Clearly you are genius, and I love learning from you.
"...have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Morons!"
All kidding aside, Bob was the genius. I'm no better than average. Bob's material makes anything I write look as if were written in crayon.
I guess my point about the dogmatism is: "Why not keep an open mind that God may have changed His mind?" (I will make suggestions on your proof texts, below.)
Well, because there's good reason not to. I'm not at all sure dogmatic is the right term to be using here in the first place but since that's the word we're using, if anything, it would be people who insist on believing something until they are given evidence to the contrary who are being dogmatic. In other words, you don't want to start with a belief and then hang on to it until its proven false. You want to start with evidence and then build your belief on that and then only get dogmatic about the stuff that you are confident has been fully established without any room for doubt or debate.
Ahh, but I am not suggesting God has definitely cut them off permanently, only that it is a possibility about which we can not be dogmatic.
Again, just what do you mean by "dogmatic"?
What evidence is there that Israel has been permanently cut off?
I am looking forward to learning more in the book, but it seems to me that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was possibly "The" Tribulation.
NO! Flat out, absolutely it definitely was not.
How's that for dogmatic!
Seriously though, there's not a chance at all that this is correct.
It didn't follow the exact prophesied plan, but that doesn't matter to us open theists.
It doesn't have anything to do with whether it followed a prophesied plan or not. As I pointed out in the previous post, Israel had been cut off four decades prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. That single point alone is sufficient to disprove the idea that what happened in 70AD had anything to do with God dealing with Israel as a nation because, in order for that to be the case, God would have had to have finished with the Gentiles, raptured the body of Christ off the Earth, turned back to Israel and completed Daniel's 70th week.
With two simultaneously operating dispensations, why shouldn't I expect a Circumcision warning?
Because there were not two simultaneously operating dispensations. Not in the way you mean it here.
There were two groups of believers, one from the current dispensation and the other from the PREVIOUS dispensation (i.e. not a concurrently running dispensation). The dispensation of law was over and Israel was well and truly cut off. The only exceptions to this were those still living believers who had come to Christ while that now closed dispensation was still in operation, almost all of whom would have been dead by the time 70 AD rolled around. But if that weren't the case, even if 100% of them were still living in 70AD, that body of believers did not represent a distinct nation of Israel apart from that which had been cut off. God didn't start Israel over again with the Twelve and their converts. They were all still members of the nation of Israel that had been cut off. Thus there wasn't a nation of Israel to warn. Which is to say that while there was a nation called Israel and a city named Jerusalem, those places had lost their special standing before God and were committed to unrighteousness along with the rest of the world and thus God would have had no more active role in, nor reason to warn Jerusalem about, their impending destruction than He had with Pompeii.
I think Paul was expecting Jesus to return soon and do just that.
As has virtually every Christian since then. Which is to say that I don't get the point here.
Once Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed for a second time without Jesus taking the physical throne, I think that Paul would likely have considered them permanently cut off.
There is no evidence to believe this.
Irrevocable calling! Irrevocable gifts? What do these this mean?
It means, among other things, that you don't get to switch dispensations. Peter, James and John came to Christ while under the law and so they remained under the law. They are members of Israel to this day and will remain so for as long as there is an Earth with a city named "Jerusalem" on it. Indeed, it is Israel who has an Earthly calling and it is they who have been promised the Earth as an inheritance.
As you know, there are many verses which would indicate that gifts cease and God's calling is resistible. I need help here. They can be beloved, but still at some point an unfaithful bride is sent packing.
You're mixing contexts here. We aren't talking about free will vs. any form or flavor of "irresistible grace". The passage in question is Romans 11:29. Read the whole chapter. Paul is talking about Israel vs. the body of Christ and how blindness had happened to Israel "in part". Why "in part"? What part wasn't blind? It was the Twelve and their converts! God had not cut them off but rather the whole rest of the nation that refused to repent. Those who had already come to Christ were not cut off and thus continued in their covenant relationship with God to whatever extent that was possible throughout their lives. When those believers died out then there was no longer anyone who was living their lives in a condition were they were under the law and in relationship with God according to Israel's Kingdom gospel/covenant.
How is Israel different than His "manager" in Luke 12?
The Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible manager his master will put in charge of his household servants to give them their allotted food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom the master finds doing his job when he comes. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, that servant’s master will come on a day he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unfaithful.
Will His "manager" be reinstated? The only reason the "manager" was the manager was because of the promises to the patriarchs of Israel. God has already been abundantly patient and faithful to the patriarchs.
So this feels to me like you're arguing against your own case.
Israel was cut off, where they not? How was this parable not specifically fulfilled by God cutting off Israel and turning to the Gentiles, which happened in Acts 9 not 70AD.
