madness and the woman

[Spiritual Jew]

My problem with that is, Israel is, by definition, an "earthly entity." When we speak of "Spiritual Israel," we are talking about "earthly Israel" acting in a spiritual manner, as I see it.

Paul speaks of two different Israels in Romans 9:6-8 and he refers to one as being those who physically descended from Abraham and other as not having anything to do with whether someone physically descended from Abraham or not, but rather if they are a child of God and child of the promise. We know from passages like Galatians 3:26-29 that it is those who belong to Christ, including both Jews and Gentiles, that are the children of God and children of the promise. Using Paul's definition of who are the children of God and children of the promise leads to the conclusion that he was talking about an Israel that only consists of those people and he contrasted it with physical, earthly Israel. I don't really care what anyone calls that Israel, but Spiritual Israel seems to work well.

My problem with that is, I don't see "heavenly Jerusalem" as necessarily separated from "earthly Jerusalem," unless we are speaking of "earthy Jerusalem." We can create a comparison between heavenly Jerusalem and earthly Jerusalem in terms of spirituality or the lack thereof. "Earthy Jerusalem" is not spiritual.

But when we speak of "heavenly Jerusalem," there is not a necessary distinction between heavenly and earthly locations. To be "heavenly" is to be connected to Christ who is in heaven. But we can be connected to Christ right now, while we are on the earth. And so, we can be a "heavenly people" at the same time we are an "earthly people."

Phil 3.20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ

Scripture indicates that there is a distinction between "heavenly Jerusalem" and earthly Jerusalem.

Hebrews 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Can you see here how two different Mount Zions are referenced with the physical one that can be touched being contrasted with the heavenly one? We can at the same time safely conclude that "the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem", is also being contrasted with the physical, earthly city of Jerusalem. The heavenly Jerusalem is entirely spiritual in nature and not physical. It has no direct relation to the physical city of Jerusalem. So, I completely disagree with you on this.

The simple answer is, we *don't* see national Israel as our mother unless we are talking about national Israel as identical with Spiritual Israel. They are aligned in terms of faith, but distinguished in terms of separating out those who are rejects. Earthy Israelites are not "true Israelites." They are rejected by God, and they lose their place in the citizenship of Israel. Heavenly Israel is the only true Israel, and it has always been this way from the beginning.

So you can see here where we diverge? You see Israel in terms of its earthy distinction from heavenly Israel. I accept that this distinction is true, and yet in the context we are talking about true earthly Israel is, in fact, heavenly Israel.

I can't make any sense of what you're saying here. Oh well. Agree to disagree.

It is a matter of whether we're distinguishing true Israel from disqualified Israel or not. If we look at Israel strictly as "true Israel," then from my point of view, it is heavenly Israel or Spiritual Israel. As such, it is our "mother," having given birth to Christ our Lord and Savior.

Do you believe True/Heavenly/Spiritual Israel includes unbelievers?

I do think in terms of who the Jerusalem above is as our mother, as opposed to "earthy Israel," who represents, in context, those in Israel who are disqualified from membership in this true nation. True Israel is Heavenly Israel, but is still on earth--it is their faith that is directed to Christ in heaven. They remain on the earth, even though they are designated as a "heavenly people."

True Israel, or Spiritual Israel, is the nation Israel consisting exclusively of those who have faith and represent the true people of God. Even though they are designated a "heavenly people," they are really still on the earth, at times being represented by an entire nation dedicated to faith, and at other times of apostasy, consisting only of a very small remnant of faith.

Based on what you're saying here, are you not differentiating between two different Israels just as I do with one consisting of both believers and unbelievers and the other only consisting of believers? You seem to normally try to say there is only one Israel, so it's very difficult at times to determine what it is that you actually believe.

Regardless of how diminished the numbers of believers are in the nation, the nation is destined to become an entire nation of believers once again, when Christ comes back. True Israel will cast off all earthly Jews who disqualify themselves from that entity by their unbelief and wickedness. Only Spiritual Israel, or True Israel, is our mother. Abraham is our father, and True Israel is our mother--at least, that's how I see it right now. I can't be sure.

You again seem to acknowledge two different Israels here despite other times saying there is just one. So, I am just confused by what you believe. I appreciate that you acknowledge that you "can't be sure".

Israel can be distinguished as two, as believing and unbelieving Israel. Or it can be viewed as one, as the only True Israel.

Or it can be that there are two Israels with one consisting of believers and unbelievers where the basis for being part of it is on physical things with the other consisting only of believers on the basis only on spiritual things.

No, I agree with you that there is only one Body of Christ. Our unity consists of the faith we all have in a single Christ and in a single God. That makes us one in Christ.

So, why is that not your focus rather than God concerning Himself with the nation of Israel. If there is one body of God's people, why can't you be happy with that instead of seemingly thinking there is also another body of God's people?

The distinctions within Christianity, as we presently see it on earth, consist of a plurality of nations, separate political units which God has designed to exist like different families exist in separate houses. There is nothing inherently unchristian about a diversity of tribes and nations.

There are many Scriptures in which Israel is portrayed as "finally saved from their oppressors." The specific passages are abundantly available on the internet. You do the research, unless there are one or two of these passages that you think is relevant to our disagreement?

Again, the final salvation of national Israel is abundantly available in the Prophets. The idea that nations of God can be restored without every individual becoming a saint is the entire history of OT Israel. For example, when Israel was restored after the Babylonian Captivity, the nation was rebuilt on faith. And yet many continued to show their sinful tendencies.

You already know I completely disagree with the idea of Christian or saved nations, so I'm not going to waste time discussing that again here.

If Spiritual Israel is True Natural Israel, then Gentiles, by definition, *cannot* be included in Natural Israel! But by adoption True Israel can indeed be our spiritual mother, and Christ, her son, would be our spiritual brother (as well as Lord).

The definition of "Israel" precludes Israel including Gentile believers. We would be their children, and not their citizens.

There isn't just one definition of Israel.

Brother, I'm not presenting *your* point of view here--I'm presenting my own view and arguments! And I'm certainly not saying that you believe what I do!

You try to make claims about what Amillennialists believe and you misrepresent what we believe. That is what I have a problem with. I have no problem with you sharing your own beliefs.

Of course I've looked at how you're defining Israel, as a "Heavenly Jerusalem" and an "Earthly Jerusalem." I'm giving you counter arguments to that point of view, without the hostility that you seem to have. Can you discuss things without anger?

I won't apologize for being angry at you for misrepresenting Amillennialism. That is unacceptable.

You don't? You don't extend the definition of "Spiritual Israel" to include Gentile nations? You better explain this before we continue!

It includes both Jew and Gentile individual believers. I've indicated that many times.

So I'm right that you include Gentile believers with Spiritual Israel!

I've indicated that many times. Not sure why you are only now discovering that.

The difference between us is that you think the definition of "Spiritual Israel" necessarily excludes "Earthly Israel."

It doesn't exclude earthly Israelites since it include earthly Israelite believers.

You are using a different definition of "replacement" in our argument. You are using your own definition of "replacement" to discount the use of "replacement" as it is used by those who believe as I do.

I'm using a definition you can find in a dictionary. You are making up new definitions for words that can't be found in a dictionary, apparently.

As I use the term, "replacement" has to do with dismissing Earthly Israel for Spiritual Israel.

I'm not doing that.

You may know what *you* believe more than I do, but that doesn't mean you know Amillennialism better than I do.

But, I clearly do since I don't misrepresent it like you do.

 

[RandyPNW]

Paul speaks of two different Israels in Romans 9:6-8 and he refers to one as being those who physically descended from Abraham and other as not having anything to do with whether someone physically descended from Abraham or not, but rather if they are a child of God and child of the promise. We know from passages like Galatians 3:26-29 that it is those who belong to Christ, including both Jews and Gentiles, that are the children of God and children of the promise. Using Paul's definition of who are the children of God and children of the promise leads to the conclusion that he was talking about an Israel that only consists of those people and he contrasted it with physical, earthly Israel. I don't really care what anyone calls that Israel, but Spiritual Israel seems to work well.

I don't agree. Paul stated that there is no ethnic litmus test in qualifying for Salvation. That is all he said. He did not say ethnicity ceases to exist--on the contrary, the assumption made is that the Gospel must reach all ethnicities, including that belonging to Israel.

Rom 9.6-8 did not speak of two different Israels. Paul there is talking about who qualifies as "true Israel." This is not a matter of defining who Israel is, but rather, a matter of determining whether an ethnic Jew lives up to his spiritual heritage and calling.

This was plainly referred to throughout the giving of the Law. If Hebrews under the Law refused to actually obey the Law, they were to be "cut off." They would not stop being Hebrews or descended from Israel. Rather, they would be cut off in the sense of death or exile. They would be disfellowshipped or worse.

Scripture indicates that there is a distinction between "heavenly Jerusalem" and earthly Jerusalem.

As I already said, it is context that matters in this discussion. When distinguishing between Spiritual Israel, who is faithful to their calling, and Earthly Israel, which includes all Israelis, faithful and unfaithful, there is definitely a distinction. But this doesn't mean there isn't overlap. The part of earthly Israel that is faithful to their heavenly calling are included in "Spiritual Israel."

But in Paul's day, Earthly Israel had arrived at a certain place, which was not always where they were at. They had allowed a majority of recalcitrant, unbelieving Jews to take control and to lead Israel away from national compliance with God's Law. They came to observe that Law ceremonially, but not out of faith and practice.

And so, at that particular time in history, Earthly Israel became, for Paul, "Earthy Israel," representative of Israel as ungodly as a whole. Notwithstanding the small minority of faithful believers, "Israel" came to be characterized by Paul as the opposite of what they were called to be--Spiritual Israel. I've already shared this with you, so I won't belabor the point.

Can you see here how two different Mount Zions are referenced with the physical one that can be touched being contrasted with the heavenly one? We can at the same time safely conclude that "the city of the living God, the

I can't make any sense of what you're saying here. Oh well. Agree to disagree.

My intention has never been to coerce you into agreeing with me. It's just an honest discussion, trying to clear up any false conceptions of our position. We may understand perfectly well what each other's position is, and still disagree. No problem--these aren't cardinal Christian doctrines upon which our Salvation hangs!

Do you believe True/Heavenly/Spiritual Israel includes unbelievers?

This leads me to believe I haven't really made my position very clear yet. And I admit, against the backdrop of what many have stated about this, it's difficult for me to show what I believe. The different beliefs bleed together and confuse the distinctions.

True Israel, or Spiritual Israel, is exclusively believers in the end. Obviously, there is a process by which Earthly Israel, including many unbelievers, may join Christianity and become Spiritual Israel.

So when we're talking about Spiritual Israel, we're talking about those who ultimately will prove to be True believers. It always excludes, however, unbelievers who refuse to convert to Christianity. That's why we often get this distinction between Heavenly Jerusalem and Earthly Jerusalem because at the time Paul wrote this, Jerusalem had become apostate, and were predominantly unbelieving. They excluded themselves from what we see as Spiritual Israel.

And so we distinguish Heavenly Jerusalem and Earthly Jerusalem as Paul saw it in his own time, and even as we see it in our own time. However, there are members of "Heavenly Jerusalem" in Earthly Jerusalem today who are Christian Jews (not an oxymoron). And the promise, I believe, is that one day all of Earthly Jerusalem will become Heavenly Jerusalem in the Millennial Age (assuming, of course, that there is one).

Based on what you're saying here, are you not differentiating between two different Israels just as I do with one consisting of both believers and unbelievers and the other only consisting of believers? You seem to normally try to say there is only one Israel, so it's very difficult at times to determine what it is that you actually believe.

Yes, it's difficult to express how one designation can overlap with another designation in some way. But that is the nature of religious conversion. What begins as Earthly Jerusalem, characterized by unbelief, can end as Heavenly Jerusalem, characterized strictly by belief. And when Earthly Jerusalem remains in unbelief, it must be distinguished from Heavenly Jerusalem, where Jews are exclusively believers.

So, why is that not your focus rather than God concerning Himself with the nation of Israel. If there is one body of God's people, why can't you be happy with that instead of seemingly thinking there is also another body of God's people?

I've tried in this post to be more clear about what I believe, in contrast to how you've understood my beliefs. I hope it helps, whether you agree or not? But any questions following a wrong belief about my position will not yield much.

I am indeed happy with the unity of the Body of Christ across all ethnicities, nations, and denominations. We are very much together on this. Separating designations such as "Earthly Israel" and "Heavenly Israel" are necessary to show the progression from a carnal Jew to a spiritual Jew. And it shows where Israel is today, where they are carnal and not yet fulfilling their spiritual calling as a nation. Of course, you have to assume this will even happen if you are to understand why I do these things.

You already know I completely disagree with the idea of Christian or saved nations, so I'm not going to waste time discussing that again here.

Yes, I'm fully aware of your rejection of "Christian nations." I get this all the time, and it befuddles me (if that's a word).

You try to make claims about what Amillennialists believe and you misrepresent what we believe. That is what I have a problem with. I have no problem with you sharing your own beliefs.

I disagree. I use language you don't like because it is premised on your rejection of my definition of "Israel." You reject my definition of Israel, and so think I mischaracterize your belief. But according to my definition of Israel my characterization of your belief is accurate.

From my point of view, you do "remove Israel" from the equation. But from your point of view, you do not. We simply define "Israel" differently. I'm characterizing your belief from *my* point of view.

You deny that "Israel" is, by definition, a nation that can ever be fully and finally saved as a nation. I know you do that because you even now flatly reject any sense of a "nation of faith."

So from my point of view, you remove or redefine "Israel" as a "nation of faith. As such, from your point of view you reject "Israel" as a "carnal nation" that can never come to faith.

You see Israel as individual Jews, some of whom will become Christians and many of whom will completely reject Christianity, for themselves and for their society. So for you, "Israel" consists of Jews who can never come to faith.

From my point of view you reject what biblical prophecy says *must* happen. You reject "Israel's full Salvation as a nation." You replace that with a concept that I view as foreign to Scripture. You replace "Saved Israel" with "Israel that can never achieve national salvation." That is in essence Replacement Theology for me, from my perspective.

I won't apologize for being angry at you for misrepresenting Amillennialism. That is unacceptable.

I haven't asked for an apology.

It includes both Jew and Gentile individual believers. I've indicated that many times.

I agree. And I just stated that above. You redefine the single nation of "Israel" as a confused separation into two nations, one strictly carnal and the other strictly spiritual. You see Earthly Israel as a distinctly different or secondary Israel. That is where the "replacement" comes in, when you add a confused secondary sense of Israel, in order to void the possibility of Israel's national salvation on earth

Brother, please learn how to "disagree agreeably!" You're way too emotional over these differences.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don't agree. Paul stated that there is no ethnic litmus test in qualifying for Salvation. That is all he said. He did not say ethnicity ceases to exist--on the contrary, the assumption made is that the Gospel must reach all ethnicities, including that belonging to Israel.

Rom 9.6-8 did not speak of two different Israels. Paul there is talking about who qualifies as "true Israel." This is not a matter of defining who Israel is, but rather, a matter of determining whether an ethnic Jew lives up to his spiritual heritage and calling.

I can't make any sense at all out of what you're saying. Let's look at the passage again.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

So, we see the term "Israel" used twice in verse 6, right? I think that might be the only thing we can agree on (yet, it would not surprise me if you somehow even disagreed with that). Are you saying that the first Israel mentioned is "true Israel" and the second Israel mentioned is "true Israel" as well, which would mean you think Paul said "they are not all true Israel who are of true Israel". That makes no sense. I can't imagine that's how you read it. So, how do you read it exactly? What do you think the first Israel he mentioned represents and what do you think is the second Israel he mentioned? They can't both be true Israel.

What I've done here is color code each reference to each Israel to show how I understand Paul to be referring to two different Israels there.

The first Israel is the nation of Israel. Those in the nation of Israel are Abraham's physical descendants. They are "the children by physical descent" who are descended from Israel. Paul clearly indicated that being physical descendants of Abraham from the first Israel he mentioned (national Israel) does not make someone part of the second Israel he mentioned, but rather being spiritual descendants of Abraham makes someone part of the second Israel he mentioned.

The second Israel, unlike the first Israel, consists of those who are Abraham's spiritual children/offspring. Paul made it clear that being a physical descendant has nothing to do with being part of the second Israel he mentioned. And he indicated that it is God's children, the children of the promise, who are regarded as Abraham's spiritual offspring. And we know from passages like Galatians 3:26-29 that God's children of the promise are those who belong to Christ. As for verse 7 when Paul said it is through Isaac that Abraham's spiritual offspring are reckoned, Paul was speaking in a spiritual sense like he did here:

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

This is what Paul said to both Jew and Gentile believers, so they are the ones who are part of spiritual Israel because of being the children of the promise.

What I would appreciate is if you broke this passage down to clearly show how you interpret it the way that I believe I have done here.

This was plainly referred to throughout the giving of the Law. If Hebrews under the Law refused to actually obey the Law, they were to be "cut off." They would not stop being Hebrews or descended from Israel. Rather, they would be cut off in the sense of death or exile. They would be disfellowshipped or worse.

As I already said, it is context that matters in this discussion. When distinguishing between Spiritual Israel, who is faithful to their calling, and Earthly Israel, which includes all Israelis, faithful and unfaithful, there is definitely a distinction.

So, you do agree with me that there are two Israels and not just one? You referred to "Spiritual Israel" and to "Earthly Israel" here. I thought you have been saying there is just one Israel? Do you see Earthly Israel being contrasted with Spiritual Israel in Romans 9:6-8?

But this doesn't mean there isn't overlap.

Of course there is. Earthly Israel consists of those who are physically descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Spiritual Israel consists of those who are spiritual children of God and of Abraham, which are all who belong to Christ. Obviously, some who are physical descendants also belong to Christ. So, there's your overlap.

The part of earthly Israel that is faithful to their heavenly calling are included in "Spiritual Israel."

Right. Do we actually agree on all this, after all, or am I missing something here?

My intention has never been to coerce you into agreeing with me. It's just an honest discussion, trying to clear up any false conceptions of our position. We may understand perfectly well what each other's position is, and still disagree. No problem--these aren't cardinal Christian doctrines upon which our Salvation hangs!

I fully understand that. I have no problem with us disagreeing on those types of things that salvation doesn't depend. What bothers me about you is that someone can point out to you that you are using a term that is offensive and falsely represents their view, as I have done, and you couldn't care less. So, we can't be buddies as long as you continue to do that. But, we can still discuss things like what we're doing here.

This leads me to believe I haven't really made my position very clear yet.

Let me be real honest here. You are very hard to follow at times. At times you seem to insist there is just one Israel. Then other times you seem to agree with me that there are two Israels, which you referred to as Earthly Israel and Spiritual Israel. So, that is confusing.

And I admit, against the backdrop of what many have stated about this, it's difficult for me to show what I believe. The different beliefs bleed together and confuse the distinctions.

Let me ask you something then. Is the truth meant to be confusing? No, right? God is not the author of confusion. So, if it's difficult for you to express what you believe, to me, that raises a red flag and indicates that what you believe is likely not true. You should not have so much trouble explaining what you believe. It shouldn't be as complicated as you make it out to be.

True Israel, or Spiritual Israel, is exclusively believers in the end.

Agree, but that is also true now.

Obviously, there is a process by which Earthly Israel, including many unbelievers, may join Christianity and become Spiritual Israel.

This kind of statement is very confusing. Being part of Spiritual Israel means someone is a believer and is saved, right? Well, salvation is an individual thing. So, to talk about Earthly Israel as a whole joining Christianity and becoming Spiritual Israel makes no sense to me. When a person becomes saved they then become part of Spiritual Israel. Their physical nationality has nothing to do with it, as Paul clearly indicates in Romans 9:6-8.

So when we're talking about Spiritual Israel, we're talking about those who ultimately will prove to be True believers.

Another confusing statement. At any given time Spiritual Israel only consists of true believers. Do you agree or not? If not, please explain why not.

It always excludes, however, unbelievers who refuse to convert to Christianity.

Of course. It always excludes unbelievers, period. Only believers are part of Spiritual Israel.

That's why we often get this distinction between Heavenly Jerusalem and Earthly Jerusalem because at the time Paul wrote this, Jerusalem had become apostate, and were predominantly unbelieving. They excluded themselves from what we see as Spiritual Israel.

Yet, they were still part of Earthly Israel. So, there's two different Israels.

And so we distinguish Heavenly Jerusalem and Earthly Jerusalem as Paul saw it in his own time, and even as we see it in our own time. However, there are members of "Heavenly Jerusalem" in Earthly Jerusalem today who are Christian Jews (not an oxymoron). And the promise, I believe, is that one day all of Earthly Jerusalem will become Heavenly Jerusalem in the Millennial Age (assuming, of course, that there is one).

You already know that I completely disagree with that. You say they will become Heavenly Jerusalem? What about Gentile believers who have come to be part of the heavenly Jerusalem? (Gal 4:26, Heb 12:22-23)? They wouldn't be part of it anymore at that point?

Yes, it's difficult to express how one designation can overlap with another designation in some way. But that is the nature of religious conversion. What begins as Earthly Jerusalem, characterized by unbelief, can end as Heavenly Jerusalem, characterized strictly by belief.

That concept isn't taught anywhere in scripture. Scripture talks about heavenly Jerusalem as a current reality (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22-23), not something that earthly Jerusalem will become some day.

And when Earthly Jerusalem remains in unbelief, it must be distinguished from Heavenly Jerusalem, where Jews are exclusively believers.

I've tried in this post to be more clear about what I believe, in contrast to how you've understood my beliefs. I hope it helps, whether you agree or not? But any questions following a wrong belief about my position will not yield much.

I think you cleared it up somewhat. I indicated already what still isn't clear to me about your beliefs and what I still disagree with.

I am indeed happy with the unity of the Body of Christ across all ethnicities, nations, and denominations. We are very much together on this. Separating designations such as "Earthly Israel" and "Heavenly Israel" are necessary to show the progression from a carnal Jew to a spiritual Jew. And it shows where Israel is today, where they are carnal and not yet fulfilling their spiritual calling as a nation.

Not all of them. This is what I don't like about your approach. You lump all Jews together as if they are all the same. Yet, some of them do believe and are part of Spiritual Israel now. Those people have fulfilled their spiritual calling. You shouldn't lump them in with those who have not.

Yes, I'm fully aware of your rejection of "Christian nations." I get this all the time, and it befuddles me (if that's a word).

Not sure why it does. It's not taught in scripture. I know you see that concept in the OT, but even you have to admit that the concept is nowhere to be found in the NT. Being a Christian is an individual thing that comes about by way of personal, individual faith in Christ. It's not a corporate thing. We are all together as one in the church, but we don't all become Christians together in a mass event or anything like that. It doesn't work that way.

I disagree. I use language you don't like because it is premised on your rejection of my definition of "Israel." You reject my definition of Israel, and so think I mischaracterize your belief. But according to my definition of Israel my characterization of your belief is accurate.

At this point I'm not even sure how you would define "Israel". You made reference to Earthly Israel and to Spiritual Israel separately, so it doesn't seem that you only have one definition of "Israel". Why are you acting as if that is the case here?

From my point of view, you do "remove Israel" from the equation.

What does that even mean? I don't remove the possibility of salvation from physical Israelites, so what equation are you talking about here? You're too vague sometimes.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

But from your point of view, you do not. We simply define "Israel" differently. I'm characterizing your belief from *my* point of view.

I don't define "Israel" in only one way. As I've made clear many times, I believe there are two Israels, not just one. And it seems like you agree based on things you said in this post. So, why act as if there is only one way to define "Israel"? Which Israel are you talking about, Earthly Israel or Spiritual Israel?

You deny that "Israel" is, by definition, a nation that can ever be fully and finally saved as a nation.

Yes, I certainly do deny that. It simply makes no sense. They will somehow go from a majority rejecting Christ for the past almost 2,000 years to all of them accepting Him? That's completely unreasonable. Also, salvation is not a national thing, but rather an individual thing. That is made clear repeatedly in scripture. God is not a respecter of persons and that means one's nationality plays no part in salvation. He offers salvation to all people from all nations.

I know you do that because you even now flatly reject any sense of a "nation of faith."

Of course I do. The concept isn't taught anywhere in scripture. Shouldn't we base our beliefs on scripture?

So from my point of view, you remove or redefine "Israel" as a "nation of faith. As such, from your point of view you reject "Israel" as a "carnal nation" that can never come to faith.

I believe many people of the nation of Israel can come to faith just as has been the case for the past almost 2,000 years. Maybe not as high of a percentage of them as we would hope, but still a lot of them have. Including 3,000 of them on the day of Pentecost alone. I don't reject Israel in any way, shape or form. I reject the concept of national salvation.

You see Israel as individual Jews, some of whom will become Christians and many of whom will completely reject Christianity, for themselves and for their society.

Are there not individual Jews in Israel who are Christians and many who are not? What in the world is wrong with seeing it that way when it so obviously is that way?

So for you, "Israel" consists of Jews who can never come to faith.

That is false. I believe all of them can come to faith. But, as we've seen for the past almost 2,000 years, not all of them do. A majority of them don't. That's just the reality of the situation. But, I would never say that there are any Jews who can never come to faith. All of them can, but not all of them will, if the past almost 2,000 years is any indication.

From my point of view you reject what biblical prophecy says *must* happen. You reject "Israel's full Salvation as a nation." You replace that with a concept that I view as foreign to Scripture. You replace "Saved Israel" with "Israel that can never achieve national salvation." That is in essence Replacement Theology for me, from my perspective.

You are defining a term, replacement theology, differently than pretty much everyone else who uses that term. So, you cause confusion by doing that. What everyone else means by that term is that someone who promotes replacement theology is someone who believes that the church has replaced the nation of Israel in God's plans. I don't believe that as I don't believe the nation of Israel has been replaced by the church. I believe they are separate entitites without one replacing the other. So, you using that term to describe my beliefs is unacceptable to me because of how everyone else besides you understands the meaning of that term. Is it too much to ask you to use a different term that isn't already taken to mean something else than how you define it?

I agree. And I just stated that above. You redefine the single nation of "Israel" as a confused separation into two nations, one strictly carnal and the other strictly spiritual.

Talk about confusion. Earlier you referenced Earthly Israel in contrast to Spiritual Israel. Isn't that two different Israels? Just when I think maybe I'm understanding your view, you make it confusing again.

You see Earthly Israel as a distinctly different or secondary Israel.

It clearly is. Paul makes that clear in Romans 9:6-8.

That is where the "replacement" comes in, when you add a confused secondary sense of Israel, in order to void the possibility of Israel's national salvation on earth

Please use a different term than "replacement theology". It's aready taken and no one else defines it the way you do.

Brother, please learn how to "disagree agreeably!" You're way too emotional over these differences.

I don't care about our differences. I can handle disagreement. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. I disagree with almost everyone here on at least a few things. But, what I don't like is that you use an offensive term that misrepresents my beliefs (based on how a vast majority understand that term) and you couldn't care less about that.

What if I used a term that everyone else defined differently than me and applied it to your beliefs even though the way the term is understood by everyone else misrepresented what you believe. What would you think of that?

 

[keras]

One verse simply blows apart any ideas of a Jewish conversion and redemption"
Matthew 8:12 But those who are born into the Kingdom will be thrown out into the dark......

THEN this will happen - Matthew 8:11 Many, I tell you; will come from the East and the West and sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob........

 

[RandyPNW]

I can't make any sense at all out of what you're saying. Let's look at the passage again.

Why should we do that? Shouldn't you rather understand 1st what my response was?

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

So, we see the term "Israel" used twice in verse 6, right?

Right. It's like saying I have 10 children and 5 of them are really foster children. Though they are all truly my children, the "true biological children" number only 5. The rest are not "true biological children."

So my argument above, to be clear, is that Paul is showing that even though all are biological descendants of Israel, they are not true, or faithful children, if they don't live by God's laws. "True Israel" is virtually synonymous with "Faithful Israel."

Paul saw "True Israel" as a proper refinement of "Israel," because unfaithful Israelites were, under the Law, to be cut off from Israel. So "True Israel" is not, for Paul, a 2nd "Israel." Rather, it is a narrowing of qualifications for who can continue in Israel, even though all begin as Israelites. I hope that is clear enough for you?

What I've done here is color code each reference to each Israel to show how I understand Paul to be referring to two different Israels there.

The first Israel is the nation of Israel. Those in the nation of Israel are Abraham's physical descendants. They are "the children by physical descent" who are descended from Israel. Paul clearly indicated that being physical descendants of Abraham from the first Israel he mentioned (national Israel) does not make someone part of the second Israel he mentioned, but rather being spiritual descendants of Abraham makes someone part of the second Israel he mentioned.

The second Israel, unlike the first Israel, consists of those who are Abraham's spiritual children/offspring. Paul made it clear that being a physical descendant has nothing to do with being part of the second Israel he mentioned. And he indicated that it is God's children, the children of the promise, who are regarded as Abraham's spiritual offspring. And we know from passages like Galatians 3:26-29 that God's children of the promise are those who belong to Christ. As for verse 7 when Paul said it is through Isaac that Abraham's spiritual offspring are reckoned, Paul was speaking in a spiritual sense like he did here:

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

This is what Paul said to both Jew and Gentile believers, so they are the ones who are part of spiritual Israel because of being the children of the promise.

What I would appreciate is if you broke this passage down to clearly show how you interpret it the way that I believe I have done here.

I can do that, but I'm going to run out of space--I don't want to make any single post too long, or we will lose people. I want others to be interested, since we both are asking and answering relevant questions.

You do properly describe two different groupings, but I can't call them completely distinct groups since I find the 2nd group, Spiritual Israel, to consist of some from the 1st group, Earthly Israel. Spiritual Israel is, quite simply, those from Earthly Israel who accept and embrace Christianity. They are True, or Faithful, Israel, whereas the 1st group, Earthly Israel, contains both faithful and unfaithful Israelites.

Today, the vast majority of Earthly Israel consists of unfaithful Israelites, or at best, ignorant Israelites, because they have not yet accepted Jesus. Only a small remnant of them have. So I would call these two groupings overlapping members, since some in the 1st group become members of the 2nd group.

How then can I call them "2 Israels" from this perspective? Paul did seem to do this, however, at a time when Earthly Israel was predominantly unbelieving. It was not that they didn't include Christians nor that they couldn't become Christians but that at the time the predominant number were not becoming Christians.

Separating them into two groupings was sort of like Paul was using a grammatical convention, setting up two different groups to show, by predominance, their different qualities, the 1st dominated by unbelief and the 2nd by belief. But in reality, Paul fully recognized that the 2 groups he presented were actually the same Israel being pruned and then refined and defined by those who came to be true to their faith.

And this is still true today. We may depict Earthly Israel as unbelieving and Spiritual Israel as the believers among the Jews. But I can't separate the groups so much as to forbid the 1st group from converting to participate in the 2nd group!

And in reality, there are, of necessity, Christians in the 1st group. By definition, I would say that Spiritual Israel must also identify them with Earthly Israel as well!

They just don't identify with the part of Earthly Israel that is carnal, and that is the majority of them! Spiritual Israel is just a small fraction of Earthly Israel, and does not include Christian Gentiles (unless they marry into the Jewish nation).

Paul did make it sound as the 1st group was purely carnal and damned for all time. But he did so only because those who made the predominant choice to reject Christianity would be cursed unless they repented and converted to Christianity. Paul was not denying they could convert, but warning them that their destiny was cursed if they determined to continue down that road.

Nor was Paul denying that Spiritual Israel belonged to Earthly Israel. He just saw them as a small minority in Israel. Christianity would come to the entire nation later, after the rebellious among them had been cut off.

I'm going to have to continue this tomorrow---getting tired.

 

[Timtofly]

Rather, they would be cut off in the sense of death or exile. They would be disfellowshipped or worse.

They would be in sheol instead of Abraham's bosom.

Do you think people in heaven/Paradise divide up into Nations or have no nationality whatsoever?

Seems only nations are concerned with the genetics of Adam's dead corruptible flesh and/or life on earth. It is hinted at in Revelations, that nations will be represented on earth for all time, but only on the earth. But the church in Paradise are never given that nationality distinction.

Even so in the OT, one would convert to Israel and still be one nation. They would leave their ethnicity at the door so to speak. There was no difference between them. The church carried on, in that ethnicity really did not matter, one way or the other, but as the church one still kept to the melting pot that was their nation. Some nations not so willing to add outsiders to that "melting pot".

 

[RandyPNW]

They would be in sheol instead of Abraham's bosom.

Not having studied these terms I can't really comment. To me, they seem irrelevant. Being with God or not is the main issue. "

Abraham's bosom" suggests a belonging to "Spiritual Israel," a true heir of Abraham's faith. "Sheol" is just the place where the dead go in the form of spirits before they are given legal access to God for eternity.

What transition took place from OT saint in Sheol to NT saint I don't know? I just know that they came to be assured, by Christ, that they were given legal access to the Tree of Life. And I know they continued to remain in the presence of God, which at least for Jews could be called "Abraham's bosom."

Do you think people in heaven/Paradise divide up into Nations or have no nationality whatsoever?

"Heaven" is a term that represents God's omnipotent presence, as distinct from the plane of this earth. As such, it is an invisible location--everywhere for God but in places for people who in death continue to live with him. Heaven is only in part on earth now because there remains on earth "hostile territory"--territory hostile to God's rule.

When Heaven comes to earth by making earth a place where Heaven also fully exists, it may or may not have nations. I've not been told yet.

We do know that the full number of earth's population will have been met, no longer necessitating different genders. So it seems there will be major physical changes.

And since families will no longer exist in the sense of "having children," tribes and nations may not be necessary either? But it may also be that we are grouped into nations and families, regardless of their being no need for children? I think people will always necessitate organization and unique groupings.

I just don't know. If you know relevant Bible passages, I'd be very interested?

Seems only nations are concerned with the genetics of Adam's dead corruptible flesh and/or life on earth. It is hinted at in Revelations, that nations will be represented on earth for all time, but only on the earth. But the church in Paradise are never given that nationality distinction.

Even so in the OT, one would convert to Israel and still be one nation. They would leave their ethnicity at the door so to speak. There was no difference between them. The church carried on, in that ethnicity really did not matter, one way or the other, but as the church one still kept to the melting pot that was their nation. Some nations not so willing to add outsiders to that "melting pot".

God's prophetic word demands that there be actual "nations" for Abraham's spiritual posterity. So these distinctions are not qualifying factors for Salvation, but they are necessary for Fulfillment.

Israel began as families and tribes merely as a step towards nationality, which is the thing God promised Abraham. He promised him the Israeli nation and also many nations. So national distinctions are important in history, and are a part of God's word of promise to Abraham.

 

[keras]

God's prophetic word demands that there be actual "nations" for Abraham's spiritual posterity

Jesus refers to that nation in Matthew 21:43.
It will be the nation that bears the proper fruit, in other words; the faithful Christian peoples.

No amount of waffle and verbose pronouncements can change this Bible truth.

 

[RandyPNW]

Jesus refers to that nation in Matthew 21:43.
It will be the nation that bears the proper fruit, in other words; the faithful Christian peoples.

No amount of waffle and verbose pronouncements can change this Bible truth.

That isn't properly "truth." You are mismanaging Jesus' statement. He was speaking of what qualifies a nation to be a proper "nation of God." A true godly nation is one that bears fruit. This has zero to do with talking about God's promise to Abraham that he would have "nations" plural.

 

[keras]

That isn't properly "truth." You are mismanaging Jesus' statement. He was speaking of what qualifies a nation to be a proper "nation of God." A true godly nation is one that bears fruit. This has zero to do with talking about God's promise to Abraham that he would have "nations" plural.

Classic waffle.
Jesus was talking to the Jews; The Kingdom would be taken from them and nowhere it said to be returned to them.
The Kingdom would be given to another nation, the people group that bears the fruit of the Spirit; Galatians 5:22, That group is not yet a cohesive nation, but many Prophesies describe the time when we Christians will be Gods people in His holy Land. Isaiah 62:1-6, Romans 9:24-27....in the very same place ...... The nation born in one day, the Day the Lord clears the way for we Christians to travel to our rightful heritage. Isaiah 66:8-14

I know this concept is difficult for most to comprehend, despite it being clearly Prophesied. Isaiah 11:11
This is because the Lord has locked people who choose to believe false teachings, into their delusions.
Renouncing those unbiblical ideas, is the only way to get to an understanding of the truth of Gods plans for His people, in these end times.
Otherwise; just remain in the dark, 1 Thess 4:4-5 and when the Lord does act. you will not know which way to turn. Luke 21:25=26

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Right. It's like saying I have 10 children and 5 of them are really foster children. Though they are all truly my children, the "true biological children" number only 5. The rest are not "true biological children."

So my argument above, to be clear, is that Paul is showing that even though all are biological descendants of Israel, they are not true, or faithful children, if they don't live by God's laws. "True Israel" is virtually synonymous with "Faithful Israel."

This is a confusing analogy. Who represents "True Israel" in your analogy? Your "true biological children"? In Romans 9:6-8, being part of "True Israel" is not based on being biological children or physical descendants of Abraham but rather on being spiritual children of Abraham, so it doesn't make sense to correlate your "true biological children" with "True Israel". Who do your foster children represent in this analogy?

Paul saw "True Israel" as a proper refinement of "Israel," because unfaithful Israelites were, under the Law, to be cut off from Israel. So "True Israel" is not, for Paul, a 2nd "Israel." Rather, it is a narrowing of qualifications for who can continue in Israel, even though all begin as Israelites. I hope that is clear enough for you?

Nope. Not clear at all. It's not as if those who are not part of True Israel are no longer descendants of the nation of Israel. Even after being cut off, they were still natural descendants of national Israel. You're acting as if they were not Israelites in any sense at that point, but that is not the case. They were still Israelites in the sense of being physical descendants of the nation of Israel. True Israel and national Israel are two separate entities. You're trying to make it as if people could no longer be considered physical descendants of the nation of Israel (no longer considered Israelites in any sense), but that is not true.

You do properly describe two different groupings, but I can't call them completely distinct groups since I find the 2nd group, Spiritual Israel, to consist of some from the 1st group, Earthly Israel. Spiritual Israel is, quite simply, those from Earthly Israel who accept and embrace Christianity. They are True, or Faithful, Israel, whereas the 1st group, Earthly Israel, contains both faithful and unfaithful Israelites.

I agree and have said the same thing. But, while some people can be part of both groups, they are still two distinct groups. One is Spiritual Israel which being part of has nothing to do with who or where someone descended from physically ("it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children"). Being part of Earthly Israel is entirely dependent and who and where someone descended from physically (Abraham and the nation of Israel).

Today, the vast majority of Earthly Israel consists of unfaithful Israelites, or at best, ignorant Israelites, because they have not yet accepted Jesus. Only a small remnant of them have. So I would call these two groupings overlapping members, since some in the 1st group become members of the 2nd group.

How then can I call them "2 Israels" from this perspective?

You are calling them 2 Israels. If it's one Israel then there is no basis for referring to "Spiritual Israel" and "Earthly Israel" separately the way you have been doing. How can you not call them 2 Israels? Think about the ones who are not part of Spiritual Israel. They are part of Earthly Israel, right? So, they are not part of both Israels. How is that not 2 Israels? If there was one Israel then you could say they are either part of Israel or not. But, instead, they are not part of one Israel, but are part of another Israel.

Paul did seem to do this, however, at a time when Earthly Israel was predominantly unbelieving. It was not that they didn't include Christians nor that they couldn't become Christians but that at the time the predominant number were not becoming Christians.

Separating them into two groupings was sort of like Paul was using a grammatical convention, setting up two different groups to show, by predominance, their different qualities, the 1st dominated by unbelief and the 2nd by belief. But in reality, Paul fully recognized that the 2 groups he presented were actually the same Israel being pruned and then refined and defined by those who came to be true to their faith.

I disagree. You falsely say that I believe in replacement theology, but it appears that you are the one who believes in that because you have Spiritual Israel replacing Earthly Israel in your view. In my view, I keep them separate. Not in the sense that one can't be part of both, but in the sense that one is based on being a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and one is based on being a spiritual descendant.

And this is still true today. We may depict Earthly Israel as unbelieving and Spiritual Israel as the believers among the Jews. But I can't separate the groups so much as to forbid the 1st group from converting to participate in the 2nd group!

Look at what you're doing here. You are referring to two different groups. Why is that okay for you to do that, but not me? I never said that no one from the first group can be part of the second group. You're arguing with a straw man here. The difference in our views is that I see them as two distinct groups with both of them having the requirement of being a physical descendant of Abraham and the nation of Israel, but I don't. I don't believe one's nationality has anything to do with being part of True/Spiritual Israel. Paul certainly did not indicate such a thing. He specifically said "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring".

And in reality, there are, of necessity, Christians in the 1st group. By definition, I would say that Spiritual Israel must also identify them with Earthly Israel as well!

This contradicts what Paul said in Romans 9:6-8. Again, he said there: "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring". He made it clear that being a physical descendant has nothing to do with being part of True Israel but you are saying it does have something to do with it.

They just don't identify with the part of Earthly Israel that is carnal, and that is the majority of them! Spiritual Israel is just a small fraction of Earthly Israel, and does not include Christian Gentiles (unless they marry into the Jewish nation).

How does it not include Christian Gentiles when Paul indicated that being part of Spiritual Israel has nothing to do with one's physical nationality and being a physical descendant of Abraham, but rather has to do with being a spiritual child of God/the promise/Abraham?

The following passage includes Gentile Christians among those who are the children of God/the promise/Abraham:

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Both Christian Gentiles and Christian Jews fit the description of True Israel given in Romans 9:6-8. Once again, Paul said this in that passage: "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children". So, it's not based on being a physical descendant at all even though you try to make it so. Instead, "it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring". Are Gentile Christians not among "the children of the promise" and "Abraham's offspring"? Paul said they are.

Paul did make it sound as the 1st group was purely carnal and damned for all time.

Not all of them were purely carnal. He said a remnant of them believed and were saved (Romans 11:1-7). And he hoped to help save some of the rest who had been cut off and blinded (Romans 11:11-14).

But he did so only because those who made the predominant choice to reject Christianity would be cursed unless they repented and converted to Christianity. Paul was not denying they could convert, but warning them that their destiny was cursed if they determined to continue down that road.

Of course he was not saying they could not convert. Otherwise, it would make no sense that he said he hoped to lead some of them to salvation (Romans 11:14).

Nor was Paul denying that Spiritual Israel belonged to Earthly Israel.

Where did he ever indicate such a thing?

He just saw them as a small minority in Israel.

He saw them as being part of a separate Israel and never indicated that Spiritual Israel is a part of physical Israel. Your view completely contradicts what Paul wrote in Romans 9:6-8.

Christianity would come to the entire nation later, after the rebellious among them had been cut off.

That isn't taught anywhere. You are making salvation partly dependent on one's physical nationality here and that contradicts many scriptures.