Context of Scripture

[jabcat]

I certainly believe whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved, that His death and resurrection was for Jews and Gentiles alike...but there's still something about the epistles to the Jews, and the epistles to the nations that I sense needs to be accurately cut...I believe I saw the lack of that yesterday in a sermon at my wife's "church"...the pastor using Jesus' teaching about the broad way, narrow gate, destruction, to mean most will be lost and go to hell for eternity...He used the "not everyone that says Lord, Lord, but him that does my will"...my thought was, so is salvation through works?  That's not what he believes, yet he was using that scripture...he's a grace guy, although an ET'er...(also, I believe most will be saved through destruction, so this may not be the best example of mixing, maybe more so of interpretation/understanding).  I just think it gets all mixed up though, so the same person can be giving 2 different messages...we're saved by grace, "to him that doesn't work it's accounted to him for righteousness", but then only those that do the right works avoid hell.  Huh?

I still think a lot of that has to do with mixing these evangels, but I ADMIT, I'm at first base with this...still searching...

Note...I believe in obedience, submitting ourselves to God's will, resisting sin and looking to Him as the Author and Finisher, etc.  I AM NOT ADVOCATING SIN MORE SO GRACE WILL ABOUND.  But I do think we/I often confuse these issues.

Knoch himself believed our unity should exist as we seek/worship with a pure heart [a heart for the Lord], not on doctrine or particular levels of current understanding.

Please, no debate or "I've got this all figured out so take a flying leap"....but thoughts, insights, understandings welcome  :2thumbs:

[reFORMer]

jabcat, and whoever . . .

http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/index.shtml

This url was posted some time ago in tentmaker.  At this point I haven't searched for this topic in particular on the web.  My problem is I learned of this area of doctrine years ago, having been raised in dispensational eschatology (The Rapture.)  Dispensational pneumatology is why many deny the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit are for today.  Now I find it irksome to pursue typing, typing and typing about it.  There are so many other able defenders of the faith!  Why should I be conscripted into this dull and irritating warfare?  At some point I simply have other more important things to do (or so I think.)

The best single book I know of simply puts forth the truth without analyzing dispensationalism.  I've it found free on the internet by just looking for it.  It is The Church Is Israel Now by Charles D. Provan and is available in hard copy from www.rosshousebooks.org  It is a short (75 pages) concise book of indisputable Scripture truth that is summarized in the 4 pages Table of Contents.  Section 1:  [a list of] O.T. Titles and Attributes of Israel which are in the N.T. Referred to the Christian Church.  Section 2:  [a list of] O.T. Verses Referring to Israel which are Quoted in the N.T. as Referring to the Christians.  Section 3:  [a list of] O.T. Ethical Commands to Israel which are Quoted in the N.T. as Applying to the Church.

The best book analyzing dispensationalism that I've read, very well footnoted to refer the quotes from the major exponents of dispensationalism, is Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth by John H. Gerstner, Ph.D.  In it the author says Oswald Allis' Prophecy and the Church is "probably the ablest critique ever written of the heart of dispensational theology." (p.152)  It was recommended in a discussion of how dispensationalism makes void the cross of Christ.

"The Abrahamic covenant which made his natural descendants God's chosen was absolutely unconditional while the covenant of grace which brings the Church into being is conditional in that it requires faith." Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth by John H. Gerstner, Ph.D., Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. p181-182  "Israelites become such by a natural birth while Christians become such by a spiritual birth."  Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:30  This is of utmost importance to Dispensationalists, that being of the Church is through being reborn in spiritual supernatural regeneration and that being an Israelite is through being born in natural generation.  The only reason I can come up with for Tony to say he's never heard of "racial" dispensationalism is from lack of self consciousness about what is inherent in this belief system.  I only mention it because I'm concerned his comment would divert you in some way from this essential distinction for dispensationalists.

It is also important to understand that they teach these are two ways (dispensations) of salvation, some teaching 7 or 12 "gospels," though some are inconsistent on this and other points.  John Hagee's teaching, (about which there is a thread on tentmaker you can add if you will, I don't know how) is an example of being consistent to dispensational principles.

It is also important to dispensationalism to hold in the Old Testament the Church was an unforeseen entity, a prophetic "parenthesis."  A few of the passages and their fulfillment that show this is clearly not true:  Hosea 1:10 (Romans (9:22-26), Hosea 2:23 (1 Peter 2:9-10), Amos 9:11 (Acts 15:16).  What this does for dispensationalism is it makes most, if not all, of the N.T. refer to the racial Jew and not belong to the Church (except we can look over their shoulder in a secondary non-binding way.)

Israel in the O.T. refers to the Church in the N.T.:  Exodus 19:5-6 (1 Peter 2:9), Jeremiah 24:7 (2 Corinthians 6:16), Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Luke 22:20), Leviticus 19:2 (1 Peter 1:15).

In the N.T., to belong to God's Israel  is through a spiritual rather than a physical (racial) relationship.  "Know, consequently, that those of faith, these are sons of Abraham." (Galatians 3:7, CLV)  "Now if you are Christ's, consequently you are of Abraham's seed, enjoyers of the allotment according to the promise. (Galatians 3:29, CLV)  Also Israel and the Church are an organic unity.  They are one.  The one, single olive tree that was Israel has the Gentiles of the Church grafted into it:

Romans 11:17-21, (CLV) . . .
17 Now if some of the boughs are broken out, yet you, being a wild olive, are grafted among them, and became a joint participant of the root and fatness of the olive,
18 be not vaunting over the boughs. Yet if you are vaunting, you are not bearing the root, but the root you.
19 You will be declaring, then, "Boughs are broken out that I may be grafted in."
20 Ideally! By unbelief are they broken out, yet you stand in faith. Be not haughty, but fear.
21 For if God spares not the natural boughs, neither will He be sparing you!

your brother, James Rohde

[Molly]

In the N.T., to belong to God's Israel  is through a spiritual rather than a physical (racial) relationship.

This was always true. It was always defined by a spiritual relationship. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.  Isaac was the miracle child of the promise.  Jacob wrestled with God and wouldn't let go until he received a blessing.

Genesis 32:28
And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.


"and hast prevailed"

H3201
יכול    יכל
yâkôl yâkôl
yaw-kole', yaw-kole'
A primitive root; to be able, literally (can, could) or morally (may, might): - be able, any at all (ways), attain, can (away with, [-not]), could, endure, might, overcome, have power, prevail, still, suffer.

[jabcat]

"It was recommended in a discussion of how dispensationalism makes void the cross of Christ."

I'll look more closely at the details of your post, James, but the above quote in particular jumped out at me...I agree, and have thought about this...I'd think one would have to be careful and not take it too far, because yes, at some point the cross of Jesus could be missed, (even inadvertently) explained away...somewhere in all this, Jesus' death, blood, and resurrection has to be the common thread.  I still think there's something to this context discussion, but I've got miles to go before I sleep... :happy3:

[jabcat]

Quote: "Now I find it irksome to pursue typing, typing and typing about it.  There are so many other able defenders of the faith!  Why should I be conscripted into this dull and irritating warfare?  At some point I simply have other more important things to do (or so I think.)"

My dear brother, if you're completely satisfied that you've got this figured out and it bothers you so to address someone still searching, please don't be burdened with my questions, and certainly don't see it as warfare with another believer.  It's OK.  God will lead me.  God's blessing, James.

[Molly]

20 Ideally! By unbelief are they broken out, yet you stand in faith. Be not haughty, but fear.
21 For if God spares not the natural boughs, neither will He be sparing you!

This is what we were talking about on the other thread, works, isn't it?

Be not arrogant, but fear.  Fear is the Greek word, phobeo--sounds like the root for phobia, doesn't it?

But, I take it more as, pay attention!  And, be humble.

[reFORMer]

There was a quote from Knoch warning about "new" doctrines which is not there now.  I responded by touching on some history related to dispensationalism . . .

The "new" doctrine is the dispensationalism that Knoch and his early compatriot Bullinger taught.  While one can trace their view of the millennium much earlier, certain points common with dispensationalists seem to come from the Spanish Jesuit Rivera (or, Ribera,) who died in 1591, who responded to the Reformation understanding that the Pope sat in the seat of anti-christ with futurism to interpret Revelation.  Another source was German theologians at the end of the 1700's who advocated a dual seed, natural and spiritual.  Much of it was taught in the close of the 1800's, though it popularly emerged in The Scofield  Reference Bible which I believe was published in the beginning of the 1900's (1911?). 

[jabcat]

I agree Molly...I've just been burdened recently (maybe it's me, my compulsive nature) that there are so many different opinions, there are so many denominations, so many beliefs, so many saying so many different things...and I DON"T believe scripture contradicts itself, yet if we put it all in a sack, shake it up and start pulling out verses at random, it seems to me then there are things that are at the VERY least, very difficult to reconcile/understand.  So, I'm so interested in this thought of  are we properly dividing the Word, do we often take things out of context, are there some reasons for all these varying interpretations and doctrines that we could gain some clearer understanding on?

Again, an example....Paul says in essence, "you're saved by grace, not works, or you could boast...to him who believes and doesn't work, it is reckoned as righteousness to him"...Peter and other say other things about works, the Law, etc. (didn't even Peter and Paul have a conflict?  :mshock:)....I'm really, honestly, becoming weary of all the differing opinions, and it seems, we can't even reach a concensus that perhaps there's something to even consider with all this...I am identifying with Brian to some degree when he thought he'd just sort of "drop out" from all of men's opinions, and seek God more through His Word and prayer...which we should be doing anyway, huh?

[jabcat]

"It was recommended in a discussion of how dispensationalism makes void the cross of Christ."

I'll look more closely at the details of your post, James, but the above quote in particular jumped out at me...I agree, and have thought about this...I'd think one would have to be careful and not take it too far, because yes, at some point the cross of Jesus could be missed, (even inadvertently) explained away...somewhere in all this, Jesus' death, blood, and resurrection has to be the common thread.  I still think there's something to this context discussion, but I've got miles to go before I sleep... :happy3:

The "new" doctrine is the dispensationalism that Knoch and his early compatriot Bullinger taught.  While one can trace their view of the millennium much earlier, and certain points common with dispensationalists seem to come from the Jesuit Rivera (or, Ribera,) who died in 1591 and from German theologians at the end of the 1700's, and much of it was taught in the close of the 1800's, it popularly emerged in The Scofield  Reference Bible which I believed was published in the beginning of the 1900's (1911?). 

Thanks, I'll continue to look at it.

[Molly]

I'd think one would have to be careful and not take it too far, because yes, at some point the cross of Jesus could be missed, (even inadvertently) explained away...somewhere in all this, Jesus' death, blood, and resurrection has to be the common thread.

Because it's all about Jesus--going all the way back to the beginning.  Was Adam a Jew or carrying the seed of Christ?  Abel is called righteous by Jesus.  You cannot be righteous without Christ's seed.  Abraham was a righteous pagan gentile lol.  Following it down through a 'bloodline'--one is discarded and one is kept--Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau--they are brothers, but not equal.  One has the seed, one doesn't.  The elder serves the younger.  So, also, the Law serves Grace.

However you want to parse it, the emphasis is always on Christ.

[jabcat]

However you want to parse it, the emphasis is always on Christ.

Yes, the Lamb slain...and the risen Savior.

[Molly]

I agree Molly...I've just been burdened recently (maybe it's me, my compulsive nature) that there are so many different opinions, there are so many denominations, so many beliefs, so many saying so many different things...and I DON"T believe scripture contradicts itself, yet if we put it all in a sack, shake it up and start pulling out verses at random, it seems to me then there are things that are at the VERY least, very difficult to reconcile/understand.  So, I'm so interested in this thought of  are we properly dividing the Word, do we often take things out of context, are there some reasons for all these varying interpretations and doctrines that we could gain some clearer understanding on?

Again, an example....Paul says in essence, "you're saved by grace, not works, or you could boast...to him who believes and doesn't work, it is reckoned as righteousness to him"...Peter and other say other things about works, the Law, etc. (didn't even Peter and Paul have a conflict?  :mshock:)....I'm really, honestly, becoming weary of all the differing opinions, and it seems, we can't even reach a concensus that perhaps there's something to even consider with all this...I am identifying with Brian to some degree when he thought he'd just sort of "drop out" from all of men's opinions, and seek God more through His Word and prayer...which we should be doing anyway, huh?

I think the problem is it's hard to see the big picture.  It's a very complicated book but the message is simple.  And, it's the same message from start to finish.  Jesus.

People get messed up when they try to make it about man.  It is about man, but only in relationship to Him.

If you take Jesus out of the book, as many do, the whole thing gets perverted.

[reFORMer]

Quote: "Now I find it irksome to pursue typing, typing and typing about it.  There are so many other able defenders of the faith!  Why should I be conscripted into this dull and irritating warfare?  At some point I simply have other more important things to do (or so I think.)"

My dear brother, if you're completely satisfied that you've got this figured out and it bothers you so to address someone still searching, please don't be burdened with my questions, and certainly don't see it as warfare with another believer.  It's OK.  God will lead me.  God's blessing, James.

I don't mean to come across that way.  I needed to go to sleep a little while ago.  I'm trying to establish an earlier bedtime in spite of, I don't know what, an Insomnia demon?  Dispensationalism is such a large topic because it infects the way we look at so many things.  There are of course many differences among dispensationalists.

There is one area I am yet inquiring concerning, but I don't expect much help from the dispensationalist.  It is:  what is the place of current Israel, particularly related to Scripture?  Will a large or deciding portion of it be converted to follow Jesus?  Many even today carry a Bible.  That is (you realize) with a New Testament in it.  Or, will it become the center and source of world wide deception.  It seems I can read both into certain verses.

It is of some importance to me personally that I am understood as sympathetic with modern Israel, particularly in relation to its Moslem neighbors, though not to the extent of forgetting God loves the Moslem peoples too.  (I have an esthetic attraction to Islamic culture, as one would savor a painting or a certain piece of music.)  Dispensationalists curse those who don't agree with their view of Israel.  We're said to believe in "Replacement Theology" and to hate Israel and be anti-semitic.   This is not true of me.  Nothing was "replaced," God's idea of Israel always was those who held in faith to His word.  I'm not a racist.  My support of Israel is not based on dispensational theology.

[jabcat]

And I certainly don't want to create an ungodly warring with a brother...I'm sorry if any of this questioning/searching in this regard has been against God's will and/or damaged anyone.  I think I'll just search it out for awhile on my own.

It does seem to be a big topic, and unfortunately, apparently one more of many things the body can divide over  :sigh:.  Get some sleep, God bless you, James.

[Molly]

This is because dispensationalists curse those who don't agree with their view of Israel.  We're said to believe in "Replacement Theology" and to hate Israel and be anti-semitic.   This is not true of me.  Nothing was "replaced," God's idea of Israel always was those who held in faith to His word.  I'm not a racist.  My support of Israel is not based on dispensational theology.

This is all propaganda.  Not even worth considering...

And, the semites include the Arabs, as well, so that word doesn't even make sense the way the propagandists use it.

[reFORMer]

One of the commendations that can be made of dispensationalists is their teaching on our reproducing the character of Christ.  The fruit of the Spirit is evident in many who view Scripture in this way.  Those in what has been called "deeper life" teaching or the "Keswick Movement" are dispensationalists.

[Molly]

One of the commendations that can be made of dispensationalists is their teaching on our reproducing the character of Christ.  The fruit of the Spirit is evident in many who view Scripture in this way.

Do they require the same thing of physical Israel?

PS I don't pay much attention to these schools of thought, so I can never keep them straight.  Personally, I consider most of them to be devised by the musterion anomia--those who would stand in place of Christ.

[reFORMer]

One of the commendations that can be made of dispensationalists is their teaching on our reproducing the character of Christ.  The fruit of the Spirit is evident in many who view Scripture in this way.

Do they require the same thing of physical Israel?

No, not at all.  The covenant to Abraham they believe was handed down to his descendents is irrevocable.  The usual threats or sanctions when the covenant is mentioned in the Bible for failing to keep the Covenant, go after other gods and do wickedly is said by them to be temporary corrections.  Total unbelievers go to the land of Israel to receive it as theirs by God given right because they were born "Jewish" (hence, "racial" dispensationalism.)

But, in reality, there is no such thing as a Jewish race according to the Encyclopedia Judaica and the top 5 encyclopedias in the English language.  It's a religion; always was.  Zionist Jews are Askenazim, racially Turks, Huns, Syrians, etc., Jephathites, not Semites (children of Shem.)  See the Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on "Judaism," at least as recently as the 1978 edition.

Have you ever thought of this, that as God's Israel, along with believing Jews, we will some day perhaps be located in Jerusalem?  The night before a brother taught this I had a dream of standing in mid air, being "flown" by the Spirit off of the American continent, across the sea to Jerusalem.  Because we who are the temples of the Holy Spirit are God's city of shalom, I would have rejected his word if not for meeting this idea first in that dream.

[reFORMer]

Here's a great short book on the topic that I believe I read in the 70's:   A Study of Dispensationalism by A. W. Pink (who was early on a dispensationalist.)
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm

Though another topic...at that site is the Gill Archive.  It has John Gill's (b.1697-d.1771) book on The Song of Songs: Exposition of the Book of Solomon's Song commonly called Canticles or, Solomon's Song  which is one of the two best books I've ever found on the Song of Songs!  http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Solomons_Song/song_preface.htm

[Molly]

Have you ever thought of this, that as God's Israel, along with believing Jews, we will some day perhaps be located in Jerusalem?  The night before a brother taught this I had a dream of standing in mid air, being "flown" by the Spirit off of the American continent, across the sea to Jerusalem.  Because we who are the temples of the Holy Spirit are God's city of shalom, I would have rejected his word if not for meeting this idea first in that dream.

I have thought that in the past, but they have made that place such a place of bloodshed and every foul thing for me, from fascism to atheism to apartheidism to materialism,  I no longer have any interest.  I do think the Jews are expecting to rule the world from Jerusalem, though, and  probably plan to appoint one of themselves the Messiah.

However, if you are ruling from there, I will come visit for sure. :bigGrin:

Seriously, though, I don't think God ever meant to give a piece of land to a specific group of people.  When he tells Abraham to lift his eyes and look, and everything he sees will be given to him, that has a spiritual meaning for me, not a physical one.  It doesn't even make sense if it is physical.  What Abraham sees is the inheritance.


14And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:

15For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

--Gen 13

[reFORMer]

(Though The Jerusalem below seems "mystically" to be the people who make love to religious systems in the place of God their husband) if the Jerusalem below is "physically" The Mother of Whores, then it may be destroyed one day, possibly by nuclear weapons (cf., Revelation 18.)  While there may be some value in searching things out, I find futurist views very uncertain; but, I don't find the dispensationalists mentioning this point.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: There was a big stir last year over the death of the leading Kaballahists/Jewish scholars. He was in his 90's I believe and left a note declaring he knew who the Messiah was from His studies, and it was encrypted, and read Jesus. The Messianics were thrilled, the Orthodox Jews, ah....not so much.  :winkgrin: They're still looking for a flesh and blood man. Blessings....

[CHB]

Hi All,

Someone said something about two Gospels I don't think there are two Gospels just additions to it. I call it progressive revelation. In Moses day, they didn't have the New Covenant and when the New Covenant was presented Paul had not been given the Mystery {final revelation} until later in his writings. I don't see the final revelation that was given to Paul in but about three of his epistles. I think God's plan from the beginning wasn't completely revealed until Paul was given the "Mystery". I believe the plan from the beginning was what was revealed to Paul in the end, it just took a wondering through the wilderness to get there. Israel and those who believe in works are still wondering in the wilderness. The vail is still upon their eyes. I see that most people are still in the New Covenant where works is still a requirement. If this is correct, then the Millennium is for the removing of this vail.

There are still questions that I have about all of this. One thing is whether or not all of this has already happened? I am speaking about the Millennium.

I don't believe we are under any Covenants today, but most don't see this. When you read all of the epistles you can see a different understanding that all of the apostles had from paul and even paul in the beginning preached New Covenant but later began to see something better. When you come to see that all of the apostles were sent to the Israelites and Paul to the Gentiles, their writtings start to fall into place, make more sense. I believe all of the apostles knew about the final revelation but knew that it didn't apply to them. Remember they were to be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul's name is not one of these.

The apostles except for paul was commissioned to preach the New Covenant to the Israelites because the Israelites were promised this. Paul came to see that we Gentiles and Jews who God had given this knowledge to were destined to be in the heavenlies. Not that we are any better than those who rule on earth, just a different place for 1000 years

Just the tip of the iceburg.

CHB

[reFORMer]

I don't believe we are under any Covenants today, but most don't see this. When you read all of the epistles you can see a different understanding that all of the apostles had from paul and even paul in the beginning preached New Covenant but later began to see something better. When you come to see that all of the apostles were sent to the Israelites and Paul to the Gentiles, their writtings start to fall into place, make more sense. I believe all of the apostles knew about the final revelation but knew that it didn't apply to them. Remember they were to be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul's name is not one of these.

Few would consider Judas Iscariat as remaining among the original apostles of the Lamb, but then again, maybe he represents God's saving work beyond this life.  Was Paul the replacement for Judas?  As a replacement he seems more likely than casting lots for Matthias.

The apostles except for paul was commissioned to preach the New Covenant to the Israelites because the Israelites were promised this. Paul came to see that we Gentiles and Jews who God had given this knowledge to were destined to be in the heavenlies. Not that we are any better than those who rule on earth, just a different place for 1000 years

Scripture says, "All is yours," not just earth or the heavenlies. 
Ephesians 2:1-7 (CLV) . . .
1 And you, being dead to your offenses and sins,
2 in which once you walked, {flesh} in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness {psychical, that is, soulical realm}
3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),
4 yet God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us
5 (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!) {spiritual regeneration}
6 and rouses us together {soulical awakening} and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus, {this is where we are now, even as we walk on the dirt}
7 that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

[Doc]

I don't believe we are under any Covenants today, but most don't see this. When you read all of the epistles you can see a different understanding that all of the apostles had from paul and even paul in the beginning preached New Covenant but later began to see something better. When you come to see that all of the apostles were sent to the Israelites and Paul to the Gentiles, their writtings start to fall into place, make more sense. I believe all of the apostles knew about the final revelation but knew that it didn't apply to them. Remember they were to be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul's name is not one of these.

Few would consider Judas Iscariat as remaining among the original apostles of the Lamb, but then again, maybe he represents God's saving work beyond this life.  Was Paul the replacement for Judas?  As a replacement he seems more likely than casting lots for Matthias.

The apostles except for paul was commissioned to preach the New Covenant to the Israelites because the Israelites were promised this. Paul came to see that we Gentiles and Jews who God had given this knowledge to were destined to be in the heavenlies. Not that we are any better than those who rule on earth, just a different place for 1000 years

Scripture says, "All is yours," not just earth or the heavenlies. 
Ephesians 2:1-7 (CLV) . . .
1 And you, being dead to your offenses and sins,
2 in which once you walked, {flesh} in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness {psychical, that is, soulical realm}
3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),
4 yet God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us
5 (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!) {spiritual regeneration}
6 and rouses us together {soulical awakening} and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus, {this is where we are now, even as we walk on the dirt}
7 that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

Great stuff, James.   :thumbsup: