wrote:

> Bob Felts wrote:
> >
> > You don't understand what Israel is, then. Israel is the nation of
> > _believers_, not people with a certain genetic predisposition. Read
> > Romans 9:6, Romans 2:28-29, and Gal 3:7 & 3:29.
> >
> Sigh! I am sorry Bob, but I really have to say that it is you who does
> not understand the significance of Israel or for that matter, the
> economies of God.
>
> Earlier someone wrote that Israel was God's elect. You trotted off to
> Rom 9 in referring to Paul's statement that not all who are Abraham's
> descendents are of Israel, assuming that this invalidated the statement
> that Israel, as a nation, was God's elect. Well, it doesn't.

And I didn't say otherwise. "Israel is God's elect" is an absolutely
true statement. What is at issue is the definition of "Israel".

[...]

> Certainly, just because one was a genetic descendant of Abraham did not
> equate to say that that individual was one of the elect.

So far, we agree.

> However, the elect of Israel are a separate entity to the parenthetical
> mystery, the Church.

Classic dispensationalism. Used to be one. You have to prove this
statement, given the overwhelming Scriptural evidence to the contrary.
How can you defend this statement in light of Gal 3:7 and 3:29?

> The Church, not Israel, are the Bride of Christ.

So define the status of the elect of Israel. Are they not also "in
Christ"? If not, on what basis do they obtain anything, including, but
not limited to, forgiveness of sin?

> Israel, not the Church, are the inheritors of the Abrahamic, the Davidic,
> the Palestinian, Mosaic and even the New.

Let's be clear here. Are you saying that the Church is not now under
the New Covenant?

[...]

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Bart Goddard wrote:

> wrf3@stablecross.com wrote:
>
>
> >> > where in the Bible does it say that one must believe God is a
> >> > trinity in order to be saved? Verses please:
> >>
> >> This is the way a legalist would word the question. But Christians
> >> don't believe any of man's actions cause his salvation, not even the
> >> act of believing. So to a Christian, your question is pointless.
> >
> > He didn't say anything about the cause of the belief.
>
> Neither did I. I'm saying that it's not "believing saves"
> but "being saved, one believes."

We agree, Bart. Believes _what_, which how much variation allowed?
Make a Biblical case for the amount of variation allowed.