[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dancing

No. Then you don’t believe God is a God of His Word.

I would counter that you are not focused on what he actually said, but on what someone tells you that he said that he actually did not say. God is a God of his word. But you assume that the words he spoke were universally endless rather than timely and pertinent to the "present" (the time of the speaking).

We get into the same argument with people who declare that if God is not willing that any should perish, and he is all-powerful and is therefore able to make it so that none actually perish, that he must necessarily do so. That presumes that restraint cannot be exercised in opposition to his own will.

What you are insisting upon is that a promise made in the time of their wandering and on the brink of entering the good land was intended to be an everlasting fact for all times and was required to be observed in a very outward way by Christians otherwise their salvation is suspect. (If you think you have not said this, then you need to review your own posts.) Show me where and how it is clearly intended as for all times and in all ways without assuming that God does not put limits on his statements or make contextual statements.

Originally Posted by Dancing

You believe that what was promised to the Jew is annulled once they as a nation failed to receive His Messiah. Correct?

Incorrect. At least in part. But the fact that the covenant was not annulled does not mean that every promise made in every circumstance at a point in time remains and that all going forward are still bound by it. You are making an assertion about the perpetual effect of something that in some cases was not meant in terms of perpetual until the time of Christ. Or even until the person(s) to whom a particular promise was spoke were no longer around.

Originally Posted by Dancing

But I say to you, and the Bible says to all of us, that God is a God of covenant. What does this mean? It means He keeps His word. He doesn’t say, “Ooops. You blew it. I’m done with you. All my promises are null and void.”

You are assuming that everything God ever said becomes part of the covenant. If that is the case, then there could be no exile. And if there was, then there could be no return. These are not "oops" things. They are part of the workings of God.

The key in all of this is that even the story of the Jews is not simply their story, but the story of God. It is the story of his bringing his own "right and wrong" back to mankind. Of returning mankind to the proper status. yes, he chose Abraham and his descendants to have it brought about in men rather than through an "act of God."

Originally Posted by Dancing

If this is your take on God’s character then what’s to stop Him from disowning you or me?

Did you read the part (in Romans, I think it was) where he said to the Gentiles that they better watch themselves or they could find themselves as broken branches just like so many of the Jews. Do you at least have some concern that there could be a form of disowning in that? Or do we just declare that Calvin is right and ignore it. Maybe it is not simply disowning. But it reads as something pretty serious.

And I might wonder about God's character if there weren't at least some consequence for our actions after believing.

Originally Posted by Dancing

So truth is to exist without experience? Really?

Absolutely. Truth is solid and real. Experience is fleeting and fickle.

You ask whether feeling invalidates the truth. You must have read what I said while standing on your head. I said that feelings validate something but it may not be truth. Truth is truth whether you feel it or not. It doesn't matter if you like it. If it is true then it is true.

I would agree that the Christian experience must be consistent with the truth they claim. And there is a history of having the strongest and best theology that they really don't believe because they don't actually live as if it is true.

But that is not the kind of experience I was talking about. I was talking about experience in terms of a feeling. If you feel it then it must be true. If you feel good about it, then it is OK. Didn't you get enough of that kind of manipulation of thought through feelings in the LRC? Get stirred-up positively at the time that something actually nonsensical is being taught and you are likely to swallow it hook, line, and sinker because you felt good about it.

You are right that the Greek mindset was more on getting the thoughts straight and expecting that everything else would then be OK. But if you instead rely on your feelings, emotions, etc., which are what comes out of "experience" you could be coming to trust in something that is not even remotely true or trustworthy. What was it that was said, how can they believe if they have not heard. It has to enter through the mind to be processed then accepted. And despite the uber-Calvinist view of grace, there is a step that must be taken by man before he obtains salvation. It is not any kind of "work." But you have to believe. Have faith. Even just a little. Then the salvation is granted. After that, the experiences begin. And by that, I mean the living out of the faith you claim to have.

Originally Posted by Dancing

Let me clarify one important thing: I am NOT saying that God loves Jews more than others and that we should also. I AM saying that God chose them and we are to honor His selection.

But nothing I have suggested so far stand against this. His choice is honored. The question is not whether God's selection is honored. It is whether we are required to specially honor the Jews as a result.

Originally Posted by Dancing

By showing deference and appreciation to the Jews we are merely following His prescription for world salvation.

And here is the clincher. His prescription for world salvation was Jesus. Yes, the Jew named Jesus. But that salvation comes from trusting and belief in him, not in his Jew-ness. "Believe on the Jew-ness of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

I see how God carried out his plan. It was detailed and lengthy. It started with mankind that rejected him as their source. It went downhill from there. Then it sort of stagnated until he decided to call Abraham. A man who probably had worshipped some idols prior to that calling. Then his offspring grow in number and eventually dwell in the land of Canaan. But due to lack of diligence to remain faithful to God and his commands (and promises), they were taken into captivity for 70 years. After that, besides the return of some, they were then scattered all over the earth by various means. Then after a little time, Jesus came. Their Messiah. And they didn't recognize him. Of course, that was expected and even prophesied about. But without that, part of the plan would not be complete. Death, burial, and resurrection. And the edict to go tell the world of the salvation of Jesus Christ.

Not the salvation of Jesus Christ along with a special love for the Jews. Just the commands that he gave which were all summed up in love God and love your neighbor as yourself. And Jews are among those neighbors.

. . . .

That is a good song. I've sung it recently. But songs are not the source of theology. They may contain good theology. But sometimes they don't. It is better to get your theology from somewhere else, just in case the song is not quite theologically sound.

Originally Posted by Dancing

Very doctrinal. Christ is a Jew. He came as a Jew and He returns as a Jew to rule from Jerusalem. How can you honor Christ without honoring His Jewishness?

Of course. Just as you can honor me without honoring my "overwieghtness" or my baldness (well, bald spot on the crown of my head). Not saying that being a Jew is a negative thing. But it is a trait. And the traits of Christ that are important are that he was God and man (without respect of ethnicity), was perfect and sinless, died as a sacrifice for the sins of all, died and was buried, then rose from the grave and provides us with the right to rely on his sacrifice to stand in the place of our own need to die to answer for our sins. Nothing in that required him to be a Jew other than that he started off (as a man) from within the people that God had chosen generations past for the purpose.

You are imbuing factors not important to salvation with greater weight than scripture does.

Originally Posted by Dancing

Your doctrine is too abstract, impractical. God's not that way. He is very, very practical and simple. Just read His Word and believe it. Don't assign it to some past age. He is timeless as is His Word.

Never did any such thing. But neither can you say that because it was once said or promised in a context that it is, by definition for now and for you. Otherwise we should never have a need for water because we could always just speak to a rock and water would pour forth. I know. You will dismiss that one as ridiculous. The difference between you and me is not that I think there are defined limits on some things, it is that we differ on where those limits reside and where they do not. You are convinced that if there it not a stated limit that it is limitless. Or if it is not ridiculous to think it is applicable now, then it simply must be. I look at it more completely. Is there a reason for the command, declaration, promise, etc., that is less than universal and timeless. If so, then it must at least be considered that it could have been only for the time.

Even like the single statement by John in Revelation where there is a woe to anyone to adds to or removes from the words of this prophecy (or something like that). Which words? The ones in Revelation? Or the ones in the existing Bible (mostly OT, but not all NT). Or the OT/NT was eventually to be? Seems that most think the whole Bible. I don't really care since I do not intend to add to or subtract from any of it. But I think it may have only been referring to Revelation.

Originally Posted by Dancing

No, not religion, culture. Their culture was designed and built by God. We can read ALL about it in the Old Covenant scriptures. There’s SO MUCH to learn from it.

Sorry. This is really off the rails. I will refrain from saying much more other than to suggest that someone really does not understand the Bible and they have taught you well. Another Lee with a different shtick.

Originally Posted by Dancing

I seems to me you’re the one ignoring context. Your Christ is in a very small compartment. That compartment seems air-tight and inflexible. Is your concept of Yeshua growing or changing to agree with God’s Word? If you want to grow I tell you you’ll limit your own growth as you limit God. Yes, the prayer of Jabez can be misapplied, but please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! There are timeless principles here!

Small compartment? Mine is equally the God of all mankind. Yours is the God of those who appreciate the Jews. That is not the gospel. It might actually be a different gospel.

And Christ is not entirely flexible. There are many who have determined that since Christians have been able to find their way to equality for women, an end to slavery, and so many other closely-held beliefs and practices, that we can find our way to anything, like open acceptance of practicing homosexuals. As you rightly said, you have to agree with God's word.

And the new covenant is not a covenant of the lineage of man, but the gift of God. It must be understood in the context of the current culture, but is firmly founded in the truth of God. And the truth of God as proclaimed as the "gospel of salvation" is not predicated on anything about Jews or Judaism. You say that we don't have to favor the Jews, but then you effectively say we must.