@jeremiah1five
I've been in the faith for over fifty years and have never spoken is an unknown tongue, never. I have never given my flesh over to be used in any way, but have maintain control of my spirt, submitting myself to God's word as the only source of my faith.
Jeremiah, we have spoken many times over, and I truly believe you have been deceived and are living under a strong delusion, thinking that eternal life is in the blood line of Abraham, and not by the grace of God through Jesus' shed blood. I'm not saying you are not a child of God, that is not by call, but, I can tell you that you are deceived in thinking God is
not visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name sake, to join them with elect Jews, to make one holy spiritual temple in Jesus Christ.
When I first became a Christian, I was taught by a pastor who was taught by Assemblies of God.
The sermons were a mixture of Arminianism and Calvinism as I look back. It took me some years to recognize this.
This church was strong on evangelism and going into the streets and witnessing whoever.
As I got more familiar with my Sword (and I always used a KJV) there were things said from the pulpit at times that didn't jive with what was written. Throughout all these years I continued in personal study and used commentaries and then theology books. James Strong was my linguist. I only used his definitions because most of the other concordances would "lead the witness" in their definition entries by telling me how to use the word and what the word meant. Strong's didn't do that. If I look up a word, I will get a one-word corresponding definition and I am left with thinking things through and of course, under the anointing.
As my knowledge grew so did my understanding. In 1995 I spoke in tongues, and this changed me and my studying, especially in light of the interpretation of my tongues. I learned my call, my place in the body, and my spiritual gifts.
I received counseling from my pastor as we later sat in her office, and we went over what was recorded, and I was counseled. Then, I was sent out. Soon, I had moved away too far from my adopted church to attend but was now walking as a man of God on my own.
I had learned through theology books all the doctrines held in Christendom. I know them all.
Now, on the point you bring up thinking I am deceived I will tell you what I see and what I know.
I know God does not lie.
I know that God made a covenant with a Hebrew man named Abram. Abram is a descendant of Eber, and his family goes all the way back to Shem, Noah's son.
Abraham's covenant is found in Genesis 12, 15, and 17.
It's quite simple and I'm surprised I haven't met too many who see as I see on the subject.
I know God is dealing with one man and his wife. They are half-brother and sister and both from the family of Eber.
When I come across "nations" and "families of the earth" I believe that since Abraham is to be the father of millions the "nations" and "families of the earth" must be in context to Abraham and his future seed. If God was to include non-Hebrew Gentiles (descendants of Ham and Japheth) He would be as precise by saying "Gentile" and also revealing the name of this Gentile with whom it is said God made covenant with. But I don't find that in Scripture. And I cannot interpret "nations" and "families of the earth" as Gentiles because if Gentiles were to be included in this covenant it would say so and not leave words like "nations" and "families of the earth" up to be interpreted as Gentiles or non-Hebrews.
God is personal. There are countless men and women in Scripture God reveals Himself to and for the most part these persons are named. There is interaction. But for some reason there is nothing in Scripture of a non-Hebrew Gentiles whom God has blessed with covenant. I don't see God piggy-backing Gentiles on Abraham's covenant because there is no mention of Gentiles in the text, and it clearly says Abraham's seed.
If God made covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles, then there would be a description of the covenant and there would be a man who is named with whom is receiver of such covenant but there is none.
In Scripture the Hebrews lived in Goshen. In Scripture it says that God delivered Hebrews from bondage and still I find no mention of Gentiles being freed. The whole reason why the Hebrews was to be enslaved and controlled was because they began to become the majority in contrast to the Egyptians and this is why they were enslaved and controlled. Non-Hebrew Gentiles - if there were any living among the Hebrews in Goshen - were not a threat to Egypt. But then again Gentiles were not enslaved. It was a Hebrews only policy. And while in bondage God commanded the Hebrews participate in the Passover event and ritual. God commanded the Hebrews to apply the sacrificial blood on their doorframes and the Angel of Death would Passover those in that house. Gentiles did not participate in this for it was given strictly to the Hebrew people and they obeyed. The next day Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt and into the desert where God made covenant with this people of millions and they built a Tabernacle according to God's instructions. It was God who situated the families of Jacob (or tribes) around the Tabernacle, three to a side. If there were non-Hebrew Gentiles among them they were situated far from the Hebrew encampment. The Pentateuch, or the five books of Moses describes everything one needed to know about the God of Abraham and His dealings with the Hebrew people. God gave the Hebrews His Law to live by. Under the Law of God there was a high priest who did two things: he prayed for the people of God in covenant and offered sacrifices for the people of God in covenant. Scripture says that on Yom Kippur there was a temporary yearly atonement performed that absolved the children of Israel of their sins. Nowhere are Gentiles sprinkled with the blood, only the Hebrews. Nowhere do I read of the high priest leaving the land, travel to the Gentiles and offer sacrifices for their sins.
When Jesus arrived, He came with many titles, one of which is High Priest (Hebrews 3:1.) Under the Law the high priest interceded for the Hebrew people, even going as far as to enter the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle. Jesus interceded for the Hebrew people by praying for them in John 17 and then offered Himself as sacrifice in John 19.
Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. How does changing the Law lead to its destruction?
Let's take the Ten Commandments which was written on stone by the finger of God Himself. Then He gave the tablets to Moses to later be placed in the Ark of the Covenant. God's Word is written on stone. God is not going to change it. It is eternal as written. But if a man were to attempt to add, or subtract, what was written in the Law to change it he'd have to use a chisel. The person who would try to change the Law using a chisel runs the risk of chipping off a piece of stone he was not intending or even cracking or breaking the stone tablet thus destroying it. It is ruined. No glue, no tape, it is ruined. This is what Jesus meant when He said I did not come to destroy the Law (by trying to chisel-change it), but to fulfill it. It's simple. If the high priest did not pray for non-Hebrew Gentiles nor offer sacrifices for non-Hebrew Gentiles, then when Jesus arrived with the intent to fulfill the Law, then as High Priest neither did He pray for the world of non-Hebrew Gentiles nor offer Himself as sacrifice for their sins, especially when at the last Passover Jesus sitting with twelve Jewish men who represented the twelve tribes of Israel says His body and blood are "given for you", for the Hebrews. At this point, those who claim non-Hebrew Gentiles were atoned at the cross of Jesus Christ are teaching Jesus changed the Law thus destroying it, and this is sin. When we get to the New Covenant prophecy by Jeremiah, He states with whom God is making this New Covenant with and they are identified in his prophecy as the House of Israel (ten northern kingdom tribes), and the House of Judah (two southern kingdom tribes. In John 17:9 Jesus is explicit, He said, "
I pray not for the world" and the world is the non-Hebrew Gentiles. If non-Hebrew Gentiles were to be among the atoned, then the time to pray and offer sacrifice for them is right here and now (John 17.)
But Jesus did not do that.
If God wanted to atone non-Hebrew Gentiles and make a covenant with them God would choose out a Gentile man and speak terms to him and we would know this Gentile's name. In fact, as time goes forward there would be a Gentile Bible written of God's dealing with this people, there will be prophets and other important and significant men and women God would carry through the decades and centuries. God would give them His Law and there would be sacrifices ordered as part of worship and fellowship, but there is nothing in Scripture about this. If the high priest entered the Tabernacle and if one Gentile man is atoned, then Jesus would have to fulfill that and name Gentiles as part of those who were to be atoned along with the Hebrews. Now, we get into something called Universalism. WHY would God separate the Hebrews from the rest of the Adamites and give the Hebrews circumcision to set them apart from the rest of the Adamites?
No, I take Scripture as written. I don't add or subtract what is written there. I am very familiar as to God's behavior and the way He does things. If God ever made a covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles, it will be described in Scripture, not left to obscure misunderstandings of interpretation of words like "nations" and "families of the earth." If God made covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles, it will be written boldly in Scripture so there be no misunderstanding it or Him. We would know the name of this Gentile the same way God identified many times "Abraham" is the person He was speaking to. If God made a covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles, such a covenant would have a Bible with Gentile writers called by God and given the ministry of recording God's dealings with these Gentiles through the centuries until we get to the cross. After the cross there would be Gentiles writing a couple of gospels for the Gentile people to read and understand and give God the glory He's due for their salvation. If God was to make a covenant with Gentiles they would be included from the start, they would be given their own lot around the Tabernacle, the high priest would sprinkle them with the blood of the animal sacrifice, they would be included in the New Covenant and Jeremaih would write GENTILES in his prophecy and Jesus would have prayed for the world and there would be no John 17:9.
Being that we have only one Bible and it is a Hebrew Bible and among all the families of the earth God would choose one to exalt this one family ABOVE all the families of the earth, and save this one family to the exclusion of non-Hebrew Gentiles, the only way God could save non-Hebrew Gentiles would be to scatter the Hebrews throughout Gentile lands and through marriage, rape, concubinage, and slavery, the Gentile to be included in any and all three of these Hebrew covenants is to be born of at least ONE Hebrew parent. The children would be mixed Hebrew with Gentile but because God does not lie, that child born to a mixed marriage or otherwise, would have Abraham's blood and DNA in their veins and in this they would be heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:28-29.)
Jesus came to save the people He's made covenant with and that family is Abraham's family. But that child cannot be born from the seed of Ishmael or Esau, and all the others who are not descendant of Jacob. If so, that child would be blessed but not in covenant because Jacob inherited the covenant and later his sons and their sons and their sons ad infinitum. I believe God did plan to include Gentiles because I see His scatter a covenant people among Gentiles knowing that His covenant people would mix it up with them and have mixed heritage children. He knew. He planned it that way.
I believe in the five solas. I also believe as today's Jews do and that is God made covenant with Abram the Hebrew and Abram's Hebrew seed and that only through Christ without any action on the part of the saved to salvation is purely the grace of God and He has extended it to one people. Abraham's people. And if there are any mixed heritage children born to a Jew-Gentile patents, then by virtue of God's promise to Abraham and Abraham's blood and DNA in that child, they are in covenant with God and heirs according to the promise. The descendants of Ham and Japheth are arsed out. Unless, of course, they get with a Hebrew.
23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts;
In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations,
Even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying,
We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
Zechariah 8:23.
That's the only way non-Hebrew Gentiles are saved. And if God did make a covenant with non-Hebrew Gentiles we would know his name and verse 23 above would be written differently.
Salvation is OF THE LORD.
Salvation is OF THE JEWS.
But nowhere in Scripture does it say salvation is of the Gentiles.
Universalism is NOT taught in God's Word the Bible.