When is "fulness of the Gentiles"

The fullness of the Gentiles comes in after a trip to the local Chinese buffet.

 

What do you mean by, "its possible they all could have been saved, but Paul knew he couldn't reach them all"?

Where did that underlined statement(done for my emphasis) come from? That's your words, right? All the other words in red are scripture, right. Just checking. Your use of red is confusing.

That's why I'm not sure what the 'hardening in part" means.
I don't think the fulness of the Gentiles had come in in Paul's time, nor do I think it has come in yet.
I think that Paul might mean that the elect Jews are being saved and indeed some were saved in his time, but all the while the Gentiles are being brought in and are still being brought it and Isreal is still experiencing a hardening.
But I'm not dogmatic on this, since I haven't really settled on what verse 25 means.

The reason I question what you're advocating is that because of your insistence that the salvation of the Gentiles was completed in Paul's time.
And again I ask you, in what sense is this true of the Gentile nations?

 

So they could have all been saved, if it were not for Paul's limitations?

The underlined words in parenthesis are your words, Bob. That's not in the text in verse 14 as you have it written in your "red" posting. That's all I'm trying to clarify.

Are you forgetting our previous discussion of this passage? The elect obtained it and the rest were hardened. But in the group of hardened Jews, there were still some who were elect that would be brought in by envy. Their hardening was temporary, while for others it appears to have been permanent.

 

Sorry, I accidently posted before I responded to this last part.

I don't think you read my question right. Here is what I wrote:

 

You really believe that salvation of the Jews was dependant upon Paul???
If he could have lived longer and traveled more, all could have been saved?

That sounds like a very man-centered view of salvation.
All the Jews might have been saved except that Paul's ministry was cut short by his own death and his inability to travel to all the necessary locations of the scattered Jews.

That sounds like Paul failed them. More might have been saved if it weren't for Paul's finiteness.

Please tell me you don't think that way.

 

Okay. Now I'm starting to get you.

 

Huh???

Edited to add: (The format required me to add more characters, hence the "Edit" note.)

Ed

 

I both understand the statement, and I have read and followed each and every post, FTR. But the fact I was referring to, as well as the statement you made are still meaningless. The fact that one Biblical writer does not address a particular subject does not invalidate another who does.

You almost seem to see a 'need' to argue against any potential literal rule and reign of Jesus Christ on the earth, as well as anything that might suggest such. Also, your posititon of argument seems to be that almost always, the rendering found in the KJV, is the correct one. That POV may or may not be the case, I would say. If, however, that is one of the points you are attempting to make, I think you need to argue this particular position in another forum, no?

Yes, Christ, the Son, is seated on the right hand of the Father, as of now. He is, both now, always has been, and always will be the King of kings and Lord of lords.

And He was this in the manger, as a babe; at Cana; in Galilee; in Samaria; in Jerusalem; when crucified on Mt. Moriah; coming out of the tomb; ascending into heaven; now seated at the Father's right hand; as well as at any other time - always King of kings and Lord of lords. (Remember, He was born "King of the Jews".)

That fact does, in no way, rule out a physical reign in a literal kingdom on the earth. Jesus said all of these following things, as well as many other things, not dealing with the subject, which is recorded elsewhere, in Scripture, as well. (All quotes from NKJV, unless noted.)

It seems a bit disingenious to make an attempted difference in interpreting exact identical phrases, to me. So to say the "origin" of Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world", is merely to say it is of 'heavenly origin', as Jesus also said His kingdom "is not from here", and also to say it is "from" the same "origin" as He. That is entirely different than saying that it is (only) a "spiritual kingdom", and that its promises and provisions are now somehow a part of the "church".

Most of us would agree, I think, that the "Church age' is one part of the overall "Kingdom of God". But I don't agree that that suddenly makes "the church" the complete package in the "kingdom of God". Paul and Jesus both have something to say about this, I believe. We've seen a bit of what Jesus said, Here is Paul.

Couple of other Scriptures-

One cannot fairly ignore the present tense in some places, and the future tense in other places, used in some
Scriptures about this (or any other) subject.

And it seems a misuse of Scripture to attempt to pit "the words of Jesus" over against other Scriptures, as well. All Scripture is God-breathed-out, not just the words of Jesus. Nor are his words any more Scripture, than those of Moses, Paul, Apollos, Obadiah, Luke, or Nahum, to name but six examples, IMO. Add to that that Jeuss' words are not given directly into Scripture by Him, as He Himself, wrote none of Scripture, but were recorded by others, unlike these named six who wrote/spoke as they were 'borne along' by the Holy Spirit. Even God - the Holy Spirit, did not have all the words ever spoken by God - the Son, to be recorded, as John, under the influence of God - the Holy Spirit, tells us.

Off subject, just a bit, but this supposed "distinction" is the main reason why I do not like "Red-Letter" editions of the Bible. All Scripture is the written Word of God, even though it is not all directly from the mouth of the incarnate Word of God.

I gotta' get to bed. G'nite, all.

Ed

 

Once. It was prefigured in Moses wearing a veil that they might not see the glory that was to come (which was the glory of the presence of the Lord with Moses).

Very familiar, thanks

It is impossible to save but a few, correct. Then comes the fulness of the Gentiles followed by the rapture. And then God will deal with Israel again proving them the revelation of Christ at His first advent by our disappearances.

You don't carry the passage through to the concludion, Bob. Rom 11:19-23 "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." They stumbled -- there's no doubt about it! But they will be grafted back in in the future at the point when the church is part raptured, part apostate.

skypair

 

Some could be saved before the fulness of the Gentiles was come in -- some of the branches weren't broken off to begin with. What Paul means is NOT that the fulness of the Gentiles was already come in but that when it does, "all Israel shall be saved!"

No, no, no, Bobby. First off, he'd have gone to the Jews if thought that! Second, Paul was expressing the futility of ministering to them so that only some would come. Three chapters here, Rom 9, 10, & 11, show is Paul aching to save those he knows are blinded! But he also knows that some way future day the fulness of the Gentiles will come in and THEN "all Israel will be saved."

skypair

 

Have I mispresented your view in any way?