Featured Redefining Draw to mean God uses a Tractor Beam.

And I presented the question concerning the disposition of the Jew and the Greek under Law. So do we say that only Jews were saved prior to the New Covenant? Is that what Paul teaches?


God bless.

 

It is agreed that Redemption was not limited to Israel, lol, seeing that God promised to bless all families of the earth through Abraham, who was, as you point out...a Gentile. Jimmy DeYoung talks about an encounter on the sea of Galilee with a Jewish man, who told him,, "You realize the first Christians were Jews, Right?" Jimmy replied, "Of course! But, you do realize the first Jew was a Gentile, right?" lol

I don't see it that way.

God created Israel, rather than chose them. And He did this through the process of sanctifying one particular man for His purposes (Abraham), who was unrelated to the Nation itself.

So we do not see a people in existence that God chose from all nations available, regardless of merit. We might illustrate this with saying the man that builds a house didn't choose to live in that house, because prior to his building if it the house did not exist. So I try to make that distinction because the concept of "choosing" Israel or that Israel is a Chosen Nation as opposed to Israel being a Created people also implacts, I think, our understanding of God's choosing and election of those who are brought into relationship with Him through the New Covenant.

Secondly, we see in the relationship of God with Israel some very interesting issues of discussion. One of which I think to be relevant to the discussion at hand is that because of sin it was created, rather than the reason He established the New Covenant, which was created, also, because of sin, but, rather than being a resulting Covenant, it was a Remedial Covenant. In other words, God created that Covenant because they sinned. He created the New Covenant...despite their sin.

And lastly on that note I would also point out I take the view that all Covenants with the exception of the Covenant of Law...are the same Covenant of Promise. We see the Abrahamic fulfilled, for example, in the New Covenant.

He did this from the very beginning.

But, the one thing I think we need to consider is that the Covenant of Law did not progress the Plan of Redemption on a salvific basis. In other words, those in relationship with God were no closer to the Atonement accomplished by Christ than Abraham. Or Job. Or Noah, for that matter. The point being, Israel was still reliant on remission of sins that was granted by following the basis of provision given them. Men sinned, that demanded death. Men offered up the death of a substitute. But the reality of the Scapegoat does not hit home until men are in fact forgiven on that eternal basis. Until Christ dies, rather than the vicarious substitute of the previous Ages, sin is not forgotten, and it is not taken away.

So we cannot set Israel forth as a People of God forgiven for their sin, because it is because of the sins of men that this Covenant was created:


Galatians 3:19

King James Version (KJV)

19 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.


That does not nullify the demand on Israel to obey, and through obedience be the Witness Nation they were created to be. Nor do we overlook the grace of God in establishing that relational Covenant despite their sin.

Not really sure what you are saying here, whether you don't believe there were those who were chosen or that you believe there were.

I think you are saying that these who were not of Israel specifically were not excluded from His Plan of Redemption. But you would need to clarify. The next statement seems to confirm this, as it is a contrast.

Two ways to approach this, Spiritual Israel, and, the fact that Gentiles could become proselytes. Again, not sure which is in view.

I don't really make a concrete generalization of Christ's statement, seeing that salvation was being accomplished long before Israel was created.

I think the important thing to remember is that it is the Word of God which makes Israel unique. Then, when we see Paul's reference to the Gospel and the statement "To the Jew first and then to the Greek," rather than their being a concept of Jews getting first dibs its a matter of sequential order. We can say that the Jew received the Gospel first in two ways at least: he received it first in Prophecy, then secondly we see that the Lord's ministry was specific to Israel (Matthew 10:5-7; Matthew 15:23-24). I think this is the case because the promises of God, though given to all families of the earth even in Genesis 3:15, have a direct correlation to Israel as an example of Mankind and his relationship to God. For example, we see many expectant believers in Christ/Messiah, but, the Prophecy is specific to Israel in regards to the promised Kingdom in that Israel is the focus, both in land as well as the people who would be restored.

When Christ states "Salvation is of the Jews," we know He doesn't mean that salvation is the result of what ISrael does, but that salvation threads its way through her history as a part of God's Plan. Salvation did arise out of Israel, in the Person of Jesus Christ, a Jew.

Now, let's take that point and apply it to the discussion at hand: we see men chosen prior to even Abraham. These are important details of God's Plan and I think a general principle would apply.

Take Noah, for example. Do we not see the Redemptive Plan continued through him? It would be a little difficult to bring about salvation if mankind was completely destroyed.

How about Shem? Could we have an Abraham apart from that direct descent?

Then we see the Promises made to Abraham. The Promises become more distinct through the Prophets. The Promises are still being taught by Christ in His day (i.e., Acts 1:4-5). And when the New Covenant is established, we see the Promises fulfilled. And the kingdom that arises out of that is not the Kingdom that Israel awaited. Today, many Jews still await the fulfillment of those Promises, and the fact is, God is not going to change His Plan to suit their expectation.

Okay, sorry, John, I really had no intention of getting so long-winded on this, lol. I will just say that when it comes to being chosen, we must first look at creation before imposing the choosing into it. Israel is a good example, in that, despite the fact that the opportunity was present for every member of Israel, we see that only those of faith are credited as having a relationship with God. So too, we see a parallel in the revelation of the Gospel in regards to all men, or, all families of the earth. Both hold opportunity for those in view, but that does not demand a salvific conclusion because of the opportunity.


God bless.

 

And I do not view the drawing as equivalent to calling. We see them used variously, but there is a bit of a difference to many being called, few chosen, and...I will draw all men unto Myself.

There is no question God will choose men, Jonah perhaps being the best example. But that doesn't nullify that which we see in Scripture that indicates that God gives all men opportunity, and always has. Paul speaks of the justification of Gentiles who show the works of the Law written on their hearts, and this to make the point (in a context dealing with Jew/Gentile Distinction) that God is not respecter of persons (Romans 2:11-16). In other words, those who do the will of God will be justified, rather than those who simply hear. James makes this same point (James 1:22).

This is specific to this Age, in my view. While we would not nullify application to those of faith in previous Ages, it is my view that we know when the Firstborn among the Brethren became the Firstborn is specificity. So in view would be the Church, rather than a general definition of the administration of God throughout Redemptive History.

Again, we see the statement pointing to the time when God's forbearance is pointed to in regards to man. This points to the time when God made one man of the Twain. In the Age of Law there is that distinction in Israel concerning relationship, and who the People of God are.

In view is prophecy and promise, which is further clarified, in my view, here...


John 1:11-13

King James Version (KJV)


11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


We can set the point in time when the Word manifested in flesh and dwelt among men, and, I believe...when men began receiving Christ and becoming the sons of God, as the prophecy above foretells.

It's not a discussion if you have already judged it to be a straw man.



And I am not sure what you mean by "we are using non-foundational passages concerning the word draw."

While we do in fact focus attention on that which has been revealed to us, it is up to us to place that in a context in which that which is foundational maintains its integrity.

And I think that an examination of God's choosing of Israel might help us to understand God's choosing of Israel, and how that contrasts with the concept of being drawn. I think one problem that might be preventing a conclusion on the matter is going to extremes in which we either have to embrace or reject "irresistible grace," because we see that while no man is excluded from the opportunity to come into obedience to the will of God, there are times when, when men will not do so, and set their minds to do the exact opposite...they end up doing it anyway, lol. Again, Jonah is a good example of this. Another might be Moses. He tried to excuse himself as a mediator, yet the Record shows that this is precisely what occurred. Aaron did not become the true spokesman for God to the People.


God bless.

 

Again, do we not see those already in relationship to the Lord in view? How is that relevant to a salvific context?


God bless.

 

So if a man builds a house and say "I have chosen this house to live in," would we not still see that the creation of that house precedes the house?

Now here is the thing to consider: The New Covenant removes that distinction in a salvific context, which has to be applied to the Plan of Redemption throughout Biblical History.

Actually, we don't really disagree, because I do not deny God chose Israel, nor do I deny that this is a special distinction that sets Israel apart from all other nations. However, we do not consider the Jew to be loved of God more than the Greek, and we see that the Church is the distinctive Nation, in the eternal, that Israel stood as a temporal picture prophecy of.

But if we blend the temporal and Eternal, we might conclude that there are two type of member in the Church, and Paul goes to great lengths to make sure we do not make that mistake.

This is true. And as long as we place that choosing into a proper context, we can make that distinction.

But when we speak of the drawing of God in a New Covenant context, God's choosing of Israel becomes a moot issue. How that distinction is relevant is more an Eschatological issue than Soteriological.

And while Redemption remained in a temporal context (i.e., remission of sins, Reconciliation, Eternal Redemption, Eternal Indwelling), Israel stood as the Witness Nation, and her significance was prominent in relation to the revelation of God concerning the Redemptive Plan of God.

But, in this Age, that distinction changes, to where the Church is the Witness Nation in regards to the revelation of God. It is not Israel that we would consider to be called and chosen in this Age. It is the Body of Christ that is called and chosen.

And it is the world that Christ draws through the Gospel of Christ as it is revealed in this Age. So I see two separate issues in view.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you just affirm and then deny that distinction?

Just answer me this: Is Israel, in this Age...the Chosen People of God?

Or, is Israel blinded to the truth in this Age?

This is national, just as it was in the Old Testament, because we know for certain that "Spiritual Israel" was not made up of those who were simply born into the Nation God "chose."


God bless.

 

I gave you Scripture that makes it clear the Mystery of the Gospel was not revealed in prior Ages.

If you deny that, okay.


God bless.

 

No-one understood.

If they did...it wouldn't be a mystery, right?




God bless.

 

You mean, apart from Deuteronomy 4:29, 1 John 2:3-6 and various parts of Romans 6?

 

Here's the thing, Israel was chosen as a physical Nation. Nowhere do we see Israel Nationally described as a/the means of entering into Eternal Relationship with God, but rather the opposite.

If we do not draw a distinction between the creation and choosing of Israel, a physical Nation, and the drawing, calling, and choosing of God on an eternal basis, we are going to be peft with an understanding that imposes salvation by heritage, which is clearly denied in John 1:13 as well as several other places in Scripture.

The People of God that culminate in the Eternal State, who are made up of the Just from the beginning...are not Spiritual Israel. The Church is not Spiritual Israel. They are the Church.

Spiritual Israel is a term used for those that are in relationship with God through faith as opposed to those who think they are through heritage.

That is not relevant to the focus at hand, which is that Israel, as a Nation, was decided upon by God, then created, and this as a vehicle for the heritage of the Christ.

It is the temporal aspect of the creation and choosing of Israel the Nation that I was suggesting we consider as a model for the choosing and creation of the members of the Church.

I would agree in large part because all men are natural, and have no ability to seek God in a salvific context. The intervention of God is demanded and men must be enlightened to not only their condition but to the Remedy.

And that is the drawing of Christ I see. The Comforter brings conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment...on the world. And while that ministry continues after salvation, again we are forced to make those distinctions as to whether the context is salvific, or dealing with the sanctification process of the believer. So too we must make a distinction between the temporal and eternal applications of "Israel." It was the physical Nation said to be created, said to be chosen. We don't nullify those terms and seek to apply them as valid only in an eternal context. The Nation was created, chosen, and in fact called...

...as a physical people, not a spiritual people.


God bless.