|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rapture?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Steve L: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 11. January 2017, 11:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
2nded. But the trunk of the tree will sprout instantaneously.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Yes, he now refers to the event as 'the day of the Lord' - but there is NO reason in the text to think that is a different event to the rapture he has talked of in the previous chapter
Except Steve, that the term, 'Day of the Lord' always refers in scripture to the 'Time of Jacob's trouble'. This is always a metaphor for the day of judgement when God will appear to stop Israel being wiped out. Viz 'This is the time of Jacobs trouble but he will be saved out of it' Jer 30:7. See also Joel 1:15 and 2:1.I hear what you say regarding those who 'wake or sleep' and agree that it suggests a link back to ch 4 but disagree that it means he has not changed the topic to another subject.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
But when the NT talks about the Church in the universal sense it is talking about the body of believers from all time, variously referred to as a "bride", a "city", a "kingdom" and a "priesthood" (as you now admit, if not from 1 Peter then at least from Revelation), and it seems to me that this body is made up of all believers of all time.
That is where the story ends up in Revelation, with praise from one crowd from every nation tribe and tongue and one city coming down out of Heaven in triumph after Babylon, with all its confusion, division (cf Babel), oppression, injustice, and exploitation, has fallen.
Would you have an eschatology without that prospect? By preserving different categories of believer, that is what dispensationalism offers.
No, I wouldn't. However, a great unified body of believers with a common basis of salvation is not necessarily one without discriminated categories. Think of a crowd of people of different ethnicities. They all have a common humanity. Regarding dispensationalism, I do not think you have seriously considered its claims.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
2nded. But the trunk of the tree will sprout instantaneously.
Whatever.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding dispensationalism, I do not think you have seriously considered its claims.
I would not have spent nine pages disputing them if I had not.
quote:
Except Steve, that the term, 'Day of the Lord' always refers in scripture to the 'Time of Jacob's trouble'. This is always a metaphor for the day of judgement when God will appear to stop Israel being wiped out. Viz 'This is the time of Jacobs trouble but he will be saved out of it' Jer 30:7. See also Joel 1:15 and 2:1.I hear what you say regarding those who 'wake or sleep' and agree that it suggests a link back to ch 4 but disagree that it means he has not changed the topic to another subject.
Nobody, including Steve, has said that Paul has not changed the topic to another subject (or to untangle the negatives, nobody is arguing that he has remained on exactly the same subject).
Where we disagree is that Steve and I (at least) argue that in the "change of subject" introduced by peri de Paul is discussing two aspects of the same event that are not separated in time. I cannot improve on Steve's explanation of this above and his conclusions in this respect.
There is nothing in the text of 1 Thes 4-5 itself, linguistically, to suggest that the events of 1 Thes 5 take place chronologically after those of 1 Thes 4. It is your hermeneutic that says that, not the text itself.
quote:
a great unified body of believers with a common basis of salvation is not necessarily one without discriminated categories.
Once again, I have no argument that there are "discriminated categories" in the sense that the Bible says they are from "every nation tribe and tongue".
But that is not really what you mean by the term.
According to you, these “discriminated categories” mean, firstly, that some of these categories are somehow saved by faith whilst also being under Mosaic Law which demands Mosaic observance: quote:
saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance.
If you hold that some believers must also obey the Mosaic law to be saved then you don't believe in a common basis of salvation. You believe in a different basis for some categories of believer.
Secondly, you appear not to actually believe in a great unified body of believers, because your “discriminated categories” place some believers outside it.
Here you disputed my alleged assumption that “the saved Jews under Mosaic law are in the same category as NT believers” objecting that “If so then they are part of the bride of Christ”.
You later reiterated that quote:
OT saints are not part of the church so not part of the bride
In Revelation this "great unified body" is depicted, inter alia, in language echoing that of Hebrews 12, at the end of all things, as a city and as a bride coming down out of heaven.
There is no question in Revelation of any other "category".
This "great unified body of believers with a common basis of salvation" is what is commonly understood as the Church (universal).
You allege some believers don't form part of it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
nothing in the text of 1 Thes 4-5 itself, linguistically, to suggest that the events of 1 Thes 5 take place chronologically after those of 1 Thes 4. It is your hermeneutic that says that, not the text itself.
No, that is incorrect. It is a fair linguistic assumption that they do. He says does he not if I paraphrase it.
" Don't worry about the dead, they are not going to miss the show, they will rise first and then WE will join them and be with the Lord. However, concerning the times and epochs, you already realise what the programme is. The day of the Lord is going to surprise them but not you guys cos (v9 )we are not destined for wrath.."
Clearly this is suggesting we miss the Day of the Lord. But hey, how can this be? Only if the rapture comes first..
Once again, I deny anything is imposed on the text.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I refer you to Steve Langton for a rebuttal of that.
[ 12. January 2017, 10:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
This "great unified body of believers with a common basis of salvation" is what is commonly understood as the Church (universal).
You allege some believers don't form part of it
Correct and no I do not.
If you accept a term 'church universal' as the overall group of all believers for all past history, present and future history, then I am fine with that but point out this is not a scriptural term with that qualification. I think of the church as God's elect,all of them, in this present dispensation.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What's a dispensation?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you accept a term 'church universal' as the overall group of all believers for all past history, present and future history, then I am fine with that
But not, apparently, with them all having the same basis for salvation as pointed out in my post before last: you state, emphasis mine, that some are quote:
saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance
This also seems to be behind your insistence on "circumcision for believing Jews" on the basis of its importance as a covenant. quote:
I think of the church as God's elect,all of them, in this present dispensation.
Revelation 21:2-3 says: quote:
And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
‘See, the home of God is among mortals.
He will dwell with them;
they will be his peoples,
and God himself will be with them'
Who do you think forms this bride/are the inhabitants of this city? All of God's people, or just some of them?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I know you are a former RC turned conservative evangelical, Jamat, but I have to say I find it rather odd that you might see the 19th century as some kind of period in which theology began to flower - as opposed to what, I dunno - the first four centuries of the Christian era, the middle ages, the 16th century ...
Most of the stuff we all believe, whether we are RC, Protestant or Orthodox, was thrashed out during the first few centuries.
Once we start to focus in on the various traditions within Christianity as a whole then we start to see different periods and movements where theologies specific to those traditions, flourished ...
So, for instance, the 16th and 17th centuries were important in the development of Reformed theology, with the later 19th century and the 20th century being a fertile period for further iterations of that.
Equally, if we were to look at the 19th century we'd find, as you've already suggested, that it saw both the rise of German Higher Criticism and the kind of fundamentalist theology that you clearly favour - in particular ideas of scriptural inerrancy - the whole Hodge, Warfield and Princeton thing ...
There will have been parallel fertile periods within all the other traditions too - the RCs might cite the medieval Schoolmen, the Orthodox might cite the Russian emigres of the 1920s and so on ...
You seem to have this very monolithic view whereby things 'go wrong' at some point only for Luther to correct some aspects and then for Darby, Schofield and others to put the spotlight on eschatological aspects that everyone else - the Reformers or the RCs - had overlooked for whatever reason.
I'm suggesting it's not quite so simple as that.
But hey ho ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
But not, apparently, with them all having the same basis for salvation as pointed out in my post before last: you state, emphasis mine, that some are
quote:
saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance
Funny how many of my posts point out the exact same thing regarding the basis of salvation.
As OT saints were looking forward to Christ,though of course the did not know it, their Mosaic observance was a marker of their faith. However, it was their faith rather than the act of observance that was of value to the Lord.
Please do not deliberately misrepresent things. It is not honest.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
Except Steve, that the term, 'Day of the Lord' always refers in scripture to the 'Time of Jacob's trouble'.
I'm looking into this and some of the other points raised; right now I'm having some trouble working out how the "Day of the Lord" can "Always" refer to the "Time of Jacob's trouble" when the phrase "Time of Jacob's trouble" only occurs once in Scripture?
And further, the exact phrase "Day of the Lord" doesn't occur in Jeremiah 30 either.
I do in fact agree that this probably does refer to the same 'Day of the Lord' as in I Thess 5; but again, Jeremiah writes long before the revelation in the NT of the breaking down of the 'Jew/Gentile' barrier and the incorporation of the Gentiles into God's people in a supranational way. And I see nothing therefore in Jeremiah to say that this must refer to a destiny for Israel separate to the general ultimate destiny of the people of Jesus' kingdom.
Jeremiah refers in 30; 9 to how they shall "serve the LORD (YHWH) their God and David their king, who I shall raise up for them" - that is, the Messiah, that is Jesus, who as God incarnate is both 'the LORD/YHWH' and 'David their king'.
Yet Jesus' kingdom is a unity of everyone who loves the truth (and) listens to my voice", as he said in John 18. It is a kingdom in which 'In Christ' there is neither Jew nor Gentile but one faithful people. Jeremiah doesn't explain that because it was not yet fully revealed - though as Paul points out, more than a bit hinted at, for example in the way the promise to Abraham is to also bless all the nations.
Host note: fixed code
[ 12. January 2017, 21:22: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
But not, apparently, with them all having the same basis for salvation as pointed out in my post before last: you state, emphasis mine, that some are
quote:
saved by faith as a consequence of being part of the faithful remnant of that time which demanded Mosaic observance
Funny how many of my posts point out the exact same thing regarding the basis of salvation
Yes, but I cannot for the life of me square your explanation with having to comply with Mosaic observance, which you also affirm and have not really explained.
If there is an obligation over and above faith in Christ, whether in the full knowledge of his person and work after the fact or "by anticipation", then the basis of salvation is not the same.
Every time I challenge you on the outworkings of faith and its inheritance, you repeat that everyone is saved on the same basis, and yet you, with dispensationalism, insist on separate categories of believer.
What distinguishes them?
Why can't they all be part of the bride/city coming down out of heaven?
Another way of clarifying this might be for you to explain, as Martin has requested, just what you understand by "dispensation".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What's a dispensation?
Well, quoting a source for this:
A dispensation as defined by dispensationalists is:
Literally, it means a 'stewardship' (Clarence E Mason jr Dean, Philadelphia College of the Bible says:
"A divinely established stewardship of a particular revelation of God's mind and will which is instituted in the first instance with a new age and which brings added responsibility to the whole race of men or that portion of the race to whom the revelation is particularly given by God"
" associated with the revelation on the one hand are promises of reward or blessing for those responding in the obedience of faith while on the other hand there are warnings of judgement upon those who do not respond in the obedience of faith to that particular revelation"
"However, though the time period (age) ends, certain principles of the revelation (dispensation or stewardship) are often carried over into succeeding ages because God's truth does not cease to be truth, and these principles become part of the cumulative body of truth for which man is responsible in the progressive unfolding revelation of God's redemptive purpose. "
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
"those who do not respond in the obedience of faith to that particular revelation"
sounds like a "different basis of faith" to me.
quote:
"However, though the time period (age) ends, certain principles of the revelation (dispensation or stewardship) are often carried over into succeeding ages because God's truth does not cease to be truth"
such as, if you are a Jew you must be circumcised in "faith obedience" carried over from the Abrahamic dispensation?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
yes, but I cannot for the life of me square your explanation with having to comply with Mosaic observance, which you also affirm and have not really explained
Your problem is why I said Jewish converts like Timothy were circumcised by Paul. You of course think that was a one off abberation. I do not think it would be in scripture if it was but leaving that aside for a moment I do acknowledge I can only make sense of this the way Fruchtenbaum does.
He would say that Timothy's salvation did not depend on his circumcision. The basis of his salvation is the same as ours, grace through faith. An analogy for us would be believers baptism. We are converted before we are baptised. However, we submit to baptism as a marker of what has happened spiritually. But why circumcise Timothy? Well, he was Jewish so subject to the physical as well as the spiritual components of the Abrahamic covenant. He therefore submitted to circumcision at the hands of Paul as a sign as a marker of his new spiritual identity which in his case included his ethnicity.
Now, I admit I found this reasoning a bit hard to handle but that is as clear as I can make it. Fruchtenbaum would say that there is a difference between Jewish and gentile believers ONLY in the sense that they are heirs of the PHYSICAL blessings of the Abrahamic covenant as well as the SPIRITUAL ones. Gentiles are heirs of every spiritual blessing as in Eph 1:3. However, Jewish believers are also heirs of the real estate in the coming kingdom.
The whole thinking is predicated on the idea that the Abrahamic covenant is both still fully in effect and made in the first instance with believing Israel.
[ 12. January 2017, 21:57: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
You couldn't have put it much clearer than that.
Which is why I have repeatedly argued that you make a distinction between categories of believer in terms of inheritance and the outworking of their faith.
To my mind this distinction runs counter to the entire thrust of the NT, the latter culminating with one bride/city coming down out of heaven, in marked contrast (Hebrews 12, Galatians 4, et al) to the earthly Jerusalem which is superseded by the New Covenant.
There is no prima facie case for Paul's circumcision of Timothy being in order to fulfil some obligation under the Abrahamic covenant (i.e. it does not say so in the text in so many words), so we have to look for clues as to what was going on elsewhere.
In Galatians 5:11 Paul says that if he were preaching circumcision there would be no offence of the cross.
I take that to mean that the cross did away with the need for anyone (saved on the basis of Christ's work...) to fulfil any requirement of the Law.
I simply cannot square this verse with any ongoing 'covenant obligation' to circumcise anyone, and I am far from sure how you do, unless it is by admitting a different basis of salvation for the Jews.
We do however read of Paul's relentless enthusiasm to make himself all things to all men in order to preach the gospel. 1 Cor 9:19-20 says quote:
For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.
Paul, a Jew, reiterates that he is "free with respect to all" and "not under the law", but that as necessary he becomes "as a Jew in order to win Jews" for the purposes of evangelism.
Theologian FF Bruce is quoted as saying "Paul is so free that he is not a slave even of his own freedom".
Paul was an utter pragmatist (sometimes alarmingly so to my mind; I suspect Timothy felt the same way!) who could submit himself to the law as it suited his purpose to evangelise.
To my mind this passage provides all the explanation that is required of Paul's circumcision of Timothy. It was not some covenantal requirement, it was sheer pragmatism so as not to unecessarily offend the Jews he was evangelising.
What is more, at the Council of Jerusalem, James concluded (Acts 15:19) that "we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." In circumcising Timothy, Paul is applying exactly the same principle 'in reverse' to the Jews. He circumcised Timothy so there was not an additional, unnecessary difficulty in winning over the Jews who were turning to the Gospel.
I'm just glad not to have been in Paul's mission team.
[ 13. January 2017, 05:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Paul circumcized Timothy to give him credibility with a Jewish audience, to validate, acknowledge him as Jewish which he was by being born to a Jewess. It's so simple.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The Salvation Army dropped the filioque clause in Russia to make itself acceptable to the Orthodox Church.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
So you agree that Paul was displaying pragmatism, not "covenant obedience", in circumcising Timothy?
And on that note, since you've returned to the thread, would you care to elaborate on what you meant here by quote:
Paul (...) does speak about all Israel being saved - and they are not saved by grace but by covenant
I've been waiting for an answer since November!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So you agree that Paul was displaying pragmatism, not "covenant obedience", in circumcising Timothy?
And on that note, since you've returned to the thread, would you care to elaborate on what you meant here by quote:
Paul (...) does speak about all Israel being saved - and they are not saved by grace but by covenant
I've been waiting for an answer since November!
Ooops sorry, I forgot about that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Firstly, I would affirm that (Romans 10 v 12) 'There is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him.'
That's the level playing field. That's the Gospel.
But, while, according to Paul and Jesus, just because you're Jewish doesn't automatically make you a child of God, Paul does say of Israel that (Romans 9 v 4) 'theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the law, the temple worship and the promises.'
He carries on to say in 11 v 28 that 'As at as the Gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your (the Gentile Romans) account; but as far as election is concerned they are loved on account of the patriarch, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.'
So, we can say so far, Israel will be saved by the calling of God through Patriarchal covenant, as long as they continue to call on the name of the Lord (YHWH) and when they recognise Jesus as their Messiah and call upon his name. Jews disobedient to the covenant, as Jesus said, could be replaced by the stones instead!
Talking of 'replacement.' The Gentiles, according to Paul, have the fact that the Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, to thank.
Romans 11 v 11:
'Did they (Israel) stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious... their loss means riches for the Gentiles.'
Paul goes on to talk about branches and grafting in and says, (v 25), Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in.'
So, that, I believe is the grace of God that has brought the Gentiles into the Kingdom.
The patriarchal covenants were never given to Gentiles; they are not for us - they are given irrevocably (what an excellent word) to Israel with a challenge to keep them. I believe, with Paul, that all Israel will be saved.
That doesn't mean the nation of Israel under Mr Netanyahu, Israel is all the Jews who are faithful to the irrevocable old covenant and will one day see their true Messiah, and the Gentiles who are grafted in by grace.
The old covenant is fulfilled in Christ and the Jews will see that fulfilment for them (Zechariah 12 v 10). The covenant will make them, basically, Messianic Jews. That is their election promise.
Gentiles cannot be part of that old covenant fulfilled by Christ, they are grafted into the Kingdom by grace trough faith in Christ - the covenant requirements don't apply to us, but grace through faith certainly does.
As far as the Kingdom is concerned there is/will be no Jew or Gentile because all are there by covenant or grace and all in the name of Jesus.
As far as the nation of Israel that is there today, that's in fulfilment of the prophecy prior to the return of Jesus because the land itself is part of the irrevocable covenant made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel.
[ 13. January 2017, 15:33: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks. I think you missed this more recent question:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So you agree that Paul was displaying pragmatism, not "covenant obedience", in circumcising Timothy?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Israel will be saved by the calling of God through Patriarchal covenant
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Can you explain that in more detail?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ...
If anyone is saved they are saved by the grace of God. That applies to all of us.
The dilemma the Apostle Paul had, and which he was attempting to reconcile, is on what basis Gentiles can be grafted in alongside believing Israel - if we can put it that way.
He has to find a way - if I can put it that way without it sounding like he's deviously juggling things - of accepting and affirming that without dissing the Patriarchs and what we'd call the Old Testament covenant/s ...
Hence, 'what advantage is there in being a Jew? Much in every way ...'
And yes, they are 'loved on account of the Patriarchs' ... well, actually, like everyone else they are loved unconditionally, but due to their special role in the economy of God the whole panoply of Patriarchs, Law and Prophets - if you like - is deserving of honour and respect.
Do not boast over the old 'natural' branches, they were removed so that you could be grafted in artifically and against nature as it were - that's the gist.
Tragically, the Christian Church down the centuries hasn't always behaved that way. It has 'boasted' over those earlier branches, and worse, engaged in outright persecution and pogroms. A hideous blot upon us all.
But whether this has any bearing on how 'Messianic Jews' should conduct themselves is another issue. It's not up to me to determine the extent to which they continue with practices which others may consider to be 'Judaising' ... and it's a tricky issue to resolve. Not all Jewish Christians feel the need to retain some of those cultural or ceremonial aspects. Others do. Some Gentile Christians somehow feel the need to adopt quasi-Jewish figures of speech and to blow shofars and what have you ...
Again, I'd suggest that's all a secondary issue, except where it may start to impinge on 'gospel liberty' as it were - but that's always a tricky area to define ...
And yet another reason for treading warily around this whole area.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thanks. I think you missed this more recent question:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So you agree that Paul was displaying pragmatism, not "covenant obedience", in circumcising Timothy?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Israel will be saved by the calling of God through Patriarchal covenant
Can you explain that in more detail?
Yes, if Timothy was a Gentile, he didn't need to be circumcised - for which most of us Englishmen are grateful. I can't speak for my American brothers ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The text says 'As far as the Gospel is concerned they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned they are loved on account of the Patriarchs.'(Romans 11 v 28)
I take that to mean that whilst they have rejected the Gospel of Jesus as the Messiah (until, of course, they recognise the one they have pierced and accept him), because they are living under the covenants given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, they are loved by God accordingly: they are his elect and chosen people.
When Jesus returns as Messiah, under the covenantal promises, Israel will be saved because now their adherence to those patriarchal covenants will be validated.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Err, right... so you seem to acknowledge something Jamat steadfastly doesn't, i.e. according to you Jews, at least in the OT, are not saved on the same basis as NT Christians?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Err, right... so you seem to acknowledge something Jamat steadfastly doesn't, i.e. according to you Jews, at least in the OT, are not saved on the same basis as NT Christians?
I think it might be more accurate to say that the Gentiles are not saved n the same basis that the Jews are intended to be. The intended model was for the tree to grow and fill the earth, Israel was intended to be the evangelistic people of God.
But because they rejected their messiah, the Gentiles were drafted in. Our Gentile salvation is an extra way, another way.
It'll all work out in the end. Salvation is only through Jesus - the Messiah. The Jews will see that one day.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
which is why I have repeatedly argued that you make a distinction between categories of believer in terms of inheritance and the outworking of their faith
This is true I think but what is not at issue is the basis of salvation, value to God or value of the spiritual inheritance. The differences are, if you like in terms of function based on gifting such as someone is more gifted in one area such as music than someone else but the someone else may be better ar sport. Overall, God bestows according to his choice.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Mudfrog:
Right, I can at least understand your take on dispensationalism, even if I disagree with it.
(I'm not going to rehash this all over again, but in summary I think the original tree is not the Jewish nation, but those who through the ages have been made righteous through faith - as Abraham was before even the covenant of circumcision and God was already hinting at the blessing of all nations through him).
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It'll all work out in the end. Salvation is only through Jesus - the Messiah. The Jews will see that one day.
That is the most eirenic thing that's been posted on this thread for a long time!
[ 13. January 2017, 19:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
I think it might be more accurate to say that the Gentiles are not saved n the same basis that the Jews are intended to be. The intended model was for the tree to grow and fill the earth, Israel was intended to be the evangelistic people of God.
But your answer is yes really? I think Paul teaches God's foreknowledge and providence very strongly for this reason. He says 'It is not as though the promises of God have failed'.
I think what we find hard to factor in is that this life and epoch is not where it all ends. There is a future kingdom at the back of Paul's theology. (And a new dispensation) 🙂
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
what is not at issue is the basis of salvation, value to God or value of the spiritual inheritance.
What in your estimation happens to an OT individual who, for the sake of the argument, does not obey the law, may not even be circumcised, but has placed their faith in God for his righteousness? Are they saved or not? Does it make any difference if they are an ethnic Jew?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I think it might be more accurate to say that the Gentiles are not saved n the same basis that the Jews are intended to be.
But your answer is yes really?
How can you take what's clearly a "no" from Mudfrog (the two groups are not saved on the same basis) and suggest it is a "yes"??
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Mudfrog:
Right, I can at least understand your take on dispensationalism, even if I disagree with it.
(I'm not going to rehash this all over again, but in summary I think the original tree is not the Jewish nation, but those who through the ages have been made righteous through faith - as Abraham was before even the covenant of circumcision and God was already hinting at the blessing of all nations through him).
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It'll all work out in the end. Salvation is only through Jesus - the Messiah. The Jews will see that one day.
That is the most eirenic thing that's been posted on this thread for a long time!
Is that good?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well it was while it lasted...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well it was while it lasted...
Oh, what changed?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Nothing on your part.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
what is not at issue is the basis of salvation, value to God or value of the spiritual inheritance.
What in your estimation happens to an OT individual who, for the sake of the argument, does not obey the law, may not even be circumcised, but has placed their faith in God for his righteousness? Are they saved or not? Does it make any difference if they are an ethnic Jew?
Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.
I didn't ask for examples.
I asked the following three questions with regard to "basis of salvation": quote:
What in your estimation happens to an OT individual who, for the sake of the argument, does not obey the law, may not even be circumcised, but has placed their faith in God for his righteousness?
quote:
Are they saved or not?
quote:
Does it make any difference if they are an ethnic Jew?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.
I didn't ask for examples.
I asked the following three questions with regard to "basis of salvation": quote:
What in your estimation happens to an OT individual who, for the sake of the argument, does not obey the law, may not even be circumcised, but has placed their faith in God for his righteousness?
quote:
Are they saved or not?
quote:
Does it make any difference if they are an ethnic Jew?
I don't know.Yes. No.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
So if it makes no difference, why are you so insistent on OT Jews being in a separate category/dispensation?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So if it makes no difference, why are you so insistent on OT Jews being in a separate category/dispensation?
Me? Not a problem for me. I don' think dispensations and categories are the same thing. Dispensations I tried to define above when asked.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I ask you a "why" question and you answer "not a problem". My head hurts.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.
Um... even if you had been asked for examples and they served some purpose in the discussion, you would have to give male examples. Circumcision was never required for females, not even those who were Jews from birth, let alone non-Jews.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Two egs come to mind, Rahab and Ruth. Both non Jews, both in the genealogy of Christ, presumably both uncircumcised.
Um... even if you had been asked for examples and they served some purpose in the discussion, you would have to give male examples. Circumcision was never required for females, not even those who were Jews from birth, let alone non-Jews.
Yes, I knew that.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So if it makes no difference, why are you so insistent on OT Jews being in a separate category/dispensation?
Me? Not a problem for me. I don' think dispensations and categories are the same thing. Dispensations I tried to define above when asked.
OK, I am not so insistent about the categories and no one can change the dispensation they live under.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
I think what we find hard to factor in is that this life and epoch is not where it all ends. There is a future kingdom at the back of Paul's theology. (And a new dispensation) 🙂
There is a future kingdom at the back of any Christian theology worth speaking of - but are we talking here about the 'New Heavens and New Earth' after the Judgement, or about the more controversial and still intermediate 'Millennium'? And what 'new dispensation' if not the same as the 'future kingdom'?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jamat;
quote:
I think what we find hard to factor in is that this life and epoch is not where it all ends. There is a future kingdom at the back of Paul's theology. (And a new dispensation) 🙂
There is a future kingdom at the back of any Christian theology worth speaking of - but are we talking here about the 'New Heavens and New Earth' after the Judgement, or about the more controversial and still intermediate 'Millennium'? And what 'new dispensation' if not the same as the 'future kingdom'?
Dan 2:44 describes it. What do you think the message is there?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I am not so insistent about the categories and no one can change the dispensation they live under.
It seems to me that you have been pretty insistent up till now, but never mind. Let's move on.
When John has a vision of the new Jerusalem/bride coming down out of heaven at the end of the age, is that all of God's people from all ages or just part of it?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I am not so insistent about the categories and no one can change the dispensation they live under.
It seems to me that you have been pretty insistent up till now, but never mind. Let's move on.
When John has a vision of the new Jerusalem/bride coming down out of heaven at the end of the age, is that all of God's people from all ages or just part of it?
Various scriptures 2Cor11:2, Eph 5:25-27,Rev19:6-9, Rev21:9-22:5 are relevant. Paul in 2Cor 11 says I espoused you to one husband. In Eph 5 he again mentions that Christ has given himself for the church as a husband for a wife. In Rev 19:6-9, a clear distinction is made between the bride and those who attend the marriage supper.
The answer to your question is clearly that distinct groups are delineated according to these scriptures. I am not pretending to understand any of the HOW questions here but you can read them yourself and come to your own conclusions.
[ 14. January 2017, 18:54: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
