Biblically Optimistic and Gospel-Based
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
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 God’s 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 ...
R. Scott Clark, a Westminster West professor, has a concise blog finely summarizing the caricature of “replacement theology” that critics have wrongly foisted upon us Reformed believers. Clark notes (among other things) what I note here: not only is Reformed covenant theology not replacement theology, but “replacement” assumes a theology dominated throughout by the fate of ethnic-genetic Israel. As Clark writes, “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.” In short, only a premillennial (especially dispensational) mind would even conceive of something called “replacement theology.” Even shorter, the dispensationalists are begging the question.
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
I think the issue is whether God still has a special place and role for Israel.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
God is Immutable.
Irving's Law has been invoked. As no debate was attempted and no direct personal insults launched, no points are awarded or withdrawn.
Irving's Law: once a comparison is made between [Pharisees/anti-Semitism/Jack Chick tracts] and someone's theology, the discussion is immediately finished - and whoever makes the comparison automatically "loses" whatever debate was in progress, forfeiting all points previously scored.
Actually, the issue is whether the dispensationalist has correctly interpreted the promises in relationship to Israel ... whether the Bible is fundamentally Christ-centered or Israel-centered. A term like "replacement theology" only makes sense in an Israel-centered worldview.
The Bible is inherently Israel centered. There is no seperate entity of the Church. Christ’s death brought gentiles into the Commonwealth of Israel.
Think about Paul’s analogy of the olive tree and it’s natural branches w. wild branches. The natural, original tree is Israel and the Gentiles are grafted into that tree through Yeshua.
However, the way most Christian denominations teach, you’d think that the “Church” aka Gentile believers were the natural tree and the Jews are the ones grafted in which is totally backwards.
The Bible makes it plain that the Church is neither Jew nor gentile, but a new man.
The old covenant expressions embodied in ceremonial code of Israel and fit only for that nation have passed away. Trying to return to that code 2000 years from its expiration is futility in motion.
I don’t have heartburn with using the expression “replacement theology,” but I generally don’t. It’s too toxic to let conversation take place.
I don’t think Christ-centered is in juxtaposition relative to Israel. Such a framing of the issue doesn’t really capture it, imho.
If there’s only the new and there’s no old, then “replacement theology” is an accurate term to describe your theology.
Irving's Law: once a comparison is made between [Pharisees/anti-Semitism/Jack Chick tracts] and someone's theology, the discussion is immediately finished - and whoever makes the comparison automatically "loses" whatever debate was in progress, forfeiting all points previously scored.
Just doesn't apply. I am not debating anyone at all. I am reflecting about how rivalry against Jews is evil, from Satan himself, and is specifically nothing to do with Christianity. But thanks for your desire for charity and oversight. Actually, I wasn't intending to revisit the thread, nor do I again, though it doesn't offend me.
Not exactly. Old and new refers to the two administrations of the covenant. The book of Hebrews, for example, makes it clear that the old has given way to the new (cf. Heb. 8:13). That seems uncontroversial.
"Replacement theology" is a boogyman term to scare the children rather than teach truth to grownups in positive terms.
Let's explore this. When you use the term "Israel" in this context, what exactly are you referring to?
Before any of that happens, don't you think it's a good idea to define terms?
i'd suggest that you start by defining 'Israel'. That should keep things interesting.
Amen! Yes, Israel is the natural Branch, we, Gentiles had no claim or promises of God. We know, He came to His own and they received Him not.”But as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.” (John 1:11-12)
At the beginning and foundation of the Church, no Gentiles were thought to be part of the Church, until Peter was sent to the Gentiles. (Acts)
I love the words of the Lord in John 4:22; “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.” All should re-read Galatians 4:4-7)
If there’s only the new and there’s no old.
So how many valid covenants are there since Christ brought the New Covenant in his blood? Two? Are Christ’s blood and the blood of animal sacrifices equally valid? Sounds like you believe in dual covenant theology.
“Replacement theololgy” can just as well refer to the day when Christians replace their derivative theology with Judaism - when they conclude that God is, was and will always be infallible, reliable and foresightful and would never say “Oh, gosh, I left something out about who I am and how I can be known, so I’m doing an add-on.”
See #14.
???
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.