Schemes...

[covenantee]

This does not mean that God will no longer keep His promises to the children of Jacob, that they shall live in their land with God, the head of nations, from which Jesus will rule the earth.

Much love!

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.

All the promises of God in Christ are yes and amen.

There are therefore no promises of God outside of Christ.

When did Christ promise unregenerate Israel earthly land?

 

[Brakelite]

That's an excellent point, Brakelite, but wouldn't you say all sorts of groups of people do that kind of thing with all sorts of different doctrines, things, and, well, what or who they view as authoritative, in all sorts of ways? Yes, I agree, generally speaking with you regarding Catholicism, but that's only one of many, many different iterations of "replacing Christ," or, in Paul's words in Romans 1, exchanging the truth for a lie and worshiping creation rather than the Creator. Right?

Grace and peace to you.

Yes, you are right. However, Catholicism sees certain specific doctrines as essential to being Catholic, such as the trinity, transubstantiation, etc. but not so essential as to impede some sort of loose union in which Rome is willing to tolerate certain differences with other Christian sects, and even non Christian religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and even pagan religions such as animism and ancestor worship. Rome is willing to turn a blind eye and form a union of "brotherhood" with those holding some distinctively different ideas and beliefs.
However, there is one distinct doctrine that Rome holds absolutely sacred, and in any union papal authority will require utmost subservience, even in secular circles and governments, which is why Rome is so busy promoting this doctrine globally and in the highest circles of society, going back many decades. No union with Rome is possible without agreeing to this one single doctrine that Rome sees as the ultimate sign of her authority, having changed the very laws of God in order to establish it. Sunday sacredness.

 

[Verily]

Yes, that is how I understand it as well. Amazing to me how anyone can think Paul is intending to keep Jews and Gentiles separate in Romans 11 when he clearly talked about them being grafted in together.


I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. All I can say is that, yes, it does talk about turning ungodliness away from Jacob. But, that is not just some future thing as many think. That has been going on since the death and resurrection of Christ.

Acts 3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

I was making dinner and it came to me that I think I screwed up in my reasoning (at least I think I did) so I come back to say so, not sure yet, so let me recheck myself here.

 

[PinSeeker]

I would easily argue that the ESV and all the more the NIV tend to be more interpretive, going beyond just a translation.

That's just not true.

I've found many many instances of that.

Hmmm. So, give me one or two. <smile>

The NASB is a very literal translation...

It is. So is the ESV. And the NIV. See above.

, except that it's from the critical text. The most common complaint I've heard about the NASB is that it has choppy, awkward readings. That's because it often follows the Greek word order, which is important because in Kione Greek word order is used to show emphasis, and you lose that unless that word order is maintained.

It's impossible to go strictly one-to-one from the Koine Greek to English. The language structure of the two is very different, I disagree that emphasis is lost, but am willing to entertain examples... <smile>

Just like the KJV with it's thee's and thou's show the singular and plural pronouns, as modern English does not.

If I say, "I declare to thee" ~ or "I say to you," in more modern English ~ I could be talking to one person, or I could be talking to a group of people, and if I say "Thou art" ~ or "you are" ~ the same ambiguity is there. The context is what makes it clear one way or the other.

And because people don't see when the pronouns are plural or singular, they get the wrong idea about some passages.

This discussion is... much less superficial than what you make it out to be. So again, specifics... <smile>

But I digress . . .

Hmmm, yes, you do... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[marks]

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.

All the promises of God in Christ are yes and amen.

There are therefore no promises of God outside of Christ.

When did Christ promise unregenerate Israel earthly land?

God promised to save Israel. So your objection is moot.

Much love!

 

[marks]

He already kept that promise.

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. 44 And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.


He rules the earth now, as scripture teaches. Just not in the way you think He will in the future.

Matthew 28: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Ezekiel prophesied long after the time of the judges. His prophecies are yet future, when all Israelites will be returned to the promised land, to never be made to leave it again. That hasn't happened yet. Jesus foretold this would occur when He comes at the end of the age.

Much love!

 

[PinSeeker]

God promised to save Israel.

He certainly did. No one here disputes that. The only question, Marks ~ the question you seemingly refuse to entertain ~ is whether that promise made by God had an immediate or an ultimate fulfillment. The answer, of course, is yes. He did save Israel, leading them through the Exodus to the promised land, and He will save Israel, leading us all through this life to the next. The land promise specifically, for us, is the whole earth. The "lesser" ~ immediate ~ promise points to the "greater" ~ ultimate ~ promise. This is a general pattern in Scripture; prophecies are layered in this way.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Verily]

I dont know if I should quote Spiritual Israelite again here or not, but I think I am stuck.

It dawned on me when I was making dinner that the comparison I was making through the bondwomans son (who we know is Ishmeal) and cast out

Even as this same thing is spoken of allegorically here right?

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

But who I am supposedly equally referring to as Jacob (or Israel after the flesh) here

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

And I am sitting here thinking, "How did I do this" or rather, how do I NOT do this?

I have total brain freeze here, anyone see my mistake or how I did this or how both can be true?

I am having a moment

 

[PinSeeker]

Ezekiel prophesied long after the time of the judges. His prophecies are yet future..

But his prophecy was made while the Jews were in Babylon, Marks, in Babylonian captivity. Yes, his prophecies were as yet future even then, but his prophecies had an immediate fulfillment ~ when King Cyrus later released them and they returned to the promised land ~ and will have an ultimate fulfillment ~ when Jesus comes back and we, as co-heirs with Christ, inherit the earth. The immediate is indicative, on a lesser scale, than the ultimate, which will be on a far greater scale.

...when all Israelites will be returned to the promised land, to never be made to leave it again. That hasn't happened yet. Jesus foretold this would occur when He comes at the end of the age.

Absolutely. That's the ultimate fulfillment. We are all Israelites, Marks. All of us who are in Christ. We Gentiles are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him we also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[covenantee]

God promised to save Israel. So your objection is moot.

Much love!

He promised to save the remnant of Israel. Isaiah 10:22; Romans 9:27

The question you avoided:

When did Christ promise unregenerate Israel earthly land?

 

[covenantee]

I dont know if I should quote Spiritual Israelite again here or not, but I think I am stuck.

It dawned on me when I was making dinner that the comparison I was making through the bondwomans son (who we know is Ishmeal) and cast out

Even as this same thing is spoken of allegorically here right?

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

But who I am supposedly equally referring to as Jacob (or Israel after the flesh) here

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

And I am sitting here thinking, "How did I do this" or rather, how do I NOT do this?

I have total brain freeze here, anyone see my mistake or how I did this or how both can be true?

I am having a moment

Two Israels.

Romans 9
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 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.

1. Of Israel:
Not all Israel
The children of the flesh
Not the children of God
Not the children of the promise
Not counted for the seed

2. All Israel:
Not of Israel
Not the children of the flesh
The children of God
The children of the promise
Counted for the seed

Only one of these two Israels shall be saved.

Romans 11
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Only faithful obedient spiritual "all Israel", comprised of the believing elect beloved remnant from Israel (Romans 9:27; Romans 11:1-5,26,28), and believers from among the Gentiles (Romans 11:11), shall be saved.

 

[Verily]

Two Israels.

Romans 9
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 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.

1. Of Israel:
Not all Israel
The children of the flesh
Not the children of God
Not the children of the promise
Not counted for the seed

2. All Israel:
Not of Israel
Not the children of the flesh
The children of God
The children of the promise
Counted for the seed

Only one of these two Israels shall be saved.

Romans 11
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Only faithful obedient spiritual "all Israel", comprised of the believing elect beloved remnant from Israel (Romans 9:27; Romans 11:1-5,26,28), and believers from among the Gentiles (Romans 11:11), shall be saved.

I agree with the scriptures posted. The thing is, Abraham's other son (according to the flesh) IS Ishmeal (as opposed to Isaac, whose SON is Jacob) . Whereas the allegory is specifically between the freewomans son (Isaac) and the bondwoman (Ishmael) which are they which pertain to the allegorical covenants (between that which is born of the promise, as Isaac was, even as we are, as by Christ) versus the children born the ordinary way (according to the flesh) which (to me) I might understand (as far as Ishmael goes) to be natural branches (even there)

But in the same way is it spoken of here (as far as the natural branches) but brings in Jacob (rather)

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

These are the natural branches he is speaking of, as he brings in "my covenant", and "names Jacob" (which is Isaac's SON). But not Ishmael who is Isaac's brother (according to the flesh). And so Jacob is shown according to a covenant (in the above).

Whereas here, to the contrary, although speaking the same way (when speaking of Ishmael in contrast to Isaac) both being sons of two women by Abraham (one by promise, and ofcourse one according to the flesh) says

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

I overlooked this, if I follow both through, they are both speaking of the same thing though.

So in one picture, Ishmeal (Abrahams son according to the flesh) is born before Isaac (we can reason that which is spiritual is not first but that which is natural is first) and the children of the flesh are not counted as seed (but the children of the promise are counted as seed, and that is by Christ (and if you belong to Christ ARE YE Abrahams seed hiers according to the promise/Spirit) and this is shown IN Isaac (as opposed to Ishmeal, where we see persecution/mockery) and thus fits the picture.

Where we also see

Gen 21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. (See Gal 4:30)

What I wasnt catching what that also agreed in was here for example here

Romans 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Which again, we are back to here once again

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Which is Jacob (who ofourse, his name was changed to Israel as we know) but the same similitude can be shown in the brother of Isaac as is shown in the son of Isaac and after all these years I never caught that.

When I say that (I dont want to be misunderstood) as not being aware that not all Israel is of Israel I have said so much myself over the years (I agree) I am specifically speaking of the two pictures they merge between Ishmeal and Jacob which has just given me a ittle brain freeze.

I was looking at something similar at another forum one time in the allegory that had me stop in my tracks before and no one could explain it to me and so I set it aside and let it go, and this one hit me while I was cooking dinner and it was again around a similar thing.

Edit : Fixed sentence

Maybe I am not making sense or explaining myself well, but that is what I was looking at.

 

[marks]

He certainly did. No one here disputes that. The only question, Marks ~ the question you seemingly refuse to entertain ~ is whether that promise made by God had an immediate or an ultimate fulfillment. The answer, of course, is yes. He did save Israel, leading them through the Exodus to the promised land, and He will save Israel, leading us all through this life to the next. The land promise specifically, for us, is the whole earth. The "lesser" ~ immediate ~ promise points to the "greater" ~ ultimate ~ promise. This is a general pattern in Scripture; prophecies are layered in this way.

Grace and peace to you.

You use this as a way to deny the original prophecies though. And so by your tradition you make the word of God of no effect.

God foretold a day when He would regather scattered Israel to their promised land, when not a single one would be left behind, and when no one would ever made them afraid, nor would they ever have to leave their land again.

This land promise is specifically for the children of Jacob, as the nation turns to God in belief when Jesus comes.

You have a method (layering?) by which you interpret these passages to say other things then the actual promise made, so again, by this you make His word of no effect, because you deny the plain saying, claiming that though these words were used, these sentences written, that they all actually mean something else.

So no! there will not be any end of the age return of Israel to the promised land. Though these things be written, yet that's not the promise.

But I don't accept that, I accept what the prophets wrote, as they wrote it, what it meant in the words they used. And so I do expect Israel we be regathered in salvation, as it is written.

Either you believe the words written, or you make them into something that wasn't in fact written. That's just the way it is.

Much love!

 

[covenantee]

I agree with the scriptures posted. The thing is, Abraham's other son (according to the flesh) IS Ishmeal (as opposed to Isaac, whose SON is Jacob) . Whereas the allegory is specifically between the freewomans son (Isaac) and the bondwoman (Ishmael) which are they which pertain to the allegorical covenants (between that which is born of the promise, as Isaac was, even as we are, as by Christ) versus the children born the ordinary way (according to the flesh) which (to me) I might understand (as far as Ishmael goes) to be natural branches (even there)

But in the same way is it spoken of here (as far as the natural branches) but brings in Jacob (rather)

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

These are the natural branches he is speaking of, as he brings in "my covenant", and "names Jacob" (which is Isaac's SON). But not Ishmael who is Isaac's brother (according to the flesh). And so Jacob is shown according to a covenant (in the above).

Whereas here, to the contrary, although speaking the same way (when speaking of Ishmael in contrast to Isaac) both being sons of two women by Abraham (one by promise, and ofcourse one according to the flesh) says

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

I overlooked this, if I follow both through, they are both speaking of the same thing though.

So in one picture, Ishmeal (Abrahams son according to the flesh) is born before Isaac (we can reason that which is spiritual is not first but that which is natural is first) and the children of the flesh are not counted as seed (but the children of the promise are counted as seed, and that is by Christ (and if you belong to Christ ARE YE Abrahams seed hiers according to the promise/Spirit) and this is shown IN Isaac (as opposed to Ishmeal, where we see persecution/mockery) and thus fits the picture.

Where we also see

Gen 21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. (See Gal 4:30)

What I wasnt catching what that also agreed in was here for example here

Romans 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Which again, we are back to here once again

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Which is Jacob (who ofourse, his name was changed to Israel as we know) but the same similitude can be shown in the brother of Isaac as is shown in the son of Isaac and after all these years I never caught that.

When I say that (I dont want to be misunderstood) as not being aware that not all Israel is of Israel I have said so much myself over the years (I agree) I am specifically speaking of the two pictures they merge between Ishmeal and Jacob which has just given me a ittle brain freeze.

I was looking at something similar at another forum one time in the allegory that had me stop in my tracks before and no one could explain it to me and so I set it aside and let it go, and this one hit me while I was cooking dinner and it was again around a similar thing.

Edit : Fixed sentence

Maybe I am not making sense or explaining myself well, but that is what I was looking at.

There are two different "they's" in Romans 11:28.

Never and nowhere in Scripture are enemies of the gospel ever numbered with the election.

Never and nowhere in Scripture do the twain meet unless and until the former as individuals accept Christ, and are then numbered with the latter.

Paul further declares:

Romans 11
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

The gifts and the calling are terms associated exclusively with those who have put their faith in Christ: His Beloved Election, His true Holy Chosen People: His Church.

Upon whom does God bestow His gifts?

Romans 12:6
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

1 Corinthians 12:1
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:12
Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

God's gifts are bestowed exclusively upon His Beloved Election, His Holy Chosen People: His Church.

To them, and to no others, His gifts are without repentance.


To whom is God's calling directed?

1 Corinthians 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Ephesians 1:18
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Ephesians 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

2 Thessalonians 1:11
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

2 Timothy 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:


God's calling is directed exclusively to His Beloved Election, His Holy Chosen People: His Church.

To them, and to no others, His calling is without repentance.

 

[PinSeeker]

You use this as a way to deny the original prophecies though.

Absolutely not. For you to accuse me of that... I mean, you can't; I'm not denying the original prophecies in any way whatsoever.

...by your tradition you make the word of God of no effect.

God foretold a day when He would regather scattered Israel to their promised land, when not a single one would be left behind, and when no one would ever made them afraid, nor would they ever have to leave their land again.

Absolutely. But the promise is much bigger than you make it out to be. Even ~ probably ~ much greater than even the prophets of old realized.

This land promise is specifically for the children of Jacob...

Right, who is Israel, who himself is a child of Abraham, as we all are ~ all Christians ~ children of the promise, through Isaac, as Paul says in Romans 9.

You have a method (layering?) by which you interpret these passages to say other things then the actual promise made...

No, again, you make the actual promise out to be far less than it really is, only seeing in it the immediate rather than the immediate and the ultimate.

...so again, by this you make His word of no effect...

...you deny the plain saying , claiming that though these words were used, these sentences written, that they all actually mean something else.

Not at all; I just don't see it as overly simple, as you do.

So no! there will not be any end of the age return of Israel to the promised land. Though these things be written, yet that's not the promise.

Who said that? Certainly not I... But, whoever said that, if it was written in the context that the promised land is limited to physical Israel, then I would agree, but only in a certain sense... in the sense that the return of Israel will not be limited to the promised land of the Old Testament ~ which was only what we might call a mnemonic device pointing to the full manifestation of the Promised Land as promised by God to all those in Christ. And I would say not that "that's not the promise" but rather that's not the full manifestation of God's true, ultimate land promise, which is the whole earth. <smile>

But I don't accept that...

Yeah, I don't either. Unless it is in the sense that the promised land is merely a strip of land on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea... in which case I don't really disagree, but continue to hold that the true ~ greater ~ Promised Land of God... <smile> ...is not just that small strip of land on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea but rather all of the land God created... including said strip of land on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea... the whole earth. <smile> Yes, so what I also don't do, is... under-estimate... who makes up the true Israel of God and what the true Promised Land of God is ~ the greater, ultimate manifestation of both.

I accept what the prophets wrote, as they wrote it, what it meant in the words they used.

LOL! Yes, me, too... <smile> But Who (capital 'W') really wrote ~ or breathed it, in Paul's words in 2 Timothy 3:16 ~ Scripture, Marks? So yes, the prophets meant it in the immediate sense, but even in doing so, God also meant it in the ultimate, eternal sense. This is God's Word and cannot be limited somehow to the immediate.

And so I do expect Israel we be regathered in salvation, as it is written.

Me, too. Of course. Goodness gracious. Israel is being gathered now, for sure; we are all ~ "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" ~ " in whom the whole structure, "being joined together," in Christ, and "grow(ing) into a holy temple in the Lord... being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit," as Paul says in Ephesians 2. And the Architect/Designer and Builder is God, as the writer of Hebrews (3:3-4, 11:10) says.

Either you believe the words written, or you make them into something that wasn't in fact written.

Well, I agree, but it's still possible to make them out to be at least somewhat less ~ but possibly far less ~ than they are, and that's exactly what you're doing, inadvertent as it may be.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Verily]

There are two different "they's" in Romans 11:28.

Never and nowhere in Scripture are enemies of the gospel ever numbered with the election.

Never and nowhere in Scripture do the twain meet unless and until the former as individuals accept Christ, and are then numbered with the latter.

Paul further declares:

Romans 11
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

The gifts and the calling are terms associated exclusively with those who have put their faith in Christ: His Beloved Election, His true Holy Chosen People: His Church.

Upon whom does God bestow His gifts?

Romans 12:6
Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

1 Corinthians 12:1
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:12
Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

God's gifts are bestowed exclusively upon His Beloved Election, His Holy Chosen People: His Church.

To them, and to no others, His gifts are without repentance.


To whom is God's calling directed?

1 Corinthians 1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Ephesians 1:18
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Ephesians 4:4
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

2 Thessalonians 1:11
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

2 Timothy 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:


God's calling is directed exclusively to His Beloved Election, His Holy Chosen People: His Church.

To them, and to no others, His calling is without repentance.

I am not talking about the election according to grace though, the present remnant that the Gentiles were being grafted into, as Paul says here

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Romans 112 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

The remnant are not cast away, even at the present

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Those that were cast away, it was through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

Romans 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

Romans 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Basically, he is saying as he goes into in Romans 11:17 that sure, some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them,

No doubt,

Romans 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

And this ofcourse, is speaking of the natural branches

Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

And then he goes on to say if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in, and as far as unbelief it says

Romans 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

WE have obtained mercy through their unbelief

Romans 11:31 Even so have THESE also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Although another question I have would be how is it that "through YOUR mercy they also may obtain mercy"?

But in the above is speaking of the remnant (which includes himself) and is speaking to the Gentiles who are presently (even at that time) grafted in among Israel (not the children after the flesh) but the children according to the Spirit even there. So even in this example you see the natural branches (cast off, and for unbelief) but hath God cast off his people who he foreknew (no, Paul is telling us he also is a Jew, an Israelite, God has not cast him off) for not all Isreal is of Isreal, its not circumcision after the flesh (by the hands of men) but of the spirit in the heart (etc). So both Isreals are shown (Paul would be included in the remnant) and the Gentiles grafted in among these. The natural branches that were cut off (that the Gentiles be grafted in) are those being spoken of here and we are the benfactors of their unbelief, but they can always be grafted back in.

I do understand the difference, but the two pictures the way they speak (whether allegorically) in the picture of the two covenants (of those after the flesh, Ishmeal) or Isaac (children of the promise, Spirit) have nothing to do my ability to distinguish that there are natural branches and an Israel that is Israel (in the sense that we might speak of "truly" being "of Isreal). What was blowing my mind a little was that you can reason these things covenently, through both the half/brother of Isaac (Ishmeal, in Gal 4:22-31) but also the son of Isaac (Jacob, in Romans 11:26)

I never caught that before, similitudes can allow for this, I just never caught that before, because in the first picture, Isaac is last (or after Ishmael). But in Jacob, Isaac is first (Jacob comes after) and yet both pictures pertain to Isreal after the flesh. And in both speak of being cast away (as is shown us in Ishmael, for examlple, in both Gen 21:10, Gal 4:30) and also in Jacob who would later be called Israel (for example in both Romans 11:15 & Romans 11:26).

I just never caught that before, whereas I did catch that not all Isreal was of Isreal. I thought if I didnt say that enough that that would appear to be the thing I was having an "Ah ha" moment on but it was not.

Edit typo