Matthew Johnson wrote:

>
> "I have other sheep". He says this about the Gentiles. They are not
of the same
> flock, which us under the Law. For the Gentiles are not bounded by
the Law.
> "And I must bring them also". For these too are scattered, and they
too do not
> have a Pastor. And the wise, and capable of faith of the Jews were
without a
> Pastor, consequently, the Gentiles were even more so. "And I must"
gather
> together both the Gentiles and the Jews. The word "must" here does
not mean
> compulsion but that it certainly follows. "And there will be one
flock, and one
> Pastor". In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal 3:28),
and no
> distinction whatsoever. For both have one form, one seal of Baptism,
one Pastor,
> the Word of God and God. Let the Manichees be ashamed, denying the
Old
> Testament, and may they hear that there is ONE flock and ONE Pastor;
for there
> is One and the Same God of the Old and New Testaments.
>
> End quote---------(fm http://pagez.ru/lsn/0093.php#10)-------------
>
The context of John is pre-pentecost.  Not only pre-pentecost but
pre-upper room.  The Church has yet to be revealed.

As far as your accusations concerning Gal & Eph, "in Christ" is that
which scrapes off all the dross.  "In Christ" has no reference
whatsoever to OT saints, or to Tribulation saints or Millennium saints.
"In Christ" is a Church Age distinctive.  The indwelling of the HS in
each and every Church Age believer, a "pledge" and a
"seal" to bring
that individual "blameless and spotless" as a Bride before the
Bridegroom, separates the Church from ALL other economies.  Note in Mt
25:1 the distinction of "virgins" as opposed to "bride."  In the
Vulgate and Syriac versions of this verse, the interpretive addition is
"went out to meet the bride and bridegroom."   The Church alone is the
Bride.  The context of Mt 24 & 25 has the believing remenant of
national Israel represented by the 5 faithful virgins.  Distinction!

Also, never is the Church given tribal reference.  Rev 7 can only refer
to Israel after the gathering of "dry bones."  Does the Church ever
have reference in the "dispersa?"  No.  Also, the promises of the
Church are of a heavenly nature.  The promises to national Israel are
of an earthly nature.  The only means to confuse these distinctions is
to conjure up allegorical spiritualisms of the text.  THESE are true,
not accused, eisegetical instances.
>
> >  This truth is
> >confirmed by God's promise through Jeremiah that Israel will
continue
> >as a nation as long as the sun, moon, and stars endure (Jer.
31:35-37;
> >33:19-26);
>
> Whatever happened to "For we are the sons of Abraham not by blood,
but by
> faith."?
> Whatever happened to:
>
>    This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the
>    children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned
>    as descendants.  (Rom 9:8 RSVA)
>
> Well? What happened to it? How can you take this seriously and
_still_persist in
> your error of dispensationalism?
>
> > in fact it will be a reunited nation (Ezek. 37:15-28),
> >healing the division that occurred under Rehoboam (1 Kings
12:16-24).
> >
> >This separate identity of Israel in distinction from the Gentiles
and
> >from "the church of God" (1 Cor. 10:32) continues in the NT.
>
> How can you _say_ such a thing? Don't you realize how blatantly you
contradict
> the Apostle Paul by saying this?
>
> > It was
> >recognized by Paul (Rom. 3:1-2; 9:3-5; 10:1-3),
>
> what -are_ you talking about? By no means does this recognize a
separate
> identity of Israel in NT times.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Again, there has never been an amil answer to Peter's
> >massive 3 volume work, "Theocratic Kingdom."
>
> Actually, if you must insist on using this false label, reeking with
bias, for
> us Orthodox, there _is_ such an answer to all Peter's false theology:
it is St.
> Andrew of Crete's Commentary on Revelation. But it was written of
course in
> Greek, and translated in to Russian, but not AFAIK into English.
>
> But it is available on the Web in Russian. Don't expect me to
translate it for
> you when you persist in your foul habit of misquoting Augustine and
others to
> support your twisted theology. No doubt you will do the same to St.
Andrew!
>
> > To argue against both the
> >dispensational distinctives between Israel and the Church, not to
> >mention Law and Grace, you must resort to relativism in
> >spiritualization of the pertainent scriptural texts,
>
> Seeking the spiritual sense of Scriptural texts is NOT relativism! As
long as
> you insist on such blatantly prejudicial and false assumptions, how
can there be
> any reasoning with you, Loren?
>
> > claim that
> >normative reading is the poisonous outer husk which must be
discarded
> >in order to dig into the deeper, gnostic meaning hidden within.
>
> But I never said this either. This is just another of your reckless
violations
> of the commandments of Christ -- in this case, the commandment
against slander.
>
> [snip]
>
> >God is not the God of
> >confusion.
>
> Of course not. For confusion, we turn to you, not to God!
>
> >  The reason you are wrong at several points in your theology
> >is because you do not proceed from proper hermeneutic -the very one
> >used by Christ and the apostles- literalism.
>
> Here again, you blaspheme the name of Christ by using His name to
support a
> theology and hermeneutic He _never_ taught! Nor did the Apostles.
This should be
> _obvious_ to you Loren, yes, EVEN to you, from the example of
Christ's own VERY
> non-literal interpretation of Isaiah and the Psalms, and of Paul's
own OBVIOUS
> ALLEGORICAL interpretation of the Mount of Sinai!
>
> It is SO dishonest, Loren, to claim that the Apostles used ONLY the
literal
> interpretation, when you know FULL WELL, that Paul read this
ALLEGORICALLY! He
> even tells us EXPLICITY in:
>
>     For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and
one
>     by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to
the
>     flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. NOW THIS IS AN
>     ALLEGORY: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai,
>     bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount
Sinai
>     in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is
in
>     slavery with her children.  (Gal 4:22-25 RSVA)
>
> How could you even _think_ of posting your reckless words when you
have this
> clear example in Paul of how WRONG you are?
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
> quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
> (St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
>
> (((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you
post.   )))

((( 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.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/23/04 6:10:33 AM