Who are God's chosen People?

[Josheb]

You know me; I assert Systematic Theology is a Valid form of Argumentation, and requesting a Verbatim Verse from the Bible before you will agree can be a deflection.

When has anyone here ever seen me post a deflection? Often suspected, never realized.

I am not disputing the validity of systematic theology, only the use of undefined terminology. When a term is used that isn't a "Verbatim Verse from the Bible," the simplest, most direct and efficient way, imo, to address that fact is to simply acknowledge the fact. Then we instantly have common ground and all the lurkers can see us building from consensus (instead of suspicion or deflection). As I noted, I can get five different definitions from five different posters (but none of the definitions would be known until provided). As I also noted, this op came from a conversation I was having in another forum with a JW. The problems of equivocation, ambiguity, and false equivalence should be avoided, yes?

So....

Just tell me what you mean by "Spiritual Israel" (and I would prefer your definition, not Berkhof's, Geisler's, Grudem's, Hodges', MacArthur's, etc.).

 

[Josheb]

I'm not interested in arguing for it, because I feel it doesn't need defending...

I'm simply endeavoring to have a discussion about the answer to the question asked in the title of this op.

...but I might be interested in Moderating a Private Debate between you and another Poster...

Do you remember the Debate Rules?

I do remember. If you find someone interested in taking a position opposing what I have posted as my answer to this question, I'll consider it (but you do understand "winning" a debate may prove nothing because when two errant povs are debate one may win but neither be correct ).

 

[Josheb]

Yeah Spiritual Israel, and i don't believe that phrase is in the bible, its a understanding thing.

Do you think it important to be able to define phrases not found in the Bible, or "understanding thing" phrases?

 

[ReverendRV]

I'm simply endeavoring to have a discussion about the answer to the question asked in the title of this op.

I do remember. If you find someone interested in taking a position opposing what I have posted as my answer to this question, I'll consider it (but you do understand "winning" a debate may prove nothing because when two errant povs are debate one may win but neither be correct ).

Sure Brother. The Children of Promise are what Systematic Theology calls Spiritual Israel...

I'm not wrong, am I?

 

[Eleanor]

Do you think it important to be able to define phrases not found in the Bible, or "understanding thing" phrases?

Spiritual Israel would be those who believed in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16), as did Abraham, which faith was reckoned (imputed) to him as righteousness (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:3).

That excluded a lot of Israel in Jesus' day, including among its leaders.

 

[makesends]

Yeah Spiritual Israel, and i dont believe that phrase is in the bible, its a understanding thing.

I agree. Maybe it's off topic, but there's plenty of times we've seen where extra-biblical 'made-up' words, phrases and other constructions are used to describe things the Bible doesn't specifically say. They do tend to be dangerous in that they imply (or people infer from them) things that are slightly (or largely) skewed from Biblical principles. This one (Spiritual Israel) is not one of those. Most of those, one could probably come up with a better construction, but I don't find one better than 'Spiritual Israel' to say what is intended by it IN SCRIPTURE.

 

[brightfame52]

Do you think it important to be able to define phrases not found in the Bible, or "understanding thing" phrases?

Its not important that you think its important, oft times Truth must be discerned and derived from other truths in scripture and not necessarily in the letter.

 

[brightfame52]

I agree. Maybe it's off topic, but there's plenty of times we've seen where extra-biblical 'made-up' words, phrases and other constructions are used to describe things the Bible doesn't specifically say. They do tend to be dangerous in that they imply (or people infer from them) things that are slightly (or largely) skewed from Biblical principles. This one (Spiritual Israel) is not one of those. Most of those, one could probably come up with a better construction, but I don't find one better than 'Spiritual Israel' to say what is intended by it IN SCRIPTURE.

If you are sharing truth in scripture, its not going to be always a verbatim statement, but derivative from understanding basic scriptural concepts. For people to demand a verbatim word phrase is nothing but a debate tatic to make themselves look right.

 

[makesends]

If you are sharing truth in scripture, its not going to be always a verbatim statement, but derivative from understanding basic scriptural concepts.

Something derived from basic scriptural concepts is often more wonderful-sounding to the person delivering the "truth from scripture" than it is to God, or to someone of a different piety. This is where falsehood is 'derived', too, in all its forms.

For people to demand a verbatim word phrase is nothing but a debate tatic to make themselves look right.

Not always, but yeah, often —probably most the time.

 

[Josheb]

Sure Brother. The Children of Promise are what Systematic Theology calls Spiritual Israel...

I'm not wrong, am I?

No, you are not wrong but that begs the question, "Who are the "children of promise"? Surely a systematic theology defines its terms (and supports its definition with scripture).

Let me see if I can help further this exchange with a little background. I encourage you to read through at least the first few pages of the thread but some important features of scripture relevant to the phrase "children of God," is that the phrase is nowhere found in the OT! The variation of that phrase "My children," is found only twice in the OT (!), and both uses are in the prophets and references to a future group of people. Yet...... we live in a time when many Christians believe bloodline Jews alone are the children of God. Those that hold a different viewpoint often cannot well-articulate that viewpoint (as is testified to in this thread) and when asked to do so the conversation breaks down. As I stated early on in this thread, this op was prompted by a conversation on this topic I was having (mostly) with a JW, but many non-JWs weighed in (included several Dispies and one Bahai'i. The odd thing for me was that very few accepted what I posted (which is what I have repeated here in this op in this thread in this forum).

Many think the children of promise are the bloodline Jews of geo-political nation-state Israel. That would make Post 144 read, "Sure Brother. The [Jews of geo-political nation-state, bloodline Israel] are what Systematic Theology calls Spiritual Israel"... and I am exceedingly confident that is not what you intend or believe. I have, in fact, had disagreement with many of the Reform-minded members of this forum over the identity of the "promised seed," and a variety of inconsistencies then arise. The only ones who will read Post 144 as intended are those sharing the same definition. As I previously stated, many will agree with the statement but because of the problem of equivocation that perceived agreement will be incorrect. Terms have to be defined (even in systematic theology).

 

[brightfame52]

@makesends

Not always, but yeah, often —probably most the time.

And then to top it off, they will turn around and make a statement that isnt verbatim in scripture to make their point. Go figure

 

[Josheb]

Its not important that you think its important, oft times Truth must be discerned and derived from other truths in scripture and not necessarily in the letter.

That is not an answer to the question asked. Neither does it address or resolve the problem of equivocation. It is, however, a recipe for subjectivism and relativism. No discernment can ever contradict the written word. What can be "derived" from scripture is derived from reason and sound exegesis. Whole scripture defines its terms.

 

[ReverendRV]

No, you are not wrong but that begs the question, "Who are the "children of promise"? Surely a systematic theology defines its terms (and supports its definition with scripture).

Let me see if I can help further this exchange with a little background. I encourage you to read through at least the first few pages of the thread but some important features of scripture relevant to the phrase "children of God," is that the phrase is nowhere found in the OT! The variation of that phrase "My children," is found only twice in the OT (!), and both uses are in the prophets and references to a future group of people. Yet...... we live in a time when many Christians believe bloodline Jews alone are the children of God. Those that hold a different viewpoint often cannot well-articulate that viewpoint (as is testified to in this thread) and when asked to do so the conversation breaks down. As I stated early on in this thread, this op was prompted by a conversation on this topic I was having (mostly) with a JW, but many non-JWs weighed in (included several Dispies and one Bahai'i. The odd thing for me was that very few accepted what I posted (which is what I have repeated here in this op in this thread in this forum).

Many think the children of promise are the bloodline Jews of geo-political nation-state Israel. That would make Post 144 read, "Sure Brother. The [Jews of geo-political nation-state, bloodline Israel] are what Systematic Theology calls Spiritual Israel"... and I am exceedingly confident that is not what you intend or believe. I have, in fact, had disagreement with many of the Reform-minded members of this forum over the identity of the "promised seed," and a variety of inconsistencies then arise. The only ones who will read Post 144 as intended are those sharing the same definition. As I previously stated, many will agree with the statement but because of the problem of equivocation that perceived agreement will be incorrect. Terms have to be defined (even in systematic theology).

Thanks for the concession; that's all I need. I'm the type of Poster who tries to say things we should all agree on. After that, I feel as if things are finished. The Church of God are the Children of Promise for today, and Theology calls Us Spiritual Israel; that's all. To me, a thing that's resolved, doesn't need to be further explored. I'm a Fundamentalist; that may help you understand me. Fundamentals are Unasailable, as Scripture is Unasailable...

 

[brightfame52]

That is not an answer to the question asked. Neither does it address or resolve the problem of equivocation. It is, however, a recipe for subjectivism and relativism. No discernment can ever contradict the written word. What can be "derived" from scripture is derived from reason and sound exegesis. Whole scripture defines its terms.

I dont have any problems

 

[Josheb]

I dont have any problems

Still not an answer to my question and equivocation is a problem. It's an easily resolved problem so there is no warrant for the appeal to personal subjectivity. Just provide a definition!

Are you paying attention to this @ReverendRV ? Peruse Posts 20 and 24 and 30.


.

 

[Josheb]

Thanks for the concession; that's all I need. I'm the type of Poster who tries to say things we should all agree on. After that, I feel as if things are finished. The Church of God are the Children of Promise for today, and Theology calls Us Spiritual Israel; that's all. To me, a thing that's resolved, doesn't need to be further explored. I'm a Fundamentalist; that may help you understand me. Fundamentals are Unasailable, as Scripture is Unasailable...

Well then, I will say it is wrong to support equivocation and the opportunity exists fro every single poster in this thread to build consensus by defining the term "spiritual Israel" without appealing to another phrase that likewise needs defining. It builds consensus not to have ambiguity. It builds consensus to define terms as specifically and accurately as possible in an effort to preclude ambiguity and equivocation.

The Church of God are the Children of Promise for today

And how do they define that term.

, and Theology calls Us Spiritual Israel; that's all.

And how do they define that term?

Do they define it the same way I have done? Do they define it the same way @brightfame52 does? Do the define it the same way @Mr GLee does?