heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Well, I can point out from the position CygnusX1 represents, this is quite an ambiguous set of statements.I still think the question: So are you (cygnusx1) saying all Israel is elect, even apart from Christ. And if so then Israel doesn't need Christ?
Election is God's choice to set them "in Christ" in the sense of a promise, which is fulfilled in time. That would deprive the relevance of the question: of course they're elect when apart from Christ, and they're brought into Christ more and more as God fulfills more and more aspects of His promise.
So the question itself doesn't seem to have any force. It'd be obvious, Israel must need Christ if the promise can only be fulfilled in/by Christ.
Hagee's a dispensationalist of a pretty strange stripe. I wouldn't even begin to imply Hagee's views on anyone who doesn't explicitly say they embrace them.The reason for this question is this. If one supposes (as John Hagee seems to believe) that Israel doesn't need to believe Christ to be saved, then why does faith in Jesus matter?
Maybe, but not among living Christians who don't hold this view.This is a theologically relevant question, since there are indeed living Christians who hold this view.
I wouldn't know under what circumstances. There are aspects of "observed faith constitutes justification" that are not born out among the reformers. But I'm not certain where the demarcation line is. I do know that the Reformed theologians actually revulse at the idea and consider it, not simply Arminian, but semi-Pelagian.Several times I've been told by CygnusX1 my position is based on the fact that I'm "Arminian". Yet the reformers were originally amillennial, so this charge is clearly unfounded, yet this is ok?
OK, it appears your position is that "Israel" is a general group. Which is fine. But it's clearly not what Paul appeals to at Romans 11:1. Paul states it, "all Israel will be saved" (11:25). His argument in favor of his viewpoint is 11:28, "They are enemies of the gospel", yet Paul is a friend of the gospel at the start of Romans 11. So: not the same group.I've taken the time to answer questions about the texts of Romans 3:3 & Romans 11:28. I feel the texts I pointed out (from Moses, Peter & Paul) make a strong case and they have yet to be delt with by CygnusX1.
Yet CygnusX1 has repeatedly questioned me as to Israel being completely cut off or replaced or divorced. It is clear that CygnusX1 does not understand my position since I have repeatedly stated that God has not removed them all, or cut them all off. But the assertions continue.
Granted that start & end of Romans 11 are not the same group, "Israel", and that the "cut off" isn't the same word even, what are we to make of what is the same word? "chosen/elect"I've already give my explanation to this point on page one, post #8.
Upvote
0