Windham/Mowery Debate on Who is Subject to the Gospel

 
 
 Proposition: 
All accountable humans (both Jews and Gentiles) are subject 
to the new covenant.

Affirm:  Dub Mowery
Deny:  Brian Windham

I, like Dub, would also like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to 
debate this subject. I also wish to thank Dub for his willingness to accept my 
challenge on this subject.

Concerning my stating that Dub had admitted that a covenantal relationship with 
God was due to lineage, Dub says:

"re-read my statement! I had reference to the old covenant in respect to entering 
into covenant relationship with God by physical birth. The new birth under the 
new covenant is spiritual in nature rather than physical."

The point I was making was that Dub admits that physical lineage was a 
requirement of a covenantal relationship with God at one point in time. This 
obviously indicates that God has the right to enter into a covenantal relationship 
with whomever He wishes. It also indicates God chose a people over all others. It 
also indicates that doing so is God's prerogative. It shows that God enters into 
covenantal agreements via both parties agreeing on what God proposed, which is 
the meaning of a covenant. It shows that Christ's death was not necessary for God 
to enter into a covenantal relationship with anyone.

Dub says,
"Brian, the truth of the matter is that under the old covenant a person was born 
physically into covenant relationship with God and then taught about the Lord and 
their responsibility unto Him (Jer. 31:33-34)."

Dub, your reference is in connection with the NC, not the OC. The OC required 
obedience to God (Ex 19:5). While the OC was with physical Israel, God did 
require obedience from these people. Disobeying God would get one removed 
from that covenantal relationship (Lev 26:14, 33).

The same situation exists in the NC. It is with physical Israel ONLY (Heb 8:8-10) 
and yet it requires obedience or repentance from sin (Acts 2:38). If the New 
Covenant had been with all peoples, Israel would have not needed to be named in 
Heb 8:8-10.

Dub:
 
"Under the new covenant a person is first taught about God and what is essential 
in the new birth (a spiritual birth, John 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:23)."

This is not exactly true! Just as in the OC, the NC is with physical Israel (Heb 8:8-
10). The covenant was made with physical Israel before anyone was called. It is 
only after the institution of that covenant or agreement that anyone could have 
been called. Otherwise, what need is there in a covenant? Even if the NC was 
with all peoples, the covenant would have had to exist before anyone could be 
called.

Concerning why God would choose a people and why the NC was necessary, Dub says:

"... God chose Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the direct descendants of Jacob to full 
fill His means of redeeming mankind through Jesus Christ (Gen. 12:1-3; 22:15-
18; 28:10-15; Gal. 3:16)."

Dub, when God made the OC with physical Israel, did He redeem her or did He 
make an agreement with her? The English word "redeem" means "ransom." And 
"ransom" means the price for the release of something. Since God never knew any 
nations other than Israel (Amos 3:1-2), there would be no one to redeem other 
than Israel. And it is Israel that is prophesied to be redeemed throughout the OT 
(Isa 41:14; 43:14; 44:6; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 54:5; Psalms 130:8). Where is it 
prophesied that anyone other than Israel would be redeemed? And how can 
people that were never God's, (Amos 3:1-2) to begin with, be redeemed. Only 
Israel was sold and only Israel can be redeemed (Isa 52:3).

Dub:
 "The old covenant's weakness was in the individuals who lived under it. Its 
weakness was not on God's part, but rather in the weakness of the flesh of man 
(Heb. 7:18-19; 8:6-7; 9:12-15)."

So how does the NC change the weakness of men? Are people any different, 
fleshly speaking, now than they were then? The OC offered forgiveness of sins 
(Lev. 4 & 5). What does the NC offer in this way that the OC didn't?

Dub:
 "...Whether or not a congregation was made-up primarily of descendants of Jacob or of Gentiles, 
or a mixture of the two, the same principles applies to all."

Again Dub does not address the fact that the word "gentile(s)" means nothing 
more than nations and the Greek word most often wrongly translated "gentile(s)" 
in the English Bibles is "ethnos", the same Greek word that is translated "nations" 
in Rom 4:17-18 which refers to Abraham's offspring. This offspring is according 
to the flesh (Rom 4:1), which Paul says those in Rome were. I have explained in 
detail how the words "gentile(s)" and "naiton(s)" are interchangeable. Something 
Dub has not even attempted to refute.

Dub:
"The Great Commission reveals that the gospel of Christ is to be extended unto 
the entire human race (that is those who have the mental capacity to understand 
the inspired Word of God). Matt. 28:18-20 places emphasis upon reaching all 
nations, and Mark 16:15-16 stresses the need to teach every person in the world 
the gospel of Christ."

This is another thing that I have explained in detail of which Dub has not 
attempted to refute. The "nations" Christ is referring to are the "nations" of Israel 
(Rom 4:17-18). This commission was completed in Paul's day (Col 1:5-6, 23). 
And I have explained how Paul's travels are clearly shown in the Bible and the 
Bible maps. And they don't show Paul going to anywhere near even all of the 
known nations of his day. Therefore, seeing as how the word "human race" are 
not used in these passages Dub presents, for his case, I must insist this is nothing 
more than speculation and is not provable by the Bible, but is disprovable as I 
have shown.

Dub:
"Brian fails to appreciate that the Apostle Paul clarifies the specific seed 
(offspring) in which all families of the earth will be blessed. At Gen. 22:18, in 
referring to the seed of Abraham in which all nations would be blessed, the 
scripture states, "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 
because thou hast obeyed my voice." The Hebrew word "zera", meaning 
offspring, is translated as "seed" in that passage."

Again, Dub repeats a statement that I have thoroughly refuted. He had not 
rebutted my statement or even attempted it. The above verse is preceded by v. 17 
which states this seed was to be as innumerable as the stars of heaven. And the 
Hebrew word in v. 17 is singular. Yet it clearly refers to a seed that is 
innumerable.

Dub:
"Concerning this promise given to Abraham, the Apostle Paul uses the Greek 
word "sperma", which means offspring, to refer to Christ. That passage states: 
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to 
seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). 
This inspired passage clarifies that Jesus Christ is the specific offspring of 
Abraham in which all nations would be blessed, not the nation of Israel. Brian, 
you will have to dispute with the Apostle Paul instead of me concerning the 
offspring in which those of all nations would be blessed."

No Dub, you will have to argue with God if you insist Paul is saying what you say 
he's saying. God is clear in Gen 22;17 and other passages that the promise was to 
Abraham's seed which was so many they would be as innumerable as the stars in 
the heaven. I have explained, in detail, what Paul was saying in Gal 3:16, but you 
have not addressed what I presented. What Paul was saying is, there is only one 
way for justification of the newly redeemed Israelites and that way is through 
Christ. Paul was clearly showing there was not two ways to justification. There 
was not the way of the "works of the law" AND Christ, there was just Christ. He 
says the promises were made to a singular seed which was to be innumerable, not 
to plural seeds as if there were two ways to justification.

Dub:
"Naturally Brian is forced to exclude one of the definitions of the Greek word 
"kosmos" that means the inhabitants of the earth, the human family. It would 
disprove his attempt to limit the new covenant to the physical descendants of 
Jacob. Strong's Concordance does include the inhabitants of the earth in the 
definition of "kosmos.""

No Dub, Strong gives the definition of the word as "orderly arrangement, that is 
decoration" and then he says "BY IMPLICATION" it means "the world (in a wide 
or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively." Then he gives 
how it is translated in the KJV. You are forced to make "kosmos" mean 
something it doesn't to have some validity of your stand here.

Because of Strong's, wrongly held, belief of "universal salvation", as well as the 
KJV translators', he is saying it's use IMPLIES the globe. However, Mr. Strong is 
simply allowing his own belief to define the word.

Dub:
"Thayer's Greek lexicon includes eight different definitions of "kosmos." One of 
its definitions is the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family."

Actually Thayer gives the "understanding" as it was translated in the KJV. But he 
gives the definition as " in Greek writings from Homer down, an apt and 
harmonious arrangement or constitution, or derivative." Then in the next 7 
explanations he defines the word as it was translated as the word "world" giving 
the verses to support such a definition.

The fact that the word "kosmos" means "orderly arrangement" as opposed to the 
"world" as we view that word today, is further evidenced by the root of the word 
which means "(to tend, i.e. take care of); prop. to provide for, i.e. (by impl.) to 
carry off (as if from harm; gen. obtain):--bring, receive."

Dub:
"The text in which it is used determines which of the eight definitions is intended."

Of course if one used the proper definition, instead of the improper "world", we 
wouldn't have any problem understanding what was meant.

Dub:
"The truth of the matter is that the Son of God died for the entire human race."

Then how do you square the fact that Paul stated he accomplished that mission in 
his day? How can it mean the whole globe when Christ, Himself, said He was 
sent only to Israel? How can it mean the whole globe when the NC is with 
physical Israel ONLY? Why would Christ have to die for people that God never 
had a covenant with to begin with? How do you redeem something that was not 
lost in the first place?

Dub:
"Brian speaks of the physical kingdom of Israel being restored. As to whether or 
not the physical kingdom of Israel will be restored does not pertain to the present 
proposition.

I must disagree! How can the kingdom of Israel be restored if it was to cease to exist forever as you have implied?

Dub:
"However, Brian, if you would like to discuss that subject in another debate then I 
would be glad to oblige you."

I would be more than happy to accept your challenge on this subject in another 
debate. Propose it and I'll accept it.

Dub:
"...the Lord made a conditional promise unto the Israelites that He would re-unite 
them after their dispersion "unto the outmost parts of heaven" (Deut. 30:4)...That 
condition...was that they keep the law of God...(Read carefully Deut. 30:1-10).

I must disagree totally with you on this Dub. The reason they would be dispersed 
into all nations would be because they broke God's Law (The obedience was after 
the re-gathering (v. 8).

Dub:
"...the northern kingdom of Israel failed to keep the Mosaic Law...Their time for meeting 
this condition has run out because the old covenant has been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17; Eph. 2:14-16).

First of all by the time the NC came around Israel had been out from under the 
OC over 700 years. She had been divorced from a covenantal relationship with 
God (Jer 3:8). This divorce was because of her adulteries with other gods which 
means it was her law-breaking that got her in this situation. Secondly, the two 
passage Dub gives for support on this say nothing about the OC. They have 
nothing to do with God's Law. How could the OC be against and contrary to 
anyone? After all it provided a path for forgiveness of sin and eternal life. It is 
another debate altogether, but suffice it to say, at this point, that the wall of 
partition that was torn down and the decree that was against and contrary to Israel 
was the "written bill of divorce" that God had given Israel which kept her out of a 
covenantal relationship with Him (Isa 50:1).

Dub:
 "...the southern kingdom of Judah...met the condition and was restored to their 
homeland after the Babylonian captivity."

While she was indeed returned to Jerusalem, she had not kept God's Law any 
better than her sister Israel (2 Kings 17:19; Jer 3:8). In fact Judah was more 
corrupt than Israel (Ezek 23:4, 11; 16:46, 47, 51).

Dub:
"Brian refers... Jeremiah 3:14-18...Ezekiel 37:19-28 as proof texts that the 
southern kingdom of Judah and the northern kingdom of Israel would be re-
united. However, that promise was conditional the same as the passages 
mentioned in the above paragraph."

What Dub obviously doesn't understand is Israel was already out of a covenantal 
relationship due to God's divorcing her. She couldn't keep the Law. She was no 
longer in a Law relationship with God. The OC required the keeping of the "law 
of works (Rom 3:27 KJV)" in order to obey it. Since Israel was no longer under 
the OC, she couldn't have kept it if she had wanted to.

Israel's redemption was not because of her keeping the Law of God, but because 
of the Grace of God (Eph 2:8). She was salvaged. No other nation could fit this 
example because no other nation was "lost". Something has to have been had 
before it can be lost.

Dub:
"...Brian includes...(Jer. 3:14-15). Also..verses...12...13...places emphasis upon 
returning unto the Lord by hearing His voice (His commandments). Since the 
Mosaic Law has been nailed to the cross, Israelites cannot meet that condition for 
the divided kingdom to be brought back together again."

God was no longer married to Israel (Jer 3:1, 8). He was no longer her Husband. 
He was, however, still married to Judah and was her Husband. Israel was no 
longer under the Mosaic Law. She couldn't return to God because the Law kept 
Him from remarrying her (Deut 24:4). Therefore Dub's assertion that Israel's time 
had run out is not supported by Scripture.

Dub:
"Brian failed to discredit the truth taught at Hosea 1:1-11 that the northern 
kingdom of Israel would never return to the land given to their forefathers and be 
re-united with the southern kingdom of Judah."

Dub says this, but never responds to my statements and questions concerning this. 
The fact is Hosea 1:9-11 is about physical Israel returning and rejoining with 
Judah. The word "Spiritual" is not in the passage and is simply added by Dub to 
support his stand on this. The fact is that the same Israel that was to become as the 
sand of the sea is the same one that is to be rejoined with Judah in v. 11.

Dub:
"...In reading Hosea 1:1-11, we learn in verses 1 to 3...that God would "cause to cease 
the kingdom of the house of Israel."

Causing the kingdom of Israel to cease is not the same thing as causing physical 
Israel to cease.

Dub:
"And then in verse 6 he declares that God would "no more have mercy upon the 
house of Israel" but would "utterly take them away."

And He did! He sold Israel into slavery. He divorced Israel. However, Hosea 
shows that the time would come when God would once again be married to Israel, 
this time, forever (Hosea 2:19).

Dub:
"In verse 9 God said to Israel, "ye are not my people, and I will not be your God." 
And at verses 10 and 11, the prophet reveals that after the captivities physical 
Israel would be no more."

Of course none of these verses say anything near that. In fact they say Israel 
would multiply as the sand of the sea (v .10) even after God divorced her (v. 9). 
And in v. 10 we see the same "them" that is spoken of Israel not being His people 
is the same "them" that God says, "it will be said unto "THEM", you are the sons 
of the living God."

Dub:
"And that God would have mercy on Judah, but not on Israel."

This is said in v.v. 6-7 and it has to do with divorcing Israel. It has nothing to do 
with God never showing mercy on Israel. In fact God says He will have mercy 
upon Israel after her captivity (Jer 39:25).

Dub:
"The people remaining after the return from captivity would be united as Judah 
and their king would be God."

That's not what Hosea 1:11 says. It says Israel would unite with Judah. The NC is 
with both houses of Israel (Heb 8:8).

Dub:
"In the place of physical Israel there would be spiritual Israel."

Of course this is simply supposition and nothing more. The Scriptures in question, 
nor any other in the entire Bible speak of a "spiritual Israel." Such a thing is an 
impossibility. We know that the NC is with the House of Israel whose fathers 
were under the OC (Heb 8:8-9). We can only become spiritual beings not spiritual 
Israel. Why would we want to become spiritually what Israel was physically? 
They got divorced!

Dub:
"...Both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter quoted the latter part of the tenth 
verse of the first chapter of Hosea and applied it to Gentiles becoming sons of 
God with Jews."

Of course they did because the "gentiles" or "nations" that were salvaged were the 
nations of Israel (Rom 4:17-18). That's why they quoted Hosea because it clearly 
says physical Israel, which was to grow as the sand of the sea in conjunction with 
the promises of God (Gen 13:16) to Abraham to his seed which is Israel.

Dub:
"The Apostle Paul could not be referring to the descendants of those who had 
made-up the northern kingdom of Israel, but rather to those who were not physical 
descendants of Jacob."

Then why would he quote Hosea which clearly refers to physical Israel? And why 
would he tell those he wrote to in Rome they were physical descendants of 
Abraham (Rom 4:1)? Why would he say that the covenants were to Israel (Rom 
9:3-4) according to the flesh?

Dub:
"Also, Peter made the same application...(1 Pet. 2:9-10)."

Peter was quoting OT Scripture that is directed toward physical Israel (Ex 19:5-6; 
Deut 10:15; 7:6; 14:2; 4:20; Hosea 1:10; 2:23)/

Dub:
" Brian's conclusion that those addressed by the Apostle Peter in his epistle of 
First Peter has to be only those who are fleshly descendants of Jacob has not been 
proven by him."

I beg to differ with Dub. He has yet to show how what I have presented is not 
true. He has, for the most part, ignored what I have presented IMHO.

Dub:
"Those addressed were located throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and 
Bithynia. These localities were where both descendants of Jacob and other races 
were converted to Christ."

Then why didn't Peter write to other than the "Diaspora" in Galatia (1 Pet 1:1)?

Dub:
"The converts were strangers and pilgrims in the sense that this physical world is 
not their permanent home (I Pet. 2:11)."

Israel was called strangers (Acts 13:7). The lineage of Israel was called pilgrims 
(Heb 11:13).

Concerning Ex 12:48-49; 20:10 Dub:
"The strangers among them were foreigners...other races...allowed to partake of 
the Passover...were allowed to offer sacrifices unto God (Lev. 17:8).

Of course the Bible does not say these strangers were other races. Again, Dub 
uses conjecture to support his belief. The fact is Israel was to enforce God's Law 
on any "strangers" that abided with them. These strangers had no choice. They 
were required, not just allowed, to keep the Law of God.

Dub:
"Brian's statement about proselytes being subject to "none effect of God's Law 
religion" does not make sense! The passages that he gave above had to do with 
prohibiting perversion of the Mosaic Law."

I don't know why this makes no sense to Dub as Christ said the Pharisees, the 
same people to whom He said made God's Law of none effect (Mat 15:1-6), 
crossed land and sea to make one proselyte and made him three times a child of 
hell than they were (Mat 23:15). God's Law did allow proselytizing (Ex 33:16).

Dub:
"If proselytes were held responsible for violating the Mosaic Law by adding 
traditions then they were subject to that Law."

They weren't! It was Judahites, who were Israelites, that did this (Mat 15:1-6).

Dub:
"I ask Brian, is the keeping of the Passover and offering sacrifice unto God "none 
effect of God's Law religion"? Was being circumcised "none effect of God's Law 
religion"? Your approach to the matter of strangers/proselytes observing 
ordinances of the Mosaic Law is illogical."

Of course this is convoluted logic Dub. I never said anything like what you have 
implied I said. I didn't say proselytes added to the Law. I said the strangers were 
required to keep God's Law. Israel was required to enforce it on anyone that lived 
in their land. The none effect of God's Law is what is, today, known as Judaism.

Dub:
"At least Brian seems to be backing up a bit, when he said, "Even if it included 
these people as being 'under the Law', this would by no means include all peoples 
being 'under the Law', this would by no means include all peoples as being on the 
earth."

Not at all! I was simply showing that if your claim were correct, which it isn't, 
you still can't make all peoples on earth be under the Law. Yet Gal 4:5 clearly 
says it was those under the Law that were redeemed.

Dub:
"Of course, I never claimed that all people of the earth lived under the Mosaic 
Law."

Then how can all people be redeemed according to Gal 4:5?

Dub:
"However, this is a far cry from saying that no one who was not a physical 
descendent of Jacob did not live under it."

I didn't say that! I said only physical Israel was redeemed and only with them was 
the NC made.

Dub:
"Even those of other nations who did not live under the old covenant were subject 
under law unto God. The statements concerning this matter in my second 
affirmative proved that. Here is what I said concerning this matter..."

I have rebutted this unabated in my second rebuttal. I direct you to that post for 
my response to this.

Dub:
"There has never been a time that mankind was without law unto God...the entire 
human race has always been subject to law from God."

Then what need was there in giving the Law to Israel? And why was God's Law 
given only to Israel (Psalm 147:19-20)? And why did God say He had never 
known any other nation other than Israel (Amos 3:1-2)? Why didn't sin enter the 
"world" by one woman?

I believe I have Scripturally shown that the NT is the fulfilling of OT prophecies 
concerning redeeming Israel (Hosea 1:11). That is why Christ said He was sent 
ONLY to Israel (Mat 15:24). That's why the NC is stated to be only with Israel 
(Heb 8:8-10). That's why Christ sent His disciples only to Israel (Mat 10:5-6). 
That's why the Apostles quoted Scriptures that have to do with Israel when 
referring to the people they were writing (Rom 9:25-26). That's why Paul said the 
people to whom he wrote were physical descendants of Abraham (Rom 4:1). 
That's why Paul said the covenants were to Israelites according to the flesh (Rom 
9:3-4). That's why James wrote to the 12 tribes (James 1:1). If they didn't exist, he 
couldn't have written to them.

I have truly enjoyed this exchange and I thank the moderators and owners of this 
list for this opportunity. I also thank Dub for his participation.

Sincerely,
Brian