Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[OMC]

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.

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.

 

[cv5]

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.

I will not waste my valuable time on you. But you can use the search tool and find out for yourself.

 

[Revelation1v8]

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.

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

--

 

[OMC]

I will not waste my valuable time on you. But you can use the search tool and find out for yourself.

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"

 

[Psalm1]

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"

What ministry or position do you align with?
Link.

 

[OMC]

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

--

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.

 

[OMC]

What ministry or position do you align with?
Link.

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.

 

[Psalm1]

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.

So you are not connected to the body of Christ?
A maverick doctrine?

 

[OMC]

So you are not connected to the body of Christ?
A maverick doctrine?

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.

 

[Revelation1v8]

So you are not connected to the body of Christ?
A maverick doctrine?

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.

 

[OMC]

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.

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).