Not much of a challenge there. Only a complete evasion of the question. And the tone is declining. And it's time for me to go anyway, I should be heading home!
Much love!
The Orthodox Preterist versus the Heretical Dispensationalist
- Thread starter Arthur81
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Much love!
Again, that's not anything concerning God's reason for choosing Abraham. These verses tell us Abraham's response AFTER God had chosen him.
What exactly is the reason you see here?
Much love!
There is nothing which somehow negates God's promises to those who are faithful and obedient to Him.
Abraham was the foremost early example of that. God chose him.
All of the faithful and obedient who have followed are examples of that.
God chose and chooses them.
Based exclusively on their spiritual DNA.
Faithfulness and obedience to Him.
And nothing else.
BTW . . . do you consider Nehemiah and Ezra to be racists?
In the face of Scripture declaring that there was no covenantal distinction between the home born and strangers, you deny and reject it.
Classic dispensational racism.
This is actually an Apples/Oranges fallacy, in that one speaks of an ethnic distinction, while the other speaks of a judicial and cultural distinction, or covenantal, as you put it.
Much love!
PS . . . see, I can't tear myself away! :)
So then this will be fulfilled for those who are faithful and obedient, is that what you are saying?
Ezekiel 39:27-29 KJV
27) When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations;
28) Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.
29) Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.
I didn't realize you thought that, then, that seems like something very different from what you were saying, or as I understood it. Anyway, I really do need to go! We'll pick it up later if you are inclined. Have a great evening!
Much love!
What would lead anyone to think that they were?
No fallacy at all, if you're attempting to claim covenantal differences between strangers and non-strangers based on race.
Last edited:
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 7,297
- 1,454
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Is the reason because the twelve tribes of Israel geneology was lost due to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70?
I am not an anti-semite by any means. I just don't believe anyone can tell who is from which tribe anymore due to God who destroyed their history in 70AD.
It becomes really outlandish, when people claim they are from a tribe yet have no roots to really establish that fact.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
No they were the OT congregation still covered by the NT Covenant, just that their economy was under the Law of Moses. They were not spiritual under the Law. They were spiritual still through the NT Covenant even though not physically implemented at that point. Their obedience in faith to the Law was pointing to the Cross, not contrary, nor replacing the Cross. There was always a spiritual remnant, not cut off at any point. They were still of Israel through ethnicity, thus natural branches.
After the Cross even natural branches would still be cut off. Israel did not stop being the natural tree. Gentiles did not stop being the wild branches grafted in. It just did not matter if a branch was natural nor wild. There was no longer an economy that people were naturally born into. Israel is still Israel. The Gentiles are still the Gentiles. The church is still a combination of both without respect to either party.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
That is where you are wrong. Israel was always ethnic. That is the whole point of being a natural branch, ethnicity. A wild branch by natural ethnicity is not part of the natural ethnic tree.
The Gentiles were all considered wild trees. All different ethnicities, all wild. There was only one natural tree of God, natural Israel. All other trees were naturally wild. Israel was naturally God's elect. All ethnicities were elected, but not by physical birth. The natural tree is not Jacob. The natural tree was always Jesus Christ. Jacob was a branch. Abraham was a branch. Isaac was a branch. Ishmael was a branch cut off. Esau was a branch cut off. Cut off because of disobedience. Only in Jacob, renamed Israel, was the natural tree allowed to continue to grow. And many natural branches were cut off, not just the generation of the first century. A branch cut off could still produce a now wild tree separate from the natural tree. All needing to be grafted back in.
Some posters keep pointing out that the NT completely wiped out the natural tree, and it could never be found nor preserved. That ethnicity stopped existence period. Paul never made that claim. Not once. Even Elijah thought that after his tremendous defeat over the wicked Israelites. Yet God declared there was a remnant of 7,000. Of course the physical promises in the OT are still found in the NT. Revelation 7 is an example. Of course some hijack such examples as if they think they don't exist, with some spiritual symbolic gesture.
Matthew 25 is the restoration of ethnic Israel. Yet many hijack those verses as some spiritual juxtaposition between the general saved and unsaved. I understand that is not how theology has portrayed such passages for many generations. Then when pointed out the argument that is just your private interpretation. Well someone's private interpretation put theology on the wrong track. Theology is not taught by the Holy Spirit. Theology is taught by religions from one's youth, and the Holy Spirit is not allowed to speak, because theology is not to be questioned.
Yes, comprised of diverse ethnicities from its birth and throughout its history.
Last edited:
Remeber when Abraham was told to circumscise his whole family when agreed to the covenant with God.
That did show he chose them as his nation byt eventually due to whoredom; he would send his Son.
Only circumcsion that matters today is the one of the heart not the old snip snip.
That did show he chose them as his nation byt eventually due to whoredom; he would send his Son.
Only circumcsion that matters today is the one of the heart not the old snip snip.
Genesis 15:12-21
(12) And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
(13) And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
(14) And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
(15) And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
(16) But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
(17) And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
(18) In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
(19) The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
(20) And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
(21) And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
This tells us of God giving the land to Abram and his seed, his descendants. This is a material possession for an ethnic people group in a unilateral covenant. There was nothing required from Abram to satisfy this covenant. God required of Himself to give to Abram the land. This is the same land that will be divided to the tribes again, after Jesus returns.
Jesus prophesied the kingdom that would come,
Matthew 19:27-28
(27) Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
(28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
This too will come to pass.
Much love!
Did you know they that both became very angry over the Israelites marrying those who were not? And that they required those marraiges to be disolved? I was just wondering if that to you seemed racist.
Much love!
Fulfilled long ago.
Joshua 21
43 And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
Not in God's New Will and Testament, it won't.
Part of the salvation experience. I received my regeneration many years ago at the cross, in Christ. How about you?
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Has come to pass for everyone who has and will come to Christ, past, present, and future.
Last edited:
My thinking on this is that, after Israel had been gone from their land, it had been renamed, others brought in to live there, after centuries of this, that some didn't believe Israel would be back ever again, so they had to "figure out" what all those prophecies and other passages "really meant".
Now that we see the beginning of Israel's return (partially back in the land in unbelief), and there doesn't seem to be any difficulty with these prophecies at face value, many can't let go of the idea. They've just invested so much!
Much love!
Similar threads
