Another Premillennial absurdity

[Spiritual Israelite]

This was already pointed out to you by WPM, but I want to point this out again because you shouldn't miss this. Look at this passage:

Romans 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” 26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”

Compare to:

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Who does scripture indicate were formerly not the people of God? Gentiles! It's very clear. So, the "holy nation" Peter referred to must include Gentiles who were formerly not the people of God and they were joined together with Jewish believers. To try to say that "the holy nation" Peter referred to only consisted of Jews requires someone to disregard passages like Romans 9:22-26.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So? Do you not understand that there is a spiritual family line that goes back to Abraham which consists of those who belong to Christ?

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is true, but Deuteronomy 7:9 is not talking about a spiritual family who all believe.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Were those people formerly not the people of God? Isn't it your contention that the Jews are the people of God? If so, how could he have been saying that they were formerly the people of God if he was talking only to Jews?

Peter is speaking in general terms. Their ancestors were once called "not a people."

 

[CadyandZoe]

This was already pointed out to you by WPM, but I want to point this out again because you shouldn't miss this. Look at this passage:

Romans 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” 26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”

Compare to:

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Who does scripture indicate were formerly not the people of God? Gentiles! It's very clear. So, the "holy nation" Peter referred to must include Gentiles who were formerly not the people of God and they were joined together with Jewish believers. To try to say that "the holy nation" Peter referred to only consisted of Jews requires someone to disregard passages like Romans 9:22-26.

Paul is also talking about Israel, not Gentiles.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I do. It is honestly difficult to believe that you are for real.


That isn't possible since I don't drink coffee. But, if we did meet in person and we were talking about the same things we're talking about here, I absolutely would talk to you this way.


LOL. That was a good one. I have found many things wrong with things you have said and have shown that. Excuse me if I don't address every single thing you say. You don't address everything I say, either. That isn't reasonable to expect that and you know it.

I will say one thing in your favor, though. You are obviously talking to a few of us Amils at the same time (generally speaking) and we all strongly disagree with your beliefs. But, unlike another poster, you're not thinking that we're ganging up on you or anything like that. So, thanks for realizing that.

You are welcome.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, Paul is not talking about individuals. He is talking about Israel and the other nations. Only Israel, the family line of Jacob, is considered to be "natural branches." Remember the rhetorical question Paul asked in 11:11, concerning the nation of Israel.

Earlier, in 11:1, Paul asked whether or not God had given up on the Hebrews as a people. Paul answered no. Then he changes the subject from individual Hebrews to the nation taken as a whole. First he establishes the current state of affairs. With regard to the nation of Israel he says, " What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened." Israel, the nation, did not obtain God's grace, but individuals within that nation did. Romans 7:7 Finally, Paul sets out to argue that Israel WILL obtain God's grace. They did not obtain it yet, but someday they will.

But, he said some did obtain it, which were the remnant he mentioned in verse 5. Why are you ignoring that? You're acting as if he said none of them obtained it, as in the entire nation of Israel didn't obtain it, but that is not at all what he said.

They did not stumble so as to fall, meaning, their transgression did NOT result in their destruction.

Yes, and do you know why he said that? Because there was a remnant who were saved. If none of them were saved then they would have fallen, but since some were saved, they only stumbled and did not fall.

Israel will be grafted back onto the tree when God circumcises her heart. IOW, she will become a people of faith.

But some of them had faith back then and some still do now. He talked about SOME being cut off because of unbelief. You're talking as if they all were. That is not true because we know there was a remnant who believed. Those individuals remained in the tree and the ones who were in unbelief were cut off. Paul was clearly referring to individuals when he spoke of the branches. The entire tree represents a nation, not each branch of the tree. You are sadly mistaken.

Granted. Therefore, the branches must represent something else other than people or nations.

So, you are acknowledging that everything you said before is wrong then? Because up to this point you were insisting that the branches represented peoples or nations.

Paul says that God is saving the Gentiles in order to make Israel jealous. Where in the Bible does God talk about making Israel jealous? Deuteronomy 32:21. Why does God bring that up? This sentence is part of the Song of Moses, which the people are supposed to memorize and learn.

Now, in Deuteronomy 29:14-15 Moses speaks about two generations of people: (1) those standing here, and (2)those who are not standing here today. He speaks of another generation of the sons of Israel who will come later and review the result of the curses. (verse 22) and wonder why their parents did what they did. It's possible then, that Paul is speaking about generations during which Israel existed when God did not fulfill his promise to them as a nation. He blessed generations of Gentiles instead. Generations of Israel were cut off, while generations of Gentiles were grafted in.

Ugh. You just don't get it and I don't think you're even trying to get it. You just believe what you want to believe instead of accepting what scripture teaches. Romans 11 is about spiritual salvation (just like Romans 9 and 10 before it) and salvation is an individual thing, not a corporate thing.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The opposite is the truth. What Peter taught is in keeping with what Paul taught. After establishing the sovereign position held by God in salvation, Paul brings the Gentiles into the picture in regard to election in Romans 9:23-24. He contends in Romans 9:23-26, “that he [God] 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 2:23), I will call them my people, which were not my people; 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 (Hosea 1:10)”

In his great election discourse of Romans 9, Paul shows how true Israel has expanded out to incorporate the Gentiles. He previously covered this in great detail in Romans 2 and Romans 4. In perfect fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, the Gentiles have been brought into full union and communion with God, on the same basis as Israel’s remnant community, and have become a part of the spiritual seed of Abraham, through faith in Christ and His atoning sacrifice.

Paul demonstrates in Romans 9:23-26 that Gentiles will be saved and join Israel’s believing remnant and as a result will be wholly considered as God’s chosen people. He proceeds to quote Hosea 2:23 (in verse 25) and Hosea 1:10 (in verse 26) to support his hypothesis. We see the enjoinment highlighted by the prophet Hosea in unambiguous terms. Not even the Dispensationalists could dilute this down or explain it away. Hosea 1:10 declares: “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”

This correlates with many New Testament Scriptures that prove that we who were once aliens from God’s favor and separated from true Israel have now been fully integrated into believing Israel. New covenant Gentiles have been grafted into faithful Israel. Believing Gentiles and believing Israel share the same spiritual space and are not part of separate programs.

The next verse reveals what it is all about: “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.” The Old Testament narrative is seen to be all about Jesus.

God’s heart was always to reach out to the Gentiles in a significant way. In the Old Testament they were frequently viewed in negative terms as blind, ignorant, in darkness and not God’s people. But an important part of the Abrahamic covenant, and the new covenant arrangement, was the enlightenment of the Gentiles. The cross was the turning point, but Pentecost empowered the Jewish believers to reach out and touch the nations. As a result, countless Gentiles were adopted into the congregation of God on an equal footing to the Jews. This supports the reality of a continuity of God’s people relating to God’s overriding covenant of grace covering both testaments.

Paul then quotes from Hosea 2:23: “I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.”

Central to Paul’s “remnant” theology teaching is the integration of the Gentiles into faithful Israel. He demonstrates how a large influx of Gentiles would come into the covenant family. The spiritual blessings and promises that were near exclusively restricted to natural Israelites have now been imparted to the Gentiles by faith. The New Testament people of God are now:

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

The elect remnant (the early followers of Jesus) functioned in the covenant promises pertaining to Israel, including extending out salvation to the nations. The Abrahamic promises, and many other Old Testament prophecies were realized in the growth of the new covenant congregation of God (ekklesia) to the nations – the Church. Paul confirms this when speaking to the Gentile believers at Galatia, saying, “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now” Galatians 4:28-29).

There is now no difference today between them and the elect Jews. Nationality doesn’t matter anymore today in the new covenant economy. Romans 10:12-13: “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

There are no ethnicities 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. The distinction is only between those that are born of God and are of the household of faith (both natural Israelites and natural Gentiles) and those that are Christ rejecting and consequently of their father the devil and are therefore of the flesh (both natural Israelites and natural Gentiles). God’s only vehicle for communion and the revelation of Himself on this earth is His body – the temple – the Church. This body, the Church, is the sole body ordained of God for the proclamation and defense of the Word of God, and has Christ as its supreme ruling Head.

Paul continues his thought in Romans 10:19-21. He employs Deuteronomy 32:21 to make this see them point: “Moses saith, I will provoke you (natural Israel) to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation (the mainly Gentile New Testament Church) I will anger you.”

This “foolish” nation that has been graciously found of God, without first seeking Him, is the largely Gentile New Testament congregation. They are those of all kindred’s, tongues and tribes, who have come to God through Christ in true repentance. That elect people are not a physical earthly nation but an invisible spiritual kingdom.

In Romans 10:20-21, Paul supports his line of reasoning, this time referring to Isaiah 65:1, saying, “Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me (the Gentiles). But to Israel (according to the flesh) he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.”

In Romans 10 Paul is tracing the unbelief of the Jews by which they rejected Jesus Christ. Paul makes clear that there is no difference between Jews and Greeks under the new covenant.

Paul is speaking about Israel, the nation, in Romans 9:23-26, because Hosea is also talking about Israel.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paul is also talking about Israel, not Gentiles.

Are you even reading the passages I'm referencing? In Romans 9:24 Paul said "even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles". Did you just completely disregard that part? He was talking about Jews AND Gentiles.

Before Christ came to bring Jew and Gentile believers together as one, they were not together as one people of God. But, Christ changed all that. What Paul taught in Romans 9:22-26 is what he also taught in other passages like this:

Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Notice how Paul indicates that Gentiles were formerly "without hope and without God in the world". They were not God's people. But, once Christ died for the sins of the world, Gentile believers became God's people and were joined together with Israelite believers as "one new humanity" in Christ.

To think that Paul was talking about Israel formerly not being the people of God is ludicrous. That is clearly not true. No, it was the Gentiles who were formerly not the people of God. And there was formerly not a people of God consisting of Jew and Gentile believers until the blood of Christ brought them together as one. Your understanding of scripture is completely lacking. You have to disregard the entire New Testament in order to come to the conclusions that you do.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, Paul is not talking about individuals. He is talking about Israel and the other nations. Only Israel, the family line of Jacob, is considered to be "natural branches." Remember the rhetorical question Paul asked in 11:11, concerning the nation of Israel.

Earlier, in 11:1, Paul asked whether or not God had given up on the Hebrews as a people. Paul answered no. Then he changes the subject from individual Hebrews to the nation taken as a whole. First he establishes the current state of affairs. With regard to the nation of Israel he says, " What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened." Israel, the nation, did not obtain God's grace, but individuals within that nation did. Romans 7:7 Finally, Paul sets out to argue that Israel WILL obtain God's grace. They did not obtain it yet, but someday they will. They did not stumble so as to fall, meaning, their transgression did NOT result in their destruction.

That I completely agree with. It is talking about the Salvation of a *Nation,* and not just about the Salvation of Individual Jews. The language suggests something that has not happened yet for the Jewish People, although Jewish Individuals had already converted to Christ. So Paul must be speaking of a future event in which Israel would be regathered as a Nation.

The precedent for this is everywhere in the OT Scriptures. Israel went through the Babylonian Captivity, and didn't return as Gentiles under a New Covenant. Rather, those Jews willing to return came back to the land of Israel and were regathered as a Nation. Paul is saying that the same thing will occur in the NT when Christ returns.

Israel will be grafted back onto the tree when God circumcises her heart. IOW, she will become a people of faith.

Granted. Therefore, the branches must represent something else other than people or nations. Paul says that God is saving the Gentiles in order to make Israel jealous. Where in the Bible does God talk about making Israel jealous? Deuteronomy 32:21. Why does God bring that up? This sentence is part of the Song of Moses, which the people are supposed to memorize and learn.

Now, in Deuteronomy 29:14-15 Moses speaks about two generations of people: (1) those standing here, and (2)those who are not standing here today. He speaks of another generation of the sons of Israel who will come later and review the result of the curses. (verse 22) and wonder why their parents did what they did. It's possible then, that Paul is speaking about generations during which Israel existed when God did not fulfill his promise to them as a nation. He blessed generations of Gentiles instead. Generations of Israel were cut off, while generations of Gentiles were grafted in.

This part gets dicey, because arguments based on metaphors and parables tend towards differing, subjective interpretations. My own view is that the metaphor of a tree represents the OT image of Gentile converts to Israel under their appointed theocracy. Disobedient Jewish Individuals were cut off in accordance with the Law. And proselytes could be grafted into the tree, becoming one with Israel.

This metaphor is just a metaphor, and ceases to be relevant when applying to Paul's point about the restoration of the Israeli Nation! To apply the Tree in that way one would have to say the entire Tree is uprooted, and later replanted. ;) The metaphor was only designed to show that God had made a way for non-Jews to be co-participants in the Kingdom originally promised to Israel.

Just my view... Brother, there are those in this thread who declare that you don't believe in Jesus' Deity. I've long believed your were orthodox in your doctrine. What is your response to their claims?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paul is speaking about Israel, the nation, in Romans 9:23-26, because Hosea is also talking about Israel.

Don't act like you have a better understanding of Hosea than Paul. He included Gentiles as being the ones who God would call His people who were not formerly His people. You are trying to force Paul to say something different than what he actually said just because of how you read Hosea. Let Paul tell you how Hosea should be understood instead of the other way around.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is true, but Deuteronomy 7:9 is not talking about a spiritual family who all believe.

Yes, it is. You will continue to misinterpret the Old Testament as long as you insist on trying to interpret it in isolation without the aid of the New Testament. That's the bottom line. You are not allowing the New Testament authors to give you enlightenment in regards to what the Old Testament scriptures actually mean.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This was already pointed out to you by WPM, but I want to point this out again because you shouldn't miss this. Look at this passage:

Romans 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” 26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”

Compare to:

9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Who does scripture indicate were formerly not the people of God? Gentiles! It's very clear. So, the "holy nation" Peter referred to must include Gentiles who were formerly not the people of God and they were joined together with Jewish believers. To try to say that "the holy nation" Peter referred to only consisted of Jews requires someone to disregard passages like Romans 9:22-26.

That is not true, that those "Not Called a People of God" had to include Gentiles, since in the OT the Prophet Hosea applied this strictly to Israel. The fact proselytes always were given access to Israel by joining in the observances of the Law and by entering into the covenant God gave to Israel did not in any way mean that God was applying "Not a People" to Gentiles!

God was in effect saying that Israel was being "cut off" from being under the covenant of Law, and thus, viewed as no longer the "People of God." It was given only as a temporary name because in the same prophecy God said He would reinstate them, assuring them that enough of them would recover to be able to reconstitute a nation and return to national compliance with the Law.

Paul argued in the NT that Gentiles could apply the same principle as a means of entering into God's covenant with Israel, simply by doing what God required Israel to do, namely repent and return to a covenant relationship with God.

Hosea 1.8 After she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, Gomer had another son. 9 Then the Lord said, “Call him Lo-Ammi (which means “not my people”), for you are not my people, and I am not your God...
2.1 Say of your brothers, ‘My people,’ and of your sisters, ‘My loved one.’

Romans 9.
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
26 and,
“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:
“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Paul was arguing that God put up with the failures of many in Israel who would be "cut off" as disobedient Jews in order to obtain, in the process, many obedient Jews. And if He was willing to put up with the disobedient in order to receive some of them back by repentance, then the same principle would apply to Gentiles who wish to repent and participate in God's forgiveness.

Paul didn't just say that God rejected all those Jews who were disobedient, but rather, granted that many of them would be able to return to God through repentance. This means that pagan Gentiles, if they repent, can also be forgiven and enter into Christ's covenant given to all nations.

 

[WPM]

Paul is speaking about Israel, the nation, in Romans 9:23-26, because Hosea is also talking about Israel.

You ignore every Scripture that is presented, you ignore every argument that is presented, all you have is your fly-by denials. Obviously, you have nothing to rebut the truth being presented. This is a one-way discussion.

 

[covenantee]

The Scriptures say that there is Divinity, i.e. Godhood, in Jesus.

I believe that there is Divinity, i.e. Godhood, in Jesus.

Do you believe that there is Divinity, i.e. Godhood, in Jesus?

No, I don't. The Divinity of Jesus did not come from the Bible; it came from the Catholic Church. The Apostles taught that Jesus is the image of God, the exegesis of God, the revelation of God, the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature. But Jesus was a man, not a divinity.

Just my view... Brother, there are those in this thread who declare that you don't believe in Jesus' Deity. I've long believed your were orthodox in your doctrine. What is your response to their claims?

FYI

 

[CadyandZoe]

But, he said some did obtain it, which were the remnant he mentioned in verse 5. Why are you ignoring that? You're acting as if he said none of them obtained it, as in the entire nation of Israel didn't obtain it, but that is not at all what he said.

We need to keep track of when Paul is speaking about Israel, the body corporate, vs the people of Israel. When Paul wants to make a point about the body corporate, he uses the term "Israel." When he wants to talk about his own kinsmen, he uses the term "Jew", "Jews", "Hebrew" or "Hebrews." A quick perusal of the book of Romans will reveal that Paul doesn't use the term Israel anywhere in all of the 16 chapters except in chapters 9 through 11, where he intends to focus on the body corporate. In that context he has a lot to say about the failures of the body corporate.

9:31 however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
10:19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous with those who are not a nation, With a foolish nation I will anger you.”
10:21 But as for Israel, He says, “I have spread out My hands all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
11:2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

In each of these cases, Paul is speaking negatively about the body corporate, Israel, while at the same time maintaining that some of his kinsmen, Israelites, are being saved.

11:11 continues with a discussion of the body corporate, which Paul says committed a serious transgression. He implicates the body corporate in the murder of the Messiah, which is an advantage to the Gentiles. And in that context, he argues that even this offence did not result in the destruction of the body corporate and God did not lose interest in it.

Yes, and do you know why he said that? Because there was a remnant who were saved. If none of them were saved then they would have fallen, but since some were saved, they only stumbled and did not fall.

Again, Paul has changed the subject in 11:11 and speaks about the body corporate and not individuals.

But some of them had faith back then and some still do now. He talked about SOME being cut off because of unbelief.

I disagree because by implication, the "natural branches" were on the tree by virtue of their race. And Paul would never say that an individual belongs on the tree by virtue of his race. There are NO natural individuals. Only the body corporate is natural.

Romans 11 is about spiritual salvation (just like Romans 9 and 10 before it) and salvation is an individual thing, not a corporate thing.

Romans 9-11 isn't about individual salvation. Paul already spent 8 entire chapters on that subject. The actual focus of Romans 9-11 is a promise God made to Israel, the body corporate. When God brought his people out of Egypt he treated them like an army. The Bible even refers to them as "the host", which is a reference to an army. Israel was just like an army at that time; they ate together, marched together, moved in unison, gathered in the same encampment, and eventually they fought together. Think of the body corporate as a unit of people, in complete agreement and concord, acting as a unified whole. God made a promise to the nation and Paul attempts to explain how God will keep his promise to IT.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Are you even reading the passages I'm referencing? In Romans 9:24 Paul said "even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles". Did you just completely disregard that part?

No, I didn't ignore it. Contrary to what others might think, Paul has finished his thought in verse 24 and he has started a new thought in 25. Your translation may have a comma there, but in my view, there should be a period and a paragraph separation ther

To think that Paul was talking about Israel formerly not being the people of God is ludicrous.

God said so in the book of Hosea. Think about it, the prophecy speaks about a time when it was said, "you are not my people." There has NEVER been a time when this was said of Gentiles. Of course the Gentiles were not his people. This goes without saying. But consider what it means to be "my people". This phrase is informed by ancient beliefs that each region of the earth was ruled by different gods. And each god had his own people. Yahweh brought a people for himself out of Egypt. The promise "I will be your God and You will be my people" is understood in the context of polytheism when it was supposed that each region of the earth was controlled by a different god. And, not only this, a god is "god" to a people if he is able to bless them materially and keep them safe from their enemies.

While the followers of Jesus are "his people" in a truer, more profound way, it isn't true, therefore, that Yahweh promises to bless us materially and keep our enemies from attacking us. Rather, we are looking for eternal life in the age of ages.

Nonetheless, God promised Israel, the body corporate, to bless them materially and protect them from their enemies.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We need to keep track of when Paul is speaking about Israel, the body corporate, vs the people of Israel.

Yes, we do. And you're doing a terrible job of that. He contrasts two groups within the corporate body (nation) of Israel. One is the remnant saved by grace (Romans 11:5). And then there is "the others" who were not saved and their hearts were hardened (Romans 11:7).

So, when he said in Romans 11:7 that Israel did not obtain it (salvation), he was not referring to corporate Israel as a whole, he was referring specifically to "the others" who were hardened and not to the "remnant chosen by grace".

When Paul wants to make a point about the body corporate, he uses the term "Israel." When he wants to talk about his own kinsmen, he uses the term "Jew", "Jews", "Hebrew" or "Hebrews." A quick perusal of the book of Romans will reveal that Paul doesn't use the term Israel anywhere in all of the 16 chapters except in chapters 9 through 11, where he intends to focus on the body corporate. In that context he has a lot to say about the failures of the body corporate.

9:31 however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
10:19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous with those who are not a nation, With a foolish nation I will anger you.”
10:21 But as for Israel, He says, “I have spread out My hands all day long to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
11:2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

In each of these cases, Paul is speaking negatively about the body corporate, Israel, while at the same time maintaining that some of his kinsmen, Israelites, are being saved.

11:11 continues with a discussion of the body corporate, which Paul says committed a serious transgression. He implicates the body corporate in the murder of the Messiah, which is an advantage to the Gentiles. And in that context, he argues that even this offence did not result in the destruction of the body corporate and God did not lose interest in it.

But he is talking specifically about those who were not saved there and not all of Israel. You keep talking as if he was referring to the entire nation of Israel in verses like those when he was actually referring to the individuals of Israel who were not saved.

Again, Paul has changed the subject in 11:11 and speaks about the body corporate and not individuals.

I disagree because by implication, the "natural branches" were on the tree by virtue of their race. And Paul would never say that an individual belongs on the tree by virtue of his race. There are NO natural individuals. Only the body corporate is natural.

The olive tree represents salvation. Anyone who is grafted in is saved and anyone who is not is not saved. That's why it talks about being cut off because of unbelief and grafted in because of faith. That's how salvation works. Paul talked about the same thing without the use of metaphors not long before that:

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

If you read Romans 11 in light of a passage like this it shouldn't be hard to recognize that Paul was talking in Romans 11 about spiritual salvation and how God put "no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved". A wild branch being grafted into the cultivated olive tree represents a Gentile believer calling on the name of the Lord and putting his or her faith in Christ and being saved.

Romans 9-11 isn't about individual salvation.

Is the following not within Romans 9-11?

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Are you actually trying to tell me that you don't think this passage is about individual salvation?

Paul already spent 8 entire chapters on that subject. The actual focus of Romans 9-11 is a promise God made to Israel, the body corporate.

So, the parts about the Gentiles in Romans 9-11 should just be ignored then?

When God brought his people out of Egypt he treated them like an army. The Bible even refers to them as "the host", which is a reference to an army. Israel was just like an army at that time; they ate together, marched together, moved in unison, gathered in the same encampment, and eventually they fought together. Think of the body corporate as a unit of people, in complete agreement and concord, acting as a unified whole. God made a promise to the nation and Paul attempts to explain how God will keep his promise to IT.

What promise is that exactly? What do you think God will do for them that He hasn't already done? Was sending His Son to die for all of their sins somehow not enough?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I didn't ignore it. Contrary to what others might think, Paul has finished his thought in verse 24 and he has started a new thought in 25. Your translation may have a comma there, but in my view, there should be a period and a paragraph separation ther

This is nothing short of insane. You have proven yet again that you will twist scripture in any way you can to get it to say what you want it to say. This is just plain shameful. I have no respect for you because of how you twist scripture like this. There is no basis whatsoever to think that he changed the subject in verse 25. None. It is very clear that he was expanding on what he had just been saying in verse 25. A 3 year old can see that. Please stop this nonsense.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That I completely agree with. It is talking about the Salvation of a *Nation,* and not just about the Salvation of Individual Jews. The language suggests something that has not happened yet for the Jewish People, although Jewish Individuals had already converted to Christ. So Paul must be speaking of a future event in which Israel would be regathered as a Nation.

The precedent for this is everywhere in the OT Scriptures. Israel went through the Babylonian Captivity, and didn't return as Gentiles under a New Covenant. Rather, those Jews willing to return came back to the land of Israel and were regathered as a Nation. Paul is saying that the same thing will occur in the NT when Christ returns.

This part gets dicey, because arguments based on metaphors and parables tend towards differing, subjective interpretations. My own view is that the metaphor of a tree represents the OT image of Gentile converts to Israel under their appointed theocracy. Disobedient Jewish Individuals were cut off in accordance with the Law. And proselytes could be grafted into the tree, becoming one with Israel.

This metaphor is just a metaphor, and ceases to be relevant when applying to Paul's point about the restoration of the Israeli Nation! To apply the Tree in that way one would have to say the entire Tree is uprooted, and later replanted. ;) The metaphor was only designed to show that God had made a way for non-Jews to be co-participants in the Kingdom originally promised to Israel.

Just my view... Brother, there are those in this thread who declare that you don't believe in Jesus' Deity. I've long believed your were orthodox in your doctrine. What is your response to their claims?

It depends on how one defines "deity". Typically when Christians talk about the Deity of Christ, they speak in terms of his quiddity, the "what-ness" of Jesus. This idea is exemplified and defined in many of the creedal statements.

The following comes from the Athanasian Creed, which I believe is unbiblical.

The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

This doctrine doesn't come from the Bible itself, it actually comes from early Christians who were steeped in Aristotle's metaphysics. They attempted to define the oneness of God in scientific terms asking "what is the nature of God, The Trinity, and Jesus specifically?

I believe in the Trinity and I believe that Jesus is God. But I believe that the Bible defines the relationship between Father and Son, not in terms of their quiddity, but in terms of their identity. The Biblical claim is that Jesus is the son of God; he is the image of God; he is the exegesis of God.

John says that no one has seen God at anytime. In this he speaks about the Transcendent Creator. The best analogy I have heard with regard to transcendence is an author's standpoint with respect to his novel. Putting aside the fact that the characters in a novel are fictional, the author/novel analogy helps me understand the concept of transcendence. No one has seen God in the same way that a character in a novel can never see the author. The characters exist on a lower level of existence than the author and they can never rise to his or her level of existence. If the Author wants to place himself in the novel and interact with the characters, he need to write himself into the story. In a sense, I believe God the transcendent one, has written himself into his creation, so to speak, in the man Jesus.

The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all one, but it does not follow, therefore that each of them are of the same essence. Jesus is not deity in the same way that God is deity. Jesus has a divine nature in that he represents all of the qualities of God's character: righteous, good, truthful, loving, just, merciful, patient, kind, self-control and all of these attributes. But even as Jesus has a divine nature, he has his own will. And as a freewill agent, he is our hero because as a freewill agent, he lived a perfectly obedient life. Jesus is God in every way that a human being can witness. Jesus is the perfect representation of God's glory and grace.

So, I would disagree with the reformed view, set in stone 1700 years ago, which is based in Greek philosophy and enforced by excommunication, torture, and death. I affirm that Jesus is a true man.

 

[friend of]

From these religious charlatans feigning submission to Christ and the glorified saints for 1000 years to them instantly and wholesale embracing Satan and his wickedness in their billions as the sand of the sea at his simple appearance. Your whole portrayal is ridiculous! Thankfully, it is never going to happen.

Most of them will die at 100 years old and most of them will openly be unbelievers so yeah.