Theology—beneficial or source of endless debating?

[randyk]

All this i understand fully = this is Bible 101 truth.

So let's get back to your statement: You said: "Nevertheless, they(natural Israel) enjoy the same separation from the world through Christ, who forms the basis for Abraham's natural children, the Jewish People."

Please provide the Scripture that speaks directly to your statement - Thank You

I have been providing it to you. And so I've struggled mightily to explain how what I'm seeing is answered by those passages. Once again...

Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Rom 9.7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”

You say you understand. And then you ask the same question over and over again. I do think you fail to understand!

 

[randyk]

If you think they are the same, let's stick with the KJV.

Every version must defer to the original versions. I don't prefer using an outmoded language.

It would be helpful if you would cite the verses that you are making these claims from. I assume you are referencing Gen 18:18.

"Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?" - Gen 18:18 KJV

Which seems to also pair well with Mat 21:43

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." - Mat 21:43 KJV

Why are you making the leap between Abraham as a nation and Israel as a nation? You appear to be advocating for the belief that Israel replaces Abraham. If that is your position, on what scriptural grounds are you making this claim?

Abraham as a nation is, in fact, Israel!

Are you forgetting Gal 3:29?
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Gal 3:29 KJV

No, of course I'm not forgetting Gal 3.29. This didn't say we are "Abraham's nation!"

Abraham was promised to be the father of many nations. The promise was not that each of those fathered nations would be heirs to the promise. Not everyone in each of those fathered nations would be a recipient of the promise. In fact, out of all of the nations and all of the people, only Christ Himself was the natural heir to the promise.

I disagree. Abraham's descendants, both natural and spiritual, are heirs *through Christ* to the promise. When Paul argues that Christ is the singular heir, he is arguing against a division among God's People. Christ is a corporate unity, and as such a singular base for our inheritance. But we do, in fact, inherit God's Kingdom.

Abraham was promised to be made into a great nation. This says nothing of biological progeny. Even rocks could be raised into children of Abraham.

On the contrary, God was specifically and explicitly offering Abraham a biological posterity. Raising up children from rocks has no bearing on it.

Using the KJV, demonstrate your case with scripture. Lines like Gen 17:7 don't actually say "descendants" they say "seed" singular.

This is the KJV:
Gen 17.7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”

Where? Cite the verse.

I just did. The use of "descendants" for "seed" just shows that the singular "seed" was viewed as a "composite whole" in this regard. "Christ" represents all of Abraham's heirs by faith in his blood.

If you agree that the body of Christ is synonymous with Abraham's seed, then you agree that Israel does not replace Abraham.

It makes no sense to keep saying that Israel replaces Abraham. Israel is the "seed" of Abraham. Christ is also the "seed" of Abraham. All the descendants of Abraham, natural and spiritual, are the "seed" of Abraham through Christ, the "seed" of Abraham.

Lines like this make me think that you are talking about Christians with Israelite ancestry such as Paul. If someone had an ancestor from ~2000 years ago that was an Israelite that found Christ, is that modern day person still counted as Spiritual Israel because of that ancestor? Whether your answer is yes or no, on what basis are you making this determination?

Jews today are the natural descendants of Abraham, regardless of how "mixed" they are. They carry the tradition of Abraham's descendants, and are mixed in with his descendants. When they, like Paul, accept Christ, they meet the same criteria that Isaac received when he was chosen to be the legitimate heir of Abraham. They are genetically descended from Abraham, and they are elected by God.

No. I don't think you are drawing this from scripture. Bloodlines don't matter, social status doesn't matter, gender doesn't matter, for if they have put on Christ they are one in Christ. And if they are Christ's, they are heirs to the promise.

I think you're confusing where Paul's says these distinctions don't matter with respect to Christ choosing us. They don't deter us from being saved.

But nowhere does Paul say being a Jew isn't important. Nowhere does he say that other nations and peoples are not important. We read of nations and peoples in the book of Revelation. I think God aims to literally fulfill His promises to Abraham by having Christian nations and Christians from all nations.

How would you know which descendants of Isaac are chosen in Christ?

By their choice to accept Christ and obey him.

Why should we care about human bloodlines/ ancestry if the covenant of Christ is open to all?

Because God is the creator and these are His choices--not ours. We should take the literal wording of His promises seriously.

 

[DavidTree]

I have been providing it to you. And so I've struggled mightily to explain how what I'm seeing is answered by those passages. Once again...

Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Rom 9.7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”

You say you understand. And then you ask the same question over and over again. I do think you fail to understand!

These scriptures i know, i believe and i understand.

These scripture correct your statement.

Both Matthew 21:43 and Romans ch9 - ch11 = "Through Isaac points to Christ and rules out the flesh as heir to the Promise of Eternal Life."

Our understanding is not to argue against Scripture but rather it is for us to agree with Scripture.
PEACE

 

[Runningman]

Personally, I hate theology. To me it seems like a pointless intellectual exercise that locks people out from hearing the truth. I like understanding, but to me understanding is something different than theology and it's important to know the difference. Understanding comes from the Lord; theology, in most cases, is a human edifice written in stone. "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."—John 5:39

What are your thoughts?

Well, theology isn’t useless if that’s what you’re asking. There are good reasons to have theology. Paul had a theology about Christianity and he explained it really well in Romans. Peter had a theology and he explained it in his letters.

Also, keep in mind that Paul was an apostle to the uncircumcision and Peter was an apostle to the circumcision. So their calling shaped their theology so they could more effectively reach their target audience, which is why Paul and Peter did not always preach the exact same message, or rather took different angles of approach.

Much like how those with different theologies argue in the present day, Paul opposed Peter to his face publicly over a different perspective:

Galatians 2:11-14
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

On the matter of pitting apostle versus apostle, how do we decide who is correct when both are guided by the Holy Spirit and ordained by Jesus Christ Himself? It’s the same question we ask ourselves when we decide which preacher is correct and which isn’t.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Well, theology isn’t useless if that’s what you’re asking. There are good reasons to have theology. Paul had a theology about Christianity and he explained it really well in Romans. Peter had a theology and he explained it in his letters.

Also, keep in mind that Paul was an apostle to the uncircumcision and Peter was an apostle to the circumcision. So their calling shaped their theology so they could more effectively reach their target audience, which is why Paul and Peter did not always preach the exact same message, or rather took different angles of approach.

Much like how those with different theologies argue in the present day, Paul opposed Peter to his face publicly over a different perspective:

Galatians 2:11-14
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

On the matter of pitting apostle versus apostle, how do we decide who is correct when both are guided by the Holy Spirit and ordained by Jesus Christ Himself? It’s the same question we ask ourselves when we decide which preacher is correct and which isn’t.

Peter and Paul had doctrine which they wrote about. But to me "theology" involves all kinds of traditions of men that are interpretations of the apostles' doctrine.

We have the doctrines of Peter and Paul in writing, let's stick to that and avoid the traditions and philosophies of men; these traditions have led to all kinds of errors and false doctrines.

 

[randyk]

These scriptures i know, i believe and i understand.

These scripture correct your statement.

Both Matthew 21:43 and Romans ch9 - ch11 = "Through Isaac points to Christ and rules out the flesh as heir to the Promise of Eternal Life."

Our understanding is not to argue against Scripture but rather it is for us to agree with Scripture.
PEACE

Ah, I see your issue. You think that choosing Isaac invalidates genetics and makes God's election preeminent. I was arguing the opposite, that choosing Isaac validates both genetics and God's election. Not only was it essential that Isaac be related to Abraham, his father, but beyond that it was also essential that God decide who constitutes the members of the entity He has promised.

The same is true, I believe, of nations, peoples, and individuals. We may appear to be related to those items. But unless we are specifically chosen to be members of them, we are not elect members. It is not sufficient to just relate to these items--we must be *chosen.*

Put another way, a man can be a Jew and still not be chosen to be a "true Jew," or a "faithful Jew." One can be raised a Christian and still not be a chosen Christian, or a "faithful Christian." Beyond our relationship with the things God has promised, we must prove that we've actually been chosen by God by displaying the virtues that show that God has indeed chosen us.

God predetermined the choice of Isaac not just because he was Abraham's son, but also because He knew the product of Abraham and Sarah in this case would represent faith in the child. And in choosing the nation of Israel, God knew that at some point the society would contain enough people of faith to constitute a legitimate nation of faith.

This is also true of Christian nations, peoples, and individuals. Whether they are Christian nations, Christian remnants within pagan nations, or individuals in an ungodly society, God has chosen those who knows will display faith and obedience.

So you see the essential relationship between the "chosen" and the things they are related to, whether individuals in pagan societies, believing remnants in pagan societies, or nations with Christian Constitutions and a public that actually practices faith generally? God designed things this way to show how faith should work in our world.

We don't cast out the process of nation building, nor the process of simply surviving. It all plays a role in the development of faith in this world, as God has determined. Whether being raised up in the support of a believing faith, or maintaining our faith in a hostile world, faith is designed by God to work through the process and prevail.

 

[DavidTree]

Ah, I see your issue. You think that choosing Isaac invalidates genetics and makes God's election preeminent. I was arguing the opposite, that choosing Isaac validates both genetics and God's election. Not only was it essential that Isaac be related to Abraham, his father, but beyond that it was also essential that God decide who constitutes the members of the entity He has promised.

The same is true, I believe, of nations, peoples, and individuals. We may appear to be related to those items. But unless we are specifically chosen to be members of them, we are not elect members. It is not sufficient to just relate to these items--we must be *chosen.*

Put another way, a man can be a Jew and still not be chosen to be a "true Jew," or a "faithful Jew." One can be raised a Christian and still not be a chosen Christian, or a "faithful Christian." Beyond our relationship with the things God has promised, we must prove that we've actually been chosen by God by displaying the virtues that show that God has indeed chosen us.

God predetermined the choice of Isaac not just because he was Abraham's son, but also because He knew the product of Abraham and Sarah in this case would represent faith in the child. And in choosing the nation of Israel, God knew that at some point the society would contain enough people of faith to constitute a legitimate nation of faith.

This is also true of Christian nations, peoples, and individuals. Whether they are Christian nations, Christian remnants within pagan nations, or individuals in an ungodly society, God has chosen those who knows will display faith and obedience.

So you see the essential relationship between the "chosen" and the things they are related to, whether individuals in pagan societies, believing remnants in pagan societies, or nations with Christian Constitutions and a public that actually practices faith generally? God designed things this way to show how faith should work in our world.

We don't cast out the process of nation building, nor the process of simply surviving. It all plays a role in the development of faith in this world, as God has determined. Whether being raised up in the support of a believing faith, or maintaining our faith in a hostile world, faith is designed by God to work through the process and prevail.

So you believe a Jew is saved because he/she has genetics traced back to Isaac?

 

[iamsoandso]

That's the puzzling thing about the word saved in that some think it means you should save your own selves. Others see it as if they were supposed to "get saved" thousands of years later during there life times. Some though see it as if they were saved on the cross by Jesus and just relax in peace and say thank you. It is a puzzle though one man is in utter peace and rightfully is giving thanks for salvation while the other is in agony forever trying to figure out what thing to do to get saved. One denies the blood of the Cross while the other confesses it.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So you believe a Jew is saved because he/she has genetics traced back to Isaac?

Not just Isaac. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That fallacy was debunked by Christ long ago.

 

[Nehemiah6]

We have the doctrines of Peter and Paul in writing, let's stick to that and avoid the traditions and philosophies of men; these traditions have led to all kinds of errors and false doctrines.

It is far too late to make these recommendations. Just focus on the Gospel and Bible truth.

 

[iamsoandso]

It's a, puzzle, It's a puzzle,,, did Saul get saved on the Cross or did he just stop kicking against the pricks in Acts 9:5? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 9&version=KJV You were saved the same exact day and time as Paul was almost two thousand years ago on the Cross, the vast majority just don't believe it...

 

[iamsoandso]

We tell the puffy thing,the bag of skin and flesh to stand it's bones up and do the will of our spirits mind. The flesh is an obedient servant in that it without flaw obeys our every spirits minds command. It hears our spirits heart and it's will and what it believes and never once does it stick the food in our eye but instead always obeys and sets it right between our teeth. If we don't believe the Lord saved us on the Cross our spirits mind says to the puffy flesh to get up and get it's self dressed and go do something to get saved. Not often does it occur to the spirits mind to see that the Lord saved it on the Cross and tell the puffy flesh to leap with joy and rest in peace. Oh what we truthfully believe we have the bag of skin preform before the Lord and his saints and angels.

 

[iamsoandso]

For instance lets say I was born in 1934 and it's now 2022. I wasn't saved at any time from 1934 till 2022 it was that during that time frame it occurred to me that I was saved some two thousand years ago on the same day as Paul and Peter and the rest of us. That's when I rested from my works and stopped denying the Blood of the Cross...

 

[DavidTree]

For instance lets say I was born in 1934 and it's now 2022. I wasn't saved at any time from 1934 till 2022 it was that during that time frame it occurred to me that I was saved some two thousand years ago on the same day as Paul and Peter and the rest of us. That's when I rested from my works and stopped denying the Blood of the Cross...

Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are [k]copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Hebrews ch9

 

[posthuman]

Abraham as a nation is, in fact, Israel!

among others!

No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham,
for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations!
(Genesis 17:5) ​

 

[iamsoandso]

Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are [k]copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Hebrews ch9

Indeed the concept of Christ not entering into an Temple made with hands of men escape many. Instead they chose to say "let us make and image of the beast that was,was not(ad70) yet is and have set it back up and worship it's image instead of the true. They think that they will be whisk away but will be instead left behind to worship it's image...how fitting for those who worship it to remain and buy the oil that Babylon sells...

 

[randyk]

So you believe a Jew is saved because he/she has genetics traced back to Isaac?

I don't know how many more ways I can say it. It is a combination of both things, genetics and being chosen/elected.

If one is elected by God as a faithful steward, he can be a Jew or a non-Jew. But God has promised there will be Jews who will be elected as faithful stewards.

God has also promised that there will be those of many different nations who will have people elected as faithful stewards. In order to fulfil this promise, it is *essential* that each of these nations be represented.

This requires that God favor each respective gene pool. It is all necessary that God favor a variety of national structures.

At the same time, it is not enough to just belong to these gene pools. They must also be elected as faithful stewards to fulfil this promise! They must be elect peoples and elect nations, consisting only of those who also have been elected as faithful stewards.

The peoples and the nations must therefore exist, even though they consist of both elect and non-elect people. But in order for there to be elect people and nation groups, the peoples and nations must exist.

They are viewed as elect peoples and nations when there is a predominance or calling upon them, even though many of them are not faithful. It is because their structure and their calling predisposes them to produce many who will be faithful.

 

[randyk]

among others!

No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, ​

for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations!​

(Genesis 17:5) ​

My point was that God began with Abraham by promising him a biological posterity in the form of a single nation. Later, He added the promise of "many nations" by extending his fatherhood to a spiritual fatherhood.

We know that was fulfilled through Christ, who has extended the faith of Israel to all nations. The once-limited outreach of God to Israel is no longer limited by nationality or people. Faith is now open to all nations without discrimination.

At the same time, it is still necessary for God to encase faith in specific nations that were promised to Abraham. This not only requires a multitude of nations, but it also requires participation by Abraham's national posterity, Israel.

 

[DavidTree]

I don't know how many more ways I can say it. It is a combination of both things, genetics and being chosen/elected.

If one is elected by God as a faithful steward, he can be a Jew or a non-Jew. But God has promised there will be Jews who will be elected as faithful stewards.

God has also promised that there will be those of many different nations who will have people elected as faithful stewards. In order to fulfil this promise, it is *essential* that each of these nations be represented.

This requires that God favor each respective gene pool. It is all necessary that God favor a variety of national structures.

At the same time, it is not enough to just belong to these gene pools. They must also be elected as faithful stewards to fulfil this promise! They must be elect peoples and elect nations, consisting only of those who also have been elected as faithful stewards.

The peoples and the nations must therefore exist, even though they consist of both elect and non-elect people. But in order for there to be elect people and nation groups, the peoples and nations must exist.

They are viewed as elect peoples and nations when there is a predominance or calling upon them, even though many of them are not faithful. It is because their structure and their calling predisposes them to produce many who will be faithful.

If a Jew is saved by genetics and being chosen then how is a Gentile saved?

 

[Jocund]

This is the KJV:
Gen 17.7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants

Wrong. That is not KJV.

KJV says "seed" singular.

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." - Gen 17:7 KJV

Every version must defer to the original versions.

The source manuscripts say "seed" singular.

Abraham as a nation is, in fact, Israel!

Look at 1 Peter 2 where it talks about Christians existing as a holy nation. Look at the prophesy in Daniel that points to a kingdom in Christ.

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." - Daniel 7 13-14 KJV

You'll notice in Acts 3 that Jews are counted among those blessed through Abraham and not referenced as the seed:

"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." - Acts 3:25-26 KJV

Jews today are the natural descendants of Abraham

Many of them could be. But how would you know? Do you take their word for it? You could through genetic testing determine they are related through common ancestors, but how would you know that this ancestral commonality is through a Hebrew ancestor?

How would we know that the common ancestors weren't proselytes or Canaanites, etc.?

And what about historical Hebrews/Israelites/Jews that became apostates and later adopted other religions. Are they not natural descendants simply because human methods for genetic testing can't identify them?

If you're going to say "That never happened." On what grounds are you making that speculation?

All the descendants of Abraham, natural and spiritual, are the "seed" of Abraham through Christ

By virtue of spirit, yes. Not by virtue of flesh. Your statement would be incorrect if you phrased it as "natural or spiritual"

We see in Rev 7 that specific numbers from the 12 tribes and that a multitude of others are there from all nations. We see that people will be saved from all nations. All kinds of "natural" lineages will be saved. All of them will be Abraham's seed through Christ and not by their own flesh/lineage.

And in choosing the nation of Israel, God knew that at some point the society would contain enough people of faith to constitute a legitimate nation of faith

Scripture points to a heavenly nation. Why are you so fixated on the concept that an earthly nation could possibly fulfil the promise? Earthly nations rise and fall and eventually the earth itself will fade away.

If one is elected by God as a faithful steward, he can be a Jew or a non-Jew. But God has promised there will be Jews who will be elected as faithful stewards.

The promise, by virtue of prophesy also includes faithful stewards from all nations/ethnicities.

I think you are confusing the difference between being called and being chosen.

"For many are called, but few are chosen." - Mat 22:14 KJV

This goes back to the parable of the wedding banquet as a whole.