God did not "transition" from Israel to Europe. God established a new covenant sans generis e sans soli sed fides.
You need to read your history. In the OT God dealt with Israel. In the NT Christianity entered into the Roman Empire, spread to France and England, and then to Germany, Scandinavia, etc. In the East it spread through the Eastern Roman Empire to all of the Slavic states, including Russia. Do your history, brother, although I'm inclined to believe you already do know it. You just don't want to be agreeable?
I don't read Latin. Is it "without race and without faith alone?" Honestly, I don't have a clue what you're saying. Speak in English.
It is for interpretation.
Not kind, not land, but faith.
You do when that is to what it is referring.I know the OT covenant is fulfilled in the New Testament. But you don't translate and interpret passages by referring to the NT Bible.
You do when that is to what it is referring.
Much that is written in the OT era cannot be understood in its full and detailed NT sense until those events actually took place. It was largely a mystery, and yet founded on iron-clad, eternal principles.
Their sin was covered, not counted against them, by the sacrifices offered in faithfulness. Sin did not keep them out of heaven. Unbelief in the promise; i.e., Jesus Christ, of Genesis 15:5 kept them out of heaven.For example, it was clear in the OT era that Man was condemned by only a single sin. No matter how many good things OT saints did, just one sin still kept them out of heaven.
Because they were not given for eternal life, they were given to cover sin until the true atoning sacrifice remitted their sin. It was faith in the promise; i.e., Jesus Christ, of Genesis 15:5--not law keeping and sacrifices, which gave eternal life.So all of the offerings God gave Israel to do, it still fell short of granting them eternal life.
A NT fulfillment was not only "not fully understood in detail," it wasn't even on their radar in the OT. They did not see 1500 years of sacrifices as pointing to anything.This is an eternal principle, and was embedded in OT requirements. It required a NT fulfillment.
But the NT fulfillment was not fully understood in detail.
And so, they didn't have the luxury of reading NT Scriptures to interpret how their OT observances would be fulfilled in a NT sense.
Contrare. . .So your quip about interpreting OT things in a NT sense doesn't hold water.
It's a generally true in a sense, but it has to be understood how this applies. I'm detailing it for you.
1 Tim 3.16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
How nations promised to Abraham in the OT would be fulfilled in the NT is now clearly understood in the NT, simply by reading Paul. But it doesn't disqualify these promises simply because they were given in the OT era.Unless, in light of the NT, they actually have already been fulfilled.
Gal 3.7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham:
“All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
However, since the time of Abraham himself, not all Israel is Israel (Romans 9:6). God has made separations in Abraham's descendants from the beginning, in Ishamel and Isaac (Romans 9:7), in Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:11-13), and now in unbelieving Israel, who has been cut off (Romans 11:17-19), and believing Israel, the remnant in whom the promises are being fulfilled (Romans 11:2-5, Romans 11:29). Only the NT believing remnant is true Israel, in whom the promises are fulfilled.These nations are called "nations," and must be understood just as the word "nation" is applied to Israel. They were not remnants of nations, but entire nations who would come to share the faith of Abraham.
It did not require that all who exercised faith in the one true God actually get born again and be saved. It only required that the nation, generally as a whole, adopt, in good faith, a Christian Constitution.
Obviously, "demons believe in God and tremble." Not all who begin with faith consummate that faith in spiritual rebirth.
Their sin was covered, not counted against them, by the sacrifices offered in faithfulness. Sin did not keep them out of heaven. Unbelief in the promise; i.e., Jesus Christ, of Genesis 15:5 kept them out of heaven.
Because they were not given for eternal life, they were given to cover sin until the true atoning sacrifice remitted their sin. It was faith in the promise; i.e., Jesus Christ, of Genesis 15:5--not law keeping and sacrifices, which gave eternal life.
Nor is eternal life even mentioned in the OT, just as the once-for-all human atoning sacrifice is not mentioned in the OT.
A NT fulfillment was not only "not fully understood in detail," it wasn't even on their radar in the OT. They did not see 1500 years of sacrifices as pointing to anything.
Contrare. . .
My statement is that the OT Scriptures must be understood today (not in the OT) in the light of the NT, which changes their import in many cases, because they were dealing in patterns and shadows back then, not in the realities themselves.
However, since the time of Abraham himself, not all Israel is Israel (Romans 9:6). God has made separations in Abraham's descendants from the beginning, in Ishamel and Isaac (Romans 9:7), in Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:11-13), and now in unbelieving Israel, who has been cut off (Romans 11:17-19), and believing Israel, the remnant in whom the promises are being fulfilled (Romans 11:2-5, Romans 11:29). Only the NT believing remnant is true Israel, in whom the promises are fulfilled.
Actually, Paul does not say that.Paul is saying that the nation of Israel is destined to be an entirely believing nation, not just a partially believing nation.
Not according to Romans 9, where God has once again made a separation in Abraham's seed, between unbelieving and believing Israel, andYou seem to think the nation was intended to be fulfilled as only a part, and not as a whole? But God promised Abraham a whole nation, and not just a remnant of a nation!
Not according to Romans 11:26: "Thus" (in this manner), the manner of Romans 11:1-5, a remnant, just as only a remnant of the Gentiles are being saved.He does that to show that God has not yet given up on the promise of a *whole nation.* Keeping just a part of the nation in faith is indication that God intends, in the end, to restore the entire nation to faith in their God. 11a;
Not without considering it in the light of NT revelation which gives its true meaning.I know the OT covenant is fulfilled in the New Testament. But you don't translate and interpret passages by referring to the NT Bible. You look at the passage in its immediate context, and interpret it as it would be understood by someone in that time and place.
They did not understand it that way.The NT perspective keeps the long-term purpose in view when trying to understand OT concepts. For example, when reading about the OT offerings, or animal sacrifices, we understand that in its time it provided temporary coverage for Israel's sins, to keep them in covenant relationship with God.
We can see that it was all temporary, we can see that not all Israel was true Israel, that God has always separated true Israel (descendants of Jacob only) from Israel in general (all Abraham's descendants), and that now he has separated Abraham's descendants again, into unbelieving Israel, which has been cut off (Romans 11:17-19), and believing Israel who inherits the promises, as they are understood in the light of the NT.But knowing the NT purpose of the Law, we can see in the animal sacrifices their long-range purpose of being replaced with something that provides Israel and others with final redemption.
Things done in the name of Christian states has been as atrocious as anything as any pagan empire before ever done. From the killing of Jews, heretics, and pagans, to intra-Christian wars fought between ostensibly Christian powers. The Wars of Religion, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, inquisitions, pogroms.
Though there is truth in this, I prefer to not get caught up in the "hate the Christian State" rhetoric. It easily falls into the "Antichristian" camp, which attempts to delegitimize Christian involvement in government philosophy entirely. The corruption of a thing does not mean the thing itself is bad--only the corruption of the thing.Even religious persecution was done in colonial America. New England executed Quakers, for instance, like Mary Dyer around 1660. She was the last Quaker to die in New England for her beliefs.
Today, I venture to guess almost all American Christians would find that sort of thing evil. Yet at one time many Christians approved of such terrible attrocities. All in the name of upholding a state religion.
Though there is truth in this, I prefer to not get caught up in the "hate the Christian State" rhetoric. It easily falls into the "Antichristian" camp, which attempts to delegitimize Christian involvement in government philosophy entirely. The corruption of a thing does not mean the thing itself is bad--only the corruption of the thing.
God chose Israel to be a state based on faith. It started out to be a nation more than a state. But becoming a state became an essential part of the nation because it seemed people, in their weakness, could only hold onto the nation by reference to the state.
And so, Israel became a state--a monarchy. But it was the Davidic monarchy--a state based on faith.
It is the same with Christian nations. They coalesce around governments based on faith. They always go downhill, and end up in apostasy or compromise. But the idea is sound and God-inspired.
When Israel failed, God turned to other nations, including their state governments. They just had to be based on faith. Continuing to be faithful in that government philosophy has always been the problem.
Opposing Christian governments falls, I believe, into the Antichristian camp. The strategy is to find fault with the mix of Christianity with government so as to remove it entirely. I don't believe that's what God has ever wanted.
Sure, we must expose Christian governments when they become corrupt so as to not let people get confused between what the State does and what true Christianity would do. It is best to point out the sins of Christian governments rather than dismiss the involvement of Christianity in the State entirely.
I've been asked this *many, many* times! No, I'm not being hypothetical. 1st, let me say that I believe in the "rise and fall" of nations. Nations, like Israel, start out on fire with the truth of God, like lightning bearing down on Mt. Sinai. Later, truth ebbs not because truth itself ebbs, but rather, people grow careless with truth, compromise morality, and lose their experience with God.Can you provide an example of a "Christian state" you have in mind? Or is your concept merely hypothetical?
You might, then, want to critically examine your thesis.I've been asked this *many, many* times!
Israel cannot be considered an example. Israel was a nation--the only nation--created by God Himself, for Himself. God selected a single man from whom to build His nation, He explicitly identified the geographic boundaries of that nation. He made a specific covenant in blood with the people of that nation, with both of them acknowledging their promises to one another. He gave them a specific law to govern them differently from any other nation.No, I'm not being hypothetical. 1st, let me say that I believe in the "rise and fall" of nations. Nations, like Israel, start out on fire with the truth of God, like lightning bearing down on Mt. Sinai. Later, truth ebbs not because truth itself ebbs, but rather, people grow careless with truth, compromise morality, and lose their experience with God.
Then it is that the nation falls, and no longer appears to be "called and chosen," even if God does not give up on it. So with the rise and fall of Israel it looks as if Israel failed for all time. But the continuance of a remnant is a reminder that final judgment awaits to make the nation whole again, removing all untoward influences that are presently preventing this.
After Israel's fall, God raised up European Civilization to become Christian nations and Christian states. We can then name many nations that have been "Christian" in name, including virtually all European nations, including nations influenced by European Christianity.
Though these "Christian states" have "fallen" in modern times, they will, like Israel, experience renewal at the coming of Christ in my theology. In history Christian kings did rule and set the law of God as their moral standard, both for themselves and for their people.
So I'm to take your word on this when the facts are otherwise? God positively did *not* just produce Israel, and no other nation. Nothing could be clearer that God did the opposite, namely predicted for Abraham that not only would He produce Israel as a nation, but He would also produce "many nations" of faith for Abraham.You might, then, want to critically examine your thesis.
Israel cannot be considered an example. Israel was a nation--the only nation--created by God Himself, for Himself. God selected a single man from whom to build His nation, He explicitly identified the geographic boundaries of that nation. He made a specific covenant in blood with the people of that nation, with both of them acknowledging their promises to one another. He gave them a specific law to govern them differently from any other nation.
Israel is not a valid example of God's relationship with any other nation.
Come up with another besides Israel, because Israel is not a valid example of a "Christian state."
So I'm to take your word on this when the facts are otherwise? God positively did *not* just produce Israel, and no other nation. Nothing could be clearer that God did the opposite, namely predicted for Abraham that not only would He produce Israel as a nation, but He would also produce "many nations" of faith for Abraham.
In effect, if we have Israel as a nation-state to fulfill what God promised Abraham, then God is also promising many nation-states for Abraham. And in reality that is precisely what we've had with European Christianity. We've had many nation-states identify as nations called and chosen of God with governments ruling in the name of the Christian religion. How you can come up with the opposite truth is beyond me, but typical of what I hear today.
Jesus said that God was taking away the Kingdom of God from Israel and giving it to a nation more worthy of it. That became the Roman Kingdom, when after Constantine they arrived at a Christian State under Theodosius. They were more willing, at that point, to be a form of God's Kingdom on earth than Israel was. And the Roman Nation expanded to all of Europe, to France, to Germany, to Scandinavia in the West, and even as far as Russia in the East.
Though there is truth in this, I prefer to not get caught up in the "hate the Christian State" rhetoric. It easily falls into the "Antichristian" camp, which attempts to delegitimize Christian involvement in government philosophy entirely. The corruption of a thing does not mean the thing itself is bad--only the corruption of the thing.
God chose Israel to be a state based on faith. It started out to be a nation more than a state. But becoming a state became an essential part of the nation because it seemed people, in their weakness, could only hold onto the nation by reference to the state.
And so, Israel became a state--a monarchy. But it was the Davidic monarchy--a state based on faith.
It is the same with Christian nations. They coalesce around governments based on faith. They always go downhill, and end up in apostasy or compromise. But the idea is sound and God-inspired.
When Israel failed, God turned to other nations, including their state governments. They just had to be based on faith. Continuing to be faithful in that government philosophy has always been the problem.
Opposing Christian governments falls, I believe, into the Antichristian camp. The strategy is to find fault with the mix of Christianity with government so as to remove it entirely. I don't believe that's what God has ever wanted.
Sure, we must expose Christian governments when they become corrupt so as to not let people get confused between what the State does and what true Christianity would do. It is best to point out the sins of Christian governments rather than dismiss the involvement of Christianity in the State entirely.