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.
Revelation1v8 said:
That's something I've been meaning to talk to you about. Revelation 21 shows us that it's referring to the new earth and the new Heaven. I'm just now noticing that it's still talking about perseverance and those who overcome all things. I keep going back and forth in my mind if the actual new earth is the place where the Millennial Kingdom period takes place instead of the current earth. Personally, in the past, I never saw this as a place where people were still sinning, repopulating, and dying, but apparently it is.
Click to expand...
That's actually a very important observation, and I think it's one of the places where many prophetic systems end up wrestling with the text.
If you read Revelation in its straightforward sequence:
Revelation 19: Christ returns.
Revelation 20: Satan is bound, the thousand years occur, then Satan is released, there is a final rebellion, and finally death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21: John sees a new heaven and a new earth.
That sequence alone is why many interpreters, including most premillennialists, place the Millennium before the new heaven and new earth.
Revelation 21 comes after death has already been destroyed (Rev. 20:14).
The difficulty you're noticing is that Revelation 21 contains language such as: "He that overcometh shall inherit all things" (Rev. 21:7).
At first glance that sounds like an ongoing call to perseverance.
But notice that Revelation has used "overcome" language from the very beginning (Rev. 2-3).
It doesn't necessarily imply that people are still sinning and dying inside the new creation.
It may simply be identifying those who had overcome through faith and are now inheriting the final promises.
What makes the new creation difficult to place inside the Millennium is passages like: "And there shall be no more death" (Rev. 21:4).
And: "Neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" (Rev. 21:4).
And: "There shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth" (Rev. 21:27).
Those statements sound very different from the typical dispensational description of the Millennium, where:
mortal people still exist,
nations still exist,
people can still rebel,
Satan is later released,
and a final rebellion occurs.
It is difficult to fit all of that into Revelation 21 after John explicitly says there is no more death and no more curse-related corruption.
So if you're asking for my honest assessment, I think your earlier instinct was probably correct.
Revelation 21 reads much more naturally as the eternal state following the defeat of Satan, death, and Hades than as the Millennial Kingdom itself.
The interesting question then becomes: how do passages like Isaiah 65 fit?
Isaiah 65 appears to describe conditions where:
people still die,
nations still exist,
yet there is extraordinary blessing and peace.
Many premillennialists place that in the Millennium.
By contrast, Revelation 21 describes:
no death,
no mourning,
no pain,
no curse,
no enemies left.
That sounds like the consummation of 1 Corinthians 15: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:26). "That God may be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28).
In other words, the connection you've been making with "all in all" is actually significant.
Once death is gone, the kingdom has reached its final goal.
That's why many readers see Revelation 21-22 as describing the state after Christ has finished subduing every enemy.
So I think the tension you're noticing is real.
If Revelation 21 is the new creation after death is abolished, then it is difficult to see it as a place where people are still dying, marrying, repopulating, and rebelling.
Those features seem to fit the Millennium far better than the eternal state.
 
Revelation1v8 said:
it looks like Revelation 21 is all over the map like Ezekiel. I can't tell what is what and which place is being referred to at any one given moment the way it jumps back and forth. It jumps back to the 7th angel carrying the plagues in verse 9 talking to John again to describe the bride. I think everything is being intermingled together again
Click to expand...
What you are on to is important.
Revelation 21 is not as simple as "verse 1 starts the eternal state and every verse afterward moves forward chronologically."
John often gets a vision, then gets another vision explaining a different aspect of the same reality.
For example, Revelation 17 begins with one of the bowl angels showing John the judgment of Babylon.
Then Revelation 21:9 has one of those same bowl angels saying, "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."
That parallel structure suggests John is being given another symbolic tour, not necessarily advancing the timeline.
The question becomes whether the New Jerusalem vision is describing the eternal state exclusively or providing a theological picture of God's redeemed people from another angle.
That's why Revelation can sometimes feel like Ezekiel.
Ezekiel can describe restoration, kingdom blessings, temple imagery, future realities, and covenant fulfillment all woven together in one prophetic tapestry.
Revelation often does the same thing.
 
OMC said:
What you are on to is important.
Revelation 21 is not as simple as "verse 1 starts the eternal state and every verse afterward moves forward chronologically."
John often gets a vision, then gets another vision explaining a different aspect of the same reality.
For example, Revelation 17 begins with one of the bowl angels showing John the judgment of Babylon.
Then Revelation 21:9 has one of those same bowl angels saying, "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."
That parallel structure suggests John is being given another symbolic tour, not necessarily advancing the timeline.
The question becomes whether the New Jerusalem vision is describing the eternal state exclusively or providing a theological picture of God's redeemed people from another angle.
That's why Revelation can sometimes feel like Ezekiel.
Ezekiel can describe restoration, kingdom blessings, temple imagery, future realities, and covenant fulfillment all woven together in one prophetic tapestry.
Revelation often does the same thing.
Click to expand...

Here's something that A.I. is presenting to me that I've never considered before:

The big question: Does Revelation 21 describe one continuous moment in time, or does it jump around between different time periods?

The short answer: Some scholars think it jumps around, and here's how they figure out when each part happens:

View 1: The chapter splits in half at verse 9

  • Verses 1–8 = the final, forever state (after everything is settled).
  • Verses 9–22 = a flashback to the 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth.
Why they think this: Verse 24 says nations still exist and bring their glory in, and verse 27 says some people are still kept out. That sounds like a time when there's still a "good guys" and "bad guys" situation — which fits the 1,000-year period, not the final state where all the bad guys are already gone.

View 2: The new earth actually comes before the 1,000 years

This group says John's vision shows the new earth after the 1,000 years, but in real chronological order, the new earth is created first, then the 1,000 years happen on it.

Why they think this: They point to Isaiah 65 and 2 Peter 3, which seem to put the new creation before the final state, with no 1,000-year gap in between.

View 3: It's a flashback in the middle of a forward story

  • Verse 1 = the very end of time (right after the final judgment in chapter 20).
  • Verse 2 onward = John is shown a scene from earlier — the 1,000-year period.
Why they think this: Same reason as View 1 — the "nothing unclean enters" language implies there are still unclean people around, which only makes sense during the 1,000 years.

The common thread across all three views:

John isn't writing a newspaper-style timeline. He's more like a prophet showing you a series of scenes — sometimes jumping forward, sometimes back — to drive home a point: the old world (death, sin, pain) is gone, and God is finally with His people. The "out of order" feel is intentional, not sloppy.
 
Revelation1v8 said:
Here's something that A.I. is presenting to me that I've never considered before:

The big question: Does Revelation 21 describe one continuous moment in time, or does it jump around between different time periods?

The short answer: Some scholars think it jumps around, and here's how they figure out when each part happens:

View 1: The chapter splits in half at verse 9

  • Verses 1–8 = the final, forever state (after everything is settled).
  • Verses 9–22 = a flashback to the 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth.
Why they think this: Verse 24 says nations still exist and bring their glory in, and verse 27 says some people are still kept out. That sounds like a time when there's still a "good guys" and "bad guys" situation — which fits the 1,000-year period, not the final state where all the bad guys are already gone.

View 2: The new earth actually comes before the 1,000 years

This group says John's vision shows the new earth after the 1,000 years, but in real chronological order, the new earth is created first, then the 1,000 years happen on it.

Why they think this: They point to Isaiah 65 and 2 Peter 3, which seem to put the new creation before the final state, with no 1,000-year gap in between.

View 3: It's a flashback in the middle of a forward story

  • Verse 1 = the very end of time (right after the final judgment in chapter 20).
  • Verse 2 onward = John is shown a scene from earlier — the 1,000-year period.
Why they think this: Same reason as View 1 — the "nothing unclean enters" language implies there are still unclean people around, which only makes sense during the 1,000 years.

The common thread across all three views:

John isn't writing a newspaper-style timeline. He's more like a prophet showing you a series of scenes — sometimes jumping forward, sometimes back — to drive home a point: the old world (death, sin, pain) is gone, and God is finally with His people. The "out of order" feel is intentional, not sloppy.
Click to expand...
I think that's a legitimate possibility to consider.
Revelation 21 starts with language that sounds unmistakably final: "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away" (21:1), "there shall be no more death" (21:4), and God dwelling permanently with His people.
Yet beginning in verse 9, the narrative shifts when one of the seven bowl angels returns and says, "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife," which is structurally similar to Revelation 17 when John was shown Babylon.
That raises the question of whether John is continuing chronologically or being given a detailed tour from another perspective.
Then you encounter details about nations, kings of the earth, gates, and exclusion language that don't fit as neatly with a simplistic "everything is already over" reading.
That's why Revelation can feel a lot like Ezekiel.
Instead of laying events out in a strict timeline, it often presents layered prophetic images that overlap, expand, and revisit themes from different angles.
So rather than assuming Revelation 21 is describing only one moment in time from beginning to end, it may be that John is interweaving the consummation, the bride, covenant fulfillment, kingdom imagery, and eternal realities into one grand vision. Whether that ultimately proves a millennial flashback is another question, but I think you're right to notice that the chapter doesn't read like a straight chronological newspaper report.
It reads much more like prophetic panorama, where the final destination is shown first and then explored in greater detail from several perspectives.
 
OMC said:
I think that's a legitimate possibility to consider.
Revelation 21 starts with language that sounds unmistakably final: "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away" (21:1), "there shall be no more death" (21:4), and God dwelling permanently with His people.
Yet beginning in verse 9, the narrative shifts when one of the seven bowl angels returns and says, "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife," which is structurally similar to Revelation 17 when John was shown Babylon.
That raises the question of whether John is continuing chronologically or being given a detailed tour from another perspective.
Then you encounter details about nations, kings of the earth, gates, and exclusion language that don't fit as neatly with a simplistic "everything is already over" reading.
That's why Revelation can feel a lot like Ezekiel.
Instead of laying events out in a strict timeline, it often presents layered prophetic images that overlap, expand, and revisit themes from different angles.
So rather than assuming Revelation 21 is describing only one moment in time from beginning to end, it may be that John is interweaving the consummation, the bride, covenant fulfillment, kingdom imagery, and eternal realities into one grand vision. Whether that ultimately proves a millennial flashback is another question, but I think you're right to notice that the chapter doesn't read like a straight chronological newspaper report.
It reads much more like prophetic panorama, where the final destination is shown first and then explored in greater detail from several perspectives.
Click to expand...

So, what are your personal thoughts for a conclusion?

As far as I can tell, I think it's confirming that the Millennial Kingdom period is on the new earth, the Great White Throne Judgement takes place afterwards, and then it all transitions into the permanent state of Heaven.

In the past, I always assumed that the Great White Throne Judgement would take place before the new earth materializes, but apparently not. It only takes place before Heaven materializes. I just assumed that any "earth" would eventually be destroyed just for the fact that sin had lived on it and it needed to be cleansed. That's one that I'm still having a hard time figuring out. I was thinking that there was a restored earth for the Millennial Kingdom period and then a whole new heaven and earth coming after it.
 
Revelation1v8 said:
So, what are your personal thoughts for a conclusion?

As far as I can tell, I think it's confirming that the Millennial Kingdom period is on the new earth, the Great White Throne Judgement takes place afterwards, and then it all transitions into the permanent state of Heaven.

In the past, I always assumed that the Great White Throne Judgement would take place before the new earth materializes, but apparently not. It only takes place before Heaven materializes. I just assumed that any "earth" would eventually be destroyed just for the fact that sin had lived on it and it needed to be cleansed. That's one that I'm still having a hard time figuring out. I was thinking that there was a restored earth for the Millennial Kingdom period and then a whole new heaven and earth coming after it.
Click to expand...
The thousand years occur in Revelation 20.
The final rebellion occurs after the thousand years.
The Great White Throne judgment occurs.
Death is destroyed.
John then sees a new heaven and a new earth where death is no more and God dwells with His people.
Beyond those explicit statements,
Scripture does not clearly explain whether the detailed vision of New Jerusalem is purely eternal-state imagery, a broader covenant vision, or a mixture of perspectives.
Therefore I should affirm what the text plainly says and avoid being dogmatic where the text is not explicit.
 
OMC said:
The thousand years occur in Revelation 20.
The final rebellion occurs after the thousand years.
The Great White Throne judgment occurs.
Death is destroyed.
John then sees a new heaven and a new earth where death is no more and God dwells with His people.
Beyond those explicit statements,
Scripture does not clearly explain whether the detailed vision of New Jerusalem is purely eternal-state imagery, a broader covenant vision, or a mixture of perspectives.
Therefore I should affirm what the text plainly says and avoid being dogmatic where the text is not explicit.
Click to expand...

The reason I always thought that the New Jerusalem was purely an eternal state imagery was because of:

Revelation 3:12 -

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

This is where my thoughts start going all over the place.

Is this "new Jerusalem" just a term being used to describe the Millennial Kingdom period on the earth?

Zechariah 14:9 - And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

The verse above would explain why Jesus' new name is written on everyone who overcomes on the earth.

Why is the Bible using language like "the new heaven and the new earth" as though they are still separate in Revelation 21?

Are they separate forever? This is something I've considered before in this thread, but never could reconcile completely.

Is the new earth or New Jerusalem a permanent place for those who waited until after the return of Jesus to confess Him as their Lord during the Tribulation and into the Millennial Kingdom period? Is the new Heaven a permanent place of residence for everyone who accepted Him by Faith before His return? Does God/Jesus' throne sit somewhere in the middle (that High Mountain of Zion) between the two?

I don't know, but I'll be curious to see exactly how the two become one.
 
Revelation1v8 said:
The reason I always thought that the New Jerusalem was purely an eternal state imagery was because of:

Revelation 3:12 -

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

This is where my thoughts start going all over the place.

Is this "new Jerusalem" just a term being used to describe the Millennial Kingdom period on the earth?

Zechariah 14:9 - And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

The verse above would explain why Jesus' new name is written on everyone who overcomes on the earth.

Why is the Bible using language like "the new heaven and the new earth" as though they are still separate in Revelation 21?

Are they separate forever? This is something I've considered before in this thread, but never could reconcile completely.

Is the new earth or New Jerusalem a permanent place for those who waited until after the return of Jesus to confess Him as their Lord during the Tribulation and into the Millennial Kingdom period? Is the new Heaven a permanent place of residence for everyone who accepted Him by Faith before His return? Does God/Jesus' throne sit somewhere in the middle (that High Mountain of Zion) between the two?

I don't know, but I'll be curious to see exactly how the two become one.
Click to expand...
Brother, if I stay with Scripture alone, I would say that Revelation 3:12 and Revelation 21 seem to identify the same New Jerusalem, because both passages describe "the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God."
What the text clearly shows is not believers permanently divided between heaven and earth, but heaven coming down and God dwelling with man.
Revelation 21:2-3 says the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven and that "the tabernacle of God is with men."
Likewise, Revelation 22:3 says, "the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it."
Scripture never explicitly says that one class of believers lives forever in heaven while another lives forever on earth, nor does it say that tribulation saints and pre-return believers have separate eternal destinations.
Rather, the emphasis is on the gathering of God's people into one dwelling under God's presence.
The reason the new heaven and new earth are mentioned separately in Revelation 21:1 may simply be because John is describing the new creation as a whole, just as Genesis 1:1 speaks of "the heaven and the earth."
By the end of Revelation, the focus is no longer on separation, but on union: God with man, the throne among His people, His servants seeing His face, and death being no more.
So from Scripture alone, I would say the clearest picture is not two permanent realms with different groups assigned to each, but the final fulfillment of God's purpose when He dwells openly with His redeemed people and "God may be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28).
 
OMC said:
I started addressing CV5 and his claims, but then he began using an AI to post, and now I understand why he won’t debate me. He doesn’t know what his AI has said, and he has no idea how to respond when faced with education. That’s why he resorts to insults instead of scripture.
Click to expand...
He also never answers my point,
A husband can't marry back ex wife, who already marries other man.

But a husband can marry a new woman, born again.
 
Churchgoer said:
He also never answers my point,
A husband can't marry back ex wife, who already marries other man.

But a husband can marry a new woman, born again.
Click to expand...
I told beekeeper yesterday that cv5 never confronts education. We won't get scripture for answers just insults. At least thus far. I still pray for him.🙏
 
  • Heart
Reactions: Churchgoer
OMC said:
I agree that the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants were given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants.
I also agree that God does not fail to keep His promises.
Where we differ is that you continue to frame the covenants primarily around ethnic possession, while Paul frames them around Christ. The Seed is Christ (Gal. 3:16), and those who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29). Therefore, saying Gentiles merely participate in Israel's blessings understates what Paul actually teaches.
We are not standing outside the promise looking in.
In Christ, believing Jews and believing Gentiles are fellow heirs (Eph. 3:6), fellow citizens (Eph. 2:19), one body (1 Cor. 12:13), and one new man (Eph. 2:15).
That does not require God to break His promises to Israel.
It means those promises find their fulfillment in the Messiah and in the people united to Him.
So even if the Millennium includes the fulfillment of covenant promises given to Israel, you still have not demonstrated that this requires two covenant peoples of God.
Paul repeatedly emphasizes one people in Christ, not two peoples sharing the same Messiah.
Click to expand...
The church is the second born.
So the BLESSING went to the second born.
The first born in your doctrine then vanishes without a trace.
That is error.
You do not know what covenant is.
The firstborn did NOT LOSE HIS LINEAGE.
NEVER DOES.
You are whacking at the leaves thinking you got the best method of chopping down the tree.

You think the Bible is in error and JUST ASSUME we think the Jews are saved outside of Jesus.
You ASSUME SO MUCH.
NOBODY thinks anyone is saved outside of Jesus.

You do not understand the debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Revelation1v8
Psalm1 said:
The church is the second born.
So the BLESSING went to the second born.
The first born in your doctrine then vanishes without a trace.
That is error.
You do not know what covenant is.
The firstborn did NOT LOSE HIS LINEAGE.
NEVER DOES.
You are whacking at the leaves thinking you got the best method of chopping down the tree.

You think the Bible is in error and JUST ASSUME we think the Jews are saved outside of Jesus.
You ASSUME SO MUCH.
NOBODY thinks anyone is saved outside of Jesus.

You do not understand the debate.
Click to expand...
You are responding to an argument I never made.
I never said Israel vanishes.
I never said the Jews lose their lineage.
I never said God abandons His promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or their descendants.
In fact, I explicitly agreed that God keeps every promise He makes and that Romans 11 teaches God has not cast away His people.
The disagreement is not whether Israel continues to exist.
The disagreement is whether Scripture teaches two covenant peoples of God or one people united in Christ.
Romans 9:7-8 actually supports my point, because Paul says that not all physical descendants are counted as the children of promise. The promise is traced through God's election and ultimately through Christ.
Then in Galatians 3:16 Paul identifies the Seed as Christ, and in Galatians 3:29 he says, "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
That does not erase Israel, but it does place the fulfillment of the promise in Christ rather than in ethnicity alone.
You accuse me of assuming Jews can be saved apart from Christ, but I have never said that, nor have I accused you of believing it. What I have said is that every saved Jew and every saved Gentile is saved through the same Messiah, brought into the same body, made fellow heirs of the same promise (Eph. 3:6), and made one new man in Christ (Eph. 2:15).
So no, I do not believe the firstborn loses his lineage.
I do not believe Israel disappears.
I do not believe God's covenants fail.
I believe the New Testament repeatedly teaches that the promises reach their fulfillment in Christ, and that those who belong to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, share together in that inheritance.
That is the issue under debate, and it is fundamentally different from the claim that Israel somehow ceases to exist.
 
OMC said:
Brother, if I stay with Scripture alone, I would say that Revelation 3:12 and Revelation 21 seem to identify the same New Jerusalem, because both passages describe "the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God."
What the text clearly shows is not believers permanently divided between heaven and earth, but heaven coming down and God dwelling with man.
Revelation 21:2-3 says the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven and that "the tabernacle of God is with men."
Likewise, Revelation 22:3 says, "the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it."
Scripture never explicitly says that one class of believers lives forever in heaven while another lives forever on earth, nor does it say that tribulation saints and pre-return believers have separate eternal destinations.
Rather, the emphasis is on the gathering of God's people into one dwelling under God's presence.
The reason the new heaven and new earth are mentioned separately in Revelation 21:1 may simply be because John is describing the new creation as a whole, just as Genesis 1:1 speaks of "the heaven and the earth."
By the end of Revelation, the focus is no longer on separation, but on union: God with man, the throne among His people, His servants seeing His face, and death being no more.
So from Scripture alone, I would say the clearest picture is not two permanent realms with different groups assigned to each, but the final fulfillment of God's purpose when He dwells openly with His redeemed people and "God may be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28).
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how I originally saw it too. So, in order to piece it all together, the entire cleansing of the earth described in 2 Peter 3:10 has to happen after the Millennial Kingdom period is over and before the New Jerusalem can come down from Heaven to make it suitable for God to dwell with His people, not beforehand.

It also means that the Ezekiel war in chapter 39 has to happen before the Tribulation period to make room for that seven months of burying bodies and seven years of burying weapons before the Millennial Kingdom period starts. And somehow, we have to fit the war of Armageddon in there too...

Yes, according to mainstream Christian eschatology, Jesus returns to earth during the Battle of Armageddon to defeat the forces of evil. This event marks the end of the Tribulation period and initiates His Millennial Reign.
  • Timing: Jesus returns at the close of the seven-year tribulation, just as the armies of the Antichrist gather to attack Israel.
  • Location: His physical return begins on the Mount of Olives east of Jerusalem, where the mountain splits to create a valley (Zechariah 14:4).
  • Action: He arrives with the armies of heaven (redeemed saints) and defeats the gathered nations, casting the Antichrist and False Prophet into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:11–21).
  • Outcome: His victory establishes His kingdom on earth, binding Satan for a thousand years (Revelation 20:1–3).

After God/Jesus throws the Antichrist and the False Prophet into the Lake of Fire, the Millennial Kingdom period will start with Satan having been bound to the Abyss for 1,000 years like Revelation 20 says.

After the 1,000 years are over, Satan is released to try and gather his armies from the rebellious people living during the Millennial Kingdom period and God/Jesus will strike them all down with fire.

Satan is then judged and thrown into the Lake of Fire with the Antichrist and the False Prophet. Then the people are all judged at the Great White Throne Judgement, the earth and it's works burned up with fire from 2 Peter 3:10, making the way for God to be able to live with resurrected and incorruptible men in the New Jerusalem/Heaven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psalm1
OMC said:
I told beekeeper yesterday that cv5 never confronts education. We won't get scripture for answers just insults. At least thus far. I still pray for him.🙏
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. While you have to dig back several pages to get to his posted scripture, he has presented it several times before and I dug one up for you to "challenge" yesterday. I think he just gave up on repeating himself showing the scriptures because no one was reading them or considering them anyway.
 
OMC said:
You are responding to an argument I never made.
I never said Israel vanishes.
I never said the Jews lose their lineage.
I never said God abandons His promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or their descendants.
In fact, I explicitly agreed that God keeps every promise He makes and that Romans 11 teaches God has not cast away His people.
The disagreement is not whether Israel continues to exist.
The disagreement is whether Scripture teaches two covenant peoples of God or one people united in Christ.
Romans 9:7-8 actually supports my point, because Paul says that not all physical descendants are counted as the children of promise. The promise is traced through God's election and ultimately through Christ.
Then in Galatians 3:16 Paul identifies the Seed as Christ, and in Galatians 3:29 he says, "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
That does not erase Israel, but it does place the fulfillment of the promise in Christ rather than in ethnicity alone.
You accuse me of assuming Jews can be saved apart from Christ, but I have never said that, nor have I accused you of believing it. What I have said is that every saved Jew and every saved Gentile is saved through the same Messiah, brought into the same body, made fellow heirs of the same promise (Eph. 3:6), and made one new man in Christ (Eph. 2:15).
So no, I do not believe the firstborn loses his lineage.
I do not believe Israel disappears.
I do not believe God's covenants fail.
I believe the New Testament repeatedly teaches that the promises reach their fulfillment in Christ, and that those who belong to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, share together in that inheritance.
That is the issue under debate, and it is fundamentally different from the claim that Israel somehow ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

The thing is, sometimes the language you choose to use makes it appear as though it's relating to Christians only. I understand your repeating all of the scriptures showing how we are considered part of the seed of Abraham and how we're all made one spiritually through Jesus Christ, but you definitely PLAY DOWN the seed of Isaac from Romans 9:7-8. You don't deny it, but you PLAY UP how Christians fit into it. That's fine, but it can make it confusing to people trying to read your posts the way you write them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back