Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[CadyandZoe]

True to form, you messed up again. I claimed no such thing.

I hoped that by referencing the actual post via link you might avoid confusion.

Foolish me.

You really like wasting time with sarcasm? You have no wish to have a discussion?

 

[covenantee]

You really like wasting time with sarcasm? You have no wish to have a discussion?

Get your facts right, and then we can have a discussion.

 

[WPM]

That is not true. Paul is arguing that the descendants who will in inherit the promise God made to Paul's kinsmen of the flesh are those whom God has chosen.

Paul was actually directly cutting across the prominent erroneous Israeli ethnic delusion that many Hebrews were beguiled with that they were automatically a chosen people because of their race. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Paul blows this out of the water from many directions in Romans 9-11 and various other passages. He leaves no ambiguity as to what a true chosen child of God is.

Paul argues that God promised salvation to his fellow Israelites -- his kinsmen of the flesh. He begins by comparing two descendants of Abraham, followed by a comparison of two descendants of Jacob. In the end, he concludes that the only factor that differentiates them is God's choice. The same holds true for the salvation of Gentiles, but Paul is focused on his own kinsmen in this context.

Isaac was chosen based on a promise made before his birth. Similarly, Jacob was chosen according to a prophetic word given to Rebecca, also before his birth. In this context, the Apostle emphasizes that the salvation of any individual is always God's decision and occurs before that person has the chance to do either good or bad.

A quick review of Romans chapter 9 will reveal that Paul never mentions spirituality at all. Thus I see no evidence supporting your contention that Paul is comparing physical seed with spiritual seed. Rather, the clear comparison is between "being chosen" and "not being chosen."

Some might argue that spirituality is the criterion by which God selects individuals. However, other writings explain that spirituality is actually a consequence of being chosen; it serves as evidence of having been chosen rather than a prerequisite for being chosen.

God marks those He has chosen by circumcising their hearts. In the early chapters of Deuteronomy, Moses urges his people to circumcise their hearts, although they fail to do so (Deuteronomy 10:16). Later, after Israel has experienced both blessings and curses, God promises to bring Israel back to the land and, at that time, He will circumcise their hearts Himself (Deuteronomy 30:6).

“Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.​

In this passage, we see the promise of eternal life. God assured the descendants of Jacob that He would circumcise their hearts so that they might live. Logically, if God is both able and willing to circumcise the hearts of Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh, then why hasn’t He done so yet? Furthermore, why doesn’t He do this for every person on Earth? We must remember that spirituality is not the criterion for salvation; rather, it is the result of salvation. God circumcises hearts so that a person may live, and he only circumcises the hearts of those whom he has chosen.

What Paul was highlighting here was, that even amongst the highly-favored Hebrew race, there were those that were saved and there are those that were lost. He was showing that natural ethnic physical seed carried no automatic spiritual favor with God. He was showing that it was only a believing spiritual seed that were chosen of God.

Paul was very clearly differentiating between those who were merely natural children of Abraham and those that were true spiritual children of Abraham. He was showing that God's chosen people (the "election") are a spiritual people, who are the children of promise, and who have therefore placed their faith in Christ. He demonstrates that salvation is by grace and not by race. Yes, he very clearly concludes that the only factor that differentiates between saved and lost is God's choice. Isaac was indeed chosen based on the promise of God made before his birth. Jacob was also chosen according to the promise of God before his birth. Therefore, in this context, the Apostle emphasizes that the salvation of any individual is always God's decision and occurs before that person has the chance to do either good or bad. I agree!

The distinction between a Jew and a Gentile in this context lies in God's prior relationship with the Jewish people. According to Moses, God promised the Jewish people that one day He would "circumcise" their hearts—meaning He would enable them to truly follow Him. While God also transforms the hearts of Gentiles, He did not make them a similar promise.

Romans chapters 9 - 11 explain how God will keep his promise to THEM.

Agreed, bearing in mind that being "born after the Spirit" is a miracle of God and a marker of his choice.

Did God make a covenant with David? Isn't Davidic lineage a condition of being King? God does work with families and family lines. Don't allow your physical/spiritual dichotomy obscure the facts of the case.

I agree as long as we are inserting spirituality into the mix.

I disagree. Paul's argument begins with the premise that eternal life belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. Thus, your conclusion that ancestry means nothing contradicts Paul's opening premise.

It is important to remember, God has always had a people. Sadly, those who were of loyal Israel were often the minority, and sometimes a small minority. But God always had a remnant of true believers within the overall professing nation of Israel in the Old Testament. They were submitted to His plan, obedient unto His voice and consequently manifested His power and glory to a fallen world.

Old Testament Scripture makes various diverse allusions to this called out people. The Psalmist attests in Psalm 73:1, “Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart.” God was only bound to those within the camp of Israel who were set apart as sanctified people. He regarded only those who had renewed hearts as true Israelites. Isaiah 49:6 describes the elect congregation as “the preserved of Israel.” Psalm 147:30, Isaiah 11:12 and 56:8 calls them “the outcasts of Israel.” Isaiah 65:9 indicates: “And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.”

God has had an active spiritual people in each generation that knew their God and were committed to divine truth. They were a transformed community that were in holy communion with their Lord. Isaiah 10:20 authenticates this thought: “the remnant of Israel … shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.” Contrary, to what many Christians think, God’s favor was about more than racial pedigree in the Old Testament, it was instead about righteousness and truth. Isaiah 10:22 tells us: “though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.” Though many in the old covenant accepted the Gospel message, many more rejected it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Surely you jest.

Cite the Scripture showing that "Paul's heaviness and sorrow were caused by the possibility that God's promise might fail, proving him a liar."

You must remember that Paul was no dispensational doubter.

Why else would Paul voluntarily give up his salvation? Think about it. His main concern is God's faithfulness. He tells you this.

Romans 3:1-4

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.”​

In this passage, Paul raises an important question about God's honor. Will God remain true to His covenants and promises, or is He a liar? This concerns God's faithfulness. If some Jews do not believe, does their unbelief nullify God's faithfulness? The answer is no; God will remain faithful to His promises. If God's word does not come to pass, then God isn't God. Paul is worshiping the wrong God.

This is important because if God were to fail to keep his promises, what can we say about his promise of granting us eternal life? In fact, God is faithful to his promises; he is not a liar.

Paul begins a new discussion in Romans 9, where he establishes a set of unchangeable truths. He asserts that eternal life belongs to his fellow Israelites (Romans 9:4). Furthermore, he takes it as a given that God has made covenants and promises to his people, which also rightfully belong to them. Paul then raises an important question: "Did God's word fail?" By this, he is asking whether God's promises to his kinsmen have failed to materialize.

Our interpretation of his argument from Romans chapter 9 through Romans chapter 11 is understood within that context.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul was actually directly cutting across the prominent erroneous Israeli ethnic delusion that many Hebrews were beguiled with that they were automatically a chosen people because of their race.

I disagree. You are mistaken about his intent. He is not dealing with folks who believe that being Hebrew is the sole qualification to finding God's favor. He already dealt with that subject in the first eight chapters of Romans. Beginning in chapter 9, Paul changes the topic.

What Paul was highlighting here was, that even amongst the highly-favored Hebrew race, there were those that were saved and there are those that were lost. He was showing that natural ethnic physical seed carried no automatic spiritual favor with God. He was showing that it was only a believing spiritual seed that were chosen of God.

I disagree. While I agree that God's chosen people can be seen as spiritual seeds, Paul does not mention spirituality in this context. His discussion assumes that God has the ability to circumcise the hearts of anyone He wishes. Therefore, the real issue is that some of the Hebrews did not have circumcised hearts. God promised salvation to Paul's kinsmen, and since salvation involves a miracle in which God circumcises a person's heart, the question arises: If God does not circumcise every Hebrew heart, does God fail to keep His promise?

Understand?

Paul was very clearly differentiating between those who were merely natural children of Abraham and those that were true spiritual children of Abraham.

I disagree for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Paul does not discuss spirituality in that context. Instead, he distinguishes between the Hebrews whom God chose and those whom He did not choose. Additionally, Paul specifies that God's choice occurred in the past, even before birth.

I agree that God indicates his choice through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but that is not Paul's focus in this context. After all, God can bestow his Holy Spirit on any individual he wishes. The key question is, why doesn’t God extend this gift to every Hebrew, especially considering that he promised salvation to the descendants of Jacob?

Therefore, in this context, the Apostle emphasizes that the salvation of any individual is always God's decision and occurs before that person has the chance to do either good or bad. I agree!

Okay. Perhaps you might agree with me that God's election is not about selection, but rather about creation. In other words, God does not wait to see who will become a true believer before choosing an individual. Instead, He chooses the individual first, then fills them with the Holy Spirit and circumcises their heart.

Thus the question, why doesn't God do this for everyone?

 

[covenantee]

Why else would Paul voluntarily give up his salvation? Think about it. His main concern is God's faithfulness. He tells you this.

Romans 3:1-4

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.”​

In this passage, Paul raises an important question about God's honor. Will God remain true to His covenants and promises, or is He a liar? This concerns God's faithfulness. If some Jews do not believe, does their unbelief nullify God's faithfulness? The answer is no; God will remain faithful to His promises. If God's word does not come to pass, then God isn't God. Paul is worshiping the wrong God.

This is important because if God were to fail to keep his promises, what can we say about his promise of granting us eternal life? In fact, God is faithful to his promises; he is not a liar.

Paul begins a new discussion in Romans 9, where he establishes a set of unchangeable truths. He asserts that eternal life belongs to his fellow Israelites (Romans 9:4). Furthermore, he takes it as a given that God has made covenants and promises to his people, which also rightfully belong to them. Paul then raises an important question: "Did God's word fail?" By this, he is asking whether God's promises to his kinsmen have failed to materialize.

Our interpretation of his argument from Romans chapter 9 through Romans chapter 11 is understood within that context.

To whom are the promises?

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.


Scripture is unmistakable.

There are no promises for those who are not in Christ.

 

[Timtofly]

Where do all the billions of wicked come from in your millennium then?

Their mom and dad.

Can you imagine if all those under 20 today decided to worship Satan and decide to take over all the power and authority from their superiors?

2.6 billion people 33% of the world are under 20 years of age.

This rebellion is large because it represents those who have not matured and are easily deceived by Satan.

It will be the youth who rebel, against established authority. They will number in the billions at the end of the millennium, the largest demographic group, so the one as the sand of the sea. They won't be wicked, just deceived.

Did you know that under the OT church, parents were to stone a child to death, who would not submit to authority? Would you kill your 5 year old who kept disobeying you? No wonder you are so against the Day of the Lord. You must think being deceived and rebellion is OK, and that children are free to do as they please? The only difference, that is if parents even obeyed God and actually did that, is that you are under grace, and don't have to kill any one because they disobey. You seem to make up these billions as the worse people on earth, when they are no different than your own 5 year old child who you claim is innocent. The problem is that your 5 year old is born with Adam's dead corruptible flesh, and deserves death just by being born, yet you are willing to spare the 5 year olds life. These billions are not in Adam's dead corruptible flesh, they just made the wrong choice and listened to Satan.

What wicked act of violence are you looking for in these people deceived by Satan? Are you looking for some pre-existing condition that makes these deceived people worse than other humans? The only thing that changes is that when Satan is loosed those furthest from the camp of the saints are those who are deceived. That would be the last generation, all those under a certain age who also make up the largest demographic group on earth. According to Isaiah 65 any one under 100 is still considered a child. Yes, God will cause even the youngest among them to be consumed by fire as long as they have listened to Satan and have marched in rebellion across the breadth of the earth.

"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city."

That is one single city that all from the corners of the earth, from all directions have to march to. Those saints would still include that first generation of those beheaded over a thousand years earlier. They are still alive and reigning with Christ. Jesus is only in one city reigning, not thousands of cities at the same time. These deceived people have to make the effort to travel thousands of miles, only to be consumed by fire when they reach their destination. All they ever did wrong was listen to Satan and travel a long way, and that was enough for God to destroy them with fire.

Even you claim there are no wicked people on earth at the beginning of the thousand years. They had all been destroyed. No one on earth is a sinner in Adam's dead corruptible flesh who can only sin and disobey God. So no one is ever born in sin with a pre-existing condition of sin for 900 years. After 900 years there will be way more people than our current 8 billion from only a few hundred years including wars, plagues, and human wickedness. There could be 10 billion under 100 years of age when Satan is loosed to deceive them. So the only place these children come from are their parents.

Isaiah points out that some children will die throughout these 10 centuries. They will be killed, because of a lack of obedience. So those under 100 will be more susceptible to Satan's deception, than those who are over 100 years of age, and no one ever dies of natural causes. If you think that is not from Scripture, try reading Genesis a couple of times, and prove people cannot live to be a thousand years old.

Even Adam would still be alive today after 6,000 years, had he never disobeyed God. That is not an impossibility.

 

[WPM]

Why else would Paul voluntarily give up his salvation? Think about it. His main concern is God's faithfulness. He tells you this.

Romans 3:1-4

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.”​

In this passage, Paul raises an important question about God's honor. Will God remain true to His covenants and promises, or is He a liar? This concerns God's faithfulness. If some Jews do not believe, does their unbelief nullify God's faithfulness? The answer is no; God will remain faithful to His promises. If God's word does not come to pass, then God isn't God. Paul is worshiping the wrong God.

This is important because if God were to fail to keep his promises, what can we say about his promise of granting us eternal life? In fact, God is faithful to his promises; he is not a liar.

Paul begins a new discussion in Romans 9, where he establishes a set of unchangeable truths. He asserts that eternal life belongs to his fellow Israelites (Romans 9:4). Furthermore, he takes it as a given that God has made covenants and promises to his people, which also rightfully belong to them. Paul then raises an important question: "Did God's word fail?" By this, he is asking whether God's promises to his kinsmen have failed to materialize.

Our interpretation of his argument from Romans chapter 9 through Romans chapter 11 is understood within that context.

I disagree. You are mistaken about his intent. He is not dealing with folks who believe that being Hebrew is the sole qualification to finding God's favor. He already dealt with that subject in the first eight chapters of Romans. Beginning in chapter 9, Paul changes the topic.

I disagree. While I agree that God's chosen people can be seen as spiritual seeds, Paul does not mention spirituality in this context. His discussion assumes that God has the ability to circumcise the hearts of anyone He wishes. Therefore, the real issue is that some of the Hebrews did not have circumcised hearts. God promised salvation to Paul's kinsmen, and since salvation involves a miracle in which God circumcises a person's heart, the question arises: If God does not circumcise every Hebrew heart, does God fail to keep His promise?

Understand?

I disagree for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Paul does not discuss spirituality in that context. Instead, he distinguishes between the Hebrews whom God chose and those whom He did not choose. Additionally, Paul specifies that God's choice occurred in the past, even before birth.

I agree that God indicates his choice through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but that is not Paul's focus in this context. After all, God can bestow his Holy Spirit on any individual he wishes. The key question is, why doesn’t God extend this gift to every Hebrew, especially considering that he promised salvation to the descendants of Jacob?


Okay. Perhaps you might agree with me that God's election is not about selection, but rather about creation. In other words, God does not wait to see who will become a true believer before choosing an individual. Instead, He chooses the individual first, then fills them with the Holy Spirit and circumcises their heart.

Thus the question, why doesn't God do this for everyone?

God is a covenant-making and a covenant-keeping God. He has a single overriding spiritual covenant plan for mankind. God’s covenant of grace is a singular multifaceted covenant with man that runs through both the Old and New Testament economies. This is centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This arrangement involved Him committing Himself to a chosen people and facilitating their ultimate redemption. The elaborate old covenant arrangement simply serves as a picture of Christ’s person and once-and-for-all sacrifice for sin.

God is nowhere bound to a rebellious unregenerate ethnic people. He’s bound to those who have the Word of God written in the hearts and minds.

Salvation has always involved a spiritual covenant arrangement between God and man. It is a commitment from the Almighty that was made in eternity and worked out in time that sees Him enter into fellowship with His people. Those who experience this new covenant enter into a personal relationship with Lord. If there is no relationship then there is no salvation. If there is no salvation then there is no eternal hope. That applies to all men of all races in all ages.

God is nowhere bound to a rebellious unregenerate ethnic people. God’s blessing is not unconditionally upon a stubborn sinful religious people, regardless of who they are and when they lived. His true people are those who love God and hate sin. They are those who know Him, love Him and serve Him. They are a holy people who are set apart to represent Him.

This great overall truth is also expressed in comparable terms by Christ in John 10, when speaking about His sheep: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine” (v14). He also says in John 10:4-5, “the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.” He sums His thought up in John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”

What does this mean? Believers are followers of the Messiah. They have a spiritual bond with Him. He knows them. They know Him. He loves them. They love Him! They follow in the footsteps of their Master. If that is not the case then they are not a follower of Christ.

 

[CadyandZoe]

To whom are the promises?

In the context of Romans 9, it is not the seed of Abraham; the subject of discussion are the seed of Jacob.

Scripture is unmistakable.

Yes, the scripture can't be broken. Nonetheless, the scripture can be misunderstood, which is why we understand the text from the context.

 

[CadyandZoe]

God is nowhere bound to a rebellious unregenerate ethnic people.

If we go back to Romans 9:4, we see that indeed, God is bound to a rebellious unregenerate ethnic people.

He’s bound to those who have the Word of God written in the hearts and minds.

True, but he can write his law on anyone's heart.

Salvation has always involved a spiritual covenant arrangement between God and man.

Paul argues that Salvation has always been by grace through faith, but not always involving a covenant. In his epistle to the Galatians, he argues that Salvation is granted to the Gentiles according to a promise, not a covenant.

God is nowhere bound to a rebellious unregenerate ethnic people.

Again, according to Paul, God is bound to a rebellious, unregenerate ethnic people.

God’s blessing is not unconditionally upon a stubborn sinful religious people, regardless of who they are and when they lived.

On the contrary, God has the authority to bless anyone He chooses. Paul argues that salvation is based on God's decision, which is not influenced by human desires or actions. God's choice to save a specific individual is made before that person is born. The circumcision of the heart, which signifies the presence of the Holy Spirit, indicates those whom God has chosen.

Suppose Joe is a stubborn, sinful, religious person. What does that matter if God is both able and willing to circumcise Joe's heart and create a new believer? Jacob was a stubborn and rebellious man, but God blessed Jacob anyway. Salvation is a miracle of God's grace.

His true people are those who love God and hate sin. They are those who know Him, love Him and serve Him. They are a holy people who are set apart to represent Him.

When the Bible talks about God's "people" it refers to the family whom God chose to be his people among all the other peoples of the earth.

Everything you said about universal salvation is true and I agree with you. And if that is all that Paul meant to teach, he would have ended his epistle to the Romans at the end of chapter 8. But he wanted to make another point about God's promise to his people the descendants of Jacob. It's a different topic with different issues involved.

 

[WPM]

If we go back to Romans 9:4, we see that indeed, God is bound to a rebellious unregenerate ethnic people.

True, but he can write his law on anyone's heart.

Paul argues that Salvation has always been by grace through faith, but not always involving a covenant. In his epistle to the Galatians, he argues that Salvation is granted to the Gentiles according to a promise, not a covenant.


Again, according to Paul, God is bound to a rebellious, unregenerate ethnic people.

On the contrary, God has the authority to bless anyone He chooses. Paul argues that salvation is based on God's decision, which is not influenced by human desires or actions. God's choice to save a specific individual is made before that person is born. The circumcision of the heart, which signifies the presence of the Holy Spirit, indicates those whom God has chosen.

Suppose Joe is a stubborn, sinful, religious person. What does that matter if God is both able and willing to circumcise Joe's heart and create a new believer? Jacob was a stubborn and rebellious man, but God blessed Jacob anyway. Salvation is a miracle of God's grace.

When the Bible talks about God's "people" it refers to the family whom God chose to be his people among all the other peoples of the earth.

Everything you said about universal salvation is true and I agree with you. And if that is all that Paul meant to teach, he would have ended his epistle to the Romans at the end of chapter 8. But he wanted to make another point about God's promise to his people the descendants of Jacob. It's a different topic with different issues involved.

Romans 9:1-8 makes clear, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Paul is telling us that there are 2 Israels, possessing 2 childrens of Abraham, one natural, the other spiritual. One relates exclusively to the natural Jewish people, the other to the nations of the world.

Paul makes a clear contrast between those who are “the children of the flesh” and those who are “the children of promise.” He shows us that these are two different diverse peoples. In doing this he is attempting to illustrate the impotence of the natural and the potency of the spiritual. He shows that “the children of the flesh” are not “the children of God,” but “the children of the promise.” Natural race carries no special favour. Paul is demonstrating that it is “the children of the promise” that “are counted for the seed.” This spiritual company are the ones that really matter.

Some would try and restrict this reference to “the children of the promise” exclusively to natural Jews. But this would be an error. Whilst Abraham’s “children of the flesh” refers exclusively to natural Jews, the allusion to Abraham’s “children of the promise” undoubtedly embraces a spiritual people of all nationalities. After all, Paul is confirming who “the children of God” are here. He is establishing who the real children of Abraham are. He concludes: “the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” It would be exegetically wrong here, and contrary to repeated Scripture, to limit this discussion to natural Jews – saved and unsaved. The reason being Paul is showing us who the spiritual children of Abraham really are. Whoever they are Paul says that they are “counted for the seed.”

 

[covenantee]

In the context of Romans 9, it is not the seed of Abraham; the subject of discussion are the seed of Jacob.

There is the "seed of Abraham" in Romans 9:7.

There is no "seed of Jacob".

Why do you make such a blatantly false claim?

 

[covenantee]

If we go back to Romans 9:4, we see that indeed, God is bound to a rebellious unregenerate ethnic people.

Israelites were multi-ethnic Jews and Gentiles.

Every Gentile Israelite in faithful obedient covenant relationship with God was accorded all of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of faithful obedient covenant Jewish Israelites.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Romans 9:1-8 makes clear, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Paul is telling us that there are 2 Israels, possessing 2 childrens of Abraham, one natural, the other spiritual.

I disagree. The text lacks any discussion of spirituality. Additionally, while Paul mentions Israel twice, he refers to it in different contexts. The first mention pertains to Israel as it will be in the future, when God fulfills His promise to Paul's kinsmen. The second mention reflects Israel as it existed at the time Paul wrote his epistle. Essentially, the future Israel, as envisioned by God’s promise, will only consist of a subset of Jacob's children.

Paul makes a clear contrast between those who are “the children of the flesh” and those who are “the children of promise.” He shows us that these are two different diverse peoples.

That is not accurate. Paul is not discussing various diverse peoples. His argument focuses on Jacob's children and a promise God made to that family.

Some would try and restrict this reference to “the children of the promise” exclusively to natural Jews.

Paul specifies that his topic is concerning with his kinsmen of the flesh and a promise God made to Jacob's family.

He concludes: “the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” It would be exegetically wrong here, and contrary to repeated Scripture, to limit this discussion to natural Jews – saved and unsaved.

On the contrary, Paul limits the discussion to natural Jews in the first paragraph.

 

[WPM]

I disagree. The text lacks any discussion of spirituality. Additionally, while Paul mentions Israel twice, he refers to it in different contexts. The first mention pertains to Israel as it will be in the future, when God fulfills His promise to Paul's kinsmen. The second mention reflects Israel as it existed at the time Paul wrote his epistle. Essentially, the future Israel, as envisioned by God’s promise, will only consist of a subset of Jacob's children.

That is not accurate. Paul is not discussing various diverse peoples. His argument focuses on Jacob's children and a promise God made to that family.

Paul specifies that his topic is concerning with his kinsmen of the flesh and a promise God made to Jacob's family.

On the contrary, Paul limits the discussion to natural Jews in the first paragraph.

This is a total misrepresentation of what Paul is saying here. To be God's elect is spiritual. To believe is spiritual. To be a child of promise is spiritual. There is no getting around that. I suspect you know that. But you cannot admit that as it would demolish your thesis.

The Apostle declares in Romans 2:25-29: “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit.”

The Holy Spirit shows the change that occurred under the new covenant where physical circumcision has been superseded by just spiritual circumcision through salvation. To admit this would force you to change your theology. But the change is so clear and indisputable. Your rebuttal is just you repeating your own opinions - as if that is a valid argument. It is not. That seems to be a pattern in your posts. Scripture overrides your speculations.

Romans 2:25-29 is quite powerful in that it changes the nature and scope of what a real Jew (the “circumcision”) and a real Gentile (the “uncircumcision”) are in God’s eyes. God takes these common natural terms and spiritualises them, and in doing so redefines the whole argument of true identity.

Throughout the New Testament, the natural ethnic title “uncircumcision” (normally used to describe a Gentile) is amazingly used to describe the unbelieving Jew. Also, the natural ethnic title “circumcision” (normally used to describe a natural Jew) is amazingly used to describe the believing Gentile. This would have been anathema to the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day. It would have been the greatest insult to a Jew.

He is comparing those that are spiritually circumcised (representing all believers – both Jew and Gentile) to those that are spiritually non-circumcised (representing unbelievers – both Jew and Gentile). This is essentially a saved or lost issue, which keeps coming up repeatedly in Scripture. That is the only 2 peoples in this world, not Jew or Gentile.

It would be helpful to categorise the parties in view. Let us illustrate.

(A) Physical circumcision
(B) Physical non-circumcision
(C) Spiritual circumcision of the heart
(D) Spiritual non-circumcision of the heart

What Paul is saying is that A and B means nothing. Salvation is not a natural matter. He is emphasizing here as he continually does in his writings, C and D are what it is all about. This is how God truly views all men. Nothing else matters. He shows that C refers to all irrespective of race, nationality or status that accept Christ. He especially highlights how the Gentile who is by nature a B has been brought into this chosen grouping (C) through the blood of Jesus. He equally shows that D refers to all irrespective of race, nationality or status who reject Christ. He especially highlights the fact there will be those of A that equally belong to D and therefore damned. Nothing could be simpler.

In short, he shows that there will be those that are one thing in the natural and the opposite in the spiritual. Natural Jews can be spiritually classed as Gentiles (or heathens) and natural Gentiles can be spiritually classed as Jews. Of course, a natural Jew can also be a spiritual Jew through Christ, and a natural Gentile can be spiritually classed as a Gentile (or heathen) through refusing Christ.

 

[WPM]

I disagree. The text lacks any discussion of spirituality. Additionally, while Paul mentions Israel twice, he refers to it in different contexts. The first mention pertains to Israel as it will be in the future, when God fulfills His promise to Paul's kinsmen. The second mention reflects Israel as it existed at the time Paul wrote his epistle. Essentially, the future Israel, as envisioned by God’s promise, will only consist of a subset of Jacob's children.

That is not accurate. Paul is not discussing various diverse peoples. His argument focuses on Jacob's children and a promise God made to that family.

Paul specifies that his topic is concerning with his kinsmen of the flesh and a promise God made to Jacob's family.

On the contrary, Paul limits the discussion to natural Jews in the first paragraph.

The Church alone possesses the favored titles “the children of God” (John 11:51-52) and “the children of the promise” (Romans 9:8). Paul speaking to the Galatian church in Galatians 4:28 says, “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” Not only did Paul instruct the Roman Gentiles (in the much-debated Romans 9) that they were “the children of the promise,” he also described the Galatian Gentiles, in the above passage, the same. The Church today is therefore the “seed of Abraham” and consequently “the children of the promise.”

Paul said in Romans 9:22-26, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee (Hosea 1:10 & 2:23), I will call them my people, which were not my people (the Gentiles); and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

In perfect fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, the Gentiles have been brought into full union and communion with God, and have become a part of the spiritual seed of the righteous, through Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The spiritual blessings and promises that were therefore nearly exclusively restricted to natural Israelites have now been imparted to the Gentiles by faith. The Church is:

The “children of the living God.”
His “beloved” possession.
And are intimately known by God as “my people.”

The Israel of God is not therefore restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above. Paul the Apostles said to the largely Gentile church in Rome, in Romans 4:13-18.

Galatians 3:26-29 says, “For ye are all the children of the God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Scripture couldn’t be clearer. There is no allowance for ethnic difference within the body of Christ. There are no subgroups, cultures, colors or creeds, just one harmonious redeemed company that has been unified through the person and work of Christ our Savior. Those that have the Spirit of Christ in both the Old and the New Testament are the true seed of Abraham – that father of the faith.

 

[covenantee]

a natural Gentile can also be a spiritual Gentile through refusing Christ.

Bro, I presume you mean "through Christ".

 

[WPM]

Bro, I presume you mean "through Christ".

I have reworded:

In short, he shows that there will be those that are one thing in the natural and the opposite in the spiritual. Natural Jews can be spiritually classed as Gentiles (or heathens) and natural Gentiles can be spiritually classed as Jews. Of course, a natural Jew can also be a spiritual Jew through Christ, and a natural Gentile can be spiritually classed as a Gentile (or heathen) through refusing Christ.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is a total misrepresentation of what Paul is saying here. To be God's elect is spiritual.

I recognize that God's election is associated with spirituality; however, the concept of spirituality is not present in Romans 9. If you perceive it there, you have imposed it.

The Apostle declares in Romans 2:25-29: “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit.”

The Holy Spirit shows the change that occurred under the new covenant where physical circumcision has been superseded by just spiritual circumcision through salvation.

The belief that the presence of the Holy Spirit, along with its implications, serves as a sign of God's election is undeniable. The passage you selected illustrates this idea quite clearly. However, the notion of spirituality is neither suggested nor explicitly stated in the discourse of Romans 9, which focuses on a promise God made to Paul's relatives.

God is the one who performs the circumcision of the heart, often referred to as "circumcision made without hands." This heart circumcision is a miracle carried out by God, and He chooses whom to perform it on. The true Jew, as described in Romans 2:29, is the one who is inwardly Jewish as a result of God's intervention. This leads to a important question raised by Paul in Romans 9: Why doesn't God perform this miracle for every Jew? Is it due to some wrong action or thought they had? On the contrary, God reveals that the fundamental reason for individual election is His will for that person.

Paul is not focused on spirituality, as God can change it anytime He wishes. Instead, the focus is on why He doesn't do that for everyone.

What Paul is saying is that A and B means nothing.

I disagree. Paul readily acknowledges the value and significance of circumcision. Firstly, he explicitly states that circumcision holds value for a Jew if that individual obeys the law (Romans 2:25). Secondly, he argues that circumcision is particularly beneficial to the Jew, especially since the Jewish people have been entrusted with God's oracles (Romans 3:1-2). These points should be considered as important data in our analysis of Romans chapter 9.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul asserts that for those "in Christ," there is no distinction between Jews and Greeks. However, in Romans 9, he defends God's honor by arguing that God's promise to his fellow Israelites has not failed. He begins his argument with the idea that salvation is intended for his flesh-and-blood relatives. What does he mean by "of the flesh" if he isn't referring to his natural-born family, regardless of their spiritual status?

Spirituality doesn't enter into the discussion. The distinction between those whom God will save and those who will remain lost is a choice that God himself makes. Spirituality is evidence of election, not the prerequisite of election. And since God can circumcised the heart of any individual he chooses, then the ultimate question is why doesn't he do that for everyone?

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Church alone possesses the favored titles “the children of God” (John 11:51-52) and “the children of the promise” (Romans 9:8).

Granted, the appellation "child of God" refers to those who are inwardly like God and spiritually transformed. However, the appellation "people of God" refers to the particular family whom God chose to serve him overtly among the rest of the world.

Paul speaking to the Galatian church in Galatians 4:28 says, “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” Not only did Paul instruct the Roman Gentiles (in the much-debated Romans 9) that they were “the children of the promise,” he also described the Galatian Gentiles, in the above passage, the same. The Church today is therefore the “seed of Abraham” and consequently “the children of the promise.”

Granted. However, Paul's focus in Romans 9 is on the seed of Jacob, which is a different subject.

In perfect fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, the Gentiles have been brought into full union and communion with God, and have become a part of the spiritual seed of the righteous, through Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The spiritual blessings and promises that were therefore nearly exclusively restricted to natural Israelites have now been imparted to the Gentiles by faith.

Paul argues that faith has always been a sign of justification for both Jews and Gentiles. However, Romans 9 focuses on a promise God made to His kinsmen, the natural descendants of Jacob, and whether that promise has failed to be fulfilled. The relevant question is, "Why haven't the Jews entered the church?" as God promised they would.

The circumcision made without hands is strictly and necessarily a miracle, which only God can successfully perform, and so, given that God promised to circumcise their hearts, then what is he waiting for?

Scripture couldn’t be clearer. There is no allowance for ethnic difference within the body of Christ

I agree. But the question remains. Why didn't God circumcise their hearts as he promised so that they would enter the body of Christ?