the redemption of Israel

[revmwc]

You are an honest dispensationalist I know I could ask you what is it seven dispensation and you will answer

Already gave 3 somewhere around here in my boxes of books I have Larkins book on dispensations. I have others too, what I don't have is anything Darby wrote, hadn't heard of Darby until I came on this board. The Larkin book belonged to my Dad.

Innocence-Adam and Eve in Garden, God's command for this age to continue was don't eat from the Tree on the Knowledge of good and Evil. Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence.

Conscience-Moral Responsibility-to be responsible morally to do that which is right. Salvation by Grace through. Man was responsible to offer a proper sacrifice to God Genesis 4:3-7, man was offer the sacrifice as an outward showing of his inward faith. Abel did that which was morally right, Cain refused to do as God required and thus refused to do that which was morally right. This age ended with the flood with man doing evil continually and 8 souls were saved.

Human Government-The Noahic Covenant established this age, with God's promise not to deluge the earth again. Salvation came by Grace through faith. Capital punishment established. Failure in this is seen in the scattering of mankind at the tower of Babel. The moral responsibility still exist even today, as does human Government so then comes Promise.

Promise-Abraham called out and the Abrahamic covenant given. Salvation by Grace through Faith. God made an unconditional promise of blessing upon Abraham and his seed forever. The promise was not just to the seed but as a nation because specific territory thus the Kingdom. However the promised blessing extends to the church and the Gentile nations.

Law-The Law begin at Mt. Sinai. Salvation by Grace through Faith. The promise of the Kingdom still in effect as was moral responsibility and human government. The Law spelled out what God demands of man in moral responsibility without a savior to pay for his sin. Sacrifices were to be made with a priest representing the people to God.

Church-Prophisied by Christ now fulfilled the church comes to fruition with the coming of the Holy Spirit who indwells and fills the believer. Filling means control as long as sin doesn't occur the Spirit is filling influencing and controlling the Believer. Baptism of the Holy Spirit begins and is a sign of the true believer this happens immediately at salvation with the indwelling of the Spirit in the Believer. Moral responsibility is still required, Human Government still in place, the promised blessing for time is in full force, the Law still shows God's requirements for moral responsibility man is able to represent himself to God, by receiving Christ as the sacrificial lamb of God who shed His blood for their sin as the Savior who met every point of the Law the perfect sinless sacrifice. This age ends with the Tribulation.

Kingdom-Christ reigning upon the earth as Savior and Lord of all from Jerusalem. This age starts with people saved during the Tribulation who survive. Moral responsibility will still be required, Christ is ruling with His laws in place, The promised blessings are fully received the Law now even more of shadow showing what God expects, the church the Bride Reigns with Him as do those who were martyred in the Tribulation.

With the Tribulation being the final 7 years of the dispensation of the Law and is the time in which God's wrath is poured out upon all mankind. Israel as the nation of Israel is restored in the Kingdom with Christ reigning upon the Throne of David as promised.

The constant of each Age is Salvation by Grace through faith. Either looking forward or backward for the savior promised to Adam and Eve, the seed of Woman the Savior Jesus Christ. Each age God's deals with mankind in different ways as the progression to the Kingdom occurs. Then comes the change to New Jerusalem.

 

[Iconoclast]

Already gave 3 somewhere around here in my boxes of books I have Larkins book on dispensations. I have others too, what I don't have is anything Darby wrote, hadn't heard of Darby until I came on this board. The Larkin book belonged to my Dad.

Innocence-Adam and Eve in Garden, God's command for this age to continue was don't eat from the Tree on the Knowledge of good and Evil. Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence.

Conscience-Moral Responsibility-to be responsible morally to do that which is right. Salvation by Grace through. Man was responsible to offer a proper sacrifice to God Genesis 4:3-7, man was offer the sacrifice as an outward showing of his inward faith. Abel did that which was morally right, Cain refused to do as God required and thus refused to do that which was morally right. This age ended with the flood with man doing evil continually and 8 souls were saved.

Human Government-The Noahic Covenant established this age, with God's promise not to deluge the earth again. Salvation came by Grace through faith. Capital punishment established. Failure in this is seen in the scattering of mankind at the tower of Babel. The moral responsibility still exist even today, as does human Government so then comes Promise.

Promise-Abraham called out and the Abrahamic covenant given. Salvation by Grace through Faith. God made an unconditional promise of blessing upon Abraham and his seed forever. The promise was not just to the seed but as a nation because specific territory thus the Kingdom. However the promised blessing extends to the church and the Gentile nations.

Law-The Law begin at Mt. Sinai. Salvation by Grace through Faith. The promise of the Kingdom still in effect as was moral responsibility and human government. The Law spelled out what God demands of man in moral responsibility without a savior to pay for his sin. Sacrifices were to be made with a priest representing the people to God.

Church-Prophisied by Christ now fulfilled the church comes to fruition with the coming of the Holy Spirit who indwells and fills the believer. Filling means control as long as sin doesn't occur the Spirit is filling influencing and controlling the Believer. Baptism of the Holy Spirit begins and is a sign of the true believer this happens immediately at salvation with the indwelling of the Spirit in the Believer. Moral responsibility is still required, Human Government still in place, the promised blessing for time is in full force, the Law still shows God's requirements for moral responsibility man is able to represent himself to God, by receiving Christ as the sacrificial lamb of God who shed His blood for their sin as the Savior who met every point of the Law the perfect sinless sacrifice. This age ends with the Tribulation.

Kingdom-Christ reigning upon the earth as Savior and Lord of all from Jerusalem. This age starts with people saved during the Tribulation who survive. Moral responsibility will still be required, Christ is ruling with His laws in place, The promised blessings are fully received the Law now even more of shadow showing what God expects, the church the Bride Reigns with Him as do those who were martyred in the Tribulation.

With the Tribulation being the final 7 years of the dispensation of the Law and is the time in which God's wrath is poured out upon all mankind. Israel as the nation of Israel is restored in the Kingdom with Christ reigning upon the Throne of David as promised.

The constant of each Age is Salvation by Grace through faith. Either looking forward or backward for the savior promised to Adam and Eve, the seed of Woman the Savior Jesus Christ. Each age God's deals with mankind in different ways as the progression to the Kingdom occurs. Then comes the change to New Jerusalem.

Yes.....exactly. I was certain you would correctly identify them as you stand by what you believe unashamedly. Thank you revmac.

 

[DHK]

Fragmenting of Scripture. You do it all the time. But yours is more along the line of this common example that we all have seen so many times.

In trying to find the will of God the lady decided to open her Bible randomly and put her finger at whatever verse her Bible opened up to. In her first try the Bible opened up to:
1. Judas went out and hung himself.

Not encouraged by that as God's will for her life she tried a second time.
2. Go and do thou likewise.
Oh my!!

A third time she tried.
3. What thou doest do quickly.
--Now she was terrified. What was God telling her? What should she do?

Perhaps the Lord is telling people like Icon not to butcher the scripture as he does; to look at the context; not to sew a verse here, and a verse there; here a verse; there a verse; a patchwork of random verses.


What you are admitting here is that you would rather debate a book than a person. Sad!


Yeah just like I thought you have no real answer so you resort to all this other nonsense typical

No real answer to what? To you derailing the thread??
This thread is not on dispensationalism!

This thread is on the difference between Israel and the church.
The OP reads this way:

To say that Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.
Is to say that there is another means of redemption outside of Christ, and his shed blood, but Hebrews makes that impossible.

Now I know that DC will probably bring up the fact that I did not touch on his last sentence, of everying member of the churching being redeemed by the blood of Christ, but I will just say I doubt there is anyone that would argue against that statement, I just left his whole statement in tact so as not to be accused of taking it out of context.

Also, since I said for the sake of argument that I will assume a clear divide between Israel and the Church (although it’s really hard to do so when the passage I showed in Hebrews merges them together in Christ) I decided to leave the last part of his statement alone. To go into that next statement, with the assumption of a clear divide, would cause a lot of problems when you talk about the Apostles who are all members of Israel and also the church since the statements said: not one member of Israel.

I will state it again, I disagree with the quoted statement even when making sure to not switch out any words. I do not think that statement has any Biblical Grounds, therefore I cannot let it stand, as it is talking about Redemption which is a crucial doctrine.

Note: Not one mention is made of dispensationalism. Your hatred of it can't stop you from berating it every time you get the chance. Thus you are simply derailing the thread.

There is a difference between the those under the law and those under grace (when Paul planted NT churches). Israel existed under the law. She was God's chosen people at that time. Christ came. She rejected Christ as her Messiah. She even rejected Paul as God's messenger. Thus Paul said: "From henceforth I go to the Gentiles."

Paul still prayed for the nation of Israel. Therefore the nation of Israel still existed. The Church never replaced Israel, nor is it an extension of Israel. They are totally separate one from the other. Paul would be deluded to pray for something that does not exist (Rom.10:1-5; 9:1-5). All the attention of the world is focused on that tiny parcel of land now called the nation of Israel. To deny its existence is to deny history, and the current state of affairs today.

 

[blessedwife318]

No real answer to what? To you derailing the thread??
This thread is not on dispensationalism!

This thread is on the difference between Israel and the church.

As the original poster I can tell you that this thread is not about the difference between Israel and the church ( especially when you consider I was willing to grant that point for my argument) its about the unbliblical claim that Israel is redeemed apart from the blood of Christ.
But since DC went on to argue about Israel and the church being distinct that morphes this thread into talking about dispensationalism as only dispensationalist insist on the clear divide.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by DHK View Post

No real answer to what? To you derailing the thread??
This thread is not on dispensationalism!

This thread is on the difference between Israel and the church.

As the original poster I can tell you that this thread is not about the difference between Israel and the church

It most certainly is, and it has nothing to do with Dispensationalism.

That is the problem, and that is why you and several others disrupt every thread you drag your confusion into.

Here is the statement you disagree with:

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

Who are the two in view?

Israel and the Church.

And the distinction has been pointed out to you many times, as well as the fact that one does not have to be a Dispensationalist to recognize this is just a Bible Basic.

( especially when you consider I was willing to grant that point for my argument)

You will grant it in the OP yet deny it to defend your friend who is derailing the topic again?

its about the unbliblical claim that Israel is redeemed apart from the blood of Christ.

You will not find one statement I have ever made that intimates Israel was "redeemed apart from the blood of Christ."

Another false argument, and what is amazing is that you have been corrected on your error numerous times.

The point in my statement is that no-one was eternally redeemed until Christ died for them.

The issue at the heart of this is to show a distinction between Israel and the Church. National Israel was under Law, and no-one was eternally redeemed through the Law. That is why Levitical Service has been mentioned over and over.

But since DC went on to argue about Israel and the church being distinct that morphes this thread into talking about dispensationalism as only dispensationalist insist on the clear divide.

No it doesn't.

Dispensationalism does not have to come up.

That God ministered differently and in different Ages is simply basic.

Your defense of your friend is either based on friendship, or sheer confusion, but either way...it will not hold up. There is no need to bring Dispensational Theology into the issue at hand, which is summed up in this statement:

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

If you could understand the statement you would be forced to agree. Yet you still see it as unbiblical, which shows you refuse to see this truth.

Eternal Redemption was obtained by Christ at the time of the Cross, through His Blood, not the blood of animals, which was the God ordained method of atonement and remission of sins prior to the Cross.

You diminish the magnitude of the Cross and do the Gospel a great disservice refusing to recognize this.

And your motivation?

Pride.

That's all it can be.

Now you guys can address the posts meant to clarify your confusion, or, you can continue in your typical pattern.

Pitiful when one derails their own thread. Shameful when they condone others doing it because of so-called friendship. I have said Iconoclast is your worst enemy right now, but you are vying for pole position.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

As the original poster I can tell you that this thread is not about the difference between Israel and the church ( especially when you consider I was willing to grant that point for my argument) its about the unbliblical claim that Israel is redeemed apart from the blood of Christ.
But since DC went on to argue about Israel and the church being distinct that morphes this thread into talking about dispensationalism as only dispensationalist insist on the clear divide.

:laugh: Very well said......open and honest.
Some errant posters when they fail to address a response look to divert the attention away from their failing to give an real answer.
Some have an agenda and when it is exposed they try and revert back to the junior high school .....you did the same thing only worse rationalization :laugh:
So now we have a cry of.....you are derailing a thread, by correctly identifying the root source of my error........but I do not want you to use the term that correctly identifies my error:laugh:

If you really want to laugh....think back on how very often,maybe even everyday the same poster brings the term Calvinism into a thread that is not about that....hypocritical to the max.

This has been brought up before...so now we have that Jr high defense being offered...lol
As the original poster you do not see this as derailing the thread as you correctly identify the elements being discussed.

Why would someone b e ashamed of what they believe and answer the questions posed to them? Do you think BW that perhaps they panic because they cannot do anything else?

Israel is spoken of as 5 different things in scripture. ....it blends into the ISRAEL of God...by the Covenant of redemption. ....no getting around it.....people before Israel was a nation.....the elect among national Israel.....and believing gentiles.....all the elect from all time saved eternally by the blood of the cross.....no matter if they looked forward to it (the promise of the seed).....or look back to it.....nice and simple.

 

[Darrell C]

:laugh: Very well said......open and honest.
Some errant posters when they fail to address a response look to divert the attention away from their failing to give an real answer.
Some have an agenda and when it is exposed they try and revert back to the junior high school .....you did the same thing only worse rationalization :laugh:
So now we have a cry of.....you are derailing a thread, by correctly identifying the root source of my error........but I do not want you to use the term that correctly identifies my error:laugh:

If you really want to laugh....think back on how very often,maybe even everyday the same poster brings the term Calvinism into a thread that is not about that....hypocritical to the max.

This has been brought up before...so now we have that Jr high defense being offered...lol
As the original poster you do not see this as derailing the thread as you correctly identify the elements being discussed.

Why would someone b e ashamed of what they believe and answer the questions posed to them? Do you think BW that perhaps they panic because they cannot do anything else?

Israel is spoken of as 5 different things in scripture. ....it blends into the ISRAEL of God...by the Covenant of redemption. ....no getting around it.....people before Israel was a nation.....the elect among national Israel.....and believing gentiles.....all the elect from all time saved eternally by the blood of the cross.....no matter if they looked forward to it (the promise of the seed).....or look back to it.....nice and simple.

Some errant posters when they fail to address a response look to divert the attention away from their failing to give an real answer.

Hilarious.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

No real answer to what? To you derailing the thread??
This thread is not on dispensationalism!

This thread is on the difference between Israel and the church.
The OP reads this way:

Note: Not one mention is made of dispensationalism. Your hatred of it can't stop you from berating it every time you get the chance. Thus you are simply derailing the thread.

There is a difference between the those under the law and those under grace (when Paul planted NT churches). Israel existed under the law. She was God's chosen people at that time. Christ came. She rejected Christ as her Messiah. She even rejected Paul as God's messenger. Thus Paul said: "From henceforth I go to the Gentiles."

Paul still prayed for the nation of Israel. Therefore the nation of Israel still existed. The Church never replaced Israel, nor is it an extension of Israel. They are totally separate one from the other. Paul would be deluded to pray for something that does not exist (Rom.10:1-5; 9:1-5). All the attention of the world is focused on that tiny parcel of land now called the nation of Israel. To deny its existence is to deny history, and the current state of affairs today.

This has been answered many times but you do not welcome the answer....
What you did not answer is simple......

Why did Paul address the gentiles in 1 Cor 10 and tell them their spiritual father's in the faith were from Israel.....:laugh::laugh:...simple question...give it a try

 

[Darrell C]

This has been answered many times but you do not welcome the answer....
What you did not answer is simple......

Why did Paul address the gentiles in 1 Cor 10 and tell them their spiritual father's in the faith were from Israel.....:laugh::laugh:...simple question...give it a try

There has not been an address of the topic.

Israel was not eternally redeemed by the Blood of Christ, the Church is.

And while the Old Testament Saints who were of faith were perfected at that time, there is still not Scriptural support to the view that they were eternally redeemed before the Atonement was accomplished..

The simple point is that Israel was the People of God, and it is not exclusive to those who were of faith, and children of Abraham. Despite that designation, they still awaited Messiah, which is so basic in our understanding of Israel, and prevalent in the Gospels, that is it incomprehensible how one could miss that.

There are many posts you can address, but you simply derail the topic, once again, and try to further your terrorist activities against a Theology System which does not hold exclusive rights to the understanding that God ministers differently in different periods:



Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


What this means is "God spoke through Prophets then, but is now speaking unto us by His Son."

The implication is that the speaking unto us is different than God's speaking unto previous Economies.

Basic.

Prove you are not simply disrupting and address my first response to this thread.

Have to get going, but look forward to that address.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

There has not been an address of the topic.

Israel was not eternally redeemed by the Blood of Christ, the Church is.

And while the Old Testament Saints who were of faith were perfected at that time, there is still not Scriptural support to the view that they were eternally redeemed before the Atonement was accomplished..

The simple point is that Israel was the People of God, and it is not exclusive to those who were of faith, and children of Abraham. Despite that designation, they still awaited Messiah, which is so basic in our understanding of Israel, and prevalent in the Gospels, that is it incomprehensible how one could miss that.

There are many posts you can address, but you simply derail the topic, once again, and try to further your terrorist activities against a Theology System which does not hold exclusive rights to the understanding that God ministers differently in different periods:



Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


What this means is "God spoke through Prophets then, but is now speaking unto us by His Son."

The implication is that the speaking unto us is different than God's speaking unto previous Economies.

Basic.

Prove you are not simply disrupting and address my first response to this thread.

Have to get going, but look forward to that address.


God bless.

1 Cor 10....does address the topic as the poster introduced lk 1 into the mix.
He did so with a shallow understanding which is corrected when we see how The Holy Spirit uses the "fathers".....revmac was the only one honest enough to state the obvious that gentiles were always part of God's Covenant Redemption.

This might come as a newsflash......but all 66 books are one revelation given to the church.
The other poster gets stung by being told that his hermeutical approach fragments the word of God.......so what does he do?.....you guessed it, back to the jr.high routine....suggesting I am offering disconnected verses:laugh:
His theology does not enable him to begin to grasp how redemptive themes flow through the bible...he lacks the spiritual perception to come to truth. Many of us see it however so he gets frustrated.
All God's elect are eternally redeemed by the accomplished redemption at the cross.
Some looked forward to it by God given saving faith in the promised seed that should come.
Some look back to the cross.....in either case.....2 Tim 1:9 gives the biblical explanation of when the grace was given.....looking for the time of the incarnation. ....and the actual accomplishment of the redemptive sacrifice.....and our future glorification.

Your take on Hebrews 1 is also wrong......God has spoken in many times and ways...but has spoken finally in His Son......not differently.....but fully and finally ....literally in SON.

This speaks of a continuity.....one cohesive truth revealed finally and fully in the SON


I have nothing to prove to you. I post openly and deal with those who would like to get an answer or a link to help them grow in grace and knowledge.
I see that you like to offer an overload of good verses, that do not prove what you think they do...then you wonder why people ignore your posts, like sbm.who basically posts to himself and does not really interact......looks like you have that kind of style, but you mix in evil.insinuations that are.not fitting

 

[Darrell C]

1 Cor 10....does address the topic as the poster introduced lk 1 into the mix.
He did so with a shallow understanding which is corrected when we see how The Holy Spirit uses the "fathers".....revmac was the only one honest enough to state the obvious that gentiles were always part of God's Covenant Redemption.

This might come as a newsflash......but all 66 books are one revelation given to the church.
The other poster gets stung by being told that his hermeutical approach fragments the word of God.......so what does he do?.....you guessed it, back to the jr.high routine....suggesting I am offering disconnected verses:laugh:
His theology does not enable him to begin to grasp how redemptive themes flow through the bible...he lacks the spiritual perception to come to truth. Many of us see it however so he gets frustrated.
All God's elect are eternally redeemed by the accomplished redemption at the cross.
Some looked forward to it by God given saving faith in the promised seed that should come.
Some look back to the cross.....in either case.....2 Tim 1:9 gives the biblical explanation of when the grace was given.....looking for the time of the incarnation. ....and the actual accomplishment of the redemptive sacrifice.....and our future glorification.

Your take on Hebrews 1 is also wrong......God has spoken in many times and ways...but has spoken finally in His Son......not differently.....but fully and finally ....literally in SON.

This speaks of a continuity.....one cohesive truth revealed finally and fully in the SON


I have nothing to prove to you. I post openly and deal with those who would like to get an answer or a link to help them grow in grace and knowledge.
I see that you like to offer an overload of good verses, that do not prove what you think they do...then you wonder why people ignore your posts, like sbm.who basically posts to himself and does not really interact......looks like you have that kind of style, but you mix in evil.insinuations that are.not fitting

I will address this in detail when I get back, but will point out that your using the Father's as proof of eternal redemption falls short.

Christ states that those same fathers at of the manna and were...dead. This is contrasting the Bread of Heaven, Who is the Source of eternal life, with the physical provision of manna provided, not to the world...but to Israel.

Those are the fathers, and reliance on that heritage is irrelevant to salvation in Christ, and it is still irrelevant to whether Israel was eternally redeemed.

No-one is denying the consistency of God's Redemptive Plan, what is in view is whether Israel was, prior to the Cross...eternally redeemed.

And you don't have anything to prove to me, but, what you are proving is that you refuse to address the issues raised, thereby perpetuating the same nonsense argued for years on this forum by the same people, you being one of them.

While I would love to have you address my initial response to the OP, I can see where that is not really a possibility for you, because it brings the OP to the heart of the issue.

So go ahead, continue dodging the issues that are relevant, and understand your are proving something one day I hope you will regret.

And again, I will address this post in detail when I return, it will be first on the list.


God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

So apparently I have a new talent, derailing my own thread, by pointing out what the OP, who is me, intended this thread to be.
I guess I am not allowed the luxury of pointing out what my own post is about.

 

[Iconoclast]

So apparently I have a new talent, derailing my own thread, by pointing out what the OP, who is me, intended this thread to be.
I guess I am not allowed the luxury of pointing out what my own post is about.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

I will address this in detail when I get back, but will point out that your using the Father's as proof of eternal redemption falls short.

Christ states that those same fathers at of the manna and were...dead. This is contrasting the Bread of Heaven, Who is the Source of eternal life, with the physical provision of manna provided, not to the world...but to Israel.

Those are the fathers, and reliance on that heritage is irrelevant to salvation in Christ, and it is still irrelevant to whether Israel was eternally redeemed.

No-one is denying the consistency of God's Redemptive Plan, what is in view is whether Israel was, prior to the Cross...eternally redeemed.

And you don't have anything to prove to me, but, what you are proving is that you refuse to address the issues raised, thereby perpetuating the same nonsense argued for years on this forum by the same people, you being one of them.

While I would love to have you address my initial response to the OP, I can see where that is not really a possibility for you, because it brings the OP to the heart of the issue.

So go ahead, continue dodging the issues that are relevant, and understand your are proving something one day I hope you will regret.

And again, I will address this post in detail when I return, it will be first on the list.


God bless.

I was not using the discussion about....our father's to prove that point. It was to answer the poster who missed it's significance. ....

Can you not e v en be honest with this? Where did I suggest such a thing? This I s why people ignore your posts.....let me say what I do.....you say what you want to.

The question has been answered. ....lk 1 speaks to the issue....vs 73,74....if your theology cannot welcome it.....it is not my problem it is on you.

 

[DHK]

As the original poster I can tell you that this thread is not about the difference between Israel and the church ( especially when you consider I was willing to grant that point for my argument) its about the unbliblical claim that Israel is redeemed apart from the blood of Christ.
But since DC went on to argue about Israel and the church being distinct that morphes this thread into talking about dispensationalism as only dispensationalist insist on the clear divide.

I know you are the original poster, and as such I went back to the OP and quoted the central part of it. Here is your primary statement, your theme if you wish, the reason why you posted:

To say that Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

No dispensationalism here.
It is the difference between the Church and Israel, and the reason why and/or how each entity is redeemed. Why would you deny this or say otherwise when it so clearly stated otherwise?

 

[blessedwife318]

I know you are the original poster, and as such I went back to the OP and quoted the central part of it. Here is your primary statement, your theme if you wish, the reason why you posted:

No dispensationalism here.
It is the difference between the Church and Israel, and the reason why and/or how each entity is redeemed. Why would you deny this or say otherwise when it so clearly stated otherwise?

Actually my point was this

It is the blood of Christ that redeems us. It has always been the blood of Christ that redeems people.

To say that "Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is."
Is to say that there is another means of redemption outside of Christ, and his shed blood, but Hebrews makes that impossible.

You and DC have morphed this thread into there is a distinction between Israel and the Church aka the central tenant of Dispensationalism.
It's like bringing up TULIP and then complaining when Calvinism is brought up.

 

[Iconoclast]

Actually my point was this


You and DC have morphed this thread into there is a distinction between Israel and the Church aka the central tenant of Dispensationalism.
It's like bringing up TULIP and then complaining when Calvinism is brought up.

Yes indeed.......:thumbs::thumbs::1_grouphug:...everyone sees this..
Minus two persons:laugh:

 

[percho]

I believe when the seed of the promise came, he became, in a specific four day period, the faith, by which OT Israel could be redeemed, NT Israel could be redeemed and mankind in general could be redeemed. That faith, also being the means by which the Holy Spirit could be given.

Gal. chapter 3. & 1 Cor 15:3,4

 

[DHK]

Actually my point was this


You and DC have morphed this thread into there is a distinction between Israel and the Church aka the central tenant of Dispensationalism.
It's like bringing up TULIP and then complaining when Calvinism is brought up.

Again:

It is the blood of Christ that redeems us. It has always been the blood of Christ that redeems people.

To say that "Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is."
Is to say that there is another means of redemption outside of Christ, and his shed blood, but Hebrews makes that impossible.

Concerning your first statement:

It is the blood of Christ that redeems us. It has always been the blood of Christ that redeems people.

When the Lord provided the first sacrifice for Adam and Eve, blood was shed.
How much did Adam and Eve understand about the atoning sacrifice of Christ at that time? (I have asked these questions before).

When Abel offered sacrifices to the Lord (and Cain rebelled) how much of the atoning sacrifice of Christ did they understand?

When Noah sacrificed unto the Lord how much of the atoning sacrifice of Christ did he understand?

Salvation has always been by faith. Abraham was justified by faith.
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

We are justified by faith.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Salvation hasn't changed. We are saved by faith.
One can only be saved by faith if it is faith in the revelation they have received at that time. Adam through Israel put their faith in Jehovah, not the revealed Christ, the second person of the trinity that shed his blood on the cross, as we did. They did not have that revelation.

Salvation is by faith.

Your second statement:
You and DC have morphed this thread into there is a distinction between Israel and the Church aka the central tenant of Dispensationalism.
--False, and a red herring.
The red herring is dispensationalism which has nothing to do with this.
You brought up the Church; you brought up the redeemed in the OT. You brought up the fact the DC said there is a difference. If there is a difference it must be proven why and how. Your statement implies there is a difference between the Church and the OT saints. Don't say you didn't bring it up. No one but you and Icon said anything about dispensationalism. We had to defend against it. You (and Icon) derailed the thread.
--You can call this the central tenet of dispensationalism; you are entitled to your opinion. That is not what I believe. Of course many of you who have come out of hyper-dispensational churches have some pretty weird doctrines that you attribute to dispensationalism as I am finding out. You attribute a political movement "Zionism" to dispensationalism, which is ludicrous. Never heard of such a thing. But this is what I find out from my opponents of "what I am supposed to believe." Hilarious!

You guys want to tell me what I believe, and yet don't have a clue. Amazing!

 

[OldRegular]

1 Cor 10....does address the topic as the poster introduced lk 1 into the mix.
He did so with a shallow understanding which is corrected when we see how The Holy Spirit uses the "fathers".....revmac was the only one honest enough to state the obvious that gentiles were always part of God's Covenant Redemption.

This might come as a newsflash......but all 66 books are one revelation given to the church.
The other poster gets stung by being told that his hermeutical approach fragments the word of God.......so what does he do?.....you guessed it, back to the jr.high routine....suggesting I am offering disconnected verses:laugh:
His theology does not enable him to begin to grasp how redemptive themes flow through the bible...he lacks the spiritual perception to come to truth. Many of us see it however so he gets frustrated.
All God's elect are eternally redeemed by the accomplished redemption at the cross.
Some looked forward to it by God given saving faith in the promised seed that should come.
Some look back to the cross.....in either case.....2 Tim 1:9 gives the biblical explanation of when the grace was given.....looking for the time of the incarnation. ....and the actual accomplishment of the redemptive sacrifice.....and our future glorification.

Your take on Hebrews 1 is also wrong......God has spoken in many times and ways...but has spoken finally in His Son......not differently.....but fully and finally ....literally in SON.

This speaks of a continuity.....one cohesive truth revealed finally and fully in the SON


I have nothing to prove to you. I post openly and deal with those who would like to get an answer or a link to help them grow in grace and knowledge.
I see that you like to offer an overload of good verses, that do not prove what you think they do...then you wonder why people ignore your posts, like sbm.who basically posts to himself and does not really interact......looks like you have that kind of style, but you mix in evil.insinuations that are.not fitting

Crossway has put the ESV out in a version they call the "Gospel Transformation Bible" which talks about the Gospel in each book of the Bible. Had a copy but gave it ti a grandson who is teaching a SS class of young people.

The sacrificial death of the Redeemer is first promised in Genesis 3:15. The Bible is the story of the Grace of GOD as HE works in history to bring about the salvation of HIS Elect!