the perpetual place of the nation of Israel in God's plan — and this is but one of scores of such equally-plain prophecies — then Paul is a false prophet and an apostate, and must be rejected as such!

I'm sure that provokes some emotional responses in you. But try to think it through. Does your understanding of the single ultimate Authorship, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, allow you to say that one part can turn another part into utter nonsense? Mine does not.

And so I further ask you, how would any honest and GODLY contemporary reader have understood Jeremiah 31:27-40? Is there anything in the text that would lead him to understand otherwise? And so:

• If God makes a revelation which plainly and beyond reasonable contradiction means "A," leading EVERY godly and honest reader to believe "A"...
• ...and then, a few centuries later, God makes a second revelation to the effect that the previous revelation does not mean "A" at all, but instead means totally contradictory "Z" —
• does that not call the truthfulness of God into question?
• And does it not equally demand that passages which we deem to be unconditional guarantees of the ultimate salvation of the elect, such as Romans 8:28-39, might not be guarantees at all, but might in fact ultimately prove to be as surely false hopes as Jeremiah 31:27-40 was to the Jew?

Of course it does.

And so, the neo-Roman-Catholic Platonist ("Reformed Amilliennialist") is faced with this insoluble conundrum:

• Beyond reasonable doubt, Jeremiah 31:27-40 affirms in so many words that the nation of Israel has a part in the plan of God involving outward restoration and blessing for all eternity, at least as long as sun, moon, and seasons endure, no matter what it does!

— AND YET —

• The NT (supposedly) teaches THE PRECISE OPPOSITE, to wit, that the nation of Israel has NO future as a nation before God, BECAUSE of what it has done!

And yet somehow we are to believe that both mutually exclusive statements are the word of God!

Dan

[RnMomof7]

Do you think that you can ask such questions and have people not see the venom behind them?

Are you in a bad mood? My point was simply that Ezekiel contradicts Hebrews...and it seems lots of assumptions that make no sense. A war where half the combatants have glorifed bodies..and where is Jesus during this ..and where is the White throne where he will judge from? I ask you these questions if my fellow Calvinist will not answer them. Is everyone that asks you to explain what you believe full of venom?

[RnMomof7]

stole my gif huh? *grin*

[RnMomof7]

Where is the throne on which Jesus sits for that Judgement?