This is an attempt at a few replies to my former questions. I hope I'm not out of line by starting a new thread but the other one jumped to a longer length than I anticipated and I get sort of lost trying to sort my way through all of the repolies whcih I appreciate,. And I'm not trying to put proudpapa or anyone on the spot but just to have a clean thread not so full.
For proudpapa. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
I asked,
RE: /// but I'm asking for answers from those who believe it would be building dividing walls again. What is your reasoning for this?
You replied,
Racism is done away with in the Body of Christ
'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.'
'Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all. ' (END)
Doc: The former wall of partition was established by God Himself so was God the official founder of this racism or was there a larger purpose behind the middle wall of partition being established? Could there have been a larger purpose beyond the outward appearance of this "racism?"
You wrote,
He argues that there is only one Israel of God””comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who are children of Abraham through their faith in Christ.' (END)
Doc: Yet pre-mill believers of which I am one totally agree with that premise. Therefore, if Israel is to be the recepient of a millennial exaltation as a servant nation devoid of carnal nationalistic self interests and dedicated to the service of others it would simply be the true Israel of God receiving this destiny and demonstrating the number one virtue of humility and servanthood that the greatest among you at shall be the servant of all. If they are saved and born again they could be no other than the true Israel of God. What believer or theolgian if you will has ever stated that this blessing is to come to them outside of their being born again?
You wrote,
Lets remember the Bible clearly says that God is not a respecter of persons.
The idea that the physical nation of Israel (because of the race of there flesh) has a place of headship among the nations in the future is a view that goes against the understanding that God is not a respecter of persons as well as Pauls arguement in Romans 9-11 that clearly makes the point that : 'They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (END)
Doc: It's my opinion that the millennial destiny of Israel is never portrayed in scripture as that which will belong to the unbelieving children of the flesh. Just the opposite. If it came to the children of the flesh then God would be a respecter of persons. God's sovereign election is based on not anything in man but on God being able to put in those He chooses what they need to qualify in the inheritance of the saints in Christ. Therefore, if opponents of a millennial destiny for Israel believe it cannot be because it would exalting a nation of unvelievers then they could not be more wrong and are assuming a colossial error that pre-mill believers have never advocated. Besides hearing that if Israel is given a place of headship during a millennium that it would spoil the one new man in Christ, that's something that baffles me a bit also. In spite of clear teaching to the contrary there seems to be the opinion out there that pre-mill believers advocate that even the unbelieving children of the flesh will be included in the promises of Israel's restoration after Christ returns at His second advent. Nope!
I also asked,
Part of my question and thoughts are, have Gentiles forgotten that when they became believers in Christ and part of the commonwealth of Israel (true Israel within Israel) that they were then participating in promises and covenants made to the Jewish commonwealth? (END)
Youu replied,
Physical Israel's role as the commonwealth was done away with.
"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
We have a 'better covenant, (an everlasting covenant) which was established upon better promises.' (END)
If Christ returns to the physical nation of Israel what will it say to the notion that He has forever cast off a physical Israel since the place of His return will be in a physical location? If those in the nation Christ returns to will become Christian with God's Spirit within them then would they not be partaking of the everlasting covenant and if so how would they be spoiling the one new man which is entirely made up of believers by simply living in a specified land?
If there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ why does Paul continue to speak of a covenant made with the natural branches?
I've probably over loaded you a bit but I thought it might work if I answered four of your replies in one post instead if four. If it doesn't work I'll learn from it.
Thanks for your answers and the time you took. No rush. I'll try to answer some of the other folks in the morning.
\t\t
