PDA

View Full Version : Replacement Theology



Equipped_4_Love
Aug 22nd 2008, 05:39 AM
Who here holds to Replacement Theology?

What Scriptural evidence is there for or against this doctrine?

matthew94
Aug 22nd 2008, 07:34 AM
In my observation there are 2 groups sometimes labeled as 'replacement theologians'.

The 1st group is rightly called such. They believe that, in the Old Covenant, the Jews were God's people, but now, under the New Covenant, God has switched to the gentiles (Jews are no longer welcome). This is an anti-semitic doctrine. Thankfully, I've found very few people who actually hold it (even on the internet). There is no good biblical support for this position. The vast majority in the early church WERE Jewish believers. And the Jews are still welcome into 'The Way'

A 2nd group is labeled incorrectly. The dispensationalists like to call people 'replacement theologians' just for believing that physical/national Israel is no longer God's nation. This group believes the church is God's Holy people. But it is not an anti-semitic belief since both Jews and Gentiles are welcomed into the church. In a sense, 'unbelieving Jews' were, indeed, cut-off and 'replaced' (so to speak) by believing Gentiles. In that limited sense, 'replacement theology' fits. But such a view is based on many Scriptures.

In my experience, dispensationalists are the only group that tends to use the term 'replacement theology' and they simply use it as a negative label for 'covenant theology' b/c 'covenant theology' doesn't place a continued importance on national/political/modern Israel.

vinsight4u8
Aug 22nd 2008, 07:49 AM
The church has come to fulfill part of Deuteronomy 32.

"They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God, they have
provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy
with [those which are] not a people..."
v21

The church is be something to make Israel jealous.

Here is the same message in the NT.

"But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy
by [them that are] no people..."
Romans 10:19

then read chapter 11 to see how God has not cast away His people which He foreknew

"...that they should fall? God forbid...salvation [is] come unto the Genitles, for to provoke them to jealousy."
11:11

Ron Brown
Aug 22nd 2008, 08:05 AM
The Church is the bride of Christ.

The nation of Israel is the bride of the Father.

If the Father is through with the nation of Israel, then how do you explain the book of Romans? Paul explains the place of the nation of Israel in God's plans, in the book of Romans.

The dispensation of grace is what has led the Gentiles to Christ, and the great tribulation is the dispensation that will lead the nation of Israel to Christ.

The nation of Israel has the exact same salvation plan through Christ as the gentiles do, but the nation of Israel has a different dispensation assigned to them in coming to Christ. It's called the great tribulation.

valleybldr
Aug 22nd 2008, 09:36 AM
In my experience, dispensationalists are the only group that tends to use the term 'replacement theology' and they simply use it as a negative label for 'covenant theology' b/c 'covenant theology' doesn't place a continued importance on national/political/modern Israel.
Messianics use the term all the time. IMO, much of modern Christianity is about replacing all things "Jewish" with all things "Gentile." This was the intent of the "early church fathers" who helped further open the floodgates of Gentiles into the church (started largely by Paul's ministry though Gentilizing the Body of Messiah was not his intent) and it's now deeply entrenched in most Christians. todd

David Taylor
Aug 22nd 2008, 10:58 AM
Who here holds to Replacement Theology?

What Scriptural evidence is there for or against this doctrine?



The only people I have ever met on this board in the last 3 years, who ever mention or bring up Replacement Theology; are adamant Dispensationalists who pull this card out to make diggs and jabs at non-Dispensationalists.

I've never seen or met anyone here, saying that anyone is replaced and kicked out so that another can move it.

God says in Romans 11 that the believing natural branches(Jews) are graffed in with the believing wild branches(Gentiles) and together they partake of the fatness of Christ. All (regardless or race) who remain in disbelieve, are broken off and cast into the fire.

R.P. is a bogus doctrine used to attack a differing viewpoint that believes all of those who come to God are His; and is opposed to racism in any form....whereas the folks using playing the R.P. card tend to adamantly hold to racial groups and racial favorites; from what I have observed.

Most Dispensationalists and non-Dispensationalists however, reject R.P. altogether, and do not use it as a slur; realizing it is a debate red herring that noone believes.

losthorizon
Aug 22nd 2008, 11:41 AM
Messianics use the term all the time. IMO, much of modern Christianity is about replacing all things "Jewish" with all things "Gentile." This was the intent of the "early church fathers" who helped further open the floodgates of Gentiles into the church (started largely by Paul's ministry though Gentilizing the Body of Messiah was not his intent) and it's now deeply entrenched in most Christians. todd
In your typical revisionist style are you suggesting the apostolic church did not welcome Gentiles into the body of Christ? The New Testament did replace the Old Testament – both Jew and Gentile are now one "in Christ Jesus.” The "floodgates of Gentiles" is by God's design is it not? Christians today are the Israel of God.
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:11-12 (KJV)

valleybldr
Aug 22nd 2008, 11:44 AM
In your typical revisionist style are you suggesting the apostolic church did not welcome Gentiles into the body of Christ?
Hardly what I said. todd

losthorizon
Aug 22nd 2008, 11:48 AM
Hardly what I said. todd
Then clarify your position.

David Taylor
Aug 22nd 2008, 12:24 PM
The Church is the bride of Christ.

The nation of Israel is the bride of the Father.

You sound poly-theistic.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.

there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

The Father and the Son are both God; not two separate gods.
Salvation of Israel and Italy and Ireland and everyone else comes through Him; Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.




If the Father is through with the nation of Israel, then how do you explain the book of Romans? Paul explains the place of the nation of Israel in God's plans, in the book of Romans.

The book of Romans shows us that it is believing and faithful of Israel that the Father has plans for. The book of Romans also shows us that the unfaithful and unbelieving of Israel (and of the Gentiles) are cut off and thrown in the fire. Again, noone is replaced.



The dispensation of grace is what has led the Gentiles to Christ, and the great tribulation is the dispensation that will lead the nation of Israel to Christ.

The Apostle Peter taught differently.
Peter taught that repentence and turning to believe and follow Jesus was the plan of salvation for all the House of Israel; starting in the 1st century A.D., and including their children, and everyone from that generation onwoard who would believe.

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. "

Noone is replaced.
Christ calls "whosoever will, let him come".

apothanein kerdos
Aug 23rd 2008, 02:39 AM
R.P. is a theological holocaust that breeds nothing but contempt for the Jewish people.

The problem with all sides of this debate - including covenant and dispensational theology - is they ignore the original purpose of Israel. The Jews were never chosen for salvation, but to act as an example of God's faithfulness and to bring salvation to the masses. In light of this, the Jews are still chosen as are Christians, but the 'chosen' part is different: one is chosen to be an example of God's faithfulness to a specific people group while the other is chosen for salvation.

losthorizon
Aug 23rd 2008, 03:26 PM
R.P. is a theological holocaust that breeds nothing but contempt for the Jewish people.

The problem with all sides of this debate - including covenant and dispensational theology - is they ignore the original purpose of Israel. The Jews were never chosen for salvation, but to act as an example of God's faithfulness and to bring salvation to the masses. In light of this, the Jews are still chosen as are Christians, but the 'chosen' part is different: one is chosen to be an example of God's faithfulness to a specific people group while the other is chosen for salvation.
God does not have two plans today – one for the physical Jew and one for Gentiles. The NT is clear - the Jews as a nation rejected their Messiah, a rejection that continues today in the secular nation of Israel. God has replaced physical Israel with a new “holy nation”, a spiritual nation – “the Israel of God” – comprised of both believing Jew and believing Gentile. The “Jew” today is not one who is “one outwardly” but the true Jew is one who is “one inwardly” – ie - the Jew today is one who has submitted to the “circumcision of the heart” as presented in the gospel of Christ. It is only those who submit to this circumcision, whether Jew or Gentile who becomes the children of God - the true “seed of Abraham”.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Romans 2:28-29 (KJV)

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:26-29 (KJV)

apothanein kerdos
Aug 23rd 2008, 04:22 PM
God does not have two plans today – one for the physical Jew and one for Gentiles. The NT is clear - the Jews as a nation rejected their Messiah, a rejection that continues today in the secular nation of Israel. God has replaced physical Israel with a new “holy nation”, a spiritual nation – “the Israel of God” – comprised of both believing Jew and believing Gentile. The “Jew” today is not one who is “one outwardly” but the true Jew is one who is “one inwardly” – ie - the Jew today is one who has submitted to the “circumcision of the heart” as presented in the gospel of Christ. It is only those who submit to this circumcision, whether Jew or Gentile who becomes the children of God - the true “seed of Abraham”.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Romans 2:28-29 (KJV)

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:26-29 (KJV)


Romans 9-12 blows away any idea of the Jews being rejected.

Here (http://jborofsky.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/christianity-and-the-hebrewsdoc.pdf) is an article that sums up my beliefs. You don't need to read the entire thing, just "A Great Nation" (pg 4-5) and pages 15-33 (up to "Jewish Persecution of Christians"). It provides a strong Biblical defense for my position. If I could, I'd copy it all onto here.

Frances
Aug 23rd 2008, 08:12 PM
If God ever 'replaced' the Jews in His affections He could not be relied on to Forgive and accept the Christians either. . . but neither will ever happen, because He always keeps His Promises.

losthorizon
Aug 23rd 2008, 08:48 PM
Romans 9-12 blows away any idea of the Jews being rejected.

Here (http://jborofsky.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/christianity-and-the-hebrewsdoc.pdf) is an article that sums up my beliefs. You don't need to read the entire thing, just "A Great Nation" (pg 4-5) and pages 15-33 (up to "Jewish Persecution of Christians"). It provides a strong Biblical defense for my position. If I could, I'd copy it all onto here.
Joel – I normally do not read referred to papers and websites outside of the thread in question because I do not debate outside sources. I did however make an exception and proofed pages 4 and 5 of your work but I find nothing to support (biblically) the notion that God operates under two distinct operating systems when interacting with His chosen people today – one for the physical Jew and one for the physical Gentile – He does not have such a plan. Through His work on the cross, Jesus made both Jew and Gentile “one in Christ Jesus” – both parties are reconciled to God “in one body through the cross”. There is no distinction – God has only ONE people today just as He has only ONE holy nation and that people and that one spiritual nation has nothing whatsoever to do with unbelieving Jews who have rejected the Messiahship of “the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world”. God’s people today are Christians – both Jew and Gentile - who accept and obey the gospel of grace.
"For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity." (Ephesians 2:14-16)

BroRog
Aug 23rd 2008, 09:02 PM
The return of Jews to the land should render Replacement Theology a moot point.

timmyb
Aug 23rd 2008, 09:35 PM
a form of replacement theology also teaches that God no longer has a covenant with Israel... they teach that the church has the promises that God made to Israel in the Old Testament... which is altogether a false doctrine... to say that God breaks any covenant is an assault on his character

apothanein kerdos
Aug 23rd 2008, 10:12 PM
Joel – I normally do not read referred to papers and websites outside of the thread in question because I do not debate outside sources. I did however make an exception and proofed pages 4 and 5 of your work but I find nothing to support (biblically) the notion that God operates under two distinct operating systems when interacting with His chosen people today – one for the physical Jew and one for the physical Gentile – He does not have such a plan. Through His work on the cross, Jesus made both Jew and Gentile “one in Christ Jesus” – both parties are reconciled to God “in one body through the cross”. There is no distinction – God has only ONE people today just as He has only ONE holy nation and that people and that one spiritual nation has nothing whatsoever to do with unbelieving Jews who have rejected the Messiahship of “the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world”. God’s people today are Christians – both Jew and Gentile - who accept and obey the gospel of grace.
"For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity." (Ephesians 2:14-16)


I wrote the article. It's too big to post on this forum, hence the link.

If you can't respond to it then I'll consider it valid to continue bringing up as a response.

As seen from the Scriptures given from both the Old and New Testament (specifically Romans 12 and Hosea) God does, in fact, have a special plan for the Jewish people. They are not saved in their chosen status (never have been as the article states), but they are set aside.

losthorizon
Aug 23rd 2008, 10:54 PM
I wrote the article. It's too big to post on this forum, hence the link.

If you can't respond to it then I'll consider it valid to continue bringing up as a response.

As seen from the Scriptures given from both the Old and New Testament (specifically Romans 12 and Hosea) God does, in fact, have a special plan for the Jewish people. They are not saved in their chosen status (never have been as the article states), but they are set aside.
I know it is your work that’s why I looked at the two pages you pointed out. I have responded to it – I see no scriptural support for your notion that God has two holy people today – (1) Christians who submit to His Messiahship and (2) unbelieving Jews who have rejected Him for 2000 years. Such a notion is not found in Holy Writ. If you want to defend your position do it on this thread and we will see what you have to offer. If you cannot defend it on this thread I will understand that you can't defend it.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 23rd 2008, 11:09 PM
I know it is your work that’s why I looked at the two pages you pointed out. I have responded to it – I see no scriptural support for your notion that God has two holy people today – (1) Christians who submit to His Messiahship and (2) unbelieving Jews who have rejected Him for 2000 years. Such a notion is not found in Holy Writ. If you want to defend your position do it on this thread and we will see what you have to offer. If you cannot defend it on this thread I will understand that you can't defend it.

If that's how you want it...



When people think of “the Jews” they generally think of bearded men with
strange curly sideburns and weird hats praying towards a wall – such a caricature couldn’t be further from the truth. People associate “Jew” with “Judaism” and subsequently believe that anyone who claims to be Jewish must also ascribe to Judaism. Though there are certain elements within the Orthodox (Judaism) community who teach a true Jew is a practicing Jew, genetically this simply is not the case. Jews are an ethnicity, though unique in that there is a culture and religion tied to the ethnicity. However, just as it would be inappropriate to believe all Arabs, Persians, or North Africans are Muslims, it is also inappropriate to believe that all Jews somehow practice Judaism.

From a New Testament perspective one does not need to look any further
than Paul’s own words. In Romans 9:3-4 Paul states that the lost Jews are his own kinsmen. In the Greek, there is no way to mistake what Paul is stating. The Greek reads, συγγενων μου κατα σαρκα (suggenon mou kata sarka), which is a Greek idiom. The problem is most translations attempt to do a “word for word” translation, which works about 99% of the time, until an idiom is reached. The word for word might state what the idiom is, but doesn’t state what the idea is behind the idiom. In this instance, the
NASB reads that the Israelites are Paul’s “…kinsmen according to the flesh.” In modern English it would read that they are his brothers according to his ethnicity, or blood. Thus, if the Jews are not a race, then Paul is mistaken in Romans 9 where he states that he is of their same bloodline. He would be sorely misguided then in implicating that Christ was completely Jewish in His own lineage (9:5). Therefore, either Paul is mistaken,
or one must accept that the Jewish people are a race/ethnicity and not just a religion.

Further evidence is that the lineage of the Messiah is traced through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and so on. If one looks at the lineage, it is not a spiritual lineage, but a physical one. That is to say, the lineage is passed on from generation to generation according to the bloodline and not to the spiritual status of the person involved (for instance, Judah – who paid his daughter-in-law to have sex with him – is on the list though he lacked quite a bit spiritually). The purpose in keeping a meticulous record of
the genealogy is to prove the kingship of the Messiah – if the Jews, however, were not a race, then such a genealogy would be pointless. The genealogy would only matter if there was a bloodline of descendents, and this is only possible if the Jews are an ethnicity. Thus, the bloodline is further evidence to the proof of the Jews existing as a race.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 23rd 2008, 11:30 PM
With that in mind:

The cause of much anti-Semitism flows from the belief that the Jews have
somehow lost their calling of God, but the New Testament – specifically Paul – addresses this issue face on and states that the Jews are still chosen. Before going further, it must be understood what “chosen” means.

The obscurity of the term “chosen” is understandable as Paul often uses it to describe those who have been elected by God to salvation. Thus, people often commit the fallacy of equivocation by assuming that because “chosen” means one thing in one sentence, it means the same thing in all sentences. This, however, does not work. For instance, if Jenny said she loved ice cream and that she loved her husband, we could not logically deduct that Jenny loves her ice cream as much as she loves her husband. The reason is there are not enough contexts to equivocate the two usages of the word “love.” Just because the same word is used does not mean the same meaning is meant in each usage. Likewise, when one says the Jews are chosen, this does not necessarily mean, “chosen for salvation.” It can mean a variety of things when used in the Biblical context, such as chosen for a purpose, chosen for a plan, chosen for a blessing, ad infinitum.

Thus, we must ask ourselves, were the Jews as a whole ever called to salvation (that is, chosen to be saved regardless of their choice)? Romans 9:6-8 seems to indicate that they weren’t:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all
Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR
DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the
flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Spiritually speaking, only those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Messiah can be the spiritual children of God. This, however, was never the calling of Israel. Israel was never called en masse to salvation, but merely as instruments to God’s blessing of salvation. All this proves, however, is that the Jewish people as a whole were never called to salvation; it does not, however, negate the true calling of Israel and their
future purpose.

What it is to be Chosen

If “chosen” when used as an adjective to Jews does not mean “salvation,” then it must mean something else – that “something else” is God choosing to reveal His glory through them. Note that Genesis 12 states that salvation and blessings will come from Abraham’s physical descendants, so that all tribes might be blessed. This shows that salvation was not exclusively awarded to the Jew, but it also shows that the Jews held a
special spot in the revelation of this salvation. Though most modern Jews have rejected this salvation through Christ, it still shows that part of the Jewish calling was to give salvation to all peoples.

Secondly, the Jews are to serve as a people that show God’s glory in
governmental rulings. The Jews were picked out of all other nations to have God as their leader. Whereas Christians are called to follow God in whatever country under whatever government, Jews were called to establish their government (in the land promised to them) and rule it as God wished them to rule it. Genesis 17:8 shows that land was promised to Israel for them to rule and this land was made under an eternal covenant
(17:9). If the covenant is eternal (as will be shown later in the article) and is a promise of land, then we must still assume this promise is in effect. There is no reason to doubt that God has gone back on His promise, as He does no such thing (Romans 11:28-29). Therefore, this land is still chosen for the Jews and the Jews are still chosen for the land.

Lastly, though we can never fully understand why God chose the Jews, we can get a hint that they were chosen to show God’s faithfulness to His people. God is faithful to this people He has chosen who have been in constant rebellion against Him since the days of Moses; how much more faithful is He going to be to those He has called to salvation? The Jews, unlike any other race, have survived the test of time. Their culture
is still intact, their language remains relatively unchanged, and they have held together more than any other culture while facing persecution that supersedes what any other nation has ever had to face. If God has rejected the Jews and is no longer faithful to them due to their unfaithfulness, we must assume that the Jews have bested God and
survived when they shouldn’t have. We must take a humanistic approach and believe that the Jews survived under their own power without any help from God. The faithful Christian cannot stomach such a thought, that man could possibly do well on his own without God. Thus, the Christian must conclude that the Jews survive today because they are still chosen, because God is faithful to His people.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 23rd 2008, 11:49 PM
Continuing...

One of the most erroneous beliefs about the Jewish people is that they have somehow been rejected by God, but if this is true then no Jew could ever be saved. Paul actually dealt with this issue in his writings to the Romans. Romans 11:1-2 very adamantly states that God has not rejected the Jewish people:

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!
For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

In explaining what Paul means, Leander Keck masterfully notes, “Israel as a
people cannot be rejected if there are Israelites who are not rejected. Paul is not the exception that proves the rule (that Israel is rejected), because as a believer he is an Israelite (is is emphasized in Greek), a specific instance that demonstrates that God has not rejected the people. Adding ‘whom He foreknew’ underscores God’s constancy: The One who on his own initiative chose Israel (and chose Jacob over Esau) has not responded to Israel’s unbelief by rejection.” Paul states that Israel has not been
rejected because he (Paul) is a Christian. Paul’s argument in Romans 11 is quite simple – if the Jews were rejected as an ethnicity and were no longer chosen, then no Jew could possibly be saved. Paul’s logic on this is to be rejected by God means there can be no salvation available – once a
person is alienated from God that person cannot possibly come to Him, unless that person is more powerful than God’s rejection. Paul then states that some Jews are saved. He points to himself and others within the Roman congregation as ethnic Jews who are saved. He then concludes that because of this, ethnic Israel has not been rejected by God.

This form of thinking is very common in Paul’s writing to the Romans and follows basic syllogistic logic. The syllogism is very simple and looks like this:
(a) If the Jewish people were rejected, no Jew could be a Christian.
(b) Some Jews have come to Christ.
(c) Therefore, the Jewish people haven’t been rejected.

We must keep in mind that for (a) to be true (b) must follow. If (b) doesn’t
follow, then (c) must summarize a logical conclusion related to the situation between (a) and (b). If we change (c) to read (c1), “Therefore, the Jews are still rejected by God,” then we have a logical contradiction. Unless (b) can be proven false, (c1) cannot be a logical acceptance in the syllogism Paul has presented and, therefore, one must logically
conclude (c).

Romans 11:28-29 simply goes further to prove the point that Paul is making by stating that God’s promises are irrevocable. Paul says:

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

In other words, from our own perspective the Jews might look as enemies for they have rejected the Gospel. From God’s perspective, however, they are still loved because of what their forefathers did and because God’s callings are irrevocable.

Therefore, God could not have possibly rejected Israel, for if He did Paul would be wrong. If Paul is correct, then the Jews are still called and still chosen. If Israel has been rejected, if the Jews are no longer chosen, then Paul is wrong.

The Remnant of Israel

The Jews that are being saved, who prove Israel has not been rejected by God, serve as a remnant of Jews faithful to God through Israel’s rebellion. Throughout the Old Testament one can read of how the Jews would rebel, but there was always a remnant of faithful Jews who followed God. The Jews of today who have accepted Christ are no different – they are chosen for God’s blessings through who their forefathers were, but
they are faithful to God by serving Him. The Jews of today who have accepted Christ are a remnant of faithful Jews. As Keck observes, “For Paul, ‘remnant’ does not refer simply to what is left over (as in a fabric shop) but to the enduring part that survives disaster and so assures the future.” Keck is stating a truth – if there is no future for the Jews, if
they are no longer chosen, there is no need for there to be a remnant. The purpose of a remnant is to restore something to its original purpose. A remnant of survivors of Katrina in New Orleans would be there to restore New Orleans to its ideal place. They would not cease to be citizens of New Orleans. Likewise, the Messianic Jews serve to restore Israel to what it was supposed to be when the proper time comes. Paul would be holding out a false hope if Israel was, in fact, no longer chosen. Through this remnant, however, all of Israel will be brought back to God. The
current rebellion of God is merely part of His plan for the Jews as He will one day close off the Gospel to the Gentiles and open it up to the Jews. Romans 11:25-27 states:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so
that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME
FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. THIS IS
MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so

The Biblical Knowledge Commentary explains this verse by saying, “Israel’s
corporate stumbling, which is temporary, not permanent, is called a mystery…God’s sovereign plan to put Israel aside temporarily in order to show grace to Gentiles is no basis for conceit on the part of the Gentiles; it is designed to display further the glory of God.”Thus, Paul states that God has a future plan for the Jews, which would indicate that they are still quite chosen. Though the Jews are currently in rebellion against God –
of which the rebellious Jews will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (just as anyone, regardless of ethnicity, will not enter God’s kingdom without being covered by Christ’s blood) – this does not negate their chosen nature, specifically the future calling of God for their return to Him. If the Jews were rejected by God, one would logically have to ask how this return could be possible. If the Jews are rejected then such a spiritual return simply is not possible, unless God decides to change His mind in the future. Knowing that God does not change, one must accept that the Jews, though in rebellion, are still chosen by God.

Hosea and His Whore
The book of Hosea presents God as a jilted husband and Israel as the prostitute turned wife who has been unfaithful to her groom. The entire point of Hosea, however, is that Israel will be punished for her unfaithfulness by being exiled, but will not be forgotten by God and will one day be called back. Hosea paints the accurate picture of Israel as a nation that had gone against God. Yet, through the book God never told Hosea to divorce his wife (who represented Israel) and never said He would forget
Israel. Instead, God promises that He will one day restore Israel back to her glory.

The entire book, from chapters 1-13, discuss Israel’s rebellion, her former stature with God, and what the consequences will be for Israel because of the pain she has brought to God – chapter 14, however, discusses the future restoration of Israel. Hosea 2:6 foreshadows this event when God says that He will “hem Israel in,” throw up walls to block her path, and leave her with no choice but to follow Him. This is a future
promise, but has it been fulfilled?

Hosea is speaking to the Northern Kingdom (Israel) in his book, right before
Israel’s exile by Assyria. Most scholars date his ministry from BC 755 to BC 722. In verses 9:3 and 11:5 Hosea speaks of how Israel will be exiled and scattered throughout the entire world as punishment for her crimes against God. After Solomon, the 12 tribes split into two kingdoms. Ten tribes took the northern kingdom (Israel) while two tribes took the southern kingdom (Judah). Though Judah had some Godly kings (8), Israel had none. Thus, from the time of Solomon’s death (BC 931) to the exile of Israel (BC 722)
Israel did not have a single Godly king. This means that for 209 years, Israel lived in rebellion against God. As punishment, God promised He was going to exile these rebellious tribes and scatter them among the nations. To this day, Israel is still scattered and has yet to return to God spiritually.
The problem with the book of Hosea, however, is that the first 13 chapters are fulfilled while the last chapter has yet to be fulfilled. Chapter 14 is a double promise to return Israel to her land and, more importantly, to return her to God and end her rebellion. Most of Israel’s land today is occupied by Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. There has yet to be a complete physical return, though about 60% of Israel’s land composes modern day Israel. Spiritually, however, Chapter 14 is left almost completely unfulfilled.

If the Jews are no longer chosen, then Chapter 14 serves as an unfulfilled promise of God that will never be fulfilled – Chapter 14 would indicate that God does not always live up to His promises. Thankfully, however, God upholds His promises and the Jews are still chosen, thus one day Chapter 14 will be completely fulfilled. This promise cannot be in reference to the Church either. Some might try to argue that all promises in the Old Testament are now meant for the Church. Hosea 14, however, cannot in any way refer to the modern Church. For one, chapters 1-13 set the
significance of chapter 14 and explain why chapter 14 is needed. Unless we want to advocate that chapters 1-13 refer to the modern Church as well (which would be laughable and illogical), we must conclude that chapter 14 is also meant for Israel.

Likewise, the Church is composed of those who have humbled themselves before God in holy submission to Him. Though not perfect, they have been declared righteous by the blood of Christ. Chapter 14, however, is meant for a people in rebellion who are in desperate need of restoration. The Church simply does not fit this description, but Israel does. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude, with any intellectual honesty, that chapter 14 refers to the Church – it only refers to Israel.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 23rd 2008, 11:59 PM
...and so on...

God established a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12, but expounded on it in Genesis 17:7-8, saying:

I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your
descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting
covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Notice that there are many key words within this passage. God states that the covenant He makes with Abraham is eternal, everlasting, and will last through all His descendents. This covenant, likewise, includes the inheritance of a land (Canaan). The land is promised to Abraham’s physical offspring, that they might inhabit it and worship God in that land. Though God requires Abraham be circumcised, this serves as proof of one who has taken the covenant of God. If one is not circumcised, he is to be cut off from his people, but it says nothing about being cut off from God. Furthermore, God never says He will abandon Israel if they rebel. This, it would seem, is to keep consistent with His promise of an everlasting covenant.

Some attempt to say that Christians supplant Jews as Abraham’s descendents, but in the case of the covenant in Genesis 17 this line of thinking simply does not work. Canaan is promised to Abraham’s descendents. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that the Church has replaced the Jews, we would have to argue that the land of Canaan is
meant for the Church. This brings up two very big problems:

1) The Church is called to go to all the nations of the world and not to establish a government. Christ, Paul, and Peter are all adamant that Christians are to obey the government and give the government what it is owed, but none of them come out and say Christians are to establish a government. For Christians to own a land, they would need a government. If this were the case then someone should have left a model for how this government should look – instead, the Bible is silent on the issue. Furthermore, Christians are called to go into all lands unto the end of the earth – it would make no sense for Christians to inhabit the land of Canaan when they are to be everywhere.

2) Were the Jews illegally holding the land of Israel prior to the incarnation of Christ? If Abraham’s promise was meant for the Church, then why was the land promised to Israel delivered to them by God when it was meant for God’s faithful?

These are the problems presented when people attempt to supplant Israel with the Church in Genesis 17. It simply makes more sense that Genesis 17 is meant for Israel; being meant for Israel, one can assume the covenant is truly eternal, meaning the modern state of Israel is a partial fulfillment of Genesis 17.

God’s Blessing

Since the substance of the covenant remains intact, it is safe to say that Genesis 12:3 is likewise still in effect. This means that those who curse the Jews will likewise be cursed. Those that bless the Jews will likewise be blessed. Though a Jew might be lost and have no salvation, they hold a special place in God’s heart, so special in fact that if one is to harm him, and then one will suffer great consequences. Looking throughout
history this has proven to be the case. Babylon, Assyria, Rome, Egypt, Canaan, Germany, Russia, the Papal States, and many others have all cursed the Jews and done great harm to the Jews. In return, these nations no longer exist, exist in poverty, exist in political turmoil, or have suffered great losses of life due to war, famine, or other things. It is no coincidence that any nation who harms Israel likewise ends up destroyed or severely
crippled. It is also no coincidence either that the United States is blessed (or was blessed).

Jews found refuge in Colonial America when they could find refuge in no other nation.They prospered in America when they were not allowed to prosper anywhere else. For three hundred years, Jews had lived in ghettos and in segregation – yet when they came to the colonies they found peace and prosperity. America should not have won the Revolutionary War. She should not have survived economically. She should not have survived, period. Yet, because of her support of the Jews she became the most powerful nation on earth. God fulfills His promises.

The Two Covenants

One vital aspect Christians must understand is that there are not two covenants within the Bible concerning salvation – there is merely one covenant that is slowly revealed as the text progresses. The “Old Testament Saints” were saved by faith, just as we are saved now. One misconception is that these saints were saved by the animal sacrifices or by following God’s word. However, as Hebrews 11 states, all of these saints were saved by faith through grace. Their works were merely a result of faith.

The salvation covenant was first revealed to man in Genesis 3:15. At that point the only think mankind knew about the Messiah was that He would be a human and He would triumph over Satan. Moses was revealed more information and, as time progressed, more information was revealed about the coming Messiah. There were symbolic acts during these times, however, to remind the people of what the Messiah would do. The animal sacrifices were performed as a symbolic act of the ultimate sacrifice that was yet to come. When Christ came, He fulfilled the covenant – this does
not mean He eradicated the covenant and began a new one. A good example is of a child who is excited about opening his present on Christmas morning. For a week before Christmas his parents give him one hint a day. Thus, he would know more about his present 3 days away from Christmas than he did 5 days away from Christmas. When he finally opens his present his waiting and anticipation will be fulfilled. This does not mean, however, that he is finished with the present or has started a new waiting game.
Instead, he now has what he has desired and hoped for. Likewise, the saints prior to Christ did not know who the Messiah would be, but relied on God’s promises and hoped for His coming. When Christ came, He fulfilled their hope and completed the covenant so that today we have a full knowledge of who the Messiah is. The salvation covenant that God established in the beginning did not cease with Christ; it was fulfilled in Him.

Thus, the acts that the Jews committed prior to Christ did not save them, but were merely a manifestation of their faith in the coming Messiah – they were saved by Christ’s sacrifice prior to Christ dying because of God’s sovereignty and timelessness. To substantiate this theory, E. Ray Clendenen states, “…since the eternal and timeless God is sovereign over events, He could apply the work of Christ to Old Testament believers in
response to their faith, even though they had no specific knowledge of Christ.” Thus, there is no such thing as the “Old Covenant” that had to be done away with, but instead there is one covenant that was fulfilled in Christ.

The significance in this is that many people say the Church has replaced Israel because of the change in the covenants. If, however, there was no change in the covenants, then Israel has not been replaced. The salvation aspect of the covenant was merely opened to Gentiles. If this is the case then Jews cannot be rejected by God or no longer chosen as this would drastically alter the covenant God established – in fact, He would be guilty of violating the covenant He made (as it would no longer be everlasting).
Thus, the fact that there is only one covenant proves that the Jews are still chosen.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 24th 2008, 12:19 AM
The passage of Hebrews 8 would seemingly contradict the above, but it fails to do so under proper interpretation. Though the words “old” and “new” are used, these are merely referring to the form of the covenant and not the substance of the covenant. The “new” covenant has changed in its form because it no longer requires “shadow events.” The “old” covenant required adherence to the law, sacrifices, ceremonies, and many other
things that served as a shadow of what was to come. The “new” covenant no longer needs that as Christ has come and we are to focus on Him. In both instances, the form – how the covenant is practiced – is different, thus one is “old” and one is “new.” The substance – that one is saved through faith in the Messiah – remains unchanged.

One might point to Hebrews 8:10 and show that Israel does not fit this
description, thus the covenant made with Israel is no longer in effect. Not only would this statement contradict all the evidence brought forth (and thus show the Bible to have a contradiction), but it would assume that 8:10 has already been fulfilled. Can any ethnicity be said to fill 8:10? In fact, can any Christian – dead or alive – fulfill Hebrews 8:10? It
states that God’s law will be embedded on the hearts and minds of the people and that the people will follow God’s law. Unless there is a Christian in this world that has ceased sinning, Hebrews 8:10 has yet to be fulfilled. Though the substance of the covenant is fulfilled, the form of the covenant has yet to be fulfilled. Instead, Hebrews 8:10 is referring to a future event – when all of God’s saints are in Heaven – where all of His
children will be perfect and will no longer sin. Thus, nothing in Hebrews 8 disproves that there is one salvific covenant and that Israel is still a part of that covenant (though she will not wholly accept this covenant until a future date).

RogerW
Aug 24th 2008, 12:31 AM
Greetings Joel,

I read some of your article, and would like to comment on only one small part that you have not fully understood. You said that Gen 17:8,9 “shows the land was promised to Israel for them to rule and this land was made under an eternal covenant. If the covenant is eternal (as will be shown later in the article) and is a promise of land, then we must still assume this promise is in effect.”

Ge 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Ge 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

The promise of an everlasting possession of the land of Canaan came with a stipulation. “Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore”! What happens to the covenant people if they turn away from God and do not keep His covenant?

Jos 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
Jos 21:44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
Jos 21:45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

After God had given the children of Israel all the land He had promised, Joshua spoke these words to the nation. If they were to continue to possess the land forever as the Lord had promised, they must not turn away from the one true God, nor worship idols, or make marriages with foreign nations. For if they transgress the covenant of the Lord, then they would perish quickly from off the good land the Lord had given them.

Jos 23:11 Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God.
Jos 23:12 Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you:
Jos 23:13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Jos 23:14 And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof.
Jos 23:15 Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Jos 23:16 When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.

The eternal promise made to the children of Israel regarding possession of the promised land would still be in force today IF the nation had faithfully kept His covenant. It was not that God failed to keep the covenant, it was the children of Israel who failed to obey. Just as Adam and Eve were driven from the garden of Eden when the disobeyed God, so too the nation has forsaken the good land the Lord had promised because they too disobeyed God.

The covenant of Redemption is not through the physical seed of Abraham, but through the Spiritual Seed (Christ) through Isaac. Just added this for your consideration.

If you have misunderstood the everlasting land promise, perhaps you have misunderstood something more?

Ge 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Ge 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
Ge 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Many Blessings,
RW

apothanein kerdos
Aug 24th 2008, 01:06 AM
Problem with that argument is that it ignores the passage in Hosea and other passages dealing with a future restoration of the land. The removal of the land is, through reading the Bible, always a temporary punishment. It is never an eternal or finalized punishment.

Proof of this warning being a punishment and not a permanent establishment is how the Jews were exiled and lost their land then regained it multiple times.

RogerW
Aug 24th 2008, 01:35 AM
Problem with that argument is that it ignores the passage in Hosea and other passages dealing with a future restoration of the land. The removal of the land is, through reading the Bible, always a temporary punishment. It is never an eternal or finalized punishment.

Proof of this warning being a punishment and not a permanent establishment is how the Jews were exiled and lost their land then regained it multiple times.

But the only way it would not be permanent is if the nation turned back to God, put away their false idols, and abominations they serve, and worship only the one true God. This they have never done, and they never will. They are today still waiting for the Messiah to come the first time. So God sent the Roman Army and made them desolate just as He promised.

Mt 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mt 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mt 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Mt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Mt 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Many Blessings,
RW

apothanein kerdos
Aug 24th 2008, 02:01 AM
But the only way it would not be permanent is if the nation turned back to God, put away their false idols, and abominations they serve, and worship only the one true God. This they have never done, and they never will. They are today still waiting for the Messiah to come the first time. So God sent the Roman Army and made them desolate just as He promised.

They never will? So you're just going to ignore everything I posted?

As for returning, when they returned they had to be spiritually renewed while there. Note the return from the Babylonian exile where they had to be preached to after being returned.

Your reasoning simply doesn't work when compared to other Scriptures.

Saying they'll never return spiritually, by the way, is border-line anti-Semitic as it makes a statement about them as a people...

BroRog
Aug 24th 2008, 02:15 AM
Greetings Joel,

I read some of your article, and would like to comment on only one small part that you have not fully understood. You said that Gen 17:8,9 “shows the land was promised to Israel for them to rule and this land was made under an eternal covenant. If the covenant is eternal (as will be shown later in the article) and is a promise of land, then we must still assume this promise is in effect.”

Ge 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Ge 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

The promise of an everlasting possession of the land of Canaan came with a stipulation. “Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore”! What happens to the covenant people if they turn away from God and do not keep His covenant?

Jos 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
Jos 21:44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
Jos 21:45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

After God had given the children of Israel all the land He had promised, Joshua spoke these words to the nation. If they were to continue to possess the land forever as the Lord had promised, they must not turn away from the one true God, nor worship idols, or make marriages with foreign nations. For if they transgress the covenant of the Lord, then they would perish quickly from off the good land the Lord had given them.

Jos 23:11 Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God.
Jos 23:12 Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you:
Jos 23:13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Jos 23:14 And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof.
Jos 23:15 Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Jos 23:16 When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.

The eternal promise made to the children of Israel regarding possession of the promised land would still be in force today IF the nation had faithfully kept His covenant. It was not that God failed to keep the covenant, it was the children of Israel who failed to obey. Just as Adam and Eve were driven from the garden of Eden when the disobeyed God, so too the nation has forsaken the good land the Lord had promised because they too disobeyed God.

The covenant of Redemption is not through the physical seed of Abraham, but through the Spiritual Seed (Christ) through Isaac. Just added this for your consideration.

If you have misunderstood the everlasting land promise, perhaps you have misunderstood something more?

Ge 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Ge 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
Ge 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Many Blessings,
RW

Roger,

The land was given to Abraham and his offspring according to a covenant Abraham and God made with each other. This covenant continued to be reiterated as God restated it again to Isaac and then to Jacob.

I'm going to show you something most people miss.

Review the covenant process as specified in Genesis 15. Take note of the fact that although Abraham was present during the ceremony, God was the only one to pass between the cuttings. In this we come to realize that the covenant lacks any kind of contingency. God is going to give the land to Abraham without conditions and he will cause the terms of the covenant to take place, no matter what Abraham does on his part. Default can only come about if God fails to keep his word. (Heaven forbid.)

The conditional aspect found in Joshua was first stated in Deuteronomy, which only applies generationally. That is, while exile from the land is judgment against Israel living at the time, the exile is never permanent. Title deed to the land still remains with the sons of Jacob as long as the sons of Jacob remain on the earth. Exile is punishment, but not permanent.

The fact that God has brought the Jews back to the land after this greater exile, is evidence that God intends to deal with his people Israel again.

The covenant is without contingency, and the conditions are only temporary.

losthorizon
Aug 24th 2008, 02:52 AM
The fact that God has brought the Jews back to the land after this greater exile, is evidence that God intends to deal with his people Israel again.


The fact remains – the modern Jewish state remains in unbelief today and outside of God’s “holy nation” – the Israel of God. God's holy nation today consists of only those who accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Whatever hope the unbelieving Jew has it is the same hope the unbelieving Gentile has – and that hope is the salvation found in Christ. God does not have two separate plans of salvation one for the Jew and one for the Gentile “for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

losthorizon
Aug 24th 2008, 03:06 AM
If that's how you want it...


Well Joel your long and unnecessary posts appear to be much ado about nothing as you have not presented anything that disproves the scriptural truth that God has only one “chosen people” today – “the Israel of God” and His people do not include unbelieving Jews or unbelieving Gentiles. His people today are those Jews and Gentiles who accept God's grace through faith - they then become "one in Christ Jesus".

BroRog
Aug 24th 2008, 03:21 AM
The fact remains – the modern Jewish state remains in unbelief today and outside of God’s “holy nation” – the Israel of God. God's holy nation today consists of only those who accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Whatever hope the unbelieving Jew has it is the same hope the unbelieving Gentile has – and that hope is the salvation found in Christ. God does not have two separate plans of salvation one for the Jew and one for the Gentile “for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

First, I want to agree with the gist of your post. What you say about salvation is true. I'm not sure I would word it the same way, but I agree.

Now for the details.

While it is true that the modern Jewish State remains in unbelief -- as a nation they don't believe but individuals within the nation certainly do -- this was to be expected. Ezekiel's prophecy of the dry bones indicates a three step process for their return illustrated by the assembly of dead bodies. First the bones are gathered together to form bodies. Next flesh is put on the bones. And finally the bodies are given a spirit. The modern state of Israel has not reached the spiritual state as yet. But we must be patient.


God's holy nation today consists of only those who accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ. (emphasis mine)

While that is certainly true today, I believe Paul reveals a "twist" that tends to be ignored in discussions of eschatology. God's holy nation will always consist of those who accept the Lordship of Christ, but this does not always mean that Gentiles will continue to come to a believing faith in Jesus.

Two passages:

2Thessalonians 2.

In this passage, Paul reminds his readers that someday the apostasy will come. And it will come.

Romans 11:15

For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

I believe this to be prophetic. If I understand Paul correctly, he is predicting that Israel -- not just the Jews individually -- will find reconciliation with God. I believe the following passage is also predictive.


Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.


Not only is God ABLE to graft them in again, he WILL graft them in again. When Paul says, "if you continue in his kindness" he hints at what will happen to Gentiles eventually. Eventually Gentiles will be cut off because "they did not love the truth" as Paul says in 2Thess.



In the grand scheme, Israel will come to faith while the other nations abandon the faith. Severity fell on Israel so that Gentiles might come to faith. And so severity will fall on Gentiles so that Israel will come to faith.



God does not have two separate plans of salvation one for the Jew and one for the Gentile “for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”



So very true. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. However, the talk is about Israel the country/nation, and in terms of a separate "plan" for their nation, God has revealed that he will vindicate his holy name when he brings Israel back to the land, make them obey his original commandments, and learn to trust him for protection. According to him, God is not going to do this for their sake. He is going to do this to sanctify his holy name.

losthorizon
Aug 24th 2008, 03:52 AM
So very true. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. However, the talk is about Israel the country/nation, and in terms of a separate "plan" for their nation, God has revealed that he will vindicate his holy name when he brings Israel back to the land, make them obey his original commandments, and learn to trust him for protection. According to him, God is not going to do this for their sake. He is going to do this to sanctify his holy name.
Clarification, please. What do you mean by your statement God will “make them obey his original commandments”? Are you suggesting a reintroduction of the old Mosaical system that was nailed to the cross? Will these redeemed Jews once again sacrifice animals under God’s directive in a temple made with hands as Dispensationalists insist?

apothanein kerdos
Aug 24th 2008, 04:08 AM
Well Joel your long and unnecessary posts appear to be much ado about nothing as you have not presented anything that disproves the scriptural truth that God has only one “chosen people” today – “the Israel of God” and His people do not include unbelieving Jews or unbelieving Gentiles. His people today are those Jews and Gentiles who accept God's grace through faith - they then become "one in Christ Jesus".


Ah, so you didn't read it. Fair enough.

losthorizon
Aug 24th 2008, 04:13 AM
Ah, so you didn't read it. Fair enough.
Just the pages already mentioned.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 24th 2008, 04:15 AM
Just the pages already mentioned.

Right. You didn't read what I posted. It's okay, I understand there's a lot there to read.

losthorizon
Aug 24th 2008, 12:18 PM
Right. You didn't read what I posted. It's okay, I understand there's a lot there to read.
Yeah – you know what old maxim says - One who proves too much, proves nothing – and you have proven nothing. If you want to present/support your position do it but there is really no need to publish your term paper on this thread. ;)

timmyb
Aug 24th 2008, 12:33 PM
Yeah – you know what old maxim says - One who proves too much, proves nothing – and you have proven nothing. If you want to present/support your position do it but there is really no need to publish your term paper on this thread. ;)

with all due respect you were the one who insisted that he post it on this thread... after he warned you that it was a rather massive post... and he offered to post a link... so that's rather unfair of you to put that on him

losthorizon
Aug 24th 2008, 01:16 PM
with all due respect you were the one who insisted that he post it on this thread... after he warned you that it was a rather massive post... and he offered to post a link... so that's rather unfair of you to put that on him
With all due respect to you - I suggested he not refer me to some off-site term paper but present his case on this thread. My intention clearly was not a long copy and paste term paper that few will take the time to read. One need only present their case for review and defend it on this thread. I don't think that is too much to ask.

timmyb
Aug 24th 2008, 01:27 PM
With all due respect to you - I suggested he not refer me to some off-site term paper but present his case on this thread. My intention clearly was not a long copy and paste term paper that few will take the time to read. One need only present their case for review and defend it on this thread. I don't think that is too much to ask.

well... he did say that his defense was in the form of a rather large post... if that does not satisfy you then you have the problem... you could ask him to break down his argument rather than come across as superior... i found your post toward him to be rather rude and condescending... i know that is not your true character seeing how we have been involved in debates of this same nature on these forums and I want you to know that what was said could be taken in a very offensive manner...

losthorizon
Aug 24th 2008, 01:46 PM
well... he did say that his defense was in the form of a rather large post... if that does not satisfy you then you have the problem... you could ask him to break down his argument rather than come across as superior... i found your post toward him to be rather rude and condescending... i know that is not your true character seeing how we have been involved in debates of this same nature on these forums and I want you to know that what was said could be taken in a very offensive manner...
I think my response to him was that he present his position in a more concise format that could be responded to in its context. One need not cut and paste their personal term paper as a blanket presentation of their case. We are discussing a specific subject and the paper appears to be much broader in scope. I don’t think his approach is the normal posting format. One can easily present quoted parts of personal work in defense of their position but no one is going to dig through page after page and guess what another’s position might be.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 24th 2008, 05:52 PM
with all due respect you were the one who insisted that he post it on this thread... after he warned you that it was a rather massive post... and he offered to post a link... so that's rather unfair of you to put that on him

Exactly, thank you.

What generally occurs is someone tells me to post my defense, I do so, and then that person just blows it off because the person either can't respond to it or simply doesn't want to admit that he or she doesn't have the time to respond to it.

Fact is, my paper is extremely specific as it deals with exactly what we're talking about. Losthorizon just doesn't want to deal with it and is afraid to admit that.

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 24th 2008, 07:01 PM
I've created a monster

losthorizon
Aug 24th 2008, 07:27 PM
Exactly, thank you.

What generally occurs is someone tells me to post my defense, I do so, and then that person just blows it off because the person either can't respond to it or simply doesn't want to admit that he or she doesn't have the time to respond to it.

Fact is, my paper is extremely specific as it deals with exactly what we're talking about. Losthorizon just doesn't want to deal with it and is afraid to admit that.
If you really had a defense you would not need to post a multipage high school term paper that is much ado about nothing. If you truly have specifics then present them - address the argument and don't present a cut and paste that no one will read. Still waiting.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 24th 2008, 09:36 PM
If you really had a defense you would not need to post a multipage high school term paper that is much ado about nothing. If you truly have specifics then present them - address the argument and don't present a cut and paste that no one will read. Still waiting.

Looks like others read it. Also, it's hardly a high school term paper. (which, even if it were wouldn't that be even more insulting to you since you can't respond to it?) If you don't want to read it then simply say so. But don't come back and act like you've read it and found it wanting. It's excellent and applies to everything we're discussing. If you have a problem with it then do the mature thing and ignore it. Don't harp, whine, and moan about it.

losthorizon
Aug 24th 2008, 11:13 PM
Looks like others read it. Also, it's hardly a high school term paper.


Your dilemma remains regardless of your cut and paste term paper - can you defend your position? You suggest the biblical truth that God has rejected the unbelieving Jew who denies the Messiahship of Jesus Christ is somehow responsible for some unexplained “theological holocaust that breeds nothing but contempt for the Jewish people.” Then you make a vague reference that unbelieving Jews…
“are still chosen as are Christians, but the 'chosen' part is different: one is chosen to be an example of God's faithfulness to a specific people group while the other is chosen for salvation.”Can you provide scriptural support that God’s rejection of unbelieving Jews is somehow responsible for this “theological holocaust” and can you support your notion that God today has two separate and distinct classes of “chosen people” – (1) faithful and believing Christians (Jew and Gentile) and (2) unbelieving Jews who have rejected their Messiah for over 2000 years?

Emanate
Aug 24th 2008, 11:39 PM
In your typical revisionist style are you suggesting the apostolic church did not welcome Gentiles into the body of Christ? The New Testament did replace the Old Testament – both Jew and Gentile are now one "in Christ Jesus.” The "floodgates of Gentiles" is by God's design is it not? Christians today are the Israel of God.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:11-12 (KJV)


This is a good example of Replacement Theology.

God was wrong and Jesus is right so everything God said was a lie now that we worship "christ" is the underlying decption of replacement theology.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 25th 2008, 12:15 AM
Your dilemma remains regardless of your cut and paste term paper - can you defend your position? You suggest the biblical truth that God has rejected the unbelieving Jew who denies the Messiahship of Jesus Christ is somehow responsible for some unexplained “theological holocaust that breeds nothing but contempt for the Jewish people.” Then you make a vague reference that unbelieving Jews…
“are still chosen as are Christians, but the 'chosen' part is different: one is chosen to be an example of God's faithfulness to a specific people group while the other is chosen for salvation.”Can you provide scriptural support that God’s rejection of unbelieving Jews is somehow responsible for this “theological holocaust” and can you support your notion that God today has two separate and distinct classes of “chosen people” – (1) faithful and believing Christians (Jew and Gentile) and (2) unbelieving Jews who have rejected their Messiah for over 2000 years?

Yeah, I did. It's in what I posted. Want me to re-post it?

losthorizon
Aug 25th 2008, 12:47 AM
This is a good example of Replacement Theology.

God was wrong and Jesus is right so everything God said was a lie now that we worship "christ" is the underlying decption of replacement theology.
God is never wrong - He clearly spoke of the day when His covenant with the Hebrew nation would end and be replaced by a “new” and “better” covenant – this is all in accord with His plan to save ALL who call upon the name of the Lord – both Jew and Gentile. This is no mystery – it was plainly foretold. The Jewish Mosaical system was nailed to the cross and has been replaced by the new and better covenant ratified with the blood of Christ.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Jer 31:31-34 (KJV)

losthorizon
Aug 25th 2008, 12:48 AM
Yeah, I did. It's in what I posted. Want me to re-post it?
I knew you were only blowing smoke per usual.

BroRog
Aug 25th 2008, 01:09 AM
Clarification, please. What do you mean by your statement God will “make them obey his original commandments”? Are you suggesting a reintroduction of the old Mosaical system that was nailed to the cross? Will these redeemed Jews once again sacrifice animals under God’s directive in a temple made with hands as Dispensationalists insist?

I believe so. First off, I wouldn't call it the "old Mosaical system" as if Moses invented it. God instituted it himself. Second, redemption comes in many forms. Don't underestimate God's mercy.

losthorizon
Aug 25th 2008, 01:43 AM
I believe so. First off, I wouldn't call it the "old Mosaical system" as if Moses invented it. God instituted it himself. Second, redemption comes in many forms. Don't underestimate God's mercy.
That's what I thought you were saying - so let me get this straight – God is going to resurrect the Levitical priesthood with the bloody sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of animals after the once-for-all-time sacrifice of Christ on the cross? Who can believe it? It makes no sense. Was the sacrifice of Christ not good enough? What exactly do you mean when you say “redemption comes in many forms”? This is all foreign to the NT - is this your own interpretation?

Emanate
Aug 25th 2008, 02:46 AM
God is never wrong - He clearly spoke of the day when His covenant with the Hebrew nation would end and be replaced by a “new” and “better” covenant – this is all in accord with His plan to save ALL who call upon the name of the Lord – both Jew and Gentile. This is no mystery – it was plainly foretold. The Jewish Mosaical system was nailed to the cross and has been replaced by the new and better covenant ratified with the blood of Christ.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Jer 31:31-34 (KJV)

I am confused with your interpretations. You truly beileve that the Torah is written on our inward parts, yet nailed to the cross?

losthorizon
Aug 25th 2008, 03:07 AM
I am confused with your interpretations. You truly beileve that the Torah is written on our inward parts, yet nailed to the cross?
The Law of Moses was clearly nailed to the cross for “Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it” and He did fulfill it in its entirety. Under the New Covenant God’s moral law is written in our hearts by the finger of the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration.

BroRog
Aug 25th 2008, 03:28 AM
That's what I thought you were saying - so let me get this straight – God is going to resurrect the Levitical priesthood with the bloody sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of animals after the once-for-all-time sacrifice of Christ on the cross? Who can believe it? It makes no sense. Was the sacrifice of Christ not good enough? What exactly do you mean when you say “redemption comes in many forms”? This is all foreign to the NT - is this your own interpretation?

The Levitical priesthood and the cross of Christ share something in common. In each case, whether we are talking about the Levites or Jesus, the priest is doing something on behalf of the people to propitiate the wrath of God. And in each case, the fait accompli of propitiation depends entirely on the heart attitude of the people.

We must not think of the Levitical sacrifices as a failed and futile attempt at propitiation. Rather, these services had their intended affect in those who understood the true significance of them. While the author of Hebrews reminds us that these sacrifices did not give the penetant a good conscience, Paul says in Galatians that their true intent was to lead the people to Christ. While the law brings conciousness of sins, In Christ, the penetant has full assurance of a clean conscience.

So yes, the sacrifice of Christ was good enough for that high purpose. And yet, there remains another opportunity for redemption, not the personal redemption of the individual sinner, but the redemption of an obstinant people who performed the theatrical movements of a ritual sacrifice without putting their heart into it. Having made a promise through Moses to the people, God will orchestrate a time and place in which the nation, as a nation and people, will keep the ritual aspects of the Mosaic Law with hearts of flesh rather than hearts of stone.

losthorizon
Aug 25th 2008, 03:43 AM
So yes, the sacrifice of Christ was good enough for that high purpose. And yet, there remains another opportunity for redemption, not the personal redemption of the individual sinner, but the redemption of an obstinant people who performed the theatrical movements of a ritual sacrifice without putting their heart into it. Having made a promise through Moses to the people, God will orchestrate a time and place in which the nation, as a nation and people, will keep the ritual aspects of the Mosaic Law with hearts of flesh rather than hearts of stone.
You didn’t answer my question - this is all foreign to the NT - is your notion of your own interpretation? You provide absolutely no scriptural support for a most peculiar and non-biblical notion. Do you just expect folks to take your word for what you present? Are you a latter-day "prophet" with a “new vision” of a restored Levitical worship system that was rendered forever obsolete at the cross? Your notion is a slap in the face to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Emanate
Aug 25th 2008, 11:32 AM
The Law of Moses was clearly nailed to the cross for “Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it” and He did fulfill it in its entirety. Under the New Covenant God’s moral law is written in our hearts by the finger of the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration.


Could you point to me the word that means 'moral'?

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Jer 31:31-34 (KJV)

David Taylor
Aug 25th 2008, 12:52 PM
Originally Posted by losthorizon http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1759338#post1759338)
In your typical revisionist style are you suggesting the apostolic church did not welcome Gentiles into the body of Christ? The New Testament did replace the Old Testament – both Jew and Gentile are now one "in Christ Jesus.” The "floodgates of Gentiles" is by God's design is it not? Christians today are the Israel of God.This is a good example of Replacement Theology.

How does God "adding" in Gentiles who become faithful followers of YHWH with Jews becoming "Replacing"

11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved

Doesn't Paul include Gentiles in the tree that is holy and is All Israel?

Putting Jews alone in the tree of All Israel is contrary to Pauls joining together among them.

No replacing, just "Addition Theology"

BroRog
Aug 25th 2008, 02:21 PM
You didn’t answer my question - this is all foreign to the NT - is your notion of your own interpretation? You provide absolutely no scriptural support for a most peculiar and non-biblical notion. Do you just expect folks to take your word for what you present? Are you a latter-day "prophet" with a “new vision” of a restored Levitical worship system that was rendered forever obsolete at the cross? Your notion is a slap in the face to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Do you believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God? Do you believe that God is faithful and keeps his word?

losthorizon
Aug 25th 2008, 03:02 PM
Do you believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God? Do you believe that God is faithful and keeps his word?
Is the Pope a Catholic?

Emanate
Aug 25th 2008, 03:10 PM
How does God "adding" in Gentiles who become faithful followers of YHWH with Jews becoming "Replacing"

11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved

Doesn't Paul include Gentiles in the tree that is holy and is All Israel?

Putting Jews alone in the tree of All Israel is contrary to Pauls joining together among them.

No replacing, just "Addition Theology"


I was referring to "The New Testament did replace the Old Testament"

I agree with you, it should be addition, not replacement.

Equipped_4_Love
Aug 25th 2008, 07:15 PM
Second, redemption comes in many forms. Don't underestimate God's mercy.

No, it doesn't.....redemption comes through the shed blood of Christ, and nothing else. To say otherwise, IMO, is blasphemy!!!!!

Take a look at Hebrews!!!

BroRog
Aug 25th 2008, 08:12 PM
Is the Pope a Catholic?

According to the Bible, what is the purpose of the animal sacrifices? Was it just a game?

BroRog
Aug 25th 2008, 08:14 PM
No, it doesn't.....redemption comes through the shed blood of Christ, and nothing else. To say otherwise, IMO, is blasphemy!!!!!

Take a look at Hebrews!!!

I said redemption comes in many forms. I didn't say the means to redemption comes in many forms.

Emanate
Aug 25th 2008, 08:55 PM
According to the Bible, what is the purpose of the animal sacrifices? Was it just a game?


Not all sacrifes pertained to redemption or forgiveness.

losthorizon
Aug 25th 2008, 10:01 PM
According to the Bible, what is the purpose of the animal sacrifices? Was it just a game?
You are avoiding my question – please answer and then I can address yours. Is your doctrine of a resurrected Levitical priesthood replete with continued animal sacrifices after the once for all time sacrifice of the Christ a doctrine of your own interpretation since you fail to provide any scriptural support? Any doctrine that requires animal sacrifices after the shedding of the blood of Christ and any doctrine that requires a renewal of the dead Levitical priesthood is not a biblical doctrine – ie- it is not from God. The old priesthood could only offer the same sacrifices over and over and over, sacrifices which never could take away sins but Jesus offered “one sacrifice for sins for all time” and now we have full assurance through faith that our hearts have been sprinkled clean by His cleaning blood. Why in the world would God resurrect a dead priesthood with more bloody animal sacrifices? The answer of course, He will not.
Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time… Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Heb 10

BroRog
Aug 26th 2008, 01:09 AM
You are avoiding my question – please answer and then I can address yours.

I am attempting to answer your question. I just need to know what you understand about the sacrifices before I waste a lot of time explaining what you already know.


Is your doctrine of a resurrected Levitical priesthood replete with continued animal sacrifices after the once for all time sacrifice of the Christ a doctrine of your own interpretation since you fail to provide any scriptural support?

It's not my idea. It's God's idea. I could have shown you from the Bible, but you insisted that my view wasn't a NT idea as if you wanted me to restrict my citations to the NT. That's why I asked you if you believed the entire Bible was the word of God.


Any doctrine that requires animal sacrifices after the shedding of the blood of Christ and any doctrine that requires a renewal of the dead Levitical priesthood is not a biblical doctrine – ie- it is not from God.


And so you say, and yet God says differently.


The old priesthood could only offer the same sacrifices over and over and over, sacrifices which never could take away sins but Jesus offered “one sacrifice for sins for all time” and now we have full assurance through faith that our hearts have been sprinkled clean by His cleaning blood.


The author of Hebrews doesn't say the sacrifices could not take away sins. He says they were imperfect with respect to a clean conscience. It was a matter of surety, not efficacy.


Why in the world would God resurrect a dead priesthood with more bloody animal sacrifices?

If you don't know why they were given in the first place, you can't know why God would establish them again. That's why I asked you if you knew why they were established the first time.

BroRog
Aug 26th 2008, 01:11 AM
Not all sacrifes pertained to redemption or forgiveness.

Do you know why an army drill instructor makes the entire squad do push ups when one person messes up?

losthorizon
Aug 26th 2008, 01:50 AM
I am attempting to answer your question. I just need to know what you understand about the sacrifices before I waste a lot of time explaining what you already know.


I know much about the sacrifices but why don’t you just start from the beginning - go back as far as you need to go to explain you peculiar doctrine but you need to do it in the “End Time” forum – there is no reason to hijack this thread - we are off-topic. You present your case in that forum and I will join you there and we will see what you have.


It's not my idea. It's God's idea. I could have shown you from the Bible, but you insisted that my view wasn't a NT idea as if you wanted me to restrict my citations to the NT. That's why I asked you if you believed the entire Bible was the word of God.
Are you saying that something as unique and earth-shattering as the resurrection of the Levitical worship system with the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of bulls and goats with the ashes of thousands upon thousands of heifers is totally unheard of in the NT? This fact alone renders your doctrine dead on arrival – does it not?


If you don't know why they were given in the first place, you can't know why God would establish them again. That's why I asked you if you knew why they were established the first time.
But they are not to be resurrected – it goes against everything presented in the NT regarding the work of Christ on the cross. God never again needs the dead and buried Levitical priesthood just as there is no need for the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of animals for “sin offering” after the once for all time sacrifice of Christ. The only people who teach otherwise are those who take passages out of context in the OT and force an ultra-literal hermeneutic view to fit a Dispensational distortion of God’s word. Is this the boat you float?

Emanate
Aug 26th 2008, 02:40 AM
Do you know why an army drill instructor makes the entire squad do push ups when one person messes up?


If you are referring to the Sacrifical System then you are saying that a drill instructor makes the entire squad do push ups when one person messes up as a show of goodwill, or a show of peace.

Emanate
Aug 26th 2008, 02:41 AM
The Law of Moses was clearly nailed to the cross for “Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it” and He did fulfill it in its entirety. Under the New Covenant God’s moral law is written in our hearts by the finger of the Holy Spirit at the point of regeneration.


I repeat


Could you point to me the word that means 'moral'?

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Jer 31:31-34 (KJV)

losthorizon
Aug 26th 2008, 03:04 AM
I repeat


Could you point to me the word that means 'moral'?


Can you please explain exactly what it is you want me to provide for you – your request is rather vague?