What does the SDA church stand for?

July 15, 2009

>>A "funny way to exegete" Jeremiah 18 is simply to "ignore it" and to argue that you have not thought through how you will apply the test of "prediction" in the light of "conditional elements" in blessings or curses.

But we do see that solution tried from time to time.<<

If one notices, it becomes evident early on in Jeremiah 18 that the subjects are the “house of Israel”, the “men of Judah”, and the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” – all of whom were under the conditional covenant established at Sinai.

July 20, 2009

So, I go the beach for a few days to escape the heat wave and lookee-here – the thread is falling off the page. Oi voi...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

If one notices, it becomes evident early on in Jeremiah 18 that the subjects are the “house of Israel”, the “men of Judah”, and the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” – all of whom were under the conditional covenant established at Sinai.

>>A distinction without a difference "at best".<<

Non, non, Bob Ryan. Au contraire. It is, regardless “best” or “worse” – rather, a difference with a distinction! It is Israel, to whom the ‘promises and covenants’ of the fathers and mothers are bequeathed; those promises of salt, if you will, to which Gd swore “by Himself” – for there was none greater by which to swear. It goes to

conditional and unconditional promises and covenants.

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

Jer 18

7"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;

8 IF that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

The above New American Standard Bible texts are purported to benefit from the many mss which provide additional insight; whereas, the KJV is said to be dated and limited (I can live with that). The .Org seemingly prefers the NIV for, I imagine, the same reason. Let’s see how the NIV translates the above texts...

Jer 18:7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,

Jer 18:8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

Following immediately after the allegorical nature of verse 6, vss 7 and 8 with their “If” and “might” – argue from the ambiguous and for a hypothetical definition. It seems rather hopeful for the expositor to extrapolate “general principles” from ambiguity and/or the hypothetical. That said,

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

Note the generic principle applicable to any nation hence the applicability of this principle to Ninevah in the book of Jonah.

the ‘conditional promise’ exists; as does the ‘unconditional promise’. The dialogic position that a “spiritual Israel” so-called has displaced “physical Israel” portrays a perfidious Gd – that ‘other’ Gd of OT literature?

>>Hence the conclusion that Jonah's certain doom message is not an example of a failed prophecy.<<

Indeed, the prophecy failed – but upon only the point of forty days, which is unclear whether it was not simply an invention of Jonah’s; and, after all, wasn’t Nineveh still later destroyed? However, the fact that Gd forgives the repentant, as He did the Ninevites is not lost... Elsewhere, He laments the fact that His own people would not turn away from their pollutions – that He might heal them...

>>This is incredibly obvious to the reader as you probably have suspected already.<<

Indeed, Gd forgives the [repentent] wicked – such as the example of Coniah/Jehoiachin provides, as witness the favor of Gd re Coniah/Jehoiachin’s grandson Zerubabbel.

>>But as for the "distinction without a difference"<<

Read above: a difference with a distinction!

>>...your point fails even in the specific case of Israel - since as Romans 9 points out - the saints ARE spiritual Israel<<

St Paul characterizes certain saints as engrafted to the metaphoric “Olive tree” – Israel. It simply cannot be postulated that engrafted branches are somehow the “Olive tree” itself. Other than what I've noted above,

there are, additionally, saints representative of physical Israel – presently nations, kingdoms, Gentiles.

>>...and so the promised blessing in the case of Ellen White's prediction regarding the Israel of God and the 2nd coming - would STILL apply.<<

I must have missed it, but what are you talking about?

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

But as for the "distinction without a difference" your point fails even in the specific case of Israel

Quote:jasd

You might want to rethink your position before it becomes cemented foursquare wrong. Gd made promises that are eternal and many of them belong to physical Israel – and were unconditionally given, bequeathed, and still obtain.

>>The point is that Ellen White AND those to whom she gave this predicted blessing all agreed on the Romans 9 Bible truth of the saints being considered as "Israel today" which means that even if we completely negated the entire agreed upon points listed above and imagined that Jeremiah 18's conditional message only applies to Israel - the saints are in fact the ISRAEL of God "The holy nation" and the "Royal priesthood" (according to Peter) and in fact ISRAEL (according to Paul in Romans 2 and in Romans 9).<<

Ah so, this is the “prophecy” noted above?

>>Thus your argument fails in both instances -- not merely in the one.<<

I suppose one might think that - depending how much credence one places on the extraBiblical, yes?

>>As for just how it is that "he is a Jew who is one inwardly and circumcision is that which is of the heart by the Holy Spirit" Romans 2 such that "they are not all Israel who are children of the flesh but rather it is the children of the PROMISE" Rom 9<<

In view of the texts Romans 4:16 and Galatians 3:29, I suspect we won’t agree upon the point you seem to be making...

Moreover, one must bear in mind the matter of forced conversions – and bringing the matter forward some centuries – there is Arthur Koestler’s “The Thirteenth Tribe”.