Two-peoples-and-two-meanings theology

[Douggg]

Almost every other post of mine is failing. The last one I wanted to put in was:

Doug, what richly doctrinal chapter of the NT should I read in support of your view? I just cant' find it as an authentic NT view. I know why people try to find OT promises or predictions, but they don't seem to follow the NT and allow it to interp those same ones.

I don't think a prediction is the same as a prophecy. A prophecy is sure thing that is going to happen stated from God through his prophets. A prediction is something like me saying the stock market is going to go up next week - it may or may not happen because it is my own best guess.

I don't understand what you are getting at. It is like me asking you for a doctrinal chapter in the NT that you exist. The prophecies are in black and white in the bible for anyone to read. They exist. They are there.

This also means that there is a view of ISrael's promises that would have been perfectly acceptable for the Judaism of the 1st century and we have to realize that this was not what Christ or the apostles were saying; hence the flare ups with Judaism over it.

--Inter

Again, I am not sure at what you are getting at, but Judaism as it is (Judaism means the religion of the Jews, according to the answer given to me by Rabbi Daniel at the MessiahTruth.com countermissionary site) does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, hence there is no confirmation in their view of Christian beliefs.

The gospel of salvation through Christ was kept secret from understanding until after the resurrection. But that is not what is the issue is about regarding Israel being a chosen nation among the nations, which God chose to reveal His power and glory and His being the One True God.

Is God not able to deliver Israel, the nation of Jews, unto salvation through Christ? My view is that He can and will...according to His plan and His timing as found in the prophecies.

Romans 11:
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:



Paul is stating when Israel, the nation of Jews, will embrace Jesus as the savior from their sins, which is "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in".


Doug

 

[Douggg]

Every detail of the OT is not dealt with in the NT.
Only what the NT deals with from the OT explains the true meaning of the OT.

But unfulfilled prophecy, whether it be NT or OT, is subject to private interpretation, and we know how poor the people of God are at accurately doing that.

Private interpretation is talking about someone (or group perhaps, such as the gnostics)thinking or stating that the understanding of scripture can only be through them.

Understanding of the scripture comes through the Holy Spirit.

It is the clear specific and unequivoal revelation, not the prophecy, given by the Son that is superior to revelation given through the prophets, by whom is meant in Heb 1:1-2 all the OT writers, because their testimony was preparation for the coming of Christ.

It is not a case of superior, since the ot prophecies came from the same God who Jesus is. It is a case of revealing the understanding what the ot scriptures meant. Jesus revealed the understanding of the scriptures concerning himself to the disciples - after the resurrection.

Luke 24:
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem

And you are taking that unfulfilled symbolic prophecy literally, with no basis for doing so.

There is no symbolism being used in Ezekiel 48. It is written in unsymbolic language.

Elsewhere in the bible, when at times symbolism is used in the prophecies, the Holy Spirit will reveal the understanding if we seek it out in desire of the truth.

And your literal interpretation of symbolic prophecy contradicts 1Kgs 4:21, 24-25, which states that the land promise made to the patriarchs was fulfilled,
and your literal interpretation of symbolic prophecy contradicts Heb 11:8-16, which states that the everlasting land promised to the people of God was heavenly land, not earthly land.

From the text of Ezekiel 48, the land assigned to the 12 tribes of Israel, prove that chapter is talking about heavenly land.

It's your private interpretation of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy, which enjoys a very poor track record of accuracy among God's people, that disagrees with clear, specific and unequivocal statements of Scipture.

It is not private interpretation, because the understanding does not have to come through me. I don't believe in private interpretation. I believe the truth and understanding is available from the Holy Spirit. Doesn't God know and understand His Own prophecies?

That is not to say that God forces anyone to pursue understanding the prophecies. But for me, I love God, and am consumed with His prophecies, for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus.

What symbolism in particular are you referring to in Matthew 23:37-39.

Doug

 

[Clare73]

I don't think a prediction is the same as a prophecy. A prophecy is sure thing that is going to happen stated from God through his prophets. A prediction is something like me saying the stock market is going to go up next week - it may or may not happen because it is my own best guess.

I don't understand what you are getting at. It is like me asking you for a doctrinal chapter in the NT that you exist. The prophecies are in black and white in the bible for anyone to read. They exist. They are there.

Again, I am not sure at what you are getting at, but Judaism as it is (Judaism means the religion of the Jews, according to the answer given to me by Rabbi Daniel at the MessiahTruth.com countermissionary site) does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, hence there is no confirmation in their view of Christian beliefs.

The gospel of salvation through Christ was kept secret from understanding until after the resurrection. But that is not what is the issue is about regarding Israel being a chosen nation among the nations, which God chose to reveal His power and glory and His being the One True God.

Is God not able to deliver Israel, the nation of Jews, unto salvation through Christ? My view is that He can and will...according to His plan and His timing as found in the prophecies.

Romans 11:
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:

Ro 11:23 - ". . .if they do not persist in unbelief."

In the faith,
Clare

Paul is stating when Israel, the nation of Jews, will embrace Jesus as the savior from their sins, which is "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in".


Doug

 

[Clare73]

Private interpretation is talking about someone (or group perhaps, such as the gnostics)thinking or stating that the understanding of scripture can only be through them.

Well, not exactly.

Private interpretation is personal interpretation by individuals, rather than by Scripture itself.

We see Scripture itself interpreting symbolic prophecy in Da 2, 4, 7, 8; Eze 12, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 31, 37; Rev 12, 13, 17.

And we also see Scripture, where in its context symbolism, not literalism, is to be assumed, in Dal 9:24; Mt 2:1; Ac 4:11, 15:16; Ro 9:33, 11:8; Gal 4:27; Rev 4:5, 9:7-9.

Then we see fulfilled symbolic prophecy in Da 2.
Therefore, its symbolic meaning is clear.

So private interpretation is simply the personal interpretation of individuals.
And, as I've pointed out, the track record of God's people in correctly interpreting unfulfilled prophecy is dismal, going all the way back to Christ.

Understanding of the scripture comes through the Holy Spirit.

Yes, through the Holy Spirit in the light of the rest of the word of God.

Do you think that everyone who believes their understanding is from the Holy Spirit is correct about that,
in light of their contradictory understandings?

It is not a case of superior, since the ot prophecies came from the same God who Jesus is. It is a case of revealing the understanding what the ot scriptures meant. Jesus revealed the understanding of the scriptures concerning himself to the disciples - after the resurrection.

Yes, the NT reveals the meaning of the OT.

And in many cases, the meaning is contrary to what Judaism understood those Scriptures to mean.
But the NT is the full and complete revelation of the meaning of the OT Scriptures.
Some like to call it "progressive revelation," and that means
the final complete revelation would govern the meaning of all former incomplete revelation.

There is no symbolism being used in Ezekile 48. It is written in unsymbolic language.

It doesn't have to be written in symbolic language to be symbolic.

For example, the OT sacrificial system was not written in symbolic language, but the whole system was symbolic
of the purpose and meaning of Christ's sacrifice.

Elsewhere in the bible, when at times symbolism is used in the prophecies, the Holy Spirit will reveal the understanding if we seek it out in desire of the truth.

However, those who believe the Holy Spirit has given them their understanding have contrary understandings.

From the text of Ezekiel 48, the land assigned to the 12 tribes of Israel, prove that chapter is talking about heavenly land.

Or how about the new Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the Church, the New Jerusalem and Bride of the Lamb (Rev 21:2)?

It is not private interpretation, because the understanding does not have to come through me. I don't believe in private interpretation. I believe the truth and understanding is available from the Holy Spirit. Doesn't God know and understand His Own prophecies?

Then I am puzzled as to how you know which is true, among those who have contradictory understandings which they believe have come from the Holy Spirit.

That is not to say that God forces anyone to pursue understanding the prophecies. But for me, I love God, and am consumed with His prophecies, for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus.

What symbolism in particular are you referring to in Matthew 23:37-39.

Well, it doesn't have to be symbolic to be subject to different meanings.

Mt 37:39 could also mean that only a remnant, as in Ro 11:5, rather than a whole nation, will say, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

There seems to be more Biblical basis for a remnant, as is the case at the present time, than a nation.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Interplanner]

To Doug re a NT chapter that shows the necessity of a future nation of Israel. The one given in your answer, Rom 11:36 etc, comes with this question: what shows us this is about our future. Yes, it is in the prophet's future, but that was back in the OT. There is no automatic meaning that it is about Paul's future. He is using it retroactively as fulfilled, just as most of the things quoted in Rom 9-11 are. This status (of partial hardening) continues through the times of the Gentiles, but again where is the plain exposition that that ends and goes on to other things? They are after all, partially hardened, too. But we know that Paul is speaking present tense by the emphatic "nows" when unpacking 'a Redeemer will come to Zion' if not by the fact that he takes away the sins.

I had already covered this in earlier responses to Biblewriter, I think. The great assumption that this is in our future has to be explored. It is definitely in the prophet's future but that is 5th century BC to start.

So if I was looking for really solid concise summaries of Israel's history, destiny, purpose, mission etc., I might use Rom 9-11, Gal 3-4, Acts 13, 2 Cor 3-5 etc., where there are no passing references but an extended attention. It is from these that I don't gain anything very substantial about its future. If you have reasons (like I do) for seeing Rev as a treatment of its own times, there is no reason to go future. 2 Pet 3 has nothing detailed about Judaism. If you're going to 'restore Israel' and the temple and the worship system, then you're going to restore it.

(BTW the departures of Christian belief from Judaism are the essential NT background investigation aren't they?)

So I think the sanest approach is to take Mt 24 & //s which are essentially and vitally about the events of the generation from 30-70 AD, and try to find the things in them that are established by historic fact, and then we can anticipate the future. Like the original post says, there are some essential features that could be repeated, replicated.

--Inter

 

[Interplanner]

Well, I just wrote a post for Doug, mostly, and it has disappeared.

BTW, re the question of whether Judaism accepts the Gospel (post 21), I'm operating on the same MO. A person/people has to believe justification by Christ to be Christian. Everything is defined by that. That is the apostolic message. I never find them point to future times separately from that. To read many "prophecy experts" I get the idea God is going back to Judaism regardless.

I guess I assume you realize the vitality and rosbustness of the apostles statements about the present reality of the kingdom of God through the Gospel. "Today the Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." The degree of fulfillment of OT expectation through Christ is enormous and powerful. That's why reference to a future restored Israel is scant and not as clear as "prophecy experts" make out.

--Inter

 

[Clare73]

Well, I just wrote a post for Doug, mostly, and it has disappeared.

Was it posted and assigned a number?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Douggg]

Well, not exactly.

Private interpretation is personal interpretation by individuals, rather than by Scripture itself.

That is not what the bible says.

2Peter2:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

(the correct) interpretation of the scripture is by the Holy Spirit, who Jesus said would lead into all truth. On the other hand, people misuse the scripture to misinterpret the scripture all the time, when they operate on their own.

We see Scripture itself interpreting symbolic prophecy in Da 2, 4, 7, 8; Eze 12, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 31, 37; Rev 12, 13, 17.

Starting with Daniel 2 as an example. Daniel did not use scripture to interpret symbolic prophecy, the dream that Nebuchadnezzar had. Daniel understood the dream because God opened the understanding for him, and Daniel gave God the credit.

Back to 2Peter1:21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

However, those who believe the Holy Spirit has given them their understanding have contrary understandings.

People can believe that the Holy Spirit gave them their understanding, while that is not the case, if they have a wrong view.

Then I am puzzled as to how you know which is true, among those who have contradictory understandings which they believe have come from the Holy Spirit.

As I stated. People can believe that the Holy Spirit gave them their understanding, while that is not the case if it turns out that they are wrong. In the Charismatic movement especially, there are those who try to fortify their revelations saying that the Holy Sprit told me this or that.

Generally speaking though, my observation is that 99% of the people, those who are incorrect, although they may say that the Holy Spirit gave them their particular view, is that they never have a view that is comprehensive and harmonizes all of the details of the end times prophecies.

For example, I made a thread at this board on how a person can self check his/her end times view by seeing if their view could harmonize with the 3 portraits of the beast in Revelation 12, 13, and 17 - according to the crowns on the heads and horns being different in each of those chapters according to the three different timeframes found in each chapter. I made that same thread at three different Christian boards.

The whining in the responses of that self-check was amazing to me, but not unexpected because people have views that are based on FRAGMENTATION of the scriptures. That's why some people think Rome is the beast, or that Nero is the beast, that the Pope is the beast, etc.

Well, it doesn't have to be symbolic to be subject to different meanings.

Mt 37:39 could also mean that only a remnant, as in Ro 11:5, rather than a whole nation, will say, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

There seems to be more Biblical basis for a remnant, as is the case at the present time, than a nation.

The Jews who survived the Holocaust were a remnant. Most of them were killed. The remnant went on to return to the land of Israel and become a nation again.

Back in Luther's time and before because I think the Catholic church had a replacement theology position (I could be wrong), they did not believe that there was a futurist's view regarding Israel being a nation again. If those same persons, who created replacement theology initially, were born and lived in our generation, there would be no such thing as replacement theology because it is overwhelmingly obvious that Israel is a nation again.

But as it is, because of misunderstanding by many of the reformers and many of the catholics, replacement theology has been brainwashed into peoples thinking and they don't even realize it. It can be a hard thing for some people to overcome.

Doug

 

[Douggg]

To Doug re a NT chapter that shows the necessity of a future nation of Israel.--Inter

I gave you one, but you haven't responded. Matthew 23

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.


Jerusalem was prophesied to be made desolate, which you agree happened.

Verse 39 cannot happen unless the Jews are inhabiting Jerusalem again, after being made desolate - which they recaptured Jerusalem as their capital in 1967. That scripture necessitates Israel being a nation again.



It would be different if we lived in another generation, but you have the fulfillment right before your eyes of Israel being a nation again and Jerusalem in the hands of the Jews as their city. Why fight it?



Doug

 

[Clare73]

That is not what the bible says.

2Peter2:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Well, Douggg, look at the wording carefully.

This text is not referring to interpretation by the reader of Scripture,
it is referring to the origin of prophecy given by the writer of Scripture.

It is stating that no prophecy of Scripture came about by a merely human understanding and interpretation of things,
or by the prophet's own private determination.
"For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God."

The text is not about interpreting prophecy, but about the origin of prophecy.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This thread will be posted at Dispensationalism as well.

Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.

Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:

a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc

A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place. Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

Just saw this thread when doing a search for the "2 peoples of God" topic........
From another thread, which made me look for a similar topic on that

Is the land restoration to the nation of Israel found in the new covenant?

Cut the following words of Christ out of your Bible, and maybe you can make your Two Peoples of God doctrine work.

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Paul had to correct Peter in the Book of Galatians for treating the Jewish Christians differently than the Gentile Christians.
Why are you trying to make the same error as Peter?

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This thread will be posted at Dispensationalism as well.

Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.

Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:

a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc

A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place. Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

This thread will be posted at Dispensationalism as well.

Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.

Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:

a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc

A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place. Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

Great thread and info Inter.......
I am assuming this falls under Dual Covenant Theology?

Dual-covenant theology - Wikipedia

Dual-covenant or two-covenant theology is a school of thought in Christianity regarding the relevance of the Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament.

Most Christians hold that the Old Testament has been superseded or abrogated and replaced with the New Covenant, which is the only one of the biblical covenants that remains valid today. Dual-covenant theology is unique in holding that the Old Covenant or the Law of Moses remains valid for Jews while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or gentiles.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Some posts from another thread related to this topic:

BABerean2 said: ↑
Apparently, either you did not read my last post, or you are attempting to ignore what I said in an effort to make your Two Peoples of God doctrine work.

The text says the wicked angels are in "chains of darkness".
It does not say they are bound in all aspects.

Satan is free to deceive all of those not indwelled with the Spirit of God, described in 1 Corinthians 3:16, and Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27.
However, Satan and the other wicked angels are now banished from being in the presence of God's Holy light.


We see below that Spirit beings cannot be bound in normal chains.

Mar 5:2 And when He had come out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
Mar 5:3 who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no one could bind him, not even with chains,
Mar 5:4 because he had often been bound with shackles and chains. And the chains had been pulled apart by him, and the shackles broken in pieces; neither could anyone tame him.

nolidad said: ↑
Pulling that 2 peoples o fgod thing is foolishness. That is just asinine!

Bound in all aspects? Is that just like you can cast out atan, but that is only good for 24 hours? LOLOL!

BABerean2 said: ↑
If you cannot defend your doctrine, heap condemnation upon those who expose John Nelson Darby's doctrine for what it really is, and then throw in a couple of LOLs for good measure.

We have seen that strategy before on this forum..

Once again , As have never studied Darby I can't comment as to your allegations against him.

BABerean2 said: ↑
You may have never heard John Nelson Darby's name, but the Two Peoples of God doctrine that you are promoting came to America through Darby.
Your ignorance of that historical fact, does not surprise me.

The historical truth is found in the links below.

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_23.pdf


Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdf


Have you ever heard of the Scofield Reference Bible?

nolidad said: ↑
Well my ignorance is because it is irrelavent. The reason the two peoples of God took time to be RE-established in the church after the church became predominantly gentile is very very simple..................

Provide any evidence that you can that Luther or any other Reformer espoused a two peoples of God heterodoxy.

The "2 peoples of God" is brought up so much lately, I went ahead and saved these links in my "Dispensationalist spider web doctrine" folder.......

Two-peoples-and-two-meanings systems/

This thread will be posted at "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy" as well.

Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.

Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:

a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc

A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place.

Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.
--Inter

Two-peoples-and-two-meanings theology

This thread will be posted at Dispensationalism as well.

Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.

Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:

a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc

A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place. Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

2/2 is not in the NT

Two programs / 2 peoples of God is not in the NT. It is a modern fabrication. It shares some roots with the Jesuit counter-reformation.

 

[BABerean2]

The "2 peoples of God" is brought up so much lately, I went ahead and saved these links in my "Dispensationalist spider web doctrine" folder.

Classic Dispensationalists believe God will again go back to dealing with the modern nation of Israel after the end of the “Church Age”. They claim the Church is a “parenthesis” in God’s dealings with the nation of Israel.


Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church.


“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Romans 11: 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:
Paul is stating when Israel, the nation of Jews, will embrace Jesus as the savior from their sins, which is "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in".
Doug

LLoJ goes on a thread hunt............found a few related to that topic.........

Fullness Of The Gentiles -a Poll

Here is an article:

What does "fullness of the Gentiles" mean in Romans 11?
by Dr Taylor Marshall

This is one of the most confusing and debated passages of Scripture:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved.

Romans 11:25-26

Saint Paul put forth a mystery A partial hardening has happened to ethnic Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles. At this point all Israel will be saved.

In other words, Israel plus fullness of Gentiles equals all Israel. So what is the fullness of the Gentiles?

I think that Saint Paul is referring to Genesis 48:17-19:

When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; and he took his fathers hand, to remove it from Ephraims head to Manassehs head.

And Joseph said to his father, Not so, my father; for this one is the first-born; put your right hand upon his head

But his father [Jacob/Israel] refused, and said, I know, my son, I know; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; nevertheless his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.;

That final line could be translated as fullness of the Gentiles. It foreshadows how Ephraim (synecdochical for the northern ten tribes) later ;mixed itself; with the nations (Hosea 7:8).

Saint Paul indicates that the Israel/Ephraims identity is mixed with the Gentiles. In fulfillment of the prophecy of Jacob, the sons of of Ephraim have become the fullness of the Gentiles though in a less than noble way. Quite remarkable. For Paul, the only way to restore the lost remnant of Israel is to restore the Gentiles with whom they have mixed. This would explain how the Gentiles have benefited by the received curses of Israel.

It would also explain why Christ told the Apostles to proclaim the Gospel first in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, and then to the ends of the world. Samaria was the greatest concentration of half-breed northern Israelites. The evangelization of Samaria is the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel whether they be half-breeds or not. It is also noteworthy that both Peter and John specifically came to Samaria in order to impart the Holy Spirit via the sacrament of Confirmation (Acts 8:14-17).

What does "fullness of the Gentiles" mean in Romans 11? - Taylor Marshall

Fullness of the Gentiles

The term "Fullness of the Gentiles" is oft equated with the notion of quantity, amount, or number count of Gentile believers, but does scripture support such a notion?

By comparing scripture with scripture we clearly see that "fullness" does not equate with "full number", but rather the fullness of Gods grace:

John 1:16
And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

(This is especially instructive for us in that "fullness" is considered here to the the opposite of "fall", and in no way can be construed as a numeric value.)

Romans 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

Ephesians 1:23 Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

The list goes on........

The notion of fullness in the NT carries the idea of "totality of Gods blessings and grace", and not a certain number of people.

Gentile believers are not waiting to become "full partakers" of the Grace of God, rather The Gentiles are already FULL PARTAKERS of the grace of God.

The "Fulness of the gentiles" came in 2000 years ago.

Fullness Of The Gentiles -a Poll

Here is an article:

What does "fullness of the Gentiles" mean in Romans 11?
by Dr Taylor Marshall

This is one of the most confusing and debated passages of Scripture:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved.”

Romans 11:25-26

Saint Paul put forth a mystery A partial hardening has happened to ethnic Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles. At this point all Israel will be saved.

In other words, Israel plus fullness of Gentiles equals all Israel. So what is the fullness of the Gentiles?

I think that Saint Paul is referring to Genesis 48:17-19:

When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; and he took his fathers hand, to remove it from Ephraims head to Manassehs head.

And Joseph said to his father, Not so, my father; for this one is the first-born; put your right hand upon his head

But his father [Jacob/Israel] refused, and said, I know, my son, I know; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; nevertheless his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.;

That final line could be translated as fullness of the Gentiles. It foreshadows how Ephraim (synecdochical for the northern ten tribes) later ;mixed itself; with the nations (Hosea 7:8).

Saint Paul indicates that the Israel/Ephraims identity is mixed with the Gentiles. In fulfillment of the prophecy of Jacob, the sons of of Ephraim have become the fullness of the Gentiles though in a less than noble way. Quite remarkable. For Paul, the only way to restore the lost remnant of Israel is to restore the Gentiles with whom they have mixed. This would explain how the Gentiles have benefited by the received curses of Israel.

It would also explain why Christ told the Apostles to proclaim the Gospel first in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, and then to the ends of the world. Samaria was the greatest concentration of half-breed northern Israelites. The evangelization of Samaria is the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel whether they be half-breeds or not. It is also noteworthy that both Peter and John specifically came to Samaria in order to impart the Holy Spirit via the sacrament of Confirmation (Acts 8:14-17).

What does "fullness of the Gentiles" mean in Romans 11? - Taylor Marshall

 

[nolidad]

Classic Dispensationalists believe God will again go back to dealing with the modern nation of Israel after the end of the “Church Age”. They claim the Church is a “parenthesis” in God’s dealings with the nation of Israel.


Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church.


“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

.

Now you are talking about people I have studied and read!

All they wrote is based on the prophesies that God will give Israel an everlasting (ages long) kingdom! That Jesus' physical return is to inaugarate that kingdom after the judgment of nations at His physical return which He said He would do!

The church "in a snense" is a paranthesis. It is the gathering of the gentiles and the mystery of the OT played out in time as Paul declared.

YOur problem is that you have made God a breaker of His promises (Yes God swore by an oath they would have that kingdom in peace an righteousness. YOu hold to replacement theology so that all the promises God made to His people now belong to the church and have become spiritual things in stead of physical things for the most part!

Covenant theology8, coupled with replacement theology, viewed through the allegorical interprative hermeneutic spells disaster!

I guess that is why so many covenant /replacement believers also think they can lose their salvation!@ After all if God will take away what He promised Israel- why won't He be an Indian giver to the chruch?

 

[nolidad]

Some posts from another thread related to this topic:







The "2 peoples of God" is brought up so much lately, I went ahead and saved these links in my "Dispensationalist spider web doctrine" folder.......

Two-peoples-and-two-meanings systems/


Two-peoples-and-two-meanings theology

2/2 is not in the NT

Been there, read them, and the point?

 

[BABerean2]

YOur problem is that you have made God a breaker of His promises (Yes God swore by an oath they would have that kingdom in peace an righteousness. YOu hold to replacement theology so that all the promises God made to His people now belong to the church and have become spiritual things in stead of physical things for the most part!

The true form of "Replacement Theology" replaces the one seed, with the many seeds, in Galatians 3:16.

It replaces the children of the promise, with the children of the flesh in Romans 9:8.

It replace the "son" who is the "heir" to the land in Matthew chapter 21, with those who reject Him as the "chief cornerstone".

It often replaces the word "so", with the word "then", in Romans 11:26.

It ignores the New Covenant promised to Israel, and Judah, in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24.

One of its greatest errors is the claim that modern Jews will come to faith outside of the Church during a future time.
This is one of the greatest deceptions in the history of Christianity.

.

 

[nolidad]

The true form of "Replacement Theology" replaces the one seed, with the many seeds, in Galatians 3:16.

It replaces the children of the promise, with the children of the flesh in Romans 9:8.

It replace the "son" who is the "heir" to the land in Matthew chapter 21, with those who reject Him as the "chief cornerstone".

It often replaces the word "so", with the word "then", in Romans 11:26.

It ignores the New Covenant promised to Israel, and Judah, in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24.

One of its greatest errors is the claim that modern Jews will come to faith outside of the Church during a future time.
This is one of the greatest deceptions in the history of Christianity.

.

Well as you seem to have clearly missied it or intentionally ignored it, let me repeat it!

There are no credible dispensationalists I know of that believe Jews can be saved apart from the gospel in the church age! I suspect this is nothing more than false witness from covenantalists to hide their misunderstanding of Scripture.

And you rother verses which you accuse dispensationalists are nothing more than blatant lies against your brothers and sisters!

NO we do not find the fulfilment of the New covenanat to Israel and Judah in Hebrews!

But here is the covenant again :

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Verses 33 and 34 have not yet happened! that comes in th efuture!

Right now if a Jew dies without the gospel- their sin is remembered, but there is coming a day when all of Israel and Judah will get saved as it is written. And reconfirmed to Israel and Judah in Heb. 6.

As for Hebrews12? remember who the author is writing to(Jews), while we can definitely as gentiles learn from this Much of this book is written to Jews undergoing severe persecution and many who were very near salvation and felloshipping with the saints were thinking of leaving and going back to Judaism.

I fully agree that we gentiles in this church age (which was the OT mystery revealed by Paul) are FELLOW Heirs and PARTAKERS not taker overs of the New covenant promise!

The rest is all false propoganda you write to denigrate fellow believers.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The true form of "Replacement Theology" replaces the one seed, with the many seeds, in Galatians 3:16.

One of its greatest errors is the claim that modern Jews will come to faith outside of the Church during a future time.
This is one of the greatest deceptions in the history of Christianity.
.

Hello BAB.
I believe you and I may have found some common ground for once.
I just created this thread for those interested:

THE TRUE "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY/SUPERSESSIONISM" OF THE BIBLE

"Replacement theology" or "supersessionism" is the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

John Hagee and others who oppose "replacement theology" are rank false teachers whom apostle Paul condemns as "fallen from grace, severed from Christ". (Gal 4:10; 5:4; Rom 7:1-7; Jer 31:31 + Heb 8:6-13)

Christians are God's true "Jews" today, Israel is the church!

Gal 6:16
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Conclusion:
1. "Replacement Theology" or "Fulfillment Theology", also known as "Supersessionism" is the true Bible doctrine that Christians and the Church of Christ replaced the Jews and the nation of Israel.
2. Jesus taught Replacement Theology.
3. The apostles taught Replacement Theology.
4. The apostolic fathers like Justin Martyr taught Replacement Theology.
5. There is no special plan of salvation today for the Jews. There is one gospel and Jews and Gentiles must obey the same gospel and be saved exactly the same way.
6. There is nothing in the bible that teaches that at the end of time, God will bring Israel back to Canaan and offer them alone a special salvation merely because they are blood descendants of Abraham.
7. There is no distinction in God's eyes today between Jews and Gentiles. Jews who reject Jesus Christ as their messiah are in exactly the same spiritual state as Hindus, Muslims or atheistic evolutionists.
8. There is not a Jew alive that can prove his Jewish heritage through genealogy.