Is "Christian Zionism" an Oxymoron?

[BABerean2]

But two separate sets of promises were clearly and explicitly made to Old Testament (Israelite) saints and to New Testament (Christian) saints. When you deny this, you are denying scripture that is both clearly and explicitly stated.

Once a person comes to understand that the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, what you are claiming above falls apart.

All attempts to ignore these passages clearly reveal who is denying scripture.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

Once a person comes to understand that the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, what you are claiming above falls apart.

All attempts to ignore these passages clearly reveal who is denying scripture.


.

These scriptures have zero bearing on the promises made, in explicit words to "the fathers" of Israel. And even after the New Covenant had already been effect or many years, the Holy Spirit still explicitly said that "the promises" pertained to Paul's "brethren according to the flesh, who are Israelites." There is simply no way around this scripture, which was explicitly stated under the New Covenant.

 

[BABerean2]

These scriptures have zero bearing on the promises made, in explicit words to "the fathers" of Israel. And even after the New Covenant had already been effect or many years, the Holy Spirit still explicitly said that "the promises" pertained to Paul's "brethren according to the flesh, who are Israelites." There is simply no way around this scripture, which was explicitly stated under the New Covenant.

Why would you think the New Covenant is not the promises?

Look at Galatians 3:16.

The New Covenant is first found in Genesis 3:15.



.

 

[Biblewriter]

Why would you think the New Covenant is not the promises?

Look at Galatians 3:16.

The New Covenant is first found in Genesis 3:15.



.

Because "the promises" pertained SPECIICALLY and EXPLICITLY to paul's
countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites," rather than to those who were trusting in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[BABerean2]

Because "the promises" pertained SPECIICALLY and EXPLICITLY to paul's
countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites," rather than to those who were trusting in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Who was Peter talking to on the Day of Pentecost?

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:


Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:


Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Who was Peter talking to on the Day of Pentecost?

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:


Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:


Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

.

Peter was speaking TO the same group Paul was talking ABOUT. And a comparison of these two messages, both of which were delivered under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and both of which were delivered under the New Covenant, is what CLEARLY shows that your interpretations CANNOT be correct.

I am speaking of things the Holy Spirit EXPLICITLY said, in plain words. And your are imagining that YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the MEANINGS of other things the SAME Hly Spirit also said, nullify what HE EXPLICITLY said.

As you simply refuse to admit the unquestionable truth of this fact. This has degenerated, as ALL discussions with you always do, into simply a childish argument. So I am not going to continue this pointless argument.

 

[jgr]

Because "the promises" pertained SPECIICALLY and EXPLICITLY to paul's
countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites," rather than to those who were trusting in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If Paul believed that the enumerated blessings in Romans 9:4 conferred any particular New Covenant advantage on Israel after the flesh, then his opening reactions v. 2-3 are certainly enigmatic. Why all of his angst and anguish?

A moment of reflection reveals the the reason.

The enumerated blessings were those received and experienced by Israel, but under the old covenant.

All of fleshly Israel's promises, blessings, benefits, and advantages under the old covenant could not purchase its redemption and salvation under the New.

That could only occur in Christ under the New Covenant in His Blood.

That is why the New Covenant identifies Christ, and those who are in Christ, as the sole beneficiaries and heirs of the promises: Romans 2:28-29; 9:6-8; 8:16-17; Galatians 3:16,28-29; 4:28; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Hebrews 1:1,2.

Knowing that only a remnant of his countrymen would believe, Paul's anguish can be well understood.

 

[Biblewriter]

All of fleshly Israel's promises, blessings, benefits, and advantages under the old covenant could not purchase its redemption and salvation under the New.

That could only occur in Christ under the New Covenant in His Blood.

What you never seem to understand is that every Dispensationalist I ever knew about (with the exception of John Hagee, which, as I stated earlier, the rest of us do not consider a real Dispensationalist) agrees completely with your statement I highlighted above.

The blessings promised to those who compose Israel after the flesh, were promised them during the time of the Old Covenant, but they were not made under the Old Covenant. Indeed, they went back much further that that, having been first made to Abraham, then to Isaac, and then to Jacob. And the Old Covenant was not instituted until the time of Moses.

The blessings promised in the Old Covenant, as opposed to simply during the time of the Old Covenant (which are two different things) were all conditional. While the ancient promises, which were made before the time of the Old Covenant, and the promises of a future restoration, that were made during the time of the Old Covenant were unconditional. These unconditional promises of a future restoration were made to the nation of Israel, to the two sub-nations of Judah and Ephraim, to the twelve tribes of Israel individually named, to the sons of Zadok, and to the families of the huses of David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei.

But these unconditional promises did not eve involve eternal salvation. They were only about a physical restoration of the physical nation of Israel to its physical ancient homeland. And to a restored national relationship with their God

Now neither a nation nor a family can be eternally saved. As we often say in the current day, "God has no Grandchildren." Even so, even though the nation, as such, and numerous named families within that nation, will be restored to their God, the only way any individual within that nation, or within any of those families, will receive eternal salvation is through a living, personal faith in the blood of Christ shed at Calvary.

What I have stated here is what all real Dispensationalists believe and teach. So your objection is totally invalid.

Your problem is that you do not want to believe that this physical restoration of the nation of Israel, so very explicitly and repeatedly promised in the scriptures, will actually take place. So you rely on your chosen interpretations of scriptures that do not actually say what you choose to interpret them to mean. And then you use those interpretations as an excuse for denying the explicitly stated promises of a God who cannot lie, and who is always faithful.

 

[jgr]

What you never seem to understand is that every Dispensationalist I ever knew about (with the exception of John Hagee, which, as I stated earlier, the rest of us do not consider a real Dispensationalist) agrees completely with your statement I highlighted above.

The blessings promised to those who compose Israel after the flesh, were promised them during the time of the Old Covenant, but they were not made under the Old Covenant. Indeed, they went back much further that that, having been first made to Abraham, then to Isaac, and then to Jacob. And the Old Covenant was not instituted until the time of Moses.

The blessings promised in the Old Covenant, as opposed to simply during the time of the Old Covenant (which are two different things) were all conditional. While the ancient promises, which were made before the time of the Old Covenant, and the promises of a future restoration, that were made during the time of the Old Covenant were unconditional. These unconditional promises of a future restoration were made to the nation of Israel, to the two sub-nations of Judah and Ephraim, to the twelve tribes of Israel individually named, to the sons of Zadok, and to the families of the huses of David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei.

But these unconditional promises did not eve involve eternal salvation. They were only about a physical restoration of the physical nation of Israel to its physical ancient homeland. And to a restored national relationship with their God

Now neither a nation nor a family can be eternally saved. As we often say in the current day, "God has no Grandchildren." Even so, even though the nation, as such, and numerous named families within that nation, will be restored to their God, the only way any individual within that nation, or within any of those families, will receive eternal salvation is through a living, personal faith in the blood of Christ shed at Calvary.

What I have stated here is what all real Dispensationalists believe and teach. So your objection is totally invalid.

Your problem is that you do not want to believe that this physical restoration of the nation of Israel, so very explicitly and repeatedly promised in the scriptures, will actually take place. So you rely on your chosen interpretations of scriptures that do not actually say what you choose to interpret them to mean. And then you use those interpretations as an excuse for denying the explicitly stated promises of a God who cannot lie, and who is always faithful.

Why did you not quote the remainder of my post?

None of its verses refer to anything regarding a "physical restoration of the physical nation of Israel to its physical ancient homeland".

All New Covenant promises are fulfilled and inherited only in and by Christ, and those who are in Christ.

The New Covenant/Testament is an Everlasting Covenant/Testament, never to be replaced by the old covenant, or any portion of it. That is the very essence of the definition of a Covenant/Testament. (Hebrews 9:15-17)

If you concur with that, then you and I are in agreement.

 

[Biblewriter]

Why did you not quote the remainder of my post?

None of its verses refer to anything regarding a "physical restoration of the physical nation of Israel to its physical ancient homeland".

All New Covenant promises are fulfilled and inherited only in and by Christ, and those who are in Christ.

The New Covenant/Testament is an Everlasting Covenant/Testament, never to be replaced by the old covenant, or any portion of it. That is the very essence of the definition of a Covenant/Testament. (Hebrews 9:15-17)

If you concur with that, then you and I are in agreement.

I concur completely with the portion of your statement that I highlighted in red. But you are simply refusing to admit that there were also promises of a physical restoration of a physical nation and physical families, which were not conditional, and which were explicitly stated in very plain language. To deny that these explicitly stated physical promises will most certainly be kept, is to make God a liar.

 

[jgr]

But you are simply refusing to admit that there were also promises of a physical restoration of a physical nation and physical families, which were not conditional, and which were explicitly stated in very plain language.

Not in the New Covenant Will and Testament. They are explicitly excluded.

Suppose someone named you in his will, and then, still of sound mind, before passing away, updated his will and excluded you. What would be your probability of winning a court challenge that you should be re-included in the new will because you were in the old will?

How about exactly zero?

Christ was of perfectly sound mind when He wrote His New Covenant Will and Testament.

And physical/national Israel ain't in it.

Christ and His Church -- believers of all ethnicities -- are.

They and they alone.

 

[BABerean2]

I concur completely with the portion of your statement that I highlighted in red. But you are simply refusing to admit that there were also promises of a physical restoration of a physical nation and physical families, which were not conditional, and which were explicitly stated in very plain language. To deny that these explicitly stated physical promises will most certainly be kept, is to make God a liar.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Not in the New Covenant Will and Testament. They are explicitly excluded.

Suppose someone named you in his will, and then, still of sound mind, before passing away, updated his will and excluded you. What would be your probability of winning a court challenge that you should be re-included in the new will because you were in the old will?

How about exactly zero?

Christ was of perfectly sound mind when He wrote His New Covenant Will and Testament.

And physical/national Israel ain't in it.

Christ and His Church -- believers of all ethnicities -- are.

They and they alone.

We have beat this to death here. Your claim that they are explicitly excluded in the New Covenant is demonstrably false, but I will present the evidence of that falsehood in a new thread.

 

[BABerean2]

Looking at DNA science and its application to the claims of Christian Zionism.


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.


Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.



Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

.

 

[jgr]

We have beat this to death here. Your claim that they are explicitly excluded in the New Covenant is demonstrably false, but I will present the evidence of that falsehood in a new thread.

Have we missed this? I've seen nothing yet.

 

[BABerean2]

We have beat this to death here. Your claim that they are explicitly excluded in the New Covenant is demonstrably false, but I will present the evidence of that falsehood in a new thread.

We also look forward to you showing what you have written in your books about the New Covenant, when you post this new thread...

.