If God can replace Israel, He can replace the Church, too

Clare73 said:

I don't understand it that way from "IF" instead of "WHEN." (Ro 11:23)
"IF" they believe, not "WHEN" they believe.

Israel's rejection of Christ has put them on the same footing as are all rejecting mankind, no carve outs. . .salvation is only by faith in Jesus Christ.
And God is saving Israel the same way he is saving the rest of rejecting mankind. . .through a remnant only.

Click to expand...

2 Chron 7.14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

If my people, then I will hear. That's "if" and "when."

The promise of Salvation is non-discriminatory, not having a thing to do with race or nationality except that God promised it would happen for all races and for all nations. That means racial idenity and national identity remain important to indicate all races and all nations have been included--not just Israel.

God did not say He would only save a remnant of Israel politically. He promised that just a remnant of Israel would remain "His People," or Spiritually Saved, in the present age.

The promise God made to Abraham was for a whole nation--not just a remnant. Therefore, the entire nation must experience a complete political deliverance, leaving an entire nation intact.

This is distinct from the importance of individuals getting saved spiritually. But it is important to God that a nation adopts Christianity, just as important as it is to Him to have an individual adopt Christianity. Social Justice is important to God, just as important as it is to have individuals experience Spiritual Salvation.

ViaCrucis said:

Holy God. Holy Almighty. Holy Immortal. Glory to You.

Click to expand...

The Trisagion, the central liturgical hymn of the Eastern churches.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Concerning the “millennium,” the Church does not endorse a definitive interpretation of Revelation 20. She rejects both a naïve literalism and the extremes of millenarianism (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 676). The thousand years may be understood symbolically, but the Church remains open to various theological readings, provided they do not contradict the definitive return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgement.

Click to expand...

Chiliasm was formally rejected by the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381 and is the reason why the Creed says of Christ our True God “His Kingdom shall have no end.”

My understanding is your church regards the Council of Constantinople as ecumenical despite that being the only one of the ancient councils where you had no legates present or made any representations, unlike at Nicaea or Ephesus.

RandyPNW said:

2 Chron 7.14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

If my people, then I will hear. That's "if" and "when."

Click to expand...

1) No, that is "if" and "then."
2) That text has no bearing on Ro 11:23: "if," not "when."

Clare73 said:

1) No, that is "if" and "then."
2) That text has no bearing on Ro 11:23: "if," not "when."

Click to expand...

You clearly did not see the relevance I meant to convey between the "when" being a "then!" It was meant to show you that the "if" condition can result in a "when" condition. "Then" it will happens indicates "when" it will happen.

If Clare repents she may or may not get saved. It depends on whether she perseveres in her repentance and fully embraces Christ.

But if Clare repents and follows through, *then* she will get saved. That is a *when,* indicating that the conditions being proposed can be fully met.

RandyPNW said:

You clearly did not see the relevance I meant to convey between the "when" being a "then!" It was meant to show you that the "if" condition can result in a "when" condition. "Then" it will happens indicates "when" it will happen.

If Clare repents she may or may not get saved. It depends on whether she perseveres in her repentance and fully embraces Christ.

But if Clare repents and follows through, *then* she will get saved. That is a *when,* indicating that the conditions being proposed can be fully met.

Click to expand...

"Nice" try. . .but somewhat lacking in "accuracy."

"When" means actual occurrences in the future,
"if" means occurrence only after certain conditions are met.

Ro 11:23 uses "if" (conditional), it does not use "when" (unconditional).
"And IF (conditional) they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in". . .it's not "when (unconditional) they do not persist in unbelief, . . ."

Ro 11:23 is not an unconditional but is a conditional guarantee. . .which condition has not been met in 2,000 years.
Those are the facts of the matter. . .

Clare73 said:

"Nice" try. . .but somewhat lacking in "accuracy."

"When" means actual occurrences in the future,
"if" means occurrence only after certain conditions are met.

Ro 11:23 uses "if" (conditional), it does not use "when" (unconditional).
"And IF (conditional) they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in". . .it's not "when (unconditional) they do not persist in unbelief, . . ."

Ro 11:23 is not an unconditional but is a conditional guarantee. . .which condition has not been met in 2,000 years.
Those are the facts of the matter. . .

Click to expand...

Actually that was my whole point. I gave you the conditional aspect, and I gave you the actual result when those conditions are met. We are promised that an entity, national Israel, will meet those conditions. Then it will result in their national salvation. They will meet the "if" requirement.

RandyPNW said:

Actually that was my whole point. I gave you the conditional aspect, and I gave you the actual result when those conditions are met. We are promised that an entity, national Israel, will meet those conditions.

Click to expand...

Not in the apostolic teaching (Ro 11:23) of Christ (Lk 10:16). . .where it is strictly conditional, and not guaranteed.

Clare73 said:

Not in the apostolic teaching (Ro 11:23) of Christ (Lk 10:16). . .where it is strictly conditional, and not guaranteed.

Click to expand...

Are you actually trying to prove a point based on the assumption that only Rom 11.23 is "apostolic teaching?"
As I've said repeatedly, the Apostle John was an apostle, and his Revelation, though prophetic, symbolic, and apocalyptic, was still of "teaching" value. If you don't think so, then you've removed the value of inspired Scripture from biblical canon.

Clare73 said:

which condition has not been met in 2,000 years.
Those are the facts of the matter. . .

Click to expand...

Your argument is correct.

Of course, there is no cause for dismay: many individual Jews, perhaps even a majority, converted (if we look at the ethnic heritage of the Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, and related churches around the mediterranean, there is a lot of Jewish conversion to Christianity, in that Jews formed either a majority or the plurality of the original membership of these churches and the members of them are still significantly Jewish with regards to their ethnic heritage.

RandyPNW said:

Are you actually trying to prove a point based on the assumption that only Rom 11.23 is "apostolic teaching?"
As I've said repeatedly, the Apostle John was an apostle, and his Revelation, though prophetic, symbolic, and apocalyptic, was still of "teaching" value. If you don't think so, then you've removed the value of inspired Scripture from biblical canon.

Click to expand...

Prophecy is not teaching (didactics), prophecy is subject to more than one interpretation, even contradictory ones, as long as they agree with NT doctrine.

Clare73 said:

Prophecy is not teaching (didactics), prophecy is subject to more than one interpretation, even contradictory ones, as long as they agree with NT doctrine.

Click to expand...

Sorry, one teaches from biblical prophecy. Prophetic Scriptures are authoritative and can be taught. Your attempt to classify Scriptures into different types has little bearing on your notion that anything other than Didactic Style is clear, whereas all else invites several interpretations.

Again, I agree with Scripture that Moses was given an unusually straight forward and direct revelation in Genesis through Deuteronomy. I believe that was because the Law had to be very carefully presented.

In the same way, Jesus taught his Apostles directly and intimately, to ensure that we have the story right, and to ensure that we can place our faith on something directly from the Savior. But even if some things are crystal clear in the Gospels, and some things parable, we are never invited to have arbitrary interpretations, or "several interpretations."

Your view of the central value of "didactic material" is not, I think, an acceptable way of interpreting Scriptures, since it seems to reduce the value of non-didactic material.

RandyPNW said:

Sorry, one teaches from biblical prophecy. Prophetic Scriptures are authoritative and can be taught.

Click to expand...

Prophecy can be interpreted in more than one way, the only rule being correct interpretation will be in agreement with NT didactics, for God does not contradict himself in his word.

Clare73 said:

Prophecy can be interpreted in more than one way, the only rule being correct interpretation will be in agreement with NT didactics, for God does not contradict himself in his word.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and regarding prophetic scriptures, we are rebuked by the Holy Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21 who warns us that no prophecy is of any private interpretation (in the Syriac Peshitta it has the meaning of as “no prophecy is an exegesis of itself” according to Murdoch). From this we can infer that attempts at understanding the prophecy outside of the understanding of the early Church are unlikely to produce correct results.

The Liturgist said:

Indeed, and regarding prophetic scriptures, we are rebuked by the Holy Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21 who warns us that no prophecy is of any private interpretation (in the Syriac Peshitta it has the meaning of as “no prophecy is an exegesis of itself” according to Murdoch). From this we can infer that attempts at understanding the prophecy outside of the understanding of the early Church are unlikely to produce correct results.

Click to expand...

Did the apostles interpret much prophecy apart from Messianic?

Clare73 said:

Prophecy can be interpreted in more than one way, the only rule being correct interpretation will be in agreement with NT didactics, for God does not contradict himself in his word.

Click to expand...

Your purpose seems to be to question the authority of all Scripture if it does not agree with your sense of "NT didactics?" Of course, Scripture agrees with itself, Law, History, Poetry, Prophecy, etc. But the idea that Scripture agrees with NT fundamentals is as old as the hills, though it does not tend to marginalize any of these categories. Harmonizing them with a NT perspective merely helps us to understand them as a whole.

Of course, it becomes important, when we do this, to ensure that our core NT teachings are correct to begin with. To suggest there is a body of Scriptural knowledge that is more discernible and more authoritative goes well beyond what the purpose of harmonization is.

We bring the Bible together with an eye to NT Theology because that is our religion. That is therefore our perspective. Since the OT Scriptures were written before the NT unfolded, it is not necessary to have the New Testament to recognize both the authority and the truth of OT Scriptures. It is simply explained by the NT Bible to aid Christians in understanding how we see their purpose fulflled.

All Scripture can be interpreted in more than one way. Obviously, Christians begin with the NT Scriptures, viewing Law, History, Poetry, Wisdom, and Prophecy all with this in mind. The OT Scriptures were authoritative and inspired in their own right before the NT Scriptures came into being. They did not need the NT Scriptures to be understood within the confines of the Old Covenant of Law.

The NT Scriptures merely help us to understand the OT Scriptures in the light of a fulfilling Covenant made by Jesus. It succeeds and overshadows the Old Covenant inasmuch as the previous Covenant was intended to be perpetual for Israel only up to the point where it was broken and repaired by introduction of a whole new covenant that completes the temporary purpose of the Law in a fully mature and final deal.

Your assumption that apart from NT Didactics the OT Scriptures, especially OT Prophecy, is given with the option of multiple interpretations is false. It was never given with the option to disobey the Law, unless one wanted to be branded as rebellious and sinful. Within the scope of OT Law it was clear what Prophecy invited, namely obedience and attention to every element of the Law. It did not invite any other interpretation.

Now that the NT has come into play, we understand how the previous Covenant is fulfilled in the New Covenant. This has nothing to do with confusing what the OT Prophets had said, or written. What the Prophets meant to say in their own generation was perfectly clear to them. They had to obey the Law as long as it was in effect.

Clare73 said:

Did the apostles interpret much prophecy apart from Messianic?

Click to expand...

It appears that everything they interpreted they interpreted in a Christological manner in accordance with Luke ch. 24, as referring either to the Incarnation or the Eschaton.

Which makes sense since if we read Scripture for a non-Christological purpose we are misreading scripture.

RandyPNW said:

Your purpose seems to be to question the authority of all Scripture if it does not agree with your sense of "NT didactics?"

Click to expand...

All of the NT is didactics, except for Revelation, which is prophecy, which God says he speaks in riddles (dark sayings) and not cleary (Nu 12:6-8)

RandyPNW said:

Of course, Scripture agrees with itself, Law, History, Poetry, Prophecy, etc. But the idea that Scripture agrees with NT fundamentals is as old as the hills, though it does not tend to marginalize any of these categories. Harmonizing them with a NT perspective merely helps us to understand them as a whole.
Of course, it becomes important, when we do this, to ensure that our core NT teachings are correct to begin with. To suggest there is a body of Scriptural knowledge that is more discernible and more authoritative goes well beyond what the purpose of harmonization is.

Click to expand...

We bring the Bible together with an eye to NT Theology because that is our religion. That is therefore our perspective. Since the OT Scriptures were written before the NT unfolded, it is not necessary to have the New Testament to recognize both the authority and the truth of OT Scriptures. It is simply explained by the NT Bible to aid Christians in understanding how we see their purpose fulflled.
All Scripture can be interpreted in more than one way.

Click to expand...

Not in agreement with the rest of the NT and, therefore, correctly.
Prophecy can be interpreted in more than one way, and which way being correct, if any, not really being known until its fulfillment.

The Liturgist said:

Indeed, and regarding prophetic scriptures, we are rebuked by the Holy Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21 who warns us that no prophecy is of any private interpretation (in the Syriac Peshitta it has the meaning of as “no prophecy is an exegesis of itself” according to Murdoch). From this we can infer that attempts at understanding the prophecy outside of the understanding of the early Church are unlikely to produce correct results.

Click to expand...

OT Prophecy did not invite non-Christian interpretations. It simply was written before Christianity had come into existence. It did not need NT revelation to be understood within its own legal context. It simply looked forward to its fulfillment and to the understanding of its fulfillment after Christ arrived.

I say this not because I disagree with your statement, but because you are responding to someone who believes the matter of Futurist Interpretation can be settled strictly by NT interpretation of OT prophecy. I don't think that's possible because the different positions do not have a fixed NT orthodoxy that decides this issue, in my opinion.

RandyPNW said:

OT Prophecy did not invite non-Christian interpretations.

Click to expand...

Any interpretation of prophecy today not in agreement with NT didactics is incorrect.

RandyPNW said:

It simply was written before Christianity had come into existence. It did not need NT revelation to be understood within its own legal context. It simply looked forward to its fulfillment and to the understanding of its fulfillment after Christ arrived.
I say this not because I disagree with your statement, but because you are responding to someone who believes the matter of Futurist Interpretation can be settled strictly by NT interpretation of OT prophecy. I don't think that's possible because the different positions do not have a fixed NT orthodoxy that decides this issue, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

It's not NT interprettion of OT prophecy. It's interpretation of prophecy in agreement with apostolic teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16).

We have the rule by which to judge; i.e., NT didactics.