He is a Jew, He is not a Jew: the physical seed of promise

[robert derrick]

I'm quoting Paul, not adding or taking away, so maybe you ought to read it again, and that without adding men's doctrines to it...

Rom 11:25-32
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.

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:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.'

Of course that means once God removes their blindness HE put upon them for this world, they still must choose Christ Jesus. Paul above is affirming they will... believe on Jesus in that future time with how he quoted from Isaiah. It's because God did promise to save His chosen of Israel; the New Covenant did not change nor eliminate that promise to them.

Apparently, one of the things you struggle with is God's election, His choosing. Do you not remember what Saul, who was a Pharisee, what he was doing on the road to Damascus when Jesus struck him down and converted him? Just when did Paul choose Christ there? He didn't, Jesus chose Paul, like He said in Acts 9. When a direct intervention from The LORD like that happens, it points to God's ownership, like shown in John 17. It shows God already owned Saul, which is how He could directly intervene with converting Saul.

So who are we to say that God won't directly intervene with those Jews He blinded in converting them when Lord Jesus appears? If you've missed it, the fact that He already has divinely intervened with spiritually blinding them away from The Gospel already shows His ownership of them, which is what Paul is also pointing out here...

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

In other words, God already owns them, He chose them, and He made certain promises to them that He will keep, regardless of what they may want, and regardless of how we may think.


30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
KJV

Just as in times past, the Gentiles were without God and His covenants. Yet through their unbelief, we Gentiles have obtained mercy, and by our belief are graffed in to Christ.

So when the time comes (at Christ's future return), Paul shows they will believe on Jesus once the stupor God put upon them is removed. This is why Zechariah 12 at the end shows there will be a great mourning for Christ by the orthodox Jews in that future time.

Once again, I will gladly read all you wright and try to adequately respond, but the basis of everything is in these points:


And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3)
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now...Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (Gal 4)
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. (Rom 9)

3. Is he a seed of Abraham, that is one born after the flesh, and not born after the spirit as Isaac was? Is he a child of promise and of Abraham counted for the seed of Abraham, that is a child of the flesh and believes not in Christ?

I.e. there is no seed of promise by the flesh.

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children...But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. (Gal 4)

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (Gal 3)

4. Who are the children of Abraham by Hagar, and who are the children of Abraham by the freewoman, as Sarah?

I.e. the children of Abraham after the flesh, are the child of bondage by Hagar, and the children of Abraham after the Spirit by faith are children of the freewoman Sarah.

 

[robert derrick]

I'm a Gentile (at least as far as I know), and I recognize God's promises to His chosen Israel 'that He already owns'. Our Lord Jesus is simply going to fulfill those promises at His return, and one of them is about His gathering of them out of the countries where He scattered them, and bringing them back into the lands He promised their fathers. Scripture like Ezekiel 37 is a major... witness to this. And in the Book of Isaiah there is much more evidence of those future events. Even the descriptions of the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22 are hard-linked to what God revealed through Ezekiel in the Ezekiel 40 through 47 chapters.

All that is not going to happen as a separation between God's chosen of Israel and Christ's Church, which is an idea from men called Dispensationalism. In Ezekiel 44, the only ones allowed to approach Christ's table in that future Millennium are called the Zadok (means The Just). Those represent Christ's faithful Church that waited for Him. And the chambers of the priests shown in those Ezekiel 40 - 47 chapters are the "mansions" Jesus revealed in The Father's "house", for that future Millennium sanctuary is called God's "house" in those Ezekiel chapters.

Not only that, but the River and tree of life mentioned in Revelation 22 is also shown in the Ezekiel 47 chapter, with the living waters of that River in God's house flowing out of the sanctuary to feed other waters upon this earth healing them. And we are even shown the many trees bearing their fruits in their months (tree of life) on either side of that River. Literal locations on earth in the middle east are given with that.

Yet many brethren today are instead being told Christ's Salvation is going to be up in the clouds, off this earth, and that this earth is going to be no more! Men can dream up all sorts of fables on that as long as they don't have to keep to God's Holy Writ.

And here are the last of my points that i base everything on:

And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree...And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. (Rom 11)

4. What is the olive tree that some branches were broken off, others grafted in, and yet others grafted in again?

I.e. the holy olive tree is Israel, and the branches thereof are the children of Israel.

...that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

5. What is it the Gentiles be coming in?

I.e. the Gentiles that believe are coming in to the olive branch of Israel, and are children of Israel, as with them grafted in again.

I'd appreciate your responses to these. Are any of the questions I have asked posed wrongly? Anything concluded wrongly?

 

[Davy]

I appreciate the many things you will offer; however, we have come to the point, where we are arguing across one another. I would like to continue, and will respond to your points gladly.

But for now, I would like you to adequately refute the basis Scriptures for my whole argument; otherwise we will continue to talk around each other with no end in sight:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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. (Rom 2)

1. Is there a Jew that is one circumcised outwardly, but not inwardly, so that he is a Jew, that is one outwardly.
2. Is there one that is circumcised inwardly, but is not a Jew, so that he is not a Jew that is one inwardly.

I.e. There is no Jew that is one outwardly only, and all such are liars that say so.

The Romans 2 Scripture you're trying to use to define the "synagogue of Satan" in Revelation 2 & 3 is irrelevant. The reason is because Romans 2:28-29 can include Paul's brethren which God temporarily blinded away from The Gospel, but do not 'knowingly' serve and worship the devil. For those who knowingly serve and worship the devil in their working against Christ, they are destined to go into the lake of fire, which is what the destruction of the "tares" in Matthew 13 is about, as also the Scripture about the "brute beasts".

So your narrow argument just does not work, as I have already shown enough Scripture evidence to point out these differences.

 

[robert derrick]

The Romans 2 Scripture you're trying to use to define the "synagogue of Satan" in Revelation 2 & 3 is irrelevant. The reason is because Romans 2:28-29 can include Paul's brethren which God temporarily blinded away from The Gospel, but do not 'knowingly' serve and worship the devil. For those who knowingly serve and worship the devil in their working against Christ, they are destined to go into the lake of fire, which is what the destruction of the "tares" in Matthew 13 is about, as also the Scripture about the "brute beasts".

So your narrow argument just does not work, as I have already shown enough Scripture evidence to point out these differences.

You did show an appreciative argument that was convincing enough to believe there are regrafted Jews, who still us the term 'synagogue' for their place of worship, which would be solely by fashion of custom and in name only, since there is no 'synagogue of Christ' in Scripture, nor is any synagogue with unbelieving Jews, after the manner of Moses, that are of God.

However, since you apparently do not wish at this time to respond to the basic Scriptures that prove for me a 'narrow argument' about it, then at least in terms of normal debate, they stand, and so must my argument: a simple reading is of they who say they are Jews and are not, and are called liars by God, and are the synagogue of Satan.

Perhaps a better description of this reading would be that of a 'simple argument'. Although narrow is not bad, since the Lord's way is narrow, as should be the way of reading His Word.

So your narrow argument just does not work

I.e. my narrow argument just does not work for you in your opinion.

P.s. how is concluding all Synagogues of unbelieving so-called Jews as synagogue of Satan, narrow? To me, narrowing the argument in a wrong way would be trying to parse out different types of unbelieving synagogues, which of course has no Scripture for it.

 

[Davy]

You did show an appreciative argument that was convincing enough to believe there are regrafted Jews, who still us the term 'synagogue' for their place of worship, which would be solely by fashion of custom and in name only, since there is no 'synagogue of Christ' in Scripture, nor is any synagogue with unbelieving Jews, after the manner of Moses, that are of God.

However, since you apparently do not wish at this time to respond to the basic Scriptures that prove for me a 'narrow argument' about it, then at least in terms of normal debate, they stand, and so must my argument: a simple reading is of they who say they are Jews and are not, and are called liars by God, and are the synagogue of Satan.

Perhaps a better description of this reading would be that of a 'simple argument'. Although narrow is not bad, since the Lord's way is narrow, as should be the way of reading His Word.

I'm sorry, but solely keying on words like 'synagogue' to point to Satan's elect isn't enough to establish them.

And you are obviously still not wanting to address the subject of the crept in unawares and tares, which gives much, much weight to identifying the real fake Jews who are the devil's elect.

So your narrow argument just does not work

I.e. my narrow argument just does not work for you in your opinion.

P.s. how is concluding all Synagogues of unbelieving so-called Jews as synagogue of Satan, narrow? To me, narrowing the argument in a wrong way would be trying to parse out different types of unbelieving synagogues, which of course has no Scripture for it.

As long as you key solely on words like "synagogue" and refuse to address Scripture about the crept in unawares and tares, then yeah, your arguments are sewed up in a little bag that doesn't amount to much. And trying to debate on usage of the word 'synagogue' even shows that bag is getting smaller and smaller.

 

[robert derrick]

I'm sorry, but solely keying on words like 'synagogue' to point to Satan's elect isn't enough to establish them.

And you are obviously still not wanting to address the subject of the crept in unawares and tares, which gives much, much weight to identifying the real fake Jews who are the devil's elect.



As long as you key solely on words like "synagogue" and refuse to address Scripture about the crept in unawares and tares, then yeah, your arguments are sewed up in a little bag that doesn't amount to much. And trying to debate on usage of the word 'synagogue' even shows that bag is getting smaller and smaller.

As long as you key solely on words like "synagogue" and refuse to address Scripture about the crept in unawares and tares,

As long as you key solely on side issues, without refuting my little bag of first points, then trying to debate with you on synagogues and tares is a sideshow diverting from the first and main points, as I have made clear.

Yes, I suppose I am trying to enforce 'thread discipline', which I always am careful to do for others, out of respect for their efforts. This thread was introduced with certain Scriptures and reading of them, that I have invited any to try and refute. I welcome it.

You have skipped the main ones, without refuting them, and so you continue to read all Scripture through the lens of a promised seed of flesh, while I no longer read any Scripture through that lens that is done away with by God: if my first points are correct.

One person did try to refute my reading of Rom 2. And you did make a fair attempt at my reading of Rev 2:9, 3:9, pertaining to all outward circumcision only are liars in calling themselves 'Jews'.

So, it is reasonable to insist you address my first points, which I hope you do, because you have a good mind for Scripture.

Thank You.

 

[robert derrick]

Romans 2:28-29 can include Paul's brethren which God temporarily blinded away from The Gospel, but do not 'knowingly' serve and worship the devil. For those who knowingly serve and worship the devil in their working against Christ, they are destined to go into the lake of fire, which is what the destruction of the "tares" in Matthew 13 is about, as also the Scripture about the "brute beasts".

1. Since the context here is of unbelievers serving in a false religion called the Jews' Religion worshipping in synagogues only reading Moses of old, then exactly what wheat is it that these tares are springing up among?

Are unbelievers in Christ still wheat of God by virtue of old flesh?

2. Knowingly vs ignorantly serving the devil: this appears possible, since Saul of Tarsus later claimed he did so ignorantly in unbelief, and Nicodemus admitted they knew He was a teacher from God in John 3. However, this is not an admission that they believed and thus knew He was God in the flesh, the promised Messiah, and so had Him crucified anyway:

A. Judas Iscariot knew He was Lord and betrayed Him, but not to the intent of having Him killed. It was the others that just wanted Him dead, because He was drawing off people from their power, and they plainly declared He was a blasphemer for trying to make Himself God: they did not believe Him, and Jesus Himself they did not know Him:

Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. (John 8)

B. And again, Scripture plainly says that none of the knew He was the Lord, else they would not have crucified Him:

Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor 2)

And so, an argument of ignorant unbelievers less serving the devil, than knowing unbelievers more serving the devil is false and made up by men, who desire to keep a prophecy of their own in tact.

And of course Scripture concluded them all in unbelief and were all blinded and so cast away and broken off. (Rom 11:17,32)

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off... None of them broken off believed He was the Lord, much less knew they were serving the devil on purpose.

The sin of unbelief is never in a good heart, nor in a better heart in comparison to another, but all are of an evil heart (Heb 3:12), and the end judgment of all they that die in the sins as such is the same: not found written in the Lamb's book of life and so cast into the lake of fire.

It is humanism to think in terms of 'better' unbelievers and 'worse' unbelievers, except in context of them who end in a worse state after turning from the faith back to the vomit and mire, which is in fact the case for the old seed of promise refusing to repent, though they had known the Lord from the mount, while refusing to believe Him in person. (2 Peter 2) (Hosea 5)

 

[Davy]

As long as you key solely on words like "synagogue" and refuse to address Scripture about the crept in unawares and tares,

As long as you key solely on side issues, without refuting my little bag of first points, then trying to debate with you on synagogues and tares is a sideshow diverting from the first and main points, as I have made clear.

Sorry, but trying to discuss this matter with you is like having a fight with a one-armed man. You're trying to corner me to one small part of Scripture which I refuse to do. And the fact that you would call Christ's parable of the tares of the field in Matthew 13 a "sideshow" reveals your Biblical illiteracy.

 

[robert derrick]

Sorry, but trying to discuss this matter with you is like having a fight with a one-armed man. You're trying to corner me to one small part of Scripture which I refuse to do. And the fact that you would call Christ's parable of the tares of the field in Matthew 13 a "sideshow" reveals your Biblical illiteracy.

So, I am trying to 'corner you' into responding to the Scriptures upon which I base all my conclusions: the first posts that started this thread, where I asked for any to refute my reasoning of them.

God forbid.

Disagreement is fine. Intellectual dishonesty is not.

 

[robert derrick]

2 Samuel 5:1 All the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “We are your own flesh and blood. 2 In the past, while Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel on their military campaigns. And the Lord said to you, ‘You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler.’”

3 When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel.

4 David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years. 5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.

David was a Jew, and Jesus was born of the seed of David?

Religion in Israel is manifested primarily in Judaism, the ethnic religion of the Jewish people. The State of Israel declares itself as a "Jewish and democratic state" and is the only country in the world with a Jewish-majority population (see Jewish state).

Galatians 4:4 But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law. (Jesus was born under the Jewish Law)

As usually translated, Paul says that Jesus was “born of the seed of David” meaning that he was a descendant of David. As Paul is our earliest witness to the Jesus movement, writing decades before the gospels, this would seem to cause problems for theories in which Jesus is not a real man.

Religion in the nation that calls itself Israel is the Jews religion: a religion made by man out of an old covenant that is vanished away. They are propping up a corpse to worship it: idolatry.

There is no 'spiritual Israel' or 'spiritual seed of promise' as opposed to a natural Israel and natural seed of promise, because natural Israel is the church of Christ in natural bodies.

To so Christians are a 'spiritual Israel' is the same humanist reasoning, as you say, that Jesus did not come in the flesh, but was only spirit and spiritually on earth, without His own body born of a woman.

Jesus is the seed of David: the brethren of Jesus therefore are also the seed of David.

 

[robert derrick]

Romans 9 is absolutely not about the election of Jacob to salvation and predestined damnation of Esau, in any way.

Calvinists talk about eisegesis, then do that very thing all the time, and Romans 9 is a very good example of that.

It starts off being about a nation - the Israelites - and Paul quotes from the Old Testament on the topic of Israel, a nation, and when he’s referring to Jacob and Esau, he’s still talking about nations, and is quoting from the Old Testament, from Genesis 25 and Jeremiah 18, which is the potter and clay chapter:

The potter and clay, and Jacob and Esau, in Jeremiah 18 is about NATIONS not individuals.


As Rebecca was told in Genesis 25:23 concerning her pregnancy: two nations are in your womb (Edom came from Esau, and Israel came from Jacob)


And Israel, the nation from Jacob is the clay on the potters wheel, (not an individual person such as Esau, destined to wrath or destruction) - and as Jeremiah 18 shows us, God indeed gives mercy on whom He wills - and He wills that He has mercy on those who repents.


The Potter and the Clay.

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

Jer 18:2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

Jer 18:3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

Jer 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

Jer 18:6 O house of ISRAEL , cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.


We also find in Jeremiah 18, that when the potter speaks blessing over any NATION and they turn evil, God takes back his blessing and punishes that nation, and also when the potter considers a nation a vessel fit for destruction and they repent, He changes His mind about punishing them.


No nation (or person) is predestined to destruction.


Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a NATION, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to DESTROY it;

Jer 18:8 If that NATION, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will REPENT of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a NATION, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

Jer 18:10 If it do EVIL in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will REPENT of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Israel the nation on the potters wheel, continually sinned against God, and was punished for that, and remolded by God on the potters wheel because of it.


This is the opposite of the reformed doctrine predestination narrative. The fate of the nations is dependent on what they do, not on being predestined to be vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, and this establishes that the Romans 9 potter and clay passage is not about predestination of individuals to hell, or to salvation.


God will have mercy on whom He will - and His will is He has mercy whenever there is repentance, and takes back His mercy, if they turn to doing evil.


That God changes His mind about the destiny of any nation,based on what that nation does right (repentance) or does wrong (turns to evil) absolutely wrecks reformed election version of predestination.


BTW, the fact God hated Esaus but loved Jacob is used as proof that Esau was of the unlucky non elect, predestined to hell and damnation.


In reality that statement by God is a well known idiom to the Jews, that means to love less, not to literally hate.


This is easily proven by Jesus telling us that unless we hate our mother and Father and whole family, we aren’t worthy to be His disciples.


It’s obvious that Jesus isn’t teaching us to violate the command to honor our mother and father, or violate the law of love that Jesus proclaimed, that we must love our neighbors as ourselves.


Jesus is saying that we must love Him the most, and love our family less:


Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


God loved Esau less than Jacob.

And Esau was not clay on the potters wheel being made into a vessel of wrath, fitted for destruction.

Shalom Aleichem

The potter and clay, and Jacob and Esau, in Jeremiah 18 is about NATIONS not individuals.

The children of flesh in bondage and cast out with Hagar, and the children of promise born of the freewoman as Isaac is about nations and individuals: the nation of the Israel of God vs the nation falsely claiming to be such. The individuals born o faith as Isaac, and those still claiming to be such by flesh.

Any who insist that God must continue to be bound to a seed of flesh, that He must still owe a promise to, though they still insist crucifying Jesus was His just reward for blasphemy, then Galatians 4 will never be known to them. Neither any prophesy of Scripture pertaining to the last days, which are already here, because the Deliverer out of Sion is already come.

Jesus is saying that we must love Him the most, and love our family less:

And so we must love Him and His brethren more than propping up a fleshy seed that no longer exists in the Israel of God.

That God changes His mind about the destiny of any nation,based on what that nation does right (repentance) or does wrong (turns to evil) .

God doesn't change His mind. It is unfaithful man that changes His plan: His covenant is changed from old to new, because the children of the old utterly rejected Him to crucifixion of His Son. And so the seed of His promise to Abraham is changed from that of the flesh of old to that of the spirit in the new.

Natural Israel is now all children of faith in natural bodies. Not just Spiritual, but Spirit in the physical, even as Jesus came in the flesh, not just in the Spirit with physical body born of a woman.

reformed election version of predestination.

I have no idea what that means, and it would make my head hurt to try and understand it, and since it doesn't matter to the argument, I don't have to even try. Thankfully.

 

[robert derrick]

Romans 9 is absolutely not about the election of Jacob to salvation and predestined damnation of Esau, in any way.

Calvinists talk about eisegesis, then do that very thing all the time, and Romans 9 is a very good example of that.

It starts off being about a nation - the Israelites - and Paul quotes from the Old Testament on the topic of Israel, a nation, and when he’s referring to Jacob and Esau, he’s still talking about nations, and is quoting from the Old Testament, from Genesis 25 and Jeremiah 18, which is the potter and clay chapter:

The potter and clay, and Jacob and Esau, in Jeremiah 18 is about NATIONS not individuals.


As Rebecca was told in Genesis 25:23 concerning her pregnancy: two nations are in your womb (Edom came from Esau, and Israel came from Jacob)


And Israel, the nation from Jacob is the clay on the potters wheel, (not an individual person such as Esau, destined to wrath or destruction) - and as Jeremiah 18 shows us, God indeed gives mercy on whom He wills - and He wills that He has mercy on those who repents.


The Potter and the Clay.

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

Jer 18:2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

Jer 18:3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

Jer 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

Jer 18:6 O house of ISRAEL , cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.


We also find in Jeremiah 18, that when the potter speaks blessing over any NATION and they turn evil, God takes back his blessing and punishes that nation, and also when the potter considers a nation a vessel fit for destruction and they repent, He changes His mind about punishing them.


No nation (or person) is predestined to destruction.


Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a NATION, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to DESTROY it;

Jer 18:8 If that NATION, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will REPENT of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a NATION, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

Jer 18:10 If it do EVIL in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will REPENT of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Israel the nation on the potters wheel, continually sinned against God, and was punished for that, and remolded by God on the potters wheel because of it.


This is the opposite of the reformed doctrine predestination narrative. The fate of the nations is dependent on what they do, not on being predestined to be vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, and this establishes that the Romans 9 potter and clay passage is not about predestination of individuals to hell, or to salvation.


God will have mercy on whom He will - and His will is He has mercy whenever there is repentance, and takes back His mercy, if they turn to doing evil.


That God changes His mind about the destiny of any nation,based on what that nation does right (repentance) or does wrong (turns to evil) absolutely wrecks reformed election version of predestination.


BTW, the fact God hated Esaus but loved Jacob is used as proof that Esau was of the unlucky non elect, predestined to hell and damnation.


In reality that statement by God is a well known idiom to the Jews, that means to love less, not to literally hate.


This is easily proven by Jesus telling us that unless we hate our mother and Father and whole family, we aren’t worthy to be His disciples.


It’s obvious that Jesus isn’t teaching us to violate the command to honor our mother and father, or violate the law of love that Jesus proclaimed, that we must love our neighbors as ourselves.


Jesus is saying that we must love Him the most, and love our family less:


Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


God loved Esau less than Jacob.

And Esau was not clay on the potters wheel being made into a vessel of wrath, fitted for destruction.

Shalom Aleichem

Is he a Jew that is one outwardly? Is outward circumcision in the flesh, circumcision?

Are there any that say they are Jews, but are not and are liars?

Is Israel after the flesh, Israel of God? Are the children of flesh, the children of promise of God?

Are the brethren of the King of Israel not of Israel? Are the children of the God of Israel not children of Israel?

Are the children of Abraham counted for the seed, not the seed of promise?

Is the holy olive tree the Israel of God? What are the Gentiles coming in to?

 

[MatthewG]

Okay, with you saying that would say there is. A heavenly Jerusalem but not spiritual Israel.
There is the spirit that is given from the Father.

 

[robert derrick]

Okay, with you saying that would say there is. A heavenly Jerusalem but not spiritual Israel.
There is the spirit that is given from the Father.

Isaac was the seed of promise born after the Spirit by Abraham and Sarah (Gal 4:29). We, as Isaac was, are counted for the seed as children of Abraham (Rom 9:8), but not by Sarah, rather by Jerusalem that is above and free, the mother of us all. (Gal 4:26)

The body of Christ, even as the Israel of old is a physical body, a seed of promise in natural flesh, but not as they born of the flesh, rather born after the Spirit as was Isaac, and that Spirit was and is Christ (Gal 3:16). As they were commanded in the Old Covenant, so are we in the New: to keep the commandments of God in our mortal bodies and so walk after that same Spirit Isaac was born of.

There is no Spiritual Israel apart from the natural body of Israel, even as there is no Christ come as a Spirit, but not in the flesh. There will be a spiritual Israel with the resurrection in the likeness of Christ, when they that are children of Abraham by promise and of the God of Israel by seed of God, shall be changed from natural to spiritual bodies. (1 Cor 15:44)

 

[robert derrick]

Is Christ divided? The God of Israel is not divided between seed of flesh and seed of faith. There is one seed of promise, not seeds as of two:

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

That seed of promise to Abraham is Christ, and Christ's seed of God is not that of promise to Abraham? It is.

There is one baptism of Christ by the Spirit. There is also one circumcision of God in the Spirit.

The flesh profits nothing and no flesh shall be justified in His sight, neither is there any more seed of flesh born of promise with Him.

 

[MatthewG]

How you say there is no spiritual Israel then say there is a spiritual Israel?

 

[Davy]

How you say there is no spiritual Israel then say there is a spiritual Israel?

The matter is that some in the Church like to stay ignorant of God's promises and covenants to the 'seed' of Israel while pointing to their church 'system' as the only ones that will be saved by Jesus.

There's even an old joke about some of those; a believer on Christ dies and goes to Heaven, and sees a great high wall in Heaven and asks, "what's that wall for, who's on the other side of it?" He is then told, "Oh, that's for the xxxxx xx xxxxxx denomination, they like to think they're the only ones here."

 

[Davy]

Rev 21:10-12
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
KJV

You mean in Christ's future Kingdom on earth when the new Jerusalem comes down from God out of Heaven, the 12 tribes of Israel are still going to be mentioned, and not the many system denominations of man???

That's right. And even Christ's 12 Apostles are going to sit upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel...

Matt 19:28
28 And Jesus said unto them, "Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
KJV

So who are the philosophers who say God's promises and covenants to Israel that He gave their fathers is no longer to their literal seed?

Saying that every soul MUST believe on Jesus Christ to be saved is one thing, and is true. But saying God's promises and covenants to Israel are gone that He first gave through His Old Testament prophets, and that Lord Jesus Himself gave, is blasphemy against God's Word. I'm not even Jewish and I say this, because God Himself said it...

Jer 31:35-37
35 Thus saith the LORD, Which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is His name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before Me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me for ever.

37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
KJV

 

[robert derrick]

How you say there is no spiritual Israel then say there is a spiritual Israel?

There is no spiritual Israel now, while the body of Christ remains in corrupted natural bodies. The future Spiritual Israel of resurrection is when the body of Christ will be in incorruptible spiritual bodies:

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (I Cor 15:43-44)

Those who say there is a 'spiritual Israel' by faith of Jesus separate from the natural seed of promise, are denying the body of Christ is the natural bodies on earth, that are born after the Spirit, even as Isaac was. (Gal 4)

The false doctrine of a spiritual body of Christ only is the same as that of a spiritual Christ only, who came not in flesh with a body born of man, but was only Spirit. This error comes from: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (15:45)

Conclusion:
The children of Abraham counted to the seed of promise were those born of Jacob by the flesh with natural bodies: and so were called the natural seed of promise of the old covenant. But the Scripture of the new covenant now plainly declares the children of Abraham counted the seed of promise are those born of Christ in natural bodies: the natural seed of promise by flesh of the old is now changed for the seed of promise by faith in natural bodies. The old covenant and it's seed of flesh and law of Moses are vanished away, and God by Jesus Christ has brought in the new covenant with it's seed of faith and law of Christ forever.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. (2 Cor 5)

 

[robert derrick]

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. (Rom 11)

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. (2 Cor 5)

All Israel is and shall be saved, because the Deliverer is come out of Sion.

All Israel are now of God, who reconciles us to Himself by jesus Christ, whether past uncircumcised Gentile grafted in, or uncircumcised cast aways grafted in again.

This is the hope of the prophets: that All Israel would be Israel of God, and none would be hypocrite and persecutor, being only born of flesh. Now there is no flesh called Israel of God, but only them born after the Spirit as Isaac was in natural bodies.

Unless of course, the Deliverer out of Sion has not come, and His holy olive tree is not Israel of God.

There is an Israel after the flesh (1 Cor 10:18), that is in name only, even as there is an outwardly circumcision called 'Jew', that is in name only.

The Israel of God are now born of the Spirit in natural body, and there are the Jews of God with inward circumcision of the heart.

Unless of course, he is a Jew that is one outwardly only, and he is of Israel that is of the flesh only and not grafted in again.