Replacement Theolody-what is it,who teaches it-

[Iconoclast]

Just because no one has responded with a contrary post does not mean this theory of yours is correct. Once again, as you do in other areas, you simply ASSUME you are correct. Pure nonsense.

I cannot speak to this issue because it has not been a study of mine, but the article I gave a link for had several arguments against your view. You simply said the author's view was error without explaining why. You really need to learn how to debate, if you are going to say your opponent is wrong, you need to explain WHY.

Winman,

I said it was a good link in that it helps to see what is at issue. The verses we have offered here already,along with Rom 9;
have gone a long way to answer already!
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


We have posted responses that answer to the link...i will show that later if you would like in more detail.
Winman what you do not realize is....that in answering another thread i had to listen to some ken hagin lectures about the "rhema word"....so i have spoken rhema words over this discussion and have summarily dispatched all objections as were in the link. if you do not have enough faith to receive my rhema explanation, i will offer you a more standard scriptural response later on when my driving is done.
the other men might be inclined to offer some correction to the good link..if they are so inclined!:wavey:

 

[Winman]

if you do not have enough faith to receive my rhema explanation,

Who do you think you are? God? Jesus? I am supposed to have faith in YOU??

Man, you are so full of it (and you KNOW what I am talking about) and you are completely oblivious to it. WOW.

You are a legend in your own mind aren't you? :laugh:

 

[Herald]

I like that!

Uh, oh. Not only are you leaning towards Amil, but now Covenant Theology? LOL You are going to be the only synergistic amillennialist, covenant theologian on the planet!

 

[Benjamin]

Some seem to be under the illusion of or are attempting to make claim that Covenant Theology is primarily a Determinist/Reformed position. Yet, I would argue that Determinists are more in line in Pretrib Dispensationalism due to their belief of God pre-electing a certain lucky specially pre-selected people (by predetermined pedigree in the case of the Jews) rather than by a genuine free will decision and response to accept the grace offered to all God’s creatures, ...response to the Light (influence) brought into all the world. A Covenantal Determinist is still looking through a glass dimly and missing the big picture (1Cor 2, 5-14, actually properly used in context for a change, eh ) in regards to God's progressive revelation, from the foundation of creation, the promises of Jesus, fully revealed, being the Way of salvation to WHOLE world. (IOWs 1 Cor2 speaking about those spiritual things which have not entered the heart of the Determinist and are foolishness to them being they hold to man-made theological system of pre-selection election, just like the Jews)

In the past the most consistent theologians where I have debated for Covenantal Theology against Pretrib Dispensationalism have been Calvinists/Determinists holding to predetermination by pedigree. I would find it odd that Calvinists/Determinists are now trying to claim a monopoly on Covenant Theology except I’ve come to understand that that is their stereotypical MO, ...examples: Presumption that they hold to THE “Doctrine of Grace” and that God is “SOVEREIGN!!!” - defined as Deterministically so.

P.S ->

No one is going to attack as this is going to be a nice happy thread.

Keep smiling Icon...:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Benjamin]

if you do not have enough faith to receive my rhema explanation,

Who do you think you are? God? Jesus? I am supposed to have faith in YOU??

Man, you are so full of it (and you KNOW what I am talking about) and you are completely oblivious to it. WOW.

You are a legend in your own mind aren't you? :laugh:

Specially enlightened utterances, don't you know...:thumbsup:

 

[preachinjesus]

PJ
As time permits open that up a little bit if you could.No one is going to attack as this is going to be a nice happy thread:thumbs::flower:

Sure, basically my position on replacement theology (or supersessionism) is that Israel ceased to exist as God's covenant chosen people following their rejection of Jesus as Messiah. As a result the Church, or the elect of Christ, became the inheritors of the new covenant and the chosen nation/body through which salvation flowed.

As part of this belief I note that a) I am not anti-Semitic and b) Jews can absolutely obtain salvation...through faith in Jesus Christ. One point of this position is that I believe there has never been ethnic salvation for all Israelites (or Jews) but rather salvation has only existed in the corporate body of (prior to the New Covenant) Israel and then (after the New Covenant) the Church. In both bodies salvation is about faithfulness, not about ethnic blessing.

One of the keys to this idea is that salvation in the OT was about faithfulness to God through the promise of the Messiah as communicated in the covenants of the OT. In the NT the key to salvation is faith in Christ who has inaugurated the New Covenant through the atonement of His blood.

Israel as a nation has ceased to exist as it did the OT. The current state of Israel is not the OT representation of Israel. We need to separate spiritual Israel from political Israel. We shouldn't be deceived that the current state of Israel is a theological or spiritual descendant from the biblical Israel.

Perhaps key to this explanation is that Christ didn't come to establish the New Israel...Christ came to establish the True Israel.

The Church is the True Israel.

So while the OT saints obtained and remained in their salvation, that covenantal blessing does not continue under the same system. Instead, the New Covenant has superseded the old covenants and has expanded the offering of salvation.

There's more to it, but essentially this is how I frame my explanation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Soteriology vs. Eschatology?

This is perhaps more a question than anything, but, I'm framing it as a critique. It seems to me that there is some tendency to confuse the purpose of national Israel as a matter of Soteriology and as a matter of Eschatology.

As a Pre-trib Dispy....I agree (as far as I can tell) with those who are adherents of "replacement" Theology (don't know another word to use so sorry if it offends)..etc. as a matter of Soteriology, but that doesn't mean I don't still think that as a matter of prophecy we can't still distinguish National Israel from the spiritual "Israel" which is all of Christ's redeemed.

It is seeming to me as though detractors of Dispensationalism seem to think that National Israel has literally ceased to exist as a people-group Arguably, they haven't though. "National" Israel has maintained it's distinct identity throughout 2,000 years of dispersion a feat not replicated by any other people group on Earth. I mean.....they are there right? and presumably....they are Jews right? Are they impostors?? Are they fake Jewish people?

As a matter of Salvation/Soteriology, I suppose that those who hold to this "replacement" Theology are stating obvious and non-debatable truth...But, I don't see how this should inherently effect your end-times views.

Maybe some of you guys can explain this better to me.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Uh, oh. Not only are you leaning towards Amil, but now Covenant Theology? LOL You are going to be the only synergistic amillennialist, covenant theologian on the planet!

No, I'll never be a convert to covenant theology. I just liked his post.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Sure, basically my position on replacement theology (or supersessionism) is that Israel ceased to exist as God's covenant chosen people following their rejection of Jesus as Messiah. As a result the Church, or the elect of Christ, became the inheritors of the new covenant and the chosen nation/body through which salvation flowed.

As part of this belief I note that a) I am not anti-Semitic and b) Jews can absolutely obtain salvation...through faith in Jesus Christ. One point of this position is that I believe there has never been ethnic salvation for all Israelites (or Jews) but rather salvation has only existed in the corporate body of (prior to the New Covenant) Israel and then (after the New Covenant) the Church. In both bodies salvation is about faithfulness, not about ethnic blessing.

One of the keys to this idea is that salvation in the OT was about faithfulness to God through the promise of the Messiah as communicated in the covenants of the OT. In the NT the key to salvation is faith in Christ who has inaugurated the New Covenant through the atonement of His blood.

Israel as a nation has ceased to exist as it did the OT. The current state of Israel is not the OT representation of Israel. We need to separate spiritual Israel from political Israel. We shouldn't be deceived that the current state of Israel is a theological or spiritual descendant from the biblical Israel.

Perhaps key to this explanation is that Christ didn't come to establish the New Israel...Christ came to establish the True Israel.

The Church is the True Israel.

So while the OT saints obtained and remained in their salvation, that covenantal blessing does not continue under the same system. Instead, the New Covenant has superseded the old covenants and has expanded the offering of salvation.

There's more to it, but essentially this is how I frame my explanation.

I agree with your position.

On a related note: I object to Christian Zionism, and I think the neocon wing of the Republican party is as dangerous as Obama.

I guess that might gets some sparks flying, but I'll ignore it, or try to, if it happens.

 

[Iconoclast]

Who do you think you are? God? Jesus? I am supposed to have faith in YOU??

Man, you are so full of it (and you KNOW what I am talking about) and you are completely oblivious to it. WOW.

You are a legend in your own mind aren't you? :laugh:

Lighten up Winman...it was a joke....

 

[Iconoclast]

preachinjesus;

Perhaps key to this explanation is that Christ didn't come to establish the New Israel...Christ came to establish the True Israel.

The Church is the True Israel.

So while the OT saints obtained and remained in their salvation, that covenantal blessing does not continue under the same system. Instead, the New Covenant has superseded the old covenants and has expanded the offering of salvation.

There's more to it, but essentially this is how I frame my explanation.

Okay there is substantial agreement here, but I have some follow up questions.

Am I correct that you would see all saints before the cross as always in view even at the time the covenant promises were passed on to them?[nationalIsrael]

At the time that God had the promises extended to the elect remnant from among the nation of Israel...so much so thatin the NT time he can call the OT saints....OUR Fathers when speaking of the OT saint to NT gentile believers showing a continuity.....despite the NT church being formed?

10 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;


Do you see the True Israel in Isa 49:1-8 only, or also in gen 12:3 ,15:6 also?

 

[Iconoclast]

Just because no one has responded with a contrary post does not mean this theory of yours is correct. Once again, as you do in other areas, you simply ASSUME you are correct. Pure nonsense.

I cannot speak to this issue because it has not been a study of mine, but the article I gave a link for had several arguments against your view. You simply said the author's view was error without explaining why. You really need to learn how to debate, if you are going to say your opponent is wrong, you need to explain WHY.

2


Personally, I have no trouble with the designation “replacement theology” because with this view there is a taking away or transferring of what was promised to national Israel. One can use “fulfillment” terminology as some prefer, but in the end the result is the same—something that was promised to the nation Israel is no longer the possession of national Israel. Israel’s
promises and covenants now allegedly belong to another that is not national Israel. This other group may be called the “new” or “true” Israel by some but this does not change the fact that what was promised to one people group—national Israel—is now the possession of another group to the exclusion of national Israel.

His idea that the promises were to one people group are not in line with Paul in romans 9-11. Not all Israel was of Israel.

It is not as though replacement theology comes with its own set of arguments while fulfillment theology has a different compilation of
arguments. The position is the same while some call it one thing and others call it something else.

ok

According to Soulen, economic supersessionism
is the view that “carnal Israel’s history is providentially ordered from the outset to be taken up into the spiritual church.”
21
With this form of supersessionism, national Israel corresponds to Christ’s church in a merely prefigurative and carnal way. Thus, Christ, with His advent, “brings about the obsolescence of carnal Israel and inaugurates the age of the spiritual church.”
22
With economic supersessionism, Israel is not replaced primarily because of its disobedience but rather because its role in the history of redemption expired with the coming of Jesus. It is now superseded by the arrival of
a new spiritual Israel—the Christian church.

Israel while it was a type...also actually existed in redemptive history.The elect remnant was saved. But it was never the end all of God's plan and purpose.

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin;

due to their belief of God pre-electing a certain lucky specially pre-selected people (by predetermined pedigree in the case of the Jews) rather than by a genuine free will decision and response to accept the grace offered to all God’s creatures, ...response to the Light (influence) brought into all the world.

When you invent these terms and phrases I think you confuse yourself:laugh:

pre-electing/lucky /specially pre-selected???????

Election is God's love before time.

Keep smiling Icon...

Your slight confusion over the why ,who,and how, of election does not make this thread an un-happy thread.It is staying positive:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Hos,

It is seeming to me as though detractors of Dispensationalism seem to think that National Israel has literally ceased to exist as a people-group Arguably, they haven't though.

The promise was in reality passed on to those who were Abrahams "spiritual seed" who lived among the "Physical seed"
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Or as Jesus taught in jn 8:
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

 

[RLBosley]

Sure, basically my position on replacement theology (or supersessionism) is that Israel ceased to exist as God's covenant chosen people following their rejection of Jesus as Messiah. As a result the Church, or the elect of Christ, became the inheritors of the new covenant and the chosen nation/body through which salvation flowed.

As part of this belief I note that a) I am not anti-Semitic and b) Jews can absolutely obtain salvation...through faith in Jesus Christ. One point of this position is that I believe there has never been ethnic salvation for all Israelites (or Jews) but rather salvation has only existed in the corporate body of (prior to the New Covenant) Israel and then (after the New Covenant) the Church. In both bodies salvation is about faithfulness, not about ethnic blessing.

One of the keys to this idea is that salvation in the OT was about faithfulness to God through the promise of the Messiah as communicated in the covenants of the OT. In the NT the key to salvation is faith in Christ who has inaugurated the New Covenant through the atonement of His blood.

Israel as a nation has ceased to exist as it did the OT. The current state of Israel is not the OT representation of Israel. We need to separate spiritual Israel from political Israel. We shouldn't be deceived that the current state of Israel is a theological or spiritual descendant from the biblical Israel.

Perhaps key to this explanation is that Christ didn't come to establish the New Israel...Christ came to establish the True Israel.

The Church is the True Israel.

So while the OT saints obtained and remained in their salvation, that covenantal blessing does not continue under the same system. Instead, the New Covenant has superseded the old covenants and has expanded the offering of salvation.

There's more to it, but essentially this is how I frame my explanation.

:thumbs:I can agree with this. I'd add that Israel was a type of the coming church and not necessarily the church itself, but yeah basic agreement.

Maybe I lean more toward "replacement" theology than I thought. Though that still isn't quite the right term and isn't the most accurate. I'll stick with "grafted-in"/New Covenant Theology.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

:thumbs:I can agree with this. I'd add that Israel was a type of the coming church and not necessarily the church itself, but yeah basic agreement.

Maybe I lean more toward "replacement" theology than I thought. Though that still isn't quite the right term and isn't the most accurate. I'll stick with "grafted-in"/New Covenant Theology.

According to the article Winman Posted....the term "supersessionism" is also appropriate if you take offense to the term "replacement" Theology, and it apparently takes two general forms: (my verbiage used in the definitions here)

1.) "punitive": The idea being that the Church "replaced" because of Israel's failure and sin and breaking their covenant with God....Icon seems to fall into this category if I understand him.
2.) "Economic": That essentially Israel's task as the keepers of the oracles of God was more or less accomplished, and that God's ultimate purpose was with Christ's Advent to have the Church supercede because they were "finished" as it were.

To what extent These things contain truth...I would think that the truth is something of a "both/and" and not either/or.

This all seems well and good to me, but I fail to see how some of these truths necessarily rob National Israel of it's fundamental identity and purpose....and what place they appear to still have in God's end-times plan. As far as I can tell....there are still 144,000 (twelve k each) from all of the twelve tribes of Israel who are the virgins who came out of the Tribulation...and they are true-to-blue National Jews, so, Eschatologically, I'm not really buying it myself. Soteriologically, these things seem obvious, but I am happy to learn more from you guys on this discussion. I am no authority.

 

[RLBosley]

According to the article Winman Posted....the term "supersessionism" is also appropriate if you take offense to the term "replacement" Theology, and it apparently takes two general forms: (my verbiage used in the definitions here)

1.) "punitive": The idea being that the Church "replaced" because of Israel's failure and sin and breaking their covenant with God....Icon seems to fall into this category if I understand him.
2.) "Economic": That essentially Israel's task as the keepers of the oracles of God was more or less accomplished, and that God's ultimate purpose was with Christ's Advent to have the Church supercede because they were "finished" as it were.

To what extent These things contain truth...I would think that the truth is something of a "both/and" and not either/or.

This all seems well and good to me, but I fail to see how some of these truths necessarily rob National Israel of it's fundamental identity and purpose....and what place they appear to still have in God's end-times plan. As far as I can tell....there are still 144,000 (twelve k each) from all of the twelve tribes of Israel who are the virgins who came out of the Tribulation...and they are true-to-blue National Jews, so, Eschatologically, I'm not really buying it myself. Soteriologically, these things seem obvious, but I am happy to learn more from you guys on this discussion. I am no authority.

Regarding the 144,000 in Revelation I do not believe, nor do most others who hold to "replacement/supersession" theology, that they are actually physically/national Jews descended from Abraham.

2 main reasons for this:
1. the list of the tribes is wrong. Dan is missing (likely as a symbol for showing there is no apostasy in this group since IIRC Dan was the first tribe to fall into apostasy.) and Joseph is listed instead of Ephraim. Also Judah is listed irst which is very irregular compared to the OT, showing that this group has it's root in Judah - Christ being the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

2. This group is likely the same as the numberless multitude in the same chapter and that group is described as coming from "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues,"

Here is what George Ladd has to say on the 144,000

Who are these 144,000? The first answer which suggests itself is that they are literally Jews and picture the salvation of the Jewish people. However, it is impossible for these to be literally Jews, for the twelve tribes listed are simply not the twelve tribes of Israel. Dan is altogether omitted; and Dan is the first tribe mentioned in the division of the land in Ezekiel 48:1. Furthermore, the tribe of Ephraim is also omitted, but it is included indirectly because Joseph was the father of both Ephraim and Manasseh. This means that in reality the tribe of Manasseh is included twice.

What does John mean when he lists twelve tribes of Israel which are Israel but are not literal Israel? He gives us a hint in 2:9 where he speaks of "those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." See also 3:9: "Behold those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not." Here is a clear fact: they were people who called themselves Jews, and were in literal fact really Jews, and yet in the spiritual sense they were not really Jews but constituted a synagogue of Satan. In these verses John clearly distinguishes between literal Jews and spiritual Jews. We may believe that John deliberately listed the 144,000 in an irregular listing of tribes to say that here are those who are true spiritual Jews without being literal Jews: in other words, the church.

We have seen that the 144,000 were sealed that they might be sheltered from the wrath of God. We are reminded of Israel in Egypt. They were in Egypt, but they did not suffer the wrath of God as did the Egyptians. So God's people have been delivered from wrath. But as we have found earlier in this chapter, the true church is not to escape tribulation and persecution. Although they will be martyred, not one will be really lost; God has sealed his people and will keep them safe even in martyrdom. We are reminded again of Luke 21:16-18: "Some of you they will put to death but not a hair of your head will perish." So the 144,000 are the church on the threshold of the Great Tribulation: God's people numbered and preserved. The number 144,000, like other numbers in the Revelation, is a symbolic number, representing completeness.

The second throng pictured the same people, the 144,000, seen from a different point of view. They are the church which from the human perspective is a great in numerable throng from every nation and tongue. Now they are seen as martyrs of the Great Tribulation; they are seen standing before God's throne clothed in white robes, singing a hymn of praise "salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb." They are furthered identified: "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (7:14). Their martyrdom is the path to eternal blessedness and glory.

So if this group is the church and not national Israel it's easy to see how this affect eschatology.

 

[Herald]

No, I'll never be a convert to covenant theology. I just liked his post.

"I'll never..." Those were some of my favorite words when I was a student at the Bob Jones of the north, the Word of Life Bible Institute.

 

[Benjamin]

This is perhaps more a question than anything, but, I'm framing it as a critique. It seems to me that there is some tendency to confuse the purpose of national Israel as a matter of Soteriology and as a matter of Eschatology.

As a Pre-trib Dispy....I agree (as far as I can tell) with those who are adherents of "replacement" Theology (don't know another word to use so sorry if it offends)..etc. as a matter of Soteriology, but that doesn't mean I don't still think that as a matter of prophecy we can't still distinguish National Israel from the spiritual "Israel" which is all of Christ's redeemed.

It is seeming to me as though detractors of Dispensationalism seem to think that National Israel has literally ceased to exist as a people-group Arguably, they haven't though. "National" Israel has maintained it's distinct identity throughout 2,000 years of dispersion a feat not replicated by any other people group on Earth. I mean.....they are there right? and presumably....they are Jews right? Are they impostors?? Are they fake Jewish people?

As a matter of Salvation/Soteriology, I suppose that those who hold to this "replacement" Theology are stating obvious and non-debatable truth...But, I don't see how this should inherently effect your end-times views.

Maybe some of you guys can explain this better to me.

Hey HoS,

You're getting into some really deep questions and it'd probably be fun for me discuss this with you, being that we seem to usually be quite like minded and if not going down the same paths going down parallel ones, and could probably communicate well while doing so. To get down to the bottom meaning of "National Israel" and how it relates to Salvation/Soteriology would probably take several threads to break the complexity of your questions and would be a good exercise. BUT, I don't have time to go there but did remember these posts from many moons ago about the distinction of Israel or "National Israel" that might give you an idea of how I would begin to break this (your term, "National Israel" or "Jews") down and define it. The questions are from two different people:

So, what think ye? Is there a distinction between Israel and the church in this age? In the future?

I think, Nope.

I would submit that “Israel” refers to the faithful. I would further suggest that the idea of the “Jew” in the NT and OT be abandoned because it is only applicable to (lets see if I got this right) “the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin (with the Levites), it excludes all the prophets to the northern kingdomsuch as Samuel, Elijah, and so on.”

Back to the better term“Israel” which I contend means “faithful” throughout history as the secular ethnic application is different than the redemptive context in scripture. John the Baptist rebuffed the Pharisees in this matter as to who their father was:

(Mat 3:9) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stonesto raise up children unto Abraham.

(Mat 3:10) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Israel refers to faithful believers only, Jew and Gentile alike in one body in Christ. (Gal 3:28-29) Further, how can all of Israel be saved? (Rom 11:26) How do dispensationalists hold to that truth? And how many of the Jews of the tribulation will be saved???

I think you would agree that all were saved by faith both in the NT and the OT. What makes the (only) difference is the ministry that is written in our hearts; God required essentially the same thing through faith: (Mic 6:8) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

The OC - ministry of death, the NC- ministry of life, same salvation-main difference is here is the OT saints didn’t know the name of their redeemer. Seems dispys will argue OT saints didn’t have the indwelling of the HS…guess that’s another subject.

Israel (the faithful) IS the church. The word “Jews” would not even extend to the saints from creation. The “seedof Abraham” was Paul’s term for ALL the saved and that term is consistent and appliesfrom the OT also and is unrelated to the New and Old covenants.

Benjamin,

Are you able, my friend, to support this theory:

"The seed of Abraham ... is unrelated to the New and Old covenants" ??

The term “Israel” unless referring to it in the meaning of a pedigreed “Jew” has no relationship to the meaning of the “seed of Abraham” as I contend Israel in this reference refers to a believer with faith, both NC and OC. </SPAN>

The “seed of Abraham” is Paul’s term for ALL the saved:

(Gal 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.

(Gal 3:17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

(Gal 3:18) For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

(Gal 3:19) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

(Gal 3:20) Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

(Gal 3:21) Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

(Gal 3:22) But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

(Gal 3:23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

(Gal 3:24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

(Gal 3:25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

(Gal 3:26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

(Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

(Gal 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bondnor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

(Gal 3:29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


The terminology (seed of Abraham) is consistent in the meaning both NC and OC:

(Psa 105:6) O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.


Note John the Baptist’s reply to the Pharisees who thought differently:

(Mat 3:9) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The term “Israel” can not be separated in the meaning of “seed of Abraham” ALL the saved by faith, to mean only the OT people. It is unrelated to the meaning of being “Jew” in the sense of faith salvation.

 

[Benjamin]

Continued:

The "seeds of Abraham" are brought together in the promise:

(Rom 11:16) For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

(Rom 11:17) And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

(Rom 11:18) Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

(Rom 11:19) Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

(Rom 11:20) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

(Rom 11:21) For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

(Rom 11:22) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

(Rom 11:23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

(Rom 11:24) For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

(Rom 11:25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

(Rom 11:26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

(Rom 11:27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


In relationship to salvation meaning by faith alone there is no fundamental difference between the NT and the OT; the fundamental difference between the New Covenant and the Old is it is written in our hearts.

(Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(Mic 6:8) He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

In your answer you quoted Rom.11:26-27:

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

"For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
________________________________________________

Again, please tell me, if Israel is the "seed of
Abraham" here, how is this seed "unrelated to
the New and Old Covenants".

What is this "covenant" by which the sins of
Jacob will be taken a way? How is it "NOT related
to either the New or Old Covenants"??

Hope this is more clear of what I submitteed as a reason why there is no consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, but contrary wise Israel is the church. </SPAN>

Israel used in the definition of a pedigreed Jew can be shown in scripture to be unrelated to the covenants in both the OT and the NT.

In the Bible God gave the name Israel to Jacob for a specific purpose and the significance of the meaning of that name cannot be overlooked. The name is evidence of a line of “faith” already established in Abraham not of a father to son relationship of “pedigree”.

(Heb 11:9) By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

These guys were fellow heirs of the promise with Abraham by faith, not of blood. It seems more than significant that the promise was NOT that Abraham was to be the father of a bloodline but of a nation.

The “seeds of Abraham” are what I spelled out in the preceding posts of whom Paul said they applied to in the NT (ALL the saved), who John the Baptist said they didn’t apply to (BLOOD), and a look into the Word as to who was included in the “seeds of Abraham”.