The difference between the rapture of the Church and the second coming of Jesus

[Biblewriter]

The point of Genesis 17:12, Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9, Romans 11, et al; is that from the very beginning of covenant history, the conditions for God's acceptance have only and ever been compliance with His covenant requirements, which have always been faith and obedience.

Yes. And Ezekiel 20 very clearly teaches that, when God finally brings all Israel back home, he will meet them at the border and purge the rebels from their midst, explicitly saying of these rebels that "they shall leave the land where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel."

But the only ones he will so bring back are the actual descendants of the ancient nation of Israel.

 

[Biblewriter]

For about 1800 years the "Church" was understood to be a body made up of individuals who place their faith in Christ.

Through the use of some very strange logic you now seem to be claiming that modern Jews will place their faith in Christ, but will not be a part of the Church, during a future time period.

Actually this same differentation was taught in the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) which has survived to the present day, which is the last 12 chapters of the very famous five volume work by Irenaeus, titled, "Against Heresies."

As I have already posted the proof that Irenaeus made this distinction, I am not going to bother to post it again for you.

 

[BABerean2]

Actually this same differentation was taught in the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) which has survived to the present day, which is the last 12 chapters of the very famous five volume work by Irenaeus, titled, "Against Heresies."

As I have already posted the proof that Irenaeus made this distinction, I am not going to bother to post it again for you.

And you have also insisted that Irenaeus taught the pretrib doctrine, even though there is more than one interpretation of his writings.'

Do you think Irenaeus also tried to ignore the New Covenant ?

.

 

[jgr]

Yes. And Ezekiel 20 very clearly teaches that, when God finally brings all Israel back home, he will meet them at the border and purge the rebels from their midst, explicitly saying of these rebels that "they shall leave the land where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel."

But the only ones he will so bring back are the actual descendants of the ancient nation of Israel.

So you concur that up to this moment in time, Abraham's DNA has never had any covenant significance to God; and it will continue into the future to have no covenant significance to God; until the time of Ezekiel 20, whereupon it suddenly will have (covenant?) significance to God?

 

[Biblewriter]

So you concur that up to this moment in time, Abraham's DNA has never had any covenant significance to God; and it will continue into the future to have no covenant significance to God; until the time of Ezekiel 20, whereupon it suddenly will have (covenant?) significance to God?

Abraham's DNA always had covenant significance to God, and always will. But the rebellion of any individual will cancel that covenant relationship in regards to himself. (or herself)

 

[jgr]

Abraham's DNA always had covenant significance to God, and always will. But the rebellion of any individual will cancel that covenant relationship in regards to himself. (or herself)

According to Genesis 17:12:
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

The circumsized child who was of the seed of Abraham, and the circumsized child who was not of the seed of Abraham, were both included under the same covenant.

The covenant drew no distinction in covenant promises between the child who was of the seed of Abraham, and the child who was not of the seed of Abraham.

Thus genetics were not a condition or criterion of the covenant.

Thus the genetics of the child who was of the seed of Abraham were not more significant than those of the child who was not of the seed of Abraham.

Nor have the genetics of anyone who is of the seed of Abraham ever been more significant than the genetics of anyone who is not of the seed of Abraham.

 

[jgr]

.

 

[Biblewriter]

According to Genesis 17:12:
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

The circumsized child who was of the seed of Abraham, and the circumsized child who was not of the seed of Abraham, were both included under the same covenant.

The covenant drew no distinction in covenant promises between the child who was of the seed of Abraham, and the child who was not of the seed of Abraham.

Thus genetics were not a condition or criterion of the covenant.

Thus the genetics of the child who was of the seed of Abraham were not more significant than those of the child who was not of the seed of Abraham.

Nor have the genetics of anyone who is of the seed of Abraham ever been more significant than the genetics of anyone who is not of the seed of Abraham.

This is incorrect at a basic level. Every male of the household, whether or not he had Abraham's DNA, was to be circumcised. But the covenant contained no promises to anyone who did not have Abraham's DNA.

 

[BABerean2]

This is incorrect at a basic level. Every male of the household, whether or not he had Abraham's DNA, was to be circumcised. But the covenant contained no promises to anyone who did not have Abraham's DNA.

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mat 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
Mat 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
Mat 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
Mat 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

Both Rachab and Ruth were grafted into Israel, through faith, which is the same faith found in Hebrews chapter 11.

The amount of Jacob's DNA was cut in half at Rachab the Cannanite, and then it was cut in half again at Ruth the Moabite.
Did Jesse have Jacob's DNA? Yes. But not much of it.

As Brother jgr has pointed out many times, Abraham's DNA is now found in populations of people all over the world, who do not practice modern Orthodox Judaism.
Modern Judaism is not Old Testament Judaism, since it is based on the Babylonian Talmud.

Sammy Davis Jr. was a man of African heritage, who became an Orthodox Jew.
How much of Abraham's DNA would be found in the body of Mr. Davis?

The connection between the DNA of Abraham and that of modern Orthodox Jews is of no Biblical significance, based on Matthew 1:1, and Matthew 3:9, and Galatians 3:16, and Titus 3:9.

Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham, first foretold in Genesis 3:15.

Nobody alive on earth today has a relationship to God, based on who their parents would be.
(1 John 2:22-23)

.

 

[jgr]

This is incorrect at a basic level. Every male of the household, whether or not he had Abraham's DNA, was to be circumcised. But the covenant contained no promises to anyone who did not have Abraham's DNA.

And your supporting Scripture for that is?

What would be the purpose of being circumsized, the external sign of the covenant relationship, if there was no covenant relationship? God would be guilty of false advertising.

That is incorrect at every level. God's purpose and intention for Israel as His people was for them to evangelize the surrounding unbelieving nations and bring them into covenant relationship with Himself. In this they were markedly unsuccessful, but Scripture still does bear witness to its occurrence (Leviticus 19:33-34).

Your contention is that such individuals would not share in the blessings and benefits of that covenant relationship.

This means that effectively they would not be in true covenant relationship at all.

That's about as incorrect as it gets.

You still refuse to acknowledge that God's covenant conditions have only, ever, and always been faith and obedience. God slew circumsized pedigreed Israelites by the thousands when they disbelieved and disobeyed.

The racialization of God's covenants is one of dispensationalism's most egregious heterodoxies.

 

[jgr]

This is exactly what God did in the case of Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was also a child of Abraham, but God chose only Isaac to be counted as Abraham's "seed." (Genesis 21:12, Romans 9:7)

The real significance of God's choice of Isaac had nothing to do with genetics. Rather, Isaac was the "child of promise", a product of the faith and obedience of Abraham and Sarah. Faith, because both Abraham and Sarah believed God's promise that Abraham would sire a son even though both of them were well beyond the point of physical capability. (Hebrews 11:11-12) Obedience, because Abraham was willing to obey God's instructions to sacrifice Isaac, in apparent violation of His own promise. Yet in further faith he obeyed to the point where God's intervention was elicited. (Hebrews 11:17-19). God's response was to honor all three of them by choosing Isaac's lineage to be that through which Messiah would come.

Hebrews 11
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

We then further see Isaac, the "child of promise", continue his parents' spiritual legacy to also become a spiritual progenitor of those of faith and obedience in and to Christ -- His Church -- His "children of promise" heirs:

Romans 9:7-8
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
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.
Galatians 4:28
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.

Thus Isaac, in the full tradition of his parents Abraham and Sarah, continued their legacies of faith and obedience, to the benefit of us all who follow in their spiritual footsteps.

 

[Biblewriter]

Nobody alive on earth today has a relationship to God, based on who their parents would be.
(1 John 2:22-23)

.

And if you ask any Dispensationalists, he will ell you that that is absolutely correct. Stop pretending that we teach things we do not teach. The blessing of a nation. as such, and the salvation of an individual, are two entirely different things.

 

[Biblewriter]

God did not make even one promise to Abraham and his descendants, that included anyone who was not his descendant. But God excluded even some of Abraham's descendants from the promise, because they did not share their father's faith.

This is unquestionably true and 100% correct. As several of you wish to deny this obvious truth, I am not going to continue this pointless discussion.

 

[BABerean2]

God did not make even one promise to Abraham and his descendants, that included anyone who was not his descendant. But God excluded even some of Abraham's descendants from the promise, because they did not share their father's faith.

This is unquestionably true and 100% correct. As several of you wish to deny this obvious truth, I am not going to continue this pointless discussion.

Luk 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Luk 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Luk 2:31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
Luk 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luk 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
Luk 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

Either Simeon was wrong, or you are wrong.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Luk 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Luk 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Luk 2:31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
Luk 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luk 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
Luk 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

Either Simeon was wrong, or you are wrong.

.

Simeon was not speaking to Abraham. Over and out.

 

[jgr]

God did not make even one promise to Abraham and his descendants, that included anyone who was not his descendant

You are invited to cite any Scripture which explicitly or implicitly excludes nonethnic Israelites who were in covenant relationship with God, from the blessings and benefits of that covenant.

But God excluded even some of Abraham's descendants from the promise, because they did not share their father's faith.

Absolutely, and more. Disbelief and disobedience were always covenant-breaking conditions resulting in exclusion from covenant blessings and benefits. Worse, they could be, and on various occasions were, extensively deadly (Exodus 32:28, Numbers 16:49, 1 Samuel 4:10, 2 Chronicles 13:17).

 

[Biblewriter]

You are invited to cite any Scripture which explicitly or implicitly excludes nonethnic Israelites who were in covenant relationship with God, from the blessings and benefits of that covenant.

You are demanding scriptures that EXCLUDE non-descendants of Abraham from the promise. That is an intellectually dishonest DODGE. The truth is, that God never, even once, told Abraham that his promises extended to ANYONE other than his descendants. Over and out.

 

[jgr]

You are demanding scriptures that EXCLUDE non-descendants of Abraham from the promise. That is an intellectually dishonest DODGE. The truth is, that God never, even once, told Abraham that his promises extended to ANYONE other than his descendants. Over and out.

Did God's fulfilled land promise to Israel below include both ethnic and nonethnic Israelites?

Or were the nonethnic Israelites sidelined and prevented from possessing the land?

Joshua 21
43 And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

 

[BABerean2]

You are demanding scriptures that EXCLUDE non-descendants of Abraham from the promise. That is an intellectually dishonest DODGE. The truth is, that God never, even once, told Abraham that his promises extended to ANYONE other than his descendants. Over and out.

Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

.