God has only got one chosen people

[WPM]

Except what you are arguing in regards to verse 28 is not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing two different groups are meant in both clauses. I'm arguing that only one group is meant in both clauses. Therefore, I couldn't possibly be arguing that born again Jews are enemies. Therefore, you are misrepresenting what I'm arguing.

That is totally ridiculous!

• How can “born again” Jews be considered as “blinded” and “enemies” of “the Gospel”? That does not make sense.
• How can Christ-rejecting and Christ-hating Jews be considered as “the election” and “beloved for the fathers' sakes”? That does not make sense.
• Do you even know who or what “the election” are? They are those who are chosen by God, redeemed by the blood of Jesus and who belong to the family of God (Jew and Gentile).
• Do you even know who or what “the blinded” are? They are “enemies” of “the Gospel”?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thank you for at least explaining why we are having difficulty understanding each other.

You seem to believe that God has one group.

I`m asking why didn`t God just do that to start with and not go to the trouble of creating and working with the nation of Israel for centuries knowing full well that in their humanity they could never obey Him?

What difference does it make why God didn't just do that from the start? That doesn't change the fact that scripture teaches that all believers are part of one body now. You seem to be diverting attention away from what scripture teaches with your questions.

 

[Zao is life]

Yes, faith in God. We the Body of Christ were enabled by the Lord to receive Him. And Israel will be given the same opportunity when the Lord enables them to receive Him.

They did not recognize Joseph until he revealed to them who he was. Then they were dismayed in his presence.

Joseph is a type of Christ. They will see Him whom they pierced (their father's pierced Him - but they also pierced Him through their rejection and support of the father's false accusations against Him).

That means He will already have appeared in the clouds - when they look upon Him whom they pierced.

Those who repent of unbelief have already been grafted in again. The rest are not going to be given special treatment over the Gentiles. The judgment of Christ coincides with the return of Christ. God will save Israel for the sake of His elect remnant, which includes Gentiles. It involves resurrection from the dead.

 

[Davidpt]

I doubt that you agree with the rest of his understanding of Romans 11. What is your understanding of Romans 11:26? Which Israel is that talking about? As for verse 28, you interpret it in a way that contradicts the rest of Romans 11. Why would those unbelieving Israelites who were blinded and cut off be considered beloved? That makes no sense whatsoever. Is that how God treats His beloved? He blinds them and cuts them off?

Up until they die, assuming some of them chose to believe before they died, why doesn't that equal they were still beloved in the meantime? While on the OTOH, those that remain in disbelief up until death, they are no longer beloved at that point. IOW, in this case, being beloved for the fathers' sakes has to do with the past 2000 years up until His return.


Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob

I would say I understand this the same way you do. That this is meaning the remnant not cutoff, unbelieving Jews who eventually choose to believe, and Gentiles that choose to believe. But even so, what about verse 30? Meaning this part---yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief? If some of verse 28 is meaning the remnant that were never cutoff, why is Paul still talking about the Jews that were cutoff? Hasn't that been the main subject since verse 8? Why would some of the subject matter change in verse 28?

Romans 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

It really makes a whole lot of sense, since it is a fact some unbelieving Jews are able to get grafted back in after having been cutoff, that they were not still beloved in the meantime. Meaning between their getting cutoff and their getting grafted back in again when they believe. And guess what? Once they are grafted back in, them being enemies is no longer applicable to them. But in the meantime, meaning while they are cutoff, only this portion is applicable to them--enemies, but this portion isn't---still beloved for the fathers' sakes. Is that what we are to conclude?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is totally ridiculous!

• How can “born again” Jews be considered as “blinded” and “enemies” of “the Gospel”? That does not make sense.
• How can Christ-rejecting and Christ-hating Jews be considered “the election” and “beloved for the fathers' sakes”? That does not make sense.

He's not using scripture to interpret scripture here. Romans 11:28 should be understood according to what Paul wrote just previous to that in Romans 11, but he's not doing that. It's utter foolishness and insanity to suggest that unbelieving Jews could be considered beloved by God. Not a chance! Did Jesus treat the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees like they were His beloved when He repeatedly called them "hypocrites" and "a brood of vipers" that was heading for hell? Hardly! His beloved are those who belong to Christ!

Romans 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

 

[WPM]

Yes, faith in God. We the Body of Christ were enabled by the Lord to receive Him. And Israel will be given the same opportunity when the Lord enables them to receive Him.

Why do Dispies apply this to the end? Where does it say that? What about Israel over this past 2000 years?

 

[Zao is life]

Okay. You obviously made it clear from the beginning that you were refuting dispensationalism and not premillennialism, but when he saw one mention of premils he saw an opportunity to come on here and make a fool of himself again and he took it.

Matthew 5:22. I'm not returning your insults anymore.

 

[WPM]

Up until they die, assuming some of them chose to believe before they died, why doesn't that equal they were still beloved in the meantime? While on the OTOH, those that remain in disbelief up until death, they are no longer beloved at that point. IOW, in this case, being beloved for the fathers' sakes has to do with the past 2000 years up until His return.


Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob

I would say I understand this the same way you do. That this is meaning the remnant not cutoff, unbelieving Jews who eventually choose to believe, and Gentiles that choose to believe. But even so, what about verse 30? Meaning this part---yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief? If some of verse 28 is meaning the remnant that were never cutoff, why is Paul still talking about the Jews that were cutoff? Hasn't that been the main subject since verse 8?

Romans 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

Paul depicts the faithful believing remnant within Israelite (those who belong to “the good olive tree”) as “the election” or “a remnant according to the election of grace.” It is this faithful remnant alone that “are beloved for the fathers sakes.” The remaining segment that are "broken off" are depicted as “blinded” and “enemies” of “the Gospel.” They are the lost Israelis.

 

[Davidpt]

That is totally ridiculous!

• How can “born again” Jews be considered as “blinded” and “enemies” of “the Gospel”? That does not make sense.
• How can Christ-rejecting and Christ-hating Jews be considered as “the election” and “beloved for the fathers' sakes”? That does not make sense.
• Do you even know who or what “the election” are? They are those who are chosen by God, redeemed by the blood of Jesus and who belong to the family of God (Jew and Gentile).
• Do you even know who or what “the blinded” are? They are “enemies” of “the Gospel”?

What is wrong with some of you ppl some of the time? Why are you lying about what I'm arguing? And why are others liking the fact that you are lying about what I'm arguing? I'm not arguing that born again Jews equal enemies. Therefore, quit lying about what I'm arguing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Up until they die, assuming some of them chose to believe before they died, why doesn't that equal they were still beloved in the meantime?

You are saying all unbelieving Jews are beloved for the father's sakes, including those who never believe. How can that make sense? That's like saying the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus ranted against in Matthew 23, including asking them how they could avoid hell, were beloved for the father's sakes. No, they were not. This describes who the beloved are...

Romans 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

While on the OTOH, those that remain in disbelief up until death, they are no longer beloved at that point.

You obviously don't even know what the word "beloved" (Greek: agapētos) means. It's beyond the general love that God has for the world (John 3:16). It's a special kind of love that God only has for those who belong to Christ and have a personal relationship with Him. The word is most often used in scripture when God describes His beloved Son. The word simply would never be used to refer to any unbeliever at any time. An unbeliever can later become one of the beloved by believing, but while they are in disbelief, they are not beloved.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob

I would say I understand this the same way you do. That this is meaning the remnant not cutoff, unbelieving Jews who eventually choose to believe, and Gentiles that choose to believe.

I'm honestly quite surprised by this. I can't comprehend how you can understand the meaning of Romans 11:26, but not the meaning of Romans 11:28.

But even so, what about verse 30? Meaning this part---yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief?

That's referring to believing Gentiles. You need to read the first part of Romans 11 to understand what that verse means.

Romans 11:11 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 Israel envious.

See here how the stumbling of the unbelieving Jews made the way for salvation to come to the Gentiles, who, in turn, were to make those unbelieving Jews envious? That's how the Gentiles obtained mercy through the unbelief of those unbelieving Jews.

If some of verse 28 is meaning the remnant that were never cutoff, why is Paul still talking about the Jews that were cutoff? Hasn't that been the main subject since verse 8?

Did you not read where I showed you who "the election" are, based on what is written in Romans 1:5-7? The election refers to the remnant of Israelite believers of Paul's time, which included Paul himself. Paul contrasted them with "the rest" who "were blinded". So, when Paul says "concerning the election" in Romans 11:28, using scripture to interpret scripture, that means he was referring to the remnant of elect believers.

 

[Scott Downey]

Let's leave AI out of this. It only serves to cause confusion if it's used for any other reason but to help format and clarify your points. It does not have "the mind of Christ" and the Holy Spirit to guide it like we do (1 Corinthians 2:9-16), so it is untrustworthy for providing biblical truth.

How can it make any sense at all to conclude that unbelieving Jews would be called "beloved for the father's sakes"? Read Matthew 23 where Jesus called unbelieving Jews like the scribes and Pharisees "hypocrites" and "a brood of vipers" and asked them how they thought they could escape hell. Is that the way you think Jesus would talk to those who are beloved by God? No way. No chance of that whatsoever. Only the remnant of believers that Paul mentioned early on in Romans 11 were "beloved for the father's sakes". Do some research on the meaning of the Greek word "agapētos" (translated as "beloved" in Romans 11:28) and you should see that it's not a word that would ever be used to described unbelievers.

How's that working out though, look at all the people in disagreement over scripture.

Beloved are believers, most definite. Their fathers were beloved, those are the Jewish Patriarchs.
Couple versions here
EXB
·The Jews refuse to accept the Good News, so [L With regard to the Gospel,] they are God’s enemies. ·This has happened to help you who are not Jews [L …for your sake; C Israel’s rejection resulted in the proclamation of the Good News to the Gentiles; vv. 11, 12]. But ·the Jews are still God’s chosen people, and he loves them very much [L with regard to election, they are beloved] because of ·the promises he made to their ancestors [L the ancestors/fathers/patriarchs].
GNV
As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

KJ21
Concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sake; but concerning the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
ASV
As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sake.
AMP
From the standpoint of the gospel, the Jews [at present] are enemies [of God] for your sake [which is for your benefit], but from the standpoint of God’s choice [of the Jews as His people], they are still loved by Him for the sake of the fathers.
AMPC
From the point of view of the Gospel (good news), they [the Jews, at present] are enemies [of God], which is for your advantage and benefit. But from the point of view of God’s choice (of election, of divine selection), they are still the beloved (dear to Him) for the sake of their forefathers.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What is wrong with some of you ppl some of the time? Why are you lying about what I'm arguing? And why are others liking the fact that you are lying about what I'm arguing? I'm not arguing that born again Jews equal enemies. Therefore, quit lying about what I'm arguing.

He's clearly not lying. Do you not know the difference between lying (something someone does on purpose) and mistakenly (not on purpose) misinterpreting your words? You just don't know how unclear you are sometimes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How's that working out though, look at all the people in disagreement over scripture.

This can't be a serious response. Are you seriously suggesting that consulting AI is the solution to people disagreeing about scripture? Why are people trying to replace the Holy Spirit with AI? It's just unbelievable to me.

Why didn't you address the points I made in my post? My points are based on what the scripture says and not what any AI says. Please address my points related to scripture and just leave AI out of it.

 

[Zao is life]

And when someone can`t reply to the other person it seems that rudeness is the answer. Not good WPM.

I moved on because we had both said our bit and no good going on and on posting the same things.

@WPM probably doesn't notice the way myself and no doubt others pick up over and over again that he's friendlier and more Godly in his approach UNTIL the moment his buddy @Spiritual Israelite shows up (whose favorite thing is to call anyone he disagrees with "fool" and use a whole set of other words to describe the person - instead of sticking to the subject (because it's okay to get angry about what the person says, but in the case of @Spiritual Israelite he's arguments and debates are very, very frequently accompanied by whatever can show contempt for Jesus and His instructions - like the one found in Mathew 5:22 and elsewhere).

 

[Zao is life]

This can't be a serious response. Are you seriously suggesting that consulting AI is the solution to people disagreeing about scripture? Why are people trying to replace the Holy Spirit with AI? It's just unbelievable to me.

Why didn't you address the points I made in my post? My points are based on what the scripture says and not what any AI says. Please address my points related to scripture and just leave AI out of it.

You have long ago replaced the Holy Spirit with the flesh in your response to people, so you are the last one to talk.

 

[WPM]

What is wrong with some of you ppl some of the time? Why are you lying about what I'm arguing? And why are others liking the fact that you are lying about what I'm arguing? I'm not arguing that born again Jews equal enemies. Therefore, quit lying about what I'm arguing.

It sounds like it. What are you saying?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have long ago replaced the Holy Spirit with the flesh in your response to people, so you are the last one to talk.

Look in the mirror, hypocrite.

 

[Scott Downey]

This can't be a serious response. Are you seriously suggesting that consulting AI is the solution to people disagreeing about scripture? Why are people trying to replace the Holy Spirit with AI? It's just unbelievable to me.

Why didn't you address the points I made in my post? My points are based on what the scripture says and not what any AI says. Please address my points related to scripture and just leave AI out of it.

I actually was posting for the sake of another poster on here. Such as Zao is Life, and DavidPT, as both were into this earlier.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

@WPM probably doesn't notice the way myself and no doubt others pick up over and over again that he's friendlier and more Godly in his approach UNTIL the moment his buddy @Spiritual Israelite shows up (whose favorite thing is to call anyone he disagrees with "fool" and use a whole set of other words to describe the person

That is a lie. To call your comments foolish is not equivalent to calling you a fool. I wasn't talking about you as a person, I'm talking about your foolish response in that one particular case. You are blatantly misrepresenting me and it's most likely on purpose. Pathetic.

 

[WPM]

@WPM probably doesn't notice the way myself and no doubt others pick up over and over again that he's friendlier and more Godly in his approach UNTIL the moment his buddy @Spiritual Israelite shows up (whose favorite thing is to call anyone he disagrees with "fool" and use a whole set of other words to describe the person - instead of sticking to the subject (because it's okay to get angry about what the person says, but in the case of @Spiritual Israelite he's arguments and debates are very, very frequently accompanied by whatever can show contempt for Jesus and His instructions - like the one found in Mathew 5:22 and elsewhere).

Where have i changed since SI turned up? I actually clarified your comments to SI in a sympathetic way.