He died for the seed of abraham

[Dr. Walter]

dw



Correct, and He and His Mom typified the Physical Nation of Israel Gal 4:
22-25

22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

That is not true! The context shows that he is referring to the Old Covenant as he plainly tells you that Agar answers to Mount Sinai where the old covenant was given. The difference is between the old and new covenant and that salvation is under the new covenant for all of God's promised children rather than under the old covenant. This text has nothing to do with the current or future condition of ethnic Israel whatsoever.

 

[savedbymercy]

dw

That is not true!

Yes it is, it does not matter if you do not believe it either..

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



Yes it is, it does not matter if you do not believe it either..

No, it is not and it does not matter if you simply keep parroting it as though it were true.

 

[1 Timothy 3:3-9]

Believe those who are seeking the truth and doubt those who find it. Is a good quote to live by.:1_grouphug:

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



Yes it is, it does not matter if you do not believe it either..

If it is, then why can't you respond to the simple challenge I have repeatedly spelled out and set forth over and over again concerning justification in Romans 8:30??????????????? The truth harmonizes with scripture but your position contradicts this text glaringly.

 

[1 Timothy 3:3-9]

and set forth over and over again concerning justification in Romans 8:30??????????????? The truth harmonizes with scripture but your position contradicts this text glaringly.

You can give your points without calling someone blind. This is only being Ad hominem. There is no reason to add this to a mature, Christian debate. Again, Pastor Mark i urge you to be an example and charitable with how you respond to people.

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



Yes it is, it does not matter if you do not believe it either..

Why don't you consider the context of this book? It is not about the present or future spiritual condition of the nation of Israel. It is about whether already SAVED PERSONS IN THE GALATIAN CHURCHES are justified under the Old or New Covenant. Paul plainly tells you that Hagar represents Mount Sinai NOT ISRAEL! You are simply jerking Paul's words out of their proper context and that is called eisgesis.

 

[savedbymercy]

Why don't you consider the context of this book? It is not about the present or future spiritual condition of the nation of Israel.

National Israel according to the Flesh, are not the Children of God Rom 9:8

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

They are Ishmaelites..Only related to Abraham by the flesh..

 

[Dr. Walter]

National Israel according to the Flesh, are not the Children of God Rom 9:8

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

They are Ishmaelites..Only related to Abraham by the flesh..

Since when are Ishmaelites synonmous with ethnic Israel as a nation?????? Why can't you deal with the contextual argument? Why do you just jerk at text out of a context that has nothing to do with the salvation or damnation of the nation Israel but refers to the salvation and damnation under the old versus the New Covenant? I will tell you why! Because you are simply proof texting and do not care what the context is about as long as it superficially serves your purpose.

 

[savedbymercy]

dw

Since when are Ishmaelites synonmous with ethnic Israel as a nation??????

I have went over that already, see post 35 !

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



You see, Ishmael and His Mother represented Abraham's Israel after the flesh, those constituted a Nation at Siani.. Gal 4:

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Look at the text you quote to back you up! It does not say Ishmael and His mother represented Abraham's Israel after the flesh but rather they represented the "old covenant" given at Mount Sinai! The whole contextual discussion is whether those SAVED GENTILES in the Galatian churches are justified by grace without works or by grace plus works -that is the context. The context has NOTHING to say about whether Israel AS A NATION has been rejected by God forever but whether GENTILES who seek justification by grace plus works will be rejected by God. HE IS TALKING TO GENTILES not Jews.

25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Thats when ethnic Israel was constituted a Nation, well that Israel are not the Children of God

You are interpreting Paul's words to mean something the context and this text says NOTHING about. Paul is writing to GENTILE CHURCHES not Jewish churches. He is not talking about the constitution of any nation but the origin of two contrasting covenants that represent WORKS versus GRACE.

That Israel is not heirs ! Notice Gal 4:30

Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

The casting out here is what happened to National Israel as that which was broken off ! Because they are not Heirs..

Your hope and teaching is False...

Paul does not say or define the casting out of the bondwoman and her son to be Israel as a nation. He has just told you they represent the OLD COVENANT given at Mount Sinai. He is not taling to JEWS but to GENTILES in this letter. He is not talking about NATIONS but about two contrasting covenants in regard to how GENTILES are justified.

This is precisely how you attempt to justify your error - jerk scriptuers out of their proper context - ignore how the writer defines his own terms - contradict what the text actually says.

 

[savedbymercy]

The point of Gal 4 which paul is making is that Ishmael and His Mother Hagar picture Israel that is [ according to the flesh] notice:

Gal 4:24-28,30

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children

This Israel in contrast to the Israel or Jerusalem that is from above, the Israel of Divine Promise typified by Isaac:

26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

This compliments Rom 9:8

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

This is why paul says in Rom 9:6 that all Israel is not of Israel, because you have an Israel of the flesh, and Israel by promise [ as Isaac was]

Now, Just as the typical Ishmael and Hagar were cast out and said not to have part in the inheritance per Gal 4:30

30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

So likewise the Israel according to the flesh has been cast out and shall not be an heir to Israel of promise..

All the promises made to Israel from God were to Israel of promise and not Israel of the flesh..

 

[Dr. Walter]

The point of Gal 4 which paul is making is that Ishmael and His Mother Hagar picture Israel that is [ according to the flesh] notice:

Gal 4:24-28,30

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Do you see Paul's actual interpretation???? Here it is "FOR THESE ARE THE TWO COVENANTS"! You are rejecting and then reinterpreting Paul's own explanation to suit your own purposes!

Paul did not say, "For these are TWO ISRAEL'S one that is spiritual and one that is natural"!!!! You said that not Paul.

You are simply not honest with Paul's own words and Paul's own explanation of his words.

25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children

The nation of Israel has rejected the new covenant and the old Covenant is the gospel of justification by works which characterizes their religion under the Old Covenant. However, Paul does not say "Agar is the nation Israel" but rather is "mount Sinai." He does not say that Sinai "answereth to the nation of Israel" but to "Jerusalem which now is" where the Old Covenant ministry in the Temple was presently being administered. Paul did not say that Mount Calvary answereth to "Spiritual Israel" but rather to the "new Jerusalem" in heaven where the HEAVENLY TEMPLE exists, God exists, Christ is seated and applying his redemptive provisions in contrast to the earthly temple located at Jerusalem below.

Paul is writing GENTILE believers not Jews and the issue is not PHYSICAL BIRTH AS A ETHNIC JEW because they were GENTILES by physical birth but rather the issue is between two gospels, one of faith plus works and the other of grace without works through faith.

26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

The new covenant is applied to the promised children through a birth that is "FROM ABOVE" (Jn. 3:3) or where God dwells, Christ dwells and from whence his redemptive provision is applied to the promised children.

This compliments Rom 9:8

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Yes, they do compliment each other but not in the sense you understand or apply it. The proper contextual sense is that the salvation of gentiles (Galatians) and Jews (present remnant" and future Ethnic Israel is according to the very same covenant promise - justification by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

This is why paul says in Rom 9:6 that all Israel is not of Israel, because you have an Israel of the flesh, and Israel by promise [ as Isaac was]

Again, you are jerking it out of its context. This text only asserts that the covenant promise is not for ONCE BORN Israelites but for only TWICE BORN Israelites and by no means denys that after the "fullness of the gentile" promised children be "come in" there will be a whole ethnic nation of Israel that will be TWICE BORN according to election (Rom. 11:25-28) the same Israel that is presently "enemies of the gospel for your sakes but AS TOUCHING ELECTION they are beloved for THE FATHER'S (plural) sake".

Now, Just as the typical Ishmael and Hagar were cast out and said not to have part in the inheritance per Gal 4:30

30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

So likewise the Israel according to the flesh has been cast out and shall not be an heir to Israel of promise..

All the promises made to Israel from God were to Israel of promise and not Israel of the flesh..

This is true of every human who seeks to be justified by works whether Jew or Gentile. This is true concerning Israel "after the flesh" just as you say. However, this is not a denial of the future salvation of the ethnic nation of Israel when they will be BORN OF THE SPIRIT in addition to having been born of the flesh.

 

[savedbymercy]

dw

Do you see Paul's actual interpretation????

I just gave it to you lol..

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



I just gave it to you lol..

You gave YOUR WORDS not Paul's words - there is a difference. His words that gives His interpretation are:

"for these are the two covenants"

While YOUR WORDS are "these are two Israel's"

YOUR WORDS are interpretative of His words but His words are given by him to interpret his own words.

 

[savedbymercy]

dw

You gave YOUR WORDS not Paul's words

Maybe you need to go back and read, I gave scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

dw



Maybe you need to go back and read, I gave scripture.

Yeah, right! Remember these words?

"This Israel in contrast to the Israel or Jerusalem that is from above" - SBG

 

[savedbymercy]

The Jews erroneously thought (as many do today) that the promises made to Abraham regarding his seed respected all of his physical descendants. Their boast was "we be Abraham’s seed" (John 8:33), to which Christ replied, "If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham" (verse 39 and see Romans 4:12-13). God’s rejection of Ishmael and Esau was proof that the promises were not made to the natural descendants as such.

The choice of Isaac and Jacob showed that the promise was limited to an elect line. "The children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted [regarded] as the seed.

For this is the word of promise. At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son (Rom. 9:8,9). The "children of God" and the "children of promise" are one and the same, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. As Isaac was born supernaturally, so are all of God’s elect (John 1:13). As Isaac, on that account, was heir of the promised blessing, so are Christians (Gal. 4:29; 3:29). "Children of the promise" are identical with "the heirs of promise" (Heb. 6:17, and cf. Rom. 8:17). All the everlasting promises made to Israel was not made to Israel of the flesh, but Israel of promise, and these promises found their fulfillment in Jesus Christ ( 2 Cor 1:20; Gal 3:16).
​

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Jews erroneously thought (as many do today) that the promises made to Abraham regarding his seed respected all of his physical descendants. Their boast was "we be Abraham’s seed" (John 8:33), to which Christ replied, "If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham" (verse 39 and see Romans 4:12-13). God’s rejection of Ishmael and Esau was proof that the promises were not made to the natural descendants as such.

The choice of Isaac and Jacob showed that the promise was limited to an elect line. "The children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted [regarded] as the seed.

For this is the word of promise. At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son (Rom. 9:8,9). The "children of God" and the "children of promise" are one and the same, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. As Isaac was born supernaturally, so are all of God’s elect (John 1:13). As Isaac, on that account, was heir of the promised blessing, so are Christians (Gal. 4:29; 3:29). "Children of the promise" are identical with "the heirs of promise" (Heb. 6:17, and cf. Rom. 8:17). All the everlasting promises made to Israel was not made to Israel of the flesh, but Israel of promise, and these promises found their fulfillment in Jesus Christ ( 2 Cor 1:20; Gal 3:16).
​

I could not agree more! The Israel of promise is the elect Israel and that elect Israel EXCLUDES all elect Gentiles (Rom. 11:25-28) but only INCLUDES twice born Jews - the present "remnant" elect Jews and the future elect nation of Israel.

I have proven this contextually in Romans 11:25-28 by the tenses. I have proven this in Romans 11:25-28 by the contrast between "Gentiles" and "Israel." I have proven this in Romans 11:25-28 that the "Israel" spoken of in both verses 25 and 26 are distinct from both the "remnant" and the elect "gentiles" who do "come in". I have proven ths in Romans 11:25-26 by the explicit TIME and EVENT when this "Israel" shall be saved. YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO ANY OF THESE PROOFS but simply ignore them. WHY? Because you cannot deal with the evidence and so you don't try.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The only way to deal with your errors is to deal with them ONE at a time. Look at Romans 11:25-28:

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 Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

Your ignorance is the very ignorace Paul addresses in verse 25 in these words, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be IGNORANT of this mystery."

Ask yourself what is the "mystery" that Paul does not want the "brethren" to be ignorant about? He states it clearly - "that blindness in part is happened to Israel."

Ask yourself now, what "Israel" is Paul talking about that "IS" in blindness as He writes these brethren? Whatever "Israel" that 'IS" in partial blindness remains in blindness to a specified time and that time is spelled out in THREE different ways beginning in verse 25 and concluding in verse 27.

1. "UNTIL the fullness of the gentiles be come in" - v. 25
2. "There SHALL come out of Zion the Deliverer" who future tense "SHALL turn away the ungodliness from Jacob" - v. 26
3. "WHEN I SHALL take away their sins" - v. 27

Now, has the fullness of the Gentiles come in as to our present day? No!
Now, has the deliverer come out of Zion who "SHALL" turn their sins away since Paul wrote to our present day? No!
Now, "when...shall" he take away the sins of "Jacob" or "Israel"? Not until the two events occur in #1 and #2 which was still FUTURE from when Paul wrote this epistle as he uses the future tense "shall." It is still future from our present day.

Therefore, the Israel in verse 26 that was in partial blindnes when Paul wrote "is" still in blindess today "shall" continue in blindness "until" AFTER the fullness of the Gentiles be "come in." That is, all the elect Gentiles must first "come in" to God's kingdom BEFORE God takes away the sins of this "Israel".

Therefore, this "Israel" does not include but excludes all GENTILE ELECT. Indeed verse 28 declares they are PRESENTLY "enemies of the gospel" for the sake of the Gentiles in order that all the Gentiles elect shall "come in."

Can't get it any clearer than this! This Israel does not contain ONE SINGLE SOLITARY GENTILE and this "Israel" does not presently have their sins remitted and will not have their sins remitted "until the fulness of the gentiles be COME IN." This has not happened. The delieverer Paul spoke of had not happened at the time Paul wrote this as he uses the future tense "shall come." The deliver has not yet come and therefore is still future from our day and it is "WHEN" that deliverer comes that the sins of this "Israel" SHALL be remitted. Hence, this "Israel" is STILL IN THEIR SINS - STILL IN THEIR BLINDNESS and will continue to be until all the elect Gentiles come in and until the Deliverer comes from Sion. Hence, this Israel is not the "remnant" nor is it the Gentile elect - can't get it any more simpler than that.

Now before you respond according to your normal babble and according to your normal repeating your same absolute nonsense - read carefully what I have said and TRY to disprove it contextually IF YOU CAN!! You can't and so you won't try but you will do what you always do with contrary evidence - IGNORE IT!