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 ...
Why would you mock Paul's words? Men and women have equal access to the throne of God and the means of grace, just as Jews and gentiles, slave and freemen, etc. They are no different as far as God is concerned.
What part don't you understand?
When I speak of Israel, I’m thinking of a genetic marker. I’m not speaking in this context of Paul’s “Israel of God.” Therefore, the “remnant” will eventually be those who INTERSECT at both these points. They will be BOTH Christian and genetic Jews.
What exactly do you mean by genetic Jews? Must they be physically descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob? What percentage of Abraham's blood do they need to have to be considered authentic genetic Jews?
How does that account for all the converts to old covenant Judaism prior to the time of Christ (Rahab, Ruth, the mixed multitude from Egypt who were circumcised and celebrated the first Passover)?
What about converts to rabbinic Judaism since the time of Christ?
Does the Bible really have a category of genetic Jews?
Or perhaps the comment was incoherent.
I’ve got to leave of hospital visits, so I’ll try to get back with you this evening.
Israel and Jewish people have standards. What are they?
Basically, the idea is that the "lost tribes" of Israel got scattered throughout the nations of the world, and that today, in every nation, there are people who are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
In other words, God is still saving "Israel," we just don't realize who we are.
Crazy? You bet. You have to disregard a good chunk of the NT that talks about Gentiles vs. Jews, but it's still an interesting idea.
“ON” hospital visits.
Sheesh...gotta learn to spel beder :>)
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.
One would think.
Also reflected in Hebrews 11: "And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. " I have no idea what kind of sense "slice and dice theology" would try to make of that.
Do you mean standards for determining who is a Jew? Well, they would be rabbinic standards, not necessarily biblical standards, e.g., the Bible is patrilineal (Matthew 1: "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers") whereas modern rabbinic Judaism is matrilineal. Is the modern system adequate to answer the question, "who comprises Israel", from God's perspective?
Amen Sister ! shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
What we deny, based on the fuller revelation of the NT, is that God intended this new Israel to continue to embrace the old covenant ceremonials where were temporary in nature insofar as they were typological of the person and work of Jesus Christ. It makes no more sense covenantally to observe new moon or feast day celebrations or food laws than it does to sacrifice animals on Passover and spread the blood on your doorposts.
The racial divisions have been obliterated in Christ. It is impossible to fully acknowledge the end of these racial divisions while maintaining that the race-based practices of the old covenant are the norm for the new covenant people of God. The end result of this theology is a bunch of non-Jews pretending to be Jews to the rest of the world rather than looking like the one new man made up of both Jews and gentiles without distinction.
As for replacement theology, it is worth considering that it is not we Reformed covenantal folk who bear the guilt, after all. The real replacement theologians are the dispensationalists. They are the ones who believe in replacement: each dispensation replaces the next as far as how God deals with that era. In that system there is no necessary connection between how God treats one dispensation as opposed to the next. Replacement is the keyword here, even if it is not used. As for the current era, in the dispensational scheme the church has indeed replaced Israel temporarily. Dispensationalist Thomas Ice admits this: We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.
In the dispensational scheme, until Christ comes back any attempts to evangelize the Jews will prove insignificant at best. And then, when Christ does come back, of all these Jews that the dispensationalists would have us fawn over and usher back to their land, two-thirds will be slaughtered in the Great Tribulation (Zech. 13:8). This is according to their teaching, not mine. So, whose doctrine is anti-Semitic after all? It may be worth considering Horners label anti-Judaism in all of its implications. It just may be the way to go for those who believe, as I do, that a one-in-three chance of surviving a new holocaust is not exactly pro-Judaism, not exactly a blessing, not exactly the outpouring of Gods favor to His people, not exactly the Future Israel that dispensationalists lead us to expect.
This is because they dont advertise the dark aspects of their love for Gods chosen race. They downplay the inherent racism, which Paul is so often at task to unlearn the church of. The dispensational version of Israel is a racist imposition on Gods plan, and it is a failure of vision among many of His people. The church has not replaced Israel, the church is and always was Israel and in the New testament incorporates, expands, fulfills, glorifies, and promotes Israel to all the fullness God intends for Israel to have. Christ is Israel, He was always intended to be. The Body of Christ is and always was Israel, and the tiny nation that God formed in Genesis was the vessel through which the seed of that Body was carried until Christ appeared. Jesus, John the Baptist, John, Paul and others spent plenty of time reminding the Jews that they were in fact not privileged just because of their family tree. Now the dispensationalists are essentially fighting to suppress these teachings of the inspired writers.
The theology started by the Jesuit Luis De Alcazar, He created Preterism as a way of deflecting any criticism of the the Popes in the book of Revelation. If all Prophesy was completed by 70 CE , The Pope could not be the anti-Christ. He wrote a 900 page treatise, creating out of whole cloth the the belief that all prophesy ended in 70CE.
Is this a new euphemism for Preterist Replacement theology ? shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
or Alcasar (1554-1613) of Seville Spain during the Counter-Reformation.
The theology started by the Jesuit Luis De Alcazar,
He created Preterism as a way of deflecting any criticism of the the Popes in the book of Revelation.
If all Prophesy was completed by 70 CE , The Pope could not be the anti-Christ.
He wrote a 900 page treatise, creating out of whole cloth the the belief that all prophesy ended in 70CE.
The same standard of measurement is applied the Jew and Gentile as male and female. When folks quote only HALF of the verse it is to make the point that there ONLY Gentiles... no Jews. The only acceptible Jew to a supercessionist is a FORMER Jew, but now a “Christian.”
The word “covenant” is not found in Hebrews 8:13. Surely you know that?
Enough of this crap, Chuck!
The Catholic Church also gave us the creeds that we believe today. Do you want to throw them away too?
Ooooooh! those dastardly Jesuits! You're starting to sound more paranoid than a Jack Chick comic.
If it was supposed to deflect criticism of the Pope, then it failed miserably. The Reformed who accept Preterism (BTW, which "brand" of Preterism did De Alcazar invent, Orthodox, Full, or hypotethetical?) are among the strongest in their condemnation of the errors of Rome.
That dog don't hunt.
read it for yourself.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai