DISPENSATIONALIST "CHRISTIAN" ZIONISM -- Is there now "neither Jew nor Gentile", or not?

Once upon a time, I was but a wee child in Reformed Theology, taking my first baby-steps into the beautiful Cathedral of Calvinism as a young Debater for Jerry Falwell's world-beating Liberty Debate Team (Our Creed: "Defeat Harvard. Defeat Navy. Defeat American Catholic. Defeat everyone. Crush them all, every time, no exceptions. Win every single National Championship, every year.... because as long as we Calvinists keep winning, Jerry won't excommunicate us for being Calvinists!!".)

Since a Debater is always expected to be able to immediately argue either side of any given question, I spent a lot of time in the local used book-store picking up various books on philosophy and theology and politics and economics... anything I could get my dirt-poor hands on for $2 or $3 dollars a copy. Anything to familiarize myself with multiple intellectual perspectives and multiple modes of argumentation.

Now, in the course of my researches, I happened across a little book entitled War Cycles, Peace Cycles by Richard Kelly Hoskins of Lynchburg, Virginia, regarding the short and long-term economic effects of Monetary Expansions and Contractions in the context of fractional-reserve lending. Hoskins was by no means an uneducated fellow (a capable Financial Advisor and Econometricist, some of his works are still occasionally cited today), but I was singularly disturbed by several passages in which he seemed to suggest a Racial component to Fractional-Reserve Lending (which he called "the Babylon System") versus his contrary suggestions for Joint-Venture Lending.

The further I read, the more it was apparent to me that Hoskins regarded "Israel" as The White Race, the Adamic Race descended through Abraham, and that all Non-Whites were considered to him to be zuwr "strangers": Pagans at worst, "Samaritan" Christians at best... but never "Israel".

And so, being the young fool that I was, I did what any young fool would do... I looked Dick Hoskins up in the Lynchburg, Virginia phone book, and called him at his house.

I asked him what he would make of my spiritual position -- a Confessing Christian by Faith, mostly Prussian German by Ethnicity, but with a little 1/16 smidgen of Sioux Nation mixed in 3 or 4 generations back on my mother's side.

Hoskins informed me, quite cordially and without any rancor whatsoever, that God considered me to be a mixed-breed Bastard and that "A Bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 23:2) He advised me to marry "one of my own kind".

Well, I decided at that point (even before I knew him to be the godfather of the "Phinehas Priesthood", the most violent expression of the Christian Identity movement) that even if he was a good money-runner, Dick Hoskins' theology was a barrel full of wet, smelly, foolish Scheißdreck, with which I would have no truck whatsoever. The Christian Creed is this: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28, KJV).

Unfortunately, however, "Christian Identity" (derived not from pagan Nazism but rather from its bastard godfather, British Israelism) is not the only theology which Racially divides the Body of Christ into Jew and Gentile, "Israel" and "Not-Israel", Blood and Blood-lines.

The future dispensational kingdom involves a racial prejudice favoring the Jews above even saved Gentiles during the millennium. As such it re-introduces the distinction between Jew and Gentile and replaces Faith with Race as a basis for divine favor. Consider the following citations from leading dispensationalists: (DISPENSATIONAL DISTORTIONS PART TWO, Redemptive History Distortions ~~ Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.)

However, with the establishment of the New Testament phase of the Church, the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been abolished. This was the whole point of Peter's vision of the sheet filled with unclean animals in Acts 10: "What God has called clean, let no man call unclean." Thus, there is no separate Jewish program exalting them over saved Gentiles. THE CHURCH, which includes Jew and Gentile in one body, is the fruition and culmination of God's promises to the Jews. In evidence of this, we should note that Christians are called by distinctively Jewish names in the New Testament. "He is a Jew, which is one inwardly" (Rom. 2:29). Christians are called "the circumcision" (Phil. 3:3), "the children" and "the seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7, 29), the "Jerusalem which is above" and the "children of the promise" (Gal. 4:24-29). In fact, Christians compose "the Israel of God" for we are a "new creature" regarding which "circumcision availeth nothing" (Gal. 6:16).

In closing, I ask only (according to the Hebrew logical-interpretive method of "how much the more?")... if the heretical British-Israel/Christian-Identity Racialists pervert True Christianity by dividing the People of God along Racial lines, then how much the more do Dispensationalists also pervert the Word of God and divide the People of God along equally Racialist lines?

Those aren't Quotations from Richard Kelly Hoskins... granted, they may sound like Christian Identity quotations, but they aren't.

These are nothing less than direct quotations from the leading lights of Dispensationalism in America -- Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Hoyt, Hunt, Thomas Ice. (I could've quoted Hagee, I suppose, but the man is absolutely freakin' nutbar).

All that I did was to replace "Israel" with "The White Race", and replace "Gentiles" with "Non-Whites".
Does Dispensationalist "theology" destroy the Racial equality of the Body of Christ? What you see is what you get.

Jesus abolished nothing.

That's certainly news to Saint Paul.

(If nobody minds, I'm gonna stick with the King James Version -- nasty "four-letter-words" and all):

2 Corinthians 3:13 ~~ And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
Ephesians 2:15 ~~ Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
2 Timothy 1:10 ~~ But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

If "Jesus abolished nothing!", as you so falsely claim in service of the Dispensationalist Heresy which has unfortunately Enslaved you -- then you're Dead, I'm Dead, We're both Dead, We're both Damned...
...and I'll see you in Hell.

Fortunately, however... According to the Bible, you're entirely Wrong, Dispensationalism's entirely Wrong, and by God's Grace you and I may yet be Saved in spite of Ourselves.

If a Vain Fool may offer you some advice... get used to being Wrong. It's one of the only ways I've ever learned anything important.

He fulfilled it.

Of course He did. Jesus Christ fulfilled and replaced the Old Rites and Rituals of the Jews -- which is why Saint Paul warned against the Judaization of the Christian Church.

St Augustine is not inspired, and, yes, a statement such as this is reprehensible if spoken by anyone.

WELL, MY, MY -- all of a sudden your Slanders against John Calvin take a back-burner, when you are reminded that I am quoting Saint Augustine.

Poor little Un-Christian Hatemonger -- I've deprived you of your favorite target!!

But, be advised, your own personal opinion counts for nothing, here. You're debating Calvinists, who read and respect Magisterial Tradition (unlike you); and so we'd like to see some Scripture evidence, some Patristic citation... something to buttress your own personal opinion that Saint Augustine's exigesis is "reprehensible".

Just give me some sort of Evidence to buttress your Argument -- anything -- because if it's just you against Saint Augustine... then guess what, kemosabe! You Lose, You're Wrong, and you look silly!!

I have worshipped with Messianic Jews who have willingly submitted themselves to the Law that they might win some of their people to the Lord Jesus. This is line with the philosophy of the Apostle Paul who admonished Jews who accepted the Messiah to remain Jews and Greeks who did so not to become Jews. Your "us-four-and-no-more" strategy would win few, if any.

Actually, we have plenty of Converted Jews in the Reformed faith. Whole Churches and Congregations full, in fact (I guess you didn't know that onw of my favorite Reformed Presbyters was the Converted-Jewish Presbyter of Messiah's Congregation, NYC, the Reverend Steve Schlissel). But as you have proven in every single one of your Posts so far -- You don't care about the Facts, just the False-Witness mud you can sling.

Also, I did not slander your Pope, John Calvin. First of all, you cannot slander a dead person.

John Calvin is not my Pope; and what is more, John Calvin is not Dead.

Based upon your foolish assumption that every Christian needs a human "Pope", I am guessing that you are a poor, schismatic Roman Catholic. You obviously have no comprehension of the Truly-Biblical and Eastern Orthodox conception of the Living Kingdom of the Saints:

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. ~~ Revelation 20:4

Saint John Calvin is alive, right now, even as we speak; and do you not know, that he shall Judge the entire World?

Secondly, I did not directly say it was attributed to your Pope.

By that, I assume you mean "John Calvin"... Of course not. Since you were too implacably Anti-Calvinist to even bother to look it up (or even read my own citations), you weren't aware that I was quoting from the most Esteemed Theologian since the Apostles in the entire history of the Christian Church.

No, you just assumed that you had another opportunity for cheap Slander against Saint John Calvin; and when you got caught with your pants down, you claimed the personal authority to call Saint Augustine "reprehensible" (yes, that hubbub from the peanut gallery IS every Christian Theologian in history laughing at you.)

BTW, I am willing to overlook certain antisemitic statements made by some of the Fathers and by the Reformers because they were children of their age.

Well, WHOOP-DEE-DOO!!

Guess what -- They don't care. Your opinion matters NOTHING compared to the Fathers and the Reformers, because the Fathers and the Reformers had a decent primary respect for Infallible Scripture, and a decent secondary respect for the teachings of the Patristic Magisterium.

You're just some dude with an Anti-Calvinist bias and your own Personal Opinion. That counts for squat, kemosabe.

Modern Christians ought to have moved beyond such attitudes.

"Move Beyond" Scripture and the Patristics?

Okay, the Romanists can "go ahead" without us. We Calvinists will stick to Scripture and the Patristics.

Nice seein' ya...

Also, I was not aware that the principles of the Reformation--solo fidi, sola scriptura, solo Christi--had been superceded by a new principle--solo Calvinus. This is"Evil, Ugly, Heretical, and Just Plain Wrong." You also are guilty of using the fallacy of composition by arguing that since some dispensationalists teach such and such, that, therefore, taints all dispensationalists. Such broad brushing represents a number of these quasi-formal fallacies. It could be said also that your statements represent a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter--the error of generalizing from the atypical.

Oh, look... Attila found a copy of a Freshman Logic 101 Textbook in the remainder bin! Why, I bet he even thinks he can conjugate Latin, and actually thinks he can read and understand it! Ain't that bloody cute.

NO, you intellectual dilettante... if I were "generalizing from the atypical", then I might have quoted from "Reverend" Hagee... but I've already admitted that the man is a full-blown nut-case.

Instead, I am quoting from Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Hoyt, Hunt, and Thomas Ice. These are universally acknowledged as the leading theological expositors of Dispensationalism in the late-19th and 20th Centuries, and I am quoting their own words.

By way of comparison, you might say that quoting from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro on the subject of Communism is "generalizing from the atypical"... it certainly is not, and you certainly don't know what you're talking about. I am certainly not "generalizing from the atypical", rather I am "observing argumentative charity" -- I am allowing the leading expositors of a contrary position to express themselves in their own words, and to be hoisted upon their own petard.

You don't understand Logic, Rhetoric, or Dialectic, Attila. ("Jerry's Kids", of course, must have a command of all three -- Dr. Jerry Falwell tolerates Calvinists only as long as we keep winning National Championships for him. That's the Price. That's the Deal.)

Furthermore, your exegesis of Gal. 3:28 is atrocious. Your interpretion "that henceforth any ideology which proposed any Racial Division of the Body of Christ whatsoever was Heretical, and Damned by God" can no more be lifted from the text than by declaring that sexual differences are 'henceforth damned by God', the implication being that in order to be saved, we ought to be gender-benders!

No, actually, a consistent application of my exegesis (if you were to ask me -- or for that matter, just read the Bible) would imply ONLY that Men and Women, Jews and Gentiles, Rich and Poor, and what have you all enjoy Perfectly-Equal Kingdom Heirship under Christ.

Dr. Eckleburg -- You're a Wife, with a Husband. Conveniently, for the sake of my example, I am a Husband with a Wife! Now, I rather suspect that you try to perform certain duties with regard to your Husband and Family, as do I (respectively) We both try to perform the duties for which God has best equipped us, and there's no need for "gender-bending" on either part -- but I am sure that you would agree with me that any theology which said "All Men shall be kings for a thousand years, and All Women shall be their slaves" is Un-Biblical and Heretical... not the least because, such a "theology" utterly perverts the Biblical idea of Marriage and Kingdom Equality before God!

In like manner, then, why do we Christians tolerate this Racially-Divisive Heresy known as "Dispensationalism"?

Overkill, OP. "How dare you's" and the like don't really add anything. You'd do better to just get to the point and cut the histrionics.

I thought you didn't want to debate this subject, Xzins.
Personally, I would prefer not to do so, if doing so would result in ill-will between us. But I'm willing to push this debate forward, if you wish.

Beyond that, I will debate with Alamo-Girl as I see fit -- and I respect her for actually Arguing my Contentions in so far as she has done so, not crying and punching the "Abuse Button" as some of her would-be Defenders have done. That is to her credit.

However, I have Posted my Arguments against Alamo-Girl's perspective exactly as I intended -- In My Own Opinion (which is not Infallible -- Hello! I never said it was) Alamo-Girl is not Theologically allowing for the Possibility that she might be Wrong, which is intellectually Prideful on her part (IMHO); and what is perhaps worse, she seems to be claiming an Authoritative Personal Dis-Association from the Traditions of Christ's Church. In that direction lies Charismaticism, Antinomiamism, and the Radical-Individualist Heresy of "One's Own god" (i.e., House Idols -- even if you call them "Yahweh" and "Yeshua").

I think you know me well enough, Xzins, to know three things of me:

I will never be Dishonest in any Theological Debate. I will always answer any Question with a straightforward "Yes" or "No", with the best Evidence I can provide from Scripture and the Patristics, and I will stand by my answer until absolutely proven Wrong by Scripture (The Magisterial Patristics are valuable Instruction, but nothing more)... At which Point, I am willing to change my Beliefs in order to Conform to Scripture.
I will always respect a fellow Honest Theological debater. Yes, you qualify (as if I had any Right to Judge you -- and no, I'm not sucking up. You know I would not). Whether Eastern Orthodox, Jesuit Catholic, or (rarely) Arminian Protestant, I will always have a great deal of Respect for anyone who follows "my" Rules, i.e., Debaters Rules: always answer any Question with a straightforward "Yes" or "No", with the best Evidence available from Scripture and the Patristics, and a willingness to change one's beliefs if absolutely proven Wrong by Scripture.
I will never, ever back down. I have said many a time that I consider Theological Debate to be a matter of "Iron sharpening Iron" -- it's not Personal, just Business. Eternal Business. Meaning absolutely no offense, I don't care one whit about your personal opinion of me, nor anyone else's. The great Ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Faith were established for all time by Precision, not Compromise... and in upholding the Traditions of my Calvinist Forefathers, I can do no less.

It is considerate of you to show concern for my method of presentation, Xzins; but as I said, meaning no offense at all... I just don't care

Alamo-Girl may choose to answer my Arguments, or not. Her choice. I bear no grudge.

But the fight for Theological Rectitude must go on.

Best, OP

Is "Roman Catholic" now your cussword for anyone whose theology you find objectionable?

No.

Perhaps, rather than calling liberals "liberals," I will start calling them "Calvinists". Then I will make as little sense as you do.

You're not making any sense now.

However, as a Calvinist, I believe that you have the Free Will to do whatever you want.

No skin off my teeth.

Last time I checked, Catholics substantially agreed with the Orthodox on issues bearing on the communion of saints, and both of us substantially disagree with the majority of Protestants, so I have no idea why you're pretending otherwise.

And last time that I checked... my eldest Brother is Eastern Orthodox, my sister-in-law is Eastern Orthodox (Rome loses one!), my nephew and niece are Eastern Orthodox (Rome loses two more, praise God!), my best friend is Eastern Orthodox, the Pastor who converted me to Calvinism is (now) Eastern Orthodox... so, yeah, maybe I'm not "pretending" when it comes to my knowledge and appreciation of Eastern Orthodoxy.

My best friend and I have made a "date" to attend Orthodox Matins and Liturgy together this coming Sunday (please no homosexual jokes; we're not Roman Catholic priests, you know); I can't attend Vespers, as I am working Saturday nights, but I look forward to receiving the Antidoron of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

While I disagree with Eastern Orthodox theology in certain respects, it has been too long for me; I am welcome there, and I miss the Beauty. Of course, you'd have better odds of putting a gun to my head and convincing me to Renounce Christ before I would attend a Roman Catholic Mass. I'm not a heretic, you know.

Perhaps you know more about html formatting than you do about theology.

Perhaps you are Baiting me, and I am not impressed.

Best, OP

If Israel=Church, then Romans would read like this

1 I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit-- 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4 the people of THE CHURCH. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from THE CHURCH. are THE CHURCH.. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." 10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, 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, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" 27 Isaiah cries out concerning THE CHURCH.: "Though the number of THE CHURCH. 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 CHURCH., who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 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 men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for THE CHURCH. is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. 5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess 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 confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts 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." 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all THE CHURCH. accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." 19 Again I ask: Did THE CHURCH. not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding." 20 And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." 21 But concerning THE CHURCH. he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am of THE CHURCH. myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah--how he appealed to God against THE CHURCH.: 3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? 4 And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? What THE CHURCH. sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8 as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." 9 And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. 10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make THE CHURCH. envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! 25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: THE CHURCH. has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all THE CHURCH. will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." 28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" 35 "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.