Alex Quackenbush
New Member
rjprince said:
I do agree that there is an over application with this theological system regarding distinctions that are not always present.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dispensationalism - Sine Qua Non 1 of 3, a Israel and Church Distinction
- Thread starter rjprince
- Start date
I do agree that there is an over application with this theological system regarding distinctions that are not always present.
rjprince said:
Benjamin said:
NEVER it the whole OT does "Israel" mean anything less than the nation of Israel or those who became proselytes, thereby becoming a part of the nation of Israel. Pedigreed seed? Ruth did not genetically become a Jew, but she became a Jew in every other way! "whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (Ruth 1:16).
The "whole dispy scheme" is not based on a "perceived meaning of Israel". The name "Jack" means that which holds up a car while you change a flat. That in no way changes the fact that Jack also can refer to a specific person. I understand Israel to refer to a national ethnic group. Ruth was a Gentile, but she became an Israelite. I never defined "Israel" as meaning "to be of one blood"! I will define the term as being limited to the descendants of Abraham, though Isaac, and through Jacob/Israel AND including any who became citizens of Israel by becoming proselytes. The fact that some OT Jews were often unfaithful does not mean that they ceased to be Jews or that they ceased to Israel.
To define "Israel" as meaning "the faithful" just does not fit! Substitute that definition in the following passages to see how well it fits...
Rom 10:1 – "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for [the faithful] is, that they might be saved."
Ro 10:21 But to [the faithful] he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Ro 11:2 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 [the faithful], saying,
Rom 11:7-8 – "What then? [the faithful] hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hearunto this day."
Ro 11:25 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 [the faithful], until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Benjamin said:
Some might. I will not defend chopping up the Word, no matter who does it. BUT neither is it right to group things together unless such a grouping is warranted by the text!
Benajmin said:
Are you talking about salvation? Or about the AC? There were some provisions of the AC that were not specifically linked to salvation. All of Israel was delivered from Egypt, not just the faithful, as their later behavior demonstrated. After Moses, many unfaithful Jews enjoyed the benefits of living in the land in spite of the their unfaithfulness. They were Jews, they were Israel, but they were not faithful, NOR were they the CHURCH! This imposed definition that Israel = faithful is somehow supposed to be a "straight clean cut"?
Benjamin said:
Abraham was a believer. Not all Jews/Israelites were believers.
Benjamin said:
I could not help but notice the lack of any Scripture reference here. I am still listening for one that says this...
.Benjamin said:
Nowhere in Scripture are believing Gentiles ever called Israelites or Jews. Nowhere is the term Israel applied to "the faithful" before Abraham. Noah was "just" by faith. Even Lot, vexed with the filthy lifestyle of Sodom is called a "righteous man" and "just". But nowhere are any the saints prior to Abraham called "Israelites". NOR is there anywhere in the NT where Gentile believers are called "Israel".
Benjamin said:
I see here that some of the physical seed of Abraham who were trusting in their "pedigree" to provide salvation are rightly stripped of that false confidence. I do not see where Gentiles are called Israel. Maybe I missed that part.
Nope. I read it again. It is not there.
Benjamin said:
v. 19 – the Law was temporary, till Christ came
v. 20 – God is one
v. 21 – if any law could have brought life, it would have the Law
v. 22 – all are sinners, faith unto salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the promised One
v. 23 – before faith in Christ, we were prisoners to the Law
v. 24 – the Law brought us to Christ that we might be justified by faith
v. 25 – after faith is come we are no longer under the Law
v. 26 – we children of God by faith in Christ Jesus
v. 27 – as we are immersed in Christ, we have put on Christ
v. 28 – in Christ, the differences between Jew and Gentile, bond and free, and male and female do not put one in better standing than another, we are one in Him
v. 29 – in Christ we are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise
The lack of difference between male and female relates to salvation and faith, not distinctions within the body of Christ, else Paul could not have required that elders be men, else Paul could not have forbidden women to authoritatively teach men. He is not advocating that all bond are now free from their masters. On the contrary, in another place he tells the master to treat the servants with grace and the servants to be obedient to their masters. In spite of the fact that some clear distinctions remain between bond and free and male and female, Covenant Theologians insist that there are no longer ANY distinctions between the church and Israel. That is not what the passage says. What it says is that in Christ, the differences do not give one a better standing over the other.
Benjamin said:
The Bible does declare that "All Israel shall be saved". It does declare that "they shall all know [Him], from the least of them unto the greatest of them". Unless you can show me some reason in the context, or at least in some context, that gives me a reason to take this as meaning something other than ALL, that I how I am going to read it!
There has never been any other way of salvation but through faith! It has always by grace through faith. The content of the faith, WHAT was believed, has varied through the ages, but it has always been by grace through faith and it has always involved the shedding of blood. When Adam sinned, God slew the sacrifice and gave them "coats of skins", an ever present reminder that although they deserved to die for their sins, an animal died in their place. Abraham did not believe in the shed blood of Jesus Christ! He believed in the promise of God that he would have a son and that God would give him innumerable seed and the land. He did not understand the cross. The 12 did not understand the cross. Only after the cross were men saved by faith in the One who died in their place, was buried, and rose again for their justification. NOT BEFORE.
God is not a respecter of persons! That means that each person will be saved on the basis of their own individual faith in the Lord Jesus. Of course just as God is calling people to Himself today, both Jews and Gentiles, there will come a day when He will issue a special call to Israel, removing their blindness and drawing them to Himself! That is the promise of the New Covenant.
IT IS WRONG TO READ THE NEW TESTAMENT IN A WAY THAT DESTROYS GOD’S CLEAR PROMISES TO ISRAEL, HIS ELECT! ISRAEL THE NATION THAT HE CHOSE ABOVE ALL THE OTHER NATIONS!
Read "faithful" into that passage and you strip it right out of context. Israel is Israel, sometimes faithful, sometimes not, but never Gentiles and never the Church.
Alex Quackenbush said:
I cannot answer for what others have written, that is one of the reasons I do not like to wear the labels. ALL MEN HAVE AT TIMES MISSED IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO STATE SPIRITUAL TRUTH. I have gone back and looked at things I have written, and asked myself, "WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?!"
Alex, do you maintain that CTs always get it right?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Dispensation in the NT, KJV1769 version:
1 Corinthians 9:17 (KJV1769):
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward:
but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel
is committed unto me.
Ephesians 1:10 (KJV1769):
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:
Ephesians 3:2 (KJV1769):
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward:
Colossians 1:25 (KJV1769):
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation
of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
The Holy Spirit hasn't shown me a lot more than is
here. I do know the Greek word being translated here
as 'dispensation' is the Greek word from which we get
'economy'.
Here is what the economy of God is like:
Bible Prophetic times:
'hour' = the appropriate time
'day' = the appropriate time
or '1 day' = 1,000 years
'½-week' = 3½-years
'week' = 7 years
'month' = the appropriate time
year = the appropriate time
Other 'economy of God facts':
the blind see
the dead live
the deaf hear
the lame leap like deer
the first is last
the last is first
Jesus Saves
God Rules!!
1 Corinthians 9:17 (KJV1769):
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward:
but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel
is committed unto me.
Ephesians 1:10 (KJV1769):
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:
Ephesians 3:2 (KJV1769):
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward:
Colossians 1:25 (KJV1769):
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation
of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
The Holy Spirit hasn't shown me a lot more than is
here. I do know the Greek word being translated here
as 'dispensation' is the Greek word from which we get
'economy'.
Here is what the economy of God is like:
Bible Prophetic times:
'hour' = the appropriate time
'day' = the appropriate time
or '1 day' = 1,000 years
'½-week' = 3½-years
'week' = 7 years
'month' = the appropriate time
year = the appropriate time
Other 'economy of God facts':
the blind see
the dead live
the deaf hear
the lame leap like deer
the first is last
the last is first
Jesus Saves
God Rules!!
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
1 Corinthians 10:32 (KJV1769):
Give none offence, neither to the JEWS,
nor to the GENTILES, nor to the CHURCH OF GOD.
Give none offence, neither to the JEWS,
nor to the GENTILES, nor to the CHURCH OF GOD.
OF COURSE NOT, how convenient for your doctrine-it wasn’t revealed yet who the promise extended to, but the problem is, the dispensational school of thought is to automatically assume that “Israel” refers to ethnic Jews as a nation at any convenient point and so understandably this could be seen that way since the OT Bible in large part was written to Jews and it is clearly a “Jewish” history; so this assumption would have a natural appeal to those trying to hold to the nation of Israel to be ethnic Jews from the OT; upon the revelation of the NT though this concept of their pride in ethnic salvation by heritage is clearly shut down. John the Baptist laid the axe to that line of thought over 2000 years ago:
(Mat 3:9) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
(Mat 3:10) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Some??? You don’t think those Pharisees knew their pedigree, or is it you prefer “ethnic nation” to the term “pedigree” in the right of passage here??? This is clear that God will raise up whom He will and their ideas of having an heritage by roots has done been axed, along with any false assumption of bringing forth good fruit by claiming Abraham as their father by ANY sort of HERITAGE. Good fruit ONLY comes by being in the spirit, in faith.
Nor, do I read into it where I need to “divide” it into “some”.
Amen, Ruth has become part of the church by faith in God, not by joining an ethnic club! Her presence in the genealogy of Christ shows she became a daughter of Israel and Abraham by faith in God, and you now want to divide your definition to not include Ruth genetically? The promise was “to thy seed” meaning Abrahams, and Ruth was added in to this. Seems you’re trying to have it both ways here.
Are all/any of these unfaithful going to be saved?
(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:
Or are you going to divide your definition now to a different meaning of Israel right in the middle of the context in Romans? Let’s see:
First you help makes my point, you understand Israel to refer to national ethnic group, but many other definitions are possible:
1) Jacob, who was renamed Israel by God
2) Jacob’s descendants
3) The congregation in Egypt, including the “mixed multitude” not descendants of Jacob
4) The united monarchy
5) The northern kingdom during the divided monarchy
6) The name of the nation of Jews after the return from the Babylonian exile
7) The Church
I rather to identify with the root meanings of the name; the name Israel would carry the message of God to other peoples and the very name “Israel” would become a message to the world. This message coming to light through a straight clean cut into the word and examining it as a whole.
I think the whole of text warrants the use of Israel to refer to ALL the saved, in the seed of Abraham, by faith, spiritual Israel/the Church.
Last edited by a moderator:
The rest so far:
Apply your definition to ALL Jacob’s descendants in there as ‘Israel” throughout Romans and see how that fits…
You use Romans to fit your understanding of Israel to mean “a national ethnic group”. You further define them to still be “Jews” or “Israel” saying they do not cease being a part of that ethnic group in unfaithfulness. So let’s take, “all Israel shall be saved: as it is written”
When was this written??? The way I see it you have at least two problems here with your definition:
1) If ALL Israel shall be saved, it includes those without faith.
2) Concerning #1 Your definition must now be changed by “rightly dividing” the Word as it must fit the Dispy scheme.
3) You tend to put aside the context in Romans both before and after in use of the verses through Romans 10:1,21 and 11:2,7-8 to shoot down Paul’s explanation of who Israel actually is (the Church).
4) I did said at least two; so if we now have an agreement of spiritual Israel in light of Rom 11:26. Stay in context, back up to (Romans 9:6) Paul’s entire argument is based on the idea that the real “Israel” is a spiritual community, not a physical one. “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:”
Got to go, Later
Apply your definition to ALL Jacob’s descendants in there as ‘Israel” throughout Romans and see how that fits…
You use Romans to fit your understanding of Israel to mean “a national ethnic group”. You further define them to still be “Jews” or “Israel” saying they do not cease being a part of that ethnic group in unfaithfulness. So let’s take, “all Israel shall be saved: as it is written”
When was this written??? The way I see it you have at least two problems here with your definition:
1) If ALL Israel shall be saved, it includes those without faith.
2) Concerning #1 Your definition must now be changed by “rightly dividing” the Word as it must fit the Dispy scheme.
3) You tend to put aside the context in Romans both before and after in use of the verses through Romans 10:1,21 and 11:2,7-8 to shoot down Paul’s explanation of who Israel actually is (the Church).
4) I did said at least two; so if we now have an agreement of spiritual Israel in light of Rom 11:26. Stay in context, back up to (Romans 9:6) Paul’s entire argument is based on the idea that the real “Israel” is a spiritual community, not a physical one. “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:”
RJ, you can be so fun for me to step into the ring with! Although the challenge may be humbling in knowing I may very well get some black eyes, trying to find a way to pin you to the mat so that I can wale on you is so exuberating for me that I wish I could train all day sometimes just to get the opportunity. :laugh: I learn from the challenge and enjoy the intensity knowing it will force me to dig into the truth and put up.
Got to go, Later
Last edited by a moderator:
Benjamin said:
Iron sharpening iron. Sparks will no doubt fly!No time to respond right now. Plan to get back to it later this evening. Digging into the truth is what it is all about! No man is ever the lesser for having been forced to dig deeper. May we both revel in and benefit from the verbal sparring that is most certainly to transpire (deo volente). Later.
DeafPosttrib
New Member
Notice, Galatians chapter 3 is not discuss about physical nation or ethnic nation either. It speaks of individual of any races who have faith in Jesus Christ, so, they are belong to Abraham's seed which is Christ's.
Same with Ephesians chapter 2 is not discuss about physical nation or ethnic nation either. It talks about Calvary draw all people of the world on Christ. Salvation is for everyone. Christ already tore down the wall between Jews and Gentiles, reconciled both became ONE in Christ. No more divided within the body of Christ again forever and ever.
During Christ's ministry on earth. Christ told Pharisees, God is going to take it to 'another nation', because of their reject Christ.
Same with Romans chapter 11 tells us, God removed unbelieving Jews from tree, but leave believing Jews on this tree. God just grafted Gentiles unto the tree join with believing Jews, SO, therefore, 'All Israel shall be saved' shall be completed at second coming.
But, I understand Romans 11:25-26 could be speak of Calvary at Christ's first advent. Christ came out of Zion(heaven) came down to earth and he died on the cross, so, he forgived all people's sins through his blood. And He said, 'It is finished'.
At the same time, the veil of the temple was torn down while Christ yelled, 'It is finished". It shew that, we do not need physical temple and physical daily sacrifices anymore. Christ is our temple and sacrifice.
Also, Romans chapter 11 is not deal about physical nation or ethnic nation either. It talks about individuals both Gentiles and Jews who have faith in Christ, are share on the same tree. And 'Olive Tree' is clearly pictured of Jesus Christ.
Like as John chapter 15 speaks of 'Vine'. Christ is the vine. Anyone is in 'Vine' or 'Olive Tree', they are belong to Christ.
God only have one family.
Do you think there is divided in heaven?
Suppose, dispensationalism is correct, then there is divided in the heaven.
I do not believe in the divided in the heaven. There is NO divided in heaven.
Also, Revelation chapter 21 gives a perfect example of New Jerusalem. It shows of 12 walls round around New Jerusalem are represents 12 disciples as New Testament saints, and 12 gates round around New Jerusalem are represent 12 tribes of Israel as Old Testament saints. This scene shows us, all are unity together in one city. God only have one family.
Notice Matthew 25:31-46 telling us the clear scense show us there are only two classes at Christ's coming. One on left side - goats are represent unsaved(either Jew or Gentile), and another one on right side- sheep are represent saved(either Jew or Gentile). Matt. 25:46 simple telling us, all goats go into everlatsing punishment(lake of fire); and all sheep go into eternal life. Very simple and plain.
Dispensationalism creates complex teaching to make the body of Christ into divided.
Also, dispsenbationalism is a 'another gospel', because it teaching different plans of salvation in different periods.
Bible teaches us, there is only ONE plan of salvation of all ages by base on 'Faith' only, plus nothing other elase. Anyone who have faith in Christ, both O.T. saints and N.T. saints are on the SAME boat. Also, both are in the SAME seed which is IN Christ- period.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Same with Ephesians chapter 2 is not discuss about physical nation or ethnic nation either. It talks about Calvary draw all people of the world on Christ. Salvation is for everyone. Christ already tore down the wall between Jews and Gentiles, reconciled both became ONE in Christ. No more divided within the body of Christ again forever and ever.
During Christ's ministry on earth. Christ told Pharisees, God is going to take it to 'another nation', because of their reject Christ.
Same with Romans chapter 11 tells us, God removed unbelieving Jews from tree, but leave believing Jews on this tree. God just grafted Gentiles unto the tree join with believing Jews, SO, therefore, 'All Israel shall be saved' shall be completed at second coming.
But, I understand Romans 11:25-26 could be speak of Calvary at Christ's first advent. Christ came out of Zion(heaven) came down to earth and he died on the cross, so, he forgived all people's sins through his blood. And He said, 'It is finished'.
At the same time, the veil of the temple was torn down while Christ yelled, 'It is finished". It shew that, we do not need physical temple and physical daily sacrifices anymore. Christ is our temple and sacrifice.
Also, Romans chapter 11 is not deal about physical nation or ethnic nation either. It talks about individuals both Gentiles and Jews who have faith in Christ, are share on the same tree. And 'Olive Tree' is clearly pictured of Jesus Christ.
Like as John chapter 15 speaks of 'Vine'. Christ is the vine. Anyone is in 'Vine' or 'Olive Tree', they are belong to Christ.
God only have one family.
Do you think there is divided in heaven?
Suppose, dispensationalism is correct, then there is divided in the heaven.
I do not believe in the divided in the heaven. There is NO divided in heaven.
Also, Revelation chapter 21 gives a perfect example of New Jerusalem. It shows of 12 walls round around New Jerusalem are represents 12 disciples as New Testament saints, and 12 gates round around New Jerusalem are represent 12 tribes of Israel as Old Testament saints. This scene shows us, all are unity together in one city. God only have one family.
Notice Matthew 25:31-46 telling us the clear scense show us there are only two classes at Christ's coming. One on left side - goats are represent unsaved(either Jew or Gentile), and another one on right side- sheep are represent saved(either Jew or Gentile). Matt. 25:46 simple telling us, all goats go into everlatsing punishment(lake of fire); and all sheep go into eternal life. Very simple and plain.
Dispensationalism creates complex teaching to make the body of Christ into divided.
Also, dispsenbationalism is a 'another gospel', because it teaching different plans of salvation in different periods.
Bible teaches us, there is only ONE plan of salvation of all ages by base on 'Faith' only, plus nothing other elase. Anyone who have faith in Christ, both O.T. saints and N.T. saints are on the SAME boat. Also, both are in the SAME seed which is IN Christ- period.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Alex Quackenbush
New Member
I am dispensationalist so it would be odd for me to believe Covent Theology always gets it right.rjprince said:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
DeafPosttrib said:
Amen, Brother DeafPosttrib. There is no division between
God's Jewish/Israeli Chosen elect church saints
and the Church Age, mostly Gentile, chosen elect church saints
IN HEAVEN.
There is no division between
God's Messanic Jews (Jewish/Israeli Chosen elect church saints
who believe that Jesus is their Messiah)
and the Church Age, mostly Gentile, chosen elect church saints
IN THE CHURCH AGE (33AD to whenever - Pentacost to
the pretribulation rapture/resurrection.
//Suppose, dispensationalism is correct, then there is divided in the heaven.//
This is NOT what dispensationalism that is right teaches.
Pretribulation rapture/resurrection dispensationism teaches
that at the pretribulation rapture/resurrection the
Church Age, mostly Gentile, chosen elect church saints
(and their kindred Messanic Jews) will be GONE TO HEAVEN.
The Church Age, mostly Gentile, chosen elect church saints
will not be on earth. There will be two groups on earth
after the Pretribulation at the beginning:
1. lost Gentiles
2. lost Jewish/Israeli
Some doubt hardly any Gentiles will be saved during
the Tribulation Period.
All Israel shall be saved:
God's Jewish/Israeli Chosen elect church saints
(the ones that believe, just like in the Church age).
Benjamin said:
Notice how you shift the focus from the meaning of Israel and her ethnic identity to their wrong belief that their ethnic identity somehow provided for their salvation. But then of course, you have to shift the focus since your position will not allow you read the text as it stands. I have read NO DISPIES who claim that Israel’s ethnic identity guaranteed their salvation! IN A FUTURE DAY, their ethnic identity will be a factor in God regathering them to Himself and putting His law in their hearts, when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled and when He fulfills His covenant to "take away their sins". At that time, "ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED" – not, on the basis of their own righteousness, but on the basis of His sovereign grace in calling them to Himself. This is the plain teaching of Scripture! No way you can read Rom 11:25-29 and get anything else from the text!
As far as John the Baptist is concerned and his statement concerning Abraham, stones, and the ax, there is nothing there that removes Israel from her place of blessing as God’s chosen nation! Stop reading into the text! All it says is that they should not expect their national heritage to keep the judgment of God from falling upon them! God could raise up seed to Abraham from the rocks, if He wanted to. No record that He did, or even said that He would, only that He could. He did promise to raise up a valley of dry bones and cover them with sinew and flesh, AND THEN put His Spirit within them. Guess who that would be? "These bones are the whole house of Israel" – Isa 37:10. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR READING THAT AS "CHURCH"!!!
Benjamin said:
What are you talking about? Ruth became a JEW! I did not divide it genetically! As a Gentile, she embraced the land, the people, the culture and the GOD of Israel and became a Jew! She did not join an ethnic club!
If you can’t respond to my arguments, just twist them into something you can respond to, but, don’t expect me not to point out your error. You said, "Ruth became part of the church", nonsense! The only way you can get that is by redefining your terms according to CT! You can’t find that in the Word of God!
Benjamin said:
"ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED" that is pretty plain. All of the Jews living at that time shall be drawn irresistibly to embrace the Messiah that their ancestors crucified (Zech 12:10). Is that to big of a problem for your God? Not for mine! GOD COULD SAVE ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE IF THAT WAS HIS PLAN!!! IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR HIM! HE PLAINLY DECLARES THAT ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED, PERIOD.
(SPECIAL NOTE HERE: THIS IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IN CALVINISM, or the meaning of "ALL" in some other passage for those who may be tempted to do so. My point is that God declares HERE that He will SAVE ALL ISRAEL. If you are going to object, please do so from a passage that concerns the salvation of Israel following the fullness of the Gentiles.)
Just in case there is confusion about what "ALL ISRAEL" means, God has said the same thing just as clearly in Jer 31 – "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 that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Benjamin said:
And you were doing so good! Then you had to go and say...
That did not come from Scripture, that came from Covenant Theology, and its precursors...
At the beginning of your post you said,
Benjamin said:
I will grant that "Israel" is used in the sense of your definitions 1-6. I have never contended that it wasn’t, except possibly by lack of more precise specificity. I STRONGLY DENY THAT ISRAEL EVER MEANS CHURCH! (More in next post...)
Benjamin said:
Benjamin said:
OK. Good idea, every place where Israel or Israelite appears in the book of Romans...
This is how you would have me read it...
And you think that makes sense?
Now, let’s try it my way
Funny how my way (the Bible way) makes sense and yours does not. Was that a jab? or a left hook?
You are the one who brought up the black eye thing! All in good humor, but if you do not appreciate it, please, just let me know and I will stick to the text. OK.
You are my brother, and whilst I wouldst spar with thee, I wouldst not desire to hurt thee, not in any way.
I will acknowledge that Rom 9:6 is a bit difficult. But it does not read any better from either side.
It must be an enigmatic way of saying that just because a person is a Jew by birth, does not make him a Jew by faith. Whatever you do with it, IT CLEARLY DOES NOT SAY that God has forgotten His covenant with Israel because some have disbelieved. Rom 11 makes it clear that He has not.
Benjamin said:
EVERYBODY WHO HAS EVER BEEN SAVED HAS AT SOME POINT BEEN IN THE CONDITION OF BEING "WITHOUT FAITH". The faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God that none should boast. N
NE COMES TO GOD BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE WORTHY OR MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN THOSE WHO DO NOT! WE ONLY COME TO GOD ON THE BASIS OF HIS GRACE!!! NEVER OUR OWN FAITHFULNESS!!! God draws us all to Himself! Any reason why He could not chose to save "all Israel" just as the text states? (Free willers, please stay out of this one and debate it on other threads.)Nope. No need to change my understanding of "ALL ISRAEL". See my last post as well on this...
Benjamin said:
See above for every occurrence of "Israel" in the book of Romans. If Paul explains that Israel is the church, please give the reference. One of us is dismissing the context, but it is not me.
Benjamin said:
WHAT!!! "...the real Israel is a spiritual community, not a physical one..." WHAT!!! That is not what the text says! That is not even what the text implies, not even remotely! Again, go back and try to read all of the Romans passages that way. What it says is that not all Jews by birth are Jews by faith. There will be some Jews in hell. Is there some reason why you think I believe differently? Other than reading it the way you want so you are able to argue against it?
Let's do this: I will try to restate your position in a manner that you will agree is a fair representation of what you believe. AND, you try to state my position in a way that is a fair representation of what you understand me to believe. It will save a lot of time, and avoid a lot of needless and pointless banter.
Where do you get "spiritual Israel"? Let’s deal in terms and concepts that are Biblical, OK. NOT Covenant, and NOT DISPENSATIONAL EITHER. Can we agree to do that?
Benjamin said:
Mee tooo. Bye. Later, Bro.