Imprecatory Psalms

Status
Not open for further replies.

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Rich, do not hear what I am not saying. All I said is these prayers have to be prayed with the eschalogical mindset of the new cov believer. There is no record of any prayers of this type recorded in the NT. You call it dispensationalism wrongly, it is progressive revelation. David did not have this revealed to him as we do now.

Until you and others grapple with the 2 verses I mentioned, no other conclusion can be reached. Ill repeat them again in case you missed them.

19: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave itto the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."


And Luke where james and john wanted to be like elijah. This would have been the perfect time for Christ to validate their request, yet He rebukes them.

regardless of Christs response to the scribes or your interpretation of the sermon on the mount, this topic has little if anything to do with Law/ Gospel distinction.

We can pray imprecatory psalms with an eschalogical fullfilment guaranteed by the apostle John in Rev 19. The vindication will happen at that time alone, not any sooner nor later. This is where the comfort must lie, not in any temporary immediate judgment of God on our enemies and His.

I have no need to grapple with those verses Robert, as if they contradict the point I made, since I never denied we must show love to neighbor nor did I advocate the praying of imprecations against our "personal" enemies. David had to "grapple" with the same idea, though. He was no more permitted to hate men than we are. I don't agree with the characterization that the nature of the Law changed from OT to NT believer. The end of the Law has always been love of God and love of neighbor and you need to grapple with that issue and not place the OT Saints in some sort of separate category where David was permitted to hate neighbor as some sort of "eschatological intrusion".



Again, you must be hearing what I am not saying Rich. I still do not see what Law vs grace has to do with this thread anyway.

BTW I do like the pithy saying "Eschalogical intrusion" now if that is all I can glean from your points, it is enough, I cant wait to use that when the time is right. Actually a good phrase to use againt post miller, dominionists!!! :)

:offtopic:

Intrusion ethics is morally weak and logically contradictory. It is flawed on so many levels. It has been brutally refuted so many different times. And you keep identifying posters with dominionists, which is also flawed.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
I have no need to grapple with those verses Robert, as if they contradict the point I made, since I never denied we must show love to neighbor nor did I advocate the praying of imprecations against our "personal" enemies. David had to "grapple" with the same idea, though. He was no more permitted to hate men than we are. I don't agree with the characterization that the nature of the Law changed from OT to NT believer. The end of the Law has always been love of God and love of neighbor and you need to grapple with that issue and not place the OT Saints in some sort of separate category where David was permitted to hate neighbor as some sort of "eschatological intrusion".



Again, you must be hearing what I am not saying Rich. I still do not see what Law vs grace has to do with this thread anyway.

BTW I do like the pithy saying "Eschalogical intrusion" now if that is all I can glean from your points, it is enough, I cant wait to use that when the time is right. Actually a good phrase to use againt post miller, dominionists!!! :)

:offtopic:

Intrusion ethics is morally weak and logically contradictory. It is flawed on so many levels. It has been brutally refuted so many different times. And you keep identifying posters with dominionists, which is also flawed.



WHo did I identify as being a dominionist on this thread? All I said was I will just throw out that term regardless if it is flawed or right. I like the way the shoe fits against a dominionist, nothing more nothing less. I may even redefine it.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Again, you must be hearing what I am not saying Rich. I still do not see what Law vs grace has to do with this thread anyway.

BTW I do like the pithy saying "Eschalogical intrusion" now if that is all I can glean from your points, it is enough, I cant wait to use that when the time is right. Actually a good phrase to use againt post miller, dominionists!!! :)

:offtopic:

Intrusion ethics is morally weak and logically contradictory. It is flawed on so many levels. It has been brutally refuted so many different times. And you keep identifying posters with dominionists, which is also flawed.



WHo did I identify as being a dominionist on this thread? All I said was I will just throw out that term regardless if it is flawed or right. I like the way the shoe fits against a dominionist, nothing more nothing less. I may even redefine it.

You linked, or so it appeared to me, postmillennialists and dominionists (I not being the former, nor really the latter).

So you get to use a term regardless of how accurate it is, just because you think the shoe fits? I might play too, except I would make it really fun. Watch:

1. Your post two posts ago employed Klinean rhetoric.
2. I know some Klineans, using your logic and terms, who support same-sex unions (consistently, too).
3. Therefore, your position is....

Don't go there.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
:offtopic:

Intrusion ethics is morally weak and logically contradictory. It is flawed on so many levels. It has been brutally refuted so many different times. And you keep identifying posters with dominionists, which is also flawed.



WHo did I identify as being a dominionist on this thread? All I said was I will just throw out that term regardless if it is flawed or right. I like the way the shoe fits against a dominionist, nothing more nothing less. I may even redefine it.

You linked, or so it appeared to me, postmillennialists and dominionists (I not being the former, nor really the latter).

So you get to use a term regardless of how accurate it is, just because you think the shoe fits? I might play too, except I would make it really fun. Watch:

1. Your post two posts ago employed Klinean rhetoric.
2. I know some Klineans, using your logic and terms, who support same-sex unions (consistently, too).
3. Therefore, your position is....

Don't go there.


Arnt all dominionists post mils? but not all post mils dominionists?:offtopic:
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
WHo did I identify as being a dominionist on this thread? All I said was I will just throw out that term regardless if it is flawed or right. I like the way the shoe fits against a dominionist, nothing more nothing less. I may even redefine it.

You linked, or so it appeared to me, postmillennialists and dominionists (I not being the former, nor really the latter).

So you get to use a term regardless of how accurate it is, just because you think the shoe fits? I might play too, except I would make it really fun. Watch:

1. Your post two posts ago employed Klinean rhetoric.
2. I know some Klineans, using your logic and terms, who support same-sex unions (consistently, too).
3. Therefore, your position is....

Don't go there.


Arnt all dominionists post mils? but not all post mils dominionists?:offtopic:

No. I am a case in point.
 

Amazing Grace

Puritan Board Junior
You linked, or so it appeared to me, postmillennialists and dominionists (I not being the former, nor really the latter).

So you get to use a term regardless of how accurate it is, just because you think the shoe fits? I might play too, except I would make it really fun. Watch:

1. Your post two posts ago employed Klinean rhetoric.
2. I know some Klineans, using your logic and terms, who support same-sex unions (consistently, too).
3. Therefore, your position is....

Don't go there.


Arnt all dominionists post mils? but not all post mils dominionists?:offtopic:

No. I am a case in point.



well then I publicaly stand corrected Jacob. But will still use the term as Ill define it when necesary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top