Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Bob Hope, Nov 3, 2012.
Are the gentiles just those ignorant of the Law or are they genetically different from Israelites?
The Bible consistently classifies all humanity into two groups - Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles are non-Jews and the Jews are non-gentiles.
The term "Jew" originates from the tribe of "Judah" which after the deportation of the ten northern tribes into captivity was the representative tribe of all twelve tribes still in the land. Hence, "Jew" and "Israelite" are synonomous terms.
The term "Jew" represents both the geneological offspring of Abraham through Isaac and those gentiles who have embraced the religion of Israel and submitted to circumcision and are thus called Jewish proselytes.
Thats good. But how do I reconcile Isaiah 56:5-7? It seems like there is no difference here? I am leaning towards gentile being a religous term. Am I going crazy?
In the Old Testament Israel=Jews were the professed people of God while all gentile nations worshipped other gods/idols. However, Isaiah is prophesying of what would occur in the future after God would reject Israel because Israel would reject Jesus as the Messiah and he would turn to the gentiles and call out a professed people of God from among them (Rom. 11).
Okay, then why mention keeping the law?
The law is not contrary to grace as God is the author of both and God is not the author of confusion.
According to the "everlasting covenant" the law is written upon the heart of the believer (2 Cor. 3:3-6).
The Old Covenant (Mosaic covenant) was EXTERNAL and the problem of sin was INTERNAL and therefore the law could not grant life (Gal. 3:21-22) but the problem was not the law but our sin nature (Rom. 7:10-12). What the law could not do the Spirit of God did in regeneration (Rom. 8:1-4). Hence, the cross abolished the external administrations of the Old Covenant (Col. 2:14-16) as the Law written upon the heart is fulfilled by love (Rom. 13:6-8).
That makes sense. So was Isaiah then saved by grace since they had no way to practise the Law?
There never has been any other way of salvation than by grace (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2). Paul explicitly says that Isaiah preached the gospel of Christ (Rom. 10:16) and there is no clearer record of the gospel in all of the Bible than Isaiah 53.
Abraham, who is pre-mosaic is placed before us as the MODEL/EXAMPLE for "all who are of faith" and he was justified by faith and faith is "by grace" (Rom. 4:12,16). Noah "found grace" in the eyes of the Lord and Noah was a preacher of righteousness (Acts 10:43; 1 Pet. 1:10-14).
That I agree with, so then the verse in Isaiah describes salvation as it was from the begining. Meaning salvation is always the same by grace through faith. This makes good sense to me.
The gospel prior to the coming of Christ was predictive and progressive in revelation. However, from the beginning it was a promised "seed" as a deliverer in connection with a pictorial sacrifice (Gen. 3;15; 4:4 with Heb. 11:4). The progressive nature of the Old Testament gospel was in regard to details until the completed revelation in the gospel accounts. They looked forward by faith to a future promise and we look back by faith to a completed promise. John the Baptist was the last of the predictive line of prophets as he proclaimed "the gospel" in the present tense rather than the future tense as all prophets before him (Acts 10:43). Christ was the lamb slain "from" the foundation of the world (Gen. 3:15,21; 4:4; Rev. 13:8) and thus the blood of the "everlasting covenant" (heb. 13:20).
Do you think I Peter 4:6 puts O.T. elect under the new covenant?
There has been but ONE WAY before the cross (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6) and after the cross (Acts 4:12) as the same gospel truth has been preached for man to receive remission of sins both before and after the cross (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:6-8).
Justification is imputation of the righteousness of God by faith and non-imputation of our sins both in the day of Abraham and now (Rom. 4:5-8) and Abraham's faith was in the gospel of Christ (Gal. 3;6-8; Rom. 3:24-26; 4:22-25) which constituted the good news of justification by faith in the sufficient sacrifice of the coming lamb of God.
The Old Covenant could never save anyone at anytime anywhere but was designed only to lead the sinner to the conclusion that he must be justified by faith in the coming Christ that was typified in the sacrificial system and ceremonial laws.
The elect were "chosen in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION of the world" and according to "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant." There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at anytime in any place.
Good stuff. What denomination are you? On a side note, Ive been wondering about aion and if eternal punishment is age during or literally eternal. What is your opinion?
mt. 24:46 And these shall go away into everlasting [Gr. aionion] punishment: but the righteous into life eternal [Gr. aionion].
The etymology of "aionion" is composed of two roots which mean "to be always".
The punishment is equal in duration as the life in Matthew 25:46. If you believe the life given by God is age long duration than the punishment is age long duration but if the life is "everlasting" in duration so is the punishment.
What about the term here destroy?
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
There are many factors about this verse that absolutely deny the anihilation theory.
1. The soul is not killed when the man kills the body - it continues
2. God does not destroy the soul except "in hell" (gehenna) and that means the soul that man cannot destroy by killing the body God does not destroy until AFTER the Great white seat judgement - Rev. 20:15
3. The term translated "destroy" (Gr. apollumi) never means destroy in the sense of "anihilation" - never once.
a. It is used in Matthew 10:6 translated "lost"
b. It is used in Matthew 10:39 translated "lose"
It means to destroy in the sense of "usefulness" or "rendered useless" as the unsaved Israelites are "lost" or i"rendered useless" for the glory of God. When God casts the lost into gehenna he puts them in a place where their enmity, hatred, ungodly character is forever "rendered useless".
It is used for wineskins that burst - not anihilated but "rendered useless."
The etymology of the term is derived from "apo" and "luo" and literally means to "loose away" or to be "separated from." Souls in hell are "separated from" this life, separated from their bodies, separated from God, and when the lost man's soul is reunited with his body in the resurrection and cast into gehenna he shall be forever separated from God, God's people and the new heaven and earth.
Death and life are two STATES OF BEING not anihlation or existence. To have eternal life is to be in UNION with God and to be spiritually dead is to be SEPARATED from God. To be physically dead is the SEPARATION of the spiritual nature of man from his physically nature as man can "kill the body" but physical death does not "kill" the soul only SEPARATES it from the body.
Now to bring it to full circle - "everlasting" punishment is equal to "everlasting" life in duration as the same term describes the duration of both.
We are getting far from the question of this thread. Perhaps you should start other threads dealing individually with the topics of your questions.
Then how do you reconcile when Paul says all Israel will be saved? Clearly there have been many Israelites that did and do not believe.
I am not sure I understand the connection of this question with Matthew 28:10 and the term "destroy"?