 » Site Navigation | | | |  | | 
08-23-2007, 05:27 PM
|  | Lackey | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gambrills, MD
Posts: 6,989
Thanks: 831
Thanked 898 Times in 533 Posts
| | Quote: |
I then referred you to Richard Pratt's article on thsi in "When Shall These Things Be." Pratt is anything but a dispensationalist.
| Paul - in your responses to Doug prior to the post I just quoted, where did you refer him to Pratt?
|
08-23-2007, 08:19 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: May 2007 Location: Langhorne, PA
Posts: 247
Thanks: 8
Thanked 20 Times in 14 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil  Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydnorphyn What if the New Covenant's fulfillment is not until the future? What if it is a description of the eternal state, when truly no one will have to say, "know the Lord, for all will know him?"
My problem with the already not yet position is that it requires "existential exegesis" - the Hebrews text (chapters 8/10) do not follow the normal pattern of fulfillment citation in the letter. Could it be that it is being used as an illustration of/to the current community being in the same state as the community (part of which was in exile and part awaiting it) to which it was addressed. It appears to me that when we go with a, dare I say, partial fulfillment, our exegesis become rather subjective. | Cf. the other thread where I proved that NC members are still telling NC members to "know the Lord." | Proved??? Suggested is probably better.
__________________
John
Evangelical Free Church, no offices held
Langhorne, PA
[B]δός δοξαν τῳ θεῳ.[/B]
[B]ιδου ποιω τα εσχατα ως τα πρωτα.
הבל הבלים[/B]
|
08-23-2007, 09:28 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 602
Thanks: 7
Thanked 109 Times in 68 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydnorphyn Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydnorphyn What if the New Covenant's fulfillment is not until the future? What if it is a description of the eternal state, when truly no one will have to say, "know the Lord, for all will know him?"
My problem with the already not yet position is that it requires "existential exegesis" - the Hebrews text (chapters 8/10) do not follow the normal pattern of fulfillment citation in the letter. Could it be that it is being used as an illustration of/to the current community being in the same state as the community (part of which was in exile and part awaiting it) to which it was addressed. It appears to me that when we go with a, dare I say, partial fulfillment, our exegesis become rather subjective. | Cf. the other thread where I proved that NC members are still telling NC members to "know the Lord." | Proved??? Suggested is probably better. | Yes, proved. Given the *particular* baptist approach and understanding of the text that I was addressing, there's no way around it. You flat out heard Gene say that it means "no evangelizing," but then he admitted he would "evangelize" a NC member.
Now, if you want to disagree with with his or malone's understanding of the text, that route is open.
Btw, I'm not using "proof" in a narrow and Cartesian or Scripturalist way.
__________________
Regards,
J.J.
PCA
Suffix
|
08-23-2007, 09:28 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 602
Thanks: 7
Thanked 109 Times in 68 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis Quote: |
I then referred you to Richard Pratt's article on thsi in "When Shall These Things Be." Pratt is anything but a dispensationalist.
| Paul - in your responses to Doug prior to the post I just quoted, where did you refer him to Pratt? | it's hyperlinked in the red word.
__________________
Regards,
J.J.
PCA
Suffix
|
08-23-2007, 09:32 PM
| | Lackey | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gambrills, MD
Posts: 6,989
Thanks: 831
Thanked 898 Times in 533 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis Quote: |
I then referred you to Richard Pratt's article on thsi in "When Shall These Things Be." Pratt is anything but a dispensationalist.
| Paul - in your responses to Doug prior to the post I just quoted, where did you refer him to Pratt? | it's hyperlinked in the red word. | No, that is the post in which you said you had told him about Pratt previously. I didn't see you mention of Pratt previous to that thread. Not that it matters anway. Doug and yourself got into it pretty good. I felt like I was at Shea watching a Met game and had the best seats in the house! Althought there were no peanuts or crackerjacks.
|
08-23-2007, 09:57 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 602
Thanks: 7
Thanked 109 Times in 68 Posts
| |
Bill, got my Baptists mixed up.
I mentioned it in this post http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost...01&postcount=3
to Don.
But, Doug responded to what I said in that post, right after I posted it. So, I was assuming he had read where I referred Don to Pratt.
__________________
Regards,
J.J.
PCA
Suffix
|
08-23-2007, 11:29 PM
| | Lackey | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gambrills, MD
Posts: 6,989
Thanks: 831
Thanked 898 Times in 533 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruben100 Where do the children go who die in infancy if you are a baptist and Jeremiah 31 only speaks of regenerate individuals who Know The Lord in the NC
In the canons of the synod of dort article 17 Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy
Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy.
Strict Baptist I assume would reject this article.
I remember some some time back that John MacArthur was asked by Larry King where the infants or children were who died in the 9-11 towers John said heaven. Dont quote me but it was something like this. I think he refered to 2 samuel 12 where David says "I will go to him, but he will not return to me"
Paul how can baptists refer to this passage concerning infants in the OC administration? | Ruben - two things:
1. The eternal destination of children who die in infancy is not germane to Jeremiah 31, although it is a worthy question to stand on its own merits.
2. 2 Samuel 12:23 records the words of David, "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." I am resistant in using this text as a proof-text that children will go to heaven if they die in infancy. Paul may be speaking of physical death; that he will, like his infant son, die and join him in the grave.
If you want to discuss this particular topic let me know and I will start a new thread with your post.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
|
