How do you mean?Actually, I think too much leeway has been given to Muslims on the issue of "Israel."
How do you mean?Actually, I think too much leeway has been given to Muslims on the issue of "Israel."
I fully recognize that Replacement Theology adherents view things differently than Dispensationalists and Premillennialists who believe in a future Israel. I'm not using RT as a term of disparagement or insult--it is only for convenience. The importance is not in the word "replacement" but rather, in whether we see God's promise to Abraham regarding physical Israel as still binding.
And this is where it diverges: There was never a promise to physical Israel through Abraham.
The promise to physical Israel came at Sinai only and that was through the law.
While it was supposed to be the time in which all national Israel came into the covenant of promise, they did not come into the presence of God and instead sent only Moses.
The call to the Israeli *nation* still applies, in my theology. There was also a call to other "nations," which also applies literally.
So, you've just contradicted yourself! You said "there never was a promise to physical Israel," and now you say there was "at Sinai" and "through the Law."
You must take the whole quote:
There was never a promise to physical Israel through Abraham.
The temporary covenant of the Law was not insignificant and kept Israel from Eternal Life, but not from the *hope* of Eternal Life, nor did their lack of final redemption prohibit them from obtaining their promises. Paul argues that God's promises still apply to Israel, even though under the Law Israel failed. In fact, we all fail under the standards of the Law!
So, you've just contradicted yourself! You said "there never was a promise to physical Israel," and now you say there was "at Sinai" and "through the Law."
You what is also disconcerting: the moral passes Christians are willing to give Israel when they conduct war; as if anything they do is permitted because they are "God's people": as if the standard in the earth, for those who love God, is anything less than Christ's.
And this is where it diverges: There was never a promise to physical Israel through Abraham.
Israel didn't start this current war, Hamas did by murdering innocent Jews and taking hostages, as young as a baby. Israel has offered peace and every single time Hamas has turned them down. Even Bill Clinton said they were impossible to deal with. If Palestinians want peace, they can have it, just get rid of Hamas and tell Iran to stuff it. Peace is their choice, Israel has peace with other neighbors, even gave up land for peace. The ball remains in their corner.
Yes, there was, more than once. God made the land promise to Abe and told the next generation the same thing. He outlined and named the borders of the land. It is an actual physical land promise that God made and He will uphold.
Yes, there was, more than once. God made the land promise to Abe and told the next generation the same thing. He outlined and named the borders of the land. It is an actual physical land promise that God made and He will uphold.
The promise was to Abraham's seed, who is Christ. God never promised to give ownership of the land to anyone but Christ. All others are guests and resident aliens and are given the right to live there in association with him
In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: Genesis 15:18Now 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. Galatians 3:16The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. John 3:35The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. Leviticus 25:23
And yet they never received the promise EVEN of the physical land. They could never keep the Law perfectly so they became a slave instead. A slave can never inherit the estate of the Lord. Hence, they are currently like Ishmael in relation to Abraham. That's what Paul explains in Galatians.
There is probably a better place to discuss the Israel Hamas war.
I guess we have a disagreement then. Scholars disagree on this.No he wasn't.
He references “former ignorance” and “the futile ways inherited from your forefathers”. This does not fit a Jewish audience.
I've written all this out before. You're new so you'd have to search out my posts. God made a land promise to Abe and to each generation after that. He said that He will re-gather the Jews back to their homeland. He set out the borders. He made a covenant with His chosen people that still stands to this day. And He will keep His promise, otherwise how could we trust any promise if He went back on the promise he made to the Jews. 1948 began Gods time prophetic time clock. Israel is the nation born in a day. God is not done with the Jewish people.
Romans 11 says that God will restore the Jews, nothing else in the Word negates that. The Word says that they are blinded for a time but will come to know their Messiah and realize they were wrong. It says they will weep for Him who they pierced.
Romans 9-11 says a only remnant will be saved. Paul wouldn't contradict everything he said in those chapters to end by saying the whole nation will be saved. That idea is ludicrous, contradicts all of scripture and comes from misreading the text.