The Current War against Iran and Support for Israel is based on Catholic Counter Reformation Theology.

[PinSeeker]

Where? Please copy and paste what you said that supposedly addresses what I said about the words "covenant" and "testament" being used interchangeably as synonyms in verses like Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6 and Hebrews 9:15-18.

I did not deny that, SI. I even acknowledged it. But the issue is your apparent understanding of the Greek word used there. Maybe I'm wrong about what you understand a covenant ~ or yes, a testament ~ to be. Define it for me. Maybe I'll agree with you. <smile>

What a shocker that you can't just give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Ugh.

<eye roll>

Who calls it that? Is it called that anywhere in scripture or is this an extrabiblical concept?

Well Paul does, as I said, in Ephesians 2:8 specifically, as I said. By grace we have been saved through faith. And this is not our own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. He's echoing Ezekiel's words in chapters 11 and 36 (below) of his prophecy, which are:

"I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people, and I will be your God."​

This is a covenant, SI. A binding commitment, with obligations to be met by both parties. And... yes, if you mean 'testament' in that same light, then okay. <smile> But up until now it seems ~ seems ~ you've been saying something at least a little different, defining it a litll differently.

Who are "we"? Calvinists?

<eye roll>

I've never heard of a "covenant of works"

Hm. Interesting. Surprising.

No, I don't know anything about a covenant of works.

Same as above. I'll just say again that... Well, no, I'll just say this, that what Moses writes and what God says to Adam in Genesis 2, namely the following...

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'"

...means far more than maybe you thought. This is a covenant God made with Adam, SI. And we know what happens in Genesis 3. But God says something to Satan that... well, it's the first ~ veiled, but it is the first ~ proclamation of the Gospel... that He's going to redeem His creation and restore it completely. This is God's making His covenant of grace. If there had been no Fall, then there would be no other covenant necessary; Adam would have fulfilled the covenant of works, and God having mercy and compassion on us because of the work of Christ on the cross would not have been necessary because sin would have never entered the world.

I know about the old covenant and the new covenant, which is what I thought we were discussing.

Not really. I think it was @covenantee who said, "And the New Covenant/Testament is both a Covenant and a Testament," to which I replied, "the New Covenant and the New Testament are two different things." So no, the old covenant and the new covenant were not really what was being discussed. However, I think I did throw in there somewhere that the New Covenant is Jesus, Who is the perfect embodiment of all the previous "lesser" (meaning not perfect) and cumulative covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David. I mean yeah, we can talk about that, but that wasn't what we were discussing. That was just you hijacking... Ohhhhhhhhhhh, come on, man, come on now; I'm kidding with you. Not at you, with you. Come on, laugh a little. <smile>

But, leave it to you to make things as convoluted as possible for no good reason.

<eye roll>

Galatians 3:10-14 refers to the works of the law of Moses which was established well after Adam and Eve died, so I'm not sure why you are trying to relate the "covenant of works" to Adam and Eve.

See above. No "trying" necessary; it is what it is. <smile>

Ah, yes. The covenant of grace. Show me where "the covenant of grace" is mentioned in scripture.

Hmmm... well, by the same token, you show me where 'trinity' is mentioned in Scripture. I mean, it is, and you will have no trouble finding it, although the actual 'trinity' you will never find. You know that. But, so it is with the covenant of grace. See above, it is what it is.

Okay, that's enough, I think. One question for you though. What makes you like you are, SI? I mean, why is it necessary to be so mean-spirited? Make such... well, mean comments? Why are you so angry? I mean come on. I'm not trying to make you mad, or be adversarial in any way. Really.

We were talking about when Jesus established the new covenant.

We weren't. You were the one who started talking about that, when you said, "I would say that the new covenant could be considered the covenant of grace in contrast to the old covenant being considered the covenant of the law." Weeeeee... could talk about that... <smile> ...but we were not talking about when Jesus established the new covenant.

Hebrews 9:15 and Hebrews 10:10 indicate that He established the new covenant upon His sacrificial death. You have yet to address that.

Well, I was trying to stay on topic. <smile> But actually I did say something about that; I said: "Hebrews 9:15 says, Spiritual Israelite, is "He is..." ~ He is, not "he became," as if He wasn't before; His sacrifice, from that point, stretches backward in time, all the way to Adam, as well as forward to everyone who will be saved ~ "...the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." And... here you go, this is the covenant of Grace... the "first covenant" there in Hebrews 9:15 is the covenant of works, the one that, after Adam's Fall, redemption from sins committed under it became impossible... it had to be by the grace of God. And that covenant was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15. Yes, he was talking to Satan in that verse, but saying how He would deal with Adam and all his progeny going forward, which includes you and me. <smile>

More gibberish.

<eye roll>

The text itself says that He established the new covenant by way of His death.

The word 'established,' there, SI, is not synonymous with 'started,' or 'began,' or anything along those lines. Remember what He said at His death: "It is finished." His work of salvation and redemption was made complete, then, but as I said, its effect goes... well, went, because that was over two thousand years ago now... but was effectual both backward all the way back to Adam and forward to the current age when all of Israel ~ God's Israel, of course, which is all who are called by God, His elect ~ will be saved.

...your commentary? Not clear at all.

I think that's your fault. <smile> Come on, dude. That's at least a little bit funny, no? <chuckles>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[dad]

Are you suggesting that in Genesis 1:14, this “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven” is an ordinance but this “to divide the day from the night and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” is not an ordinance?

Ordinance <2706> choq Statute, decree, ordinance, law, regulation

It is a law and that law may have been different in Adam's day for all we know. A year used to be 360 days. So one assumes there may have been some difference. But the sun still rises and shines etc. God is more than suggesting things will be different in the future. In New Jerusalem we have no need of the sun. That is quite different.

 

[grafted branch]

It is a law and that law may have been different in Adam's day for all we know. A year used to be 360 days. So one assumes there may have been some difference. But the sun still rises and shines etc. God is more than suggesting things will be different in the future. In New Jerusalem we have no need of the sun. That is quite different.

Right, things will be different in NHNE, the sun and moon will not be obeying the ordinances in Genesis 1:14. Jeremiah 31:36 says if those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Do you think the ordinances don’t depart from before God while at the same time the sun and moon disobey those ordinances? Is it possible to openly sin in front of God and disobey Him?

 

[dad]

Right, things will be different in NHNE, the sun and moon will not be obeying the ordinances in Genesis 1:14. Jeremiah 31:36 says if those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

No. The sun will still be obeying. Unless you know different? Having a shorter year does not mean the sun is disobedient. Neither will the sun not being required in the heavenly city mean it is disobedient.

Do you think the ordinances don’t depart from before God while at the same time the sun and moon disobey those ordinances?

Name a few times the sun disobeyed??

Is it possible to openly sin in front of God and disobey Him?

For some, it seems nothing else is possible

 

[grafted branch]

No. The sun will still be obeying. Unless you know different? Having a shorter year does not mean the sun is disobedient. Neither will the sun not being required in the heavenly city mean it is disobedient.

Isaiah 60:20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

That is not obeying Genesis 1:14, to divide the day from the night.

Name a few times the sun disobeyed??

The sun has not disobey the Genesis 1:14 ordinances yet, even if there was previously 360 days in a year the sun still went down and came up again. In the NHNE that won’t be the case any longer, the sun never goes down again according to Isaiah 60:20.

 

[dad]

Isaiah 60:20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

That is not obeying Genesis 1:14, to divide the day from the night.

When the sun refers to something else, your point is mooted. Look up a few commentaries and learn

 

[grafted branch]

When the sun refers to something else, your point is mooted. Look up a few commentaries and learn

Yes, we all should be able to come to the conclusion that these verses are not to be taken literally. So for starters the seed in Jeremiah 31:36 should be looked at in conjunction with Galatians 3:16 where seed, singular, is Christ. Since Jesus paid for our sins, which is eternal separation from God, we can start to see the connection and how the Jeremiah 31:35-36 promise got fulfilled.

2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

 

[marks]

Ibelieve the US is focused on defending Israel because of eschatology.

Not because of our similar politics? That we are both free societies (so called)? I think we'd be allies anyway.

Much love!

 

[dad]

Yes, we all should be able to come to the conclusion that these verses are not to be taken literally.

The fact that poetic beauty is used in some prophesy does not diminish the reality of other prophesies. The trick is knowing what is actualyy being said, rather than scouring Scripture for excuses not to believe it.

So for starters the seed in Jeremiah 31:36 should be looked at in conjunction with Galatians 3:16 where seed, singular, is Christ.

Jeremiah 31:36
The Lord affirms, "The descendants of Israel will not cease forever to be a nation in my sight. That could only happen if the fixed ordering of the heavenly lights were to cease to operate before me."

The point here is that it could never happen. Did you miss it?

Since Jesus was a Person, what else would we refer to Him as, other than seed? You think there were triplets born?

Since Jesus paid for our sins, which is eternal separation from God, we can start to see the connection and how the Jeremiah 31:35-36 promise got fulfilled.

No. You have no point. Grasping at silly straws

2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Not sure why you post that verse. It affirms that All of His promises will come true.


2 Corinthians 1:20
For every one of God's promises are "Yes" in him; therefore also through him the "Amen" is spoken, to the glory we give to God.

So, when He promises to restore the saved remnant of Israel from all over the world to the promised land, you can bet the farm He will. It's in the bag. Good as done. Certain.

 

[Jericho]

Futurism is the principle cause and motivation behind the current war against Iran and the wholesale unconditional support for Israel.

Your entire premise is based on this conclusion, and it is incorrect. There is absolutely zero evidence that the war currently being waged against Iran is motivated by eschatology, either by Israel or the United States. Also, Futurists believe certain things will happen, but they're not trying to make them happen. They have neither the desire nor the power to do so.

And what's more, they are responsible for deceiving multitudes and turning the attention of sincere well meaning Christians away from true Protestantism and the biblically affirmed teaching of the reformers and their almost fanatical focus on Israel as the center of end time prophecy, when in reality the focus ought to be on the United States.

It seems to me, as an evil futurist, that Israel is prophetically important and that the Book of Revelation revolves around that region of the world. What I don't see in the Bible is any mention or allusion to the United States. I'd argue that the people who have a fanatical focus on Israel the most are those who are most against it.

Not because of our similar politics? That we are both free societies (so called)? I think we'd be allies anyway.

Much love!

Both are Western-style countries. Both have common enemies (radical Islam). Both have common political adversaries (Russia, China). Israel is in many ways a microcosm of the United States. That makes us natural allies.

 

[grafted branch]

Jeremiah 31:36
The Lord affirms, "The descendants of Israel will not cease forever to be a nation in my sight. That could only happen if the fixed ordering of the heavenly lights were to cease to operate before me."

The point here is that it could never happen. Did you miss it?

No, that verse is not meant to be read as something that could never happen, obviously it happens when new heaven new earth are realized. Where else does the Bible describe something being impossible then go on to describe that thing as happening (literal or not) but we interpret the scriptures as that thing remaining impossible?

Since Jesus was a Person, what else would we refer to Him as, other than seed? You think there were triplets born?

Ok, so the whole point of Galatians 3:16 is to just let us know that Jesus wasn’t triplets, good to know.

No. You have no point. Grasping at silly straws

Well, if you want to say the Jeremiah 31:35-36 allusion that points to Jesus paying for sins is a silly straw that’s fine, at least I know where you stand.

Not sure why you post that verse. It affirms that All of His promises will come true.

Right, all of His promises will come true, including the promise in Jeremiah 31:35-36. You just said that that promise could never happen but now you say ALL of His promises will come true. Which is it? Do some promises come true and others don’t, and it all depends on whether His word is meant literally or not?

Is there any consistency in how you interpret scripture? By what rules do you use to determine when the sun is meant literally or not? I thought we just went through a conversation where you concluded the sun in Jeremiah 31:35-36 wasn’t meant literally.

 

[dad]

No, that verse is not meant to be read as something that could never happen, obviously it happens when new heaven new earth are realized. Where else does the Bible describe something being impossible then go on to describe that thing as happening (literal or not) but we interpret the scriptures as that thing remaining impossible?

? Why claim the sun does something in the future? Just because we don't need it in New Jerusalem doesn't mean it is not still there and rising and setting etc.

Ok, so the whole point of Galatians 3:16 is to just let us know that Jesus wasn’t triplets, good to know.

No. But you seemed to be hung up on the word seed for Jesus having some hidden meaning

Well, if you want to say the Jeremiah 31:35-36 allusion that points to Jesus paying for sins is a silly straw that’s fine, at least I know where you stand.

Jeremiah 31:35
I am the Lord All-Powerful. I command the sun to give light each day, the moon and stars to shine at night, and ocean waves to roar.

Jeremiah 31:36
I will never forget to give those commands, and I will never let Israel stop being a nation. I, the Lord , have spoken.

I see no mystery in the verses. We know God will not forget to give commands. Your suggestion that He forgets and there is no sun in the future, simply because we have no need of it in heaven is foolish speculation. Doubts. Rather than trying to insert/imagine some contradiction, why not look at Scripture with faith? You know, 'I guess there may be a sun in the future after all considering this verse' or maybe ' Perhaps Israel will be dwelling together with us other believers full time when God creates the new heavens and earth' or etc.

Right, all of His promises will come true, including the promise in Jeremiah 31:35-36.

See abbove. Yes, He is in control and will not let the heavenly lights go bonkers.

You just said that that promise could never happen but now you say ALL of His promises will come true.

You misrepresented what the verse/promise actually was. I do not share your dark fantasies based on nothing, twisting Scripture, doubting God and trying to grasp at straws to suggest that there will be no Israel, thanks.

Is there any consistency in how you interpret scripture?

Yes, I try to start by not assuming God is dead, inept and a liar.

By what rules do you use to determine when the sun is meant literally or not?

You might need a little wisdom to keep from wandering off picking doubt daisies in fantasy land.

I thought we just went through a conversation where you concluded the sun in Jeremiah 31:35-36 wasn’t meant literally.

Looking at it more carefully, since you were trying to use it to erase Israel and His promises, I discovered that it was you who were confused.

 

[grafted branch]

? Why claim the sun does something in the future? Just because we don't need it in New Jerusalem doesn't mean it is not still there and rising and setting etc.

Ok, is this what you’re arguing? “Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself”, are you says this means that whatever the sun an moon represent in new Jerusalem, that figurative sun and moon are currently going down and withdrawing themselves but they won’t do that anymore in new Jerusalem?

If so, how about you tell us what the new Jerusalem sun and moon represent.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Better refers to Jesus dying for our salvation, which is better than the old law and sacrifices etc. Zero to do with cancelling wonderful promises.

Wonderful promises that God made even more wonderful, but you would prefer to set limitations on God's promises rather than allowing Him to expand them beyond what they originally seemed to be (see Hebrews 11:8-16).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Israel of the flesh lost the land of promise, not because God reneged on His promise, but because Israel reneged, turning against God, serving other gods. Now in your confusion you argue God will give Israel another chance, while the rest of the nations of the world who remain in unbelief, as Israel does, are condemned? When did God become a respecter of persons?

That's what I ask these dispensationalists often, but they have no answer because they insist on contradicting God's character instead of accepting the truth of this matter. If God decided to save everyone in one nation like Israel then He would save everyone from all nations because, as you indicated, He is not a respecter of persons (does not show partiality).

I guess they have never read this...

Hebrews 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To Israel believers He promised lands and restoration. Salvation too! It is not one or the other. His promises are like icing on the cake of salvation.

2 Peter 3:3 knowing this firs that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.....9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance....13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Peter said that according to the promise of Christ's second coming, we (believers) "look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.". But, you have Israelite believers looking for far less than "new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells" in fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming. Don't you think that Peter knew what he was talking about? I do. I will side with Peter over you every time. According to Peter all believers, Jew and Gentile, should be looking for new heavens and a new earth in fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming and not just "lands and restoration".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What qualifies as the better promise?

1. Land
2. Heaven

What qualifies as better. Both! (or just one)?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No. He only restores them after they get saved. That is not another chance for unbelieving rebels. They all die unless they repent.

You didn't answer the question you were asked about God being a respecter of persons. Why would God ensure the salvation of everyone in one nation (Israel) and not any other nation? That would make Him a respecter of persons, but scripture repeatedly says that He is not a respecter of persons in relation to salvation.

 

[dad]

Ok, is this what you’re arguing? “Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself”, are you says this means that whatever the sun an moon represent in new Jerusalem, that figurative sun and moon are currently going down and withdrawing themselves but they won’t do that anymore in new Jerusalem?

If so, how about you tell us what the new Jerusalem sun and moon represent.

The commentary I saw described the sun and moon as ways to describe Israel. A bit like 'you light won't dim or go out' etc. Nothing to do with New Jerusalem. That seems to make sense. But however we choose to see it, it should be in faith, and not as if we were looking for a mistake in the bible

 

[dad]

Wonderful promises that God made even more wonderful,

No the promises are the same. Not fulfilled yet. He has not restored a saved Israel etc

but you would prefer to set limitations on God's promises rather than allowing Him to expand them beyond what they originally seemed to be (see Hebrews 11:8-16).

The only 'limitation' on His promises is that they must come true