This is mostly for the Dispensationalists and those who hold to the Church being a distinct program from Israel and all other dispensations. For those non-Dispo's, feel free to weigh in. Maybe we can hash out your differences concerning the doctrine of the Church and learn ya somethin.

The quesiton is... does the Church remain a unique people of God in eternity or are all saints grafted into one people?

Personally I believe that the Church will remain a unique people of God. This can be seen in the plural use of "people" in Rev. 21:3 (though most translations give a singular rendering, even my beloved NASB and your KJV though there are a few that communicate the plural). The fact that the saints are declared to be God's peoples seems to point to different peoples of God (i.e. Church saints, saved Israel, & other saints from other dispensations).

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 29, 2008 07:49 PM by Greektim.

So you're saying that Heaven will be segregated?
Do the pre-flood saints, post-flood saints, OT Israelite saints, NT pre-church Israelite saints, NT pre-church Gentile saints, Acts saints, church saints, etc each have a gate? (I thought about making 12 groups but quit) Which ones have to come in the back door? Are there going to be fences to keep the mavericks from intermingling?

Am I being absurd enough to get my point across, you dispensationalist you?

Seems to me I remember that there is ONE vine that we are ALL grafted into.

But even in the olive tree of Rom. 11 there is still division (natural & unnatural branches). And I believe that the illustration of Rom. 11 only pertains to the Church (one body of believers containing Jews & Gentiels, cf. Eph. 2-3), so that breaks your argument down. It speaks of God's dealing with Israel in the past (though they are temporarilly set aside vs. 25) and again into the future (vs. 26+)

To be honest with the text, I see only 2 ordained peoples of God - Israel & the Church. There are more saints than these to be sure, but they are never classified in body of believers.

And no heaven will not be segregated in the sense of superior or inferior. But I believe that distinctions will be maintained into eternity.

Even out of your absuridity you recognize some differences in the peoples of God (though you are misguided on NT saints to which I am sure you don't hold to the divisions mentioned above).

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 29, 2008 08:44 PM by Greektim.

Still curious, Brother Tim. What system of theology most closely associates with your beliefs - Covenant Premil, Progressive Dispo, Normative Dispo, or other)?

No, I don't really believe in all the little groupings, but some do.

Question about Rom 11:
It says the natural branches were "cut off" that the unnatural could be grafted. The Gentiles are then warned lest they be cut off and the natural be re-grafted back in. Where do you see them being on the tree at the same time?

Even your KJV says in vs. 17 that some branches were cut off not all. The Church is primarily made up of Gentiles (cf. Acts 15:14), but not completely (cf. Rom. 1:16 first example that came to my head).

Rom. 11 is a rabbit trail. BANG!!! I just shot that bunny.

As to what system of theology, remember that I am a poor, dumb Baptist preacher that just uses his KJB to preach. I could no more tell you what any of those you listed mean, than I could read the Hebrew alphabet. I asked in an earlier post (not on this thread) for someone to point to me a writer that can explain in 9th grade language what these are all about and then I'll do a little buffet-style pickin' -n- choosin'. I can guarantee you that no standard set of beliefs (outside of the fundamentals) will fit me.

The reality for me is that I spend the lion's share of my research time on the text issue. The end-times discussion is just not anywhere near the top of the list at this time. If I can put it off a little longer, then I won't even have to figure it out, because I will then have perfect knowledge.

The branches still take on the characteristics of the vine.

You sure didn't put it off here. YOu were the first one to respond!

I can't think of a particular writer of a published work on a 9th grade reading level. I do remember seeing Jim writing on the differences between Covenant & Dispensational theology. If I remember correctly, he did a great job in explaining generally the tenets of boths systems. But there are major differences within those systems (not as many as a Classic Dispo b/c Progressive Dispensationalism & Ultradispensationalism is not Normative/Classic Dispensationalism). From your own previous statements, I think you probably fall in the lines of a Covenant Premillinnialist.

Then I would have to ask what you think the vine refers to? To me, it seems to be the place of blessing rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant.

AAHHHHH!!! The rabbit was brought back to life.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 29, 2008 09:49 PM by Greektim.

I think it was Jesus who said that He was the Vine.

Anyhow, I answered just because I didn't want you to feel lonely on this thread all by yourself. Quite seriously, I would not be able to keep up with all the little boxes that are required for these "systems" to work, so I really can't be competitive in this arena. I'll just play spectator and yell out every so often when something strikes my fancy.

So I'm Covenant pre-mil? Sorry, haven't a clue. All I'm concerned for me and for those to whom I am sent to preach is: If I am where God wants for me to be today, then He will have me where He wants me to be tomorrow.

Like the old preacher said, "Too many folks are so worried about what's going to happen in the sweet by-and-by, that they're not getting the job done in the dirty here-and-now."

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:15 PM by Brother Tim.

I see the problem now. You are talking about Christ's metaphor in John 15. Rom. 11 is not about a vine but an olive tree (very different produce items). The confusion is also that there is not grafting in John 15. So I think you might be intermingling 2 different topics/texts to say something is not said in each of their own contexts.

Who are the branches?

Yes, I am mixing the metaphors. Sort of like those people that pick parts from different translations to make their own preconceived idea. Sorry (about the mixup).

Natural branches are the Jews & unnatural are the Gentiles (referring to Rom. 11 only). The body of Christ is composed of both Jews and Gentiles in the one body - the Church the "one new man" (cf. Eph. 2-3). Thus some natural branches are cut off and the unnatural branches are grafted in leaving both Jew and Gentiles in the place of blessing. Both Jew and Gentile can be in the place of blessing (the olive tree) b/c the root of the tree is based on the Abrahamic Covenant (Rom. 11:17) which promises blessings for both Jew and Gentile (Gen. 12:3).

Sorry, I meant in John, who are the branches? (I did actually already figger out the olive tree.)

By the way, I read the other thread to find out something about Covenant Theology. I'm curious why you think I fit there. I get the idea that you consider it unbiblical. Is there an option three?