Things New and Old

Ancient truths revealed in the Scriptures are often forgotten, disbelieved or distorted, and therefore lost in the passage of time. Such ancient truths when rediscovered and relearned are 'new' additions to the treasury of ancient truths.

Christ showed many new things to the disciples, things prophesied by the prophets of old but hijacked and perverted by the elders and their traditions, but which Christ reclaimed and returned to His people.

Many things taught by the Apostles of Christ have been perverted or substituted over the centuries. Such fundamental doctrines like salvation by grace and justification have been hijacked and perverted and repudiated by sincere Christians. These doctrines need to be reclaimed and restored to God's people.

There are things both new and old here. "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things"
2Ti 2:7.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Thee and Thou are needed!

One is... two are... This is basic.
Modern translations obliterate the distinction.

Sing F Lau
Do not get rid of thee and thou! Demand thee and thou!

"Reject the NKJV and other versions that change them, for they are corrupting the accuracy of God’s word. Modern scholarship is inferior to older scholarship, as this simple lesson shows. While they cry loud and long about their adoration of and commitment to the “original
languages,” they sell copyrighted Bibles for a profit that defraud the reader of the pronoun precision of the “original languages.” Honest men will smell the problem! Read the KJV!"

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/thee-and-thou.html

Morrow
I have a question. Are all other languages other than English condemned to have inferior translations...should the Chinese Bible be translated from the KJV?

Sing F Lau
Mighty Morrow, what prompts you to ask such question?
In translation, i think these basics must be met:
- trustworthy text from which to translate
- trustworthy translators, and
- trustworthy principles of translation.
- trustworthy process of translation.

Please compare apple with apple... English translations with English translations... that's a basic of comparison.

Why should a translation be made out of a translation? Shouldn't one do better than that?

It is all about mammon when it comes to modern translations! Big English markets, therefore BIG BUCKS!

When preachers DO NOT care about the distinction between second person singular pronoun and second person plural pronoun, he can't possibly be rightly dividing the word of truth!

When you can read Chinese proficiently, I will give you a copy of the Scriptures in Chinese for you to do some comparison - serious offer.

Ming
The Chinese Union Version - still the most authoritative Chinese translation of the Bible in use among Chinese Christians - was translated from the Revised Version (the Westcott-Hort version based on their Greek Text). The socio-political reasons behind that decision were very complicated (it was the late 19th century and everything the Western Colonialists did in Mainland China had some form of socio-political motive). However, the translators have seen fit to depart in many instances from the RV and followed the KJV. They also retained the literal equivalents of the "thee" (ni men) and "thou" (ni) in the text.

The CUV, unfortunately, is also slowly becoming supplanted by a variety of modern translations that claim to be "modernising" the text for a new generation. That being said, the CUV has enjoyed unparalleled respect and honour among Chinese speaking congregations over the past century as to be comparable to that enjoyed by the KJV and Luther's German translation.

Morrow, please check your facts before saying something, ok?

Ming
It is irony of the highest degree that two Malaysian Chinese who think in Chinese are defending the English language while a "gwailo" like Morrow is so keen on prostituting his own mother tongue. His ancestors would look upon him with disfavour, don't you think?

Yaw
Careful Edmund. The last thing we want to do is behave in an unChristlike manner by using a derogatory word on a fellow being. While I'm not against using thee and thou in the bible translation, I don't think the KJV is the best bible translation. Did some research way back then when I was attending a Bible-Presby Church and was unconvinced with the arguments for KJV being the 'authorised" version.

Ming
My agreements with Bro. Sing above on the KJV were specifically on several issues - (1) the language and theology of the KJV translators were far closer to those of the framers of the WCF and LBCF and (2) the singular/plural 2nd person pronouns of "thee" and "thou" were faithfully preserved in the KJV (and for that matter, the RV and ASV later as well) and modern translations that abandon them do so to their own detriment.

Morrow
Sing...you need to read Jer. 22 and notice the use of thee and thou ...it is obviously singular and the way ye know it is that thou readest the context. Just as our you and your.

Sing F Lau
The whole point is... if there is a provision in the language to show precisely whether it is 2nd person singular or 2nd person plural, why don't use it. After all Hebrew and Greek has that precision, why don't just translate it exactly? Why obfuscate something which is perfectly clear? Why???????? I think that a Devil's work.

Morrow
You remind me a lot of a man I once knew who stated his philosophy this way...he said, "I try to figure out the most radical conservative position out there and then stand on that because I believe that is where God is.

Sing F Lau
Well, I just want to be in the middle of the road man.... often what is seen as the most radical position is just the plain old truth! It looks radical to those in the ditches on both sides of the road!

Morrow
Your Asian friend said that I was prostituting the English language. So much for civil discussion. When a person takes extreme views on every subject then he loses credibility on the subjects he is right on.

Sing F Lau
Brother, I apologize on behalf of my friend.
He said that in the context of English speaking people casting away the precision between 2nd person singular and plural pronouns. I think his point is valid.

Morrow
I respect you my friend and am amazed occasionally at your incredible mind. I am not blessed when it is used to fight fruitless and silly battles. Are some of the modern translation rotten? Yes...Is it a money making deal? Yes...does that mean that all scholarship in the original languages since the late 1500s is demonic? No.
Please...once in a while choose the hills you plan to die on instead of climbing up every one.

Sing F Lau
I am not dying just yet!

I intend to climb every hill in the way the Lord has called me to trudge! If I have enough strength, I will level the obstacles and cart them into the deepest seas. I do have a command from the Master to EXPOSE... the work of darkness.

Morrow
As to reading Chinese...the closest I will ever come to that is Chinese Checkers...and my wife beats me very badly at that.

Now... I am through for a while. The older I get the more I hate ...hate... debate. I really just want to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ.

Patron
Do it! feed the flock!....

Hart
Clarification is requested of 'preaching'?
'Unsearchable riches of Christ' vs. 'Certain reaches of the preacher'
Thanks
Sing F Lau
Use enough gimmicks and psychology, they shall be reached and taken captives - guaranteed.

Patron
network marketing and the doctrine of self-esteem is the #1 seller on the Western churches.... the western "flock" demands more relevant things than a 2000 year old story.... and Sing get ready cause we are exporting all these to the East, and so far they seem to like it too!

Morrow
BTW...there are some among the KJV only groups here in the States who DO advocate translating from the KJV into other languages.

Sing F Lau
The church has got along pretty well without KJT...
I prefer KJT because of its faithfulness.

It is the only translation that has "faith OF - OF - OF Christ Jesus" as the basis of our salvation in the many passages...

...Most translation has "faith IN - IN - IN Christ Jesus" as the basis of our salvation in the many passages...

I know, these sort of things make no difference to many. They don't really care.

Patron ‎
2000 years ago some "elite" religious leaders and "teachers" had the "Only true faithful Scriptures" and they still failed to believe in the one the scriptures is all about........ by the same token "only true KJV" on many pulpits for years both arminians and 'biblicals' ???? !!!!

Sing F Lau
Having a reliable translation is one thing, rightly dividing it is quite another.
There are KJV-Onlyites who are militantly Arminians!

But only KJV will teach you the faith OF - OF - OF Christ... as the ground of justification.

Jairus' Daughter - where is she?

Wifey, a sweet little girl - 'Kuee Ing' aka. Queen.


November 21 at 8:46pm

Page
Last Friday I heard John MacArthur say on radio that possibly Jarius' daughter would be in heaven. I believe emphatically she will be in heaven but then MacAthur is a moderate Calvinist! I hold to Calvinist views! Can anyone explain why she possibly would not be in heaven?

Sing F Lau
"How will she ever get into heaven... no record of her hearing and believing the gospel!"
[You know I speak as a fooooool, don't you'.]

Keesee
Possibly, yes... provided she heard the gospel in some extra-Biblical context. Unless I have missed something, Scripture is silent regarding her spiritual condition.

Speculation is always uncertain too.

Jesus Himself said that a person who is not elect would not believe even if a person were raised from the dead.

The point of the healing ministry of Christ was twofold as I understand it: to glorify God and to validate Him as Messiah.

I can't think of a Scripture that would allow for us to say for certain whether or not Jesus did or must have only healed saved persons.

What was Dr. MacArthur's reasoning?

Sing F Lau
"Possibly yes" - that cautious, reluctant and grudging 'yes'... is further conditioned upon 'provided she heard the gospel.

If speculation is always uncertain... conditioning eternal salvation upon some acts of men is most certainly HERETICAL..., a repudiation of salvation by free grace!

Sing F Lau
Keesee @‎"Jesus Himself said that a person who is not elect would not believe even if a person were raised from the dead. "

Please tell us where or when did Jesus say that?

Keesee
Sing... Those who are elect believe.
"If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." - Luke 16:30 Jesus, giving the parable of Lazarus...
Take care,

Ward
Luke 16 but you have Abraham speaking as it were the place of God so in a technical sense Jesus never said that,but in a way it was prophetic as between the resurrection and the ascension all of the disciples worshiped him but not all believed fully Matt 28 17 i think might be 16

Sing F Lau
Dennis, you said this, ""Jesus Himself said that a person who is not elect would not believe even if a person were raised from the dead. "

Jesus said this: ""If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

In my understanding, you said something VERY DIFFERENT from what Christ said!
Your statement, in the context in which it was sad, obviously refers to Jairus daughter... your 'a person' is the one and the same person who related to resurrection and believing spoken of!

Whereas in Christ's statement, such is not the case! The resurrection is related to Lazarus... and the believing is related to the living brothers of the man already in hell!

You see, how a little carelessness, and a little slant, and the Scriptures is HIJACKED!

What is more surprising, you even entertain the possibility of Christ exerting his life giving power on a non-elect!

Sing F Lau
Dennis @"Those who are elect believe."
That is partially true - ONLY partially true.

The elect who are not regenerated will never believe.

Also, not all of God's children will believe: some don't have the opportunity to hear; others don't have the capacity to hear, others don't have the rational faculty to comprehend.

It becomes heretical when it is understood as "ALL those who are elect will hear and believe the gospel."

It gets worse when it is said, "There are NO children of God among all those who have not heard the gospel (having no opportunity to hear), and those who can't hear the gospel (having no inability to hear.)

The heresy of 'gospel regeneration' lurks in every nook and cranny of the calvinistic thinking! It cripples their sound mind!

Lloyd
Hmmn never heard that before. But because they are elect they will still be saved - is that what your saying? But surely those who have opportunity and faculty must be converted to faith?

Sing F Lau
Alan @"hmmn never heard that before but because they are elect they will still be saved is that what your saying?"

Hear this then:
29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might... be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

For every one of God's elect, eternal glory is GUARANTEED by God's own free and sovereign activity, without man's help or aid or cooperation in any way. That is what it means eternal salvation by the free grace of God alone.

The gospel ministry is appointed for the temporal salvation of God's children - for their spiritual well-being while here in this present life.

Some of God's children have the opportunity to have the gospel ministry brought to them, others don't. Of those who do hear and believe the gospel, they shall be converted to the truth to VARYING degree. Others are not converted, like God's children among the Jews in Apostle Paul's time. Others who do hear are incapable to believing.

Lloyd
amen,

Page ‎
@ Sing, truth!!!

Page
my thoughts are not deep concerning what MacA said about Jarius' daughter. I just thought that MacA would think that if Christ raised her from the dead that LOGICALLY she was an elect child and would be regenerated and just naturally be in heaven with him.

If MacA has no confidence that she is in heaven then what confidence does he have that he will be in heaven?

Sing F Lau
Between one who has not heard the gospel and one who preaches a false gospel... I am confident of Jairus' daughter is in heaven.

Keesee
Sing... explain this: "Between one who has not heard the gospel and one who preaches a false gospel... I am confident of Jairus' daughter in heaven " I don't follow.

Sing F Lau
Dennis, thanks for inquiring.
There are few things said in the statement above:
1. The comparison is between one like Jairus' daughter who has been dealt so graciously by Christ.
- Even IF Jairus' daughter never heard the gospel, I am convinced that she is a child of God.
- Going to heaven DOES NOT depends on hearing and believing the gospel. Going to heaven rest solely upon the divine work of effectual calling out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation.
- Hearing and believing EVIDENCE one having been MADE FIT for heaven by God's free grace.
- Not every child of God will hearing the gospel. No hearing, no manifestation of that eternal salvation by God's free grace.
- Of all those who do hear, not every one of them is capable of believing...

2. One who preaches a false gospel shows himself in a dangerous position. My statement express no opinion whether such a man will be in heaven. That's Christ's prerogative. There are many sincere men who preach false gospels - arminians and new school calvinists included.

One who preaches another gospel, i.e. a false, and is no gospel, like gospel regeneration, comes under this category:

Christ said:
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Apostle Paul said:
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Greater hope for a little child like Jairus' daughter than for great name preachers like Johnny Mac!

Keesee
Sing, thanks for clarifying.

My main concern was that Scripture speaks multiple times about people experiencing miracles and not believing. I was taking that principle and applying it to Jairus' daughter.

Not to say that she wasn't saved, but rather we aren't told explicitly what her spiritual condition is. It's not that pivotal for me, I don't have any of my cookies in this basket. :)

I do have a more important question for you. In light of what you said how do yo interpret Romans 10:13-15?

You said:
"Going to heaven DOES NOT depends on hearing and believing the gospel. "

Scripture says:
"For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?"

This seems to place the premium on preaching to those who need to hear of Christ -so that- they can believe and be saved. I think you and I agree on the order of salvation... regeneration precedes faith, that is a must for dead men.

Please let me know what your thoughts are.

Page
me too!

Sing F Lau
Dennis, thanks for inquiring. It is an excellent way to learn the Scriptures together.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they to hear without a preacher? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?"

Pray tell,
- who are they who shall call upon the name of the Lord: those already regenerated, or those still dead in trespasses and sins?
- who are they who will believe: those already regenerated, or those still dead in trespasses and sins?...
- who are those who will hear and discern the gospel: those already regenerated, or those still dead in trespasses and sins?

The same Apostle said, " For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which ARE SAVED it is the power of God."

The preaching of the gospel comes to two categories of people: those that are perishing, and those that ARE SAVED.

The gospel is brought to those that ARE SAVED - saved by God's free and sovereign grace with ETERNAL salvation. Them that ARE SAVED are there first, before the gospel arrive... the gospel comes to them that ARE SAVED. Get the point?

Hearing and believing the gospel ALSO saves - but saves in an ENTIRELY different sense... the gospel saves them that ARE SAVED (by God) from ignorance and error and darkness, and enlightens them and make them wise unto their eternal salvation (already a fact) by God's free and sovereign grace.

The gospel truth instructs them to live godly, soberly and righteously, saving them from the temporal effects of sins in this life. The gospel truth arms and equips THEM THAT ARE SAVED to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

The salvation by God's free and sovereign grace is ETERNAL SALVATION.

The salvation that is conditioned upon the action of God's children (i.e. regenerated elect) is TEMPORAL SALVATION, that which pertains to their spiritual well-being here and now. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing they can do or fail to do concerning their ETERNAL SALVATION.

The gospel ministry is ordained for the WELL-BEING of God's children.

Keesee
Sing, we are elect from eternity past and we experience that Truth in reality at a given time appointed by God, right?

How do you harmonize that with the fact that most Christians reject the Gospel several times before accepting it. They were... still elect right?

Thanks. Also, what are you thoughts on 'are saved' opposed to 'are being saved' in 1 Cor 1:18

Sing F Lau
Dennis @"We are elect from eternity past and we experience that Truth in reality at a given time appointed by God, right?"

We are elected from eternity past unto eternal salvation.

That eternal salvation WAS ACCOMPLISHED in time by the finished work of Jesus Christ. LEGAL justification by the blood of Christ took place - righteousness of Christ IMPUTED to all elect.

That LEGALLY ACCOMPLISHED eternal salvation is APPLIED to each individual elect PERSONALLY at God's appointed and approved time... VITAL justification takes place, i.e. the righteousness of Christ is now IMPARTED/APPLIED to each elect at his effectual call OUT OF the state of sin and death to that STATE of grace and salvation.

This application is WITHOUT means... gospel instrumentality.

Eternal salvation can ONLY be experienced BECAUSE God, by His free and sovereign grace has first applied it to an elect personally, while he was still dead in trespasses and sin.

Romans 8:
29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Sing F Lau
Dennis @"How do you harmonize that with the fact that most Christians reject the Gospel several times before accepting it. They were still elect right?"

There are God's elect who are not born yet.
There are God's elect that were conceived but never born...
There are God's elect that have gone to glory.

Of God's elect that are born... ALL are conceived and born in sins, dead in trespasses and sin, in the state of sin and death.

Of God's elect who have been born and still on earth:
At God's appointed and approved time, God effectually call EACH out of their NATIVE state of sin and death, unto eternal salvation... "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

He does ALL THESE all on His own, without man's aid or cooperation. Once effectually called, a man is completely and perfectly fit for eternal glory.

An unregenerated elect WILL MOST CERTAINLY reject the gospel. It will be foolishness to him. Saul (later Paul) rejected the gospel for a long time, while in his regenerated state... when he was filled with the holy zeal OF God to defend the old covenant religion of the theocratic kingdom of Israel.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.... But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1Co 1:18, 2:14

It must be added ALSO, elect that are already regenerated DO REJECT the gospels too. Some are brought to believe the gospel, others are blinded. Still others choose to believe a lie.

Sing F Lau
Dennis @"Also, what are you thoughts on 'are saved' opposed to 'are being saved' in 1 Cor 1:18"

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

...'Are saved' - present passive/middle PARTICIPLE, i.e. the saved ones by God.

The elect are THE SAVED ONES by God:
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

All the verbs actions are in the past tense, because they are as good as DONE because of immutability of divine purpose. Divine foreknowledge GUARANTEES eternal glory.

The saved ones by God are BEING SAVED through the gospel ministry.

The former speak of ETERNAL SALVATION.

The latter speaks of temporal salvation which is a life long process.

Distinction is the essence of sound theology.

Eternal Son of God, or Son of Eternal God??



Someone posted:
In eternity past, God the Father covenanted with God the Son, Jesus Christ, to glorify Himself by saving a particular, elect people, and those only, from the guilt and defilement of sin, by the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. [Psa 89:19-37; Isa 49:5-6;53:11-12; Luk 22:29; Joh 6:37-40; 10:29; 17:2,9; Gal 3:16-18; 2Ti 1:9]

Sing F Lau
In the eternity past there was no Son of God. There was the Word, John 1:1. The covenant of redemption was made between the three Persons of the Godhead.

The Word agreed to be made flesh, became the Son of God, John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

The Son of God is the DUAL NATURED Person, both wholly divine and human, the eternally divine person who took upon Himself true humanity and became the Son of God.

Chapin
Scripture never speaks of "God the Son." It's the Son of God...

Huston
God does not change. Mal 3:6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. "

Sing F Lau
The Word, the second Person of the Godhead DID NOT change at all when He took upon Himself true humanity.

Lloyd
So that's why He's the only begotten then because He wasn't the actual son of God until he had been born in the flesh?

Huston
"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonabl...e soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."
Chalcedonian creed of 451

Huston
@ Alan, "begotten of God before the ages"

Lloyd
You mean creation? Oh so He was always the son of God?

Huston
Yes, before creation, before time He was always the Son of God existing co-eternally with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Lloyd
Good point. Though He existed as the Word and then became flesh. That's pretty clear from the scripture. You can't become something you already are?

Sing F Lau
Theological gymnastic is useful perpetuate heresy!
The term 'son of God' was not even used once in the OT to refer to the Second Person of the Godhead. The term son of God began to be used for the VERY FIRST TIME in the announcement of incarnation...

Lu 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

'SHALL COME UPON THEE... SHALL OVERSHADOW... SHALL BE BORN... SHALL BE CALLED...' read that. This is the very first occasion the term is used!

'Scriptures alone' is just a shibboleth to many.

Ireland
Proverbs 30:3-4 “I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!”

Hart
Craig, you too have a modern perversional text.
I used those too, and the light came on when I trashed all my modern translations. I'll leave the site rather than discuss 'apples' and 'oranges' with reformed suppositional fans.

Ireland
Richard, Proverbs 30:3-4 "θεὸς δεδίδαχέν με σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν ἁγίων ἔγνωκα

τίς ἀνέβη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ κατέβη τίς συνήγαγεν ἀνέμους ἐν κόλπῳ τίς συνέστρεψεν ὕδωρ ἐν ἱματίῳ τίς ἐκράτησεν πάντων τῶν ἄκρων τῆς γῆς τί ὄνομα αὐτῷ ἢ τί ὄνομα τοῖς... τέκνοις αὐτοῦ ἵνα γνῷς

How's that bro? Happy now? lol, I'd say that's original enough for ya.

Sainz
Very nice Craig..i would agree with you... that's preaty "original" lol

Ireland
Well I must go out on a limb here and assert [I could be wrong on this] most people I find criticise translations of original texts do so off another's research altogether. Richard may be an exception to this, but I am curious if he has eve...n learned Koine greek? Most DON'T, and yet they have a been in their bonnet about what translation is or isn't valid. Well people here's a word of advice, don't trust ANY translations and make the effort to learn Greek, it'll be a fantastiuc investment for you and you don't need a translator any more. There you go RICHARD, there's the text from the LXX, hope it's original enough for you and I hope you can read it --Mr. 'I don't like modern translations'-- hahahaha.

Lloyd
Ya'll very Christ like I can see but I don't think you know what spirit you are of.
I mean leave the calling down of fire to Elijah. The whole debate poking fun and laughing at others no need for that we can disagree in offensivly don't you think.

Sainz
I think he is referring to craigs "hahaha" comment

Lloyd
Oh no not you craig and the other guy. yep

Huston
@Sing, so you reject the Chalcedonian creed?

Sing F Lau
That Chalcedonian creed of 451 statement is filled with CONTRADICTIONS
1. "one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body..."
- The Son of God is confessed to be 'truly God and truly man.' This is the dual natured Person.

And if any one insists that the dual-natured Person is eternal... he is very confused and ignorant. Incarnation took place in time... the Eternal Word was made flesh in real space time history!

2. " but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation"
- As regard to His divinity, He is ETERNAL. Anything eternal CANNOT be begotten in any sense of the word... no matter what form of theological gymnastic one employs.
- It is 'as regard to his manhood' that he is begotten. And with regard to his manhood, he was begotten in time. It is pure contradiction to say that he was eternally begotten, before the ages! He was begotten in TIME, in the time of Augustus Caesar!
- The term 'Son of God' is a redemptive in context.

Jesus is the Son of the eternal God. He is NOT the eternal Son of God.

Let God be true but every man a LIAR!

Hart
Craig, you're bluffing, likely displaying Majority "Critical" Greek Westcoott & Hort influence from which every modern English text is derived, including NKJV.
Now then, Craig, why would fat richie bother to read anything other than King Ja...mes Translation? If the extraciricular reading hasn't helped you, why recommend it for richie?

Alan, poking fun is sport. Beware of who you hobnob with. Don't take them so seriously.
They're only joking. Reform toxicology is a choice. Some like it. I hate it. I wasted a half century in arminian traditions, and churchy literature.

The Bible is sufficient to enlighten. Substitutes lead to confusion.
A cemetarian is more confused than his constituents.

Alan, I catch up with you in New Zealand, OK?

richie, recovering arminian

Sing F Lau
Craigh@ Pro 30:3-4.
If you imagined that the son of God is spoken of, take a look here to have a better understanding of what is being spoken of... whose son?

"Who, like God, has the wisdom and power to establish all the ends of earth, to lay... the foundation and build upon it? No man! God proved Job's inferior wisdom and power by these very considerations (Job 38:4-7). And Solomon reasoned about wisdom's great value through God's use of it to create the world and settle the mountains (8:25-26).

Is there any such man? No, not one! Agur pressed further. If there is such a man, what is his son's name? They had to answer in the negative. There is neither man nor son that knows or understands these things! They are too high and wonderful for man (Ps 131:1). "

Full article here:
http://letgodbetrue.com/proverbs/30_04.htm

Craig
Hey Richie, did I display 'Majority "Critical" Greek Westcoott & Hort' hmm, no I didn't. It was an OT text remember, so I had to use the LXX, as I already explained [hint hint, that's the Septuagint].

You speak as though you know me? You suggest what you prejudge to have and to have not done me any good, what insight you have. So my Q still stands, can you read the greek, or are you reliant on translators to give you God's word?

And do yourself a favour and avoid NZ at all costs, it's to be sunk soon because of the smell it has been making us Aussies endure for the last few decades, :) --- yes I'M JOKING, just so ya'll know!!!" hahahaha

Hart
Craig, you one sharp cookie! I like your sense of humor!

Alan is coming around. I trust that he will know where you coming from with the faith-based bibles.

What to believe? How much of it? etc. lots of moving targets in the world of denominational religion. I did that myself.

Later burned my literature (art of written works) and went back to Bible study. THanks for lively chat! Blessings!

Ireland
God Bless friend, have a great day in sunny [insert here where you are from].
Soli Deo Gloria!

Ireland
Thanks Sing, I'll investigate this further at a later date.

Many Blessings

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Ye, you and y'all & national Israel

A flaming red cardinal of God's handiwork...
No, not those impostors of the RCC!

Kees
Consider these passages when read with a more accurate rendering of words in their plural form
"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'Y'all must be born again."
"Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but y'all do not receive our testimony."
"If I have told y'all earthly things and y'all do not believe, how can y'all believe if I tell y'all heavenly things?"

Jesus is speaking to a representative of Israel and about the nation of Israel.

He says you all must be born again... why is that?

Well He says: “…unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

I think that this verse may be significant because of the kingdom promises that God gave to ethnic Israel in the Old Testament that have yet to be fulfilled.

I think that the significance of Christ telling all of Israel (Y’all) that they must be born again is in keeping with Paul’s defense of their future in Romans 9-11 which ends with Paul saying:

“Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” – Romans 11:25-29

What do you think?

(And yes, I'm from the south!)

But I think God means what He says and we better respect it.

Hart
Forensic study of priestcraft toxicology yields conclusive data: "Reform Suppositional Expository Sermon Smell Ass Suppository"

Kees
Hart, The tasteless ignorance of your comment speak for itself...

Sing F Lau
‎"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."
Isn't this translation far better?
'Thee' is second person singular.
'Ye' is second person plural.

When a translation fails to show that distinction, it is a BAD translation.

People ignorantly think that 'thee' and 'ye' are old English.
I think it is precise English! And I am a chinese lad from the far east!
English is my third language.

I read a short but helpful article here:
"Do We Need Thee and Thou? Thy and Thine?"
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/thee-and-thou.htm

Sing F Lau
All the Jews were members of the OLD EARTHLY theocratic kingdom of Israel by natural birth. Many of them were not among the elect of God unto eternal salvation, and they will never be born again. So, so to insist that "ye must be born again" means "Christ telling all of Israel (Y’all) that they must be born again" is just a figment of wild imagination.

It is only by the new birth from ABOVE that any will SEE (spiritual perception) the NEW kingdom of heaven... and enter (believe and embrace) the NEW... kingdom of heaven.

The OLD earthly kingdom of theocratic Israel is the old administration of the one covenant of grace. God's children among the Jews worship the LORD through those old covenants terms.

Without the new birth by the free and sovereign activity [i.e WITHOUT instrumentality of the gospel] of the Spirit, NONE shall see, much less enter the kingdom of heaven established by Jesus Christ for the new administration of the covenant of grace.

All God's children, whether Jews or Gentiles, worship God in spirit and in truth under the new administration of the same covenant of grace.

Lloyd
There is a translation new testament only which I believe has caught the sense just as the authorised had it's called the ISV.

Sing do you have any bible study on your view of the covenant?

Sing F Lau
Alan, Gill has a very useful section in his Body of Divinity.
Take a look at Book IV. There are seven short chapters.
He discussed the Covenant of Grace and its various administrations in the history of redemption. He gave an excellent overview. Chapter 1 is here.
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_4/book4_01.htm

Lloyd
ok thanks I shall study it.

Kees
Sing, personally, I would advocate that we just use Y'all and forget complicating matters with the KJV. You provided zero passages to defend all of your many assertions.

Salvation is of the Jews and the Kingdom promises as well as the New Covenant promises were made to them, not the Gentiles.

We partake with them by being grafted in according to Romans 11.

Sing F Lau
You speak as though 'thou' and 'ye' are something peculiar to KJV. thought it was common precise usage of the English of that time.

It is not because i have not provided biblical passages... we are just disagreed in our interpretation.

In God's purpose of redemption, national Israel is finished, with all its religious paraphernalia. Christ warned of it, the apostles warned of it... it has taken place... but men refused to accept it!

Kees
Sing, show me from Scripture... you have never even tried.
The key phrase that you used regarding the KJV is: "English of that time"
That's not the common tongue of the West anymore.

Sing F Lau
I would trust a translation that differentiates 2nd person singular from 2nd person plural, as in the original languages.

If you choose something else that does not show the distinction, God bless you.

KJT has served the church for hundreds of years... so I prefer to use the same translation used by the old school baptists of the past. It was good for them... it is good enough for me.

It may not be good enough for a progressive westerners. It is still mighty good enough for a chinese lad in the far east.

So, stick to the version best suited for you.

Lloyd
The ISV is a psalms proverbs new testament and retains the singular -plural pronouns.

Progressive westerners! huh sin man is in a state of regression just like the western church!

Lloyd
Joh 3:7 Don't be astonished that I said to you, 'All of you must be born from above,' - ISV rendering

Sing F Lau
Joh 3:7 Don't be astonished that I said to you, 'All of you must be born from above.'
======
"All of you" would necessarily include Nicodemus, and all the non-elect among the Jews!
"All of you" would also necessarily include the non-elect?

Does the indefinite second person plural 'ye' expresses the idea perfectly well?
Why reinvent wheels? Why do people have such hatred against 'thee' and 'ye'?

Lloyd
he is saying to Nicodemus you must be born again He is saying anybody who enters the kingdom of heaven must be born again.
In Mthew 8 He says you cannot enter unless you become as a little child, but of course both are only possible for the elect. Same as 2nd Peter 3 is speaking to the elect but he says God is not willing that any perish (but the definite article is He is not willing that any of the elect perish.

Lloyd
Inccidently I have no problem with thee and thou it's the other funny words like dissimulation and those other ones that start with L.

Sing F Lau
Does John 3:1-2 give any indication of the spiritual state of Nicodemus?
Many believe that Nicodemus was already a regenerated man because of his perception of spiritual truth expressed in those few words.

Others would disagree vehemently. They choose the translations that assume Nicodemus was still dead in trespasses and sins, and Jesus told him the need to be born again.
John 7: 50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) 51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

Joh 19:39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

Kees
Sing,
"All of you" would necessarily include Nicodemus and all the non-elect among the Jews!
"All of you" would also necessarily include the non-elect?

All of you is a reference to national-ethnic Israel... all Israelites must be born again to fulfill Kingdom promises given in the Old Testament:
Isaiah 65:17-25; Ezekiel 37:21-28; Zechariah 8:1-17
This is in keeping with Romans 11:25-26: "Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved..."
All of Israel must and will be born again...

Alan, you are right, with this Jesus clearly teaches that unless a person is born again they shall not see the kingdom.

Not a physical rebirth but a spiritual rebirth. And not a literal becoming children, but a childlike faith.

Sing, Nicodemus was chosen from all eternity past and God brought him to faith in His own timing. That is how I understand Nicodemus.

Sing F Lau
Kees,
'Ye' and 'all of you' are different, are they not?
You said, "All of Israel must and will be born again... "
Please define 'All of Israel' in the statement above.
And when will 'all of Israel must and will be born again'?

Jesus said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Isn't this a statement of truth that applies to all the elect, whether Jews or Gentiles?
But you insist that the matter be restricted to the national Israel? I am puzzled at your obsession with national Israel.

John has a universalistic view of the gospel - THE WORLD, THE WORLD, not just the Jews... but you insist, the NATIONAL ISRAEL.

Lloyd
In the context of the conversation, Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about spiritual things that he as a teacher of Israel should know, However it is hard to see how all Israel in an ethnic sense will be born again when Jesus told the Pharisees you will die in your sins. Surely it can't mean all ethnic Israel at the time of Christs return. It is important to understand that all does not mean every! If all ethnic Israel is saved then either they are all elect or the doctrine of election is false.

Lloyd ‎
Sing, Nicodemus' light was being turned on, are we not all in that state of being dead in sin and tresspass before conversion?

Sing F Lau
A man must be regenerated before he can be enlightened!

Lloyd
what I did say, not that it was turned on that, it was being turned on, he was being awakened out of his tomb.

Sing F Lau
So, I didn't misunderstand you. He was being awakened out of his tomb - i.e he was being regenerated, being brought to life! Someone in the tomb is dead... being awakened out of the tomb is being quickened and made alive. That's how I understand you words.

A person in the state of being dead in sin and trespasses is INCAPABLE of being converted (by the preaching of the gospel)... unless by conversion you mean the divine power that converts a man from death to life.

A man dead in sin and trespasses need to be regenerated before He can be converted.

Lloyd
OK that's what I mean, "no one" not Nicodemus, not the elect even can see the kingdom of heaven unless they are born again. Jesus has to to a Lazarus on them, of course He does that by the Holy Spirit.
Gotta go milk me cows.

Hart
"LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me." Psalm131:1

Lloyd
@ Richard, no but it's their interesting to discuss don't you think

Hart
‎@ Alan, I like the twin cylinder Triumph motorcycle.
What seems pointless is the exchange of ideas with reform debaters or reprobaters.

The Covenant remains hidden to them refusing to keep God's word. I do not say any elect will be cast into everlasting fire, but all the ranting and raving by reform suppositors cannot save anyone here in this time world. Reform literature is a scourge upon the people.
No preaching by the unlearned would be better for the LORD's people.

How much faith, and in who > "faith in Christ" vs. "faith of Christ" ?
How much belief, and what to believe > reform toxicology ?
Moving targets are troublesome.
Reformers think new birth ist induced by a spiritual 'midwife' or
'co-creator'.

Not a single one of God's elect will be "Left Behind".
The King James Translation is reliable for doctrine.
Brother Sing is correct in saying that militant arminians also use KJV.

Be it known, richie read no Greek, speak no Greek, write no Greek.
Those posting here are English readers, most without a Bible.
Without a Standard for discussion, what good is ?

Thanks

Monday, November 22, 2010

Cent$ or Sense?

Sense or Cent$
Invigorating Snow or Killing Volcanic Ash?

Richard
‎"IMO, the preaching of gospel regeneration makes many cents, rather than plenty sense. Good sounding decisional regeneration sermons excerpts fill the belly, resulting in bloat & gloat, while spiritually starving listeners. - Rich Hear

Sing F Lau
Thank you, Richard.
That's an apt observation.

It 'bloats' the self-conceit of the preachers and the converts, causing both to 'gloat' over the crucial role they played in the salvation of sinners... they assisted God to complete His work of eternal redemption... because Jesus didn't quite finished it.

So preachers believe that without their preaching, there would be no regeneration because the Holy Spirit's activity of regeneration is conditioned on the gospel preaching as the essential catalyst. The sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is made to conditioned upon man's co-operation.

These also insist that without faith, there would be no justification before God. That notion implies that an UN-justified sinner, still in the state of condemnation and death, is capable of believing IN ORDER TO be justified by God!

Thomas
Brother Sing, I have a standing invitation to the gospel regenerationist preachers to meet me in a cemetery and demonstrate the life giving ability of their voices. So far, no takers.

Harlin
My .. how they limit the Lord .. He also works outside of the visible church ... revealing His truth to whom He may that He chose them in His Son Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. I am one of those ..

Sing F Lau
Brother Thomas, I have not come across men who would make that bold claim... they know very well that they will be challenged by bolder men like you, and exposed as LIARS.

What I have heard is this: that their preaching is NEEDED to assist the Holy Spirit in His work of regeneration. So, they do give lip-service to the fact that it is the Holy Spirit alone, and they would even emphasize 'alone' - BUT the Holy Spirit cannot do it without their preaching!

But that lie is no worse than the other lie - both actively involve preachers in the divine work of eternal redemption... and they still foam the shibboleth "salvation is by God's grace alone"!

Thomas
The same power that is needed in raising the dead is the power needed in giving eternal life to the sinner dead in trespasses. Eph. 1:19, 20 Therefore to claim the power to do the one is to claim the power to do the other.

My stock answer ...to those who believe they are needed to assist God in giving life to His children is that God is omnipotent and does not need their assistance as "surrogate fathers". Basically, their doctrine brings God down to the level of a idol that must be carried around from place to place by their ministry in order to accomplish the task of giving life. Indeed, they are liars and false teachers. They have no concept of sovereign grace as the alone means of eternal salvation. Ephraim is joined to his idol. Leave him alone. :-)

All men are naturally bound to repent - what does it mean?

Can you distinguish rejuvenating snow from killer volcanic ash?
What do you see? Does it make any difference?


All men are naturally bound to repent.
What does it mean?
Is that the same as - all men are naturally bound to believe Jesus as their Savior?
Is there any difference between the two?


Lloyd
In The Cause of God Gill clearly stresses the Christian duty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to call and command sinners to repent. "All men are naturally bound to repent, argues Gill, because they have naturally broken the law. Commanding them to repent is putting them under the curse of the law which they have broken in their natural state. To Gill, this is a law-ordained need for repentance in the legal sense. What man has broken, he has a duty to mend. This does not mean, however, that man can mend what he has broken and obtain legal righteousness, but he is still a debtor to the law for having broken it. The law forces its demands on every one because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Pastor Sing do you agree with Gill on the above statements. If so what you have been telling me is much more palatable. :)

Sing F Lau
Alan, thanks for pointing out Gill's teaching above.
I completely agree with what Gill said above.
But it is likely that you don't quite understand him yet. Be patient and let me explain.

Please note carefully that Gill is speaking of all men as the creatures of God under the covenant of creation. Under the covenant of creation, every creature is under the moral government of God... and are duty bound to obey the law of God for them as God's creatures.

As God's creatures who have broken the law of God, it is the duty of every men to repent and turn from their sins. No man has any right to remain in sin.

You MAY, and very MANY, have mistaken what Gill said above as addressing ALL MEN to believe in Jesus Christ. Gill did no such thing... because Gill was sound minded enough to know that such NONSENSE is plainly contradictory to God's revealed will. It is only God's redeemed who are under obligation to believe the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, because that is the truth for them!

The non-elect has NO DUTY to repent and believe the Lord Jesus Christ... That would tantamount to God demanding a man to believe a LIE! The thrice holy and righteous God NEVER requires any man to believe a LIE!

Distinction - God dealing with His creatures under the covenant of creation, and God dealing with His redeemed under the covenant of grace - is the ESSENCE of sound theology.

Many new school calvinists, while mocking and bully the woolly minded Arminians cousins, are themselves no less woolly.

Hart
What great difference would the world suffer if John Gill had never spoken?

Lloyd
When is righteouness imparted or imputed (probably better) to the believer if justification and regeneration is already operating in a man from eternity past?

Sing F Lau
Alan, I do get cross when people are not listening, and say weird things despite the fact that things have been stated so clearly so many times.

Do you ever think when you make statement and ask question?
Where did you get the idea from that ..."justification and regeneration is already operating in a man from eternity past"?

Let me state again in the plainest manner about the subject you inquired above.

In eternity past, a man did not exist yet, so how could justification and regeneration be already operating in a man?

Concerning justification, there are several distinct aspects. Please take careful note... I don't want to repeat again!

May our Lord grant your understanding of this most amazing truth... There are 5 distinct aspects spoken of in Scriptures:

1. JUSTIFICATION DECREED in eternity past for ALL the elect. Some people refer to this as eternal justification, i.e justification was already decreed/purposed for the elect in eternity.

2. JUSTIFICATION ACCOMPLISHED for all elect at the cross. This is when righteousness is LEGALLY IMPUTED to all elect.
- Legal condemnation came upon all represented by Adam when his original sin was imputed to all his posterity. Legal condemnation is applied personally at conception in the womb!

3. JUSTIFICATION APPLIED at effectual call of each individual elect to eternal life and salvation.
- This is when righteousness is PERSONALLY APPLIED or IMPARTED to an elect at effectual call to grace and salvation.
- This is when justification and regeneration became OPERATIVE in a man PERSONALLY.
- Justification and regeneration became OPERATIVE in a man PERSONALLY when redemption is applied to him personally at God's approved and accepted time... by His sovereign and free grace, WITHOUT any man's help or cooperation.

4. JUSTIFICATION EXPERIENCED by faith of each believing child of God through the instrumentality of the gospel ministry.
Faith cometh by hearing... saving faith is receiving and resting in Christ and His righteousness alone for salvation.
- Abraham experienced this in Gen 15:1-6. His justification BY faith took place in Gen 15:1-6.
- Justification was applied to Abraham when he was still in Ur, Gen 11. His justification by God's free grace took place in Ur, Gen 11.

5. JUSTIFICATION VINDICATED CONSUMMATED at the glorification for all the elect. On the great day of judgment, there will be a public vindication of all the justified.

Please stick to what I have written above... and make sure you understand them before moving to some other things. If you have any question, please ask... but ask sensible things please... else your sheep may get cross!

Now please answer your own question: when is righteousness imparted or imputed (probably better) to an elect?
(I change your 'a believer' to an elect... because 'a believer' ALREADY has righteousness imparted/applied to him... otherwise he can't possibly a believer!)

And please note very carefully that there is a VAST difference between these two words, IMPUTED and IMPARTED. Please check a good dictionary and tell me the difference.

Thank you.

Sing F Lau
Richie, please explain your statement 'What great difference would the world suffer if John Gill had never spoken?"

I am cracking my head trying to understand. Thanks.

Richie
Reformers seemingly do not accept the King James Translation which is the best commentary on the Bible. Bro Vaugh has well expressed truth on my wall, saying that other theologies do not exist, only lies of man.

I do not say that John Gill is a liar. But the Church has never depended upon a man. Literature is the art of written works. If no supplementary books had been published, the word of God stands sure and reliable. IMO, there's escessive dependence upon Confessions, Creeds and literature among reform toxicologists! False religion is also founded by a man.

I've never depended upon John Piper, John F. MacArthur, John Gill, Dwight L. Moody, Baskin-Robbins or "Billy" Sunday, although I did swallow the baited hook of Dr. David Jeremiah and his NIV toxicology. From these I repent, with exception of Baskin-Robbins.

Richie speak no greek, read no greek, hear no greek.
The King James Translation feeds me sufficiently.

Without John Gill's literature, I was eternally saved by Jesus alone.

Psalm 12:6-8

Thanks, I enjoy your posts.

Lloyd
I realise there is a difference between imparted and imputed, I just couldn't remember which was a applicable. Sorry. You seemed to be saying in earlier posts that you are already regenerated and justified before believing? but now you say at the cross we are justified through Christs sacrifice? Is that correct?

Sing F Lau
Richie, I appreciate your conviction. It would be so much easier if every is of the same mind.

For which reason Apostle Paul said,
" 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under... the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

Hart
Well I'll trust you for it... whereas I was sitting on the fence post and got 'splinters' so now sit just a railing.

Sing F Lau
I will lend you a pairs of 'tweezers' to remove the splinters! Getting splinters is all part of the good work of saving some of God's dear children from the errors of their ways. The little discomfort is all worth it!

James 5:
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

A coat of mail would help but would be rather bulky!

Sing F Lau
Alan@ "you seemed to be saying in earlier posts that you are already regenerated and justified before believeing? but now you say at the cross we are justified through Christs sacrifice? Is that correct?"

I repeat what I have said before. You read it carefully, understand it, and tell me the answer to your question.
3. JUSTIFICATION APPLIED at effectual call of each individual elect to eternal life and salvation.
- This is when righteousness is PERSONALLY APPLIED or IMPARTED to an elect at effectual call to grace and salvation.
- This is when justification and regeneration became OPERATIVE in a man PERSONALLY.
- Justification and regeneration became OPERATIVE in a man PERSONALLY when redemption is applied to him at God's approved and accepted time... by His sovereign and free grace, WITHOUT any man's help or cooperation.

4. JUSTIFICATION EXPERIENCED by faith of each believing child of God through the instrumentality of the gospel ministry.
Faith cometh by hearing... saving faith is receiving and resting in Christ and His righteousness alone for salvation.
- Abraham experienced this in Gen 15:1-6. His justification BY faith took place in Gen 15:1-6.
- Justification was applied to Abraham when he was still in Ur, Gen 11. His justification by God's free grace took place in Ur, Gen 11.
====

Let me give you one crucial hint: there is a VAST difference between these THREE aspects of justification:

- LEGAL justification accomplished at the cross.

- VITAL/PERSONAL justification applied at effectual calling.

- EXPERIENTIAL justification by faith through the gospel ministry!

And if you cannot give me correct answers to your question, it means you have understood NOTHING of what I have said!

Lloyd
No I understand, on the face of it you believe exactly what I believe. what I don't understand is how you say that is different to what today's reformed baptists believe? Because as far as I can tell that is what they believe. Plus that post was much more helpful when you break it down into the different catorgories. Bear with me and I will learn from you. I guess I'm stumbling at why we don't make the call universal and allow God to call out the called out?

Sing F Lau
Alan @ "I guess I'm stumbling at why we don't make the call universal and allow God to call out the called out?"

Why don't we make the call universal?

By this, I assume that you mean the gospel call should be to sincerely offer salvation to all, and commanding every one to believe Jesus as their Savior.

Such a practice would be in perfect conformity with the doctrine of universal redemption.

But the Scriptures declares particular redemption, and the gospel ministry is ordained for GATHERING God's children (elect already regenerated by the free and sovereign grace of God WITHOUT the help of preachers, and completely fitted for eternal glory) into NT churches.

Practices MUST be conformed to doctrine.

The Chinese has a saying: Don't join a girl's head to a boy's body!

Sing F Lau
The new school calvinists are in essence Arminians who love an elitist 'reformed' label. And many RBs love such 'classy' label.

Lloyd
well I'm not good with putting things like the confessions do, but I know this that Jesus Christ called me out of darkness into His glorious light, when he did He made a new person a person that wanted to follow and serve Him and give up everything else, He truly changed my desires and affections. I call that regeneration actually I call it being born again. When He done that I knew my sins were forgiven and I was free, I call that justification. But at that time I knew nothing about election, reprobation, prdestination or any of those big words. And all I can say that God and God alone saved through His son and by His Spirit and word. How's that is that the order you are telling me things work? Jesus went out to sow and as He did some seed fell here and some fell there, some had ears to hear and some did not but none the less He still sowed the seed so shouldn't we? As far as RBs go I'm really not one; they are a little stiff normally for my likes. I belive the word and if someone can show me Ie'v got it wrong then I'm open to correction.

Lloyd
I like your sense of humour.

Sing F Lau
Alan, thank you for sharing your experience. I wholly concur with you. When we were dead in trespasses and sins, in a state of condemnation and death, God effectually called us out of that sin and death and condemnation, without us or any man doing anything to assist God... The effectual call to grace and salvation ENABLES us to perceive spiritual things...

And having been born again, we still remained UTTERLY ignorant of the truth of our salvation by God's free grace. It is only through the gospel ministry - of various quality and usefulness - that we begin to learn bits and pieces of the glorious truth of our salvation by God's free and sovereign grace. Lots of things that were taught to us, though sound good, are actually so imprecise and inexact that they actually contradicted God's word...

That's is why we are interacting here, that we may learn and study together the word of God.

You said, "Jesus went out to sow and as He did some seed fell here and some fell there, some had ears to hear and some did not but none the less He still sowed the seed so shouldn't we?"

Actually this parable is about how disciples should hear the preaching of the word. That is the purpose of the parable.

But I wholly agree with the point you are making - about the need of going forth to preach the gospel.

Those who are called by Christ and send forth by Christ's church should go to preach the gospel wherever the Spirit of God lead them.

Who do you think I disbelieve or disagree with that?

This is the specific reason why the risen Lord give pastors and teachers to His church:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and SOME, PASTORS and TEACHERS;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

National Israel / Ethnic Jews / Elect among the Jews

Male Painted Bunting

Here are some exchanges that touched on the subject of national Israel, ethnic Jews, and the elect Jews in God's redemptive purpose.

November 5 at 11:17am

Kees
‎"Thus says the LORD: "If the heavens above can be measured [and they can't], and the foundations of the earth below can be explored [and they can't], then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the LORD." -Jeremiah 31:37

Those who say that national/ethnic Israel has lost their promises because of their poor behavior are making God a liar, beware beloved!

Kees
Here are the two preceding verses, they are just as glorious to me, just wouldn't fit! :D
"Thus says the LORD,who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar the LORD of hosts is his name:"
"If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever."

The more I learn about God's faithfulness to ethnic Israel, the more I trust Him.

Sing F Lau
Mr Kees, Jer 31:37 is interesting.
"... then I will cast off ALL the offspring of Israel..."
Of course God did not cast off ALL... even though He did cast off MANY... even as many as do not belong to spiritual Israel. There are elect Jews among the Jewish people.

I say it is very clear that God has ABOLISHED the earthly national theocratic Israel of the old covenant administration, in the process casting off MANY. In its place is the kingdom of heaven of the new covenant administration, and some were gathered into it.

That does not mean that God has cast off ALL that belong to the earthly national theocratic Israel. This is not possible because there are also God's elect among those that belonged to the earthly national theocratic Israel.

For that reason, the Lord said, "... then I will cast off ALL the offspring of Israel..."

The earthly national theocratic Israel of the old covenant administration had served its divine purpose, had become geriatric, was abolished, and cast off.

Christ threatened and warned of the end of the earthly national theocratic Israel of the old covenant administration, and it came to pass in 70AD.

Kimberlin
What, then, do these verses mean??
Romans 11
25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the G...entiles has come in; 26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Sing F Lau
Good passage. Please tell us what you want these verses to teach. Thanks.

I ask a question - the partial hardening mentioned in verse 25, to whom or what has this hardening happened? Do those of Israel that are still dead in trespasses and sins need to be hardened?

Sing F Lau
Ok, now I know you WANT the passage to teach NATIONAL ISRAEL. Thank you for being clear!

You have forgotten this, haven't you...
Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.

No, Apostle Paul WAS NOT speaking of national Israel... but those elected among the national of Israel.

So, you see, people read the same passage of Scriptures and understand differently.

That's is why it is NEVER sufficient to quote Scriptures and assume people know what you WANT the passage to say!

Kimberlin
Oh, so it can just say whatever you want it to say. Now that I see where you stand, I think I'll just leave it to Dennis to take it up from here. I'm not good at shooting moving targets.

Kimberlin
I will just say, however, that if God has said that all those promises made to ethnic Israel were simply symbolic of what He was going to give to another group of people, then we can have no confidence that some day He won't say that the pr...omises given to us are actually symbolic of something He is going to do for some future group. Like, sure, the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. He just changes what that means on a regular basis. Don't think so.
Traditions of men....

Sing F Lau
No wonder you cant shoot well... because you haven't even decided which gun to use! And you can't even stay on the subject... how to shoot anything!

I think you are the one the moving targets... one moment you say NATIONAL Israel... the next moment ETHNIC Israel.

They are very different entities, are they not? Please make up you mind, whom you believe Apostle Paul is speaking of!

I don't believe there is any more NATIONAL Israel. That has been become geriatric and is abolished, never to be restored again.

However, God still has a chosen people among the ethnic Israel, just as He has a people AMONG ALL the families of the earth!

Sing F Lau
‎@ Lily 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
=======
Just what are the gifts and the calling of God that are irrevocable? Nationhood, Temple, etc?
And unto whom are these gifts and calling of God - NATIONAL Israel, or the elect among the Jews? Please tell us.

Chapin ‎
@Lily, Question: Where is the Old Testament "National Israel" now?

Crocker
Just wondering, do those who believe that all of the Old Testament prophecies and promises pertain to national/ethnic/natural Israel understand Rom 11:26 to mean that not a single lineal descendent of Jacob will go to hell, including those Pharisees who Jesus said were of their father, the Devil?

Kees
Wow...Sing, you said this: "The earthly national theocratic Israel of the old covenant administration had served its divine purpose, had become geriatric, was abolished, and cast off."

I think you are confusing the old covenant in Hebrews 8 that clearly refers to the Mosaic Covenant of works with the purpose and promises given to the nation Israel through the promises given to Abraham. In short, please explain what you have said with Scripture. Lily posted scripture, but I only see your opinions.

Romans 11:25 is saying that ethnic Israel does have a future. This is very clear. Israelites are clearly in view for many reasons, one of which is what verse 28 says:

"As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers."

They... Israel are currently and partially hardened, but they (Israel) are beloved (term for elect persons) for the sake of their (Israel) forefathers... who might their forefathers be?

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...

Verse 1 is enough to show that Israelites are in view: "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin." It couldn't get any more Jewish...

Paul says God has not rejected his people (ethnic Israel) Why not?
Paul says: 'Because I am a Jew!' It's not unclear.

Jerry, the nation of Israel consists of all the Israelites spread throughout the earth, God knows who they are, we don't have to know any more than we are required to know who elect gentiles are before preaching to them...

Ron, no, and no one teaches that.

Ariyeh
Mr. Sing, may I ask you where you learned your theology? I am a Jew who believes yeshua is the Messiah and I am interested in what makes Gentiles tick?

Apparently, you have removed the Jehudim from any and all existence. No one just believes this. Who taught you this? Are you Reformed Baptist?

Crocker
If "all Israel" in not all national/ethnic Jews, who do you understand "all Israel" to be?

Kees
Ron, that is a reference to the full number of Israelites, similar to the fullness of the gentiles in the preceding verse. I presume that it means a great majority.

Ariyeh
P.S. I asked if you are reformed baptist because we recently left a reformed baptist who held views against the Jews that were also contrary to the Scriptures.

You said " I ask a question - the partial hardening mentioned in verse 25, to whom or what has this hardening happened? Do those of Israel that are still dead in trespasses and sins need to be hardened?"

I will ask you a question? Were the bulk of Gentiles elect by God before the arrival of the Messiah? Let me answer the question for you. NO! Therefore, why is it not possible that the bulk of Jews are hardened this very day, so that they too will not believe the gospel?

Is the Lord not disciplining them because of their failure to recognize His arrival? The answer is given to us. "You will not see me until you say blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." Their eyes have been blinded as spoken of through the prophet Isaiah and will continue to happen until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

Who are YOU o man to reconstruct God's plan according to your hearts desires?

Kees
Sing, you also said:
"Of course God did not cast off ALL... even though He did cast off MANY... even as many as do not belong to spiritual Israel. There are elect Jews among the Jewish people....
I say it is very clear that God has ABOLISHED the earthly national theocratic Israel of the old covenant administration, in the process casting off MANY"

This verse is plainly talking about God's faithfulness to the nation of ethnic Israelites.

The point is this: despite the failings of ethnic Israel, God will not cast them away because He has made promises to them and the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (Rom 11:29)

Even though they go astray after other gods as a nation and eventually kill the incarnate God Himself, he will NOT cast them away because they are an elect nation. They are His people, they belong to Him. The single Jews who live godlessly and those who do not share the saving faith of Abraham will perish, but they are an elect nation and ethnically they will be kept safe until the fullness of the Gentiles come to faith. (Rom 11:25)

"Christ threatened and warned of the end of the earthly national theocratic Israel of the old covenant administration, and it came to pass in 70AD."

That is simply not the case. He didn't say 'this might happen.' he prophesied that it would happen as a prophetic sign.

"I ask a question - the partial hardening mentioned in verse 25, to whom or what has this hardening happened? Do those of Israel that are still dead in trespasses and s...ins need to be hardened?"

This is a reference to the current, partial, and temporarily rejected Israelites. God has decreed with all of His Truth in mind. We know that all men are dead in sin, so even the Jews of the Old Covenant experienced regeneration.

Simply put, the fact that all Jews are born in bondage to sin is the means by which they are hardened. God does not reserve a special type of hardening for them.

We can be 100% sure that the Israel who is hardened in v25 is not the perverted definition of 'Israel' created by Replacement Theology...

Unless you would like that verse to teach that the elect New Covenant members are hardened until the fullness of the gentiles enter into the New Covenant... anyone reading that can perceive the absurdity of such a thing.

"You have forgotten this, haven't you...
Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."

Anyone reading Rom 9:6 has to ask, 'What does Paul mean by Israel?' He cannot have the same exact group in mind or he would be saying something stupid. If we say that both instances of Israel mean ethnic Israel, then the passage would read this way:

Not all ethnic Israelites are ethnic Israelites.

That is foolish and not what Paul means at all.

Another option is to say that Paul is referring to the Israel of God, or the remnant, which would be this:

Not all elect Jews are elect Jews.

That is also foolish and not what Paul is trying to say.

The proper understanding of this verse is:
Not all Israel (those merely born as Jewish people) are Israel (children of promise, elect members of the remnant, etc.)

Romans 9 teaches personal election. God has the right to choose the remnant to be vessels of glory and rebellious Jews to be vessels of wrath and who are we to say anything against Him?

This verse doesn't help your argument because as so clearly stated, Paul is defending a future for disobedient ethnic Israelites.

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."

The word of God has not failed for two reasons:
1) God never said that He would save faithless people. Abraham is the father of all who are saved, and all who are saved are saved by faith.
2) God still has a future in store for ethnic Israel once the fullness of the gentiles come to faith.

That is what Paul argues for in chapter 11.

"Just what are the gifts and the calling of God that are irrevocable? Nationhood, Temple, etc?
...And unto whom are these gifts and calling of God - NATIONAL Israel, or the elect among the Jews?

Please tell us."

Paul answers you:
"They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises."

God promised Abraham:
"I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, --to be God to you and to your offspring after you.-- And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, --and I will be their God.--" - Gen 17:7-8

Currently, God is not God to ethnic Israel.

The bottom line is that God promises salvation to 'all' of ethnic Israel and that has not yet occurred. Paul reminds us that this is yet to come in Romans 11:25-26

The salvation of all Israel will take place after the fullness of the gentiles comes to faith. Simply stated, the future salvation of ethnic Israel and the return of Christ to rule on earth for 1000 years as prophesied in Rev 20 will satisfy all of the promises made specifically to ethnic Israel and the fact that Paul reminds us that they have a future because of these promises should be proof enough for anyone with an open mind to accept I think.

Sorry for so many words!

Sing F Lau
Mr Kees, "The bottom line is that God promises salvation to 'all' of ethnic Israel and that has not yet occurred. Paul reminds us that this is yet to come in Romans 11:25-26"
========
The bottom line is here: those under consideration in Romans 9-11 are these: the elect Jews among the national Israel, and not national Israel itself.

Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.

Precisely, it was because God was going to abolished NATIONAL Israel in 70AD, that Apostle Paul had to write Romans 9-11, so that there is no misunderstanding as though God has cast away all the Jews.

There are God's elect among the Jews... and they are effectually called to grace and salvation - i.e justified, regenerated and adopted, and fitted for eternal glory... BUT yet, under God's divine providence, were BLINDED to the gospel.

ALL the Jews, by nature is exactly like any Gentiles... conceive in sins and born in sin... in enmity against God, children of disobedience, rebel, servants of sin... NO difference whatsoever. Outwardly, they were blessed with great privileges.

Among the Jews, there are also God's elect. Just because God has abandoned and cast away the nation of Israel, His gifts and the calling of God to the elect Jews are without repentance.

Please stay at this issue before we deal with so different things raised!

Sing F Lau
Kees@ "This verse is plainly talking about God's faithfulness to the nation of ethnic Israelites."
======
Nope. Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.

Faithfulness to the elect among the ethnic Jews.

Kees
Mr. Lau, you are wrong. You say:
"The bottom line is here: those under consideration in Romans 9-11 are these: the elect Jews among the national Israel, and not national Israel itself."

If the elect Jews are in mind then who are those referred to in v25?
"...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved..."
Are these elect Jews? Why are they hardened?

Sing F Lau
Mr Kees, precisely, only the elect Jews are hardened towards the gospel! And that hardening is partial, i.e. did not happen to ALL the elect Jews.

In your mind, those Jews ALREADY in their native state of deadness in trespasses and sins STILL need to be hardened, the blind has to be blinded further!

I always said, God WASTES NO MOVES! Man does! And worse still, man portrays God as wasting moves!

A PARTIAL hardening has come upon the elect Jew... that is why only a remnant of the elect Jews believed the gospel of God Christ. (The 'remnant' and the larger part of which the remnant is part of ARE of the same essence... i.e. the elect Jews are spoken of!)

"Are these elect Jews? Why are they hardened?"
Good questions. Do you want the answers? Or are they rhetorical questions?

Verse 25 speak of a mystery...
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.

These 3 verses explains the mystery:
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.

Do those dead in trespasses and sin need to be actively SHUT up in unbelief? Or is it speaking of SOME of God's children among the Jews?

According to v25, either I am ignorant, or you are concerning the issue at hand.

Sing F Lau
Ariyeh@ Mr. Sing, may I ask you where you learned your theology? I am a Jew who believes yeshua is the Messiah and I am interested in what makes Gentiles tick?

Apaarently, you have removed the Jehudim from any and all existence. No one just ...believes this. Who taught you this? Are you Reformed Baptist?
===========
If where I learned my theology from matters in the discussion, let me answer you question... from a Jewish scholar in Armenian [sic] Street in Penang, where I live. I am a Chinese, therefore a brown Jew of the east.

What makes Gentiles among the elect tick is the grace of God in Jesus Christ applied to the by the Holy Spirit. Nothing attributed to the ethnic Jews whatsoever... except the Jewishness of my Savior.

The Jewish race is still around. Among the Jews there are God's elect... and there is difference between them and the elect Gentiles. So, I recognize the existence of the Jewish race, and that there are elect among them.

No one just believes this? That's a ignorant statement at best!

No, I am not reformed baptist! Reformed Baptists call me a heretic... not for the issue at hand, but for the doctrine of pure grace.

Kees
Mr. Lau, you are saying two different things:
"Precisely, --only the elect Jews are hardened-- towards the gospel! And that hardening is partial, i.e. --did not happen to ALL the elect Jews.--"

This makes no sense to me. Only the elect Jews are hardened? And then you say that the same hardening does -not- happen to ALL the elect Jews...

That is a contradiction.
Currently, the Jews collectively make up a group of nationally elect people, some of which are hardened to the gospel and some of which are a part of the remnant and are elect unto salvation.

As a group, the nation of ethnic Jews are hardened to the gospel. That hardening is both partial because not every single Jew rejects the Messiah and also temporary, until the fullness of the gentiles come to faith.

As regards the gospel, national-ethnic Israel are enemies of God for the sake of the Gentiles but as regards election (God chose them to be an elect people as a whole) they are BELOVED (a term for God's elect) for the sake of their forefathers according to the flesh... Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And why?

"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." - Romans 11:29
What about that is not easy to understand?
I agree with Paul:
"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!"

Mr Lau, you are trying to call God's judgment into question I think.
Who are you to tell the Potter what He can do with His people the Jews?

Green
Mr. Kees, I think that you fail to understand the the biblical definitions of election, regeneration and conversion. If these terms are not clearly understood, then you will nver be able to understand Jer 31 or Romans 9-11 in its proper co...ntext.

Eternal election occurred before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Man had no part in this whatsoever! It is true that national/ethnic Israel was chosen to be blessed and favored by God, but this ended in 70 A.D. This is distinct from eternal election.

Regeneration/quickening is also wholly of God (Tit 3:5.Eph 2:1, Col 2:13-15) and is distinct from conversion (Luke 22:32, Acts 28:27).

Paul defines the Jews that he was concerned with in Rom 2:29. Those that were Jews inwardly (regenerated elect). What was his desire? That they might be saved (Romans 10:1). From what? Ignorance. They had a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge (v.2). Who manifests a zeal of God? The regenerated elect. Do they all obey the gospel? No. Paul labored to convert these that were a part of national/ethnic Israel.

They were saved eternally, but missed out on the timely blessing of walking in the light of truth in this world. This is why Paul sorrowed.

If these foundational truths are not understood, then the rest of the building is going to be askew.

In Christian Love,
Michael

Sing F Lau
Well said, Mr Green.
Mr Kees, I can understand what you are saying from your presupposition that Apostle Paul is addressing the national Israel in Romans 9-11. But that idea contradicts and is inconsistent with all that is said there!

I be...lieve that presupposition flies in the face of the plain statement of Paul at the beginning of the section:

Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

You insist that Apostle is addressing national Israel... that militates against the very statement in Romans 9:6.

I believe he is addressing the MYSTERIOUS phenomenon of the children of God (regenerated elect) among the Jews who were unbelieving. Of course such a thing is an impossibility to your mind... precisely, apostle didn't want us to be ignorant of this matter... that that is what had happened.

So, with this fundamental difference - your national Israel idea, and my elect Israel understanding, we are on parallel road on this subject.

National Israel? Done and abolished forever in 70AD. And together with the abolition of national Israel was the whole old covenant that was inextricately bound up with that nation!

Ming
Paul was addressing his own ethnic people (the Jews) who, for the sake of the cross, became "enemies" of God. Yet out of these "enemies" of God/Christ, He has yet chosen a remnant who shall bear His Name and be in His Salvation Plan.

There is no need to even bring up any extreme positions such as Replacement Theology (which I reject 100%) nor argue over the differences between ethnic Israel vs. national Israel or the spiritual/national significance of AD70.

The real point in Rom. 9-11 is the incomprehensible mystery of God's sovereign grace in that even those closest to God and entrusted with His divine oracles could turn away (after the flesh) and yet even from their midst God has preserved for His own Name a remnant.

The Christian life truly is supernatural and unceasingly marvelous. It is also very, very mysterious - and only the elect can catch a glimpse of the glory therein. Praise God for Jewish brethren who have come to know Yeshua the Messiah. I have several very dear Christian friends who are Jews. Their experiences and devotion are on a very special and intimate level compared to us common Gentiles. I speak in terms of ethnic/racial identity - as a Chinese Christian (like Brother Sing), I often have to overcome cultural/linguistic barriers to understand many spiritual principles/terms. Not so our Jewish brethren. For that, we should abound in praise to our God - who is STILL God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; God of both Jews and Gentiles.

The salvation of Jewish Christians should not be a point of contention but an occasion for celebration and thanksgiving. Amen.

Kees
Mr Green, you levy weighty criticisms...
"It is true that national/ethnic Israel was chosen to be blessed and favored by God, but this ended in 70 A.D. This is distinct from eternal election. "
...
So you would make God and Paul a liar by saying that God has indeed forsaken His people and has failed to keep His promises.

They were elect, and now they aren't.

The God you speak of is not trustworthy my friend. If your god cancels election for the Jews, he is not trustworthy and therefore he is not the God of Scripture. I pray that your theology is just ignorantly inconsistent and that you are not willfully making God a liar.

Paul's point is exactly the opposite of your conclusions: God is indeed faithful to His people, that is the thrust of the argument.

PS: Your assertion was an opinion regarding 70 AD, you failed to present a Biblical basis for it and I presume that you cannot do so. Feel free, if able.

Kees
Mr. Lau,
"I believe that presupposition flies in the face of the plain statement of Paul at the beginning of the section: Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"

You are simply wrong my friend, as I have already pointed out.
Romans 9:6 is simply saying that not all who are descendants of Abraham physically have Abraham as their father in terms of faith. Abraham fathered a physical nation and is also the father of all the faithful children of promise.

"I believe he is addressing the MYSTERIOUS phenomenon of the children of God (regenerated elect) among the Jews who were unbelieving. Of course such a thing is an impossibility to your mind... "

You are free to believe whatever you want Mr. Lau, but Paul does not mean this.
He explains the mystery so that we aren't left to be ignorant. You desire that these things be left a mystery when Paul has explained them plainly.

"National Israel? Done and abolished forever in 70AD."
Again, you are free to believe whatever you want, but Scripture doesn't teach this and you haven't produced a single Scripture to make your case. Neither has Mr. Green...

There are assertions based upon what you both have read into the Scriptures and I urge you to reconsider for the sake of Truth and the faithfulness of God.

Kees
Edmund, nice to meet you. You said:
"The real point in Rom. 9-11 is the incomprehensible mystery of God's sovereign grace in that even those closest to God and entrusted with His divine oracles could turn away (after the flesh) and yet even from their midst God has preserved for His own Name a remnant."

Why then does Paul end on the note that all of national-ethnic Israel has a future that will take place after the fullness of the gentiles come to faith?

"Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written..." Romans 11:25-26

The mystery has been revealed, and we must comprehend it lest we be wise in our own sight.

The point of Romans 9-11 is that God is sovereign and His electing purposes are not to be questioned by us. Men who reject a future for national-ethnic Israel calls the faithfulness of God's electing grace into question and make Him liar:

"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Romans 11:29

The New Covenant promises were made to Israel, not the Gentiles.

We are grafted into the promises made to them on the basis of faith in Christ... Our union with Christ makes us heirs with Him to the promises of God.

Green
Mr. Kees what are your thoughts on Romans 2:29? I believe that Paul establishes the definition of which Jews he was concerned about.
Hope all had a good day of worship!

Ming
I was really hoping that my previous post had put an end to all these "your theology is defective" and "where is your biblical basis for AD70"-styled arguments.

Rom. 9-11 remains one of the most beautiful sections of Scripture. To me, it is ...among the ultimate expressions of the mature Christian Paul. The Saul of Tarsus who worked to gain the approval of the Jewish leaders has grown into the Christian apostle who struggled with the Jewish persecutors (of whom he was one formerly) and later with Judaizers within the church who made life difficult for everyone. But by the time he wrote the Epistle to the Romans, he has largely reconciled his own thoughts/feelings for his people, the Jews.

Paul's concerns were largely theological and not so much national. He had come a long way since placing his faith in the entirety of the temple-centric Jewish faith as the means by which Yahweh receives them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Pharisee Saul knew little of "individual salvation" and his concerns were chiefly that of "national salvation". In other words, one had to be a Jew (or at least a proselyte to Judaism) to even stand a chance - then one had to be faithful to the law and center one's devotion on the Temple and the nationalistic hopes (outwardly seen in both the dietary/cultic observances and a nationalistic/patriotic/triumphalistic faith in a militant Messiah to free them from foreign powers). In other words, to Saul, it was an all-or-nothing thing. You either took the entirety of Judaism (including its nationalistic/ethnic/cultic/patriotic/messianic and chiefly temple-centric beliefs) or nothing.

Then came Stephen and the sect that he belonged to. Stephen was the biggest threat to Saul's all-or-nothing temple-centric national/ethnic-interest Judaism. Stephen preached that the entire nation/religion of Judaism was wrong because they opposed the Christ that God sent and even crucified Him. Saul, as others around him, heard of this same Christ's proclamation of the temple's destruction - meaning the destruction of everything that Saul had ever believed in (namely, the temple-centric nationalistic/ethnic salvation stuff above). Naturally, Saul threw in with those who opposed the troublemaker Stephen and joined them in stoning the latter.

On the Road to Damascus, Saul was confronted by the Resurrected Christ. Note that he had no doubts whatsoever that the One who appeared to him is the LORD - the God of Israel. His biggest question was simply this - who was right? Temple/National-centric Judaism or the Sect that Stephen belonged to? Christ then asked him - "Why do you persecute me?" Saul was dumbfounded? When had he ever persecuted the God of Israel? But Christ revealed to him that whatever Saul did to any of his little ones (including Stephen and those whom he had received papers to arrest) he did so also to Christ Himself. In other words, it was not with temple-centric, nationalistic/ethnic Judaism that Christ identified with but with the motley bunch of folks who had faith in the Christ. With Stephen's sect, the God of Israel was so intimately united/linked that whatsoever one does towards that sect, one directly did to Him. Christ was using language that Saul was familiar with as Yahweh in the OT proclaimed that Israel was the apple of His eye and whoever touches Israel will be destroyed.

That was a moment of crisis in Saul's life that he never recovered from. Stephen's sect is now the apple of God's eye? Then what about Israel (national/ethnic)? What about the temple? What about the ritualistic observances? What about the earthly triumph and victory of "God's people" or are they even "God's people" any more? Can God break His promise to the patriarchs and to David? Can such a thought even be possible?

Kees
Mr. Green, "What are your thoughts on Romans 2:29? I believe that Paul establishes the definition of which Jews he was concerned about. "

If those are the only Jews in mind, why does the very next verse speak of Israel collectively?

"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar..." Romans 3:1-4

Paul is speaking here of Jews collectively as he often does.

Romans 2:29 is a parallel of Romans 9:6 and means the same thing.

Not all physical Jews are circumcised of heart.

Hope that helps.

Ming
Sometimes it takes physical blindness to reveal true spiritual sight. I personally believe that those questions haunted Saul during his days in blindness after his critical encounter on the Damascus Road.

Then, a small and fearful believer n...amed Ananias was sent to pray for "Brother Saul". Ananias was reluctant - after all, Saul still had the papers for his arrest! But Ananias went anyway. He prayed for Saul and called him "Brother". Saul was no longer simply a nationalistic/ethnic Jew - he had become a "Brother". Not Saul, the student of Gamaliel who was being groomed for a seat in the Sanhedrin. Not Venerable Saul of Tarsus. Not Professor Saul of Tarsus. But simply "Brother Saul".

For the first time, this man who was the epitome of Israelite glory as well as Israelite myopic vision (they could never see beyond national/ethnic interests despite John the Baptist's words that God could raise up Sons of Abraham from the stones in the desert) - this same man believed that it really isn't very important anymore - all these talks about national/ethnic Israel but simply whether one belonged to Christ or not. Those who do are "Brothers" like he is now - "Brother Saul". The embrace of Ananias was the embrace of Christ Himself. The handshake of Barnabas was the handshake of Yahweh Himself. The acceptance of Peter, James and John was the acceptance of the One who parted the Red Sea and made a distinction between the Hebrew children and the armies of Pharaoh.

But another question prevailed in Saul's mind - what about my people? What about others like me who held on to temple-centric, nationalistic/ethnic Judaism? Here, Saul's mind re-applied the all-or-nothing reasoning. If Stephen and Ananias were all accepted on the basis of God's grace in which they simply received/relied upon by faith (without any of the temple centric stuff), then that must be the fulfilment of ALL of God's promises to create descendents of Abraham by faith so that Abraham could become the Father of Faith.

The early exploits of the Apostle Paul could be seen in his conflicts with the Judaizers who attempted to add to the final and complete work of Christ. Hence, the great epistle to the Galatians that we still possess today. Paul applied his all-or-nothing principle and now rejected what he formerly held so dear.

Kees
Ming, the reason that Paul contemplated the status of national-ethnic Israel is because he understood that God was faithful, had made promises to them, and had yet to fulfill them.

The glorious faithfulness of God towards national-ethnic Is...rael magnifies the grace and trustworthiness of God so much!

Despite their failures, His promises to them remain on the basis of His election.

We have the same hope! We fail every day and even so God will not cast us away. His electing purposes are unquestionable and absolute.

We fail like Israel has failed, and He does not cast us away and He will not cast them away either... Why? "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." - Romans 11:29
And praise God that the aren't revocable!

The problem with second temple Judaism is also explained by Paul:

"What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works." - Romans 9:30-32

Paul bought into the failure of works-righteousness, and repudiates his Jewish works-righteous pedigree. It was rubbish when relied upon to save...

We must be found with a righteousness not of our own, and the Jews sought to establish their own and because of it they failed.

The 70 AD stuff is really dangerous because the 'facts' are not rooted in Scripture.

Ming
But that was Galatians.
In Romans, we have a more reflective Paul. We have a Paul who reflected on his own struggles in the flesh (Rom. 7) and a celebration of triumph in the Spirit (Rom. 8). We have Paul raising the banner of salvific grace... higher than ever before and boldly proclaiming that "where sin abounds, grace super-abounds" so that His grace is greater than my sin - all of it and not just in part.

Finally, we have Paul returning to the most deeply affecting question again - what of the Jews? (Rom. 9-11)

But this time, Paul wasn't writing as one who still embraced temple-centric or nationalistic/ethnic Judaism. He had long transcended all that and left all that behind him. Paul wasn't even writing as the opponent of Judaizers who conspired to corrupt the simple Christian faith. He had already done that in his epistle to the Galatians.

Paul was writing as an older man who had a deep concern for people who meant a lot to him. His countrymen, the folks that he grew up with. The boy he went to school with, the girl he had a crush on when he was a teenager, the kindly auntie next door who once bought him lunch and the kindly uncle he used to go out farming with. These folks all (like he used to) believed and held on to the promises of Yahweh to their ancestors. They were taught to go up to the Temple in Jerusalem once a year. They memorised the Torah and the teachings of the elders. They were good people.

But in his all-or-nothing doctrine, have they now been excluded from the glorious covenant that he has devoted his life to preaching?

My brothers, do you see the teary-eyed apostle penning those words in Romans 9-11? If you do, you will not engage in meaningless theological squabbles but you will say with Paul that this gospel of Christ means that we are debtors to both Jew and Greek - to make known to them the surpassing greatness of God's power unto salvation which is in Christ.

Every Christian is precious to Paul - but even more so, every JEWISH Christian is especially precious to Paul. Yes, he was the Apostle to the Gentiles. But every time he comes into contact with a JEWISH Christian, he is comforted within himself that salvation is still with the Jews and that God has not forsaken His people. All the promises are still valid and that mysterious will of God still dictates that even though the Jews in their ignorant zeal have become enemies of God, still God is preserving a remnant from among them.

Rom. 9-11 began with the heartbreaking sorrow of Paul for his countrymen - so real and acute was his sorrow that Paul actually called upon the HOLY SPIRIT to bear witness to the depths of his sorrow! But it ends with a triumphant confidence in the unsearcheable wisdom of God in saving his own countrymen.

Those are God's promises - don't you think that they matter more to Him than to us?

Israel was God's chosen people - don't you think that they matter more to Him than to us?

Paul had no easy answers but his confidence rest in the All-Wise God who will do no wrong.

We water down that confidence with our own systems of thought - e.g. Replacement Theology that proclaims the Church as the New Israel or talks of God restoring nationalistic Israel (as Dennis so loudly proclaims).

I sometimes suspect that we'll learn more from the tears of Paul than from any pretentious theological/critical/academical reading of Paul.

Kees
‎1) It's the same Paul
2) We don't know what Paul feels, we know what he says...
3) Systems with large titles are often useless.
4) National-ethnic Israel has a future unless Scripture is not true. Romans 11 clearly teaches it!

I have no ambition to make the text say something that isn't there. You are appealing to the unknown emotions of the apostle, not I... I am simply telling you what he wrote.

Ming
Kees, Believe me when I tell you that I agree with you more than I disagree. I have HUGE problems with the Reformed Baptists and many who hold to extreme Covenantal Theology and Replacement Theology views. In fact, I am in serious disagreement with Preterists and their AD70-centric teachings.

What I've been saying is that we should weep for Israel (like Paul did) and hold unto the fact that it is God's promises and therefore the All-Wise God who will do no wrong knows what to do with what He has promised.

Do I believe that the Church has replaced Israel? No. I believe that Gentiles are grafted into the branch and that Israel is still therefore the only people of God. We who were not Jews have been made Jews in Christ. We who were not a people have been made part of the Jewish Commonwealth upon which God's favour rests.

Do I believe in Zionist attempts to restore Nationalistic Israel? No. In fact, I oppose the State of Israel and the Zionist Regime with my every breath. Our hearts should go out to the Jewish people and pray for the peace in the Holy Land. But Christians should NEVER be so gullible as to equate modern day political Israel with the Israel of the Bible upon whom the promises of God still rests (because of His love for the patriarchs)

Yes, it is dangerous to read too much into AD70. It is equally dangerous to proclaim constantly of nationalistic Jews - especially in view of how easy it is to be misunderstood these days.

Kees
We should share the love that Paul had for the Jews as well as his detestation of their works-righteous teachings...

At the same time, we must realize that national-ethnic Israel has a future on the basis of Scripture.

Remember that Abraham ...was a Jew, but not an Israelite.

Ming
I never made any pretensions claiming that my "dramatizations" of the Apostle's unknown emotions were to be taken as the be-all and end-all "sola scriptura". Hahahaha. How silly can you be, anyway? Or to put it in another way - WHY SOOOOOOOOO SERIOUS?

Firstly, Paul wrote a LETTER - not a theological tome - although I suspect that folks today prefer that he had written that. Thank God that the Scriptures came to us in such personal ways as letters, psalms, proverbs and poetry. To suggest divorcing emotions from reading such literature is the height of silliness but the "serious-minded" among us are somewhat addicted to such silliness.

Second, Paul expressly mentions his emotions and even called upon the HOLY SPIRIT to bear witness to his spirit. To attempt to read the words while caring little for the writer is again another example of silliness in our "serious-minded" age.

Sing F Lau
Mr Keesee@ The 70 AD stuff is really dangerous because the 'facts' are not rooted in Scripture.
=====
You have missed all those "the end" passages in the parables of Jesus Christ to the Jews, I fear!
But then again, you will insist that those ...passages speaks of the end of the gentile world we live in, and not national Israel!

The disciples were acutely aware of impending end of their world - national Israel, when they inquired, "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Of course many FOOLISHLY think the disciples were inquiring about the end of the world we live in!

All the way through Mt 24 and right up to Mt 25:30, Christ was speaking of the predestined end and cessation of NATIONAL Israel.

Apostle Peter repeated that in his epistle to Jewish believers... because many Jews were mocking at the promised destruction!

Ming's words is sadly true, "Sometimes it takes physical blindness to reveal true spiritual sight."

Ming
Forgive me that piece of ranting above.

Seriously, I was in church yesterday morning. The pastor preached on Israel. He too talked about a nationalistic future for Israel and that the Middle East is still the stage on where a lot of things a...re scheduled in God's plan to take place.

I do not disagree. I just do not think that the whole "Jewish" issue should even be a serious issue of contention. What I mean is that we should weep more than we argue. And we should also celebrate because we call upon a God who is all wise and who can do no wrong.

Ming
Like I said, Kees, I really disagree more with Brother Sing than I do with you.

I disagree with his interpretation of Matt 24-25 as referring to AD70 - I too believe that it refers to the end of the Gentile age.

But then the Christian life ...is not about "taking this position or that position". Hence, if you reread my entries above, I was trying to avoid precisely that kind of stance by trying to "guess at" what the Apostle was writing about in Rom. 9-11.

Ming
Both Paul and Peter were martyred before AD70. I sometimes wonder what they will write should they have been around post AD70.

My "guesses" (again) are that:
(a) they would not write as Josephus did with all that nationalistic apologetics - they have entered the real Mount Zion after all and realised that the Kingdom of the Messiah far transcends this earthly world.

(b) they would not write as many Christians did in their presumption that AD70 is the pivotal point of prophecy-fulfilment and that Christ's parables decisively point to this event alone - the Kingdom prophecies are far richer in content, far more wide-ranging in scope and far more penetrating in depth than the simple Preterist/Covenantal view.

(c) more likely they will weep and pray rather than argue about the theological significance of the AD70 event.

Sinner Saved
‎- Could You Please Explain Romans 11:25-26?
This passage, Romans 11:25-26, has been more widely misunderstood than almost any other passage in the Bible. In fact, it is amazing to me that so many Bible teachers try to make Romans 11:25-26 say just the opposite of what it says.

This is terrible because they are saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” when the Lord has not said that.

The setting of Romans Chapter 11 is that God is explaining that most of the people in the nation of Israel were blinded, but there is a remnant, chosen by grace, who have become saved. Paul used himself as an example of those who have become saved. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says in verse 5:
"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

Then he says in verse 7:
"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

Spiritual blindness was the condition of national Israel throughout its history and is still the condition right up to the present day. They absolutely do not want the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They do not want Him as their Messiah. In verse 25, God begins to bring the first 24 verses of this chapter to conclusion. It is addressed to the Gentile world so that we will have an understanding of how national Israel fit into God’s salvation plan.

God says in Romans 11:25:
"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 [verse 7 says it happened to most of national Israel], until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

“Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” means that national Israel will continue to be spiritually blind, except for a remnant chosen by grace, as long as there is one Gentile, or non-Jew, anywhere in the world, who is still to be saved. In our generation, Israel has been a nation for over 50 years, and they are as adamant about their opposition to Christ as the Messiah as they were at any time in their history.There has been no change, and there will be no change. God says that their condition will remain the same until the last person who is of the elect of God becomes saved. When the last Gentile has become saved, it will be the end of the world. The world will continue to its predetermined end, but before the world can end, all those who have been elected to salvation will have become saved.

Then we read in the first part of Romans 11:26:
"And so all Israel shall be saved. . . "

All kinds of Bible teachers do terrible violence to this verse. They understand this verse to say, “And then all Israel shall be saved.” In other words, they change the word “so” to “then.”

They teach that after the Gentiles have been saved, God is going to do a work in national Israel.First of all, that does not make any sense because national Israel, that is, the blood descendants of Abraham, have been on earth for 4,000 years.

What about all the Jews who lived and died unsaved during the past 4,000 years?

They are part of national Israel. They are not going to be resurrected and have a second opportunity. More than that, the word “so” does not mean “then.” “So” is not a chronological word. “So” means “in this manner,” or “thus,” or “in this way.”In what way?
In what manner?

In the manner in which God describes in Romans Chapter 11, namely, that most of national Israel is blinded, but there is a remnant chosen by grace. In this manner, all Israel that is to be saved, shall be saved. This is not talking, in any sense, about a future change in God’s plan. It simply ties back into everything that has gone before, as God has reported in the previous 25 verses. God explains why His salvation can come to the remnant of national
Israel that is chosen by grace.

He says in the second part of Romans 11:26-27:
". . . as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

When Christ came and took on a human nature, to whom did He come?

He came to the Jews. He was born in Bethlehem, a Jewish city. He was reared in Nazareth, a Jewish city. He was crucified in Jerusalem, a Jewish city. For three and half years, He ministered mainly around the Sea of Galilee, a Jewish area. He came to the nation of Israel, and a remnant of national Israel was chosen by grace. Later, He told the disciples that they were to go into all the world with the Gospel because salvation was to come to Gentiles as well. These verses are easy to understand if we read them carefully.

We cannot superimpose something we have been taught upon these verses. God does not have a future plan for national Israel; that idea is not found anywhere in the Bible. The Bible indicates that we are in the last days; we are headed right toward the end of time. When the last Gentile has become saved, that will be the end of the Gospel era. It will be the end of the world.

Kees
Chris, "Spiritual blindness was the condition of national Israel throughout its history and is still the condition right up to the present day."

Not at all. National-ethnic Israel has had times of obedience and times of disobedience. Your statement is just factually wrong. Are you really saying that Israel was never obedient in the Old Testament as a whole?

I presume you would not say that, but please let us know.

"Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” means that national Israel will continue to be spiritually blind, except for a remnant chosen by grace, as long as there is one Gentile, or non-Jew, anywhere in the world, who is still to be saved."

That is your opinion, not what Scripture teaches.

Your interpretation makes v28-32 ignorant and meaningless.

"As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."

Please explain these passages in light of your opinion.

Thanks.

Sing F Lau
Mr Kees,
" 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 the...m all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

May I suggest that the ALL in the above passage can ONLY refer to the elect among the Jews and the Gentiles...

These are those that God hath concluded in unbelief.
Natural Jews and Gentiles are ALREADY dead enough in trespasses and sins... they don't need to be concluded in unbelief. That is quite simple, I think.

All these will obtain mercy, NEVERTHELESS, DESPITE their unbelief. Some of God's children have been concluded in unbelief. This is contrary to carnal reasoning... but it is true, so apostle make great effort to explain it