Ice hockey?A home run.
A stolen bases.
The pitchers mound.
The batters box
A pitcher
A catcher
An earned run average.....
A batting average....
The world series.....
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ice hockey?A home run.
A stolen bases.
The pitchers mound.
The batters box
A pitcher
A catcher
An earned run average.....
A batting average....
The world series.....
Relevant in general? Yes because it is Bible. Relevant to dispensationalism? No.Hello John
I believe it to be relevant in that we read Hosea1:10.....2:23.......quoted I. 1 pet 2:10.......who in time past were no people, but now are the the people of God.
This fact must be accounted for when we explain to new converts who they are in Christ.
Cricket?Ice hockey?![]()
Thanks for your response.
One problem that is constantly resurfacing in this discussion is you and others suggesting that if a Covenant is not mentioned by name, or it is not described by using the term.......it is a leap of logic......no, not really.
I had recently dealt with this kind of objection......in this manner....
What sport is being described by these component parts.......
A home run.
A stolen bases.
The pitchers mound.
The batters box
A pitcher
A catcher
An earned run average.....
A batting average....
The world series.....
Does it take a leap of logic, or do you know exactly what sport it is......even if it is not named here?
In the same way there are biblical words that have a biblical meaning.....
The people of God......is one such term.......oath, promise,my people, are used in such a way. To deny this is quite foolish.....the quotes from Hosea are very clear.....as is 2 cor6:14- 7:1
I believe these beheaded saints do live and reign with Christ right now....How about Revelation chapter 20?
Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
If there is no millennium (Chiliad) then there is no resurrection of verse 5.
HankD
I believe these beheaded saints do live and reign with Christ right now....
If this is the only place the thousand yes are mentioned.....could you show where it says the reign is on earth?
Been a long thousand years.I believe these beheaded saints do live and reign with Christ right now....
If this is the only place the thousand yes are mentioned.....could you show where it says the reign is on earth?
What I am looking for is how they answer 2 Pet 2.....
How they answer Romans 11:23
If future Israel repents.....they are grafted into the same olive trees that they were broken off from. That olive trees has Gentiles in it already,which I believe shows gentile Christians as the Israel of God in the new Covenant.
you responded
Until you prove that these passages refer to the new covenant, your argument is dead in the water.
Hosea 1:10 is a reiteration of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is not the new one. 2:23 doesn't mention the new covenant, so I don't see your point
(unless you think God's covenant with the animals in v. 18 is the new covenant). 1 Peter 2:10 also does not mention the new covenant ("covenant" appears nowhere in Peter),
No... I am following the teaching of the Spirit by Paul;so you are making a leap of logic there to apply the passage to the new covenant.
Jesus is the True Israel and us in Him.Not all Israel is of Israel.....you do not seem to accept that.But there are only three mentions of the phrase "new covenant" in the whole Bible, and those are: Heb. 8:8 8:13 and 12:12. And in 8:8 it is clearly between "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." So the new covenant is with Israel--not "spiritual Israel," but Israel. After all, it is (wait for it) the book of Hebrews.
So how do you prove that the new covenant is for anyone other than Hebrew people? You can't.
All you can do is resort to allegorical interpretation, which I deeply oppose. God said what He meant and meant what He said
Hosea 1:10--"sand of the sea," a direct quote from the Abrahamic Covenant in Gen. 32:12. The connection could not be more obvious, and the lack of connection to the new covenant could also not be more obvious. Exegete, man exegete."John of Japan,
snip
Hosea does not mention the Abrahamic covenant.....the word covenant is not used there...so according to you we cannot use it....your point is dead in the water....
And of course I could easily defend this--but I am very short on time. And besides, it might be taken as an attempt to divert attention from your own OP which you are trying to prove.Where does Genesis use the the words;
"dispensation of innocence"
"dispensation of conscience"
"dispensation of human government"
Your point and teaching of dispensation is dead in the water unless you can show this in scripture......
Very weak challenge icon.Where does Genesis use the the words;
"dispensation of innocence"
"dispensation of conscience"
"dispensation of human government"
Your point and teaching of dispensation is dead in the water unless you can show this in scripture......
That is my exact point Hank.....Very weak challenge icon.
Weak but a challenge nonetheless and I've used it myself
However, as a general principle this criteria would blow away many man made re-wordings of scripture dogma.
e.g. TULIP.
Where are ANY of the acrostic values found anywhere in scripture.
"Total depravity" - These words together are not found in the bible.
"Unconditional Election" ditto.
...
As a matter of fact a KJV scan of the word "Trinity" yields 0 results.
HankD
So we have come full circleThat is my exact point Hank.....
JOJ. Said that Peter did not use the word covenant.
I thought such statements are foolish so I turned the table on him.
Notice he suggests the sand of the sea is an obvious reference to the Abrahamic. Covenant In Hosea. ...he allows for that....yet when I use the language from Hosea he suggests it is not covenant language.![]()
Right, because the language from Hosea is not quoted in the NT, nor is it a representation of anything that any passage says about the new covenant/testament. Your view verges on theological wishful thinking, not careful exegesis.That is my exact point Hank.....
JOJ. Said that Peter did not use the word covenant.
I thought such statements are foolish so I turned the table on him.
Notice he suggests the sand of the sea is an obvious reference to the Abrahamic. Covenant In Hosea. ...he allows for that....yet when I use the language from Hosea he suggests it is not covenant language.![]()
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 2pm Pacific.