# Reformed Baptists and the Land Promises



## Hebrew Student (Mar 21, 2009)

Hey Everyone!

I figured I would start a thread on the Reformed Baptist views of the land promises, and imparticular their relationship to circumcision. I have been studying this a little bit, and I wanted to see if I could get a discussion going on this topic.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## A.J. (Mar 23, 2009)

Hebrew Student said:


> Hey Everyone!
> 
> I figured I would start a thread on the Reformed Baptist views of the land promises, and imparticular their relationship to circumcision. I have been studying this a little bit, and I wanted to see if I could get a discussion going on this topic.
> 
> ...



I started a thread not too long ago which discusses a somewhat similar issue. I posted an excerpt from an online booklet written by a Reformed Baptist pastor. The booklet explains the Reformed Baptist views of the land promises, and their relationship to circumcision. 



> *What of the "Seed of Abraham?"*
> 
> As we mentioned in the introduction, paedo-baptists lay great stress on the continuation of the principle laid down in Genesis chapter 17, where God speaks to Abraham concerning His covenant arrangements and agreements. As the promise was to Abraham and his seed after him, so the promises of the gospel are to believers and their seed after them. As the 'sign and seal' of the covenant was then administered to Abraham's seed, in circumcision, so the sign and seal of the New Covenant, in baptism, is to be administered to the believer's children. There are three basic questions to ask and answer in relation to this: 1. What was contained in the covenant promise made to Abraham? 2. What was its initial fulfilment? 3. What did it really mean?
> 
> ...


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 23, 2009)

Hebrew Student said:


> Hey Everyone!
> 
> I figured I would start a thread on the Reformed Baptist views of the land promises, and imparticular their relationship to circumcision. I have been studying this a little bit, and I wanted to see if I could get a discussion going on this topic.
> 
> ...



Generally, Adam, when one wishes to generate lively discussion, he begins with something more than a topic. Perhaps there is a particular position, proposition, or work that you would like to talk about?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 23, 2009)

Charlie,

Adam asked Reformed Baptists for their views on the Land Promises and, in particular, their relationship to circumcision.

We see threads like this all the time soliciting others' viewpoints. It wasn't in the form of a direct question but there it certainly enough to go by for any Reformed Baptists to offer their views.


----------



## Herald (Mar 23, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Charlie,
> 
> Adam asked Reformed Baptists for their views on the Land Promises and, in particular, their relationship to circumcision.
> 
> We see threads like this all the time soliciting others' viewpoints. It wasn't in the form of a direct question but there it certainly enough to go by for any Reformed Baptists to offer their views.



It's a legitimate question. I haven't responded because...well...I haven't responded.  I just didn't feel like getting into the topic. Legit topic though.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Mar 23, 2009)

Hey CharlieJ,

I can see how what I said may have been ambiguious. I will be a little more specific. I ran across this post the other day, and I thought it did a good job at addressing the differences that I would have between myself and a Calvinistic Baptist. On it, the author, semperveritas, wrote the following:



> Circumcision while signifying regeneration by faith in Christ also had types and shadows associated with it which passed away with Christ. There were nationalistic and ethnic ties associated with it which were not spiritual. God told Abraham he would be the father of many nations and he was to set them apart by circumcision. He was also told that the spiritual promise of the seed was only in Isaac-meaning the promises were NOT to all the seed, _*but the nationalistic promises of a people and land were for all the circumcised*_.



As I have been studying both the Torah, as well as ANE land contracts, I have found this last section I put in bold difficult to sustain. I wanted to discuss whether the statement I put in bold is true or not. I wanted to see Reformed Baptists give a scriptural defense of it, and I wanted to interact with them, and bring up some points that I have come across in my on study of the Torah as well as other ANE land contracts.

The reason is that this is a possible topic for my master's thesis. I want to be fair in my discussion with my Reformed Baptist friends, and I figured the best way to know if your arguments are fair is to interact with them on the topic.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## TsonMariytho (Apr 13, 2009)

Leviticus 25 is relevant here, with its description of the Year of Jubilee and laws governing real estate sale. The long and short of it is that permanent sale of plots of the Promised Land was not possible. Rather, the land could be merely leased to others, and it would revert to the owning family under various complicated scenarios involving paying calculated "lease amounts" based on harvest -- the simplest of which was a simple reversal back to the owners on the year of Jubilee.

The land remained the possession of Israelite families on the basis of natural descent. Since the Israelites were to be cut off if they neglected circumcision, it follows that the land was given to the circumcised Israelites.

There's nothing uniquely Baptist about the above observations, though, and I don't know whether it's what you're looking for.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Apr 13, 2009)

TsonMariytho,

I am finding some interesting things in my study with regards to these land covenants. For example, take Exodus 19:

*Exodus 19:5-6* 'Now then, *if* you will indeed obey My voice *and* keep My covenant, *then* you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6 _*and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation*_.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."

Notice how being a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, is conditioned upon their obedience to God. Also, consider Deuteronomy 28:

Deuteronomy 28:15 "But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you... [v.21] "The LORD will make the pestilence cling to you until He has consumed you _*from the land where you are entering to possess it*_.

I don't think anyone would question that the land promises were related to the physical seed and circumcision, but, the question is, is that the _only_ thing to which they are related? I really question that exegetically.

Also, I am doing [and am going to do] some interesting work on ANE land grants from this very time period. My professors tell me, of all of these land grants, no one had the land simply because of the fact that they were physical descendents. That was a requirement, but there was also as second requirement, namely, faithfulness to the king. If there was unfaithfulness to the king, then the land would be taken away from them, and would go back to the king.

How this all works out, I don't know. It just seems to me that, given the scriptures I cited above, as well as the ANE milu, that it is a lot more complicated then circumcision alone. Again, I haven't worked all of this stuff out, but I am just looking for some thoughts.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## TsonMariytho (Apr 13, 2009)

It's pretty clear that individuals could lose their inherited portion of the land by being cut off from the nation -- whether by the agency of their fellow Israelites (e.g. anyone who renounced the Law of Moses died on the testimony of two witnesses) or God's agency (e.g. the Exile to Babylon). I don't expect you'll find any disagreement from Baptists on that point.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Apr 13, 2009)

TsonMariytho,



> It's pretty clear that individuals could lose their inherited portion of the land by being cut off from the nation -- whether by the agency of their fellow Israelites (e.g. anyone who renounced the Law of Moses died on the testimony of two witnesses) or God's agency (e.g. the Exile to Babylon). I don't expect you'll find any disagreement from Baptists on that point.



Ya, I don't think that is the issue, though. I think it has to do with the nature of the covenant, and what is to be obeyed itself. For example:

*Exodus 20:3-6* "You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Notice how God commands that Israel's hearts be free from idolatry, and commands them to love him and keep his commandments. These are all things that are related to the heart, and how the heart functions.

Also, consider Deuteronomy 10, which is in the context of stipulations:

*Deuteronomy 10:15-17* "Yet on your fathers did the LORD set His affection to love them, and He chose their descendants after them, even you above all peoples, as it is this day. 16 _"*So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer*_. 17 "For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.

In other words, one of the stipulations to the covenant is regeneration itself, and, thus, because not having a regenerate heart is a violation of the covenant, therefore, if you do not have a regenerate heart, you do not have the land promises. Given that this is the case, is it not then true that a person would loose their land because of *spiritual unfaithfulness* to God?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## TsonMariytho (Apr 13, 2009)

Complete spiritual obedience to God was indeed an obligation of the Israelites who heard the Torah preached, just as today it is the obligation of everyone who hears the gospel preached.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Apr 13, 2009)

TsonMariytho,

Exactly. And the problem is that, if full spiritual obedience required for obedience to the covenant, and if obedience to the covenant is required for the land promises, then can we not say that spiritual obedience is required for the land promises?

1. Regeneration is a condition of obedience to the covenant [Exodus 20:3-6; Deuteronomy 10:15-17].

2. Obedience to the covenant is a condition of having the land promises [Exodus 19:5-6, Deuteronomy 28:15, 21].

3. Therefore, regeneration is a condition of having the land promises.

It seems to me that there were two requirements for having the land promises. Being a physical seed [or a believer such as Ruth or Rahab], and being regenerate. If that is the case, then how can one say that an infant was circumcized on the basis of the land promises when, in order to have the land promises, he had to be regenerated?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## TsonMariytho (Apr 13, 2009)

Hebrew Student said:


> TsonMariytho,
> 
> Exactly. And the problem is that, if full spiritual obedience required for obedience to the covenant, and if obedience to the covenant is required for the land promises, then can we not say that spiritual obedience is required for the land promises?
> 
> ...



Hello Adam,

Again, I will agree with you that the right to the land was subject to revocation if an Israelite committed one of the crimes the Law punished by "cutting off". I won't agree that regeneration was a prerequisite of having the land, because that's an oversimplification. God always reserved the right to cut anybody off from the land -- I guess in the case of covenant breakers we could say cut off for an obvious reason, and the righteous for God's own inscrutable purposes. But there were many ungodly Israelites who possessed the land of Canaan and weren't ever cut off (well, at least until they died).

I'm not certain what you mean when you characterize the Baptist position as saying that infants were "circumcized on the basis of the land promises". Circumcision was a sign of more than just the land promises. It was a sign of the whole covenant between God and Abraham and his seed. As such, it was a sign of the land promise, the nation promise, the promise of a future blessing to the world, and the unique relationship that God had with ethnic Israel, that they were claimed as his people -- whether individuals among them wanted to be or not.

When we look at the outward promises of the Abrahamic covenant, we find that many of them are either obsolete or changed with Christ's incarnation and the establishing/revelation of the New Covenant:

1. Land of Canaan -- obsolete.
2. Populous nation by natural descent -- obsolete.
3. Blessing to nations -- fulfilled.
4. That God would be the peculiar God of Abraham's line -- changed.


1. We as Christians have no business dreaming about real estate here below. The type and shadow is gone -- Heaven is now our Promised Land.

2. The nation of Israel served its purpose in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham. Now God's work is not focused on one ethnic people or on one nation. Our citizenship is in the Church, which is scattered through multiple nations. Furthermore, it seems like every time a given nation tries to establish a new, theocratic Israel via their own laws, it ends up a total disaster (which shouldn't surprise anyone, since God didn't command us to do so). There is no longer a "nation of God" as there once was.

3. Jesus Christ and his work fulfilled the promised blessing to the nations. Unlike the BC Israelites, we have no promise that one from our own family will be a blessing to the nations. That promise was tied to Abraham's natural descendents, and is already fulfilled.

4. (To be fair, depending a little bit on your eschatology...) We recognize that being a Jew or Gentile means nothing now in the Kingdom of God. God's exclusive ethnic focus of old times is obsolete. Now God lays the covenantal obligations of spiritual obedience on all people to whom the gospel is preached. A random Gentile on the street who hears the gospel is no less covenantally obligated to obey it, than was a Jew who heard the Torah preached --and arguably may be even more obligated, given today's greater clarity of revelation. There is no longer a "sign of the covenant" to be applied to those who are so obligated, as God instituted in Old Covenant circumcision. Just as God before claimed the Israelites as his own people, whether individuals wanted it or not, today he lays claim to everyone in the sound of the preaching of the gospel, whether they will obey it or not.

To be an Israelite implied obligation. To hear the gospel today implies no less of an obligation. To be a Christian today implies obligation, plus profession.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 13, 2009)

Adam,

Can a person chose to circumcise their heart? That is an interesting question I would be interested in hearing answered. I also think that one needs to start this kind of discussion in Genesis 17.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Apr 13, 2009)

TsonMariytho,



> I'm not certain what you mean when you characterize the Baptist position as saying that infants were "circumcized on the basis of the land promises". Circumcision was a sign of more than just the land promises. It was a sign of the whole covenant between God and Abraham and his seed. As such, it was a sign of the land promise, the nation promise, the promise of a future blessing to the world, and the unique relationship that God had with ethnic Israel, that they were claimed as his people -- whether individuals among them wanted to be or not.



Ya, I think I was a little ambiguious. I should have said that those infants who were not regenerate were circumcized on the basis of the land promises. I say this because, when James White had his debate with William Shishko, when Shishko asked Dr. White about why it is that infants who were not seed of the promise were circumcized, he said it was because of the land promises.



> I won't agree that regeneration was a prerequisite of having the land, because that's an oversimplification. God always reserved the right to cut anybody off from the land -- I guess in the case of covenant breakers we could say cut off for an obvious reason, and the righteous for God's own inscrutable purposes. But there were many ungodly Israelites who possessed the land of Canaan and weren't ever cut off (well, at least until they died).



Ya, and I think that this would be the main area of disagreement, namely, the idea that there were many ungodly Israelites who possessed the land of Canaan in a covenantal sense. I would say that the only Israelites [and those outside of Israel who believed, like Ruth and Rahab] who truly possessed the land were those who were regenerate, given that the covenant required it, and obedience to the covenant was the prerequisite to having the land promises.

The reason is, again, what the book of Deuteronomy itself says within its stipulations, it tells us, as part of the stipulations to the covenant, that we must circumcize the foreskin of our hearts. Then, in Deuteronomy 28, it tells us that, if we keep the covenant:

Deuteronomy 28:2-3 "All these blessings will come upon you and overtake you _*if you obey the LORD your God*_: 3 "Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country.

Also, consider verse 9:

Deuteronomy 28:9 "The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, _*if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways*_.

I don't see any exegetical reason to assume that the commandments he is speaking about here are not the commandments that are written in the Book of Deuteronomy itself, including the commandment to be regenerate [Deuteronomy 10:16].



> The nation of Israel served its purpose in fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham. Now God's work is not focused on one ethnic people or on one nation.



I think that, what I would say, is that it never was focused upon a nation or ethnic group, because of the fact that I believe regeneration was a prerequisite of being God's nation.

I guess I am also having difficulty understanding how you can believe that this is the case, when you have already said that a person can be a physical seed, and yet, not have the land promises because of disobedience. Doesn't that mean that, in some sense, God is not necessarily working through an ethnic group, since there are certain people in that ethnic group who are not God's people?



> To be an Israelite implied obligation. To hear the gospel today implies no less of an obligation. To be a Christian today implies obligation, plus profession.



I guess, when I read the pentatuch, I am not coming up with the idea that obligation is something that is a result of having the land promises, and being God's people, but, as Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 10, Exodus 19 and Deuteronomy 28 say, you have the land promises, and are part of God's people only if you keep your obligations, among which is the obligation to circumcise the foreskin of your heart [Deuteronomy 10:16], and have no other gods before the Lord [Exodus 20:3-4].

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## TsonMariytho (Apr 13, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Adam,
> 
> Can a person chose to circumcise their heart? That is an interesting question I would be interested in hearing answered. I also think that one needs to start this kind of discussion in Genesis 17.



A person can no more circumcise his own heart than he can make himself repent, exercise faith, real love, and other graces of the Spirit.

But God still generally commands this of both elect and non-elect:

Jer 4:1 "If you return, O Israel, declares the LORD, to me you should return. If you remove your detestable things from my presence, and do not waver, 
Jer 4:2 and if you swear, 'As the LORD lives,' in truth, in justice, and in righteousness, then nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory." 
Jer 4:3 For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: "Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. 
Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds."​
I agree with what I think is your intent here, Randy, to note that it's sort of a weird usage to say that an unelect person is "obligated to be regenerate". It seems more aligned with our human perspective and the usage of scripture to say that such ones are obligated to believe God's word, obligated to obey God's commands, etc. Which I guess technically implies the same thing, but perhaps sounds less odd.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Apr 13, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter,

I think I would be on the same page as TsonMariytho on this one. It is like repentance. God commands all men everywhere to repent, but repentance can only be granted of God. In the same way, God commands those with whom he covenants to circumcise the forskin of their hearts, but the only way that it will be done is if God grants that to them.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## A.J. (Apr 14, 2009)

> I guess, when I read the pentatuch, I am not coming up with the idea that obligation is something that is a result of having the land promises, and being God's people, but, as Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 10, Exodus 19 and Deuteronomy 28 say, you have the land promises, and are part of God's people only if you keep your obligations, among which is the obligation to circumcise the foreskin of your heart [Deuteronomy 10:16], and have no other gods before the Lord [Exodus 20:3-4].





William Shishko's response to James White's question on the relationship between the land promise and infant inclusion in the covenant in their debate was excellent. Shishko's Sunday school lessons on baptism (from SermonAudio.com) also deal with Reformed Baptists' view of the land promise. I listened to all of them and they have been personally helfpul to me in properly understanding what God _actually_ required of His covenant people in the OT.



> Lev. 36:40-42 (ESV) But *if* _*they confess their iniquity*_ and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—*if* then *their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity*, *then* *I will remember my covenant with Jacob*, and I will remember my covenant *with Isaac* and my covenant *with Abraham*, and *I will remember* *the land*.





> Heb. 3:16-4:2 (ESV) For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that _*they were unable to enter*_ [the land] *because of unbelief*. Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. *For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened*.





> Rom. 4:13 (ESV) For *the promise to Abraham and his offspring* [the same promise of Gen. 17:7-8] that he would be heir of *the world* [the land promise] did not come through the law but *through the righteousness of faith*.


----------



## TsonMariytho (Apr 14, 2009)

Hebrew Student said:


> > To be an Israelite implied obligation. To hear the gospel today implies no less of an obligation. To be a Christian today implies obligation, plus profession.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess, when I read the pentatuch, I am not coming up with the idea that obligation is something that is a result of having the land promises, and being God's people, but, as Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 10, Exodus 19 and Deuteronomy 28 say, you have the land promises, and are part of God's people only if you keep your obligations, among which is the obligation to circumcise the foreskin of your heart [Deuteronomy 10:16], and have no other gods before the Lord [Exodus 20:3-4].



You say that obligation is not a result of being God's people, but I would strongly disagree with that. God placed Israel under obligation as his people in a way that didn't apply to surrounding nations. The Gentiles had the dim light of conscience -- some smatterings of God's Law written on their hearts. But Israel had the written Law of Moses and the testimony of the prophets. They were held to a very high standard. How can you say that they didn't have greater obligations as a result of being God's people?

But being obligated to do something doesn't mean that we do it. This is one of the distinctions between the Old and New Covenants -- that on the one hand, God placed an entire ethnic nation of people under his Law, but only a remnant were saved, by his grace through faith. But today under the New Covenant, there is no longer a covenant nation, many of whose members are only pretending to worship God (or not even pretending). Now God has made really clear how he worked all along (e.g. with Abraham) and the gospel is proclaimed all over the world. Now the Church is by nature an eclectic, gathered body of those who profess faith in God. Are all in the visible church true believers? No, but all profess to be.

This is the distinction I was making above, which I don't feel you really addressed -- that of Old Covenant obligation, versus New Covenant obligation plus profession.

Circumcision was mandated for males who by birth or other attachment were joined to a household of an Israelite. There is no other prerequisite given in scripture. It wasn't even a sign that the subject personally participated in the land promises -- slaves were also circumcised, merely because of membership in the household. Much less did it indicate personal, spiritual profession of faith!

In all Christian churches, baptism will only be administered to an adult if the adult shows himself to be in the position of a disciple of Jesus Christ -- (a) knowing basic doctrine about God, (b) believing that doctrine, and (c) pledging himself to follow the Master. This is the baptism forum, right? :^)

If we look for the population today that approximates Israel in the sense of being the "chosen people of God", then we can roughly equate that with the visible church.

However, if we look for the population today that approximates Israel in the sense of being God's "sphere of operations" in his covenant of grace, wherein he plants his Word on the ground and some ground produces a crop and some doesn't -- then the equivalent of Israel today is the whole world that hears the gospel, believer and unbeliever. All are alike under the same obligation that Old Covenant Israel was under. All are naturally ignorant of God and must be instructed. All either accept or reject the gospel and are judged on that basis. All who hear the gospel are under a covenantal obligation very similar to Israel's.


----------



## brandonadams (Apr 14, 2009)

Hebrew Student said:


> It seems to me that there were two requirements for having the land promises. Being a physical seed [or a believer such as Ruth or Rahab], and being regenerate. If that is the case, then how can one say that an infant was circumcized on the basis of the land promises when, in order to have the land promises, he had to be regenerated?



Do you believe the Mosaic Covenant was a national covenant? It seems this would determine how you answer your question.

Have you studied the debate surrounding republication? I think it is helpful in regards to this whole thread, though I have not had time to study it in-depth and connect all the dots. It seems to me that the land was given to Israelites and not to another nation because they were the physical line through which the Abrahamic covenant would continue, though remaining in the land would require obedience.

This comment from Matthew Winzer regarding infant inclusion in the covenant (in a thread on republication) may be helpful
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/horton-mosaic-covenant-wcf-21024/#post264189


----------



## A2JC4life (Jun 12, 2009)

Hebrew Student said:


> Hey CharlieJ,
> 
> I can see how what I said may have been ambiguious. I will be a little more specific. I ran across this post the other day, and I thought it did a good job at addressing the differences that I would have between myself and a Calvinistic Baptist. On it, the author, semperveritas, wrote the following:
> 
> ...



If I'm understanding this rightly, then I have to disagree. Ishmael was a circumcised son of Abraham, but he did _not_, if I recall correctly, inherit the land. Isaac's descendants did. This kind of louses up the distinction being made here.

And just to muddy the waters even more...My family does not believe that baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant. We believe that baptism is an outward profession of faith - very similar to a Presbyterian's church vows. We believe that the _Holy Spirit_ is the sign and seal of the covenant, and this, of course, is only applied to those who are Abraham's spiritual seed.


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 12, 2009)

Reformed Baptists can hold to any number of positions on this question and remain consistent. I think it will be interesting to find out what is most common, as I genuinely don't know.

For me, I could summarize my position on this by saying that I agree with every jot and tittle of O. Palmer Robertson's books _The Israel of God_ and _The Christ of the Covenants_....minus the one total paragraph between them that directly states things to the effect of "and that's why infant baptism is good." I'll agree with every aspect of his argumentation through chapter after chapter, and then just shake my head at a couple of the one-line conclusions that just don't follow. I've found both books to be immensely profitable no matter how many re-reads I give them.

And though it's done by a Presbyterian, I've found this short article on the subject very succinct and a sound representation of my position http://www.ugandamission.net/doctrine/rapture/reymond-landpromise.pdf


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 12, 2009)

Some previous discussion of these issues here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-1-12-13-baptism-revisited-38633/

Also, were the "land promises" made to Abraham (and his seed — this "seed" of his is what is discussed in above link) forever tied to the geographical land, or were they typical of the _heavenly_ Promised Land? Hebrews 11:13-16 appears to assert just this.


----------

