Featured Rapture - I would be afraid not to believe in one

As false as William Hendriksen's
extra Biblical 9 Propositions in his PDF.

Your acceptance of "Israel's time ran out in 70 A.D." is an extra Biblical interpretation.

 

Is not.

 

Saying it isn't doesn't make not extra Biblical.

There is God's Israel and them who are not circumcised, both equally being Christ's. Galatians 6:15. 2 Corinthians 5:17.

 

You're saying it is extra-Biblical doesn't make it extra-Biblical.

 

Revelation 20:1-6 is the sole reference to Christ's thousand year reign. There is no other. There is no Scripture that teaches Israel would be replaced or that the uncircumcised would be Israel's replacement.

 

@37818

Ephesians 2:11-18 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

(emphasis mine)

 

Galatians 6:15-16, 2 Corinthians 5:17.

 

Your incapacity to grasp God's covenants becomes more obvious as you post. If you understood how the Old Covenant and New Covenant relate, you would know that there is no replacement of God's chosen people and you would know that his chosen ones have always come from every nation, tribe, and tongue. But, you cannot grasp this truth in scripture and thus you are confused. Moreso, you won't accept your confusion so you won't even listen when it is explained to you.

 

You bave got it backwards.
I am denying any such replacement.
Israel and the uncircumcised are distinct and both being equal as believers in Christ. Per Galatians 6:15-16, 2 Corinthians 5:17.

 

Not. Replacement

EXPANSION!!!

to now include All Nations

vs

Hebrews and Proselyte Gentiles

 

It's apparent you don't grasp Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians, showing the Abrahamic Covenant is for all of Abraham's offspring from every nation, tribe, and tongue. Paul connects the idea that a Jew is not a Jew by circumcision of the flesh in Romans 2 and he doubles down on this thought in Romans 9.
Until you remove your ignorance of the Covenants, you will always misunderstand. I cannot help you when you refuse to study the Covenants.

 

Also Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

 

Matt 21:43 Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and GIVEN to a NATION bringing forth the fruit (of the Holy Spirit) thereof.

What nation was the kingdom given unto?

 

Romans 2:1, ". . . Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. . . ."

 

The word translated "nation" means "a people." We find the answer in letter by the Apostle Peter, ". . . But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: . . ." -- 1 Peter 2:9.

 

Would this not then be the people to whom the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper were given and likewise then the new covenant?

 

Nice quote of the Bible. What is your point?
This does nothing to show us you understand the Covenants. And, it shows you don't even understand Paul's thesis that he is developing from chapter 1. 37, you have to read the entire letter as a whole to understand what Romans 2:1 is talking about. Just quoting the verse without anything else shows us that you truly are ignorant of Paul's argument.

 

Believer's immersion and the remembrance of the New Covenant are works and play no role in one being part of the New Covenant. Now the new birth does.

 

It is good to understand the covenants. To be saved one only needs to have part in the New Covenant.

 

The recipients of the New Covenant already have their names written down. Salvation is the outcome in time of that which was already decided before the foundation of the world. (Hebrews 9 will help you understand this truth )