And, of course - Jude 24.

ALL the promises made to Abraham, ALL OF THEM, consisted of physical signs pointing to spiritual realities. The patriarchs themselves knew that (Heb 11), but then they hadn't been blinded by Scofield.

Where in the New Testament does it talk about the future restoration of national Israel? These ideas come only by looking for fulfillment from Old Testament prophecies which have clearly been fulfilled.

If today's "Israel" wants to claim ownership of the land based on Old Testament promises, let them keep the conditions of the covenant.

They are not deserving of the name "Israel" and it is high time the church saw that. Just their treatment of nonJews and rejection of Christian Jews is contemptible in the eyes of God and a violation of His express commandments regarding aliens, strangers and foreigners.

San Jose John wrote:
I agree. The curse which accompanied
the fall must have had many miraculous
(if negative) effects on the original
creation to explain what we see today
vs. what the creation was like prior
to the fall.

ChristianNewsWatch wrote:
Eh, I claim John 3:16

I guess it is pointless to ask you then what you believe about worship, sacraments, preaching, pneumatology, eschatology etc.

I will go on record as saying that Israel and the Church are two bodies.

In the same way that USA and the church are two bodies; Australia and the church are two bodies; Australia and USA are two bodies etc.

Re-reading the Olivet Discourse, I cannot escape that those sections many attribute to the end of time are included in Jesus' statement regarding their fulfillment in that generation.

The bottom line is, at the final judgement will there be more sheep or more goats? Do I see God and His Christ as gloriously triumphant or content with a narrow victory?

The river that flows from the temple, the stone cut without hands, the promise made by the Father to the Son in Psalm 2 speak to me of a glorious and amazing victory. I don't know if this is classic postmillenialism but when I read that the Son must sit at the right hand of God TILL all His enemies are made His footstool I don't see Him coming back any time soon.

To read Revelation as written then but pertaining primarily to future events is illogical and nonsensical. It repeatedly speaks of things which "must shortly come to pass."

The "signs of the times" phrase comes from the Olivet discourse. People forget that Christ was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish age. The disciples thought this would be the end of all time, which is why they phrased their question as they did. But when Jesus said to them in Mat 24:33, "When you see all these things, know that it is near", He was not referring to the end of time, for He immediately said, "This generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled."

THEN He answers the question about the end of all time in vs 36, "But of THAT day and hour no one knows."

He has just finished telling them how they could see the signs pertaining to the end of Jerusalem, so why would He tell them that no one can tell when that would happen?

Every generation thinks theirs is the ultimate age, that it could all end any day. This is not a bad thing, for it keeps us all on our toes. But there is only one certainty - No one knows that day or that hour.

As to Israel's future conversion, that has always been a conundrum. Romans 11 indicates that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. This suggests that ethnic Jews will continue to be converted.

But I do not see 1948 and national Israel as being part of prophetic fulfillment. These prophecies found in the Old Testament have been fulfilled in the return from the captivity.

National Israel was the caterpillar from which the butterfly of the church came. There is no relationship with God possible outside of Christ. And in Christ there is no nationality, for we are all citizens of that heavenly Jerusalem which the patriarchs already looked forward to.

As I have said before, your view of the whole of Scripture determines your view of the parts. I finally realised that this discussion is going nowhere when Casob started quoting the same passages I had been quoting to him.

That is why he cannot answer my questions, because he cannot see and will not see that God has one people, one church, one plan of redemption which was first delivered to Israel and then to the whole world. That it would go beyond ethnic Israel into all nations was already foreseen and foretold in the Old Testament. But because some can't get past their view that ethnic Israel is still the people of God they are blind to this truth.

So I will ask one more question of Casob. You refer constantly to Romans 11. If I, as a non-Jew, am grafted into the olive tree, am I now not a Jew? I partake of the same root and richness. I am ingrafted into Israel.

We may vary now in some of our theological positions, but once we were all the same - totally lost and dead in sin, hellbound but for a loving Father, a redeeming Saviour and a regenerating, justifying and sanctifying Holy Spirit.

You mention my list of questions, but you answer none of them.

You claim to be trying to be reasonable yet all you do is accuse others of wresting Scripture without giving specifics.

Any time someone tries to engage you in reasoned discussion you go off on another tangent.

You have finally convinced me. You have absolutely nothing to say and are just full of hot air.

I have just become more and more disenchanted with all the rubbishy "translations", and it seems that the Westcott and Hort debacle was the watershed. So I read different things about them, their background, the history of their translation, all cited with references to their own correspondence and people who were part of that process at the time. If half of what I read was true, those guys were the last sort you wanted translating your Bible for you.

Some guy I know recently put me onto the ESV - it seems pretty good.

Anyone who is saved has been taken out of hellish darkness into glorious light. All things have become new, and the old man has been crucified with Christ and is dead. To demean that amazing grace for the sake of theological argument is wrong. We must never lose sight of that one reality - Jesus saves!

I have been thinking about what you said. I have never been a Catholic, but my Mother was. But when somebody tells me I am more like a Catholic than an Evangelical because I believe in infant baptism I get real riled. So I understand where you are coming from and if I said the wrong thing or upset you by what I said, I would like you to accept my apology and grant me your forgiveness.

We all tend to get fired up when we debate the doctrines we hold dear. But there is one thing that binds us which is high above all theological differences - if we are in Christ we are brothers and sisters in Him and whatever our past or our current denominational affilliation, we are members of that glorious body.

Bernard wrote:
It means I'm calling your bluff. I'm asking you to put your cards on the table. If these terms are not familiar to you, then be thankful for your sheltered life. Let me rephrase.
Please cite the "documented evidence" from primary sources. This means you can't just link to a ranting, vilifying article from the TBS.

Listing "primary" sources is not something many do, as we often rely on other publications which do cite these sources in their statements. The reason being they actually have access to these sources.

There is always available, if you care to look, many websites which list the many needless changes that were made to the original translation - many of which are subtle attacks on the fundamental doctrines of our faith.

I never said and will never say that being born again is to decide between being a Calvinist or being an Arminian.

To be born again is to respond in faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ because you have been enabled to see your sin and to see salvation in Christ through the regenerating power of the Spirit of God.

Jesus said, "You must be born again!" Then He said, "Unless a man is born again, he cannot see nor enter the kingdom of God."

Bernard wrote:
I'm calling you.

The RC's hate most of what protestant theology stands for, but more than anything they hate the Reformed doctrines of grace.

I think that is what Examinetheevidence was trying to get across, that Arminianism lies easily in bed with Catholocism. And history has proved him right - you only need to look at the ecumenical developments over the last 50 years and how it has effortlessly accepted Rome.