Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
This may be an elementary question to some, but Who exactly is Abrahams seed:question:
Abrahams Seed
- Thread starter Scott Bushey
- Start date
- Status
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:73640de25b][i:73640de25b]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:73640de25b]
This may be an elementary question to some, but Who exactly is Abrahams seed:question: [/quote:73640de25b] The short answer is: Christ, (Gal.3:16).
The long answer is in the book "Abraham's Four Seeds", which can now be read online here:
http://www.ids.org/ids/seed1.html
In Christ, dC
This may be an elementary question to some, but Who exactly is Abrahams seed:question: [/quote:73640de25b] The short answer is: Christ, (Gal.3:16).
The long answer is in the book "Abraham's Four Seeds", which can now be read online here:
http://www.ids.org/ids/seed1.html
In Christ, dC
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
DC,
I believe Paul was making a generalization.........Esau was a covenant child, yet not a believer.
In John 8:30-41 Jesus says that the Pharisees are indeed Abrahams seed.
I believe Paul was making a generalization.........Esau was a covenant child, yet not a believer.
In John 8:30-41 Jesus says that the Pharisees are indeed Abrahams seed.
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:07211688a0][i:07211688a0]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:07211688a0]
DC,
I believe Paul was making a generalization.........Esau was a covenant child, yet not a believer.
In John 8:30-41 Jesus says that the Pharisees are indeed Abrahams seed. [/quote:07211688a0] Hence, the link for a longer answer. :roll:
dC
DC,
I believe Paul was making a generalization.........Esau was a covenant child, yet not a believer.
In John 8:30-41 Jesus says that the Pharisees are indeed Abrahams seed. [/quote:07211688a0] Hence, the link for a longer answer. :roll:
dC
DC,
I hope that you realize that John Reisenger is a proponent of New Covenant theology, which is considered a best a bad misunderstanding of covenant theology and at worst heretical by all covenant theologians, both paedobaptist and baptist. John's brother Ernie (who is a baptist) has written a sharp critique of John's bad theology. This New Covenant Theology movement has also engendered Richard Barcellos (an able baptist theologian) to write [i:caa202034f]Whatever Happened to the Ten Commandments[/i:caa202034f].
This NCT stuff is dangerous, and in my (and my reformed baptist brethren's) estimation should be avoided.
I hope that you realize that John Reisenger is a proponent of New Covenant theology, which is considered a best a bad misunderstanding of covenant theology and at worst heretical by all covenant theologians, both paedobaptist and baptist. John's brother Ernie (who is a baptist) has written a sharp critique of John's bad theology. This New Covenant Theology movement has also engendered Richard Barcellos (an able baptist theologian) to write [i:caa202034f]Whatever Happened to the Ten Commandments[/i:caa202034f].
This NCT stuff is dangerous, and in my (and my reformed baptist brethren's) estimation should be avoided.
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:84c2d4860a][i:84c2d4860a]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:84c2d4860a]
DC,
I hope that you realize that John Reisenger is a proponent of New Covenant theology, which is considered a best a bad misunderstanding of covenant theology and at worst heretical by all covenant theologians, both paedobaptist and baptist. John's brother Ernie (who is a baptist) has written a sharp critique of John's bad theology. This New Covenant Theology movement has also engendered Richard Barcellos (an able baptist theologian) to write [i:84c2d4860a]Whatever Happened to the Ten Commandments[/i:84c2d4860a].
This NCT stuff is dangerous, and in my (and my reformed baptist brethren's) estimation should be avoided. [/quote:84c2d4860a]Fred,
I am well aware that John Reisenger is a proponent of New Covenant Theology, as am I. In fact, if you look back a few pages to the poll "Your Theological Background", you will notice that those here who hold to NCT are roughly the same in number to those who hold to CT. I respectfully disagree that we are dangerous heretics. Just out of curiosity, do you view Dispensationalists, such as John MacArthur, to be dangerous heretics also?
Grace and peace, dC
[Edited on 5-6-2003 by doulosChristou]
DC,
I hope that you realize that John Reisenger is a proponent of New Covenant theology, which is considered a best a bad misunderstanding of covenant theology and at worst heretical by all covenant theologians, both paedobaptist and baptist. John's brother Ernie (who is a baptist) has written a sharp critique of John's bad theology. This New Covenant Theology movement has also engendered Richard Barcellos (an able baptist theologian) to write [i:84c2d4860a]Whatever Happened to the Ten Commandments[/i:84c2d4860a].
This NCT stuff is dangerous, and in my (and my reformed baptist brethren's) estimation should be avoided. [/quote:84c2d4860a]Fred,
I am well aware that John Reisenger is a proponent of New Covenant Theology, as am I. In fact, if you look back a few pages to the poll "Your Theological Background", you will notice that those here who hold to NCT are roughly the same in number to those who hold to CT. I respectfully disagree that we are dangerous heretics. Just out of curiosity, do you view Dispensationalists, such as John MacArthur, to be dangerous heretics also?
Grace and peace, dC
[Edited on 5-6-2003 by doulosChristou]
DC,
John MacArther is more of a modified dispensationalist. I do not think that his views are nearly as dangerous as those of NCT. Why? Read his "Gospel According to Jesus" He is fighting NCT in that. The problem with NCT is not its discontinuous view of the covenants, but its view of the Law, that in eefect destroys the 3rd use of the Law. This, in my estimation has grave consequences on the lives of believers, and is emblematic of the antinomianism that has plagued the church (both baptist and reformed) for centuries.
John MacArther is more of a modified dispensationalist. I do not think that his views are nearly as dangerous as those of NCT. Why? Read his "Gospel According to Jesus" He is fighting NCT in that. The problem with NCT is not its discontinuous view of the covenants, but its view of the Law, that in eefect destroys the 3rd use of the Law. This, in my estimation has grave consequences on the lives of believers, and is emblematic of the antinomianism that has plagued the church (both baptist and reformed) for centuries.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
DC,
I will say this in regards to J.M., I have recently come to the conclusion that John is not helping the cause of the church's need to continue to reform. I believe John is a component of the obvious blur that is prevalent today between the historic reformed and the present evangelical error. Because of John's eschatological position, the Arminians are now grappling with us over the title and requisites to -being reformed-. Mainly because of JM's theology. I do not believe it to be heretical. I do however see it as error.
Having said this, I used to appreciate this mans ministry more. In recent days it has begun to grieve me in certain respects.
Getting back to our question: I would be more compelled to get my information from one of the venerable dead than any present day dispensational theologian.
Forgive me if I come across harsh. It is not the intention.
Maybe we should talk about dispensationalism, huh?
I will say this in regards to J.M., I have recently come to the conclusion that John is not helping the cause of the church's need to continue to reform. I believe John is a component of the obvious blur that is prevalent today between the historic reformed and the present evangelical error. Because of John's eschatological position, the Arminians are now grappling with us over the title and requisites to -being reformed-. Mainly because of JM's theology. I do not believe it to be heretical. I do however see it as error.
Having said this, I used to appreciate this mans ministry more. In recent days it has begun to grieve me in certain respects.
Getting back to our question: I would be more compelled to get my information from one of the venerable dead than any present day dispensational theologian.
Forgive me if I come across harsh. It is not the intention.
Maybe we should talk about dispensationalism, huh?
Answering the Question
Paul writes in Galatians 3:16 -
[quote:586f9b4035]Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as to many, but as of one, "And to your seed," who is Christ.[/quote:586f9b4035]
So the Seed of Abraham is Christ and if we have any participation in this promise it is because we are [i:586f9b4035]in Christ[/i:586f9b4035].
Phillip
Paul writes in Galatians 3:16 -
[quote:586f9b4035]Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as to many, but as of one, "And to your seed," who is Christ.[/quote:586f9b4035]
So the Seed of Abraham is Christ and if we have any participation in this promise it is because we are [i:586f9b4035]in Christ[/i:586f9b4035].
Phillip
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Phillip,
Can you reply to the John 8 passage?
Can you reply to the John 8 passage?
Sure
[b:5b4a214624]John 8[/b:5b4a214624]
31So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 33They answered him, "We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will become free'?"
34Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 [b:5b4a214624]I know that you are offspring of Abraham[/b:5b4a214624]; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father."
39They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, [b:5b4a214624]"If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.[/b:5b4a214624] 41 [u:5b4a214624]You are doing what your father did[/u:5b4a214624]." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God." 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but He sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 [u:5b4a214624]You are of your father the d evil[/u:5b4a214624], and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jesus is not saying they are the seed of Abraham. He says they are his descendents, but their father is the d evil!
This passage does not in any way equate the Pharisees to Abraham's seed and heirs to the promise. It actually proves that not all Israel is Israel!!
[b:5b4a214624]Romans 9[/b:5b4a214624]
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. [b:5b4a214624]For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring[/b:5b4a214624], but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8[b:5b4a214624]This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.[/b:5b4a214624]
Physical seed ( physical descendents ) are not the seed to which the promise was made.It is to Christ and those who are His.
Phillip
[Edited on 5-6-03 by pastorway]
[b:5b4a214624]John 8[/b:5b4a214624]
31So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 33They answered him, "We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will become free'?"
34Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 [b:5b4a214624]I know that you are offspring of Abraham[/b:5b4a214624]; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father."
39They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, [b:5b4a214624]"If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.[/b:5b4a214624] 41 [u:5b4a214624]You are doing what your father did[/u:5b4a214624]." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God." 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but He sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 [u:5b4a214624]You are of your father the d evil[/u:5b4a214624], and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Jesus is not saying they are the seed of Abraham. He says they are his descendents, but their father is the d evil!
This passage does not in any way equate the Pharisees to Abraham's seed and heirs to the promise. It actually proves that not all Israel is Israel!!
[b:5b4a214624]Romans 9[/b:5b4a214624]
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. [b:5b4a214624]For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring[/b:5b4a214624], but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8[b:5b4a214624]This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.[/b:5b4a214624]
Physical seed ( physical descendents ) are not the seed to which the promise was made.It is to Christ and those who are His.
Phillip
[Edited on 5-6-03 by pastorway]
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
Phillip is right. We have covered NCT vs. CT elsewhere. I just want to say though that I have read "The Gospel According to Jesus" and it was in no way written against NCT. It was written against easy-believism - those who would say it is not necessary to repent and submit oneself to the Lordship of Christ. MacArthur is very friendly with NCT. Scott, I agree with your assessment of MacArthur's eschatology and would also classify his brand of Dispyism as error, not heresy.
Anyway, the link to Reisinger's book "Abraham's Four Seeds" (regardless of what you think of NCT) does do an excellent job answering Scott's original question.
Blessings, dC
Anyway, the link to Reisinger's book "Abraham's Four Seeds" (regardless of what you think of NCT) does do an excellent job answering Scott's original question.
Blessings, dC
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I think the Greek shows that the word offspring is transliterated as "seed".
I'm at work and am away from my resources.
[Edited on 5-6-2003 by Scott Bushey]
I'm at work and am away from my resources.
[Edited on 5-6-2003 by Scott Bushey]
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:473447ac58][i:473447ac58]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:473447ac58]
I think the Greek shows that the word offspring is transliterated as "seed".
I'm at work and am away from my resources.
[/quote:473447ac58]I've got my Greek NT here. Are we looking at Romans 9:7? It is transliterated as follows:
[i:473447ac58]oud' hoti eisin sperma Abraam pantes tekna, all', en Isaak klêthêsetai soi sperma.[/i:473447ac58]
Phillip is right, though; the physical [i:473447ac58]sperma[/i:473447ac58] is not necessarily the [i:473447ac58]sperma[/i:473447ac58] of promise. That was Paul's point.
dC
I think the Greek shows that the word offspring is transliterated as "seed".
I'm at work and am away from my resources.
[/quote:473447ac58]I've got my Greek NT here. Are we looking at Romans 9:7? It is transliterated as follows:
[i:473447ac58]oud' hoti eisin sperma Abraam pantes tekna, all', en Isaak klêthêsetai soi sperma.[/i:473447ac58]
Phillip is right, though; the physical [i:473447ac58]sperma[/i:473447ac58] is not necessarily the [i:473447ac58]sperma[/i:473447ac58] of promise. That was Paul's point.
dC
It would appear that Paul makes very clear that he is talking about Christ (singular) when refering to the seed of Abraham, rather than the Jews (plural).
See Gal 3:16
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds{tois spermasin)," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed (to spermati)," who is Christ.
See Gal 3:16
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds{tois spermasin)," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed (to spermati)," who is Christ.
doulosChristou
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:322f62469c][i:322f62469c]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:322f62469c]
It would appear that Paul makes very clear that he is talking about Christ (singular) when refering to the seed of Abraham, rather than the Jews (plural).
See Gal 3:16
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds{tois spermasin)," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed (to spermati)," who is Christ. [/quote:322f62469c]Yep, in Gal.3:16, Paul is very clearly saying that Abraham's seed is Christ. That's why the short answer to Scott's question is: Christ. "If our theological view holds that the 'promise to Abraham and his seed' (singular) involves either the Jews and their physical children or Christian parents and their children, then we are contradicting Paul's statement in Gal 3:16" [Abraham's Four Seeds]. Again, Reisinger (regardless of what you think of NCT) does do a marvelous job answering Scott's question in great detail in his book linked to above.
Securely His by God's grace, dC
It would appear that Paul makes very clear that he is talking about Christ (singular) when refering to the seed of Abraham, rather than the Jews (plural).
See Gal 3:16
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds{tois spermasin)," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed (to spermati)," who is Christ. [/quote:322f62469c]Yep, in Gal.3:16, Paul is very clearly saying that Abraham's seed is Christ. That's why the short answer to Scott's question is: Christ. "If our theological view holds that the 'promise to Abraham and his seed' (singular) involves either the Jews and their physical children or Christian parents and their children, then we are contradicting Paul's statement in Gal 3:16" [Abraham's Four Seeds]. Again, Reisinger (regardless of what you think of NCT) does do a marvelous job answering Scott's question in great detail in his book linked to above.
Securely His by God's grace, dC
Christopher
Puritan Board Freshman
Do you think Jesus was drawing a distinction between the offsping of Abraham and his "children" (tekna)?
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Someone said, "In John 8:30-41 Jesus says that the Pharisees are indeed Abrahams seed. " I think that statement is missing the point... pay close attention to v.40.
The Scriptures purport a profound unity within the body of Christ, which includes peoples of all nations (Eph 2:12-14; Heb 11:24-26; Rom 11:16-17).
In his letter to the Galatians, the Apostle Paul explains that all those of faith are heirs to the covenant promises of Abraham: 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ... 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator... 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus... 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:16,19,26,28,29)
The Scripture speaks for itself... Paul practically exegetes it for the reader... yet so many feel a compulsion to make a pronounced dichotomy between Jews of faith and Gentile believers, as if God has Plan A for one and Plan B for another.
http://www.chaim.org/xpansion.htm
This is not what dispensationalists pejoratively denigrate as "replacement theology" but rather it is "expansion theology." As the Apostle Paul makes clear, God has not cast his first people off by any means, but there is a remnant according to election (Rom. 11:1-8).
Dispensationalists or those lead atray by them toss out that God has some other way of redeeming the Patriarchs and Jews of old. What about John 14:6? Who did the patriarchs place their faith in? "By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for THE SAKE OF Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward" (Heb 11:24-26.) There are shadows and types of Christ in the sacrifices and indeed throughout the OT. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Faith was, as it is now, the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. (Heb. 12:1)
The Scriptures purport a profound unity within the body of Christ, which includes peoples of all nations (Eph 2:12-14; Heb 11:24-26; Rom 11:16-17).
In his letter to the Galatians, the Apostle Paul explains that all those of faith are heirs to the covenant promises of Abraham: 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ... 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator... 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus... 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:16,19,26,28,29)
The Scripture speaks for itself... Paul practically exegetes it for the reader... yet so many feel a compulsion to make a pronounced dichotomy between Jews of faith and Gentile believers, as if God has Plan A for one and Plan B for another.
http://www.chaim.org/xpansion.htm
This is not what dispensationalists pejoratively denigrate as "replacement theology" but rather it is "expansion theology." As the Apostle Paul makes clear, God has not cast his first people off by any means, but there is a remnant according to election (Rom. 11:1-8).
Dispensationalists or those lead atray by them toss out that God has some other way of redeeming the Patriarchs and Jews of old. What about John 14:6? Who did the patriarchs place their faith in? "By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for THE SAKE OF Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward" (Heb 11:24-26.) There are shadows and types of Christ in the sacrifices and indeed throughout the OT. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Faith was, as it is now, the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. (Heb. 12:1)
- Status
