All Israel will be Saved: Romans 11:26

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by asterisktom, Aug 16, 2010.

  1. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    All Israel will be Saved
    Romans 11:26


    Did you catch the misquote in the title? No? Just wait, we will get to that.

    This passage is one of the most (deservedly) famous of verses in the Bible. I don't know how many sermons I have heard, books and web sites read, over the years that made good - or ill - use of these words in Romans 11:26.

    THE POPULAR VIEW: FUTURE MASS CONVERSION OF NATIONAL ISRAEL
    The most usual interpretation that I heard takes into account the verse before:

    "For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" Rom. 11:25

    The most-common explanation of the passage is that at the time of Paul's writing and up through our time God had switched His attention from His chosen people (national Israel) and turned it more fully on the Gentiles - all those who are not Jews. In order to flesh out this scenario other presumably related verses are pressed into service, most notably Zechariah 12:10 and Revelation 1:7:

    “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.” Zech. 12:10

    “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.Rev. 1:7

    The popular view as taught by two dispensationalists: John Macarthur and John Piper:
    "So, what [Paul, in Romans 9] is saying is, Israel was set aside, yes, temporarily and partially. And in their setting aside, the riches was turned to the Gentiles. After the Gentiles fullness has come in, after the church is complete (that's what that means) God will go back and redeem Israel. Zechariah tells us exactly how. He says, “They will look on Him whom they have pierced and they will mourn for Him as an only son.” That is an indication that their salvation comes about directly as a relationship of their focus on Jesus Christ. At that point, they will be saved. And, then He will fulfill His covenant, verse 27, He will take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, now, they have become enemies for your sake. In other words, their setting aside affected the salvation of the Gentiles. But, as touching the election, in other words, in God’s eternal purpose, they are the beloved for the Father’s sake, for God cannot change His covenant. His gifts and callings are without repentance, and so, He will bring them back. There is no question that He will bring them back. But, the bringing back has to be around the truth of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Macarthur, 1980
    Original page here: http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-Q-14.htm


    Closer to the gist of the text are Piper's comments:
    "The apostle Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 that Christians “wait for [God's] Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” Jesus is the “the Deliverer” (ton heruomenon) from God's wrath to come. The closest parallel in the New Testament to this word “Deliverer” is found in Romans 11:26, where Paul describes how “all Israel” will be saved. Verse 26: “And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, ‘The Deliverer (ho heruomenos) will come from Zion [meaning Jerusalem or the heavenly Jerusalem], he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.

    "So we see that this Deliverer is Jesus Christ. He is the one who will save “all Israel,” and his salvation will be from “the wrath to come.” And the way he will do it is by “banishing ungodliness from the people,” as we see in verse 26: “He will banish ungodliness from Jacob”—that is, from all Israel. And he will forgive their sins. Verse 27: “And this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” So Israel will be saved when Jesus Christ, the deliverer, comes from Zion and (1) takes away the ungodliness—that is, the hardening—from Israel and replaces it with faith [recall verse 23, “if they do not continue in their unbelief , they will be grafted in”), and so (2) their sins will be forgiven, and (3) they will be grafted in to the tree of salvation and promise as one people with the Gentiles who believe in Jesus.
    ...
    "Now how is this going to happen? I don't know the details, but it seems to me that Paul does mean that in connection with the second coming of Christ there will be a great turning of Israel to Christ. Just how it works, I don't know. But I find certain prophecies very suggestive. For example, Zechariah 12:10, “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.” And Isaiah 6:8, “Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment? For as soon as Zion was in labor she brought forth her children.” And Matthew 23:39, where Jesus says to the hardened nation: “I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

    "I don't want to go beyond what is clear. So I say that I am not sure about the precise when and how of Israel's conversion. But that it is coming and that it will be given by Jesus Christ, the deliverer who banishes ungodliness and forgives sins—of that I feel sure.
    Original page here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2004/164_All_Israel_Will_Be_Saved/


    Both of these explanations have much in common. Both link together Old Testament prophecies with still-future fulfillment. Piper seems more careful to acknowledge his unsureness on just how this could possibly play out, yet nevertheless ends with certainty that the Dispensational scenario will indeed play out just as envisioned.

    PROBLEMS WITH THE POPULAR VIEW
    But is this the correct view? Will there be this extraordinary national conversion of Israel sometime in the future? Biblically there are several problems that come up. As we consider and deal with these problems, a better interpretation, hopefully, begins to present itself.

    TEXTUAL PROBLEMS
    Did you find the misquote? The problem is not in the words, but in the sentence itself. By quoting this phrase - "All Israel will be saved." - all together like that the impression is given that the original was one small sentence. Well, in the Bible the sentence is much more involved. And this makes a big difference. Here is the whole sentence:

    "For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

    “The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
    And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
    For this is My covenant with them,
    When I take away their sins."
    Romans 11:25 - 27

    In my Greek New Testament from the beginning of verse 25 to the end of verse 27 (the quotation from Isaiah) is all one sentence. Let us work outward from our main sentence - or what we perhaps thought was a sentence! We now have: "...and so all Israel will be saved,". "And so" can better be interpreted as "and in this way" or "and thus". This already makes a difference because now we have to ask: In what way? The answer is twofold: both before and after the phrase. This from an earlier article of mine:
    "Context: This is where many, many translations and paraphrases do us a great disservice. How? Well, they effectively isolate "All Israel shall be saved" from the rest of the sentence! Did you know that the original sentence extends both before and after that more famous sound bite? The NIV and others especially separate the previous thought, cutting the sentence up. The sentence should read:

    "For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and so [that is, in this manner] all Israel will be saved..."

    There are two clarifications as to all of Israel's being saved.
    A. It will be "in this manner" - the manner just described in the previous phrase: It will consist of both Jew and Gentile, the latter taking advantage of a blindness of the former. These two groups, Jews and Gentiles will thus make up the total number of the redeemed, the Israel of God.

    B. It will be "as it is written" - according to the two passages cited by Paul. This brings us down to the third hermeneutic principle."

    End of the quotation of my previous post here at Baptistboard. No use reinventing the wheel!

    The rest follows.
     
  2. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    All Israel will be Saved: Romans 11:26, Part 2

    All Israel will be Saved
    Romans 11:26, 2nd Part

    A CLOSER LOOK AT
    "Until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in"
    This phrase (Greek ACHRIS HOU) that is translated here by the word "until" can also be translated "while". See Acts 27:33, Heb. 3:13: "but exhort one another daily, while [not, until] it is called “Today,”". So, if this interpretation is correct, the idea would be that, while part of Israel is being blinded, at the same time the Gentiles are being saved. The result of this will be that all of Israel (those who are inwardly Jews, the "Israel of God") will be saved. I admit that a number of writers who generally have the same position as I do on Israel do not have, however, have this particular view on the word "until". At any rate, I offer it for your consideration.


    PROPHETIC PROBLEM

    Whenever a prophecy from the Old Testament is written about, and when possible fulfillment of the same prophecy is put forth then, it seems to me that our attention should first be given to any passage in the New testament that claims to fulfill the prophecy. Am I being unreasonable in saying this? If we have a prophecy given - and then later in the Bible we are told "Here is the fulfillment." shouldn't that be touched upon?

    Well, this is exactly what Macarthur and Piper did - or rather, didn't do:

    They both brought up Zechariah's "They look on Me whom they pierced" (Zech. 12:10), posit Revelation 1:7 as the fulfillment - yet make no mention of John 19: 36 - 37, where the Bible says clearly that this is the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10. Here is the passage in John, Note the underlined parts:

    33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. 36 For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced. John 19:33 - 37

    Two Scripture were fulfilled here. The one that concerns us is that second one. My question is: Why did Piper and Macarthur - and most futurists, for that matter - pass over this stated fulfillment in silence. They ought to have at least dealt with the passage, even if they believed in a double fulfillment. The fact that they made no mention of this fulfillment casts doubt upon the validity of their interpretation. We cannot ignore Scripture because it doesn't fit out system. If John was inspired to say Zech. 12:10 was fulfilled at Calvary how dare we say otherwise?


    DEFINITION PROBLEM: What is a Jew?

    This a more serious problem for the opposition to contend with. Paul had already disclosed his definition of what a Jew was. Romans 2:28 - 29:
    "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." Romans 2:28 - 29

    So, many who were physically Jewish, were not really Jewish in the most meaningful sense. Additionally, in Gal. 3:26 - 29, Paul shakes up the very foundation of nationalistic Judaism by proclaiming to the Gentile Galatians...

    "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:26 - 29

    There is both subtraction and addition going on here, spiritually speaking; Many who pride themselves on their Jewishness are not really Jews, spiritually speaking. On the other hand, many who were total strangers - and often treated as such by physical Jews - are now included in the commonwealth of Messianic promise and divine grace. What a turnaround this is!


    THEMATIC PROBLEM

    An additional and related problem is Paul's - and the Bible's - repeated theme, in Romans 2 and elsewhere, that there is no lasting spiritual advantage in being a Jew. God is not a "respecter of persons". God, Jesus said, is able to raise up from the very stones "sons of Abraham". Being a Jew was (past tense) only advantageous insofar as they were able to put to use the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2) in that that transition period of the New Testament times to embrace the New Covenant. Those who were noble, like the believing Bereans of Acts 17:11, compared those Old Testament oracles with Paul's preaching and made the saving connection.

    Not only was the Jewishness of the 1st century Israel not a spiritual advantage it became, because of their hardening themselves to the Gospel light, it became a damning liability. By the time of the Book of Revelation they became those "who say they are Jews, but are not" and the "synagogue of Satan"!

    The point of all this is that it would be very inconsistent for all of this to change in the future for all of the Jews to saved en mass. They cannot be the synagogue of Satan in Revelation, all the while being "beloved for the sake of the fathers" (Rom. 11:28). God cannot deny Himself, neither will He alter His calling of those He has chosen. This brings us to the last objection.

    Last part follows.
     
    #2 asterisktom, Aug 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2010
  3. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    THE PROBLEM OF CONSISTENCY
    This has to with both the nature of the Gospel, once-delivered to the saints, and to the very nature of God. Jude 3 makes an important statement concerning the Gospel:

    Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. Jude 3

    Our salvation is a common salvation - not as in ordinary, but as in being in common. We all share the same salvation.

    Our faith - the Faith of Christianity - was once for all time delivered to all Christians ('the saints"). The perfect tense means that the results of the action, once accomplished, is permanent. It is not like the fairy-tale usage of "once upon a time".

    Believing that there would be a different kind of faith in the future for the mass of Jews supposedly who will come to be saved, and a salvation other than our common salvation, is contradicting the Word of God. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."


    Faith will always come by hearing of the Word proclaimed.
    Faith will never - never - come by seeing Christ's nail prints as He comes in the skies. If they don't mourn now because of their offenses against God's holiness, in common with all Christians, they will not mourn then when they are given an object lesson of their unbelief.

    If they disbelieve the Word now, they will not be persuaded then by a sign. No sign will be given.

    This brings us to Luke 16. The rich man in Christ's account, after a life of ignoring God, woke up in the torment of the next life. For the first time - too late - he is awakened to his spiritual condition. He also is concerned for his brothers still living. He pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus from the dead to warn them so that they won't share in this torment. Abraham answers that his brothers "have Moses and the prophets [today this would include more: "They have the whole Word of God"] let them hear them." But the rich man realizes this would not be sufficient. Verse 30 - 31 complete the account:

    "And he [the rich man] said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

    The last words of Abraham to the rich Jew will be my last point in this article: There is no better, or other means of coming into the Kingdom than by Christ, the Word of Life. If we do not believe the words in the Bible we have no other way to be saved. Neither will the Jews, either now or anytime in the future.

    For God to save the entirety of Jews living at some point in the future would require for Him to give them an opportunity that he did not give to the rich man's brothers. If God would do this, the rich man would have had cause to bitterly complain that God was being unfair to him.
    They were not given a sign.
    They were not given a glimpse of someone warning them from the dead.
    And neither will future Jews be given any such advantage.


    CONCLUSION

    The interpretation of Romans 11:26 that sees all of Israel in some future point of time being saved has serious and insuperable problems. That interpretation does not at all best explain the context of the verse or the passage. It ignores entirely Paul's assertion concerning the true spiritual nature of Israel and, consequently, Jews. It overlooks Paul's application of the cross-references in Isaiah, as well as the nature of spiritual Zion. Even more seriously, this view would rewrite, for a certain favored future group of fortunate saints-to-be, the very nature of the Gospel. Yet, because God has made certain assurances to us concerning this Gospel and the way of salvation, the integrity of God Himself would be called into question - if there truly would be this anomalous imagined future move of God.

    Positively stated, these problems all disappear when we realize that God is building His Kingdom, the Zion of God, of Jews and Gentiles enjoying our common salvation. Because all those of faith are sons and daughters of Abraham they also inherit the promise given through Christ.

    These promises are attained through faith.

    We read them.
    The Spirit of Christ opens our eyes.
    We believe them.
    We live in them, rejoice in them.
    Hallelujah. They are ours forever.


    All the promises of God are Yes and Amen in Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. 1:20.
    There are no other promises, either looked for or needed.
     
  4. lastday

    lastday
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lastday

    Tom,
    You write:
    Your view places the total fulfillment of Zech.12:10 at the Cross because the Jews "mourned"...thus contradicting Paul's argument that Israel's salvation was future to the "fullness of the Gentiles" which certainly did NOT occur between AD 33 and 70. You reject the "futuristic fulfillment" in favor of "all Israel having been saved" before John predicted Israel would "mourn". You automatically erase the issue from any discussion!

    You confuse the Purpose for Israel's salvation, i.e., blessing to ALL nations:
    FIRST, God's is still "completing the building of the Body of Christ" before the houses of Ephraim and Judah (Israel AND the Jews) are reunited a "second time" as His People...in order that all mankind might come to Jerusalem to worship God. Hosea puts 2000 years after Jesus rejected them as His People and "returned to heaven" for "two days"! Hosea 5:14 to 6:2.

    SECOND, Jesus endorsed Hosea by stating that Israel would suffer the "days of wrath and vengeance" upon them "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled...until all things that are written are fulfilled"!! Luke 21:22-24.

    THIRD, Your attempt to completely fulfill Zech.12:10 and Rev.1:7 (by FAITH in AD 33 rather than by SIGHT at the Second Coming) contradicts your own position that "every eye saw Him coming" after Paul was dead. You think ALL Israel was saved WHILE the spiritual Kingdom was "given to the Gentiles"!!!
    Mel
     
    #4 lastday, Aug 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2010
  5. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Tom: Is Piper a dispensationalist? Check that.

    One does not have to be a dispy to hold the "popular" view. I know of many historical premils and amils that believe in some kind of national salvation of the Jews in the future. But I agree with your view on it. "All Israel" that shall be saved is elect, believing Israel, consisting of people of all nations.
     
  6. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Mel, after reading your other comments on the other thread I don't even want to bother writing you. I didn't read what you wrote here. Not interested in discussing with a person like you.
     
  7. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    I probably should have written that part differently. I meant to say that on this issue of Israel's future national salvation I would say he takes a dispensational interpretation.
     
  8. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    I'm just nit-picking but while he might agree with dispensationalists in that there will be a future national salvation of Israel, is it accurate to say that he "takes a dispensational interpretation"?

    Remember, the covenantal view for those that hold this position differs from dispensationalism in some major ways.

    Covenant: Israel is "saved" by receiving Christ and enters the Church by the same evangelical means and participates in the same covenant signs (ordinances) as believers do today.

    Dispy: Israel is "saved" by physically seeing "him whom they pierced" and enter into some kind of Mosaic-flavored fulfillment of the New Covenant.
     
  9. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good post!
     
  10. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, so you are only here to teach us and not discuss opposing views. Gotcha.
     
  11. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    No, you don't "got me". There is more to this than apparently meets your eye.

    If you want to discuss what I wrote, webdog, go for it. I will gladly discuss whatever is on your mind. But not if you keep writing things like the above. Show me you are interested in mature, respectful give-and-take and I will oblige.
     
  12. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is more to it that apparently meets your eye as well. This applies with all of us. When one side has a "theology eureka" moment, any such debate is usually futile. You based your entire lack of response on this thread to a mature, respectful post to an unrelated thread elsewhere. Excuse me if I find your proposal a little too good to be true.
     
  13. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    I saw a response from you and thought "Oh good, he wants to discuss something from my post." No such luck. You are just whining about my attitude and motives.

    Fine. Don't respond. When I get back from my errands I will respond to others here. You, however, are a waste of time and require no more comments from me. My proposal is not "too good to be true". But it no longer concerns you.
     
  14. lastday

    lastday
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lastday

    Thank You Webdog for exposing Tom's Riggle's hypocrisy which he admits:
    Tom's hypocrisy was revealed in the thread on Matt.10:23 by his remark that
    he refuses to "waste time with anyone not worth talking to". On the 2 Thess.1
    thread he distorted the truth by claiming the Thessalonians were given "relief,
    but not rest". I challenged him on this in post #92 (reference #65) and he did not respond. In that same post Logos claimed that, in the Matt.24 passage, there was "NOTHING that told them His coming (Presence) would be 'as quick as lightning'" (that "no one will be caught up from the earth" and that there is "no such a thing as
    a future "end of time"...and neither of them responded.

    On Christ's "Physical Coming" thread during Sunday and Monday, Tom took part with me in only one post (in which there were 228 viewers) but refused to respond to my answer to his question! He had already "weeded himself out" of talking with Winman and me becasue
    we are not "worth talking to" (his words)!! He
    was curious about my belief that 200 million Muslims could be "kept alive" at
    the SC...but he refused to continue regarding his own question!!!

    Now, in his new thread, he continues his hypocrisy by thinking he obeys the warning John gave concerning those who are "of o antichristos"!
    2 John 7-11. Tom obviously thinks Winman and I do not "hold the doctrine of Christ...and so should not be received into his house nor be bidden
    'God speed' lest he share in our evil deeds"!! But if he is among those who "scoff
    at the continuance of Christ in the flesh", as John and Peter warn, then he
    should, or at least his heretical teachings, should be avoided by all means!!!
    Mel
     
    #14 lastday, Aug 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2010
  15. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    I probably should add this, J.D: The only thing that Piper is a Dispensationalist, as far as I know, is in regard to Israel. Anyone who holds out for this belief in an en masse conversion of Israel (or anyone else) is, by the very nature of the thing, putting forth a different way of God dealing with people in regard to salvation. That makes it a different dispensation.
     
  16. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    I responded to your first question in my other post in this thread. Hopefully that is sufficient. If not, I don't mind going further into this.

    BTW, I didn't mean to seem to castigate Piper. I do appreciate much of what he has written. For that matter the same goes for Macarthur - though, ever since his anathematizing of Preterists - I feel less warm fuzzies about him. But I do have several books of his on other topics that have been very helpful.

    Also, about Covenant theology: That too can get kind of tricky. In the sense of believing in two basic ages of God's dealing with man: "this age" and "the age to come" (AKA the present Kingdom Age) I am a covenant theologian. I do also believe that we also can break it down further into Noahic, Mosaic, New Covenant, etc. But I do not read the idea of "covenant" all the way back to Adam. I don't believe that He was offered a covenant. The definition of "covenant" (per Sproul, for instance) does not seem to fit the case of Adam.
     
  17. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom, it seems like those who ask you questions you don't want to answer are somehow labeled by you as someone not worthy to converse with. Maybe you should have taken more time off than three weeks; it looks like you need it to get your attitude right.
     
  18. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Mel, why are you such a bitter man? You are 90 years old. We usually come to expect from people as old as you, if not wisdom, at least a certain amount of graciousness. We are in your case profoundly disappointed.

    So close to meeting God, so far from acting godly. If I am truly hypocritical, brother, pray for me. Don't just spew hate at me.

    Or, if you want to be really devious, you can be nice to me. And that will pour coals of fire on my head. Your call.
     
  19. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ask away, Robert. I am all ears.Don't just join in the attack. Discuss the issue at hand.

    For your information I am not responding to lastday (well, I broke that rule just now) when he said such things as "How low will Tom Riggle stoop?" and calling me a heretic. He didn't just "ask me questions".

    And calling someone's attitude into question is kind of a tricky proposition. It implies that your own attitude is spotless (Is it?). Wouldn't it be better for you to be gracious to me, give me the benefit of the doubt. That way we both continue to enjoy God's grace in full measure. I don't know about you, but I always need it.

    But, no, I am not going anywhere this time. The break did me good.
     
    #19 asterisktom, Aug 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2010
  20. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the "Christlikeness" that really comes through in you trying to teach all of us inferior subjects on your vast wisdom and theological superiority.

    I'll continue to ignore your posts...but just wanted to point out your hypocrisy, arrogance and un-Christlike behavior for the list. Carry on in your proselytizing of the baptist board... (backing out of the room bowing low)
     
    #20 webdog, Aug 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2010

Share This Page

Loading...