Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I asked questions.No gotcha here at all. As I said, if you had the slightest understanding of the system you are attacking, you would never make such foolish statements as imagining that this somehow disproves Dispensationalism.
You're right Biblewriter. It's Paul who refutes dispensationalism, and he does it over and over and over!No gotcha here at all. As I said, if you had the slightest understanding of the system you are attacking, you would never make such foolish statements as imagining that this somehow disproves Dispensationalism.
Actually, Dispensationalism was clearly taught in the inspired epistles of Paul.You're right Biblewriter. It's Paul who refutes dispensationalism, and he does it over and over and over!
It would be more polite to phrase this as a request, rather than as a demand.I asked questions.
Answer them.
I phrased them as questions already and you didn’t reply. So... yeah.It would be more polite to phrase this as a request, rather than as a demand.
I will get to them when I can. But I am very busy right now in writing ministry for people who actually believe everything God said, rather than just part of what He said.I phrased them as questions already and you didn’t reply. So... yeah.
I will get to them when I can. But I am very busy right now in writing ministry for people who actually believe everything God said, rather than just part of what He said.
It looks like you have time to explain why you don't have time. You also have time to make passive-aggressive swipes.I will get to them when I can. But I am very busy right now in writing ministry for people who actually believe everything God said, rather than just part of what He said.
Actually no. Dispensationalism contorts what Paul teaches in the scriptures to their theology. A classic is the "two peoples of God" theology. Paul never taught that...and it's a shame that it's taught!Actually, Dispensationalism was clearly taught in the inspired epistles of Paul.
Well first...let me state your idea of "replacement theology" is a misnomer when it comes to me. Theologically no one replaced anyone. Christ came in the fullness of time...and just as John 1:11-13 says. Under the New Covenant those who come to Christ are children of God regardless of Jew or Gentile...there is no difference. Reference Ephesians 2:11-22.
As to Romans 9:8 and Romans 8:1..no they are not idiomatic. How could that be? The context determines they are not. Paul set the terms in Romans 9:1-5. In that case "according to the flesh" simply refers to being born of human flesh or substance. The context shows that. Christ came according to the flesh...IOW, He was born of a woman as all humans are. This doesn't mean Christ was sinful...and the context will not allow that. "Children of the flesh" in Romans 9:8 is making the point that just because Jews are descendants of Abraham doesn't make them children of God. All one needs to do is hold to the context, following Paul logically.
OTOH, in Romans 8:1 the context of Romans 7 remains, where the context determines it's speaking of sinful fleshly desire.. The Greek is the word "sarx" and context determines how it's to be understood.
This is simply refers to how the gospel went out. Christ came to is own first, and He made that very clear...just as John 1:11 asserts.
So am I...however I'm a spiritual Jew!
Fallacious argument? so I am mistaken that all 12 tribes were in the dispersion? I disagree, as Acts 2 and James 1 make it very clear that it was not just the 10 northern tribes in the dispersion:
If you exclusively mean the 10 northern tribes, then I disagree.
If you mean Ephraim/Israel as in the body of the Christ (those from the house of Judah, those from the house of Israel, and gentiles, who are in Christ), then I agree.
Your assertion is fallacious because it suppresses the grammatical-historical hermeneutic that substantiates the nation in 1 Peter 2:9-10 is the northern kingdom, as Peter cites directly from Hosea 2:23.
Judah is never spoken of as having been divorced; it is never spoken of having no mercy and not being a people of God prior to the first advent, refugees notwithstanding. These descriptions are specifically applied to the northern nation under the Old Covenant.
And the grammatical-historical hermeneutic can explain the dissolution of the brotherhood between Judah and Israel/Ephraim in Zechariah 11:14, which your perceptions of the “Jerusalem which above” cannot reconcile without ad hoc explanations.
Galatians 3:29 clearly has a “collective sense,” as in “a body” or “people.”
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatian 3:29
But Paul cites Genesis 22:18 in his verse 16, which is before the time of Christ.
The point being is the “seed” is not only singular in Genesis 22:18 but collective and represents the elect descendants of Abraham, as it cannot at the same time represent the gentiles, who are distinguished as blessed by the seed/descendants.
The “seed” inherits the gentiles; the “seed” cannot be the gentiles at the same time, too.
And the “seed” cannot be the woman who is married, either.
The seed in Isaiah 54:3 is clearly Ephraim when the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is obeyed and progressive revelation does not suppress it.
The rest of your post is merely a poor attempt to suppress the clear evidence that the “Jerusalem which is above” is the Zion in Isaiah, who is illustrated as being raised by the Servant Christ and to whom Christ draws the gentiles.
Zion is clearly Ephraim, who in the last days, as one of the sons of Joseph, Jacob prophecies “from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel” Christ (Genesis 49:22-26) and the gentiles are drawn to them.
So, You are too busy preaching to the choir to be bothered, huh?I will get to them when I can. But I am very busy right now in writing ministry for people who actually believe everything God said, rather than just part of what He said.
James has all 12 tribes in the dispersion. Are Judah And Benjamin a part of those 12 tribes?
James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion:
Paul also quotes from hosea 1:10 and hosea 2:23. And while in the grammatical historical context of Hosea the "not my people" refers to the 10 northern tribes, Paul attributes the "not my people" to the gentiles. This revelation is consistent with Paul's theology on the mystery of God including the gentiles into the body of Christ, the collective
Romans 9:24-26 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
And as revealed by Paul's Progressive revelation, it was not know in generations past that the gentiles would be Fellow heirs, Fellow members of the body, and Fellow partakers in the promises of God.
Ephesians 3:5-6 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.
Absolutely agree. In the grammatical historical context you are absolutely correct.
However, according to the mystery that was not made know to them during the time of Hosea, your full analysis is not complete. The mystery is that the gentiles would be fellow partakers in the promises of God. We can not simply turn a blind eye to the revelation revealed by Paul.
The promises to Abraham in the grammatical historical context were to the nation of Israel and they were fulfilled:
Joshua 21:43-45 Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.
The promises to Abraham in the progressive revelation are to Jesus, who is on the only one that can truly fulfill them.
galatians 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
and if you are in Jesus, then the promises of Abraham apply to you.
Galatians 3:29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
For those that are in Jesus are one with Jesus, the collective and singular are 1.
galatians 5:31-32 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church
And Paul is very, very clear that the those who belong to this collective seed are both Jew, Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, etc.....
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all
***So you are simply incorrect, and it shows that you have to ignore the mystery of the greeks, barbarians, scythians, etc....being included in the 'seed' to make your argument work.
Peter is the one who identifies the elect exiles of the dispersion as Ephraim in 1 Peter 2:9-10.
That there are refugees from Judah with them does nothing to assert “seed” Isaiah 54:3 refers to gentiles.
no doubt the citation from Hosea refers to Israel and not the gentiles.
Gentiles were never divorced from the covenant relation with Christ, Israel was, which is the implication of the citation from Hosea.
Paul states nothing of the sort of which you write.
He states the gentiles are fellow heirs based on Genesis 22:18 in Galatians 3.
Genesis 22:18 the gentiles are blessed THROUGH the seed and that is how they are made fellow heirs.
The progressive revelation that the term “seed” has the singular sense meaning Christ is Paul’s contribution through the Holy Spirit, but it does not do away with the “collective” meaning of the biological descendants of Abraham in Genesis 22:18. This is substantiated by Paul’s “collective” use of the term seed in Galatians 3:29.
This is the collective sense of the “seed.” It substantiates that the term “seed” has a “singular” sense and a “collective” sense, the latter as “one body.”
It would be safe to state the patriarchs had no grasp of the singular sense and that is why it is a progressive revelation.
Progressive revelation can add information but it cannot take away what the original intent was
and that is exactly what your Replacement theology attempts.
Paul reveals the gentiles are fellow heirs through Christ with the assistance of the biological descendants of Abraham,
Your perversion of Paul’s progressive revelation destroys the original intent that inclusion of the gentiles is accomplished through Christ’s assistance of the biological descendant of Abraham.
How quickly you forget that I pointed out to you in particular that Zechariah prophecies another dispersion after the return from Babylon, which was clearly the one accomplished by the Romans, and that God promises to bring them back as if he had not rejected them. Zechariah 10:6-12.
Out of one hand you state you agree with the grammatical-historical intent and out of the other you attempt to destroy it.
So it appears that you agree that the those from Judah, AND NOT JUST EPHRAIM, would be included in the descendants of the desolate woman.
I have never stated that the descendants were solely gentiles. I have repeatedly stated the descendants of the desolate woman are those of the new covenant: Jew, Ephraim, gentile, etc.... anyone from any race who is in Christ.
I disagree with you here, Jerry.
You argument of Paul referring to Israel and not the gentiles in quoting hosea 2:23 means that those of the vessels of mercy that were not God's people, were the Jews.
Paul is specifically talking about the vessels of mercy in Romans 9:23-25. Those of the Jew and also from the gentiles. Paul clearly uses hosea 2:23 to refer to the vessels of mercy which include the gentiles.
Romans 9:24-25 including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles? As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘My People’ who are not My people,
and I will call her ‘My Beloved’ who is not My beloved,”
This is consistent with Paul revealing the mystery not known to previous generations, that the gentiles would be included as fellow heirs of the promises.
Ephesians 3:3-6 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. n reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.
The implication of Hosea 2:23 in solely its grammatical historical context, prior to the revelation that the gentiles would be fellow heirs of the promises, is that the northern kingdom was divorced and scattered among the nations by Assyria. They became NOT GOD's PEOPLE. However, God promised that one day, they would again become God's people. This we agree on.
Now, how was that promise fulfilled? Both Paul and Peter quote from Hosea 2:23 as being fulfilled. Paul has it fulfilled with Gentiles being vessels of Mercy through Christ. Peter has it fulfilled with the elect in the dispersion coming to faith in Christ.
By the northern kingdom becoming "not God's people", they became the same as the gentiles in relation to God. Over 700 years many of them would mix with the gentiles, socially, religiously, and culturally. Many from these 10 northern tribes would become not so distinctly Israel.
So how does God fulfill his promise in hosea 2:23 to call those his people, who were not his people? By including all those from every nation to belong to the collective in Christ under the new covenant.
I agree and I would add: NOR does it do away with the collective-meaning that it includes the gentiles in the new covenant.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Just so we are on the same page. Progressive revelation doesn't mean it's new information that wasn't in the OT scripture before, it means that true understanding of scriptures wasn't available until Jesus came and sent to the Spirit to give us true understanding of the intent of the OT scripture.
Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures
And this progressive revelation tells us that through Christ and the gospel, the gentiles are fellow heirs of the promises. Additionally, Paul reveals that this was not known in past generations, thus by just simply reading through the OT scriptures in the grammatical historical context, the mystery cannot be known. Only through the spirit can it be revealed as the fulfillment of the OT scriptures.
Ephesians 3:3-6 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
"Assistance"? If you mean the biological descendants of Abraham sharing the gospel with the gentiles as the "assistance", then I agree. Through the gospel being brought to the gentiles, it would turn many of them to the one true God, thus grafting them in to the body of Christ, the collective.
I disagree with your interpretation Jerry. The dispersion by the romans in 70ad was not a sowing, it was a punishment.
Notice the grammatical historical intent of Jeremiah 31:15
Jeremiah 31:15 This is what the LORD says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing consolation, because they are no more.”
Notice how Matthew has if fulfilled: with king Herod killing children
Matthew 2:16-18 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”
Without Matthew, by the Holy Spirit, interpreting the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 with Herod killing children, would we have ever known that is what Jeremiah 31:15 was referring to?
Or would argue that Matthew is taking it out of the grammatical historical context and destroying the original intent.
No. What you need to do is understand that Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join Israel as natives of the land. Ever read Exodus 12:42-49? How is it that Rahab and Ruth...who are both Gentiles end up in the line of Christ? They followed the Exodus reference above and became Jews!Initially, Christ did not come for the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). It was only later that the Gentiles are included through a revelation to Peter (Acts 10:10-`16, 35). And of course, a council had to be held to determine whether they were going to have the Gentiles convert to Judaism and decided against the Old Covenant ministration (Act 15). What we have, more accurately, was that the New Covenant was initially established with the biological descendants with the intent of inevitably gathering in the gentiles, which is precisely what the Old Testament prophecies. You might read both treads where I posted and see this is exactly what I’ve substantiated from both Testaments.
This is what I mean in saying you "contort the scriptures"...what you write above actually proves my point. You simply don't understand or you're spinning the passage. Even further, how could you read Romans 4 and come to such a conclusion and Paul totally annihilates that thinking With Galatians 4:21-31.Your perception of Romans 9:1-5 as it pertains to verse 8 epitomizes “replacement theology.” Your perception does not maintain the context at all, for instance:
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour.... Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:21, 24
The statement “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” clearly denotes that “some are Israel”, the children of the promise that Paul conveys as “called” in verse 24, above, the beloved in verse 25, God’s people in 26, the remnant “seed,” the collective sense, in verse 29. Conversely, the “children of the flesh” are noted as those who sought righteousness by attempting to keep the law, verses 30-33. Romans 9 clearly substantiates the phrases “children of the promise” versus the “children of the flesh” convey what Christ revealed: many are called but few are chosen, your perception of “sarx” notwithstanding.
Try Ephesians 2:11-22. How readest thou?Just as I asserted above, which conveys it was the mission of Israel to gather in the gentiles, which is what I’ve been developing in two thread, this one and Battle of Dual Covenant Theology and the Charge of "Replacement Theology."
No. "Replacement Theology" is simply a "dispensational spin" against what scripture clearly teaches. Jesus came unto His own and they didn't receive Him. This is because just as you are trying to assert they had missed the fact they where to be the light to the world and they simply broke the covenant just as God told Moses they would do at Deuteronomy 31:14-18.While perceivable in an allegorical sense, the claim is commonly abused in “replacement theology.”
While perceivable in an allegorical sense, the claim is commonly abused in “replacement theology.”
No. What you need to do is understand that Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join Israel as natives of the land. Ever read Exodus 12:42-49? How is it that Rahab and Ruth...who are both Gentiles end up in the line of Christ? They followed the Exodus reference above and became Jews!
This is what I mean in saying you "contort the scriptures"...what you write above actually proves my point. You simply don't understand or you're spinning the passage. Even further, how could you read Romans 4 and come to such a conclusion and Paul totally annihilates that thinking With Galatians 4:21-31.
Try Ephesians 2:11-22. How readest thou?
No. "Replacement Theology" is simply a "dispensational spin" against what scripture clearly teaches. Jesus came unto His own and they didn't receive Him. This is because just as you are trying to assert they had missed the fact they where to be the light to the world and they simply broke the covenant just as God told Moses they would do at Deuteronomy 31:14-18.
Open your eyes brother!
Circumcision of the heart is merely "allegorical"?
Only to the proponents of RB (Replacement Biology).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?