Rain on the "Just" and "Unjust" ?

[Winman]

Are you sure, but if that's true, then you don't believe God is omnipotent or sovereign.

Of course I do, but I also believe God is a God of love, and love must allow choice.

If could doesn't have power over sin and couldn't have created a sin free world. Not to mention what assurance do we have that heaven will be free from sin if God can't do that.

If God because of his nature must allow men choice, then the possibility of sin cannot be avoided, it is necessary. Now heaven is another matter, because we have made our choice in this life whether we want to love or hate God. If we have decided in this life that we love God, then we will receive a new incorruptible body that will not tug or pull us to sin, and we already are partakers of the divine nature, our spirit being joined to the Holy Spirit, and so we will not sin. The problem we have now is that we are still stuck in our corruptible bodies.

Needs to happen for something doesn't equal that God couldn't have done something.

Not sure what you are saying here.

I do agree with your point that for A to happen, B(sin) needed to happen. And though God doesn't want us to sin, B(sin) was necessary for A.

Of course.

God's desire is for us to not sin, that is true. but you already answered your own question above. It doesn't make God a liar at all.

In my view no, God is not a liar, because God must give man choice which makes the possibility of sin necessary.

But you do not hold my view, you said God could have made a world where we cannot sin. If so, this would make God a liar when he repeatedly tells us he desires we be holy, because he could have made us without the ability to sin. It is your view that makes God a liar, not mine.

No, God does desire that we be holy(He tells us that) but as you have already said, God had something else that he wanted, so therefore was necessary to allow man to not obey His precepts.

Now you are abandoning your view and arguing mine.

No, and you already said the opposite of this. We all have competing desires. It's not "nonsensical" at all. God wants man to be holy, but allows man to not be holy. So either God is powerless over sin(which is not true) or God allows man to sin for another reason.

Jesus himself said that if a house is divided against itself it cannot stand. My view does not have God divided against himself, he truly desires that men not sin, but because of his loving nature he must give men choice which enables and makes sin necessary.

Your view makes God divided against himself. In your view God does not desire sin, and God could make men without the ability to sin, yet God gives men the ability to sin. This is God divided against himself.

you contradicted your self.

1. God wants man to be holy. I Peter 1:16
2. All men sin
3. God has power over sin
And even you admitted....This makes the possibility of sin unavoidable and necessary.

#1 is true

#2 is true

#3 is false, sin cannot be avoided even by God (my view)

#3 is true in your view only

Now, God could prevent sin if he decided not to create us, or he could kill every one of us before we could sin, but if God by his nature is love and desires a relationship with us, he cannot do either. He must allow the possibility of sin, and if he allows that possibility, sooner or later men will actually sin.

Your view is different, in your view God could make us robots that could not sin, or God could decide not to create us, or God could kill us before we could sin. But in this view, God could not have a loving relationship with us.

I believe my view fits the actual facts of reality, yours is nonsensical.

 

[The Biblicist]

. Again, I am arguing against the CALVINIST view of this

You better study Calvinism a little bit better. There are super, sub, infralapsarians. Calvinism is not a unified system just as Arminianism has divisions and distinctions within their camp.

I am not a superlapsarian and that is the position you are arguing against. The Bible nowhere attributes damnation to hell because of election but it does connect "election TO salvation" - 2 Thes. 2:13.

You just stated that man's will can not act otherwise then how he was created

I most certainly did not say such a thing! I never said that man was created in a fallen state. I said that the will of FALLEN MAN is not free contrary to his nature any more than God's will is free contrary to His nature.



,

and if he is a vessel of dishonor of which he has no choice but to be a vessel of dishonor

That is his FREE choice. Only salvation FREES from the BONDAGE of sin and the lost man is not FREED from the bondage of sin. Your position denies there is any BONDAGE OF SIN but rather the lost man is a FREE from sin's bondage as the will is the only expresssion of choice in regard to sin.

by your own admission you can not separate his actions from what he was pre-programmed to act out. If I am a computer that is programmed to produce certain results, and a bug in the system is introduced by my maker, and I produce an erroneous data simulation, it is not MY FAULT for producing what I was PROGRAMMED TO DO.

Now apply this silly rationale to the Person of God and His will! His will is NOT FREE from his own nature either! Is he computer programed? If so, then man is no more computer programed than God. The will is not an indepedent agent from the nature of any rational being. The will is merely the expression of that nature and is NOT FREE to act contrary to that nature and that is precisely why God CANNOT CHOOSE to lie or to sin.

You are ignoring that fact that this has nothing to do with INDIVIDUALS but the NATION of Israel.

Romans 9:24 is sufficent to repudiate that intepretation.

There is nothing in Romans 9 that says these vessels were CREATED FALLEN,

the saved are described as vessels of "mercy" from off the potter's wheel rather than some time later. Where there is no fallen sinful condition with just consequences there is no need for "mercy."

No, you are taking Romans 9 out of its context from Jeremiah from whence Paul is using this reference. All of the other references in Timothy are commensurate with Paul's usage of the term in Romans 9 from which he relied on Jeremiah for its context.

Make up your mind. First you say there is NOTHING in this context that indicates it applies to anything other than NATIONS then you compare it to 2 Timothy which is PERSONAL and INDIVUDALS. Romans 9:24 proves the whole analogy is not about nations but about "US" as individual persons.

And again, you clearly ignored how Jeremiah showed these vessels BECAME THE VESSELS THAT THEY WERE, and HOW TO AVOID IT-by OBEDIENCE.

You miss the obvious. The Potter and the clay on the potter wheel is the CAUSE whereas what they are described as "wrath" or "mercy" is the EFFECT. Both are equall FALLEN or MARRED while on the potter wheel NOT AFTERWARDS as your theory demands.

It IS about nations: ROMANS 9:

"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh v3.

Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That 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.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

His argument is quite simple. The promises and blessings of the Abrahamic covenant of salvation were given to the Nation of Israel but not all Jews are partakers of these promises. First, because the promises are not transferred by natural birth but by supernatural birth as illustrated in the birth of Isaac, which was a birth by promise and divine power. Second, because the promises are not to all children by natural birth but only by election of grace and not works as illustrated in the case of Jacob over Esau. Third, salvation is not obtained by the power of the fleshly will but by the Soverign choice of God as illustrated by Pharoah and illustrated by the potter and the clay.

Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Yes the remnant "according to the election of grace" (Rom. 11:5).

And to what does Paul make this comparison? To Jacob and Esau v13, of whom were TWO NATIONS described in Genesis 25:23. And Paul is then comparing the NATION of Israel, to the GENTILES AS A WHOLE. v24-27

Nations are not the application by Paul as Romans 9:24 clearly states but illustrates personal election and salvation that includes "US" both Jews and Gentiles.

Furthermore starting in chapter 10:

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."

This is through PERSONAL and INDIVIDAUL faith in the gospel as chapter ten goes on to say and in chapter 11 it will be by PERSONAL faith in relationship to the Gospel when the WHOLE NATION will be saved at His return (Rom. 11:25-28).

Who were "God's people" in verse 1? Gentiles? the church?? NO! Paul clarifies with "FOR" "I also am an ISRAELITE".

Was it the church that Paul said God hath not CAST AWAY? Who was it that Paul said God did not cast away...DRUMROLL.....I-S-R-A-E-L.

In verse 28 Paul writes:

" As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes."

Amen! I believe exactly as you do here. I believe it is the nation of Israel that will be saved at the coming of Christ but ON A PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL basis as well through personal faith in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

No, anyone that thinks Paul is referring to ISRAEL ONY "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" needs their eyes examined.

You are both wrong. Romans 9 has to do with INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL election and salvation of both Israel and Gentiles "US" "from the Jews...from the Gentiles."

Israel as a nation is not being saved now, but only a remnant of Israel and therefore not all of PHYSICAL Israel is of spiritual PHYSICAL Israel. Only those supernaturally born of God as illustrated by the birth of Isaac. Only those chosen individually to savlation as illustrated by the birth of Jacob and Esau.

This is how God saves from Israel and Gentiles both.

 

[Winman]

Calvinist doctrine is nothing but double-talk and contradiction. Calvinism says unregenerate man has free will, but that he will always choose what his fallen nature desires. This is not freedom, it is enslavement.

It is like Henry Ford who told folks they could have the Model T in any color they wanted, as long as it was black.

Calvinism makes man a victim, not a criminal. In Calvinism every man is born with a sin nature and MUST sin, he has no choice. He did not choose to be born with a sin nature, it was imposed on him. He is no different from a baby born addicted to crack cocaine because his mother illegally used crack.

No just person in the world would consider a baby born addicted to drugs like this as a criminal, but a victim of his own mother's abuse. Everybody knows such a baby would deserve compassion and mercy, not damnation.

No sensible or rational person would ever suggest that a baby born addicted to drugs like this deserves punishment.

But Calvinists would. Only Calvinists can be this messed up.

 

[kyredneck]

You are both wrong. Romans 9 has to do with INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL election and salvation of both Israel and Gentiles "US" "from the Jews...from the Gentiles."....

[sigh] See my post, #114:

"It IS pertaining to individual salvation, it pertains to 'us, whom he has called. from Jews AND Gentiles, the REAL Israel of God, the TRUE Jews:

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8"

 

[DrJamesAch]

24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

No, anyone that thinks Paul is referring to ISRAEL ONY "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" needs their eyes examined.

I never said Israel ONLY, I clearly showed and stated that Paul is making a comparison among Israel as a NATION and the Gentiles AS A WHOLE. But it is clear that the context is ABOUT ISRAEL, it is not ABOUT individuals or Gentiles, but ABOUT the future of Israel and where, if at all, they fit into future prophecy, or did God simply "cast away His people which He foreknew"? That was the theme of Romans 9-11 and you can not minimize the clear theme about Israel as a nation by isolated a few verses out of context and force them to apply to an individualistic view of salvation. Paul is not talking about individuals but why He has the right without question to put Israel on the shelf and provoke Israel to jealousy by giving the gospel to the Gentiles. Just because Gentiles are MENTIONED doesn't mean it is not ABOUT Israel.

You have taken a tiny amount of references that mention Gentiles out of context against the OVERWHELMING AMOUNT of verses in ALL THREE CHAPTERS that demonstrate the context is about the difference between one nation that rejected Christ and a different group that will now receive the opportunity to receive the gospel and evangelize where Israel failed. From beginning to the end of chapters 9-11, Paul emphasizes repeatedly that God has not cast away ISRAEL, that there will be a remnant FROM ISRAEL, that THAT REMNANT is called the ELECTION, and that Israel will be given LIFE FROM THE DEAD (Rom 11:15) to prove that there is a remnant of future Israelites that arrive AFTER the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, and there is no way getting around this fact when this remnant shows up in Revelation 7:4-8, while the church from all nations, tongues, and people are IN HEAVEN in Rev 7:9.

I find it funny that you think this is somehow some "Jewish conspiracy" view when I, as a JEW am showing you that the Gentile church gets raptured while the Jew faces the tribulation of Daniel's 70th week. Hardly a favorable view for those unsaved Jews. Those saved during this period get off a lot better than Israel does, and yet somehow my view of Israel is seen as some kind of argument for their superiority.

 

[kyredneck]

..............................................

 

[jonathanD]

In ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY every man is born with a sin nature and MUST sin, he has no choice. He did not choose to be born with a sin nature, it was imposed on him. He is no different from a baby born addicted to crack cocaine because his mother illegally used crack.

I fixed it for you.

 

[kyredneck]

I never said Israel ONLY, I clearly showed and stated that Paul is making a comparison among Israel as a NATION and the Gentiles AS A WHOLE. But it is clear that the context is ABOUT ISRAEL, it is not ABOUT individuals or Gentiles,.....

WRONG.

"It IS pertaining to individual salvation, it pertains to 'us, whom he has called. from Jews AND Gentiles, the REAL Israel of God, the TRUE Jews:

24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8"

 

[DrJamesAch]

[sigh] See my post, #114:

"It IS pertaining to individual salvation, it pertains to 'us, whom he has called. from Jews AND Gentiles, the REAL Israel of God, the TRUE Jews:

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8"

Again, to you and Biblicist both, notice Paul ends Romans 9:24 with a question mark????? Paul begins this as a hypothetical scenerio with WHAT IF GOD DID THIS? You have taken 3 chapters of clear instruction about Israel and hung on one verse that mentions "us" that was given as a hypothetical question which Paul then answers in the rest of the chapter by referring to the OT prophecies about Israel as a nation and the Gentiles AS A WHOLE :

"I will call them a people [THEM A PEOPLE is NOT a reference to individual salvation] which were NOT MY PEOPLE [Again, PEOPLE, "US" is being compared to ANOTHER NATION not being compared to another INDIVIDUAL] and her beloved which was not beloved.

You have the analogy backwards. Paul is not using the hypothetical section where the first NATIONAL references are describing the subject of the vessels, but the subject of the vessels describing the NATIONAL differences between Israel and the Gentiles.

Notice the vessels are FITTED to destruction not MADE FOR destruction. ("Fitted" katartizo to render, repair, arrange, adjust.) There were vessels that were PREPARED for glory that REJECTED the glory and thus were FITTED AFTERWARDS to be set aside. The Potter NEVER CREATES A VESSEL FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING IT. Yet that is the ABSURD interpretation that Calvinists impose on the text.

 

[kyredneck]

...Notice the vessels are FITTED to destruction not MADE FOR destruction......

Notice the vessels afore prepared UNTO glory:

23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

 

[DrJamesAch]

WRONG.

"It IS pertaining to individual salvation, it pertains to 'us, whom he has called. from Jews AND Gentiles, the REAL Israel of God, the TRUE Jews:

24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8"

WHOM He foreknow in Romans 8 is not the same "whom He foreknew" in Romans 11:2.

Why does Paul make the follow up comment in Romans 9 Hath God cast way HIS PEOPLE which he foreknow? FOR I ALSO AM AN ISRAELITE. Notice the contrast HIS PEOPLE..ISRAELITE.

Romans 9 changes in context from Romans 8. You can ignore all the references to Israel you want, that won't take them out of the Bible. When Paul asked "Has God CAST AWAY His people" Paul was not asking "Has God cast away the GENTILES which He foreknew?" it does not say "Has God cast away his CHURCH which he foreknew? The obvious reference is to Israel, and the only reason Gentiles are mentioned is to show how the Gentiles were GRAFT IN BY DEFAULT because of Israels rejection of Christ.

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy." Romans 11:11

Are those whom Paul says he wishes to provoke to salvation among those of HIS FLESH GENTILES? What does Paul mean by MY FLESH? That is CLEARLY NOT a reference to Gentiles.

In Romans 11:19, Paul is clearly talking to a Calvinist who says "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in." (PREDETERMINED CASTING ASIDE) "Thou wilt say God predestinated the Jews to sin so that I might be saved".

Paul was given some great insight knowing that a Calvinist would raise this argument 2000 years later. Does Paul say, "Well, because the Potter created them for destruction by a predetermined decree they were broken off"? NOT. Paul says, "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear v21, For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee".

Now also ask yourself this, if the vessels are predetermined to show salvation of individuals, THEN WHY DOES PAUL TELL THEM TO FEAR LEST GOD SPARE NOT THE GENTILE BRANCES??? If they were DETERMINED TO SALVATION then what do they have to fear??? How could they possibly NOT BE SPARED??

This proves that this passage is not talking about some unconditional election or predetermined status of salvation.

 

[saturneptune]

You have the analogy backwards. Paul is not using the hypothetical section where the first NATIONAL references are describing the subject of the vessels, but the subject of the vessels describing the NATIONAL differences between Israel and the Gentiles.

Baloney and bull. In Christ, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. You are obsessed with bringing the nationality of Israel into your posts. Israel has nothing to do with the salvation of an individual, whether one looks at it from a Calvinist viewpoint or an Arminian viewpoint.

God used the Hebrew people in the Old Testament to bring about the conditions needed for the birth of Jesus Christ. No doubt He has plans for the Jewish people in the future. What does that have to do with the present day New Testament Church? What does that have to do with salvation of the individual soul, which is why we are commanded to tell others about the Gospel?

The fact that our Savior was born of Jewish heritage does not give you or the state of Israel any special status. Why don't you post in the political section or the current events section if this is your motive?

 

[DrJamesAch]

You are both wrong. Romans 9 has to do with INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL election and salvation of both Israel and Gentiles "US" "from the Jews...from the Gentiles."

Israel as a nation is not being saved now, but only a remnant of Israel and therefore not all of PHYSICAL Israel is of spiritual PHYSICAL Israel. Only those supernaturally born of God as illustrated by the birth of Isaac. Only those chosen individually to savlation as illustrated by the birth of Jacob and Esau.

This is how God saves from Israel and Gentiles both.

A remnant of Israel is not a remnant of the church. That is ludicrous. Israel and the church are NOT THE SAME. There is NEVER one single mention of there being a CHURCH REMNANT. The remnant is clearly explained as a remnant WITHIN ISRAEL.

The REMNANT are JEWS from the 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL. If you are a remnant, do tell me what tribe you belong to? This REMNANT is the a remnant that belongs to a physical SEED of whom Satan hunts down in Revelation 12:17.

The "remnant according to the election of grace" was clarified by the story of Elias of whom God selected a certain group of JEWS within a JEWISH group. The "EVEN SO" of 11:5 is with the "MY PEOPLE" of verse 11:2, and the MY PEOPLE of verse 2 are ISRAELITES.

The church is NEVER referred to as a "remnant".

 

[jbh28]

Not sure what you are saying here.

I said, Needs to happen for something doesn't equal that God couldn't have done something"
What I mean is that something may be necessary for something to happen, but that doesn't mean God was powerless over it.

Of course.



In my view no, God is not a liar, because God must give man choice which makes the possibility of sin necessary.

But you do not hold my view, you said God could have made a world where we cannot sin. If so, this would make God a liar when he repeatedly tells us he desires we be holy, because he could have made us without the ability to sin. It is your view that makes God a liar, not mine.

Um, if God created a words where we cannot sin, then we would be holy as he desires. Also, when we get to heaven, we will live in a world where there is no sin.

Now you are abandoning your view and arguing mine.

I think you misunderstood me, not that I'm abandoning my view.


Jesus himself said that if a house is divided against itself it cannot stand. My view does not have God divided against himself, he truly desires that men not sin, but because of his loving nature he must give men choice which enables and makes sin necessary. [/quote]So God desires that man be holy and God desires that man have a choice which will allow sin. This is exactly what I had just said.

Your view makes God divided against himself. In your view God does not desire sin

and the Bible says that

, and God could make men without the ability to sin,

Yes, he could have done that, God has the power over sin

yet God gives men the ability to sin.

yes, that's true

This is God divided against himself.

Not at all. God does not desire men to sin. He desires men to be holy. God also desires that man have the option to disobey him. Which is exactly what you have just said. The Bible never says that God wants man to sin.

#1 is true

#2 is true

good

#3 is false, sin cannot be avoided even by God (my view)

will there be sin in heaven? no, so yes sin can be avoided by God.

#3 is true in your view only

Unless you believe that God is not sovereign, then you have to agree. God did not have to allow man to sin, just like it will be in heaven.

Now, God could prevent sin if he decided not to create us, or he could kill every one of us before we could sin, but if God by his nature is love and desires a relationship with us, he cannot do either. He must allow the possibility of sin, and if he allows that possibility, sooner or later men will actually sin.

will there be sin in heaven?

Your view is different, in your view God could make us robots that could not sin, or God could decide not to create us, or God could kill us before we could sin. But in this view, God could not have a loving relationship with us.

I believe my view fits the actual facts of reality, yours is nonsensical.

Mine is not "nonsensical." I'm guessing that your favorite word of the day. I've never argued that sin wasn't necessary to fulfill God's plan, but that God has the power over sin and didn't have to allow man to sin. Just like in heaven where man will love God and will not sin. There will be no sin in heaven. So God has the power over sin as I said. Sin will not be necessary in heaven for us to love him. Sin will have already served its purpose as God will defeat it, like I've been saying.

 

[kyredneck]

WHOM He foreknow in Romans 8 is not the same "whom He foreknew" in Romans 11:2.'''

Oh yes it is, "For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel", Ro 9:6.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Baloney and bull. In Christ, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. You are obsessed with bringing the nationality of Israel into your posts. Israel has nothing to do with the salvation of an individual, whether one looks at it from a Calvinist viewpoint or an Arminian viewpoint.

God used the Hebrew people in the Old Testament to bring about the conditions needed for the birth of Jesus Christ. No doubt He has plans for the Jewish people in the future. What does that have to do with the present day New Testament Church? What does that have to do with salvation of the individual soul, which is why we are commanded to tell others about the Gospel?

The fact that our Savior was born of Jewish heritage does not give you or the state of Israel any special status. Why don't you post in the political section or the current events section if this is your motive?

Your continued bogus crap accusations that I am bringing in some Jewish conspiracy is STUPID and INSULTING. I have admitted that the Jews get the worst end of the deal where the church gets raptured while the nation of Israel faces the music to finish the transgression of Daniel 9:24-27. How is showing that the GENTILE CHURCH avoiding the tribualation of which they were not appointed to, and showing that Israel endures tribulation of which only a remnant is sealed and survives a promotion of an Israeli agenda.

If you read my posts carefully, they promote THE CHURCH WAY ABOVE the status of Israel, but you are stuck on stupid in thinking any mention of Israel is some Zionist conspiracy.

 

[saturneptune]

Your continued bogus crap accusations that I am bringing in some Jewish conspiracy is STUPID and INSULTING. I have admitted that the Jews get the worst end of the deal where the church gets raptured while the nation of Israel faces the music to finish the transgression of Daniel 9:24-27. How is showing that the GENTILE CHURCH avoiding the tribualation of which they were not appointed to, and showing that Israel endures tribulation of which only a remnant is sealed and survives a promotion of an Israeli agenda.

If you read my posts carefully, they promote THE CHURCH WAY ABOVE the status of Israel, but you are stuck on stupid in thinking any mention of Israel is some Zionist conspiracy.

You do not know how to read posts yourself. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, it would not make an iota of difference in the Gospel, salvation, or the daily life in the United States.

No one in this entire thread mentioned a conspiracy. You interpreted it that way, and as usual, in error.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Oh yes it is, "For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel", Ro 9:6.

And WHY are they not all Israel?? Who is Paul talking about?

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel (JACOB):"

"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Paul gives the explanation of the promise being made THROUGH ISAAC to show the difference from the children born of the flesh from HAGAR (bond woman) from the children of the PROMISE (through ISAAC FROM JACOB)

"That 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."

Who are the children of the promise? GENTILES? NO, those BORN IN ISAAC. You have to have a devil messing with your brain to see this verse as anything other than a reference to the NATION of Israel and who it was that was the children of promise? Hagar or Sarah?

 

[kyredneck]

...Who are the children of the promise? GENTILES? NO, those BORN IN ISAAC. You have to have a devil messing with your brain to see this verse as anything other than a reference to the NATION of Israel and who it was that was the children of promise? Hagar or Sarah?

This is sheer JUDAIAZING HERESY:

28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye are Christ`s, then are ye Abraham`s seed, heirs according to promise. Gal 3

To the GENTILE Church at Galatia:

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. Gal 4:28

Again, Paul, from Romans 9:

7 neither, because they are Abraham`s seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. Ro 9