Posted on 12/08/2009 6:18:30 AM PST by topcat54
In the Preterist view, God has canceled every covenant with Israel. There is no future or significance for the Jewish people or Israel as a nation. There is no fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. There is no reign of Messiah from a throne in Jerusalem. All of Gods promises to Israel have been nullified. Israel has been replaced by the church.Dr. Robert Heidler
The above assessment of preterism is inaccurate, mistaken, erroneous, wrong, incorrect, false, bogus, and misinformed. Have I missed anything? How about flawed and untrue? One would call Heidlers understanding of preterism as it relates to Israel a straw man, a false caricature of another position.[1] Like any straw man, its easily set aflame. Lets begin by pointing out some obvious errors. Quoting Old Testament prophecy, Peter describes how the Davidic covenant was fulfilled in exacting detail in Jesus:
Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies a footstool for your feet. Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christthis Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:2936).
Can this be any clearer? David occupied a throne that was being held for its true heir, Jesus Christ. Similar to the way the earthly tabernacle and temple were shadows of better things to come, the Davidic throne was a shadow of the true King who takes His seat in heaven.
Dr. Heidler argues correctly that a preterist would agree that there is no reign of Messiah from a throne in Jerusalem for the simple reason that there is no verse in the New Testament that states that Jesus will set up His throne in Jerusalem. Revelation 20 does not mention a throne. It does not even mention Jerusalem. Jesus throne is set in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22), the Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:2131).
What about Dr. Heidlers claim that in the Preterist view, God has canceled every covenant with Israel. . . . All of Gods promises to Israel have been nullified. On the day of Pentecost, thousands of Jews were saved. This assembly of Jewish believers is called the whole church (Acts 5:11). The church at this time was made up exclusively of Jews. There is no replacement, postponement, cancelation, or nullification of any covenant promises. There is nullification only if Dr. Heidler believes that Jews who embraced Jesus as their promised Messiah is not a fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. The Church does not replace Israel, since the believing remnant of Israel made up the church. All Jews were familiar with the word church and its meaning. The Greek noun ekklēsia is used throughout the LXX version of the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew [qahal], which signified the assembly or congregation of the people of Israel (cf. for example, Dt. 31:30).[2] There is no replacement of Israel by a new entity called the church. The first body of believers was called the whole church. No one asked, Whats a church? Is this something new? What about the covenants made to Israel? The covenants were being fulfilled before their eyes.
Endnotes:
[1] Joel McDurmon, Biblical Logic in Theory and Practice (Powder Springs, GA American Vision, 2009), 203.
[2] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 547, note 156.
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
...the very category of replacement is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people was, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement.
-- from the thread Replacing Replacement Theology
Won’t work.
The argument is flawed from the start, saying that the earthly kingdom promises to Israel are nullified. There is too much OT prophecy on this to ignore, beginning with the final chapters of Ezekiel and Zech. 14. Rom. 10-11, God is not done with Israel.
In the Preterist view, God has canceled every covenant with Israel. There is no future or significance for the Jewish people or Israel as a nation. There is no fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. There is no reign of Messiah from a throne in Jerusalem. All of Gods promises to Israel have been nullified. Israel has been replaced by the church.The above assessment of preterism is inaccurate, mistaken, erroneous, wrong, incorrect, false, bogus, and misinformed. Have I missed anything? How about flawed and untrue? One would call Heidlers understanding of preterism as it relates to Israel a straw man, a false caricature of another position.
Dr. Robert Heidler
I need to read more about this later.
Good point. While this is often (falsely) painted as a preterist or postmil issue, it is not. It is really dispensationalism (or semi-dispensationalism ala messianism) vs. non-dispensationalism. Israelocentric vs. Christocentric.
You know, it has been my experience that very few people ever want to discuss what the Bible teaches. They would rather just throw around insults and tear down straw men. Just look at how everyone ignored the last verse I talked about on the last thread I was on, a verse that the Dispensationalists brought up.
Their teachers never are prepared to be challenged on the real meaning of the texts they offer. They expect people to blindly believe what they say and move on. Dispensationalism is not a thinking mans religion. That is one reason why it is unsuited to Calvinists/Reformed or anyone who does serious thinking about the Bible. Neither Calvin nor any self-respecting Calvinist would ever be a dispensationalist for that very reason.
You know, it has been my experience that very few people ever want to discuss what the Bible teaches. They would rather just throw around insults and tear down straw men.
I'm enjoying the peace, quiet, and sanity, for a brief hour or three before the shouters find this thread.
"Extra Scofieldism nulla salus!". Or something.
Let’s all join in singing the chorus:
My hope is built on nothing less;
Than Scofield’s notes and references....
(sung to the tune of The Solid Rock)
My hope is built on nothing less;
Than Scofields notes and references....
(sung to the tune of The Solid Rock)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.