Romans 11:26?

[riverrat]

...if that is the claim. Interesting parallel to Rom 9 in your point abou lying (has the word of God failed?) and 3:3 because the answer there is not genetic. It is by faith as anyone can see by the end of the chapter. Except BW. Paul was only referring to those Jews who had faith all through his treatment. That's why there is still hope held out that some will believe; there is no blanket endorsement of the genetics past or future.

"His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise." Gal 4:23. It is typically not normal for menopausal women to concieve. (and "born" here means concieved)

It is not genetic in Gal 3 either, as each concluding line of each paragraph and the whole letter and ministry and situation of that church show.

There is nothing that you have shown that shows that Isaac was not conceived in the normal way even though it was a miracle of God.

Your posts concerning this topic should be removed and taken to the unorthodox forum.

 

[riverrat]

I won't be spending any time on your anti-statements, but if you do have an explanation why the Gentile believers are called sons of Abraham that is positive (does not consist of statements against me or those who believe it), I'd be interested in seeing that. I'm referring to the several statements in rom 9-11 and Gal 3-4 and Eph 2-3.

Spend your time as you like. It does not matter to me.

Very simple explanation. Gentile believers have a spiritual relationship and are sons of Abraham in that they were saved in the same manner as Abraham, that is by faith.

 

[Interplanner]

Thanks for putting it positively. Is that also how Paul defines the sons/seed/children of Abraham from the beginning?

 

[riverrat]

Thanks for putting it positively. Is that also how Paul defines the sons/seed/children of Abraham from the beginning?

I am always positive.

From what beginning?

 

[Interplanner]

From the beginning of the Abraham accounts that he is talking about, which is what would matter to Judaism, because they did or did not mistake things at that point (Gal 3:17).

 

[Interplanner]

Is the Israel at the end of ch 9 genetic?

 

[riverrat]

From the beginning of the Abraham accounts that he is talking about, which is what would matter to Judaism, because they did or did not mistake things at that point (Gal 3:17).

How could Judaism mistake Gal. 3:17?

 

[riverrat]

Is the Israel at the end of ch 9 genetic?

Israel, either the natural or the spiritual, is always genetic.

 

[Interplanner]

Obviously not, as the end of Rom 9 is about the nations who believe, in 4 OT quotes. You can make your declaration but you can't provide reasons.

 

[Old Timer]

Unless of course a person hates Israel..

 

[Danoh]

Is the Israel at the end of ch 9 genetic?

Ask that to Mid-Acts Dispensationalists - in fact, address it to them over in the Dispensational forum.

Fact is, only Mid-Acts has the answer. Not boasting - just magnifying Paul's office on these issues...

 

[Danoh]

Paul's office: meaning; ask Paul, via his writings, for he is the writer that Christ Himself appeared unto as to these "things in the which I will appear unto thee" Acts 26:16.

To do so is to allow the Spirit to enlighten the eyes of your understanding on these things through His Word.

 

[riverrat]

Obviously not, as the end of Rom 9 is about the nations who believe, in 4 OT quotes. You can make your declaration but you can't provide reasons.

And where in any of the 4 OT quotes does it say that Israel is not genetic?

 

[Interplanner]

it is referring to the "us" or "elect" or "the remnant." That is both and is not dependent on genetic, but back earlier in 9 he left genetic behind when he said that it is those who have faith who are Abraham's children and "those who have faith", as we know, can be anyone on earth regardless of genetics or class or gender or income!

 

[riverrat]

it is referring to the "us" or "elect" or "the remnant." That is both and is not dependent on genetic, but back earlier in 9 he left genetic behind when he said that it is those who have faith who are Abraham's children and "those who have faith", as we know, can be anyone on earth regardless of genetics or class or gender or income!

He did not leave genetic behind in Rom 9. Gentiles have no blood of Abraham in their bodies but they do have a spiritual relationship to Abraham in that both groups are eligible for salvation by faith. A Jew is still a Jew and a Gentile is still a Gentile.

 

[Interplanner]

He left genetic behind, not because it does not continue on on its own down through time, but because that is not where the promises go! The promises go to those who have faith, no matter their background. And there is no separate program for those who are physical descendants. There never was. That is the overarching message of Rom 4, 9, Gal 3, Eph 2-3, Acts 13's sermon.

Justification by christ was the promise to Abraham; thus he obtained imputed righteousness. That is the continuity Paul is establishing to solve the issue at Galatia, and elsewhere.

Look at the Jews of northern Europe in the late 1800s wanting to be back in Israel. They said, raised in Judaism, that it was their heritage to be there. Fine! But it is not the NT and the NT is not trying to be Judaism and NT Christianity at the same time! (I may be wrong but I seem to recall a bit of conflict, yes?). Ergo: 2P2P is mistaken; it is not the reality of the NT. It is what Dispensationalism thinks is true.

 

[riverrat]

He left genetic behind, not because it does not continue on on its own down through time, but because that is not where the promises go! The promises go to those who have faith, no matter their background. And there is no separate program for those who are physical descendants. There never was. That is the overarching message of Rom 4, 9, Gal 3, Eph 2-3, Acts 13's sermon.

Justification by christ was the promise to Abraham; thus he obtained imputed righteousness. That is the continuity Paul is establishing to solve the issue at Galatia, and elsewhere.

Look at the Jews of northern Europe in the late 1800s wanting to be back in Israel. They said, raised in Judaism, that it was their heritage to be there. Fine! But it is not the NT and the NT is not trying to be Judaism and NT Christianity at the same time! (I may be wrong but I seem to recall a bit of conflict, yes?). Ergo: 2P2P is mistaken; it is not the reality of the NT. It is what Dispensationalism thinks is true.

The covenant promises that God made to Israel are for Israel and not for the body of Christ. Your replacement theology is bogus. There has always been a separate program for Israel except for our present age of grace which is for both Jew and Gentile and even now God has hardened Israel as a nation until the fullness of the Gentiles come in.

And of course justification by Christ's work of the cross was unknown to Abraham because it was a mystery, that is a secret, until God revealed it to Paul. Abraham was declared righteous because of his faith. He believed the gospel that he would have a son and that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky.

AC+PC+MC+DC+NC= 2P2P

 

[Interplanner]

Eph 2-3, Gal 3, Rom 4, Act 13's sermon all contradict your opening statement. It never was separate. That is clearly the tone of Paul all through, which makes a unified church now, rooted in Israel's history coming to fulfillment (Acts 13's sermon).

You seriously need to quote exact scripture, but not isolated ones, like the one about the 'gospel of a son and descendancy.' It was about imputed righteousness, which he also knew of by exchaning with M-Z (Z = righteousness).

It is interesting, though, to exchange with you and find out how hardened 2P2P can become. My professional opinion is that you have succeeded in redefining everything that would conflict with 2P2P. Not to be truthful, but to keep 2P2P going.

Eph 2-3, Gal 3, Rom 4, Act 13's sermon all contradict your opening statement.

Rather than make an anti-statement (which I can already hear coming!), give me your interp of Eph 2B-3A.

 

[Interplanner]

Here's a link to make a summary of Eph 2B-3A:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7834631/

see you there, not here

 

[riverrat]

Eph 2-3, Gal 3, Rom 4, Act 13's sermon all contradict your opening statement. It never was separate. That is clearly the tone of Paul all through, which makes a unified church now, rooted in Israel's history coming to fulfillment (Acts 13's sermon).

You seriously need to quote exact scripture, but not isolated ones, like the one about the 'gospel of a son and descendancy.' It was about imputed righteousness, which he also knew of by exchaning with M-Z (Z = righteousness).

It is interesting, though, to exchange with you and find out how hardened 2P2P can become. My professional opinion is that you have succeeded in redefining everything that would conflict with 2P2P. Not to be truthful, but to keep 2P2P going.

Eph 2-3, Gal 3, Rom 4, Act 13's sermon all contradict your opening statement.

Rather than make an anti-statement (which I can already hear coming!), give me your interp of Eph 2B-3A.

I am positive that there is absolutely nothing in Eph 2-3, Gal 3, Rom 4 and Act's 13 that says that the body of Christ is now entitled to the covenant promises that God made to Israel. God ain't through with Israel yet. Israel's history has not been fulfilled. There is more to come unless of course you do not believe scripture

I have quoted the scripture for you many times that shows the gospel that Abraham believed and by which God declared him righteous. It is Gen.15:4-6. I think you must be afraid to read it. And as I have pointed out to you many times there is nothing in Abraham's dealing with Melchizedek that says that Abraham was declared righteous by believing the gospel of the grace of God.

Your opinions are definitely not professional. It is obvious that modesty is not your best quality.

Again as I have told you many times you do not tell me what to do here.