Ro 11:20-21

[Guest shiloh357]

Can a man be saved by a a faith that is not justified? I have no idea what you mean by justifying our faith.

What is unjustified faith?

Our works justify Or "affirm" our faith, or more accurately they justify our profession of faith in the sight of man.

You are making the error ignoring the context of James.

Paul in Romans 3 discusses our justification before God. We are declared rightesous before God because the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us on the basis of our faith in Christ. That sets us in rightstanding before God. Romans 4:24-25 teaches us that our righteousness is, for the time being, imputed to us. We are not yet MADE righteous; it is simply credited to our account. We will not be MADE righteous until sin is eradicated and we are living in our resurrected bodies. Paul is making a doctrinal argument regarding the doctine of justification.

James, on the other hand, is not referencing the doctrine of justification. He uses the word justification for an entirely different purpose than Paul did. James is talking about our faith in the sight of men and how our works evidence and "justify" our claim to faith. Our faith should produce corresponding actions that agree with our testimony. Abraham's faith was justified and Rahab's faith was justified by what they did. We are seen as righteous in the sight of men when our works and our testimony agree.

Paul is talking about being delcared righteous in the presence of God. James is talking about being seen as righteous in the sight of men. Two completely different contexts and two completely different usages of the word "Justify." Paul's usage is doctrinal and Godward. James' usage is practical and is manward.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Once again!

I'll number the responses so you can return for future edification!!

1)"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Without grace we cannot be saved. We are not capable of saving ourselves through works alone. This does not say that dead faith, ie. a faith without any visible impact on our behavior, will save us.

That's not what I asked. You're interjecting your fallible opinion.

Does it, or does it not say that it is by grace through faith that we are saved, that such is the gift of God and that is not by works?

Of course without grace we cannot be saved. But it doesn’t say that we are not capable of saving ourselves by faith alone.

What it says is that you have been saved by grace, through faith, not by works – and that being saved by grace through faith is a gift, it is not by works. That’s what it says, and if there were any doubt if the gift is the grace or the salvation, we see in Romans 6:23 that “the gift of God is eternal life.”

You’re again trying to spin it to suggest the verse says something it doesn’t say. You’re talking about how you think of the verse by contradicting the actual words in the verse.

I agree that a dead faith won’t save us, because God is the God of the living and a dead faith is one in which someone knows who God is and what Jesus has done for them, but pays only lip service to the faith. Even the demons believe, and tremble.

Once again, faith is not a magic trick. We can’t have faith without humility and repentance, but we clearly see that faith is not a work, and the works don’t save us, because by grace through faith, not from works, we are saved, and that is not of ourselves it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast.

You’re interpretation is simply a denial of what the words express.

Keep reading in Ephesians and you will find:

A) Sin can give the Devil a foothold:

Eph 4

25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold.

B) Clear enough?

Clear enough for what?

It doesn’t say sin can make you forgo your salvation, it says it can give the devil a foothold.

A foothold is something on which someone on the outside can cling.

The devil is our adversary and we are at war with him, as we see two chapters later in Ephesians 6:11-18). We are besieged by him and leave vulnerabilities to his attacks if we sin.

See what you’re doing here? You’re making an untenable inference and trusting in the inference that you interject into a passage, over the straightforward commandment of another passage.

When you read scripture, you have to believe the words you read and use them to interpret metaphors.

You can’t use your own subjective interpretation of the passages and take what they don’t say to colour over what the words do say.

In Ephesians 4, it does not say that we are saved by works, it does not say that grace is the gift not eternal life, it does not say that we can lose our salvation, it does not say anything of the sort. It says that if you sin you can leave a foothold for the devil.

Now, take what it does say (that if you sin it can leave a foothold for the devil) and take that, and only that – without the bias of the subjective assumptions of what you think that implies, and take that part over to Ephesians 2:8-9 and let’s look at them together:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

“In your anger do not sin: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold” (Ephesians 4:26-27).

So, what do we see here? Do we see that Ephesians 4 qualifies that in Ephesians 2 that the gift is grace and not salvation? No, nothing of the sort.

Do we see that by grace through faith not by works actually does require works for salvation? No, nothing of the sort.

Do we see that by grace through faith we are saved, it is the gift of God and is not by works, but we should not sin and give the devil a foothold because (as we see in Ephesians 6) we are in a battle with this present darkens and have to be armoured against the schemes of the devil? Yes, that’s the one.

You see, you can’t just assert that the plain meaning of scripture is our flawed interpretation, so therefore you can read anything into it that you want. Objectively it says what it says and means what it means and what it says is something you’re denying under the flimsy pretense of differing in your interpretation:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Eph 5

3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

2) "to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).

and

3)this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" (Romans 11:5-6).

Paul is talking about the Jewish Law, not obedience to God. Note:

Romans 4:13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

Paul clarifies here:

1 Cor 7:19

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

Gal 5:6

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

James agrees:

James 2:20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

This jumbled mess is simply incoherent. Can you please take another stab at it and we’ll see if I can wade through and find your argument?

Thanks.

The Christian life is summed up here:

Romans 12

1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spirituala act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

A sentiment with which, of course, I entirely agree and which does nothing to reinforce your position or weaken mine.So where is your response to the other two verses?

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

I put it to you, does that or does it not say the gift of God is eternal life?

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many" (Romans 5:15).

I put it to you, does that or does it not say the gift is by grace?

Once these two verses are considered, they sweep away the other subjective opinions with which you’re attempting to contaminating the other passage.

Instead of continuing to derail this thread, what would you say to taking this to the soapbox debate forum and we'll hash this out there?

As I said, you can’t just run off to other passage, ignoring the ones which are a problem for you, pull those passages out of context, and then ascribe meaning to the passages that’s not even found when you rip them from their context.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

This illustrates what I said earlier about about Catholics and exegesis. Even a cursory reading of James chapter two will reveal that James is talking about our works justifying our faith. It is not us being justified, but our faith, or to be more accurate our testimony of faith. Our works justify or "affirm" our faith in the sight of men. We are justified by faith only in the sight of God.

Can a man be saved by a a faith that is not justified? I have no idea what you mean by justifying our faith.

What is unjustified faith?

James 2

21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

James is addressed to believers and therefore presupposes their salvation, and chapter 2 is not a treatment on how to obtain salvation.

James 2 does not say "A man is saved by works because faith without works is dead", but Ephesians 2:8-9 does say "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

One specifies how we are saved, it is the gift of God which we know from Romans is eternal life, and that is not of works.

The other makes no mention of salvation explicitly.

So once again, you have to accept the actual words of the Bible and use those to fill in the inferences you make about other passages which overlap but are not expressly dealing with the same topic.

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" (Isaiah 28:9-10).

[mizzdy]

No it doesn't make us gentile Israel. It means that the prophesied time of the Gentiles wherein the nations will put their trust in God has come.

The prophecised time of the gentiles spoken of in Romans is the promise birthright of Ephraim in Genesis 48:19, the mulititudes spoken of there can be seen to mean fulness. We read where Israel/Ephraim were cut off in unbelief, given a certificate of divorce and cast into the nations for idolatry. I see these guys as the natural branch that was broken off and when they come to their senses, come back to Him in full trust/faith and teshuvah, they along with the millions of 'companions' or gentiles will be grafted back into that tree and will be called Israel.

Yes and that was for that covenant, which Jesus fulfilled were the Law of Moses could not, "When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Matt 2:13-15).

More often than not there are dual fulfillments to prophecy. Israel is called Gods first born He went and took that son out of Egypt also. I don't see what you mean but Yeshua fulfilled were the law of Moses could not, (its Gods law not Moses even if we summarize it in the scriptures that way). The law was never meant for salvation, ever! it was not intended to be a subsitute for Him, its intention was to show the Israelites their need for order, for a God in their lives, for a Savior, for walking in a pleasing manner before God, to learn to live correctly with those in the body as well as those outside of it. But never for salvation.

We do have to bear in mind that God made promises to the physical descendants of Abraham, and He is and always will be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and will come back to save all of Israel according to Romans 11, but we do read that the "promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ" (Gal. 3:16).

The promises to Abram came long before God cut that covenant with Him, the promises made to Abraham was that he would be the father of many nations, that God would be his shield, that through his seed all will be heirs to the promise. And we now that if we are in Yeshua we are also Abrahams seed, right? Abraham's descendants are promised to be more numerous than the stars or sands in the sea. By being grafted into the body/tree of Israel we also will be part of the physical promises to Abrahams descendants. Gal. 3:16 is speaking about the faith of Abraham that it was his faith that sealed the covenant in the first place, God spoke Abraham did without question if we really examine it Abraham was the first person who entered into that promise covenant where the heart is circumcised and the commandments written on his heart.

We don't supersede the covenant of Abraham, but we are included in its spiritual fulfillment, "Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all" (Romans 4:16), "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

I do not believe they are 'spiritual' promises nor 'spiritual fulfillments' but physical ones. Forgive me but it seems as if your jumping around with the physical, spiritual and I am having a hard time following which it is you think Abrahams seed and covenant is with. The promise of Abrahams covenant is physical, faith is not 'spiritual' nor is the idea of being his descendant. No doubt we are all in this together all must confess His name, puth their full trust/faith in Him. We are either included physically or not at all.

The passage in Romans 11 does not say we will be a separate people - in fact just the opposite, as we're grafted in, but it is the faithful of the Gentiles being grafted unnaturally into the root among the faithful of Israel, representing the covenants spoken of in the above passages.

God has never saved the unfaithful, either in the Nation of Israel or in the elect Gentiles according to faith, "And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you" (Matt 7:21-23). Notice it doesn't say, 'I no longer know you', or 'I knew you once but not now', but "I never knew you".

I see Romans a bit differently than you do I guess. If the gentiles are grafted into the tree of Israel they are Israel, if you adopt a child does that child remain someone elses child? does that child still get to follow the rules from before? Grafted in means you are now a full fledge member into whatever one is adopted into, an adopted child does not reap the benefits of any agreements unless that child is a full participent in said agreement. If we are grafted in, we are active members and reap the blessing and curses of that family we are adopted into especially if we have agreed with the head of that covenant. Grafted into Israel means that is what God calls you, Israel, not gentiles who are 'spiritually Israel and enjoys the spiritual benefits' but full members who abide by the house rules.

We see in Hebrews it was always and only the faithful who were truely God's people. The unfaithful would never have been branches if the topic were salvation, but being cut off and grafted in is not a reference to individual salvation but of the covenants of Abraham verses the New Covenant of Christ during the prophesied time when the nations would put their trust in the Messiah until the fulness of the Gentiles be complete, and then all of Israel will turn back to God, according to Romans 11.

No God is not in the business of giving unrepentant people rewards period. National Israel was cut off, the northern kingdom was scattered into the nations of the world, cut off from the blessings of God but if they come back in with full teshuvah He welcomes them with open arms just as He does when a gentile forgoes idolatry and sin and gives their hearts and lives to Him. Hebrews is not about getting rid of one people and setting up another. Gentiles have always been welcomed in His family and those who refuse to live by His rules are cut off from Him at the day of His return. Hebrews, Romans, etc. are all holding up Abraham showing us that it is by faith alone, faith came first before any covenant and that is who YHWH wants from us to come to Him in full trust so He can refine us and create in us the people that we are meant to be. God kept unfaithful people in His family until the temple fell in 70 AD, His patience is so overwhelming but by this we know there is a point He must cut off even those He loves but will not be obedient to His instructions, to Him.

Sorry to cut you off, but please bear in mind that Jesus fulfilled prophesies in Hosea. He was the Son whom God called out of Egypt who succeeded where the Law needed fulfillment.

Hosea is all about Israel, how God had a bride who became unfaithful, how He judges them and cut them off and withdrew His love for them and the relationship sunk to nothing. God gives them up to their idolatry but as we see in Hosea He buys them back with the blood of Yeshua. I still don't understand what you mean by the 'law needed fulfillment'. The Torah, law, commmandments are not a covenant. Yeshua was the blood that would redeem mankind back to God undo what Adam did, that blood made way for God to call back His wayward bride. As you can read in Hosea its all about Ephraim/Israel and not a body of gentiles and those that come along with them these are the genitles, Israel and Judahs companions. After all when we read about who Yeshua Himself said He came for is the lost sheep of Israel and opened the way for gentiles to recieve Him through faith.

Notice all throughout Romans 9-11, whenever Israel is mentioned it refers specifically to the Nation corporately, or rather "the children by physical descent" of Abraham. Notice specifically in Romans 11 it says "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious" (Romans 11:11). Who here is Israel? It must be the Nation corporately, since it's in reference to stumbling, and is contrasted by the salvation offered the Gentiles.

All throughout Chapter 11 we see the Nation of Israel (defined but simply called Israel) clearly differentiated from the elect by grace (all believers, Jew and Gentile alike), so as I'm sure you're careful not to do, we have to be careful not to spiritualize all reference to Israel made in the NT.

No not 'making Israel spiritual' at all, I see them as physical beings and I am grafted into that tree called Israel. There is not two different salvation avenues, not one for 'national' Israel and one for the gentiles. There is no covenant with gentiles only with Israel and Judah and their companions. Israel spoken of here are those of the northern kingdom who are cut off for idolatry, Israel spoken here is Israel in unbelief, there are natural branches still left on that tree called Israel otherwise there wouldn't be a tree called Israel for gentiles to be grafted into. In verse 26 of chpt 11 of Romans shows that Yeshua would come from Zion, turn ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take their away their sins'. Does this mean Jacob is the only one to have their sins taken away? If we claim the new covenant that we are under it who are you from, Israel or Judah or one of the companions? And the this covenant is not in full effect now anyhow. Romans is showing that even after God cut off His own from the tree that if they teshuvah and confess the name of Yeshua they are grafted back in just as we are grafted into believing Israel's tree. Remember also that not all those who crossed the Jordan were not all of Israel by birth either, Caleb was a descendant of Esua I believe. Its was a mixed multitude to begin with and its a mixed multitude who will be on their knees when He comes again too.

That's the point, we're not separate - we're grafted in, but apparently with still recognizable to God as unnatural branches on some level "for God is able to graft them [the Nation of Israel] in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!" (Romans 11: 23-24).

Yes just as unbelieveing idol worshipping Ephraim/Israel was cut off for idolatry so will the unnatural gentile branches, God is pretty specific when He says 'Do these things and I will be your God but fail to do these things and I will cut you off' paraphrased of course. So we are being told that if we as gentiles grafted into Israels tree do not do the things God tells us to do He will cut us off and say to us 'I never knew you'. Israel, Judah, gentiles all who come to Him will remain in that tree unless they continue in their sins and refuse to do His will, thats what Romans is saying.

God is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. He only identifies Himself as aligned with one nation, and does so frequently, and that nation is Israel, with whom He has an everlasting covenant. He prophesied that there would be a time of the Gentiles in which Israel would remain in a state of unbelief, until that time be complete and then all Israel will be turn to God:

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number 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 turn godlessness away from Jacob.

And this is my covenant with them

when I take away their sins.”

If we believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob doesn't that make us part of them? If He only identifies Himself with one nation are we not Israel? are we not also part of that covenant? You already said that gentiles are not separate so how do you fit gentiles in? Yes Israel has been blinded 'in part', gentiles were pagans who were blinded period until the Spirit feels the stirring in their hearts and guides them to His word. Frankly and yes I will go out on a limb here, lol tree limb! lol and say that I see Judah/Jews are blinded to Yeshua and the 'church' is blinded to the Torah and those two will come together right before He comes again or at least the start of the restoration will have happened. The gentiles coming into the covenant is what is supposed to provoke Israel and Judah into jealousy and hopefully back into their tree. We are Gods through the blood of His Son, we are Gods through the promises containted in the covenant, if we are not in covenant with Him we are outside of His body.

Sorry it took a few days to get back to you but we had the worst infiltration of ants ever! their like little nazis never stopping or giving in!!! We discovered one trail going up the side of our house that was over 2 inches wide!! Anyhow don't worry about getting back to me I probably won't get back here till next Monday at the earliest.

shalom,

Mizz

[Guest shiloh357]

The prophecised time of the gentiles spoken of in Romans is the promise birthright of Ephraim in Genesis 48:19, the mulititudes spoken of there can be seen to mean fulness.

That is not true. Ephraim is NEVER used of Gentile nations in Scripture. It is not referring to “nations” in the sense of sovereign nations. Otherwise we would have to basically conclude that every Gentile is potentially a descendent of Ephraim and that is absurd and untenable.

We read where Israel/Ephraim were cut off in unbelief, given a certificate of divorce and cast into the nations for idolatry.

Really and how was Judah in any less unbelief? You cannot apply the olive tree metaphor to the Israel/Ephraim issue. Both Israel and Judah were taken into captivity and most of Judah did not return to the Land, but only a small minority. The rest of Judah is as equally dispersed among the nations as Ephraim. I would point that that those in Israel for Pentecost were Jews who hailed from 16 different nations as listed in Acts 2:5-11.

I see these guys as the natural branch that was broken off and when they come to their senses, come back to Him in full trust/faith and teshuvah, they along with the millions of 'companions' or gentiles will be grafted back into that tree and will be called Israel.

The natural branches are those physical descendent of Jacob. They are not a single branch. You cannot apply the olive tree metaphor to the Israel/Ephraim issue. You are, evidently, coming at this from the Two-House theology which a false “messianic” theology. The olive tree metaphor is not about the reunification of Epharaim and Judah. That is a very, very poor handling of that text. You are reading something into the text that is not there. “Israel” in NT is always used as a reference to all twelve tribes or it is used as a reference to Land itself. It is NEVER used to refer simply to the northern kingdoms.

The promises to Abram came long before God cut that covenant with Him, the promises made to Abraham was that he would be the father of many nations, that God would be his shield, that through his seed all will be heirs to the promise. And we now that if we are in Yeshua we are also Abrahams seed, right? Abraham's descendants are promised to be more numerous than the stars or sands in the sea. By being grafted into the body/tree of Israel we also will be part of the physical promises to Abrahams descendants. Gal. 3:16 is speaking about the faith of Abraham that it was his faith that sealed the covenant in the first place, God spoke Abraham did without question if we really examine it Abraham was the first person who entered into that promise covenant where the heart is circumcised and the commandments written on his heart.

This is not wholly accurate. Gentile believers do not receive the physical promises made to Abraham’s descendents. Gentiles believers for example, do not receive the Land. Being grafted into the olive tree has nothing to do with being the seed of Abraham. That is a separate issue. You are the seed of Abraham through Christ, not through being grafted in to the places of blessing.

Gal 3:16 is referencing this:

And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

(Gen 22:15-18)

The context of Gal. 3 is about our spiritual inheritance. It was about the promise made to Abraham about the Gentiles being justified by faith saying, “in you shall all the nations of the world be blessed.” (Ga. 3:8). The context is spiritual, not physical.

I do not believe they are 'spiritual' promises nor 'spiritual fulfillments' but physical ones. Forgive me but it seems as if your jumping around with the physical, spiritual and I am having a hard time following which it is you think Abrahams seed and covenant is with. The promise of Abrahams covenant is physical, faith is not 'spiritual' nor is the idea of being his descendant. No doubt we are all in this together all must confess His name, puth their full trust/faith in Him. We are either included physically or not at all.

Blessings to the physical descendents of Abraham are physical namely the Land and to be numerous. Yet they have spiritual component if we factor in the fact that God will bless the nations through Abraham. Gentiles are not physically included in the Abrahamic covenant. There is nothing in the NT to support that conclusion.

Biblical covenants build upon each preceding one. The New Covenant rests upon the previous covenants including the Abrahamic Covenant. In fact the New Covenant most closely resembles the Abrahamic Covenant.

I see Romans a bit differently than you do I guess. If the gentiles are grafted into the tree of Israel they are Israel,

That is incorrect. Nowhere does the NT refer to Gentile believers as Israel and in Paul’s metaphor, he never makes that assertion. You are applying a form human reasoning to arrive at that conclusion.

if you adopt a child does that child remain someone elses child? Grafted in means you are now a full fledge member into whatever one is adopted into, an adopted child does not reap the benefits of any agreements unless that child is a full participent in said agreement.

Grafting in cannot be compared to adoption. A child is adopted not according to its own will but the will of the adoptive parents. We become children of God by our willingness to accept Christ as Savior by faith. Grafting in is not a metaphor for salvation. It is the result of salvation, not salvation, itself.

If we are grafted in, we are active members and reap the blessing and curses of that family we are adopted into especially if we have agreed with the head of that covenant. Grafted into Israel means that is what God calls you, Israel, not gentiles who are 'spiritually Israel and enjoys the spiritual benefits' but full members who abide by the house rules.

Once again, that is just wrong. Gentile believers are not adopted into Israel. That is not a biblical concept.

If we believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob doesn't that make us part of them? If He only identifies Himself with one nation are we not Israel? are we not also part of that covenant?

No, no and no. Where does it say that God identifies with only one nation?

[Shiloh62]

Respons to Shiloh. Your comments are numbered:

1) Actually the Bible says we are saved by grace. We are justified by faith alone.

We are saved by grace through faith and works of obedience.

James 2:24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

2) That is not true. The RCC places bible study on the lowest rung when it comes to their approach to the Bible. You rely MORE on the teachings of the Magisterium and on what you call "sacred tradition."

The bible is part of sacred Tradition. You only know which books belong in the New Testament because of Catholic Tradition. For 2000 years Catholics have spent their entire lives studying scripture and tradition. Catholics believe the bible is the word of God. You rely on your own fallible interpretation of scripture, which is no more reliable than the next guy. Catholics rely on the promises of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit over 2000 years of their consistent and faithful journey.

3) We are to be holy because He is holy. We are not striving to be holy in order to qualify for salvation. It is the sanctification that He has worked in us that is behind the commandment to be holy in all that we do and say.

That's not what the bible says:

Heb 12:14

Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

1 Cor 9:27

No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?

1 Tim 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

Philippians 3:12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.

Romans 8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

OK, sorry about that. I was just trying to paraphrase it into modern language.

[mizzdy]

That is not true. Ephraim is NEVER used of Gentile nations in Scripture. It is not referring to “nations” in the sense of sovereign nations. Otherwise we would have to basically conclude that every Gentile is potentially a descendent of Ephraim and that is absurd and untenable.

Gen. 48:19 says that Ephraim will become the fullness of nations, melo hagoyim, doesn't this mean fullness of gentiles? I read it to mean that Ephraim was to become the gentile nations, Ephraim as you know became to be known as Israel they were cut off by God and became scattered into the midst of the nations. As this unbelieving Israel expanded and populated it took with it the pagan idols it also took with it knowledge of the one true God. When Yeshua came and shed His blood that opened up the whole world to the truth of God, the Truth came into being and now all who call upon His name are His. 'Ephraim is not the whole 'gentile nation' as you think I am suggesting just as the Jews are not the entire tribes of Israel. These people were scattered none of them know who they are and God doesn't really care about genetic identity He cares about those who care about Him, those who will come to Him in faith. Yet the scriptures lay out the redemption of mankind, the restoration of Israel at His coming, not a bunch of genetic people but those who know Him.

Really and how was Judah in any less unbelief? You cannot apply the olive tree metaphor to the Israel/Ephraim issue. Both Israel and Judah were taken into captivity and most of Judah did not return to the Land, but only a small minority. The rest of Judah is as equally dispersed among the nations as Ephraim. I would point that that those in Israel for Pentecost were Jews who hailed from 16 different nations as listed in Acts 2:5-11.

They weren't although God did not divorce them because of their idolatry and scatter them nameless into the nations either. God put Judah into judgment and cast them out of the land for a time, we do read they are to return in unbelief at one point or another, correct? But Ephraim was not prophecied to come back until He gathers His own at the end of the age. Where we differ so much is that I do not think that all of the northern kingdom came back after captivity but remained in their pagan ways and was absorbed into those places. Judah has always had an identity in the world, they are the ones God commissioned to keep His Torah alive in the world, can't remember exactly where that scripture is off the top of my head, sorry.

I understand who was at Passover that year when the Spirit was poured out and I understand where they all living. There were also those I suspect of other tribes that were obedient to the commands to come to Jerusalem three times a year.

The natural branches are those physical descendent of Jacob. They are not a single branch. You cannot apply the olive tree metaphor to the Israel/Ephraim issue. You are, evidently, coming at this from the Two-House theology which a false “messianic” theology. The olive tree metaphor is not about the reunification of Epharaim and Judah. That is a very, very poor handling of that text. You are reading something into the text that is not there. “Israel” in NT is always used as a reference to all twelve tribes or it is used as a reference to Land itself. It is NEVER used to refer simply to the northern kingdoms.

You and I disagree with one another, but oh brother its always the same 'your two house theology' it seems each time I make a post that you disagree with you label me 'two house' and I am really tired of it so please lets forgo the labels please.

I see God saying that He will reunite Judah and Israel once again they will be one nation to Him it doesn't say 'I am only going to let in those who have dna ties to this person or that person' all who come to Him in the faith of Abraham is included into Israel, Israel are all the faithful repentant believers. One day God will bring Jews and 'Israel, those who have faith' together back to Him and no more will we as a body be broken again. You can disagree all you want with me but I see that the new covenant is made with Israel and in that covenant all who call on His name is His, all who confess His name is His, all who have been washed in His blood is His. We receive a changed heart, a changed body the day He returns but until that day we are still human being perfected each day we submit to Him.

This is not wholly accurate. Gentile believers do not receive the physical promises made to Abraham’s descendents. Gentiles believers for example, do not receive the Land. Being grafted into the olive tree has nothing to do with being the seed of Abraham. That is a separate issue. You are the seed of Abraham through Christ, not through being grafted in to the places of blessing.

I did mention that we are the seed of Abraham through the Messiah "And we now that if we are in Yeshua we are also Abrahams seed, right" By the shedding of His blood we are put into the family of Abraham, how else can we read that? We are put there because Abraham believed before God did a thing for him, God said Abram get up and go and he did. Later Abraham was brought into the blood covenant. Abrahams seeds, descendants were the ones from whom the Messiah was born, if we are adopted into that family. I can't understand why it is that we can be adopted, no longer strangers from the commonwealth of Israel how we are not Israel? There are no covenantal anything with gentiles as far as I can discern so if we are in 'covenant' with Him per Hebrew and Jeremiah in the 'new covenant', what is our name? What name would God put over all of us as a body? And although I believe we are all Israel I also believe that we will have a new name when He returns.

I understand that the covenants build upon themselves, and I agree that the new covenant to come is much like Abrahams I have thought that for sometime now. I just don't see them as all 'spiritual' I see the fulfillment of the new covenant as being changed, given by new heart, so is that the 'spiritual' you are talking about? But if we look at where all blessings and curses come from they are all wrapped up in the covenants. Didn't Yeshua come to take away that curse of death that is the result of sin for all those who have faith in Him? If we partake in that blessing don't we reap others as well and if so then doesn't that make us included physically in those covenants?

Shiloh could you please quit using words like absurd, and other words like that, it kinda looks like your telling me how stupid I am for not thinking your way. You may think what I am saying is absurd, some might perceive that are rude and arrogant. Please remember there are many out there reading who do get turned off by the 'I'm right thats wrong' posts.

shalom,

Mizz

[Smalcald]

Well if I am lucky I would hope that I could be a small part of the spiritual lineage of the Roman Centurian Christ praised for having faith. Christ did not say that he was a Jew because he had faith he was still a Roman. God has used the Gentiles greatly, in fact as part of God's plan there would be no faith in Christ on the earth today if it were not for the way God has used the Gentiles. Today every land and every people have heard the Gospel with some small exceptions. Think of it a true Global faith in Christ billions of believers in Africa, Asia, India, China, Russia, Latin America, and the West, all from the Gospel being spread by the Gentile Church.

God cares about all of humanity equally we all have different roles and the Jews role is not yet completed we must be at peace with that and proud of who we are if we are gentiles as part of His Kingdom.

[Guest shiloh357]

Gen. 48:19 says that Ephraim will become the fullness of nations, melo hagoyim, doesn't this mean fullness of gentiles? I read it to mean that Ephraim was to become the gentile nations, Ephraim as you know became to be known as Israel they were cut off by God and became scattered into the midst of the nations.

I would say that you are reading all of that into the verse from Genesis. You are imposing "two house" theology on to the text of Scriopture and reading something into the text it is not saying.

You and I disagree with one another, but oh brother its always the same 'your two house theology' it seems each time I make a post that you disagree with you label me 'two house' and I am really tired of it so please lets forgo the labels please.

But two-house theology is what you are espousing. If you believe it is truth, then you should be willing to take responsibility for it. I am not "labeling" you. I am identifying the theological position you are espousing.

I see God saying that He will reunite Judah and Israel once again they will be one nation to Him it doesn't say 'I am only going to let in those who have dna ties to this person or that person' all who come to Him in the faith of Abraham is included into Israel, Israel are all the faithful repentant believers.

The reunification of Judah and Israel only refer to the physical descendents of Abraham and does not include Gentile believers.

You can disagree all you want with me but I see that the new covenant is made with Israel and in that covenant all who call on His name is His, all who confess His name is His, all who have been washed in His blood is His.

The New Covenant was made with Israel AND Judah and Jesus was their covenant representatives. The covenant was expanded to include the Gentiles, but the Gentiles are not Israel and are NEVER called Israel.

The weakness of your position is the lack of any Scripture where God EVER refers to Gentiles as "Israel." You work off what you read into the text and the subjective values you assign to the text, not what the text can be exegeted to say. That is why you erroneously try to take the olive tree metaphor which is based in appeal to Gentiles to be a blessing to the Jews and you subvert into the reunification of Ephraim and Judah and that is no where in the text and is foreign to the 11th chapter of Romans not to mention the entire NT.

Didn't Yeshua come to take away that curse of death that is the result of sin for all those who have faith in Him?

We are redeemed from the curse of the law, which is spiritual death (Gal. 3:13).

If we partake in that blessing don't we reap others as well and if so then doesn't that make us included physically in those covenants?

No. The blessings God gave the nation of Israel in the Torah were conditional and were based in a theocratic government. Those blessings were conditional upon Israel's obedience to the Torah. Those blessings are nowhere pronounced upon Gentile believers. Your assumption that Gentiles are included in those blessings stem from the false premise that Gentile believers are Ephraim. When your premise is wrong, the assumptions built on that premise are equally faulty.

[JohnD]

What is your interpretation of this verse?

Rom 11:20 Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear.

Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear lest He also may not spare you either!

Take it as a warning to unbelievers. If he did not spare the natural branches who disbelieved... he WILL NOT spare you for unbelief either.