What is too extreme when it comes to being a Christian?

[Josheb]

Sounds like Popeye..

Now, your list???

We're all trying to get saved like you and have eternal life...so, can you post the commandments we need to follow?

Oh, let's do be more specific. Can the specific commandments we need to follow in order to obtain salvation be posted?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Sounds like Popeye..

Now, your list???

We're all trying to get saved like you and have eternal life...so, can you post the commandments we need to follow?

I said, 613, at least.
And you want me to post every command or instruction from God found in the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets?
No.

 

[Arial]

I said, 613, at least.
And you want me to post every command or instruction from God found in the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets?
No.

When was the first or last time you did that? And if all 613 must be obeyed in order to be saved, that includes the animal sacrifices, and at the non-existent temple in Jerusalem. It includes a priesthood to offer the sacrifices, and there are no priests. And it would trample on the blood of Christ.

 

[Arial]

You were doing good until you went and added to the bible by adding Gentiles into the covenants.
The Abrahamic Covenant with Abraham is found in Genesis 15 and 17.
The Mosaic Covenant is found in Exodus and this covenant was made between God and the children of Israel/Abraham as per Genesis 15 & 17.
The New Covenant is made between God and the House of Israel and Judah.
None of these covenants include Gentiles because Gentiles are not the seed of Abram the Hebrew.

I am not the one who added Gentiles as covenant people. God is. Even in the Mosaic covenant, which was with Israel alone, provision was made for the stranger to come into that covenant relationship WITH GOD. But there were two covenants made with Abraham, one concerning the land of Canaan, and the other with His entire creation, the world.

These two covenants, though distinct, were not unrelated, but were tied together---one being the goal, and the other the means of attaining the goal. One had to do with the seed that would inherit the land and have the one true God as their God, the other concerning the Seed that would crush the serpent's head and bring salvation to the whole world, the covenant promise in Gen 3. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of that promise, and it is not man who enters into covenant with God, but God who enters into a covenant relationship with man. A covenant is a relationship between the Creator who is transcendent and invisible, with the creature (and the creation) who is finite, sinful, and cannot reach Him or even find Him unless He reveals Himself, and establishes that relationship.

The New Covenant is ultimately made with Jesus. God promises to give Him a people (not a nation)upon Christ's fulfillment of the obligation/mission of purchasing these people with the sacrifice of His body and the shedding of His blood.

 

[Arial]

But there is a covenant made with Noah and his seed (Shem, Eber, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, twelve tribes, etc.), and this covenant is with a people called Adamites, before God caused a division between peoples through circumcision of the flesh which prefigures a circumcision of the "heart"/life later.

Perhaps you are unaware that circumcision was a common practice among the pagans long before it was given to Abraham as a sign of the Mosaic covenant. God did not cause a division between peoples, and certainly circumcision is not a sign of division between peoples. You view is caught in the same trap that the Israelites themselves came to develop and was the norm by the time Jesus arrived. That of exclusivity. That mere possession of the Law and Prophets and oracles of God, saved them and only them. That they were so holy that to even touch, eat with, or offer aid to any but ethnic "Jews" would defile them. They though "love your neighbor" meant love only Israelites.

Jesus put that to rest in the example of the Samaritan, but I guess you were absent on that day. Why do you think God scattered them into pagan lands? They were failing in both their mission and in their obedience. He chose the land of Canaan for a reason, and not because it was a paradise. Large parts of it were practically uninhabitable it was so infested with rock. But it was a crossroads connecting to the rest of the then known world.

 

[Arial]

The Redeemer was prophesied to the children of Israel and to and for the children of Israel He came. He was not prophesied to Gentiles and was not sent to or for Gentiles

Jesus wasn't sent to to the Gentiles, but after His resurrection and ascension, He appointed Paul to go to the Gentiles and with the very same good news. Salvation is through faith in Christ and Him crucified. The very same Covenant of Redemption that Jesus inaugurated after ascension. Paul went to the Gentiles with the very same message that Jesus gave to Israel and to His disciples. Why?

First and foremost it was God's plan and intention. Christ's countrymen should have known who He was from the Law and the Prophets, but they did not, and they rejected Him. They, like you and other dispensationalists, were/are still looking for an earthly kings sitting on the literal throne of David to redeem them from the oppression of the other nations.

And if you have truly been born again then I'd consider that you just might have Abraham's DNA in you for the covenant is with Abraham and his descendants and only those that are his seed are those Israel's Redeemer came to redeem. Through the exiles and scattering of the Hebrew people in history you, I, and everyone who thinks they are Gentile just might be a Hebrew mutt of mixed breed. Just like a Samaritan. They were "half"-Jew and half-Gentile but because they are still Abraham's seed, they will all be saved on/at the last day.

Wow! What utter speculative, Bible contradicting, blind, nonsense. @jeremiah1five It is almost, but not quite as speculating, as one poster did, that some of us are walking around with the devil's DNA, and those are the tares.

 

[jeremiah1five]

When was the first or last time you did that? And if all 613 must be obeyed in order to be saved, that includes the animal sacrifices, and at the non-existent temple in Jerusalem. It includes a priesthood to offer the sacrifices, and there are no priests. And it would trample on the blood of Christ.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: Rom. 7:14.

...and so are we.

We don't need a temple for we are the temple and...

17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Psalms 51:16–17.

and that

...ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Rom. 12:1.

Don't be locked in to the natural or physical. Use your human spirit and obey the Law which is spiritual.

Saul understood. So did David. So can you if you try to see the spiritual with spiritual eyes.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Perhaps you are unaware that circumcision was a common practice among the pagans long before it was given to Abraham as a sign of the Mosaic covenant. God did not cause a division between peoples, and certainly circumcision is not a sign of division between peoples. You view is caught in the same trap that the Israelites themselves came to develop and was the norm by the time Jesus arrived. That of exclusivity. That mere possession of the Law and Prophets and oracles of God, saved them and only them. That they were so holy that to even touch, eat with, or offer aid to any but ethnic "Jews" would defile them. They though "love your neighbor" meant love only Israelites.

Not true. Show your sources.

Jesus put that to rest in the example of the Samaritan, but I guess you were absent on that day. Why do you think God scattered them into pagan lands? They were failing in both their mission and in their obedience. He chose the land of Canaan for a reason, and not because it was a paradise. Large parts of it were practically uninhabitable it was so infested with rock. But it was a crossroads connecting to the rest of the then known world.

He scattered them in order to bring about the Times of the Gentiles.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Jesus wasn't sent to to the Gentiles, but after His resurrection and ascension, He appointed Paul to go to the Gentiles and with the very same good news. Salvation is through faith in Christ and Him crucified. The very same Covenant of Redemption that Jesus inaugurated after ascension. Paul went to the Gentiles with the very same message that Jesus gave to Israel and to His disciples. Why?

Jesus sent His disciples and Saul to the Gentiles for that's where mostly the Ten northern tribes were living, and God was interested in sending men to them to let them know their Messiah had come and God has kept His promise. Remember, those that came back to Israel were from Babylon and consisted of the two southern tribes. And remember that a remnant returned which is about 10% of total while the 90% of Jews remained in Gentile lands and became Hellenized. How many generations grew up in Babylon? Although there was no longer any Temple they still revolved their religion around their Feasts but a new generation that grew up and their children were heavily influenced with Babylonian culture and worshiped their gods. The same thing occurred with Moses in the desert those forty years. The generation he led into the outskirts of Canaan were ignorant of their father's religion and were a rebellious people.

First and foremost it was God's plan and intention. Christ's countrymen should have known who He was from the Law and the Prophets, but they did not, and they rejected Him. They, like you and other dispensationalists, were/are still looking for an earthly kings sitting on the literal throne of David to redeem them from the oppression of the other nations.

They didn't reject their Messiah. Compared to what took place in Jerusalem there were a great many more Jews that knew nothing living far and wide in Gentile lands. Besides, it was God who did not reject them for three thousand Jews were born-again on the day of their Feast of Harvest and Christ added to His Church daily thousands more such as should be saved. There was no "accept Jesus as Messiah into your heart." Moses and Aaron sprinkled the people with the blood. ALL of the people. God was doing the saving, not men.

Wow! What utter speculative, Bible contradicting, blind, nonsense.

The good thing is that there is more to it than meets the eye and although I cannot prove it, neither can it be disproved.
We'll just have to wait on either the two Revelation eleven witnesses who will prove Gentile theology in error in a great deal of their theology, or upon Christ's return.
The good news is that when Christ does return, He will reconnect true, biblical Christianity back upon Himself and upon the Jews as it had been unmoored from its Hebrew roots once Gentiles laid their thieving hands upon it 1900 years ago.

 

[Carbon]

The good news is that when Christ does return, He will reconnect true, biblical Christianity back upon Himself and upon the Jews as it had been unmoored from its Hebrew roots once Gentiles laid their thieving hands upon it 1900 years ago.

Christianity will not return to its infancy, which is what the church was in the OT.

 

[Arial]

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: Rom. 7:14.

Then why do you say we have to keep all 613 laws. The written code was not spiritual, it was literal. What was spiritual about it is that it came from God and contains within in training in righteousness----the moral character of God that His image bearers are to live every aspect of their lives, socially and morally, in accordance with.

We don't need a temple for we are the temple and...

17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Psalms 51:16–17.

and that

...ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Rom. 12:1.

Don't be locked in to the natural or physical. Use your human spirit and obey the Law which is spiritual.

Saul understood. So did David. So can you if you try to see the spiritual with spiritual eyes.

I understand the difference between spiritual and natural when it comes to the law. I make the distinction. You conflate them--going one way when it is makes a convenient response to an error that you have had brought to your attention, and the opposite when it supports a different supposition. In addition you are Judaizing the New Covenant, just as was happening in Galatia

 

[Arial]

Not true. Show your sources.

https://www.ancient-origins.net › history-ancient-traditions › history-circumcision-0010398
earlychurchhistory.org/medicine/circumcision-in-the-ancient-world/ (Not a full history but easy to look up.)
The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 490-425 BC), called the Father Of History, travelled all over the known world in order to gather information and histories of nations. He comments on circumcision and its origins:

Bust of Greek historian Herodotus
“…the Colchians (near the Black Sea), the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians are the only races which from ancient times have practiced circumcision. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves admit that they learned the practice from Egypt…and the Syrians…as well as their neighbors the Macronians (in Greece), say that they learned it only a short time ago from the Colchians (Black Sea inhabitants)…

He scattered them in order to bring about the Times of the Gentiles.

The times for what?

A covenantal relationship with the One true God, through faith, known as the New Covenant. The whole earth His restored kingdom, not just one tiny speck of land, and one ethnic group of people.

 

[Arial]

Jesus sent His disciples and Saul to the Gentiles for that's where mostly the Ten northern tribes were living, and God was interested in sending men to them to let them know their Messiah had come and God has kept His promise.

It was the exiled Jews who took the message, the gospel of reconciliation with God, not through the old covenant of Law, but through faith in Christ and Him crucified, the New Covenant, into the Gentile lands. And it was the apostles that planted churches, uniting Jew and Gentile alike into one people of God. The Jews and Pentecost were astonished at this new teaching. They did not carry the old covenant back to their brethren, but this new covenant. They announced, yes, that Messiah had come, for it was the Jews who had heard of a coming Messiah. But more than that, they were telling who this Messiah is, and what He did, not for Israel alone, but for the whole world. Messiah did not come set up and earthly, exclusive, kingdom. He came to save not just Israel, but the whole world. And that is a covenant relationship between God and humanity. He redeemed them from slavery and from His wrath. The Redeemer covenants with the redeemed.

Besides, it was God who did not reject them for three thousand Jews were born-again on the day of their Feast of Harvest and Christ added to His Church daily thousands more such as should be saved.

No one said God rejected the Jews outright. Most of them rejected His Son. And not only Israelites were were saved, but Gentiles also.

There was no "accept Jesus as Messiah into your heart." Moses and Aaron sprinkled the people with the blood. ALL of the people. God was doing the saving, not men.

NA to the conversation. A red herring.

The good thing is that there is more to it than meets the eye and although I cannot prove it, neither can it be disproved.

It can be proved that your speculation about Abraham's DNA being a factor in who is saved and who is not, is not true. One scripture all by itself will do that, though there are more, and if the Bible is taken as one continuous epic of the story and outworking of redemption----if the covenant relationship and covenant framework is kept intact from Gen 1 to the end, that itself will disprove the theory that it was those who bore the DNA of Abraham was the point and purpose of the covenant of redemption, or any covenantal relationship that God established with mankind.

But one scripture is this: Gal 3:23-29 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.Sot the,the law was our guardian until Christ came,in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

 

[Josheb]

Jesus sent His disciples and Saul to the Gentiles for that's where mostly the Ten northern tribes were living, and God was interested in sending men to them to let them know their Messiah had come and God has kept His promise. Remember, those that came back to Israel were from Babylon and consisted of the two southern tribes. And remember that a remnant returned which is about 10% of total while the 90% of Jews remained in Gentile lands and became Hellenized. How many generations grew up in Babylon? Although there was no longer any Temple they still revolved their religion around their Feasts but a new generation that grew up and their children were heavily influenced with Babylonian culture and worshiped their gods. The same thing occurred with Moses in the desert those forty years. The generation he led into the outskirts of Canaan were ignorant of their father's religion and were a rebellious people.

They didn't reject their Messiah. Compared to what took place in Jerusalem there were a great many more Jews that knew nothing living far and wide in Gentile lands. Besides, it was God who did not reject them for three thousand Jews were born-again on the day of their Feast of Harvest and Christ added to His Church daily thousands more such as should be saved. There was no "accept Jesus as Messiah into your heart." Moses and Aaron sprinkled the people with the blood. ALL of the people. God was doing the saving, not men.

The good thing is that there is more to it than meets the eye and although I cannot prove it, neither can it be disproved.
We'll just have to wait on either the two Revelation eleven witnesses who will prove Gentile theology in error in a great deal of their theology, or upon Christ's return.
The good news is that when Christ does return, He will reconnect true, biblical Christianity back upon Himself and upon the Jews as it had been unmoored from its Hebrew roots once Gentiles laid their thieving hands upon it 1900 years ago.

"They didn't reject their Messiah"? The ten northern tribes lived in Asia? When Jesus returns he'll reconnect true biblical Christianity back upon himself and the Jews?

What, exactly, do you call your point of view and can you name three sources (beside the Bible) we might read to understand your view?

 

[CrowCross]

I said, 613, at least.
And you want me to post every command or instruction from God found in the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets?
No.

No, just the ones required to be saved.

It seems to me you're pretty much beating around the bush.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Christianity will not return to its infancy, which is what the church was in the OT.

There is neither infancy nor old age. It just is. It's Him.
What Israel knows will be much clearer and what Gentiles know will be corrected.

 

[CrowCross]

There is neither infancy nor old age. It just is. It's Him.
What Israel knows will be much clearer and what Gentiles know will be corrected.

Israel will finally understand Isaiah 53 and similar verses that spoke of Jesus the messiah.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Then why do you say we have to keep all 613 laws. The written code was not spiritual, it was literal. What was spiritual about it is that it came from God and contains within in training in righteousness----the moral character of God that His image bearers are to live every aspect of their lives, socially and morally, in accordance with.

This is a revelation that has only recently come to me. When I joined (aka Carbon) I told him I was not Reformed but tilted mostly towards that theology. But since then, I believe the Lord has opened my eyes to another way, a way back to Israel as the true Christianity of the Bible. I cannot tell you I know ALL the commands in the Hebrew Scripture for I do not know them all. There are many teachings in Scripture that come about in Sunday sermons with just a couple of verses at a time, but whatever the commands the Lord says we are to obey which will show our love for Him I know He will take me from glory to glory and reveal them as He took me when I was first born again from a hybrid Arminianism/Calvinism beginning to open my eyes to a Calvinistic conclusion without even reading or knowing about Calvin. I came to believe the things Calvin taught and never read Calvin. Then I learned about the Puritans and things really took off.
Now I see the connection of all things salvation as beginning with God and ending with God and His special choice of the Hebrews/Jews that has weathered all persecution and tribulations throughout human history. Now they have been back in their land and the speed of things regarding history are really taking off. I will not know everything before He comes but when He does come then shall I know even as also I am known (1 Cor. 13.)
As you do I do, and that is share what we think we know. But some things we do know we know as truth, and no one can change those things we hold unless wrong and only then by the Holy Spirit of Truth.

The Law is spiritual. It killed because there was a time man were natural, of the flesh. But now that we have become spiritual it cannot harm us. But the unsaved it will 'kill.' I believe the Law was type and shadow of the Holy Spirit. And what led and guided and convicted men from without written on stones or vellum (sic) is now written in our hearts and leads and guides and convicts us from within as the kingdom (Christ) is within us. I hold the Lord's hand and He holds mine. And I will learn all I am meant to learn and then my end will come. But until then I am going to learn what He has for me and given my call what He has for others whether they receive it or not. But to outright reject what I say is not wise. It may not come to you when I say it but if it is truth it will stand on its own even beyond my life here as teaching in the past has stood the test of time. And if I am wrong then it will not be nutritious to my brethren. Isn't that how God raises us? Fishbone theology? Holding on to those things that are true and throwing away the rest? And what I may say may not be meant for the person I am responding to. Others may read what I say and genuinely consider or leave it in the back burner of their minds for watering for another time. I only play a part, not the whole. And my part is known through what I say.

I do not believe we are righteous by the Torah/Law even though Saul said it did:

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless (justified?).
Philippians 3:6.

But I do know that after conversion the Law/Torah is profitable for instruction in righteousness thoroughly furnish[ing] (me) unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:17) and those works come from God (Eph. 2:10.)

So, is the Law/Torah really "abolished" or made "obsolete"? No, it is not. It is eternal and the wisdom of God gave it to the children of Israel, and I know in the Millennium Gentiles will not occupy the Promised Land but reside to the four corners of the earth (everywhere else) and what will they have to order their lives? The U.S. Constitution? No. The Constitution found in Matthew 5 and everywhere else God's commands in His Word, commands that I have only until recently begun to explore and learn. I know this is a Reformed forum. But at this time, I do not believe the Lord wants me at a Messianic Forum. Not yet. Maybe never. But I am true born of God 47 years. I know what I know through the suffering the Lord has put me through (Eccl. 1:18) since 1977. But as a man in whom Christ has put His Spirit I am of His body and no man has the authority to reject me for in doing so they reject Christ in me and is this right, is it biblical, to sever the mouth from the body of Christ.
I once applied to be a Moderator. What was done to me here was unbiblical, not of Christ and some here are guilty of offending the Lord. And yet no one has righted that wrong. But I moved on. But I love this site because this is where I was asked and where the Lord has permitted me. It allows me an outlet. For I do love the brethren even though some need a sock in the jaw to shake them up and I have had fistfights with brethren in my past over disagreements and I have learned that although not as extreme as Phinehas when the dust cleared me and that brother grew very close and the loyalty between us was deep. You don't know how much I want to sock that brother in the jaw and point my prophet finger at the rest of you that didn't intervene at the injustice done to me and Christ in me. But that's history. Would I have made a good Moderator? We couldn't know. But I am not keen on two things a Moderator does and that is does not let things play out between two 'adverasries' (1 Cor. 11:17-18) and this act of banning. I cannot ban any true born from fellowship for no real sin.
So here I am, as Martin Luther said, God help me.

I understand the difference between spiritual and natural when it comes to the law. I make the distinction. You conflate them--going one way when it is makes a convenient response to an error that you have had brought to your attention, and the opposite when it supports a different supposition. In addition you are Judaizing the New Covenant, just as was happening in Galatia

I am not Judaizing for I do not say we must circumcise our flesh to be saved as the Judaizers did in Saul's Galatian experience. The New Covenant IS Judah, the New Covenant IS Israel, and the Scripture says so. There are no Gentiles in any of the Jewish/Hebrew Covenants. None. And this blows my mind. So, it appears God is saving Gentiles without a covenant and that's what I see. But are we really Gentile? I don't know my family history beyond the 1800s in this country. What I do see is the lesson in the gospels of how Israel had issue with Samaritans because they were not pure stock but half-Gentile. And yet the Lord ministered to them because the covenants of salvation is with Abraham and his seed and although half-whatever I also know God does not lie and if He said "your seed" then Samaritans no matter the offspring, if they have Abraham's DNA then they are his seed and in covenant with God. Since then, there have been two major scatterings of the Jews. Through intermarriages, rape, concubinage, etc., even during Jesus' day with the Roman centurion, not all of Roman Empire was populated with people from Italy. Maybe this centurion had Abraham's DNA in him. From a Reformed position Jesus doesn't save anyone who is not elect, right? Nor does God give that which is holy to dogs or cast His pearls to swine. So, what's indicated? I believe myself to be Gentile, but I am saved, and I cannot help but wonder whether Abraham's DNA isn't somewhere in my ancestors no matter the degree. Isaac had two sons in covenant. But the promise went to Jacob. Does this mean Esau ceased to be in covenant? No. He was Abraham's seed still. There are seeming paradoxes and things I have yet to understand, but one thing I do know is that God keeps His promises and if the promise is to Abraham and his seed and I am saved then what conclusion can I reach at this time but that I am his seed somewhere in my ancestral lineage. But there is teaching that ALL Gentiles are Abraham's seed (Gal 3) and I do not believe this. If Abraham and his seed are in salvation, and all Gentiles are in covenant then this leads to universalism and is this what a Reformer believes? Because that is the result of believing ALL Gentiles are his seed and in the Abrahamic Covenant.
I find the word [Strong's] " apōleia" (ruin) has three senses in which to understand its usage: physical, spiritual, eternal. Judas was the 'son of perdition' not the father of it. He was covenant. He was NAMED apostle (Lk. 6:13.) He killed himself. His ruin was physical, not spiritual for the Holy Spirit was not given and only rested on Jesus. It wasn't eternal for he was a Hebrew in covenant. He ruined himself through suicide. Physical.
What about those Hebrews who worshiped the golden calf? What was it? 23,000 who perished? Weren't they in the 'new' covenant God was establishing with Moses and were Abraham's seed? Was their ruin eternal, spiritual, or physical? Weren't they Abraham's seed and inheritors of the promise even though they were 400 years removed from their great-great-great-great, etc., grandparents' God before they went into bondage? God removed them physically. Took them out of the way to satisfy His anger and to teach a lesson to the rest. But they were Abraham's seed. Did God break covenant with them?
I haven't figured everything out. I only know what I know today. But go ahead and test me. Engage me. Challenge me. Sharpen me. God will either use you to refine me and take away the dross or use you and your challenge of what I say to enlarge my understanding like a balloon and as love does with a brick.
I welcome your challenge.
But do you welcome mine?

 

[Josheb]

There is neither infancy nor old age. It just is. It's Him.

The witness of the NT epistolary proves otherwise.

Luke 8:14-15
The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity. But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

Hebrews 5:11-14
Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Ephesians 4:11-13
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

Maturation is in fact one of God's goals in and with the Church.

What Israel knows will be much clearer and what Gentiles know will be corrected.

That does not reconcile with what the prophet Isaiah said about covenant-breaking Israel.

Isaiah 56:9-11
All you beasts of the field, all you beasts in the forest, come to eat. His watchmen are blind, all of them know nothing. All of them are mute dogs unable to bark, Dreamers lying down, who love to slumber; and the dogs are greedy, they are not satisfied. And they are shepherds who have no understanding; they have all turned to their own way, each one to his unjust gain, to the last one.


.

 

[Arial]

I haven't figured everything out. I only know what I know today. But go ahead and test me. Engage me. Challenge me. Sharpen me. God will either use you to refine me and take away the dross or use you and your challenge of what I say to enlarge my understanding like a balloon and as love does with a brick.
I welcome your challenge.
But do you welcome mine?

What you say has enlarged my understanding, and not only you but others. It has not caused me to agree with you but it has caused me to look, and look, and read, and read some more. And pray. And when I do, I find that what was laying somewhat in the background, understood but not deeply explored, has become a road to growth and more growth, Understanding upon understanding. I believe that is in large part because I am always seeking God, not doctrines. I don't want to live on suppositions or presuppositions; on what I like and don't like; or what I just accept without investigation; I want to know God's truth. It has blessed me with becoming a layman apologist. What I believe, and why I believe it, and where in the Bible the evidence is, and being able to, (and in the process of learning to) articulate it.

When I have presented these things to you concerning covenant, particularly that biblical covenant is a relationship between God and His people, and His people are not restricted to the natural descendants of Abraham, but to whoever He elects to bring into that covenant relationship with Himself, you dismiss it out of hand. You do not bother to address it with any sort of actual refutation of what I have said, and often offer a full out, often hostile, attack on my position, and me.

So for you to suggest, as you do above, that you consider what I or anyone else, presents to have any merit, or contain anything that you might learn and grow from, is disingenuous.

Your view of biblical covenant is mistaken. If you truly are after the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, before you continue to present a false view that is very damaging, I suggest you do some reading on the subject from the Reformed covenantal view. I can see that the dispensation framework of Bible interpretation has infected your view as it has a great majority of the church. That is unfortunate and can't be helped given that is all that has been taught for over a century, and is very difficult to let go of.

A few sources: The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem by William Van Gemeren
Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants William J Dumbrell
Far As the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption Michael D. Williams

All of these will give more footnote reference to other sources. Follow the trail. Check all that is given against the scriptures----no against already held beliefs. The knot that was tangled over a century ago can be difficult to untangle, that of separating Israel from its covenantal purpose, and turning it into exclusivity, can be difficult to loose. It was for me too, and that is because we have trained our brains to read certain passages in the OT in a certain way and lose sight of the big picture.