Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[cv5]

I can see where OMC's LANGUAGE looks like he's trying to disconnect the dots, but at the same time, I can see where he's trying to reconnect the dots all at the same time too. He's getting there, but I think HeIsHere might be a totally lost cause on this subject.

The way I see it, @OMC doesn't "get it". The whole counsel of God that is.
He thinks one line of text nullifies all others, when in fact the contrary is true.
Furthermore, he strains to make the bible say what HE supposes it should say, rather than going with the flow.

 

[Revelation1v8]

The way I see it, @OMC doesn't "get it". The whole counsel of God that is.
He thinks one line of text nullifies all others, when in fact the contrary is true.
Furthermore, he strains to make the bible say what HE supposes it should say, rather than going with the flow.

This isn't going to be an easy process for anyone who has to change their original beliefs. I don't see him putting as much effort into making the Bible say what he wants it to say any more. What I see him doing now is going through a deconstructing process in order to restructure his thoughts in the way he speaks.

 

[OMC]

The way I see it, @OMC doesn't "get it". The whole counsel of God that is.
He thinks one line of text nullifies all others, when in fact the contrary is true.
Furthermore, he strains to make the bible say what HE supposes it should say, rather than going with the flow.

If I "don't get it," then show me from Scripture where I have denied a passage rather than simply asserting that I have.
I have repeatedly affirmed that God has not cast away Israel (Rom. 11:1), that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:29), and that God will keep every promise He has made.
What I am questioning is not whether God keeps His covenants, but how the New Testament says those covenants reach their fulfillment.
You accuse me of making one line of text nullify others, yet I could make the same accusation in reverse when passages such as Ephesians 2:14-16, Ephesians 3:6, Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:29, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 are redefined so they cannot mean what they plainly say about believing Jews and Gentiles being one body, one new man, and fellow heirs in Christ.
I am not arguing that Romans 11 cancels Ephesians 2, nor that Ephesians 2 cancels Romans 11.
I am trying to hold both together.
God remains faithful to Israel, and at the same time Paul says believing Jews and believing Gentiles are united in Christ.
If you believe I am straining the text, then demonstrate from Scripture where I have mishandled it.
But please do not confuse disagreement with ignorance.
The issue is not who can make the strongest accusation.
The issue is whether all the relevant passages can stand together without one being forced to yield to a theological system that the text itself does not explicitly teach.

 

[OMC]

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.

My concern has simply been that when Paul later identifies the Seed as Christ (Gal. 3:16) and says those who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29), we have to account for those statements as well.
So if I seem to "play up" how believers fit into the promises, it is because the New Testament spends a great deal of time explaining that point.

 

[Revelation1v8]

The issue is whether all the relevant passages can stand together without one being forced to yield to a theological system that the text itself does not explicitly teach.

They can stand together as long as you look at the fulfillments in BOTH a spiritual and then a literal manner.

--

 

[Revelation1v8]

My concern has simply been that when Paul later identifies the Seed as Christ (Gal. 3:16) and says those who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29), we have to account for those statements as well.
So if I seem to "play up" how believers fit into the promises, it is because the New Testament spends a great deal of time explaining that point.

Yep, just like how we see the Old Testament spending a great deal of time explaining the original promises.

Then, we see how the New Testament brings Gentiles into those original promises spiritually.

Lastly, we see how the two are brought together both spiritually and literally.

 

[OMC]

They can stand together as long as you look at the fulfillments in BOTH a spiritual and then a literal manner.

--

You really need to let him talk for himself.

 

[cv5]

If I "don't get it," then show me from Scripture where I have denied a passage rather than simply asserting that I have.
I have repeatedly affirmed that God has not cast away Israel (Rom. 11:1), that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:29), and that God will keep every promise He has made.
What I am questioning is not whether God keeps His covenants, but how the New Testament says those covenants reach their fulfillment.
You accuse me of making one line of text nullify others, yet I could make the same accusation in reverse when passages such as Ephesians 2:14-16, Ephesians 3:6, Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:29, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 are redefined so they cannot mean what they plainly say about believing Jews and Gentiles being one body, one new man, and fellow heirs in Christ.
I am not arguing that Romans 11 cancels Ephesians 2, nor that Ephesians 2 cancels Romans 11.
I am trying to hold both together.
God remains faithful to Israel, and at the same time Paul says believing Jews and believing Gentiles are united in Christ.
If you believe I am straining the text, then demonstrate from Scripture where I have mishandled it.
But please do not confuse disagreement with ignorance.
The issue is not who can make the strongest accusation.
The issue is whether all the relevant passages can stand together without one being forced to yield to a theological system that the text itself does not explicitly teach.

All of that is extraordinarlily resolved by the following term:
PRESENT CHURCH AGE
Whether you understand it or not.

Mat 12:32
“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Eph 1:21
far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

1Ti 6:17
Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.

Tit 2:12
teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,

Gal 1:4
who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

 

[Revelation1v8]

You really need to let him talk for himself.

That's fine, but it's not going to stop me from showing you how it connects.

--

 

[cv5]

1st century Jews who shared the gospel in the diaspora.

Did you actually think that Omniscient God allowed wiggle room for false preterist dogma?
Or some ridiculous notion that the world is getting better and better post 70AD?
Well I have news for you: He didn't.

Gal 1:4
who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

2Ti 3:13
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

2Pe 3:3
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4
and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.”

Mat 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Isa 27:12
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel.

 

[cv5]

If I "don't get it," then show me from Scripture where I have denied a passage rather than simply asserting that I have.
I have repeatedly affirmed that God has not cast away Israel (Rom. 11:1), that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:29), and that God will keep every promise He has made.
What I am questioning is not whether God keeps His covenants, but how the New Testament says those covenants reach their fulfillment.
You accuse me of making one line of text nullify others, yet I could make the same accusation in reverse when passages such as Ephesians 2:14-16, Ephesians 3:6, Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:29, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 are redefined so they cannot mean what they plainly say about believing Jews and Gentiles being one body, one new man, and fellow heirs in Christ.
I am not arguing that Romans 11 cancels Ephesians 2, nor that Ephesians 2 cancels Romans 11.
I am trying to hold both together.
God remains faithful to Israel, and at the same time Paul says believing Jews and believing Gentiles are united in Christ.
If you believe I am straining the text, then demonstrate from Scripture where I have mishandled it.
But please do not confuse disagreement with ignorance.
The issue is not who can make the strongest accusation.
The issue is whether all the relevant passages can stand together without one being forced to yield to a theological system that the text itself does not explicitly teach.

Does this help you:
1) The NATION ISRAEL is the POSSESSOR of the New Covenant.
2) We presently reside in the CHURCH AGE.

And let me ask you: do you (like me) uncanny that the RT's and CT's and preterists etc fail to grasp the simple fact that
the New Covenant was prophesied TO ISRAEL waaaaayyyyy back in Jer 31:31?
You know.......long before the rejection of their Messiah and Church age interregnum became a thing?

“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.”
— Jeremiah 31:31 KJV

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

This isn't going to be an easy process for anyone who has to change their original beliefs.

So, are the three original beliefs covenantal, reformed, and dispensational theologies.

And if one chooses one of the other 2, the answer to the op = no?

 

[Revelation1v8]

So, are the three original beliefs covenantal, reformed, and dispensational theologies.

And if one chooses one of the other 2, the answer to the op = no?

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are asking, but I can say that I believe that those who carry only covenantal or reformed theologies are limiting the view of the entire Bible as a whole. But that could just depend on each's person's definition of how they view the theologies.

 

[cv5]

So, are the three original beliefs covenantal, reformed, and dispensational theologies.

And if one chooses one of the other 2, the answer to the op = no?

That is the wrong way to look at it.
The CORRECT way is as follows:

There is ONE ONLY master plan of Salvation. Just one.
And yes, it is embedded into the time stream and affects different generations and nations to varying degrees and at varying instances IN TIME.

The biblically illiterate will say that the only way that these verses can be rightly understood is when they are severed from the greater whole. However the wise know that these verses can only be rightly understood by CONNECTING them to the greater whole.

1Co 15:23
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1Co 15:24
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 

[Churchgoer]

Look what your side of the debate does with the 144,000.
Your teachers need most every description of them changed.

Please clarify?
Are you saying 144000 do not need to be born again in Jesus blood?

Thank you.

 

[Churchgoer]

I'll repeat again:

God saves and sustains the seed of Isaac through covenant promises by establishing an everlasting, unilateral guarantee rooted in His own faithfulness rather than human merit or mere abstract faith. This is demonstrated through divine election, where God chose Isaac over Ishmael before birth to fulfill the covenant, proving that salvation depends on sovereign grace and God's initiative, not human works.

Correct, not by flesh, but by promise.

 

[Cameron143]

I know for a surety that post # 4,515 applies to you as well, among many many others on this thread.

Did I mention that Joel 2 is realized and amplified in Rev 9?

Joel 2 is realized on Pentecost.

 

[Cameron143]

That's because Jesus is God and always has been God. He's the one who made the promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the rest of us who have lived thereafter. So, there really is no difference. Promises weren't just made by Him through His human flesh, but through His spiritual flesh as well, before He incarnated into human flesh.

So, are you still going to say that Revelation shows God/Jesus ending the covenant and that He will no longer live with His people Israel now? Or have you changed your view on that?

The old covenant has been done away with. Read Hebrews. It was waning at the time Hebrews was written. And why would anyone want to remain under that covenant when the new covenant is in every regard superior. Christ is superior to Moses, angels, the priesthood, and the new covenant is built upon better promises.

God will, at some future time, redeem large numbers of ethnic Jews, but it will be according to the new covenant. No other covenant exists.

 

[Cameron143]

Did you actually think that Omniscient God allowed wiggle room for false preterist dogma?
Or some ridiculous notion that the world is getting better and better post 70AD?
Well I have news for you: He didn't.

Gal 1:4
who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

2Ti 3:13
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

2Pe 3:3
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4
and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.”

Mat 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Isa 27:12
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel.

Fulfilled in and by Christ.

One day, perhaps, you will understand that prophecy is fulfilled in Christ...2 Corinthians 1:20.

 

[cv5]

Joel 2 is realized on Pentecost.

Your trivial one-liners are the stuff that heresies are made of.

And no, you will NOT conduct a proper in depth study on Acts 2. Nor will you read this content. This I know because this exegetical treatment has already been posted many times.

Post in thread 'Replacement theology? Yes or No.'

Sep 12, 2026

Saying “you fail to comprehend Peter and James” is not an argument; it’s just a way of avoiding the fact that Acts 2 and Acts 15 explicitly apply Israel’s restoration promises to the ingathering of Gentiles, not to a postponed national resurrection.
Peter quotes Joel and says the Spirit’s outpouring is happening now, not after a future geopolitical revival; James quotes Amos and says the rebuilding of David’s fallen tent is Christ’s present work, not a millennial reconstruction of ethnic Israel.
You keep accusing others of “amillennial filters,” but you’re refusing to let the apostles...

• cv5