Historical Basis of Dispensationalism

[Biblewriter]

"Pseudo-Ephraem" means we have no idea who this person was, and for all we know he could have been an agent of Satan.

Dr. John C. Reeves, Professor of ancient texts from UNC-Charlotte has said "Pseudo-Ephraem's" writings ,in their complete form, do not confirm what pre-tribbers claim.


See the link below.

John C. Reeves | Pseudo-Ephrem (Syriac) (charlotte.edu)


The partial quote below is found near the end of the passage.

"
The saints will come before him,

In order to expose the Son of Destruction

Before the assemblies surrounding him:

‘If you are indeed God,

Tell us what we ask of you:

Where is the place that you have hidden

The elders Elijah and Enoch?’

The Evil One will respond and say

To the saints at that time:

‘When I wish (it), they are in the height(s),

Or again should I choose, they are within the sea;

For I have authority over habitations,

Since there is no other god apart from me

And I can make anything

On earth (and) also in heaven!’"


.

The lines quoted here are from an entirely different document than the one quoted by pre-tribbers, and were obviously penned by a different writer.

The designation "Pseudo-Ephraem" means ONLY that the document was ALLEGED to have been written by Ephraem, and modern scholars do not believe it WAS written by him. It is known that MANY writers made that claim.

This is just another part of the systematic dishonesty of some who attack the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation.

 

[BABerean2]

The lines quoted here are from an entirely different document than the one quoted by pre-tribbers, and were obviously penned by a different writer.

The designation "Pseudo-Ephraem" means ONLY that the document was ALLEGED to have been written by Ephraem, and modern scholars do not believe it WAS written by him. It is known that MANY writers made that claim.

This is just another part of the systematic dishonesty of some who attack the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation.

When provided with the proof that your claims do not match up to the ancient text by an unbiased source, you claim "dishonesty". The Pseudo-Ephraem pre-trib claim first came from author Grant Jeffrey, whose cut and paste job of the Early Church Fathers found below is the very definition of "dishonesty".

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



===========================

When are you going to respond to the Dispensational claims found below from Dallas Theological Seminary, which do not match up to the Bible?


Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

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

.

 

[Biblewriter]

When provided with the proof that your claims do not match up to the ancient text by an unbiased source, you claim "dishonesty". The Pseudo-Ephraem pre-trib claim first came from author Grant Jeffrey, whose cut and paste job of the Early Church Fathers found below is the very definition of "dishonesty".

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



===========================

When are you going to respond to the Dispensational claims found below from Dallas Theological Seminary, which do not match up to the Bible?


Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

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

.

I have the ENTIRETY of the sermon in question. And it MOST CERTAINLY does NOT contain the lines you posted. Furthermore, it is not even arranged in poetic type lines at all. It is 100% prose.

So I stand by what I said. Pretending these lines came from the same source as the sermon we have been discussing is nothing short of BLATANT DISHONESTY.

 

[BABerean2]

I have the ENTIRETY of the sermon in question. And it MOST CERTAINLY does NOT contain the lines you posted. Furthermore, it is not even arranged in poetic type lines at all. It is 100% prose.

So I stand by what I said. Pretending these lines came from the same source as the sermon we have been discussing is nothing short of BLATANT DISHONESTY.

I was not aware that you were an unbiased expert in ancient texts, whose knowledge is superior to that of Dr. John C. Reeves of UNC-Charlotte.

Surely, your copy of the text must be the original.

Did you get your copy from Grant Jeffreys?

==========================

Are you trying to ignore the Dispensational Theology claims made by the professors at Dallas Theological?

Do you believe modern Jews are God's eternal earthly people, while the Church is God's eternal heavenly people? Do you agree with this claim?

Heb 11:15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

I was not aware that you were an unbiased expert in ancient texts, whose knowledge is superior to that of Dr. John C. Reeves of UNC-Charlotte.

Surely, your copy of the text must be the original.

Did you get your copy from Grant Jeffreys?

==========================

Are you trying to ignore the Dispensational Theology claims made by the professors at Dallas Theological?

Do you believe modern Jews are God's eternal earthly people, while the Church is God's eternal heavenly people? Do you agree with this claim?

Heb 11:15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.


.

My copy did not come from Grant Jeffery. I got it from “Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition,” by Paul J. Alexander, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1985. And that source most assuredly did not contain the lines you quoted, and no portion of it was arranged in poetic style lines. So, yes, I am absolutely certain that the lines you quoted did not come from the document I quoted. and simple inspection shows that they did not even come from the same writer.

But now you have completely exposed your blatant dishonesty in this entire discussion. I had not bothered to check the source you quoted above. But since you got so arrogant in your deceitfulness, I went back to inspect it. And John C. Reeves, Blumenthal Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies, Department of Religious Studies, did not even so much as allege that this was the same document as the one so often quoted by pre-tribbers.

When I examined the link you provided, I immediately recognized this article as one I already had on my computer. It is different from the other document beginning to end, is written in an entirely different style, and was obviously not even written by the same writer.

I find it difficult to believe that even your blind prejudice could have failed to see this, had you even made a slight attempt to compare the two documents, as I have done.

YOU, and not Grant Jeffery and myself, are the one who is misrepresenting what the historical documents say.

 

[BABerean2]

YOU, and not Grant Jeffery and myself, are the one who is misrepresenting what the historical documents say.

If the text from Dr. John C. Reeves is not the same as yours, why would we assume yours is the one really written by the unknown person "PseudoEphream"?
I gave a link to the source from Dr. Reeves. However, you have failed to provide any link to your source. Did your source come from a person promoting the pre-trib doctrine?


Any unbiased witness here can read the article below and see what Grant Jeffrey was willing to do in an attempt to make the pretrib doctrine work.
Then they can decide for themselves who is being "dishonest".


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

======================================

I have asked you to address the following claims of the professors at Dallas Theological, but so far you have ignored it. Is this being "dishonest" about what the promoters of your doctrine claim?


Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

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



.

 

[Biblewriter]

If the text from Dr. John C. Reeves is not the same as yours, why would we assume yours is the one really written by the unknown person "PseudoEphream"?
I gave a link to the source from Dr. Reeves. However, you have failed to provide any link to your source. Did your source come from a person promoting the pre-trib doctrine?


Any unbiased witness here can read the article below and see what Grant Jeffrey was willing to do in an attempt to make the pretrib doctrine work.
Then they can decide for themselves who is being "dishonest".


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

======================================

I have asked you to address the following claims of the professors at Dallas Theological, but so far you have ignored it. Is this being "dishonest" about what the promoters of your doctrine claim?


Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

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



.

Your willful deceit has now been fully exposed. You know perfectly well that the label Pseudo-ANYONE simply means some unknown writer that is alleged to be a different writer. So you HAVE to KNOW that your argument here is deceptive.

 

[readywriter]

One of the greatest errors of Dispensational Theology is the claim
that modern Orthodox Jews will come to faith in Christ outside of the Church.
This claim is not found in the Bible.

Hello @BABerean2,

'And I will pour upon the house of David,
and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and of supplications:
and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced,
and they shall mourn for Him,
as one mourneth for his only son,
and shall be in bitterness for him,
as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.'
(Zechariah 12:10) - Rev. 1:17

* See also Jeremiah 31:31-34.

BABerean2 said:-
“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.”

* The Bible tells us that Israel as a nation is in a Loammi condition now, ('Not my People') but that the day will come when they will again be, 'My People' (Hosea 1:9-10 & Hosea 2:23/ Romans 9:25-26) . During this time Israel's prophetic clock has ceased to tick. This is the time of Israel's blindness.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[BABerean2]

​

Hello @BABerean2,

'And I will pour upon the house of David,
and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and of supplications:
and they shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced,
and they shall mourn for Him,
as one mourneth for his only son,
and shall be in bitterness for him,
as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.'
(Zechariah 12:10) - Rev. 1:17

* See also Jeremiah 31:31-34.

​

* The Bible tells us that Israel as a nation is in a Loammi condition now, ('Not my People') but that the day will come when they will again be, 'My People' (Hosea 1:9-10 & Hosea 2:23/ Romans 9:25-26) . During this time Israel's prophetic clock has ceased to tick. This is the time of Israel's blindness.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Are all Israelites "partially" blinded now, or are part of the Israelites blinded, and part of the Israelites are not now blinded? Thousands of young Israelis are now coming to faith in Christ due to the preaching of social media and ministries like One For Israel, which is a Bible College in central Israel.
Therefore, your interpretation of the text cannot be correct.

==================

Dispensational Claim: Romans 11 proves National Israel will be saved in the future.



I have heard both John MacArthur, and John Hagee make the following statement…


“And then all Israel will be saved.” (Also found on page 349 of the book “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty” by the Jesuit, Manuel Lacunza “Ben Ezra”.)



Both MacArthur, and Hagee, are selectively quoting from the verse below in an attempt to make Dispensational Theology work. Have they changed the meaning of the verse?


Rom 11:26 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:

Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


These men have changed the word “so”, which is an adverb of manner, into the word “then”, which is an adverb of timing.

What is the “manner” of salvation in the passage? It is in the preceding verses found below.


Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?


In Romans chapter 11 the Apostle Paul uses the Olive Tree as a symbol of the New Covenant Church, made up of believing Israelites, and believing Gentiles, grafted together into the same tree. In the two verses above the unbelievers can be grafted back into the tree through faith in Christ. Paul provides no path to salvation outside of the New Covenant Church in the passage.


Is the “covenant” in verse 27 a future covenant with the modern State of Israel, or is it the New Covenant fulfilled for all races of people by the blood of Christ at Calvary? In order to answer this question we need to know who is “Israel”, as defined by Paul, earlier in the same letter to the Romans. What did Paul say below about “Israel” in Romans chapter 9?


Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (All Israelites are not a part of faithful Israel.)

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

(Being a physical Israelite does not make a person a part of Israel of the promise.)




Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

(Only a “remnant” of Israelites shall be saved.)


Based on the verses above from Romans 9 Paul was describing the “manner” of how Israelites would be saved in Romans 11:26, instead of the timing of their salvation.


The verse below is also often used by Dispensationalists in an attempt to make their doctrine work. Dispensationalists often insist an Israelite can be an enemy of God, and the elect at the same time.


Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.


Throughout Romans chapter 11 the Apostle Paul refers to two different groups of Israelites, one faithful, and one not faithful. Paul begins the chapter this way is Romans 11:1-5, by describing the Israelites who were Baal worshippers, in contrast to the faithful “remnant”, during the time of Elijah. Paul said there was also a faithful “remnant” during his time. Therefore, based on Romans 11:1-5, there are two different groups of Israelites in Romans 11:28. The Israelites who rejected Christ were the “they” who are the enemies of God, while the group of “they” who accepted Christ are the “election”. Paul ends the passage in the same way that he began the passage, with two different groups of Israelites.

.

 

[BABerean2]

Your willful deceit has now been fully exposed. You know perfectly well that the label Pseudo-ANYONE simply means some unknown writer that is alleged to be a different writer. So you HAVE to KNOW that your argument here is deceptive.

Luk_6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Luk_6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

.

 

[readywriter]

Are all Israelites "partially" blinded now, or are part of the Israelites blinded, and part of the Israelites are not now blinded? Thousands of young Israelis are now coming to faith in Christ due to the preaching of social media and ministries like One For Israel, which is a Bible College in central Israel.
Therefore, your interpretation of the text cannot be correct.

Hello @BABerean2,

Yes, there are individual Jews coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but Israel as a nation are still in a Loammi condition. They have not come to repentance and salvation nationally, and that has to happen for them to carry out their Divinely appointed role as Priests unto God among the nations at the end of the age.

BABerean2 said:-
Dispensational Claim: Romans 11 proves National Israel will be saved in the future.

I have heard both John MacArthur, and John Hagee make the following statement…
“And then all Israel will be saved.” (Also found on page 349 of the book “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty” by the Jesuit, Manuel Lacunza “Ben Ezra”.)

Both MacArthur, and Hagee, are selectively quoting from the verse below in an attempt to make Dispensational Theology work. Have they changed the meaning of the verse?

Rom 11:26 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:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

These men have changed the word “so”, which is an adverb of manner, into the word “then”, which is an adverb of timing.
What is the “manner” of salvation in the passage? It is in the preceding verses found below.

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

In Romans chapter 11 the Apostle Paul uses the Olive Tree as a symbol of the New Covenant Church, made up of believing Israelites, and believing Gentiles, grafted together into the same tree. In the two verses above the unbelievers can be grafted back into the tree through faith in Christ. Paul provides no path to salvation outside of the New Covenant Church in the passage.

Is the “covenant” in verse 27 a future covenant with the modern State of Israel, or is it the New Covenant fulfilled for all races of people by the blood of Christ at Calvary? In order to answer this question we need to know who is “Israel”, as defined by Paul, earlier in the same letter to the Romans. What did Paul say below about “Israel” in Romans chapter 9?

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (All Israelites are not a part of faithful Israel.)
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

(Being a physical Israelite does not make a person a part of Israel of the promise.)

Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

(Only a “remnant” of Israelites shall be saved.)

Based on the verses above from Romans 9 Paul was describing the “manner” of how Israelites would be saved in Romans 11:26, instead of the timing of their salvation.

'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.
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:
For this is my covenant unto them,
when I shall take away their sins.'
(Rom 11:25-27)

* This is a direct reference to the restoration of Israel and the redemption of the nation. In Isaiah 59:20; Jeremiah 31:31-37.

BABerean2 said:-
The verse below is also often used by Dispensationalists in an attempt to make their doctrine work. Dispensationalists often insist an Israelite can be an enemy of God, and the elect at the same time.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Throughout Romans chapter 11 the Apostle Paul refers to two different groups of Israelites, one faithful, and one not faithful. Paul begins the chapter this way is Romans 11:1-5, by describing the Israelites who were Baal worshippers, in contrast to the faithful “remnant”, during the time of Elijah. Paul said there was also a faithful “remnant” during his time. Therefore, based on Romans 11:1-5, there are two different groups of Israelites in Romans 11:28. The Israelites who rejected Christ were the “they” who are the enemies of God, while the group of “they” who accepted Christ are the “election”. Paul ends the passage in the same way that he began the passage, with two different groups of Israelites.
​

​

* I will let the text be the arbiter on this matter. see Romans 11:11-16.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[BABerean2]

* This is a direct reference to the restoration of Israel and the redemption of the nation. In Isaiah 59:20; Jeremiah 31:31-37.

You have to ignore the word "now" in Hebrews 8:6-13, and in Hebrews 10:16-18, to make the claim Jeremiah 31:31-34 has not yet been fulfilled.

In the passage below the author of the Book of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 word-for-word, showing its fulfillment during the first century. The NKJV puts the Old Testament text in all uppercase letters.


Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—
Heb 8:9 NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
Heb 8:10 FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS IN THEIR MIND AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
Heb 8:11 NONE OF THEM SHALL TEACH HIS NEIGHBOR, AND NONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST OF THEM TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
Heb 8:12 FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.



Part of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted below.

Heb 10:16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR HEARTS, AND IN THEIR MINDS I WILL WRITE THEM,"
Heb 10:17 then He adds, "THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
Heb 10:18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.



Are you expecting Jesus to die again on a cross for the sin of modern Orthodox Jews?

Rom 11:27 FOR THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."


.

 

[Biblewriter]

Luk_6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Luk_6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

.

I have PROVED that EVERY accusation of falsehood you have made against me was itself false. And I have PROVED that you have REPEATEDLY stated things in a way that was DESIGNED to mislead. But your LAST act of deceptiveness was a stretch, even for you.

 

[Dan Perez]

Are all Israelites "partially" blinded now, or are part of the Israelites blinded, and part of the Israelites are not now blinded? Thousands of young Israelis are now coming to faith in Christ due to the preaching of social media and ministries like One For Israel, which is a Bible College in central Israel.
Therefore, your interpretation of the text cannot be correct.

==================

Dispensational Claim: Romans 11 proves National Israel will be saved in the future.



I have heard both John MacArthur, and John Hagee make the following statement…


“And then all Israel will be saved.” (Also found on page 349 of the book “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty” by the Jesuit, Manuel Lacunza “Ben Ezra”.)





Both MacArthur, and Hagee, are selectively quoting from the verse below in an attempt to make Dispensational Theology work. Have they changed the meaning of the verse?


Rom 11:26 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:

Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


These men have changed the word “so”, which is an adverb of manner, into the word “then”, which is an adverb of timing.

What is the “manner” of salvation in the passage? It is in the preceding verses found below.


Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?


In Romans chapter 11 the Apostle Paul uses the Olive Tree as a symbol of the New Covenant Church, made up of believing Israelites, and believing Gentiles, grafted together into the same tree. In the two verses above the unbelievers can be grafted back into the tree through faith in Christ. Paul provides no path to salvation outside of the New Covenant Church in the passage.


Is the “covenant” in verse 27 a future covenant with the modern State of Israel, or is it the New Covenant fulfilled for all races of people by the blood of Christ at Calvary? In order to answer this question we need to know who is “Israel”, as defined by Paul, earlier in the same letter to the Romans. What did Paul say below about “Israel” in Romans chapter 9?


Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (All Israelites are not a part of faithful Israel.)

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

(Being a physical Israelite does not make a person a part of Israel of the promise.)




Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

(Only a “remnant” of Israelites shall be saved.)


Based on the verses above from Romans 9 Paul was describing the “manner” of how Israelites would be saved in Romans 11:26, instead of the timing of their salvation.


The verse below is also often used by Dispensationalists in an attempt to make their doctrine work. Dispensationalists often insist an Israelite can be an enemy of God, and the elect at the same time.


Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.


Throughout Romans chapter 11 the Apostle Paul refers to two different groups of Israelites, one faithful, and one not faithful. Paul begins the chapter this way is Romans 11:1-5, by describing the Israelites who were Baal worshippers, in contrast to the faithful “remnant”, during the time of Elijah. Paul said there was also a faithful “remnant” during his time. Therefore, based on Romans 11:1-5, there are two different groups of Israelites in Romans 11:28. The Israelites who rejected Christ were the “they” who are the enemies of God, while the group of “they” who accepted Christ are the “election”. Paul ends the passage in the same way that he began the passage, with two different groups of Israelites.

.

And they are blinded and 2 Cor 3:15 says so !!

That when Moses is READ / ANAGINOSKO is in the Greek PRESENT TENSE , PASSIVE VOICE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD .

The Present tense means it is still means , it is happening NOW .

The PASSIVE VOICE , means , Christ said so ,

The INDICATIVE MOOD means it is a FACT .

dan p

 

[BABerean2]

And they are blinded and 2 Cor 3:15 says so !!

That when Moses is READ / ANAGINOSKO is in the Greek PRESENT TENSE , PASSIVE VOICE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD .

The Present tense means it is still means , it is happening NOW .

The PASSIVE VOICE , means , Christ said so ,

The INDICATIVE MOOD means it is a FACT .

dan p

Yes, and no.

The unbelievers like the Baal woshippers below are blinded, but the faithful "remnant" and the Aposlte Paul found below are not blinded.

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Rom 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.


Your selective use of the Greek only works by ignoring the passages which disagree with what you are promoting.


.

 

[readywriter]

You have to ignore the word "now" in Hebrews 8:6-13, and in Hebrews 10:16-18, to make the claim Jeremiah 31:31-34 has not yet been fulfilled.

In the passage below the author of the Book of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 word-for-word, showing its fulfillment during the first century. The NKJV puts the Old Testament text in all uppercase letters.

Hello @BABerean2,

There is no requirement to 'ignore' anything in Hebrews 8:6-13, the quoting of Jeremiah 31:31-34 by the writer of Hebrews, which I believe to have been Paul, does not give any reason to believe that Jeremiah 31:31+ was fulfilled.

Christ Jesus our risen Lord is living in the NOW: He has obtained a more excellent ministry than that of the Levitical Priesthood; He is the Mediator of a better covenant; which was established on better promises ;the days are coming when He will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. The old covenant is obsolete, it is ready to vanish away. Israel's lawless deeds He will remember no more, when He takes away their sin. This has not happened yet.

Israel is still in a state of unbelief. The New Covenant is in abeyance. If it is not in abeyance, then why are we not seeing the evidence of it as described in Heb 8:10-12:-

'For this is the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;
I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts:
and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour,
and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:
for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness,
and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.'

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[readywriter]

Yes, and no.

The unbelievers like the Baal worshippers below are blinded, but the faithful "remnant" and the Apostle Paul found below are not blinded.

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Rom 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Your selective use of the Greek only works by ignoring the passages which disagree with what you are promoting.

Hello @BABerean2,

The believing remnant were not 'blinded' as you say, but Israel as a nation was blinded. That the purpose of God for the Gentiles and for Israel itself should be accomplished.

'But their minds were blinded:
for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away
in the reading of the old testament;
which vail is done away in Christ.
But even unto this day,
when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord,
the vail shall be taken away.'
(2Co 3:14-16)

@Dan Perez was justified in quoting 2 Corinthians 3:15 to establish the continuing blindness of Israel (as a nation), by seeking to show the tenses employed in that passage. Your disparagement of a brother in Christ is not kind.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[ewq1938]