Is Prophecy Being Fulfilled in the Dispensation of Grace?

[Right Divider]

Which is that we are all descended from Abraham. He is indeed the "father of many nations."

It says "many" and not "all".

 

[JudgeRightly]

It says "many" and not "all".

Indeed.

 

[glorydaz]

No, Glorydaz, there was not. There has been one law - one. Not two or three or four. ONE!



Yes, and the law of Moses is the fruit of that tree!


No, it didn't. Not in the way you mean it.

Morality has existed the whole time but that existed even before the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

You're turning the law into something it is not. The law is a list of rules, or more precisely, it is a set of rules that has been listed. It isn't some nebulous thing where people just intuitively figure it out for themselves. So much so that the dispensation of conscience that you allude to has as it's primary historical lesson that men need the law to govern their evil passion. When people are left to figure it out on their own, the result is that God gets really mad and wipes out the whole population of humans shy of one single family.


No. That's your doctrine, not Jesus'. Jesus was not altering the law. Right and wrong DO NOT change. If divorce had ever been categorically immoral then it would still be so and it would be categorically immoral to regulate it as God has done.


The practice was different, the law was not because there was no law before Moses!

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,....​

I cannot see any way for it to be any clearer than that. Paul, just as explicitly as can be, says that there was no law between Adam and Moses.


It really will be worth your while. There's no one who examines all the available biblical material like Bob Enyart.

No, Glorydaz, there was not. There has been one law - one. Not two or three or four. ONE!



Yes, and the law of Moses is the fruit of that tree!


No, it didn't. Not in the way you mean it.

Morality has existed the whole time but that existed even before the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

You're turning the law into something it is not. The law is a list of rules, or more precisely, it is a set of rules that has been listed. It isn't some nebulous thing where people just intuitively figure it out for themselves. So much so that the dispensation of conscience that you allude to has as it's primary historical lesson that men need the law to govern their evil passion. When people are left to figure it out on their own, the result is that God gets really mad and wipes out the whole population of humans shy of one single family.


No. That's your doctrine, not Jesus'. Jesus was not altering the law. Right and wrong DO NOT change. If divorce had ever been categorically immoral then it would still be so and it would be categorically immoral to regulate it as God has done.


The practice was different, the law was not because there was no law before Moses!

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,....​

I cannot see any way for it to be any clearer than that. Paul, just as explicitly as can be, says that there was no law between Adam and Moses.


It really will be worth your while. There's no one who examines all the available biblical material like Bob Enyart.

I think you’re misinterpreting what that verse in Romans is saying. Paul is talking about sin not being imputed.

How can there be sin if there is no law?

Gen. 26:4-5. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Gen. 20:5-6. Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. 6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

The Bible makes it clear God’s law has been from the beginning. He created us with His law written on our hearts.

And God made His commandments, statutes, and laws known to all, including Abraham and even Moses before he was taken to the mount to receive them written in stone. Exodus 18:13-16

 

[glorydaz]

Except that He absolutely did do so!

Jeremiah 3:8 Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.​

It would help a lot if you'd use a bible that is translated into a modern version of English but regardless, the passage says that "your mother [Israel] is put away." The dispute here isn't about whether she's been put away but about who caused it to happen. The point of that verse is that it was Israel that left God, not God who left Israel.

Also, at this point the "Israel" being discussed is what was "Judah" (the term "Judah" is where the term "Jew" comes from, by the way.) So, in keeping with what is said in Jeremiah 3:8, Judah wasn't much better than the northern kingdom of Israel and as a result they had been sent off into captivity and separated from the temple and thereby from the presence of God and any ability to practice most of the tenets of their covenant. They had been "put away", but with no formal divorce decree such as had been given to "Israel" (the northern kingdom).

The point here being that since what was Judah (the southern kingdom), is now referred to as "Israel", which used to be what the northern kingdom was called, if you don't keep track of that then you can be lead to believe that no divorce had ever occurred between God and Israel at all, which is not the case. God did divorce Israel (the northern kingdom), but not Judah (the southern kingdom) which later came to called "Israel" and was merely "put away". See?

​

No, but I see you’re jumping to the hook without enough evidence.

BTW, I look at several versions before I post, but I also know that God never did divorce anyone. He is faithful even when we are not. There are hundreds of verses that talk about God’ faithfulness to His chosen people. To claim otherwise is slander against God. I see you say there is no formal divorce decree for one but not the other. All this based on a misunderstanding of what the prophets are saying.

God goes back and forth with His chosen people, but this subject requires more than just picking a couple of verses out of context. I get accused of that all the time, but I’m discovering others do the same. I‘m still ignored on the Hosea text, people stop when they see Not my people, as if that’s the end of it. But they are grabbing a parable and claiming it’s fact. Hosea, himself makes it clear later on.

Jeremiah 3
11 And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.

 

[glorydaz]

Could you provide an example? (Besides the "example" I address next)



Yeah, no, sorry, Jesus was, as explained immediately after that sentence, speaking of His body, not the actual temple.

He was using veiled language to hide His intentions.

It has nothing to do with the temple being destroyed 37+ years later.



You can state what you believe all you like. It doesn't change the fact that Scripture doesn't talk about it being a "future generation."

Scripture says "THIS GENERATION."
Scripture says "I will return before you make it through all the cities of Israel."
Scripture says "If I will that John remains, what is it to you?"

AND MORE!



I address this below.



Now you're denying Paul's words. Speaking of Israel, he says:

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them,When I take away their sins.” Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 11:11-32 - New King James Version

Israel’s Rejection Not Final - I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their...

www.biblegateway.com

He states quite clearly that they were cut off!



Then why does Paul say they have fallen? That they were broken off?



Whatever that's supposed to mean...



No one has said otherwise!

What we, and specifically, what I have said, is that Israel CURRENTLY holds NO SPECIAL STATUS as God's people. They are currently on the level of all other Gentile nations.



Saying it doesn't make it so, GD.



Which were already scattered...



Doubtful.



If they are, it's at a glacial pace...



So what?



No one said otherwise.



They hold no special status as God's people currently.



I don't think we're speaking about the same group of people.

Israel is FAR from Godly.



The golden calves have been replaced with other things.



You need to take whatever glasses you have on off, because they are FAR from God-fearing.

They worship their laws. Not literally, of course, but they do prioritize obedience to their laws over love of God.

They are a fallen nation, in rebellion against their God.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



You go against Paul's words.



Let us know when it's the last few sentences.



As far as I'm aware, no one here thinks the Body of Christ has replaced (ie, permanently taken the place of) Israel as God's chosen people.

That would indeed be folly.

No! What we're saying is that Israel's program has been put on hold for the time being, and that once God is done working with the Gentiles, He will return to working directly with Israel.



Replacement theology is the belief that Israel is permanently done for, that God will never return to working with them again, and that the Body of Christ has taken its place.

I am not a subscriber to that belief, nor is RD, nor is Clete.

With that being said...

The Body of Christ and the "covenant" of grace is currently God's focus, and not Israel and her New Covenant, so in a sense, the BoC has "replaced" Israel, temporarily.

But God WILL return to working with Israel again, as Paul states clearly in Romans 11.



There's no magic involved, GD.

The Body of Christ will be caught up. Then God will gather all the Hebrews to their land, from across the world.

The Body of Christ has not been caught up yet. Thus, God has not started gathering Israel.



Not sure if you're aware of this, but the site of the Jerusalem temple is currently occupied by an Islamic Mosque, called the "Dome of the Rock."

There isn't a Jewish temple there.

Until that mosque is gone, I wouldn't be too concerned with Christ's return happening in the next few years.

Not to say it won't happen at any point in the near future, just that it's kind of hard to build a temple there when the space is occupied by something else.



Someone needs to go over there and tell those muslim occupiers to ship out.



The fatal flaw is in your interpretation of scripture.



God is not the author of confusion.

You are clearly confused.

It's not Paul's fault.

It's due to a lack of right division.

So a fill up pages with gobbedy gook.
I sit back in shock and awe at the audacity.
Actually, it puts me in mind of what Paul says concerning this very subject.

Romans 11:
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


“Wise in your own conceits“. Kinda funny how your continual claims of right division are being exposed. In my humble opinion of course.

I honestly don’t think you have a clue about Israel today. They make this country look like true heathens. In fact, God has not only prepared the land, He’s preparing the people. It’s in the Bible, but mid acts is rather secluded. No Jews allowed. Not that Paul, Himself thought that way.

There is a Love for Israel channel and another one that shows Messianic Jews witnessing to people in Israel. Yes, Jews. Right there in the land praying to God. Your disdain for the Jews is fitting right in to these end times. They are being chased back to the land. Keep watching. You may, indeed, find some right division.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So a fill up pages with gobbedy gook.

This tells me you didn't even bother to read what I said.

Romans 11:
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

This tells me you didn't read what I quoted.

“Wise in your own conceits“. Kinda funny how your continual claims of right division are being exposed. In my humble opinion of course.

Look in a mirror.

I honestly don’t think you have a clue about Israel today.

I don't care about your opinions.

We're done here. You refuse to engage the points I bring up.