Does the Bible Teach A Spiritual Israel?

[praise_yeshua]

You seem to have completely miss what Jesus said Himself. He said that Jerusalem would not see Him again (in other words Jerusalem WILL see Him again), until they say "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord", which is to say, they would not see Him again until they proclaim Him King. I'm not sure how you miss things like this. Jesus will come to Israel (Zechariah, other prophets, and Revelation attest to this), and God WILL fulfill His covenants, despite your belief that He will not. (Abrahamic, Davidic, new, etc.) Not the Mosaic covenant, that was temporary and Israel broke it. If God will not fulfill the covenants/promises He made with the fathers, and others, what faith/trust can we have that God will fulfill the new covenant?

The Kingdom is not eternal. The Kingdom presented in the Old Testament is not presented as eternal, but age-during. The English words do not portray it properly. The Kingdom presented is not the eternal state, but prior. Revelation presents it as the Millennial Kingdom. The Old Testament presents it as the Messianic Kingdom. Daniel presents it as that Kingdom which supplants the time of the Gentiles. It completely removes it from existence. If there is anything to be learned from God's prophecy to Pharaoh, interpreted by Daniel, there are no words wasted. No imagery out of place. Every piece of imagery had a meaning. In the same way, in Daniel, each part of the prophecy to Nebuchadnezzar had meaning. When that rock destroys the statue, God is clear. The times of the Gentiles will end, and the Messianic Kingdom begin.
"44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces."

I'm glad you said the kingdom you're preaching is not Eternal. I appreciate that.

Why are you preaching a temporal kingdom? There are plenty of them.

Forever is indefinite such as Daniel speaking to Nebuchadnezzar (same word used), Oh king, live forever. It is also translated as the past, antiquity, etc. such as "the kings in past days," Paul speaks of this kingdom in saying that once Jesus has defeated the final enemy (death), He will return the Kingdom to the Father. When is death finally defeated? Revelation 20 "14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." Conveniently for me, this is right after the Millennial Kingdom ends.

As for th passage itself:
" 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

You're referencing death being destroyed. Not some idea of a temporal kingdom vanquishing all of humanity.

You're conflating far too many things here to even make sense of what you're saying.

As far your reference to "you shall not see me again".... The reference is very different in Luke than Matthew. You're losing context of when Jesus spoke those words in Matthew. Luke is very clear. Jesus said those words earlier in his ministry.

Those words were fulfilled during the advent of Jesus Christ. Read it for yourself.

Joh 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

[armylngst]

No. That is way God wanted it.

So many things wrong with what you just said.......You've learned God through the lens of Calvinism. That view limits your understanding.

Can you explain how it is wrong? Besides, I'm not a calvinist, I am calvinistic. I was antagonistic towards Calvinism until one day, God opened my eyes to understanding. Now it makes perfect sense. Very logical. You just need to find someone who can explain it to you properly. This TULIP stuff is not helpful. Calvinists don't like how I put things, because it doesn't fit in their tiny boxes.

God didn't choose you individual before the foundation of the world. The Divine Person of Jesus Christ existed before this world was ever formed. This world was formed for His glory. HE was chosen before the foundation of the world "Incarnate" to express His full Divine nature in the weakness of flesh. You can't accept these facts. HE was chosen. You were not. HE is the goal. You're not. As close as you can get to what I believe is found in the teach some have referenced as Corporate Election. I believed it before someone decided to "define" Corporate Election. If you love Jesus Christ, you'll love Him no matter the "Glory" you believe you'll get from Him.

Ephesians 1
"To the saints who are [c]at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [d]Him. In love 5 [e]He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the [f]kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Paul is so clear here. There is more, but this really should be enough. Just as He chose us (to the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus, and Paul) in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world. In Christ, we are to be holy and blameless before Him. Doesn't that sound just like sanctification that comes before glorification? In the Young's literal translation (I like it because it is a point for point literal translation), it places verse 5 before verse 4. Verse 5 in YTL starts as:
"5 having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,"

So verse 4 happened after verse 5. Having foreordained us to the adoption of sons... He chose us in him before the foundation of the world. It is possible that the english grammer used just now is not reflected in the greek, but I look at it as it is translated here. And Paul is speaking of individuals. If you understood the sovereignty of God, and understand that God will not under any circumstance surrender His sovereignty, such as by bowing to you and your interpretation over His, you would understand that this is God's right by His position as Creator. He can do as He pleases, and not only that, He did do as He pleases. "according to the good pleasure of His will". Even Paul understands this. I like to look at this simply as... He felt like it. And the intention of His will is kind, because God didn't have to do this at all.

The teaching of Individual Election is nothing more than a ego driven theology that promotes no one but the person claiming they've "been chosen". You have the same problem with what you believe about "Israel".

No. That isn't how it works. Even Schofield understood. He said something like, until he sees a roll call of the elect, he will continue to preach, "Whosoever will..." No one knows who has been chosen, but God.

That is what you're doing yourself. I'm not. You don't know what I believe, I know what you believe because I find it written by Augustine or Calvin. Or by "Mac" or "Sproul" or dozens of others. You are their disciples.

You placed yourself above Jesus Christ in election just a few sentences ago. YOU believe you were chosen and the means of Jesus Christ was punished for YOU.

Actually, I never said that, and... I won't say that.

If that doesn't make YOU special.... then what does exactly?

Oh... I don't know. Having been created by God AT ALL. I'm not special. I don't seek a following. To be honest, I couldn't care less about a following. I had someone point blank tell me, back when it supposedly meant something, that I wasn't popular. And I just point blank told them, I don't want to be popular. And... I didn't. I still don't

I don't believe that nonsense. I abandoned my ego in such things decades ago. God doesn't need you. He doesn't need me. Not even in a choice of His own making.

No He doesn't need us. However, since He determined everything, that is where you run into difficulty. (I am a determinist. The problem for you is that it is contrary to modern thought processes. Consider the question, is Christianity logical? In a modern mindset, no it is not. That is why the natural man is incapable of truly understanding. To the believer, it is the power of God. However, to the world, God determined to send His Son to die for a world that hates Him. That is illogical. Hence the statement Christ made about people dying for other, and that perhaps someone would die for a good man. There are no good men here.

You aren't even on the same planet in understanding, much less a different ball park. This has nothing to do with God needing anything. If there is anything God needs it is that He is true to Himself. That means, He fulfills the promises and covenants made to Abraham, David, the Levites, etc. For if God is not faithful, then all Gentiles are going to hell.

Edited to fix formating and correct one word.

 

[armylngst]

Geesh.....

Man being incapable of sin doesn't impart knowledge. You're so immature and unlearned. It is why you're falling for this nonsense you believe.

Power to save is much more than ceasing from sin.

The true sign of Divinity isn't found in limitless power. It is found in what God chooses not to do. That requires impeccable Character.

You can't even answer the argument. Total depravity means that sin has corrupted every part of a man, such that man has no desire to seek after God. That is what God tells us through the prophet. There is none righteous, no not one. There are none that do good, there are none that seek after God. Why? They have each gone their own way. It is clear that God is saying that being righteous, doing good, and seeking after God is not the way of any person. Everyone goes away from God, because their desire is elsewhere. They have no desire for God. Something has to change.

The disciples, after hearing Jesus tell them that the rich young ruler is not entering the Kingdom of God, they immediately asked "Then who can be saved"? Why? That rich person, to the Jews, is God's most favored person. Not only do they believe that rich prosperous people enter the Kingdom of God, but they are at the front of the line. God's blessing, God's choice, is seen in their prosperity. Jesus is telling them that isn't how it works. The things of man, riches, works, etc, do not save. In fact, for the rich young ruler, it was a trap he could not escape. Jesus says with man, salvation is impossible. However, with God, all things, including salvation, are possible, because, well, God does it.

When one truly comes to faith and belief in Christ, that is not what saves. I mean, technically it does, but it is when God declares the man justified. We cannot justify ourselves. If God says no, we are doomed. Since it is God who justifies, it is He who will see the believer through to the end. Eternal security. Perseverance of the Saints. (Not the best way to prhase it, but basically God perseveres/preserves the saints in salvation. If someone shows no signs of belief/faith, there is absolutely no reason to believe they are saved. It doesn't matter if they muttered a prayer on Easter Sunday.

 

[armylngst]

I'm glad you said the kingdom you're preaching is not Eternal. I appreciate that.

Why are you preaching a temporal kingdom? There are plenty of them.

Because God prophesied a temporal kingdom, and even Paul spoke to it.

You're referencing death being destroyed. Not some idea of a temporal kingdom vanquishing all of humanity.

You should read the passage again, because the passage is what I said. Jesus reigns (whom, a kingdom right), until the last enemy is destroyed. At that time He will return the kingdom to the father, as Paul says. So, right their it is blatanly obvious that it is temporal. The kingdom doesn't end, just the temporal one that goes until death is destroyed, which is conveniently at the end of the time of the millennial kingdom.

You're conflating far too many things here to even make sense of what you're saying.

As far your reference to "you shall not see me again".... The reference is very different in Luke than Matthew. You're losing context of when Jesus spoke those words in Matthew. Luke is very clear. Jesus said those words earlier in his ministry.

Those words were fulfilled during the advent of Jesus Christ. Read it for yourself.

Joh 12:13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

It doesn't matter. The religious leaders had already been judged for the rejection of the Messiah, and through that, all Israel. When? The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That was a national sin (not individual sin), and the leadership and people who rejected Christ were judged. The fulfillment of the judgment? AD 70.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Can you explain how it is wrong? Besides, I'm not a calvinist, I am calvinistic. I was antagonistic towards Calvinism until one day, God opened my eyes to understanding. Now it makes perfect sense. Very logical. You just need to find someone who can explain it to you properly. This TULIP stuff is not helpful. Calvinists don't like how I put things, because it doesn't fit in their tiny boxes.

Not logical at all when we compare it to the Character of God. You can not claim that "God is love" and be "Calvinistic". Such is inconsistent with reality.

You simply believe God loves YOU and a few others that are like you. Nothing more. As far as "teaching me".... I've preached against Calvinism for close to 40 years now. At least what most people call "Calvinism today". There is a argument to made that Calvin didn't actually believe in "Limited Atonement".... but that is a different conversation. Most former Calvinists start abandoning Calvinism over the doctrine of "Limited Atonement".

Not that I'm an Arminian. Just ask a few Arminians around here like @TomL or Tibas..... I still listen to Tibas from time to time but TomL is a entirely different story.

This false dichotomy that exists where someone must either be a Calvinist or Arminian is crazy. I chose God. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. Not another.

Ephesians 1
"To the saints who are [c]at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [d]Him. In love 5 [e]He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the [f]kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Paul is so clear here. There is more, but this really should be enough. Just as He chose us (to the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus, and Paul) in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world. In Christ, we are to be holy and blameless before Him. Doesn't that sound just like sanctification that comes before glorification? In the Young's literal translation (I like it because it is a point for point literal translation), it places verse 5 before verse 4. Verse 5 in YTL starts as:
"5 having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,"

He didn't chose you individual. Notice the word "us". Did you read that word. Paul is preaching a collective choice that has no context of "proper names". The only "proper name" in this thought Paul is preaching is Jesus Christ.

You weren't even in loins of your father when Christ Jesus was chosen. He is the "elect" of God. All those in Jesus Christ are a collective mentioned here. An unnamed and praise-less group.

So stop talking about how God chose YOU. Stop giving yourself praise. God's choices are worthy of praise. That choice was Jesus Christ. NOT YOU.

So don't try to sell me that you're "magically" praising Christ with talk of how "God chose me".... Such is crazy. Delusional. Deceptive and down right.... WRONG.

So verse 4 happened after verse 5. Having foreordained us to the adoption of sons... He chose us in him before the foundation of the world. It is possible that the english grammer used just now is not reflected in the greek, but I look at it as it is translated here. And Paul is speaking of individuals. If you understood the sovereignty of God, and understand that God will not under any circumstance surrender His sovereignty, such as by bowing to you and your interpretation over His, you would understand that this is God's right by His position as Creator. He can do as He pleases, and not only that, He did do as He pleases. "according to the good pleasure of His will". Even Paul understands this. I like to look at this simply as... He felt like it. And the intention of His will is kind, because God didn't have to do this at all.

No. That isn't how it works. Even Schofield understood. He said something like, until he sees a roll call of the elect, he will continue to preach, "Whosoever will..." No one knows who has been chosen, but God.

Did you notice the phrase "in Him" in what you wrote? Greek grammar doesn't change anything here. I'd be glad to debate Daniel Wallace on this. He has long made this argument you're making here when try to deal with thoughts of "Corporate Election".

Even he will admit that is "seems" to lend to a reading of individual election. What he doesn't do is ignore "in Him". When he admits this, the argument is lost.

So when God made HIS CHOICES.... He made a choice in Himself... in Jesus Christ.

Heb 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Besides. God promised Eve a seed that would conquer Satan. That wasn't any of us. That was only One. So lets stop talking about how God "chose me". Is that okay?

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This conversation we are having is becoming meaningless. This is one area where I'll keep challenging you if you like. Up to you.

Actually, I never said that, and... I won't say that.

Notice again what I'm saying. You believe God chose YOU and.... afterwards, chose Jesus Christ as the "means" of your salvation.

That places YOU... before Jesus Christ. That is what you're saying and preaching. So try to deny this. I'll listen.

Oh... I don't know. Having been created by God AT ALL. I'm not special.

If God chose you individually, then you are special. That is a requirement of being "God's choice".

I don't seek a following. To be honest, I couldn't care less about a following. I had someone point blank tell me, back when it supposedly meant something, that I wasn't popular. And I just point blank told them, I don't want to be popular. And... I didn't. I still don't.

I once did. I thought such was "doing something for God". I realized a long time ago that if we can win our own children to God, that is worth every effort and is pleasing to God. If everyone of us would do our duty in such, we'd be much better off.

No He doesn't need us. However, since He determined everything, that is where you run into difficulty. (I am a determinist. The problem for you is that it is contrary to modern thought processes. Consider the question, is Christianity logical? In a modern mindset, no it is not. That is why the natural man is incapable of truly understanding. To the believer, it is the power of God. However, to the world, God determined to send His Son to die for a world that hates Him. That is illogical. Hence the statement Christ made about people dying for other, and that perhaps someone would die for a good man. There are no good men here.

I'm a determinist myself. I'm not a "meticulous determinist". I believe God has predetermined certain things that are necessary and true to "Character". Hence, "God is love". "God can't lie". I have my own model for time and expressing "God's will" in all things.

If we can get into this, I know I can convince you, but you're going to have to abandon several perceived beliefs. This battle we're having about "Israel" isn't as important as this current conversation we are having here. God will handle Israel. I'll stay out the way. Let God be God. I chose to do this a long time ago when dealing with all the children of Abraham. Not just the children of Isaac.

You aren't even on the same planet in understanding, much less a different ball park. This has nothing to do with God needing anything. If there is anything God needs it is that He is true to Himself. That means, He fulfills the promises and covenants made to Abraham, David, the Levites, etc. For if God is not faithful, then all Gentiles are going to hell.

Edited to fix formating and correct one word.

I agree with you. God must be true to Himself. Which is why I don't believe what you believe. Covenants are conditional.

When God "swore by Himself", He wasn't swearing by Jacob. That is your position. Not mine. Such is a reference to Eternal promises. Eternal things. It is an appeal to Jesus Christ Incarnate. Nothing MORE.

You preach MORE.

Like I've said to you already. "Jews" (think southern kingdom) were the first "Calvinists". Like you, they think they're "chosen". This is first and greatest error in your theology.

God's choice is His Son. Jesus Christ. Not another man. Not Adam. Not Abraham. The "Second Adam". Not the second "Abraham".

Bow to Jesus Christ and stop this nonsense of preferring others.

 

[armylngst]

Not logical at all when we compare it to the Character of God. You can not claim that "God is love" and be "Calvinistic". Such is inconsistent with reality.

Do you know the character of God? What you say shows that you apparently do not. God is love, yet God sent most of 1/3rd of the whole population of Europe straight to hell in the middle ages. You know. The plague. They suffered, and then got sent to hell to suffer more for the rest of eternity. God is love, as you say. Do you even understand what it means? What you are saying about God is love is inconsistent with God's nature. It is inconsistent with God's character. God is holy. None of us should be alive today due simply to that. We should all be in hell because, by nature, God cannot stand sin, and we are all tainted and corrupt, smelling of the stench of sin. Yet, none of what God has done is inconsistent with His nature. However, for what you are saying, all that God has done has to be inconsistent with His nature, and inconsistent with reality.

You simply believe God loves YOU and a few others that are like you. Nothing more. As far as "teaching me".... I've preached against Calvinism for close to 40 years now. At least what most people call "Calvinism today". There is a argument to made that Calvin didn't actually believe in "Limited Atonement".... but that is a different conversation. Most former Calvinists start abandoning Calvinism over the doctrine of "Limited Atonement".

Wow, you spread that false witness thick. You apparently ahve no idea what I believe. You also show clearly that you have no understanding of God's love. Let's look at limited atonement. First terminology. In this statement, atonement and salvation are equal. So limited salvation. You have to understand the terminology being used. So one either believes salvation is limited to specific circumstance, such as grace through faith, or as Paul put it simply, belief in Christ through faith, thus accepting limited atonement, or you are a heretical universalist, believing that all are saved, sinners and believers alike. God has to open the door to sinners who refuse to bow to His authority, and accept His Son. Which, I guess it is fine if you believe that. That is between you and God. The most simplistic way to put it is, Jesus death is sufficient to save everyone, but only saves those who believe in Him by faith. I'm not sure why you don't believe that, but again, that is on you. I truly believe that saying salvation is only for those who believe in Him by faith is a set hard limit. There is nothing else that can save a person.

Not that I'm an Arminian. Just ask a few Arminians around here like @TomL or Tibas..... I still listen to Tibas from time to time but TomL is a entirely different story.

TomL is an entirely different story. There is no such thing as libertarian free will. In fact, there is no such thing as free will. The will is bound. As a sinner, it is bound to sin. No one is righteous, no not one, none do good. They do their own thing, and none of it is righteous, none of it is good, none of it is seeking after God. The will is bound.

This false dichotomy that exists where someone must either be a Calvinist or Arminian is crazy. I chose God. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. Not another.

I would question a false dichotomy on those things these theologies deal with. And I am just speaking of the theology, not being a follower of some belief, and not that it saves anyone. I mean, Calvinism is just an indepth soteriology. That isn't salvation, but a study of salvation. We are totally depraved. That is, sin is so corrupting, so defiling, that it has corrupted our very being to the point that none can please God. All we do is to please our corrupted flesh. God's choice of who to save is without merit, that is, unconditional. There is nothing we can do, and, historically speaking, nothing we have done, that caused God to choose us. (Us is generalized, and speaks to the true church, that is, those who truly believe in Christ through faith, not the undead zombies in the church.) The atonement/salvation is limited to those who believe in Christ by faith. No one else is saved. (Abraham and the Old Testament is different because, technically, it is faith that saves, and the content of their faith was trust/faith in God's promises and God's faithfulness to do as He said. That included salvation, even if they had no idea who Jesus would be or do. God CREDITED it as righteousness, and it was cashed in at Jesus death/resurrection. God showed them the true focus of their faith, that is, the true fulfillment of their faith.) Irresistible grace simply says that if God chose you to be elect, has drawn you Himself to Jesus, you will be saved. That grace by which we are saved through faith will save every time. And the perseverance of the saints simply says that since it is God who saved us, it is He who will keep us in His grace. God praised Himself for that in Jude 24,25. He didn't lie about Himself.

He didn't chose you individual. Notice the word "us". Did you read that word. Paul is preaching a collective choice that has no context of "proper names". The only "proper name" in this thought Paul is preaching is Jesus Christ.

He chose the individual. The us is simply talking about the body of individuals that make up the body of Christ. Each has a name. Each name was recorded in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world. Why? God chose before the foundation of the world. We have no idea who it is, because that is God's business. Why does everyone want to say that God has absolutely no right to choose for Himself who He wants to spend eternity with? What is up with that? God has no rights? Somehow God surrendered His rights as Creator to someone higher then Himself who gets to dictate? To you perhaps?

You weren't even in loins of your father when Christ Jesus was chosen. He is the "elect" of God. All those in Jesus Christ are a collective mentioned here. An unnamed and praise-less group.

An elect person wasn't even in the loins of their Father when God chose them. Why do you think Paul brought up Jacob and Esau? To show that election has nothing to do with what someone has done, but is God's choice. Before they were born, before they did anything, God had already chosen to love Jacob and hate Esau. HATE. Yet if God hated Esau, why did he bless Esau so much? He told Jacob that Jacob didn't have to give him anything because God had blessed him greatly. Yet, God destroyed Edom because they were Esau's descendants. Just how deep did the hate run?

So stop talking about how God chose YOU. Stop giving yourself praise. God's choices are worthy of praise. That choice was Jesus Christ. NOT YOU.

I never said God chose me. I have no praise to give myself. I don't even have disdain to give myself, because I already used all that up on myself. The choice was the elect, people who deserved hell whom God decided to adopt as His children. And some of those people actually do hate themselves. Why? Because they look at themselves from the position of a holy God, and can only see their shortcomings in light of that. And they hate it. Now, do understand that if Jesus Christ was chosen, as you say, then Jesus Christ is solely a man, without an ounce of God in Him. I mean, He is God, but your belief is inconsistent if you believe that. I have no issue believing that Jesus is fully God come in the flesh, to sacrifice Himself to be our substitute. No issue at all. Why? Because that is what Jesus HAS TO BE in order to do what He did. The God man, Son of God and Son of man. Both God and Adam's archetype.

So don't try to sell me that you're "magically" praising Christ with talk of how "God chose me".... Such is crazy. Delusional. Deceptive and down right.... WRONG.

I don't magically do anything. I have no praise, and would have no praise, but solely gratitude as the worthless man I am. Perhaps you are looking through the eyes of natural man, instead of looking to the Spirit? Do you know what I praise God for? For sending His Son to man, that those who believe in Him by faith might be saved. I don't include myself in that. If anything, I pray that if that is where I am, thanks from the dirt I have fallen on my face in. Do you notice that no matter how great we may talk about Paul, all he could say is that he was the greatest sinner. All he could bring up is all the times that God lowered his head, and humbled him. All he could bring up to the church that boasted in themselves is to tell them to have the mind of Christ, a mind of the deepest humility that sent the God of the universe to Earth in the flesh, and to the cross to suffer and die for a humanity that didn't want Him. All so He could save those that He chose to save, so He can hear you say He isn't allowed to do that.

Did you notice the phrase "in Him" in what you wrote? Greek grammar doesn't change anything here. I'd be glad to debate Daniel Wallace on this. He has long made this argument you're making here when try to deal with thoughts of "Corporate Election".

You apparently missed the order.
" 4 according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"
Look at the beginning of verse five. Look at the very first word. "having". Why is that word there. What are we to do with that word? Well, we are to understand that the preceding verse actually comes after this verse. The clause basically being, having done something, he then did this. So what did God do first? He predestinated us unto adoption of children by Christ Jesus to himself. Okay, so which is first here? Christ Jesus. Why? by Christ Jesus. So whatever He did is because of something Jesus did. So what did He do because of something Jesus did? Predestinated us unto the adoption of children. There is that us, which speaks to individuals that are part of a group, so it is... individual election. He foreordained (the better translation) us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ. Having (there is that word again) done that, He chose us in him (in Christ) before the foundation of the world that we live like it. Live like what? Live the standard of being His adopted children by being holy and without blame. He foreordained a specific group of people (us), as individuals, to the adoption of children, before the foundation of the world. So before we were born, and before we ever did anything, He had already chosen His adopted children by Jesus Christ. That is basically Paul telling us that God had already planned out salvation/redemption before He ever created the world, down to who He wanted (good pleasure of His will) to adopt as His children.

Even he will admit that is "seems" to lend to a reading of individual election. What he doesn't do is ignore "in Him". When he admits this, the argument is lost.

The "us" makes it a reading of individual election. In Him is important because the adoption of children is by Jesus Christ, which is by His action of dying on the cross. Without that, there not only is no adoption, there is no salvation.

So when God made HIS CHOICES.... He made a choice in Himself... in Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure how you missed the context by so much.

Heb 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Besides. God promised Eve a seed that would conquer Satan. That wasn't any of us. That was only One. So lets stop talking about how God "chose me". Is that okay?

You are the one who brings it up.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This conversation we are having is becoming meaningless. This is one area where I'll keep challenging you if you like. Up to you.

So, in other words, God will put hatred between us and the woman, between us and Jesus, since Jesus is chosen, and we are not. Got it. So Jesus is the only one going to heaven. Understood.

Notice again what I'm saying. You believe God chose YOU and.... afterwards, chose Jesus Christ as the "means" of your salvation.

Not only did I not say that God chose me, I don't believe it. Yes, I deal with that every day, but my belief is weak, as well as the flesh. But what I do believe is that God chose to adopt SOME to be His children by the death of Christ. Note that the death of Christ has to be first. And, because we are made His children by what Christ has done, we are, by that action, chosen to live the standard of being His children, which is to be holy and without blame. God sets a high standard for His children. We didn't choose it, He chose it.

That places YOU... before Jesus Christ. That is what you're saying and preaching. So try to deny this. I'll listen.

I don't have to deny it here, because this idea doesn't even EXIST in what I believe. You are the one telling me what I believe, as though I have no idea what I myself believe.

If God chose you individually, then you are special. That is a requirement of being "God's choice".

Those chosen by God are special. God promised to dote on His children. How is that not special? And no, that is not a requirement of being "God's choice". Where do you get this haughty language from? It is a RESULT of being chosen to be God's adopted child. Perhaps you expect God to throw a few in a dumpster. Not sure why, but we can explore that.

I once did. I thought such was "doing something for God". I realized a long time ago that if we can win our own children to God, that is worth every effort and is pleasing to God. If everyone of us would do our duty in such, we'd be much better off

I'm a determinist myself. I'm not a "meticulous determinist". I believe God has predetermined certain things that are necessary and true to "Character". Hence, "God is love". "God can't lie". I have my own model for time and expressing "God's will" in all things.

I just go with determinist, because, my thoughts are still human, so there is no way that I could ever comprehend how God sees everything, and what He did with His position of Creator. I look at it like an author writing a book. Every character has a character, but that character was bestowed by the author. There actions are generally dictated by who they are. (Generally). Major plot points are unchanging. We live what the author has written, which may be guided by who we are. For instance, the Harry Potter writer (name escapes me when I am half asleep) basically said the story dictated what she wrote. So she let the story write itself, basically. Adam was going to sin. Did God write it point for point, or does God allow people to live through to it. That is, did God strictly determine every point. Maybe. I mean, that is His prerogative as Creator. Some people refuse to recognize God as Creator, so they say that God can't determine everything. It is just a failure to consider God as He is, without injecting man.

If we can get into this, I know I can convince you, but you're going to have to abandon several perceived beliefs. This battle we're having about "Israel" isn't as important as this current conversation we are having here. God will handle Israel. I'll stay out the way. Let God be God. I chose to do this a long time ago when dealing with all the children of Abraham. Not just the children of Isaac.

I agree with you. God must be true to Himself. Which is why I don't believe what you believe. Covenants are conditional.

The only point with Israel is that 1. God has not rejected Israel. 2. While Israel is in a state of rejection right now, once God is done with the Gentiles, Israel will stop rejecting and will be saved. (I believe that at the time, only the chosen elect of God in Israel will still be alive.) 3. The covenant made with Abraham will be fulfilled, and it is solely for Abraham and Israel. 4. The promises made to Abraham for His faith are for everyone, the main benefit being salvation. 5. God will fulfill the Davidic Covenant, and Jesus will reign from Jerusalem in the Messianic Kingdom, which will end with the defeat of the final enemy, and Jesus will hand the Kingdom back to the Father that God might be all in all. (I Corinthians 15). The salvation of Israel and the messianic kingdom (millennial kingdom) marks the conclusion of God's specific dealings with Israel in connection to the covenants, the promises to the forefathers and the Old testament. It also brings to end the incredible story of God's redemption that begins with Israel, moves on to the rejection of Israel that God might deal with the Gentiles, and then comes back around again to Israel, where God completes His dealings with Israel.

When God "swore by Himself", He wasn't swearing by Jacob. That is your position. Not mine. Such is a reference to Eternal promises. Eternal things. It is an appeal to Jesus Christ Incarnate. Nothing MORE.

He swore by Himself, which means that if He does not do what He covenanted/promised, then He broke the greatest oath that He could make, an oath in His own name. I don't think you understand just what that means. God was swearing to fulfill the covenants, which made them unconditional. Why? Because He swore an oath in His own name. (He swore in His name that He would do it. Why? There was nothing greater that He could swear by.)

You preach MORE.

Like I've said to you already. "Jews" (think southern kingdom) were the first "Calvinists". Like you, they think they're "chosen". This is first and greatest error in your theology.

Wow, you spread the false witness thick. The Jews were the elect nation of the world, however, you have to deal with why. The Abrahamic made them an elect ethnic group by Abraham through Isaac. That just set them aside, made them holy, that is separate, from the nations around them. The main purpose being that it was through Israel that Jesus would come. Actually, the main reason is because of the promises God made, but that should just be understood. However, even in the Old Testament, God took the time to explain exactly what it meant to be elect. God had chosen some of Israel who, because they were chosen, did not bow to baal or sin against God in idolatry.

It was the Pharisees and rabbis who taught that Jews were chosen by God, and as such, no Jew would ever enter hell. (I don't remember the Jewish word used, but the rabbis are specific.) The belief is that Abraham stands before the gates of sheol/hades/hell/whatever to ensure that no Jew enters in. However, that is simply because, even with Jesus explaining, they didn't understand election beyond them being an elect nation. That is a chosen nation, chosen to be separate from all others. There was no salvation promise in that.

God's choice is His Son. Jesus Christ. Not another man. Not Adam. Not Abraham. The "Second Adam". Not the second "Abraham".

Bow to Jesus Christ and stop this nonsense of preferring others.

Again, if God had to choose Jesus, then Jesus cannot, by definition, be God. However, Jesus is God, thus your belief is inconsistent. However, you seem to think that Calvinism is the gospel. It is not. I still see it simply as soteriology. I know there is more to it then that, however, TULIP deals solely with soteriology. A study of salvation. It is not a gospel message. It should not be a gospel message. The gospel message is whosoever will, let him come. God is a calvinist. He tells us through Paul that some plant the seed, some water, but it is GOD WHO GIVES THE INCREASE. Doesn't that mean, God chooses? The only case you could make against God choosing would be to say that every last person who hears about God will be saved absolutely. We know this isn't true, so the only other option is that God chooses. Why? What is justification, which is the heart of salvation? When God opens His mouth and declares someone justified. Sounds like an action one chooses to do to me.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Do you know the character of God? What you say shows that you apparently do not. God is love, yet God sent most of 1/3rd of the whole population of Europe straight to hell in the middle ages. You know. The plague. They suffered, and then got sent to hell to suffer more for the rest of eternity. God is love, as you say. Do you even understand what it means? What you are saying about God is love is inconsistent with God's nature. It is inconsistent with God's character. God is holy. None of us should be alive today due simply to that. We should all be in hell because, by nature, God cannot stand sin, and we are all tainted and corrupt, smelling of the stench of sin. Yet, none of what God has done is inconsistent with His nature. However, for what you are saying, all that God has done has to be inconsistent with His nature, and inconsistent with reality.

You were not the judge of those people. Stop pretend you know exactly what God did to those people in the middle ages.

I do agree that God can be severe, but it not how God leads. That is not what God leads with. Longsuffering demands otherwise.

Do you believe God is longsuffering? Not willing that any perish?

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

It is amazing how you allow for "longsuffering" for some and deny it to others. That is called hypocrisy. God isn't a hypocrite. We are.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Wow, you spread that false witness thick. You apparently ahve no idea what I believe. You also show clearly that you have no understanding of God's love. Let's look at limited atonement. First terminology. In this statement, atonement and salvation are equal. So limited salvation. You have to understand the terminology being used. So one either believes salvation is limited to specific circumstance, such as grace through faith, or as Paul put it simply, belief in Christ through faith, thus accepting limited atonement, or you are a heretical universalist, believing that all are saved, sinners and believers alike. God has to open the door to sinners who refuse to bow to His authority, and accept His Son. Which, I guess it is fine if you believe that. That is between you and God. The most simplistic way to put it is, Jesus death is sufficient to save everyone, but only saves those who believe in Him by faith. I'm not sure why you don't believe that, but again, that is on you. I truly believe that saying salvation is only for those who believe in Him by faith is a set hard limit. There is nothing else that can save a person.

I can't read your mind. If you're going to reference Calvinism, then I KNOW what they believe. Talk about "tricks". You want to define what YOU believe and defend "Limited Atonement" and then distance yourself when necessary.

Limited Atonement is about God's choices. Whom God choses to save. There is nothing different about human beings. They are all the same. So when we deal with human beings, the context you preach is that God has chosen to save some and abandon others.

 

[praise_yeshua]

He chose the individual. The us is simply talking about the body of individuals that make up the body of Christ. Each has a name. Each name was recorded in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world. Why? God chose before the foundation of the world. We have no idea who it is, because that is God's business. Why does everyone want to say that God has absolutely no right to choose for Himself who He wants to spend eternity with? What is up with that? God has no rights? Somehow God surrendered His rights as Creator to someone higher then Himself who gets to dictate? To you perhaps?

Didn't I mention an Individual? Jesus Christ? Why ignore this. The Elect of God, is Jesus Christ.

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

An elect person wasn't even in the loins of their Father when God chose them. Why do you think Paul brought up Jacob and Esau? To show that election has nothing to do with what someone has done, but is God's choice. Before they were born, before they did anything, God had already chosen to love Jacob and hate Esau. HATE. Yet if God hated Esau, why did he bless Esau so much? He told Jacob that Jacob didn't have to give him anything because God had blessed him greatly. Yet, God destroyed Edom because they were Esau's descendants. Just how deep did the hate run?

I'm so glad you mentioned Esau. Did Jacob love Esau? Stick around.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I never said God chose me. I have no praise to give myself. I don't even have disdain to give myself, because I already used all that up on myself. The choice was the elect, people who deserved hell whom God decided to adopt as His children. And some of those people actually do hate themselves. Why? Because they look at themselves from the position of a holy God, and can only see their shortcomings in light of that. And they hate it. Now, do understand that if Jesus Christ was chosen, as you say, then Jesus Christ is solely a man, without an ounce of God in Him. I mean, He is God, but your belief is inconsistent if you believe that. I have no issue believing that Jesus is fully God come in the flesh, to sacrifice Himself to be our substitute. No issue at all. Why? Because that is what Jesus HAS TO BE in order to do what He did. The God man, Son of God and Son of man. Both God and Adam's archetype.

You're not paying attention to what I said.

Did God chose YOU and then chose the means for your salvation. The order of a choice dictates the rank of intent.

Thusly, you believe God chose YOU... FIRST and then chose the means of your salvation.

You have put yourself BEFORE Jesus Christ. God's choices are meritorious. When you say God chose YOU. You are presenting yourself as meritorious.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You apparently missed the order.
" 4 according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"
Look at the beginning of verse five. Look at the very first word. "having". Why is that word there. What are we to do with that word? Well, we are to understand that the preceding verse actually comes after this verse. The clause basically being, having done something, he then did this. So what did God do first? He predestinated us unto adoption of children by Christ Jesus to himself. Okay, so which is first here? Christ Jesus. Why? by Christ Jesus. So whatever He did is because of something Jesus did. So what did He do because of something Jesus did? Predestinated us unto the adoption of children. There is that us, which speaks to individuals that are part of a group, so it is... individual election. He foreordained (the better translation) us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ. Having (there is that word again) done that, He chose us in him (in Christ) before the foundation of the world that we live like it. Live like what? Live the standard of being His adopted children by being holy and without blame. He foreordained a specific group of people (us), as individuals, to the adoption of children, before the foundation of the world. So before we were born, and before we ever did anything, He had already chosen His adopted children by Jesus Christ. That is basically Paul telling us that God had already planned out salvation/redemption before He ever created the world, down to who He wanted (good pleasure of His will) to adopt as His children.

The "us" makes it a reading of individual election. In Him is important because the adoption of children is by Jesus Christ, which is by His action of dying on the cross. Without that, there not only is no adoption, there is no salvation.

Contradictory nonsense. You appeal to the group and then claim it is about individuals. Why?

Whether individuals or a "corporate" collective, you still have even the "group" before the means.

Do you really understand this. I don't think you do. When even God plans to do something, there is order to those actions. In fact, HE is THE ORDER.

When YOU preach individual election, you are praising yourself.

So where are you named in any of this? I'd like to see your name somewhere. Isn't a "good name" meaningful? I've heard Calvinists all my life claim they were chosen and placed in some "book" by "name".

Never saw it myself. Never. I haven't seen you named anywhere. You must not be important.... right?

Either you are important or you're not. You can't have BOTH. So which is it. Help me with this glaring contradiction you have in this theology.

Has God given you a name or was it your parents that named you?

 

[armylngst]

You were not the judge of those people. Stop pretend you know exactly what God did to those people in the middle ages.

It is history. 1/3rd (I believe) died in the plague.

I do agree that God can be severe, but it not how God leads. That is not what God leads with. Longsuffering demands otherwise.

Is that why Paul wrote a passage speaking of the severity of God? Are you telling God that something demands anything of Him?

Do you believe God is longsuffering? Not willing that any perish?

Peter is speaking of the elect. How do we know? That is who Peter was speaking of when that verse comes up. God is unwilling that any He adopted as His children perish. I'm not a universalist.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

It is amazing how you allow for "longsuffering" for some and deny it to others. That is called hypocrisy. God isn't a hypocrite. We are.

Imagine God is standing in front of you, and you say this to Him. Does it sound right? If it doesn't, the fact that it came to your mind is concerning. You can see that God is longsuffering for some and not for others. How does that work? God is long suffering with Israel as a group, and with humanity/Gentiles, as a group. In what Paul wrote, it is for His elect as a group. Even Jesus stated it clearly in John 6. He will not lose a single one of which the Father gave Him? Where do we see God giving anyone to Jesus? Ephesians 1.

 

[armylngst]

Didn't I mention an Individual? Jesus Christ? Why ignore this. The Elect of God, is Jesus Christ.

So you are a unitarian.

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

So you wish to amplify Jesus as human. Or do you recognize that you are talking about something different? I mean, you are then saying that David is elect. He was, as king. (Elect being chosen one.)

I'm so glad you mentioned Esau. Did Jacob love Esau? Stick around.

The question is, did GOD love Esau. Why did God say that he hated Esau before Esau was a glimmer in Isaac's eye? Esau had not even done anything at all, but God basically stated, I hate him already. And Paul said it was so so that the purpose behind election by grace and not merit, that is, God's choice, would stand. You know, the thing you don't believe and are adamantly against. Unconditional election.

 

[armylngst]

You're not paying attention to what I said.

Did God chose YOU and then chose the means for your salvation. The order of a choice dictates the rank of intent.

Ephesians is very clear that it was at the same time. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Thusly, you believe God chose YOU... FIRST and then chose the means of your salvation.

I do not. However, for natural man, that would come to mind first. What does Ephesians say God did? Foreordained us to the adoption of children by Christ. There you have the choosing and the method at the same time. However, if you want to be technical, the means came first. That is, the means existed prior to God foreordaining to adoption. We weren't created adopted, because if that were true, wouldn't that make us natural children, Adam being the son of God according to the genealogies? It is not simple. You seem to have a deep understanding of what you believe, but barely even surface level for anything else.

You have put yourself BEFORE Jesus Christ. God's choices are meritorious. When you say God chose YOU. You are presenting yourself as meritorious.

First of all, I never said God chose me. Also if God chose us, how is that meritorious? What did we do to be chosen? What merit? Do you know what meritorious means? How did anyone earn God's grace? How did we earn adoption? Wait, don't tell me that when you were created you forgot to pay God upfront? (Meant to be humor, with just a little bite.) There are no conditions, and no merit to election. God chose by Himself, for Himself, through Himself (Jesus).

 

[armylngst]

Contradictory nonsense. You appeal to the group and then claim it is about individuals. Why?

Paul is writing to a group of individuals in the church. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you seem to believe that anyone who says they are a part of the church is a born again member. I wouldn't label Benny Hinn a born again Christian. Election is at the individual level, and those individuals are a part of the church, just as the remnant of Israel are individuals who are a part of Israel. Israel is not a part of the elect, and the church of christendom is not a part of the elect. (Chrisendom including Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. They are not all saved. Only the body of elect believers, of which no one knows who they are. That is God level stuff there.

Whether individuals or a "corporate" collective, you still have even the "group" before the means.

No. All you need to see is "by Christ" to know that the means came first, or at least at the same time. The means of God to foreordain to adoption came first. At least that is what Paul says.

Do you really understand this. I don't think you do. When even God plans to do something, there is order to those actions. In fact, HE is THE ORDER.

When YOU preach individual election, you are praising yourself.

Again, I am not. Are you afraid He didn't choose you? Then there must be something in your life that is making you question. Deal with it and move on. (Sounds way easier than it is.) Remember, it is unconditional. Nothing we do merits/earns salvation. (Or takes it away, or nullifies God's choice before the foundation of the world. What you see today is not what your tomorrows are made of. Consider Charlie Daniels. I'm pretty sure that back in the 70's/80's he never though that he would become a Christian. And it is was just him coming back to his roots. When God came around, he didn't say no. (I would say, couldn't say no, but he didn't.) There are other who also had no idea that they would become a Christian, and some/many who are happy to explain that they were, most of their life, adamantly against it.

So where are you named in any of this? I'd like to see your name somewhere. Isn't a "good name" meaningful? I've heard Calvinists all my life claim they were chosen and placed in some "book" by "name".

I don't claim that. I won't claim it. I will accept it, because when it comes to God we kind of have no choice, but I would never claim it.

Never saw it myself. Never. I haven't seen you named anywhere. You must not be important.... right?

I'm not sure how you can read my other comments and believe that I believe I am important. In fact, I believe I specifically stated I do not want to be, and I do not pursue it. BTW, since you claim to have seen the list of elect, could you give us some hints? I'm asking for the church. There are people who would really like to know. If you want to find me to tell me, you will find me at the back of the line... walking away.

Either you are important or you're not. You can't have BOTH. So which is it. Help me with this glaring contradiction you have in this theology.

Again, I have never stated I was important. I have never said I am chosen. Are you reading a script, or talking points? It sounds like talking points. It sounds like anyone like me could cause your whole belief system to crumble, so you are fighting for dear life. I just call you to a clear understanding. Based on all you have said, it appears you don't understand what election is, and you got information from other people who don't know.

To me, what it sounds like is theoretically speaking, if you were a parent (again, this is theoretical) and you have children, and they destroyed your house, you would just shrug your shoulders and say, that is how it is. You have to accept, automatically, that your children are perfect angels, as your house burns down around you, while your little arsonists are laughing AT YOU. You have no choice, with merit or without. You can't make your kids special or important, and by this point, you don't want to. (Theoreically speaking.) However, your argument states that you can only accept what is happening. You have no recourse, or you are marking your kids as important or unimportant.

Has God given you a name or was it your parents that named you?

I am surprised you ask this even though you already know I am a determinist.

 

[brightfame52]

That Gentiles would be added to the House of David in a Spiritual way was foretold centuries ago Isa 11 10

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. Cp Rom 15 12

And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. {This Trust cant be done without Faith} So Faith is promised.
Cp Lk 1 33

And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

 

[armylngst]

That Gentiles would be added to the House of David in a Spiritual way was foretold centuries ago Isa 11 10

Not to the house of David. Remember, Paul told us that the church was a mystery in the Old Testament. Why? It didn't exist yet. There was no provision for the Gentiles in the Old Testament, outside of being a proselyte.
Isaiah 11:10
"Then in that day
The nations will resort to the root of Jesse,
Who will stand as a [a]signal for the peoples;
And His resting place will be glorious."

In other words they aren't added, they come to the root of Jesse, who stands as a signal for the peoples.

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. Cp Rom 15 12

Why add to this shall the Gentiles seek?
Romans 15:12
"
12 Again Isaiah says,
“There shall come the root of Jesse,
And He who arises to rule over the Gentiles,
In Him shall the Gentiles hope.”"
So not the Messiah as this specifically addresses the Gentiles, and Him ruling over the Gentiles. The Jews are not mentioned here. I have never said the Gentiles will not be saved, and that the millennial kingdom would not be over the Gentile nations of the world at that time.

And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. {This Trust cant be done without Faith} So Faith is promised.
Cp Lk 1 33

No one doubts that. It is what it doesn't say, that you are trying to say it does. We are saved by faith. And as such, we fall under the promise of Abraham and are blessed in Christ. However, that is not the Abrahamic covenant of the land promise, or the covenant that has circumcision as a sign.

And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Yep. The millennial Kingdom is based in Israel, specifically in Jerusalem. He will reign as their Messiah. Jesus spent 40 days telling the disciples about the kingdom from the Old Testament. After those 40 days, all they could ask Jesus before He left was "Will you now return the Kingdom to Israel?" This question comes out of what Jesus taught. Jesus didn't say no. He just said it wasn't their business to know when He will return the Kingdom to Israel.

 

[brightfame52]

Not to the house of David.

Yes to the house of david or even the tabernacle of david as Acts 15 15-18

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

 

[Doug Brents]

Many people are taught that anyone who is saved becomes a member of Israel, but not the real Israel. Instead, they are taught, that we become part of a spiritual Israel. But is this Biblical? Is God finished with the Israel of the Old Testament?

The ‘spiritual Israel’ concept is created from a failure to understand the dispensational shift from God’s dealing with Israel to the body of Christ. Many who subscribe to the idea of spiritual Israel, most always teach that Israel was an allegory for the church today, often referred to as the true Israel.

By their own proclamation these teachers do not take the natural reading of the scripture. Instead, the promises, covenants, and even curses for Israel are allegorically applied to the church of this age.

However, the teaching of a separate spiritual Israel is not found in the Bible. To press it into the scripture, we must do three things:

• Deny the precise fulfillment of prophecy given specifically to Israel;
• Reject the significance of God’s separation of Israel from the Gentiles; and
• Ignore the teaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery

Prophecy Given to Israel

Over ninety percent of the Bible was given to and about the physical nation Israel, God’s chosen people in time past. To teach that we are the allegorical fulfillment of prophecy given to Israel would take nothing less than a gross distortion of plain words.

For example, in Isaiah chapter two the time of the ‘last days’ is described where the ‘LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains’ (Isaiah 2:2). This prophecy is specifically speaking about Judah and Jerusalem:



It is from Jerusalem that the nations will be judged by the Lord, and to ‘the house of the God of Jacob’ in Zion that many people will go (Isaiah 2:3).

To spiritualize this passage along with hundreds of other prophecies becomes unnatural. The natural meaning of entire passages is lost in order to accomodate the spiritualization. Starting with Ezekiel 40 there are 8 chapters detailing the holy city. This is pointless if it will never exist.

Who assigns the spiritual definition to the tribes, or the gates, or the arches, or the borders? Without a Biblical key to explain the spiritualization the real meaning of the words becomes construed to fit the imaginative contrivances of a thousand scholars.

This kind of spiritualization destroys the authority of the scripture and the meaning of God’s prophetic purpose for Israel.

God’s separation of Israel from the Gentiles

Numbers 23:9 says that Israel is not to be reckoned among the nations. Deuteronomy 7 plainly tells Israel why they are different from the other nations:



It was to this special people that God would give the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the service of God, and the promises (Romans 9:4). It was through glory of this special people that God would offer salvation to the world.



It was the separation of Israel from the nations that God would use in order to bring salvation to those nations. God’s plan was not for every Gentile to become a member of Israel, but instead to receive salvation from the God of Israel.



It is not only Israel that finally receives salvation it is the world. However, Israel would be ministers and priests of the Lord to that end, administering the law of God (Isaiah 61:6).

To say that the saved become part of Israel denies the purpose for which God separated Israel from among the nations.

The Jesus Christ According to the Revelation of the Mystery

Since what was revealed to Paul ‘was not made known unto the sons of men’, then no prophetic scripture, spiritualized or literal, would refer to the church today.

Contrarily, Paul announces something kept secret which was separate from Israel and separate from the purpose of prophecy, it was the subject of the body of Jesus Christ as the church (Col 1:27, 1 Cor 12:13).

Paul says that there is neither Jew nor Greek today in Christ (Gal 3:28). Since the grace of God is now offered freely on the merits of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no way for the law to bring righteousness. The righteousness of God comes by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-24).

Instead of becoming part of Israel, Paul announces a new creature, the body of Christ.



Out of two groups, Jews and Gentiles, Christ made a new man and agency for salvation. This special agency is what we become when we are saved today. We do not know any man after the flesh, whether it is Israel or American or European (2 Cor 5:16).



Conclusion

The teaching of spiritual Israel is dangerous to a natural reading of the scripture and prevents sincere students of the word from recognizing important truths for this dispensation.

In order to understand who you are today, know that God did not write the Bible in hidden codes or ambiguous allegories. He uses plain speech, easy to understand if we will simply accept the natural reading of the text.


By: Justin Johnson

Does the Bible Teach A Spiritual Israel?

Just a few of points to consider:
1. Rom 9:6-8 tells us that not everyone who is of Israel (biological descendants) is part of Israel (Spiritual descendants).
2. Rom 2:28-29 tells us that those who are circumcised in the heart (inwardly) are Jews (Israel) and not those who keep the Law or are physical descendants (outwardly).
3. Gal 3:29 tells us that those who are in Christ are Abraham's descendants and heirs to the promise made to Abraham and his descendants.
4. 1 Pet 2:9 tells us that all of the Church is a royal priesthood, and peculiar people, a holy nation (as distinct from the priesthood of the Law, and the nation of Israel.
5. As noted in Heb 7:12, there was a change in the Law (it being completely fulfilled and removed) to make way for a more perfect Law, for a more perfect people (the Church/spiritual Israel).

Yes, Israel was separated from the other nations of the Earth for a time, but in Christ that separation has been removed (Eph 2:13-16), and now the only division (spiritually speaking) among people is A) those who are in Christ (Israel), and B) those who are not (everyone else).