Romans 11 and the real Replacement Theology

[Ziggy]

Saints are throughout both the old and new testaments.
Psa 37:28
For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.

Dan 7:18
But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

1Co 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

1Co 1:22
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

 

[rwb]

Without Adam there would be no Abraham. The New Testament is not about Adam or Abraham though both are mentioned. It's about the Christ. Here maybe this will help...

Colossians 1:2
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

It does not say to the Gentles and faithful brethren in Abraham...

Why would it say to the Gentiles? Gentiles are not saints, or brethren of Christ and would not be counted among the faithful. The Gentiles among the faithful at Colosse would have been called saints and brethren in Christ. Paul is speaking to mostly Gentile converts to Christianity, calling all of them saints and faithful brethren in Christ.

 

[Peterlag]

Why would it say to the Gentiles? Gentiles are not saints, or brethren of Christ and would not be counted among the faithful. The Gentiles among the faithful at Colosse would have been called saints and brethren in Christ. Paul is speaking to mostly Gentile converts to Christianity, calling all of them saints and faithful brethren in Christ.

Before we are able to understand the meat of the greatness of God’s wonderful matchless Word, it is necessary for us to understand some very important biblical truths we must adhere to. I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

To rightly understand the Word of God, one must understand what part is written to the Church of God and what part is written for the learning of the Church. Every word from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, is written for our learning. However, not all of the words from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, are addressed to us. We must learn to distinguish not only the various people, but also the different time periods God has spoken to if we want to understand the written Word of God. The time God spoke to the children of Israel is not the same time period He has spoken to us. The time He spoke to the prophets in the time of the Old Testament is not the same time period He spoke to His Son Jesus Christ in the time of the gospels.

 

[rwb]

Before we are able to understand the meat of the greatness of God’s wonderful matchless Word, it is necessary for us to understand some very important biblical truths we must adhere to. I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

To rightly understand the Word of God, one must understand what part is written to the Church of God and what part is written for the learning of the Church. Every word from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, is written for our learning. However, not all of the words from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, are addressed to us. We must learn to distinguish not only the various people, but also the different time periods God has spoken to if we want to understand the written Word of God. The time God spoke to the children of Israel is not the same time period He has spoken to us. The time He spoke to the prophets in the time of the Old Testament is not the same time period He spoke to His Son Jesus Christ in the time of the gospels.

Who are you arguing against? The Word of God was given to man that they might know Him and come to glorify Him! The Word gives man not only a historical record from the beginning of creation, but it is also a record from the beginning of Redemptive History. It is through study of the whole that we come to understand God's plan for mankind that was ordained in heaven through Covenanting with man. The whole has lessons for moral instruction as well as knowledge of Christ for God's Church throughout the ages. That began with Israel, the Church of Old, that was with Moses before Christ came into the world, a prophet of Old who received the oracles (word) from God.

Acts 7:37-38 (KJV) This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

The Church has always been the focus of the Word of God! Before the first advent of Christ, the Church came through Israel, then after the cross and resurrection, the message of the Gospel to build the Church was sent unto all the nations of the world. To try to limit the focus of Scripture to any one people shows a lack of understanding the Word of God has been and shall be for all time, and to all (Church) who believe God. The Bible has always been about, and for the Church as She exists on this earth.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[Ziggy]

God is timeless. And His word never changes.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander as well.
Or do you believe God has preferential treatment or as stated in many places, is a respector of persons?

Act 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

God is yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If he spoke to a people about certain issues can we not expect those same directions to be given to any people?
Would God give different instructions about how to serve him depending on what nationality they are?

What is your argument here I lost track
Are you saying there remains a division between Jews and Gentiles in Christ even though the NT specifically denies that account?
God could have chosen any nation, but ALL nations began as estranged from God.
He could of called the Italians or the Germans or the Africans or the Russians or the Chinese, and we would still be having the same argument as to who God chose to be the "lightbringer" .

When no one on earth could fulfill this errand God came and brought this light/truth himself.

Now we, that is ALL nations under heaven have a choice to make. Either we will believe Jesus who is the I AM and follow him and do as he says, or, we do it our own way, which usually doesnt work out to our advantage.

I guess you could call me a fundamentalist because this is how I understand the entire Bible.
God gave a particular nation called Israel to teach the world of how the Kingdom of God is governed. This is all summed up in the ten commandments that God wrote with his own hand.
Anything after that, the 613 levitical laws and sundries is man's interpretation of those 10 commandments. They are not written in stone but written with the hand of man in his own understanding.

The same goes with the NT. Jesus spoke with his own mouth the things which we need to do to be a follower of His.
Anything that comes after that or outside of that is man's interpretation of what Jesus spoke with his own mouth.

So we can compare the "law of Moses" with the "preachings of Paul" and see if they jive together and agree.
But when it comes to what God wrote and what Jesus said, supercedes them all.

When it comes to the prophets, you will find that over time everyone and anyone can be a prophet for the simple reason that History repeats itself and God never changes.
And God chooses certain people over the ages to bring into remembrance what has gone before so they will know what is coming ahead.

There is no new thing under the sun.

What has been before will be again.

We been here before, we just have forgotten and don't learn from our mistakes.
The Bible is the reminder of where we been, where we are, and where we're headed.

It was the "lightbringer" that divided Adam and Eve from God.
It was the "lightbringer" that caused Cain to rise up against Abel.
It is the "lightbringer" who keeps Jews and Gentiles seperated from God.

So God fired the "lightbringer" and brought to us the light himself.

When he appeared in the garden Adam and Eve hid themselves.
When he appeared to Cain, he was removed from the presence of God.
When he came to Jerusalem the Jews and the Gentiles crucified him.
And this "lightbringer" is still in the world today decieving mankind and trying to keep us seperated from God.
We call him Satan or the devil or Lucifer, believing that he himself is God.
And again today as it was back then many follow this false light.
his false light causes divisions and chaos and leaves death and destruction in it's wake.
There is no brotherhood no unity no compassion or understandin or tolerance or love in this fake "lightbringer"

Replacement theology is what they are teaching in the schools today about how one group of people are being replaced by another group of people, causing division and hard feelings between peoples where once there was healing and mending.

The only replacement theory that is a fact is God's kingdom replacing Satan's kingdom.
And the only way you get into God's kingdom is by faith in His word Jesus Christ.
All others will be outside the kingdom in darkness gnashing their teeth.

And then once again there will be a new day, where the people who sat in darkness saw a great light... and the evening and the morning was the first day.
Everlasting, never ending, wheel of life.

From Genesis to Revelation everything that ever was, is, and will be has been revealed. You only need to open your eyes to see it.

Yes perhaps the names and places have been changed from age to age but the lessons remain the same.

Noah was not an Israelite and yet humanity was washed away except for one man who had faith.
It didnt matter what his "nationality" was. Noah found grace.
Think about that... and here we are in the days of Noah once again under grace.
But after grace comes judgement and the law.... and round and round she goes, world without end.
Amen

Hugs

 

[Zao is life]

Yes he is the seed of Abraham and Adam too. The New Testament is not about Adam or Abraham though both are mentioned. It's about the Christ. Here maybe this will help...

Colossians 1:2
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

It does not say to the Gentles and faithful brethren in Abraham...

Here's something for you..

because you don't seem to read the whole Bible..

.. or you discount whatever does not fit what you want it to say ..

And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. -- Galatians 3:29.

See? Abraham's seed are heirs according to God's everlasting promise to Abraham. If we belong to Christ, we are the seed of Abraham. Belonging to Christ and being the seed of Abraham mentioned in the same sentence.

 

[Zao is life]

If I don't fit in the box you are trying to put Christ in is when you say I'm not answering or sidestepping the question. All six of your listed statements fit with Jesus being the Messiah the only begotten son of God.

You are the one who has been arguing against the Trinity.

Since Jesus existed in the form of God before He became a man, how is He not God?

Or are there other men born into the world who existed in the form of God before they were conceived?

 

[Zao is life]

Before we are able to understand the meat of the greatness of God’s wonderful matchless Word, it is necessary for us to understand some very important biblical truths we must adhere to. I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

To rightly understand the Word of God, one must understand what part is written to the Church of God and what part is written for the learning of the Church. Every word from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, is written for our learning. However, not all of the words from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, are addressed to us. We must learn to distinguish not only the various people, but also the different time periods God has spoken to if we want to understand the written Word of God. The time God spoke to the children of Israel is not the same time period He has spoken to us. The time He spoke to the prophets in the time of the Old Testament is not the same time period He spoke to His Son Jesus Christ in the time of the gospels.

Sigh. ↺ Gone back to your original argument, I see. I can only assume that it began getting too difficult to prove what you were saying about the Trinity and a number of other things?

PS: Did you copy and paste from Bullinger's works? If so, you should mention your source. Otherwise it's tantamount to plagiarism.

The Bible is written to those who believe, and from Genesis 3:15 onward, it's about the coming of Jesus, and since Eve onward - who was called "the mother of all living" but added a little and took away a little from the Word of God in her reply to Satan (much like you are doing here) - the woman has been the prototype for the ekklesia - the church - the church in Canaan, in Egypt, in the wilderness, and ever since God's people came into being when Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness. The woman was wearing a crown of 12 stars by the time Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled.

You contradict yourself when you say that what was said to Noah and written by Moses is for our learning. If it's written for our learning then it's written to us. We are Israel. Who is it written to then? To those who perished in the flood? Or to Abraham, the seed of Noah and of Shem? And through them, to us?

 

[Davy]

I don't see what you see.

Then you must be spiritually blinded, because I have no need to explain the Bible Scripture evidence I posted, those Scriptures are self-explanatory.

 

[Peterlag]

Sigh. ↺ Gone back to your original argument, I see. I can only assume that it began getting too difficult to prove what you were saying about the Trinity and a number of other things?

PS: Did you copy and paste from Bullinger's works? If so, you should mention your source. Otherwise it's tantamount to plagiarism.

The Bible is written to those who believe, and from Genesis 3:15 onward, it's about the coming of Jesus, and since Eve onward - who was called "the mother of all living" but added a little and took away a little from the Word of God in her reply to Satan (much like you are doing here) - the woman has been a symbol for the ekklesia - the church - the church in Canaan, in Egypt, in the wilderness, and ever since God's people came into being when Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness. The woman was wearing a crown of 12 stars by the time Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled.

You contradict yourself when you say that what was said to Noah and written by Moses is for our learning. If it's written for our learning then it's written to us. We are Israel. Who is it written to then? To those who perished in the flood? Or to Abraham, the seed of Noah and of Shem? And through them, to us?

No I did not copy and paste from anybody. But it is Bullinger's work that I edited pretty good and rewrote in mostly my own style.

 

[Peterlag]

Then you must be spiritually blinded, because I have no need to explain the Bible Scripture evidence I posted, those Scriptures are self-explanatory.

The following verses say Jesus is the Messiah. One is not spiritually blind when reading these and seeing that. You see something that's not there.

Eph 2:18
18 For through Him (Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
KJV

2 Cor 13:14
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
KJV

 

[Zao is life]

No I did not copy and paste from anybody. But it is Bullinger's work that I edited pretty good and rewrote in mostly my own style.

Okay Mr. Bullinger. Please leave Mr. Peter alone so he can start thinking for himself and even better, start asking God to help him to understand the scriptures aright, because sorry to say but you're not doing too good a job, Bullinger.

 

[Peterlag]

Sigh. ↺ Gone back to your original argument, I see. I can only assume that it began getting too difficult to prove what you were saying about the Trinity and a number of other things?

PS: Did you copy and paste from Bullinger's works? If so, you should mention your source. Otherwise it's tantamount to plagiarism.

The Bible is written to those who believe, and from Genesis 3:15 onward, it's about the coming of Jesus, and since Eve onward - who was called "the mother of all living" but added a little and took away a little from the Word of God in her reply to Satan (much like you are doing here) - the woman has been a symbol for the ekklesia - the church - the church in Canaan, in Egypt, in the wilderness, and ever since God's people came into being when Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness. The woman was wearing a crown of 12 stars by the time Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled.

You contradict yourself when you say that what was said to Noah and written by Moses is for our learning. If it's written for our learning then it's written to us. We are Israel. Who is it written to then? To those who perished in the flood? Or to Abraham, the seed of Noah and of Shem? And through them, to us?

See you just don't or can't understand what I'm saying. I think you think I'm saying the Bible was not written to everyone and so only certain people should read it. That confusion is in your own mind. I'm saying the subject matter must be understood in the light to whom it is addressed. Why you can't see that and keep twisting it is beyond me.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Today's church = Israel?
Then the Bible has a contradiction? I trow not!:

Israel = Jews? True or false?

Rightly Divided (2 Timothy 2:15) From “Things That Differ!” (online):

The Body Of Christ [church of God's Grace, today] = Jews? I trow not!!:

Gal_3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.​

+

Col_3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision,
Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.​

Please make up our contradictory minds?

Amen.

 

[Zao is life]

See you just don't or can't understand what I'm saying. I think you think I'm saying the Bible was not written to everyone and so only certain people should read it. That confusion is in your own mind. I'm saying the subject matter must be understood in the light to whom it is addressed. Why you can't see that and keep twisting it is beyond me.

What God said to Israel through Moses regarding the law, was as good as said to us if we were alive with them then.

What God said through the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant that was to come, was as good as said to us if we were alive with the people who heard it then.

What Jesus said to His apostles about the cup of wine at the last Passover meal that He shared with them representing the New Covenant in His blood, was as good as said to us if we were alive with them then.

It's not "them, then". It's US, then, and now.

The same goes for God castigating them "then" when they were unfaithful and warning them of their coming punishment at the hand of the beast Babylon if they did not repent. It was as good as said to us if we were alive with them then.

All believers of all time are one in Christ NOW, even those who lived before He came but believed the Word of God like Abraham did.

 

[Peterlag]

You are the one who has been arguing against the Trinity.

Since Jesus existed in the form of God before He became a man, how is He not God?

Or are there other men born into the world who existed in the form of God before they were conceived?

Many Trinitarians assert that the word “form,” which is the Greek word morphē, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in Philippians 2:6 the NIV has “being in very nature God.” The evidence does not support that morphē refers to an “inner essential nature,” and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphē to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions to show the differences between them.

Vine’s Lexicon has under “form”: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.”a Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphē, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in Philippians 2:8, and translated “fashion”) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphē and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphē refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.

A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. E. W. Bullinger gives morphē a one-word definition, “form.”b The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape.”c Gerard Kittel [TDNT] has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphē and schema are often interchangeable.d Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphē, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.”e Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphē) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphē refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”

The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphē in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphē should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphē does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.

 

[Peterlag]

Here's something for you..

because you don't seem to read the whole Bible..

.. or you discount whatever does not fit what you want it to say ..

And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. -- Galatians 3:29.

See? Abraham's seed are heirs according to God's everlasting promise to Abraham. If we belong to Christ, we are the seed of Abraham. Belonging to Christ and being the seed of Abraham mentioned in the same sentence.

I agree. But the New Testament is not about Abraham nor are we Gentile Christians.

 

[Zao is life]

Many Trinitarians assert that the word “form,” which is the Greek word morphē, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in Philippians 2:6 the NIV has “being in very nature God.” The evidence does not support that morphē refers to an “inner essential nature,” and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphē to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions to show the differences between them.

Vine’s Lexicon has under “form”: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual…it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.”a Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphē, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in Philippians 2:8, and translated “fashion”) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphē and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphē refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.

A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. E. W. Bullinger gives morphē a one-word definition, “form.”b The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape.”c Gerard Kittel [TDNT] has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphē and schema are often interchangeable.d Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphē, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.”e Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphē) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphē refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”

The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphē in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphē should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphē does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.

Mr. Bullinger, PLEASE stop Peter from copying and pasting your work. You've got the poor fellow confused like you into thinking someone who existed before His human conception is not Himself God.

There is only one God, Mr. Bullinger.

 

[Zao is life]

I agree. But the New Testament is not about Abraham nor are we Gentile Christians.

Not in Christ, but in this world there kind of still is a distinction .... or should still be a distinction between male and female (how far we've sunk in Western society),

just as there still is a distinction between German and Chinese Christian, Indian and British, Maori and American, Jewish and Gentile Christians.

 

[covenantee]

I agree. But the New Testament is not about Abraham nor are we Gentile Christians.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Sorry if I missed it, but what does that mean?