Replacement theology? Yes or No.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
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.
And still they seek to malign the indigenous people by posting stupid videos.
Pay no attention to it, there are many here who know the history well, very well indeed.
putting Christ at the center means I interpret Israel’s story through Him, but I also confess that Scripture itself never treats ancient Israel as irrelevant to God’s present work; rather, the New Testament repeatedly uses Israel’s past to explain the church’s present and future. When I speak of Israel’s fall, restoration, or covenant standing, I am not assigning spiritual significance to any modern nation‑state, because Christ’s kingdom is not of this world; instead, I am following Paul’s teaching that Israel’s historical, covenantal relationship with God still has theological meaning for understanding the gospel, the olive tree, and the future ingathering. I reject the idea that referencing ancient Israel implies applying prophecy to a present‑day country, because the apostles themselves speak of Israel’s fall and future fullness without ever tying it to geopolitical entities. I therefore keep Christ at the center by treating Israel’s role as a biblical category, not a modern political one, and by grounding every conclusion in the redemptive plan revealed in Scripture rather than in contemporary nations.
Christ is indeed the true and perfect Israel, but Scripture teaches this in a very specific way—not by erasing Israel, nor by replacing Israel with Christ, but by revealing that Christ embodies Israel’s calling, mission, and identity as the faithful Son where the nation failed. I see that Matthew applies Hosea’s words, “Out of Egypt I called My son,” to Jesus, showing that He relives Israel’s story as the obedient Son; I see Isaiah’s Servant Songs shift from Israel as a nation to Israel as a single Person—the Servant who succeeds where the nation did not; and I see Paul declare that all God’s promises find their “Yes” in Christ, meaning He is the covenant‑keeper who fulfills Israel’s role. I therefore affirm that Christ is perfect Israel in the sense that He is the faithful covenant representative, the true vine, the obedient Son, and the Servant who brings Jacob back to God—but I reject the idea that this means Israel ceases to exist or loses its place in God’s redemptive plan. Christ is perfect Israel because He fulfills Israel’s vocation, and I, united to Him, share in the blessings promised to Abraham—not because Israel is abolished, but because Christ is the fulfillment of Israel’s story
I see where you are getting that but in Galatians the seed of Abraham is mentioned as being all those who believe in God. Jerusalem today does not believe in God and they are the children of Hagar. If a JEW today believes in Jesus then they enter into the body of Christ, we do not get grafted in. Romans is speaking to a proselyte church from gentiles to Judaism. He is not speaking to the body of Christ. We are not grafted in to Israel but the Jew today who believes on JESUS enters into the Body of Christ also known as the Church, called Believers in God aka Abrahams seed. ( not genetic but by FAITH ), also called the Israel of God which is not the Israel of the earth. All of Israel will be saved one day, and God knows how He will do that.
Then you believe what is NOT taught in scripture... one redemptive plan for all humanity for those who believe it.
Carry on, you are not someone who will see things any differently.
Galatians teaches that the seed of Abraham is Christ, and that all who are in Christ—Jew or Gentile—are Abraham’s seed by faith, but I confess that Paul never uses this truth to declare that Jerusalem, or any group of Jews, has become “children of Hagar” simply because of unbelief. In Galatians 4, Paul is not assigning ethnic identities; he is contrasting two covenants, not two peoples. I affirm that any Jew who believes in Jesus enters the body of Christ, but I reject the idea that this means Jews are not grafted in or that Romans 11 is addressed only to proselytes to Judaism. Paul explicitly says he is speaking to Gentiles, and he warns them not to boast against the natural branches. I confess that the olive tree is not Judaism but the Abrahamic promise, and that Gentile believers are grafted into that promise, not into Mosaic Judaism. I also affirm that the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6 refers to believing Jews within the church, not to the entire church replacing Israel. And I hold firmly that “all Israel will be saved” refers to the future national turning of ethnic Israel to Christ, not to the church being renamed Israel. I therefore maintain according to Scripture that Christ is the true Israel, believers are Abraham’s seed in Him, Gentiles are grafted into the Abrahamic root, Jews who believe join the same body, and Israel’s future salvation remains a distinct promise God will fulfill in His own way
Your exegetical treatment never fails to present itself as a series of infantile "one liners".
Your assertions and pretensions have been thoroughly debunked by serious scholarship.
So then let me ask you: why do you persist? I mean what is your agenda, your ambition?
Whatever it might be, it will fail.
A flawless track record of failure is a pretty crummy way to carry on let me tell you.
there is one redemptive plan, but I confess that Scripture never teaches one undifferentiated plan that erases the distinctions God Himself makes between Israel, the nations, and the church; instead, I see one salvation in Christ administered through different stages of God’s covenantal history. I affirm that from Genesis onward God promised blessing to all nations through Abraham, and I recognize that the prophets foresaw Gentiles turning to the Lord, but I reject the idea that this means Romans 11 is not addressed to the body of Christ or that Gentiles are not grafted into the Abrahamic root. Paul explicitly says, “I speak to you Gentiles,” and he warns them not to boast against the natural branches, showing that the olive tree is the Abrahamic promise, not Judaism. I confess that Jews who believe enter the body of Christ, and Gentiles who believe enter the same body, but I also affirm that Paul still distinguishes Israel’s future national salvation from the present ingathering of the church. I therefore hold according to Scripture that Christ is the center of redemption, that salvation is by faith alone for all humanity, that Gentiles are grafted into the Abrahamic promise, that believing Jews join the same body, and that God still has a future purpose for Israel that He will accomplish in His own way.
I stand by that statement because of what the text itself says: when Paul declares, “all Israel will be saved” in Romans 11, he has just distinguished Israel from the Gentiles, spoken of Israel as “enemies” yet “beloved for the fathers’ sakes,” and grounded his argument in the irrevocable nature of God’s promises to “their fathers.” In that context, “Israel” cannot suddenly mean “the church” or “all believers”; it means the same ethnic, historically unbelieving Israel he has been describing throughout the chapter. I affirm that there is only one way of salvation—Christ—and one body into which Jew and Gentile are brought by faith, but I also confess that Scripture still speaks of a future, corporate turning of Israel to Christ, a mercy that will vindicate God’s faithfulness to His ancient promises. So when I say “all Israel will be saved” refers to a future national turning of ethnic Israel, I am not inventing a second plan of salvation; I am simply refusing to rename Israel as the church where Paul does not.
Oh right, I cannot trust the words of Christ Jesus... you keep digging an very bad hole of trying to reframe HIS words to fit your system.
Romans was not written to us.. it was written to the believers of that time.
See it always comes done to audience relevance which dispensationalism fails at over and over again.
Prove your case. If you can.
Here let me save you some effort: you cannot and will not.
What you will do (and have done), is offer occasional vague, non-descript passages that have no relevance nor bearing on the matter.
Romans was written to first‑century believers in Rome, but Scripture itself teaches that what was written to them was also written for us, because Paul explicitly says, “Whatever things were written before were written for our learning,” and he applies that principle to the very passages he quotes in Romans. I affirm audience relevance, but I reject the idea that it cancels the ongoing authority or applicability of the text; the Spirit did not inspire Romans merely as a historical letter but as part of the living Word that instructs the entire church. I recognize that dispensationalism often mishandles audience relevance, but I also confess that your conclusion—that Romans 11 does not speak to the body of Christ—contradicts Paul’s own words, because he says directly, “I speak to you Gentiles,” and the Gentiles he addresses are believers in Christ, not proselytes to Judaism. I therefore hold that Romans was written to them but also for me, and that its teaching about the olive tree, the grafting in of Gentiles, and the future salvation of Israel remains binding, clear, and relevant for the whole church today
You cannot and have never come close to proving your thesis.
On the contrary, your tepid efforts have left you starkly vulnerable.
when Paul says, “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26), the surrounding context makes it impossible for “Israel” to suddenly mean “the church.” Paul has just said, “I speak to you Gentiles” (11:13), which shows he is distinguishing two groups. He then calls Israel “enemies for your sake, but beloved for the fathers’ sakes” (11:28), and I acknowledge that “the fathers” can only mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—something that applies to ethnic Israel, not the multinational church. I see Paul grounding this promise in the fact that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (11:29), and I confess that the only “calling” ever given to Israel as Israel is the covenantal calling rooted in the patriarchs. I also recognize that the “natural branches” (11:21) are the same unbelieving Israel he has been describing throughout the chapter, and the “wild branches” are Gentiles; therefore, when Paul says “all Israel will be saved,” he is referring to the same Israel he has just called “natural branches,” not a redefined spiritual Israel. I therefore stand by the statement because the text itself forces me to: Paul distinguishes Israel from Gentiles, speaks of Israel’s present unbelief, affirms Israel’s continued covenant belovedness, and promises a future turning of that same Israel to Christ. In this context, “Israel” cannot mean “the church,” and I refuse to rename Israel where Paul does not.
Totally agree. All of this is boilerplate doctrinal fact.