A debate about Israel = posts pulled from a different thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
When God makes promises, He keeps them. God showed Abraham the land he was to inherit. God told Abraham to literally walk that land.

14And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: “Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward; 15for all the land which you see I give to you and your [c]descendants forever. 16And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. 17Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you.” (Gen 13:14-17)

Abraham never did possess that land. But he will, and so will all of his faithful descendants because God keeps His promise.

Well now you have me really confused. So when Israel took possession of the land, as described in the books of Exodus and Joshua, that didn't count? Taking possession of the land is still yet future? Who takes possession of it? If that wasn't promised to Israel and fulfilled under the Old Covenant, then how and who? Do you believe that Christians will take possession of the land? Because if when the Jews took possession of it thousands of years ago that doesn't count, why would Jews living in the land today count?

And how do you understand "to you and your descendants forever"? Do you understand it as until the conclusion of the Old Covenant? Until the conclusion of history? Or for eternity?

I ask all these questions, because I want to understand exactly what it is you believe and understand these things. Because it sounds to me like you are saying that the promise to Abraham about his descendants going into the land did not happen in the Old Testament, but also I don't think you are talking about--as the New Testament does--about all who have faith in the Messiah being sons and daughters of Abraham; but rather to Jews under the Old (and according to Hebrews, obsolete) Covenant, in modern times, entering the land.

Is that a somewhat correct assessment of your belief?

If it is, how do you reconcile that belief with literally everything written in the Bible? Because in the Bible the immediate promise of entering into the land was fulfilled following the Exodus and establishment of the Covenant in Sinai, it is described in, e.g. Joshua, when the various Canaanite powers were conquered by the Jews and they came into the land, and eventually the kingdom of Israel was established. But according to the New Testament the greater promise is the promise of Christ, the New Covenant established at Mt. Golgotha by His shed blood on the cross; and that the fullness of the promise, for all who have faith, is the gift of righteousness from God, by which we enter into the greater "land" of eternal life and the renewal of all creation. Which is why, e.g., St. Paul speaks of our home as being from the "Jerusalem which is above"

"Now this may be interpreted allegorically; these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds with the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

'Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.'

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.' So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
" - Galatians 4:24-31

It is not the covenant of land promises concerning a piece of real estate in the Levant; but the heavenly promises which are of importance. The land was inherited, in order that God's promises concerning the future Messiah might come: "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." (Galatians 4:4-5)

Surely this is obvious, right?

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well now you have me really confused. So when Israel took possession of the land, as described in the books of Exodus and Joshua, that didn't count? Taking possession of the land is still yet future? Who takes possession of it? If that wasn't promised to Israel and fulfilled under the Old Covenant, then how and who? Do you believe that Christians will take possession of the land? Because if when the Jews took possession of it thousands of years ago that doesn't count, why would Jews living in the land today count?
it doesn’t count because the promise was not just made to Abraham’s descendants but to Abraham himself also.
The promise is therefore yet future. It will be a reality when Abraham himself and all of his descendants do indeed possess the land. Abraham’s descendants are yet being formed.
The Jews living in the land today will still be in the land when Christ returns to inherit what is promised to him and all who are in him. And Israel will possess all the land promised to him.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
it doesn’t count because the promise was not just made to Abraham’s descendants but to Abraham himself also.

You mean like this?

"Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land I will show you. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those that bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'

So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan; Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that tiime the Canaanites were in the land. Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.' So he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. From there he moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord. And Abram journeyed on, still, going toward the Negeb." - Genesis 12:1-9

Abraham spent a time in Egypt, but then returned back (Genesis 13:1-4), then set up camp Hebron,

"So Abram moved his tent and came and settled by the oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron, and there he built an altar to the Lord." - Genesis 13:18

In Genesis 14, Abraham is blessed by the priest-king of Salem, Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17-20)

In Genesis 18, Abraham is still in the area of Hebron, "And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre" (Genesis 18:1)

When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was in a region called Moriah (Genesis 22:2), 2 Chronicles 3:1 states that it is "Mt Moriah" where Solomon built the first Temple.

And he is still there at Hebron when his very long life finally comes to a close (Genesis 25:1-11)

It would seem Abraham did, in fact, inhabit the land.

The promise is therefore yet future. It will be a reality when Abraham himself and all of his descendants do indeed possess the land. Abraham’s descendants are yet being formed.
The Jews living in the land today will still be in the land when Christ returns to inherit what is promised to him and all who are in him. And Israel will possess all the land promised to him.

What I fail to understand is how you get this belief. Because it's not in the Bible, and it's never been anything Christians have believed historically.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You mean like this?

"Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land I will show you. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those that bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'

So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan; Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that tiime the Canaanites were in the land. Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.' So he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. From there he moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord. And Abram journeyed on, still, going toward the Negeb." - Genesis 12:1-9

Abraham spent a time in Egypt, but then returned back (Genesis 13:1-4), then set up camp Hebron,

"So Abram moved his tent and came and settled by the oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron, and there he built an altar to the Lord." - Genesis 13:18

In Genesis 14, Abraham is blessed by the priest-king of Salem, Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17-20)

In Genesis 18, Abraham is still in the area of Hebron, "And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre" (Genesis 18:1)

When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was in a region called Moriah (Genesis 22:2), 2 Chronicles 3:1 states that it is "Mt Moriah" where Solomon built the first Temple.

And he is still there at Hebron when his very long life finally comes to a close (Genesis 25:1-11)

It would seem Abraham did, in fact, inhabit the land.



What I fail to understand is how you get this belief. Because it's not in the Bible, and it's never been anything Christians have believed historically.

-CryptoLutheran

You mean like this?

"Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land I will show you. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those that bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'

So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and they set out to go to the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan; Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that tiime the Canaanites were in the land. Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.' So he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. From there he moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord. And Abram journeyed on, still, going toward the Negeb." - Genesis 12:1-9

Abraham spent a time in Egypt, but then returned back (Genesis 13:1-4), then set up camp Hebron,

"So Abram moved his tent and came and settled by the oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron, and there he built an altar to the Lord." - Genesis 13:18

In Genesis 14, Abraham is blessed by the priest-king of Salem, Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17-20)

In Genesis 18, Abraham is still in the area of Hebron, "And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre" (Genesis 18:1)

When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was in a region called Moriah (Genesis 22:2), 2 Chronicles 3:1 states that it is "Mt Moriah" where Solomon built the first Temple.

And he is still there at Hebron when his very long life finally comes to a close (Genesis 25:1-11)

It would seem Abraham did, in fact, inhabit the land.



What I fail to understand is how you get this belief. Because it's not in the Bible, and it's never been anything Christians have believed historically.

-CryptoLutheran
Yes I’ve already posted the text where Abram was instructed to walk the land he was to inherit. Abraham was in the land but it was not his. He was a foreigner in the land. He even had to pay for a burial place for his dear wife Sarah.( Gen 23)
 
Upvote 0

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What I fail to understand is how you get this belief. Because it's not in the Bible, and it's never been anything Christians have believed historically.

-CryptoLutheran
My understanding comes straight out of Scripture. It doesn’t come from what Christians believe.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Yes I’ve already posted the text where Abram was instructed to walk the land he was to inherit. Abraham was in the land but it was not his. He was a foreigner in the land. He even had to pay for a burial place for his dear wife Sarah.( Gen 23)

But inheriting the land, it had begun when He entered it, yes? And it continued to be the case, though for a time after Jacob and his sons went to Egypt, that the Jews endured centuries of cruel slavery, until God intervened and sent Moses. And it was finished when they took possession of the land; and the land became ha-Eretz Yisrael.

You seem to think that unless Abraham, himself, personally owned and controlled the entire territory that it doesn't count. That seems to solely because a particular hang-up you might have with the wording of the text.

As though unless Abraham himself, personally, owned the whole land, then the promise is unfulfilled--of course the text doesn't say all that. It merely says that Abraham and his descendants would take possession of the land; and thus the taking of possession of the land through the conquest of Canaan fulfills that--Abraham does, through his descendants through his grandson Jacob.

And given that this is how basically every Jew and Christian read and understood the text over the last several thousand years; do you think it perhaps possible, if not likely, that you have erred (the alternative is that everyone except you has been wrong).

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
My understanding comes straight out of Scripture.

A supposition without support. Unless we are to presuppose that you are uniquely capable of interpreting Scripture correctly, and all others are not. Which as a proposition is one I see absolutely no reason to subscribe to.

It doesn’t come from what Christians believe.

Well, in this instance it would appear that you have been influenced by a particularly intense form of a growing tradition in modern American Evangelicalism, that of the self-imposed infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture.

There are several theories, extent within Christianity on the whole, on how to properly, and authoritatively, understand Scripture. In the tradition present in Roman Catholicism there is the concept of the Magisterium, wherein bishops in faithful communion with the Roman Pontiff, and chiefly the Roman Pontiff himself, who exercise the infallible teaching authority of the Christian Church; and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit ensures the Church remain infallible.

What I have a tendency to see in modern American Evangelicalism (not exclusively of course) is, borrowing from the American cultural artifact of the proud individual who acts as protagonist, can decide for themselves the true meaning of Scripture, apart from the Church, apart from academic study, apart from any academic, or theological, or, generally, any more robust and shared hermeneutical and exegetical principles. Often this is accompanied by an appeal to Enthusiasm, or a direct and unmediated experience of God wherein God authenticates interpretation and opinion through some vague mechanism of personal experience. As such I have often seen people quote where the Lord says the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead into all truth--generally, and because there is no robust hermeneutical principle, without real regard for context. That is, people think they hear or feel God confirm what they want to believe; and that is itself sufficient grounds. The inherent problem with this system is that it makes every single individual into their own personal Magisterium, essentially they have elected themselves Pope, with the same connotations of infallibility that is associated with that office according to Rome (albeit, in some respects the Roman view at least entertains the possibility that the Pope, when not speaking ex cathedra, can be wrong).

These, of course, are not the only two views prevalent in Christianity (praise God); but in the context of this conversation these are the two that seem most relevant. As I can't help but, at least, note the irony of Papal Infallibility present in certain quarters of the modern Evangelical world, only that rather than there being a single infallible pope in Rome, there are instead myriad infallible popes who all presume to know better than the next; and show complete disdain for the historic witness and consensus of the Christian Faithful of all, past and present, generations.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RocksInMyHead
Upvote 0

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A supposition without support. Unless we are to presuppose that you are uniquely capable of interpreting Scripture correctly, and all others are not. Which as a proposition is one I see absolutely no reason to subscribe to.



Well, in this instance it would appear that you have been influenced by a particularly intense form of a growing tradition in modern American Evangelicalism, that of the self-imposed infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture.

There are several theories, extent within Christianity on the whole, on how to properly, and authoritatively, understand Scripture. In the tradition present in Roman Catholicism there is the concept of the Magisterium, wherein bishops in faithful communion with the Roman Pontiff, and chiefly the Roman Pontiff himself, who exercise the infallible teaching authority of the Christian Church; and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit ensures the Church remain infallible.

What I have a tendency to see in modern American Evangelicalism (not exclusively of course) is, borrowing from the American cultural artifact of the proud individual who acts as protagonist, can decide for themselves the true meaning of Scripture, apart from the Church, apart from academic study, apart from any academic, or theological, or, generally, any more robust and shared hermeneutical and exegetical principles. Often this is accompanied by an appeal to Enthusiasm, or a direct and unmediated experience of God wherein God authenticates interpretation and opinion through some vague mechanism of personal experience. As such I have often seen people quote where the Lord says the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead into all truth--generally, and because there is no robust hermeneutical principle, without real regard for context. That is, people think they hear or feel God confirm what they want to believe; and that is itself sufficient grounds. The inherent problem with this system is that it makes every single individual into their own personal Magisterium, essentially they have elected themselves Pope, with the same connotations of infallibility that is associated with that office according to Rome (albeit, in some respects the Roman view at least entertains the possibility that the Pope, when not speaking ex cathedra, can be wrong).

These, of course, are not the only two views prevalent in Christianity (praise God); but in the context of this conversation these are the two that seem most relevant. As I can't help but, at least, note the irony of Papal Infallibility present in certain quarters of the modern Evangelical world, only that rather than there being a single infallible pope in Rome, there are instead myriad infallible popes who all presume to know better than the next; and show complete disdain for the historic witness and consensus of the Christian Faithful of all, past and present, generations.

-CryptoLutheran
The scripture says Abraham was a foreigner in the land he walked. You say he wasn’t. Well there you have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJWhalen
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The scripture says Abraham was a foreigner in the land he walked. You say he wasn’t. Well there you have it.

And yet, the children who inherited the promise of occupying the land, did indeed come and take possession of it. That's the Biblical view, that's the Jewish view, that's the Christian view.

The idea that Abraham will, someday in the future, return and take a personal and full possession of the whole land simply isn't in the Bible, and that is not a view which the two religions which have inherited the Abrahamic tradition via the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh/Old Testament). Now, the latter does not seem to concern you, but it should. For the reasons I expressed already in prior posts.

You are building your theological foundation upon the presupposition of your own personal certainty and infallibility--you read the text, and you are convinced that you have the right understanding; you don't care about what others say--what other believing Christians say, what Christian theologians, biblical scholars, exegetes, and devoted students of Scripture have understood and reached the same consensuses over--you are asserting your own personal authority over the whole Christian Church.

I realize that isn't what you are trying to say, that is not your intent; it's not even what you consciously believe--but stepping back, critically examining your own thought processes--at least as you present them here--that is the conclusion. "I am right, because I am right--everyone else is wrong". That is a reflection of a particular set of ideas (and ideals) which are present within the culture of American Evangelicalism, at least modern American Evangelicalism, which has tended toward hyper-individualistic, anti-ecclesiastical, anti-communitarian, and Enthusiastic perceptions of being a Christian. The individual, not the community, is the source of Christian dogma; which is also why we can see how when two strong personalities in a church are unable to be reconciled together, the one who does not keep control of the established community goes and begins a new one. The rise in so-called "non-denominationalism" wherein clergy are not held to rigorous structures of accountability--not only ethical accountability, but also doctrinal accountability, and even educational accountability--results in a slew of every churches which frequently are structured as cults of personality.

Now, if you tell me, "I don't subscribe to any teacher", perhaps you might attempt to quote 1 John 2:27 as a way to disavow the very idea of heeding teachers, pastors, or theologians; then that is still the same situation--only you are at that point asserting yourself as the teacher and everyone else should be the student. Perhaps you don't demand that I, or anyone, simply agree--but you do end up in a place where you refuse to be teachable or correctable. No man, you might say, can teach or correct, because you simply have the Bible to read and the Holy Spirit lives in you. And yet, Scripture itself says otherwise, for St. Paul was able to not only teach and correct, but even rebuke St. Peter himself--even Peter could be corrected and rebuked by another human being. Indeed, when St. Paul writes his pastoral guidance to St. Timothy, Paul explicitly teaches that the responsibility of handling the word of God falls upon him, as a pastor,

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:14-17

God has, indeed, given for us teachers and pastors, people to handle and instruct and offer guidance in matters of faith, doctrine, etc. That we should not be lifted up into the air and blown around by every wind of doctrine--but rest secure in that which has been given from the beginning.

Therefore when you, or I, or anyone, finds ourselves in a place where we are saying, "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong" we should consider that a red flag--there's a problem. We've done something wrong, our way of thinking and our spiritual disposition is out of alignment, something in us needs realigning, readjustment. We are lacking the humility to consider we could be wrong, and therefore render our hearts humble and our minds receptive to hear and receive the word of God in truth. The pride of our own self-assurance is not a place we ought to be.

So when I say "this isn't what others have ever believed" it is not, "blindly conform to what is popular", it is, "consider, and weigh carefully, the fact that there are generations of faithful believing Christians who have reached, time and again, an un-forced consensus. This is not about some human authority on the top, putting their shoes on the back of your neck and threatening being burned at the stake or being beheaded; but rather that there is a nearly-democratic level of agreement on matters of faith because men and women, in their freedom, study and learn and are engaged with the voices and thoughts of their fellow believers in Jesus in a communion and community of Christians that stretches back to the time of the Apostles until the present. We should humbly enter into the two thousand year old conversation of Christianity.

Do we always agree, no. Do we have to agree on literally everything? Probably not. But when it comes to issues of life and death, such as what is happening in Gaza right now, it may serve us well to not allow ourselves to be guided by prevailing political doctrines of our times, and truly consider the border-less, millennia-old institutions of the Christian religion.

If what we are saying is out of concert with these; then we ought to reflect on that. We ought not find ourselves "wise in our own eyes" as the Scriptures warn.

We are not rogue protagonists, but the members of a corporate body--the Church of Jesus Christ; it is His Body, as He is the Head. We are arms, hands, feet; we are subject to Christ and to one another, the member to the whole. We are all, all of us, sojourners, foreigners in this present and fallen age looking forward to the future day of days, when all shall be as it ought, where death is destroyed and God makes all things new. And we therefore have not only the moral responsibility to regard each and every person in this world as the object of our service and love; but we have the commandment of God written in our hearts, a spiritual responsibility to bear witness to the Christ who came, who suffered, who died, who rose, who ascended, and who is coming again. We bear a Name that is above all names; we bear the weight of a cross to be His disciple. We are duty-bound, as the slaves of Jesus Christ, to assert His way above all other ways.

Hyper-Zionism is popular, because it is politically advantageous, but it is not the way of Christ. When we behold our neighbor beaten and left for dead at the side of the road we do not pass on by, we bandage the wounds and bring him to the innkeeper. It does not matter what our neighbor calls him or herself--Palestinian, Muslim, Jew, Israeli, brown, white, black--when our neighbor suffers, we are the representative of the Good Physician. And it is not enough that we only maintain this as a paper theory; but that it actually is the core of who and what we are--that our very minds, how we think and how we feel, is changed, transformed--sanctified. "Be holy, for I am holy" Holiness is not found in proclaiming it to others, or to ourselves, no amount of times we stand in front of the mirror and tell ourselves that we are holy will make us holy. Not all who say "Lord, Lord" are of the Lord. Holiness comes in the form of the Suffering Servant, the Son of Man who came not to be served, but to serve, and to ransom His life for many. He who bears the cross in weakness and pain, but says "I love you and forgive you". Holiness is a pursuit, a goal, one we will never truly attain in this life; but is nevertheless the work which we are called as we cooperate with God in His mercy, possible only by the power and strength of the Holy Spirit.

Desire holiness; not fake or pretend holiness which the Pharisees wielded like a bludgeon against the people as hypocrites. But holiness as the death of the old man, and the renewal of the new man in Christ--day by day, step by step, moment by moment; taking up the cross, following Him, and dying. Die daily, die every day, live a crucified life.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You need a copy of the Bible we all have.

It’s very simple

Was Abraham promised the land he was instructed to walk?

Yes.

Has Abraham ever gained possession of that land?

No.
Why is understanding this so importan? Well, because it’s the gospel as it was preached to Abraham and is the gospel for us.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You need a copy of the Bible we all have.

It’s very simple

Was Abraham promised the land he was instructed to walk?

Yes.

Has Abraham ever gained possession of that land?

No.

Abraham gained possession through his offspring. As already stated, and which Scripture affirms (Acts 7:17).

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Abraham gained possession through his offspring. As already stated, and which Scripture affirms (Acts 7:17).

-CryptoLutheran
Abraham gained possession of the land through his offspring?
That would be like me purchasing a plot of land which I want my children to inherit. And when they do inherit it and possess it I do also.
How can it be said that I, myself, have inherited the land when I, myself, do not?
 
Upvote 0

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Abraham gained possession through his offspring. As already stated, and which Scripture affirms (Acts 7:17).

-CryptoLutheran
The promise was made to Abraham himself and all of his descendants. The promise is that Abraham himself will inherit the land. The promise was not that only Abraham’s descendants would inherit it but that Abraham himself would.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
First of all, Abraham did not own the land, God did. God simply promised the land to Abraham and all of his descendants. The promise was made through inheritance.
Which means the person through whom the inheritance is made must first die.

If I own the land, and I give it to my children by inheritance, it means that when I die my children will inherit the land I left them.

Abraham never even owned the land promised to him. It was made by the one who owns the land. In order for Abraham and his descendants to inherit the land the owner of the land must first die. Then the land can be claimed by inheritance.

If one of the persons die before the inheritance can be claimed by them, they must be made alive again in order to claim it.
 
Upvote 0

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
First of all, Abraham did not own the land, God did. God simply promised the land to Abraham and all of his descendants. The promise was made through inheritance.
Which means the person through whom the inheritance is made must first die.

If I own the land, and I give it to my children by inheritance, it means that when I die my children will inherit the land I left them.

Abraham never even owned the land promised to him. It was made by the one who owns the land. In order for Abraham and his descendants to inherit the land the owner of the land must first die. Then the land can be claimed by inheritance.

If one of the persons die before the inheritance can be claimed by them, they must be made alive again in order to claim it.
This is so simple anyone who can think and reason can understand.
 
Upvote 0

One God and Father of All

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
737
200
59
Wilmington, DE
✟18,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
First of all, Abraham did not own the land, God did. God simply promised the land to Abraham and all of his descendants. The promise was made through inheritance.
Which means the person through whom the inheritance is made must first die.

If I own the land, and I give it to my children by inheritance, it means that when I die my children will inherit the land I left them.

Abraham never even owned the land promised to him. It was made by the one who owns the land. In order for Abraham and his descendants to inherit the land the owner of the land must first die. Then the land can be claimed by inheritance.

If one of the persons die before the inheritance can be claimed by them, they must be made alive again in order to claim it.
Please refute what I’m saying. I welcome anyone to do so. Please.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,462
26,892
Pacific Northwest
✟732,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Abraham gained possession of the land through his offspring?
That would be like me purchasing a plot of land which I want my children to inherit. And when they do inherit it and possess it I do also.
How can it be said that I, myself, have inherited the land when I, myself, do not?

That's how St. Stephen certainly understood it in Acts 7:17

Please post a text that refutes what I say.

Acts 7:5

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.