PDA

View Full Version : All Israel shall be saved.



Pages : [1] 2

third hero
Oct 12th 2008, 08:38 PM
There is no such thing as corporate salvation. This is a modern theological invention. Whilst no one could deny that an all-powerful God would have any difficulty in performing that, Scripture does not present salvation as a national experience. It is very much an individual thing and is open to both Jews and Gentiles equally. Outside of Christ both are equally condemned; united to Christ through faith they are equally reconciled unto God. Romans 3:9-12 explains, “we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

The intent of this thread is to prove or disprove that God is going to save the nation of Israel. IN this thread, I want no references to the Millennial Kingdom or what some of us call the Davidic Kingdom. The are dealing with this era, before the Lord returns.

My first question. This is to all amils. Do you believe as was quoted above?

My next question to all. How does the quote above contradict this verse:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn. -Zechariah 12:10...

...and this one....

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: -Romans 11:26?

Literalist-Luke
Oct 12th 2008, 09:35 PM
Am I understanding correctly that a Premillennial Posttribulationist is already in agreement with you?

third hero
Oct 12th 2008, 10:28 PM
Am I understanding correctly that a Premillennial Posttribulationist is already in agreement with you?

If I am understanding this correctly, it would seem as though a post-trib premillennialist is actually in full agreement with me... Interesting;)

Merton
Oct 13th 2008, 12:37 AM
The intent of this thread is to prove or disprove that God is going to save the nation of Israel.

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn. -Zechariah 12:10...

...and this one....

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: -Romans 11:26?

quote modified.


God has already poured out the spirit of grace upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and they did look upon Him who they had pierced and they did mourn. Acts chapter 2. (I can supply further scriptures)

This all occurred in those early gospel times when it had been the case previously that mulititudes had believed Him and been healed of their diseases etc. but then later they became unsure of Him because of His prophetic message which was in variance with what they believed and what they had learnt in the synogogues, (same as now), for as so often happens mankind gets to thinkin and their reasonings become muddled by their religious past and they return to it for the sake of the peace, because of the persecution from friends and relatives.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

Zec 12:12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
Zec 12:13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
Zec 12:14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

These could only have existed as such at the first coming of Christ for people who dwell in Israel today are not as so described for it is a gentile people and nation in the majority.




As to Romans 11:26.

The explanation given by Paul in Romans ch 11 is that the elect have received the promises and the rest were cut off from anything of the tree, so that in the future it is only the elect who will be saved at Christs return, where saved can mean, from the graves and from the living, and saved from destruction as described in Heb.19-

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Paul was quoting the OT verse when he wrote Romans 11:26---

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Isa 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

This verse does not say that all of Jacob will be saved. but only that those of Jacob who turn from transgression will be saved, and the first mention of "Zion" is not that of the Jews or any natural mountain but of Christ returning to raise the dead and transform the living members of Zion, the Heavenly City as most all NT descriptions of the first purpose of Christ is at His return.

"and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob" encompasses far more people than is in the land of Judah which is the reason for the description of the great multitude of Rev.ch 7 and the using of the word "and" both here and in 2 Thes ch 1--

2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Zion, the members of the Heavenly City, the Holy priesthood, are mentioned first in Rev.ch 7 and Zions mortal children for the (true)millennium, (the great multitude) also well described in Isaiah ch 49, are the two subjects of the "all israel who will be saved" but in both cases they all look for the real Christ in their turning from transgression BEFORE Christ returns, as it has been throughout times past in believing, obeying, and blessing the messengers sent by God to them--

Mat 23:39 For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."


Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come.

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those dwelling on the earth, even to every nation and kindred and tongue and people,
Rev 14:7 saying with a great voice, Fear God and give glory to Him! For the hour of His judgment has come. And worship Him who made the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Merton.

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 01:15 AM
God has already poured out the spirit of grace upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and they did look upon Him who they had pierced and they did mourn. Acts chapter 2. (I can supply further scriptures)

This all occurred in those early gospel times when it had been the case previously that mulititudes had believed Him and been healed of their diseases etc. but then later they became unsure of Him because of His prophetic message which was in variance with what they believed and what they had learnt in the synogogues, (same as now), for as so often happens mankind gets to thinkin and their reasonings become muddled by their religious past and they return to it for the sake of the peace, because of the persecution from friends and relatives.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

Zec 12:12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
Zec 12:13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
Zec 12:14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

These could only have existed as such at the first coming of Christ for people who dwell in Israel today are not as so described for it is a gentile people and nation in the majority.

You are aware that verse 14 states that ALL of the remnant. Truly, that is not the case here, Merton. Not all of the remnant in either the 1st century, or today for that matter, has fulfilled this portiion of scripture. Otherwise, ALL Israel would BE saved, and not as it is today.



As to Romans 11:26.

The explanation given by Paul in Romans ch 11 is that the elect have received the promises and the rest were cut off from anything of the tree, so that in the future it is only the elect who will be saved at Christs return, where saved can mean, from the graves and from the living, and saved from destruction as described in Heb.19-

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Paul was quoting the OT verse when he wrote Romans 11:26---

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Wouldn't that be redundant, for Paul to got through all of that trouble to sdhow where his bloodline is at, only to say that the election, who is part of the natural branch that is currently on the vine, would be grafted back on again? In order to be rejoined, something has to be cut off. Truly, Paul was talking about ethnic Israel when he wrote this portion of scripture. No other interpretation makes sense.


Isa 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

This verse does not say that all of Jacob will be saved. but only that those of Jacob who turn from transgression will be saved, and the first mention of "Zion" is not that of the Jews or any natural mountain but of Christ returning to raise the dead and transform the living members of Zion, the Heavenly City as most all NT descriptions of the first purpose of Christ is at His return.

"and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob" encompasses far more people than is in the land of Judah which is the reason for the description of the great multitude of Rev.ch 7 and the using of the word "and" both here and in 2 Thes ch 1--

What part of Romans 11:23 do you not understand? Paul clearly states that if Israel continues not in unbelief, that the same God who cut them off will in fact restore them. With that thought in mind, he then reveals how long Israel will remain cut off, and then proclaims that all Israel shall be saved, quoting the very same scripture that you have here.

Moreover, Romans 11 and Isaiah 59 are not the only places where it is prophesied that a deliverer would remove iniquity from Jacob. Take a gander at Daniel 9:24. One of the things that must happen is that Jerusalem, and the people of Daniel, will finish their transgressions, and God will make reconcilliation for their iniquity. If Paul was talking about Spiritual Israel, then that would make no sense at all, since those who are the election already have their iniquities reconciled.

Moreover, Zechariah 12:14 states that ALL that remain shall mourn, meaning that all of the remnant that was mentioned in the previous verses will be saved, for their mourning will be tsigns of repentance.

But thanks for trying though.

Merton
Oct 13th 2008, 03:05 AM
Hero


What part of Romans 11:23 do you not understand? Paul clearly states that if Israel continues not in unbelief, that the same God who cut them off will in fact restore them.

Rom 11:23 And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again.


Every branch of the tree is an individual branch, there is no specific branch or group of branches for a particular ethenticity which believes.

Paul was talking about branches which were cut off the life of the tree under the OC as it was, but not any are, now or were, cut off the tree as it became and now is, who will be regrafted into the tree.

There are no individuals alive today who were cut off the OC tree, and no cut off sinners of Israel in the graves who will be restored to God--

Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and their back always bowing."


Mat 8:11 And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 8:12 But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.



With that thought in mind, he then reveals how long Israel will remain cut off, and then proclaims that all Israel shall be saved, quoting the very same scripture that you have here.


No. Paul reveals that any individual branches who were cut off the OC tree could be regrafted into the NC tree in their own lifetimes and many were, starting in Acts 2. and this continued for only some time.

There is just no way that God would say that all Israel of the flesh would be saved, after His explaining that only the believers of the nation of OT Israel were to be saved. The only way that God could show that all Israel will be saved is to say that all Israel will be a saved nation with no sinners in it, and that nation according to the NT throughout, is a nation consisting of all ethenticities. ( Isaiah ch 56)


Moreover, Romans 11 and Isaiah 59 are not the only places where it is prophesied that a deliverer would remove iniquity from Jacob. Take a gander at Daniel 9:24. One of the things that must happen is that Jerusalem, and the people of Daniel, will finish their transgressions, and God will make reconcilliation for their iniquity. If Paul was talking about Spiritual Israel, then that would make no sense at all, since those who are the election already have their iniquities reconciled.

Show me by scripture where God will atone (make reconciliation) for the sins of His people again? and since when has God had two peoples, and since when have I not been one of Daniels people and one of the elect along with all Jews who believe into Christ.

Yes there is a future atonement of a kind for the land, but that atonement is through shedding of the blood of the wicked.




Moreover, Zechariah 12:14 states that ALL that remain shall mourn, meaning that all of the remnant that was mentioned in the previous verses will be saved, for their mourning will be tsigns of repentance.

As I had said, the last verses of Zech 12 are fulfilled in the past, which is shown by the fact that Christ returns in the earlier verses where the governers of Judah and the people who believe, are supported against their enemies by the resurrected saints, which would not be the case if they were yet to repent.


( Paul was not saved by Christ appearing to him, but begun by Pauls repenting while on his journey at the replaying in his mind of the message of Christ and the manner of the saints in their sufferings and deaths of those who preached it, BEFORE Christ appeared to Saul, and God has not changed the order and rules of righteousness.)


Merton

BroRog
Oct 13th 2008, 05:19 AM
The intent of this thread is to prove or disprove that God is going to save the nation of Israel. IN this thread, I want no references to the Millennial Kingdom or what some of us call the Davidic Kingdom. The are dealing with this era, before the Lord returns.

My first question. This is to all amils. Do you believe as was quoted above?

My next question to all. How does the quote above contradict this verse:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn. -Zechariah 12:10...

...and this one....

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: -Romans 11:26?

One angle that needs to be explored is the phrase "just as it is written." If the wpm "natural/true" construct is correct, we should expect to find an OT passage of scripture somewhere in which God announces that he will assemble a multiethnic group of people and forgive them etc. I'm not aware of an OT passage like that.

In addition, we need to deal with the fact that the prophecy Paul cites actually mentions Jacob by name, which is what Quietdove attempted to point out in another thread, when her post was cut short. As far as I know, the NT never spiritualizes the term Jacob and neither does wpm have the term "Spiritual Jacob" on his list of "spiritual" references to believers.

Merton
Oct 13th 2008, 06:35 AM
One angle that needs to be explored is the phrase "just as it is written." If the wpm "natural/true" construct is correct, we should expect to find an OT passage of scripture somewhere in which God announces that he will assemble a multiethnic group of people and forgive them etc. I'm not aware of an OT passage like that.

In addition, we need to deal with the fact that the prophecy Paul cites actually mentions Jacob by name, which is what Quietdove attempted to point out in another thread, when her post was cut short. As far as I know, the NT never spiritualizes the term Jacob and neither does wpm have the term "Spiritual Jacob" on his list of "spiritual" references to believers.


Hi Roger,

OT Israel was a multiethnic nation.

Do you suppose that the Jews from every nation under heaven of Acts 2, were all ethnic Jews?

What about Uriah?

Also do you suppose that none of the descendants of Ishmael and of Esau ever became true Jews? and even if one wanted to call them proselites, the Bible does not continue to call their descendants that, who believed.

By your view all of the descendants of Ishmael are not counted as any of the seed of Christ because of their flesh, and is the reason today that America blesses Israel as being the people of God and helped them disposses the Arabs from their land and homes because they say, and most American evangelical churches believe, that the Israel nation in the middle east is a work of God, when it was said by God that His work would not be by might nor by power but by My Spirit, in Zech.

Whereas the nation in the middle east is formed for self, by force, and for money.

Using Jacob literally means that there is no one except Jacob who will go through troubles in the endtimes.

This is obviously incorrect so that the proper way to use the OT types is to regard Jacob as being the carnal believer who needs to become spiritually minded, and the NT verifies this by saying that we all must enter the Kingdom of God through many tribulations.

It should be noted (again) that Jacob was a believer, while Israel of the flesh which you expect God to save through tribulations, are not.

How dare unbelievers use the name of faithful Israel for their nation, and expect that God will bless them because some few of them are related to Abraham by the flesh or have some relationship in their religion to that which even refused to acknowledge Christ. Read the gospel of Matthew.

The RCC does the same thing in calling itself the church. Why not believe them also? It is an old trick, even the Mormans call themselves the last day saints.


The name which God gave the unbelieving Jew was NOT Israel, for He called them after their flesh, that is the spirit of it--



Eze 16:45 Thou art thy mother's daughter, that loatheth her husband and her children; and thou art the sister of thy sisters, which loathed their husbands and their children: your mother was a Hittite, and your father an Amorite.


It just happens that when you read "Israel" then you apply your view of whom it refers to automatically which does not line up with the NT teachings of who God's Israel is, nor with the account in Rev.ch 7 of who the great multitude are, who are before the Throne.

I challenge you to show another people described in the NT who are bought to the Throne of God through the sealed priesthood of believers at the end of this age, than the multi ethnetical great multitude of Rev.ch 7.

We have no choice but to accept what God says is His people in His own Words through Christ and His apostles.-

1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, asunto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe heis precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, eventothem which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.



Merton.

David Taylor
Oct 13th 2008, 02:22 PM
My first question. This is to all amils. Do you believe as was quoted above?

I believe salvation is individual; and that the "All Israel" that Paul is speaking of in Romans 11:26 is defined earlier by the "All Israel" passage of Romans 9:6 and the leading up verses of 11:17 which show us that those who are being saved are both "the natural and the wild branches" partaking together of the fatness of the tree. Therefore, individual salvation ends when the Deliverer comes from Zion, and "all Israel", both the natural and wild branches graffed in by faith; will have compelted.

Other biblical writer outside of Romans 11 call this time the 'end of the harvest'; and depict it as harvesting grain or grapes or fish.

I don't see the intent of the phrase "All Israel" to be a group-racial salvation event at the moment of Christ's return; but rather, a completion of the salvation of "All Israel" that began centuries ago, and concludes at Christ's return; and has within in adopted-in "wild branches" by faith.




My next question to all. How does the quote above contradict this verse:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn. -Zechariah 12:10...

Romans 11, from my interpretation, doesn't contradict Zechariah 12:10.
Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled in the first-century as the Apostles John and Peter taught us here:

Luke 24:49 "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. "

Acts 2:5,17 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh"

John 7:38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) "

and

John 19:34 "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced."




The only relationship between Zechariah 12:10 and Romans 11:26; is that Zechariah 12:10 prophesies Christ's Crucifixion and the soon coming of the Holy Spirit to bring "the start" of the salvation harvest that would be completed at the 2nd Coming as described in Romans 11:26.

So you have bookend prophesies.
Zechariah 12:10 showing the start of the harvest of the Holy Spirit following the crucifixion of Christ; and Romans 11:26 which shows the conclusion of the harvest of the Holy Spirit climaxing in the Return of the Lord when all will be saved who've faithfully been graffed into the fatness of the root of the tree.






...and this one....

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: -Romans 11:26?

Again no conflict; this verse depicts the conclusion and completion of all who will be saved during the New Testament Harvest which ends at the Return of the Lord. (aka the Deliverer who comes out of Zion, returning from "Heavenly Zion" to be exact).

It seems the difference in our understanding of Romans 11, is not an mill issue difference at all; but that you see it as being a group salvation event that occurs at one single point in time; and I see it as being an individual salvation event that occurs spanning the NT era; and concluding when the Lord Returns and the Deliverer comes out of Zion. If no Israelites were being saved in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd.....18th, 19th, 20th, 21st centuries A.D.; I'd probably hold to your interpretation....however, since God has individually been saving them out of every century since the 1st century; I can't but see it as a process of individual salvation; not a final one-time group salvation event.

BroRog
Oct 13th 2008, 03:02 PM
We have no choice but to accept what God says is His people in His own Words through Christ and His apostles.

Merton, you are taking us over the same road we've traveled already. Try addressing the new issues discussed in my post. At the end of Romans 11, where Paul announces that all Israel shall be saved, he cites a verse from the OT in which God promises to save "Jacob."


It just happens that when you read "Israel" then you apply your view of whom it refers to automatically which does not line up with the NT teachings of who God's Israel is, nor with the account in Rev.ch 7 of who the great multitude are, who are before the Throne.

Since I disagree with your perspective, you can't expect to make your points as if your view is taken as a given. I don't agree wpm has understood the NT teaching concerning the identity of Israel. And we are discussing the end of Romans 11 to highlight another difference between his view and the NT view.


The name which God gave the unbelieving Jew was NOT Israel, for He called them after their flesh, that is the spirit of it--

I have no idea what you are talking about here. The way I see it, the Bible uses the term Israel to refer to a nation in the Middle East, populated by a people group God brought out of Egypt. It has always meant that. The idea that Paul has somehow spiritualized the term is open to debate, not a granted fact.


How dare unbelievers use the name of faithful Israel for their nation, and expect that God will bless them because some few of them are related to Abraham by the flesh or have some relationship in their religion to that which even refused to acknowledge Christ. Read the gospel of Matthew.

I have read the gospel of Matthew. In that Gospel we read the words of Jesus who called down woe on the Pharisees, mourned over Jerusalem, and announced that God would bring desolation to it. In Luke's account he describes it this way,

Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Notice how Jesus contrasts "this people" against "the Gentiles." To me this speaks of a people not otherwise known as the Gentiles who live in and around Jerusalem and are not allowed to travel far on the Sabbath. That does not describe me or other Christians as far as I know.


It should be noted (again) that Jacob was a believer, while Israel of the flesh which you expect God to save through tribulations, are not.

Not now, but then. :) God does not judge by what he sees. And his son is known for the same quality. And so we should follow their example. The Israel of today is not going to be the Israel of tomorrow, not based on what I see now, but based on a promise God made for their future.


This is obviously incorrect so that the proper way to use the OT types is to regard Jacob as being the carnal believer who needs to become spiritually minded, and the NT verifies this by saying that we all must enter the Kingdom of God through many tribulations.

I don't subscribe to the weird hermeneutic called "typology." I think God prophetically referred to a certain people group by name, i.e. Jacob, because he wanted to indicate his physical descendants.


By your view all of the descendants of Ishmael are not counted as any of the seed of Christ because of their flesh, and is the reason today that America blesses Israel as being the people of God and helped them disposses the Arabs from their land and homes because they say, and most American evangelical churches believe, that the Israel nation in the middle east is a work of God, when it was said by God that His work would not be by might nor by power but by My Spirit, in Zech.


I believe this goes way beyond the text at hand and delves into politics and current events, which is not the topic of discussion here.

John146
Oct 13th 2008, 03:26 PM
The intent of this thread is to prove or disprove that God is going to save the nation of Israel. IN this thread, I want no references to the Millennial Kingdom or what some of us call the Davidic Kingdom. The are dealing with this era, before the Lord returns.

My first question. This is to all amils. Do you believe as was quoted above? I do


My next question to all. How does the quote above contradict this verse:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn. -Zechariah 12:10...Not at all. We've shown you that Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in John 19:37. I've also shown that the kind of mourning described in Zechariah 12:10-14 is not a mourning of repentance but rather a type of mourning of sadness over someone's death. That is clear when you look at the context because it is compared to "the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon." which was a mourning of sadness over the death of Josiah and had nothing to do with people repenting of anything.

The Spirit of grace and supplications was poured out upon the house of David many years ago beginning on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2.


...and this one....

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: -Romans 11:26?Salvation is not based on one's nationality. Period. Several passages teach that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in Christ and that all are saved the same way: through putting their faith in Christ. The Deliverer already came to turn away ungodliness from Jacob by way of the new covenant that takes away their sins by the blood of Christ. This is described here:

Acts 3
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

In terms of salvation, Paul described who spiritual Israel was in Romans 9:6-8 and he explained that being a natural descendant of the nation of Israel had nothing to do with it. Instead, it has to do with being children of the promise, of the seed of Isaac. Being of the seed of Isaac means that one is a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem, is born of the Spirit and is a child of the promise.

Galatians 4
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Both Jew and Gentile believers meet the criteria given for being part of spiritual Israel because we are all spiritual descendants of Isaac, being born of the Spirit and we are all, as Isaac was, children of the promise.

Galatians 3
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There 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.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Clearly, it is faith in Christ and belonging to Christ that determines who is saved and a member of the spiritual/heavenly Israel and Jerusalem. One's nationality is not a factor as "there is neither Jew nor Greek" in Christ. In order to believe that everyone in the nation of Israel will one day be saved it would have to be that they all just happened to choose to put their faith and trust in Christ at the same time. By saying that God will one day ensure that this happens so that they are all saved would be making God out to be a respecter of persons who makes one's nationality a factor in salvation. But scripture repeatedly says He is not a respecter of persons.

wpm
Oct 13th 2008, 04:08 PM
The intent of this thread is to prove or disprove that God is going to save the nation of Israel. IN this thread, I want no references to the Millennial Kingdom or what some of us call the Davidic Kingdom. The are dealing with this era, before the Lord returns.

My first question. This is to all amils. Do you believe as was quoted above?

My next question to all. How does the quote above contradict this verse:

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn. -Zechariah 12:10...

...and this one....

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: -Romans 11:26?

Zechariah 12:10

Zechariah 12:10 has been fully fulfilled at and through the cross. You should read John 19:30-37 that confirms that: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture (Zechariah 12:10) saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced.”

All Israel

I believe the Premil premise of corporate salvation in regard to Romans 11 contradicts Paul's earlier definition of "all Israel" in Romans 9. It is therefore mistaken to assume “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 must relate to the full nation of natural Israel. Paul demolishes this faulty notion whilst specifically referring to this same party (“all Israel”) in Romans 9:6, stating, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” I feel this statement alone nullifies the Premil hypothesis. Contrary to what it says, we cannot overlook the fact that Israel “according to the flesh” is not true Israel. This is repeated time after time in the New Testament.

The Deliverer has already come out of Zion and the process by which He is turning ungodliness away from Jacob has been ongoing since the Cross. Paul presents himself and his fellow first-century Jewish believers as being included in the fulfilment of this prophecy. The wording of this Old Testament passage assists us further in our enquiry, again limiting the term “all Israel” to just “them that turn from transgression in Jacob.” Repentance is the essential condition for natural Israelites entering into covenant with Israel’s redeemer. Therefore, only those natural Israelites that repent of their sin by coming to Christ are included within the hallowed description of “all Israel.” Isaiah 45:17 similarly says, “Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.” Those that have bowed the knee to Christ in repentance are recognised as being “in the Lord” and therefore belong to the true Israel.

It is difficult to know, and foolish to speculate, to what extent numerically the Jews in these days end will come through for Christ, however, whether this reading indicates the whole nation, the majority of natural Jews or a small remnant of natural Israelites will be saved is largely God’s prerogative. Every option is possible; however, only one will happen. Notwithstanding, it is sufficient to settle upon the trust of the great chief Shepherd, who says in John 10:27-28, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

The one thing that we assuredly do know is that those that have been ordained unto eternal salvation from among natural Israel will ultimately come to the Saviour. This long-debated passage does however seem to relate specifically to the Israel of God from amongst the physical nation of Israel, as is the overall context of Romans 9-11. That natural remnant of Jews will therefore come to Christ through the blood of the cross and enter into the Church of Jesus Christ, His only body on this earth, in this Gospel age – the only age in which the Jew can come to Christ. The condition expressly being “them that turn from transgression in Jacob” – those who come to Christ in faith.

ananias
Oct 13th 2008, 04:29 PM
Why does everyone insist on going round and round in circles about the same old same old - are you trying to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, or something?

One thing is for sure - what will be will be - because what God has pre-ordained, he has pre-ordained. So when we disagree, we know that after all, we can just wait and see - see?

;)

Richard H
Oct 13th 2008, 04:34 PM
The intent of this thread is to prove or disprove that God is going to save the nation of Israel. IN this thread, I want no references to the Millennial Kingdom or what some of us call the Davidic Kingdom. The are dealing with this era, before the Lord returns.


But the Millennium is the fulfillment of promise.
That's like having a race but disallowing anyone to cross the finish line.

What can one conclude?

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 04:38 PM
Zechariah 12:10

Zechariah 12:10 has been fully fulfilled at and through the cross. You should read John 19:30-37 that confirms that: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture (Zechariah 12:10) saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced.”

All Israel

I believe the Premil premise of corporate salvation in regard to Romans 11 contradicts Paul's earlier definition of "all Israel" in Romans 9. It is therefore mistaken to assume “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 must relate to the full nation of natural Israel. Paul demolishes this faulty notion whilst specifically referring to this same party (“all Israel”) in Romans 9:6, stating, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” I feel this statement alone nullifies the Premil hypothesis. Contrary to what it says, we cannot overlook the fact that Israel “according to the flesh” is not true Israel. This is repeated time after time in the New Testament.

So, who was Paul talking about when he wrote this question?

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. Romans 11:1

Is the "Israelite" mentioned in this verse the Gentile with the heart of a Jew, or an actual, ethnic descendent of the one whose name was changed to Israel after a wrestling match?


The Deliverer has already come out of Zion and the process by which He is turning ungodliness away from Jacob has been ongoing since the Cross. Paul presents himself and his fellow first-century Jewish believers as being included in the fulfilment of this prophecy. The wording of this Old Testament passage assists us further in our enquiry, again limiting the term “all Israel” to just “them that turn from transgression in Jacob.” Repentance is the essential condition for natural Israelites entering into covenant with Israel’s redeemer. Therefore, only those natural Israelites that repent of their sin by coming to Christ are included within the hallowed description of “all Israel.” Isaiah 45:17 similarly says, “Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.” Those that have bowed the knee to Christ in repentance are recognised as being “in the Lord” and therefore belong to the true Israel.

If a Deliverer has already turned iniquity away from Jacob, then tell me, why did Paul write this verse in a future tense, although Lord Jesus was already back in heaven?

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: Romans 11:26


It is difficult to know, and foolish to speculate, to what extent numerically the Jews in these days end will come through for Christ, however, whether this reading indicates the whole nation, the majority of natural Jews or a small remnant of natural Israelites will be saved is largely God’s prerogative. Every option is possible; however, only one will happen. Notwithstanding, it is sufficient to settle upon the trust of the great chief Shepherd, who says in John 10:27-28, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

You know, Quiet Dove asked you a question, and now I am goingto repeat it. If God in His might deem it a worthy cause to save one particular nation, then how is that a bad thing? If God causews Israel to repent of their sins before the Lord returns, how is that Him not following His own will? Is it not the same God that said in both the OT and the NT that He wil have mercy on whoever He will have mercy on, and the same thing for judgment?

It seems as though you think that by God bringing about the salvation of ethnic Israel, He is somehow breaking one of His promises. Is that the case, and show me through scripture how you arrived at that conclusion.


The one thing that we assuredly do know is that those that have been ordained unto eternal salvation from among natural Israel will ultimately come to the Saviour. This long-debated passage does however seem to relate specifically to the Israel of God from amongst the physical nation of Israel, as is the overall context of Romans 9-11. That natural remnant of Jews will therefore come to Christ through the blood of the cross and enter into the Church of Jesus Christ, His only body on this earth, in this Gospel age – the only age in which the Jew can come to Christ. The condition expressly being “them that turn from transgression in Jacob” – those who come to Christ in faith.

wpm, it seems to me that those posts that I had left for you to read in another thread, that you have not read them, because it is my opinion that Israel shall be saved, and it shall happen BEFORE the Lord returns. I have consistently said that over at least four threads now. Your rebuttle seems as though you insinuate that I am saying that Israel will be saved and that they will have a revival of their old covenant when the Lord returns, something that I have never advocated. I have said, and coninue to say, that the Lord will save Israel, and the sign of that salvation is the Abomination that causes Desolation. Now I know that is not in your timeline, but it is in mine.

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 04:45 PM
But the Millennium is the fulfillment of promise.
That's like having a race but disallowing anyone to cross the finish line.

What can one conclude?

The reason why I forbade the millennial references is because it is my belief that Israel shall be saved BEFORE the Lord returns. It is also my belief that the Old Covenant will never return to this planet, mainly because even when the Lord takes over the world, He will not reinstitute a dead ritual. Animal sacrifices are a thing of the past, nullified by the Blood of Lord Jesus. Even though some in Israel have revived the animal sacrifices, they will be abolished once and for all when the Abomination that causes Desolation happens. Afterwards, there will be no longer any need for animal sacrifices.

During the Lord's first advent, He pardoned people of their sins without any aid, even when the animal sacrifices were still in effect. His attitude concerning those sacrifices was that of animosity, as shown when He cleared out the Temple and proclaimed to all that the Son of Man is able to forgive people of their sins, although not in that particular order. When He returns, He will, IMHO, just like He did while He walked the earththe first time, pardon people of their sins by His presence alone, and not by any other means.

Hence it is unnecessary to include anything concerning the Millennium in this thread, because it is truly irrelevant to the salvation of Israel.

BTW- if you want me to prove what i have just said using scripture, let me know, and I will offer to you chapter and verse.

BroRog
Oct 13th 2008, 04:59 PM
Not at all. We've shown you that Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in John 19:37. I've also shown that the kind of mourning described in Zechariah 12:10-14 is not a mourning of repentance but rather a type of mourning of sadness over someone's death. That is clear when you look at the context because it is compared to "the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon." which was a mourning of sadness over the death of Josiah and had nothing to do with people repenting of anything.

This is easily resolved once we allow for the fact that Israel did not mourn over the death of Jesus at the time, but Israel will certainly mourn over his death when they come to repentance as predicted by the prophets.


Salvation is not based on one's nationality. Period. Several passages teach that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in Christ and that all are saved the same way: through putting their faith in Christ.

While it is true that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile IN Christ, it is not true that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile with regard to the road they travel to get there. Each of us has a unique salvation story to tell, a story that differs from person to person with regard to the circumstances of our conversion and the Holy Spirit-led process that got us to that point.

The prophecy concerning the salvation of Jacob, is just another story of how God brought a people into his kingdom. This sequence of events that leads to their salvation does not mean that they will be any different in Christ than any other believer.


The Deliverer already came to turn away ungodliness from Jacob by way of the new covenant that takes away their sins by the blood of Christ. This is described here:

Acts 3
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

The historical facts remain. It did not turn out that God turned every one from his iniquities. This distinction is important. The prophecy will not be fulfilled until they all come to repentance.


In terms of salvation, Paul described who spiritual Israel was in Romans 9:6-8 and he explained that being a natural descendant of the nation of Israel had nothing to do with it.


I disagree with this interpretation because it ignores the rest of his argument. Paul does not say that being a natural descendant "has nothing to do with it." His argument is exclusive not inclusive.

He isn't saying, "Israel consists of believers from every nation, tongue, and people", which would be inclusive. He argues that Israel consists of believers from among the sons of Jacob, which is exclusive. His examples from the OT stories bear this out. His first example involves two physical sons of Abraham; his second example involves two physical sons of Isaac. In each case, Paul's illustration involves the exclusion of one physical son from being a child of promise. He never gives an example in which a person unrelated by birth from Abraham is made a member of Israel.


Instead, it has to do with being children of the promise, of the seed of Isaac. Being of the seed of Isaac means that one is a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem, is born of the Spirit and is a child of the promise.

Galatians 4
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Let's not superimpose Galatians onto Romans. In the Galatians passage Paul describes the means whereby Gentiles are included as children of promise, i.e. sanctification through the Holy Spirit. In Romans, Paul indicates that the Gentiles are children of Abraham because they share his same faith. Thus, Gentiles are children of Abraham, but this does not mean that they are also children of Jacob. The two issues are quite different.


Both Jew and Gentile believers meet the criteria given for being part of spiritual Israel because we are all spiritual descendants of Isaac, being born of the Spirit and we are all, as Isaac was, children of the promise.

Galatians 3
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There 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.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Again, the Galatians passage designates Gentiles in Christ as sons of Abraham, which is not the same thing as declaring them to be the sons of Jacob. It declares who we are in relation to promises God made to Abraham. It says nothing in relation to promises made to the nation state of Israel that existed in the time of Moses.


In order to believe that everyone in the nation of Israel will one day be saved it would have to be that they all just happened to choose to put their faith and trust in Christ at the same time.

Do you see a problem with that? I don't because I believe that salvation is by grace and an activity of the Spirit of God.


By saying that God will one day ensure that this happens so that they are all saved would be making God out to be a respecter of persons who makes one's nationality a factor in salvation. But scripture repeatedly says He is not a respecter of persons.


When the Bible speaks about how God is not a respecter of persons, the main point puts the emphasis on the primacy of God over other authorities we might face in this life. The idea behind this statement is that God is not obligated to bow his knee to anyone. He is not obligated to give deference to any other authority or do what they say in deference to their power.

Given the fact that God answers to no one, he is free to save whomever he wants, for whatever reason he likes. If he says that he wants to save an entire nation of people in order to sanctify his name, he will do it for HIS reasons, not for the sake of the sons of Jacob. God can do this and still not be a respecter of persons, since it was his idea and he is acting according to his own will.

wpm
Oct 13th 2008, 05:05 PM
So, who was Paul talking about when he wrote this question?

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. Romans 11:1

Is the "Israelite" mentioned in this verse the Gentile with the heart of a Jew, or an actual, ethnic descendent of the one whose name was changed to Israel after a wrestling match?

He is talking about natural Israel and its inhabitants. I have stated many times, there are two Israels - one natural and one spiritual. Paul was asking, in the light of Israel's rebellion against God, had God turned His back totally on physical Israel. The answer of course was/is no. The fact that there still was a remnant of believers was proof of this. Paul in this chapter shows that there was a part of Israel that was not blinded - he was one of that elect company.

Q. “I say then, Hath God cast away his people?”

A. “God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

Paul proves that “God has hath not cast away his people” by presenting himself as an evidence of a chosen Israeli. Please note, he did not present the continued survival of natural Israel as proof (which many Premils mistakenly do today), no, but rather his own salvation. He reinforces this thought by pointing to the very small remnant that existed in Elijah’s day as a similar picture that God always had a people within Israel, however small or seemingly insignificant. He seals his whole argument up by actually stating this: “there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”



If a Deliverer has already turned iniquity away from Jacob, then tell me, why did Paul write this verse in a future tense, although Lord Jesus was already back in heaven?

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: Romans 11:26


Paul is basically summing up everything he had just said previous in regard to there being a chosen remnant within natural Israel that will be brought through in this intra-Advent period (while the Gentiles were being brought in). He saw a day when all that belonged to true Israel would finally be completed - that is why it is in the future tense.

I would connect Ephesians 1:10-14, which similarly says (only speaking of the full elect - Jew and Gentile): "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."

This is simply saying in Romans 11:26 that all who are going to be saved will be saved. There will no empty seats in eternity. All those that have been individually chosen of the Lord will come through for Christ. They have been graciously “predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11). Paul’s comments in Romans 11:26 come on the back of his defining “all Israel” in Romans 9:6-8. It is wrong to ignore Paul’s definition of “all Israel” here and side with the plethora of modern man-made opinions. Romans 9:6-8 not only tells us what "all Israel" is, but it also tells us what it isn't. What Paul is getting at is: God’s eternal plan shall prevail and the true Israel of God (those of the household of faith) – in total – will be saved. Those that are chosen of God will come through – let us have no doubt. Remember, salvation is of the Lord. By the time Christ returns the full quantity of believers will be complete – those that have come to Christ in simple faith and true repentance. These are the company that are written in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world. This is not a prophecy, as many modern-day preachers claim, it is simply an ongoing spiritual reality.




You know, Quiet Dove asked you a question, and now I am goingto repeat it. If God in His might deem it a worthy cause to save one particular nation, then how is that a bad thing? If God causews Israel to repent of their sins before the Lord returns, how is that Him not following His own will? Is it not the same God that said in both the OT and the NT that He wil have mercy on whoever He will have mercy on, and the same thing for judgment?

It seems as though you think that by God bringing about the salvation of ethnic Israel, He is somehow breaking one of His promises. Is that the case, and show me through scripture how you arrived at that conclusion.


No, He is able to save every inhabitant of the whole world never mind Israel. However, He is no respecter of persons - you make Him that. You build the wall of division up between Jew and Gentile in your theoloigy, Scripture demolishes it. There is neither Jew nor Gentile in a spiritual sense today. All are dealt with equally on a spiritual basis.


wpm, it seems to me that those posts that I had left for you to read in another thread, that you have not read them, because it is my opinion that Israel shall be saved, and it shall happen BEFORE the Lord returns. I have consistently said that over at least four threads now. Your rebuttle seems as though you insinuate that I am saying that Israel will be saved and that they will have a revival of their old covenant when the Lord returns, something that I have never advocated. I have said, and coninue to say, that the Lord will save Israel, and the sign of that salvation is the Abomination that causes Desolation. Now I know that is not in your timeline, but it is in mine.

I know you don't see the resurrection of the old covenant. In that we are in agreement. That is not what I have argued against you. However, you know that the majority of Premils see the return of the old abolished Judaic system. Amils strongly oppose that.

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 05:17 PM
Hero
Rom 11:23 And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again.


Every branch of the tree is an individual branch, there is no specific branch or group of branches for a particular ethenticity which believes.

Paul was talking about branches which were cut off the life of the tree under the OC as it was, but not any are, now or were, cut off the tree as it became and now is, who will be regrafted into the tree.

There are no individuals alive today who were cut off the OC tree, and no cut off sinners of Israel in the graves who will be restored to God--

O understand your angle, Merton, because if we take the hyperliteral approach, then you are absolutely right. There are no one left here on this earth that lived back then, and therefore, if we take these verses hyperliterally, no one who was cut off, that did not repent, could be grafted back on.

However, I do not take the hyperliteral appproach concerning these scriptures. I take the context approach. In the context of Romans 11, Paul is talking about the people in whom he is a relative of, the ethnic people of Israel. He is talking about their condition that began when the Lord came and died on the cross. He recognized that the ones called "God's chosen" were no longer that, as he highlighted in the 9 previous chapters. But when he goes to this chapter, he asks the question concerning ethnic Israel, hence Romans 11:1

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

He wrote that question in that manner because he is changing the subject, or rather answering a question that is related to what he had written in the previous chapters. If you read chapter 2-10, you would think that God has thrown Israel, ethnic Israel, to the wolves, and that they will never have another chace to be saved, save for a couple of people who happen to repent of their sins.

Instead of just writing them off, Paul goes into detail concerning the then current plight of Israel. Now, according to Paul's prose, Israel was fragmented, with most falling into the "Israel of the flesh" category while "the election" were deemed as saved, or True Israel. Paul then goes to explain what is going to happen to Israel if they repent. From that point onward, he tells us, the Gentile, what is going to happen to Israel and he also gives us the details on when Israel will repent, and come back to their senses.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. -Romans 11:25

According to my research, (mainly watching the news and reading articles concerning Israel in the modern era), the blindness that has taken Israel is still there, with no changes in the last 1900 years. Therefore, the things which Paul stated in chapter 11 are still active, and thus romans transcends the 1st century into this century, because the same comditions exist in Israel today as they did back before 70AD. (the only exception is that Rome is not ruling Israel, but Islam is, in conjunction with the secular government).


No. Paul reveals that any individual branches who were cut off the OC tree could be regrafted into the NC tree in their own lifetimes and many were, starting in Acts 2. and this continued for only some time.

There is just no way that God would say that all Israel of the flesh would be saved, after His explaining that only the believers of the nation of OT Israel were to be saved. The only way that God could show that all Israel will be saved is to say that all Israel will be a saved nation with no sinners in it, and that nation according to the NT throughout, is a nation consisting of all ethenticities. ( Isaiah ch 56)

You are reading "in their own lifetimes" into that passage. It is not there. This is why I go by context and not by any other means to interpret scripture. The ones whom you say are the fulfillment of Romans 11, Paul calls "the election".

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded -Romans 11:7

So you see, the ones that come to the Lord at Penticaost are not whom Paul is talking about when he says that All Israel shall be saved. He is talking about the rest, those who are blinded.


Show me by scripture where God will atone (make reconciliation) for the sins of His people again? and since when has God had two peoples, and since when have I not been one of Daniels people and one of the elect along with all Jews who believe into Christ.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. -Daniel 9:24

There it is Merton. God said to Daniel that He has decreed seventy weeks, and in those seventy weeks, He will Make reconcilliation for their iniquity. Now, you seem to think, (or maybe I am reading this into your post), that God will make another atoning sacrifice for Israel's iniquity. I can not disagree with that notion more. God needs not any other means for atoning Israel of her sins, for Christ's sacrifice is MORE THAN SUFFICIENT!

What I have discovered is that God does have a plan to restore Israel to Himself, and that plan will incorporate the war that I call "Big Bang" (Revelation 9), the two witnesses, (Revelation 11), and the Abomination that causes Desolation (Daniel 9:24,27, Zechariah 12, 14:1-5, Ezekiel 38-3-39, Matthew 24:15-21, Revelation 12).


Yes there is a future atonement of a kind for the land, but that atonement is through shedding of the blood of the wicked.

This is the first thing we actually agreed on in this thread. Hopefully we can come to more such agreements.


As I had said, the last verses of Zech 12 are fulfilled in the past, which is shown by the fact that Christ returns in the earlier verses where the governers of Judah and the people who believe, are supported against their enemies by the resurrected saints, which would not be the case if they were yet to repent.

If this was the case, Merton, then there would have been no reason for Paul to write Romans, and include the remnant prophecy in Zechariah 12 into his prose. The fact of the matter is that only the election received Him, and not "all of the families that remain". unless you show me aa historical document where after Jerusalem was slaughtered that all of the remnant of Israel repented and mourned after the God they pierced, the prophecy in Zechariah 12 will continue to be a prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled.

( Paul was not saved by Christ appearing to him, but begun by Pauls repenting while on his journey at the replaying in his mind of the message of Christ and the manner of the saints in their sufferings and deaths of those who preached it, BEFORE Christ appeared to Saul, and God has not changed the order and rules of righteousness.)
Merton

What are you saying? Paul, who was Saul at that time, was not repenting over what he was doing when the Lord appeared before Him. Christ's appearing is what brought on Saul's repentence, and thus I do not know where you are getting your information from. I'll tell you what, show me the portion of scripture that shows Saul repenting BEFORE the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus. I am certain that you would not write what you have written without collaboration. I would like to see it.

ananias
Oct 13th 2008, 05:20 PM
The reason why I forbade the millennial references is because it is my belief that Israel shall be saved BEFORE the Lord returns.

I totally disagree. Jacob cannot be saved until they repent and return to the Lord:

"For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." (Mat.23: 39).

This current feast-period teaches us A LOT.

Jacob begins a 10-day period of repentance on Rosh Hashanah (Tishrei 1st). Traditionally, it's the day of the resurrection/rapture (natzal), and the day of Trumpets, and the day God's judgment begins to be poured out upon the nations. It begins Jacob's the final 10-day period of repentance for Jacob - which culminates on the Day of Atonement, which is also the day God's judgment is sealed.

On Rosh Hashsanah, books are opened. There are 3 books, corresponding to 3 grooups of people: The book of Life, the book of the wholly wicked, and the book of the average person.

The gates of the heavenly temple are opened on Rosh Hashanah, and close on the Day of Atonement.

Those whose names are written in the book of Life are resurrected/raptured and removed to heaven on Rosh Hashanah. The rest have until the Day of Atonement to repent. The wholly wicked will never repent (Rev.16: 9).

A seven-day marriage consummation period between God and His bride begins on the Day of Trumpets.

5 days after the Day of Atonement (Tishrei 10th), from the evening of the Tishrei 14th (today), the Feast of Tabernacles begins, when the Jews shout "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD"

This is all traditional liturgical procedure surrounding the fall feasts, and it shows that when Christ appears in the clouds to gather His elect (Rosh Hashanah) - that's when Jacob will begin to repent.

The wrath of God begins to be poured out upon the nations on the Day of Atonement - Tishrei 10th - the day the gates are closed:

"And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from His authority. And no one was able to enter into the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed." (Rev.15 8).

5 days later, the Messianic age begins (sorry, Third Hero, I forgot - that statement's banned in this thread!) ;)

If you study the feasts of the Lord - especially the fall feasts, you will understand exactly when Jacob will begin to repent - Joseph, a Biblical type of Jesus - sent his servants out of the room before he revealed himself to his brothers.

and if you study the wording of the repentance of Jacob and how they are to mourn and afflict their souls from Thishrei 1st to Tishrei 10th, you will understand what this means:

"And it shall be in that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour on the house of David, and on the people of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of prayers. And they shall look on Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be bitter over Him, as the bitterness over the first-born." (Zech.12: 9-10)

Study the feasts! Then you won't get things jumbled up.

Richard H
Oct 13th 2008, 05:22 PM
The reason why I forbade the millennial references is because it is my belief that Israel shall be saved BEFORE the Lord returns. It is also my belief that the Old Covenant will never return to this planet, mainly because even when the Lord takes over the world, He will not reinstitute a dead ritual. Animal sacrifices are a thing of the past, nullified by the Blood of Lord Jesus. Even though some in Israel have revived the animal sacrifices, they will be abolished once and for all when the Abomination that causes Desolation happens. Afterwards, there will be no longer any need for animal sacrifices.

During the Lord's first advent, He pardoned people of their sins without any aid, even when the animal sacrifices were still in effect. His attitude concerning those sacrifices was that of animosity, as shown when He cleared out the Temple and proclaimed to all that the Son of Man is able to forgive people of their sins, although not in that particular order. When He returns, He will, IMHO, just like He did while He walked the earththe first time, pardon people of their sins by His presence alone, and not by any other means.

Hence it is unnecessary to include anything concerning the Millennium in this thread, because it is truly irrelevant to the salvation of Israel.

BTW- if you want me to prove what i have just said using scripture, let me know, and I will offer to you chapter and verse.
Oh I see. :D

I agree that Jesus will once again walk this Earth in (glorified) bodily form.

(not saying this is what you are saying – below)
Animal offerings/sacrifice will not only be unnecessary – but an abomination - concerning the blood of our Lord.

Jacob = “the elect” – (Isaiah 45:4 and 65:9)/ Israel / The whole house of Israel ---- will be saved.

· The house of Israel / lost sheep of Israel ---- we who are saved by faith.
· Judah (Jews) / house of Judah / remnant of Judah / the woman in the desert ---- rescued and kept safe until His coming, when they see the One whom they have pierced.
Since God never divorced Judah, He will keep His promise to them. They are the portion of the “elect” – yet still flesh at His coming for whom the days will be cut short.
They will dwell in the land under the rule of the Messiah as God has promised.

After that - whether or not individual Jews become born from above – I suppose would be up to them.

Just plain weird. Ain’t it? :crazy:

Richard

References in Isaiah:
purely for the purpose of establishing the identity of the elect.

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 05:48 PM
He is talking about natural Israel and its inhabitants. I have stated many times, there are two Israels - one natural and one spiritual. Paul was asking, in the light of Israel's rebellion against God, had God turned His back totally on physical Israel. The answer of course was/is no. The fact that there still was a remnant of believers was proof of this. Paul in this chapter shows that there was a part of Israel that was not blinded - he was one of that elect company.

Q. “I say then, Hath God cast away his people?”

A. “God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

Ok, I am following you logic here, and we seem to be in agreement here. Somewhere, we disagree, and that is what I am searching for.


Paul proves that “God has hath not cast away his people” by presenting himself as an evidence of a chosen Israeli. Please note, he did not present the continued survival of natural Israel as proof (which many Premils mistakenly do today), no, but rather his own salvation. He reinforces this thought by pointing to the very small remnant that existed in Elijah’s day as a similar picture that God always had a people within Israel, however small or seemingly insignificant. He seals his whole argument up by actually stating this: “there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

Ok, check here. No disagreement here. Continuing on.


Paul is basically summing up everything he had just said previous in regard to there being a chosen remnant within natural Israel that will be brought through in this intra-Advent period (while the Gentiles were being brought in). He saw a day when all that belonged to true Israel would finally be completed - that is why it is in the future tense.


I would connect Ephesians 1:10-14, which similarly says (only speaking of the full elect - Jew and Gentile): "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."

Here is where the disagreement begins. According to what you say here, you think that Paul is reinforcing the concept that the election shall continue to grow until they are the only ones of Israel who thus fulfill the prophecy in Romans 11:26. It is my opinon that Paul is talking about the blind ones, and shows us that those who are blinded will continue to be so until the "fullness of the Gentiles" comes.

I would not make that connection beased on Romans 11:25. it is my opinion that verse 25 is what brings about the 26th verse. The connection with Ephesians I would say is only relevant to the election, whom, like you said, Paul was indeed a member of.


This is simply saying in
Romans 11:26 that all who are going to be saved will be saved. There will no empty seats in eternity. All those that have been individually chosen of the Lord will come through for Christ. They have been graciously “predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11). Paul’s comments in Romans 11:26 come on the back of his defining “all Israel” in Romans 9:6-8. It is wrong to ignore Paul’s definition of “all Israel” here and side with the plethora of modern man-made opinions. Romans 9:6-8 not only tells us what "all Israel" is, but it also tells us what it isn't. What Paul is getting at is: God’s eternal plan shall prevail and the true Israel of God (those of the household of faith) – in total – will be saved. Those that are chosen of God will come through – let us have no doubt. Remember, salvation is of the Lord. By the time Christ returns the full quantity of believers will be complete – those that have come to Christ in simple faith and true repentance. These are the company that are written in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world. This is not a prophecy, as many modern-day preachers claim, it is simply an ongoing spiritual reality.

You know I disagree with this right? Verse 26 is the continuation of the thought that comes about in verse 25, where the major reference was not to the election, but to the blinded ones. Romans 9 was not even a part of Paul's prose in chapter 11, which is why he asked the question concerning ethnic Israel. The entire chapter is concerning ethnic Israel. I am not saying that Paul did not mean what he wrote in chapter 9; what he did was change the subject, or rather, elaborate on what he previously stated, mainly Romans 9:6

In my opinion, it would seem as though Paul was forseing someone asking the question concerning the state of Israel in light of Romans 9:6, hence the question "has God cast away His people", a direct reference to ethnic Israel. Remember, Israel would not be a nation at all without God. God brought them, ethnic Israel, out of Egypt. The word Gentiles was used to differenciate betwen Israelite and foreigner. Before Israel's rejection of the Lord, they were God's chosen people. This is why it only makes sense for Paul, who wrote in chapter 9:6 that not all who are called Israel are of actual (or what we call TRUE) Israel, to answer the question that is truly related to that statement. Hence we have two Israels, the election and the blinded ones.



No, He is able to save every inhabitant of the whole world never mind Israel. However, He is no respecter of persons - you make Him that. You build the wall of division up between Jew and Gentile in your theoloigy, Scripture demolishes it. There is neither Jew nor Gentile in a spiritual sense today. All are dealt with equally on a spiritual basis.

What makes you think that by God bringing a nation that HE established back to Him as Him respecting persons? God will do as God will do and He has to answer to no one. This is the defintion of "God is no respector of persons". There is no higher authority than Him and what He will do, no one can stop Him. If He is going to save Israel, then He is going to save Israel, with no respect to those who disagree with Him. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has everything to do with God glorifying His name.


I know you don't see the resurrection of the old covenant. In that we are in agreement. That is not what I have argued against you. However, you know that the majority of Premils see the return of the old abolished Judaic system. Amils strongly oppose that.

I must apologize, wpm. I thought you were writing to me when you made that statement. I remember now that we are not just writing to each other but to all who are on this board.

It does appear that we have the same basic belief structure, wom, but at some point, you go in one direction and I go in another. Oh well, I guess that we will have to wait to see which one of us is correct, and I will be blowing raspberries at you in the air whe nwe both meet Lord Jesus. :P

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 06:00 PM
I totally disagree. Jacob cannot be saved until they repent and return to the Lord:

"For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." (Mat.23: 39).

Would not the Israelites who are fleeing from the armies of the Beast say "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" when they see 144,001 shiny people on top of the split Mount of Olives singing a song to God that no one else could sing? The Lord will be amongst them and they will see "Him". (They will see 144,000 look-a-likes, and all of them are with Him. (Revelation 14:1-3, Zechariah 14:1-5).

Maybe you misread what I had said, but I never insinuated that Israel would be saved apart from repentence. In fact I have stated that Israel SHALL repent, and used Zechariah 12:10-14 as a point of reference, and included that in my reading of Romans 11. I have never said anything concerning Israel being saved apart from repentence BEFORE the Lord returns.


This current feast-period teaches us A LOT.

Jacob begins a 10-day period of repentance on Rosh Hashanah (Tishrei 1st). Traditionally, it's the day of the resurrection/rapture (natzal), and the day of Trumpets, and the day God's judgment begins to be poured out upon the nations. It begins Jacob's the final 10-day period of repentance for Jacob - which culminates on the Day of Atonement, which is also the day God's judgment is sealed.

Maybe I do not understand the logic here, but I must say, I do not look at the feasts for any understanding of the end times, mainly because the only things that I am concerned is what the Lord had said, mainly the signs before His return.


Study the feasts! Then you won't get things jumbled up.

In all fairness, I will stud the feasts at some point. However, I am convinced that I am correct based on the scriptures and nothing else, (other than the historical records and the daily news).

David Taylor
Oct 13th 2008, 06:12 PM
Why does everyone insist on going round and round in circles about the same old same old - are you trying to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, or something?

One thing is for sure - what will be will be - because what God has pre-ordained, he has pre-ordained. So when we disagree, we know that after all, we can just wait and see - see?

;)
It sounds like a dance....; kinda reminiscent of "the safety dance" from the early 80s.

As for the Feast of Tabernacles; that one's pretty easy; some believe it is yet to be fulfilled; some believe it has already been fulfilled...swing your partner, do-see-do....

John146
Oct 13th 2008, 06:38 PM
This is easily resolved once we allow for the fact that Israel did not mourn over the death of Jesus at the time, but Israel will certainly mourn over his death when they come to repentance as predicted by the prophets.You missed the point. The mourning that Zechariah prophesies about is compared to "the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.".

Zech 12:11
In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

That is a reference to this:

2 Chronicles 35
20After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Charchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him.
21But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.
22Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo.
23And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded.
24His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.
25And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations.

Clearly, this is a case of people mourning one's death and has nothing to do with repentance at all. And this is what the mourning of Jerusalem over Christ's death is compared to. It was not compared to people being sorry for killing someone and later repenting of it so there's no reason to make such a comparison. It's only referring to the people of Jerusalem who were saddened and in mourning over Christ's death, not fully realizing yet that He would rise again from the dead.


While it is true that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile IN Christ, it is not true that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile with regard to the road they travel to get there. Each of us has a unique salvation story to tell, a story that differs from person to person with regard to the circumstances of our conversion and the Holy Spirit-led process that got us to that point.Yes, it's unique from person to person, not from nation to nation.


The prophecy concerning the salvation of Jacob, is just another story of how God brought a people into his kingdom. This sequence of events that leads to their salvation does not mean that they will be any different in Christ than any other believer.Why would God lead the entire nation of Israel to salvation and not other nations? Do you believe God is a respecter of persons?


The historical facts remain. It did not turn out that God turned every one from his iniquities.Oh, then did He fail the first time when He sent Christ to turn them from their iniquities which made it so that He has to try again? The context of Acts 3:25-26 is that Christ did come to turn them from their iniquities and many did turn from their iniquities. All of the remnant who were part of the Israel that is not of Israel did turn from their iniquities.

What covenant, besides the new covenant of Christ's shed blood on the cross, can take anyone's sins away and save them? You are making the covenant spoken of in Romans 11:26-27 to be on that only has a future fulfillment. That is not an accurate portrayal of the new covenant, which was established long ago.


This distinction is important. The prophecy will not be fulfilled until they all come to repentance. Until all who are of the Israel which is not of Israel (Rom 9:6) come to repentance. So far, the success rate has been 100% but not all the children of the promise have been saved yet.


I disagree with this interpretation because it ignores the rest of his argument. Paul does not say that being a natural descendant "has nothing to do with it." His argument is exclusive not inclusive.

He isn't saying, "Israel consists of believers from every nation, tongue, and people", which would be inclusive. He argues that Israel consists of believers from among the sons of Jacob, which is exclusive. His examples from the OT stories bear this out. His first example involves two physical sons of Abraham; his second example involves two physical sons of Isaac. In each case, Paul's illustration involves the exclusion of one physical son from being a child of promise. He never gives an example in which a person unrelated by birth from Abraham is made a member of Israel. He does in Ephesians 2. He makes it clear in Galatians 3 and 4 that being a child of God and a child of the promise has to do with belonging to Christ rather than being Jew or Gentile.


Let's not superimpose Galatians onto Romans.Yes, we should never allow scripture to corroborate itself. :rolleyes:


In the Galatians passage Paul describes the means whereby Gentiles are included as children of promise, i.e. sanctification through the Holy Spirit. In Romans, Paul indicates that the Gentiles are children of Abraham because they share his same faith. Thus, Gentiles are children of Abraham, but this does not mean that they are also children of Jacob. The two issues are quite different.In Romans 9:7 Paul said of those who make up the Israel which is not of Israel: "in Isaac shall thy seed be called". Then in the next verse he said, "the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Here is what that means:

Paul, speaking to Jew and Gentile believers:

Galatians 4
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


Again, the Galatians passage designates Gentiles in Christ as sons of Abraham, which is not the same thing as declaring them to be the sons of Jacob. It declares who we are in relation to promises God made to Abraham. It says nothing in relation to promises made to the nation state of Israel that existed in the time of Moses.I believe you are applying some promises to the nation of Israel that were actually made to spiritual Israel instead. God doesn't promise anything but trouble to people who reject Him.


Do you see a problem with that? I don't because I believe that salvation is by grace and an activity of the Spirit of God. Yes, my problem with it is that God is not a respecter of persons in regards to salvation. If He would do something to ensure the salvation of everyone in Israel then He would do the same for all nations. If He didn't, then He would be a respecter of persons, thereby contradicting all the passages that say otherwise.


When the Bible speaks about how God is not a respecter of persons, the main point puts the emphasis on the primacy of God over other authorities we might face in this life. The idea behind this statement is that God is not obligated to bow his knee to anyone. He is not obligated to give deference to any other authority or do what they say in deference to their power. Scripture doesn't define it that way.


Given the fact that God answers to no one, he is free to save whomever he wants, for whatever reason he likes. If he says that he wants to save an entire nation of people in order to sanctify his name, he will do it for HIS reasons, not for the sake of the sons of Jacob. God can do this and still not be a respecter of persons, since it was his idea and he is acting according to his own will.You clearly don't understand what being a respecter of persons means, so let me show you how scripture explains it.

Acts 10
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

It means that God does not accept people based on their nationality, as this passage shows, but rather based on whether or not they fear Him. He looks at people's hearts and not their nationality, when it comes to salvation.

Romans 2
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.

Here, we can see that being a Jew or Gentile makes no difference because God is not a respecter of persons when it comes to how He judges people. Yet you are trying to say that one being a natural Israelite would be a factor in God saving them. That would mean He is a respecter of persons. But he's not. This same concept can be seen in Ephesians 6:7-10, Colossians 3:23-25, James 2:1-9, and 1 Peter 1:17.

ananias
Oct 13th 2008, 06:43 PM
It sounds like a dance....; kinda reminiscent of "the safety dance" from the early 80s.

As for the Feast of Tabernacles; that one's pretty easy; some believe it is yet to be fulfilled; some believe it has already been fulfilled...swing your partner, do-see-do....

Oh good - because the Feast of Tabernacles began a few hours ago today in Jerusalem :pp

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 06:44 PM
You missed the point. The mourning that Zechariah prophesies about is compared to "the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.".

Zech 12:11
In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

That is a reference to this:

2 Chronicles 35
20After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho king of Egypt came up to fight against Charchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him.
21But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not.
22Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo.
23And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded.
24His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.
25And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations.

Clearly, this is a case of people mourning one's death and has nothing to do with repentance at all. And this is what the mourning of Jerusalem over Christ's death is compared to. It was not compared to people being sorry for killing someone and later repenting of it so there's no reason to make such a comparison. It's only referring to the people of Jerusalem who were saddened and in mourning over Christ's death, not fully realizing yet that He would rise again from the dead.

Eric.

Come on man. You see exactly what was written in Zechariah 12. It is not simply mourning over a man, but mourning over God, whom they pierced. This is mourning over the Lord, Lord Jesus, the God who thwy pierced. If this is not repentence, what is?

wpm
Oct 13th 2008, 06:48 PM
Here is where the disagreement begins. According to what you say here, you think that Paul is reinforcing the concept that the election shall continue to grow until they are the only ones of Israel who thus fulfill the prophecy in Romans 11:26. It is my opinon that Paul is talking about the blind ones, and shows us that those who are blinded will continue to be so until the "fullness of the Gentiles" comes.
I would not make that connection beased on Romans 11:25. it is my opinion that verse 25 is what brings about the 26th verse. The connection with Ephesians I would say is only relevant to the election, whom, like you said, Paul was indeed a member of.

I don't understand your objection. There are 2 Israels, one known as "the election" and the other as the "blinded." They are found throughout Romans 11. Romans 11:7 asks: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

Every other nationality is the same. It just so happened that Paul addressed his own kith-and-kin and there were those that still thought that Israeli ethiniticy somehow carried favour with God.



You know I disagree with this right? Verse 26 is the continuation of the thought that comes about in verse 25, where the major reference was not to the election, but to the blinded ones. Romans 9 was not even a part of Paul's prose in chapter 11, which is why he asked the question concerning ethnic Israel. The entire chapter is concerning ethnic Israel. I am not saying that Paul did not mean what he wrote in chapter 9; what he did was change the subject, or rather, elaborate on what he previously stated, mainly Romans 9:6

In my opinion, it would seem as though Paul was forseing someone asking the question concerning the state of Israel in light of Romans 9:6, hence the question "has God cast away His people", a direct reference to ethnic Israel. Remember, Israel would not be a nation at all without God. God brought them, ethnic Israel, out of Egypt. The word Gentiles was used to differenciate betwen Israelite and foreigner. Before Israel's rejection of the Lord, they were God's chosen people. This is why it only makes sense for Paul, who wrote in chapter 9:6 that not all who are called Israel are of actual (or what we call TRUE) Israel, to answer the question that is truly related to that statement. Hence we have two Israels, the election and the blinded ones.


For your argument to succeed you actually have to divorce Romans 9:6 from what Paul is saying in Romans 11. This is in fact what you do. This is where I believe you err. These comments don't even come close to rebutting my last post. I would say your argument is very weak here and questionable.


What makes you think that by God bringing a nation that HE established back to Him as Him respecting persons? God will do as God will do and He has to answer to no one. This is the defintion of "God is no respector of persons". There is no higher authority than Him and what He will do, no one can stop Him. If He is going to save Israel, then He is going to save Israel, with no respect to those who disagree with Him. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has everything to do with God glorifying His name.

I feel you change the meeting of this passage to support your position. What He is in fact saying is that He does not look on race, colour or status today He looks at hearts.

John146
Oct 13th 2008, 06:50 PM
What part of Romans 11:23 do you not understand? Paul clearly states that if Israel continues not in unbelief, that the same God who cut them off will in fact restore them. With that thought in mind, he then reveals how long Israel will remain cut off, and then proclaims that all Israel shall be saved, quoting the very same scripture that you have here. What you are saying here would only be true if the whole nation of Israel was cut off. But it wasn't. They were only blinded IN PART (Rom 11:7,25). There was a remnant of believers that were not cut off from the olive tree (Rom 11:5,7). Salvation is an individual issue, not corporate or national. Any natural Israelite can at any time believe and be grafted back into the olive tree. A good number of them have believed and been grafted back in for the last 2,000 years or so.

John146
Oct 13th 2008, 06:57 PM
Eric.

Come on man. You see exactly what was written in Zechariah 12. It is not simply mourning over a man, but mourning over God, whom they pierced. This is mourning over the Lord, Lord Jesus, the God who thwy pierced. If this is not repentence, what is?It's what I already explained that it was: it was sadness over the Lord dying on the cross. Look at what scripture says regarding the reaction of His disciples and others who were there. They were despondent over what was happening to their Lord and Savior. They were thinking that their hopes were dashed because they didn't fully understand at the time that He would rise again from the dead.

Can you please address this question: Why would the mourning of Jerusalem over the death of Jesus be compared to that of the people mourning over the death of Josiah if it wasn't the same type of mourning?

You also never seem to want to address the fact that Zechariah 12:10 is quoted in John 19:37 as having to do with the people who actually pierced Jesus looking upon Him at the time He was pierced. That sets the context of the time period to which Zechariah 12:10-14 is referring.

John146
Oct 13th 2008, 07:09 PM
He is talking about natural Israel and its inhabitants. I have stated many times, there are two Israels - one natural and one spiritual. Paul was asking, in the light of Israel's rebellion against God, had God turned His back totally on physical Israel. The answer of course was/is no. The fact that there still was a remnant of believers was proof of this. Paul in this chapter shows that there was a part of Israel that was not blinded - he was one of that elect company.

Q. “I say then, Hath God cast away his people?”

A. “God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

Paul proves that “God has hath not cast away his people” by presenting himself as an evidence of a chosen Israeli. Please note, he did not present the continued survival of natural Israel as proof (which many Premils mistakenly do today), no, but rather his own salvation. He reinforces this thought by pointing to the very small remnant that existed in Elijah’s day as a similar picture that God always had a people within Israel, however small or seemingly insignificant. He seals his whole argument up by actually stating this: “there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Excellent points.


Paul is basically summing up everything he had just said previous in regard to there being a chosen remnant within natural Israel that will be brought through in this intra-Advent period (while the Gentiles were being brought in). He saw a day when all that belonged to true Israel would finally be completed - that is why it is in the future tense.

I would connect Ephesians 1:10-14, which similarly says (only speaking of the full elect - Jew and Gentile): "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."

This is simply saying in Romans 11:26 that all who are going to be saved will be saved. There will no empty seats in eternity. All those that have been individually chosen of the Lord will come through for Christ. They have been graciously “predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11). Paul’s comments in Romans 11:26 come on the back of his defining “all Israel” in Romans 9:6-8. It is wrong to ignore Paul’s definition of “all Israel” here and side with the plethora of modern man-made opinions. Romans 9:6-8 not only tells us what "all Israel" is, but it also tells us what it isn't. What Paul is getting at is: God’s eternal plan shall prevail and the true Israel of God (those of the household of faith) – in total – will be saved. Those that are chosen of God will come through – let us have no doubt. Remember, salvation is of the Lord. By the time Christ returns the full quantity of believers will be complete – those that have come to Christ in simple faith and true repentance. These are the company that are written in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world. This is not a prophecy, as many modern-day preachers claim, it is simply an ongoing spiritual reality. Agree. That was a good passage to bring up to show that the salvation of all God's people is an ongoing process that will continue until "the fulness of times", which I believe occurs when "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in".


No, He is able to save every inhabitant of the whole world never mind Israel. However, He is no respecter of persons - you make Him that. You build the wall of division up between Jew and Gentile in your theoloigy, Scripture demolishes it. There is neither Jew nor Gentile in a spiritual sense today. All are dealt with equally on a spiritual basis. That's what I have been trying to point out as well. It would go against God's character of not being a respecter of persons if He made a way for the nation of Israel to be saved while not doing the same for all other nations.

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 07:23 PM
I don't understand your objection. There are 2 Israels, one known as "the election" and the other as the "blinded." They are found throughout Romans 11. Romans 11:7 asks: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

Every other nationality is the same. It just so happened that Paul addressed his own kith-and-kin and there were those that still thought that Israeli ethiniticy somehow carried favour with God.

It looks as though we aare going to have to agree to disagree. Here is why I say that. You seem to think that I am saying that Paul is saying that God still has favor with the Israelites, meaning that He will save them because of their ethnicity, the fact that they are the bloodline of Abraham. I do not see it that way at all!

What I see is God preserving His name. Israel, the nation, was established not by Moses or Joshua, but by God. God brought them out of Egypt. God settled them down in the land of Caanan. God punished them as He saw fit many times over the course of 1200 years. God disposed of them out of the land twice, and God brought them back each and every time. Do you think that the Israelites repented of their sins when He brought them back the first time? Think again, for we see in Ezra that they did not. The elderly did, but the rest did not. God brought them back to preserve His name as the One who not only established Israel, but also preserves that nation, even though He even tells them on occasion that they do not deserve it. (For you are a stiff-necked people is what He used to say to them through Moses and the rest of the prophets).

The same thing is now, when the people DO NOT DESERVE the land of Caanan, He saw it fit to bring them back, after the Nazi's attempted annihilation. They do not deserve it, for they are STILL IN SIN! However, God found it fitting for His sake and HIS ALONE to bring an unworthy people back to their land. This, to me, IS showing that God is not a respector of persons, because if He was, Israel would not be a nation today. We would be Israel today.

It is not the two Israels that I disagree with you on, it is the notion that only one of those Israels will count as the whole in the end. Romans 11:25 states that the blinded Israel will remain blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles, which I believe is shortly before the Great Tribulation. Just to make the record clear, I believe that the fullness of the Gentiles is the same as a field of crops ready for harvesting. It is not the same as the time of the harvesting.


For your argument to succeed you actually have to divorce Romans 9:6 from what Paul is saying in Romans 11. This is in fact what you do. This is where I believe you err. These comments don't even come close to rebutting my last post. I would say your argument is very weak here and questionable.

I completely disagree. I believe that not only I, but Paul, the writer of this epistle, is confirming Romans 9:6 with Romans 11. He is saying that, again, Israel is fragmented between the election and the blinded ones. Is this not the same as saying that not all who are of Israel is Israel? How am I divorcing the two?

What I am saying by saying that Romans 11:25 is talking about the blind Israel is that the blinders willl be removed, and thus the rest of Israel, namely the blind ones, will do as Paul says in Romans 11:23 and thus will be saved. If both the election and the blind are saved by the same means, then wouldn't that fulfill Romans 11:26, stating that all Israel shall be saved? I still do not understand how I am divorcing the two concepts when I am marrying them, just as Paul did.


I feel you change the meeting of this passage to support your position. What He is in fact saying is that He does not look on race, colour or status today He looks at hearts.

Again, the race thing. God is not going to save all Israel because of ethnicity. He is going to save them because He established them as a nation in the first place. (Here is where I originally inserted my premil beliefs, but in order to continue this debate, I have erased them.)

IN truth, wpm, it is my conclusion that we will not see eye to eye with Israel mainly because of our Millennial beliefs. I could be wrong, but I am cetain that I am not. So, because I forbade the use of our millennial references, I will go no further with you in this debate, unless we continue as we have, using Romans and the other books of the Bible.

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 07:31 PM
That's what I have been trying to point out as well. It would go against God's character of not being a respecter of persons if He made a way for the nation of Israel to be saved while not doing the same for all other nations.

Was God a respector of persons when He brought the descendents of Jacob from Egypt and established Israel as a nation? If so, then who was He respecting, that he would force God to do such a thing?

Here's my point. God wasn't a respector of persons when He created Israel, and He will continue to not be a respector of persons when He saves that nation. The ethnicity has nothing to do with it. God will do as He will do, and He has no one to answer to. God did not establish the gentile nations. He established Israel. He separated Israel to Himself. He did this, respecting no one. Israel is truly God's nation, even id the ones who are currently living in Israel are frauds. According to my beliefs, which I have outlines using scripture, most of the frauds will die when the Abomination that causes Desolation appears. It is the remnant, those who escape into the Valley of the Mount of Olives, who will repent, mourn and be saved. And thus ,the election and the blinded will become one once again, and all Israel shall be saved.

BroRog
Oct 13th 2008, 07:37 PM
He is talking about natural Israel and its inhabitants. I have stated many times, there are two Israels - one natural and one spiritual.

Actually wpm, Paul's statement in Romans 11:1 contradicts your view that there are two Israels. His question, "hath God cast away his people?" only makes sense in terms of a prior assumption that indeed God has a people and that God's people relate to being a natural, physical child of Jacob, of which Benjamin is one. If Paul is one of "his people" by birthright, then we Gentiles are not "his people" in the sense he means it.

Paul's question relates to the concept of Jacob's children as having claim to being God's people by birthright. Has God abandoned THAT? His answer is no. Having worded it that way, we are not a liberty to reinterpret his wording in terms of a "spiritual" people. His entire line of argument assumes that God has "a people", an ethnic group singled out from among all the other ethnic groups of the world. This understanding of the phrase "a people" has a well established precedent in the rest of God's holy revelation. For instance, God says to Moses,

Therefore, come now, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people , the sons of Israel, out of Egypt. Exodus 3:10

God specifically and explicitly refers to the sons of Israel as his people. We could multiply examples of this. He also refers to the biological children of Jacob as his possession here,

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

What can this phrase mean, "among all the peoples" if not that God has designated the sons of Israel as "his own possession" as opposed to the other ethnic groups we find on the earth?

Therefore, his argument isn't, "God hasn't stopped saving Israelites because look at me, I'm an Israelite and God saved me." Instead, his argument is, "God has not abandoned his project to deal with the sons of Jacob as a group of people in a covenant relationship with them as a group." The sons of Jacob are God's people by birthright as he has made a covenant with them at Mt. Sinai to be "his people." When Paul says that God has not cast away his people, we understand that statement in its historical context.


He seals his whole argument up by actually stating this: “there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

This idea of a remnant is another concept that flies in the face of the two Israel theory. If, as you suggest, Paul thinks in terms of two Israels, he could not pen the idea that God keeps a remnant of Israel. For the Israel he keeps would not be a remnant, but the whole thing.

The term remnant just means "fraction." The believing remnant is a fraction of the whole nation of Israel. He will go on to say that if the fraction is holy, so is the whole, demonstrating that he continues to think in terms of a sanctified ethnic group. In this case, the term "holy" doesn't mean "saved"; Paul isn't saying that Jacob's progeny are saved. He means Jacob's family line continues to remain as God's people.

third hero
Oct 13th 2008, 07:48 PM
What you are saying here would only be true if the whole nation of Israel was cut off. But it wasn't. They were only blinded IN PART (Rom 11:7,25). There was a remnant of believers that were not cut off from the olive tree (Rom 11:5,7). Salvation is an individual issue, not corporate or national. Any natural Israelite can at any time believe and be grafted back into the olive tree. A good number of them have believed and been grafted back in for the last 2,000 years or so.

I understand what you are saying Eric, but that is not what I am saying. I am very aware of ther split in Israel, with the blinded ones being those who are cut off. I agree that a good portion of those who were blinded have come to the truth, and have been grafted back in. What the disagreement is over is the possibility that God will remove the blinders from ALL of the nation that is currently blind.

Maybe I am not making myself clear. I believe that the "All Israel shall be saved" are actually the survivors of the Abomination that causes desolation, mixed with the Jews that will not be living in Israel when that happens. I believe that when the abomination comes, the blinders will be removed, and all of the survivors will come to the saving knowledge of Lord Jesus. All of those remnants will believe. All of those remnants will mourn. All of Israel, which would include the election, those who survive the Abomination that Causes Desolation, and the Jews living outside of Israel, will all at once believe, because God will take the blinders from their eyes, and they will see the scriptures come alive. It is not about ethnicity here. It is about the Lord's Word. They will have no choice but to repent, or renouce their Jewishness, because the dividing line will vanish once Lord Jesus appears at the Mount of Olives and splits it.

Remember, they still have the OT, and Zechariah is part of that. If they see their OT scriptures come to life, and it would be kind of difficult to not see a WHOLE MOUNTAIN SPLIT, they will have no other recourse but to believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is who He says He is. Remember, it is God, and only God, who can fulfill Zechariah 14:3-5. Also remember, it is in Revelation and NO WHERE ELSE is the 144,000 even mentioned. If this comes to pass, then the writer of Revelation has to be viewed even in their religion as a prophet, citing Deuteronomy 18:16. It will be the ultimate "we told you so" that WE, the believers, can, will, and have to use against any and all of their arguments against Jesus being the Messiah. It would not be because of ethnicity. It would be because it is in their scriptures, and they would no longer be able to deny it.

And so, God will not be viewed as a respecter of persons. He will be viewed as the Yeay and Amen that He is. He will make certain that the Mount of Olives is split, and the Israelites will have no other recourse, especially after seeing the two prophets telling them about Christ and the Advent of the Beast, seeing the beast kill the two prophets, after seeing the prophets come back to life and proceeding to heaven, with an earthquake that kills 7000, after seeing the abomination that causes desolation, they will have no choice but to repent, or otherwise renounce their alliegence to Abraham. Revelation will be proven as a book written by an actual prophet, and Israel will come to it's senses.... well, at least those who survive and make it to the Mountain-valley.

wpm
Oct 13th 2008, 08:42 PM
It looks as though we are going to have to agree to disagree. Here is why I say that. You seem to think that I am saying that Paul is saying that God still has favor with the Israelites, meaning that He will save them because of their ethnicity, the fact that they are the bloodline of Abraham. I do not see it that way at all!

What I see is God preserving His name. Israel, the nation, was established not by Moses or Joshua, but by God. God brought them out of Egypt. God settled them down in the land of Caanan. God punished them as He saw fit many times over the course of 1200 years. God disposed of them out of the land twice, and God brought them back each and every time. Do you think that the Israelites repented of their sins when He brought them back the first time? Think again, for we see in Ezra that they did not. The elderly did, but the rest did not. God brought them back to preserve His name as the One who not only established Israel, but also preserves that nation, even though He even tells them on occasion that they do not deserve it. (For you are a stiff-necked people is what He used to say to them through Moses and the rest of the prophets).

His name has always been glorified through a spiritual seed - the children of promise. These are His true people, these are His only people, these are His elect. Before there were ever Hebrews God had a people. Before Abraham God had a people. Before there were children of Abraham God had a people. Before there was an Israel God had a people. Before there were Jews God had a people.

God is not restricted to an earthly Christ-rejecting nation, nor does He need to come to natural Israel's defence to prove He is faithful. The true Israel of Israel have been coming through for Christ for 2,000 yrs and will continue to come in whilst the Gentiles are. He has shown Himself true with this real Israel (spiritual Israel) as He has with all His elect from the very beginning. Remember, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Romans 9:6), and “he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh” (Romans 2:28-29).

Satan's battle is not against natural Israel. He has the nations in his hand. His battle is with that spiritual nation that contains the redeemed of all ages. This is who he has targeted right from the Garden.

God has broadened out His people since the cross to embrace all the nations of the world. This is the reality of the new covenant. Whilst I accept that you don't advocate the return of the old economy like many Premils, you still view natural Israel through OT glasses. This dilutes your view of what true Israel is and the international nature of God's chosen people today. It stops you seeing that God is indeed no respecter of persons, that circumcision means absolutely nothing. There are many passages that rebut your belief.



The same thing is now, when the people DO NOT DESERVE the land of Caanan, He saw it fit to bring them back, after the Nazi's attempted annihilation. They do not deserve it, for they are STILL IN SIN! However, God found it fitting for His sake and HIS ALONE to bring an unworthy people back to their land. This, to me, IS showing that God is not a respector of persons, because if He was, Israel would not be a nation today. We would be Israel today.


Natural Israel exists like any other nation, because God has not finally destroyed the wicked – that comes at His final return. A nation's survival does not prove that they are God’s; you only have to look at the amazing survival of so many Christ-rejecting peoples, tribes and nations - despite years of subjugation and awful annihilation.

Most ancient tribes still exist today only under different names or in similar redefined groupings, and like Israel they are gaining independence of late, regaining their ancient identity. Some olden nations and now smaller, other bigger, have been merged into stronger nations through politics or subjugation in history. Europe is becoming small statelets. Even the UK is splintering into small regional governments. This could equally happen in the USA in a few years.

You are partial again in picking out national Israel as an example of preservation when many other Christ-hating nations have been equally preserved.




It is not the two Israels that I disagree with you on, it is the notion that only one of those Israels will count as the whole in the end. Romans 11:25 states that the blinded Israel will remain blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles, which I believe is shortly before the Great Tribulation. Just to make the record clear, I believe that the fullness of the Gentiles is the same as a field of crops ready for harvesting. It is not the same as the time of the harvesting.


Again you are making two parts to the one whole. Christ sees no racial division in His body. The Bible says “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek” (Romans 10:12), “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28), and “there is neither Greek nor Jew” (Colossians 3:11). Christ has assuredly “put no difference between us and them” (Acts 15:9), “us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles” (Romans 9:24), because “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 12:13).



I completely disagree. I believe that not only I, but Paul, the writer of this epistle, is confirming Romans 9:6 with Romans 11. He is saying that, again, Israel is fragmented between the election and the blinded ones. Is this not the same as saying that not all who are of Israel is Israel? How am I divorcing the two?

What I am saying by saying that Romans 11:25 is talking about the blind Israel is that the blinders willl be removed, and thus the rest of Israel, namely the blind ones, will do as Paul says in Romans 11:23 and thus will be saved.

Romans 11:25 doesn't say what you are saying. It is not saying that the blinders willl be removed from blinded Israel. It is saying, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Despite their rebellion, Scripture assures us that not all Israel would reject Christ. This passage tells us that a “part” (or a portion) of natural Jews would continue to come into spiritual union with Christ during the time when the Gospel was drawing in the Gentiles. This passage is simply reassuring us that there will be those among Israel that will accept Christ in the intra-Advent period. Israel is not all blind.

Part-blindness while the Gentiles come in

The word interpreted "until" here confuses many Bible students. It is actually two Greek words in the original: achris hou. The word hou is left un-interpreted in the AV, and means “wherein” in our language. It is difficult to know why the translators left it out, but it seems proper to use it in such an important passage. The other word achris can be translated “until” (as it is in the King James Version), however, it may also equally be translated “while” as it translates the same. The truth is it doesn’t particularly matter which of the two meanings one prefers sincecoupled with the connecting word hou bothgive us the same general meaning.

Translating this word hou (as we should) seems to place a different sense on the whole verse. That’s why “while wherein” seems to better reflect what the writer was trying to say. Romans 11:25 is therefore simply teaching that during the whole intra-Advent period an ongoing amount of Jews will continue to be grafted in to the Israel of God (the one and only good olive tree). Saying all this, we leave the passage the way it is translated in the KJV then it still can be understood the same way.

Romans 11:23 simply says that God is able to draw those currently in unbelief in. It says, "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."


If both the election and the blind are saved by the same means, then wouldn't that fulfill Romans 11:26, stating that all Israel shall be saved? I still do not understand how I am divorcing the two concepts when I am marrying them, just as Paul did.

I believe this is another example of you missing the import. The blind that are saved are no longer the blind. They then become the election. There are therefore two co-existing parties in Israel - as there has always been, as there is in all nations - saved and lost.

Romans 11:7 asks: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

You always leave out "and the rest" as if these reading only speak about one redeemed Israelite at the end. That is not what Paul is saying anywhere. Again, your error is built upon your divorcing of Romans 9:6 from Romans 11:26. However, they are inter-connected.

In short we learn in Romans 9-11, not all Israel is blinded, only “blindness in part is happened to Israel.” Paul is basically saying, God hasn’t turned His back on the whole physical nation of Israel, as part of it will believe while the Gentiles enter. This is happening now – and it has been from Paul explained this.



Again, the race thing. God is not going to save all Israel because of ethnicity. He is going to save them because He established them as a nation in the first place. (Here is where I originally inserted my premil beliefs, but in order to continue this debate, I have erased them.)

IN truth, wpm, it is my conclusion that we will not see eye to eye with Israel mainly because of our Millennial beliefs. I could be wrong, but I am cetain that I am not. So, because I forbade the use of our millennial references, I will go no further with you in this debate, unless we continue as we have, using Romans and the other books of the Bible.


But you are saying that it will be a 100% advantage to be a Jew before Jesus returns more than any other religion (including professing Christian) because 100% of the Jews will be saved.

My question is, what percentage Jew does one have to be to included in this highly favoured ethnic group at the end that God unilaterally picks out a discriminately saves in total?

wpm
Oct 13th 2008, 08:54 PM
Actually wpm, Paul's statement in Romans 11:1 contradicts your view that there are two Israels. His question, "hath God cast away his people?" only makes sense in terms of a prior assumption that indeed God has a people and that God's people relate to being a natural, physical child of Jacob, of which Benjamin is one. If Paul is one of "his people" by birthright, then we Gentiles are not "his people" in the sense he means it.

Paul's question relates to the concept of Jacob's children as having claim to being God's people by birthright. Has God abandoned THAT? His answer is no. Having worded it that way, we are not a liberty to reinterpret his wording in terms of a "spiritual" people. His entire line of argument assumes that God has "a people", an ethnic group singled out from among all the other ethnic groups of the world. This understanding of the phrase "a people" has a well established precedent in the rest of God's holy revelation. For instance, God says to Moses,

Therefore, come now, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people , the sons of Israel, out of Egypt. Exodus 3:10

God specifically and explicitly refers to the sons of Israel as his people. We could multiply examples of this. He also refers to the biological children of Jacob as his possession here,

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

What can this phrase mean, "among all the peoples" if not that God has designated the sons of Israel as "his own possession" as opposed to the other ethnic groups we find on the earth?

Therefore, his argument isn't, "God hasn't stopped saving Israelites because look at me, I'm an Israelite and God saved me." Instead, his argument is, "God has not abandoned his project to deal with the sons of Jacob as a group of people in a covenant relationship with them as a group." The sons of Jacob are God's people by birthright as he has made a covenant with them at Mt. Sinai to be "his people." When Paul says that God has not cast away his people, we understand that statement in its historical context.

[/size][/font]

This idea of a remnant is another concept that flies in the face of the two Israel theory. If, as you suggest, Paul thinks in terms of two Israels, he could not pen the idea that God keeps a remnant of Israel. For the Israel he keeps would not be a remnant, but the whole thing.

The term remnant just means "fraction." The believing remnant is a fraction of the whole nation of Israel. He will go on to say that if the fraction is holy, so is the whole, demonstrating that he continues to think in terms of a sanctified ethnic group. In this case, the term "holy" doesn't mean "saved"; Paul isn't saying that Jacob's progeny are saved. He means Jacob's family line continues to remain as God's people.

You obviously missed my post to Rookie that went totally unaddressed. However, it addresses your argument.

When you see the phrase "the election," "the elect" or "chosen" in the New Testament it is exclusively speaking of the redeemed. Paul's discourse in Romans 9-11 is no different. Whilst he talks in Romans 11 about his own kith-and-kin he shows that God has not fully abandoned Israel, there is still an elect remnant that believe God and accept His only provision for sin and uncleanness – the Lord Jesus Christ - among them. This is ample and irrefutable proof that He has not cast His true chosen people away.

He is talking about natural Israel and its inhabitants. I have stated many times, there are two Israels - one natural and one spiritual. Paul was asking, in the light of Israel's rebellion against God, 'had God turned His back totally on physical Israel?' The answer of course was/is no. The fact that there still was a remnant of believers was proof of this. Paul in this chapter shows that there was a part of Israel that was not blinded - he was one of that elect company. Paul reinforces that in Romans 11:1-5:

Q. “I say then, Hath God cast away his people?”

A. “God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

Paul proves that “God has hath not cast away his people” by presenting himself as an evidence of a chosen Israeli. Please note, he did not present the continued survival of natural Israel as proof (which many Premils mistakenly do today), no, but rather his own salvation. He reinforces this thought by pointing to the very small remnant that existed in Elijah’s day as a similar picture that God always had a people within Israel, however small or seemingly insignificant. He seals his whole argument up by actually stating this: “there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Premil can force whatever they like into this reading but the meaning and import is crystal clear.

Paul confirms that God has got an elect people within Israel (even after Israel’s wilful rejection of their Messiah). This reading confirms, saying “there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Nothing could be clearer. It is this blessed remnant that is the apple of His eye. These are the Jews “which he foreknew” – those that have been predestined by sovereign grace unto salvation. They are intimately known to Him and are united to Him through the Lord Jesus Christ. It is they alone that are found amongst the beloved.

One's Jewishness carries no extra favour with God than one's Gentileness. God is no respecter of persons today; He is only interested in hearts. A circumcised heart (whether Jew or Gentile) is an accepted heart. It is they alone that are God’s chosen people. They are a spiritual race, not a natural race. They enjoy the favour of God and walk in divine favour. What is more, we must remember, they are a remnant of Jews. Paul like the “seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal” (in Romans 11:4) belonged to the Israel of Israel (or the real chosen people). Christ hasn't rejected natural Israel or any other nationality. The Gospel is still open to all nations. All that come to Christ in repentance are assuredly saved. He has not cast away all Israel because increasing numbers are coming to faith in Christ. They have entered into God's only spiritual organism on this earth (the Church), by God's only means of salvation (the blood of Jesus), in man's only day of salvation (the period preceding the one final Coming of Christ).

Romans 8:29-30 explains, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

We can therefore conclude, those that have been "predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son" are those whom He intimately “foreknew” in eternity. His people are therefore those whom He foreknew from the foundation of the earth – both Jew and Gentile. Paul is simply developing the thought in Romans 11:1-5, albeit he is specifically speaking about the favour of God in his natural kith-and-kin. He is demonstrating that God did not turn His back on every Israeli. In fact, Paul offers himself here as tangible proof of this in the reading. God had not (nor has not) completely cast away Israel, Paul was living testimony of this nearly 2,000 years ago.

As long as God has a remnant in Israel that believes in Christ then the favour of God still remains there. Paul himself who was born a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin was part of that choice Israel of Israel. Note, this is Paul’s proof that God “has not cast away His people.” Paul’s evidence is further supported by the fact that many others Jews had accepted Christ as Saviour in the first century. How then do we know that God has not cast away His people? We know because there were still Jewish believers in Israel after God turned His back on the physical nation. If God had cast away His people (His elect), there would be no Jewish believers, only Gentile believers.

Or put similar: When God says that He has a plan for Israel, He is talking about the same gracious plan of salvation that is available to every other nation throughout the globe. It is exclusively found in Christ and His shed blood for lost sinners at that place called Calvary. It is in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. One’s Jewish or Gentile nationality means utterly nothing in the eyes of God in this age which precedes the one final future all-consummating Coming of Christ. A sinner is saved in Johannesburg in the exact same way as he is in Jerusalem; A sinner is availed the same opportunity of salvation in Tehran and he is in Tel Aviv. The Gospel is open to the “whosoever believeth” throughout all nations. The only difference is that we have some prophecies to show us precisely what it will look like in Israel's case. Notwithstanding, the Israel that belongs to God is carefully defined as those that enter into His sovereign covenant of grace. It embraces only them that accept Christ as Saviour and turn from their sin. It is they alone that are the elect of God.

Matthew Henry says of this, “There was a chosen remnant of believing Jews, that obtained righteousness and life by faith in Jesus Christ, v. 1-7. These are said to be such as he foreknew (v. 2), that is, had thoughts of love to, before the world was; for whom he thus foreknew he did predestinate. her lies the ground of the difference. They are called the election (v. 7), that is, the elect, God's chosen ones, whom he calls the election, because that which first distinguished them from the dignified them above others was God's electing love. Believers are the election, all those and those only whom God hath chosen.”

Romans 11:7, which states, “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

Firstly, Paul is not saying that salvation is by way of Israeli birthright; otherwise he would totally contradict everything he has hitherto taught in his epistles, and counter the consistent teaching of Scripture (Old and New Testament) that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. No, Paul is simply expanding upon his preceding comments about an elect people within the physical nation – “a remnant according to the election of grace.” They are the true Israel. He is re-emphasising the fact that one’s natural birth and Israeli citizenship “hath not obtained” or could obtain “that which he seeketh for.” Israel as a physical nation (represented by the fig tree in Scripture) has not obtained what it hoped and sought for; rather, it is the elect Israelite within natural Israel (represented by the good Olive tree) that hath obtained favour with God. According to Paul's explanation here, Israel is divided. There is the elect, (which he and every believing Jew belonged to) and the blinded (the unbelieving Jew).

John146
Oct 13th 2008, 09:44 PM
Was God a respector of persons when He brought the descendents of Jacob from Egypt and established Israel as a nation? If so, then who was He respecting, that he would force God to do such a thing?I'm speaking in terms of salvation here, not the establishment of a nation.


Here's my point. God wasn't a respector of persons when He created Israel, and He will continue to not be a respector of persons when He saves that nation. The ethnicity has nothing to do with it.But to you it does have something to do with it because you are saying God will do something to save the people of Israel that He will not do for the people of any other nation.


God will do as He will do, and He has no one to answer to. God did not establish the gentile nations. He established Israel. He separated Israel to Himself. He did this, respecting no one.Yes, but again, we're talking in terms of salvation. Do you believe salvation was only available to Israelites back then?


Israel is truly God's nation, even id the ones who are currently living in Israel are frauds. According to my beliefs, which I have outlines using scripture, most of the frauds will die when the Abomination that causes Desolation appears. It is the remnant, those who escape into the Valley of the Mount of Olives, who will repent, mourn and be saved. And thus ,the election and the blinded will become one once again, and all Israel shall be saved.For whatever reason, you continue to look at salvation as if it was a corporate issue rather than an individual issue, as scripture teaches. Romans 11 does not speak about all who are blind being grafted in again. It's based on faith and is on an individual basis. People were not cut off the olive tree as a result of the overall lack of faith of the nation. Each individual was cut off due to his/her own personal unbelief.

John146
Oct 13th 2008, 09:54 PM
I understand what you are saying Eric, but that is not what I am saying. I am very aware of ther split in Israel, with the blinded ones being those who are cut off. I agree that a good portion of those who were blinded have come to the truth, and have been grafted back in. What the disagreement is over is the possibility that God will remove the blinders from ALL of the nation that is currently blind.

Maybe I am not making myself clear.What you said above doesn't seem to correlate with what you said in your earlier post, so thanks for the clarification.


I believe that the "All Israel shall be saved" are actually the survivors of the Abomination that causes desolation, mixed with the Jews that will not be living in Israel when that happens. I believe that when the abomination comes, the blinders will be removed, and all of the survivors will come to the saving knowledge of Lord Jesus. All of those remnants will believe. All of those remnants will mourn. All of Israel, which would include the election, those who survive the Abomination that Causes Desolation, and the Jews living outside of Israel, will all at once believe, because God will take the blinders from their eyes, and they will see the scriptures come alive. It is not about ethnicity here. It is about the Lord's Word. They will have no choice but to repent, or renouce their Jewishness, because the dividing line will vanish once Lord Jesus appears at the Mount of Olives and splits it.You try to say that it's not about their Jewishness and yet, according to your view, being an ethnic Jew is a requirement of being included among those of whom God will remove their spiritual blinders. Okay, sure. :rolleyes:


Remember, they still have the OT, and Zechariah is part of that. If they see their OT scriptures come to life, and it would be kind of difficult to not see a WHOLE MOUNTAIN SPLIT, they will have no other recourse but to believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is who He says He is. Remember, it is God, and only God, who can fulfill Zechariah 14:3-5. Also remember, it is in Revelation and NO WHERE ELSE is the 144,000 even mentioned. If this comes to pass, then the writer of Revelation has to be viewed even in their religion as a prophet, citing Deuteronomy 18:16. It will be the ultimate "we told you so" that WE, the believers, can, will, and have to use against any and all of their arguments against Jesus being the Messiah. It would not be because of ethnicity. It would be because it is in their scriptures, and they would no longer be able to deny it.

And so, God will not be viewed as a respecter of persons.Yes, He would, because He would be doing something to cause the people of one nation to be saved while not doing the same for any other nation. You still don't seem to be properly understanding what it means to be a respecter of persons, as defined in scripture.

John146
Oct 13th 2008, 10:07 PM
But you are saying that it will be a 100% advantage to be a Jew before Jesus returns more than any other religion (including professing Christian) because 100% of the Jews will be saved. Right. It doesn't add up. Something is amiss when one tries to say that one being a Jew has nothing to do with it while at the same time trying to say that being a Jew is required to be a part of the group who God saves corporately. It can't be both ways by being nothing to do with it and much to do with it.


My question is, what percentage Jew does one have to be to included in this highly favoured ethnic group at the end that God unilaterally picks out a discriminately saves in total?
He just clarified that he is saying that God won't save them in total, but just the ones who survive the tribulation. So, Paul, if he was referring to the nation of Israel in Romans 11:26, should have said, "And so some of Israel shall be saved...".

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 12:30 AM
You missed the point. The mourning that Zechariah prophesies about is compared to "the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.".

I got that. So where was the mourning? Do you have any scriptures or historical facts that indicate Israel mourned for Jesus' death?


Why would God lead the entire nation of Israel to salvation and not other nations? Do you believe God is a respecter of persons?

I just answered you concerning the phrase "respecter of persons" so there is no need to go over that again. As to why God would lead entire nation of Israel to salvation, Ezekiel records that his purpose is to sanctify his name.


Oh, then did He fail the first time when He sent Christ to turn them from their iniquities which made it so that He has to try again?

As Paul says, no, he did not fail. His plan to restore Israel will come in the future.


What covenant, besides the new covenant of Christ's shed blood on the cross, can take anyone's sins away and save them?


No one is saved by covenant. We are all saved by Grace through faith. The New Covenant is not the means of our salvation but the occasion for the salvation of the house of Judah and the house of Israel.


You are making the covenant spoken of in Romans 11:26-27 to be on that only has a future fulfillment.

Yes, that's how it reads to me. If we go an look at the promise found in Jeremiah 31, we find that the New Covenant is between God and the house of Judah and the house of Israel. In that passage, God says he will forgive "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." This has yet to take place.


He does in Ephesians 2. He makes it clear in Galatians 3 and 4 that being a child of God and a child of the promise has to do with belonging to Christ rather than being Jew or Gentile.

Yes, but this does not address the meaning of Paul's wording in Romans 9. The issue here is not whether folks in Christ are children of promise. They are. The issue here is whether Paul refers the entire church body as Israel, which he doesn't. You say he does based, not on Galatians or Ephesians but on Romans 9, which I just demonstrated can not apply to Gentiles because his argument is exclusive not inclusive.

Let's not go in circles. :)


Yes, we should never allow scripture to corroborate itself. :rolleyes:

I don't understand the sarcasm. No one, including me, likes it when someone else takes our words out of context. I don't think Paul would like it either. Two passages corroborate each other if the subject matter is the same. As I said, and you have not refuted, the subject matter of Galatians 3 is not the same as the subject matter of Romans 9. The issues are completely different.


In Romans 9:7 Paul said of those who make up the Israel which is not of Israel: "in Isaac shall thy seed be called". Then in the next verse he said, "the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Yes, but again, he goes on to illustrate his point giving his readers two examples: a contrast between Isaac and Ishmael, and a contrast between Jacob and Esau. In each case, the example excludes a boy, not includes a boy. The first choice is between two biological sons of Abraham. The second choice is between two biological sons of Isaac. In no case does Paul contrast a boy from Abraham's body with another boy who is not related to Abraham by birth.

Do you see what I'm saying. Paul's topic in Romans 9 concerns his kinsmen, which answers the question as to why God's word to his kinsmen didn't fail. He can't argue that God didn't make a promise to his kinsmen. This just wouldn't be true.


I believe you are applying some promises to the nation of Israel that were actually made to spiritual Israel instead. God doesn't promise anything but trouble to people who reject Him.

How does that make sense? Think about it. :) God's promise was made to "natural Israel" to make them spiritual! Why promise them something they already have?

When God promised to remove their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh, one assumes that he is talking to people with a heart of stone. When God promises to give them a new spirit, one assumes that he is talking to people who don't already have that new spirit. When he promises to pour out his spirit on them, one must assume that they are not believers in the first place. :)


Yes, my problem with it is that God is not a respecter of persons in regards to salvation. If He would do something to ensure the salvation of everyone in Israel then He would do the same for all nations. If He didn't, then He would be a respecter of persons, thereby contradicting all the passages that say otherwise.


Yes, but why not look at it another way? Paul points out that Jacob is a child of promise while Esau is not. And, he says, God made the decision to pick Jacob before the boys were born, before they had a chance to make a choice of their own. God may not be a respecter of persons, but his choices are his own. If he chooses to save an entire nation of people, this will be by his choice, not in deference to them.


Yet you are trying to say that one being a natural Israelite would be a factor in God saving them. That would mean He is a respecter of persons.


When Peter says that God shows no partiality, he isn't, at the same time, in disagreement with Paul that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy. A man's (or woman's) position as a child of God, is not a personal choice of the man, but of God. That's Paul's point in Romans 9. Jacob was a child of promise because God decided that Jacob would be his child. It wasn't Jacob's choice. He says that quite explicitly.

And so, if God is choosing who will be in his household, then it is not partiality for him to save an entire nation if that he what he chooses to do. Remember, we are not saying that God is showing partiality to Jews. We agree that God is saving both Jews and Gentiles. And the fact that he continues to save men and women from each tribe of the earth, does not negate the fact that he will save a tribe all at once.

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 12:38 AM
I got that. So where was the mourning? Do you have any scriptures or historical facts that indicate Israel mourned for Jesus' death?


True Israel did - the elect. Those disciples of Christ who mattered were broken. The rest - the blinded didn't. Evidence of this can be found in Mark 16:10: "And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept."


No one is saved by covenant. We are all saved by Grace through faith. The New Covenant is not the means of our salvation but the occasion for the salvation of the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

I believe that you miss exactly what the nc is. It is entering into eternal salvation. It is man's only means of salvation. Whilst in Jeremiah's prophecy this covenant was made with Israel and the house of Judah, we have entered into the spiritual reality of that in salvation. We, who are circumcised in heart who are "in the spirit" are true Jews. We are the circumcision in God's eyes. We are the chosen people. We are true Israel. We are the children of Abraham today.

Paul reaffirms this in Philippians 3:3, speaking of the Church, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit (pneumatic), and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

This couldn't be clearer: "we are the circumcision" who are "in the Spirit."


When Peter says that God shows no partiality, he isn't, at the same time, in disagreement with Paul that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy. A man's (or woman's) position as a child of God, is not a personal choice of the man, but of God. That's Paul's point in Romans 9. Jacob was a child of promise because God decided that Jacob would be his child. It wasn't Jacob's choice. He says that quite explicitly.


And so, if God is choosing who will be in his household, then it is not partiality for him to save an entire nation if that he what he chooses to do. Remember, we are not saying that God is showing partiality to Jews. We agree that God is saving both Jews and Gentiles. And the fact that he continues to save men and women from each tribe of the earth, does not negate the fact that he will save a tribe all at once.

Totally disagree. But Israel are 12 tribes.

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 01:18 AM
True Israel did - the elect. Those disciples of Christ who mattered were broken. The rest - the blinded didn't. Evidence of this can be found in Mark 16:10: "And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept."



Individually, people did mourn. That's true. But there was no national mourning, which is what Zechariah is talking about.


I believe that you miss exactly what the nc is. It is entering into eternal salvation. It is man's only means of salvation. Whilst in Jeremiah's prophecy this covenant was made with Israel and the house of Judah, we have entered into the spiritual reality of that in salvation.

While it's true that we have entered into the blessing of Abraham, i.e. eternal salvation, it is not true that we have entered that state via a covenant. We have not become Jacob's children; we are Abraham's children. Jacob's children will enter into the covenant with God at the appointed time.


We are the children of Abraham today.

That's right. We are Abraham's children, not Jacob's.

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 01:34 AM
Individually, people did mourn. That's true. But there was no national mourning, which is what Zechariah is talking about.

Salvation has always been individual. True Israel received Him. There has always been a remnant within Israel. Romans 11:2-5 tells us about them: "Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

Paul points to the very small remnant that existed in Elijah’s day as a similar picture that God always had a people within Israel, however small or seemingly insignificant.


While it's true that we have entered into the blessing of Abraham, i.e. eternal salvation, it is not true that we have entered that state via a covenant. We have not become Jacob's children; we are Abraham's children. Jacob's children will enter into the covenant with God at the appointed time.

Are you saying that we believing Gentiles are not under any covenant?

third hero
Oct 14th 2008, 03:13 AM
His name has always been glorified through a spiritual seed - the children of promise. These are His true people, these are His only people, these are His elect. Before there were ever Hebrews God had a people. Before Abraham God had a people. Before there were children of Abraham God had a people. Before there was an Israel God had a people. Before there were Jews God had a people.

Obvious question number 1. Who are those people that were "god's chosen people"? What nation did God establish before Israel?


God is not restricted to an earthly Christ-rejecting nation, nor does He need to come to natural Israel's defence to prove He is faithful. The true Israel of Israel have been coming through for Christ for 2,000 yrs and will continue to come in whilst the Gentiles are. He has shown Himself true with this real Israel (spiritual Israel) as He has with all His elect from the very beginning. Remember, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Romans 9:6), and “he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh” (Romans 2:28-29).

God does not HAVE to do anything. God is God, and He will do as He pleases, even if you or I do not understand what He is doing, it is not for us to challenge Him, as though we know better than Him. God did not "restrict" himself when He brought Israel out of Egypt, clothed them in the land of Caanan, and called them to be His people. What you are trying to do is divorce the OT from the NT, something that is just not possible.


Satan's battle is not against natural Israel. He has the nations in his hand. His battle is with that spiritual nation that contains the redeemed of all ages. This is who he has targeted right from the Garden.

1. Satan won that batttle in Eden, in case you missed it. That is why Death is in this world now.

2. that "Spiritual" nation never existed before Israel. There were those who attained the grace of God, but there was never a nation that was established by God BEFORE Israel, or else they would still be here.


God has broadened out His people since the cross to embrace all the nations of the world. This is the reality of the new covenant. Whilst I accept that you don't advocate the return of the old economy like many Premils, you still view natural Israel through OT glasses. This dilutes your view of what true Israel is and the international nature of God's chosen people today. It stops you seeing that God is indeed no respecter of persons, that circumcision means absolutely nothing. There are many passages that rebut your belief.

I do not strictly view Israel through the lens of the OT. Unlike you, wpm, I am not so willing to throw away the OT definition of Israel, because that definition has portions of scripture where it is still relevant. I see Israel through both lenses, the NT and the OT. Therefore, I can understand the the "spiritual" defintion of Israel AND the Torah's version. God did not throw away the OT definition of Israel, especially since He is the one who brought forth that definition in the first place. After all, without Jacob's wrestling match with an angel of the Lord, Israel would not exist. These people would have been called Jacobites. There is no way that Paul can change every defintion that was in existence long bfore he lived, no matter what position he was in. Jesus didn't change the definitions, and by default, no one can either.

And, for the "circumcision means nothing" thing, did not the same author of Romans write 1 Corinthians? Welll, what about this passage. What do you think it means?

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. verse 18.

If Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, why not become uncircumcised when you are circumcised? I mean, according to you, ethnicity is nothing in the eyes of God. If a Jew decides to break the dietary laws of his people, he isn't sinning, is he?

Resolve this one as well.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Romans 14:5-6

Well, if ethnicity is nothing, then why is the Israelite given leeway in Paul's eyes? That passage was meant so that neither Jew or Gentile would judge one another (Romans 14:4).


Natural Israel exists like any other nation, because God has not finally destroyed the wicked – that comes at His final return. A nation's survival does not prove that they are God’s; you only have to look at the amazing survival of so many Christ-rejecting peoples, tribes and nations - despite years of subjugation and awful annihilation.

A nation that was established by God and destroyed in the same means does indeed prove that God's hand is in the midst of that nation. We aren ot talking about ordinary nations, consisting of ordinary people whose rises to power gave them the right to rule over a land. The only reason why a dead nation would be resurrected after 1870 years in dormancy is because of God alone. Even though you do not want to see Israel as a God-created nation does not negate the fact that He did create that nation. The nation did not "survive". They were dead, and their inhabitants dispersed throughout the world for 1800+ years. History tells it's own tale, wpm, I think we need to keep that in mind, especially when we are talking about Israel.


Most ancient tribes still exist today only under different names or in similar redefined groupings, and like Israel they are gaining independence of late, regaining their ancient identity. Some olden nations and now smaller, other bigger, have been merged into stronger nations through politics or subjugation in history. Europe is becoming small statelets. Even the UK is splintering into small regional governments. This could equally happen in the USA in a few years.

Really? Where are the Caananites? The Moabites? The Jebusites? have any of them been brought to a place by God and establish by the same means? No matter how much you want to normalize Israel, it is impossible. That nation is directly tied to God, whether the inhabitants of the earth remember that or not. God established that nation, and God brought them back to that land, even after He banished them so long ago.


You are partial again in picking out national Israel as an example of preservation when many other Christ-hating nations have been equally preserved.

Israel was not preserved. They ceased to be a nation at 70AD. They were restored to their land in 1945, and declared a sovereign nation in 1948. They were not a nation between those eras. Moreover, none of the God-hating nations were established by God. The only country that can come close to saying that is America, and that is because the founding fathers glorified God throughout the entire process. But no nation, not any in all of the world, in the past or on the present, can say that God established them. God is not a respector of persons, and He does not have to respect anyone that says that He has to treat all of the nations equally in order to be just and fair. God will do as He will do. If He has a soft spot for Israel, whether it disdains you or not, that is still GOD's perrogative.



Again you are making two parts to the one whole. Christ sees no racial division in His body. The Bible says “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek” (Romans 10:12), “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28), and “there is neither Greek nor Jew” (Colossians 3:11). Christ has assuredly “put no difference between us and them” (Acts 15:9), “us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles” (Romans 9:24), because “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

You can not have it both ways, wpm. You want to divorce verses that appear side-by-side in order to make God some politically corrrect being. God doesn ot have to respect any nation. God can choose one nation to stand for His Kingdom if He wants to. And no matter how many verses you want to put in the books that equate "no respector of persons" as being politically correct, God will choose to hate whom He pleases, and love whom He pleases. Instead of trying to create a politically corrrect God that treats all nations equally, be glad that God has gtiven you mercy, and do not worry about how God treats the other nations.

[quote]Romans 11:25 doesn't say what you are saying. It is not saying that the blinders willl be removed from blinded Israel. It is saying, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Despite their rebellion, Scripture assures us that not all Israel would reject Christ. This passage tells us that a “part” (or a portion) of natural Jews would continue to come into spiritual union with Christ during the time when the Gospel was drawing in the Gentiles. This passage is simply reassuring us that there will be those among Israel that will accept Christ in the intra-Advent period. Israel is not all blind. [/quoted]

The problem is, wpm, Romans 11:25 is saying EXACTLY what i am saying, because I am taking the whole chapter in the context that it is written. I am not trying to inject differing scriptures into a passage in order to change the meaning and the context of the original. This is where scripture to interpret scripture fails. Romans 11:25 tells us directly that the blindness that is in part of Israel will stay there until the fullness of the Gentiles come to be. When that happens, when that point when the fullness of the Gentiles come to be, the blinders will fall, and so All Israel shall be saved.

Funny, in my retelling of Romans 11:25, verse 26 naturally comes out.

third hero
Oct 14th 2008, 03:43 AM
Part-blindness while the Gentiles come in

The word interpreted "until" here confuses many Bible students. It is actually two Greek words in the original: achris hou. The word hou is left un-interpreted in the AV, and means “wherein” in our language. It is difficult to know why the translators left it out, but it seems proper to use it in such an important passage. The other word achris can be translated “until” (as it is in the King James Version), however, it may also equally be translated “while” as it translates the same. The truth is it doesn’t particularly matter which of the two meanings one prefers sincecoupled with the connecting word hou bothgive us the same general meaning.

Translating this word hou (as we should) seems to place a different sense on the whole verse. That’s why “while wherein” seems to better reflect what the writer was trying to say. Romans 11:25 is therefore simply teaching that during the whole intra-Advent period an ongoing amount of Jews will continue to be grafted in to the Israel of God (the one and only good olive tree). Saying all this, we leave the passage the way it is translated in the KJV then it still can be understood the same way.

Romans 11:23 simply says that God is able to draw those currently in unbelief in. It says, "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."

No matter which greek version you interject, the meaning still remains the same. Until is until is until. It is my opinion that although the KJV translators sometimes gaffed on their translations, (interpreting YHWH as JeHoVaH just so that they don't look like Luther's version is one of those examples), when they translated the NT, when they were written in Greek, got the translation correct. Here are yet more examples of other translations, and here is what they interpreted that verse.

NIV
do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

RSV
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in,

ASV
For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in;

It would seem that all of the other versions of this verse say the exact same thing, which is exactly what I had already said.


I believe this is another example of you missing the import. The blind that are saved are no longer the blind. They then become the election. There are therefore two co-existing parties in Israel - as there has always been, as there is in all nations - saved and lost.

Romans 11:7 asks: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

If God decides to take the blinder off of all of the blind, then there would be no more blind Israelites, but rather, all Israel would become the election, and thus ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED. I am trying to follow your logic, but the pattern seems to be that no matter how you phrase it, All Israel shall be saved, for the blinders willl be removed from those who are currently blinded.

You interject something that is not there. You want to make Israel like every other nation in the world, whereas they are not. I have said this repeatedly, Israel was a nation that God established, God destroyed, and God restored. You can not divorce the God influence in that nation, because without God, that nation would not exist at all, as it was not in existence from 70AD to 1945. Israel is not like any other nation, and unlike any other nation, God still has a plan for the nation He established.

[/quote]You always leave out "and the rest" as if these reading only speak about one redeemed Israelite at the end. That is not what Paul is saying anywhere. Again, your error is built upon your divorcing of Romans 9:6 from Romans 11:26. However, they are inter-connected. [/quote]

Should I throw a flag on this play, wpm? I have never divorces "the rest" as you claim, and it appears that you are trying to poke holes in logic that is sound. You know that's not going to work, right? I have covered "the rest" quite nicely by saying that the rest, when the fullness of the Gentiles come in, will have their blinders removed, and thus they will no longer be blind to the Word of the Lord and to their Messiah, and thus all Israel shall be saved, since the blinders of the blind part of Israel will be removed.


In short we learn in Romans 9-11, not all Israel is blinded, only “blindness in part is happened to Israel.” Paul is basically saying, God hasn’t turned His back on the whole physical nation of Israel, as part of it will believe while the Gentiles enter. This is happening now – and it has been from Paul explained this.

As much as you would like to say that God has turned His back on the blind portion of Israel for all time, God has not, and Paul recognized this. Hence the reason why Romans 11 exists to this day. I have mentioned this before, and I'll mention it again. If not all who are of Abraham's bloodline are Israelites, then did God throw away Israel, God's chosen? The answer is no. God has placed blinders on one part, while the election remained on the vine. When the fullness of the Gentiles come to be, then the blinders that were placed on the blind will be removed, and thus all Israel shall be saved.


But you are saying that it will be a 100% advantage to be a Jew before Jesus returns more than any other religion (including professing Christian) because 100% of the Jews will be saved.

Where did I say that? Show me one post that I have made that even comes close to insinuating what you accuse me of in this post. This is sickening. Straw-man tactics, injecting into my prose things which I have never said, who do you think you are debating? Show me ONE, JUST ONE PHRASE OF THE STATESMENTS THAT I HAVE MADE THAT WOULD SAY WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID! GO RIGHT ON AHEAD!

I wanted a civil debat, but low-brow tactics does not a productive debate makes. make one more false statement with my name attached to it, and see if I do not report you on the spot. I dare you!


My question is, what percentage Jew does one have to be to included in this highly favoured ethnic group at the end that God unilaterally picks out a discriminately saves in total?


Seriously, when you debate me on what I have actually said and not that mythological dispensationalist that you have in your head, I will answer your questions. However, inane questions like this one causes me to question your integrity.

third hero
Oct 14th 2008, 03:55 AM
I'm speaking in terms of salvation here, not the establishment of a nation.

Who is the one in which we are debating here? Is it not God who is doing both?


But to you it does have something to do with it because you are saying God will do something to save the people of Israel that He will not do for the people of any other nation.

In case you have not noticed, God has done things for one nation and have not done those same things for other nations. Israel is a living testament of it.

But I think I will ask you this question. What is the "different" thing that you suppose I am saying that God will do for Israel and no other nation?

Moreover, God is not politically correct. God does not have to do anything for any nation, and God can do a thing for one nation, and not for another. God does not have to answer to anyone, even if what He does you find offensive. I say that God is no respector of persons. That means that he answers to no one. So, as one who respects no one, He can do whatever He wants to whomever He wants. This is why Paul seen Christ face to face while you and I have not. His perrogative, irrespective of our personal feeling.


Yes, but again, we're talking in terms of salvation. Do you believe salvation was only available to Israelites back then?

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. -John 4:22

tell me what that means.


For whatever reason, you continue to look at salvation as if it was a corporate issue rather than an individual issue, as scripture teaches. Romans 11 does not speak about all who are blind being grafted in again. It's based on faith and is on an individual basis. People were not cut off the olive tree as a result of the overall lack of faith of the nation. Each individual was cut off due to his/her own personal unbelief.

You seem to take Romans 11 and throw it out of the window. You ay that God is not into corporate salvation, when Paul clearly states that all Israel shall be saved. Your arguement is not with me, for I am going to continue to believe Romans 11 as written. Your problem is with the writer, because every single version of the Bible that I have read, and that includes the interlinear Greek-to-English version, Romans 11 speaks of all of a particular group of people, some who were called as the election, and the rest who were blinded, will be saved.

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 04:18 AM
Obvious question number 1. Who are those people that were "god's chosen people"? What nation did God establish before Israel? .

The family of God is an ongoing expanding revelation of the heart of God. It has gone from (1) a man having a relationship with God at the beginning, to (2) a family, to (3) a lineage, to, (4) a nation; to finally (5) the nations. As God’s overall gracious covenant with man has developed it has stretched to cover those of all tribes, nations and kindreds. This is a reality that some would like to regressively turn back. However, this can never happen. God’s final plan in the plan of God is the nations (plural), not the nation (singular). Jesus said in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”


God does not HAVE to do anything. God is God, and He will do as He pleases, even if you or I do not understand what He is doing, it is not for us to challenge Him, as though we know better than Him. God did not "restrict" himself when He brought Israel out of Egypt, clothed them in the land of Caanan, and called them to be His people. What you are trying to do is divorce the OT from the NT, something that is just not possible.

The plan of God has been a progressive revelation and development of the purpose of God. The Old Testament Church has changed into the New Testament Church in the same way as the development/change occurs between the caterpillar and the butterfly. They are the same developing entity - only taking on a changing progressive appearance.



1. Satan won that batttle in Eden, in case you missed it. That is why Death is in this world now.

2. that "Spiritual" nation never existed before Israel. There were those who attained the grace of God, but there was never a nation that was established by God BEFORE Israel, or else they would still be here.


The redeemed of God are the spiritual people that Satan has always attacked. They alone are his enemy.


I do not strictly view Israel through the lens of the OT. Unlike you, wpm, I am not so willing to throw away the OT definition of Israel, because that definition has portions of scripture where it is still relevant. I see Israel through both lenses, the NT and the OT. Therefore, I can understand the the "spiritual" defintion of Israel AND the Torah's version. God did not throw away the OT definition of Israel, especially since He is the one who brought forth that definition in the first place. After all, without Jacob's wrestling match with an angel of the Lord, Israel would not exist. These people would have been called Jacobites. There is no way that Paul can change every defintion that was in existence long bfore he lived, no matter what position he was in. Jesus didn't change the definitions, and by default, no one can either.

Is that why the redeemed (both Jew and Gentile) are called “the circumcision,” “Jew,” “Israel” and “children of Abraham” today???



And, for the "circumcision means nothing" thing, did not the same author of Romans write 1 Corinthians? Welll, what about this passage. What do you think it means?

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. verse 18.

If Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, why not become uncircumcised when you are circumcised? I mean, according to you, ethnicity is nothing in the eyes of God. If a Jew decides to break the dietary laws of his people, he isn't sinning, is he?

Resolve this one as well.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard . He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Romans 14:5-6

Well, if ethnicity is nothing, then why is the Israelite given leeway in Paul's eyes? That passage was meant so that neither Jew or Gentile would judge one another (Romans 14:4).


I think you need to look at this again. The passage that you actually present to support your position actually rebuts it. It is manifest that man’s own natural birthplace, birth date (pre or post Calvary), gender or his physical appearance (circumcised or not) has absolutely nothing to do with his own personal standing before God. Physical circumcision is not the mark of regeneration as some think but spiritual circumcision identifies the manifestation of the work and ministry of the Spirit of God in the believer. Paul the Apostle declares, in 1 Corinthians 7:17-20, “As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.”

And continues:

Q. “Is any man called being circumcised (or being a Jew)?”
A. “Let him [I]not become uncircumcised.”

Q. “Is any called in uncircumcision (or being a Gentile)?”
A. “Let him [I]not be circumcised.”

He then concludes,“circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.”

The main focus of this narrative is the natural physical condition that an individual finds himself in when he comes to Christ. Paul is specifically speaking on the matter of circumcision or not, which was an issue for some Jews in the first century. Paul instructs all (whether Jew or Gentile) to remain content in the physical state they find themselves in as it is not one’s natural birthright or outward physical form that is important but one’s spiritual birthright and the internal work of God that is essential. He instructs, if someone is physically circumcised let him physically remain so, but equally, if he is physically uncircumcised let him also physically remain so. Physical circumcision carries no relevance today within the New Testament Church. It means absolutely nothing to God and carries no special favour since the cross. Paul was therefore teaching that whilst there is an undoubted physical distinction between the Jew and the Gentile there is absolutely no spiritual distinction between them “in Christ.” He was simply redirecting the believer eyes away from the outward, physical, natural and earthly unto the inward, spiritual, supernatural and heavenly.



A nation that was established by God and destroyed in the same means does indeed prove that God's hand is in the midst of that nation. We aren ot talking about ordinary nations, consisting of ordinary people whose rises to power gave them the right to rule over a land. The only reason why a dead nation would be resurrected after 1870 years in dormancy is because of God alone. Even though you do not want to see Israel as a God-created nation does not negate the fact that He did create that nation. The nation did not "survive". They were dead, and their inhabitants dispersed throughout the world for 1800+ years. History tells it's own tale, wpm, I think we need to keep that in mind, especially when we are talking about Israel.

Really? Where are the Caananites? The Moabites? The Jebusites? have any of them been brought to a place by God and establish by the same means? No matter how much you want to normalize Israel, it is impossible. That nation is directly tied to God, whether the inhabitants of the earth remember that or not. God established that nation, and God brought them back to that land, even after He banished them so long ago.

Israel was not preserved. They ceased to be a nation at 70AD. They were restored to their land in 1945, and declared a sovereign nation in 1948. They were not a nation between those eras. Moreover, none of the God-hating nations were established by God. The only country that can come close to saying that is America, and that is because the founding fathers glorified God throughout the entire process. But no nation, not any in all of the world, in the past or on the present, can say that God established them. God is not a respector of persons, and He does not have to respect anyone that says that He has to treat all of the nations equally in order to be just and fair. God will do as He will do. If He has a soft spot for Israel, whether it disdains you or not, that is still GOD's perrogative.


I refer you back to my last post. Anyway, she has not come back to the land in obedience (as was required under the OT) but in disobedience. They still reject Christ. They are therefore under the wrath of God like all the surrounding Arab nations.



You can not have it both ways, wpm. You want to divorce verses that appear side-by-side in order to make God some politically corrrect being. God doesn ot have to respect any nation. God can choose one nation to stand for His Kingdom if He wants to. And no matter how many verses you want to put in the books that equate "no respector of persons" as being politically correct, God will choose to hate whom He pleases, and love whom He pleases. Instead of trying to create a politically corrrect God that treats all nations equally, be glad that God has gtiven you mercy, and do not worry about how God treats the other nations.


God has opened the Gospel to all nations today. Your elevation of Israel runs contrary to NT Scripture, evidently you can see that by your ignoring of each passage I quote. The theocratic fig tree has already been cut down.



The problem is, wpm, Romans 11:25 is saying EXACTLY what i am saying, because I am taking the whole chapter in the context that it is written. I am not trying to inject differing scriptures into a passage in order to change the meaning and the context of the original. This is where scripture to interpret scripture fails. Romans 11:25 tells us directly that the blindness that is in part of Israel will stay there until the fullness of the Gentiles come to be. When that happens, when that point when the fullness of the Gentiles come to be, the blinders will fall, and so All Israel shall be saved.

Funny, in my retelling of Romans 11:25, verse 26 naturally comes out.


This passage isn’t remotely suggesting that there is a day coming when salvation will be removed from the Gentiles and given to the Jews. There isn’t a time in the future when salvation is available that Gentiles will be excluded from being saved. Such a thought is absurd. Salvation is available to the “whosever will” right up until the end. The door of opportunity is equally open to the Jew and Gentile during this intra-Advent period.

the rookie
Oct 14th 2008, 04:27 AM
You obviously missed my post to Rookie that went totally unaddressed. However, it addresses your argument.

Hey! What post did I miss? I'm a bit slow on the draw 'round here as it is...! :lol:

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 04:33 AM
[/color][/font][/size]

No matter which greek version you interject, the meaning still remains the same. Until is until is until. It is my opinion that although the KJV translators sometimes gaffed on their translations, (interpreting YHWH as JeHoVaH just so that they don't look like Luther's version is one of those examples), when they translated the NT, when they were written in Greek, got the translation correct. Here are yet more examples of other translations, and here is what they interpreted that verse.

NIV
do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

RSV
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in,

ASV
For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in;

It would seem that all of the other versions of this verse say the exact same thing, which is exactly what I had already said.

This is not a fair rebuttal. You don't even acknowledge the uninterpreted Greek word in your response. I refer you back to my last post, which remains totally unadressed.



If God decides to take the blinder off of all of the blind, then there would be no more blind Israelites, but rather, all Israel would become the election, and thus ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED. I am trying to follow your logic, but the pattern seems to be that no matter how you phrase it, All Israel shall be saved, for the blinders willl be removed from those who are currently blinded.

You interject something that is not there. You want to make Israel like every other nation in the world, whereas they are not. I have said this repeatedly, Israel was a nation that God established, God destroyed, and God restored. You can not divorce the God influence in that nation, because without God, that nation would not exist at all, as it was not in existence from 70AD to 1945. Israel is not like any other nation, and unlike any other nation, God still has a plan for the nation He established.


This elevation of natural Israel is again unscriptural. Scripture continually tells us that there are only two types of people in this life – saved and lost, the righteous and the wicked; it doesn’t remotely outline three peoples as many futurists try to do. In fact, Paul the Apostle destroys that notion by revealing that both of these two diverse groups include Jew and Gentile alike. Therefore, biblically, everyman is either Christ’s or Satan’s in this life – no convenient man-made in-between.

Paul explains of the wicked,“Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile” (Romans 2:9).

And of the righteous,“glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also of the Gentile” (Romans 2:10).

Paul’s clear words in this narrative firmly nail the dispensational notion that there are three distinct peoples in this life, namely – saved, lost and natural Jews. They argue, without any scriptural support, that of these three, two are God’s – the Church and the Jews, and one is the devil’s – the wicked. However, Paul concludes, “For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law (Gentiles) shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law (Jews) shall be judged by the law” (Romans 2:11-12).


Should I throw a flag on this play, wpm? I have never divorces "the rest" as you claim, and it appears that you are trying to poke holes in logic that is sound. You know that's not going to work, right? I have covered "the rest" quite nicely by saying that the rest, when the fullness of the Gentiles come in, will have their blinders removed, and thus they will no longer be blind to the Word of the Lord and to their Messiah, and thus all Israel shall be saved, since the blinders of the blind part of Israel will be removed.

See above.


As much as you would like to say that God has turned His back on the blind portion of Israel for all time, God has not, and Paul recognized this.

Your false charge does nothing to promote your argument or your person. You should retract such lies.


Hence the reason why Romans 11 exists to this day. I have mentioned this before, and I'll mention it again. If not all who are of Abraham's bloodline are Israelites, then did God throw away Israel, God's chosen? The answer is no. God has placed blinders on one part, while the election remained on the vine. When the fullness of the Gentiles come to be, then the blinders that were placed on the blind will be removed, and thus all Israel shall be saved.

Until you acknowledge Paul's detailed introductory definition of "all Isreal" you will keep repeating this mistake. Let us establish what "all Israel" is from Paul's introductory remarks in Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”



Where did I say that? Show me one post that I have made that even comes close to insinuating what you accuse me of in this post. This is sickening. Straw-man tactics, injecting into my prose things which I have never said, who do you think you are debating? Show me ONE, JUST ONE PHRASE OF THE STATESMENTS THAT I HAVE MADE THAT WOULD SAY WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID! GO RIGHT ON AHEAD!

I wanted a civil debat, but low-brow tactics does not a productive debate makes. make one more false statement with my name attached to it, and see if I do not report you on the spot. I dare you!

Seriously, when you debate me on what I have actually said and not that mythological dispensationalist that you have in your head, I will answer your questions. However, inane questions like this one causes me to question your integrity.


We are saved by grace, not race.

quiet dove
Oct 14th 2008, 06:09 AM
As much as you would like to say that God has turned His back on the blind portion of Israel for all time, God has not, and Paul recognized this.


3H I believe this is a little strong here. Though I disagree with the amil view I don't think it equates to believing that God has turned his back on Jews.

With that said.


We are saved by grace, not race.

I think wpm should rethink that pre mil is saying that Jews get saved by race, because that is not what is being said.

You guys need to chill.

jeffweeder
Oct 14th 2008, 08:42 AM
Apostle Paul said that he stated nothing except what Moses ,the psalms and the prophets had already spoken.

Is 59

"A Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," declares the LORD.
21 "As for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring," says the LORD, "from now and forever."

"All Israel" is the Israel that responds to God's call and obeys in faith, not the Israel that is merely born.
:2cents:

Merton
Oct 14th 2008, 11:15 AM
Apostle Paul said that he stated nothing except what Moses ,the psalms and the prophets had already spoken.

Is 59


"All Israel" is the Israel that responds to God's call and obeys in faith, not the Israel that is merely born.
:2cents:


Acts agrees with that view--


Act 2:38 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.
Act 2:39 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.


Merton

Merton
Oct 14th 2008, 12:01 PM
Hero,


If God decides to take the blinder off of all of the blind, then there would be no more blind Israelites, but rather, all Israel would become the election, and thus ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED. I am trying to follow your logic, but the pattern seems to be that no matter how you phrase it, All Israel shall be saved, for the blinders willl be removed from those who are currently blinded.

You interject something that is not there. You want to make Israel like every other nation in the world, whereas they are not. I have said this repeatedly, Israel was a nation that God established, God destroyed, and God restored. You can not divorce the God influence in that nation, because without God, that nation would not exist at all, as it was not in existence from 70AD to 1945. Israel is not like any other nation, and unlike any other nation, God still has a plan for the nation He established.



I do not think that the Bible is teaching what you believe about that.


Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.


The all of verse 32 is both Jew and Gentile, and not every individual Jew and Gentile will be saved.

God's word had not failed because Israel of the OT was judged and was ended as the nation that it was, for it (His word) has saved those for whom it was sent in order that they would become members of a greater nation to whom the Kingdom is given and there is nothing in the Bible which says that the Kingdom would be once again in the hands of Israel as it once was, which men today are trying to rebuild by their own hands.

This amounts to massive unbelief of what God said that He has done and will do by His hand, and He has shown us by what He has done in the past that His method of building a nation is through righteousness and not by the power of the gun.

Though God has used the arms of man before the cross, nevertheless they were in the hands of righteous people and not in the hands of people who reject Him, but the cross of Christ has put all of that to death on the cross and any returning to that which is crucified to establish or extend Christs Kingdom by the old means, is to deny the Cross of Christ.

Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Mat.21:33 on.

The thing is now that the custodians of the righteous known as the churches will also be judged (trumpets) as OT Israel was and the elect of this age will be the only ones of the churches to join the elect of the OT in the Kingdom of God as the inhabitants of the Jerusalem of above , not build with natural stones.

Luk 13:23 And one said to Him, Lord, are the ones being saved few? But He said to them,
Luk 13:24 Labor to enter in through the narrow gate, for I say to you that many will seek to enter in and will not have strength.
Luk 13:25 From the time the Master of the house shall have risen up, and He shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. And answering, He will say to you, I do not know you, from where you are.
Luk 13:26 Then you will begin to say, We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.
Luk 13:27 And He will say, I tell you I do not know you, from where you are. "Stand back from Me all workers of unrighteousness!" Psa. 6:8
Luk 13:28 There will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrust outside.
Luk 13:29 And they will come from east and west, and from north and south, and will recline in the kingdom of God.


Merton.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 02:24 PM
It looks as though we aare going to have to agree to disagree. Here is why I say that. You seem to think that I am saying that Paul is saying that God still has favor with the Israelites, meaning that He will save them because of their ethnicity, the fact that they are the bloodline of Abraham. I do not see it that way at all!

What I see is God preserving His name. Israel, the nation, was established not by Moses or Joshua, but by God. God brought them out of Egypt. God settled them down in the land of Caanan. God punished them as He saw fit many times over the course of 1200 years. God disposed of them out of the land twice, and God brought them back each and every time. Do you think that the Israelites repented of their sins when He brought them back the first time? Think again, for we see in Ezra that they did not. The elderly did, but the rest did not. God brought them back to preserve His name as the One who not only established Israel, but also preserves that nation, even though He even tells them on occasion that they do not deserve it. (For you are a stiff-necked people is what He used to say to them through Moses and the rest of the prophets).

The same thing is now, when the people DO NOT DESERVE the land of Caanan, He saw it fit to bring them back, after the Nazi's attempted annihilation. They do not deserve it, for they are STILL IN SIN! However, God found it fitting for His sake and HIS ALONE to bring an unworthy people back to their land. This, to me, IS showing that God is not a respector of persons, because if He was, Israel would not be a nation today. We would be Israel today. Bringing them back to their land is one thing, but saving them and giving them eternal life is an entirely different matter. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you are saying one's ethnicity will be a factor in the spiritual salvation of those Jews. The proof of this is that your view demands that they have to be Jews in order for God to save them.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 02:32 PM
Hey! What post did I miss? I'm a bit slow on the draw 'round here as it is...! :lol:You know, the one that went totally unaddressed. That one. :lol:

Actually, I have no idea which one it was. :D

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 02:44 PM
3H I believe this is a little strong here. Though I disagree with the amil view I don't think it equates to believing that God has turned his back on Jews.Trust me, it doesn't equate to that. Amil promotes the equality of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.


With that said.

I think wpm should rethink that pre mil is saying that Jews get saved by race, because that is not what is being said.Isn't it true, though, that it's being suggested by some that God will make something happen in such a way that all of a certain ethnic group alive at a certain time will be saved? How is that not including race as a determining factor in salvation?

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 03:01 PM
Salvation has always been individual.

Someday it will be national according to the prophets.


Paul points to the very small remnant that existed in Elijah’s day as a similar picture that God always had a people within Israel, however small or seemingly insignificant.

Yes, this is to show that God has not abandoned the nation.


Are you saying that we believing Gentiles are not under any covenant?

I said that, yes. I could be wrong.

The concept of a "new" covenant is mentioned very few times in the New Testament. Holding up one of the Seder wine cups Jesus says, "[T]his is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Luke's gospel has new covenant.) In 2Cor. Paul refers to himself as a "servant of the new covenant", referring to the giving of the Holy Spirit. The epistle to the Hebrews argues that the current covenant is passing away to be replaced by a new covenant based on better promises.

The question is, how do we understand these passages as they relate to those who were not under the original covenant?

But more importantly, on what basis do the Apostles affirm Gentile salvation, a covenant or something else? We are certainly saved by grace through faith. And Christ's death on the cross is the basis for salvation for all those whom God is saving, whether Jew or Gentile. And the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the essential mark of the believer.

At the same time, though, Paul does not argue that we are saved on the basis of a new covenant. In fact, he argues that we are saved based on a covenant that preceded the law by 430 years.

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. Galatians 3:17.

He doesn't argue that we are Jacob's spiritual children and thus, free to enter into the New Covenant. He argues that we are Abraham's spiritual children and thus able to partake of a promise God made to Abraham 430 years prior to the Old Covenant. He says that we Gentiles are Abraham's children because we share the faith Abraham had before he was circumcised. And he says that God's promise to make Abraham the father of many nations, hints at Gentile salvation.

What say you? :)

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 03:08 PM
While it's true that we have entered into the blessing of Abraham, i.e. eternal salvation, it is not true that we have entered that state via a covenant. We have not become Jacob's children; we are Abraham's children. Jacob's children will enter into the covenant with God at the appointed time.We all have entered into salvation via the new covenant. You don't even seem to understand what the new covenant is, which baffles me.

Matthew 26
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Did Jesus shed His blood only for the Jews? No, He shed His blood for the Gentiles, too. All believers, Jew or Gentile, are saved by the new covenant of His shed blood for the remission of our sins. Therefore, Romans 11:26-27 must be referring to the new covenant because that is the only covenant through which one's sins can be taken away (forgiven).

quiet dove
Oct 14th 2008, 04:32 PM
A hypothetical here, sorta, and I will try to word it where it maybe makes some tiny bit of sense.

There is a passage about "quiet dove". It claims "and it shall be so that quiet dove, and the family thereof, shall be saved"

Is that saving because of quiet dove special, or chosen? Is it because God like doves? Or is it simply prophecy about what will come to be. Simply that, God knows, and He is telling us that at some point, quiet dove and family will be saved?

If saying that God has purposed that at some point all Israel will be saved, the Jews, means God is showing favoratism to the Jews. Is not saying that "the times of the Gentiles" is showing favoratism to the Gentiles?

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 04:39 PM
Someday it will be national according to the prophets.

You need to read Genesis to Revelation again. Salvation without exception has always been by grace through faith. It has always been an individual experience. You need to carefully look at Hebrews 11. Moreover, you obviously skipped over Paul's introductory words to Romans 11 in Romans 10 which support what I have just stated and which forbid national corporate salvation. Please remember there is no division in this letter in the original. Romans is a harmonious letter that depicts salvation the same as elsewhere in Scripture. You would have You have Romans 11:26 something that we find nowhere else in Paul's writing or anywhere else in the NT.

Romans 9-13 tells us: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Romans 10:17 reinforces: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

This is the only salvation known to God. Any other is spurious.



I said that, yes. I could be wrong.

The concept of a "new" covenant is mentioned very few times in the New Testament. Holding up one of the Seder wine cups Jesus says, "[T]his is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Luke's gospel has new covenant.) In 2Cor. Paul refers to himself as a "servant of the new covenant", referring to the giving of the Holy Spirit. The epistle to the Hebrews argues that the current covenant is passing away to be replaced by a new covenant based on better promises.

The question is, how do we understand these passages as they relate to those who were not under the original covenant?

But more importantly, on what basis do the Apostles affirm Gentile salvation, a covenant or something else? We are certainly saved by grace through faith. And Christ's death on the cross is the basis for salvation for all those whom God is saving, whether Jew or Gentile. And the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the essential mark of the believer.

At the same time, though, Paul does not argue that we are saved on the basis of a new covenant. In fact, he argues that we are saved based on a covenant that preceded the law by 430 years.

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. Galatians 3:17.

He doesn't argue that we are Jacob's spiritual children and thus, free to enter into the New Covenant. He argues that we are Abraham's spiritual children and thus able to partake of a promise God made to Abraham 430 years prior to the Old Covenant. He says that we Gentiles are Abraham's children because we share the faith Abraham had before he was circumcised. And he says that God's promise to make Abraham the father of many nations, hints at Gentile salvation.

What say you?



Firstly, we don't need to go any further than Genesis to see God made a covenant with all men at the start - even if it was redemptive. Genesis 9:12-15 records, speaking to Adam: "And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

Here is a covenant that was made with every living creature.

Genesis 17:2-5 also rebuts your theory. God says to Abraham: "And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee."

This special covenant was not just with Abraham. It was just not with his natural family. It was just not with his natural seed. It was with the promised seed of all nations. This was made even before circumcision was introduced.

Galatians 3:16-22 confirms: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

Secondly, you obviously don't fully grasp what the new covenant was. It was Christ's atoning sacrifice for sin on the cross for the "many." Graciously, we, the believing Gentiles, are among the many. The blood of Jesus was God's covenant with sinful man - irrespective of birthday, nationality or race. Jesus said in Mark 14:24, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." See it is not just for Jews. If it was then the Gentile would have no hope.

Hebrews 10:14-17 reinforces: "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

This is the only covenant that takes away sin. If one has no part in it then they are not saved.

Thirdly, you keep dividing the people of God into two. The New Testament makes clear; there has only ever been one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

Fourthly, we are the true Israel. You keep denying this, but it is written in Scripture. We are now citizens of Isreal - spiritual Israel. The Gentiles that were nearly all pagan before the cross have been availed the wonderful opportunity to come to salvation through the victory of the cross and the consequential defeat of Satan. This is confirmed in Ephesians 2:11-19.

Our predictiment in the OT was: "at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (or citizenship) of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

The good news in this NT era is: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nighby the blood of Christ... ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."

This tells us that we were once "aliens from the citizenshipof Israel" but now we are "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."

We are of the spiritual seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not just Abraham as you insinuate. Can I remind you, our God is the same God that Jacob yielded to and was changed to Israel. The Church is connected in Scripture to the new Jacob - Israel, not the old sinful Jacob - which is of the flesh. That is why natural Israel is related to the name Jacob and the redeemed Church of all nations Israel.

We belong to the same spiritual entity as our forefathers of the faith. We are their true seed. The redeemed seed. The only seed that God knows as the apple of His eye. Natural Israeli birthright never meant anything (OT or NT) or ever will. God has always looked for a broken and a contrite spirit in a man - Jew or Gentile (Psalm 34:18, Psalm 51:17).

Recognising the faith of the Gentile Roman centurion, Jesus said in Matthew 8:11-12, "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Your contention above is therefore wrong. There is no separation between the elect in the OT and those in the NT. We are the true promised seed of God. We, the redeemed, are all under God's wonderful eternal covenant of grace. The condition God demands of those who stand in covenant relationship to him is “faith.” By faith the elect sinner accepts God’s promises and enters into the covenant life. By faith the elect sinner’s binds himself to God.

Romans 4:16 confirms: "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all."

Whilst in the Old Testament the Covenant was limited to one nation, Israel, in the New Testament we see the covenant extending to all nations, through the finished work of Calvary. The nations that were afar-off, where provided a way of free access through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 4: 16-17, Romans 9:25).

Christ took upon Himself the work of redemption on behalf of all whom the Father gave him (John 17:2, 6). In that eternal covenant our sins where imputed to Christ, and His righteousness was imputed to us. All our legal or covenant responsibilities where rested upon Christ, and all His legal or covenant merits are occurred to us. This work is the eternal basis of our justification by faith.

Jews and Gentiles were always part of God's covenant of grace.

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 04:52 PM
We all have entered into salvation via the new covenant. You don't even seem to understand what the new covenant is, which baffles me.

Matthew 26
[/font][/size]26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Did Jesus shed His blood only for the Jews? No, He shed His blood for the Gentiles, too. All believers, Jew or Gentile, are saved by the new covenant of His shed blood for the remission of our sins. Therefore, Romans 11:26-27 must be referring to the new covenant because that is the only covenant through which one's sins can be taken away (forgiven).

Yes John, Jesus shed his blood for the whole world. But remember who he was talking to and how his disciples would have heard his words. It was only later that the Apostles learned God's intention to save Gentiles by grace through the indwelling of the spirit.

Two things are possible in this regard. Either the Apostles didn't understand Jesus at the time he spoke those words or they DID understand.

If they did understand Jesus correctly, then Jesus wasn't including Gentiles in the New Covenant or else Peter wouldn't have been surprised later to find out that God was saving Gentiles.

Or it's possible they didn't understand the full impact and scope of what Jesus said to them. In which case, their surprise at the inclusion of the Gentiles was understandable.

As for what the New Covenant is, let's look at Jesus' wording again.

He refers to it as "the blood of the New Covenant." The way he words it, this doesn't sound like the blood is the sum and substance of the New Covenant. And if we review the actual terms of the New Covenant as specified in Jeremiah 31, salvation itself is only a part of the New Covenant God makes with the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Not only does God forgive their sins, he re-institutes the Mosaic Law saying, "I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it."

Not only this, but during that time evangelism will cease because each and every member of those two houses will already know the lord.

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 04:54 PM
Bro Rog previously stated:


And so, if God is choosing who will be in his household, then it is not partiality for him to save an entire nation if that he what he chooses to do. Remember, we are not saying that God is showing partiality to Jews. We agree that God is saving both Jews and Gentiles. And the fact that he continues to save men and women from each tribe of the earth, does not negate the fact that he will save a tribe all at once.

I think I misread this statement and mistakenly agreed with it. I need to clarify. I disagree with it. Scripture does say your last line. I have showed this repeatedly in this thread. Your belief only survives if we ignore numerous Scripture to the contrary. Paul in the same letter carefully defined "all Israel" before he got to Romans 11. You need to ignore this to sustain your argument. However, it is there, and it is clear, and I believe it rebuts your position.

Romans 9:6-8, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 04:58 PM
Bringing them back to their land is one thing, but saving them and giving them eternal life is an entirely different matter. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you are saying one's ethnicity will be a factor in the spiritual salvation of those Jews. The proof of this is that your view demands that they have to be Jews in order for God to save them.

This would be the view of Jeremiah as well.

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 05:01 PM
Yes John, Jesus shed his blood for the whole world. But remember who he was talking to and how his disciples would have heard his words. It was only later that the Apostles learned God's intention to save Gentiles by grace through the indwelling of the spirit.

Two things are possible in this regard. Either the Apostles didn't understand Jesus at the time he spoke those words or they DID understand.

If they did understand Jesus correctly, then Jesus wasn't including Gentiles in the New Covenant or else Peter wouldn't have been surprised later to find out that God was saving Gentiles.

Or it's possible they didn't understand the full impact and scope of what Jesus said to them. In which case, their surprise at the inclusion of the Gentiles was understandable.

As for what the New Covenant is, let's look at Jesus' wording again.

He refers to it as "the blood of the New Covenant." The way he words it, this doesn't sound like the blood is the sum and substance of the New Covenant. And if we review the actual terms of the New Covenant as specified in Jeremiah 31, salvation itself is only a part of the New Covenant God makes with the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Not only does God forgive their sins, he re-institutes the Mosaic Law saying, "I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it."

Not only this, but during that time evangelism will cease because each and every member of those two houses will already know the lord.

The OT prophets foresaw the Gentiles coming in. This was not a brand new revelation. Micah 4:1 says, “in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.”

Isaiah 2:2 similarly says, speaking of the Lord’s first Advent, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

The passage declares, “the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” This passage vividly shows salvation going out to the nations of the world after the cross. It shows the establishment of the kingdom of God (described here as “the mountain of the Lord's house”), above all other kingdoms of the earth (described here as mountains) and smaller ethnic groups (described here as hills).

Isaiah 9:6 says, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the prince of peace.”

Isaiah 66:12 continues, speaking of Christ’s first Coming and the spread of the Gospel to the nations, “Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream.”

Isaiah 57:19-21 also says of the Lord and His mercy toward the Gentiles,“Peace, peace to him that is far off (the Gentiles), and to him that is near (the Jews), saith the LORD; and I will heal him. But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.”

Isaiah 26:1-5 says,“In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks. Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in. Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.”

Isaiah 26:12 continues,“LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.”

Christ brought peace to the nations when He came. Those who entered into Christ entered into this promise.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 05:22 PM
And, for the "circumcision means nothing" thing, did not the same author of Romans write 1 Corinthians? Welll, what about this passage. What do you think it means?

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. verse 18.

If Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, why not become uncircumcised when you are circumcised? I mean, according to you, ethnicity is nothing in the eyes of God. If a Jew decides to break the dietary laws of his people, he isn't sinning, is he? Didn't you read the very next verse?

1 Cor 7:19 (NASB)
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Rituals like circumcision mean nothing to God. What God wants is faith and obedience. God wants people who will worship Him in spirit and in truth. So, what Paul is saying in verse 18 is there's no reason to try to go from circumcised to uncircumcised or vice versa because neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any difference and neither one has any value.


Resolve this one as well.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Romans 14:5-6

Well, if ethnicity is nothing, then why is the Israelite given leeway in Paul's eyes? That passage was meant so that neither Jew or Gentile would judge one another (Romans 14:4). Sure, if a Jew is convinced that they are supposed to be physically circumcised, then they should go ahead and do so. But they would be doing so while apparently not being aware of what Paul says elsewhere about the fact that circumcision "is nothing" and does not "availeth anything". Regardless, scripture is clear that being circumcised or not circumcised makes no difference in God's eyes.

What matters is in the heart. If someone mistakenly thinks that being circumcised is required of them and they do so out of a heart of obedience to God, God will accept their worship. It isn't the act of circumcision itself that would matter to God in that case, but the act of worship.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 05:28 PM
A hypothetical here, sorta, and I will try to word it where it maybe makes some tiny bit of sense.

There is a passage about "quiet dove". It claims "and it shall be so that quiet dove, and the family thereof, shall be saved"

Is that saving because of quiet dove special, or chosen? Is it because God like doves? Or is it simply prophecy about what will come to be. Simply that, God knows, and He is telling us that at some point, quiet dove and family will be saved?I assume you are referring to Zechariah 12:10-14? Your illustration only has to do with one family being saved. That's quite a bit different than an entire nation being saved, wouldn't you think? Also, where does Zechariah 12:10-14 say anything about many people all being saved at once? It talks about them mourning, but I don't see where it says a whole nation becomes saved all at once.


If saying that God has purposed that at some point all Israel will be saved, the Jews, means God is showing favoratism to the Jews. Is not saying that "the times of the Gentiles" is showing favoratism to the Gentiles?No, it isn't, because you're misunderstanding what "the times of the Gentiles" means. It does not mean that only Gentiles are saved during that time nor does it mean that Gentiles are favored during that time. We know this because scripture repeatedly says that there is no difference between the Jew and the Gentile in Christ. There is no favoritism to be found when it comes to salvation.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 05:36 PM
This would be the view of Jeremiah as well.It was not Jeremiah's view that God would show favoritism to Jews over Gentiles in regards to salvation. It was God's plan to bring Jew and Gentile believers together as one under the new covenant.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 05:47 PM
Someday it will be national according to the prophets. So, all throughout history salvation will have been an individual issue, but all of a sudden one day it will be a national issue? I could not possibly disagree more. Salvation is an individual issue and scripture teaches that repeatedly. John 3:16 doesn't say "...whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life...until the day comes when whosoever is alive and is fortunate enough to be an Israelite should not perish but have everlasting life.".



I said that, yes. I could be wrong.

The concept of a "new" covenant is mentioned very few times in the New Testament. Holding up one of the Seder wine cups Jesus says, "[T]his is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Luke's gospel has new covenant.) In 2Cor. Paul refers to himself as a "servant of the new covenant", referring to the giving of the Holy Spirit. The epistle to the Hebrews argues that the current covenant is passing away to be replaced by a new covenant based on better promises.

The question is, how do we understand these passages as they relate to those who were not under the original covenant? It's simple. Can a Gentile be saved any other way than by the shed blood of Christ? No. Therefore, a Gentile cannot be saved any other way but by the means of the new covenant.


But more importantly, on what basis do the Apostles affirm Gentile salvation, a covenant or something else? We are certainly saved by grace through faith. And Christ's death on the cross is the basis for salvation for all those whom God is saving, whether Jew or Gentile. And the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the essential mark of the believer.

At the same time, though, Paul does not argue that we are saved on the basis of a new covenant. In fact, he argues that we are saved based on a covenant that preceded the law by 430 years.

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. Galatians 3:17. Um...that verse is talking about the new covenant. The new covenant was declared by God long before Christ came to establish it and even before the law was established.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 06:02 PM
Yes John, Jesus shed his blood for the whole world. But remember who he was talking to and how his disciples would have heard his words. It was only later that the Apostles learned God's intention to save Gentiles by grace through the indwelling of the spirit.So?


Two things are possible in this regard. Either the Apostles didn't understand Jesus at the time he spoke those words or they DID understand.

If they did understand Jesus correctly, then Jesus wasn't including Gentiles in the New Covenant or else Peter wouldn't have been surprised later to find out that God was saving Gentiles. Wow. I completely disagree.


Or it's possible they didn't understand the full impact and scope of what Jesus said to them. In which case, their surprise at the inclusion of the Gentiles was understandable. That's how I see it.


As for what the New Covenant is, let's look at Jesus' wording again.

He refers to it as "the blood of the New Covenant." The way he words it, this doesn't sound like the blood is the sum and substance of the New Covenant. And if we review the actual terms of the New Covenant as specified in Jeremiah 31, salvation itself is only a part of the New Covenant God makes with the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Not only does God forgive their sins, he re-institutes the Mosaic Law saying, "I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it."That isn't talking about the Mosaic Law. No one, including Jewish believers, is under the law of Moses anymore. We are now under grace. The law that God puts in our hearts is the law of Christ. Here is how Paul explains it:

Romans 8
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Why would God write the law that could not do what Christ did for us and was "weak through the flesh" in our hearts? Do you know that the law was a curse (Gal 3:13)? Why? Because no one (except Christ) could perfectly live up to it. We have the law of Christ in our hearts, not the law of Moses. We have been "redeemed from the curse of the law" (Gal 3:13).

Gal 6
1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

The law written in our hearts is not about performing rituals and sacrifices and so on. It is about loving others as we love ourselves and loving God with all of our heart, soul and mind. That is the law of Christ.

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 06:04 PM
You need to read Genesis to Revelation again.

Okay, good advice.


Salvation without exception has always been by grace through faith. It has always been an individual experience.


Did I say it wasn't? I'm not sure you're following me. So let me repeat what I said earlier.

I have heard many childbirth stories. Each baby is born under different circumstances. Some women are sitting in a tub of water; other women lay on their back; and still other women squat. Some children come early; others come late. Some husbands are stuck in traffic; other husbands faint at the sight of blood; and others are fighting a war across the sea. Some women have morning sickness; others don't. Some have post-pardom depression while others don't.

Likewise, each new birth in Christ comes under various circumstances. We are all saved by grace through faith. But we are not each saved under the same circumstances. Some of us get saved in church. Others get saved at a Billy Graham concert. Others of us get saved by reading a girl friend's loving letters, describing her personal testimony. Some of us get knocked off our horse; others wrestle with angels; and still others call out to God in the middle of the night.

When God says that he will save an entire nation at the same time, each person will be saved by grace through faith, but these people will be saved under a unique circumstance involving a mass conversion. But this shouldn't seem so unusual since hundreds and even thousands of people came to saving faith after Peter's sermon.


You need to carefully look at Hebrews 11.

Again, good advice. I will start with the title "to the Hebrews."


Moreover, you obviously skipped over Paul's introductory words to Romans 11 in Romans 10 which support what I have just stated and which forbid national corporate salvation.


You'll have to be more specific.


Please remember there is no division in this letter in the original.

If you mean to say that chapter and verse were added later, I agree. But I think it is clear when Paul changes the subject.


Romans is a harmonious letter that depicts salvation the same as elsewhere in Scripture. You would have You have Romans 11:26 something that we find nowhere else in Paul's writing or anywhere else in the NT.

That may be true. But I don't make much of that idea since the Gospel of John, for instance, contains pericope not found in the other Gospels. The fact that one epistle has something unique to say doesn't mean that it disagrees in principle with the others.

In my opinion, Paul has decided to explicate his Gospel in terms of a unique promise God made to Israel as a nation in Romans chapters 9 through 11. This idea is supported by the many different ways Paul helps the reader identify his topic.

One technique readers adopt to know what an author is saying is to "come to terms with the author." Look at Paul's use of terms in the passage you cited. Notice that when Paul wants to make the point that salvation is universally available to all people, he adopts the terms "Jew" and "Greek".


Romans 9-13 tells us: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."


When it comes to confession and salvation, there is no difference between Jew and Greek. But I think a review of Romans chapters 9 through 11 will reveal that when Paul wants to make points concerning his nation as a nation, he adopts the term "Israel" rather than "Jew". I'm afraid that your appellations "true Israel" and "natural Israel" remove any chance for Paul to critique his nation as a nation. And if you will notice, Paul never uses any kind of appellation to indicate Israel. For Paul, its just plain "Israel."


Genesis 17:2-5 also rebuts your theory. God says to Abraham: "And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee."

This special covenant was not just with Abraham. It was just not with his natural family. It was just not with his natural seed. It was with the promised seed of all nations. This was made even before circumcision was introduced.

What you just stated does not speak to the issue of whether has made a covenant with the nation of Israel as a people. You are just repeating Paul's point that the Gentiles are included in God's offer of salvation based on a covenant that God made with Abraham. And as Paul says in Romans chapter 4, this makes us the spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham because we share the same faith as Abraham.

To be Abraham's child is not the same thing as being Jacob's child.



Galatians 3:16-22 confirms: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

Again, this makes us Abraham's child, not Jacob's child.


Secondly, you obviously don't fully grasp what the new covenant was. It was Christ's atoning sacrifice for sin on the cross for the "many." Graciously, we, the believing Gentiles, are among the many. The blood of Jesus was God's covenant with sinful man - irrespective of birthday, nationality or race. Jesus said in Mark 14:24, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." See it is not just for Jews. If it was then the Gentile would have no hope.

I understand perfectly that Jesus blood has been applied to all that believe. Where we disagree is in our interpretation of Jesus statement that his blood, is the blood of the New Covenant. As we learn from the Apostles, his blood was for both the New Covenant and the salvation of the many.


Hebrews 10:14-17 reinforces: "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."


What is the title of that book again? :)


Thirdly, you keep dividing the people of God into two.

I don't think I do. The people of God are the sons of Jacob. They are one nation. How did I divide them in two?


The New Testament makes clear; there has only ever been one elect people.

The New Testament uses the term "elect" in various ways.


There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

Again, I never said there was more than one body etc.


Fourthly, we are the true Israel. You keep denying this, but it is written in Scripture.

You keep reminding me but haven't provided a scripture that uses the appellation "true Israel."



The good news in this NT era is: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nighby the blood of Christ... ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."


Why do you say, "in this NT era"? Are you a dispensationalist? :)


We are of the spiritual seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not just Abraham as you insinuate.

Well, you'll just have to show me a scripture in which any Apostle refers to a saved gentile as a spiritual seed of Jacob. I doubt you will find one.


Can I remind you, our God is the same God that Jacob yielded to and was changed to Israel. The Church is connected in Scripture to the new Jacob - Israel, not the old sinful Jacob - which is of the flesh. That is why natural Israel is related to the name Jacob and the redeemed Church of all nations Israel.

Good try, but I ain't buyin'. :)

Pardon me for laughing but what you just said was really funny.

Let's look at the promise again.

The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.

According to your statement above, the term "Jacob" is a word that doesn't apply to the man Jacob's progeny, but the "spiritual" Jacob, which is the church. In effect, God is going to take away the sins of a people from whom he has already taken away their sins. He is going to remove ungodliness from a people from whom he already took away ungodliness. He is going to forgive a people he already forgave. :)

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 06:28 PM
So?

So, ideas have a history and gain their meaning and significance from the circumstances into which they are spoken. Up until the time Jesus spoke these words, he had not taught his disciples that Gentiles would be included in the New Covenant. Therefore, we can not use Jesus' statement alone, by itself, to suggest otherwise. We have no direct statement from Jesus in which he includes Gentiles as part of the New Covenant.


That isn't talking about the Mosaic Law. No one, including Jewish believers, is under the law of Moses anymore.

That's right. You're point that Jews are not under the Mosaic Law is proof that we are not under the New Covenant today, since the terms of the New Covenant explicitly specifies that God is going to write it on their hearts.


The law that God puts in our hearts is the law of Christ. Here is how Paul explains it:

Romans 8
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Again, passages of scripture take their meaning and significance from the circumstances into which they were written. When God said that he would write his law on their hearts, his readers would have understood the law to be the Mosaic Law, which is the Law they disobeyed in the first place.

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 06:50 PM
So, all throughout history salvation will have been an individual issue, but all of a sudden one day it will be a national issue? I could not possibly disagree more.

Again, salvation is personal and individual, but the circumstances the surround each person's experience is different. The salvation of an entire nation at once will be the circumstances surrounding each person's individual salvation experience. Just because God saves more than one person at a time doesn't render their salvation experience ineffective or untrue.

Notice how Jeremiah puts it.

"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt . . .

When he says "days are coming" he indicates that something special will happen in those days that doesn't ordinarily happen.

Secondly, the phrase "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah" indicates that God will deal with these two houses specifically at that time.

Also, notice that he mentions a covenant he made with "their fathers", indicating biological significance.

Salvation is an individual issue and scripture teaches that repeatedly.


John 3:16 doesn't say "...whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life...until the day comes when whosoever is alive and is fortunate enough to be an Israelite should not perish but have everlasting life.".

No, but John also says, "He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him." What could the phrase "his own" indicate if not his kinsmen, his ethnic group? And notice how John is free to speak generally about his kinsmen, that they did not receive him, even as we know that some of Jesus' kinsmen did receive him.

A verse later John says,

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And what does it mean to be born of God, if not that God chooses whom to give new birth? And so the "whomever shall believe" are those who believe at God's choosing. And thus we are called "the chosen of God" and elsewhere we are called, "children of promise."

And so, if God so chooses, he is fully capable and in his right to choose a nation of Israelites.


It's simple. Can a Gentile be saved any other way than by the shed blood of Christ? No. Therefore, a Gentile cannot be saved any other way but by the means of the new covenant.


I agree. Again, you are talking about the means to salvation. I am talking about the occasion of salvation. We are all saved by means of the shed blood of Christ. But we are not all saved under the same circumstances.


Um...that verse is talking about the new covenant. The new covenant was declared by God long before Christ came to establish it and even before the law was established.


If that was true, it wouldn't be called the "new" covenant. It would be called the "really, really old covenant". :)

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 07:08 PM
When it comes to confession and salvation, there is no difference between Jew and Greek. But I think a review of Romans chapters 9 through 11 will reveal that when Paul wants to make points concerning his nation as a nation, he adopts the term "Israel" rather than "Jew". I'm afraid that your appellations "true Israel" and "natural Israel" remove any chance for Paul to critique his nation as a nation. And if you will notice, Paul never uses any kind of appellation to indicate Israel. For Paul, its just plain "Israel" ...


You are ducking and weaving like a boxer trying to avoid the inevitable punch. It is impossible to establish absolutes with you (or keep you on line). When a truth is proven then you on to another subject. Scriptural realities that we have already establised are discarded as if they don't exist.

You are trying to differentiate between the different (yet synonymous) natural terms that are attributed to Israelis in Scripture. This is an error. Unfortunately you do the same with the spiritual designations.

Who are natural Israel?

The natural descendents "of Abraham." They are the Hebrews, "the circumcision" or the "Jews." However, this is not the true seed. This is not the seed of promise. It is the natural or fleshly seed. While many in the OT were of this physical lineage, natural birth never rendered a man justified. That came by grace through faith.

Who are spiritual Israel?

The spiritual descendents "of Abraham." They are known in the NT as "the circumcision" or the "Jews." This is true Israel. This is spiritual Israel. You try and disconnect these terminologies to allow your argument to survive but it can't and doesn't.

The Israel of God is not restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above. Paul the Apostles said to the largely Gentile church in Rome, in Romans 4:13-15, “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world (the nations), was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law (natural Israel) be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.”

Paul keeps pressing home this point in his writings that the true seed of Abraham is spiritual. It is a people of all nations that have entered into the household of faith. He continues, “not to that only which is of the law (namely natural Israel), but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all (Jew and Gentile believers alike), as it is written, (in Genesis 17:5) I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not (the Gentiles) as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, so shall thy seed be” (Romans 4:16-18).

God called and ordained a Gentile people who were once hopelessly outside of grace and of hope, through the work of the cross and through faith, to come into an intimate relationship with God and enter the spiritual lineage of Abraham – the father of faith. That divine favour that was once largely restricted to those of the spiritual Israel within natural Israel has now been graciously widened out to include the spiritual Israel “of many nations.”

Salvation brings a level playing field to all – they are simply sinner saved by grace. They obtain their spiritual passport by way of circumcision of the heart thus sealing their heavenly identity.

Natural Israel

Romans 9:6-8 confirms this, saying, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

One of the most misinterpreted passages by Premils is Romans 11:7. It states, “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

This is actually saying the opposite to what Premil suggests. In fact, it is actually saying what is says: “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for.” In short, salvation or favour with God has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity.

True Israel

Ephesians 2:11-19 declares, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (or citizenship)of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

This passage speaks of God bringing natural Israelis together with natural Gentiles into the exact same standing and privileges. In fact, they are classed in this reading today as “one body” and “one new man.” How can this be? What are the grounds for this union? Is it speaking of a natural or spiritual reality? There can be no doubt by the clarity and straightforwardness of this narrative that Jews and Gentiles are unified together in this passage on the sole grounds of “the blood of Christ.” This is the only means of cleansing and freedom God knows or accepts. A Gentile is said to be united to the true Israelite. They are said to be “fellowcitizens.”

You say the good olive tree carries no meaning. I say it is the spiritual Israeli tree. We have been grafted into this covenant tree by faith.

Romans 11:15-20 says, “For if the casting away of them (unbelieving Israelites) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them (unbelieving Israelites) be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit (Christ) be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root (Christ) be holy, so are the branches (Old & New Testament saints). And if some of the branches be broken off (unbelieving Israelites), and thou (the believing New Testament Gentiles), being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them (believing Israelites), and with them(believing Israelites) partakest of the root and fatness (Christ) of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root (Christ), but the root (Christ) thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear.”

Some Premils are of the mistaken impression that the root (mentioned here in verses 16, 17 and 18) is somehow Israel. This is a notable error. The actual tree as a whole is an Israeli covenant tree, but the existing (or surviving) branches in this symbol are actually the believing Israelites, not the root. The grafted branches from the “wild olive tree” are the believing Gentiles. The branches therefore refer to people that belong to this tree. Under the old covenant Jews were born under the covenant arrangement. They were a chosen race selected to manifest the glory of God and fulfil His purposes in this life. God largely worked through a national theocracy and natural Israel was viewed as His people. However, being a citizen of natural Israel did not denote salvation, but rather that they were born into this covenant people. Salvation still had to be appropriated by grace through faith. We are therefore looking at an Israeli tree, but one that only sustains true Israel (Romans 9:6).

This choice body is not limited to natural Israelis that have come to faith – it is open to all the household of faith (irrespective of birthdate, nationality or colour). We Gentiles that were once hopelessly “without Christ” (or separated from Christ), are now graciously found “in Christ Jesus” through the Cross (Ephesians 2:13). We were “aliens” or estranged “from the citizenship of Israel”(Ephesians 2:12) but now are “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19). We were “strangers from the covenants of the promise” (Ephesians 2:12), but are now “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6). We were blind “having no hope,” but now we belong to “one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope” (Ephesians 4:4).

Our racial status carries no merit with God. Galatians 6:15-16 reinforces that, saying, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule (namely, a non-physical, non-racial spiritual new birth experience), peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

The elect of God are here called the “Israel of God.” This title identifies God’s people and differentiates between spiritual Israel – those born again) and natural Israel after the flesh. One’s birthplace, birthdate, stock, colour or surname can never produce “a new creature.” Christ made it clear in John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

The “Israel of God” is therefore the people of God of all nations, of every kindred colour and kind who have placed their trust in Christ in the new birth – it is they alone that are citizens of this spiritual nation. The teaching of the narrative completely negates the idea that God has two distinct peoples today, namely Jew and Gentile. Paul is unquestionably speaking on the crucial matter of salvation. He is plainly saying that one’s race has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. The only thing essential for salvation is the new birth – becoming “a new creature” in Christ.

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 07:10 PM
I don't think I do. The people of God are the sons of Jacob. They are one nation. How did I divide them in two?

Scripture shows that to be an error. 1 Peter 2:9-10 declares, whilst exclusively addressing the Church of Jesus Christ, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

You restrict "the people of God" to "the sons of Jacob," Scripture includes all the elect. The Gentiles are here included in that great spiritual family. I don't know how you can hold so many theories that conflict with blatant Scripture.

Hebrews 4:8-11 also says, "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."

This reading refers in notable detail to the spiritual edifice – the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church being here described as a nation – “an holy nation” – which is under intimate divine control. This nation is not a physical nation, which can be observed with the natural eye but rather invisible and can only be seen through the spiritual eye. It is thus a spiritual nation that extends over every land boundary, ethnic group, colour and creed.

BroRog
Oct 14th 2008, 07:29 PM
You are ducking and weaving like a boxer trying to avoid the inevitable punch.

So far, you haven't hit me. :)


Who are natural Israel?

The natural desendents "of Abraham." They are the Hebrews, "the circumcision" or the "Jews." However, this is not the true seed. This is not the seed of promise. It is the natural or fleshly seed. While many in the OT were of this physical lineage, natural birth never rendered a man justified. That came by grace through faith.

The term "Israel" refers to a people and a country. The people come from the loins of Jacob, not Abraham.


Who are spiritual Israel?

The spiritual desendents "of Abraham." They are known in the NT as "the circumcision" or the "Jews." This is true Israel. This is spiritual Israel. You try and disconnect these terminologies to allow your argument to survive but it can't and doesn't.

It's a simple matter of going to each of your scriptural citations and pointing out that they do not mean what you say they mean. :)


That divine favour that was once largely restricted to those of the spiritual Israel within natural Israel has now been graciously widened out to include the spiritual Israel “of many nations.”

I believe a proper understanding of Genesis 12 requires us to take note of the fact that Abraham is the father of many nations, plural.

For some reason you are having difficulty finding a passage in which Paul describes us as Jacob's children. Are you still looking? :)

wpm
Oct 14th 2008, 07:54 PM
So far, you haven't hit me. :)

[/size][/font]

The term "Israel" refers to a people and a country. The people come from the loins of Jacob, not Abraham.



It's a simple matter of going to each of your scriptural citations and pointing out that they do not mean what you say they mean. :)



I believe a proper understanding of Genesis 12 requires us to take note of the fact that Abraham is the father of many nations, plural.

For some reason you are having difficulty finding a passage in which Paul describes us as Jacob's children. Are you still looking? :)

I am having no difficulty whatsoever finding Scripture. As I said, we are not of Jacob naturally, but we are of him spiritually - as true Israel. Notwithstanding, we are of the chosen seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is a spiritual and a natural seed. Are you now arguing that Jacob is not of the promised seed? We are of that same promised seed.

Romans 9:6-13 explains how God’s people and the seed of promise are not a natural but a spiritual seed. In his thesis on the promised seed we find Jacob and us the believing Gentiles. He affirms: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

Paul continues, speaking about the non-racial spiritual promised seed, in Romans 9:14-16: “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

He then addresses the Gentiles that come to Christ in Romans 9:22-26, saying, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

Contrary to what you claim, here again is more Scripture proving we are the people of God.

JACOB

Genesis 28:14 says, “And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”

We are plainly of the seed of Jacob. Is this is peaking about the natural or the spiritual seed?

Genesis 35:10-12 says, “And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins.”

When Old Testament prophecies speak of the blessing and favour of God in relation to “all nations,” they are concentrated upon, and restricted to, those who are in covenant with God – the Israel of God, and who are the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith.

God in His Sovereignty had specially chosen Abraham to be the spiritual father of the faith. Through his wife Sarah he would receive a seed that would be blessed of all nations. Those outside of that covenant are under wrath. Therefore, when God reveals that His blessing would spread to include “all nations” or “many nation” to such a degree that they would enter the lineage of Abraham it certainly wasn’t in any other way than through His only vehicle created to accommodate them in all ages the Church – the Israel of God.

We today are the children of promise along with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We are their spiritual offspring. This is the only people that matter. These are God's chosen people. Their natural offspring mean nothing as John the Baptist and Christ showed.

Richard H
Oct 14th 2008, 08:00 PM
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:8-13

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18

For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
Romans 11:24-28

God never divorced the House of Judah.

“All Israel” = House of Israel (Christians) + House of Judah.
When the time is right, God will bring a remnant of Judah to Messiah and they shall partake of the New Covenent.

Thus, All Israel will be saved.
(The whole House of Israel = Jacob)

God is able to keep His promises. :pp
Richard

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 08:36 PM
Who is the one in which we are debating here? Is it not God who is doing both? Personally, I've only been debating about the issue of salvation and not anything about the formation of the nation, which should probably have its own thread. This thread is titled "All Israel shall be saved" so that means we're talking about salvation here.


In case you have not noticed, God has done things for one nation and have not done those same things for other nations. Israel is a living testament of it. Not in order to ensure anyone's salvation over people of another nation.


But I think I will ask you this question. What is the "different" thing that you suppose I am saying that God will do for Israel and no other nation?It seems to me that you are saying that God will save all of the people of Israel who are still alive shortly before the return of Christ and will not do the same for any other nation.


Moreover, God is not politically correct. God does not have to do anything for any nation, and God can do a thing for one nation, and not for another.Not in terms of salvation.


God does not have to answer to anyone, even if what He does you find offensive. I say that God is no respector of persons. That means that he answers to no one. So, as one who respects no one, He can do whatever He wants to whomever He wants. This is why Paul seen Christ face to face while you and I have not. His perrogative, irrespective of our personal feeling. I have shown the true meaning of being a respecter of persons. Scripture does not give us the definition that you're giving. It has to do with God not favoring anyone based on race, nationality, social status or anything like that. Here is the scriptural evidence for this:

Acts 10
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Romans 2
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.

Ephesians 6
8Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

Col 3
24Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
25But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

1 Peter 1
17And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Hopefully after reading these, you can see the true meaning of God not being a respecter of persons.


Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. -John 4:22

tell me what that means.What it doesn't mean is that the Jews are favored by God. Is that what you think it means? Salvation was offered to the Jews first (read Matthew 22:1-14 and Acts). And they had the advantage of having the Law given to them and the promises and so on as it talks about in Romans 9:4-5. The Gentiles were graciously included in those blessings and promises by God under the new covenant. Now, "there is neither Jew nor Greek" but we "are all one in Christ Jesus".


You seem to take Romans 11 and throw it out of the window.Not at all. Should I say the same to you just because you interpret it differently than me?


You ay that God is not into corporate salvation, when Paul clearly states that all Israel shall be saved. Your arguement is not with me, for I am going to continue to believe Romans 11 as written.I believe it as written as well. We just have different interpretations.


Your problem is with the writer,You're resorting to your old insulting ways here, Doug. You should know better.


because every single version of the Bible that I have read, and that includes the interlinear Greek-to-English version, Romans 11 speaks of all of a particular group of people, some who were called as the election, and the rest who were blinded, will be saved.That's your interpretation, but my interpretation is that the Israel of Romans 11:26 is the same Israel of which not all are of the nation of Israel, as described in Romans 9:6.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 09:03 PM
So, ideas have a history and gain their meaning and significance from the circumstances into which they are spoken. Up until the time Jesus spoke these words, he had not taught his disciples that Gentiles would be included in the New Covenant. Therefore, we can not use Jesus' statement alone, by itself, to suggest otherwise. We have no direct statement from Jesus in which he includes Gentiles as part of the New Covenant. We can conclude that from scripture as a whole because we know full well that no one can be saved apart from the blood of Christ, which is what the new covenant is all about. I believe you are doing the equivalent of turning elementary math into Calculus here.


That's right. You're point that Jews are not under the Mosaic Law is proof that we are not under the New Covenant today, since the terms of the New Covenant explicitly specifies that God is going to write it on their hearts. We are not under the new covenant today?!! I beg to differ. The new covenant was established by the blood of Christ long ago! If we are not under that today then we are without hope!

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Clearly, the new covenant is one in which God promised to be merciful and forgive people their sins. And it "was established" long ago. It is a better covenant than the first covenant, which was made old and vanished away long ago. What other way can anyone be forgiven today except under this new covenant?

The Gentiles were once "strangers from the covenants of promise" but not anymore. Now, they are fellowheirs and fellowcitizens with Jewish believers because of the blood of Christ.

Ephesians 2
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Ephesians 3
1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

You want to divide God's people into Jews and Gentiles. Scripture does just the opposite and says we have been made one. We are fellowheirs and fellowcitizens together as one in the body of Christ.

John146
Oct 14th 2008, 09:23 PM
If that was true, it wouldn't be called the "new" covenant. It would be called the "really, really old covenant". :)Not true. It is called the new covenant because it has better promises than the old covenant and was established after the old covenant was established (Heb 8:6). It doesn't matter when the covenants were first promised. Their distinctions of being old or new has to do with when they were established.

third hero
Oct 14th 2008, 11:11 PM
It seems to me that you are saying that God will save all of the people of Israel who are still alive shortly before the return of Christ and will not do the same for any other nation.

That is exactly what I am saying. It is, IMHO, what Paul is saying as well.


I have shown the true meaning of being a respecter of persons. Scripture does not give us the definition that you're giving. It has to do with God not favoring anyone based on race, nationality, social status or anything like that. Here is the scriptural evidence for this:

Acts 10
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

So, if all Israel ends up fearing Him, they would qualify to be His people, correct? This does not say that God will not choose one nation to save all of their remnant. This says that every nation that fears Him will be accepted by him.


Romans 2
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.

Does this not, although you attempt to make it say that God deals with everyone the same, mention that judgment goes to the "Jew first, and then the Gentile"? If God does not see one nation above another, why would Paul make a point to say that those who do evil will be judged, "of the Jew First, and also of thge Gentile"? It is because of the status of the ethnic Jew.

Again, I am not saying that a Jew is saved because of ethnicity. What I am saying is that the Jew is suppose to be the one who would recognize Lord Jesus first, since He came to them first. Therefore, if the world is to be judged, first the Jew will be judged, (Abomination that causes Desolation, and the Massacre/Salvation at Jerusalem), and then the Gentile, (the Great Tribulation, His Return).


Ephesians 6
8Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

I see what you are saying here, Eric, but this does not prove that God will not do to Israel what I have already shown through scripture that He is definitely going to do.


Col 3
24Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
25But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

How is this suppose to persuade me that God is not going to save all Israel? Is this not the same as saying that God will save anyone who believes in Him? If the blind in Israel suddenly see the light, especially since their scriptures point to that light, and they believe, how is that God showing respect for persons?


1 Peter 1
17And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

Hopefully after reading these, you can see the true meaning of God not being a respecter of persons.

What is your problem with the notion that GOd is going to save Israel? I do not get this. You want God to be Politically correct to the point that, according to your logic, if God decides to save Israel, then He has to save the rest of the world by default. I do not see it that way. God is not a PC God that will save all mankind just because if He decides to save Israel, then the other nations will complain, as though He has to answer to them for anything.

Moreover, I am breaking no rule in Christ by saying that God is going to save all of the remnant of Israel before the Lord comes to retrieve us. Even according to the verses that you provided Eric, Judgment comes first tot he Jew, and then to the Gentile. How is that disproving what I have said?

I am not saying that the Jews will get a "new deal" where God will save them just because they are Jews. I am saying that the Jews will repent, and all who make it through the valley of the Mount of Olives shall believe, which according to Zechariah 12:10 is shown by the mourning that each family will do over the God they have pierced.


What it doesn't mean is that the Jews are favored by God. Is that what you think it means? Salvation was offered to the Jews first (read Matthew 22:1-14 and Acts). And they had the advantage of having the Law given to them and the promises and so on as it talks about in Romans 9:4-5. The Gentiles were graciously included in those blessings and promises by God under the new covenant. Now, "there is neither Jew nor Greek" but we "are all one in Christ Jesus".

If you agree that the Laws were given to the Jews first, and the Messiah came to them first, then what is the problem? If the Jews, who still have the laws, see them being fulfilled by means of the Lord Jesus, and then believe, how is that showing favoritism? How is that showing that God respects ethnicity? They would still have the advantage because they were exposed to God's scripture first. Like I have said in this thread, they have the OT, and Zechariah is a part of their scriptures. If they see Zechariah 14:3-5 fulfilled in their midst, they will all believe, especially since Revelation is the only book that holds the rest of that prophecy in it.

Now, does this mean that God will not attempt to save the rest of the World? Not in the least. The Great tribulation will be God's attempt to save ALL of the world, along with the conversion of Israel. Unlike Israel, who will be targetted by the Beast, the world will not be targetted for extinction, only the believers. those who will take heed of our message will indeed be saved, just like Israel. And on top of that, when the Lord returns, He will judge the nations, and those who did not participate in the anihilation of the believers will be pardoned of their sins and allowed to live on, although their leaders will all be dead.


Not at all. Should I say the same to you just because you interpret it differently than me?

That's your interpretation, but my interpretation is that the Israel of Romans 11:26 is the same Israel of which not all are of the nation of Israel, as described in Romans 9:6.

And again, I believe that your interpretation is flawed because Romans 11 is to be viewed on it's own merits, answering the question that would have been brought up due to Romans 9:6. otherwise, you would have to say that when Paul asks the question, "has God hurled away His people", he was talking about the believers, and not ethnic Israel, thus changing the entire context of the passage.

the unintended consequence, those who are believers are divided into two sections, the election and the blind, with the Blind continuing to live in unbelief, as mentioned in that chapter. So now, according to your logic, believing in Christ would no longer be enough. There would have to be some "other" means for those who are believers who were blinded to be grafted back into the vine. Does this makes sense to you?

third hero
Oct 14th 2008, 11:16 PM
Didn't you read the very next verse?

1 Cor 7:19 (NASB)
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Rituals like circumcision mean nothing to God. What God wants is faith and obedience. God wants people who will worship Him in spirit and in truth. So, what Paul is saying in verse 18 is there's no reason to try to go from circumcised to uncircumcised or vice versa because neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any difference and neither one has any value.

If a Jew is convinced to remain in obedience to the land covenant, (circumcision, dietary laws etc), and remain faithful to Christ, then to that person, they are remaining obedient to the commandments of God. And so, circumcision means something to God, if it entails the person who is circumcised actually keeping the commandments of God. Again, you missed my point, which is what the next verse, the one you posted above, proves.


Sure, if a Jew is convinced that they are supposed to be physically circumcised, then they should go ahead and do so. But they would be doing so while apparently not being aware of what Paul says elsewhere about the fact that circumcision "is nothing" and does not "availeth anything". Regardless, scripture is clear that being circumcised or not circumcised makes no difference in God's eyes.

What matters is in the heart. If someone mistakenly thinks that being circumcised is required of them and they do so out of a heart of obedience to God, God will accept their worship. It isn't the act of circumcision itself that would matter to God in that case, but the act of worship.

Okay. Finally, we are in agreement on this issue.

quiet dove
Oct 14th 2008, 11:58 PM
I assume you are referring to Zechariah 12:10-14? Your illustration only has to do with one family being saved. That's quite a bit different than an entire nation being saved, wouldn't you think? Also, where does Zechariah 12:10-14 say anything about many people all being saved at once? It talks about them mourning, but I don't see where it says a whole nation becomes saved all at once.

No, it isn't, because you're misunderstanding what "the times of the Gentiles" means. It does not mean that only Gentiles are saved during that time nor does it mean that Gentiles are favored during that time. We know this because scripture repeatedly says that there is no difference between the Jew and the Gentile in Christ. There is no favoritism to be found when it comes to salvation.

I was not referring to Zech, just making a hypothetical to try and make a point. Zech had not crossed my mind. But

as for Zech, if they (every family)are mourning all at once, what are they mourning? Verse 10 tells us. And it says, every family.

I didn't say it meant that only Gentiles could get saved. I said, that it referrs to the times of the Gentiles, so what does "the time of the Gentiles" mean even by singling them out in a statement? Why is it ok to have times of the Gentiles but not a time of the Jews/Israel?

third hero
Oct 15th 2008, 12:07 AM
In my opinion, there are problems with this post that I would like to highlight. Although they may seem insignificant, they conglomerate of perceived errors are what is causing the dissention.


Who are natural Israel?

The natural descendents "of Abraham." They are the Hebrews, "the circumcision" or the "Jews." However, this is not the true seed. This is not the seed of promise. It is the natural or fleshly seed. While many in the OT were of this physical lineage, natural birth never rendered a man justified. That came by grace through faith.

No. Natural Israel is the seed of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. The Sons of Abraham include the sons of Ishmael, most of which we really do not know what became of them. When the term, natural Israel comes about, we have to go back to the OT to see whom is selected as ethnic Israel. IN Genesis 49, we see that the children of Israel are the 12 tribes that Jacob desribes there, a fallacy that can not be overlooked.

There is a reason why Paul calls us the "children of promise" and the "sons of Abraham", because our religion is based on the same faith as the one who was promised by God to be the father of many nations, and not just Israel. Israel was a part of that seed, but Israel was not Abraham's only son, and thus, th promise was not made only to the sons of Jacob, whom by decree of Genesis 49 are natural Israel.


Who are spiritual Israel?

The spiritual descendents "of Abraham." They are known in the NT as "the circumcision" or the "Jews." This is true Israel. This is spiritual Israel. You try and disconnect these terminologies to allow your argument to survive but it can't and doesn't.

Spiritual Israel are not Jews. They are those who have faith in Lord Jesus, and are thus the "children of the promise" going back not to Jacob, but to Abraham. They are not the "circumcision" as you attempt to make us out to be. We, spiritual Israel, are the "Israel of God", meaning that we are members of God's Israel, which is not the same as being a member of natural Israel. Remember, Jesus said that His kingdom is NOT of this world, and thus any comparisons to the nations of this world are just that, comparisons. Thus "True Israel" is a concept to best describe our membership to the Israel of God, and not the physical nation that we see today, who consist of ethnic descendents of Jacob.


The Israel of God is not restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above. Paul the Apostles said to the largely Gentile church in Rome, in Romans 4:13-15, “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world (the nations), was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law (natural Israel) be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.”

Agreed, but the connotation that you presented in the earlier paragraph held unintended consequences that alters the reading of both the OT and the NT, some of which would cause the original intent and context of the writers of passages that mention Israel to be lost.


Natural Israel

Romans 9:6-8 confirms this, saying, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

One of the most misinterpreted passages by Premils is Romans 11:7. It states, “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”

This is actually saying the opposite to what Premil suggests. In fact, it is actually saying what is says: “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for.” In short, salvation or favour with God has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity.

Absolutely incorrect. this is where the split comes into play. Paul, in Romans 11 identified the people that he was going to describe, mainly the 12 tribes of the nation of ethnic Israel, (hence the announcement of his ethnic affiliation). What he says is that Israel, natural Israel, is split, with the election (of ethnic Israel) obtaining what they have been searching for, while the rest (of ethnic Israel) are blinded.

Moreover, this does not prove that salvation has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. Moreover, this whole thread is not about God favoring one ethnic group over another. It is about God honoring His Word, by doing exactly what He said He was going to do, long before Jesus walked the earth and Paul writing Romans. It is written that God will make reconciliation for Israel's iniquity, something that the Israel of God never had to worry about, since we were washed by the blood of the Lamb BEFORE we became members of the Israel of God. It is also written that they shall mourn and be bitter over the God they have pierced, which is not recorded anywhere in scriptures to have happened. 3000 people coming to the Lord does not all Israel make. Zechariah 12 is clear. This repentence will happen when Jerusalem is attacked, and God saves the remnant from the sword of the nations that attacked them. At Penticost, Jerusalem was not attacked, and at 70AD, not all of the remnant mourned over the Lord whom they pierced. Thus Zechariah 12 will find it's fulfillment in the future.


True Israel

Ephesians 2:11-19 declares, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (or citizenship)of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

This passage speaks of God bringing natural Israelis together with natural Gentiles into the exact same standing and privileges. In fact, they are classed in this reading today as “one body” and “one new man.” How can this be? What are the grounds for this union? Is it speaking of a natural or spiritual reality? There can be no doubt by the clarity and straightforwardness of this narrative that Jews and Gentiles are unified together in this passage on the sole grounds of “the blood of Christ.” This is the only means of cleansing and freedom God knows or accepts. A Gentile is said to be united to the true Israelite. They are said to be “fellowcitizens.”

According to your statement here, I am led to believe that you believe that the Ephesians quote basically tells us that we are now BOTH natural and spiritual Israel by means of faith. I disagree. Paul is talking about both Jew and Gentile becoming the children of the Promise, being of the household of God, which is not to say that they which were uncircumcised are now a part of natural Israel. I'd say to get this scripture to say where you want it to say, leaps and bounds have to be done to it in order to stretch this scripture into the "all of the believers are NOW children of Jacob".


You say the good olive tree carries no meaning. I say it is the spiritual Israeli tree. We have been grafted into this covenant tree by faith.
Again, disagreement. I have never said anything concerning the olive tree being meaningless, (although I realize that you are writing to someone else, so do not coment on this). I do disagree with your definition of the good olive tree. It is my opinion that the good olive tree represents the Kingdom of God, and before the cross, Israel, a nation that God had established, was a natural member. Thus when the blinded ones of Israel were cut off, the vine still existed. ....

I just read the "spiritual" in that paragraph, and thus retract my dissention.



Our racial status carries no merit with God. Galatians 6:15-16 reinforces that, saying, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule (namely, a non-physical, non-racial spiritual new birth experience), peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

The elect of God are here called the “Israel of God.” This title identifies God’s people and differentiates between spiritual Israel – those born again) and natural Israel after the flesh. One’s birthplace, birthdate, stock, colour or surname can never produce “a new creature.” Christ made it clear in John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

The “Israel of God” is therefore the people of God of all nations, of every kindred colour and kind who have placed their trust in Christ in the new birth – it is they alone that are citizens of this spiritual nation. The teaching of the narrative completely negates the idea that God has two distinct peoples today, namely Jew and Gentile. Paul is unquestionably speaking on the crucial matter of salvation. He is plainly saying that one’s race has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. The only thing essential for salvation is the new birth – becoming “a new creature” in Christ.


(by the way, I find no disagreement in the last quote here.

Now, I must ask you this question. What would cause you, wpm, to believe that God is showing favoritism by creating an environment that would cause all of the remnant of Israel to shake off their blinders are believe? Is not this phenomenon described in Romans 11 as nothing short of "the resurrection of the dead"?

For if the casting away of them the reconciling of the world, [B]what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead? verse 15.

How is God bringing a people who were cut off back to Him by means of causing them to repent showing a respect for an ethnic group? Think about it. I am not saying that everyone of natural Israel is going to be saved because of their race. I have even said in past quotes that those of natural Israel who die while continuing in the rejection of Our Lord will die in their sins, and thus earn the sinner's reward. What I am saying is that when the abomination that causes desolation appears, the survivors of the massacre will turn to Lord Jesus, the one who will b the one who splits the Mount of Olives in half, providing a means for the people to escape.

In the same manner, we, the believers, willl undergo a prolonged version of the Massacre at Jerusalem, with those of us who refuse to take the Mark will be the exact same as those remnant who survive the Massacre at Jerusalem, while those ho take the mark will as those who die in Jerusalem without repenting of their sins.

In short, we have debated this issue for a while, and I still do not understand what is the problem that you have with me saying that God will save Israel, and graft them back onto the vine. I am not exalting anyone. I am stating a prophecy that shall come to pass.

third hero
Oct 15th 2008, 12:10 AM
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:8-13

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18

For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
Romans 11:24-28

God never divorced the House of Judah.

“All Israel” = House of Israel (Christians) + House of Judah.
When the time is right, God will bring a remnant of Judah to Messiah and they shall partake of the New Covenent.

Thus, All Israel will be saved.
(The whole House of Israel = Jacob)

God is able to keep His promises. :pp
Richard



Now, I see that someone "gets it". This is what I was talking about, whereas Israel will come back to the salvation that they "should" have had originally by believing in the Messiah that appeared right before them. And so I ask again, to both John146 and wpm, what is the problem? Moreover, how is what I am saying elevating ethnic Israel over anyone else?

wpm
Oct 15th 2008, 05:33 AM
No. Natural Israel is the seed of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. The Sons of Abraham include the sons of Ishmael, most of which we really do not know what became of them. When the term, natural Israel comes about, we have to go back to the OT to see whom is selected as ethnic Israel. IN Genesis 49, we see that the children of Israel are the 12 tribes that Jacob desribes there, a fallacy that can not be overlooked.

That is not what Jesus taught. Unlike you, He recognised the natural and spiritual application of these titles. Christ is seen challenging the religious Jews of His day, in John 8, saying, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

To which they responded, “We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (vv 32-33).

Jesus replied, “I know that ye are Abraham's (natural) seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.”

The Jews then hypocritically declared, “Abraham is our father”(v39).

Whereupon Christ responded, “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father… If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (vv 39-44).

This would be totally contradictory if it wasn't for the fact there is a natural and spiritual children of Abraham. The Christ-rejecting religious Jews were of the natural seed, but not the spiritual, we Gentile believer are of the spiritual seed but not the natural.

We are the true children of Abraham

Galatians 3:7-9 says, “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”

Verse 16 continues, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds (plural), as of many; but as of one (single), and to thy seed, which is Christ.”

Galatians 3:29 succinctly and unambiguously affirms: “if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”



There is a reason why Paul calls us the "children of promise" and the "sons of Abraham", because our religion is based on the same faith as the one who was promised by God to be the father of many nations, and not just Israel. Israel was a part of that seed, but Israel was not Abraham's only son, and thus, th promise was not made only to the sons of Jacob, whom by decree of Genesis 49 are natural Israel.

Spiritual Israel are not Jews. They are those who have faith in Lord Jesus, and are thus the "children of the promise" going back not to Jacob, but to Abraham. They are not the "circumcision" as you attempt to make us out to be. We, spiritual Israel, are the "Israel of God", meaning that we are members of God's Israel, which is not the same as being a member of natural Israel. Remember, Jesus said that His kingdom is NOT of this world, and thus any comparisons to the nations of this world are just that, comparisons. Thus "True Israel" is a concept to best describe our membership to the Israel of God, and not the physical nation that we see today, who consist of ethnic descendents of Jacob.


How many times to I need to fight this battle and furnish you with explicit Scripture? This is getting wearisome. If Scripture won't do it what will? Contrary to what you say spiritual Jews belong to spiritual Israel. Also, in conflict with your opinion, Scripture proves that this chosen nation is the true circumcision.

We are the true circumcision

Romans 2:25-29 supports this, saying, “if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit.”

Paul explains in Philippians 3:3, speaking of the Church, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

Colossians 2:11-14 declares, “ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross"

We are the true Jews

Romans 2:28-29 plainly states, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.”

You can't fight with Scripture.


Absolutely incorrect. this is where the split comes into play. Paul, in Romans 11 identified the people that he was going to describe, mainly the 12 tribes of the nation of ethnic Israel, (hence the announcement of his ethnic affiliation). What he says is that Israel, natural Israel, is split, with the election (of ethnic Israel) obtaining what they have been searching for, while the rest (of ethnic Israel) are blinded.

Yes, there is an elect remnant and a blinded party.


Moreover, this does not prove that salvation has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. Moreover, this whole thread is not about God favoring one ethnic group over another. It is about God honoring His Word, by doing exactly what He said He was going to do, long before Jesus walked the earth and Paul writing Romans. It is written that God will make reconciliation for Israel's iniquity, something that the Israel of God never had to worry about, since we were washed by the blood of the Lamb BEFORE we became members of the Israel of God. It is also written that they shall mourn and be bitter over the God they have pierced, which is not recorded anywhere in scriptures to have happened. 3000 people coming to the Lord does not all Israel make. Zechariah 12 is clear. This repentence will happen when Jerusalem is attacked, and God saves the remnant from the sword of the nations that attacked them. At Penticost, Jerusalem was not attacked, and at 70AD, not all of the remnant mourned over the Lord whom they pierced. Thus Zechariah 12 will find it's fulfillment in the future.

Amils go with the Holy Spirit on this one. We have repeatedly showed you this fulfilment in John 19:30-37. You have repeatedly rejected this.


According to your statement here, I am led to believe that you believe that the Ephesians quote basically tells us that we are now BOTH natural and spiritual Israel by means of faith. I disagree. Paul is talking about both Jew and Gentile becoming the children of the Promise, being of the household of God, which is not to say that they which were uncircumcised are now a part of natural Israel. I'd say to get this scripture to say where you want it to say, leaps and bounds have to be done to it in order to stretch this scripture into the "all of the believers are NOW children of Jacob".

Another white elephant!!! This is becoming a habit.



Now, I must ask you this question. What would cause you, wpm, to believe that God is showing favoritism by creating an environment that would cause all of the remnant of Israel to shake off their blinders are believe? Is not this phenomenon described in Romans 11 as nothing short of "the resurrection of the dead"?

For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead? verse 15.

How is God bringing a people who were cut off back to Him by means of causing them to repent showing a respect for an ethnic group? Think about it. I am not saying that everyone of natural Israel is going to be saved because of their race. I have even said in past quotes that those of natural Israel who die while continuing in the rejection of Our Lord will die in their sins, and thus earn the sinner's reward. What I am saying is that when the abomination that causes desolation appears, the survivors of the massacre will turn to Lord Jesus, the one who will b the one who splits the Mount of Olives in half, providing a means for the people to escape.

In the same manner, we, the believers, willl undergo a prolonged version of the Massacre at Jerusalem, with those of us who refuse to take the Mark will be the exact same as those remnant who survive the Massacre at Jerusalem, while those ho take the mark will as those who die in Jerusalem without repenting of their sins.

In short, we have debated this issue for a while, and I still do not understand what is the problem that you have with me saying that God will save Israel, and graft them back onto the vine. I am not exalting anyone. I am stating a prophecy that shall come to pass.


Until you acknowledge Paul's detailed introductory definition of "all Israel" you will keep repeating this mistake. Let us establish what "all Israel" is from Paul's introductory remarks in Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

BroRog
Oct 15th 2008, 02:29 PM
Not true. It is called the new covenant because it has better promises than the old covenant and was established after the old covenant was established (Heb 8:6). It doesn't matter when the covenants were first promised. Their distinctions of being old or new has to do with when they were established.

Really? Okay. So when was the New Covenant established? On the cross or during Abraham's day?

BroRog
Oct 15th 2008, 02:39 PM
Scripture shows that to be an error. 1 Peter 2:9-10 declares, whilst exclusively addressing the Church of Jesus Christ, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Peter was not addressing the entire church. He was addressing the sons of Jacob living abroad.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens . . .

The Greek word behind the English word "aliens" in this translation is "diaspora", which refers to the sons of Jacob who were living as foreigners in other countries.

Diaspora -- the scattering of the Jews to countries outside of Palestine after the Babylonian captivity. (Dictionary.com)


You restrict "the people of God" to "the sons of Jacob" . . .


God calls the sons of Jacob "my people" and I showed you the scriptures that say so.


Hebrews 4:8-11 also says, "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."

The title of the epistle is "to the Hebrews."

markdrums
Oct 15th 2008, 02:52 PM
Really? Okay. So when was the New Covenant established? On the cross or during Abraham's day?

The NEW covenant was ON THE CROSS.
It superceded / replaced the OLD covenant.

ISRAEL "the nation" was a "TYPE". It was a foreshadowing of the church... the "anti-type" of Israel the nation.

The CHURCH is / will be the fulfillment of "Israel". Jesus fulfilled the old Law, & covenant. He established a NEW, BETTER blood covenant.

There is no Dual covenant.... The old is the old. That's all....

It was never about ethnicity, but rather RELATIONSHIP. It's ALWAYS been that way.

Otherwise, how would you explain Ruth, a Moabite, becoming part of Jesus' blood lineage?

WE as believers are all "True Israel".

Richard H
Oct 15th 2008, 02:53 PM
God calls the sons of Jacob "my people" and I showed you the scriptures that say so.



Show him the "elect", as you clued me into that valuable tidbit.

Richard

wpm
Oct 15th 2008, 03:28 PM
Peter was not addressing the entire church. He was addressing the sons of Jacob living abroad.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens . . .

The Greek word behind the English word "aliens" in this translation is "diaspora", which refers to the sons of Jacob who were living as foreigners in other countries.

Diaspora -- the scattering of the Jews to countries outside of Palestine after the Babylonian captivity. (Dictionary.com)



God calls the sons of Jacob "my people" and I showed you the scriptures that say so.

The title of the epistle is "to the Hebrews."

This to me is worse than Dispensationalism. It renders the whole NT a book written exclusively to and related to Jews. This is erroneous and dangerous. The NT was written to the whole non-ethnic Church of Jesus Christ. Race is not recognised today in this chosen spiritual organism the Church. You elevate Christ-rejecting Israel to a place unknown in Scripture. You miss the fact that we Jew and Gentile believers are the true “Jews,” “circumcision,” “Israel,” and “the children of Israel” because God's work of salvation relates to a spiritaul chosen nation, not a natural.

Paul highlights an important truth in Romans 3:29, asking, “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the ethnos (or) Gentiles?” To which he replies, “Yes, of the ethnos (or) Gentiles (or nations or non-Jews) also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

Here we have it, God is God of the nations today, not just Israel. We the Church are the people of God today.

The same Greek word ethnos (Gentiles/nations) is found in Ephesians 3:2-6 when explaining the grace of God in the spread of the gospel to the nations. There it explains the meaning of the says, “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the ethnos (or) Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

We are of the same body of the OT saints - including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The passages that I quoted, and which you again sidestepped, relate to the sinner's entry into Christ in salvation (irrespective of race).

How can you dismiss 1 Peter 2:9-10 so easily and superimpose a Judaic meaning on it? It is addressing the Church of Jesus Christ, and plainly alluding to Gentile conversion, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Adam Clarke say of this reading: "The titles formerly given to the whole Jewish church, i.e. to all the Israelites without exception, all who were in the covenant of God by circumcision, whether they were holy persons or not, are here given to Christians in general in the same way; i.e. to all who believed in Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles, and who received baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Paul in agreement with Peter addresses the same OT reference and applies it to Gentile conversion. He states in Romans 9:22-26, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee (Hosea 2:23), I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

In perfect fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, the Gentiles have been brought into full union and communion with God, and have become a part of the spiritual seed of the righteous, through Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The spiritual blessings and promises that were therefore nearly exclusively restricted to natural Israelites have now been imparted to the Gentiles by faith. The Church is:

1. The “children of the living God.”
2. His “beloved” possession.
3. And are intimately known by God as “my people.”

The Israel of God is not therefore restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above.

This people that Paul is referring to here, who are divinely called, which God said, “were not my people” and which are now loved “which was not beloved” are the elect Gentiles. Paul, referring to Deuteronomy 32:21, in Romans 10:19-21, supports this gracious fulfilment, saying, “Moses saith, I will provoke you (natural Israel) to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation (the Church) I will anger you.”He continues, supporting his line of reasoning, this time referring to Isaiah 65:1, saying, “Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me (the Gentiles). But to [natural] Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.”

This “foolish” nation that has been graciously found of God, without first seeking him, is His worldwide blood-bought elect – the Church. Those of all kindred’s, tongues and tribes, who have come to God through Christ in true repentance. That elect people are NOT a physical earthly nation but an invisible spiritual Kingdom.

Ephesians 2:11-19 agrees. Our predictiment in the OT was: "at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (or citizenship) of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

The good news in this NT era is: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ ... ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."

This tells us that we were once "aliens from the citizenshipof Israel" but now we are "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."

Can I also remind you that Hebrews is a book written to Gentiles today. We have entered into Christ's rest. This is who the people of God are today. You might not view yourself as being among the people of God but most of us do.

Hebrews 4:1-3 says, “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest.”


And continues in Hebrews 4:9-11 “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”

· The place of rest is “a promise” for all God’s people (Hebrews 4:1). However, like every promise that God gives us, it must be received and used.
· That land can only be entered by faith or “with faith” (Hebrews 4:2).
· When a man enters into that place of rest he ceases “from his own works” (Hebrews 4:10). He abandons every confidence in himself.

Canaan was always viewed as the Promised Land – the earthly place of rest of the people of God in the Old Testament; however, it was not viewed as the eternal rest.

quiet dove
Oct 15th 2008, 04:29 PM
I was a tad hasty in closing all the threads on this topic so this one is reopened. I appologize for the inconvenience.

Merton
Oct 16th 2008, 12:11 AM
Hi,

I was thinking about how many suggest that if America supports Israel then God would bless them, as if being the meaning of the scripture---

Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Maybe they are supporting the wrong Israel because they aren't doing so good.


Merton.


I will just add to that by saying that America was blessed originally through ther acceptance of the gospel and the Christians within it, and there was no Israel of the middle east about in those days.

Maybe the church has gone from the Spirit to the flesh, or the flesh has overtaken the Spirit in the country.

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 12:18 AM
Hi,

I was thinking about how many suggest that if America supports Israel then God would bless them, as if being the meaning of the scripture---

Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Maybe they are supporting the wrong Israel because they aren't doing so good.


Merton.

Yea, but America supporting Israel is most likely conditional and the conditions actually show there is a lack of support. It's probably one of those "read the fine print" things all wrapped up in red tape.

Merton
Oct 16th 2008, 12:25 AM
Yea, but America supporting Israel is most likely conditional and the conditions actually show there is a lack of support. It's probably one of those "read the fine print" things all wrapped up in red tape.


What kind of support is lacking. What do you suggest that America increase its support of Israel of the middle east with?


Merton

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 01:15 AM
The NEW covenant was ON THE CROSS.
It superceded / replaced the OLD covenant.

ISRAEL "the nation" was a "TYPE". It was a foreshadowing of the church... the "anti-type" of Israel the nation.

The CHURCH is / will be the fulfillment of "Israel". Jesus fulfilled the old Law, & covenant. He established a NEW, BETTER blood covenant.

There is no Dual covenant.... The old is the old. That's all....

It was never about ethnicity, but rather RELATIONSHIP. It's ALWAYS been that way.

Otherwise, how would you explain Ruth, a Moabite, becoming part of Jesus' blood lineage?

WE as believers are all "True Israel".


Hi Mark,

I was explaining to John, Paul's argument in the epistle to the Galatians in which he says that the basis for our salvation is a covenant God made with Abraham 430 years prior to the inauguration of the God/Israel covenant at Mt. Sinai. For reference I'll quote the passage.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"-- in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is [only] a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [referring] to many, but [rather] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

In summary, Paul builds a case for his assertion that God does not require Gentiles to put themselves under the law in order to obtain salvation, or what he calls "the blessing of Abraham." He draws an analogy between human contract law and the promise God made to Abraham. Just as a man is not able to set aside a contract or add conditions to it after the fact, the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, was not intended to nullify or add conditions to God's promise to Abraham.

Now, in order for his argument to remain tight and without error, we understand that Christ's act of redemption on the cross was anticipated in God's promise to Abraham. His redemptive act was part of the original promise to Abraham.

John asserted that the New Covenant itself was also part of the promise God made to Abraham. I don't think it is because God's word to Israel through the prophet Jeremiah that he would make a New Covenant with Israel came after the Mt. Sinai covenant and explicitly applies to the children of the fathers that came out of Egypt.

The basis for Gentile salvation is a covenant God made with Abraham, which predates the Mt. Sinai Covenant by 430 years and predates the cross by much longer. According to Paul, God's covenant with Abraham will not be nullified or changed. Thus, our salvation is not based on a New Covenant, but on a pre-existing covenant, which can not be changed or nullified and that existed hundreds of years prior to the cross.

Let 'A' represent God's covenant with Abraham and let 'B' represent God's Covenant with the nation of Israel. Paul argues that 'B' can not nullify or change 'A'.

Next, let's look at the passage in Jeremiah.

"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah . . .

This word from God is in the future tense relative to Jeremiah's time. Therefore we know that God is going to make a covenant after Jeremiah's time, which is after Moses' time, which is after Abraham's time. Given that nothing can change or nullify 'A', and that God is going to make a covenant after 'A', then the New Covenant is NOT 'A'.

Let 'C' represent the New Covenant. Given Paul's argument then, we know that Gentiles are saved by 'A', which can not be changed or nullified by 'B'. We also know that 'C' comes after both 'A' and 'B' and is new in time relative to 'A'. Therefore 'C' is not 'A' and can not change 'A'.

Thus, Gentiles are saved based on 'A', which is different than both 'B' and 'C'. Gentiles are not saved based on 'C' because 'A' was sufficient in and of itself as Paul argues.

Marc B
Oct 16th 2008, 01:15 AM
The intent of this thread is to prove or disprove that God is going to save the nation of Israel. IN this thread, I want no references to the Millennial Kingdom or what some of us call the Davidic Kingdom. The are dealing with this era, before the Lord returns.

Since the Lord won't save Israel until after His return your thread is pointless.

Merton
Oct 16th 2008, 01:25 AM
Since the Lord won't save Israel until after His return your thread is pointless.



:lol::lol:

Fifteen characters.

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 01:38 AM
This to me is worse than Dispensationalism. It renders the whole NT a book written exclusively to and related to Jews.


Let's not make a hasty generalization. :) Peter and Paul each acknowledge the fact that Peter is the Apostle to the Jews and Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles. Given this, it is not surprising that Peter writes letters to the Jews and Paul writes letters to the Gentiles.

Now, if you have something to say specifically about the evidence I presented, I would be glad to hear it. Peter is the Apostle to the Jews and he is writing to the "diaspora", which refers to the sons of Jacob living abroad. He refers to his readers as "a royal priesthood", which is a direct quotation from Exodus 19 speaking about the sons of Jacob standing at the foot of Mt. Sinai.


How can you dismiss 1 Peter 2:9-10 so easily and superimpose a Judaic meaning on it?

It was easy. I just paid attention to the evidence.


Paul in agreement with Peter addresses the same OT reference and applies it to Gentile conversion. He states in Romans 9:22-26, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee (Hosea 2:23), I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”


Going back to look at Hosea we discover that Hosea is speaking, not about the Gentiles, but about the Northern Ten Tribes whom the Assyrians took into exile. Thus, we understand that Paul has finished his thought at the word "Gentiles" and begins a new thought with the phrase "As he saith also in Osse." Neither Paul nor Hosea is talking about Gentiles as those who were "not my people."

Again, based on the evidence.


Can I also remind you that Hebrews is a book written to Gentiles today.

The title of the book is "to the Hebrews." The book is written to the Hebrews. It concerns issues directly relevant to the Hebrew people and indirectly related to the rest of us. When he says that there remains a rest for the people of God, he indicates the sons of Jacob.

Again, based on the evidence. :)

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 02:27 AM
I know wpm is amil and I am pre trib, but I am going to agree with him, some what, on 1Pe 2:9-10 in regards to it applying to Gentiles or Jews, and the reason is (and I didn't go back and read all wpm's comments) but since, once in Christ, those in Christ be there is no Jew or Gentile, therefore, what applies to the Church, the Bride, applies to Jew and Gentile because both are neither except they are the Bride.

In other words, I believe there is Jews, there is Gentiles, and there is the Bride (Jews & Gentiles) so all letters written to those saved in Christ Jesus, after His death and resurrection apply to the Bride regardless of who wrote it and who (Jew or Gentile believers)they wrote it to. The context would be the application, for instance, though written to believers if it is regarding God's judgment on those who reject Christ, though it was written to believers it is obviouse the application is the judgment upon unbelievers.... and so on. I mean Jesus gave prophecies, all were to His followers as far as who He was speaking to, but that does not mean they apply to His followers, like the destruction of the temple in 70AD, while it obviously effected all there, it was a prophecy about the Jewish temple.

And I am hoping some of that made some bit of sense/came out right.

And I have already commented more directly to the "will all Israel be saved" issue so will not go there again.

LookingUp
Oct 16th 2008, 02:53 AM
Let's not make a hasty generalization. :) Peter and Paul each acknowledge the fact that Peter is the Apostle to the Jews and Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles. Given this, it is not surprising that Peter writes letters to the Jews and Paul writes letters to the Gentiles.

[/font][/size]Now, if you have something to say specifically about the evidence I presented, I would be glad to hear it. Peter is the Apostle to the Jews and he is writing to the "diaspora", which refers to the sons of Jacob living abroad. He refers to his readers as "a royal priesthood", which is a direct quotation from Exodus 19 speaking about the sons of Jacob standing at the foot of Mt. Sinai.



It was easy. I just paid attention to the evidence.



Going back to look at Hosea we discover that Hosea is speaking, not about the Gentiles, but about the Northern Ten Tribes whom the Assyrians took into exile. Thus, we understand that Paul has finished his thought at the word "Gentiles" and begins a new thought with the phrase "As he saith also in Osse." Neither Paul nor Hosea is talking about Gentiles as those who were "not my people."

Again, based on the evidence.



The title of the book is "to the Hebrews." The book is written to the Hebrews. It concerns issues directly relevant to the Hebrew people and indirectly related to the rest of us. When he says that there remains a rest for the people of God, he indicates the sons of Jacob.

Again, based on the evidence. :)Just wanted to say "thumbs up" from me. Thanks for your reply.

wpm
Oct 16th 2008, 04:35 AM
Let's not make a hasty generalization. :) Peter and Paul each acknowledge the fact that Peter is the Apostle to the Jews and Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles. Given this, it is not surprising that Peter writes letters to the Jews and Paul writes letters to the Gentiles.

[/font][/size]Now, if you have something to say specifically about the evidence I presented, I would be glad to hear it. Peter is the Apostle to the Jews and he is writing to the "diaspora", which refers to the sons of Jacob living abroad. He refers to his readers as "a royal priesthood", which is a direct quotation from Exodus 19 speaking about the sons of Jacob standing at the foot of Mt. Sinai.



It was easy. I just paid attention to the evidence.



Going back to look at Hosea we discover that Hosea is speaking, not about the Gentiles, but about the Northern Ten Tribes whom the Assyrians took into exile. Thus, we understand that Paul has finished his thought at the word "Gentiles" and begins a new thought with the phrase "As he saith also in Osse." Neither Paul nor Hosea is talking about Gentiles as those who were "not my people."

Again, based on the evidence.



The title of the book is "to the Hebrews." The book is written to the Hebrews. It concerns issues directly relevant to the Hebrew people and indirectly related to the rest of us. When he says that there remains a rest for the people of God, he indicates the sons of Jacob.

Again, based on the evidence. :)

Sorry, your battle is with Scripture on this one. Contrary to what you say, there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ today. There is so much Scripture to rebut your dividing the body in two I don't know where to start.

The Bible says “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek” (Romans 10:12), “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28), and “there is neither Greek nor Jew” (Colossians 3:11). Christ has assuredly “put no difference between us and them” (Acts 15:9), “us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles” (Romans 9:24), because “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

There is no division in the body on ethnic grounds – none.

Whether we are Jew or Gentile, we who trust Jesus are equal and have one common faith. As Paul put it in Ephesians 4:4-6, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

Acts 10:34-35 confirms, “God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

Romans 3:22-23 speaks of “the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Paul asks in Romans 3:29-30, “Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

wpm
Oct 16th 2008, 04:58 AM
I know wpm is amil and I am pre trib, but I am going to agree with him, some what, on 1Pe 2:9-10 in regards to it applying to Gentiles or Jews, and the reason is (and I didn't go back and read all wpm's comments) but since, once in Christ, those in Christ be there is no Jew or Gentile, therefore, what applies to the Church, the Bride, applies to Jew and Gentile because both are neither except they are the Bride.

In other words, I believe there is Jews, there is Gentiles, and there is the Bride (Jews & Gentiles) so all letters written to those saved in Christ Jesus, after His death and resurrection apply to the Bride regardless of who wrote it and who (Jew or Gentile believers)they wrote it to. The context would be the application, for instance, though written to believers if it is regarding God's judgment on those who reject Christ, though it was written to believers it is obviouse the application is the judgment upon unbelievers.... and so on. I mean Jesus gave prophecies, all were to His followers as far as who He was speaking to, but that does not mean they apply to His followers, like the destruction of the temple in 70AD, while it obviously effected all there, it was a prophecy about the Jewish temple.

And I am hoping some of that made some bit of sense/came out right.

And I have already commented more directly to the "will all Israel be saved" issue so will not go there again.

Yep, it is good to see us on the same page on something. :pp

Merton
Oct 16th 2008, 08:09 AM
Rog,


"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah . . .

This word from God is in the future tense relative to Jeremiah's time. Therefore we know that God is going to make a covenant after Jeremiah's time, which is after Moses' time, which is after Abraham's time. Given that nothing can change or nullify 'A', and that God is going to make a covenant after 'A', then the New Covenant is NOT 'A'.

Let 'C' represent the New Covenant. Given Paul's argument then, we know that Gentiles are saved by 'A', which can not be changed or nullified by 'B'. We also know that 'C' comes after both 'A' and 'B' and is new in time relative to 'A'. Therefore 'C' is not 'A' and can not change 'A'.

Thus, Gentiles are saved based on 'A', which is different than both 'B' and 'C'. Gentiles are not saved based on 'C' because 'A' was sufficient in and of itself as Paul argues.

This is so clearly incorrect.

Using your method of description--

Both believers of Jews and Gentiles are now in covenant C. Heb.ch 8.

There is no further covenant, or change of covenant or select application of covenant C to any people of any ethnetical identity. Heb.13

A, is the promise of establishing C and they are not two separate covenants. Gal.ch 3.

B is obsolete and was temporary until C was established through Christs death burial and resurrection. Christ, being obedient to the old, and having it die with Him.


Try reading the word gentiles as being nations instead, where among them the scatterings of the past now dwell as various ethneties.( mixed)

The attempt to put a nation together by mans works will fail to fulfill Goids promises, and I see no reason given in the Bible that God would honor it, but I see reasons that He will not.

It does not matter at all where believers live or what race they are from. In fact it is unwise for true believers to be moving to Israel or for that matter any who will believe in the short future, because the true believer will have to flee from there.

Why would God gather a people there, when He is telling them that it will be unsafe for them and for them to go from there according to Mat.ch 24 and Zech ch 14:2, until Christ arrives.



Merton.

wpm
Oct 16th 2008, 02:02 PM
Hi Mark,

I was explaining to John, Paul's argument in the epistle to the Galatians in which he says that the basis for our salvation is a covenant God made with Abraham 430 years prior to the inauguration of the God/Israel covenant at Mt. Sinai. For reference I'll quote the passage.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"-- in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is [only] a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [referring] to many, but [rather] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

In summary, Paul builds a case for his assertion that God does not require Gentiles to put themselves under the law in order to obtain salvation, or what he calls "the blessing of Abraham." He draws an analogy between human contract law and the promise God made to Abraham. Just as a man is not able to set aside a contract or add conditions to it after the fact, the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, was not intended to nullify or add conditions to God's promise to Abraham.

Now, in order for his argument to remain tight and without error, we understand that Christ's act of redemption on the cross was anticipated in God's promise to Abraham. His redemptive act was part of the original promise to Abraham.

John asserted that the New Covenant itself was also part of the promise God made to Abraham. I don't think it is because God's word to Israel through the prophet Jeremiah that he would make a New Covenant with Israel came after the Mt. Sinai covenant and explicitly applies to the children of the fathers that came out of Egypt.

The basis for Gentile salvation is a covenant God made with Abraham, which predates the Mt. Sinai Covenant by 430 years and predates the cross by much longer. According to Paul, God's covenant with Abraham will not be nullified or changed. Thus, our salvation is not based on a New Covenant, but on a pre-existing covenant, which can not be changed or nullified and that existed hundreds of years prior to the cross.

Let 'A' represent God's covenant with Abraham and let 'B' represent God's Covenant with the nation of Israel. Paul argues that 'B' can not nullify or change 'A'.

Next, let's look at the passage in Jeremiah.

"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah . . .

This word from God is in the future tense relative to Jeremiah's time. Therefore we know that God is going to make a covenant after Jeremiah's time, which is after Moses' time, which is after Abraham's time. Given that nothing can change or nullify 'A', and that God is going to make a covenant after 'A', then the New Covenant is NOT 'A'.

Let 'C' represent the New Covenant. Given Paul's argument then, we know that Gentiles are saved by 'A', which can not be changed or nullified by 'B'. We also know that 'C' comes after both 'A' and 'B' and is new in time relative to 'A'. Therefore 'C' is not 'A' and can not change 'A'.

Thus, Gentiles are saved based on 'A', which is different than both 'B' and 'C'. Gentiles are not saved based on 'C' because 'A' was sufficient in and of itself as Paul argues.

Your latest illustration is built upon a faulty premise. You seem to start with your precondition and then write your illustration to fit your view. This is unsafe and I believe does an injustice to Scripture. Your theory is constructed upon the mistaken belief of perpetual division. This is not the case or biblical reality. God come to unite men not divide them as you do. You discriminate between the two, whereas God makes them one through the blood of Jesus. You view and divide men in relation to their natural birth, God views men in relation to their spiritual birth or not. Men are either saved or lost. Abraham was like us - uncircumcision - when God first covenanted with him. He is the father (or representative) of all believers (both Jews and Gentiles). This agrement was made with both circumcision and uncircumcision in view. It was basically man's salvation that was in view. The people of God have always included Gentiles (or uncircumcision). You suddenly forbid Gentiles under the new covenant, which is greater and more embracing, from becoming participants. This is so wrong!

Jew and Gentile were placed under the Abrahamic covenant. We are the true lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

ABRAHAM

At the age of 75 God gave Abraham an explicit command accompanied by an awesome promise, which is still being fulfilled today by the Church throughout the world.

Genesis 12:1-3 records, “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

God in His Sovereignty had specially chosen Abraham to be the spiritual Father of the faith. Through his wife Sarah he would receive a seed that would be blessed of all nations.

Again in Genesis 17:5-6, God says, “a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.”

Genesis 18:18 says, “And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?”

Genesis 22:15-18 states, “And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”

HIS WIFE

Genesis 17:15-21 records, “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her … but my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.”

ISAAC

The Lord said unto Isaac, in Genesis 26:4, “And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”

We are of the new Jacob spiritually Israel. Notwithstanding, we are of the chosen seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is a spiritual and a natural seed. Are you now arguing that Jacob is not of the promised seed? We are of that same promised seed.

JACOB

Genesis 28:14 says, “And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”

Genesis 35:10-12 says, “And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins.”

When Old Testament prophecies speak of the blessing and favour of God in relation to “all nations,” they are concentrated upon, and restricted to, those who are in covenant with God – the Israel of God, and who are the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith.

God in His sovereignty had specially chosen Abraham to be the spiritual father of the faith. Through his wife Sarah he would receive a seed that would be blessed of all nations. Those outside of that covenant are under wrath. Therefore, when God reveals that His blessing would spread to include “all nations” or “many nation” to such a degree that they would enter the lineage of Abraham it certainly wasn’t in any other way than through His only vehicle created to accommodate them in all ages the Church – the Israel of God.

We today are the children of promise along with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We are their spiritual offspring. This is the only people that matter. These are God's chosen people. Their natural offspring mean nothing as John the Baptist and Christ showed.

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 02:12 PM
Going back to look at Hosea we discover that Hosea is speaking, not about the Gentiles, but about the Northern Ten Tribes whom the Assyrians took into exile. Thus, we understand that Paul has finished his thought at the word "Gentiles" and begins a new thought with the phrase "As he saith also in Osse." Neither Paul nor Hosea is talking about Gentiles as those who were "not my people."

Again, based on the evidence.I completely disagree.

Romans 9
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

It could not be more clear here that Paul is pointing out that God has called Gentiles as well as Jews. He doesn't change the subject in verse 25. He expands on what he had just said in the previous verses. He is saying that God would call them (the Gentiles) His people who were not His people before. That can't apply to Jews. They were always His people. Clearly, the people who were once not the people of God were Gentiles. Paul explains this further here:

Ephesians 2
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

It can't be more clear. The Gentiles were once not the people of God. They were "without God in the world". But because of the blood of Christ, Gentile believers are "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God". Gentiles were once not a people, but now through the blood of Christ and faith in Him they too are the people of God.


The title of the book is "to the Hebrews." The book is written to the Hebrews. It concerns issues directly relevant to the Hebrew people and indirectly related to the rest of us. When he says that there remains a rest for the people of God, he indicates the sons of Jacob.

Again, based on the evidence. :)All believers are the people of God.

Galatians 3
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There 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.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 03:01 PM
It could not be more clear here that Paul is pointing out that God has called Gentiles as well as Jews. He doesn't change the subject in verse 25. He expands on what he had just said in the previous verses. He is saying that God would call them (the Gentiles) His people who were not His people before. That can't apply to Jews. They were always His people.

John, I agree with verse 24, that God has Gentile vessels of mercy. So, the issue between us is whether Paul has started a new thought, or picked up a previous thought in verse 25. Let's go back to Hosea and look at what Hosea actually says.

Hosea's prophecy deals with the sons of Jacob after they had split up into two kingdoms; the Northern Kingdom, consisting of ten tribes, and the Southern Kingdom, consisting of two tribes. In Hosea's time, the Northern tribes were called "Israel" and the Southern Tribes were called "Judah."

In Chapter one, God commands Hosea to name his children to indicate what God is about to do. We pick up in Chapter one verse six.

Then she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. And the LORD said to him, "Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel, that I would ever forgive them. But I will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by the LORD their God, and will not deliver them by bow, sword, battle, horses or horsemen." When she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said, "Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people and I am not your God."


The prefix "Lo- " is a negative. And so the name "Lo-ruhamah" means "no compassion" and the name "Lo-ammi" means "not a people". Hosea and his wife named these two children, as God commanded, to indicate that the house of Israel would no longer be God's people. But this is a temporary status as God says in the next chapter of Hosea.

This is what I mean by evidence. As we go to look at various passages, which the Apostles quote, we get a better understanding of how they use the Bible to make their case.

If we read the rest of chapter two, it becomes clear that God is speaking to the house of Israel, the ten northern tribes, those he said would not be his people in chapter one,

"It will come about in that day that I will respond," declares the LORD. I will respond to the heavens, and they will respond to the earth, And the earth will respond to the grain, to the new wine and to the oil, And they will respond to Jezreel. "I will sow her for Myself in the land I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, 'You are My people!' And they will say, 'You are my God!'"

These are not Gentiles. God is speaking to the house of Israel who became "not my people" in chapter one, but "in that day" will once again become "my people."

LookingUp
Oct 16th 2008, 03:05 PM
Acts 10:34-35 confirms, “God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

Just taking this one point...

This states that IF I fear God and work righteousness, THEN I'll be accepted by Him. I thought I am accepted by Him when I confess that Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

Do you interpret it differently?


Paul asks in Romans 3:29-30,
“Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”
Is there any significance here to the choice of words... "by faith" and "through faith"?

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 03:34 PM
John, I agree with verse 24, that God has Gentile vessels of mercy. So, the issue between us is whether Paul has started a new thought, or picked up a previous thought in verse 25. Let's go back to Hosea and look at what Hosea actually says.

Hosea's prophecy deals with the sons of Jacob after they had split up into two kingdoms; the Northern Kingdom, consisting of ten tribes, and the Southern Kingdom, consisting of two tribes. In Hosea's time, the Northern tribes were called "Israel" and the Southern Tribes were called "Judah."

In Chapter one, God commands Hosea to name his children to indicate what God is about to do. We pick up in Chapter one verse six.

Then she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. And the LORD said to him, "Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel, that I would ever forgive them. But I will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by the LORD their God, and will not deliver them by bow, sword, battle, horses or horsemen." When she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said, "Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people and I am not your God."


The prefix "Lo- " is a negative. And so the name "Lo-ruhamah" means "no compassion" and the name "Lo-ammi" means "not a people". Hosea and his wife named these two children, as God commanded, to indicate that the house of Israel would no longer be God's people. But this is a temporary status as God says in the next chapter of Hosea.

This is what I mean by evidence. As we go to look at various passages, which the Apostles quote, we get a better understanding of how they use the Bible to make their case.

If we read the rest of chapter two, it becomes clear that God is speaking to the house of Israel, the ten northern tribes, those he said would not be his people in chapter one,

"It will come about in that day that I will respond," declares the LORD. I will respond to the heavens, and they will respond to the earth, And the earth will respond to the grain, to the new wine and to the oil, And they will respond to Jezreel. "I will sow her for Myself in the land I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, 'You are My people!' And they will say, 'You are my God!'"

These are not Gentiles. God is speaking to the house of Israel who became "not my people" in chapter one, but "in that day" will once again become "my people."Whether you like it or not, Paul clearly applies those OT passages to Gentiles as well. I'm not going to argue with Paul's teaching. Do you not believe that Gentiles were once "without God in the world" and are no more "without God in the world" and therefore were once not the people of God but are now the people of God through the blood of Christ and faith in Him?

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 03:39 PM
Just taking this one point...

This states that IF I fear God and work righteousness, THEN I'll be accepted by Him. I thought I am accepted by Him when I confess that Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

Do you interpret it differently?No one can work righteousness unless Jesus is their Lord and Savior.

John 15:5
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

So, that passage is actually saying that anyone from any nation is acceptable to God if they have put their faith and trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior.



Is there any significance here to the choice of words... "by faith" and "through faith"?No. They mean the same thing.

wpm
Oct 16th 2008, 03:40 PM
Just taking this one point...

This states that IF I fear God and work righteousness, THEN I'll be accepted by Him. I thought I am accepted by Him when I confess that Jesus is my Lord and Savior.

Do you interpret it differently?


Is there any significance here to the choice of words... "by faith" and "through faith"?

First, salvation has always been by grace through faith. Whether it is "by faith" or "through faith" makes no difference. It is the same meaning. The phrase "by faith" comes up 37 times in Scripture (Heb 11 is a good example), "through faith" 15. Salvation automatically produces righteousness, but it is not the cause of our salvation, it is the consequence. That is what it is saying.

Ephesians 2:8-9 covers it all: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

wpm
Oct 16th 2008, 03:43 PM
John, I agree with verse 24, that God has Gentile vessels of mercy. So, the issue between us is whether Paul has started a new thought, or picked up a previous thought in verse 25. Let's go back to Hosea and look at what Hosea actually says.

Hosea's prophecy deals with the sons of Jacob after they had split up into two kingdoms; the Northern Kingdom, consisting of ten tribes, and the Southern Kingdom, consisting of two tribes. In Hosea's time, the Northern tribes were called "Israel" and the Southern Tribes were called "Judah."

In Chapter one, God commands Hosea to name his children to indicate what God is about to do. We pick up in Chapter one verse six.

Then she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. And the LORD said to him, "Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel, that I would ever forgive them. But I will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by the LORD their God, and will not deliver them by bow, sword, battle, horses or horsemen." When she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said, "Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people and I am not your God."


The prefix "Lo- " is a negative. And so the name "Lo-ruhamah" means "no compassion" and the name "Lo-ammi" means "not a people". Hosea and his wife named these two children, as God commanded, to indicate that the house of Israel would no longer be God's people. But this is a temporary status as God says in the next chapter of Hosea.

This is what I mean by evidence. As we go to look at various passages, which the Apostles quote, we get a better understanding of how they use the Bible to make their case.

If we read the rest of chapter two, it becomes clear that God is speaking to the house of Israel, the ten northern tribes, those he said would not be his people in chapter one,

"It will come about in that day that I will respond," declares the LORD. I will respond to the heavens, and they will respond to the earth, And the earth will respond to the grain, to the new wine and to the oil, And they will respond to Jezreel. "I will sow her for Myself in the land I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, 'You are My people!' And they will say, 'You are my God!'"

These are not Gentiles. God is speaking to the house of Israel who became "not my people" in chapter one, but "in that day" will once again become "my people."

Paul said in Romans 9:22-26,“What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee(Hosea 2:23), I will call them my people, which were not my people (the Gentiles); and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

In perfect fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, the Gentiles have been brought into full union and communion with God, and have become a part of the spiritual seed of the righteous, through Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The spiritual blessings and promises that were therefore nearly exclusively restricted to natural Israelites have now been imparted to the Gentiles by faith. The Church is:

1. The “children of the living God.”
2. His “beloved” possession.
3. And are intimately known by God as “my people.”

jesuslover1968
Oct 16th 2008, 03:44 PM
I don't understand your objection. There are 2 Israels, one known as "the election" and the other as the "blinded." They are found throughout Romans 11. Romans 11:7 asks: "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."


Two Israels? I HAVE been gone a long time...:hmm:

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 03:47 PM
Two Israels? I HAVE been gone a long time...:hmm:Welcome back. How do you interpret the following passage:

Romans 9
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

They are not all Israel #1 which are of Israel #2. Two Israels. Seems clear to me. One is based on being the spiritual seed (descendants) and one is based on being the natural physical seed.

Richard H
Oct 16th 2008, 04:32 PM
'Just as there is man - after the flesh.
AND man - after the Spirit.
In this case: they happen to have the same blood origin and country.





I think...:rolleyes:

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 04:34 PM
Welcome back. How do you interpret the following passage:

Romans 9
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

They are not all Israel #1 which are of Israel #2. Two Israels. Seems clear to me. One is based on being the spiritual seed (descendants) and one is based on being the natural physical seed.

But why is it so far fetched to believe that Isreal #1, ethnic Jews, could have prophecy in the Bible, telling us what God's future plans are for them? How does that change Israel #2, when the prophecies simply tell us that at some point, Israel #1 will become part of Israel #2? And that will happen the same way that the Gentiles became grafted into Israel #2.

It is simply prophecy, God telling us what is going to happen. It is not a matter of one being more special or one getting saved by ethnicity, but simply God telling us, what is going to happen, a glimps of His purpose, or one of them.

markdrums
Oct 16th 2008, 04:57 PM
But why is it so far fetched to believe that Isreal #1, ethnic Jews, could have prophecy in the Bible, telling us what God's future plans are for them? How does that change Israel #2, when the prophecies simply tell us that at some point, Israel #1 will become part of Israel #2? And that will happen the same way that the Gentiles became grafted into Israel #2.

It is simply prophecy, God telling us what is going to happen. It is not a matter of one being more special or one getting saved by ethnicity, but simply God telling us, what is going to happen, a glimps of His purpose, or one of them.


Ya know, I understand what you're saying. I definitely agree that it's "not a matter of one being more special or one getting saved by ethnicity".
What some of us disagree on is, whether or not God has a separate plan for the "Nation of / Ethnic Israel" vs."TRUE Israel", which is ALL believers, regardless of birthplace, blood lineage, or ethnicity.

That's why when we read, "They are not all Israel who are OF Israel" we should understand that Just because you're BORN there & are a Jew, that doesn't automatically make you a part of "ISRAEL" in the context of God's plan & promise.

There are several places where we find that IN CHRIST there is no distinction between us. I'm pretty sure they've all been shared, so I'll refrain from posting them.

;)

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 05:00 PM
Ya know, I understand what you're saying. I definitely agree that it's "not a matter of one being more special or one getting saved by ethnicity".
What some of us disagree on is, whether or not God has a separate plan for the "Nation of / Ethnic Israel" vs."TRUE Israel", which is ALL believers, regardless of birthplace, blood lineage, or ethnicity.

That's why when we read, "They are not all Israel who are OF Israel" we should understand that Just because you're BORN there & are a Jew, that doesn't automatically make you a part of "ISRAEL" in the context of God's plan & promise.

There are several places where we find that IN CHRIST there is no distinction between us. I'm pretty sure they've all been shared, so I'll refrain from posting them.

;)

I agree, once in Christ there is not Jew or Gentile, however, talking about Israel #1, we are talking about ones not yet in Christ and there fore Jewish.

I guess I just don't see it any differently then God having a plan for whoever, be it a Gentile, a Jew, or the entirety of Israel #1.

Anyway, I do love you guys, but this is a merrigoround and I really keep unintentionally getting involved. :lol:

Richard H
Oct 16th 2008, 05:08 PM
It always confuses me.

When people talk about “Israel”:
Are they talking about the country?
Are they talking about the people in general?
Are they talking about Israel as in the “whole house of Israel” (Jacob)?
Are they talking about the northern kingdom – the “house of Israel”?
Are they talking about Israel meaning “Jews” – the people of Israel during the time of Jesus and even today?
Are they even speaking of “Israel” meaning the church? "Spiritual Israel"

I’m sure they’re a few I forgot about.

It always confuses me - as I sometimes think people talk about “Israel”, but are actually speaking of apples and pineapples. :rolleyes:

Richard

markdrums
Oct 16th 2008, 05:12 PM
I agree, once in Christ there is not Jew or Gentile, however, talking about Israel #1, we are talking about ones not yet in Christ and there fore Jewish.

I guess I just don't see it any differently then God having a plan for whoever, be it a Gentile, a Jew, or the entirety of Israel #1.

Anyway, I do love you guys, but this is a merrigoround and I really keep unintentionally getting involved. :lol:

LOL! Indeed it is!
:lol:
Round n round n round we go!!!

I guess my question is HOW would the nation of Israel / Jews / ethnic Israel be saved in a different way that we are? (By the substitute sacrifice made through Jesus.)
Maybe I'm inadvertently combining two entirely different issues here, but it seems like some people think that Jews will have a chance to "make right" with God through a re-instituted sacrifical system in a new temple....? And that's part of the separate plan..... ?

(Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if I AM combining two different things here.)

That's where I see one of the biggest problems in the whole "2 distinct plans for 2 distinct people" viewpoint.

I also realize the "temple" subject is a whole can o' worms in it's own right, so I'm not trying to derail the main topic here.
;)

**Sorry to keep spinning you on this ride!!!
:hug:

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 05:28 PM
LOL! Indeed it is!
:lol:
Round n round n round we go!!!

I guess my question is HOW would the nation of Israel / Jews / ethnic Israel be saved in a different way that we are? (By the substitute sacrifice made through Jesus.)
Maybe I'm inadvertently combining two entirely different issues here, but it seems like some people think that Jews will have a chance to "make right" with God through a re-instituted sacrifical system in a new temple....? And that's part of the separate plan..... ?

(Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if I AM combining two different things here.)

That's where I see one of the biggest problems in the whole "2 distinct plans for 2 distinct people" viewpoint.

I also realize the "temple" subject is a whole can o' worms in it's own right, so I'm not trying to derail the main topic here.
;)

**Sorry to keep spinning you on this ride!!!
:hug:

But I think that is where some of the confusion comes in, at least for and with most of us that believe "all of Israel (#1) will be saved. Is that it is not by the temple sacrifices that they get saved, it is by finally accepting and believing Jesus fulfilled the promised Messiah. The problem is not that the Jews reject the promise of a Messiah, they reject that Christ fulfilled that promise. Granted there are other details to that rejection but that is another thread, just one is, they do not think the Messiah will actually be God, but they believe a mere man. Thus that also explains their confusion with just what Jesus has done and accomplished on the Cross. But again, another thread and worse derail than the Millennial temple and or sacrifices.

There may be and I am sure probably are those who teach that a future Millennial temple sacrifice will save souls, I however am not one of them, just for the record.

With all that said, what I think helps me in some way with those issues of Eze and sacrifices is that in the NT, it is stated in different places that our lives are to be sacrifices to God (in a nut shell anyway). Like in one place Paul says he is being poured out as a sacrifice. Obviously Paul was not insinuating that to be a way of anyones salvation.

I think we need to get off the argument of "will future Millennial sacrifices save souls" issue, because simply, temple sacrifices never saved anyone's soul. From Adam to the last man, whoever that turnes out to be, is saved, it will have been through the atoning blood of Jesus. So what I am saying, is whatever the reason or purpose, if temple sacrifice is reinstituted in the Millennium, it will not be for the atonment of sin and eternal salvation.

Its like, "we will know them by their fruit", is our fruit not also a form of sacrifice, of obedience? But our fruit does not save us, it is a reflection of us already having been saved.

markdrums
Oct 16th 2008, 05:47 PM
But I think that is where some of the confusion comes in, at least for and with most of us that believe "all of Israel (#1) will be saved. Is that it is not by the temple sacrifices that they get saved, it is by finally accepting and believing Jesus fulfilled the promised Messiah. The problem is not that the Jews reject the promise of a Messiah, they reject that Christ fulfilled that promise. Granted there are other details to that rejection but that is another thread, just one is, they do not think the Messiah will actually be God, but they believe a mere man. Thus that also explains their confusion with just what Jesus has done and accomplished on the Cross. But again, another thread and worse derail than the Millennial temple and or sacrifices.

There may be and I am sure probably are those who teach that a future Millennial temple sacrifice will save souls, I however am not one of them, just for the record.

With all that said, what I think helps me in some way with those issues of Eze and sacrifices is that in the NT, it is stated in different places that our lives are to be sacrifices to God (in a nut shell anyway). Like in one place Paul says he is being poured out as a sacrifice. Obviously Paul was not insinuating that to be a way of anyones salvation.

I think we need to get off the argument of "will future Millennial sacrifices save souls" issue, because simply, temple sacrifices never saved anyone's soul. From Adam to the last man, whoever that turnes out to be, is saved, it will have been through the atoning blood of Jesus. So what I am saying, is whatever the reason or purpose, if temple sacrifice is reinstituted in the Millennium, it will not be for the atonment of sin and eternal salvation.

Its like, "we will know them by their fruit", is our fruit not also a form of sacrifice, of obedience? But our fruit does not save us, it is a reflection of us already having been saved.


That really explains a LOT concerning your stance. I wasn't aware of the details of your viewpoint until now.
We DO agree on some BIG issues, that I would have otherwise not realized.
WOOHOO!! :hug:

Anyway, Yes, there are 2-3 entirely separate threads in what you said.

That's all for now.... I've got actual WORK to do here at work!
Heehee!

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 05:55 PM
That really explains a LOT concerning your stance. I wasn't aware of the details of your viewpoint until now.
We DO agree on some BIG issues, that I would have otherwise not realized.
WOOHOO!! :hug:

Anyway, Yes, there are 2-3 entirely separate threads in what you said.

That's all for now.... I've got actual WORK to do here at work!
Heehee!

Hope you have a good day at work, don't get yourself in hot water.

In the mean time I will post a bunch of stuff to drive you crazy because you cant respond. :rofl:

third hero
Oct 16th 2008, 06:20 PM
That is not what Jesus taught. Unlike you, He recognised the natural and spiritual application of these titles. Christ is seen challenging the religious Jews of His day, in John 8, saying, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

To which they responded, “We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (vv 32-33).

Jesus replied, “I know that ye are Abraham's (natural) seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.”

The Jews then hypocritically declared, “Abraham is our father”(v39).

Whereupon Christ responded, “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father… If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (vv 39-44).

This would be totally contradictory if it wasn't for the fact there is a natural and spiritual children of Abraham. The Christ-rejecting religious Jews were of the natural seed, but not the spiritual, we Gentile believer are of the spiritual seed but not the natural.

What was my quote that you were rebuffing when you wrote this?


No. Natural Israel is the seed of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. The Sons of Abraham include the sons of Ishmael, most of which we really do not know what became of them. When the term, natural Israel comes about, we have to go back to the OT to see whom is selected as ethnic Israel. IN Genesis 49, we see that the children of Israel are the 12 tribes that Jacob desribes there, a fallacy that can not be overlooked.

And what was I rejecting when I wrote this?


Who are natural Israel?

The natural descendents "of Abraham." They are the Hebrews, "the circumcision" or the "Jews." However, this is not the true seed. This is not the seed of promise. It is the natural or fleshly seed. While many in the OT were of this physical lineage, natural birth never rendered a man justified. That came by grace through faith.

IN your attempt to prove that natural Israel was not the seed of Abraham, you said that they were. This is what I rejected, and shown you the reason for my rejection, which by what you have said in the first quote only PROVED my position. You are right, Jesus rejected the notion that the sons of Jacob, natural Isael, were NOT the sons of Abraham. And He based that on their lack of faith. Thank you for proving my point.


We are the true children of Abraham

This was never in question. This is just one example of the red-herring tactics you use to justify opposing the truth that I am presenting.


How many times to I need to fight this battle and furnish you with explicit Scripture? This is getting wearisome. If Scripture won't do it what will? Contrary to what you say spiritual Jews belong to spiritual Israel. Also, in conflict with your opinion, Scripture proves that this chosen nation is the true circumcision.

We are the true circumcision

Romans 2:25-29 supports this, saying, “if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit.”

Paul explains in Philippians 3:3, speaking of the Church, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

Colossians 2:11-14 declares, “ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross"

We are the true Jews

Romans 2:28-29 plainly states, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.”

You can't fight with Scripture.

So, we are the real citizens of Israel. Go ahead and tell the Sanhedrin that, and se how far that goes. Go ahead and tell the officials in Israel that, and see how far that goes. You attempt to merge "spiritualization" with the physical, and thus produce the exact errors that I was warning about in previous posts. We are members of the Israel of God. Our home is the Jerusalem from above, the New Jerusalem, which will come upojn a new earth after the dinful ones are done away with. There is a drastic difference than saying that "We are the true Jews". Paul never made that connotation, for Paul, as shown in Romans 10:1 knew the difference.

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Romans 10:1-3

Again, if we go by your definition of saying that when Paul is talking about Israel or the Jews, He is always talking about the "Israel of God", then what say you about this statement, which happens one chapter BEFORE the chapter in dispute. Is he still talking about the Israel that are not of the flesh, (Spiritual Israel, or the Israel of God)? IF that is the case, then we are truly a woeful bunch, since being a member of Israel, according to your interpretation of Romans 11:26, which would apply here in Romans 10:1-3, and being a member of Israel is not enough to be saved. (We call this, missing the entire point). Again, this is the unintended consequence of your interpretation of scripture that I was talking about.



Yes, there is an elect remnant and a blinded party.


If there is a split in Israel, and the split is due to faith, then we have no choice but to conclude that Paul can talk about both factions, which HE DOES IN ROMANS 11! Your problem is that you do not want to believe that God is going to bring all of the remnant of Israel back to Him. You want to call that, "God is being a respecter of persons", or " God is making special accomodations for one ethnic group without doing the same for the other", both of which I totally reject. I believe that all of the OT prophecies will come to pass in the way that they are written, devoid of the "spiritualizations" that you attempt to superimpose into it. Because of that, scriptures like Zechariah 12, Zechariah 14, Ezekiel 37-39, and Psalms 2, have their fulfillment in the future, in a way that all men can see. NO figurations required. Like I have said before, it is not about God respecting a notion over another, (althyough if He did that, He would be justified, knowing that HE established Israel, and by doing so, Israel would STILL be HIS responsibility (Exodus 32:9-14)



Amils go with the Holy Spirit on this one. We have repeatedly showed you this fulfilment in John 19:30-37. You have repeatedly rejected this.

I am truly surprised that this was not erased by one of the moderators. This statement here is the exact statement that I talked about in
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=143387. Invoking the Holy Spirit in places where you are absolutely in error is something that I believe that you, wpm, must stop doing, because it is tantamount to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, with GRAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Seriously, how can you say that "amils go with the Holy Spirit" when what I have shown you is directly from scripture, which is something that the Holy Spirit has shown me?


Moreover, this does not prove that salvation has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. Moreover, this whole thread is not about God favoring one ethnic group over another. It is about God honoring His Word, by doing exactly what He said He was going to do, long before Jesus walked the earth and Paul writing Romans. It is written that God will make reconciliation for Israel's iniquity, (Daniel 9:24)something that the Israel of God never had to worry about, since we were washed by the blood of the Lamb BEFORE we became members of the Israel of God. It is also written that they shall mourn and be bitter over the God they have pierced, which is not recorded anywhere in scriptures to have happened. (Zechariah 12:10-14). 3000 people coming to the Lord does not all Israel make.(comparing the event at Penticost to the actual prophecy in Zechariah 12 and 14) Zechariah 12 is clear. This repentence will happen when Jerusalem is attacked, and God saves the remnant from the sword of the nations that attacked them. At Penticost, Jerusalem was not attacked, and at 70AD, not all of the remnant mourned over the Lord whom they pierced.(in fact, most of them hardened their hearts against the LOrd at 70AD, and thus led to their 1800 years of exile.) Thus Zechariah 12 will find it's fulfillment in the future.(And will continue to be until either all Israel repents of their sin of rejection of the Lord, which will happen after Jerusalem is attacked, or you show me any historical document that shows that all Israel has already done what I know they have not!)
Seriously, when I speak about speculation, I sy it first and foremost. When I speak what the Lord shows me, including the quote just above here, I do not bend a digle word, knowing that the One who leads us to all truth has shown me all of this.


Another white elephant!!! This is becoming a habit.

So everyone is clear here, here is what he is calling a white elephant.


According to your statement here, I am led to believe that you believe that the Ephesians quote basically tells us that we are now BOTH natural and spiritual Israel by means of faith. I disagree. Paul is talking about both Jew and Gentile becoming the children of the Promise, being of the household of God, which is not to say that they which were uncircumcised are now a part of natural Israel. I'd say to get this scripture to say where you want it to say, leaps and bounds have to be done to it in order to stretch this scripture into the "all of the believers are NOW children of Jacob".

Here is why I wrote this prose.


This passage speaks of God bringing natural Israelis together with natural Gentiles into the exact same standing and privileges. In fact, they are classed in this reading today as “one body” and “one new man.” How can this be? What are the grounds for this union? Is it speaking of a natural or spiritual reality? There can be no doubt by the clarity and straightforwardness of this narrative that Jews and Gentiles are unified together in this passage on the sole grounds of “the blood of Christ.” This is the only means of cleansing and freedom God knows or accepts. A Gentile is said to be united to the true Israelite. They are said to be “fellowcitizens.”

According to your own words, natural Israelis and natural Gentiles are now members of the same nation. You wrote that, not me. There is nothing "white elephant" about it. You want to merge Spiritual Israel, otherwise known as the Israel of God, to that of natural Israel, and by doing so, replacing the blinded ones with the union of the election and the Gentiles. This is absolutely incorrect, and whether you call it a w"white elephant" or not, it will not change the FACT that the statements that you made above are incorrect.


Until you acknowledge Paul's detailed introductory definition of "all Israel" you will keep repeating this mistake. Let us establish what "all Israel" is from Paul's introductory remarks in Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”


IF what you say is correct, then tell me, does that also apply to Romans 10:1-3?

markdrums
Oct 16th 2008, 06:29 PM
Hope you have a good day at work, don't get yourself in hot water.

In the mean time I will post a bunch of stuff to drive you crazy because you cant respond. :rofl:
Nice........

:lol:


I guess I'll just pop on from time to time & keep an eye on things!


But before I click "submit"... let me throw this out there for you:
When we read That there's no disctinction between Jew & Greek, doesn't that make you wonder why there would be 2 different, distinct plans for 2 distinct people???
:hmm:

If we're all "the same" in Christ, wouldn't we also be part of the same plan?


;)

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 06:29 PM
But why is it so far fetched to believe that Isreal #1, ethnic Jews, could have prophecy in the Bible, telling us what God's future plans are for them? How does that change Israel #2, when the prophecies simply tell us that at some point, Israel #1 will become part of Israel #2? And that will happen the same way that the Gentiles became grafted into Israel #2.Oops, I think you read it wrong. You have the Israels backwards. I designated Israel #1 as true Israel and Israel #2 as the nation of Israel. They are not all true Israel (Israel #1) who are of the nation of Israel (Israel #2).

Tell me, what do you believe Paul meant when he said "in Isaac shall thy seed be called"? And who are the children of the promise that are counted for the seed? Only believers who are natural descendants or all believers regardless of nationality or ethnicity? Read Galatians 3 and 4 and find out for yourself.


It is simply prophecy, God telling us what is going to happen. It is not a matter of one being more special or one getting saved by ethnicity, but simply God telling us, what is going to happen, a glimps of His purpose, or one of them.Of course, we happen to disagree on what we believe God is telling us that is going to happen, so I'm not seeing your point here. We both believe what God has prophesied will happen. We just can't seem to agree on what that is in some cases. :)

third hero
Oct 16th 2008, 06:33 PM
Since the Lord won't save Israel until after His return your thread is pointless.

Show me your evidence. I'll show you mine first.

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1811899&postcount=45
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1811919&postcount=46
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1811928&postcount=47

ANd please, when you are trying to prove that I am wrong, do not use Tim LaHAye for reference, because he doesn ot know what he is talking about. And oh, BTW, I know that dispensationalism goes aqgainst what I have said, but like I have said, I believe that dispensationalism is flawed AT BEST.

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 06:47 PM
Nice........

:lol:


I guess I'll just pop on from time to time & keep an eye on things!


But before I click "submit"... let me throw this out there for you:
When we read That there's no disctinction between Jew & Greek, doesn't that make you wonder why there would be 2 different, distinct plans for 2 distinct people???
:hmm:

If we're all "the same" in Christ, wouldn't we also be part of the same plan?


;)

But we are all apart of His plan, and He has a purpose for each one of us. Him having one purpose for you, and another for me, makes neither of us no less or no more part of His plan.

First they (all Israel-whoever and whatever that encompasses) are saved the same way as every other saved soul through out mans history, through Christ. And second, if there is reinstitued sacrificial system, for whatever reason God has, (I don't pretend to grasp that). but would it not be done out of obedience, simply because God said so. Just as we strive to be obedient in all things.

The thing is, animal sacrifices never washed a man clean and made him righteous, or could pay the dept any man owed for sin. Obedience, repentence and faith are what God wants, then and now and in the future. Only by faith can man worship in spirit, that was true then as it is now as it will be in the future.

But I just believe that there is support for the Millennial reign of Christ, and that Eze talks of sacrifices, but I won't pretend to grasp it all. I do believe there is support that the Millennial reign will certainly be totally different than what you and I know now, under the governments of nations and men.

Anyway, I'm rambling, since I know you are trapped at work. http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k204/qdove/photos/th_gtoungue.gif

third hero
Oct 16th 2008, 06:50 PM
Ya know, I understand what you're saying. I definitely agree that it's "not a matter of one being more special or one getting saved by ethnicity".
What some of us disagree on is, whether or not God has a separate plan for the "Nation of / Ethnic Israel" vs."TRUE Israel", which is ALL believers, regardless of birthplace, blood lineage, or ethnicity.

That's why when we read, "They are not all Israel who are OF Israel" we should understand that Just because you're BORN there & are a Jew, that doesn't automatically make you a part of "ISRAEL" in the context of God's plan & promise.

There are several places where we find that IN CHRIST there is no distinction between us. I'm pretty sure they've all been shared, so I'll refrain from posting them.

;)

The issue was never the two covenants thing, since I never advocated such a thing, ever. The issue is the annexing of ethnic Israel into the Israel of God. Those who attempt to blur the issue are those who are attempting to say that when we, (those who believe that Israel shall be saved at some point before the Lord's return), are somehow saying that God is creating another covenant in which Israel shall be saved. In other threads, I have conclusively proven that God is going to save all of Israel using the same covenant that He has wil the election of Israel and us.

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 06:53 PM
Oops, I think you read it wrong. You have the Israels backwards. I designated Israel #1 as true Israel and Israel #2 as the nation of Israel. They are not all true Israel (Israel #1) who are of the nation of Israel (Israel #2).

Tell me, what do you believe Paul meant when he said "in Isaac shall thy seed be called"? And who are the children of the promise that are counted for the seed? Only believers who are natural descendants or all believers regardless of nationality or ethnicity? Read Galatians 3 and 4 and find out for yourself.

Of course, we happen to disagree on what we believe God is telling us that is going to happen, so I'm not seeing your point here. We both believe what God has prophesied will happen. We just can't seem to agree on what that is in some cases. :)


Sorry, I did mix up the Israels.

And the las part about God and prophecy, I didn't mean to insinuate that we all didn't agree God gave the prophecy and that any of us didn't believe it. Certainly didn't mean to imply that at all. My point was that, God was not going to save Israel because of their ethnicity, but He was simply telling us that at some point, the Jews would "see the Light".

I really did not mean to imply that you or anyone else, (that disagrees with my views) didn't accept and believe all prophecy from God and the Bible. I apologize because it didn't even cross my mind that what I said came out that way.

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 06:56 PM
Whether you like it or not, Paul clearly applies those OT passages to Gentiles as well. I'm not going to argue with Paul's teaching.

I'm not asking you to argue with Paul's teaching. I'm asking you to take a look at the passages again to see that Paul is not applying a passage from Hosea 2, meant for the Northern Ten Tribes, to the Gentiles.

I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm trying to study the Bible together in a spirit of cooperation. And all I'm asking is, "Isn't this what Paul means to say?"


Do you not believe that Gentiles were once "without God in the world" and are no more "without God in the world" and therefore were once not the people of God but are now the people of God through the blood of Christ and faith in Him?


John, we need to be sensitive to those times when the Bible coins a word such as "a people", or "the people". To coin a word is to take an ordinary word such as "people" and give a new meaning with a slightly different connotation, usually for efficiency. The new word becomes pregnant with a rich and descriptive significance, well beyond it's ordinary meaning.

The word "people" simply refers to any group of human beings. And so, in the ordinary sense, all believers are the people of God. We are a group of people with at least one thing in common, we all believe that Jesus came in the flesh to reconcile us to God through his blood, and that those who repent and put their faith in Jesus stand to inherit eternal life.

But the Bible also uses the term "people" in a more technical sense, related to the members of a family line. The sons and daughters of Jacob, being the progeny of Jacob, are all part of his family line. According to Biblical history, God decided to have an overt relationship with a particular family line, choosing Jacobites over all the other families of the earth.

Here is just one example, we could multiply others, in which God refers to the sons of Jacob as the people of God.

"Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, `I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. `Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. `I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you [for] a possession; I am the Lord.' " Exodus 6:6-8

God is talking to Moses, commanding him to say to the progeny of Jacob living in Egypt, "I will take you for my people." In this instance, the term "people" is better understood as a chosen family line, rather than the more generic understanding "a bunch of human beings." God has chosen to have an overt relationship with a particular family line. Out of all the other family lines in the world, he will deal openly with Jacob's family line exclusively.

That's what it means to be the "people" of God according to the very technical and Biblical usage of the term. On the world stage as history records public, overt, events, the Jews are going to be known to the pages of history as "God's chosen family line." God has decided, for his purposes, to deal with this entire family as a unit. He marches them from Egypt to the wilderness, from the wilderness to the promised land, from the promised land into exile, and from exile back to the land etc. He openly converses with them as a group through his prophets, speaking to them directly concerning his plans and his will for them as a group and for mankind in general. God's temple was built in their country. God's messiah was born of Jacob's family line. And unique promises were made to Jacob's family line.

Privately, things are different. Privately, any human being can have a relationship with God if he or she wants it. Individually, our faith, trust, hope, and love of God is a personal, private matter between us and God. And individually we are all bought with a price and have access to God though the Holy Spirit. Not only this but each of us is a member of the church, which is united by a common baptism, a common spirit, a common faith, etc.

To re-label the church, "Israel" obscures God's revelation concerning the nation he brought out from Egypt, which still remains God's overt family line. He has future plans for this family line, which can not be seen if one arbitrarily misapplies the term "Israel" to the church.

timmyb
Oct 16th 2008, 07:00 PM
I know it's a bit late... but i want to add my two cents to this discussion since this is the verse that gets me in trouble with people around here... :P

I am of the conviction that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. This is Paul who wrote this verse, The same Paul that we all know and love, who found the Lord on the Damascus road, who was the Pharisee of Pharisees, ets, he defined the depravity of man and, salvation and was very careful of what he dictated or wrote to the churches who had the audacity to tell the Roman church that All Israel will be saved... period... The same Paul who's writings are about as close to being set in stone as any other writer in the Bible writes this verse, and someone says he didn't mean what he said... i find that kinda funny...

wpm
Oct 16th 2008, 07:04 PM
Your problem is that you do not want to believe that God is going to bring all of the remnant of Israel back to Him. You want to call that, "God is being a respecter of persons", or " God is making special accomodations for one ethnic group without doing the same for the other", both of which I totally reject.

You can't resist throwing a white elephant in on every post.

I believe that the remnant within natural Israel will fully come through. If you would read my posts slowly you would see that. This is what Scripture shows. What I am saying is that there is another party within natural Israel that you ignore "the blinded." There are 2 peoples within this nation then the "election" and the "blinded." One is saved the other is lost. One ends up in heaven the other in hell. Just like every other nation - no different.

wpm
Oct 16th 2008, 07:05 PM
I know it's a bit late... but i want to add my two cents to this discussion since this is the verse that gets me in trouble with people around here... :P

I am of the conviction that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. This is Paul who wrote this verse, The same Paul that we all know and love, who found the Lord on the Damascus road, who was the Pharisee of Pharisees, ets, he defined the depravity of man and, salvation and was very careful of what he dictated or wrote to the churches who had the audacity to tell the Roman church that All Israel will be saved... period... The same Paul who's writings are about as close to being set in stone as any other writer in the Bible writes this verse, and someone says he didn't mean what he said... i find that kinda funny...

Paul defines "all Israel" in Romans 9:6-8, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

This will eliminate any misunderstanding.

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 07:06 PM
I know it's a bit late... but i want to add my two cents to this discussion since this is the verse that gets me in trouble with people around here... :P

I am of the conviction that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. This is Paul who wrote this verse, The same Paul that we all know and love, who found the Lord on the Damascus road, who was the Pharisee of Pharisees, ets, he defined the depravity of man and, salvation and was very careful of what he dictated or wrote to the churches who had the audacity to tell the Roman church that All Israel will be saved... period... The same Paul who's writings are about as close to being set in stone as any other writer in the Bible writes this verse, and someone says he didn't mean what he said... i find that kinda funny...

But regardless from which side of this fence we are slinging our argument from, all of us do believe that the Bible and Paul both mean what they say, that is not the problem, the problem is, we disagree on what they say.

timmyb
Oct 16th 2008, 07:15 PM
But regardless from which side of this fence we are slinging our argument from, all of us do believe that the Bible and Paul both mean what they say, that is not the problem, the problem is, we disagree on what they say.

That's the part I don't get... if it says it, then why the debate over what it says....

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 07:19 PM
I'm not asking you to argue with Paul's teaching. I'm asking you to take a look at the passages again to see that Paul is not applying a passage from Hosea 2, meant for the Northern Ten Tribes, to the Gentiles.

I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm trying to study the Bible together in a spirit of cooperation. And all I'm asking is, "Isn't this what Paul means to say?" I believe when he said "Gentiles" he meant "Gentiles". Simple as that.


John, we need to be sensitive to those times when the Bible coins a word such as "a people", or "the people". To coin a word is to take an ordinary word such as "people" and give a new meaning with a slightly different connotation, usually for efficiency. The new word becomes pregnant with a rich and descriptive significance, well beyond it's ordinary meaning.

The word "people" simply refers to any group of human beings. And so, in the ordinary sense, all believers are the people of God. We are a group of people with at least one thing in common, we all believe that Jesus came in the flesh to reconcile us to God through his blood, and that those who repent and put their faith in Jesus stand to inherit eternal life.

But the Bible also uses the term "people" in a more technical sense, related to the members of a family line. The sons and daughters of Jacob, being the progeny of Jacob, are all part of his family line. According to Biblical history, God decided to have an overt relationship with a particular family line, choosing Jacobites over all the other families of the earth.

Here is just one example, we could multiply others, in which God refers to the sons of Jacob as the people of God.

"Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, `I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. `Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. `I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you [for] a possession; I am the Lord.' " Exodus 6:6-8

God is talking to Moses, commanding him to say to the progeny of Jacob living in Egypt, "I will take you for my people." In this instance, the term "people" is better understood as a chosen family line, rather than the more generic understanding "a bunch of human beings." God has chosen to have an overt relationship with a particular family line. Out of all the other family lines in the world, he will deal openly with Jacob's family line exclusively.

That's what it means to be the "people" of God according to the very technical and Biblical usage of the term. On the world stage as history records public, overt, events, the Jews are going to be known to the pages of history as "God's chosen family line." God has decided, for his purposes, to deal with this entire family as a unit. He marches them from Egypt to the wilderness, from the wilderness to the promised land, from the promised land into exile, and from exile back to the land etc. He openly converses with them as a group through his prophets, speaking to them directly concerning his plans and his will for them as a group and for mankind in general. God's temple was built in their country. God's messiah was born of Jacob's family line. And unique promises were made to Jacob's family line.

Privately, things are different. Privately, any human being can have a relationship with God if he or she wants it. Individually, our faith, trust, hope, and love of God is a personal, private matter between us and God. And individually we are all bought with a price and have access to God though the Holy Spirit. Not only this but each of us is a member of the church, which is united by a common baptism, a common spirit, a common faith, etc.

To re-label the church, "Israel" obscures God's revelation concerning the nation he brought out from Egypt, which still remains God's overt family line. He has future plans for this family line, which can not be seen if one arbitrarily misapplies the term "Israel" to the church.I disagree. We, the church, are the temple of God today. Gentile believers are now fellowcitizens and fellowheirs with their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ. We have been made one. You want to keep us separated as two. The church, including Jew and Gentile believers, is the Israel of God today and are those who belong to Christ, are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. All of this is spelled out plainly in passages like Ephesians 2:11-22 and Galatians 3:26-29, among others.

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 07:22 PM
That's the part I don't get... if it says it, then why the debate over what it says....Because people like yourself don't seem to be willing to acknowledge how Paul defined the Israel of God in Romans 9:6-8. You don't seem willing to acknowledge that there is spiritual Israel and then there is national Israel. Being part of national Israel does not ensure that one will be part of spiritual Israel. You seem to only see the nation of Israel and seem to act as if spiritual Israel doesn't exist.

markdrums
Oct 16th 2008, 07:25 PM
I know it's a bit late... but i want to add my two cents to this discussion since this is the verse that gets me in trouble with people around here... :P

I am of the conviction that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. This is Paul who wrote this verse, The same Paul that we all know and love, who found the Lord on the Damascus road, who was the Pharisee of Pharisees, ets, he defined the depravity of man and, salvation and was very careful of what he dictated or wrote to the churches who had the audacity to tell the Roman church that All Israel will be saved... period... The same Paul who's writings are about as close to being set in stone as any other writer in the Bible writes this verse, and someone says he didn't mean what he said... i find that kinda funny...

That's true.... The Bible Says what it means & means what it says.... BUT...... not EVERYTHING in the Bible is to be interpreted literally. So you can't take everything JUST at "face value / word for word / in a literal sense".

If something is said as a metaphor, it still has meaning. But the meaning may not be the literal sense of what is said.
(Know what I mean?)

God WILL literally Save all of Israel.... but he means TRUE ISRAEL. He doesn't mean poeple who are literally born of Israel by birthright / ethnic standards.

I don't believe there are 2 covenants, for 2 distinct people with 2 distinct plans.

Besides, too many people fail to apply the "says what it means, means what it says" rule in obvious situations where they SHOULD.
*Just for example purposes, I'll mention Revelation- when John says the time is NEAR / AT HAND / and the things must SOON take place*
;)

But back to the topic at hand.... I understand where the different views on "ISRAEL" come from. And it's due to misinterpretation, & reading out of context.
Which of course NONE of us is willing to say, "yeah, that's me.."
LOL!!
:lol:

timmyb
Oct 16th 2008, 07:26 PM
Because people like yourself don't seem to be willing to acknowledge how Paul defined the Israel of God in Romans 9:6-8. You don't seem willing to acknowledge that there is spiritual Israel and then there is national Israel. Being part of national Israel does not ensure that one will be part of spiritual Israel. You seem to only see the nation of Israel and seem to act as if spiritual Israel doesn't exist.

i never said that the spiritual Israel didn't exist... but i'm not going to say that the natural Israel does not... and that God still has plans for them and that's what Paul was talking about in Romans 9-11... What you are saying is that there cannot be a natural and spiritual but only one. Isn't that replacement theology?... very subtle replacement theology

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 07:31 PM
That's the part I don't get... if it says it, then why the debate over what it says....

Because we disagree on what is said.

Disagreeing with me, for example, about what "all Israel will be saved" means. A different understanding of what is taught than my understanding of what it taught does not equate to denial of the Bible being God's word or of it's %100 accuracy.

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 07:33 PM
I know wpm is amil and I am pre trib, but I am going to agree with him, some what, on 1Pe 2:9-10 in regards to it applying to Gentiles or Jews, and the reason is (and I didn't go back and read all wpm's comments) but since, once in Christ, those in Christ be there is no Jew or Gentile, therefore, what applies to the Church, the Bride, applies to Jew and Gentile because both are neither except they are the Bride.

In other words, I believe there is Jews, there is Gentiles, and there is the Bride (Jews & Gentiles) so all letters written to those saved in Christ Jesus, after His death and resurrection apply to the Bride regardless of who wrote it and who (Jew or Gentile believers)they wrote it to. The context would be the application, for instance, though written to believers if it is regarding God's judgment on those who reject Christ, though it was written to believers it is obviouse the application is the judgment upon unbelievers.... and so on. I mean Jesus gave prophecies, all were to His followers as far as who He was speaking to, but that does not mean they apply to His followers, like the destruction of the temple in 70AD, while it obviously effected all there, it was a prophecy about the Jewish temple.

And I am hoping some of that made some bit of sense/came out right.

And I have already commented more directly to the "will all Israel be saved" issue so will not go there again.

I'm hoping my answer will come out right. :)

Here is how I look at it, and hopefully this will be helpful.

The epistles are written as personal letters, from a particular person or persons, to other particular persons or churches. Fortunately for the rest of the Body of Christ, we have access to this correspondence and benefit from the wisdom and insight contained in these letters. It's as if we are allowed to eaves-drop on a personal conversation between the writer and the original, intended readers.

In one such letter, Paul writes to a man named Philemon concerning a run-away slave named Onesimus. In that letter, Paul appeals to Philemon as one Christian man to another, that he would accept his slave Onesimus back as a fellow Christian, treating him as such. Onesimus will serve Philemon as a faithful man, just as he served Paul while he was in prison for Christ.

Even though the letter is personal, we gain insight into how Paul thinks about slavery, fellowship, apostleship, and how to make an appeal to a brother for difficult things. But the fact that the church may now make application of the principles and wisdom found in Paul's letter to Philemon, it doesn't change the fact that Paul was writing to Philemon, a slave owner.

Paul writes another letter to Timothy to encourage him to remain faithful to his calling, give him wise words concerning his ministry, and to remind him of what is truly important. He opens his first letter with some important, but personal instructions about remaining in Ephesus to persuade them against strange doctrines etc. In this letter, we learn many things concerning the day-to-day life of the church, Paul's instructions concerning the choosing of ministers, his instructions to widows, and etc. -- many things that apply to the church today. Nonetheless, Paul gives Timothy individual instructions meant specifically for him personally -- drink wine instead of water to help his stomach problems etc.

The point is this, these epistles contain important and valuable information vital to the entire body of Christ, but they are written as personal letters. As Bible students, it is our job to sort between the personal comments which apply specifically to the original readers and the other information that applies to the body at large.

In the case of Peter's letter to his flock living abroad, I believe his comments concerning their being a chosen race, are directed to them personally, and not to the church body at large.

I could be wrong about this particular instance, but I believe the general principle is valid.

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 07:37 PM
This is off topic, so I will put the mod hat on the say it, and please, no one take it to be personal as it is said to all, including myself. The unity of the Spirit is not whether or not we all agree, it is whether or not we disagree with love. Do we remain unified in the love of the Spirit, after all, love is the greatest gift.

I will pick on wpm and john146, I know they can handle it. But we disagree, we have gone round and round about different aspects of prophecy. But the fact is, I respect them both and do not interpret their disagreement of my views as equating to denial of their %100 trust in the Bible or denying any part of the Bible.

Brothers and sister, we must be united by love in the Spirit for one another, or we will not survive the potentially dangerous times ahead of us. Our love for one another must be a witness to the world of Jesus Christ. That is commanded in the Bible.


Ok, off high horse, mod hat off

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 07:37 PM
i never said that the spiritual Israel didn't exist... but i'm not going to say that the natural Israel does not... and that God still has plans for them and that's what Paul was talking about in Romans 9-11... What you are saying is that there cannot be a natural and spiritual but only one. Isn't that replacement theology?... very subtle replacement theologyNo. Tell me who is being replaced? I agree with what Paul taught in Romans 11, which is that people were cut off from the good olive tree, which I believe represents the Israel of God, because of unbelief. Gentile believers were grafted in because of their belief. Israelite believers could be grafted in at any time if the same way the Gentile believers were grafted in: through faith. No one is replaced. People are either cut off or grafted in.

You seem to think that Paul only talks about the nation of Israel in Romans 9-11, but that is not the case. He also talks about the Israel of which not all of the nation of Israel was part.

timmyb
Oct 16th 2008, 07:40 PM
I'm hoping my answer will come out right. :)

Here is how I look at it, and hopefully this will be helpful.

The epistles are written as personal letters, from a particular person or persons, to other particular persons or churches. Fortunately for the rest of the Body of Christ, we have access to this correspondence and benefit from the wisdom and insight contained in these letters. It's as if we are allowed to eaves-drop on a personal conversation between the writer and the original, intended readers.

In one such letter, Paul writes to a man named Philemon concerning a run-away slave named Onesimus. In that letter, Paul appeals to Philemon as one Christian man to another, that he would accept his slave Onesimus back as a fellow Christian, treating him as such. Onesimus will serve Philemon as a faithful man, just as he served Paul while he was in prison for Christ.

Even though the letter is personal, we gain insight into how Paul thinks about slavery, fellowship, apostleship, and how to make an appeal to a brother for difficult things. But the fact that the church may now make application of the principles and wisdom found in Paul's letter to Philemon, it doesn't change the fact that Paul was writing to Philemon, a slave owner.

Paul writes another letter to Timothy to encourage him to remain faithful to his calling, give him wise words concerning his ministry, and to remind him of what is truly important. He opens his first letter with some important, but personal instructions about remaining in Ephesus to persuade them against strange doctrines etc. In this letter, we learn many things concerning the day-to-day life of the church, Paul's instructions concerning the choosing of ministers, his instructions to widows, and etc. -- many things that apply to the church today. Nonetheless, Paul gives Timothy individual instructions meant specifically for him personally -- drink wine instead of water to help his stomach problems etc.

The point is this, these epistles contain important and valuable information vital to the entire body of Christ, but they are written as personal letters. As Bible students, it is our job to sort between the personal comments which apply specifically to the original readers and the other information that applies to the body at large.

In the case of Peter's letter to his flock living abroad, I believe his comments concerning their being a chosen race, are directed to them personally, and not to the church body at large.

I could be wrong about this particular instance, but I believe the general principle is valid.

so what you're saying that Paul wrote Romans to the Roman church because they believed they were THE chosen of God and Israel was done away with? That would make sense that he would devote the whole book to righteousness in Christ because some in the church would have some resentment toward the Jews and would try to earn that and judge the Jews for their beliefs and practices...

that's what I see at least...

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 07:40 PM
This is off topic, so I will put the mod hat on the say it, and please, no one take it to be personal as it is said to all, including myself. The unity of the Spirit is not whether or not we all agree, it is whether or not we disagree with love. Do we remain unified in the love of the Spirit, after all, love is the greatest gift.Agree


I will pick on wpm and john146, I know they can handle it.Be gentle. :D


But we disagree, we have gone round and round about different aspects of prophecy. But the fact is, I respect them bothThe feeling is mutual.


and do not interpret their disagreement of my views as equating to denial of their %100 trust in the Bible or denying any part of the Bible.Right. I don't think anyone here is purposely twisting scripture to make it fit their views, so none of us should accuse the other of doing so. We should have more respect for each other than that.


Brothers and sister, we must be united by love in the Spirit for one another, or we will not survive the potentially dangerous times ahead of us. Our love for one another must be a witness to the world of Jesus Christ. That is commanded in the Bible.Excellent comments. I agree.

timmyb
Oct 16th 2008, 07:52 PM
No. Tell me who is being replaced? I agree with what Paul taught in Romans 11, which is that people were cut off from the good olive tree, which I believe represents the Israel of God, because of unbelief. Gentile believers were grafted in because of their belief. Israelite believers could be grafted in at any time if the same way the Gentile believers were grafted in: through faith. No one is replaced. People are either cut off or grafted in.

You seem to think that Paul only talks about the nation of Israel in Romans 9-11, but that is not the case. He also talks about the Israel of which not all of the nation of Israel was part.

but you don't believe that one day Israel will come to God by their own free will and accept Christ... which is how everybody else gets saved... Paul said that they will all be saved, meaning the nation of Israel... and according to his earlier writing there is only one way to be saved, by calling upon the name of Jesus and professing belief in his resurrection... that's the reality of Israel... we have been given responsibility over Israel as much as Christian Jews, to provoke them to jealousy, which gives Israel and the church separate distinct identities, even though they are on the same team, they have their identity and roles to play on that team, just as a pastor and a prophet have different roles in the same body...

What Paul said is that All Israel will be saved, meaning not all of them are, which means that it's for the future aka last days... this is the promise given to the church regarding praying for Israel and partnering with God for their sakes... Paul never once spiritualized Israel nor defined them as the church through Romans 9-11...

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 08:03 PM
Sorry, I did mix up the Israels.

And the las part about God and prophecy, I didn't mean to insinuate that we all didn't agree God gave the prophecy and that any of us didn't believe it. Certainly didn't mean to imply that at all. My point was that, God was not going to save Israel because of their ethnicity, but He was simply telling us that at some point, the Jews would "see the Light".In order for every single Jew to one day all "see the Light" at the same time, wouldn't that take a supernatural intervention by God to bring that about? If so, can you explain why God wouldn't do the same for all people of all nations?

LookingUp
Oct 16th 2008, 08:05 PM
Two Israels? I HAVE been gone a long time...:hmm:When I read Rom. 11, it seems clear Paul speaks of two groups within Israel. "...there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice... what Israel is seeking it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it and the rest were hardened"

Israel =
1) those who were chosen (a remnant according to God's gracious choice)
2) the rest who were hardenend

One Israel but two groups.

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 08:08 PM
There is so much Scripture to rebut your dividing the body in two I don't know where to start.

Start with the fact that I did not divide the body in two. :) Start with the fact that, though the body of Christ is united in one hope, one faith, one spirit, one baptism, etc. this unity does not obliterate the other distinctions between us. In terms of salvation, we each have our own personal journey along the way. The circumstances that surround our personal conversion experience are quite varied and unique. We find diversity in the way our churches are organized, the day we meet, the frequency of our communion and baptism rituals, the holidays we celebrate and the rituals we practice.

And more significantly, though the entire church finds unity and communion in Christ, his mission and his teaching, and our common new birth experience, the Apostles are not embarrassed to maintain other sociological distinctions such as the distinction between a husband and wife, a parent and child, a pastor and a flock, and an employer and employee. Some will follow; some will lead. Some will live with much; others will live with a little.

So then, there is indeed a difference between a man and a woman, a slave and a freeman, a parent and a child, a teacher and a student, a leader and a follower, an apostle and those who aren't. The passages that you so often quote out of context are not blanket, generalized statements that apply in every case.


There is no division in the body on ethnic grounds – none.

Again, it isn't a matter of dividing the body. Our conversations are not focused on the demographics of the body, or whether one part of the body has exclusive privileges over another. We have repudiated this so often it almost goes without saying.

You know as I know that our actual disagreement centers around our respective eschatological views. Though you continue to post scriptures concerning the demographics of the body, these do not address the real nature of our point that God is going to orchestrate the circumstances of "natural Israel" such that, at some point in history, they will become "spiritual Israel".

Your point that the population of the earth can be divided up into two groups: those who are in Christ and those who are not, does not address the issue that we raise concerning the fact that a certain segment of humanity will move from the group of those who are not in Christ into the group of those who are. That is, the category framework you describe is not sufficient in-and-of itself to speak to the prophetical picture described in the scriptures.

Even if the categories of "natural Israel" and "true Israel" were as you describe, and I'm not saying I agree with them, -- but even if true, they do not eliminate the possibility that God will bring an entire nation from the first category to the second.

LookingUp
Oct 16th 2008, 08:11 PM
In order for every single Jew to one day all "see the Light" at the same time, wouldn't that take a supernatural intervention by God to bring that about? If so, can you explain why God wouldn't do the same for all people of all nations?If I understand your question correctly... I would have to ask why does God have to do the same for all people? Doesn't He get to choose how He will do things?

I get a similar question from unbelievers...
"Why did God choose Israel as the nation He gave His Word and Laws to? Why didn't He do the same for all nations? He certainly could have... so why didn't He?"

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 08:14 PM
but you don't believe that one day Israel will come to God by their own free will and accept Christ..That's right, because the thought of every single person in Israel all doing that at the same time just seems very farfetched. If that is what will happen then why did Jesus question whether He would find faith on the earth when He returned (Luke 18:8)?


which is how everybody else gets saved... Paul said that they will all be saved, meaning the nation of Israel... and according to his earlier writing there is only one way to be saved, by calling upon the name of Jesus and professing belief in his resurrection... that's the reality of Israel... we have been given responsibility over Israel as much as Christian Jews, to provoke them to jealousy, which gives Israel and the church separate distinct identities, even though they are on the same team, they have their identity and roles to play on that team, just as a pastor and a prophet have different roles in the same body... Sorry, but believers and unbelievers are NOT on the same team. We want unbelievers to join the team, but one's nationality does not make them a member of the team. Faith in Christ does. Believing Gentiles and believing Jews are on the same team.


What Paul said is that All Israel will be saved, meaning not all of them are, which means that it's for the future aka last days... this is the promise given to the church regarding praying for Israel and partnering with God for their sakes... Paul never once spiritualized Israel nor defined them as the church through Romans 9-11...He didn't define the nation of Israel that way, no. But what is your understanding of his statement that "they are not all Israel which are of Israel"? Who do you believe is part of the Israel which not all of the nation of Israel is a part?

Do you believe the covenant by which all Israel is saved (as mentioned in Romans 11:26-27 via Isaiah 59:20-21) is a different covenant than the new covenant of grace under which believers have been saved up to this point? In other words, do you believe there is some other covenant besides the new covenant by which the people of Israel will have their sins taken away and be saved in the future?

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 08:19 PM
If I understand your question correctly... I would have to ask why does God have to do the same for all people? Doesn't He get to choose how He will do things?Because He is not a respecter of persons. What we are talking about here is that it seems some believe God will do something to cause all people in Israel, without exception, to believe in Christ. So, why would God not do the same for people of other nations to make sure they too are caused to believe in Christ?


I get a similar question from unbelievers...
"Why did God choose Israel as the nation He gave His Word and Laws to? Why didn't He do the same for all nations? He certainly could have... so why didn't He?"We're talking about salvation here, not what nation God wanted to give His Word and laws to. The Gentiles back then were not shut off from salvation just because God chose to work through the nation of Israel at that time.

LookingUp
Oct 16th 2008, 08:33 PM
Because He is not a respecter of persons. What we are talking about here is that it seems some believe God will do something to cause all people in Israel, without exception, to believe in Christ. So, why would God not do the same for people of other nations to make sure they too are caused to believe in Christ?Did God do something in you to cause you to believe in Christ? Or did you believe in Christ without the help of the Holy Spirit? If so, why has He not done it for that special someone you have been praying for (for example)?


We're talking about salvation here, not what nation God wanted to give His Word and laws to. The Gentiles back then were not shut off from salvation just because God chose to work through the nation of Israel at that time.I guess it's a different topic really, but you believe that Gentiles who lived too far off to come into contact with Israel had opportunity for salvation? Just curious.

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 08:42 PM
Your latest illustration is built upon a faulty premise. You seem to start with your precondition and then write your illustration to fit your view. This is unsafe and I believe does an injustice to Scripture. Your theory is constructed upon the mistaken belief of perpetual division.

To be honest, and this is not meant as an insult, but I don't think you read the post to which you responded. It had nothing at all to do with what you just said. And your rebuttal does not address the points I made.

You quoted the post I made to John and markdrums concerning the text of Galatians 3. But your response did not address the structure, the logic, or the direct implications of that passage. And you did not address the structure or logic of my post either.

Again, this is not intended to be rude, argumentative, or insulting but you seem to be using my posts as simple occasions to say what you want to say, regardless of the points being made, and not a direct answer to me. If that is not true, then I apologize.

Do you have any comments with regard to my analysis of Galatians 3? Here is a summary.

Paul says that our salvation is based on a covenant that God made with Abraham, which can not be nullified or changed. The stark implication of this is apparent to me: the covenant God made with Abraham is sufficient in itself for the salvation of the Gentiles. A Gentile does not need to enter the Covenant at Mt. Sinai in order to find salvation.

Second, God makes a statement through the prophet Jeremiah that he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The implication of this is easy to see with an everyday example.

A man has a hammer in his tool box, which is sufficient and adequate to drive nails into boards. One day his wife says to him, "I am going to get you a new hammer for your birthday." The clear implication of this is the fact that after his birthday, he will have two hammers in his tool box: a hammer that does the job, and a different, new hammer.

By analogy then, when God says that he will make a new covenant with the houses of Judah and Israel, we know that it is a different covenant than the one he made with Abraham -- the one which Paul says is adequate for our salvation.

Do you see what I am saying? :)

The New Covenant is NOT the covenant with Abraham that saves us. The New Covenant is not the big general covenant God makes with the entire church body, but a specific covenant that God will make with the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

And this is not ME making this up. This is exactly what God said in Jeremiah 31.

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 08:43 PM
Did God do something in you to cause you to believe in Christ? Or did you believe in Christ without the help of the Holy Spirit? If so, why has He not done it for that special someone you have been praying for (for example)?I believe that God offers salvation to all people. Many are called, but few are chosen. If you read Matthew 22:1-14 you can see why that is the case. Many choose to reject Christ and His gospel while relatively few in comparison choose to accept Him and believe the gospel.


I guess it's a different topic really, but you believe that Gentiles who lived too far off to come into contact with Israel had opportunity for salvation? Just curious.Yes. Why not? There were Gentiles that were saved in those days. Not many, but a few. Do you believe God has ever withheld salvation from people because of their ethnicity or nationality or given salvation to people because of (or at least partly because of) their ethnicity or nationality?

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 08:43 PM
In order for every single Jew to one day all "see the Light" at the same time, wouldn't that take a supernatural intervention by God to bring that about? If so, can you explain why God wouldn't do the same for all people of all nations?

I think there is a significant difference in some Jews and then the Gentiles as a whole.

This is going to get complicated, I'm afraid, and probably not go over to well, but I will throw it out there.

Keep in mind:
--I said, some Jews. As we know, many Jews are not "religious" Jews. In other words, just like in Jesus day, there were Jews that were awaiting and fully trusted a Messiah was promised and there were those who did not give that much thought.
--I think it is possible we have the same thing now. You have your Jew that simply are not very attentive and do not give much thought to their own scriptures and you have other Jews striving with all their might to figure out how to get another temple built.
--of the Jews, who with their sincere heart, are still awaiting their promised Messiah, we have Jews who believe God. (Though we know they missed the Messiah that is not the issue for the moment)
--these Jews, sincere heart, and believe God, are different because while they are lost in their sins due to their rejection of Christ, they are, still faithful to the only true God. Unlike the Gentiles lost in their sins, they do not worship Buddah or whowhatever false Gods. Big difference. Unfortunately, the Jews are still just as lost in terms of Jesus.

Now I am not saying that the lost Gentiles at this time have any less opportunity to get saved than any Jew. As a matter of fact, the Gentiles are probably more likely because as scripture states, the Jews have been blinded "until the fulness of the Gentiles.......". There will be a stopping point to the blindness.

How or just when that will happen, I don't know. But according to my views, when the AC claims to be God, which is what I believe the AOD is, the Jews will have a conimption and realize they have been duped. Jesus claim to be God is why they had a problem with Him. The AC doing it is not going to fly with them. They are not going to bow down to the AC, whether they belong to Christ or not at that time, they will not worship the AC as God. At least I believe there are those many that wont. Some will already have done so just like many Gentiles.

From that point what will happen to lift the blindness I wouldn't venture to guess. But God will open their eyes. And to say that is not right or fair I think is a lame argument simply because there is not one saved soul, you...me....any Gentile or Jew thus far that has gotten saved any other way than by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the opening of our eyes/ hearts to see.

The Jews will be awaiting God to save them and their Messiah to come. Of those who are true in their heart, though blinded, are still true to the true God, our God. They still trust in His promise to send the Messiah to save them, they just misunderstood to the depth their Messiah would save them. They misunderstood He would save their souls and not just their physical well being. They just don't understand the complete washing of sin by the blood of the Lamb. They are blinded, it is mind boggling.

Now this is where I will lose you completely and you will disagree, but, of those Jews, who are still awaiting their Messiah,not having bowed to the AC, will immedialty know who Jesus is upon His Second Advent. And as Zechariah says, they will, every one of them, mourn Him whom they pierced. If they have not at some point prior to His Second Advent come to understand who Jesus is, they will then.

Now don't ask me about the Gentiles that have neither accepted Christ or taken the MOB, because I have no idea. But there may be a significant difference in them and the Jews, the former are not trusting Almight God for a promised Messiah, the latter are.

Ok, hit me!! :spin:

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 08:51 PM
Do you have any comments with regard to my analysis of Galatians 3? Here is a summary.

Paul says that our salvation is based on a covenant that God made with Abraham, which can not be nullified or changed. The stark implication of this is apparent to me: the covenant God made with Abraham is sufficient in itself for the salvation of the Gentiles. A Gentile does not need to enter the Covenant at Mt. Sinai in order to find salvation.

Second, God makes a statement through the prophet Jeremiah that he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The implication of this is easy to see with an everyday example.

A man has a hammer in his tool box, which is sufficient and adequate to drive nails into boards. One day his wife says to him, "I am going to get you a new hammer for your birthday." The clear implication of this is the fact that after his birthday, he will have two hammers in his tool box: a hammer that does the job, and a different, new hammer.

By analogy then, when God says that he will make a new covenant with the houses of Judah and Israel, we know that it is a different covenant than the one he made with Abraham -- the one which Paul says is adequate for our salvation.

Do you see what I am saying? :)

The New Covenant is NOT the covenant with Abraham that saves us. The New Covenant is not the big general covenant God makes with the entire church body, but a specific covenant that God will make with the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

And this is not ME making this up. This is exactly what God said in Jeremiah 31.Are you trying to say that ethnic Jews are not saved under the covenant made with Abraham but rather under a different covenant made in Jeremiah? What is the difference between the supposed separate covenants? Are people saved differently in one covenant compared to the other? Which covenant was Jesus talking about here:

Matthew 26
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 08:53 PM
I believe when he said "Gentiles" he meant "Gentiles". Simple as that.

It's not that simple because things like paragraph breaks are not in the original Greek. If Paul intended to begin a new thought at verse 25, then he did not intend for the word "Gentiles" to go with his citation from Hosea.

But I am really curious. Did you go back to Hosea and see that Hosea was talking about the Ten Northern Tribes? And if so, are you suggesting that Paul is allowed to misapply the scriptures?

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 09:05 PM
so what you're saying that Paul wrote Romans to the Roman church because they believed they were THE chosen of God and Israel was done away with? That would make sense that he would devote the whole book to righteousness in Christ because some in the church would have some resentment toward the Jews and would try to earn that and judge the Jews for their beliefs and practices...

that's what I see at least...

I wouldn't say the entire letter was devoted to the topic of Israel. I believe Paul preaches the Gospel in the first five chapters of Romans. After that, and until chapter 12, he answers objections to his gospel that his readers are likely to hear from his opponents. Beginning in chapter 6, he asks rhetorical questions as if his objectors were asking them, followed by his answer.

For instance in one instance he asks, "Is it true that your gospel promotes sin Paul?" (my paraphrase) He answers, "no way man. How can those who have died to sin want to remain in it?" (another paraphrase) Whether you agree with my goofy paraphrases, the fact remains that Paul asks questions so that he might answer them in the text.

In chapter 9 through 11, Paul deals with an objection to his gospel centered, not on the Jew/Gentile question, or the Mosaic Law question, or even the covenant question, but centered on God's word to Israel through the prophet Jeremiah that God would forgive "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." What about THAT Paul?

He spends the next three chapters answering that objection.

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 09:06 PM
I think there is a significant difference in some Jews and then the Gentiles as a whole.

This is going to get complicated, I'm afraid, and probably not go over to well, but I will throw it out there.

Keep in mind:
--I said, some Jews. As we know, many Jews are not "religious" Jews. In other words, just like in Jesus day, there were Jews that were awaiting and fully trusted a Messiah was promised and there were those who did not give that much thought.
--I think it is possible we have the same thing now. You have your Jew that simply are not very attentive and do not give much thought to their own scriptures and you have other Jews striving with all their might to figure out how to get another temple built.
--of the Jews, who with their sincere heart, are still awaiting their promised Messiah, we have Jews who believe God. (Though we know they missed the Messiah that is not the issue for the moment)
--these Jews, sincere heart, and believe God, are different because while they are lost in their sins due to their rejection of Christ, they are, still faithful to the only true God. Unlike the Gentiles lost in their sins, they do not worship Buddah or whowhatever false Gods. Big difference. Unfortunately, the Jews are still just as lost in terms of Jesus.

Now I am not saying that the lost Gentiles at this time have any less opportunity to get saved than any Jew. As a matter of fact, the Gentiles are probably more likely because as scripture states, the Jews have been blinded "until the fulness of the Gentiles.......". There will be a stopping point to the blindness.

How or just when that will happen, I don't know. But according to my views, when the AC claims to be God, which is what I believe the AOD is, the Jews will have a conimption and realize they have been duped. Jesus claim to be God is why they had a problem with Him. The AC doing it is not going to fly with them. They are not going to bow down to the AC, whether they belong to Christ or not at that time, they will not worship the AC as God. At least I believe there are those many that wont. Some will already have done so just like many Gentiles.

From that point what will happen to lift the blindness I wouldn't venture to guess. But God will open their eyes. And to say that is not right or fair I think is a lame argument simply because there is not one saved soul, you...me....any Gentile or Jew thus far that has gotten saved any other way than by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the opening of our eyes/ hearts to see.

The Jews will be awaiting God to save them and their Messiah to come. Of those who are true in their heart, though blinded, are still true to the true God, our God. They still trust in His promise to send the Messiah to save them, they just misunderstood to the depth their Messiah would save them. They misunderstood He would save their souls and not just their physical well being. They just don't understand the complete washing of sin by the blood of the Lamb. They are blinded, it is mind boggling.

Now this is where I will lose you completely and you will disagree, but, of those Jews, who are still awaiting their Messiah,not having bowed to the AC, will immedialty know who Jesus is upon His Second Advent. And as Zechariah says, they will, every one of them, mourn Him whom they pierced. If they have not at some point prior to His Second Advent come to understand who Jesus is, they will then.

Now don't ask me about the Gentiles that have neither accepted Christ or taken the MOB, because I have no idea. But there may be a significant difference in them and the Jews, the former are not trusting Almight God for a promised Messiah, the latter are.

Ok, hit me!! :spin:I don't have time to respond in depth right now, but it's safe to say that I highly disagree with your scenario and I believe that you are saying that God will give special favor to spiritually blind Jews and not do the same for spiritually blind Gentiles, which would make Him a respecter of persons. But you already knew I would disagree, so maybe there's no need for me to say any more than that.

John146
Oct 16th 2008, 09:13 PM
It's not that simple because things like paragraph breaks are not in the original Greek. If Paul intended to begin a new thought at verse 25, then he did not intend for the word "Gentiles" to go with his citation from Hosea.

But I am really curious. Did you go back to Hosea and see that Hosea was talking about the Ten Northern Tribes? And if so, are you suggesting that Paul is allowed to misapply the scriptures?I will say that Paul, and the Holy Spirit who inspired him, knew the scriptures better than either of us, so if Paul says it applies to not only the Ten Northern Tribes, but also to the Gentiles, which I believe he clearly did, then I'm going to agree with Paul.

BroRog
Oct 16th 2008, 09:24 PM
Are you trying to say that ethnic Jews are not saved under the covenant made with Abraham but rather under a different covenant made in Jeremiah?

No. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Everyone is saved under the covenant God made with Abraham. The New Covenant, which is specific to Israel as a nation, includes salvation and forgiveness but that's not all it includes.


What is the difference between the supposed separate covenants? Are people saved differently in one covenant compared to the other?

This is a really good question. If Paul says that the covenant with Abraham is adequate for salvation, what is the New Covenant all about?

Well, for one thing, the New Covenant is national in scope. As Jeremiah says, God will make a covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Jacob. And each person among them will know the Lord. The covenant will apply to a man his neighbor and a man his brother, which means everybody. The covenant will involve the keeping of the Mosaic Law, which will be every man's (and woman's) desire among them.

This does not apply to Gentiles, and it doesn't even apply to every Jew. It only applies to a particular time period and only to a nation living in Palestine at the time. And though salvation is part of the covenant -- the central focus of the covenant will not be salvation but the restoration of God's holy name. The central purpose of this arrangement will be an overt demonstration of God's power in the context of his role as Israel's provider and protector.

This event will become a major focal point in the grand debate whether God exists, and whether the Hebrew God is THE God. When God makes his covenant with Israel, this will trigger a series of events in which God will once and for all prove himself among human beings. And this specific moment in world history will cause a grand battle of world forces that will ultimately come against God and Jesus his Christ.





Which covenant was Jesus talking about here:

Matthew 26
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/quote]

markdrums
Oct 16th 2008, 09:29 PM
..................................
be right back....

LookingUp
Oct 16th 2008, 09:30 PM
That's right, because the thought of every single person in Israel all doing that at the same time just seems very farfetched. If that is what will happen then why did Jesus question whether He would find faith on the earth when He returned (Luke 18:8)?I find this comment by Jesus very interesting. The Lord tells the parable of the persistent widow. He tells them, “will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night and will He delay long over them? I tell you that he will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?”

If there is no faith on the earth, who are the elect that cry to Him day and night for whom He will bring about justice quickly?

And my goodness, hasn’t His elect been crying day and night for thousands of years now? Or is the elect in this passage a specific group of people during a specific period of time for whom the Lord will not delay long?

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I tend to have a lot of questions. :)


Sorry, but believers and unbelievers are NOT on the same team. We want unbelievers to join the team, but one's nationality does not make them a member of the team. Faith in Christ does. Believing Gentiles and believing Jews are on the same team.


He didn't define the nation of Israel that way, no. But what is your understanding of his statement that "they are not all Israel which are of Israel"? Who do you believe is part of the Israel which not all of the nation of Israel is a part?In Rom. 9, Paul says he has great sorrow and grief in his heart for the sake of his brethren, the Israelites. Here Paul informs us what BELONGS to the Israelites: the adoption as sons, the glory and the covenants, and the giving of the Law and the temple services and the promises. Then Paul says it is not as though the word of God has failed because “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” Paul grieves but finds comfort in knowing God’s word has not failed. Paul shows us how God’s word has always been true in the past…

Paul says that just because one was physically descended from Israel (Jacob) did not make him part of Israel. The Jew descended from Jacob who did God’s will through faith was part of the remnant of Israel (“true Israel”).

It did not depend on blood line, but on the mercy of God.

“nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: through Isaac your descendants will be named” It is not the children of Ishmael who were chosen as the children of God, but the children of Isaac were the chosen descendants.

“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” Rom. 9

“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise” (Gal. 4).

It was not as though the sons had done good or bad; it is was so God’s purpose according to His choice would stand. Simply because of Him who calls.


Do you believe the covenant by which all Israel is saved (as mentioned in Romans 11:26-27 via Isaiah 59:20-21) is a different covenant than the new covenant of grace under which believers have been saved up to this point? In other words, do you believe there is some other covenant besides the new covenant by which the people of Israel will have their sins taken away and be saved in the future?We are saved by the blood of the covenant that God made with Israel.

Question: If all those things listed above "belong" to Israelites according to the flesh, does Paul at anytime say those things are taken away from Israelites according to the flesh? Paul does not say these things belong to "spiritual Israel", Paul says these things belong to Israelites according to the flesh. Paul explains that although these were given to ALL Israelites according to the flesh (some of whom Paul has "great sorrow and unceasing grief in his heart"), not ALL are chosen to be part of Israel, even if they are descended from Jacob. The point I'm trying to make is that Paul never says these things are taken away from Israel according to the flesh and given to Gentiles, for example.

jesuslover1968
Oct 16th 2008, 10:15 PM
Welcome back. How do you interpret the following passage:

Romans 9
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

They are not all Israel #1 which are of Israel #2. Two Israels. Seems clear to me. One is based on being the spiritual seed (descendants) and one is based on being the natural physical seed.


Thank You. I don't really interpret it at all. I just read it. I don't see two Israels here. I see one. I think Paul is just clearing up who Israel really is, as opposed to those who thought their physical seed gave them salvation.
I would agree with your last statement in that that is the whole point Paul is making. Spiritual seed is who he is referring to( as for the promise...) not physical. If it was physical seed, every Jew ever born would be under that promise and there wouldn't have been a need for a savior...

LookingUp
Oct 16th 2008, 11:09 PM
I believe that God offers salvation to all people. Many are called, but few are chosen. If you read Matthew 22:1-14 you can see why that is the case. Many choose to reject Christ and His gospel while relatively few in comparison choose to accept Him and believe the gospel.It is a miracle and act of God that I am saved... and my sister is not saved. Why didn't He just save her in the same way and at the same time as me? What did I do so special that she did not? His Spirit worked in me and did not work in her? She resisted His Spirit? Whatever the answer for an individual, I don't see why it cannot work the same way with a group. God is capable of saving an entire group at one point in history while not saving another group. Individual salvation sounds unfair to many. "He 'chose' her over another." One might have the same questions for the saving of a group as one might have for the saving of an inidividual. "God can't choose to save one individual who repents over another who does not repent." He can't? "God can't choose to corporately save an entire group of people who corporately repent over another group that does not repent." He can't?

God can't work it out that an entire group repents? He is not capable of such of a miracle? He's capable, but it's not fair?


Yes. Why not? There were Gentiles that were saved in those days. Not many, but a few. Do you believe God has ever withheld salvation from people because of their ethnicity or nationality or given salvation to people because of (or at least partly because of) their ethnicity or nationality?Actually I agree with you.

quiet dove
Oct 16th 2008, 11:49 PM
I don't have time to respond in depth right now, but it's safe to say that I highly disagree with your scenario and I believe that you are saying that God will give special favor to spiritually blind Jews and not do the same for spiritually blind Gentiles, which would make Him a respecter of persons. But you already knew I would disagree, so maybe there's no need for me to say any more than that.

As far as the Gentiles go, I really would not say either way. I have not found anything to implicate yes or no, of those without the mark.

The MOB, I believe will be world wide, and any one refusing that gets caught up with will die, but that does not answer the question at hand.

As far as showing favoratism. If it is not favoratism to have a "time of the Gentiles" when the Jews are blinded? Why is it favoratism that at a specific time they would be unblinded?

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 12:07 AM
No. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Everyone is saved under the covenant God made with Abraham. The New Covenant, which is specific to Israel as a nation, includes salvation and forgiveness but that's not all it includes. So, you believe a Jewish believer is saved under the covenant made with Abraham and also under the new covenant? Why isn't one covenant sufficient for one's salvation?


This is a really good question. If Paul says that the covenant with Abraham is adequate for salvation, what is the New Covenant all about? Salvation and forgiveness through the blood of Christ.


Well, for one thing, the New Covenant is national in scope. As Jeremiah says, God will make a covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Jacob. And each person among them will know the Lord. The covenant will apply to a man his neighbor and a man his brother, which means everybody. The covenant will involve the keeping of the Mosaic Law, which will be every man's (and woman's) desire among them.No one is required to keep the Mosaic law anymore. The old covenant has vanished (Heb 8:13). All believers, Jew and Gentile, are no longer under the law, but under grace.


This does not apply to Gentiles, and it doesn't even apply to every Jew. It only applies to a particular time period and only to a nation living in Palestine at the time. And though salvation is part of the covenant -- the central focus of the covenant will not be salvation but the restoration of God's holy name. The central purpose of this arrangement will be an overt demonstration of God's power in the context of his role as Israel's provider and protector.

This event will become a major focal point in the grand debate whether God exists, and whether the Hebrew God is THE God. When God makes his covenant with Israel, this will trigger a series of events in which God will once and for all prove himself among human beings. And this specific moment in world history will cause a grand battle of world forces that will ultimately come against God and Jesus his Christ. You are speaking of the new covenant as if it has not already been established but Hebrews 8-12 makes it abundantly clear that it has already been established by Christ long ago and it replaced the old covenant because it was based on better promises (Heb 8:6). There is no forgiveness or salvation for anyone apart from the new covenant of grace by the shed blood of Christ.


Which covenant was Jesus talking about here:

Matthew 26
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.Did you have an answer to this question?

Merton
Oct 17th 2008, 12:41 AM
As far as showing favoratism. If it is not favoratism to have a "time of the Gentiles" when the Jews are blinded? Why is it favoratism that at a specific time they would be unblinded?


Paul is saying in Romans ch 11 and everywhere else that there is no favouratism to anyone at all at any time.

Neither are the elect of the Jewish people especially blinded, but only those who reject the gospel are blinded.

We should not expect God to to override the blindness of men when they do not want to see.

Even if one should raise from the dead they will NOT believe if they do not believe what Moses said, on their own volition.


There are two types of blindness. The first is by a free will decision of man and the second is because they do not want to become free when they do see something of light, also being up to their own free will.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But he who practices truth comes to the Light so that his works may be revealed, that they exist, having been worked in God.


Joh 8:33 They answered Him, We are Abraham's seed and were never in bondage to anyone. How do you say, You will be made free?


Act 19:8 And going into the synagogue, he spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Act 19:9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again,
Joh 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."


AND WHY DID GOD (FURTHER)HARDEN THEIR HEART?


BECAUSE THEY HARDENED THEIR OWN HEART, AND REFUSED TO BELIEVE THE TRUTH IN ORDER TO BECOME FREE.

Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


(capitals for emphasis only)

All of the same rules apply today to all people regardless of nation, race, religion.

It is a false hope to think that God will save an entire geographical or ethnic nation in one day from unbelief, because that is not what God is teaching He will do in the Bible prophecies, and it would contradict most everything that He has said about salvation rules which are not changed forever.

Merton.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 01:27 AM
As far as the Gentiles go, I really would not say either way. I have not found anything to implicate yes or no, of those without the mark.

The MOB, I believe will be world wide, and any one refusing that gets caught up with will die, but that does not answer the question at hand.

As far as showing favoratism. If it is not favoratism to have a "time of the Gentiles" when the Jews are blinded?The time of the Gentiles is not a time of favoritism towards the Gentiles over the Jews. It just means it's the time when Gentiles have been made fellowheirs and fellowcitizens with their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ in the church. If you read Romans 1:18-32 or 2 Thess 2:9-12 you can see that God also blinds Gentiles if they refuse to accept the truth and remain in unbelief. This is not something unique to the Jews.


Why is it favoratism that at a specific time they would be unblinded?Where does it say that they would no longer be blinded in part after the fulness of the Gentiles has come in as if there would still be time after that for them to repent and believe? I believe Christ will return when the last Gentile has come in, and I think you believe the same if I'm not mistaken. We differ on what happens at that point. If Christ was going to save all of Israel at that point then why did He wonder whether He would find faith on the earth when He returned (Luke 18:8)?

If I'm not mistaken, you believe that the unbelievers of Israel will mourn over not having believed in Christ and will repent when Christ returns and that's how they will be saved. And you base that on Matthew 24:30 and Rev 1:7. Am I right? If so, how do you explain passages like 2 Thess 1:7-10 and Rev 19:15-21? I don't see that He's coming back so that unbelievers will see Him and then decide to repent and be saved. Instead, I see that He's coming back to destroy them. When He comes back, it will be too late for anyone to repent and put their faith in Him. He is coming to not only have His own gathered to Himself, but also to tread the winepress of God's wrath against all of those who have stubbornly opposed Him.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 01:38 AM
Paul is saying in Romans ch 11 and everywhere else that there is no favouratism to anyone at all at any time.

Neither are the elect of the Jewish people especially blinded, but only those who reject the gospel are blinded.

We should not expect God to to override the blindness of men when they do not want to see.

Even if one should raise from the dead they will NOT believe if they do not believe what Moses said, on their own volition.


There are two types of blindness. The first is by a free will decision of man and the second is because they do not want to become free when they do see something of light, also being up to their own free will.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But he who practices truth comes to the Light so that his works may be revealed, that they exist, having been worked in God.


Joh 8:33 They answered Him, We are Abraham's seed and were never in bondage to anyone. How do you say, You will be made free?


Act 19:8 And going into the synagogue, he spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.
Act 19:9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again,
Joh 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."


AND WHY DID GOD (FURTHER)HARDEN THEIR HEART?


BECAUSE THEY HARDENED THEIR OWN HEART, AND REFUSED TO BELIEVE THE TRUTH IN ORDER TO BECOME FREE.

Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


(capitals for emphasis only)

All of the same rules apply today to all people regardless of nation, race, religion.

It is a false hope to think that God will save an entire geographical or ethnic nation in one day from unbelief, because that is not what God is teaching He will do in the Bible prophecies, and it would contradict most everything that He has said about salvation rules which are not changed forever.

Merton.Well said, Merton. I agree. There is a misconception that Jews have been singled out and blinded to the truth while this has not happened to the Gentiles. That is not true. If people stubbornly refuse to accept the truth and harden their own hearts and close their own eyes to the truth, God can give them over to their sin and further harden their hearts and close their eyes. We see this concept in Romans 1:18-32 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.

The reality is that all people at any time can be saved because God has concluded all in unbelief so that He can have mercy upon all (Rom 11:32). People were cut off from the good olive tree because of their own unbelief. God didn't just randomly blind part of Israel. They first blinded themselves with their unbelief. Paul warned the Gentiles that they too would be cut off if they did not continue in their belief (Rom 11:22). But he also said the very natural branches that were cut off could be grafted back in if they would "abide not still in unbelief" (Rom 11:23). But Paul knew that some would remain in unbelief and therefore be blinded even while the fullness of the Gentiles would come in.

God doesn't promise salvation to anyone because of their nationality. All people, whether Jew or Gentile, must put their faith and trust in Christ in order to be saved. It's not reasonable to think that every single person in Israel will ever do so all at the same time any more than it's reasonable to think that every single person in Canada or Thailand will ever do so all at the same time.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 01:48 AM
Thank You. I don't really interpret it at all. I just read it. I don't see two Israels here. I see one. I think Paul is just clearing up who Israel really is, as opposed to those who thought their physical seed gave them salvation.
I would agree with your last statement in that that is the whole point Paul is making. Spiritual seed is who he is referring to( as for the promise...) not physical. If it was physical seed, every Jew ever born would be under that promise and there wouldn't have been a need for a savior...Okay, but isn't there a nation of Israel that includes unbelievers who are not part of the spiritual seed of spiritual Israel? Which then means there is spiritual Israel and then there is natural Israel (natural descendants)? A natural seed of Abraham (Rom 9:7) and a spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29)? Children of the flesh only as opposed to children of the promise?

If Paul was only speaking of one Israel then was he saying they are not all Israel who are of the non-existent Israel? Hopefully, you see my point. I'm not trying to be difficult. I don't see that there's a problem in saying that there are two Israels: spiritual and natural.

quiet dove
Oct 17th 2008, 02:22 AM
Well said, Merton. I agree. There is a misconception that Jews have been singled out and blinded to the truth while this has not happened to the Gentiles. That is not true. If people stubbornly refuse to accept the truth and harden their own hearts and close their own eyes to the truth, God can give them over to their sin and further harden their hearts and close their eyes. We see this concept in Romans 1:18-32 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.


Romans 9 is applicable to those who refuse to believe in the true God, and 2 Thess is applicable to those who, love the lie. Just what that lie is would be an entirely different thread and be a topic of end time apostacy, the lie, the same one Satan told Eve in the Garden. but another thread.

Rom 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. .....28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

But yet Gentiles are going to cry fowl, unfair, or favoratism when God at some point lifts this blindness?

Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 02:40 AM
To be honest, and this is not meant as an insult, but I don't think you read the post to which you responded. It had nothing at all to do with what you just said. And your rebuttal does not address the points I made.

You quoted the post I made to John and markdrums concerning the text of Galatians 3. But your response did not address the structure, the logic, or the direct implications of that passage. And you did not address the structure or logic of my post either.

Again, this is not intended to be rude, argumentative, or insulting but you seem to be using my posts as simple occasions to say what you want to say, regardless of the points being made, and not a direct answer to me. If that is not true, then I apologize.
[/font][/size]
Do you have any comments with regard to my analysis of Galatians 3? Here is a summary.

Paul says that our salvation is based on a covenant that God made with Abraham, which can not be nullified or changed. The stark implication of this is apparent to me: the covenant God made with Abraham is sufficient in itself for the salvation of the Gentiles. A Gentile does not need to enter the Covenant at Mt. Sinai in order to find salvation.

Second, God makes a statement through the prophet Jeremiah that he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The implication of this is easy to see with an everyday example.

A man has a hammer in his tool box, which is sufficient and adequate to drive nails into boards. One day his wife says to him, "I am going to get you a new hammer for your birthday." The clear implication of this is the fact that after his birthday, he will have two hammers in his tool box: a hammer that does the job, and a different, new hammer.

By analogy then, when God says that he will make a new covenant with the houses of Judah and Israel, we know that it is a different covenant than the one he made with Abraham -- the one which Paul says is adequate for our salvation.

Do you see what I am saying? :)

The New Covenant is NOT the covenant with Abraham that saves us. The New Covenant is not the big general covenant God makes with the entire church body, but a specific covenant that God will make with the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

And this is not ME making this up. This is exactly what God said in Jeremiah 31.

But your reasoning never goes the full way. You frequently stop 80% down the path. This is where I disagree. God made the new covenant promise to His covenant people in Jeremiah's day, and who were still there when Jesus came but it was graciously broadened out to embrace Gentiles. You miss this part out. You render the good olive tree meaningless, you deny that believers are the people of God, you refute the NT truth that we Christians are under the new covenant and then you attack me for questioning your controversial theories. I told you they were an extreme variant of hyper-Dispensationalism, one that even Dispys on this board cannot swallow. So, this is why I object. When I present a detailed rebuttal of any of your posts you normally change subjects. This is an undoubted modus operandi. Meanwhile the issues remain unanswered but rise up a wk later in another guise.

Please deal with the issues. Gentiles were under the Abrahamic covenant. They were always included in the people of God. Prior to Calvary, the Gospel was restricted largely to the physical nation of Israel with the occasional rare conversion of a Gentile like Ruth or Rahab or the exceptional Gentile city of Ninevah. The rest of the world was overwhelmingly deceived not knowing anything of the grace of God or His great provision of salvation. Ephesians 2:11-13 confirms how this has all mercifully changed since the cross, saying, “ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were (1) without Christ, (2) being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and (3) strangers from the covenants of promise, (4) having no hope, and (5) without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”

This reading makes a very powerful yet succinct assertion and one that should not be speedily overlooked. Speaking of the Ephesian believers, Paul says that they had been “in time past Gentiles in the flesh.” The clear intimation of this statement is that they are now no longer the uncircumcision. Notwithstanding, if God does not now view them as uncircumcised, what now were they? Those who were hitherto aliens and strangers to Almighty God, being outside of His intimate plan and purpose, have now graciously been “made nigh by the blood of Christ” and brought into a different arrangement. Through Calvary, the Gentile has been brought into a new dominion and therefore enjoys a new citizenship, with its consequential new benefits. The believing Gentile has been given real access to God and has now fully entered into:

· Christ
· The commonwealth of Israel
· The covenants of promise
· Spiritual hope
· Union with God in this present world

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 05:16 AM
To be honest, and this is not meant as an insult, but I don't think you read the post to which you responded. It had nothing at all to do with what you just said. And your rebuttal does not address the points I made.

You quoted the post I made to John and markdrums concerning the text of Galatians 3. But your response did not address the structure, the logic, or the direct implications of that passage. And you did not address the structure or logic of my post either.

Again, this is not intended to be rude, argumentative, or insulting but you seem to be using my posts as simple occasions to say what you want to say, regardless of the points being made, and not a direct answer to me. If that is not true, then I apologize.
[/font][/size]
Do you have any comments with regard to my analysis of Galatians 3? Here is a summary.

Paul says that our salvation is based on a covenant that God made with Abraham, which can not be nullified or changed. The stark implication of this is apparent to me: the covenant God made with Abraham is sufficient in itself for the salvation of the Gentiles. A Gentile does not need to enter the Covenant at Mt. Sinai in order to find salvation.

Second, God makes a statement through the prophet Jeremiah that he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The implication of this is easy to see with an everyday example.

A man has a hammer in his tool box, which is sufficient and adequate to drive nails into boards. One day his wife says to him, "I am going to get you a new hammer for your birthday." The clear implication of this is the fact that after his birthday, he will have two hammers in his tool box: a hammer that does the job, and a different, new hammer.

By analogy then, when God says that he will make a new covenant with the houses of Judah and Israel, we know that it is a different covenant than the one he made with Abraham -- the one which Paul says is adequate for our salvation.

Do you see what I am saying? :)

The New Covenant is NOT the covenant with Abraham that saves us. The New Covenant is not the big general covenant God makes with the entire church body, but a specific covenant that God will make with the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

And this is not ME making this up. This is exactly what God said in Jeremiah 31.

Jesus said in Mark 14:24, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."

Plainly, it is not just restricted to Jews; it was for the Gentile equally, without it they would have no hope.

The international Church is instructed in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

If the Gentile has no part in the new covenant why is he told to continually remember it and appreciate it?

Hebrews 13:20-21 declares, "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Are we believing Gentiles not also the sheep of the Shepherd, along with the believing Jews? Is there not now just one fold of believers (John 10:16)? Are not all the sheep accepted equally without partiality into this covenant grouping to partake of the same heavenly blessings? With your reasoning, you have a divided sheep fold. You have a small minority of sheep - the believing Jews - enjoying the new covenant blessings and the vast majority - the Gentiles - totally excluded? This theory is majorly flawed.

Please consider. If there is no new covenant outside of Christ, then the new covenant is exclusive to the Church, because only the Church is in Christ. If only believers in Christ (the Church of Jesus Christ) are in the new covenant, then only believers in Christ (the Church of Jesus Christ) can fulfil Jeremiah’s prophecy. To conclude that the Jeremiah’s prophecy is fulfilled outside of the Church is to conclude that those who do not believe in Christ (the Church of Jesus Christ) are in the new covenant, which we all know is preposterous.

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 05:42 AM
You can't resist throwing a white elephant in on every post.

I believe that the remnant within natural Israel will fully come through. If you would read my posts slowly you would see that. This is what Scripture shows. What I am saying is that there is another party within natural Israel that you ignore "the blinded." There are 2 peoples within this nation then the "election" and the "blinded." One is saved the other is lost. One ends up in heaven the other in hell. Just like every other nation - no different.


And so, when Paul says that "All Israel shall be saved", he is meaning all of the election. This is what you are saying. Although verse 25 clearly talks about the "blinded", those who you say are going to Hell, as the ones who will be saved. A white elephant?

Seriously, I have had many debates in my lifetime, and many of them were challenging, but when someone uses a term to simply state that I am making things up and then repeats the very thing that he says I am making up? This is not debating.

I am going to break down Romans 11, starting at verse 7. I will do this VERY SLOWLY. So that when you call my accusations "white elephants", the rest of those who read these passages will be able to tell the difference.

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded verse 7

Notice what Paul is saying. Israel has not obtained what they have searched for, save the election. The rest were blinded. This is what we call, the contemporary condition of the citizens of Israel. Which one? Which one is Paul talking about? The same one since chapter 10:1. For the record, however, I will use chapter 11:1.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

He calls to our account the lineage that he was a member of. He was an Israelite, of the tribe of Benjamin. He is talking about the sons of Jacob, of ethnic Israel. From this point onward until he says anything differently, in the chapter of Romans 11, the Israel that he is talking about is ethnic Israel, the ethnicity of himself.

Therefore, when he is talking about the election and the blind, he is talking about the fate of all of Israel, which to this day consists of the faithful election, and the blinded masses. He is not talking about the Gentiles, or anyone else when he is talking about Israel in this chapter. I know you like to infuse chapter 9, but Paul changed the subject in chapter 10, whereas his focus became clearly and squarely on ethnic Israel.

Now, there are not two Israels, but rather two factions of ethnic Israel. according to Paul, there is the election, and the blind. The blind are those who rejected Jesus as Messiah, and the election are those who accept Him. That would make Paul and the original 12, (minus Judas Iscariot), the election. That would make the 3000 at Penticost the election. That would make those who were abroad who believed in Lord Jesus, like the ones living in Rome at the time of the writing of this book, part of that election. The rest of ethnic Israel were blinded, and still remian blind to this day.

Now, I shall go on.

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. verse 11

Now, we see the first mentioning of the Gentiles in this chapter. Notice that the blinded are blind "but rather" to open the door for the Gentiles to be saved? Is this not what Paul is saying? Therefore, according to this verse alone, Paul is distinguishing the Jew (ethnic Israel), from Gentile (those from other nations). Paul even goes so far to explain to all who is reading that the blindness of the blind in Israel is to provoke them, the blind Israelites, to jealosy. This is a theme that Paul carries throughout the entire chapter, at least up to verse 25.

Now if the fall of them the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them. verses 11-14.

Who is the them? Are they not the same "them" that are blinded, as mentioned in the perevious verse? Who is the ones that Paul is talking about? Well, according to these verses, he is talking to the Gentiles in Rome concerning "those of his flesh". Now, we see a pattern here. Again, the Israel that Paul is talking about here is ethnic Israel, who's bloodline he happens to be a part of. This point has to be completely understood in order to understand what he is about to say next.

For if the casting away of them the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead? verse 15.

Paul is insinuating something here. He is saying that if the blindness that has befell the blind of Israel be the reconciliation of the world, how much more (notice the key word here) "SHALL" the receiving of those very same blind be but the resurrection from the dead? In this statement, Paul is insinuating what he clearly states later on in the same chapter, mainly this statement:

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall [B]be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. verse 23.

Again, the "they" being the blind of Israel.

Now, I shall continue.

For if thefirstfruit holy, the lump also [holy]: and [I]if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches. Verse 16.

He is saying that if the firstfruit, whom all would agree is Lord Jesus, is holy, then everything around the firstfruit is holy, even the branches. This is the first instance in this chapter that Paul is bringing in the vine reference. If the firstfruit, Lord Jesus, is holy, then the whole vine is holy.

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; [B]Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Now, Paul mentions that some of the branches are broken off, and the "you, being of a wild olive tree", are being grafted in, then we are not to speak against the branches, saying that the branches were broken off so that we would be grafted in. Mainly because we are not the root, but the root, which is the Kingdom of Heaven that produced both Israel and her firstfruit, Lord Jesus, is supporting us, and not the other way around. This is important, because it further shows that Paul, the writer of chapter 9, is further separating the Gentiles from the Jews, and thus are continuing the conversation concerning the fate not of the election or the church, but ethnic Israel, the topic of the entire chapter. The "we" in these verse are the Gentiles, and the natrual branches are that of Israel, which is naturally a part of the root in the first place.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Verse 19.

Paul warned that YOU, wpm, and every other Gentile like YOU, wpm, will say that Israel is no longer part of the olive tree, so that we might be grafted in, (thus making ourselves the "natural" Israel that replaced the old branches). Paul warned that people like YOU, wpm, would say that God is treating every other nation the same. This is Paul's response.

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou [I]also shalt be cut off.Verse 20-22.

If God will break off some of the natural branches, which are identified by Paul as ethnic Israel who are blind, who are identified as those that fell earlier in this chapter, and we, the Gentiles, ought to take heed, because that could also be our fate, if we, like them, continue in unbelief. (Take heed Methodists and Episcopalians). But that's not all Paul says in his response.

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, [B]shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. Romans 11:23.

Full circle. I covered this before, in this very same post, but again, I am doing this S-L-O-W-L-Y. If those who are blinded, those of ethnic Israel who are classified as blind, stop living in unbelief, then God "SHALL" graft them, those of ethnic Israel who are blind, back into the vine again. This is Paul's whole point in asking the question, "Has God thrown away His people?". He wants us, the wild branch of the olive tree who were grafted in, to realize that the very same God who has cast away unbelieving branches, mainly the blind in Israel, will not only cut us off is we turn from the faith, but the very same God will graft BACK on to the vine the natural branches that He originally cut off due to their unbelief, namely, ethnic Israel that is currently blind. But Paul is not done yet. He goes on.

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 , be graffed into [B]their own olive tree? verse 24.


Again, to hammer the point home, the natural branches, which are again identified as those of Israel who are blinded, will be grafted back to their OWN olive tree. All they have to do is repent of unbelief. This is Paul's point. But wait, the bombshell hasn't been dropped yet.

Mind you, throughout the entire chapter, Paul is talking about ethnic Israel, the Israel he identified in the 1st verse. From verse 7 onward, he describes the plight of the portion of Israel that is blinded. From verse 7 to verse 24, Paul is strategically describing condition and possible fate of the blind in Israel.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Verse 25.

Paul is talking to the Gentiles, as he mentions in verse 13. He tells them that he does not want "you", the Gentiles whom he is writing to, to be ignorant to the "mystery" of the Israelites, lest "you" would be wise in your own conceits. He is clearly talking to the Gentile, and thus the Gentile has nothing to do with the next statement, other than what he is stating concerning Israel.

What is Paul's next statement? Blindness has befell to part of Israel. IF Paul is talking about those who were not of Jewish descent, then that would mean that the church, which you call true Israel, is partially blind. I thought that the church was actually the election of God, meaning that they are all believers, and thus are not blind at all. But, if we have it your way, suddenly, the church is partially blind, and those who have fell so that the rest of the world, namely the Gentiles, would be saved are now those of the church. Pure blasphemy. This is the result of using Romans 9:6 to determine who Paul is talking about in Romans 11, which he explains in the 1st verse as E-T-H-N-I-C I-S-R-A-E-L.

Now, according to Paul, in verse 25, ethnic Israel has in part fell to blindness. This is the absolute truth with no figuration required. Tell me the Holy Spirit told you any differently, I DARE YOU!

But Paul is not done yet. He goes on to describe the condition of the blindness of some of Ethnic Israel. He says that when the fullnesss of the Gentiles come to be, then this will happen.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: verse 26.

Now, from verse 26 onward, Paul gives his evidence from the OT that God will indeed honor His own word, and save all of Israel.

This is what Paul wrote, in the same style that he wrote in the rest of the book itself. And we find that he, from chapter 12 onward, goes on to deal with the division of the church, namely those of Jewish descent versus those of Gentile descent. But again, in Romans 11, Paul states that all Israel shall be saved, and with that statement, an exhaustive explanation that led up to that statement, most of which is ignored if we simply write off what Paul is saying and simply think that his definitions found in Romans 9:6 apply to the rest of the book. This is why context is the BEST way to interpet scripture, because by reading the context of each passage, one can gain a much clearer understanding of what the writer is saying, and nothing is missed, or misconstrued.

And so, your "white elephant" ain't so "white" after all, is it?

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 05:46 AM
i never said that the spiritual Israel didn't exist... but i'm not going to say that the natural Israel does not... and that God still has plans for them and that's what Paul was talking about in Romans 9-11... What you are saying is that there cannot be a natural and spiritual but only one. Isn't that replacement theology?... very subtle replacement theology


Hey look rookie! I am not the only one who thinks this way!

I'm hoping to knock this one out of the park. ;)

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 05:56 AM
so what you're saying that Paul wrote Romans to the Roman church because they believed they were THE chosen of God and Israel was done away with? That would make sense that he would devote the whole book to righteousness in Christ because some in the church would have some resentment toward the Jews and would try to earn that and judge the Jews for their beliefs and practices...

that's what I see at least...

Sorry TimmyB, but I work when most of you are on the forum. So my response is a tad-bit late.

The church at Rome was fragmented, with the Jewish believers on the one side, and the Gentile believers on the other. This was the first of many frcations that the church at large had to deal with over the centuries, and I have to say, our predecessors did not do a very good job of honoring Pauls' words. Paul wanted both sides to know what God's viewpoint is concerning their endless bickering. He chided the Jew, because they felt they were superior because of their bloodline. He chastised the Gentile because they believed that they replaced Israel as God's chosen. He then attempted to give them points in which they could live in harmony with each other, and not become the stumbling blocks that they ended up becoming anyway. We see the effects of their continued disobedience today, with most of the Messianic Jews being considered by Gentile believers as being something other than Christian, and the Jewish believer often scoffing at the Gentile believer.

If the churches had only followed Paul's advice, we would have that harmony, and many of the Gentile false doctrines would not have even existed today, and MANY MANY more Jewish people would be believers in Lord Jesus today. Although I know that God has reserved a remnant for Himself, which I believe are now the Messianic Jews, the term Messianic Jew would not exist if only all of the church, both Jew and Gentile, would get off of their collective high horses.

So, I hope that this will give you a clearer understanding of what Paul was dealiong with when he wrote the book of Romans.

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 06:02 AM
Because He is not a respecter of persons. What we are talking about here is that it seems some believe God will do something to cause all people in Israel, without exception, to believe in Christ. So, why would God not do the same for people of other nations to make sure they too are caused to believe in Christ?

We're talking about salvation here, not what nation God wanted to give His Word and laws to. The Gentiles back then were not shut off from salvation just because God chose to work through the nation of Israel at that time.

Eric, we are talking about the SAME THING. You interject your personal unbelief into what Paul is saying , and thus taint your view of Romans 11. Remember, you said that you find the notion that all of Israel would at one time come to the saving faith in Lord Jesus "far fetched". I am not asking you for your logic. I asking what does scripture say. Paul made the statement very clear, All Israel shall be saved. Your opinion does not matter in the interpretation of that scripture. The context of that entire passage is all that matters.

Merton
Oct 17th 2008, 06:07 AM
Well said, Merton. I agree. There is a misconception that Jews have been singled out and blinded to the truth while this has not happened to the Gentiles. That is not true. If people stubbornly refuse to accept the truth and harden their own hearts and close their own eyes to the truth, God can give them over to their sin and further harden their hearts and close their eyes. We see this concept in Romans 1:18-32 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.

The reality is that all people at any time can be saved because God has concluded all in unbelief so that He can have mercy upon all (Rom 11:32). People were cut off from the good olive tree because of their own unbelief. God didn't just randomly blind part of Israel. They first blinded themselves with their unbelief. Paul warned the Gentiles that they too would be cut off if they did not continue in their belief (Rom 11:22). But he also said the very natural branches that were cut off could be grafted back in if they would "abide not still in unbelief" (Rom 11:23). But Paul knew that some would remain in unbelief and therefore be blinded even while the fullness of the Gentiles would come in.

God doesn't promise salvation to anyone because of their nationality. All people, whether Jew or Gentile, must put their faith and trust in Christ in order to be saved. It's not reasonable to think that every single person in Israel will ever do so all at the same time any more than it's reasonable to think that every single person in Canada or Thailand will ever do so all at the same time.


Where I differ with you of course is that I see a resurrected people of Zion (the Bride) the Heavenly City in the midst of mortals of the same Heavenly City as we are now, dwelling in Jerusalem of stone and thereabouts in Israel in the future. Of course they do not stay there long or forever. Zeph.

Rev.7 describes them, where the 144000 are the living stones of the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Bride.

It is impossible to take into account all scripture in any other way

I used to believe as A mill is, but one has to ignore a lot of scripture to do that.

Isaiah 49 says it all.

and the nation born in one day has not happened yet, that is why the future birth pangs and the mistaken identites whereby men like Hitler wanted to destroy them and men like Bush want to elevate them .

Let em be ignorant anyway because the flesh will take a lot of heat off God's real workings in the world.

Merton.

Merton
Oct 17th 2008, 06:41 AM
Eric, we are talking about the SAME THING. You interject your personal unbelief into what Paul is saying , and thus taint your view of Romans 11. Remember, you said that you find the notion that all of Israel would at one time come to the saving faith in Lord Jesus "far fetched". I am not asking you for your logic. I asking what does scripture say. Paul made the statement very clear, All Israel shall be saved. Your opinion does not matter in the interpretation of that scripture. The context of that entire passage is all that matters.


Hero,

you have a concept regarding that scripture which is NOT in the context of that chapter.

You have Christ returning to save the Jews, yet the text does not say that.

What it says is that all Israel will be saved when the deliverer COMES OUT OF ZION.

and the text does not even say in what manner that the saving of Israel refers to, except that the deliverer will turn away ungodliness from Jacob which make it impossible for God to fufill His word in giving to every man according to what his works shall be, if at the time of the second coming. Rev.22:11 and 12.

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Will God open up another fountain for the cleansing of sin in the future?--

This is all past--

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zec 12:11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
Zec 12:12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
Zec 12:13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
Zec 12:14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart
Zec 13:1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

The chapter break was put in the wrong place.

Christ already came out of Zion--

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.


Isa 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut thewomb? saith thy God.

It is the Heavenly Zion which trevails and brings forth Her children. Isaiah ch 49.

Would God use a people who reject Him to bring forth God's children?

Heaven forbid.



Merton.

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 07:45 AM
Hero,

you have a concept regarding that scripture which is NOT in the context of that chapter.

That's your opinion. I disagree.


You have Christ returning to save the Jews, yet the text does not say that.

I have Christ standing on the Mount of Olives, on the first Day of the Great Tribulation, with 144,000 male Jews from all of the tribes of Israel, splitting the Mount of Olives to allow the refugees a route to escape sudden and total anihilation. I did not bring this up in my previous posts, and yet, there is evidence that sustains my arguement, namely Zechariah 14:3-5.


What it says is that all Israel will be saved when the deliverer COMES OUT OF ZION.

and the text does not even say in what manner that the saving of Israel refers to, except that the deliverer will turn away ungodliness from Jacob which make it impossible for God to fufill His word in giving to every man according to what his works shall be, if at the time of the second coming. Rev.22:11 and 12.

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

In order to understand my point, you will have to read Daniel 9:24 and understand what who that verse affects. There are two things specifically mentioned in Romans 11 that is mentioned in Daniel 9:24, and I am not the sort that would ignore this.

1. God will make reconciliation for Israel's iniquity. (Romans 11:27)
2. God will bring everlasting righteousness to Jerusalem. (Romans 11:26)


Will God open up another fountain for the cleansing of sin in the future?--

If God has one fountain for faith, and those who were previously blind to that faith finds that fountain, is it a new fountain, or is it new to them? Again, context rules in matters such as these.


This is all past--

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zec 12:11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
Zec 12:12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
Zec 12:13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
Zec 12:14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart
Zec 13:1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.


The chapter break was put in the wrong place.

1. I disagree that Zechariah 12-13 was broken off in the wrong place.
2. SHow me any point in history when "all of the families that remain" "mourn after Me, whom they have pierced".

Simply saying that it is all past, with showing no evidence at all, is just conjecture. An opinion by a mere mortal for the purposes of justifying what can not otherwise be proven.


Christ already came out of Zion--


Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Using a sign in heaven to explain something as a past event? You're not serious, right?

So, according to your interpretation, an woman clothed with the sun, the moon at her feet, and arrayed with a 12-star crown, gave birth to Lord Jesus, with a dragon waiting to swallow him up as soon as He was born. This is a "REAL" event? I am sorry, but I take the first verse in Revelation 12 very literally, and behold, there appeared a great wonder in heaven. Sure, portions of Revelation 12 are indeed found in the past, as some portions are retellings of the epic story of Lord Jesus in the form of a wonder, but that doesn ot mean that all of that portion of scripture falls into the realm of the past. Again, context is everything.


Isa 66:7
Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut thewomb? saith thy God.

It is the Heavenly Zion which trevails and brings forth Her children. Isaiah ch 49.

Last time I checked, it was not Heavenly Jerusalem that brought forth Jesus at all, but earthly Jerusalem, the one that the dragon chases with a flood into the wilderness in Revelation 12. Again, when you use Hebrews to interpret the OT, the true meaning of OT scriptures are almost always missed. You have just prove yet anothoer of my points Merton. Thank you.


Would God use a people who reject Him to bring forth God's children?



Merton.



Where was Mary when she conceived? Was she in heaven? What nation brought forth Lord Jesus? Was it Heavenly Jerusalem? What nation had rejected Him, even though He was an ethnic part of that nation? Ws it "heavenly Jerusalem"?

You say heaven forbid; history says God did.

Now I have to ask this question, Merton. How is this post of yours related to the topic at hand, namely the possibility that God is going to save All of Israel?

markdrums
Oct 17th 2008, 01:30 PM
I completely disagree.

Romans 9
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

It could not be more clear here that Paul is pointing out that God has called Gentiles as well as Jews. He doesn't change the subject in verse 25. He expands on what he had just said in the previous verses. He is saying that God would call them (the Gentiles) His people who were not His people before. That can't apply to Jews. They were always His people. Clearly, the people who were once not the people of God were Gentiles. Paul explains this further here:

Ephesians 2
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

It can't be more clear. The Gentiles were once not the people of God. They were "without God in the world". But because of the blood of Christ, Gentile believers are "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God". Gentiles were once not a people, but now through the blood of Christ and faith in Him they too are the people of God.

All believers are the people of God.

Galatians 3
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There 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.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

That last set of scriptures you gave, really ties it all together & clarifies who "Israel" is that is being spoken of.

Galatians 3
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There 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.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Which promise??
According to this, it's the SAME promise made to Abraham.
It doesn't say, a promise, or a different promise; It says THE promise. So, if God tells us that as believers we are heirs to the same promise made to Abraham, then the context of WHO "Israel" is should be pretty clear.
This also makes the idea of having 2 separate "plans" quite a reach. From what we're told in Galatians, it's apparent that there's ONE plan, & ALL believers are part of that same plan & promise.

BroRog
Oct 17th 2008, 02:48 PM
So, you believe a Jewish believer is saved under the covenant made with Abraham and also under the new covenant?

Do you understand the difference between a person and a nation? I said the New Covenant is with a nation.


Why isn't one covenant sufficient for one's salvation?

Do you understand the difference between the means to an end and the circumstances surrounding it?

According to Paul, in Galatians 3, we are saved because of a promise God made to Abraham, which is a covenant that can not be changed or nullified.

According to Jeremiah, the New Covenant is with a nation, which describes how God will not only save an entire nation all at once, but will cause each and every person in that nation to keep the Mosaic Law.


Salvation and forgiveness through the blood of Christ.

No doubt.


No one is required to keep the Mosaic law anymore.

Right. So we can't be under the New Covenant now, since the keeping of the Mosaic Law will be a condition of being under the New Covenant.


The old covenant has vanished (Heb 8:13).

The Old Covenant has vanished but the New Covenant will require keeping the Mosaic Law. The difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is internal, i.e. I will write MY LAW on their hearts.


All believers, Jew and Gentile, are no longer under the law, but under grace.

The Gentiles were never under law.


You are speaking of the new covenant as if it has not already been established but Hebrews 8-12 makes it abundantly clear that it has already been established by Christ long ago and it replaced the old covenant because it was based on better promises (Heb 8:6).

The New Covenant has been given it's foundation, which is the blood of Christ. But the Covenant will be between God and the house of Judah and the house of Israel in the future, that is, "at that time."


Did you have an answer to this question?

I already answered it. The covenant Jesus has in mind is the New Covenant, which hasn't taken place yet, but will have the blood of Christ as it's basis.

Do you think Paul is incorrect to say that we are saved on the basis of a covenant that both predates the covenant at Mt. Sinai and the cross?

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 03:05 PM
Romans 9 is applicable to those who refuse to believe in the true God, and 2 Thess is applicable to those who, love the lie. Just what that lie is would be an entirely different thread and be a topic of end time apostacy, the lie, the same one Satan told Eve in the Garden. but another thread.

Rom 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. .....28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

But yet Gentiles are going to cry fowl, unfair, or favoratism when God at some point lifts this blindness?

Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!


I would never claim that anything God does is unfair. That isn't the issue and you know that. The issue is whether or not anyone will still have a chance to repent once Christ returns. I don't see it taught anywhere in scripture where that will be the case. You assume that the partial blindness will be lifted and then those who are no longer blind will repent and believe. But Paul does not say that. He only says that they would be blinded in part until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

He knew there would always be some that would not believe and would remain blinded in unbelief. That's why he merely hoped to help save some of them (Rom 11:14) because he knew it wasn't reasonable to expect all of them to be saved. That will be the case right up until Christ returns. But there has always been a remnant that has believed and Paul knew that would be the case until Christ returned, too.

All Israel refers to believers in the Israel of God, as explained in Romans 9:6-8. God isn't going to reward anyone by doing something to ensure their salvation just because of their nationality. Everyone is required to believe. How would everyone in one nation (we're talking millions of people) all believe at the same time? It seems like the only way that could happen is if God just made them believe, but I don't see that taught anywhere.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 03:21 PM
And so, when Paul says that "All Israel shall be saved", he is meaning all of the election. This is what you are saying. Although verse 25 clearly talks about the "blinded", those who you say are going to Hell, as the ones who will be saved. A white elephant?

Seriously, I have had many debates in my lifetime, and many of them were challenging, but when someone uses a term to simply state that I am making things up and then repeats the very thing that he says I am making up? This is not debating.

I am going to break down Romans 11, starting at verse 7. I will do this VERY SLOWLY. So that when you call my accusations "white elephants", the rest of those who read these passages will be able to tell the difference.

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded verse 7

Notice what Paul is saying. Israel has not obtained what they have searched for, save the election. The rest were blinded. This is what we call, the contemporary condition of the citizens of Israel. Which one? Which one is Paul talking about? The same one since chapter 10:1. For the record, however, I will use chapter 11:1.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

He calls to our account the lineage that he was a member of. He was an Israelite, of the tribe of Benjamin. He is talking about the sons of Jacob, of ethnic Israel. From this point onward until he says anything differently, in the chapter of Romans 11, the Israel that he is talking about is ethnic Israel, the ethnicity of himself.

Therefore, when he is talking about the election and the blind, he is talking about the fate of all of Israel, which to this day consists of the faithful election, and the blinded masses. He is not talking about the Gentiles, or anyone else when he is talking about Israel in this chapter. I know you like to infuse chapter 9, but Paul changed the subject in chapter 10, whereas his focus became clearly and squarely on ethnic Israel.

Now, there are not two Israels, but rather two factions of ethnic Israel. according to Paul, there is the election, and the blind. The blind are those who rejected Jesus as Messiah, and the election are those who accept Him. That would make Paul and the original 12, (minus Judas Iscariot), the election. That would make the 3000 at Penticost the election. That would make those who were abroad who believed in Lord Jesus, like the ones living in Rome at the time of the writing of this book, part of that election. The rest of ethnic Israel were blinded, and still remian blind to this day.

Now, I shall go on.

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. verse 11

Now, we see the first mentioning of the Gentiles in this chapter. Notice that the blinded are blind "but rather" to open the door for the Gentiles to be saved? Is this not what Paul is saying? Therefore, according to this verse alone, Paul is distinguishing the Jew (ethnic Israel), from Gentile (those from other nations). Paul even goes so far to explain to all who is reading that the blindness of the blind in Israel is to provoke them, the blind Israelites, to jealosy. This is a theme that Paul carries throughout the entire chapter, at least up to verse 25.

Now if the fall of them the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them. verses 11-14.

Who is the them? Are they not the same "them" that are blinded, as mentioned in the perevious verse? Who is the ones that Paul is talking about? Well, according to these verses, he is talking to the Gentiles in Rome concerning "those of his flesh". Now, we see a pattern here. Again, the Israel that Paul is talking about here is ethnic Israel, who's bloodline he happens to be a part of. This point has to be completely understood in order to understand what he is about to say next.

For if the casting away of them the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead? verse 15.

Paul is insinuating something here. He is saying that if the blindness that has befell the blind of Israel be the reconciliation of the world, how much more (notice the key word here) "SHALL" the receiving of those very same blind be but the resurrection from the dead? In this statement, Paul is insinuating what he clearly states later on in the same chapter, mainly this statement:

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall [B]be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. verse 23.

Again, the "they" being the blind of Israel.

Now, I shall continue.

For if thefirstfruit holy, the lump also [holy]: and [I]if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches. Verse 16.

He is saying that if the firstfruit, whom all would agree is Lord Jesus, is holy, then everything around the firstfruit is holy, even the branches. This is the first instance in this chapter that Paul is bringing in the vine reference. If the firstfruit, Lord Jesus, is holy, then the whole vine is holy.

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; [B]Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Now, Paul mentions that some of the branches are broken off, and the "you, being of a wild olive tree", are being grafted in, then we are not to speak against the branches, saying that the branches were broken off so that we would be grafted in. Mainly because we are not the root, but the root, which is the Kingdom of Heaven that produced both Israel and her firstfruit, Lord Jesus, is supporting us, and not the other way around. This is important, because it further shows that Paul, the writer of chapter 9, is further separating the Gentiles from the Jews, and thus are continuing the conversation concerning the fate not of the election or the church, but ethnic Israel, the topic of the entire chapter. The "we" in these verse are the Gentiles, and the natrual branches are that of Israel, which is naturally a part of the root in the first place.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Verse 19.

Paul warned that YOU, wpm, and every other Gentile like YOU, wpm, will say that Israel is no longer part of the olive tree, so that we might be grafted in, (thus making ourselves the "natural" Israel that replaced the old branches). Paul warned that people like YOU, wpm, would say that God is treating every other nation the same. This is Paul's response.

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou [I]also shalt be cut off.Verse 20-22.

If God will break off some of the natural branches, which are identified by Paul as ethnic Israel who are blind, who are identified as those that fell earlier in this chapter, and we, the Gentiles, ought to take heed, because that could also be our fate, if we, like them, continue in unbelief. (Take heed Methodists and Episcopalians). But that's not all Paul says in his response.

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, [B]shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. Romans 11:23.

Full circle. I covered this before, in this very same post, but again, I am doing this S-L-O-W-L-Y. If those who are blinded, those of ethnic Israel who are classified as blind, stop living in unbelief, then God "SHALL" graft them, those of ethnic Israel who are blind, back into the vine again. This is Paul's whole point in asking the question, "Has God thrown away His people?". He wants us, the wild branch of the olive tree who were grafted in, to realize that the very same God who has cast away unbelieving branches, mainly the blind in Israel, will not only cut us off is we turn from the faith, but the very same God will graft BACK on to the vine the natural branches that He originally cut off due to their unbelief, namely, ethnic Israel that is currently blind. But Paul is not done yet. He goes on.

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 , be graffed into [B]their own olive tree? verse 24.


Again, to hammer the point home, the natural branches, which are again identified as those of Israel who are blinded, will be grafted back to their OWN olive tree. All they have to do is repent of unbelief. This is Paul's point. But wait, the bombshell hasn't been dropped yet.

Mind you, throughout the entire chapter, Paul is talking about ethnic Israel, the Israel he identified in the 1st verse. From verse 7 onward, he describes the plight of the portion of Israel that is blinded. From verse 7 to verse 24, Paul is strategically describing condition and possible fate of the blind in Israel.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Verse 25.

Paul is talking to the Gentiles, as he mentions in verse 13. He tells them that he does not want "you", the Gentiles whom he is writing to, to be ignorant to the "mystery" of the Israelites, lest "you" would be wise in your own conceits. He is clearly talking to the Gentile, and thus the Gentile has nothing to do with the next statement, other than what he is stating concerning Israel.

What is Paul's next statement? Blindness has befell to part of Israel. IF Paul is talking about those who were not of Jewish descent, then that would mean that the church, which you call true Israel, is partially blind. I thought that the church was actually the election of God, meaning that they are all believers, and thus are not blind at all. But, if we have it your way, suddenly, the church is partially blind, and those who have fell so that the rest of the world, namely the Gentiles, would be saved are now those of the church. Pure blasphemy. This is the result of using Romans 9:6 to determine who Paul is talking about in Romans 11, which he explains in the 1st verse as E-T-H-N-I-C I-S-R-A-E-L.

Now, according to Paul, in verse 25, ethnic Israel has in part fell to blindness. This is the absolute truth with no figuration required. Tell me the Holy Spirit told you any differently, I DARE YOU!

But Paul is not done yet. He goes on to describe the condition of the blindness of some of Ethnic Israel. He says that when the fullnesss of the Gentiles come to be, then this will happen.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: verse 26.

Now, from verse 26 onward, Paul gives his evidence from the OT that God will indeed honor His own word, and save all of Israel.

This is what Paul wrote, in the same style that he wrote in the rest of the book itself. And we find that he, from chapter 12 onward, goes on to deal with the division of the church, namely those of Jewish descent versus those of Gentile descent. But again, in Romans 11, Paul states that all Israel shall be saved, and with that statement, an exhaustive explanation that led up to that statement, most of which is ignored if we simply write off what Paul is saying and simply think that his definitions found in Romans 9:6 apply to the rest of the book. This is why context is the BEST way to interpet scripture, because by reading the context of each passage, one can gain a much clearer understanding of what the writer is saying, and nothing is missed, or misconstrued.

And so, your "white elephant" ain't so "white" after all, is it?You seem to not be taking one important thing into account in your analysis. And that is that the very ones who were cut off way back then had the potential to be grafted back in if they abided not in unbelief. And I don't doubt that some of them did stop abiding in unbelief and were grafted in again. So, the grafting in again is not something that would be delayed for 2,000+ years. Israelites have been grafted back into the olive tree for the last 2,000 or so years. You make it as if none have been grafted in all this time, but a future day is coming when all who are still alive will be grafted back in. But I don't see where Paul taught that.

You seem to forget that individuals were cut off from the olive tree. Yes, many were cut off at the same time, but it was still on an individual basis. Salvation is an individual issue. So, out of all those who were cut off back then, most likely some of them repented and believed and were grafted back in again and many have believed and been grafted in ever since and will continue right up until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

DeafPosttrib
Oct 17th 2008, 03:24 PM
markdrums,

Abosuletly, I do agree with you as what you saying of Gal.3:26-29.

John146 doesn't say it is A promise. Why do you sayiing it?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 03:28 PM
Where I differ with you of course is that I see a resurrected people of Zion (the Bride) the Heavenly City in the midst of mortals of the same Heavenly City as we are now, dwelling in Jerusalem of stone and thereabouts in Israel in the future. Of course they do not stay there long or forever. Zeph.Yes, we certainly differ on that.


Rev.7 describes them, where the 144000 are the living stones of the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Bride.The bride is the entire church.


It is impossible to take into account all scripture in any other way

I used to believe as A mill is, but one has to ignore a lot of scripture to do that.In your opinion, which I, of course, disagree with it.


Isaiah 49 says it all.

and the nation born in one day has not happened yet, that is why the future birth pangs and the mistaken identites whereby men like Hitler wanted to destroy them and men like Bush want to elevate them .

Let em be ignorant anyway because the flesh will take a lot of heat off God's real workings in the world.Isaiah 49 is about the first coming of Christ.

Anyway, I already knew we disagreed on some things, but I wanted to point out from your other post at least one area where we were in agreement. Let's be satisfied with that for now. ;)

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 03:30 PM
And so, when Paul says that "All Israel shall be saved", he is meaning all of the election. This is what you are saying. Although verse 25 clearly talks about the "blinded", those who you say are going to Hell, as the ones who will be saved. A white elephant?

Seriously, I have had many debates in my lifetime, and many of them were challenging, but when someone uses a term to simply state that I am making things up and then repeats the very thing that he says I am making up? This is not debating.


You are obviously misunderstanding my claim. My challenge was on your inaccurate charge:



Your problem is that you do not want to believe that God is going to bring all of the remnant of Israel back to Him. You want to call that, "God is being a respecter of persons", or " God is making special accomodations for one ethnic group without doing the same for the other", both of which I totally reject.


Every Amil on this board believes "God is going to bring all the remnant of Israel back to Him." It is who or what that remnant is is the debating point. I believe with Paul the Apostle that it is called “a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5). The dichotomy within the natural nation of Israel is highlighted in Romans 11:7) where Paul splits the nation into two: “the election (or the elect) hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 03:30 PM
markdrums,

Abosuletly, I do agree with you as what you saying of Gal.3:26-29.

John146 doesn't say it is A promise. Why do you sayiing it?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!He wasn't saying that I said that. He was agreeing with me and just pointing out how some others see it as "a promise" rather than "the promise".

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 03:46 PM
Do you understand the difference between a person and a nation? I said the New Covenant is with a nation. The new covenant is all about Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins and salvation. You can read all about it in Hebrews 8-12. There is no other way for anyone to be saved but under the new covenant. That is the covenant of Christ's shed blood for our sins. If we aren't saved under that covenant then we aren't saved at all because there is no other way to be forgiven and saved but by the blood of Christ.


Do you understand the difference between the means to an end and the circumstances surrounding it?

According to Paul, in Galatians 3, we are saved because of a promise God made to Abraham, which is a covenant that can not be changed or nullified.

According to Jeremiah, the New Covenant is with a nation, which describes how God will not only save an entire nation all at once, but will cause each and every person in that nation to keep the Mosaic Law. You are not making any sense. You are basically suggesting that, despite the new covenant being better than the old covenant and having replaced it long ago (Heb 8:6-13), you are saying the purpose of the new covenant is to bring the old covenant of the law back. You want people to be under the law again even though it is much better for people to be under the new covenant of grace. This just makes no sense at all.



Right. So we can't be under the New Covenant now, since the keeping of the Mosaic Law will be a condition of being under the New Covenant. It does not say that anywhere. You may be all alone in that belief. If that is a condition of the new covenant then the new covenant would be no different than the old covenant. No one could be saved by the new covenant if it required the keeping of the Mosaic law because the law never saved anyone.


The Old Covenant has vanished but the New Covenant will require keeping the Mosaic Law. The difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is internal, i.e. I will write MY LAW on their hearts. We all, including Jew and Gentile believers, have the law of Christ in our hearts. Jewish believers will never again be required to make sacrifices or be circumcised or any of those things because God does not take any pleasure in those things (Hebrews 10).


The Gentiles were never under law.Jewish believers are no longer under the law, but under grace.


The New Covenant has been given it's foundation, which is the blood of Christ. But the Covenant will be between God and the house of Judah and the house of Israel in the future, that is, "at that time."No. The blood of Christ established the new covenant and anyone, Jew or Gentile, who has put their faith in Christ is now under the new covenant of His blood.


I already answered it. The covenant Jesus has in mind is the New Covenant, which hasn't taken place yet, but will have the blood of Christ as it's basis. Sorry, but Christ shed His blood long ago and the new covenant has been in effect ever since. It saddens me that you have, IMO, such a flawed view of the new covenant.


Do you think Paul is incorrect to say that we are saved on the basis of a covenant that both predates the covenant at Mt. Sinai and the cross?No, because while the new covenant was made known by God before the old covenant, the new covenant was established well after the old covenant. It is superior to the old covenant. No one in the last 2,000 or so years has yet been saved if the new covenant is not yet in effect.

markdrums
Oct 17th 2008, 03:53 PM
markdrums,

Abosuletly, I do agree with you as what you saying of Gal.3:26-29.

John146 doesn't say it is A promise. Why do you sayiing it?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

LOL!
John146 already replied about this.... and was correct. ;)

I know where his stance on the issue is, & I was just pointing out what HE provided scripture wise in the post I quoted.
Then I added my thought about it because I think those verses have gone somewhat unnoticed... (Not implying John was reading this as "A" promise, but that OTHERS might be, & missing the whole point.)

I agree with John146.... and with you as well.
:)

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 04:10 PM
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded verse 7

Notice what Paul is saying. Israel has not obtained what they have searched for, save the election. The rest were blinded. This is what we call, the contemporary condition of the citizens of Israel. Which one? Which one is Paul talking about? The same one since chapter 10:1. For the record, however, I will use chapter 11:1.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

He calls to our account the lineage that he was a member of. He was an Israelite, of the tribe of Benjamin. He is talking about the sons of Jacob, of ethnic Israel. From this point onward until he says anything differently, in the chapter of Romans 11, the Israel that he is talking about is ethnic Israel, the ethnicity of himself.

Therefore, when he is talking about the election and the blind, he is talking about the fate of all of Israel, which to this day consists of the faithful election, and the blinded masses. He is not talking about the Gentiles, or anyone else when he is talking about Israel in this chapter. I know you like to infuse chapter 9, but Paul changed the subject in chapter 10, whereas his focus became clearly and squarely on ethnic Israel.

Now, there are not two Israels, but rather two factions of ethnic Israel. according to Paul, there is the election, and the blind. The blind are those who rejected Jesus as Messiah, and the election are those who accept Him. That would make Paul and the original 12, (minus Judas Iscariot), the election. That would make the 3000 at Penticost the election. That would make those who were abroad who believed in Lord Jesus, like the ones living in Rome at the time of the writing of this book, part of that election. The rest of ethnic Israel were blinded, and still remian blind to this day.

Whilst I agree with most of what you are saying, I feel you are playing with words to say there were 2 Israels before Romans 11 - natural and spiritual - and that there have been 2 Israels ever since, yet for the duration of Romans 11 there are not 2 Israels but 2 factions. The two factions are representative of the 2 Israels so let us not let this faulty premise have house room.



Now, I shall go on.

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. verse 11

Now, we see the first mentioning of the Gentiles in this chapter. Notice that the blinded are blind "but rather" to open the door for the Gentiles to be saved? Is this not what Paul is saying? Therefore, according to this verse alone, Paul is distinguishing the Jew (ethnic Israel), from Gentile (those from other nations). Paul even goes so far to explain to all who is reading that the blindness of the blind in Israel is to provoke them, the blind Israelites, to jealosy. This is a theme that Paul carries throughout the entire chapter, at least up to verse 25.

Now if the fall of them the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them. verses 11-14.

Who is the them? Are they not the same "them" that are blinded, as mentioned in the perevious verse? Who is the ones that Paul is talking about? Well, according to these verses, he is talking to the Gentiles in Rome concerning "those of his flesh". Now, we see a pattern here. Again, the Israel that Paul is talking about here is ethnic Israel, who's bloodline he happens to be a part of. This point has to be completely understood in order to understand what he is about to say next.


Totally agree.



For if the casting away of them the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead? verse 15.

Paul is insinuating something here. He is saying that if the blindness that has befell the blind of Israel be the reconciliation of the world, how much more (notice the key word here) "SHALL" the receiving of those very same blind be but the resurrection from the dead? In this statement, Paul is insinuating what he clearly states later on in the same chapter, mainly this statement:

And they also, if [I]they abide not still in unbelief, shall [B]be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. verse 23.

Again, the "they" being the blind of Israel.

Now, I shall continue...


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; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Now, Paul mentions that some of the branches are broken off, and the "you, being of a wild olive tree", are being grafted in, then we are not to speak against the branches, saying that the branches were broken off so that we would be grafted in. Mainly because we are not the root, but the root, which is the Kingdom of Heaven that produced both Israel and her firstfruit, Lord Jesus, is supporting us, and not the other way around. This is important, because it further shows that Paul, the writer of chapter 9, is further separating the Gentiles from the Jews, and thus are continuing the conversation concerning the fate not of the election or the church, but ethnic Israel, the topic of the entire chapter. The "we" in these verse are the Gentiles, and the natrual branches are that of Israel, which is naturally a part of the root in the first place.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Verse 19.


First, The salvation of souls is always individual. Second, God is able to swept through national Israel in a widespread Revival. I have no difficulty with that. Paul is mentioning a hope enveloped in the usual conditions that accompany salvation: "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in." This is essentially the Gospel offer. Just because he was speaking about his own countrymen (natural Israelites) does not negate the fact that this is a general promise to Jew and Gentile alike.


Paul warned that YOU, wpm, and every other Gentile like YOU, wpm, will say that Israel is no longer part of the olive tree, so that we might be grafted in, (thus making ourselves the "natural" Israel that replaced the old branches).

Another white elephant. You will have to stop misrepresenting others. When have I ever said that natural Israelites are not part of the good olive tree? When have I ever said that we are natural Israel? These are red herrings you are throwing in to support your thesis.



Paul warned that people like YOU, wpm, would say that God is treating every other nation the same. This is Paul's response.

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.Verse 20-22.

If God will break off some of the natural branches, which are identified by Paul as ethnic Israel who are blind, who are identified as those that fell earlier in this chapter, and we, the Gentiles, ought to take heed, because that could also be our fate, if we, like them, continue in unbelief. (Take heed Methodists and Episcopalians). But that's not all Paul says in his response.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, [B]shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. Romans 11:23.

Full circle. I covered this before, in this very same post, but again, I am doing this S-L-O-W-L-Y. If those who are blinded, those of ethnic Israel who are classified as blind, stop living in unbelief, then God "SHALL" graft them, those of ethnic Israel who are blind, back into the vine again. This is Paul's whole point in asking the question, "Has God thrown away His people?". He wants us, the wild branch of the olive tree who were grafted in, to realize that the very same God who has cast away unbelieving branches, mainly the blind in Israel, will not only cut us off is we turn from the faith, but the very same God will graft BACK on to the vine the natural branches that He originally cut off due to their unbelief, namely, ethnic Israel that is currently blind. But Paul is not done yet. He goes on.


Paul is again saying something here that every Amil believes: "God is able to graff them in again" - speaking about natural Jews (whether in small or large numbers). This again is not stating that every ethnic Jew will be saved but that every Jew "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in." This is still an active promise for all Israel.



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 , be graffed into [B]their own olive tree? verse 24.

Again, to hammer the point home, the natural branches, which are again identified as those of Israel who are blinded, will be grafted back to their OWN olive tree. All they have to do is repent of unbelief. This is Paul's point. But wait, the bombshell hasn't been dropped yet.


We agree that this is an Israeli tree that represents the true Israel of Israel - those who remained in faith. This was a covenant tree. To survive circumcision was not enough. Every Jew had to come to a personal faith in Christ - the Messiah.



Mind you, throughout the entire chapter, Paul is talking about ethnic Israel, the Israel he identified in the 1st verse. From verse 7 onward, he describes the plight of the portion of Israel that is blinded. From verse 7 to verse 24, Paul is strategically describing condition and possible fate of the blind in Israel.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Verse 25.

Paul is talking to the Gentiles, as he mentions in verse 13. He tells them that he does not want "you", the Gentiles whom he is writing to, to be ignorant to the "mystery" of the Israelites, lest "you" would be wise in your own conceits. He is clearly talking to the Gentile, and thus the Gentile has nothing to do with the next statement, other than what he is stating concerning Israel.

What is Paul's next statement? Blindness has befell to part of Israel. IF Paul is talking about those who were not of Jewish descent, then that would mean that the church, which you call true Israel, is partially blind. I thought that the church was actually the election of God, meaning that they are all believers, and thus are not blind at all. But, if we have it your way, suddenly, the church is partially blind, and those who have fell so that the rest of the world, namely the Gentiles, would be saved are now those of the church. Pure blasphemy. This is the result of using Romans 9:6 to determine who Paul is talking about in Romans 11, which he explains in the 1st verse as E-T-H-N-I-C I-S-R-A-E-L.


You are constructing another straw man. We accept that the prime (but not exclusive focus) of this chapter is natural Israel, however, every time he mentions the "election," the "remnant," or the surviving constituents of the "good olive tree" he is talking about spiritual Israel.



Now, according to Paul, in verse 25, ethnic Israel has in part fell to blindness. This is the absolute truth with no figuration required. Tell me the Holy Spirit told you any differently, I DARE YOU!

But Paul is not done yet. He goes on to describe the condition of the blindness of some of Ethnic Israel. He says that when the fullnesss of the Gentiles come to be, then this will happen.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: verse 26.

Now, from verse 26 onward, Paul gives his evidence from the OT that God will indeed honor His own word, and save all of Israel.

This is what Paul wrote, in the same style that he wrote in the rest of the book itself. And we find that he, from chapter 12 onward, goes on to deal with the division of the church, namely those of Jewish descent versus those of Gentile descent. But again, in Romans 11, Paul states that all Israel shall be saved, and with that statement, an exhaustive explanation that led up to that statement, most of which is ignored if we simply write off what Paul is saying and simply think that his definitions found in Romans 9:6 apply to the rest of the book. This is why context is the BEST way to interpet scripture, because by reading the context of each passage, one can gain a much clearer understanding of what the writer is saying, and nothing is missed, or misconstrued.

And so, your "white elephant" ain't so "white" after all, is it?



Your supposition is faulty as you exclude spiritual Israel from your theory about Romans 11, thus the house you build is unsafe. Contrary to what you say, there are 2 Israels in all of Scripture, including Romans 11.

No one would dispute national Israel is not fully blinded today. The fact is, there is a faithful remnant of natural Jews today (as there was in Paul’s day) that have had their eyes opened onto God’s Word and have believed in Christ. This is the simple truth Paul is trying to impress upon the reader. The true spiritual Israel – the elect of God – within natural Israel will thus assuredly be saved. Our Dispensationalist brethren focus exclusively upon some future end-time mass repentance of Jews, when in reality God has been drawing Jews into the good olive tree throughout this New Testament Church age. Whilst this has not been in significant numbers it has assuredly been occurring. Paul’s message to the Jew today is the same as the Gentile, “behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). Paul takes this truth from Isaiah 49, with its prediction of the conversion of “the tribes of Jacob” and “the preserved of Israel” and the enlightenment of “the Gentiles” (Isaiah 49:6), and then notably applies it to this current intra-Advent period

That is why Paul confidently stated in Romans 11:26 (the next verse), “And so all Israel shall be saved.”

Paul is basically summing up everything he had just said previous in regard to there being a chosen remnant within natural Israel that will be brought through in this intra-Advent period (while the Gentiles were being brought in). He saw a day when all that belonged to true Israel would finally be completed - that is why it is in the future tense.

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 05:04 PM
According to Paul, in Galatians 3, we are saved because of a promise God made to Abraham, which is a covenant that can not be changed or nullified.

You keep moving the goal posts. You previously said the Gentiles are not under any covenant today.


According to Jeremiah, the New Covenant is with a nation, which describes how God will not only save an entire nation all at once, but will cause each and every person in that nation to keep the Mosaic Law.

The disciples dealt with the same challenge in Acts 15:5-10: "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

No one can keep the law. James 2:10 tells us: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 05:05 PM
You seem to not be taking one important thing into account in your analysis. And that is that the very ones who were cut off way back then had the potential to be grafted back in if they abided not in unbelief. And I don't doubt that some of them did stop abiding in unbelief and were grafted in again. So, the grafting in again is not something that would be delayed for 2,000+ years. Israelites have been grafted back into the olive tree for the last 2,000 or so years. You make it as if none have been grafted in all this time, but a future day is coming when all who are still alive will be grafted back in. But I don't see where Paul taught that.

This is false, and you know it. This is another straw-man, for the purpose of disproving what I have already proven to be true. I have stated in my last post that wht Paul described is called, "the current condition of the citizens of Israel". This means that until all ISrael is saved, when the fullness of the Gentiles come in, the entire ethnic nation is divided along the lines of those saved verses those who are blinded. The Election continue to come to Christ, as they did from the point of Penticost to today. Those Jews who continue to follow the Pharisaic religion are stil currently blinded. Although it is my opinion that one day, when the Abomination that causes Desolation happens, the rest of Israel, those who were still following the harisaic religion, will have no choice but to believe our account, especially when the Mount of Olives splits in half, allowing the remnant to escape the clutches of the Beast, that in no means eliminate the possibility that the election will receive the promise before then. This is why I call Paul's analysis of his people, the current condition of the citizens of Israel. The election revieved the promise back then, and thus continues to this day to receive the promise, while the rest were blinded back then, and continue to be today.


You seem to forget that individuals were cut off from the olive tree. Yes, many were cut off at the same time, but it was still on an individual basis. Salvation is an individual issue. So, out of all those who were cut off back then, most likely some of them repented and believed and were grafted back in again and many have believed and been grafted in ever since and will continue right up until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

IT was not individuals alon who rejected their Messiah, but according to John 19:15, the nation collectively denied their Messiah and thus fell under the blind curse that came with it. Therefore, te entire nation of Israel was found guilty, and thus came under the curse. Out of that entire nation, only the election escaped blindness that the rest of ISrael suffers from today, again, except for the election of Israel.

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 05:13 PM
it is my opinion that one day, when the Abomination that causes Desolation happens, the rest of Israel, those who were still following the harisaic religion, will have no choice but to believe our account, especially when the Mount of Olives splits in half, allowing the remnant to escape the clutches of the Beast, that in no means eliminate the possibility that the election will receive the promise before then.

It is dangeorus to add scriptural truth to personal opinion regardless of any of our views. In this case, I believe you opinion is wrong.




IT was not individuals alon who rejected their Messiah, but according to John 19:15, the nation collectively denied their Messiah and thus fell under the blind curse that came with it. Therefore, te entire nation of Israel was found guilty, and thus came under the curse. Out of that entire nation, only the election escaped blindness that the rest of ISrael suffers from today, again, except for the election of Israel.


There are new natural Jews been born every day - they all have the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. Those that get saved today are "the election" those that reject Christ are the "blinded."

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 05:18 PM
You are obviously misunderstanding my claim. My challenge was on your inaccurate charge:
Actually, I do not misunderstand your charge. Your charge is that God will continue to save the election of Israel, and when Lord Jesus returns, the election of Israel will count as all Israel, while the blind continue to be blind. Paul is not saying that at all. He is saying that the blind will continue to be blind up to a certain point, and then the blind shall see the light, and thus convert, making all Israel, the election and the blind, saved.



Every Amil on this board believes "God is going to bring all the remnant of Israel back to Him." It is who or what that remnant is is the debating point. I believe with Paul the Apostle that it is called “a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5). The dichotomy within the natural nation of Israel is highlighted in Romans 11:7) where Paul splits the nation into two: “the election (or the elect) hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."


Why would Paul go through all of the trouble to describe the fate of the fallen if only the election would be saved?

Altohugh you are absolutely correct in saying that the root of this debate is the "who" that is going to be saved, you are incorrect in saying that Paul is saying that only the election willl be saved.

Now, I must clarify, because I do not want the trumped-up charge of exalting a cewrtain ethnic group to be raised again. What I have been saying is that God has continued to saved the election of ethnic Israel, alongside the Gentiles that come to the faith. This has been happening since Penticost. And thus. the current condition of hte citizens of ethnic Israel remain as it was when Paul was describing it. The election obtains salvation, while the rest are blinded.

It is my contention that Paul is saying that the blind who will be blind at the time of "the fulllness of the Gentiles" shall be saved, and thus the remnant that shall be saved shall be the blind who shall be no longer blind. Why would the election need salvation when by the time of the fullness of the Gentiles come, they will have already received what they were searching for? Therefore, Paul is saying thqat the blind, who to this day, when they die, continue to receive the reward of the sinner, will one day lose their blinders, NOT those who died blind, but those who were still in the land of the living when the Beast sets up the Abomination that causes Desolation. Although it is definitely possible that all of Israel can be saved at that point, it is my opinion that although all of Israel shall reject the beast when he makes his proclamation, not all of them willl be saved at that moment. It is my opinion that those who make it to the mountain-valley shall be the ones who are saved.

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 05:27 PM
It is dangeorus to add scriptural truth to personal opinion regardless of any of our views. In this case, I believe you opinion is wrong.
MAybe you hould follow your own advice there, wpm. My opinion is squarely rooted in the scriptures that I have presented concerning the moment that Israel is collectively saved. And even in the cerse that I quote, they are saved individually, since all that are suppose to mourn over Lord Jesus do so as individuals.

In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; Zechariah 12:11-12.

And so, although it may be called a collective salvation, it is truly individual, whereas all of Israel will individually mourn over the one they have pierced, and thus are saved individually, at the same time.




There are new natural Jews been born every day - they all have the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. Those that get saved today are "the election" those that reject Christ are the "blinded."

Again proving that what Paul says is concurrent. There have been and continue to be those who are born to be the election, and the rest born to blindness. THis is why I call what Paul describes in Romans 11 as the current condition of the citizens of Israel. The election who gain that insight remain on the olive tree, while the rest who are blinded are removed. According to Paul, when the blinded stop being blind, otherwise known as beginning to believe in their Messiah, then their blinders are removed, and they are grafted back in.

This is why Romans 11:23-28 is so important. Paul is telling us that those who are blind at the time of the fullness of the Gentiles willno longer be blind, and thus, at one point, all Israel shall be saved. This includes those who were at one point blind. This is not saying that the blind will be removed from the earth and the remnant of the election shall count for all Israel. That is not what Paul was saying.

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 05:30 PM
[/font][/size]
Actually, I do not misunderstand your charge. Your charge is that God will continue to save the election of Israel, and when Lord Jesus returns, the election of Israel will count as all Israel, while the blind continue to be blind. Paul is not saying that at all. He is saying that the blind will continue to be blind up to a certain point, and then the blind shall see the light, and thus convert, making all Israel, the election and the blind, saved.




Why would Paul go through all of the trouble to describe the fate of the fallen if only the election would be saved?

Altohugh you are absolutely correct in saying that the root of this debate is the "who" that is going to be saved, you are incorrect in saying that Paul is saying that only the election willl be saved.

Now, I must clarify, because I do not want the trumped-up charge of exalting a cewrtain ethnic group to be raised again. What I have been saying is that God has continued to saved the election of ethnic Israel, alongside the Gentiles that come to the faith. This has been happening since Penticost. And thus. the current condition of hte citizens of ethnic Israel remain as it was when Paul was describing it. The election obtains salvation, while the rest are blinded.

It is my contention that Paul is saying that the blind who will be blind at the time of "the fulllness of the Gentiles" shall be saved, and thus the remnant that shall be saved shall be the blind who shall be no longer blind. Why would the election need salvation when by the time of the fullness of the Gentiles come, they will have already received what they were searching for? Therefore, Paul is saying thqat the blind, who to this day, when they die, continue to receive the reward of the sinner, will one day lose their blinders, NOT those who died blind, but those who were still in the land of the living when the Beast sets up the Abomination that causes Desolation. Although it is definitely possible that all of Israel can be saved at that point, it is my opinion that although all of Israel shall reject the beast when he makes his proclamation, not all of them willl be saved at that moment. It is my opinion that those who make it to the mountain-valley shall be the ones who are saved.

[FONT=Arial]The "election" are those chosen from the foundation of the earth that come to Christ in their life. They are those who were formerly "blinded." You have to ignore Romans 9 for your thesis on Romans 11 to fit. However, we cannot! Election is an eternal thing before the world ever was. What this is saying is that God will elect who He will!

Romans 9:11-21 says, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 05:33 PM
[/size][/font]
MAybe you hould follow your own advice there, wpm. My opinion is squarely rooted in the scriptures that I have presented concerning the moment that Israel is collectively saved. And even in the cerse that I quote, they are saved individually, since all that are suppose to mourn over Lord Jesus do so as individuals.

In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; Zechariah 12:11-12.

And so, although it may be called a collective salvation, it is truly individual, whereas all of Israel will individually mourn over the one they have pierced, and thus are saved individually, at the same time.

Zechariah 12:10 says, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”

True Israel did mourn - the elect. Those disciples of Christ who mattered were broken. The rest - the blinded didn't. Evidence of this can be found in Mark 16:10: "And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept."

Salvation has always been individual. True Israel received Him. There has always been a remnant within Israel.

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 05:36 PM
Paul is telling us that those who are blind at the time of the fullness of the Gentiles will no longer be blind

No Paul says that nowhere, you do. We must always stick with Scripture. :D

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 05:39 PM
It is a miracle and act of God that I am saved... and my sister is not saved. Why didn't He just save her in the same way and at the same time as me? What did I do so special that she did not?I would assume you did what the publican in Luke 18:9-14 did and what the prison keeper and the rest of his household did (Acts 16:27-34). You humbled yourself before God and asked for mercy and you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and salvation. Your sister, apparently, has not yet done that, but we should pray that God will keep working on her so that she will one day repent and believe just as you have.


His Spirit worked in me and did not work in her? She resisted His Spirit?So far, she has probably resisted the Spirit just like the unbelieving Pharisees did (Acts 7:51).


Whatever the answer for an individual, I don't see why it cannot work the same way with a group. God is capable of saving an entire group at one point in history while not saving another group. Individual salvation sounds unfair to many. "He 'chose' her over another." One might have the same questions for the saving of a group as one might have for the saving of an inidividual. "God can't choose to save one individual who repents over another who does not repent." He can't? "God can't choose to corporately save an entire group of people who corporately repent over another group that does not repent." He can't?

God can't work it out that an entire group repents? He is not capable of such of a miracle? He's capable, but it's not fair?Of course God can do that, but why would He do that for the people of one nation and not another? He is not a respecter of persons.

LookingUp
Oct 17th 2008, 05:54 PM
I would never claim that anything God does is unfair. That isn't the issue and you know that. The issue is whether or not anyone will still have a chance to repent once Christ returns. I don't see it taught anywhere in scripture where that will be the case. You assume that the partial blindness will be lifted and then those who are no longer blind will repent and believe. But Paul does not say that. He only says that they would be blinded in part until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.I hope it's okay QD that I chime in sometimes?

I just wanted to point out Joel 2 which states that whoever calls on the name of the Lord during the Day of the Lord (this would include the time the Lord sets foot on the mount) will be delivered. "For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape as the Lord has said, even among the survivors whom the Lord calls" (Joel 2:32).

“a partial hardening has happened to Israel UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles has come in"

This states that there will no longer be a partial hardening on Israel after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. This lifting of the hardening/blinding will allow all Jews proper sight. With proper sight, one can see truth and then accept or deny what is clearly before him/her. This is individual repentance.

Isa. 59 says that “a redeemer will come to Zion and TO THOSE who turn from transgression in Jacob”. So not every Jew will turn. The Redeemer will come only to those who turn. There will be both tares and wheat.

However, having said that, I also see that Scripture supports that Israel, the nation as a whole, must repent and the nation as a whole will receive forgiveness of sins…

“He will move ungodliness from JACOB”
“When I take away THEIR sins”

Peter’s ministry consistently addressed the “men of Israel” in order to persuade the entire nation to repent and receive their king…

In Acts Peter cries out to the “Men of Israel” telling them that he knows they acted in ignorance just as their rulers did also. He tells them…

“Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out WHEN the times of refreshing shall come from the PRESENSE of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ” (Acts 3:19-20). This tells us that their (as a whole) sins will be blotted out WHEN the Christ comes. This tells us that he will send Jesus AFTER they have repented and converted (turned, as in Isa 59).

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem…from now on you will not see Me until you say ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Mat. 23).

The Lord warned Jerusalem that she would not see Him again until she repented. Peter informs the “men of Israel” (as a whole) that they must repent & be converted so that their sins may be blotted out WHEN times of refreshing come FROM the PRESENSE of the Lord. This points to national repentance and national redemption.

Dan. 9:24 also points to national redemption… it is written that there will be an end of transgression for Daniel’s PEOPLE and there will be an end of sin for Daniel’s PEOPLE, there will be atonement for iniquity for Daniel’s PEOPLE and everlasting righteousness will be brought in for Daniel’s PEOPLE.

Even Peter when writing to the scattered aliens writes, “fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you AT the REVELATION of Jesus Christ.” Hadn’t they already received grace? Yes. But as Peter pointed out in Acts 3 regarding their sins being blotted out WHEN times of refreshing came FROM the presence of the Lord, grace was something that they could look forward to being BROUGHT to them (as a nation) AT the REVELATION of Jesus Christ.


He knew there would always be some that would not believe and would remain blinded in unbelief. That's why he merely hoped to help save some of them (Rom 11:14) because he knew it wasn't reasonable to expect all of them to be saved. That will be the case right up until Christ returns….Right up until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.


All Israel refers to believers in the Israel of God, as explained in Romans 9:6-8. God isn't going to reward anyone by doing something to ensure their salvation just because of their nationality. Everyone is required to believe. How would everyone in one nation (we're talking millions of people) all believe at the same time? It seems like the only way that could happen is if God just made them believe, but I don't see that taught anywhere.It won’t be millions by the end of the trib.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 05:57 PM
This is false, and you know it.

This is another straw-man, for the purpose of disproving what I have already proven to be true.Come on, Doug. Get your emotions in check. I would not make a false accusation if I knew it was false. Let's reason together. If I mistakenly misrepresented your view, then feel free to politely correct me. You may enjoy trying to heat up these converations to near the boiling point, but that's really not something I enjoy. Can't we discuss these things without getting personal?


I have stated in my last post that wht Paul described is called, "the current condition of the citizens of Israel". This means that until all ISrael is saved, when the fullness of the Gentiles come in, the entire ethnic nation is divided along the lines of those saved verses those who are blinded. The Election continue to come to Christ, as they did from the point of Penticost to today. Those Jews who continue to follow the Pharisaic religion are stil currently blinded. Although it is my opinion that one day, when the Abomination that causes Desolation happens, the rest of Israel, those who were still following the harisaic religion, will have no choice but to believe our account, especially when the Mount of Olives splits in half, allowing the remnant to escape the clutches of the Beast, that in no means eliminate the possibility that the election will receive the promise before then.This is where we disagree then. You say that they will have no choice but to believe. I believe there is always a choice whether to believe or not and nothing guarantees that one will choose one way or the other.


This is why I call Paul's analysis of his people, the current condition of the citizens of Israel. The election revieved the promise back then, and thus continues to this day to receive the promise, while the rest were blinded back then, and continue to be today. They were blinded and cut off due to their own unbelief. Any of them can at any time choose to no longer abide in unbelief so that they can be grafted in.


IT was not individuals alon who rejected their Messiah, but according to John 19:15, the nation collectively denied their Messiah and thus fell under the blind curse that came with it.Of course, we know full well that thousands of them believed so when it indicates they collectively denied Him it obviously doesn't mean all of them denied Him, but rather most of them did.


Therefore, the entire nation of Israel was found guilty, and thus came under the curse.

Out of that entire nation, only the election escaped blindness that the rest of ISrael suffers from today, again, except for the election of Israel.And do you understand what the difference between the election and the rest is? The individuals that made up the election believed in Christ while the rest did not. Still today, some believe and some don't and that will continue to be the case til the end of the age. Do you think Jesus would have wondered whether He'd find faith on the earth when He returned (Luke 18:8) if the whole nation of Israel was going to put their faith in Him just prior to that?

LookingUp
Oct 17th 2008, 06:05 PM
Paul is telling us that those who are blind at the time of the fullness of the Gentiles will no longer be blind

No Paul says that nowhere, you do. We must always stick with Scripture.He is sticking with Scripture. What he is saying makes complete sense to many. Just because you don’t see it the way he does, does not mean he is not sticking to Scripture.


"A partial hardening has happened UNTIL"

So what happens AFTER the fullness of the Gentiles comes in? What about Israel's fullness (vs. 12)? When do they get to experience that?

So, a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in at which point they are not partially hardened anymore because they don't exist anymore? wpm, you're not making sense here. Can you be clearer with what you are seeing?

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 06:09 PM
Whilst I agree with most of what you are saying, I feel you are playing with words to say there were 2 Israels before Romans 11 - natural and spiritual - and that there have been 2 Israels ever since, yet for the duration of Romans 11 there are not 2 Israels but 2 factions. The two factions are representative of the 2 Israels so let us not let this faulty premise have house room.

Am I playing with words or was Paul? Rmember, the whole idea of a spiritual Israel and natural Israel is Paul's idea, hence the verse that you love to use, Romans 9:6. He goes through at least 7 chapters to show us that the ones who are faithful to Lord Jesus are the Spiritual Israel that counts in God's eyes as His people. Then, after all of that, he switches the subject, saying to the Gentiles that he desires his countrymen to be saved. (Romans 10:1). From there, he describes what it takes to be saved, and from there, continues his reflection on his countrymen, starting with chapter 11 verse 1. The progression is from two Israels to two factions of Israel. that was not my writing, but Paul's. I didn't write the "not all who are of the blood of Israel are of Israel" portion of scripture, Paul did. If you want to make a charge of word-play, then count it against Paul, because he is the one that created both concepts.


First, The salvation of souls is always individual. Second, God is able to swept through national Israel in a widespread Revival. I have no difficulty with that. Paul is mentioning a hope enveloped in the usual conditions that accompany salvation: "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in." This is essentially the Gospel offer. Just because he was speaking about his own countrymen (natural Israelites) does not negate the fact that this is a general promise to Jew and Gentile alike.

Wpm, this was never in contention. I may not have clarified my view until my last post, but when you read Zechariah 12:10-14, the description of their mourning is both collective and individual. They separate themselves from even their wives and children, and all mourn and are bitter alone, each one accepting what they have done by rejecting Lord Jesus. Granted, the ones who will fulfill this prophecy will not be the ones that actuall told Rome to nail Him to the cross, but since they continued in the unbelief of their forefathers, they would have inherited the curse that their forefathers did, the curse of unbelief. Theri sheding of tears over the Messsiah is solid proof that they not only accept what they advocated, but repent of it, which equals salvation. Yes, they do it corporately, but as individuals. This is why I selected Zechariah 12 as the collaborating evidence for Paul's proclamation in Romans 11:26.


Another white elephant. You will have to stop misrepresenting others. When have I ever said that natural Israelites are not part of the good olive tree? When have I ever said that we are natural Israel? These are red herrings you are throwing in to support your thesis.

It is not a white elephant! When you say, "We are true Israel", nd "we are the true citizens of Israel", the connotation is that you are saying that the real, physical citizens of the nation of Israel are not the citizens of Israel, but rather we, the Gentile believers in Lord Jesus are. You then contradict yourself by stating that the true ISraelityes are the Israel of God, a concept that I fully agree, but your proclamations before you explain yourself are completely false.


Paul is again saying something here that every Amil believes: "God is able to graff them in again" - speaking about natural Jews (whether in small or large numbers). It is not limited to Amils, wpm. Because premils believe in the same thing.
This again is not stating that every ethnic Jew will be saved but that every Jew "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in." This is still an active promise for all Israel.

And if a time comes where all of the ethnic Jews mourn over the fact that they were wrong and Lord Jesus is their Messiah, then wouldn't that mean that all of the ethnic Jews would continue not in unbelief, and thus become saved? This is my point, at some point, what I have just described wil happen, and it will happem BEFORE the Lord returns. (I know that this concept is not one that a lot of premils agree with, since escpecially the dispensationalists believe that their salvation would happen after the Lord returns, something that I agree with the Amils in saying that when the Lord returns, it would be too late for Israel, let alone anyone else, to be saved and counted as God's saints.)


We agree that this is an Israeli tree that represents the true Israel of Israel - those who remained in faith. This was a covenant tree. To survive circumcision was not enough. Every Jew had to come to a personal faith in Christ - the Messiah.

Hey look, we are in agreement once again.


You are constructing another straw man. We accept that the prime (but not exclusive focus) of this chapter is natural Israel, however, every time he mentions the "election," the "remnant," or the surviving constituents of the "good olive tree" he is talking about spiritual Israel.

I am not constructing anything. Although it is true that the good Olive tree is a covenant tree, and that the branches that are natural that remain on the tree are indeed the election, Paul makes a distinction between the natural branches and the ones that were grafted in. Hence showing us that the ones that are broken off are those who are of te natural branch that do not belief in Lord jesus. they are thus cut off, and the purpose of Paul saying so is so that we can understand that we are not eternallly secure if we turn fro mthe faith, and that those who repent of their unbelief wil be regrafted on.


Your supposition is faulty as you exclude spiritual Israel from your theory about Romans 11, thus the house you build is unsafe. Contrary to what you say, there are 2 Israels in all of Scripture, including Romans 11.

Incorrect. It is as Paul says it is. There are not two Israels. Not in chapter 11. It may be in chapter 2-9, but in chapters 10-11, there is one Israel, and it is divided along the line of faith.


No one would dispute national Israel is not fully blinded today. The fact is, there is a faithful remnant of natural Jews today (as there was in Paul’s day) that have had their eyes opened onto God’s Word and have believed in Christ. This is the simple truth Paul is trying to impress upon the reader. The true spiritual Israel – the elect of God – within natural Israel will thus assuredly be saved. Our Dispensationalist brethren focus exclusively upon some future end-time mass repentance of Jews, when in reality God has been drawing Jews into the good olive tree throughout this New Testament Church age. Whilst this has not been in significant numbers it has assuredly been occurring. Paul’s message to the Jew today is the same as the Gentile, “behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). Paul takes this truth from Isaiah 49, with its prediction of the conversion of “the tribes of Jacob” and “the preserved of Israel” and the enlightenment of “the Gentiles” (Isaiah 49:6), and then notably applies it to this current intra-Advent period


As much as I would like to agree with you, wpm, I can not. What you accuse the dispensationalists of doing is actually what Paul wrote.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: Romans 11:25-26

That one word, the one word that I have shown throughout every translation that I know of that is translated the same way, shows a denotation of time, whereas the blindness that has come upon a portion of Israel will continue up to a certain point, which Paul further states id the point when the fullness of the Gentiles come in. That one word tells all who read it that the blindness is a limited condition that will continue until the point in time when Paul describes as the point when that condition will expire.

Moreover, I disagree that the dispensationalists believe that the Jewws will continue to be corporately blinded until one day where God will suddenly save them all. I am sure that most of them take into account that the election of Israel continue to be saved to this day, without the need for a supernatural event.


That is why Paul confidently stated in Romans 11:26 (the next verse), “And so all Israel shall be saved.”

Paul is basically summing up everything he had just said previous in regard to there being a chosen remnant within natural Israel that will be brought through in this intra-Advent period (while the Gentiles were being brought in). He saw a day when all that belonged to true Israel would finally be completed - that is why it is in the future tense.

This where the bulk of the disagreement comes into play. You, again, are saying that the conglamorate of the election will count as the only ones who will be saved, while the rest will be ultimately rejected. Although I agree that those of Israel who die while blinded wil go to hell like everyone else, it is my belief that Paul is saying that at the point of the fullnesss of the Gentiles, all of the remaining Israelites will be saved, which includes the blind whose blinders will fall off when the fullnesss of the Gentiles come to be.

Again, to make myself clear. When the Abomination that causes desolation happens, those who are of the election will have their beliefs confirmed, while those who are blinded at that point will have their blinders removed, and thus both sides of Israel shall be saved, with the election continuing in their saved states and the blind doing what Zechariah 12:10-14 says they will be doing.

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 06:10 PM
He is sticking with Scripture. What he is saying makes complete sense to many. Just because you don’t see it the way he does, does not mean he is not sticking to Scripture.


"A partial hardening has happened UNTIL"

So what happens AFTER the fullness of the Gentiles comes in? What about Israel's fullness (vs. 12)? When do they get to experience that?

So, a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in at which point they are not partially hardened anymore because they don't exist anymore? wpm, you're not making sense here. Can you be clearer with what you are seeing?


This is what I discovered in my own research and which I previously put together. Romans 11:25 declares, “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in (or, of) part is happened to Israel,achris hou (or) while wherein the fulness(or full amount)of the Gentiles be come in.”

Dispensationalists interpret this passage as if there is an age of Gentile conversion, which when concluded is followed by an age of Jewish conversion. However, that is not what this is saying. In fact, we know that salvation is equally open to Jews and Gentiles today. This alone should nail the fallacy that we are in a day of only Gentile salvation. This passage isn’t remotely suggesting that there is a day coming when salvation will be removed from the Gentiles and given to the Jews. There isn’t a time in the future when salvation is available that Gentiles will be excluded from being saved. Such a thought is absurd. Salvation is available to the “whosever will” right up until the end. The door of opportunity is equally open to the Jew and Gentile during this intra-Advent period.

The word interpreted “until” here in the King James Version confuses many Bible students. It is actually two Greek words in the original: achris hou. The word hou is left un-interpreted in the AV, and means “wherein” in our language. It is difficult to know why the translators left it out, but it seems proper to use it in such an important passage. The other word achris can be translated “until” (as it is in the King James Version), however, it may also equally be translated “while” as it translates the same. The truth is it doesn’t particularly matter which of the two meanings one prefers sincecoupled with the connecting word hou bothgive us the same general meaning.Translating this word hou (as we should) seems to place a different sense on the whole verse. That’s why “while wherein” seems to better reflect what the writer was trying to say. Romans 11:25 is therefore simply teaching that during the whole intra-Advent period an ongoing amount of Jews will continue to be grafted in to the Israel of God (the one and only good olive tree). Saying all this, we leave the passage the way it is translated in the KJV then it still can be understood the same way.

Building one’s argument exclusively upon the wording of the King James Version could possibly give one the impression that it explicitly teaches a final end-time mass-salvation of unbelieving Israel. However, a closer look at the original in these passages seems to spread such a conversion over the intra-Advent period. If we were to find an English word to more accurately represent what “until wherein” (achris hou)implies we would probably choose the English word “while.” This would better represent the original. Interestingly, the King James Version actually renders the two Greek words achris houas “while” in Hebrews 3:13, saying, “exhort one another daily, achris hou(or) while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” There are therefore strong grounds for believing that there will continue to be a remnant of believing Jews joining the good olive tree “while” their fellow Gentile believers also do. The engrafting of Jews will be an ongoing process throughout the intra-Advent period rather than merely an event occurring just prior to the Coming of the Lord (as the Dispensationalists believe).

Dispies restrict this great hope for the Jewish people of all ages, making it merely a distant happening for some privileged end-time generation of natural Israelites. In their thinking, this is an immaterial promise for most Jews born since the cross. After all, millions will not be fortunate to belong to that final generation of Jews that will be alive when Christ returns. The vast bulk of Jews are prevented from entering into this great hope – in Dispensational reasoning. This great company of unfortunate Jews unfairly miss out on this glorious day of corporate salvation because of their birthday. However, this interpretation of Romans 11:26 is flawed. This reading relates to the intra-Advent period and is an active ongoing offer for every Jew. This promise is operating and effective until Christ returns. Dispies are wrong to view this as just an end-time event, because Scripture depicts salvation as an ongoing process for the Jews. The limiting of this promise must be rejected on scriptural grounds. It removes the broad relativity of this promise to those it relates to (namely all Jews that repent of their sin) and transfers it to a choice generation of Jews that find themselves alive when Jesus comes.

Those who are the elect will come through - as Romans 11:26-27 witnesses,“ all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”

LookingUp
Oct 17th 2008, 06:14 PM
You seem to not be taking one important thing into account in your analysis. And that is that the very ones who were cut off way back then had the potential to be grafted back in if they abided not in unbelief. And I don't doubt that some of them did stop abiding in unbelief and were grafted in again. So, the grafting in again is not something that would be delayed for 2,000+ years. Israelites have been grafted back into the olive tree for the last 2,000 or so years. You make it as if none have been grafted in all this time, but a future day is coming when all who are still alive will be grafted back in. But I don't see where Paul taught that.


You seem to forget that individuals were cut off from the olive tree. Yes, many were cut off at the same time, but it was still on an individual basis. Salvation is an individual issue. So, out of all those who were cut off back then, most likely some of them repented and believed and were grafted back in again and many have believed and been grafted in ever since and will continue right up until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.You can’t be saved and then unsaved, so the Olive Tree can’t be an illustration of salvation. Paul writes, “if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” God does not cut off salvation from those the Holy Spirit has baptized into His Body. This illustration CANNOT be about salvation.

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 06:21 PM
This is where we disagree then. You say that they will have no choice but to believe. I believe there is always a choice whether to believe or not and nothing guarantees that one will choose one way or the other.

If I say to you, God is going to cause Lord Jesus to split a mountain at a designated point and you do not believe it, and it happens exactly as I say it, would you really have a choice whether to believe me or not? Your choices are not at that point to either believe me or not. The choice would be to believe what you have seen, or else believe in a lie. This is why I say that they will have no choice at that point other than to believe. They will either believe in what their own scripture, or else reject their own religion, because at that point, God will have effectively taken over the entire religion of the Jews, which will be nothing more than our religion. This is why I say they have no choice, because their choice at that time will be believe in the scriptures, or else convert to the religion of the beast.


They were blinded and cut off due to their own unbelief. Any of them can at any time choose to no longer abide in unbelief so that they can be grafted in.

That was never a point of contention, Eric. That was supposed forgone conclusion, as everyone, no matter what discipline they prescribe to, believes.


Of course, we know full well that thousands of them believed so when it indicates they collectively denied Him it obviously doesn't mean all of them denied Him, but rather most of them did.

Again, another foregone conclusion. If my thesis left room for anyone to say that I have said that all of Israel rejected Lord Jesus, then I need to make sure that the next time, I cover that part.


And do you understand what the difference between the election and the rest is? The individuals that made up the election believed in Christ while the rest did not. Still today, some believe and some don't and that will continue to be the case til the end of the age. Do you think Jesus would have wondered whether He'd find faith on the earth when He returned (Luke 18:8) if the whole nation of Israel was going to put their faith in Him just prior to that?

I disagee on the time in which Israel will continue in blindness. I believe that it will end prior to the end of the age, but your point is valid nevertheless. Those who believe while in Jerusalem shall be hidden, and the rest will have to undergo the Grat Tribulation along with the rest of us. This is why Jesus will ask the question, will He find Faith on this earth when He returns.

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 06:24 PM
You can’t be saved and then unsaved, so the Olive Tree can’t be an illustration of salvation. Paul writes, “if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” God does not cut off salvation from those the Holy Spirit has baptized into His Body. This illustration CANNOT be about salvation.

Actually, on this point, I actually agree with John146. The olive tree is a tree of salvation, and Paul's warning in chapter 11 is indeed a warning to practicing believer that like Israel, if we turn froo mthe faith, then we too will be cut off, denoting the kindness and severity of God.

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 06:25 PM
[/size][/font]

Am I playing with words or was Paul? Rmember, the whole idea of a spiritual Israel and natural Israel is Paul's idea, hence the verse that you love to use, Romans 9:6. He goes through at least 7 chapters to show us that the ones who are faithful to Lord Jesus are the Spiritual Israel that counts in God's eyes as His people. Then, after all of that, he switches the subject, saying to the Gentiles that he desires his countrymen to be saved. (Romans 10:1). From there, he describes what it takes to be saved, and from there, continues his reflection on his countrymen, starting with chapter 11 verse 1. The progression is from two Israels to two factions of Israel. that was not my writing, but Paul's. I didn't write the "not all who are of the blood of Israel are of Israel" portion of scripture, Paul did. If you want to make a charge of word-play, then count it against Paul, because he is the one that created both concepts.

You need to look at Romans 10:12-13 which plainly states, “for there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

This statement in Romans is definitely contravened in your writings. You differentiate between natural Israel and the Gentile today elevating Jews to a favoured position among the nations; however, Scripture doesn’t allow this. Rather, those who humbly bow the knee to Christ in faith and repentance enter into perfect union with God, whether Jew or Gentile.


Wpm, this was never in contention. I may not have clarified my view until my last post, but when you read Zechariah 12:10-14, the description of their mourning is both collective and individual. They separate themselves from even their wives and children, and all mourn and are bitter alone, each one accepting what they have done by rejecting Lord Jesus. Granted, the ones who will fulfill this prophecy will not be the ones that actuall told Rome to nail Him to the cross, but since they continued in the unbelief of their forefathers, they would have inherited the curse that their forefathers did, the curse of unbelief. Theri sheding of tears over the Messsiah is solid proof that they not only accept what they advocated, but repent of it, which equals salvation. Yes, they do it corporately, but as individuals. This is why I selected Zechariah 12 as the collaborating evidence for Paul's proclamation in Romans 11:26.

The New Testament proves that Zechariah 12 was fulfilled at the cross. This relates to when Messiah appeared nearly 2,000 years ago. As predicted, salvation flowed out from the Cross – firstly to Israel, then to the nations. Many, many Jews have accepted Christ and His sacrifice for sin since then. Many came to a personal faith in Christ after the resurrection. Since then, countless Gentiles have entered into the joy of sins forgiven. The cross is man’s only hope; it is the only means by which sinful man (Jew or Gentile, pre-Calvary or post) can enter into union with God. It is the only way that man can be reconciled onto sinful creatures and experience the wonderful quickening “spirit of grace.” The Holy Spirit came like rivers of living water to all who would believe in Christ. Jews by the thousands, as well as new Gentile converts were the welcome recipients of this following Calvary.


John 19:30-37 says, “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture (Zechariah 12:10) saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced.”


It is not a white elephant! When you say, "We are true Israel", nd "we are the true citizens of Israel", the connotation is that you are saying that the real, physical citizens of the nation of Israel are not the citizens of Israel, but rather we, the Gentile believers in Lord Jesus are. You then contradict yourself by stating that the true ISraelityes are the Israel of God, a concept that I fully agree, but your proclamations before you explain yourself are completely false.

Paul highlights an important truth in Romans 3:29, asking, “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles ethnos (or) ?” To which he replies, “Yes, of the Gentiles ethnos (or) (or nations or non-Jews) also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

Here we have it; God is God of the nations today, not just Israel. We the Church are the people of God today.

The same Greek word ethnos (Gentiles/nations) is found in Ephesians 3:2-6 when explaining the grace of God in the spread of the gospel to the nations. There it explains the meaning of the says, “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the ethnos (or) Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

We are of the same body of the OT saints - including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


Incorrect. It is as Paul says it is. There are not two Israels. Not in chapter 11. It may be in chapter 2-9, but in chapters 10-11, there is one Israel, and it is divided along the line of faith.

They are actually throughout the Word. Don't make Romans 11 the exception. The election are true Israel - the election.





This where the bulk of the disagreement comes into play. You, again, are saying that the conglamorate of the election will count as the only ones who will be saved, while the rest will be ultimately rejected. Although I agree that those of Israel who die while blinded wil go to hell like everyone else, it is my belief that Paul is saying that at the point of the fullnesss of the Gentiles, all of the remaining Israelites will be saved, which includes the blind whose blinders will fall off when the fullnesss of the Gentiles come to be.

Again, to make myself clear. When the Abomination that causes desolation happens, those who are of the election will have their beliefs confirmed, while those who are blinded at that point will have their blinders removed, and thus both sides of Israel shall be saved, with the election continuing in their saved states and the blind doing what Zechariah 12:10-14 says they will be doing.


I don't believe there is anything to refute here. I believe it is mere opinion and speculation. There is no biblical basis for it.

third hero
Oct 17th 2008, 06:27 PM
Zechariah 12:10 says, “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”

True Israel did mourn - the elect. Those disciples of Christ who mattered were broken. The rest - the blinded didn't. Evidence of this can be found in Mark 16:10: "And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept."

Salvation has always been individual. True Israel received Him. There has always been a remnant within Israel.

All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

No, Zechariah 12:10-14 was not fulfilled, because there was no differentiation. The whole of Isrel, the whole of the remnant will fulfill this prophecy, and not just some in Israel.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 06:29 PM
I hope it's okay QD that I chime in sometimes?

I just wanted to point out Joel 2 which states that whoever calls on the name of the Lord during the Day of the Lord (this would include the time the Lord sets foot on the mount) will be delivered. "For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape as the Lord has said, even among the survivors whom the Lord calls" (Joel 2:32).Let's find the proper context for Joel 2:28-32. It is quoted within Acts 2:16-21.

This is Peter speaking to the people who were witnessing the events on the day of Pentecost:

Acts 2
14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel (in Joel 2:28-32);
17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

When it says whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved, that is a reference to the entire NT time period. That statement applied from that day of Pentecost til the end of the age. Which is why Paul said this:

Romans 10
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.


“a partial hardening has happened to Israel UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles has come in"

This states that there will no longer be a partial hardening on Israel after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. This lifting of the hardening/blinding will allow all Jews proper sight. With proper sight, one can see truth and then accept or deny what is clearly before him/her. This is individual repentance.This lifting of the hardening/blinding is nowhere mentioned within Romans 11. You are inserting that idea into the text and assuming that's what it is saying, but it does not actually specifically say that anywhere.


Isa. 59 says that “a redeemer will come to Zion and TO THOSE who turn from transgression in Jacob”. So not every Jew will turn. The Redeemer will come only to those who turn. There will be both tares and wheat.He already came.

Romans 11
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

What covenant do you think this is referring to which has to do with taking away (forgiving) sins? Is it not the same covenant Jesus mentions here:

Matt 26
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

What other covenant deals with the forgiveness of people's sins than the new covenant of Christ's atoning blood? None that I'm aware of. Has the new covenant not been effect for almost 2,000 years already? Of course. So, why do you see Romans 11:26-27 as applying only to some day in the future?


However, having said that, I also see that Scripture supports that Israel, the nation as a whole, must repent and the nation as a whole will receive forgiveness of sins…

“He will move ungodliness from JACOB”
“When I take away THEIR sins”

Peter’s ministry consistently addressed the “men of Israel” in order to persuade the entire nation to repent and receive their king…

In Acts Peter cries out to the “Men of Israel” telling them that he knows they acted in ignorance just as their rulers did also. He tells them…

“Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out WHEN the times of refreshing shall come from the PRESENSE of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ” (Acts 3:19-20). This tells us that their (as a whole) sins will be blotted out WHEN the Christ comes. This tells us that he will send Jesus AFTER they have repented and converted (turned, as in Isa 59).That passage doesn't say they will one day repent and be converted. It only points out what they needed to do in order to be converted. There is no guarantee there that they all would one day repent. You're reading quite a bit into that passage.


“Jerusalem, Jerusalem…from now on you will not see Me until you say ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Mat. 23).

The Lord warned Jerusalem that she would not see Him again until she repented. Peter informs the “men of Israel” (as a whole) that they must repent & be converted so that their sins may be blotted out WHEN times of refreshing come FROM the PRESENSE of the Lord. This points to national repentance and national redemption.He was speaking to those who were alive at that time. He was telling them that they specifically needed to repent in order to be converted. Obviously, since they are now dead, it's too late for them to repent.

That verse, Matthew 23:39, has been misinterpreted by many, including yourself. The word for "see" in that verse is the Greek "eidon" (Strong's G1492). That word does not have to mean "to visibly see". Here are the ways the word is used in scripture:

1) to see
a) to perceive with the eyes
b) to perceive by any of the senses
c) to perceive, notice, discern, discover
d) to see
1) i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
2) to pay attention, observe
3) to see about something
a) i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it


4) to inspect, examine
5) to look at, behold

e) to experience any state or condition
f) to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit
2) to know
a) to know of anything
b) to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
1) of any fact
2) the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
3) to know how, to be skilled in

c) to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1Th. 5:12)
So, I believe He was not referring to His second coming in that verse. He was instead saying that they would not KNOW Him personally unless they said "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord". If any individual would say that, then he/she would be acknowledging that He was indeed the Messiah who came in the name of the Lord and He would respond to their belief by converting them.


Dan. 9:24 also points to national redemption… it is written that there will be an end of transgression for Daniel’s PEOPLE and there will be an end of sin for Daniel’s PEOPLE, there will be atonement for iniquity for Daniel’s PEOPLE and everlasting righteousness will be brought in for Daniel’s PEOPLE.Daniel 9 is a topic unto itself which has been discussed many times here. Let me just say that Jesus already accomplished the things mentioned in Daniel 9:24 long ago. He already came to take away their sins and turn them from their iniquities.

Acts 3
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Jesus already came to die on the cross for their sins. What more does He need to do for them? Wasn't that enough? Was He mistaken in saying "It is finished."?


Even Peter when writing to the scattered aliens writes, “fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you AT the REVELATION of Jesus Christ.” Hadn’t they already received grace? Yes. But as Peter pointed out in Acts 3 regarding their sins being blotted out WHEN times of refreshing came FROM the presence of the Lord, grace was something that they could look forward to being BROUGHT to them (as a nation) AT the REVELATION of Jesus Christ.No, it was only promised to them if they repented. There was no guarantee given that they would all repent.

wpm
Oct 17th 2008, 06:36 PM
All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

No, Zechariah 12:10-14 was not fulfilled, because there was no differentiation. The whole of Isrel, the whole of the remnant will fulfill this prophecy, and not just some in Israel.

The first absolute is the Holy Spirit's location of its fulfilment - at the cross. You don't even accept that. So we are at another empass. The second is that the true among Israel that embraced salvation - true Israel did in fact mourn.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 06:37 PM
He is sticking with Scripture. What he is saying makes complete sense to many. Just because you don’t see it the way he does, does not mean he is not sticking to Scripture.


"A partial hardening has happened UNTIL"

So what happens AFTER the fullness of the Gentiles comes in? What about Israel's fullness (vs. 12)? When do they get to experience that?Can the fullness of the Gentiles not occur until every single Gentile is saved at the same time?

LookingUp
Oct 17th 2008, 06:43 PM
…It does not say that anywhere. You may be all alone in that belief. If that is a condition of the new covenant then the new covenant would be no different than the old covenant. No one could be saved by the new covenant if it required the keeping of the Mosaic law because the law never saved anyone.Well, if I may… there will be a Mill. Kingdom with kingdom law. The Lord will rule with a rod of iron. There will be rules to follow. The House of Judah and the House of Israel will have His law written on their hearts to such a degree that they will not have to even teach each other to know the Lord. His word will never depart from their offspring nor from the mouth of their offspring’s offspring from then on and forever! And their (house of Judah & house of Israel) sin He will remember no more (Jer. 31). What an amazing covenant for this nation!


We all, including Jew and Gentile believers, have the law of Christ in our hearts…Where is it written that believers in the Body have the law of Christ written on our hearts?


Sorry, but Christ shed His blood long ago and the new covenant has been in effect ever since. It saddens me that you have, IMO, such a flawed view of the new covenant.If the new covenant spoken of in Jer. 31 and Isa. 59 has been in effect ever since the cross, I would really like to experience the time the Lord promised “they will not teach again each man his neighbor and each man his brother saying ‘Know the Lord’ for they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them.” This is obviously a promise of the covenant that is NOT in effect at this time. I would also love to see the promise spoken of in Isa. 59. The word has certainly departed from the offspring of Jacob. His promise to them is that from the moment the covenant takes effect, His word will not depart from their mouths “from now and forever.” This obviously is NOT in effect at this time.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 06:49 PM
You can’t be saved and then unsaved, so the Olive Tree can’t be an illustration of salvation. Paul writes, “if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” God does not cut off salvation from those the Holy Spirit has baptized into His Body. This illustration CANNOT be about salvation. Doesn't it make it clear that the basis for remaining in the tree, being grafted into the tree or being cut off from the tree is faith?

20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

What is necessary for salvation? Faith in Christ (John 3:16). What is necessary for remaining in or being grafted into the good olive tree? Faith in Christ. So, I couldn't disagree with you more.

timmyb
Oct 17th 2008, 06:53 PM
That's right, because the thought of every single person in Israel all doing that at the same time just seems very farfetched. If that is what will happen then why did Jesus question whether He would find faith on the earth when He returned (Luke 18:8)?

Sorry, but believers and unbelievers are NOT on the same team. We want unbelievers to join the team, but one's nationality does not make them a member of the team. Faith in Christ does. Believing Gentiles and believing Jews are on the same team.

He didn't define the nation of Israel that way, no. But what is your understanding of his statement that "they are not all Israel which are of Israel"? Who do you believe is part of the Israel which not all of the nation of Israel is a part?

Do you believe the covenant by which all Israel is saved (as mentioned in Romans 11:26-27 via Isaiah 59:20-21) is a different covenant than the new covenant of grace under which believers have been saved up to this point? In other words, do you believe there is some other covenant besides the new covenant by which the people of Israel will have their sins taken away and be saved in the future?

as farfetched as that may be it will happen... Jesus told them in Matthew 23:37-39 that they will be the ones to call him back to rule and be their king...

we won't see all Israel saved by our own efforts.... it will be Jesus when he crushes the pride of a nation... The realization is that that prophecy is in no way symbolic, i believe it by faith, because it's the word of God for whom nothing is impossible... you cannot refute that even if you tried....

one salvation covenant which was made for the Jew first then the Gentile... God will not forget Israel, and believe the word of the Lord when he says Israel will be saved.... all Israel will repent of their sins and ask Jesus to come into their hearts and will ask him to rule and reign on the earth...

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 07:02 PM
Well, if I may… there will be a Mill. Kingdom with kingdom law. The Lord will rule with a rod of iron. There will be rules to follow. The House of Judah and the House of Israel will have His law written on their hearts to such a degree that they will not have to even teach each other to know the Lord. His word will never depart from their offspring nor from the mouth of their offspring’s offspring from then on and forever! And their (house of Judah & house of Israel) sin He will remember no more (Jer. 31). What an amazing covenant for this nation!The new covenant is for all of us! That was a mystery in OT times, but was revealed in the NT. Why is it still a mystery to you? No one is saved apart from the new covenant of Christ's shed blood.


Where is it written that believers in the Body have the law of Christ written on our hearts?Romans 8
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Gal 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Gal 6:2
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


If the new covenant spoken of in Jer. 31 and Isa. 59 has been in effect ever since the cross, I would really like to experience the time the Lord promised “they will not teach again each man his neighbor and each man his brother saying ‘Know the Lord’ for they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them.” This is obviously a promise of the covenant that is NOT in effect at this time.Really? How do you figure? Do we who are under the new covenant of grace through the shed blood of Christ not all know the Lord?


I would also love to see the promise spoken of in Isa. 59. The word has certainly departed from the offspring of Jacob. His promise to them is that from the moment the covenant takes effect, His word will not depart from their mouths “from now and forever.” This obviously is NOT in effect at this time.That is only referring to the ones under the covenant, which is believers. Isaiah 59:21 is speaking about the Holy Spirit, which all believers have dwelling within them.

quiet dove
Oct 17th 2008, 07:06 PM
You guys are moving rapidly in this thread, remember to take it patiently with one another.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 07:10 PM
as farfetched as that may be it will happen... Jesus told them in Matthew 23:37-39 that they will be the ones to call him back to rule and be their king... He didn't say that in that passage. See my explanation of Matthew 23:29 in post #216 of this thread.


we won't see all Israel saved by our own efforts.... it will be Jesus when he crushes the pride of a nation... The realization is that that prophecy is in no way symbolic, i believe it by faith, because it's the word of God for whom nothing is impossible... you cannot refute that even if you tried....Paul defined "all Israel" in Romans 9:6-8. The Israel that will be entirely saved is the one in which not all the nation of Israel is part. The seed of Isaac and the children of the promise have been saved, are still being saved and eventually will all be saved.


one salvation covenant which was made for the Jew first then the Gentile... God will not forget Israel, and believe the word of the Lord when he says Israel will be saved.... all Israel will repent of their sins and ask Jesus to come into their hearts and will ask him to rule and reign on the earth...God never did forget the people of Israel or cast them aside until a later time. That's where you're mistaken.

Romans 11
1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

God didn't just cast away and cut off the entire nation from His olive tree. There was remnant of believers even in Paul's day that was saved.

LookingUp
Oct 17th 2008, 08:21 PM
This is what I discovered in my own research and which I previously put together... You probably posted this earlier in this thread, huh? I didn’t have time to go through all the previous posts. Thanks for replying. I’m sure it will help me see where you are coming from.


Dispensationalists interpret this passage as if there is an age of Gentile conversion, which when concluded is followed by an age of Jewish conversion. However, that is not what this is saying. In fact, we know that salvation is equally open to Jews and Gentiles today. This alone should nail the fallacy that we are in a day of only Gentile salvation. This passage isn’t remotely suggesting that there is a day coming when salvation will be removed from the Gentiles and given to the Jews. There isn’t a time in the future when salvation is available that Gentiles will be excluded from being saved. Such a thought is absurd. Salvation is available to the “whosever will” right up until the end. The door of opportunity is equally open to the Jew and Gentile during this intra-Advent period.Can I just say that I’m not a dispy who believes that this age is exclusive to Gentile salvation and that the next is exclusive to Jewish salvation. My understanding of Scripture at this time is that this is the age of the Body of Christ. My understanding is NOT that salvation is removed from Israel, given to Gentiles, and then removed from Gentiles and given to Israel. My understanding is that it is the message of the word of the God and the way to God that has been removed from Israel temporarily and given into the Gentile hands.


The word interpreted “until” here in the King James Version confuses many Bible students. It is actually two Greek words in the original: achris hou. The word hou is left un-interpreted in the AV, and means “wherein” in our language. It is difficult to know why the translators left it out, but it seems proper to use it in such an important passage. The other word achris can be translated “until” (as it is in the King James Version), however, it may also equally be translated “while” as it translates the same. The truth is it doesn’t particularly matter which of the two meanings one prefers sincecoupled with the connecting word hou bothgive us the same general meaning.Translating this word hou (as we should) seems to place a different sense on the whole verse. That’s why “while wherein” seems to better reflect what the writer was trying to say. Romans 11:25 is therefore simply teaching that during the whole intra-Advent period an ongoing amount of Jews will continue to be grafted in to the Israel of God (the one and only good olive tree). Saying all this, we leave the passage the way it is translated in the KJV then it still can be understood the same way.Okay, I think I better see what you are seeing now.


Building one’s argument exclusively upon the wording of the King James Version could possibly give one the impression that it explicitly teaches a final end-time mass-salvation of unbelieving Israel. However, a closer look at the original in these passages seems to spread such a conversion over the intra-Advent period. If we were to find an English word to more accurately represent what “until wherein” (achris hou)implies we would probably choose the English word “while.” This would better represent the original. Interestingly, the King James Version actually renders the two Greek words achris houas “while” in Hebrews 3:13, saying, “exhort one another daily, achris hou(or) while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” There are therefore strong grounds for believing that there will continue to be a remnant of believing Jews joining the good olive tree “while” their fellow Gentile believers also do. The engrafting of Jews will be an ongoing process throughout the intra-Advent period rather than merely an event occurring just prior to the Coming of the Lord (as the Dispensationalists believe). Ongoing grafting and breaking off of branches…hmmm… I’m pretty much OSAS, so I just can’t see the Olive Tree representing salvation. Don’t get me wrong, I know there are false confessions of faith, but once the Holy Spirit baptizes one into the Body of Christ, He will not “unbaptize” the believer out of the Body of Christ. It appears this is what you are saying the Olive Tree is all about… once in, you can be taken out. I just can’t agree one can be taken out of the Body of Christ. I do agree, however, that true confessions of faith produce fruit and steadfast faith in the long term. But those who make false confessions were never in the Body in the first place. In your Olive Tree scenario, either those who make false confessions get to be part of the Olive Tree OR you are saying that once a believer is saved and in the Olive Tree, he can be unsaved. Both of these options do not sound biblical to me at this time.


Dispies restrict this great hope for the Jewish people of all ages, making it merely a distant happening for some privileged end-time generation of natural Israelites. In their thinking, this is an immaterial promise for most Jews born since the cross. After all, millions will not be fortunate to belong to that final generation of Jews that will be alive when Christ returns. The vast bulk of Jews are prevented from entering into this great hope – in Dispensational reasoning. This great company of unfortunate Jews unfairly miss out on this glorious day of corporate salvation because of their birthday. However, this interpretation of Romans 11:26 is flawed. This reading relates to the intra-Advent period and is an active ongoing offer for every Jew. This promise is operating and effective until Christ returns. Dispies are wrong to view this as just an end-time event, because Scripture depicts salvation as an ongoing process for the Jews. The limiting of this promise must be rejected on scriptural grounds. It removes the broad relativity of this promise to those it relates to (namely all Jews that repent of their sin) and transfers it to a choice generation of Jews that find themselves alive when Jesus comes.I’m trying to see the unfairness you see… I’m having a hard time with it. As you’ve pointed out, all Jews today have equal opportunity to repent and turn to Christ as Lord and Savior. I don’t see unfairness in that.

Just because God has a particular group in mind that He knows will repent and turn to Christ as Lord and Savior at the end of this age, doesn’t take away what He has given to every Jew since the cross; equal opportunity to repent and turn.

This is the way I see the faithful remnant from Rom. 11:5 (those who are called according to God’s gracious choice during the time He is forming the Body of Christ) –

Each of these individuals has the potential to become part of that end time group who will be saved after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. When they come to faith during this period of the formation of the Body of Christ, they are no longer qualified to be a part of that end time group. They have become part of the Body of Christ. The faithful remnant who do come to faith AFTER the fullness of the Gentiles comes in are no longer qualified to be a part of the Body of Christ. They will become part of another group; the “end time” group who will be saved after the blindness is lifted off of the nation. I know this rubs you the wrong way… the whole idea of groups. But that is what I honestly see in Scripture at this time of my walk with Christ. All groups have equal salvation. That doesn't sound unfair to me.

LookingUp
Oct 17th 2008, 08:35 PM
Actually, on this point, I actually agree with John146. The olive tree is a tree of salvation, and Paul's warning in chapter 11 is indeed a warning to practicing believer that like Israel, if we turn froo mthe faith, then we too will be cut off, denoting the kindness and severity of God.Hi ... Doug is it? :) Thanks for this thread. Even though I have not had the time to read all the posts, it has been interesting.

The interpretations of the Olive Tree sure have been many, haven't they? I don't have firm answers regarding the Olive Tree analogy but the one thing I can say is that since I’m pretty much OSAS, I can’t believe that this represents salvation. Once the Holy Spirit baptizes one into the Body of Christ, He can’t unbaptize one out of it. It sounds like that is what you are saying about the Olive Tree. Either an unbeliever gets to be in the Olive Tree and then broken off OR a believer gets to be in the Olive Tree and then broken off. Once an arm, leg, eye, etc of the Body of Christ, always an arm, leg, eye etc of the Body of Christ. Some body parts choose to be more effective and others do not.

Do you see my concern here?

By the way, I have a brother in Christ who wrote a very interesting take on the fullness of the Gentiles if you’d like me to post it. I’ll go look for it in my files.

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 08:38 PM
If I say to you, God is going to cause Lord Jesus to split a mountain at a designated point and you do not believe it, and it happens exactly as I say it, would you really have a choice whether to believe me or not? Your choices are not at that point to either believe me or not. The choice would be to believe what you have seen, or else believe in a lie. This is why I say that they will have no choice at that point other than to believe. They will either believe in what their own scripture, or else reject their own religion, because at that point, God will have effectively taken over the entire religion of the Jews, which will be nothing more than our religion. This is why I say they have no choice, because their choice at that time will be believe in the scriptures, or else convert to the religion of the beast. Which is it then? Will they have a choice or not? In the same sentence you said they have no choice and then said they have a choice to believe in the scriptures or in the religion of the beast.


I disagee on the time in which Israel will continue in blindness. I believe that it will end prior to the end of the age, but your point is valid nevertheless. Those who believe while in Jerusalem shall be hidden, and the rest will have to undergo the Grat Tribulation along with the rest of us. This is why Jesus will ask the question, will He find Faith on this earth when He returns.What did you mean by your statement that "Those who believe while in Jerusalem shall be hidden, and the rest will have to undergo the Grat Tribulation along with the rest of us"?

John146
Oct 17th 2008, 08:40 PM
Hi ... Doug is it? :) Thanks for this thread. Even though I have not had the time to read all the posts, it has been interesting.

The interpretations of the Olive Tree sure have been many, haven't they? I don't have firm answers regarding the Olive Tree analogy but the one thing I can say is that since I’m pretty much OSAS, I can’t believe that this represents salvation. Once the Holy Spirit baptizes one into the Body of Christ, He can’t unbaptize one out of it. It sounds like that is what you are saying about the Olive Tree. Either an unbeliever gets to be in the Olive Tree and then broken off OR a believer gets to be in the Olive Tree and then broken off. Once an arm, leg, eye, etc of the Body of Christ, always an arm, leg, eye etc of the Body of Christ. Some body parts choose to be more effective and others do not.

Do you see my concern here?What do you believe the olive tree represents? Please be as specific as you possibly can.

LookingUp
Oct 17th 2008, 09:12 PM
What do you believe the olive tree represents? Please be as specific as you possibly can.
Why?


15 characters

LookingUp
Oct 17th 2008, 09:39 PM
Let's find the proper context for Joel 2:28-32. It is quoted within Acts 2:16-21.


This is Peter speaking to the people who were witnessing the events on the day of Pentecost:

Acts 2
14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel (in Joel 2:28-32);
17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

When it says whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved, that is a reference to the entire NT time period. That statement applied from that day of Pentecost til the end of the age.But the rest of Joel’s prophecy did NOT take place. Besides, hasn’t it always been that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Psalm 4, 55, 79, 105, 116). Joel’s prophecy is a specific prophecy about the end times. It had only begun in Acts 2 but never did finish.

Something that should tell us it has not been fulfilled is that we do NOT continue to see anyone perform prophesy as in the 1st century church, we do NOT see anyone having visions and dreams as they did in the 1st century church. There were not wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath; blood fire and vapour of smoke. The sun was not turned into darkness and the moon into blood and no “great and notable day of the Lord came” at that point in Acts 2. So the “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” specific to the day of the Lord is yet to come.


Which is why Paul said this:


Romans 10
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
As I have pointed out, hasn’t that always been the Lord’s character?


This lifting of the hardening/blinding is nowhere mentioned within Romans 11. You are inserting that idea into the text and assuming that's what it is saying, but it does not actually specifically say that anywhere.The Lord tells us, “Render the hearts of this people insensitive” (Isa 6) and “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart” (John 12) and “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not” (Rom 11) and then Paul speaks of these blind ones and says of them, “Now if their (blind ones) transgression is riches for the world and their (blind ones) failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their (blind ones) fulfillment be! (Rom. 11)

The only way these “blind ones” will experience the fulfillment Paul speaks of in Rom. 11 is if God lifts this blindness from them so they can see. The faithful remnant (those who were chosen according to God’s gracious choice Rom. 11:5) were not part of the blind ones. The only ones who obtained what Israel was seeking were the ones who were chosen according to God’s gracious choice (faithful remnant).

Therefore, those who will experience “how much more will their fulfillment be”, can only be attributed to those blind ones who will receive this after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.


He already came.


Romans 11
26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
If He already took away their sins then why does Paul say that He WILL (future tense) take away their sins? Why does Paul say that the blinded ones WILL have fulfillment (vs. 12) in the future?


What covenant do you think this is referring to which has to do with taking away (forgiving) sins? Is it not the same covenant Jesus mentions here:


Matt 26
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

What other covenant deals with the forgiveness of people's sins than the new covenant of Christ's atoning blood? None that I'm aware of. Has the new covenant not been effect for almost 2,000 years already? Of course. So, why do you see Romans 11:26-27 as applying only to some day in the future?It’s not the new cov. that has been in effect; it’s the blood that has been in effect.

The blood was the requirement to fulfill the new covenant. The redemption of Israel cannot be accomplished without it.

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for he has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people (Luke 1)

At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2)

But we were hoping that it was he who was going to redeem Israel (Luke 24)

We share in her spiritual things by grace through faith in Christ because of the blood. The blood which happens to be of the covenant.

BroRog
Oct 17th 2008, 10:25 PM
You are not making any sense. This just makes no sense at all.

John,

I am working too hard for you not to understand what I am saying. For some reason that I can't explain, there remains a big difference between what I say to you and what you repeat back to me.

I'm not trying to be rude or insulting. I'm just making an observation. At some point in the discussion I just have to admit that I am not as good a communicator as I need to be or want to be.

Sorry we can't seem to connect. :)

jesuslover1968
Oct 17th 2008, 11:45 PM
Okay, but isn't there a nation of Israel that includes unbelievers who are not part of the spiritual seed of spiritual Israel? Which then means there is spiritual Israel and then there is natural Israel (natural descendants)? A natural seed of Abraham (Rom 9:7) and a spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29)? Children of the flesh only as opposed to children of the promise?

If Paul was only speaking of one Israel then was he saying they are not all Israel who are of the non-existent Israel? Hopefully, you see my point. I'm not trying to be difficult. I don't see that there's a problem in saying that there are two Israels: spiritual and natural.


Well, In a way, there might be. It may lead those who are less learned to believe that there are in fact TWO Israels, when there is one. I'm not trying to be difficult, either, just trying to make a point. Paul was not trying to teach the people that there were two Israels. He was trying to teach them that there is one Israel, and he was trying to teach them which one is real, and which one isn't.

drew
Oct 18th 2008, 01:59 AM
Well, In a way, there might be. It may lead those who are less learned to believe that there are in fact TWO Israels, when there is one. I'm not trying to be difficult, either, just trying to make a point. Paul was not trying to teach the people that there were two Israels. He was trying to teach them that there is one Israel, and he was trying to teach them which one is real, and which one isn't.
I have to agree with John146 on this one. In Romans 9, Paul clearly introduces the concept of a "spiritual" or "true" Israel that is clearly distinct from "national" Israel even though, of course, a person can be a member of both these groups. And this concept is not only in chapter 9. It is also there in Romans 4:

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all

Paul could not be more clear. He is identifying the same familty as he identifies in Romans 9. He is saying that "true" Israel - the "real" children of Abraham is a family that contains both Jews (those of the Torah or law) and Gentiles.

And yet Paul clearly also retains the category of national Israel. This is demonstrated not least in Romans 9 here:

2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

Here, Paul cannot be referring to "true" Israel, since he indicates that this Israel has missed the Messiah and is on the outside looking in, excluded from membership in "true" Israel.

So Paul clearly does have these two categories in mind - "true" Israel and national Israel.

third hero
Oct 18th 2008, 05:02 AM
The first absolute is the Holy Spirit's location of its fulfilment - at the cross. You don't even accept that. So we are at another empass. The second is that the true among Israel that embraced salvation - true Israel did in fact mourn.

Another subject at another time. However, I do ponder your response to my post. :huh:

Are you implying that at the cross, Zechariah 12:10-14 was fulfilled? Really? Ok, so the ALL of the Jews mourned after Lord Jesus when He died on the cross.....
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

Obviously, I do not understand your angle here. And so I say again :huh:

third hero
Oct 18th 2008, 05:55 AM
You need to look at Romans 10:12-13 which plainly states, “for there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

This statement in Romans is definitely contravened in your writings. You differentiate between natural Israel and the Gentile today elevating Jews to a favoured position among the nations; however, Scripture doesn’t allow this. Rather, those who humbly bow the knee to Christ in faith and repentance enter into perfect union with God, whether Jew or Gentile.

A theme that I believe I am going to use while dealing with tonight's editions of rebuttles against wpm and company. :huh:
Seriously, are you insinuating that I am saying that God is going to save all Israel by means other than the means that all of us are saved? Really? You are really going there? Wow. I truly can not believe this.

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it appears that you ARE accusing me of saying that God is going to save Israel by means other than their repentence of their sins.

Moreover, you are definitely accusing me of elevating the Jews above every other nation. You know what, you may be right. Let's see. It was the nation of Israel that brought forth Lord Jesus, a concept that even you agree is what Paul explains in Romans 11. They were also the nation that God created originally, and He did show preference for that nation long before Christ walked the earth. If what you call "elevating one nation over another" is me stating the obvious, which is that God's nation was always Israel, then you are right.

The truth of the matter is this, wpm. I am not elevating any nation above another. The truth of the matter is that I am telling you what you do not want to hear, something that you claim the Bible does not allow even though the OT is full of the "contradictions" that you say it does not allow. What I am telling you is this: God is not done with Israel as a nation. To you, ethnic Israel is no longer God's chosen people, although Romans 11 disproves your theory. You want to say that God will treat Israel like every other nation when the Bible itself, especially the OT and Revelation 12 disproves your assertion. (If God treated all nations equally, then He would not provide a place for Israel to hide while the rest oft he world is tried, saints included). You want to use the "spiritual Israel" thing in order to divorce the nation that God built and controled from Him, when even Paul comes against you in saying that you, Gentile, are not to be wise in your own conceits. God is not done with Israel. Physical Israel has a place in God's plan to save mankind, and Paul irons that place out, using the whole of Romans 11.

You know, your own prose contradicts your asertations. You claim that God does not discriminate between the nations, but have you even considered what Paul calls the believers? You called them this too. Spiritual ISRAEL! Your own asessments of the believers contradict your view that God is not prejudicial against the other nations of the world. Those who obey Him, He calls "ISRAEL", while those who do not believe in His Son are called the children of Satan, aka the world. Even when we argue about Israel's present condition and God's plan to save Israel, you contradict yourself in saying that God does not elevate one nation above another when even the name of the believers are linked to the very nation you say God is not using to discriminate against the nations with. Now this I find funny, funny that I didn't mention this before.

You are right though about one thing, God is not a respector of persons, and honestly, I believe that He is going to save all of Israel, whether you approve or not. He is not a respector of me, and He is not a respector of you. This is the TRUE definition of "God is not a respecter of persons". He doesn't answer to you or me. What God will do, He will do.


The New Testament proves that Zechariah 12 was fulfilled at the cross.
This relates to when Messiah appeared nearly 2,000 years ago.
As predicted, salvation flowed out from the Cross – firstly to Israel, then to the nations. Many, many Jews have accepted Christ and His sacrifice for sin since then. Many came to a personal faith in Christ after the resurrection. Since then, countless Gentiles have entered into the joy of sins forgiven. The cross is man’s only hope; it is the only means by which sinful man (Jew or Gentile, pre-Calvary or post) can enter into union with God. It is the only way that man can be reconciled onto sinful creatures and experience the wonderful quickening “spirit of grace.” The Holy Spirit came like rivers of living water to all who would believe in Christ. Jews by the thousands, as well as new Gentile converts were the welcome recipients of this following Calvary.



John 19:30-37 says, “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture (Zechariah 12:10) saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced.”

This does not fulfill Zechariah 12:10-14. Taking one portion of one scripture, and applying it to the entire prophecy is the same as saying that 1 Thes 4:16-17 proves that the rapture comes before the Lord's return without factoring in verse 15. I will not call it dishonest. I will call it wrong, however.. When they looked upon Him who they have pierced, did they mourn? Did every individual in every family of every tribe of the remnant of the nation of Israel mourn and be bitter over Him? The reference in John 19 to Zechariah 12 is the portion in which John applied, which is this.

Zechariah prophecied that the Messiah would be pierced.

If the "they shall look upon me, whom they pierced", was the only portion of that prophecy, then guess what, you would win. However, this portion of scripture, like every other portions of scripture that people attempt to use in part without taking in the entire portion, has more to it than the "they shall look upon Me, whom they have pierced". No, in fact, there was more to the entire story. In order for that prophecy to be completed, all of the families of those that remain have to mourn and be bitter over the "Me, whom they have pierced", which is the other portion of that very same verse! You are doing the exact same thing that dispensationalists do, and take snippets of scripture, take them out of context, and then apply them to the whole passage, as though the partial fulfillment of a scripture equates to the total fulfillment. Seriously, I am not about to fall for such short-sighted tactic.

Should you call this another "white elephant"?


Paul highlights an important truth in Romans 3:29, asking,
“Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles ethnos (or) ?” To which he replies, “Yes, of the Gentiles ethnos (or) (or nations or non-Jews) also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”


Here we have it; God is God of the nations today, not just Israel. We the Church are the people of God today.

I get it. You can not argue against what I have presented, and therefore you have to resort back to viewing me as a dispensationalist in order to get me to write a fallacy that you can pounce on. I get it.

Well, I thought this was about getting into the truth, and yet, you want to blur the issue in order to make yourself look like you are the winner. Seriously, it doesn't suit you. Stick to the subject, wpm, because I am not about to derail my own thread, and you are not going to make me.

I have never mentioned that God is not the God of the Gentiles. I never even hinted to this, and yet you intend to derail the thread with an accusation that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I have thrown Romans 11 into play. If you can not argue against the logic that Paul brings forth in that chapter, and you can not admit it, then don't bother replying. I mean, at least John146 is arguing his points while staying on topic. Why must you resort to derailment? Is this, another white elephant? Show me where I have mentioned that God is the God of the Jews only?


The same Greek word ethnos (Gentiles/nations) is found in Ephesians 3:2-6 when explaining the grace of God in the spread of the gospel to the nations. There it explains the meaning of the says,
“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the ethnos (or) Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”


We are of the same body of the OT saints - including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.They are actually throughout the Word. Don't make Romans 11 the exception. The election are true Israel - the election.

Um, you know...
Paul is not lumping all of the election in on his explanation of the plight of ethnic Israel in Romans 11. He is showing the Gentile believers what the condition of the nation of Israel is. This is why "the election" in THAT PASSAGE, is meant for the believing JEW. Again, when you inject verses that are not a part of the original passage, you lose the meaning of that passage.

Moreover, when you inject an unrelated topic into this thread, then the point of this thread is missed, what we call "derailment". I will not allow it.




I don't believe there is anything to refute here. I believe it is mere opinion and speculation. There is no biblical basis for it.


http://bibleforums.org/showpos...9&postcount=45 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1811899&postcount=45)
http://bibleforums.org/showpos...9&postcount=46 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1811919&postcount=46)
http://bibleforums.org/showpos...8&postcount=47

Nope, no scriptural basis at all. One thing I do know:

Those posts that I have above here, you have not read. Otherwise the "only speculation with no biblical basis" would not have been written by you. Read them, you might be surprised. there is much more scriptural evidence for my propgation than you give me credit for.

third hero
Oct 18th 2008, 06:37 AM
Hi ... Doug is it? :) Thanks for this thread. Even though I have not had the time to read all the posts, it has been interesting.

The interpretations of the Olive Tree sure have been many, haven't they? I don't have firm answers regarding the Olive Tree analogy but the one thing I can say is that since I’m pretty much OSAS, I can’t believe that this represents salvation. Once the Holy Spirit baptizes one into the Body of Christ, He can’t unbaptize one out of it. It sounds like that is what you are saying about the Olive Tree. Either an unbeliever gets to be in the Olive Tree and then broken off OR a believer gets to be in the Olive Tree and then broken off. Once an arm, leg, eye, etc of the Body of Christ, always an arm, leg, eye etc of the Body of Christ. Some body parts choose to be more effective and others do not.

Do you see my concern here?

By the way, I have a brother in Christ who wrote a very interesting take on the fullness of the Gentiles if you’d like me to post it. I’ll go look for it in my files.

Hello. I figured you were OSAS, and so this passage in Romans 11 is difficult for you to understand. The reason why I say that the olive tree is a salvation tree is not because of the idea that this doctrine may force those who do not totally understand it to be more than what God wanted them to be, as though works will gain us anything. Paul mentions that the branches that were broken off were broken off due to their unbelief. IF faith is all that is required for Salvation, and one then turns away from that faith, is that not paramount to that person denying Christ? That is why the natural branches were broken off, not because they did not produce works, but because they did not porduce faith, meaning that they refused to believe Lord Jesus at His word.

Also, it is my opinion that the "body of Christ" is not a literal body of the Lord Jesus, but a conglomeration of similar parts. It's like a "body of water" or the "body of this post". It does not represent a human body, and thus the analogy to the human body brings about unintention consequences, like the OSAS doctrine. Paul clearly states that if we, who believe, turn our backs on the faith, then we will be cut off, just like those of Israel who rejected and continue to reject Lord Jesus as the Son of God.

Think of it like this. I say that I am a Christian. I was dunked. I spoke in tongues. And I decide one day to totally reject the Lord, renounce my religion, and live like the most wicked of sinners. Am I going to be part of the elections? Unless I repent and come back to the Lord, I am broken off. This is what Paul is saying.

I know you see things differently, and we can debate that on another thread, but that is not the topic at hand, and I really do not want to derail this thread. So we can talk about the Olive tree later.

third hero
Oct 18th 2008, 06:44 AM
Which is it then? Will they have a choice or not? In the same sentence you said they have no choice and then said they have a choice to believe in the scriptures or in the religion of the beast.

Can we say, hyperliteral? You know what i meant. There is always a choice, but the alternative is not pleasent.


What did you mean by your statement that "Those who believe while in Jerusalem shall be hidden, and the rest will have to undergo the Grat Tribulation along with the rest of us"?

When the Abomination that causes desolation happens, Jesus tells those who are in Judea to head for the hills. I have read a similar, if not the exact retelling of what Jesus said would happen when the abomination that causes desolation happens in Zechariah 14:1-3. I also read Revelation 12 and realized that the portion that talks about Israel hiding in the wilderness and the earth opening up to aid her escape is again retold in Zechariah 14:3-4. Connecting the dots, I find that when the Abomination that causes desolation happens, Zechariah 14:1-5 will be fulfilled, with the Great Tribulation happening between verses 4 and 5. Therefore, when the Mount of Olives splits, the remnant will run through the mountain valley, and thus be in hiding for the duration of the Great Tribulation, thus fulfilling Zechariah 14:1-4, Matthew 24:15-22, and Revelation 12:13-17.

third hero
Oct 18th 2008, 06:50 AM
I have to agree with John146 on this one. In Romans 9, Paul clearly introduces the concept of a "spiritual" or "true" Israel that is clearly distinct from "national" Israel even though, of course, a person can be a member of both these groups. And this concept is not only in chapter 9. It is also there in Romans 4:

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all

Paul could not be more clear. He is identifying the same familty as he identifies in Romans 9. He is saying that "true" Israel - the "real" children of Abraham is a family that contains both Jews (those of the Torah or law) and Gentiles.

And yet Paul clearly also retains the category of national Israel. This is demonstrated not least in Romans 9 here:

2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

Here, Paul cannot be referring to "true" Israel, since he indicates that this Israel has missed the Messiah and is on the outside looking in, excluded from membership in "true" Israel.

So Paul clearly does have these two categories in mind - "true" Israel and national Israel.

So what are you saying? Are you saying that Paul is talking about the "two" Israels in Romans 11? This IS the original point of contention here. Does Paul apply the "Spiritual" verses the "Natural" Israel comparison in Romans 11?

John146
Oct 18th 2008, 02:52 PM
Why?


15 charactersBecause you are telling me my understanding of the olive tree is flawed, so I'm inviting you to enlighten me as to the true identity of the good olive tree of Romans 11.

John146
Oct 18th 2008, 02:55 PM
Another subject at another time. However, I do ponder your response to my post. :huh:

Are you implying that at the cross, Zechariah 12:10-14 was fulfilled? Really? Ok, so the ALL of the Jews mourned after Lord Jesus when He died on the cross.....
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

Obviously, I do not understand your angle here. And so I say again :huh:Can you give us your interpretation of John 19:30-37? Why was Zechariah 12:10 quoted as being fulfilled in John 19:37 if it wasn't actually fulfilled?

wpm
Oct 18th 2008, 02:58 PM
Another subject at another time. However, I do ponder your response to my post. :huh:

Are you implying that at the cross, Zechariah 12:10-14 was fulfilled? Really? Ok, so the ALL of the Jews mourned after Lord Jesus when He died on the cross.....
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

Obviously, I do not understand your angle here. And so I say again :huh:

There could hardly have been a family unaffected by the death of Christ. In the city of Jerusalem many even came to salvation after His death. Many Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere accepted Christ. They mourned over their sin which was cruelly nailed to the tree.

During His earthly ministry

John 2:23 records: "Now when Jesus was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name"

John 8:30 records: "As he spake these words, many believed on him."

John 10:42 records: "And many believed on him there."

John 12:42 records: "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him"

After His death

Acts 2:4 tells us: "there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

Acts 4:4 tells us: "believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand. "

Acts 5:16 tells us: "There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem"

Acts 14:1 tells us: "a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed."

Acts 19:10 tells us: "And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. "

Acts 21:20 tells us: "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe"

LookingUp
Oct 18th 2008, 03:32 PM
Can we say, hyperliteral? You know what i meant. There is always a choice, but the alternative is not pleasent.



When the Abomination that causes desolation happens, Jesus tells those who are in Judea to head for the hills. I have read a similar, if not the exact retelling of what Jesus said would happen when the abomination that causes desolation happens in Zechariah 14:1-3. I also read Revelation 12 and realized that the portion that talks about Israel hiding in the wilderness and the earth opening up to aid her escape is again retold in Zechariah 14:3-4. Connecting the dots, I find that when the Abomination that causes desolation happens, Zechariah 14:1-5 will be fulfilled, with the Great Tribulation happening between verses 4 and 5. Therefore, when the Mount of Olives splits, the remnant will run through the mountain valley, and thus be in hiding for the duration of the Great Tribulation, thus fulfilling Zechariah 14:1-4, Matthew 24:15-22, and Revelation 12:13-17.Can I ask a quick question. Tell me, are you saying that AFTER Jesus sets foot on the mount, THEN the GT takes place? So, the entire GT takes place WHILE the Lord is physically on the earth?

wpm
Oct 18th 2008, 03:42 PM
What I am telling you is this: God is not done with Israel as a nation.

Who has said anything different?


To you, ethnic Israel is no longer God's chosen people, although Romans 11 disproves your theory. You want to say that God will treat Israel like every other nation when the Bible itself, especially the OT and Revelation 12 disproves your assertion. (If God treated all nations equally, then He would not provide a place for Israel to hide while the rest oft he world is tried, saints included).

Salvation is as open to the Jews as any Gentile, but Israel's favoured place among the nations has been lost. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:29, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17). The sinner (of all nationalities) enters exclusively into communion with God through regeneration and the new birth experience.

Regardless of what Dispensationalists say, a man is not rendered chosen because of race. It is wrong for anyone to state that the Jews are God's elect (without proper qualification of the statement). It is the Jews that believe in Christ and His atoning sacrifice at Calvary that alone are God's chosen people. God's people are the community of believers who accept Jesus as their Saviour. A Jew that rejects Christ cannot in any way be viewed (or described) as God's elect.

Jesus said in John 5:23b-24, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

Salvation is open equally to the Jew and the Gentile today. Why? Because, “unto all and upon all them that believe … there is no difference” (Romans 3:22). The Jews that reject Christ today are not God's chosen people; the Jews today that believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour are God's chosen people, along the Gentile Christians everyone that comes onto Christ in repentance belongs onto Christ. Who is excluded from coming to Christ? Those that reject salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The Jews that reject Christ have the same father as the Muslims that reject Christ - he is called Satan.

I John 2:22-23 solemnly asks, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (or Messiah)? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”

When it comes to salvation, “election” is exclusively identified with the redeemed – those that are saved by precious blood. There is no other effectual election known to sinful creatures since Adam. Man enters into God’s redemption through God’s sovereign grace and by the exercise of saving faith. No one in history has ever been saved on the ground of their nationality, family or heritage. Not now, in the past or in the future. It was always on the ground of personal salvation. Race, colour or status has absolutely no bearing upon salvation. That is repeatedly shown throughout the New Testament. It is therefore wrong to imagine that circumcision benefits men when it comes to salvation; the New Testament teaches otherwise.

Jesus said in John 15:23, “He that hateth me hateth my Father also.”

Israel was a favoured nation in the Old Testament, however, that all changed at the Cross. The Gospel was equally opened up to all nations, kindreds and tribes. Now God has chosen all nations to manifest salvation on this earth. There is no lone nation that can claim an elevated place today. Salvation is only sure for those who love Christ (Jew and Gentile), the rest who reject God's only provision for sin (Jew and Gentile) are damned and doomed for all eternity. Christ alone is our only way of access to heaven. Jesus said, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9).

Election is found alone through in faith in Christ. It people do not love Him then the wrath of God rests upon them. The vast majority of Israel and the Gentiles hate Christ, it such a state they are not chosen but damned to eternal punishment.

Jesus said, in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

How can you deem a nation that overwhelmingly rejects Christ to be God's chosen people? That is absurd. Sinners are sinners and saints are saints. The wicked have the wrath of God on them, not the favour of God as you argue. The wicked have the judgment of God on them, not the blessing of God as you suggest. What is more, salvation is personal not corporate as you assert.

LookingUp
Oct 18th 2008, 03:51 PM
Hello. I figured you were OSAS, and so this passage in Romans 11 is difficult for you to understand. The reason why I say that the olive tree is a salvation tree is not because of the idea that this doctrine may force those who do not totally understand it to be more than what God wanted them to be, as though works will gain us anything. Paul mentions that the branches that were broken off were broken off due to their unbelief. IF faith is all that is required for Salvation, and one then turns away from that faith, is that not paramount to that person denying Christ?Yes! Agreed for sure.


That is why the natural branches were broken off, not because they did not produce works, but because they did not porduce faith, meaning that they refused to believe Lord Jesus at His word.Agreed again. I want to make one point. If you are serious (meaning you have the time), I’ll put this in another thread. I DO wonder about the Olive Tree & wouldn’t mind hearing your more detailed take on it.


Also, it is my opinion that the "body of Christ" is not a literal body of the Lord Jesus, but a conglomeration of similar parts. It's like a "body of water" or the "body of this post".Hmmm… I see what you mean but wouldn’t you say the Body of Christ is LIKE the human body in that just LIKE the human body, the arm cannot be detached from the body once the Creator of that body attaches it?


It does not represent a human body, and thus the analogy to the human body brings about unintention consequences, like the OSAS doctrine. Paul clearly states that if we, who believe, turn our backs on the faith, then we will be cut off, just like those of Israel who rejected and continue to reject Lord Jesus as the Son of God.I agree to what you are saying regarding the lack of faith leading to the breaking off of branches. But I do not see that Rom. 11 supports that the lack of faith in ONE individual leads to the breaking off of that individual branch. And no, I am not suggesting “group” salvation or “group” loss of salvation, but this passage (in my reading of it) is clearly about groups.


Think of it like this. I say that I am a Christian. I was dunked. I spoke in tongues. And I decide one day to totally reject the Lord, renounce my religion, and live like the most wicked of sinners. Am I going to be part of the elections? Unless I repent and come back to the Lord, I am broken off. This is what Paul is saying.In this scenario, the confession was false and did not trick the Holy Spirit into Him baptizing you into the Body of Christ. IMO, the attachment to the Olive Tree is not the same as being baptized into the Body of Christ.


I know you see things differently, and we can debate that on another thread, but that is not the topic at hand, and I really do not want to derail this thread. So we can talk about the Olive tree later.Now that you see a little more clearly where I’m at with this, do you still want me to start a new thread?

wpm
Oct 18th 2008, 03:56 PM
Can we say, hyperliteral? You know what i meant. There is always a choice, but the alternative is not pleasent.



When the Abomination that causes desolation happens, Jesus tells those who are in Judea to head for the hills. I have read a similar, if not the exact retelling of what Jesus said would happen when the abomination that causes desolation happens in Zechariah 14:1-3. I also read Revelation 12 and realized that the portion that talks about Israel hiding in the wilderness and the earth opening up to aid her escape is again retold in Zechariah 14:3-4. Connecting the dots, I find that when the Abomination that causes desolation happens, Zechariah 14:1-5 will be fulfilled, with the Great Tribulation happening between verses 4 and 5. Therefore, when the Mount of Olives splits, the remnant will run through the mountain valley, and thus be in hiding for the duration of the Great Tribulation, thus fulfilling Zechariah 14:1-4, Matthew 24:15-22, and Revelation 12:13-17.

I have tried to avoid getting into your future location of the abomination of desolation, but you keep referring to it, so I must address it. Once again, I believe you are looking at this wrong. To be honest: this is classic Dispensational thinking. Let us look at the NT refernces:

The disciples asked two questions in Matthew 24.


Matthew 24:3 records:

1. "When shall these things be?"
2. "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Mark 13:4 records:

1. "When shall these things be?"
2. "What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled (finished or ended)?"

Luke 21:7 records:

1. "When shall these things be?"
2. "What sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"

Christ addressed both questions and both eras in chapter 24. However, because of the intermingling of His response, many Bible students suffer great confusion in identifying what aspect of the teaching relates to AD 70 and what relates to the Second Coming.

In His response to the first question in Matthew 24:15-21, He spoke of the end of the 40 year probationary period (AD 70), saying,“When ye (the disciples) therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet(the idolatrous continuation of the abolished Jewish sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem despite the finished work of Calvary), stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand:Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation [thlipsis], such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”

When we compare Matthew’s account to the two corresponding accounts of the same story by Mark and Luke, we see that the “great tribulation” outlined in this reading expressly relates to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and that it therefore has already been completely fulfilled.

Mark 13:14-19 says, “when ye (the disciples) shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. For in those days shall be tribulation [thlipsis], such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.”

Luke’s parallel passage, in Luke 21:20-24, records, “when ye (the disciples) shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

How can the futurists seriously relate these parallel accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which resulted in the unbelieving Jews being dispersed to “all nations,” to a supposed seven-year end-time persecution of the Church of Jesus Christ? Remember, it was this awful approaching judgment upon the Jews that caused Christ to weep over Jerusalem, crying, “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! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” It was Israel’s wanton rejection of Messiah that drew this widespread devastation upon the land. The Jewish people are clearly the recipients of this great judgment, which is similarly described in the respective readings as the “wrath,” “vengeance” and “tribulation great” of God. But why such vengeance? Because the Jewish nation had finally rejected God’s only provision for sin and uncleanness – their Messiah – by crucifying Him. It was now time for God to punish them with His “wrath” for this great iniquitous transgression.

The territory in view in these readings is undoubtedly natural Israel. Jerusalem is the city that is “compassed with armies” in this reading. Jerusalem is the city that will “be trodden down of the Gentiles.”Jerusalem’s inhabitants, and those that are in the immediate area of Judaea, are the people that are specifically instructed to escape “into the mountains.” All one had to do therefore to escape this tribulation was to leave the city and Judaea and “flee into the mountains.”This severely limits the geographical location under analysis and proves that it relates solely to the area surrounding Jerusalem rather than a global picture. Also, it was their house (the temple in Jerusalem) that was to be left “desolate.” The Lord succinctly said, “there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”This all occurred in AD 70.

Just prior to the Lord’s comments in Luke 21:20-24 re the impending destruction of Jerusalem, Christ warned the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem in Luke 19:42-44, “if thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.”

After this, Christ “went into the temple” (v 45), thus, once again, confirming the exact location and subject of His discourse. The temple would expressly be destroyed because the Jewish people knewest not the time of thy visitation.” They failed to recognise the Messiah in their midst. Christ was undoubtedly speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70. This couldn’t possibly relate to an end-time persecuted Church, as God's elect would never be made subject to the wrath of God from the devil because they “knewest not the time of” their “visitation.”

LookingUp
Oct 18th 2008, 04:15 PM
Because you are telling me my understanding of the olive tree is flawed, so I'm inviting you to enlighten me as to the true identity of the good olive tree of Romans 11.Oh. Well, unfortunately, just because I can see a flaw in one's interpretation of a passage doesn’t automatically mean I will then have the correct interpretation. I wish it could be that easy!

Remember, I wrote…


The interpretations of the Olive Tree sure have been many, haven't they? I don't have firm answers regarding the Olive Tree analogy…Sorry I couldn't be of more help. We may start a thread about it though... just to go over some things and see if more can be clarified.

third hero
Oct 18th 2008, 05:28 PM
Who has said anything different?



Salvation is as open to the Jews as any Gentile, but Israel's favoured place among the nations has been lost. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:29, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17). The sinner (of all nationalities) enters exclusively into communion with God through regeneration and the new birth experience.

Regardless of what Dispensationalists say, a man is not rendered chosen because of race. It is wrong for anyone to state that the Jews are God's elect (without proper qualification of the statement). It is the Jews that believe in Christ and His atoning sacrifice at Calvary that alone are God's chosen people. God's people are the community of believers who accept Jesus as their Saviour. A Jew that rejects Christ cannot in any way be viewed (or described) as God's elect.

Jesus said in John 5:23b-24, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

Salvation is open equally to the Jew and the Gentile today. Why? Because, “unto all and upon all them that believe … there is no difference” (Romans 3:22). The Jews that reject Christ today are not God's chosen people; the Jews today that believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour are God's chosen people, along the Gentile Christians everyone that comes onto Christ in repentance belongs onto Christ. Who is excluded from coming to Christ? Those that reject salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The Jews that reject Christ have the same father as the Muslims that reject Christ - he is called Satan.

I John 2:22-23 solemnly asks, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (or Messiah)? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”

When it comes to salvation, “election” is exclusively identified with the redeemed – those that are saved by precious blood. There is no other effectual election known to sinful creatures since Adam. Man enters into God’s redemption through God’s sovereign grace and by the exercise of saving faith. No one in history has ever been saved on the ground of their nationality, family or heritage. Not now, in the past or in the future. It was always on the ground of personal salvation. Race, colour or status has absolutely no bearing upon salvation. That is repeatedly shown throughout the New Testament. It is therefore wrong to imagine that circumcision benefits men when it comes to salvation; the New Testament teaches otherwise.

Jesus said in John 15:23, “He that hateth me hateth my Father also.”

Israel was a favoured nation in the Old Testament, however, that all changed at the Cross. The Gospel was equally opened up to all nations, kindreds and tribes. Now God has chosen all nations to manifest salvation on this earth. There is no lone nation that can claim an elevated place today. Salvation is only sure for those who love Christ (Jew and Gentile), the rest who reject God's only provision for sin (Jew and Gentile) are damned and doomed for all eternity. Christ alone is our only way of access to heaven. Jesus said, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9).

Election is found alone through in faith in Christ. It people do not love Him then the wrath of God rests upon them. The vast majority of Israel and the Gentiles hate Christ, it such a state they are not chosen but damned to eternal punishment.

Jesus said, in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

How can you deem a nation that overwhelmingly rejects Christ to be God's chosen people? That is absurd. Sinners are sinners and saints are saints. The wicked have the wrath of God on them, not the favour of God as you argue. The wicked have the judgment of God on them, not the blessing of God as you suggest. What is more, salvation is personal not corporate as you assert.


I see where you are coming from here, wpm. However, it appears that again, you are trying to put words into my mouth. When did I say that the blind in Israel are God's people? I said no such thing. I was showing you, and everyone else, that God still has a plan to save Israel. Which one? The blind. The election do not need saving, and thus are never broken off of the tree in the first place. It seems that some of youir colleagues understand what I am saying, why don't you?

Again, you want ot make a blanket statement, and apply it to al of the Bible, and I oppose that statement and it's application, because it doesn ot fit every instance in the Bible. Your statement: There are two Israels, and only one is the one that God accepts. Your evidence: Romans 9:6. My rebuttle: This statement in Romans 9:6 can not be blanketly applied to all scripture. My evidence: Romans 11, (especially verses 25-26). This is the root of the conflict between you and me. Nothing else in this thread.

Now, can we stay on topic please?

Until you can show me how your definition of Israel can be applied to Romans 11 and make sense, I will simply refuse to believe it. According to what I have read, Paul, in chapter 11, tells the Gentile believers (Romans 11:13) about the condition of the original people of God, the nation of Israel. Hence the split, the election and the blind, with the blind being the ones who are removed from the tree. From there, he warns us that we would suffer the same fate if we turn from the faith, and then tells us that "Israel in part has been blinded". (verse 25), and will continue to be blinded "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in". (Again, verse 25)

Immediately after that verse, Paul states that all Israel SHALL be saved. He is not lifting up one ethnic group over another with that statement. He is not including thte Gentile believers with that statement, because he is telling this to the Gentile believers. He is saying that Israel, the blind portion, will lose their blinders, come to their sense, and join us. This is what He is saying.

Moreover, your asertion that a Deliverer already has come from Zion, and thus rendering this prophecy fulfilled, remember, Paul wrote this AFTER Christ walked the earth, AFTER Christ's death on the cross, AFTER the resurrection of Our Lord, and AFTER His ascention to the throne in heaven. Therefore, unless you can show me that all of Israel has been reconciled to God, as Daniel 9:24 prophesies, Paul's statement concerning the Deliverer, (Who is Lord Jesus), will come out of Zion (At the Mount of Olives, to be exact), and take away the sins from Jacob, fall into the future category.

This is just another reason why I can not hold to Amil doctrine, because there are too many loopholes that simply can not be figurated away. I believe that God's word is yeay and amen, and not yeay and imagine that.

third hero
Oct 18th 2008, 05:50 PM
Can I ask a quick question. Tell me, are you saying that AFTER Jesus sets foot on the mount, THEN the GT takes place? So, the entire GT takes place WHILE the Lord is physically on the earth?

Well, I outlines what I believe in these posts. But I have to warn you, they are long. Anyway, here they are.


http://bibleforums.org/showpos...9&postcount=45 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1811899&postcount=45)
http://bibleforums.org/showpos...9&postcount=46 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1811919&postcount=46)
http://bibleforums.org/showpos...8&postcount=47

There is where you wil find the complete rationalle of my POV.

If that is too much reading for you, I have condensed it, and hopefully, I will not derail this thread by sharing this with you.

Basically, the Mount of Olives has to be split. Only Lord Jesus can do it. According to Zechariah 14:1-5, Jerusalem has to be attacked, the Mount has to split, and then the Lord is to come. Well, if the Lord comes to the Mount of Olives before He is seen in the air, then the entire sign of the heavens turning into darkness with the Lord coming as the only heavenly light would not happen.

So, I started asking a series of questions, like How is the Lord going to touch the Mount of Olives, split it, and not be seen while the people would know that it was Him?

While attempting to find the answer to that question, I remembered that Paul had seen Christ after He ascended to heaven, for the Lord appeared to Him on the road to Damascus. Althogh Paul had an entourage, only he seen Him. This led me to beleive that Lord Jesus can appear on the earth, before His return, as long as not everyone can see Him.

So, Alyssa brought up the question about the blood-moon sign in Revelation 6-7, and something struck me. Why would God go through all of the trouble of sealing 144,000 people from Israel? And so, that took me to Revelation, and there, I seen some interesting things.

1. The ones who are sealed are male virgins.
2. They would, as of the time that the Lord sealed them, follow Lord Jesus wherever He goes.
3. The only place they are mentioned besides when they were sealed is in Revelation 14:1-5, where they appear with Christ at Sion, which is Jerusalem.

And then it hit me.

Oh course they are males, because Lord Jesus is a male, and if they are to mask Him while telling the world that the Lord is with them, they would have to be males. The virgin part, I think it is because Lord Jesus lived his entire life as a virgin, and thus the men that will hide His presence while He is at the Mount of Olives have to be as He was while He walked the earth. In Revelation 14:4, they are redeemed from the earth. this struck me as interesting. Why would Lord Jesus redeem 144,000 men before He redeemed the rest of mankind who believe in Him? The answer should have been obvious. Jesus's glorified body is full of light. It is distinct. No one, upon looking at Him, would mistaken Him for someone else, unless someone else had the same exact body. Hence the 144,000 are redeemed so that they ALL look like Lord Jesus, and thus the people in Jerusalem can say that God has come and aided their escape, without seeing which one of those 144,001 is actually Lord Jesus.

After connecting these dots, I figured that the only way that the Mount of Olives can be split at the moment of the Abomination that causes Desolation is if the Lord appears in Jerusalem, at the Mount of Olives, and splits it while the people would know it was Him, without them seeing Him. they would see 144,000 men at the Mount of Olives, all looking like Lord Jesus, all from the tribes of Israel, like Him, but no one will be able to pick out Lord Jesus from among the crowd of redeemed men.

Remember, the Lord Himself told those in Judea who witness the Abomination that causes Desolation standing in the Holy place to run to the mountains. In Zechariah 14, when Jerusalem is atttacked in the same manner that Lord Jesus describes it after th Abomination that causes Desolation happens, the Lord splits the Mount of Olives, and provides an escape route for those in distress in Jerusalem. In Revelation 12:13-17, the earth opens her mouth to aid the woman, who is identified as Israel, escape the flood that the dragon unleashes upon her. The Dragon then sets his sights on the children of the woman that escaped, the followers of Lord Jesus. The similarities are too stark to dismiss. And so, by using scripture to interpret scripture properly, I was able to deduce the purpose of the 144,000, the blood-moon sign, and the salvbation of All of Israel at the same time. And it appears that it is all connected to the Abomination that causes desolation.

Well, since, like wpm said, I did introduce the How all Israel is saved" into this thread, we now have no choice but to expand the debate. So this can now be debated without anyone, (myself included), crying derailment.

I stil would like to have this debate devoid of the Amil versus Premil versus dispensationalism conflict, but I see that this will be increasingly difficult. All I ask is that we continue the conversation based on the thought of All Israel being saved. And so, I will allow the Millennial POV's to be discussed, but it has to be applied only to the salvation of Israel and nothing else. In other words, it has to pertain to how Romans 11:26 is fulfilled. Thank you.

BroRog
Oct 18th 2008, 05:54 PM
You keep moving the goal posts. You previously said the Gentiles are not under any covenant today.

Gentiles are not under a covenant today. That is true. In Galatians 3, Paul is not arguing that Gentiles are under a covenant. He argues that salvation comes by a covenant God made with Abraham.

Abraham has a covenant with God. Not us.

third hero
Oct 18th 2008, 05:59 PM
I have tried to avoid getting into your future location of the abomination of desolation, but you keep referring to it, so I must address it. Once again, I believe you are looking at this wrong. To be honest: this is classic Dispensational thinking.

Glad to see that you now view my idea concerning Israel's salvation as being something that has a scriptural basis. Although I must disagree with you on the idea that my conclusion is dispensationalism, I wil say this, I will deal with the rest of your post when I get home from work tonight. Guaranteed!

Dispensationalists believe that God will save Israel AFTER the Lord comes. My conclusion is a stark contrast to that notion. And so, it can not be dispensationalism. It is showing how all of the world is connected to Israel. It shows not only that Israel's fate is connected to the fate of the rest of the world, but also that, like Paul states in other passages, that tribulation and anguish comes upon the wicked, to the Jew FIRST, and then also the Gentile. No dispensation required.

My view also highlights the importance of the Abomination that causes Desolation, because it not only signals the end of Israel's time period to sin against God, but it also signals to the rest of us that the Great tribulation is upon us. This is why I call the day of the abomination that causes Desolation, the First Day. Because it truly is the first day of the end, with 3.5 years to go until the days of the Lord's return.

Well, it looks as though this thread is about to get a lot more interesting, as though it wasn;t interesting enough in the first place. Wow, I'm so excited!:bounce:

wpm
Oct 18th 2008, 06:27 PM
When did I say that the blind in Israel are God's people? I said no such thing.

You made a blanket statement re natural Israel that it was God's chosen people. That was wrong. I disapproved that notion biblically. You criticised me:


To you, ethnic Israel is no longer God's chosen people, although Romans 11 disproves your theory.


I was showing you, and everyone else, that God still has a plan to save Israel. Which one? The blind. The election do not need saving, and thus are never broken off of the tree in the first place. It seems that some of youir colleagues understand what I am saying, why don't you?

Listen, the "election" mentioned in Romans is simply another term for the saved, the "blinded" are simply the lost. We find these in all nations throughout this world. It just so happens that Paul is talking about his own kinsmen here. He shows that these two peoples existed in Israel in his day, despite the overwhelming amount of Israel rejecting Christ. We all come into this world blinded, we all therefore need salvation. We don't know who the elect are, only God does. However, each generation born of blinded people (both Jew and Gentile) need to make a decision of salvation (this is the ultimate evidence of election). Paul testified in Hebrews 11-1-5 of his day that God had not completely forgot about national Israel, the reason being there was an elect in his day in that country as elsewhere. He presents himself as a prime example. Notwithstanding, there was a large company of blinded Israelis, although this was nothing new, it was the same in the past. He significantly uses Elijah's day were there were very few true Israelites as an example of the fact that God always has a remnant, regardless of how small.

The elect or the election are true Israel in Romans 9-11 – those who have been born from above, the blinded are merely those of the flesh or natural birth – this carries absolutely no favour with God. Whilst Paul focuses in specifically on his fellow countrymen it is for the purpose of proving that God has not completely turned His back on the nation, and that if they repent they will be brought back into a covenant relationship with Him. Those that do so will be brought into a spiritual organism that holds the household of faith. They will be united with their fellow elect in the Israel of God.