Romans 11 - the olive tree - slow and easy

[Nanners]

SHILOH!

Well stated

[EricH]

I never said you were anti-Semitic.  Perhaps you should pull the bananas out of your ears.  I just think it is interesting that the ones you hold up as  learned examples, are the same ones who were some of the worst anti-Semites in church history, and were also the staunchest when it comes to the replacement theology you espouse.  Shows the lack of quality in your theology.

This seems to be disingenuous to me. It seems to me that the goal of raising the anti-semitic issue was to connect your opponent to the label anti-semitism. Then when objections are raised you say, "I never meant you were anti semitic". But the damage is done. Not really a fair way of arguing. You plant the seed, then deny reponsibility. This is really a sneaky way of weakening your opponents position without having to actually show there is a weakness. You take an emotional label and attach it, then stand back and watch the carnage. When confronted you deny that is what you intended.

Again, this is demeaning to all of us. Stements like "take the bananas out of your ears" are just not something that reflects how God would have us treat one another. How does this reflect the concept of "Speaking the truth in love"?

You had already stated earlier that your purpose was to demonstrate that God no longer had any prophetic dealings or plan for Israel. I knew what your goal was from the beginning. Stop pretending that you didn't have that in mind when you created this thread. You went into Romans 11 to prove a point that the chapter was trying to prove. Exegesis, done properly leads out of the text the meaning the author was intending to convey. Instead you attempt to lead out of the text a meaning that was foreign to it. It was a tragic mishandling of the chapter. Your conclusions derived from Romans 11 are erroneous since they violate the context and line of thought.

And you state up front your desire is to show that Israel is materially different from the church. You could also be accused of reading your theology onto the text. Lets be honest, everyone does to some extent or another. If you are claiming to be a totally neutral exegete, you are the first I have ever met.

The burden of proof is not upon me. It is upon you. The onus is on you to prove your allegations.  I don't have to prove you wrong, only demonstrate the flaws in your approach, and namely your attempt to prove something that was foreign to the subject matter of Romans 11. It your handling of Romans 11 that leads me to believe that you aren't able to deal with what the true subject matter of that chapter. 

Actually to demonstrate the correctness of your position, the burden of proof is on you as well. Demonstrating weaknesses in an opponents approach, does not automatically validate yours.

First all, It is not enough to just pop off individual verses, but to deal with them in their context.  I know you hate using methods that don't allow to read your theology into them, but this is just how competent hermeneutics work.

You have done that through out the argument as well. Proof texting is something we all engage in.

As for circumcision of the heart, that has nothing to do with conversion.  It has to do with the daily removal of sin.

This is an assertion you have not proven to be true. I guess my question to you would be are you saying that the act of circumcision was what made and individual a member of the community in the OT, or was it a picture of something else that was going on. Did circumcision of the flesh ever save people?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

I never said you were anti-Semitic.

[BibleStudent]

I never said you were anti-Semitic. Perhaps you should pull the bananas out of your ears. I just think it is interesting that the ones you hold up as learned examples, are the same ones who were some of the worst anti-Semites in church history, and were also the staunchest when it comes to the replacement theology you espouse. Shows the lack of quality in your theology.

If this were true, then you could cite at least one theologian I have quoted in this discussion. If memory serves, the only theologian I have quoted is the Apostle Paul. So get rid of your own bananas!

(EricH: Thank you.)

You also declare that you want to show the roots of my theology. But I told you exactly how I came to my theology. And you treated that as if I never said it. So I will reiterate how I came to my position.

The Lord impressed me that I should study prophecy. (I was a member of the Church of the Nazarene.) So I bought every book I could lay my hands on, from every source I could find. Most were Dispensational. Some were SDA, since there is also an SDA bookstore in town. I opened a blank notebook and several Bible translations, and started taking notes in parallel columns. When someone said something particularly stupid (e.g.

[Nanners]

Ok Guys the bottom line......

LOVE

[Guest shiloh357]

Let us recap. I read Pentecost, LaHaye, Rosenthal, Walvoord, Hindson, DeMar, Gentry, Chilton, Shea, Richardson, Smith, Anderson, and many others. None of these is anti-Semitic. Had there been one hint of anti-Semitism, I would have thrown them out.

I didn

[BibleStudent]

Shiloh,

You are stuck in a horrible rut. You cannot bring yourself to understand two things.

First, it does not matter who I have read. My theology is biblical, not anti-Semitic. If you will look at the list, it includes Dispensationalists, Preterists, and Historicists. I used them as a way to see the various opinions. Comparison with scripture was the criterion for determining the credence to lend any particular point. So, like I said, GIVE IT A REST.

Second, Paul and Jesus are inspired, and therefore INFALLIBLE interpreters. When they identify the New Covenant as an attribute of the church, they are necessarily identifying the church as

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh,

You are stuck in a horrible rut. You cannot bring yourself to understand two things.

First, it does not matter who I have read. My theology is biblical, not anti-Semitic. If you will look at the list, it includes Dispensationalists, Preterists, and Historicists. I used them as a way to see the various opinions. Comparison with scripture was the criterion for determining the credence to lend any particular point. So, like I said, GIVE IT A REST.

The theology you are espousing as it relates to Israel did not begin with modern theologians. It is a perspective that is centuries old and is filled with all kinds of errors. You are ignoring the roots of the notion that the Church is Israel. What you teach is not a modern thing at all, as you have asserted. You cited as proof, various early church theologians. The men you quoted are not anti-Semitic but the roots of replacement theology, or whatever one chooses to call it, are.

Second, Paul and Jesus are inspired, and therefore INFALLIBLE interpreters. When they identify the New Covenant as an attribute of the church, they are necessarily identifying the church as

[Pilgrim7]

Greetings,

How many times does God need to tell us that there is neither Jew not Greek before we will believe Him. There is only one body. He only has Spiritual people as His Children. Children of the flesh are not His children.

EPH 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body (Israel), and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (We gentiles become members the body of Israel, spiritual Israel)

ROM 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly (by being born a Jew); neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

2:29 But he is a Jew (child of God), which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Those who are of the Spirit are Jews (children) inwardly)

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.

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

3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise (430 years before the Covenant with Moses)

Edited September 3, 2005 by Pilgrim7

[BibleStudent]

The New Testament draws spiritual parallels between Israel and the Church. Peter calls the Church a chosen generation, a royal priesthood and a holy nation. He is not proclaiming an usurpation of what once belonged to Israel and transference to the Church, but that the Church is a spiritual version of what Israel is before the Lord on the Earth.

I think that we can all see the basis for your approach. You declare that the church and