Battle of Dual Covenant Theology and the Charge of "Replacement Theology"

Jerryhuerta said:

The texts you cite were the requirements when gentiles joined the house of Israel.

Click to expand...

How were those requirements different from the requirements of "those who were born into it"?

A Sunday School kindergartner could provide the correct answer.

jgr said:

How were those requirements different from the requirements of "those who were born into it"?

A Sunday School kindergartner could provide the correct answer.

Click to expand...

The Israelites were born under the covenant, the gentiles weren't. The promises of the covenant were to those who were born under it; gentiles weren't born under the covenant. The gentiles had to be patriated in order to be party to the benefits in the texts you cited.

Jerryhuerta said:

The Israelites were born under the covenant, the gentiles weren't. The promises of the covenant were to those who were born under it; gentiles weren't born under the covenant. The gentiles had to be patriated in order to be party to the benefits in the texts you cited.

Click to expand...

There were no covenant promises that were denied to Gentiles who complied with covenant requirements.

That is the meaning of "one law" in the cited Scriptures.

Similarly, those "born into it" were not spared the punishments for covenant violation, e.g. Korah and thousands of others.

In response to post. Let me ask you, is the phrase children of the flesh in Romans 9:8 idiomatic of walking after the flesh as we note in Romans 8:1 or the coincidence of birth as Replacement theology attempts to assert?

jgr said:

There were no covenant promises that were denied to Gentiles who complied with covenant requirements.

That is the meaning of "one law" in the cited Scriptures.

Similarly, those "born into it" were not spared the punishments for covenant violation, e.g. Korah and thousands of others.

Click to expand...

But the gentiels had to comply with the requirements, they were not a party to the covenant by birth. And birth into the covenant was synonymous with being called, many were called but few were chosen. Do you want to go around the circuit again?

Jerryhuerta said:

But the gentiels had to comply with the requirements, they were not a party to the covenant by birth. And birth into the covenant was synonymous with being called, many were called but few were chosen. Do you want to go around the circuit again?

Click to expand...

Certainly. Only those who complied with the covenant requirements were chosen. Their biology was irrelevant to whether or not they were chosen. Their faith and obedience were the only determinants.

jgr said:

Certainly. Only those who complied with the covenant requirements were chosen. Their biology was irrelevant to whether or not they were chosen. Their faith and obedience were the only determinants.

Click to expand...

You're avoiding that the calling was by biology, which does not make irrelevant. The gentiels were not called under the Old Covenant.

Jerryhuerta said:

You're avoiding that the calling was by biology, which does not make irrelevant. The gentiels were not called under the Old Covenant.

Click to expand...

If Korah was called, but not chosen, and slain as a result, what was the significance of his calling?

Only his (un)chosenness was of significance.

Jerryhuerta said:

The Israelites were born under the covenant, the gentiles weren't. The promises of the covenant were to those who were born under it; gentiles weren't born under the covenant. The gentiles had to be patriated in order to be party to the benefits in the texts you cited.

Click to expand...

So how does Matthew 8:11-12, fit into your theology?
Many, I tell you; will come from the East and the West to sit with the Patriarchs at the banquet in the Kingdom. But those who were born to the Kingdom, will be thrown out into the dark...…

All those who do not claim descent from Jacob have to do is to believe in Jesus and they will be saved. 2 Timothy 1:9
Although we may be in fact, descendants of Jacob and not be aware of it, as we do agree on, that is God's secret and is how He will fulfil His promises to the Patriarchs.
But those who do claim to be Jews, without any proofs of descent, only their traditions, are told of their fate in Matthew 8:12, Luke 19:27, Revelation 3:9.

jgr said:

If Korah was called, but not chosen, and slain as a result, what was the significance of his calling?

Only his (un)chosenness was of significance.

Click to expand...

Out of the calling came the chosen, first the Israelite and then the gentile by conversion.

keras said:

So how does Matthew 8:11-12, fit into your theology?
Many, I tell you; will come from the East and the West to sit with the Patriarchs at the banquet in the Kingdom. But those who were born to the Kingdom, will be thrown out into the dark...…

All those who do not claim descent from Jacob have to do is to believe in Jesus and they will be saved. 2 Timothy 1:9
Although we may be in fact, descendants of Jacob and not be aware of it, as we do agree on, that is God's secret and is how He will fulfil His promises to the Patriarchs.
But those who do claim to be Jews, without any proofs of descent, only their traditions, are told of their fate in Matthew 8:12, Luke 19:27, Revelation 3:9.

Click to expand...

The issue of Matthew 8:11-12 is addressed in Romans 2.

We may not know who is a descendant, they exist and this substantiates that the eschatological prophecies about them are being fulfilled and can be discerned by the proper use of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic and progressive revelation.

Jerryhuerta said:

Out of the calling came the chosen, first the Israelite and then the gentile by conversion.

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 2:10-11​

Click to expand...

What OT or NT Scripture associates calling with biology?

Jerryhuerta said:

But the gentiels had to comply with the requirements, they were not a party to the covenant by birth.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.
They were a party to the covenant by CIRCUMCISION, after being born.
If they failed to BELIEVE IN AND OBEY the requirement of circumcision, they were not a party to the covenant WHATSOEVER.
jgr is correct.
Faith and obedience is all there is.
DNA is irrelevant and always has been.

Jerryhuerta said:

The Israelites were born under the covenant, the gentiles weren't.

Click to expand...

Again, Incorrect.
Israelites HAD TO be circumcised BEFORE they were admitted as a party to the covenant, PERIOD.

"He who is born in your house...must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant." (Gen 17:13-14)

Unless you can show where any uncircumcised born male Israelite was included as a party to the covenant in absence of His circumcision, please amend your assertion to fit the scripture.

The promises of the covenant were to those who were born under it; gentiles weren't born under the covenant. The gentiles had to be patriated in order to be party to the benefits in the texts you cited.

Click to expand...

And when they were "patriated", (again, THROUGH THE PATRIATION OF CIRCUMCISION and OBEDIENCE, JUST LIKE ANY BORN ISRAELITE HAD TO BE PATRIATED) scripture confirms that their "party to the covenant" was exactly as they were born Israelites:
Exodus 12
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Jerryhuerta said:

But the gentiels had to comply with the requirements, they were not a party to the covenant by birth.....Do you want to go around the circuit again?

Click to expand...

Apparently, we have to round that circuit again and again, as many times as it takes, until you affirm what the Bible says about it.

What part of:

"He who is born in your house...must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant." (Gen 17:13-14)

Makes you think Israelites, unlike Gentiles, did NOT have to "comply with the requirements" to be a party to the covenant?

parousia70 said:

Again, Incorrect.
Israelites HAD TO be circumcised BEFORE they were admitted as a party to the covenant, PERIOD.

"He who is born in your house...must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant." (Gen 17:13-14)

Unless you can show where any uncircumcised born male Israelite was included as a party to the covenant in absence of His circumcision, please amend your assertion to fit the scripture.



And when they were "patriated", (again, THROUGH THE PATRIATION OF CIRCUMCISION and OBEDIENCE, JUST LIKE ANY BORN ISRAELITE HAD TO BE PATRIATED) scripture confirms that their "party to the covenant" was exactly as they were born Israelites:
Exodus 12
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.



Apparently, we have to round that circuit again and again, as many times as it takes, until you affirm what the Bible says about it.

What part of:

"He who is born in your house...must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant." (Gen 17:13-14)

Makes you think Israelites, unlike Gentiles, did NOT have to "comply with the requirements" to be a party to the covenant?

Click to expand...

Na, you show me where any other nation or people that were not descended from Abraham had to be circumcised, first! The descendants of Jacob were born Israelites and then had to be circumcised to be a party to the covenants. Not the same for those of the nations, plural.

Jerryhuerta said:

The descendants of Jacob were born Israelites and then had to be circumcised to be a party to the covenants.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming until this post.

It is Good to see you have amended your view to the correct, biblical one, and have abandoned your previous unbiblical assertion that they did not have to DO anything, beyond simply being born, to be a party to the covenant.

Good work.

Jerryhuerta said:

Na, you show me where any other nation or people that were not descended from Abraham had to be circumcised, first! The descendants of Jacob were born Israelites and then had to be circumcised to be a party to the covenants. Not the same for those of the nations, plural.

Click to expand...

Genesis 17
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Exodus 12
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

parousia70 said:

Which is exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming until this post.

It is Good to see you have amended your view to the correct, biblical one, and have abandoned your previous unbiblical assertion that they did not have to DO anything, beyond simply being born, to be a party to the covenant.

Good work.

Click to expand...

Actually, I’ve been substantiating that the descendants of Abraham were heirs to the covenants, while the gentiles were not under the Old Covenant.

jgr said:

Genesis 17
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Exodus 12
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Click to expand...

Beware the Circumcision!!!
Circumcision is a great topic.......

if you observe Circumc*sion, Christ will profit you nothing.

Tiredknight said:

well then I am screwed because I am circumcised... But not under my will.
Circumcision now a days is totally different then when it was in bible days.
I also feel there is the skipped part where paul is arguing that the gentiles are circumcised of the heart because of all the gentiles accepting Christ.

Click to expand...

Fireinfolding said: ↑
What the heck? I just had to ask this...
1Cr 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.
How on earth does a man become uncircumcised (being circumcised)?

Click to expand...

Circumcision used as weapon of war in the OT:

Gene 34:22 "Only on this [condition] will the men consent to dwell with us, to be one people: if every male among us is circumcised as they [are] circumcised. 23 "[Will] not their livestock, their property, and every animal of theirs [be] ours? Only let us consent to them, and they will dwell with us." 24 And all who went out of the gate of his city heeded Hamor and Shechem his son; every male was circumcised, all who went out of the gate of his city.
25 Now it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the males. 26 And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem's house, and went out.
27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and plundered the city, because their sister had been defiled.
=============================