Why Reformed theology is the closest Protestant theology to the Bible.

[d taylor]

Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous

Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Still not enough?

-
​

Not a single verse addresses Eternal Life salvation.

 

[Guojing]

Not a single verse addresses Eternal Life salvation.​

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

 

[Josheb]

Admittedly, I'm the product of Reform Theology, and so biased in that direction. But I will suggest some weaknesses involved. 1st, I would draw a comparison between OT and NT, Israel and the International Church.

Israel began well with the Law as their standard and as their covenant with God. But it clearly was insufficient in terms of preparing Israel for their final destiny with God. Israel failed under the Law and required reform following the Babylonian Captivity. Even then the reforms of Ezra did not prevail since in the time of Jesus Israel completely rejected their Messiah, with the exception of the few disciples of Jesus who held out to start the International Church.

I would compare this to the history of the International Church, who began with Apostolic Doctrine and Christian tradition following the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. But after spreading throughout the world, problems continued with doctrine and with practice, requiring reform, which we see in the Protestant Reformation. I would include the Catholic Reformation but don't because of my personal concern with lack of any corrective to Catholic traditions that have continued to prevail against any correction whatsoever.

The Protestant Reformation properly placed biblical authority over the authority of Church leaders and Catholic tradition. However, this was subject to the same kind of frailties that led to the Reformation itself. The Bible became a kind of new Christian tradition, void of reasonable practice. And in association with liberal elements Scripture began to be interpreted in a way that short-circuited true Christian living. The supernatural was marginalized, and social programs advanced with little concern for divine guidance and revelation.

Perhaps you could clarify and elaborate how that suggests some weaknesses involved in Reformed theology.

 

[Josheb]

That's true. God always has a remnant of faithful followers. However, I was speaking of Israel, the nation. God had promised Abraham a "nation." That nation failed, despite the success of a few individuals.

That is incorrect. Israel was not the nation promised Abraham. The Jews thought so, but not the New Testament writers. The nation God promised was a nation of priests (Ex. 19:6). Peter tells us that nation is those converted to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. God promised Abraham he would be the father of many nations, not one. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to seed, and that seed is Christ (Gal. 3:16). This is an oft-overlooked fact of scripture, one not revealed in the Old. It was necessary to read the New Testament (or to have been alive during Christ's earthly ministry) in order to understand this. What is means is that the fulfillment of the promises do not come through geo-political nation-state status, or through the Law. They come through Christ.

Perhaps more importantly, though, theology does not start with Israel. Neither does it start with Abraham. The only relationship Israel has with God is through the covenant God initiated with Abraham. It is not genetics that established that relationship; it was God's promises. The larger fact of both Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) and the whole of the Bible is that God's covenant with Abraham was not the first covenant God made with humanity. Nor were those promises the first promises God made soteriologically.

The fact is all the covenants with God are covenants God initiated. Not a single human ever initiates any covenant with God, especially when it comes to salvation from sin. God starts the covenant, and He does so without ever asking anyone if they want Him to do so. God chooses the participants of the covenant, and He does so without ever asking anyone if they want Him to do so. God calls the participants of the covenant, and He does so without ever asking anyone if they want Him to do so. God commands the participants of the covenant, and He does so without ever asking anyone if they want Him to do so (and He does so with an expectation of obedience). If anyone bothers to search the scriptures for what I just posted it will also be discovered not a single choice is explicitly offered to anyone in a God-initiated covenant until after they are in the covenant. Look it up. As far as the covenant goes, it is monergistic. There are no neon signs labeling the process "MONERGISTIC! MONERGISTIC! MONERGISTIC!" but that is what is described.

When it comes to Israel this is evident by the famous passage when Israel is asked to choose life or death (Dt. 30:19). They've already entered the promised land. They've already been selected (chosen, elected). They already been called. They've already been commanded. They've already been empowered to live right and defeat all their enemies. God has already met His promises.


1 Peter 2:4-12
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

The converts to Christ are the promised holy nation, the nation of priests of which Abraham is their father. And this priesthood, the Order of Mel, in which you and I are members is a priesthood much higher than that of the Levitical Order (Heb. 5). God initiates the covenant monergistically. Many are called, but few are chosen.

 

[Josheb]

But the Bible does not teach Free grace. The Bible teaches that faith is required for salvation yes but it also teaches that Repentance is a requirement for salvation too. Paul also said that true Christians should not live in the sin.

Let's be thorough here because what the Bible teaches is that salvation is by grace through faith and it is a gift of God. That "it" is not grace and it's not faith, it the whole thing, the salvation that is by grace through faith is the gift, and it's not of ourselves. Furthermore, repentance is something granted to a person by God (2 Tim. 2:25) without which an unsaved person may learn and learn but never come to a knowledge of the truth that is found only in Christ (2 Tim. 3:7). True Christians are already saved.

John also gave a multitude of ways that a person could falsely come to Christ.

Scripture, please.

If free grace were true and all that is required for salvation is belief in a series of facts than why did John say that if you claim to be in the light yet live in the darkness you lie? These are just some examples of the Bibles whole entire message. The Bible does teach faith alone but it also describes what true God given biblical faith is and a faith that saves is never alone

If you're talking about the original audience of John's epistles then those folks were already saved. His letters aren't how to become saved, they are how to maintain salvation. The fact his readers are already saved is not as clear in his first letter, but his second is fairly explicit identifying his intended audience.

2 John 1:1-4
The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth, for the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever.... I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father.

The woman to whom he was writing was chosen, and her children know the truth (the truth that abides with John) and the children walk in truth. They are already saved. The same thing proves to be the case in his third epistle.

3 John 1:1-4
The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers. For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.

Gaius is already saved. He is not in need of salvation. John is writing as a regenerate convert to Christ to a regenerate convert to Christ, about the regenerate life as a regenerate believer.

If you claim to be in the light and live in darkness, then you lie..... you're not in the light. You were never saved in the first place.

 

[d taylor]

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

That is addressing the believer who hates his brother, the verse is not saying what you are trying to make it say. 1st John 3:15 does not state, no murder has eternal life in him. The verse states no murder has eternal life abiding in him.

As Jesus states
Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.

This would be the believer/murder does not have Christ abiding in him. He is left to his sinful nature, which may lead to a physical earthly death before their actual appointed time.

Like the verse before states
We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

 

[RandyPNW]

That is incorrect. Israel was not the nation promised Abraham.

We disagree. Since your arguments are predicated on this ridiculous notion, I can't continue. I don't know anybody who would agree with you, if he or she has any recognized standing on the matter? This is how all of the OT Prophets interpreted the Abrahamic promise, as fulfilled in Israel. It is ubiquitous.

God promised Abraham he would be the father of many nations, not one.

This was a double promise, one concerning the nation Israel and the other concerning many nations.

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to seed, and that seed is Christ (Gal. 3:16).

Yes, these promises are ultimately fulfilled in a Christian Israel and in a Christian community of nations. The promise was made to Abraham and to his seed, Isaac. Jesus is also descended from Isaac. The community of faith is a singular entity, the body of Christ.

 

[Guojing]

1st John 3:15 does not state, no murder has eternal life in him. The verse states no murder has eternal life abiding in him.

If you can do such mental gymnastics with scripture to form your doctrine, I rest my case then.

 

[Josheb]

We disagree. Since your arguments are predicated on this ridiculous notion, I can't continue.

No, the reason you can't continue is because everything I posted comes straight out of scripture and I provided the references to prove most of it.

I don't know anybody who would agree with you....

LOL! Most of Christendom holds these views. It is Dispensationalism that is the minority!

This was a double promise, one concerning the nation Israel and the other concerning many nations.

Got scripture for that.

Yes, these promises are ultimately fulfilled in a Christian Israel and in a Christian community of nations. The promise was made to Abraham and to his seed, Isaac. Jesus is also descended from Isaac. The community of faith is a singular entity, the body of Christ.

And nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. Isaac was also a son of promise, just as was Jesus, but Jesus was foreknown as such long before Isaac was promised, long before Isaac was born. Starting theology (or soteriology) 15-17 chapters into the book is like starting 15-17 chapters into "A Tale of Two Cities," or "War and Peace," claiming to know the whole truth. It's really, really, very bad practice.

The fact is the account of Isaac tells us Abraham also knew a lot more about the gospel than Galatians 3 tells us. Abraham understood a son would have to be sacrificed. Abraham understood the son, the sacrifice would be provided by God. In fact, during the vision Abraham had when God first initiated the covenant Abraham understood God Himself would walk through the sundered carcasses of the suzerain covenant and pledge fealty to Himself at the risk of his own life. It was not Abraham who walk through that ritual. Abraham knew there was a priestly king ruling the city of peace (jeru = city, salem = peace). Abraham left Ur going to a place where he knew he would receive an inheritance.

That inheritance was eternal life in Christ.

We disagree.

Yep.

Since your arguments are predicated on this ridiculous notion, I can't continue.

Well, you could but you won't. You could also walk with me through the scripture and let scripture decide the matter instead of employing logically fallacious arguments void of scripture.

Think about it.

 

[RandyPNW]

No, the reason you can't continue is because everything I posted comes straight out of scripture and I provided the references to prove most of it.

No, the Abrahamic promises are everywhere stated, both in Scriptures and in Christian literature. "Replacement Theology" is also ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean Israel was not the focus of the Abrahamic promise. Without Israel there would be no Church.

LOL! Most of Christendom holds these views. It is Dispensationalism that is the minority!

I'm not a Dispensationalist.

Got scripture for that.

Gen 12 and 17.

Commentary on Gen 18.1818 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation...
CLICK

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation,.... Which was fulfilled in the nation of Israel...

 

[d taylor]

If you can do such mental gymnastics with scripture to form your doctrine, I rest my case then.

-
​

This verse describes many people today, who identify as christain, you fit this description. As over the last year or more you have posted verse after verse, that has noting to do with receiving God's free gift of Eternal Life. But yet you post these verses stating these are conditions God requires for receiving Eternal Life. I say to you stop searching the Scriptures and believe in Jesus for Eternal Life, come to Jesus.

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

 

[Studyman]

That's true. God always has a remnant of faithful followers. However, I was speaking of Israel, the nation. God had promised Abraham a "nation." That nation failed, despite the success of a few individuals.

Paul said, and I believe him, that those in Israel who fell, did so as examples from God to us, so that we would learn through them, not to lust after disobedience as they also lusted. It also shows what the Jesus "of the bible" also says, that the path His Father created for Salvation is rejected by most, and few will enter. While the Path followed by those "Christians" in Matt. 7, "who come in His Name", is followed by "MANY".

Paul also told me that what happened to Israel, "happened to them" for examples specifically for my admonition. He knew men would believe they "standeth" just as the examples of "many" in Israel, but that we should "Take Heed", as did Caleb and the other examples of Faith, "Lest we fall".

So for me, the "Nation of Israel" didn't "Fail" at all. And God's Purpose for her was successful.

Rom. 11: 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies "for your sakes": but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

So the Nation of Israel "Didn't Fail" Randy. It's just that the "Many" who come in Christ's Name today, do not teach what the Scriptures teach. This is why Jesus said to "Take Heed" of them.

Yes, not saying the Law failed--just the practice of the Law.

Again, "NO ONE" ever, Jew or Gentile, "that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant" was rejected by God. As HE says, and I believe Him, "Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off." (Is. 56)

Neither Catholicism nor the Reformation teaches this truth from God. And of a truth, their PATH if Followed by "Many". This is why Jesus said to "Come out of her".

Same thing with the historic Church, including those who inherited the Reformation. Truth didn't fail--practice did. Idolizing Scriptures is not what Scripture represented. Turning Scriptural orthodoxy into a form of Legalism is not what the Scriptures called for. No, they called for proper observance of the truth--true Christian practice.

Wasn't Jesus an example of "True Christian Practice"? Caleb, Daniel, Abraham, Paul, James, Rahab, were they not examples of "True Christian Practice"? Transgressing God's Commandments in order to observe popular religious traditions of man is NOT "true Christian practice".

What is TRUTH?

The Pharisees rejected God's Judgments and Sabbaths and created their own. The Catholic's rejected God's Judgments and Sabbaths and created their own. The Protestants reject God's Judgments and Sabbaths and have created their own.

And guess what?????? Israel rejected God's Judgments and Sabbaths and created their own. Were we not told not to lust after the same evil things?

Which one of these religions, who profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate "Idolized Scriptures"?

Is it not the Truth, that these men were "Partial" in the Law? Didn't the Jesus of the Bible say they "Omitted" the weightier matters of the Law? Didn't Paul say they were given the Oracles of God but didn't believe them?

Where does this teaching of yours come from, that those that fell were those who "Idolized Scriptures"?

I think you misunderstand. I was talking about how Ezra and Nehemiah presented the need for reform even as Israel began to fail, morally, up until the time the majority in Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah. That was true.

Ezra and Nehemiah didn't promote "Reform" of God or His Word Randy. They promoted "return" to God and His Word.

Of course, there are always faithful believers who stand against the tide.

Yes, there are always faithful believers who "Yielded themselves" servants to obey God even when the "many" who professed to know God, didn't.

There have been many good Catholics. I'm not a Catholic-basher.

Those "MANY" Christians that Jesus judged as "Workers of Iniquity" that HE didn't know in Matt. 7, was Jesus being a "Christian Basher"?

The Jesus of the Bible warned me.

Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come "in my name", saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Is Jesus not, by your definition, "Bashing Christians" here? What other religion is HE talking about? Not the Pharisees, not Islam, not Atheists.

Or could it be that telling undeniable truth about a religion is not bashing them at all. But loving them, as Jesus loved the religions HE spoke to and about?

I just don't like some of their traditions, which tends to lead Christians into more of a ceremonial religion. But I don't question the intent.

It is the "intent" of the heart which produces fruit.

Focusing on the sectarian aspect of Catholicism too much does the opposite of what they intend, which is to unify all Christians. It tends towards an "us vs you."

You mean like when Jesus said.

Matt. 6: 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

So then, when Jesus isn't onboard with a popular religion, or the philosophies, doctrines and traditions they are promoting, even if they Come in His Name, HE is instructing His People not to be like them. "Him VS Them".

You preach that this is "Bad"?

So you're a separatist? Trouble is, separatism doesn't create unity among Christians either. And Jesus said the hallmark of the Christian witness is Christian unity.

I posted Jesus and Paul's Words, and I believe them over this world's religions that I was born into, does that make Jesus, Paul and me a Separatist? What Jesus is it that wants to unite everyone who "Comes in His Name" or "Calls Him Lord, Lord", or "Transforms themselves into Apostles of Christ"? Certainly not the Jesus "of the Bible".

Exactly! We can get so focused on certain doctrines or various traditions that we forget *Christ in us!*

I think you are missing the point of Christ's Words and His Warnings. EVERYONE who calls Jesus Lord, Lord, that "Comes in His Name" believes or claims that "Christ is in them". Their preachers convince everyone of that first. As it is written in the beginning "Thou shall surely not die".

But with "many" HE doesn't even know them. So here we are, full circle to the Examples God had written for our admonition. "12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

Certainly, doctrines are critically important, but so is how we live out those truths.

Catholic Truth is different than your Truth, which is different than JW truth, which is different that LDS truth. Catholics live out their truths, you live out your truths, JW theirs, LDS theirs, SDA theirs and so on.

Jesus said the Word's HE spoke is Spirit and Life. His Father's Word is Spiritual, Good Just and Holy. If I have HIS Word in me, then I have HIS Spirit in me. I advocate living by, not the "many" philosophies, doctrines and traditions of the religions of this world God placed me in, but as my Master instructs. "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Brother, I've been a Christian my entire life, and I began to get serious about my faith more than 50 years ago. But I accept that we are brothers in our "journey." God bless!

Amen

Lev. 19: 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

 

[Josheb]

No, the Abrahamic promises are everywhere stated, both in Scriptures and in Christian literature.

Tell me where the Abrahamic promises are stated in Genesis 4.

"Replacement Theology" is also ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean Israel was not the focus of the Abrahamic promise. Without Israel there would be no Church.

Irrelevant. Nothing I have posted has anything to do with Replacement Theology (I am not a subscriber to that pov). Nice red herring, though.

I'm not a Dispensationalist.

Glad to read that. What are you?

Gen 12 and 17.

Meaningless unless and until you elaborate your position.

Commentary on Gen 18.1818 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation...
CLICK

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation,.... Which was fulfilled in the nation of Israel...

Extra-biblical source. On any occasion that Gill contradicts scripture then Gill is wrong. That's not an opinion or a matter up for debate. If scripture is true, correct, and authoritative to all that it speaks then scripture trumps Gill (and every other extra-biblical source to which you OR I might appeal).

I posted scripture.

Engage the scripture.

 

[Guojing]

Irrelevant. Nothing I have posted has anything to do with Replacement Theology (I am not a subscriber to that pov). Nice red herring, though.

When you made this claim

Israel was not the nation promised Abraham. The Jews thought so, but not the New Testament writers. The nation God promised was a nation of priests (Ex. 19:6). Peter tells us that nation is those converted to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

That claim has everything to do with replacement theology, even if you refuse to admit.

 

[Josheb]

When you made this claim

That claim has everything to do with replacement theology, even if you refuse to admit.

No, it doesn't. There were plenty of Jews and plenty of Gentiles in Peter's holy nation of converts to Christ God Himself had chosen. Those "royal priests" came from many nations, both Jew and Gentile.

Replacement Theology teaches the Church replaces Israel. I never once said any such thing. It is not what I believe. It is not a theology to which I subscribe. Please do not EVER wrongly imagine ANYTHINIG I ever post should be construed to affirm RT. We clear on that?


Now get back to the point(s) made. I posted scripture. I did not embellish any of it. I posted what scripture states. If all we had was the Old Testament we'd think one thing about this passage or that but we do not have only the OT. We have the NT and the newer revelation reveals a lot about what was said in Tanakh. Relying on the NT proves very important because the Jews mucked up a lot. Tanakh is correct. Judaism is not. The two are not identical. Much of Jesus' teaching in the gospels was spent correcting the messed up beliefs and teachings of the Jewish leaders and the theology they taught the common Jew. It's also very important because there is a large portion of Christendom that thinks the OT is more important than the NT and the emphasize the Old over the New. They can be recognized because their posts are filled with OT quotes and few NT quotes. What NT verse are quoted tend to be proof-texted and unrelated to the OT quotes. When they are asked, "What does the NT say about that OT text you quoted?" the typical response is either confusion, red herring, or ad hominem. They Judaize the NT and aren't aware they are doing so. I tell you this because I want you to pay attention to what is posted - NOT what you wrongly imagine was posted.

God called, chose, commanded and promised Abraham and He did so without ever asking Abraham if he wanted any of it. God also preached the gospel to Abraham and Abraham understood a great deal of the Christological particulars. God also promised His people would be a nation of priests. If all we had was the Old Testament, then we'd think salvation was only for Jews and the nation of priests would be made only from Jews in Israel. We'd think the temple was a building made of stone, and the throne of Christ a wooden chair (both made by men).

But the New Testament teaches something much different. It has nothing to do with my doctrine, your doctrine, or anyone else's doctrine. It is what scripture actually, specifically, explicitly states when ALL of it is taken as a whole. No one needs to filter that through any extra-biblical doctrine at all.


Reformed theology begins with the beginning, not Abraham. According to the New Testament, salvation began before the beginning, but no one would ever know that if all they had was the OT and they started their doctrine fifteen chapters into Tanakh with Abraham. We are not Jews.

We are Christians!

There are no Jews or Gentiles in Christ because the wall of enmity has been torn down and the two are made one by God. Do I need to post the verses that actually explicitly state what I just posted?

 

[Guojing]

Replacement Theology teaches the Church replaces Israel. I never once said any such thing. It is not what I believe. It is not a theology to which I subscribe. Please do not EVER wrongly imagine ANYTHINIG I ever post should be construed to affirm RT. We clear on that?

Israel was not the nation promised Abraham.

The nation God promised was a nation of priests (Ex. 19:6)

Peter tells us that nation is those converted to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

These are statements you made correct?

If more than 1 reader of your statements can come to that same conclusion, why not ask yourself why are they thinking that way?

 

[Josheb]

Israel was not the nation promised Abraham.

Yep. That's what I said.

The nation God promised was a nation of priests (Ex. 19:6)

Yep. That's what I said.

Peter tells us that nation is those converted to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

Yep. That's what I said.

These are statements you made correct?

Yep, BUT it was not I who said them. These are all things plainly stated in God's word and I posted either a qute of the verse or its address in the Bible. If I happened to miss any reference I can and will gladly provide that information.

If more than 1 reader of your statements can come to that same conclusion, why not ask yourself why are they thinking that way?

Not only is that off-topic and irrelevant, it's also a red herring because we all already know the answer: doctrinal bias.


Assuming we all hold one common belief: the authority of scripture, We must all bow to scripture whenever and wherever our doctrine(s) conflict with the explicit statements of scripture. Scripture is not always explicit. Because scripture is not always explicit it becomes necessary to make inferences. No one can escape inferences. However, many inferential debates can be avoided by simply beginning with and sticking to the explicit statements - the things that do not require any inferences at all. When inferences must be made they should be made exegetically,, not eisegetically. An exegetical inference is vastly different than an eisegetic one. It's not always easy to identify an eisegetic, or doctrinally biased inference, but when any position reached by eisegesis conflicts with the plainest, explicit statements of scripture then it is the inference that is incorrect, not scripture.

I posted scripture.

I have yet to post a single doctrinal position. This conversation has not progressed sufficiently to require the assertion of any doctrinal position. I'm a presuppositionalist. That means I try to get underneath our biases, the assumptions with which we assert our case, the unstated givens we may or may not be aware of when we post. That's why I often bring up Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism starts with a set of assumptions that begin with the assumption there is a division between Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists don't prove this, they assume it. That means every single conversation about Reformed theology with a Dispensationalist is going to end up with the posters talking right pass one another. This is why the matter of Replacement Theology needed to be sorted out. That's why I don't post doctrine and I don't argue doctrine. I post scripture and I ask my fellow posters - no matter their theological or doctrinal orientation to look first at what scripture states, what is explicitly states, not what it can be inferred to say.

Scripture explicitly states the gospel was preached to Abraham.

That's not a biased opinion. That's not a doctrinal statement. That is an explicit statement, explicitly stated in scripture. It's not up for debate and if you think it is up for debate then please let me know right now because I will not waste my time trading posts with posters who deny what is explicitly stated in scripture. That applies to "more than one reader," too. There could be five hundred billion gazillion posters in here disputing Galatians 3:8. There could be two. The number of disputers is irrelevant and those who think it is relevant are arguing an ad populum fallacy. They are not only factually wrong, their argument is logically fallacious. That's two conditions fatal to whatever alternative they might assert. Furthermore, since the Holy Spirit never argues irrationally (because God is a God of reason; Isa. 1:18; Acts 17:2), we ALL know anyone arguing against what is plainly AND appealing to one of many logical fallacies is not doing so led by the Spirit. They are posting from the flesh. That could be true of you, me, or anyone else in any thread in any forum. Argumentum ad populum, appeals to a majority or to what is popular, is fallacious. It has no place in this discussion.

This op is about why (or why not) Reformed Theology is the Protestant Theology closest to the Bible. Personally, I think that statement is in and of itself problematic because it implies there are non-Prot theologies closer to the Bible, which in turn implies RCCism or EOism are "closer" to the Bible (and presumably better theologies). The statement could be read as bait. I choose to assume the statement is intended to foster a discussion of Reformed Theology, and not some other, unstated, theology because if that were the case this entire thread would be disingenuous from the start. I don't trade posts with insincere, disingenuous, inauthentic posters, either. I do not, generally, insert doctrine into a thread unless doctrine is the subject explicitly being discussed. That proves to be the case on this occasion.

We should still start with scripture, and the most explicit scriptures we have, read, accepted, and believed exactly as written.

The gospel was preached to Abraham (long before the nation of Israel existed, and long before any Jews existed). That's not a point up for debate. The meaning of that explicit statement - the meaning relevant to this op - might be debated, but the statement itself cannot be disputed.




So let's get back on topic and reason through the topical conversation scripturally and rationally. Discard the fallacious appeal to the hypothetical majority and get back to what was actually posted. It might do us both some good to go back and re-read the posts and follow the flow of the cases asserted. If you specify a point of agreement or disagreement, I'll pick up the conversation from there as long as it is op-relevant.

 

[Guojing]

Yep, BUT it was not I who said them. These are all things plainly stated in God's word and I posted either a qute of the verse or its address in the Bible. If I happened to miss any reference I can and will gladly provide that information.

Do you know why the nation of Israel needed to have 3 fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob? (Exodus 2:23-25, Exodus 3:6)

Where is your scripture that says "Israel was not the nation promised Abraham?"

 

[Josheb]

Do you know why the nation of Israel needed to have 3 fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob? (Exodus 2:23-25, Exodus 3:6)?

Yes

Where is your scripture that says "Israel was not the nation promised Abraham?"

Asking someone to prove a negative is irrational. I provided scripture stating Christians are the nation promised Abraham. If that was not understood then go back and re-read the posts.

 

[Guojing]

Yes

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

If you agree that the nation of Israel needed 3 fathers, including Abraham, your claim "Israel was not the nation promised Abraham" is contradictory to that agreement.

You really cannot see it, or you simply refuse to see it?