Featured Replacement Theolody-what is it,who teaches it-

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:

 

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!

 

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 ->

Keep smiling Icon...:smilewinkgrin:

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

: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.

 

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

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

 

"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.

 

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:

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.

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.

 

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?

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”.