the redemption of Israel

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
That is true, however...when did men start going to Heaven?


God bless.

Enoch? Probably as soon as the first believer took his or her last breath.

So Enoch was eternally redeemed?

How does this...



Genesis 5:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.


Hebrews 11:5

King James Version (KJV)


5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.




...negate the teaching that men were not eternally redeemed until Christ died?

You have to read "Enoch went to Heaven" into this, as all the text tells us is that he did not (see) experience death. It states God took him, but does not say where.

And if we balance that with the rest of Scripture we can say that Enoch was not sinless, and was just as much in need of redemption through Christ as any other descendant of Adam.

What is likely is that in view is simply Enoch being translated to Sheol, where he could be in the presence of God...not in Heaven.

How about Elijah?


2 Kings 2:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.



Do we, because Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven, assume that it was into Heaven he went?

Do we negate the teachings of the New Testament that make it clear Eternal Redemption was purchased when Christ came?

Do we negate that the Gospel of Christ, by which men are reconciled to God...was a mystery, secret and hidden wisdom of God...not known among men?

Elijah appears with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration, and without question...Moses was dead, and it is his spirit only that could have appeared there. It has to be true of Elijah as well, because we know he has not lived physically these many years (though it is possible), and if he has, he stands outside of the rest of humanity (with the exception of Enoch if Enoch also has been preserved physically these many years). We know the glorification of the Saints was also a mystery and Paul makes it clear in his teaching that men follow Christ. In other words, we can't place a single glorified Saint prior to Christ's resurrection.

But all of that aside, and even allowing for an exception to the general principles taught in Scripture...

...we still cannot negate the clear teaching that men were not eternally redeemed prior to Christ's Work.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Again, no one will get to heaven without the shed blood of Jesus Christ. You look at the cross as an one time event, and it did happen in time, but it has eternal consequences. His blood covered the sins of those who died in faith pre-cross, as they were looking towards Christ and His redemptive work of the cross. We look back at the cross. It was a one time event in time that covers all the sins of all His sheep, pre- and post-cross.

Where is your Scripture?

How do you negate these...


Galatians 4

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.



...?

It is a simple concept to address: men offered up sacrifice for sins until the Cross. That was demanded of God Himself.

What that means is precisely what Hebrews teaches, which is that their sins were not taken away.

Only when Christ died in man's place were those sins taken away.

For this cause John the Baptist prophesied, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

Men were justified prior to the Cross, but that does not mean they had been made complete in regards to remission of sins. Eternal Redemption was not possible as long as the previous system remained:


Hebrews 9:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:


12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


Hebrews 10:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;



Man stood awaiting the Redeemer, and there is a point in time when He came down from Heaven to accomplish the Work which would obtain eternal redemption on behalf of man, making Reconciliation possible, and entrance to God possible, not in figure, but in reality.

Entrance to God is through the true veil, His flesh. Not a curtain in the Tabernacle made with hands, and not with the blood of bulls and goats.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Er.....excuse me!
Romans 4:11. 'And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.' See also Gal. 3:7-9, 26-29; Phil. 3:3.

Doesn't change the fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was a mystery.

No-one else will address the Scripture's referring to this, perhaps you will?

You can start with this...


Romans 16:24-26

King James Version (KJV)

24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:



If you can show how this does not say that the Gospel was not revealed until the "Preaching of Christ," according to the revelation of mystery (link to Strong's inserted), which mystery was kept secret (see that link as well) since the world began, but is now (Paul's day) made known to all nations for obedience to that very Gospel...

Please do so.

Another theme addressed in this thread is whether men were eternally redeemed or not.

Er.....excuse me!
Romans 4:11. 'And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.' See also Gal. 3:7-9, 26-29; Phil. 3:3.

Is the "seal" here the circumcision of the heart? Or is it a physical sign carried out by Abraham and his descendants? And is that sign a requirement among those of faith? This says it is not.

And if we go on we will see that there was still a need for Christ to die:


Romans 4:23-25

King James Version (KJV)

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.



And if you consult the Chapter you will see that what Abraham received was promise. We have received the bestowal of that promise.

There is a distinction there.

Abraham's understanding of the promise concerning his seed was physical in nature. Because of this he could offer up his son Isaac, because he knew the promises would be fulfilled through his seed.

But we understand it in light of the revelation of the New Testament:


Galatians 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Abraham and Israel's understanding stood under the assumption of physicality, not in the eternal perspective of the Redemptive Plan of God.

Christ's death was not understood, though prophesied. We can read Isaiah 53, for example, and understand what it means, whereas the Prophets themselves did not.

We can understand Zechariah 14 in light of the Revelation of the New Testament, whereas they could not. Their expectation was of a man only, a descendant of Abraham and David, with no understanding Christ would come, die in the stead of man for his sin, be resurrected, return to Heaven from whence He came...and come again to fulfill Zechariah.

So we cannot interpret the passage quoted as negating these truths.


God bless.

 

[revmwc]

This statement was made in the thread about arguments against the Post Trib Rapture, but it is a statement I want to focus more on. That thread has been sufficiently derailed and this statement is buried under at least 10 pages of post now so it has effectively been lost. I linked it so that anyone could look at it in its original context.

My first thought when I saw this statement was that, what was being communicated was that no Jews were ever saved by the Blood of Christ, and I would hope we would all agree that it is an incorrect view, especially given that all the Apostles were Jews.

Darrell C took me to task for two words that I switched out in what I saw being communicated. Saved for Redeemed, and Jews for Israel. So for the sake of this discussion I will be using Redeemed or any word with Redeem at its root to try to make my point.

Although on a side note I would like to hear how Darrell C views Redeemed vs Saved, because often they are used interchangeably in Christian Circles, (although a quick Google searched showed that the RCC has given those words distinct theological implications.)

Anyways back to the quote at hand.


Darrell on more than one occasion has insisted on a very clear divided between Israel and the Church, so while I disagree with that view based on Romans 9-11, and other passages, I’m willing for the sake of argument to assume that point while looking at this statement.

Israel then means anyone descended from Jacob or Israel, or in other words the 12 tribes of Israel.
Let’s see what the Bible says about their redemption:

In the Pentetuch there is a lot of verses that talk about them being redeemed from Egypt, which we do know from the NT is a type, but we will let the literal sense stand and say those are just about their redemption from Egypt, so we won’t look at those verse. In Ruth they are used to talk about a kindsman redeemer so we will leave those passages alone as well. I will also not go into Job as I have never heard him ascribed to Israel.

In 2 Sam David recognizes that it is God who Redeemed him.

2 Sam 4:9
So here we have David, soon to be King of Israel recognizing that He has been redeemed from adversity.

Let’s keep looking at Redeemed as it is used throughout the Bible.


Ps. 19:14

Here we have David once again recognizing God as his redeemer.
That Psalms are full of mentions of being redeemed or of God as the redeemer of members of Israel.


Ps. 71:23


Ps. 74:2


Ps. 107:1-2
And its not just the Psalms that talk about redemption in the past tense


Isa. 42:1


Isa 44:21-23

This passage specifically talks about their sins, being blotted out, and a calling to Israel to turn back to God because of their redemption.

I think I have made my case the the OT shows that Israel was Redeemed in the OT. Now lets see what the NT says


Luke 1:68

Again notice the past tense of Redeemed here in Zechariah’s Prophecy
Its Prophecy and yet he uses the past tense, because it is a sure thing.

Now I know that DC is going to point out that I have left off the next part of his sentence “by the blood of Christ” well I am getting there, I just wanted to make sure there could be no argument about Israel being redeemed.
Well that is where the wonderful book of Hebrews comes in, as Hebrews sheds a lot of light on the OT, showing how Christ was shown though types and shadows (and that He is Better than all of them)


Heb 9:11-15

Now I was asked to look at Heb 9:11-15 in the other thread and I went into it a bit showing how this passages shows that Christ is a Better Sacrifice, because He is shedding His own blood, not the blood of goats and bulls. The important verse for my argument is vs 15. But since it starts with “therefore” it’s always important to look at what came before.
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant

Therefore since Christ is a better Sacrifice, He is the mediator of the New Covenant. What does this do? It allows for the called to receive the promise. Who is included in the called? Those under the first covenant. What is the first Covenant? The Law, and who was under the Law? Israel.
It is the blood of Christ that redeems us. It has always been the blood of Christ that redeems people.

To say that Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.
Is to say that there is another means of redemption outside of Christ, and his shed blood, but Hebrews makes that impossible.

Now I know that DC will probably bring up the fact that I did not touch on his last sentence, of everying member of the churching being redeemed by the blood of Christ, but I will just say I doubt there is anyone that would argue against that statement, I just left his whole statement in tact so as not to be accused of taking it out of context.

Also, since I said for the sake of argument that I will assume a clear divide between Israel and the Church (although it’s really hard to do so when the passage I showed in Hebrews merges them together in Christ) I decided to leave the last part of his statement alone. To go into that next statement, with the assumption of a clear divide, would cause a lot of problems when you talk about the Apostles who are all members of Israel and also the church since the statements said: not one member of Israel.

I will state it again, I disagree with the quoted statement even when making sure to not switch out any words. I do not think that statement has any Biblical Grounds, therefore I cannot let it stand, as it is talking about Redemption which is a crucial doctrine.


This is what happens when I can't sleep. I may not reply too much since we are still on vacation.

I didn't read the entire post. But seeing the quote not sure what was meant but here goes. Redemption for all eternity required and eternal sacrifice that came with the blood shed of Jesus on the cross. Adam and Eve fell in sin and had to be redeemed. Christ (God) came walking in the garden and offered a sacrifice to cover their sins, but it was only a covering. The same for all the descendants of Adam and Eve. The Savior was to come as the seed of woman because she was deceived and Adam sinned willingly. The nature to sin was passed from Father to children. Thus the seed of a woman, the virgin seed, would be the only means that mankind could find eternal redemption.

However, each year mankind would offer a blood sacrifice, Able did and Cain didn't, we saw the result of that virtually Abel belived in the coming Savior and followed God's instruction for worship and offered the blood to cover not remove His sin. Cain offered up works which God rejected why because Cain rejected God. The Jews (Israel) offered an atonement sacrifice by Law for their sins. Exodus 29:33-42 That didn't save them, their faith in the coming Messiah saved them. The Priest represented them to God in carrying the blood into the Holy of Holies. Judas walked with Christ for 3+ years and yet was never saved, never redeemed.

Christ Jesus came and died upon the cross, shedding His blood as a permanent sacrifice for sin. 1 John 2:2 says He is the propitiation for our sins and not ours only but for the whole world. The redemption of believers was fulfilled at the Cross. All Old Testament Believers who looked forward to Christ coming received the benefits of the permanent sacrifice. They offered up a yearly sacrifice for atonement. Christ blood paid the price for man's atonement. He went and offered it up unto the Father. Redemption was completed at the cross of Calvary. But since God promised it and those of the Old Testament and the people of Israel who believed it would happen their faith like ours was counted unto them for Righteousness. That is salvation Christ shed His blood as the Price for the redemption of mankind all those prior to His coming as well as those who believed after His coming. All by Grace through Faith in His efficacious work on the Cross.

He just dealt with mankind in different ways throughout time. Early it was the father who would lead in worship, then the Jews had priest who offered up the sacrifice the people brought now we as believer priest can in prayer go to the Father and have a permanent advocate seated right next to Him.

 

[DHK]

Er.....excuse me!
Romans 4:11. 'And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.' See also Gal. 3:7-9, 26-29; Phil. 3:3.

What has that got to do with Zacharias's prophecy of his son, John the Baptist, which simply included a reference to the Abrahamic covenant to "our" people, being the nation of Israel, being specifically mentioned as such? Christ had not even come yet. In fact John the Baptist had not even been born yet. They were still in an OT economy.

 

[Darrell C]

What has that got to do with Zacharias's prophecy of his son, John the Baptist, which simply included a reference to the Abrahamic covenant to "our" people, being the nation of Israel, being specifically mentioned as such? Christ had not even come yet. In fact John the Baptist had not even been born yet. They were still in an OT economy.

On another matter, any way you could check my settings or contact staff that can, as I am not able to use certain functions like sizing, creating a poll, or even PMing (which I was going to do rather than break the discussion).

It's been like this for a couple days and when I check my profile it is different than it used to be.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

On another matter, any way you could check my settings or contact staff that can, as I am not able to use certain functions like sizing, creating a poll, or even PMing (which I was going to do rather than break the discussion).

It's been like this for a couple days and when I check my profile it is different than it used to be.


God bless.

For some reason, I can't check much from this page either, but from the main page I can get in. I don't know what the problem is.

 

[Darrell C]

For some reason, I can't check much from this page either, but from the main page I can get in. I don't know what the problem is.

Okay, thanks for checking.

If you get the time could you add the poll to the new birth thread in other denominations?


God bless.

 

[revmwc]

Okay, thanks for checking.

If you get the time could you add the poll to the new birth thread in other denominations?


God bless.

Can't open private messages, can't pull down the text color box seveal things not working right.

 

[Darrell C]

Can't open private messages, can't pull down the text color box seveal things not working right.

Yep.

Trying from my tablet now. Just a few functions though.

God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes. Luke was the one doing the writing. Zacharias was the one doing the speaking. He was, in fact, prophesying of the ministry of his son, John the Baptist--nothing to do with NT Gentile believers. He was speaking of Israel, and specifically mentioned the Abrahamic covenant in relation to Israel, himself as an OT prophet and the coming of his son, John, the last of the OT prophets.
As you quoted in verse 73:
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham.
--We are not followers of Abraham, and Abraham is not our father.
He is speaking of Israel all throughout. The "us" refers to Israel, and no one but Israel. You are in denial to that fact. This is before Christ was even born. There was no "church" at this point in history. It didn't even exist. This is still an OT "dispensation." It is a time when they are under the law, and not under grace. Later when John would be born, and when Jesus would be born, both mothers would respectively go to the priests and offer sin offerings on behalf of their own selves. Why? Christ had not yet died and shed his blood, or paid the price.

Paul in writing to the Gentiles at Corinth uses the term our father's in 1 Cor 10....showing a continuity of the covenant promises with gentile inclusion.
The Holy Spirit is not bound by your dispensational charts or teaching....there was law and grace in the OT . there is law and grace in the NT. .....guess what....there is even conscience in every age as well.....lol

 

[OldRegular]

Sure hope that fellow isn't a Dispensational, lol.


God bless.

GOD gave him a brain which he uses!

 

[DHK]

Paul in writing to the Gentiles at Corinth uses the term our father's in 1 Cor 10....showing a continuity of the covenant promises with gentile inclusion.
The Holy Spirit is not bound by your dispensational charts or teaching....there was law and grace in the OT . there is law and grace in the NT. .....guess what....there is even conscience in every age as well.....lol

I don't have any dispensational charts, and I don't deny that there is a conscience within every man. What would make you think I would? Again, you show that you don't know what I believe simply because you want to debate a book, not a person. You make assumptions instead of dealing with reality.

Luke 1:73 cannot be taken out of its context. Why are you so desperate to do so. What has the prophesy of Zacharias concerning his son, John the Baptist, have to do with the Apostle Paul writing a letter of rebuke to carnal Christians in the church of Corinth more than 60 years later? Absolutely nothing!
This has nothing to do with dispensationalism or covenants. It has to do with the context of the passage. Zacharias's prophesy has nothing to do with 1Cor.10. Period!.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't have any dispensational charts, and I don't deny that there is a conscience within every man. What would make you think I would? Again, you show that you don't know what I believe simply because you want to debate a book, not a person. You make assumptions instead of dealing with reality.

Luke 1:73 cannot be taken out of its context. Why are you so desperate to do so. What has the prophesy of Zacharias concerning his son, John the Baptist, have to do with the Apostle Paul writing a letter of rebuke to carnal Christians in the church of Corinth more than 60 years later? Absolutely nothing!
This has nothing to do with dispensationalism or covenants. It has to do with the context of the passage. Zacharias's prophesy has nothing to do with 1Cor.10. Period!.

This kind of fragmenting the scriptures that you and your system do is why you hold to much error.......Scripture is not detached fragments and random thoughts like individual BB's in a bucket.
The scriptures cannot be broken......you brought up where Luke wrote about the fathers..you claimed it was for Israel only......I show where Paul tells gentiles that these same father's were theirs also.....you claim it has nothing to do with it.....lol....it was the same Israelite father's that he links with the gentiles.....

By the way.....this I do not know what you believe excuse has already worn thin...lol
Anytime you are called on your dispensational musings you deny it....how convenient.

What are the 7 dispensation Dhk?.....are you going to de n y you have ever heard such a thing
Is that where you are going with this.....when we zero in on the target....you move it:laugh:

Go ahead tell me you have not seen a dispensationalist chart....lol

 

[revmwc]

Paul in writing to the Gentiles at Corinth uses the term our father's in 1 Cor 10....showing a continuity of the covenant promises with gentile inclusion.
The Holy Spirit is not bound by your dispensational charts or teaching....there was law and grace in the OT . there is law and grace in the NT. .....guess what....there is even conscience in every age as well.....lol

Gentiles were included from the Beginning after all Abraham was called out from Among a peoples who are considered Gentiles. Ur of the Chaldee's which is Modern day Iran.

The Gentile court of the Tabernacle and then the temple along with the synagogues is proof that Gentiles were to be included. That is part of the failure of Israel, they didn't try to win the gentiles. In fact they felt that the gentiles should be excluded in many cases.

The redemption of the people that Jewish people's are included in this the age of Grace, Church age. In fact the church began with nothing but Jewish people. Peter had to get over his prejudice and go to Corneilius's (sp) house to give show Christ to Him. He also had to be cured of the things he would and would not eat.

The dispensation of the Law was intended to reach both Jew and Gentile. Both had to offer sacrifices for atonement. But they had to go to a priest to administer the sacrifice.

In this the church age God deals with mankind though the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Because of the shed blood of the sacrificial lamb Jesus upon a cross. He is our advocate with the Father seated at the Fathers right hand. However, we are fully able to approach the Father in Heaven in prayer because we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us.

Matthew Henry states that the Writer of Hebrews; declares that our privileges by Christ under the gospel are not only as great, but greater than those enjoyed under the Mosaic law

John Gill states this [FONT=&quot]

The best privileges the ancient Jews had were their gospel privileges the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Old Testament were the gospel of that dispensation and, whatever was excellent in it, was the respect it had to Christ. Now, if this was their highest privilege, we are not inferior to them for we have the gospel as well as they, and in greater purity and perspicuity than they had.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So our age the age of the Church has far more privileges than that of the Age of the Law and the preceding times in the O.T. For god dealt with them in a different way, either by their conscience giding them to offer sacrifices worthy of God's acceptance, Abel did just that and Cain didn't but God had to destroy those of that age by means of a flood because except for 8 souls they did evil continually, then the Father was virtually the priest for the Family following the flood and God dealt through the man the head of the house toward His children, this generation failed too and had to be scattered, then we have the time god dealt with mankind in Promise, this could be called the dispensation of the Covenant, that is God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and given as an unconditional promise to all their physical descendants. These went into captivity in Egypt and God established the time of the Law and a Levitical priesthood set up where the people were represented now by men who were priest offering the sacrifices for them as their means of worshiping him. All these failed in god reaching out to folks each one God dealt with man now god allows us to come directly to Him individually through His son under a covenant of Grace in the Age of Grace. As in the old testament individuals made their choice to believe or reject God's plan. Their means of worshiping Him varied, as He required not as they chose. God used diverse methods to deal with mankind through the ages and that is what dispensations are all about the way God deals with mans worshiping Him. The Law was given to show us we cannot meet God's standards. God did away with the Sacrifices because God's Son Jesus paid the Sacrifice Price (propitiation) for our sin and for those of the world. That is what dispensationalism is all about. Salvation that is the means of salvation has never changed, the O.T. saints looked forward to the Savior who was coming. Believed the promise given to Adam and Eve that the seed of woman would come, we look backward in Faith that He has come. The means and ways of worship have changed through the dispensations of time.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[DHK]

This kind of fragmenting the scriptures that you and your system do is why you hold to much error.......Scripture is not detached fragments and random thoughts like individual BB's in a bucket.
The scriptures cannot be broken......you brought up where Luke wrote about the fathers..you claimed it was for Israel only......I show where Paul tells gentiles that these same father's were theirs also.....you claim it has nothing to do with it.....lol....it was the same Israelite father's that he links with the gentiles.....

Fragmenting of Scripture. You do it all the time. But yours is more along the line of this common example that we all have seen so many times.

In trying to find the will of God the lady decided to open her Bible randomly and put her finger at whatever verse her Bible opened up to. In her first try the Bible opened up to:
1. Judas went out and hung himself.

Not encouraged by that as God's will for her life she tried a second time.
2. Go and do thou likewise.
Oh my!!

A third time she tried.
3. What thou doest do quickly.
--Now she was terrified. What was God telling her? What should she do?

Perhaps the Lord is telling people like Icon not to butcher the scripture as he does; to look at the context; not to sew a verse here, and a verse there; here a verse; there a verse; a patchwork of random verses.

By the way.....this I do not know what you believe excuse has already worn thin...lol
Anytime you are called on your dispensational musings you deny it....how convenient.

What you are admitting here is that you would rather debate a book than a person. Sad!

What are the 7 dispensation Dhk?.....are you going to de n y you have ever heard such a thing
Is that where you are going with this.....when we zero in on the target....you move it{/quote]
It is sad that you don't have the knowledge that dispensationalists throughout history have disagreed on how many dispensations there are. Again, I will not tell you my beliefs for you don't engage in debate only in attack; in confrontation. You don't want actual debate. You want confrontation. You don't want to learn.

Go ahead tell me you have not seen a dispensationalist chart....lol

If you remember I told you previously that I never took "dispensationalism as a subject in college. Whether or not I have seen a chart is moot.
I have already told you this question has nothing to do with dispensations whatsoever. You are simply hung up on this red herring.

The fact is: Luke 1:73 is spoken by Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. It is a prophesy of John the Baptist and has nothing to do with the salvation of Gentile believers. In his prophecy he mentions the covenant of Israel. That has nothing to do with Gentiles. The personal pronouns used: "us" "we" etc. all refer to "Israel," proper. This prophecy was given 60 years or more before Christ was ever born. It was given under the era of the law, not that of grace, or not after the cross.

Paul makes great efforts to differentiate between the law and grace throughout all of his epistles.

 

[Darrell C]

GOD gave him a brain which he uses!

But he gave us you to do everyone else's?



Simply show how Israel was eternally redeemed prior to the Cross. Show why you think animal sacrifice produced the same atonement as the Cross. There is no question that Israel received remission of sins through the shedding of animal blood, why isn't that different, and why wouldn't we make a distinction between the two?


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Fragmenting of Scripture. You do it all the time. But yours is more along the line of this common example that we all have seen so many times.

In trying to find the will of God the lady decided to open her Bible randomly and put her finger at whatever verse her Bible opened up to. In her first try the Bible opened up to:
1. Judas went out and hung himself.

Not encouraged by that as God's will for her life she tried a second time.
2. Go and do thou likewise.
Oh my!!

A third time she tried.
3. What thou doest do quickly.
--Now she was terrified. What was God telling her? What should she do?

Perhaps the Lord is telling people like Icon not to butcher the scripture as he does; to look at the context; not to sew a verse here, and a verse there; here a verse; there a verse; a patchwork of random verses.


What you are admitting here is that you would rather debate a book than a person. Sad!

What are the 7 dispensation Dhk?.....are you going to de n y you have ever heard such a thing
Is that where you are going with this.....when we zero in on the target....you move it{/quote]
It is sad that you don't have the knowledge that dispensationalists throughout history have disagreed on how many dispensations there are. Again, I will not tell you my beliefs for you don't engage in debate only in attack; in confrontation. You don't want actual debate. You want confrontation. You don't want to learn.


If you remember I told you previously that I never took "dispensationalism as a subject in college. Whether or not I have seen a chart is moot.
I have already told you this question has nothing to do with dispensations whatsoever. You are simply hung up on this red herring.

The fact is: Luke 1:73 is spoken by Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. It is a prophesy of John the Baptist and has nothing to do with the salvation of Gentile believers. In his prophecy he mentions the covenant of Israel. That has nothing to do with Gentiles. The personal pronouns used: "us" "we" etc. all refer to "Israel," proper. This prophecy was given 60 years or more before Christ was ever born. It was given under the era of the law, not that of grace, or not after the cross.

Paul makes great efforts to differentiate between the law and grace throughout all of his epistles.

Yeah just like I thought you have no real answer so you resort to all this other nonsense typical

 

[OldRegular]

But he gave us you to do everyone else's?

It took a while but you finally got something correct!

 

[Iconoclast]

Gentiles were included from the Beginning after all Abraham was called out from Among a peoples who are considered Gentiles. Ur of the Chaldee's which is Modern day Iran.

The Gentile court of the Tabernacle and then the temple along with the synagogues is proof that Gentiles were to be included. That is part of the failure of Israel, they didn't try to win the gentiles. In fact they felt that the gentiles should be excluded in many cases.

The redemption of the people that Jewish people's are included in this the age of Grace, Church age. In fact the church began with nothing but Jewish people. Peter had to get over his prejudice and go to Corneilius's (sp) house to give show Christ to Him. He also had to be cured of the things he would and would not eat.

The dispensation of the Law was intended to reach both Jew and Gentile. Both had to offer sacrifices for atonement. But they had to go to a priest to administer the sacrifice.

In this the church age God deals with mankind though the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Because of the shed blood of the sacrificial lamb Jesus upon a cross. He is our advocate with the Father seated at the Fathers right hand. However, we are fully able to approach the Father in Heaven in prayer because we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us.


John Gill states this [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So our age the age of the Church has far more privileges than that of the Age of the Law and the preceding times in the O.T. For god dealt with them in a different way, either by their conscience giding them to offer sacrifices worthy of God's acceptance, Abel did just that and Cain didn't but God had to destroy those of that age by means of a flood because except for 8 souls they did evil continually, then the Father was virtually the priest for the Family following the flood and God dealt through the man the head of the house toward His children, this generation failed too and had to be scattered, then we have the time god dealt with mankind in Promise, this could be called the dispensation of the Covenant, that is God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and given as an unconditional promise to all their physical descendants. These went into captivity in Egypt and God established the time of the Law and a Levitical priesthood set up where the people were represented now by men who were priest offering the sacrifices for them as their means of worshiping him. All these failed in god reaching out to folks each one God dealt with man now god allows us to come directly to Him individually through His son under a covenant of Grace in the Age of Grace. As in the old testament individuals made their choice to believe or reject God's plan. Their means of worshiping Him varied, as He required not as they chose. God used diverse methods to deal with mankind through the ages and that is what dispensations are all about the way God deals with mans worshiping Him. The Law was given to show us we cannot meet God's standards. God did away with the Sacrifices because God's Son Jesus paid the Sacrifice Price (propitiation) for our sin and for those of the world. That is what dispensationalism is all about. Salvation that is the means of salvation has never changed, the O.T. saints looked forward to the Savior who was coming. Believed the promise given to Adam and Eve that the seed of woman would come, we look backward in Faith that He has come. The means and ways of worship have changed through the dispensations of time.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

You are an honest dispensationalist I know I could ask you what is it seven dispensation and you will answer