So this is my personal favorite verse.
"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
I'm sure many of you have heard the argument that this verse is taken out of context by most of us who claim it because it was written at a particular time (during the Babylonian exile) to a particular group of people (Jews in exile) and was a specific promise from God for them to remain in hope because He was going to bring them back to their land (of which He did at the end of the 70 years of exile).
Now - I know this is not how we should interpret the promises in Scripture... and that if we do this with one promise we must do it with all of them (such as placing the scriptural promise of salvation in cultural context ONLY). Obviously that is not correct.
The question I would love to hear from you guys on is how do you respond to this argument? It is an argument that is gaining ground in the Calvinist circles (of which I deal with on a constant basis in my area!).
Aside from a pad answer... what defense do you bring against this stance on Scripture?
"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
I'm sure many of you have heard the argument that this verse is taken out of context by most of us who claim it because it was written at a particular time (during the Babylonian exile) to a particular group of people (Jews in exile) and was a specific promise from God for them to remain in hope because He was going to bring them back to their land (of which He did at the end of the 70 years of exile).
Now - I know this is not how we should interpret the promises in Scripture... and that if we do this with one promise we must do it with all of them (such as placing the scriptural promise of salvation in cultural context ONLY). Obviously that is not correct.
The question I would love to hear from you guys on is how do you respond to this argument? It is an argument that is gaining ground in the Calvinist circles (of which I deal with on a constant basis in my area!).
Aside from a pad answer... what defense do you bring against this stance on Scripture?