Was MacArthur a dispensationalist?

[TMSO]

@JesusFan
Romans 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved;

O Robertson, in his book, "The Israel of God," asks this question.
What does Paul mean by "all Israel?"

1) All Israel refers to all ethnic descendants of Abraham.
2) "all Israel" refers to all ethnic descendants of Abraham living at a future time at which God shall initiate a special working among the Jews.
3) "all Israel" refers to the "mass" or "majority" of Jews living at the time of a special saving activity of God in the future.
4) "all Israel" refers to all the elect Israelites within the community of Israel.
5) "all Israel" refers both to Jews and gentiles which together constitute the church of Christ, the Israel of God.


What does everyone choose, 1-5?

Since the church is not the Israel of God, Israel is 4. the elect Israelites within the nation of Israel. Didn't Paul already say that not all who are of Israel are Israel? Only those who are not simply circumcised in the flesh, but those who are also circumcised of the heart. The first only makes you a physical descendant of Abraham, while having both makes you both a physical and spiritual descendant of Abraham which means they are of Israel and are Israel. Jews under the Abrahamic covenant, who are also partakers of the promise to Abraham by faith.

 

[Carbon]

Please go with what John MacArthur actually stated himself. He was asked point blank in a questions and answers session whether he was a dispensationalist or not. He basically said no, but that he considers himself a leaky dispensationalist. So, not at all a firm proponent. The two systems are not completely incompatible. That is not to say there aren't extreme differences that cannot be reconciled without a lot of work. However, there are some differences that seem to based on a lack of critical thought. This is where you have one side saying the other side believes this, and the other side comes right out and says that isn't true. The exercise of critical thought processes would quickly resolve this.

Yes, he calls himself a leaky dipsy. And he tries not to present his teaching as dispensational, but they are. He even stated that Calvinists are dipsys. As a matter of fact, he said any self-respecting Calvinist is a premillennial dispensationalist.
He claims Amillennialism is essentially Arminian in its view of election. But I believe most Calvinists know that to be false.

 

[Arial]

God will deal with the nation of Israel. There is A LOT of prophecy in the Old Testament that attests to that. And then Paul basically cries out about it from the depth of emotion as he himself was a Jew. He talks about God's final dealing with Israel, and Israel's salvation as being like life from the dead. It will be that stark a comparison between Israel prior to God's final dealings, and Israel after God's final dealings.

. All it takes is a little critical thinking

It also takes a lot of critical thinking when one is reading the Bible---not just skimming and arriving at an opinion. What is Paul saying in Romans 4? Also considering it in conjunction with 1-3.


9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Possession of the land was always conditional and Israel broke that covenant. It was always temporary and was serving God's purpose for it and that purpose was and has been served.

 

[Carbon]

Carbon said:
I know some Dispensationalists claim that because there has been a partial hardening that happened to Israel, we Amillennialists claim the church as a replacement, but Amils did not come up with that; that's a strawman from the Dispensationalists. But this hardening is speaking of the non-elect Jews rejecting Jesus; it never speaks of the elect Jews.

That is NOT what the hardening is speaking of.

I'm looking forward to your opinion and thoughts on this.

You should read the passage again:

Alright.

"13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 if by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 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? 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Here is the framing of the logical argument:
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Okay, . . .

And now the important part:

Oh yes, the important part. . .

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?"

And then comes your verse:

Make note of the first word... FOR. That word means that what follows is connected to what came before. So Paul tells the Gentiles the mystery, that God will reattach the Jews, the cut off branches, to the tree when they go from unbelief to belief. That is the mystery that Paul wants the Gentiles not to be ignorant of. Hence his whole bit on not being wise in your own estimation, as you seem to be exercising wisdom in your own estimation.

Paul says that the unbelief which is visualized in the partial blindness/hardening of Israel in that, while seeing the truth, the aren't "seeing the truth", thus lost in unbelieve, this condition will only remain until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. Once the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, this blindness/hardeness that represents the unbelief of the Jews, will be lifted, and they will believe. As such, they will be reattached to the tree. This is what Paul is saying above.

So the argument has the premise of Jews cut off from the tree for disbelief (not all of these branches are cut off, just those in unbelief), these Jews who are cut off are under partial blindness/hardness UNTIL (so this partial blindness/hardness will end) the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. When the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, the unbelief visualized by the partial blindness/hardness will be removed and the branches will be reattached to the tree.

Understand, I believe that it is the end of the age, and all the destruction at the end of Daniel 9 happens at the end of the times of the Gentiles as visualized by the Messianic Kingdom coming in at the end of Daniel 2. So only the 1/3rd of Israel mentioned by Zechariah, those who will be saved in the end, are alive when the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, and the times of the Gentiles comes to an end. So, only the elect remnant of Israel will still be alive, and they all shall be saved.

Actually, even in what you posted, it says "and so" all Israel will be saved. That is a statement of conclusion. That is a statement of finality. That is a statement that comes at the end oof the timeline, so it is at the end of the age. There is NOTHING in the passage that gives any idea that Paul is looking at the whole gospel age. Paul is speaking of finality when he says AND SO all Israel will be saved.

Thanks for the lesson in dispensationalism.

" 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: 27 for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. "

God is being specific in HIs prophecy, as written here by Paul. God is clear He is speaking solely of Israel, and even mentions a covenant, of which only Jews have covenants. This covenatn is with the Jews, and speaks specifically of the Jews. I don't believe Paul is saying only Jews are saved. He is again defining the argument he made, showing that when he says all Israel will be saved, that that is exactly what he means. Specifically Israel, and specifically at that time, the end of the age. He further defines by saying:

" 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

Israel rejected the Messiah, but God had purpose for it. They are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles. When they rejected, God sent the gospel to the Gentiles, thus the Gentiles profitted when Israel rejected the Messiah. As such, the rejection of Israel was the profit of the whole world, as Paul said earlier. However, Israel was the elect nation of God, so they are beloved of God. Why? Because God chose them? No. See the word FOR in 29? What is written there is affects the previous. God's gifts and calling were to the forefathers, so God considers Israel beloved for the sake of the forefathers. Hence God did not reject Israel when Israel rejected God. Verse 30 wraps it up. The Gentiles did not believe God, but received mercy because Israel rejected in unbelief, and solely because Israel rejected in unbelief. Israel became like the Gentiles in unbelief, that in the Gentiles belief and the mercy they received, Israel may obtain mercy, which means, Israel will turn and believe. For God has concluded them all in unbelief (Jews and Gentiles), that he might have mercy upon all (Jews and Gentiles.)

Why do you believe God will not have mercy on Israel?

First, you believe as you like, I will not debate everything you say; I will just reply with some truth and expose some dispensationalism for what it is. I have come to see context can be very difficult for some people.

Romans 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

To Paul's question, "Has God rejected His people" Dipsy's believe this implies a future restoration of national Israel. So, the question is assumed to mean, "God has not rejected Israel with regard to His special plan for their future, has He?"

 

[Carbon]

First, you believe as you like, I will not debate everything you say; I will just reply with some truth and expose some dispensationalism for what it is. I have come to see context can be very difficult for some people.

Romans 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

To Paul's question, "Has God rejected His people" Dipsy's believe this implies a future restoration of national Israel. So, the question is assumed to mean, "God has not rejected Israel with regard to His special plan for their future, has He?"

@TMSO

To Paul's question, "Has God rejected His people" Dipsy's believe this implies a future restoration of national Israel. So, the question is assumed to mean, "God has not rejected Israel with regard to His special plan for their future, has He?"

Once this meaning is assumed, then Paul's response, "may it never be!" is seen as affirming that God has a special plan for Israel's future.

But, as we stay in the context of this question, we will see it in a completely different way.

 

[Carbon]

@TMSO

Once this meaning is assumed, then Paul's response, "may it never be!" is seen as affirming that God has a special plan for Israel's future.

But, as we stay in the context of this question, we will see it in a completely different way.

As we keep in context, we will see there is no reference to a supposed future restoration of the nation of Israel.

Paul's question does not mean, "has God cast off His people finally?" It actually means, "Has God cast off His people completely?"

In other words, considering Romans 11:11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
So, in light of their heinous sin of crucifying the Lord Jesus, Paul is asking, "Is there any hope for them at all?" Have they stumbled to completely fall?

Can't you see that Paul's answer is not about the future of Israel? But it's about their present situation.

In 11:1, Paul says, "I too am an Israelite." In 11:5, Paul says, "even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

So, can you see that Paul's answer to this question is not that God has a glorious future in store for the nation of Israel, but rather, he answers that God has an elect remnant right now in the nation of Israel.

There is no hint of a future, national conversion of Israel in Romans 11:1 or anywhere else.

 

[Carbon]

@TMSO
I realize that Romans 11:12 and 15, to dipsy's, refer to a distinctive future for ethnic Israel also.
But it does not.
12 Now if their wrongdoing proves to be riches for the world, and their failure, riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! 15 For if their rejection proves to be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Those who understand verses 12 &15 to refer to a future conversion of Israel as a nation assume the transgression, failure, and rejection of the Jews coincides with the present, gospel age, while their fulfillment and acceptance relate to the future period of their national conversion.
But this assumption is unnecessary because both can be viewed as taking place during the present gospel age.

O Palmer Robertson says in his book:
The Jews reject their Messiah; the Gentiles believe; the Jews are provoked by jealousy and return in faith; the world receives even richer blessings as consequence of this return of the Jews. . . . . This temporal sequence may be viewed as having fulfillment in the present era of gospel proclamation.


This alternative view understanding of the fulfillment and acceptance of Israel is confirmed by Romans 11:13-14.
13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Therefore insofar as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry
14 if somehow I may move my own people to jealousy and save some of them.

Now, @TMSO, I know you made statements like these, and others . . .

That is NOT what the hardening is speaking of. You should read the passage again:
Here is the framing of the logical argument:
And now the important part:
Make note of the first word... FOR.

But I hope you can see things a little differently now?

 

[Carbon]

Since the church is not the Israel of God, Israel is 4. the elect Israelites within the nation of Israel. Didn't Paul already say that not all who are of Israel are Israel? Only those who are not simply circumcised in the flesh, but those who are also circumcised of the heart. The first only makes you a physical descendant of Abraham, while having both makes you both a physical and spiritual descendant of Abraham which means they are of Israel and are Israel. Jews under the Abrahamic covenant, who are also partakers of the promise to Abraham by faith.

Since you mention the Israel of God, let's have another look at who the Israel of God is. First thing that must be pointed out is that the only people who have the authority to say who that is in the Apostles. Not the dipsy's.

Here is what Paul teaches about who is included and who is not. And, Paul makes it plain that external circumcision does not make one a Jew. Romans 2:28-29

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

So my friend, according to this Hebrew of the Hebrews, who was commissioned by God Himself as an apostle to the Gentiles, Abraham is equally the "father" of two communities. Abraham is the father of believing Jews, and he is equally the father of all uncircumcized believers. Romans 4:11-12
and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Respectfully, @TMSO mayby you should read the passages again?

 

[Arial]

Please go with what John MacArthur actually stated himself. He was asked point blank in a questions and answers session whether he was a dispensationalist or not. He basically said no, but that he considers himself a leaky dispensationalist.

MacArthur explicitly calling himself a dispensationalist:

“I am a dispensationalist because dispensationalism generally understands and applies Scripture—particularly prophetic Scripture—in a way that is more consistent with the normal, literal approach I believe is God’s design for interpreting Scripture.”

This quote is cited from his book Faith Works (appendix discussing dispensationalism).

MacArthur identifying himself as a historical dispensationalist:

“I just want you to know that I am a historical dispensationalist, pretribulational, premillennialist.”

He is a "leaky dispensationalist" only in his not adhering to the Schofield method of repeated tests of humanity in different ages. He emphasized one plan of salvation throughout history but still divides Israel and the church as being dealt with in regard to salvation in different ways and at different times. It is basically smoke and mirrors. That the dealing with is different is clearly seen when he claims the temple will be rebuilt and the animal sacrifices reinstated.

 

[Carbon]

There is one plan. Even with over 8 1/2 billion distinct human beings alive today, each with their own path, there is still only one plan. Even with two groups, Jews and Gentiles, two groups, the nation of Israel and the church, there is still only one plan. Though the details may differ in places, there is still only one plan. All it takes is a little critical thinking to realize what is wrong with the view that if we say there are two distinct groups, that there can't be one plan that includes both. Again, consider 8 1/2 billion different lines going into one block, but only one line comes out, and that one line represents all 8 1/2 billion lines that went in. That block is one plan, and the result of that one plan. Many inputs, one output. All one has to do is figure out all that one block represents.

Wow thats a classic. This is how a dipsy wriggles out of something? Instead of having to do some critical thinking and actually some research, just say,

many inputs, one output.

Haha, that takes the cake.

 

[Carbon]

@TMSO

Or how about the Abrahamic covenant? Do not the gospels regularly affirm that the ministry of Jesus fulfills the promises given to Abraham by which God will bless the nations through his offspring?
And I will make you into a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing; Gen 12:2. &
And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” Gen 15:5-6.

Jesus is the ultimate seed of Abraham; that is, true Abrahamic sonship is not physical but spiritual. Thus, the Gentile nations can now be included in the people of God. Do you not see this?

And Matthew traces the genealogy back to Abraham, The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham fathered Isaac, Isaac fathered Jacob, and Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers. Matt 1:1-2,

portraying Jesus as the ultimate seed of Abraham:

Brothers and sisters, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Gal 3:15-18.

And by which (Jesus) salvation will come to the nations - indicating salvation is not by ethnic descent but instead, by being connected to Jesus.

There really is so much more.

 

[Carbon]

Oh, and remember @TMSO, God is able to raise up children for Abraham from stones,

and do not assume that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you that God is able, from these stones, to raise up children for Abraham. Matt 3:9.

 

[Carbon]

Oh, and remember @TMSO, God is able to raise up children for Abraham from stones,

and do not assume that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you that God is able, from these stones, to raise up children for Abraham. Matt 3:9.

And do you remember Jesus' words here? Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Matt 28:19. Indicating again that through Christ by faith, all people can become part of Abraham's children.

@TMSO do you see yet that you have no case?

 

[TMSO]

It also takes a lot of critical thinking when one is reading the Bible---not just skimming and arriving at an opinion. What is Paul saying in Romans 4? Also considering it in conjunction with 1-3.

There is a lot in Romans 1-3. Paul talks of three different groups (I believe chapter 4 has to be added.) The pagan, uncultured Gentiles, the cultured Gentiles (Greeks), and the Jews. And, to tell the Jews that no, they don't have a free ticket to heaven, you have Romans 3:23, that puts Jews in the same boat as everyone else. For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The religious leaders (Pharisees I believe) had the belieif that if you were Jewish, you would not go to hell. (There version). Abraham would be before the gate and turn you away.

9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

The Abrahamic covenant is for the Jews and the Jews alone. It is not a blessing, it is not a promise, it is a covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is for the circumcised, the Jews. The promise God made to Abraham after Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac, spoke to the faith Abraham always had, but was its strongest, was proven true at this time, blesses all who believe by faith. The Jews who are both physical and spiritual (by faith) descendants of Abraham will see the fulfillment of the land promises in the Abrahamic covenant, which was not conditional. The Gentiles who are descendants by faith have their blessings in this promise, and in all God provides to HIs adopted children. (Ephesians 1).

Possession of the land was always conditional and Israel broke that covenant. It was always temporary and was serving God's purpose for it and that purpose was and has been served.

You shouldn't skim scripture because you missed the part where God says that what you said would only be true if you could have Him violate the covenants of day and night, to where they don't occur in their season. I don't believe you have caused God to do this. Also, the land promise, possession of the land, is a covenant God made with Abraham. If it doesn't happen, that makes God a covenant breaker. That covenant was not made with Israel, but with Abraham. The temporary covenant was the Mosaic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional.

Even AI got it: "The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional, everlasting agreement in Genesis (12, 15, 17) where God promised Abraham numerous descendants, specific land (Canaan), and that through his seed all nations would be blessed. It establishes a foundation for faith, focusing on God's grace and ultimate restoration, fulfilling through Jesus and blessing believers."

(Okay, it added some promises to the covenant, but it understands that it is unconditional and everlasting.) Do note that everlasting, in the original language, does not outright mean forever, but age-enduring. In this case, all covenants are fulfilled at the end of the age. The Abrahamic, Davidic, and covenant made with the Levites.

 

[TMSO]

I'm looking forward to your opinion and thoughts on this.

Alright.

Okay, . . .

Oh yes, the important part. . .

Thanks for the lesson in dispensationalism.

Actually, it was a lesson in Bible, but okay, believe what you want.

First, you believe as you like, I will not debate everything you say; I will just reply with some truth and expose some dispensationalism for what it is. I have come to see context can be very difficult for some people.

A shortcut to saying, you don't have an argument against some of what I say, and perhaps the important parts.

Romans 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

I would point out that Paul defined Israel in another passage when he said that not all who are of Israel, are Israel. He defined Israel as those Jews who were, are, and will be believers by faith. I have to be careful, because I believe in progressive revelation, so the content of the faith differed, while it is still faith. What didn't change was the grace.

To Paul's question, "Has God rejected His people" Dipsy's believe this implies a future restoration of national Israel. So, the question is assumed to mean, "God has not rejected Israel with regard to His special plan for their future, has He?"

Cutting hairs. I believe in a restoration of a nation of Israel, however, not THE nation of Israel which is a secular entity. There are two groups here. The nation of Israel, and the elect remnant of God that exists within the nation of Israel. They are the TRUE Israel of God, as again, Paul has already defined. Those Jews who were, are, and will be believers. The question is not whether God has rejected Israel with regard to His special plan for their future, but, has God abandoned His elect remnant of Israel. He has not. He will save them, whether you want it or not. As such, the nation of Israel still exists, and was gathered back to its place in 1948 for JUDGMENT. There is yet another gathering for blessing, but judgment comes first. Israel will be purged (if you read Zechariah), where 2/3rds will perish, and 1/3 will be purged and purified. God's words, not mine.

 

[TMSO]

Since you mention the Israel of God, let's have another look at who the Israel of God is. First thing that must be pointed out is that the only people who have the authority to say who that is in the Apostles. Not the dipsy's.

Yes, the true Israel of God, which are the believing Jews, not the nation of Israel which is made up of both non-believing and believing Jews. (Those who did beleive, are believing, and will believe.)

Here is what Paul teaches about who is included and who is not. And, Paul makes it plain that external circumcision does not make one a Jew. Romans 2:28-29

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

A text without context is a pretext. You left out important context, because, as you see, verse 28 starts with FOR. In the Greek, this word means that what came prior is part of the context. By that context, Paul is speaking to the Jews (specifically Judaizers) and not to the Gentiles. He is telling the Judaizers that one is not Jew simply by ethnicity and physical circumcision. (Paul speaking how God views it. They are Jews, however, they are not the elect chosen ones of God type Jews.) One is a Jew (in God's eyes, an elect chosen Jew) inwardly (spiritually) whose circumcision is of the heart, not by the Law (what the letter means). It is inwardly, before God, not before men, hence their praise is from God.

So my friend, according to this Hebrew of the Hebrews, who was commissioned by God Himself as an apostle to the Gentiles, Abraham is equally the "father" of two communities. Abraham is the father of believing Jews, and he is equally the father of all uncircumcized believers.

Yes, but that doens't change what I have said. The true Israel of God is still only the Jews, but those Jews who are both physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham. Not the secular nation of Israel that are simply physical descendants. Hence the word TRUE before Israel, and of God, because Israel is the chosen nation of God. To summarize, the true Israel of God is made up of Jews who are God's elect (calvinist type) chosen people. Next to that you have simply, the nation of Israel, which is NOT the true Israel of God. Again, this is for the sole purpose of the Abrahamic covenant, which is, again, and ETHNIC covenant. It is not salvific.

Romans 4:11-12
and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Respectfully, @TMSO mayby you should read the passages again?

You left out way too much of the context. Don't butcher. The meaning of what you posted here completely changed when I read the whole passage again. Again, a text without context is a pretext.

This is saying that Abraham's faith was credited prior to circumcision so that he could be the father of those of the uncircumcision who believe in faith as Abraham did. That is one group. It is also the group that the Abrahamic covenant does not cover, while the promises made to Abraham outside of the covenant, in particular the promise made after Abraham was supposed to sacrifice his son, does include this group.

It also said this so that Abraham might be the father of the cirucumcised, but not only those who are circumcised in the flesh, but also those who followed in the footsteps of faith of Abraham which he had while uncircumcised, which speaks to the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit. So, by extension, Paul is saying that physical circumcision is NOT REQUIRED to be circumcised in the heart by the Holy Spirit. However, it does not change the fact that the Abrahamic covenant is only for those who are both phsycially and spiritually circumcised.

Those who God put up with by promises to the forefathers, and hwo lived thorugh God's chastisement, will be blessed by God with things the Gentiles will not receive. That is principally, the land promises of the Abrahamic covenant, and the Messianic Kingdom. We will participate in that, but that Kingdom will be in Israel and Jerusalem.

 

[TMSO]

@TMSO

Or how about the Abrahamic covenant? Do not the gospels regularly affirm that the ministry of Jesus fulfills the promises given to Abraham by which God will bless the nations through his offspring?

God said that he would bless the nations of the world through his seed. That, I beleive it was Paul, or the author of Hebrews, is singular (seed) and is Jesus. This was a promise, this was not the covenant.

And I will make you into a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing; Gen 12:2. &

This is also not the covenant.

And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” Gen 15:5-6.

This is at the time when God made the covenant. The covenant comes after this. And here is the covenant of the land promise:
"17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,

“To your [t]descendants I have given this land,
From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

19 the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite 20 and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim 21 and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.”

Jesus is the ultimate seed of Abraham; that is, true Abrahamic sonship is not physical but spiritual. Thus, the Gentile nations can now be included in the people of God. Do you not see this?

The Bible does not speak of true Abrahamic sonship. It speaks of those who are only physical descendants of Abraham with physical circumcision, and those who are BOTH physical descendants with physical circumcision, and spiritual descendants with a circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit. Both are Jews. Both are of Israel. However, only the believing Jews are the true Israel of God. Everyone else are only part of the nation of Israel (secular) whom God left after 70 AD. Interesting legends of the rabbi. There is a light in the temple that was always lit, that signified the presence of God. I believe it was after 70 AD, perhaps after 33 AD ( I don't remember) that light would not stay lit. Even the rabbis said that this showed the glory of God had left. The other legend is that after Jesus died, whenever they had the sacrifice of atonement, the pink/red ribbon they tied around the neck of the scapegoat, ceased turning white, which was to show that Israel's sins were covered. Again, legends, but it is interesting how closely they line up with Christian understanding/belief, even if the rabbis didn't see it.

And Matthew traces the genealogy back to Abraham, The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham fathered Isaac, Isaac fathered Jacob, and Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers. Matt 1:1-2,

portraying Jesus as the ultimate seed of Abraham:

I think this speaks omre to Jesus being Jewish. (The genealogy) It also points that Jesus is the seed, once one understood exactly who Jesus was/is. So two points.

Brothers and sisters, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Gal 3:15-18.

Salvation is to the Jew first (priority) then to the Gentile. A Jewish Messianic believer pointed out that if you read about every stop Paul made, he always went to the Jews first, and then he spoke to the Gentiles. The argument can be made, and not forgotten, that the synagogue was an important place in any city so that might be why he went there first. However, when there wasn't a synagogue, he didn't go to the Jews first, he sought the place Jews gathered by the water, which is where Jews met if they didn't have a synagogue.

And by which (Jesus) salvation will come to the nations - indicating salvation is not by ethnic descent but instead, by being connected to Jesus.

I never said slavation is by ethic descent. I simply said that the Abrahamic covenant is ethnic, and, I was specific in saying the Abrahamic covenant is not salvific.

The Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15 was a land promise, and a few other things. Israel never possessed all that God promised here, though they had most of it. It also wasn't forever,as they were kicked out more than once. This land promise finds it full fulfillment in the Messianic Kingdom.

There really is so much more.

There is a lot.
Note, there is only one plan. However, Israel's journey started in the Old Testament with Abraham. The church did not start until Pentecost. The Gentile's journey did not begin until Cornelius. Israel's journey started with God choosing Israel to be His elect nation. (That is His chosen nation. This is not talking about individuals, and is not salvific.) There were also the forefathers, with whom God made promises and covenants. All of these things will be resolved outside of the church/Gentiles. It is part of the path the Jews are on. That path for Jewish believers, goes side by side with the Gentiles in the church. However, the Gentile's dealings are solely with Christ, and those promises where God included the Gentiles. God did not erase all history before Pentecost, and even Paul knew that.

 

[TMSO]

And do you remember Jesus' words here? Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Matt 28:19. Indicating again that through Christ by faith, all people can become part of Abraham's children.

Don't read into the passage. That is not what it is saying. Remember, Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews. He is our Savior. Scripture is clear that you have the sheep of the house of Israel, AND you have the sheep of ANOTHER fold. Both are gathered, and handled separately in the stating of it. He will gather them ALSO.

We receive the blessings of some/all of the PROMISES God made to Abraham by faith, and Paul speaks of that as Abraham being our father through faith, but the covenants are for the physical descendants of Abraham, where I see that those who will receive/see the fulfillment will be the elect of God in Israel, also known as the true Israel of God, whereas the Israel of the Old Testament Mosaic covenant was not the true Israel of God. THey were simply the elect nation of God, where that election was not the individual election of salvation, but God choosing the nation of Israel to bear His name before the Gentile nations.

@TMSO do you see yet that you have no case?

I do see I have a case, because you are not handling scripture... well. This is not a salvific issue, and is not a non-negotiable. However, the better you understand it, the clearer eschatology becomes. If you look at what is going on in the world today, it is insane how pieces seem to be falling into place, especially with Iran. Things just seem to align a little, but, now things seem to be accelerating greatly.

 

[Arial]

There is a lot in Romans 1-3. Paul talks of three different groups (I believe chapter 4 has to be added.) The pagan, uncultured Gentiles, the cultured Gentiles (Greeks), and the Jews

If that is what you are basing your interpretation on, the premise is incorrect. If you are getting that idea from Romans 1:14

“I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.” you are still incorrect. Romans 4 focuses on circumcision (the Jews) vs uncircumcision (Gentiles). Two groups are explicitly identified in 4:11 "He received the sign of circumcision---to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised---and the father of the circumcised"

Paul is making a point, and the point is faith counted as righteousness---not works counted as righteousness no matter who you are, where you live, what your ethnicity is. or when a person lived. What he is not doing is not doing is talking about three groups of people as you claim. To think that is the case is to miss Paul's entire point.

And, to tell the Jews that no, they don't have a free ticket to heaven, you have Romans 3:23, that puts Jews in the same boat as everyone else.

Yes. But even though there were Jewish believers in the Roman church, the recipients were predominantly Gentile (Rom 11:13; Romans 15:15-16; Romans 1:13} That is the internal evidence of what I say.

The external evidence is found in the likely time of writing---around AD 56-58.

Around AD49 Claudius expelled Jews from Rome.​

Later, Jewish believers returned, creating tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Much of Romans is addressing this tension (Romans 3:9; 3-4).​

The Abrahamic covenant is for the Jews and the Jews alone.

The Mosaic covenant law was for the Hebrews (the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel). The fact that Jacob's name was changed by God to Israel cannot continue to be ignored in deciding where national Israel is placed when interpreting OT Scripture. Israel has come to be viewed as ethnic, but it did not begin that way. Abraham's likely ethnic background would have been Semitic Mesopotamian (a Semite). Abrahams family iow was a Semitic clan which grew into a tribal people through descent from Abraham and incorporation of household members. The earthly Hebrews were Abraham's extended clan and---his descendants (blood relatives), servants, and people acquired from other groups. Already his family included Egyptians (Hagar)and Arameans (Rebekah came from relatives in Aram, though she was still from Abraham's extended kin group).

That digresses a bit but is serving a purpose (hope springs eternal). It is not necessary to know those things in order to glean many truths from the Bible and certainly not necessary for salvation. However, if one is going to support a theory that has the Bible dividing peoples into two categories in the one plan of redemption---basically ethnic land possessors and those who are not of that ethnicity and inhabit a different land---they logically should know this. If they did it would keep them from presenting serious errors and if the wall they were building on was stable, it would not crumble. Obviously, what I have presented leaves great gaping holes in the support that is given for a statement like the Abrahamic covenant was for Jews only.

And don't forget Gal 3:29 "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise."

The Abrahamic covenant is for the circumcised, the Jews.

Did you not read what Paul said?

11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.​

The Jews who are both physical and spiritual (by faith) descendants of Abraham will see the fulfillment of the land promises in the Abrahamic covenant, which was not conditional.

The descendants of Jacob (Israel) were given the land promised to Abraham. However, under the Mosaic covenant their continued possession of the land became conditional upon obedience to the covenant law.

You shouldn't skim scripture because you missed the part where God says that what you said would only be true if you could have Him violate the covenants of day and night, to where they don't occur in their season.

What particular scripture are you referring to. There are at least three that mention the covenant with day and night. I cannot respond to the implied condescension until you identify the particulars.

Also, the land promise, possession of the land, is a covenant God made with Abraham. If it doesn't happen, that makes God a covenant breaker. That covenant was not made with Israel, but with Abraham. The temporary covenant was the Mosaic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional.

Yes it was made to Abraham and his descendants. Did God give the land to Abraham's descendants? Does God have a right to establish a law within the redemptive plan and place stipulations on that covenant of law? Did he do that? Are you arguing with God? It is not me who says that possession of the land was conditional. I am repeating God's word.

Do note that everlasting, in the original language, does not outright mean forever, but age-enduring. In this case, all covenants are fulfilled at the end of the age. The Abrahamic, Davidic, and covenant made with the Levites.

I don't disagree with the concept, but what in your view is the end of the age? This age? Or some future age? Because when I read Jesus' words and the words of the apostles, I only see two ages mentioned. This one and the one to come.

 

[makesends]

Would you point out some of the Old Testament, Israel, and the practices that weren't Old Covenant types and shadows and prophecies pointing to Christ? Ya know, something independent of Christ and will be fulfilled by national Israel.

Not to defend, but to moderate, lol: Does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be types and shadows and prophecies, AND fulfilled in national Israel—all one plan.