Replacement theology? Yes or No.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
cv5 said:
LOL. We have already covered the core message of Romans 9. Many times.
And its quite straightforward. But as is usual, the CT's and RT's contort it so that it becomes another endless fruitless pointless debate.
Which is their objective to begin with. Always searching, never knowing.

Luckily, my searches ARE fruitful and I DO know. The truth of settled, inerrant Biblically based doctrine that is.

BTW, your AI replies are entirely obvious.
Click to expand...
Grid 3 is not an AI.
Whether my replies are written by me, AI, or a carrier pigeon is irrelevant to the argument.
You say Romans 9 is straightforward and settled.
Then demonstrate it from the text!
Romans 9:6-8 explicitly says: "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel... the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
Paul's point is that physical descent alone never guaranteed participation in the promises.
That's the foundation of his argument.
So instead of saying CTs and RTs "don't understand Romans 9," explain how your interpretation accounts for Paul's distinction between physical Israel and the children of promise.
Repeating that the matter is settled is not the same as demonstrating it from Scripture.
Paul makes his case by argument and exposition, not by declaring his opponents defeated.
 
OMC said:
Grid 3 is not an AI.
Whether my replies are written by me, AI, or a carrier pigeon is irrelevant to the argument.
You say Romans 9 is straightforward and settled.
Then demonstrate it from the text!
Romans 9:6-8 explicitly says: "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel... the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
Paul's point is that physical descent alone never guaranteed participation in the promises.
That's the foundation of his argument.
So instead of saying CTs and RTs "don't understand Romans 9," explain how your interpretation accounts for Paul's distinction between physical Israel and the children of promise.
Repeating that the matter is settled is not the same as demonstrating it from Scripture.
Paul makes his case by argument and exposition, not by declaring his opponents defeated.
Click to expand...
I will not waste my valuable time on you. But you can use the search tool and find out for yourself.
 
OMC said:
Sigh, I apologize. That was improper of me, yes ill answer you.
Romans 9:4-8 is precisely why simply appealing to ethnic descent cannot settle the question.
Paul explicitly says, "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6).
He then explains that not all Abraham's physical descendants are counted as the promised seed: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (v.7). His conclusion is unmistakable: "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (v.8).

So before anyone claims Romans 11 must refer to ethnic Israel as a whole, they must reckon with Paul's own definition in Romans 9. Paul's concern is to defend the faithfulness of God's promises despite widespread Jewish unbelief.
His argument is that God's word has not failed because God's promises were never guaranteed to every physical descendant, but to the children of promise.

Therefore, any interpretation of "all Israel" in Romans 11 must be consistent with Paul's earlier statement that not all who are descended from Israel are truly Israel (Rom. 9:6).
That's not importing theology into the text. That's following Paul's argument where he himself begins it.
Click to expand...

That's why the Bible shows us that God said He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was for that reason.

--
 
cv5 said:
I will not waste my valuable time on you. But you can use the search tool and find out for yourself.
Click to expand...
That is a unfortunate deflection because I was really ready to go to war. You claim I have my own doctrine, that I understand nothing. fine.
Lets do it here right now. With all to see and judge for themselves. um, yes, that was a challenge of your system against my "doctrine"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cv5
OMC said:
That is a unfortunate deflection because I was really ready to go to war. You claim I have my own doctrine, that I understand nothing. fine.
Lets do it here right now. With all to see and judge for themselves. um, yes, that was a challenge of your system against my "doctrine"
Click to expand...
What ministry or position do you align with?
Link.
 
Revelation1v8 said:
That's why the Bible shows us that God said He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was for that reason.

--
Click to expand...
Exactly. God did not say He was the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob.
Romans 9 shows the covenant line was narrowed through God's promise: Abraham → Isaac → Jacob. That is Paul's point when he says, "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel" and "the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (Rom. 9:6-8).
Physical descent alone was never the basis of the promise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Revelation1v8
Psalm1 said:
What ministry or position do you align with?
Link.
Click to expand...
I don't identify with a theological system.
I try to follow a biblical or exegetical approach, letting Scripture interpret Scripture and drawing conclusions from the text rather than starting with a predetermined framework.
 
OMC said:
I don't identify with a theological system.
I try to follow a biblical or exegetical approach, letting Scripture interpret Scripture and drawing conclusions from the text rather than starting with a predetermined framework.
Click to expand...
So you are not connected to the body of Christ?
A maverick doctrine?
 
Psalm1 said:
So you are not connected to the body of Christ?
A maverick doctrine?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Being connected to the body of Christ and subscribing to a theological system are not the same thing.
The body of Christ is made up of those who belong to Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-27), not those who agree with a particular man-made framework.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psalm1
Psalm1 said:
So you are not connected to the body of Christ?
A maverick doctrine?
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, Psalm1, but most of the churches I've been to will admit that they kind of stick to a level of Christianity 101 because they're there to reach the lost, not the already saved. That's when we get left to our own devices to study the scripture and learn about things we wouldn't otherwise know or understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psalm1
Revelation1v8 said:
I don't know about you, Psalm1, but most of the churches I've been to will admit that they kind of stick to a level of Christianity 101 because they're there to reach the lost, not the already saved. That's when we get left to our own devices to study the scripture and learn about things we wouldn't otherwise know or understand.
Click to expand...
I have been misled by many systems because I trusted the men and women that wrote or taught them.
Finding errors with my own eyes and admiting to myself what I was seeing is truth.
Not what they were telling me.
Does that mean I stop talking to people or fellowship? No, of course not.
But I dont follow any system.
We are certainly meant to learn from other believers (Eph. 4:11-16), but Scripture remains the standard by which all teaching is tested (Acts 17:11). So my position is not, "I don't need the body of Christ." My position is, "No theological system gets to sit above Scripture."
If a dispensational, covenant, reformed, or any other framework agrees with the text, fine. If not, the text wins. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psalm1 and Revelation1v8
OMC said:
I have been misled by many systems because I trusted the men and women that wrote or taught them.
Finding errors with my own eyes and admiting to myself what I was seeing is truth.
Not what they were telling me.
Does that mean I stop talking to people or fellowship? No, of course not.
But I dont follow any system.
We are certainly meant to learn from other believers (Eph. 4:11-16), but Scripture remains the standard by which all teaching is tested (Acts 17:11). So my position is not, "I don't need the body of Christ." My position is, "No theological system gets to sit above Scripture."
If a dispensational, covenant, reformed, or any other framework agrees with the text, fine. If not, the text wins. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4).
Click to expand...

Most everyone is well meaning, but I can honestly say that I've learned more from having these conversations with different people over the years online than I ever did in church. Yes, we must all test what people are saying against the scriptures, no matter who they are. Even Paul warned that part of the problem wasn't just people preaching a totally different gospel, but perverting the one that exists, which is why it's so important to know what the scriptures actually say in the first place.

Galations 1:6-7

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMC and Psalm1
OMC said:
That is a unfortunate deflection because I was really ready to go to war. You claim I have my own doctrine, that I understand nothing. fine.
Lets do it here right now. With all to see and judge for themselves. um, yes, that was a challenge of your system against my "doctrine"
Click to expand...
Going to war are you?
Against the Jews, the coming restoration of the Kingdom to Israel, legit biblical doctrine, Christ and Paul?

Ok I will make my wager on who I think will prevail and make a fortune....😂
 
OMC said:
That is a unfortunate deflection because I was really ready to go to war. You claim I have my own doctrine, that I understand nothing. fine.
Lets do it here right now. With all to see and judge for themselves. um, yes, that was a challenge of your system against my "doctrine"
Click to expand...

I am curious to know how your doctrine differs from @cv5, even if I read the thread I am not sure I would see it.

Since you do not mind posting a lot, can you give a quick snapshot of the differences?

Just a request, cause I am curious if it is complicated you can pass, no obligation.

Seems to me you both follow a dispensationalist framework, but I know there are various interpretations within system.
 
HeIsHere said:
I am curious to know how your doctrine differs from @cv5, even if I read the thread I am not sure I would see it.

Since you do not mind posting a lot, can you give a quick snapshot of the differences?

Just a request, cause I am curious if it is complicated you can pass, no obligation.

Seems to me you both follow a dispensationalist framework, but I know there are various interpretations within system.
Click to expand...
He defends a system imposed on scripture, while I impose scripture on his system. That’s the difference.
Sometimes we agree others not so much. In the end I follow where scripture leads, not a system.
 
OMC said:
He defends a system imposed on scripture, while I impose scripture on his system. That’s the difference.
Sometimes we agree others not so much. In the end I follow where scripture leads, not a system.
Click to expand...

Okay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back