Christian views of the Jewish religion and people have two thousand years of history. Neither the Bible itself nor that history bears much resemblance to what we’re hearing on social media now.
Romans 9 explicitly says “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,” for it is those who are children of the promise, not ethnicity who belong to the Lord. Galatians 3 proves Christ as the sole heir of Abraham, but Christ is pleased to share this inheritance with His sheep. He alone is the true fulfillment of the promise.
Romans 11 does not require a future national restoration, especially considering when it was written. “All Israel will be saved” can naturally refer to the full number of God’s elect (Jew and Gentile together), or to a large-scale Jewish conversion into the Church. The idea of a separate covenantal program or land promise must be presupposed when studying this text.
The appeal to an “unconditional” land covenant ignores how the New Testament expands inheritance language. Abraham wasn't promised just Judea and Samaria, but "the world." How hypocritical of us to focus on his minor blessing and not his greater blessing! Physical land was actually fulfilled in Joshua 21/23, stating explicitly "So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors... not one of all the Lord’s good promises to Israel failed; every one was fulfilled." What remains is a far greater, typological fulfillment of the coming Kingdom.
Also, your overview of Church history is highly selective. Overall, the dominant Roman Catholic, EO, and Reformed positions understand Israel’s promises as finally fulfilled in the Church.
Last, there exists no command to treat modern Israel as theologically distinct. The Church is now the “holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9). Ethnic distinction has no bearing on Christ's covenant.
Christ is the promised seed of Abraham and through His shared inheritance are God's people blessed. There is but one people of God.
Well first of all, I didn't write it. Jon Harris did. But your extremely brief response to Jon's work is woefully inadequate to the task of answering his multiple arguments.
Well done
You assumed what you needed to prove.
Romans 9 explicitly says “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,” for it is those who are children of the promise, not ethnicity who belong to the Lord. Galatians 3 proves Christ as the sole heir of Abraham, but Christ is pleased to share this inheritance with His sheep. He alone is the true fulfillment of the promise.
Romans 11 does not require a future national restoration, especially considering when it was written. “All Israel will be saved” can naturally refer to the full number of God’s elect (Jew and Gentile together), or to a large-scale Jewish conversion into the Church. The idea of a separate covenantal program or land promise must be presupposed when studying this text.
The appeal to an “unconditional” land covenant ignores how the New Testament expands inheritance language. Abraham wasn't promised just Judea and Samaria, but "the world." How hypocritical of us to focus on his minor blessing and not his greater blessing! Physical land was actually fulfilled in Joshua 21/23, stating explicitly "So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors... not one of all the Lord’s good promises to Israel failed; every one was fulfilled." What remains is a far greater, typological fulfillment of the coming Kingdom.
Also, your overview of Church history is highly selective. Overall, the dominant Roman Catholic, EO, and Reformed positions understand Israel’s promises as finally fulfilled in the Church.
Last, there exists no command to treat modern Israel as theologically distinct. The Church is now the “holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9). Ethnic distinction has no bearing on Christ's covenant.
Christ is the promised seed of Abraham and through His shared inheritance are God's people blessed. There is but one people of God.
Well first of all, I didn't write it. Jon Harris did. But your extremely brief response to Jon's work is woefully inadequate to the task of answering his multiple arguments.