When Calvin talks about the doctrine that circumcision and the other parts of the non-moral part of the Old Covenant Law still applying to Jews but not to non-Jew Christians, he means Jews who have become Christians, and not only in name, but are born again as the Apostles were in the first century. He means Jewish Christians are not bound to continue circumcision and the other non-moral laws of the Torah. And, again, to teach that Jews who fully become Christians must now follow the non-moral law is against the Gospel of Christ. This is the issue that Paul and Barnabas brought up in Acts 15 and contended for when the Pharisees who joined the Jerusalem Christians demanded that all Christians be circumcised and keep the law (non-moral law) of Moses.

Traditional Calvinists will often say that the church is Israel, which can be partly true, depending on what they mean by the church. If they mean that the church is like the Roman Catholic Church which rules over its members, as Theodore Beza - who took over at Calvin's death - taught, then when that church claims to be in itself the Body of Christ, it is not just a congregation of the Israel of God.. The authority I know of for the nature of the church as a congregation is I Peter 5: 2-3.

tulsa 2011 said:

When Calvin talks about the doctrine that circumcision and the other parts of the non-moral part of the Old Covenant Law still applying to Jews but not to non-Jew Christians, he means Jews who have become Christians, and not only in name, but are born again as the Apostles were in the first century. He means Jewish Christians are not bound to continue circumcision and the other non-moral laws of the Torah. And, again, to teach that Jews who fully become Christians must now follow the non-moral law is against the Gospel of Christ. This is the issue that Paul and Barnabas brought up in Acts 15 and contended for when the Pharisees who joined the Jerusalem Christians demanded that all Christians be circumcised and keep the law (non-moral law) of Moses.

Traditional Calvinists will often say that the church is Israel, which can be partly true, depending on what they mean by the church. If they mean that the church is like the Roman Catholic Church which rules over its members, as Theodore Beza - who took over at Calvin's death - taught, then when that church claims to be in itself the Body of Christ, it is not just a congregation of the Israel of God.. The authority I know of for the nature of the church as a congregation is I Peter 5: 2-3.

Click to expand...

Hello Tulsa.

I read your clarification of Calvin's commentary on the two verses in Ephesians. I printed these two verses
below to make our conversation a bit easier Tulsa.

Ephesians 2
14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances

Calvin is seeing something in this text which I do not see Tulsa. Calvin is viewing the law in two separate parts
it seems, a set of moral laws and a set of ceremonial laws. Although the verses do not mention this separation
of the law into any subsets at all. In fact Tulsa, no where in the scripture does this division in the law occur.
Don't believe me and do a word search yourself, the term 'moral law' is a fabrication. The term 'ceremonial
law' is also a complete fabrication.

The two verses from Ephesians above are simply saying that the written commandments, the law, the law
written in legal form has been abolished. In other words, any attempt to obey the list of laws given at Sinai,
will not result in any righteousness whatsoever. Far from it in fact, the law condemns absolutely, there can
be no righteousness attained by following the law.

The text states 'the Law of commandments', the text definitely does not say ceremonial law!

I need to know where Calvin gets the idea that the law consists of two parts?

I am not going to spend the time looking up Old Testament and New Testament scriptures relevant to the difference between the moral - Mishpatim - law and the ceremonial - or Hukkim - laws. This is a big subject, although it is a fundamental part of the doctrines of Christ. And there is no point in looking up scriptures on that difference. The lists of morals in the New Testament, such as Galatians 5:16-21, which Paul calls works of the flesh, are all Mishpatim laws. Some of the Hukkim or ceremonial laws, are in Hebrews, especially on animal sacrifices, and others are in various chapters, especially in Colossians 2: 16-17.

See: Galen Johnson : The Protestant Reformers’ Readings of Romans 9-11, with Modern Critical Response - Quodlibet Journal

"During the Reformation, Luther could not decide whether Paul thought all Jews would be saved, and Calvin equated “all Israel” in 11:26 with believers in Christ, both Jewish and Gentile.[119] What insights have come from modern scholarship on the matter of Israel’s salvation?"

"Luther thought that “all Israel” was an ethnic designation, while Calvin proposed that it denotes all believers in Christ, Jew and Gentile.[126] Barth still follows Calvin that “Israel” in 11:26 is the combination of historic Israel and the church."

See: What does “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 mean? Does it mean that one day every single Jew will be saved? - Pilgrim Covenant - Reformed Church in SingaporeThis writer says he prefers the view "... which is held by Calvin that “all Israel” refers to all the elect, including Jews and Gentiles. The reason for this is that verse 25 is actually about the conversion of the Gentiles and the blindness of the Jews. It appears rather strange to me that verse 26 should speak abruptly about the salvation of the sum total of the elect Jews. Would it not be more reasonable for Paul to be referring to the whole number of the elect?"


See: What does “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 mean? Does it mean that one day every single Jew will be saved? - Pilgrim Covenant - Reformed Church in Singapore


"Dispensationalists speak of all the Jews being converted en-mass during the 7-year tribulation period after the Church has been raptured. This view is based on a dispensational distinction between Church and Israel, which can hardly be defended without reading into the Scriptures."

Paul says in Romans 11: 17-20 that those in unbelief were broken off the olive tree, meaning those in Old Covenant Israel who rejected Christ were broken off.

We know from Romans 11: 1-5, on the remnant of Israel who accepted Christ and became the elect that those of Old Covenant Israel who rejected Christ and were broken off were the multitude.

Yet dispensationalists insist that Romans 11: 26 says all Old Covenant Israel shall be saved.

Are the multitude of Old Covenant Israel who rejected Christ in the First Century brought back to life in the future and then all saved? Or, was the multitude of the generation of Old Covenant Israel in the First Century broken off and then centuries later another generation of Old Covenant Israel will all be saved?

We should apply Isaiah 28: 9-10 - "For precept must be upon precept...line upon line; here a little, there a little" to the issue of whether Israel in "all Israel shall be saved of Romans 11: 26 is Old Covenant Israel of the Israel of God, meaning everyone who is of the elect.

Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 3, 3, 14, 16, 26-28 are relevant scriptures dealing with the changes that took place when God remade Old Covenant Israel. Since Old Covenant Israel of the flesh, that is, those who have the flesh DNA of Abraham was changed into the spiritual seed from Abraham, first as Christ being that spiritual seed and then all those in Christ being the seed, then how is it that God would save all Old Covenant Israel in the future, the implication being because of their DNA?

Then, in addition there is the doctrine of the remnant in Romans 11: 1-5.
Paul starts in Romans 11: 1 by saying "Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. I also am an Israelite..." Then in Romans 11: 3-4 Paul gets into the remnant of Israel by quoting I Kings 19: 18. This refers to the time of Ahab and Jezebel and the apostasy they led. They were persecuting Elijah and Elijah thought he was the only one left faithful to God. But in I Kings 19: 18 God answers by saying he still has seven thousand in Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal. This is the remnant at that time.Paul does not here review other times in the history of redemption in which a remnant replaces the multitude who have gone off into false doctrines and false practices or have otherwise become enemies of God and his remnant.

In the Flood of Noah's time God saved a very small remnant of only eight people and began over again with that eight. After the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity, groups of people of Old Covenant Israel went with Ezra, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel, and others to Jerusalem to restore the Wall and the temple. These groups were another remnant of Israel God used to began his people Israel all over again.

The remaking of Israel into the spiritual house of I Peter 2: 5, 9 involved a greater restoration of Israel, a transformation of Israel. That which was physical Under the Old Covenant was fulfilled in that which is spiritual in Christ and in the Holy Spirit.

So what Paul is getting at in Romans 11: 1-5 is that in the remaking of Old Covenant Israel in Christ Jesus, a remnant was again used by God to begin again his people Israel. This remnant of Old Covenant Israel who accepted Christ and were born again became the first fruits of the Israel of God, or Israel reborn in Christ. As predicted by Hosea 2: 23 a people not of the bloodline of Old Covenant Israel were added to Israel. Israel had been remade, changed and transformed into a spiritual house. But it was still Israel, the group God chose for his redemption of his people, now a much larger group than those of the Old Covenant.

In order for someone who still claims to be the chosen people based on the flesh from Abraham to join this remnant of Israel as a spiritual house, he or she becomes fully born again as a Christian and gives up his or her assumed superiority and identity in Old Covenant Israel. And - those of Old Covenant Israel of the flesh come one at a time to Christ, just as do others. Galatians 3 does not support a doctrine saying that the chosen people still exist by their physical bloodline.

The remnant of Romans 11: 5 became the Israel of God of Galatians 6: 16 and the all Israel of Romans 11: 26. Where is the multitude of Old Covenant Israel who rejected Christ in the First Century and continue to reject him? They remained in unbelief in Talmudic Judaism.

tulsa 2011 said:

I am not going to spend the time looking up Old Testament and New Testament scriptures relevant to the difference between the moral - Mishpatim - law and the ceremonial - or Hukkim - laws. This is a big subject, although it is a fundamental part of the doctrines of Christ. And there is no point in looking up scriptures on that difference. The lists of morals in the New Testament, such as Galatians 5:16-21, which Paul calls works of the flesh, are all Mishpatim laws. Some of the Hukkim or ceremonial laws, are in Hebrews, especially on animal sacrifices, and others are in various chapters, especially in Colossians 2: 16-17.

Click to expand...

Hello Tulsa.

Thank you for the reply to my previous post, concerning the so called moral and ceremonial law.

Though there seems to be a serious problem in the interpretation of the scripture that you are presenting.

You made the following comment regarding the so called moral laws.

The lists of morals in the New Testament, such as Galatians 5:16-21, which Paul calls works of the flesh,
are all Mishpatim laws (moral laws)

Click to expand...

It seems that you have been taught that the deeds of the flesh listed by Paul in Galatians (5:19-21) are
moral laws. Even though Paul refers to these behavioral actions as 'deeds of the flesh', you call these
actions 'moral laws'. I will print the list of the deeds of the flesh from Paul's letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 5
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery,
enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness,
carousing, and things like these.

You claimed Tulsa that these deeds 'are all Mishpatim laws' (moral laws). Since you made the claim
Tulsa, then the onus is on you to support this claim. Would you please provide the reference in the
law of Moses to the so called 'moral law' concerning drunkeness.

Failure to provide this reference will be an admission by you Tulsa, that the deeds of the flesh are not
in fact, violations of the so called moral laws of Moses.

Dispensationalists will side step scriptures put in view and bring up other scriptures to defend their theology. They will also try to discredit the person who has brought up scriptures which contradict dispensationalist doctrines. In this process of defending their theology, they also are arguing against the absolute truth of scripture. And this process is called the dialectic. Dean Gotcher has been teaching on the dialectic as used by Christians - and he is mostly not welcome to speak in most churches. Some smaller churches do invite him to speak on the dialectic.

The dialectic is used against any absolute truth or absolute moral because the people who use it do not like absolutes. They look for ambiguities, contradictions and loop holes.in scripture to drive through their compromises with absolute truth. This is what dispensationalism is, a system of compromise with some of the doctrines of the New Testament.

The person who is defending scripture cannot allow himself to become lured into doing the dialectic. Just getting into a dialectic exchange can push you back toward the spiritual condition of the natural man of the flesh, by arousing emotions in the process of doing the dialectic.

tulsa 2011 said:

Dispensationalists will side step scriptures put in view and bring up other scriptures to defend their theology. They will also try to discredit the person who has brought up scriptures which contradict dispensationalist doctrines. In this process of defending their theology, they also are arguing against the absolute truth of scripture. And this process is called the dialectic. Dean Gotcher has been teaching on the dialectic as used by Christians - and he is mostly not welcome to speak in most churches. Some smaller churches do invite him to speak on the dialectic.

The dialectic is used against any absolute truth or absolute moral because the people who use it do not like absolutes. They look for ambiguities, contradictions and loop holes.in scripture to drive through their compromises with absolute truth. This is what dispensationalism is, a system of compromise with some of the doctrines of the New Testament.

The person who is defending scripture cannot allow himself to become lured into doing the dialectic. Just getting into a dialectic exchange can push you back toward the spiritual condition of the natural man of the flesh, by arousing emotions in the process of doing the dialectic.

Click to expand...

Hello Tulsa.

You replied to my last post with the following comment.

Just getting into a dialectic exchange can push you back toward the spiritual condition of the natural man of the flesh, by arousing emotions

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with emotions Tulsa, even Jesus wept at times.

You claimed Tulsa that these deeds 'are all Mishpatim laws' (moral laws). Since you made the claim
Tulsa, then the onus is on you to support this claim. Would you please provide the reference in the
law of Moses to the so called 'moral law' concerning drunkeness.

You made a claim and you will not justify your claim, therefore your claim is unfounded.

@DHC Scripture says that gentiles could become members of the OT covenant, and how that could happen.

• Gentile comes to believe
• in faith, gentile obeys God
• Acting on that faith (in correspondence with His law), they become His
• Gentile is now a member of the nation of Israel

The new covenant is better, but the Way is the same. Hear, believe, act in faith, you become God's. This idea of Church v. Israel is absurdity.

William Christopher said:

This idea of Church v. Israel is absurdity.

Click to expand...

Could you expound upon this some more? I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious to hear what you have to see.

@Travis Romans 11 seems pretty clear to me. Some branches were broken off, and some were grafted in... same tree, no? The back half of Hebrews 8 gets into the logic of it, and concludes gracefully in verse 13 with "In that he saith, A new covenenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

It might be a stretch, but I think Revelation 3:9 is a bit relevant here, too. If you take Jew to mean a member of God's people. Again, I really don't want to take more out of the scripture than is there, but if Jew means being God's people and not a fleshly distinction, as Jesus made in a conversation with the Pharisees, then yeah, claiming Jew 2000 years deep into the new covenant would certainly make you a liar.

William Christopher said:

@Travis Romans 11 seems pretty clear to me. Some branches were broken off, and some were grafted in... same tree, no? The back half of Hebrews 8 gets into the logic of it, and concludes gracefully in verse 13 with "In that he saith, A new covenenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Click to expand...

Hello William.

You seem to under the impression that Romans chapter eleven states that Gentiles, are grafted into the same tree, which is Israel or the old covenant?

@Travis Romans 11 seems pretty clear to me. Some branches were broken off, and some were grafted in... same tree, no?

Click to expand...

Not sure where your seeing this in the scripture, so I have printed the verses I think your referring to below.

Romans 11
7 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

The branch that was Israel was grafted out from the rich root (Christ). The grafting process concerns branches William not trees. This chapter is all about why the branch
that was Israel was broken off. These verses mention nothing about the olive tree being Israel or the tree being the old covenant.

@DHC Keep reading. Take it to verse 24 for the entire illustration to be made and then explained. "how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?"

The tree is God's chosen people. We are the tree. Israel was the tree. There is no distinction... just individual branches. Some Jews may have been born into it, but we're added.

I say some Jews because, again, it was entirely possible for one who was born of another country to become an Israelite, whereas no gentile is actually born into the tree of God's people.

A number of Old and New Testament scriptures point to God remaking Old Covenant Israel. Some of these texts are II Kings 21: 13, Isaiah 29: 16, Jeremiah 18: 1-6, Jeremiah 31: 31-33 and Hosea 2: 23. Jeremiah 18: 1-6 would have to be rewritten to make it conform to dispensationalist doctrine that God now has two people, Old Covenant Israel and the Capital C Church. For Jeremiah 18: 1-3 to conform to what dispensationalists teach, God in verse 4 did not remake the vessel that was marred in his, the potter's hands, but he sat aside the first vessel as being superior and put it on a shelf to bring out later. Then he made a second vessel, which was the Capital C Church and he made that one his focus for a while - during the "Parenthesis" that the lawyer John Darby proposed. And if dispensationalism were to rewrite Jeremiah verse 6 would have to be changed too, because it says "O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord, Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel."

Then Hosea 2: 23 says a people who were not my people become God's people. This prophecy expands that remade Israel greatly in numbers over those of the physical bloodline from Abraham.

Dispensationmalism cannot hear the doctrine that God remade Old Covenant Israel. When we get to John 3: 1-10 Christ says to Nicodemus, a Pharisee of Old Covenant Israel, that he, like anyone else, must be born again to enter the kingdom of God, and this is not a literal, carnal kingdom of men.

In Ephesians 2: 11-19 those not of the bloodline, the ethnos, or many peoples, nations or ethnic groups, were alienated from Old Covenant Israel, but verse 13 says these peoples, translated as "Gentiles," are made close by the blood of Christ. To what are they made close? Its to Israel, but we see from I Peter 2: 5, 9, for example, that this is not Old Covenant Israel, but a spiritual house and its bricks, boards or rocks are people, who Peter calls lively stones. Its Israel, but born again in Jesus Christ. Its the Israel of God of Galatians 6: 16 and All Israel of Romans 11: 26.

In Romans 11 the remnant - see in verses 1 to 5 - becomes the firstfruits of Israel remade and reborn in Christ.

The Capital C Catholic Church, retained in structure but not in doctrine by Theodore Beza, after the death of John Calvin, somehow became equal to the Body of Christ. But as a translation of ekklesia, the church is only the meetings or congregations of Israel reborn in Christ.

Hello William.

Still trying to understand your argument and your reference to chapter eleven of Romans.

@DHC Keep reading. Take it to verse 24 for the entire illustration to be made and then explained.
"how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?" The tree
is God's chosen people. We are the tree. Israel was the tree. There is no distinction... just individual branches.
Some Jews may have been born into it, but we're added.

Click to expand...

Romans 11
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature
into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their
own olive tree?

You seem to be implying that 'we are the tree', though the scripture states that we are the branches.
You also implied that Israel 'was the tree', which the scripture also does not state. Both the Gentiles
and the Israelites, are only ever mentioned, as branches that form the tree in the text.

So what is the 'cultivated olive tree' in the text? Very simple William, the cultivated olive tree consists
of the branches that are attached to the root. May I suggest William, that you look at some pictures of
what an olive tree looks like, this may assist you in seeing Paul's argument. The olive tree does not look
like a typical tree with an extended trunk, an olive tree has no real trunk. An olive tree is composed of
branches and each branch is attached to the root.

Israel is not mentioned as a cultivated olive tree in the text, nor are the Gentiles mentioned as a wild olive
tree in the text. It is far better to see the word 'cultivated' say, as meaning the branches are cultivated while
they are attached to the root, rather than trying to see a branch as the tree itself. The whole process of grafting
involves branches. Israel is grafted out of the cultivated olive tree, Israel was never the tree itself.

The root of Paul's alive tree in Romans 11 is important in understanding the cultivated branches and the wild branches who are grafted in to the tree.

Romans 15:8-12: "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
9. And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
10. And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
11. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.
12. And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust."

Revelation 5:5: "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."


Ephesians 2: 12-13, 19-20:
"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."

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;"

I Peter 2: 5-6:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

To agree with Romans 15:8-12, Revelation 5: 5, Ephesians 2: 12-13, 19-20 and I Peter 2: 5-6 the olive tree of Romans 11 is not teaching that the root of the olive tree in Romans 11: 16 is Old Covenant Israel and that believing Gentiles are grafted into Old Covenant Israel. It is not teaching that somehow though Hebrews 10: 9 says "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second," that somehow the Old Covenant was not fulfilled in Christ and Old Covenant Israel was remade.

In addition, Romans 11: 28 has to be read carefully because it is cryptic. "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." As concerning the Gospel the multitude of Old Covenant Israel who rejected Christ are enemies. "They" in verse 28 are physical Israel. That is, they are enemies of the Gospel. Then it says as touching or concerning the election, Israel is beloved for the sake of the Fathers.

This is not saying that Old Covenant Israel are enemies of the Gospel, but are still beloved by the Father, that is, God the Father. The key word in the last part of the sentence is "election." Those of the election are no longer Old Covenant Israel, but are the Israel of God, the Christians, and they are beloved by the Fathers, Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

DHC said:

So what is the 'cultivated olive tree' in the text? Very simple William, the cultivated olive tree consists of the branches that are attached to the root. May I suggest William, that you look at some pictures of what an olive tree looks like, this may assist you in seeing Paul's argument. The olive tree does not look like a typical tree with an extended trunk, an olive tree has no real trunk. An olive tree is composed of branches and each branch is attached to the root.

Click to expand...

You'd make a lawyer proud, but you'd make a botanist cry.

Merriam-Webster said:

a: the main stem of a tree apart from limbs and roots —called also bole

Click to expand...

Simply being the thickest part with no direct shooting makes it the trunk. It's just the plant's stem. But I agree, on an olive tree, the trunk does look like an extension of the root, which is unique... but that doesn't help your argument, it hurts it.

Scripture is clear; it explains the metaphor where it is presented, and Tulsa brought plenty of different metaphors for the same thing, that, when taken for what they are, paint a similar portrait, and when the culmination is understood, creates a solid, doctrinal rock. If you're really going to argue that an olive tree has no trunk, you have to stop and question why you find the need to convolute the text, brother. It seems that you'd rather argue seemingly inconsequential details (like the nature of specific Mosaic Law and how it relates to the law of love under the new covenant, or, lol, botany) to make the text less clear, so that instead of accepting the conclusion presented (and therefore refuting a preconceived notion), you may continue to believe what you wish. Because I mean, let's be honest, just how much do you have riding on that belief?