Interplanner
Well-known member
Ie, summarize what it means IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Do NOT paste various versions/translations here. Your own original summary only.
ECT Calling D'ists: please render Acts 13:32-39
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION]
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are a free person, STP. Go ahead and render the passage in your own words.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It means exactly what it says, in 6th grade English.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Thanks,
what was promised to the fathers was fulfilled in the resurrection so that we could be justified by faith!
Excellent. Although I don't know if 6th graders would appreciate the justification part...
The fact that this is in a complete review of Israel's history and is supported by Ps 2, 16 and Is 55 is sufficient to show that this is a DONE DEAL on the topic of what was promised to the fathers. Everything we say or think on the topic must corroborate this, repeat it, echo it.
The fact that Is 55 says the things promised to David are now Christ's is further to the point that he is not 'missing' or 'overlooking' anything; the Isaiah passage already covered it and said those things were transferred to Christ, which is why the apostles were so bold to proclaim what they did about Acts 2 that Jesus is now LORD AND CHRIST as David foresaw.
You're getting closer. But I thought you were articulate and intelligent. You're actually an evasive person who doesn't really know what he thinks on his own feet. You can't put such simple concepts in your own words.
what was promised to the fathers was fulfilled in the resurrection so that we could be justified by faith!
Excellent. Although I don't know if 6th graders would appreciate the justification part...
The fact that this is in a complete review of Israel's history and is supported by Ps 2, 16 and Is 55 is sufficient to show that this is a DONE DEAL on the topic of what was promised to the fathers. Everything we say or think on the topic must corroborate this, repeat it, echo it.
The fact that Is 55 says the things promised to David are now Christ's is further to the point that he is not 'missing' or 'overlooking' anything; the Isaiah passage already covered it and said those things were transferred to Christ, which is why the apostles were so bold to proclaim what they did about Acts 2 that Jesus is now LORD AND CHRIST as David foresaw.
You're getting closer. But I thought you were articulate and intelligent. You're actually an evasive person who doesn't really know what he thinks on his own feet. You can't put such simple concepts in your own words.
Rubbish.
For if there is anyone on TOL able to put in his own, very, very simple and succinct words what he holds to, it is STP - bar none.
Whether one agrees with what he holds to or not might be a different issue, but no one on here is able to post their views in as simple, as straightforward, in as succinct a manner as STP.
Would that I could be as succinct.
Oh, wait a minute - just now, I managed just that. :chuckle:
But my point still...stands. :thumb:
Rom. 14: 5; 5: 6-8.
Interplanner
Well-known member
So where is his summary in his own words? He's scared spitless. "What it says" does not count, is unintelligent, is anti-intellectual, is intellectually dishonest, etc. We disagree on "what it says" so WHAT DOES IT SAY?
Which is where things go South between people - in each their "what it MEANS to me, by what it SAYS."
Thus, to assert "it means what it says" actually says nothing at all, other then whatever said individual has concluded "it means" to them and or whomever happens to agree with them.
Granted, there are times when a passage means what it says.
"Christ died for our sins."
But not always - "Lazareth sleepeth" only appears to "mean what it says."
Unless the Lord was a Bullingerite and was thus referring to Bullinger's erroneous "soul sleep."
At times, a passage will both mean what it says, and say what it means.
Just as often, many passages will not clearly say what they mean by what they say.
"Behold, we shall not all sleep..."
Too much cafiene, maybe?
Anyway, Acts 17: 11, 12.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
THE promise, singular.
I've requested many times: please show us the change in the promise in Acts 13 (You never will)
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It means exactly what it says. You pervert it. Why?
musterion
Well-known member
To me it seems to align with what he wrote in Romans 10:9-10.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
Because he is referring to ALL OF IT. "Whatever was promised" means if there is any unfinished business, it is now complete, exactly like 2 Cor 1.
Your frame of mind is so narrow and simplistic you can't imagine this being the case. So I'm sitting here like the professor in LION, WITCH AND WARDROBE asking: 'what are they teaching in schools these days?'
Interplanner
Well-known member
You just keep rebelling against the Bible.
'hoti tauten ha theos ekpeplaroken' is 'the things promised, what God promised, what ever God promised' just go do some real grammatical Greek work. It is as plain as day.
That is why he can seemlessly refer to the promises (plural) to David and say they are given to Christ. It is saying the same thing as Acts 2:30 to which you are also in rebellion. Because of the core belief of Chafer that the Bible does not make sense without 2 programs.
'hoti tauten ha theos ekpeplaroken' is 'the things promised, what God promised, what ever God promised' just go do some real grammatical Greek work. It is as plain as day.
That is why he can seemlessly refer to the promises (plural) to David and say they are given to Christ. It is saying the same thing as Acts 2:30 to which you are also in rebellion. Because of the core belief of Chafer that the Bible does not make sense without 2 programs.
musterion
Well-known member
The context of three whole chapters in Romans is national Israel.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Is it? Or is the question whether anything was going to be done with national Israel, which is a mistaken conception according to v6-13. that is why the question comes up from Jews: Is God unjust (v14) (does God have the 'right' not to fulfill promises to the race when he meant the faith-full all this time? Yes! Absolutely yes, is the answer of Rom 9-11).
Remember, Israel as such is totally at fault here: it is trying to establish its own righteousnes, instead of submitting to God's righteousness in Christ for all nations! 9:30--10:4) They are trying to establish their own by making the race as such recipient of what is only for those who have faith--the world to come of Rom 4 and 8. Israel is in the way of the mission work that they are supposed to be doing. God was very close to scrapping them about it, but used several of them, for ex., Paul. He finally did scrap them as a group in the DofJ (there are always exceptions because the question is faith, not race). Know history vs no history.
Do you think God's plans for Israel are finished?
You are not getting the obvious - that you are not really saying anything by that other than what you, and those who agree with you, think you are saying by that.
What you are actually saying, unaware that you are, is that "it means what" you think "it says."
That is how words are meant to function.
Duh-uh
They are meant to result in our reading a thing into them - by - how - they - are - used - in relation to the who, what, where, when, and why of a thing - in - any - given - moment.
Meaning, that often, no word of the Scripture is any private interpretation, or origin - does not stand alone, is instead often reliant upon other passages for one's understanding of its intended sense.
The question is not this over simplified "it means what it says" of yours, rather, "is what one has concluded 'it means' by - "what - says" what it is actually saying?"
That is two issues, not this one you have oversimplified it into.
You ever heard the expression "that was not what I'd meant, when I said that"?
That is two issues, not one.
John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 11:12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 11:13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
That is two issues, not one.
But there is no pointing this out to you, absent of really breaking it down to you - if even that has a chance of getting through to you.
For thus far, you have proven very set in your way, for one still so young, in contrast to all these old bats on here siding with you.
Thus, your various odd conclusions - like your conclusion that Rom. 2:17 is talking about proselytes, or that the promise in Galatians is other than what the passages - together - identify it as being; and other of your odd non-Mid-Acts conclusions.
What all that is, is YOUR oversimplified "it means what it says..."
Its time you and your pals contact one of the various Mid-Acts Based schools for their "manual" on HOW TO properly study a thing out.
From a consistent Acts 9 Perspective - not from that and your crystal clear erroneous hybrid or mix of that with the ever chockful of errors in approach that is the Acts 28 Position.
But you and your pals well know you are not about to do that.
That your Acts 17: 11, 12 is mere lip service.
Sheesh, what a way for you to start out the new year - still stuck in the hard headed refusal of the old.
Nevertheless, Prov. 27:17.
Calvinists use Romans chapter nine to prove God's providence, which they typically call sovereignty.
Your proposal changes the following verses' meaning, compared to the Calvinists' version.
| Romans 9 Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Romans 9:14 KJV Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Romans 9:19 KJV What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. Romans 9:30 KJV |
And the way to what you have been after is not the way of going by "well, this that this individual is saying makes sense, I think I'll run with it."
That is no more than a different version of your prior, Calvinist vacuum.
What you are doing is going by the reasoning of men that an IP's entire outlook was so long ago blinded by.
There is no reasoning with the guy - he long ago lost his mind in his OVER reliance on the ever endless "perhaps this" that; the other, that is "the traditions of men."
Might as well hand a stranger one's wallet under that kind of a self-delusion; under conclusions based on "perhaps" they will return it, untouched...
The way of attempting to understand the Scripture through books supposedly "based on" or "about" it - OVER relied on.
The thing to do is to wrestle with Romans 9 itself - like Jacob did with that angel - until it gives you its answer.
What does said wrestling with look like?
Endless questions about what operating principles does Paul appear to be not only making use of, but also, pointing back to as to other possible operating principles?
What one is to seek out first, is the answer to the question "what is this house here comprised of - what possible operating principles does it appear to point back to?"
Once those are identified, then they are applied to attempting to understand the intended meaning of what is being said.
One then also now has various operating principles in hand by which to attempt to study out the intended meaning of other, in this case, of Paul's various assertions.
See all this here...
Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
All imply a study approach of some sort was being applied.
It behooves each of us to work it all backwards from its results, to the operating principles said results cannot but point back to.
For as the following asserts - The Scripture is more than able to make known to its more diligent student, its intended meanings...
Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Rom. 14:5; 5:6-8.