Reformed Baptist

Can anyone tell me where the Bible teaches that we should expect to 'feel' the presence of the Holy Spirit within us, and what the Bible teaches us that it would feel like?

Matthew 25:46 "And these will go away into everlasting (αἰώνιον) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (αἰώνιον) life." (NKJ) The word of God is clear and provides absolutely no wriggle room on this issue at all, it is either eternal punishment or eternal life - and this life determines where the next will be spent!

What's the question?

I sleep just fine, and I know OSAS to be false the scriptures teach that those genuinely saved will (by the grace of God alone) persevere in the faith, and so make it to heaven's glory, once saved always saved (in my opinion) potentially breeds an unbiblical reliance upon a one time profession of belief - a reliance that I just don't see any basis for in scripture.

Yes, I believe so. I wonder if others such as Salty, Openly Curious, Butero, OakWood, Macs Son, JohnDB, Reformed Baptist, 19Duggarfan, gray wolf, Qnts2 etc. would agree with this? No I wouldn't The universal church, as a concept, is those whom are God chosen in every generation, it's first members were Adam and Eve, and it included all the elect of the Old Testament, both pre Israel and during Israel's existence - however it was never all Israel, and it was never exclusively Israel. With the day of pentecost there come as shift in the focus, as the church becomes gentile dominated with a remnant of Israel also being chosen.

I am sorry but this is hogwash - the last occurrence was in August 2008 while the next occurrence will take place in August 2025

It's interesting because, "Church" isn't a translation of ekklessia. Of course it is, the fact that we translate ἐκκλησία as church other 110 in the NT demonstrates the fallacy of this type of reasoning. The term "church" is an English word that is used in the English speaking world to identify a concept that in Greek used the word ἐκκλησία and in Hebrew used the word עֵדָה that is how translation works - you take a word from the go to language that has the closest possible meaning to the term used in the original language. The two words do not have to have any etymological link, they just need to have semantic overlap in their respective languages. I am sorry but that is not the case. This what the on-line etymological dictionary has to say about the noun 'church' church (n.) Old English cirice, circe "church, public place of worship; Christians collectively," from Proto-Germanic *kirika (cognates: Old Saxon kirika, Old Norse kirkja, Old Frisianzerke, Middle Dutch kerke, Dutch kerk, Old High German kirihha, German Kirche), probably [see note in OED] from Greek kyriake (oikia), kyriakon doma "Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord," from PIE root *keue- "to swell" ("swollen," hence "strong, powerful"); see cumulus. Phonetic spelling from c.1200, established by 16c. For vowel evolution, see bury. As an adjective from 1570s. Greek kyriakon (adj.) "of the Lord" was used of houses of Christian worship since c.300, especially in the East, though it was less common in this sense than ekklesia orbasilike. An example of the direct Greek-to-Germanic progress of many Christian words, via the Goths; it probably was used by West Germanic people in their pre-Christian period. Or if you wonder about the credibility of an on-line source what about the MW Collegiate dict. (11th edition) 1church \ˈchərch\ noun [Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master; akin to Sanskrit śūra hero, warrior] before 12th century [Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.] No, and I am not surprised However, when we consider that 9unless i have missed it) you haven't given me a definition of the church as I asked, and also looking at the standards by which you have rejected what I have to say like the fallacy and the error highlighted above, and the fact that you have skimmed over so much of the case I have presented without much in the way of meaningful answers then can you be surprised that your words don't impress me much either. So, that puts us at an impasse my friend, and as I am not one for useless disputations maybe we should leave our discussion where it is for the time being

Where does the Bible offer that definition of the Church? You call it the accepted definition. Accepted by who? It might be accepted by some in certain denominations but to assume that it is THE definition accepted church-wide would be rather presumptuous. It might be the accepted view in your reformed circle, but you need to presume that everyone shares that view. My assertion is that this is how the term 'church' has been understood generally by the church all along, this has been the accepted definition/ understanding until the 19th century when it needed to be redefined by a small group of people so that they could make a rational distinction between the Israel of God and the Church of Christ so that they could divide the word of God and sustain any otherwise unsustainable hermeneutic of a pre-trib, pre mill rapture. As for the assumption that this view is limited to the reformed alone, might i suggest that you read some of the church father like Augustine on this matter!

Again, that cannot be answered until you define how you are using the term church. I would also have to challenge the standard of evidence you are demanding - what exactly would you accept as biblical proof? Bear in mind my friend that the word 'trinity' is never found in scripture either, but the concept of God being one, yet there being more then one who is God permeates scriptures, and from the pages of scriptures it is easy to discern that there are three persons who are all identified as being God - hence we have the doctrine of the trinity in scripture. What we need to understand then is the doctrine of the church as taught in scripture, now by my reckoning the word 'church' (in all forms) is found some 110 times in the NT and never in the old. The Greek term, ἐκκλησία is actually found 114 times - sometimes that word is just used to identify an ordering assembling of people. Now, what becomes immediately apparent as we look at the words used to describe the church in the NT most often the term refers to a local church - now quite obviously you wouldn't expect old testament Jews to be part of a local NT church. Now more interestingly there are times where the term church is not used of a local congregation, but of the whole body of believers, for example Matt 16:18. So, how would a first century Jew understand this term, that Jesus hasn't previously explained? I would suggest he would turn to the Old Testament to see what Jesus means when he says 'he will build his assembly' and in doing so they would discover the concept of God having an assembly in the old testament, see for example, Ex 12:6, Lev 4:14 (and about another 150 references) that this is what they understood becomes clear from references like Acts 7:38 "This is he who was in the congregation (ἐκκλησία) in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us," here Stephen refers to the church in the wilderness. Turning to the LXX we see that this term ἐκκλησία that Jesus Christ seems to have introduced is actually no introduction at all, for this is the word often used in the LXX to refer to the gathering together of God's people (some 102 times) What do we deduce from this quick study, well simply put, the term church is a transliteration of the Greek word ἐκκλησία and it is used primarily in reference to those gathered together as the people of God, either in a local congregation or in a more universal sense. Further more this was not a new term coined by the Lord Jesus Christ or the NT writers, but was rather a common Greek term used by the Jews in references to the assembly of God's people in the Old Testament. So actually with a little bit of legwork we see that the Old Testament people of God are actually referred to as 'the church' in the NT and also in the Greek version of the Old testament. "The Church" is not an OT concept. Of course there is no mention of the specific word 'church' in the OT, it would be anachronistic for one to expect there to be! However, as I have demonstrated linguistically, it appears that the concept was there, and must have been there, or else what both Jesus Christ and Stephen said without explanation would have been nonsense to everyone who heard - However it meant something to them because the concept was something that was familiar to them, just two references from the English translation of the LXX will suffice to make this clear: Deuteronomy 9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the Church. Deuteronomy 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the Church, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. I am sorry, but simply asserting something does not make it to be case. There are just so many references to the expansion of God's kingdom beyond the nation of Israel within the New Testament, The begin with God's promises to Abraham, "will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen 12:3 NKJ) In Jacob's live we see the God promising to make his descendent into a worshipping company, literally church of peoples, Gen 28:3 Then there are such prophecies as Is 42:1 and 49:6 that clearly speak of Messiah gathering the gentiles in. I will just quote Zech 2:11 "Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you." The church is an old testament concept, and the understanding that with the coming of the messiah there would be an explosion in it's population as the gentiles are gathered in to the church in a way that was previously unprecedented is also clearly foretold in the OT. I never said Acts 7:38 was teaching the doctrine of the church! I said it assumes the doctrine of the church. But then I suspect the reason for your rejection of this is your definition of the church, as opposed to the accepted definition of the church which is simply the one called out by God from every generation, tribe and tongue throughout time. Before Israel existed as a person there was a church - it's first members were Adam and Eve, for a time that church was largely restricted to one family, then one nation (Israel) but never exclusively so, then in the NT era the church enters into a new epoch of it's existence. So, of course, if you narrowly define the church by how it looks in that epoch you will struggle to find it anywhere but in that epoch - the question is can you justify that narrow definition from God's word? Indeed, but the point still stands that they understood what he was talking about when he referred to the word "church" it was a not a mystery to them that they begin to question, and remember that Jesus Christ is operating under the Old testament conditions and not the New - if the church is a mere New testament concept then Jesus Christ should not have been speaking about it in the way he did without further explanation. And yet if we follow through his words we see him continue to say that these are the ones the Christ came through, v5, and notice how he is clear that there is nothing spiritual adout this people at all, Romans 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. He then continue his line of thought with this, Romans 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, (NKJ) so, Isreal according to the flesh is not the Israel of God, that Israel is those who have faith That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. (Rom 9:8 NKJ) (compare with Gal 3) So Yes, Paul speaks of ethnic Israel in separate terms to the church because Ethnic Israel is not the seed of Abraham, and never has been, the seed of Abraham is those who live by faith, by they Jew or Gentile (otherwise known collectively as the church). So you keep saying, but shouting doesn't make the case you present more convincing my friend

Actually I would suggest whichever way one reads the passage might lead to a 'disturbing' conclusion. Some might be equally disturbed to by the idea that God would allow Samuel to be summoned back to this world by a medium. However maybe the bible is meant to be a disturbing book on occasions? There are potions of God's word that I do not find easy to read, parts of it that disturb me greatly - for example many of the parts that speak of the eternal judgement of sinners are quite disturbing especially as I consider those I love who are not yet saved! So, to get to my point, just because something is disturbing doesn't mean it is to be rejected! Furthermore, is it true that the Bible doesn't say it wasn't Samuel? I would agree that a simple reading of the text makes it appear that it is Samuel - but are there any clues in the text that might lead us to question that simple reading and investigate further? Eisegesis is certainly a problem, however interpreting scripture with scripture and applying the analogy of faith are hermeneutical necessities when it comes to understanding the word of God. God is not the author of confusion, so if there are more clear passages that say one thing, we must apply that understanding to passages that might be more difficult. The question therefore is, what does the Bible say about people coming back in this fashion, does it present it as a possibility? We are not told out right that it was not Samuel - but again are we being asked to 'do theology' here and look at it a little more deeply. As for my view, well I haven't said what my view is - in truth I don't actually believe the real identity of the 'apparition' is of great importance to the text at all - the passage seems to me to be focused upon the Saul's misdirected desperation and the hopeless misery of one abandoned by God.

Firstly, how can you demonstrate that Psalm 83 is a prophecy of the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Arab nations? If you insist on 'Israel' being a reference to the physical nation in existence today surely if you are going to be consistant you must also insist in the enemy being the confederacy of Edom, Ishmael, Moab, the Hagrites, Gebal, Ammon, Amalek, Philistia, Tyre and Assyria. Secondly, what has 2 Pet 3 9 got to do with this? The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2Pe 3:9 NKJ) There is so much assumption about what Peter is saying here! However to quickly trace the pronouns through Peter's words will clearly identify the 'us' and the 'all' he is referring to - and it isn't all people everywhere who have ever lived. No, peter is saying that God does not desire that of his people will perish. Which again, with just a few moments careful contemplation becomes quite obvious. Think about the following: (a) If Peter was saying that God doesn't want anyone at all to perish then God is not really that powerful, there are some who he wants to save but it is beyond to achieve their salvation, the end result of such thinking must be to conclude that in eternity to come God will be sad because some whom he wished to save have perished. (b) If God desires all people everywhere who have ever lived to be saved why does he allow so many to die having never heard the gospel and therefore having never had an opportunity to repent?

Again, that cannot be answered until you define how you are using the term church. I would also have to challenge the standard of evidence you are demanding - what exactly would you accept as biblical proof? Bear in mind my friend that the word 'trinity' is never found in scripture either, but the concept of God being one, yet there being more then one who is God permeates scriptures, and from the pages of scriptures it is easy to discern that there are three persons who are all identified as being God - hence we have the doctrine of the trinity in scripture. What we need to understand then is the doctrine of the church as taught in scripture, now by my reckoning the word 'church' (in all forms) is found some 110 times in the NT and never in the old. The Greek term, ἐκκλησία is actually found 114 times - sometimes that word is just used to identify an ordering assembling of people. Now, what becomes immediately apparent as we look at the words used to describe the church in the NT most often the term refers to a local church - now quite obviously you wouldn't expect old testament Jews to be part of a local NT church. Now more interestingly there are times where the term church is not used of a local congregation, but of the whole body of believers, for example Matt 16:18. So, how would a first century Jew understand this term, that Jesus hasn't previously explained? I would suggest he would turn to the Old Testament to see what Jesus means when he says 'he will build his assembly' and in doing so they would discover the concept of God having an assembly in the old testament, see for example, Ex 12:6, Lev 4:14 (and about another 150 references) that this is what they understood becomes clear from references like Acts 7:38 "This is he who was in the congregation (ἐκκλησία) in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us," here Stephen refers to the church in the wilderness. Turning to the LXX we see that this term ἐκκλησία that Jesus Christ seems to have introduced is actually no introduction at all, for this is the word often used in the LXX to refer to the gathering together of God's people (some 102 times) What do we deduce from this quick study, well simply put, the term church is a transliteration of the Greek word ἐκκλησία and it is used primarily in reference to those gathered together as the people of God, either in a local congregation or in a more universal sense. Further more this was not a new term coined by the Lord Jesus Christ or the NT writers, but was rather a common Greek term used by the Jews in references to the assembly of God's people in the Old Testament. So actually with a little bit of legwork we see that the Old Testament people of God are actually referred to as 'the church' in the NT and also in the Greek version of the Old testament.

I am butting in also. You have 4 different so called definitions of Israel. 1. Jacob was renamed Israel, and the children of Jacob are called the children of Israel, or Israel as a short hand term So you agree that sometimes the noun 'Isreal' יִשְׂרָאֵל refers to a person on some occasions, like Gen 32:28 Actually גּוֹי has a far more nuanced meaning then that it can be used to described the heathen nations generally in contrast to the people of God, it can even be used to discribe a swarm of locusts (see CHALOT for example) Now you may be right in regards to what you say about the Bible always putting the words 'land of' or 'terrority of' before the term 'Isreal' when it is speaking specifically of the land and not the nation - however that still means that the term 'Israel' when qualified in certain ways refers to the land the people were living in. Ok, even if you daigree with me on the last one (as I suspect you will ) we still have agreement that sometime the Bible is referring to a person and sometimes the Bible is referring to the nation that has come from that person - so that gives us at least two different ways the Bible uses the noun Israel, it can refer to an individual man, or it can refer to a whole people, race, nation correct? Hence one must define what one means by the term 'Israel' before we can discuss the churches relationship to that entity! What then is the distinction that Paul makes in Rom 9:6 then when he says, For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, both 'Israel's cannot be referring to the physical nation can they - that wouldn't make any sense, Reading on we see that the children of the flesh (ie the physical descendants of Abraham) are not the children of God but rather it is the children of promise who are the children of God, v8, Gal 3:7 makes it clear that it is those who believe who are Abraham's true descendent - so, yes the Scriptures do use the term Israel to refer a spiritual people or nation. Now again, regardless of whether you agree with me or not we have still seen that one needs to carefully define their terms to stop people talking past each other. Different theological perspectives invest different meanings into terms, and then too often they seek to force those meanings upon how others are using those terms and that, in turn, leads to the creation of straw man arguments and people talking past each other - that is the only point I am seeking to make here! Before we can meaningfully discuss what the relationship between the church and Israel is, we need to know what we are talking, or how we are defining those terms - if we do not do that there is absolutely no point in discussing each others views!

Four reasons why Paul’s concerns in Romans 11 are present and not future focused. The first reason is found in verse 1: I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Note how Paul answers his own question, “has God cast away His people?” He does not answer, “May it never be! For do you not know that in the millennium God will restore Israel to her former glory?” No, rather in answer to his own question ,‘Has God cast away his people?’ Paul identifies himself as current proof that God’s purposes for Israel are being realized in the present time. Paul is saying it is not the case that God has entirely rejected Israel, rather he stills has a plan for Israel, and Paul himself was the living evidence of that plan – he does not point to the future but the present. Secondly we notice that Romans 11 focuses on God’s present intentions for Israel when we consider v5: “Even so then, at this present timethere is a remnant according to the election of grace. (Rom 11:5 NKJ).” Notice particularly the phrase “at this present time” . Clearly these two references in v1 and 5 set this first paragraph of Romans 11 in the present age that Paul is writing in. I would contend that this concern with Israel’s present salvation continues into the next pericope (it must as Paul doesn't switch his language from talking about the present), which provides the third reason. V13-14 say “For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. (Rom 11:13 NKJ).” Paul’s most earnest desire is that by his present ministry among the Gentiles he might see the salvation of his kinsmen according to the flesh. Is that not what he saying? Is it not readily apparent that by his current ministry to the gentiles he is expecting to see Jews moved to jealousy when they see Gentile believers sharing in the blessings of the messianic kingdom? Fourth, the concluding paragraph (v30-32) emphasises the fact that the entire chapter is oriented not toward a future hope but a present expectation. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also havenow been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Rom 11:30 NKJ) Notice those ‘now’s in these concluding verses, they indicate that Paul’s emphasis on the present responsiveness of Israel and not a future response from them in another age. Now Romans 11:26 in more detail Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved1, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; (Rom 11:26 NKJ) Or if you read Greek καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, καθὼς γέγραπται• ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ. I am amazed by how people import the word ‘then’ into this verse. It changes the whole meaning of the text, shifting the focus to a future event that applies to the nation of Israel alone. However Paul does not say ‘then’, he says ‘so’ οὕτως – Paul is doing nothing more than summarising what he has said already – he is actually saying that the way God’s Israel will be gathered in will be by the process of the grafting of the gentiles into the olive tree that provokes a remnant of Jews to jealousy. How else do we understand the words "so/thus/ therefore"? That's kind of straining at a gnat, more like man's seminary philosophy than the simple flow of that Rom.11 chapter. Maybe you would like to read my subsequent post, and if you questions are not answered in that post then I will be happy to address them. That is not what I am saying, and in truth there is no way my words should be interpreted in that fashion. the position I am presenting is properly understood as a historicist position - that means Paul's present tense explanation is still in force, i.e. still occurring today. It will go on until all the the gentile are gathered in, that will be the point in when when all Israel will also have been saved - Paul is entirely silent in regards to what happens after that in Romans 11 as I have explained in some detail already

Man, you are so wrong about that... Eph.2:11-13 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Who doesn't know that "commonwealth of Israel" is about peoples from all nations that have believed on Jesus Christ? That is... Christ's Church! A commonwealth is especially what Christ's Church is about, as all members inherit together. Do you believe the Church is Israel? I might be butting in where I am not wanted -but hey ho! I think before such a question can be answered you need to define what you mean by Israel - off the top of my head I can think of at least 4 different ways the Bible uses that term, to which are you referring, a single person, a land, a physical nation or a spiritual nation. It would also be helpful if you carefully define what you mean by church - my understanding of that term is 'all those who God has gathered out of the world in very age to be a people unto himself' but I suspect yours is different to mine I know that I for one could never hope to answer your question without establishing clear definitions first because the risk of talking across each other is just too great as our meanings become lost upon the other person because of our own personal theological frameworks.

The Bible reports what Saul understood to be happening. We must remember that Saul never lied eyes upon the apparition - look at v14 where he asks the witch to describe the person she sees. there we are told that Saul 'perceived' that it was Samuel - Saul never saw the person, only the which did. This is a difficult text that cannot be answered as simply as the bible says it was Samuel therefore it was Samuel - for that to be the case one needs to establish that the Bible is not just recounting the story through the eye of the beholder.

The solution is an easy one, the church which is the bride of Christ will be married to to Christ Jesus who is the bridegroom - we want have time to worrying about who were married to in this life, we will be too busy adoring Christ Jesus to worry about such trivial matters

Those who believe that the amillennial or post millennial theological position presents such a notion have swallowed their own straw man! As for Zech 8:23 anyone can just throw out a scripture, but a proof text without a context is merely a pretext and such efforts only serve to weaken the position of the one making the argument. Zech 8:23 is as yet unfulfilled scripture. No straw man here! Tell me at any point in history where this has happened before. I never said that you were using a straw man in regards to you employment of Zech 8:23 I said that these words are a straw man. They are built upon the a priori assumption that unless one agrees with your interpretation of God's future plan for Israel then said person must not have any notion of God have any future plan for Israel. It is a strawman because it does not allow the person to frame their theology in the context of their theology, but seeks to force them to use your definitions to phrase their theology. Of course God has a plan for the Jews, the new heavens and the new earth will be filled with Jews who have been saved by grace, it will also be populated by Gentiles who have also been saved by grace - just because I find no reference in scripture to God bringing in a whole generation of the Jews in one go does not mean that God I am saying God has no plan for Israel. In relation to Zech 8:23 I challenged you to establish a context for the verse so that it can properly be understood, rather then do that you have responded to a challenge with a question, rather then an answer. Well, here is the verse in immediate context: Zechariah 8:20 "Thus says the LORD of hosts:`Peoples shall yet come, Inhabitants of many cities; 21 The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, "Let us continue to go and pray before the LORD, And seek the LORD of hosts. I myself will go also." 22 Yes, many peoples and strong nations Shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, And to pray before the LORD.' 23 "Thus says the LORD of hosts:`In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."'" Notice firstly my friend, that the prophecy is all about the gathering in of the nations, and it's focus is not upon the Jewish man but rather upon the desire of those from the other nations to find God. They want to go along with the Jews who are being saved so that they might also be saved. Now notice the ratio of 10:1 this prophecy refers to a period when many gentiles will being gathered into Jerusalem whilst relatively few Jews are being gathered in. Now, if we abandon the assumption that this cannot possible be a reference to the spiritual Jerusalem, but must indicate the physical city of Jerusalem (i.e. if we take on board Heb 12:22-24) we see clearly that Zechariah was being pointed to the gospel age when Jew and gentile would be gathered in, so you ask if this has been fulfilled, and I respond by saying it is being fulfilled even today through that interplay between gentile and Jewish conversions that Paul so eloquently spells out in Romans 11. Feel free to disagree with me, but if you do it some counter exposition of the text would be really helpful to me

I didn't skip the phrase, or at least not intentionally. And I believe it is Rom 11:25 () Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο, ἵνα μὴ ἦτε [παῤ] ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι, ὅτι πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ The word ἄχρι is a temporal preposition as such it's linguistic function is to express the relationship betweens words or clauses in the sentence, the sense of the word conveys is the continuous extent of time up to a specific point (See Louw-Nida 67.119) - the best way to understand this word is to translate it 'as far as' for actually the word itself carries no implication that anything will happen after it. In context ἄχρι it does not function as pointing one forward to a future event, rather it functions as pointing towards when the current event will stop - which will be when all the gentiles have been gathered in. Paul then follows this up with καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, καθὼς γέγραπται· ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ. which as I have already explained can be understood as 'then all Israel will be saved' it means 'so' or 'thus'. Paul's language here is incredibly awkward if he is meaning to imply a future actions after the gentiles have been gathered in, I am reading it in a far more natural way. I would also suggest that if this is the case one has to establish from elsewhere that there is a period of time after the gentiles have been gathered in for this event to occur, having done that one would have demonstrate the proper exegetical hooks to link what Paul is saying here with that time line one has established elsewhere and there are no such hooks in this text. I have read many attempts to link this to a supposed time line from Rev 20 for example - but those attempts always rely on supposition rather then sound exegesis. Now moving on σωθήσεται is future tense, that doesn't mean the actions has to occur in the future, especially not when linked with the indicative mood, rather it is simply stating a fact of occurrence. The voice is passive, meaning the salvation that has occurred for all Israel is not a result of their own action. So this leads me to conclude that Paul is saying 'at that point in time, when all the gentiles have been gathered in, all Israel will also have been saved' this is the only sense in which these words can be considered futuristic as Paul is looking forward to the completion of the current actions of God that he is addressing. Now, I might be wrong in my understanding - I suppose it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the grammar and syntax here are awkward but if you put these words in front of first century Koine Greek reader who had no background and no pressuppositions to frame his grasp of the meaning I am pretty certain he would read it as I do

It is ok for me to use the word 'run' in regards to an action I have performed to catch the bus, but does not mean it is in appropriate for me to usethe word 'run' in relation to what my nose does when I have a cold. I don't mean to be critical but sadly with the proliferation of software tools and the internet people have access to tools that they do not understand how to us. A single word can never be understood in isolation, context is paramount, and not just in regards to grammar, but also in regards to syntax - how doe the words (voices, gender, tenses) around the word influence the semantic range of the term? In posting the question as you have you made it impossible to answer adequately,

Four reasons why Paul’s concerns in Romans 11 are present and not future focused. The first reason is found in verse 1: I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Note how Paul answers his own question, “has God cast away His people?” He does not answer, “May it never be! For do you not know that in the millennium God will restore Israel to her former glory?” No, rather in answer to his own question ,‘Has God cast away his people?’ Paul identifies himself as current proof that God’s purposes for Israel are being realized in the present time. Paul is saying it is not the case that God has entirely rejected Israel, rather he stills has a plan for Israel, and Paul himself was the living evidence of that plan – he does not point to the future but the present. Secondly we notice that Romans 11 focuses on God’s present intentions for Israel when we consider v5: “Even so then, at this present timethere is a remnant according to the election of grace. (Rom 11:5 NKJ).” Notice particularly the phrase “at this present time” . Clearly these two references in v1 and 5 set this first paragraph of Romans 11 in the present age that Paul is writing in. I would contend that this concern with Israel’s present salvation continues into the next pericope (it must as Paul doesn't switch his language from talking about the present), which provides the third reason. V13-14 say “For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. (Rom 11:13 NKJ).” Paul’s most earnest desire is that by his present ministry among the Gentiles he might see the salvation of his kinsmen according to the flesh. Is that not what he saying? Is it not readily apparent that by his current ministry to the gentiles he is expecting to see Jews moved to jealousy when they see Gentile believers sharing in the blessings of the messianic kingdom? Fourth, the concluding paragraph (v30-32) emphasises the fact that the entire chapter is oriented not toward a future hope but a present expectation. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also havenow been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (Rom 11:30 NKJ) Notice those ‘now’s in these concluding verses, they indicate that Paul’s emphasis on the present responsiveness of Israel and not a future response from them in another age. Now Romans 11:26 in more detail Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved1, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; (Rom 11:26 NKJ) Or if you read Greek καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, καθὼς γέγραπται• ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ. I am amazed by how people import the word ‘then’ into this verse. It changes the whole meaning of the text, shifting the focus to a future event that applies to the nation of Israel alone. However Paul does not say ‘then’, he says ‘so’ οὕτως – Paul is doing nothing more than summarising what he has said already – he is actually saying that the way God’s Israel will be gathered in will be by the process of the grafting of the gentiles into the olive tree that provokes a remnant of Jews to jealousy. How else do we understand the words "so/thus/ therefore"?

Those who believe that the amillennial or post millennial theological position presents such a notion have swallowed their own straw man! As for Zech 8:23 anyone can just throw out a scripture, but a proof text without a context is merely a pretext and such efforts only serve to weaken the position of the one making the argument.

Yet Jesus said to his disciples, John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments." if there is no active effort on the part of the individual to do the will of God in our daily lives, in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, that person does not love him!

Christians will sin till the day they die - for anything that is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23) it is only in the resurrection that we are raised to incorruption.

Have your sins washed clean in the blood of the lamb, and are you living for him? Only you can answer those questions, but if your answer is 'no' that means you are not yet saved!