22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

When did Jesus ever mention that He "would rule from the literal, physical Jerusalem"?

Are you expecting to find an explicit statement "I am going to rule from Jerusalem"? Do you often hear people state the obvious? Jesus claimed to be the son of David, the Son of Man, the coming messiah, the Son of God, the King of Israel, the prince of peace and etc. All of these concepts are pregnant with meaning, understood withing the context of the Oracles of God.

You believe the OT don't you?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Amils oppose Replacement Theology. They believe in Expansion Theology. It you that is the No. 1 promoter of it on these boards: You have previously admitted:

“The NT did supersede the OT, yes.”

"Yes, what Israel had, has now been passed on to many European and other nations."

"So, the kingdom of priests given to Israel has been given to many nations."

"Many Christian nations have now entered into the promise God made to Israel that they would be a kingdom having a priesthood."

I'm not familiar with "Expansion Theology"--it just sounds like you're trying to avoid being labeled an adherent of Replacement Theology? Again, you think the international Church has replaced Israel as the "People of God," or were always the authentic "People of God"--not Israel.

Yes, I believe Israel had a temporal theocracy, and that today's Christian states have the same. That is not a "replacement," but an addition--I don't believe the loss of theocracy in Israel is permanent. I think they will regain it in the Milllennium.

I do full-heartedly believe that Christ *superseded* the Law of Moses. That is an entirely different subject.

 

[WPM]

I'm not familiar with "Expansion Theology"--it just sounds like you're trying to avoid being labeled an adherent of Replacement Theology? Again, you think the international Church has replaced Israel as the "People of God," or were always the authentic "People of God"--not Israel.

Yes, I believe Israel had a temporal theocracy, and that today's Christian states have the same. That is not a "replacement," but an addition--I don't believe the loss of theocracy in Israel is permanent. I think they will regain it in the Milllennium.

I do full-heartedly believe that Christ *superseded* the Law of Moses. That is an entirely different subject.

Then read up on Expansion Theology before you hurl false charges. And no, Amils do NOT "think the international Church has replaced Israel as the 'People of God'." We believe the NT Church was grafted into an already existing spiritual entity - the good olive tree, the flock of God, which represents remnant elect believing Israel. This was alive and active in the OT, and is still alive. What changed was that it was expanded out to the nations after the earthly ministry of Christ, in fulfillment of multiple prophecies tracing right back the book of Genesis. And yes, the Church (OT or NT) was "always the authentic 'People of God'."

Anyway, Christ-rejecting Israel is not the people of God. They are of their father the devil. Christ was preaching a sermon in John 8:32 saying, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

To which the religious Jews interjected, “We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (v 33).

Jesus replied, “I know that ye are Abraham's seed (obviously speaking naturally); but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father” (vv 37-38).

The Jews then boasted, “Abraham is our father” (v39).

Christ responds to this misguided boast of the religious Jews, saying, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father” (John 8:34-38).

These religious Jews had no revelation of their own innate sin. They were depending upon their own self-righteousness. Little did they know it, but man’s only deliverer from sin was standing in their midst. Every man since Adam is born with original sin and therefore stands completely guilty before a righteous God. In the first Adam (the first nature) all are sinners and therefore destined to lost eternity. Jews and Gentiles approach God on the same grounds being collectively blighted with the same disfigurement – sin. They consequently require the same cure (the only medicine for this affliction) – the blood of Jesus. All men are on a level playing field when it comes to birth. All are equally required to submit to the exact same requirements – faith in Christ and repentance towards God.

Whereupon Christ responded, “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 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. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 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. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 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” (vv 39-44).

Here Christ hits them with the sobering truth. He identifies their true father as the devil. This would have been explosive to these religiously proud Jewish leaders. He advanced “If ye were Abraham's children” speaking in a spiritual sense, and “If God were your Father” also speaking spiritually, “ye would love me.” Here the evidence of being a true child of Abraham is shown to be ‘loving Christ’. This is Christ’s litmus test of a true child of Abraham and what it is to be part of God’s chosen people.

Let us see what the Saviour said on this important matter. Jesus said in John 5:23b-24, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

Again, this couldn’t be clearer. Those Jews and Gentiles that don’t accept Christ don’t accept the Father. Christ-rejecting Jews and Gentiles are under condemnation and are therefore of their father the devil.

I John 2:22-23 solemnly asks, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (or Messiah)? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”

Jews who accept Christ as Saviour and Lord are true children of Abraham, Gentiles who accept Christ as Saviour and Lord are true children of Abraham. Jews who reject Christ as Saviour and Lord are not true children of Abraham, Gentiles who reject Christ as Saviour and Lord are not true children of Abraham.

Jesus said in Luke 9:48, “whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me.”

The overwhelming amount of Jews for 2,000 years have rejected Christ, Christ will therefore reject them. Notwithstanding, there has always been a redeemed remnant that have accepted God's only provision for sin and uncleanness. Those that accepts Christ are accepted of the Father. Those that deny Him are denied by the Father.

Jesus said in John 15:23, “He that hateth me hateth my Father also.”

How can they be of God's if they reject God's only means of reconciliation between man and God? The unsaved Jew does not receive Christ; therefore the Father does not receive him. He is not God's, he is the devil's. God's favour and blessing is upon those who accept His Son. His judgment is upon those who reject Him.

John the Baptist said in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

If the Jew loves Christ He is one of God's chosen, if he doesn't he is under the wrath of God. Simple!!!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Then read up on Expansion Theology before you hurl false charges.

What false charges? You fit Replacement Theology. Period. You don't like the term--granted. But it suits the situation.

I did look up Expansion Theology, and found very little. What I did see confirmed exactly what I've been saying, that it is an attempt to circumvent use of the term RT.

Belief in the reality of the Jewish People is not what RT denies. It is denial that Israel ever was or is or will be the eternal People of God. I've had many debates on this subject, and they have only served to confirm my claims. Using verses like, "there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female in Christ" is the acid test.

It is a basic denial that Christianity has any use for racial and nationalistic divisions, which is a complete misunderstanding of what Paul was saying. He was saying that these divisions are superficial with respect to gaining entry into Christian salvation. He was not saying that these divisions play no role in the course of salvation, after it has already been obtained, or even in the pagan world.

I have no need to get into another debate with you about this, since we already know our respective positions. I don't need documentation of what you believe. You just don't like the label. Sorry about that. I'm not using that label to provoke you. It's just the reality, as I see it.

Your pasting copies of your beliefs are completely unnecessary, unless you are satisfying your own need to justify having answered things.

 

[WPM]

What false charges? You fit Replacement Theology. Period. You don't like the term--granted. But it suits the situation.

I did look up Expansion Theology, and found very little. What I did see confirmed exactly what I've been saying, that it is an attempt to circumvent use of the term RT.

Belief in the reality of the Jewish People is not what RT denies. It is denial that Israel ever was or is or will be the eternal People of God. I've had many debates on this subject, and they have only served to confirm my claims. Using verses like, "there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female in Christ" is the acid test.

It is a basic denial that Christianity has any use for racial and nationalistic divisions, which is a complete misunderstanding of what Paul was saying. He was saying that these divisions are superficial with respect to gaining entry into Christian salvation. He was not saying that these divisions play no role in the course of salvation, after it has already been obtained, or even in the pagan world.

I have no need to get into another debate with you about this, since we already know our respective positions. I don't need documentation of what you believe. You just don't like the label. Sorry about that. I'm not using that label to provoke you. It's just the reality, as I see it.

Your pasting copies of your beliefs are completely unnecessary, unless you are satisfying your own need to justify having answered things.

Again, you are the main Replacement Theology theologian here. As usual, you run to a slanted Premil site to get your information. This is your pattern. That is your MO. I have little confidence I will change your way of ascertaining facts. It explains why you are so misinformed on every issue we discuss.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Again, you are the main Replacement Theology theologian here. As usual, you run to a slanted Premil site to get your information. This is your pattern. That is your MO. I have little confidence I will change your way of ascertaining facts. It explains why you are so misinformed on every issue we discuss.

Yes, I know some about most everything, but am master at none. And yet you seem to find my questions serious and formidable, even though you deny it. ;) I'm actually happy you're willing to engage me on these things. It's nice to talk to someone who is relatively well-informed. :)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm talking about their Scriptures. In their Prophets we read of Israel's restoration. The Jews saw that as a literal promise for the future.

Do you mean the Old Testament scriptures? Who cares what the Jews see there? Like I said before, they are often wrong in their interpretations of scripture.

Replacement Theologians apply what was given to Israel to the Church.

Such as?

The problem is, Christians know that the Jewish People messed up and are under punishment. I'm saying that should not keep us from accepting the things they understand from their Scriptures are the promise of their final restoration.

Accepting the things they understand? Shouldn't we get our understanding from the Holy Spirit and from studying the scriptures for ourselves? Who are you talking about exactly here? Certainly not people like the Pharisees and scribes. So, who are these Jews that supposedly have answers from scripture that we can't discern for ourselves?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

i can’t say, but what they are called.

Rev 9:
[4] And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
(For 5 months)...

Sounds like God is calling the shots.

So, should we see the beast as being a literal beast since that is what it is called? I can't make any sense of what you're saying here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is what false teacher Herbert W. Armstrong promoted. So you are simply another false teacher.

How did you not notice that he was quoting someone else (Randy)? So, I guess you're actually saying that Randy is a false teacher.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You didn't. You are asking me to explain them away.

No, I am not. How can I take you seriously when you make things up like this?

I don't do that. In my view, the entire Bible is true and without error.

When did I say otherwise? Do you think that's not my view as well?

In my view, the Bible speaks with one voice.

I believe we all look at our own views this way. I wish you didn't waste your time telling me obvious things like this.

In my view, single verses taken out of context meaning nothing at all.

What does that mean?

You asked me to explain away two verses. I didn't explain them at all. Did I? No.

What are you talking about? Please learn how to communicate more clearly. You're telling me I asked you to explain verses away and you're not even telling me how you came to that conclusion or what verses you're talking about.

I can't explain why. I am speaking clearly enough.

No, you are not. You speak vaguely and not specifically, so I can only guess as to what you're trying to say most of the time.

I have found that sometimes, what appears to be cryptic language, is plain enough when more of the relevant facts are apprehended.

What does that mean?

True, but incomplete. Contrary to your supposition that Jesus is comparing two ages, he is actually comparing two peoples.

LOL! What? That is obviously false. I think you must be the only one to not recognize that he was contrasting "this age" with "the age to come". In this age people get married and they die. In the age to come they won't get married or die. That is what Jesus clearly indicated. He was clearly contrasting this current age we're in now with the age to come. I can't believe you can't discern that.

He contrasts "the sons of this age." with "those who are worthy to attain to that age". In his view, those who are worthy to attain to that age will experience resurrection. But when does the resurrection event take place, this age or the next age?

At the end of this age when Christ returns.

Logically speaking the resurrection event takes place in this age, because "this age" doesn't become "the age to come" UNTIL AFTER the resurrection takes place.

It brings an end to this age. What is your point here?

The changing of the ages requires a short transformation period in which the defining characteristics of one age briefly coexists with the defining characteristics of the next age.

Show me where this is taught in scripture. Please back up your claims with scripture. It seems that a common trait of Premils is that they like to make all kinds of claims but they're not much into backing them up with scripture.

The transformation from one age to another not only takes time, the emergence of the new circumstances, which will define the next age, actually happen in the current age.

Again, where is that taught in scripture?

Take another look at the Luke passage. Notice our Lord's word choice, identifying "that age" and "resurrection from the dead" as two distinct concepts. Resurrection from the dead must be considered along with the next age because resurrection from the dead takes place during the short transition period between ages.

Where does Jesus describe that as a "short transition period"? I don't see that anywhere.

It isn't the next age until AFTER the resurrection takes place.

Luke 20:34-35
Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;

Although resurrection from the dead marks a distinct and unique condition found in the coming age, resurrection from the dead must be considered along with the next age, because resurrection from the dead takes place in this age. For this reason, we should expect to find other indications that the resurrection takes place in this age. And I believe the New Testament supports this fact. Resurrection of the saints uniquely marks the coming age, but the resurrection event happens in this one.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Do you somehow not know that all of the dead are going to be resurrected at generally the same time, as Jesus said in John 5:28-29? This transition period you're talking about is not taught anywhere in scripture.

Of course not. Why do you suppose I make videos? In a video I can cover a lot of ground in a very short amount of time. Unlike the posts I make here, the video script is written carefully, edited and reedited until it speaks clearly and concisely. I'm trying to save time and avoid filling up posts.
Too bad. I've been quite discouraged lately.

You don't need to watch; you can listen to them like a pod-cast, except in this case I included an infographic, depicting the overall concept. I try to keep them short -- 15 to 20 minutes. You can listen to them while you do other things.

I have no interest in them. I thought I made that clear already. Maybe your ego is too large to comprehend that, but the fact is that I have no interest in watching or listening to your videos.

Peter compares the deluge with the coming fires. It seems reasonable to me that if God saved Noah and his family from the deluge so that he might live on the earth after the flood, God will save his people from the coming fires so that they might live on the earth after the fires.

Where is that taught in scripture, though? Scripture says that we will be changed and have immortal bodies when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:50-54), so where would the mortals come from that you think would populate the earth when He returns?

Revelation 20:11 talks about a time when the heavens and earth "will pass away." I don't think Peter is talking about that.

LOL. 2 Peter 3:10-12 is very clearly talking about the heavens and the earth passing away. Only extreme doctrinal bias could keep someone from seeing that.

Joel and Malachi speak about a time when God will send fires on the land of Israel, when those who "fear God" will flee to Jerusalem. Those who remain behind will be incinerated. I believe Peter has that event in mind.

Where do you see in what Peter wrote the possibility of anyone surviving it? Do you believe Paul, in 1 Thess 5, was writing about the same day of the Lord that will come as a thief in the night that Peter wrote about? I see no reason to think otherwise. And Paul made it clear that unbelievers "will not escape" at that time. Honestly, the idea of any mortal surviving what Peter described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is laughable.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Keraz]

Peter compares the deluge with the coming fires. It seems reasonable to me that if God saved Noah and his family from the deluge so that he might live on the earth after the flood, God will save his people from the coming fires so that they might live on the earth after the fires.

Thanks; a very true statement.
We are told to - Call upon the Name of the Lord and you will be saved. Joel 3:32, Acts 2:21, All in the context of the forthcoming Lord's Day of fiery wrath.

Although resurrection from the dead marks a distinct and unique condition found in the coming age, resurrection from the dead must be considered along with the next age, because resurrection from the dead takes place in this age.

This is a contradictory statement and all quite wrong, as the raising of all the dead does not happen until the GWT Judgment; AFTER the Millennium.
There is no prophecy that says anyone other than the GT martyrs are resurrected. Rev 20:4

 

[Taken]

So, should we see the beast as being a literal beast since that is what it is called? I can't make any sense of what you're saying here.

Beast...large powerful thing, literally, yes.

Are large powerful animals, vehicles, giant men, big governments, BEASTS... yes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What false charges? You fit Replacement Theology. Period. You don't like the term--granted. But it suits the situation.

I did look up Expansion Theology, and found very little. What I did see confirmed exactly what I've been saying, that it is an attempt to circumvent use of the term RT.

Belief in the reality of the Jewish People is not what RT denies. It is denial that Israel ever was or is or will be the eternal People of God. I've had many debates on this subject, and they have only served to confirm my claims. Using verses like, "there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female in Christ" is the acid test.

Why is it that you (seemingly) don't accept what verses like those teach?

It is a basic denial that Christianity has any use for racial and nationalistic divisions, which is a complete misunderstanding of what Paul was saying.

How do you come to that conclusion? You seem to have your own personal, private interpretation of verses like those. Is that how God works? He reveals things like this to just one person?

He was saying that these divisions are superficial with respect to gaining entry into Christian salvation. He was not saying that these divisions play no role in the course of salvation, after it has already been obtained, or even in the pagan world.

You are trying to tell us that someone's race or nationality plays a role in salvation? Where is that taught in scripture? Does that agree with what Peter said here:

Acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

I have no need to get into another debate with you about this, since we already know our respective positions. I don't need documentation of what you believe. You just don't like the label. Sorry about that. I'm not using that label to provoke you. It's just the reality, as I see it.

But, you continue to use it even though you know it offends us. That says a lot about you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Beast...large powerful thing, literally, yes.

Are large powerful animals, vehicles, giant men, big governments, BEASTS... yes.

LOL. You can't be serious here. Do you think there is no symbolism in the book of Revelation? It's just all literal? So, you think the literal beast has seven literal heads and ten literal horns, also?

 

[Keraz]

Scripture says that we will be changed and have immortal bodies when Christ returns (1 Cor 15:50-54),

Fundamental error!'
After Jesus Returns, those who go with Him into the Millennium, will all have mortal bodies. Even the GT martyrs are raised back into mortality, proved by how when they die again, their second death has no power to take away their ultimate reward of eternal life.

1 Corinthians 15:50-56, is a prophecy about what happens at the GWT Judgment, Revelation 20:11-15
Proved by how only then is this: Death shall be no more. Revelation 21:4

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Are you expecting to find an explicit statement "I am going to rule from Jerusalem"?

Of course not. I'm asking where the concept is taught in scripture.

Do you often hear people state the obvious?

My goodness. Do I have to spell it out to you every time I ask you to show me something in scripture that I'm talking about the concept of what you're claiming rather than certain phrases or words?

Jesus claimed to be the son of David, the Son of Man, the coming messiah, the Son of God, the King of Israel, the prince of peace and etc. All of these concepts are pregnant with meaning, understood withing the context of the Oracles of God.

So, in other words, you have no scripture you can use which clearly teaches this concept. That's interesting. That doesn't do much for your case.

You believe the OT don't you?

Ridiculous question. Here's a better question. Do you believe the NT shines light on (clarifies) OT scripture?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Fundamental error!'

LOL.

After Jesus Returns, those who go with Him into the Millennium, will all have mortal bodies.

Jesus will return at the last trumpet. At that point we will all have immortal bodies, as Paul taught. You clearly have no understanding of what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15. In 1 Cor 15:22-23 Paul indicated that the dead in Christ will be resurrected when Jesus returns. Then a bit later in 1 Cor 15:50-52, Paul indicated that the dead in Christ will be resurrected and changed (along with living believers) at the last trumpet. That means Jesus returns at the last trumpet.

Even the GT martyrs are raised back into mortality, proved by how when they die again, their second death has no power to take away their ultimate reward of eternal life.

This is nonsense of the highest order. NOWHERE does scripture teach that anyone will be resurrected with a mortal body in the future only to die again after that. That is completely ludicrous. What would be the point of that? This belief you have is utter nonsense and can't be backed up by scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:50-56, is a prophecy about what happens at the GWT Judgment, Revelation 20:11-15
Proved by how only then is there: Death shall be no more. Revelation 21:4

There will be no more death once Jesus returns and we are all changed to have immortal bodies and Jesus kills all of His enemies. Just because the judgment happens right afterwards doesn't change that fact, so there's no reason to be so technical about it. No one will die after what is described in Revelation 20:9 occurs.

 

[Taken]

LOL. You can't be serious here. Do you think there is no symbolism in the book of Revelation? It's just all literal? So, you think the literal beast has seven literal heads and ten literal horns, also?

It depends if you are a babe and require a vision of something familiar to you Like a Big scary animal with seven head and ten horn, and you already know what big mean, an animal mean, a head means and what a horn means.......

OR if you are wise to know spiritually it literally means Great Controlling Power over men at large with ten lessor powers.

To Compare ... for example; currently there is...
* The European Union; with heads and horns; big powers and lesser powers, Over a large group of people.
* The League of Arab Nations...ditto
* Africa Union...ditto
* The League of Nations....now The United Nations...ditto

 

[Enoch111]

How did you not notice that he was quoting someone else (Randy)? So, I guess you're actually saying that Randy is a false teacher.

I was quoting Paul. I don't know who Randy is.

 

[Taken]

So, in other words, you have no scripture you can use which clearly teaches this concept. That's interesting. That doesn't do much for your case.

Jesus is the Word of God that came forth out of Gods mouth.
God prepared a body for Him, for when he would come into the world.
A faithful Jewish woman who was a virgin, who was betrothed to a man named Joseph of the House of David, was selected to carry for 9 months according to mans law, then deliver forth the babe.
Between receiving the babe in her womb and delivery, she an Joseph married. The child was thus born coming forth from a human woman’s womb, which is according to the law of nature.
According to Jewish Law and Gentile Law, the child was Legally the son of Mary and Joseph.
According to Jewish Law, ONLY a Jew of the House of David could occupy the Jewish Throne and be King of the Jewish Race.
When God appointed David as a Jewish king, God also established his Throne as an everlasting Throne. Also the city of Jerusalem, the seat of Government of the Jews, and the “kingdom” National Land of Israel, the boundaries of Land God Promised Abraham and his descendants.

Because Jesus, was Lawfully by mans law, a Jew, of the House of David, a son of Joseph...every direct of line of Men...father, grand father, gg, ggg, etc. are all call fathers....and thus Jesus was lawfully the son of each one from Joseph to king David, establishing Jesus’ lawful earthly kingship right.

Because Jesus is also the Word of God, came forth out from God, He is God ...... Satisfying Gods Law that only God Can rule Gods Earthly Kingdom...

For Jesus to be called.....A Jew, a son of Abraham...continue the lineage, of David back to Abraham.

The importance of being connected to Abraham...is the promised land.
Promised to Abraham and his Heirs.

So, what Scripture says, IS Jesus took upon himself the seed of Abraham...which is to say, By being delivered forth from a Jewish woman’s womb married to a man of the House of David...he was lawfully entitled to be King of the Jews AND Sit in King Davids Throne, Rule His Kingdom from Jerusalem and His Kingdom be Abrahams promised land.

And, Every person, who through agreeing to conversion, take in them the Seed of God, Who is Christ, they also take upon themselves the seed of Abraham, and are entitled to be heirs of Abrahams promised land.
Jews are Israel, Gentiles are not Israel, Gentiles do not become Israel, Gentiles do not become Jews......ALL become sons of Abraham, Father of many nations. All become sons of God.

If you have not heard this lesson, and can not find the teaching in scripture, reply with my text. Highlight specific parts.