Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
***I guess I should edit my affirmed text more.***
Ya think?!!!
***Though technically, he probably has a point on that score. Will we be known as Christians or children of God?***
I’m sure in the delirium known as Dispensationalism there is some significant distinction between “Christian,” a mere derisive label by those not the children of God, and “children of God.” I’m actually all a tingle as to why you think this is significant. I’ll probably regret the answer later, but I am curious at the moment.
***I still dont know of a single Dispy who believes that.***
Ok, one more time...
There were no Christians in the Old Testament and there will no Christians after the Rapture, since only Christians make up the bride of Christ (Eph.5:30) ~ post 198
If only Christians get to be joined to the Messiah, then every OT saint and every saint from after the “Rapture” will NEVER be joined to the Messiah. This means that such prefigures of Christ such as David will NEVER have their long looked for Messiah. But, there is this cool consolation prize: dirt.
God to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, et. all.: Sorry, but you will never be joined to the Messiah. But, there is this cool consolation prize. Gabby (Gabriel), open door #2 and let’s show them the dump truck full of what they get to have for all eternity.
I increasingly see that Replacementarians are from the school of theology Dr Walter Martin talked about . . . illustrated by the old saw . . .
Can God create a rock too big for Him to move.
God is NOT into nonsense.
Maybe it’s my fever or some such but I’ve about had my fill of such nonsense for the moment.
Outrageous.
Amen.
“An Idol being put in after the destruction is not what Matthew says.”
Take that argument up with Martin Luther, for he was the one who made that statement.
Martin Luther knew both Luke and Matthew weren’t about some future “third” temple event because he obviously knew that there is no “third” temple mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and for very good reason — because Christ is the Temple.
Read Matthew 24 and Luke 21 again objectively. If you do that, then you will see that both Gospel writers were relating the same message, the same warning, the same signal to flee the city — i.e. the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the end of the Mosaic Age (not the “end of the world” as people like LaHaye would have you believe).
Are you sure that you understand what you are quoting???
Romans 9:7 says: "Neither, because thay are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called".
Ishmael was the child of the flesh. Isaac was the child of promise and all the 12 tribes descended from Isaac.
"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
Notice in Romans 9:2-4, Paul talks about his sorrow over those of his own race:
9:2-4 “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 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, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.”
Why do you suppose he was in such distress if “all Israel will be saved” (as dispensationalists interpret the phrase)?
Again, just two verses later:
Romans 9:6: “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.”
Paul was distraught over those of his own race rejecting Christ and he made the point that their bloodline didn’t make them Israel.
I don't know about you but I have never been in a church yet that didn't have males and females in it ...
But like Isaac, Jacob was also the child of promise [that the elder shall serve the younger]. Ishmael and Esau were children of the flesh, but Isaac and Jacob [Israel] were children of the seed of Abraham as well as children of God's promise.
or in other words, the flesh prevaileth nothing, it is the Spirit that saves.
And that Spirit says:
"Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I [Paul] also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin" [Romans 11:1]
Yes, and some men are bonded and some men are free. But what is Paul saying to us here -- that there is no indenture and we're all one sex?
No, he's saying labels don't mean anything. Distinctions don't mean anything. The ONLY thing that matters now and forever is God's grace through faith in Christ.
"All one in Christ Jesus."
His people are not the disbelieving Jews whom Paul laments. His people are those God has graced with faith.
Tabsternager in post 228 states it clearly...
Notice in Romans 9:2-4, Paul talks about his sorrow over those of his own race:
9:2-4 "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 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, the people of Israel.
Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises."
Why do you suppose he was in such distress if "all Israel will be saved" (as dispensationalists interpret the phrase)?
Again, just two verses later:
Romans 9:6: "It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel."
Paul was distraught over those of his own race rejecting Christ and he made the point that their bloodline didn't make them Israel.
I think Paul is saying that a Jew is a Jew from the heart, from the inside out, who values his heritage, knows where he came from, and followed in the ways of his people -- not just someone who had Jewish blood. Many back then and throughout history have been Jewish in name and blood only and cared little about Torah, and Moses, and Isaiah, their heritage, their covenants, and the promises to them, the things that made them uniquely Israel before God.
Gosh, I think that is a terrible reading of the Gospel. Paul isn’t criticizing Jews for not being better Jews. He’s criticizing Jews for not believing in the only name that saves, Jesus Christ.
That's not so. Paul is lamenting over his people Israel because he too was an Israelite.
“His people” was not referring to Paul’s people but to the quoted verse which speaks of God’s people — “Hath God cast away his people? God forbid...”
But Paul is distinguishing between fleshly Israel and the Israel of God like right here:
"28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." [Romans 2]
Not so. The "his people" are the "Israelites" of which Paul is one. Read it:
"Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I [Paul] also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin" [Romans 11:1]
God's people are not the same as Paul's people. Some are; but not all. Paul's people, his lineage, as he says, are those of the physical circumcision, the Jews.
God's people, all believing Jews and Gentiles, are those whose hearts have been circumcised.
"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." -- Romans 2:25
And which Jew or which Gentile can keep the law perfectly?
NONE.
So the physical circumcision means nothing and profits nothing.
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." -- Romans 2:28-29 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Take that argument up with Martin Luther, for he was the one who made that statement. Martin Luther knew both Luke and Matthew werent about some future third temple event because he obviously knew that there is no third temple mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and for very good reason because Christ is the Temple.
My goodness, you sound like a Roman Catholic appealing to a Church Father!
The Temple that is described in Matthew is not the Lord's Body since no abomination of desolation can stand in it!
As for the Temples mentioned in the Bible, the Temple (Herods) was the one that was started when the Jews returned to the Land (Haggi 2:9).
Now, as for a third temple that is the temple rebuilt during the Tribulation and the anti-Christ will sit in claiming he is God (2Thess) and that is what the Lord is referring to in Matthew 24.
There is 4th Temple, in the Millennial reign as well,where Christ will sit and the Son of David (Ezek.40-48)
Read Matthew 24 and Luke 21 again objectively. If you do that, then you will see that both Gospel writers were relating the same message, the same warning, the same signal to flee the city i.e. the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the end of the Mosaic Age (not the end of the world as people like LaHaye would have you believe).
Read what the passage actually say and stop trying to twist the readings into something the do not say.
The Lord points back to Daniel and the abomination of desolation (Dan.12:11) and when that is set up in the Temple, that causes the Temple to become defiled and sacrifices to cease.
Luke is talking about the events of 70AD, Matthew isn't.
They are talking about two different events and that is why they read differently, one making mention of the Abomination of desolation and one not.
One in the past, and one in the future.
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.