Fair enough. The two level fulfillment of Abraham is what did me in. I can not imagine a way in which the axe cutting the root does not eliminate the physical seed of Abraham. That is 1689 Federalism essentially. Kline is clever though. And he openly disagrees with WCF on it. 1/
Right, thank you. I just mean, if the meaning of circumcision has ultimately to do with seed line to Christ, such than when He comes, it is abolished for infants, then why was all Israel required to be circumcised, given that they knew the vast majority were not in the seed line?
-
-
to mark them as a geo-political ppl - a shadow of the NT ppl of God. That is the 1689 answer. And be an example of what a church is like on some level. typological level with the sacrafices and ceremonial laws. I am actually reading Venema's critique of TLNF/1689 typology *rn*
-
Okay, gotchya. I, of course, disagree with most that, but was always wondering how the "seed line" argument could be promoted, but it sounds like you wouldn't make that argument.
-
For sure, I do wonder how you see it. Is there a decent resource you know of that addresses that specifically? Maybe that serves as a rebuttal of sorts. I understand my current position well enough to make the logical connections if I get a well est. trajectory.
-
As an aside, I cannot see Romans 11 any other way than all Israel being ethnic Israel so my leaning is to be more covenantal in the OT. I have not figured out if 1689 is consistent with that view as most take OP Roberston's view.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
how do you see the birds and abraham in your schema. i have never seen this worked through. it seems to have a greater biblical theological significance than this. Serves as a hermuetic (in a way) for 1689.
-
Well, that would be very analogical, hahaha. I also do not distinguish the covenant of Gen 15 from Gen 17. Same covenant.
-
analogical wrt what? I am not picking up what you are putting down there.
-
The birds interpretation.
-
Right. Sorry. I thought you meant your view would be analogous. I thought you were saying it was analogous to something else. I get what you are saying. I was asking your view as analogous wrt to ____ (that other thing it would be analogous to)
-
Nah, I just meant as a method of interpretation. And analogical interpretations cannot serve as a basis for the interpretation of other passages. That would be inherently circular, no?
-
I am not too sure it does. It works as a hermeneutics much the same way when Paedos argue “but what would make us think Peter doesn’t mean children are included when he says they are in Acts 2” - our presupps drive the interpretation.
-
That argument seems like an exercise in premise granting to the 1689er. The promise was life in the land to them (me as it stands rn)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.