Dispensationalism - Sine Qua Non 1 of 3, a Israel and Church Distinction

Please note, Brother Rjprince, that some of my posts were written
to difuse these strawmen. I wish people would argue against
my statements (or yours) instead of against people who aren't
even in the conversation

 

(Brother Rjprince then quotes Revelation 7:9-14)

IMHO the unnumberable multitude cannot be those
saved during the Tribulation Period. There are slightly
over six Billion people on the earth today.
If the Pretribulation rapture were to take place today,
there would be something less than six Billion to
inhabit the Tribulation Period. So one can number the
ones saved during the Tribulation Period.

What cannot be numbered is all the
Old Testament Saints that will be Resurrected;
the deadJewish/Israelil saved, and the Church Age Gentiles
dead that will be resurrected;
the living Jewish/Israelil saved, and the living Church Age Gentiles
saved that will be raptured.
This is the unnumberable crowd gathered around
God's Throne -- all the saved to the time of the
pretribulation rapture/resurrection.

 

One reason I think that not many Gentiles
will be saved during the Tribulation Period:

Rev 9:18-21 (KJV1611 Edition):
By these three was the third part of men killed,
by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone
which issued out of their mouthes.
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tailes:
for their tailes were like vnto serpents, and had heads,
and with them they doe hurt.
20 And the rest of the men which were not killed
by these plagues, yet repented not of the works
of their hands, that they should not worship deuils,
and idoles of golde, and siluer, and brasse,
and stone, and of wood, which neither can see,
nor heare, nor walke:
21 Neither repented they of their murders,
nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication,
nor of their thefts.

Why I think most of the Jewish/Israeli saints
(most of whom get converted during the mid-tribulation
period crisis) will be saved through the last half
of the Tribulation Period:

Rev 12:13-14 (KJV1611 Edition):
And when the dragon saw that he was cast vnto the earth,
hee persecuted the woman which brought foorth the man childe.
Rev 12:14 And to the woman were giuen two wings
of a great Eagle, that shee might flee into
the wildernesse into her place, where she is nourished
for a time, and times, and halfe a time,
from the face of the serpent.

The Serpent is the Satan, the Lead Devil;
the 'woman which brought foorth the man childe'
is Israel; the man childe is Messiah Yeshua;
'a time, and times, and halfe a time,' = 2+1+½=3½-years -
the last half of Daniel's 70th week, the last ½ of the Tribulation
Period.

 

I came out of Vietnam. I lived through Vietnam.
I was in the Air Force of the USofA
1963-1967. I got Veteran College assistance getting
degrees in 1969 and 1975.
I tracked cargo planes going into Vietnam, I tracked cargo
planes coming out of Vietnam, I never went to Vietnam -
I came out of Vietnam. I'm still alive. And when I
get old and my kids want to send me to the old folks
home -- I've got a reservation at the Veteran's Center
in the same town I live in which I live in Exciting Central Oklahoma.
I came out of Vietnam - I'm a survivor of Vietnam & have
all the rights and privilages thereof.

 

Then also notice the pot calling the kettle black as I consider this futurist doctrine that apparently DOES guarantee a ethnic identity salvation plainly as double-talk and the forced grace doctrine that it would take to complete as nonsense in holding to that position! The text says, “all Israel” it doesn’t say, “all Israel after some point in time”.

No, it is you who attempted to shift the focus on to the appeal of OT quotes, when those are not the determining issue. Concerning Romans 11 Paul explicitly says that Israel will be saved by breaking off unbelievers and grafting in believers. The following quotes 25-29 are intended to support what he just said, not to change it the way you must attempt to change it to support your position.

And the major shift of focus that I see is you’re adding in the Calvinist dogmas! I see also this continues below, talk about shifting the focus; (I do see that C would line up well with D for you, as a matter of fact am starting to wonder how a Non-C could come to your conclusions) but give me a break here, I have no desire to get into the C/A scuffle, (as most certainly the gloves would come off) the “root” problems with Calvinism in another tread.

John the Baptist revealed …so you can stop dividing away from the meaning in the text!; John the Baptist was not only telling them to not even to BEGIN to think their national heritage could save them (glad we have that one straightened out) but that the actual form of “judgment” is also being revealed. Yeah baby, the axe has been laid to those roots and old way of thinking! Not only that, but in this it is made clear, that “EVERY” TREE that doesn’t bring forth good fruit… There is only ONE WAY to bring forth good fruit…their sacrifices NEVER did save them but they were saved by their FAITH, not the blood of bulls and goats, (Heb 10:4) but the all the same as ALL TRUE ISRAEL, by being BAPTIZED in the Spirit of Christ (1Cor 10-1-4, the ONLY WAY to bring forth good fruit is in the spirit by faith, John 15) the only thing that has changed here (in that time) is the ministration of that spirit (2Cor 3:8-11) by the content in which they believed on. Moses had a veil over his face, and the children of Israel (those that would be saved by faith/being faithful) were blinded to the coming and ABOLISHING of their own blood works and thoughts of heritage.

I think you need to stop dreaming just as they did 2000 years ago and quit trying to hold on to this revelation as something that retains some “special” status by heritage. THERE IS ABSOLULUELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DIVIDING THEM AWAY FROM THE CHURCH as far as I have seen, when comparing the context of these passages as part of the whole!

EXCUSE ME?!?
Bolding by me:

On second thought decided my response to this accusation may not be profitable to this discussion. Think maybe it would be easier considering the present circumstances if we were to just cut Ruth in half! :BangHead:

 

You’ve opened up yet another can of worms here that I may address in some detail when/if time permits concerning the fullness of the Gentiles. In the mean time when are you going to show me a New Testament text that speaks of the restoration of the Kingdom to the Jews?

ROFL… I knew that would get your goat!

I said to apply YOUR definition, meaning within contextual sense, not try to twist around what you erroneously perceive to be MY definitions.
[quote][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Originally posted by rjprince: [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
And you think that makes sense?

Now, let’s try it my way[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][quote][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Originally posted by rjprince: [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]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! [B]All in good humor, but if you do not appreciate it, please, just let me know and I will stick to the text. OK.[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
[/quote]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][B]My eyes are still open and doubting your confidence. Just watch out that I don’t get a grip on you while you’re doing all the duck and weave. [/B][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I said to apply YOUR definition and stay in context, not try to twist around and use what you wish to perceive to be MY definitions to be. I said to tie it into the context of Romans before and after the verses you gave of ([/FONT][/COLOR][FONT=Georgia]Romans 10:1,21 and 11:2,7-8) and see how that fits in-between Romans 9:6 and 11:26. OH! I see below that is becoming difficult to stay within context, thereby making my straight clean jab rack up some points after all, despite the fact that you temporarily lost your sense of focus and started swinging wildly:[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][quote]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Originally posted by rjprince:
I will acknowledge that Rom 9:6 is a bit difficult. But it does not read any better from either side. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]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. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]So now you’re starting to sound all spiritualizy; is it a mystery about keeping this division? Is there another way to be saved other than faith? Let’s not ever forget that all Israel is saved in 11:26! Paul’s argument still holds from 9:6 “For they are not all Israel, which are Israel” as yet another declaration (let’s not forget John the Baptist -Mat 3:9-10) that pedigree has nothing to do with salvation. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][quote]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Originally posted by rjprince:[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]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.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/quote]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I’ll do this with THAT:[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]1) [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]One must believe/have faith to be saved, PERIOD!!! Rom 11 speaks of unbelievers being cut off. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2) [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]You haven’t stayed within context of Romans between 9:6 and 11:26 to get a clear understanding from the whole of scripture, you divide by what it doesn’t say![/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]3) [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I’m talking about what the context DOES say/confirm, and that is that ethnic heritage ain’t never gonna save nobody, “the Bible way” is that [B]ALL that [/B]are saved, are saved by faith.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]There is only one definition that will work in Romans 9:6 and it isn’t “Jew”… For they are not all [Jews], which are of [Jews], Nonsense! The definition contains the subject of belief/unbelief and thereby regarding salvation in the term “Israel” to not include ALL in the sense of heritage. Paul is saying “who” applies, as in the unbelievers are cut out and believers are grafted in. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

STACKING THE DECK NOW?!? With more Calvinist dogma? Let me tell you that I am MUCH stronger in my non-Calvinist position than in eschatology, BUT I am not willing to go there and mix this into the discussion (too many hot sparks to contend with); IF we have hit a point where there can be no agreement as to how ALL Israel could possibly be saved being based on this issue of faith, then so be it. Simply, my position is ALL that those who were influenced and did not respond in faith during ANY time are not saved, they are NOT the elect, and God will not force ANYBODY into His grace contained under the proposed Calvie definitions of His sovereignty.

Now, this is the THIRD time you have attempted to bring this in while also telling others to debate it on another tread, and THIS, after starting out telling ME to “notice the shift in focus” AND the “special note” of not using the C opportunity (which is not a benefit to you in my eyes). Relax champ, breathe in---breathe out… breathe in---breathe out…

 

I think maybe you don’t like being pinned down on a definition, eh? Well, if it says, “that not all Jews by birth are Jews by faith” then Israel consists of those of faith (at least the saved ones), yet, you cling to the ethnic nation of “Jews” as your definition of Israel. The same time you claim ALL the Israel to be saved as having an ethnic heritage, meaning Jew.


Here’s your definition “a national ethnic group” “physical seed of Abraham” to which it was included in your definition “the unfaithful in Israel” now what I don’t get is these, to use your term “Jews”, that are unfaithful which now you are telling me that “some” will be in hell is how these “Jews” are ALL going to be saved??? Still appears to me you’re trying to have it both ways.

Sounds like it could be a set up to me, a debate tactic, maybe one that involves a kind of like arguing in reverse, hey! I might be good at that…but maybe not. Trying to change the field maybe? Do you have experience with this stating another’s opinion till you get them to agree and then tearing it down? I don’t know about this, I’ll have to think about it.


I’ve been trying to pin you down on a logical viable definition and now you want to put yet another twist on the format. Oops, on second thought it may be too late, I already did it I think with my view of your two-sided definition above.

The same place you get “ethnic national Israel” apparently; Really RJ, I fail to see this type of agreement not weighing heavily on the side of YOUR idea of Biblical concepts being more valued than mine as per only your beliefs being attached to these type rules. But, will take this into consideration.

BTW, I wouldn’t take you as the type to be sensitive to a bit of bantering considering your forceful authoritive tones, but if it is bothering you I can, and will, lighten up.


Bro, just to let you know I have no problem with your tone as long as you have no problem with me not being bullied by it, or IOW (for lack of better words) held subservient to/by it.


If you want to tell me what I think, you go right on ahead, and I’ll be sure to tell you when you’re wrong. :thumbs:


Ben

BTW, RJ, I’d suggest not throwing everything into the pot at once might be helpful. And so that we better understand each other; I realize that you do not like the counters of what you call “CT” system in which I envision your lip curling up when you say the very word.

Personally, I was bombarded with the teachings of dispensationalism early on even before any serious study of eschatology, before reading any commentaries, and throughout all the enthusiasm by others to program me into this systematic way of interpreting the “Bible way” I saw nothing but continual red flags popping up that did not line up with scripture the way I saw it and found the systematic methods of divisions, frankly, as absolutely repulsive and damaging, often calling to mind Col 2:8 which words are written on my heart.

Continuing to be frank, I understand that you have read many theologians on the subject but you can not tell me that you have not been influenced by their systematic principles that you have spent many years studying and that it has not left an impression on you that will come through in discussion. You will not tell me that my views do not follow Biblical concepts as that it where my view came from and continues to grow in; and to do so is guaranteed to meet with conflict. I admittedly have read many commentaries on the subject during research and some of what I have read that line up with my beliefs will certainly come out in my thoughts and words as so with you, though of course not to the degree as per experiences. At this point in my study I do not even like to read complete systematic theories from individual authors as it is too much at once to build on and it doesn’t take me long to start seeing faults and no need to continue in the errors from ANY proclaimed complete system that I have ever explored. My Bible is the only trustworthy Book I can count on and this with the guidance of the HS that will faithfully lead me where I have the ability to go; I read the books of men with great suspicion and generally find them the vast majority on subjects such as these very arrogant and distastefully overconfident leading me to give them the boot before even finishing, and sometimes considering burning them. Ha-ha

I do not have a complete system worked out in an eschatological view and seriously doubt that I ever will, and understand I am in good company with some very godly men on this. I do know that I do not see a distinction between the Church and Israel but see them enjoined through the message of good news brought together throughout the whole of scripture, and if that labels me as “CT”… fine. Further, in my personal thoughts which I’m sure might sound as harsh against dispensationalism to you, as yours do to me against the CT way of thought, are that dispensationalism is an intellectual prideful system of force to fit that is used to complete that very system of belief and involves the containment of interpretational rules designed to limit ones ability to come to spiritual understandings that may disagree with the ever-growing prideful intellectualism that is involved in it of which I will never adopt as my only prescribed correct method to interpret scripture. This said, any efforts to dictate to me how to interpret scripture by rule of systematic dispensational design will be met with dissention and considered no less than suspect in agenda.

I enjoy picking your brain, knowing of your vast knowledge in the subject, and knowing where you stand on distinction I am curious as to how you might arrive at some of your conclusions, but I am not in for a lesson in what is appropriate terms and concepts any more than you are.

Have fun at the wedding and stay OFF the dance floor as much as possible!