Skip to comments.Replacing “Replacement” Theology
Posted on 11/24/2008 7:30:09 PM PST by topcat54
The great problem here is, of course, that no Reformed Theologian I know espouses this boogey-man label replacement theology that has been placed upon them. No one really believes that the Church has so replaced Israel that modern Jews are cast aside by God as unwanted, unwelcome, and unsalvable. Just the opposite, the Reformed tradition has always stressed that Jews can come to faith just like anyone else can come to faith. Many have even taught that, on top of this open-door policy for Jews, there will be a mass-conversion of Jews sometime in the future (see the commentaries of Haldane and Murray on Romans 11, to name a couple). Moreover, the Westminster Larger Catechism teaches, under the heading Thy Kingdom Come, that we are meant to pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the gentiles brought in; . . . (WLC, Answer 191). As Reformed believers we are instructed to pray that the Jews would come to Christ! And, by the way, this was written in 1648, a direct product of the Reformation. That this pro-Jewish view of Gods plan has been around for 360 years now should signal to the dispensationalists that we do not, in fact, believe in replacement. Call it Fulfillment, Fullness, Expansion, even Grafting Theology-a dozen other labels will do-but replacement will not do, thank you.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanvision.org ...
Nope. Can’t tell what you’re saying.
"But since the destruction of the temple in AD70 the possibility of following the old covenant norms for judging lineage have passed away. In its place is the invention of the rabbis."
At the risk of appearing to be obnoxious, I think that your post is extremely worthy of insult, but I'll hold off. It is a holiday after all.
Geneticists seem to have a grasp on this “Jewishness” thing in a biological sense. They can trace migrations, determine relationships, and even connect some families.
Theologians, on the other hand, argue over what the meaning of “Jew” is. It makes one wonder who is being stubborn.
I am not in accord with the modern western rabbinical definition of just what a “Jew” is.
Covention says that a person born of a jewish mother is a jew. Something like that. In my view that is not exactly logical reasoning. It is not even rational IMO.
Whatever, I claim no connection to the DNA of Abraham.
I find it all interesting, and in fact, fascinating.
No, Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Old Covenant (Covenant of Works).
The requirements are paid in full. We have no righteousness. The Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer.
As for the sabbath, i'll take what the Christian Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did (worshipped on the first day of the week), over Judiastic bondage revived by so-called "remnant Christianity" of today.
There is nothing out of context. The only reason you think it is out of context is because you are going to the text with your preconceived ideas (e.g., that folks ought to continue to observe old covenant ceremonials like the food laws), and so you refuse to see how Acts 10 has any bearing on the subject.
But you still cannot account for all the unsanctioned changes that have had to be made by people who hold your position. They have had to toss and revise the stipulations for convenience sake. What you do to the law is no better than what you claim others are doing. Perhaps even worse.
It doesn't mean he did away with them, otherwise we can commit adultery, steal from people and have sex with horses. We don't keep His law to make Him love us. We keep His law out of gratitude of the debt He paid for us.
Once again, how this relates to ceremonial law is beyond me. You're again confusing the moral with ceremonial.
That aside we can do all of those things. We don't because we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and the new nature given by the Holy Spirit.
Gratitude has nothing to do with it. We can't possibly 'repay' anything. Good works are given by God.
Moral v. ceremonial is a man-made distinction.
Yes, unfortunately for you the same men were the human writers of the bible.
Did you ever figure out what to tell your friend Avi?
You keep repeating this unsubstantiated claim while refusing to examine the biblical evidence to the contrary. I wonder why? Oh, I forgot. You view the practice of comparing Scripture with Scripture as "picking and choosing".
Your misquotation of scripture is not the same thing as accurately discerning it. God says “I do not change”. If Torah has been abolished (which Paul himself denies) then you make God to be a liar.
Whatever God you worship appears to be a god of your own design.
No one is misquoting any Scripture on this side.
God says I do not change. If Torah has been abolished (which Paul himself denies) then you make God to be a liar.
You confuse God with His Law. God does not change, but God has changed the operative provisions of His Law. When was the last time you sacrificed a lamb and spread the blood on the front of your home? When was the last time you went to a Levite to have a rash examined? When was the last time you went up to Jerusalem to the temple to observe a feast day? In short, when was the last time you read in the New Testament that God defines righteous by anything other than the Ten Words?
"16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" 17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 19 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' " 20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?" " (Matt. 19)
And Jesus went on to tell the young man, keep the dietary laws, be careful of the clothing you wear, observe the new moons, sacrifice on the feast days, pay your tithes, and by these things you will obtain eternal life. Oops, that's not in the text. Curious that Jesus didn't take the time to remind him that he forgot some of the law that he needs to keep.
In fact nowhere in any of the enumerations of the Law in the NT do we find anything other than what is given by God in the Ten Words. This is the moral law, direct from the finger of God and quite distinct from the ceremonials given elsehwere by Moses.
You do not see that because you do not wish to see that.
"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6)
The distinction between the 10 words and the rest of Torah is a man made distinction. We wouldn’t know how to keep the 10 words without the rest of Torah.
Just because Jesus didn’t directly repeat a Torah precept doesn’t mean it was abolished or changed. That is YOUR man-made interpretation.