Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Replacing “Replacement” Theology
American Vision ^ | 11/21/2008 | Joel McDurmon

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 ...


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: eschatology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-115 next last
From Part 2.

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.

1 posted on 11/24/2008 7:30:09 PM PST by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow; HarleyD; suzyjaruki; nobdysfool; jkl1122; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
Reformed Eschatology Ping List (REPL)
Biblically Optimistic and Gospel-Based

"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)

2 posted on 11/24/2008 7:32:25 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

I think the issue is whether God still has a special place and role for Israel.


3 posted on 11/24/2008 7:43:23 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
“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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

4 posted on 11/24/2008 7:44:05 PM PST by Alex Murphy ( "Every country has the government it deserves" - Joseph Marie de Maistre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Demonic anti-Jew hatred has tried to legitimate itself in church doctrine from very early on. Each time, it is beaten into the dirt.

God is Immutable.

5 posted on 11/24/2008 7:46:31 PM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun; topcat54
Demonic anti-Jew hatred has tried to legitimate itself in church doctrine from very early on.

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.

6 posted on 11/24/2008 7:53:41 PM PST by Alex Murphy ( "Every country has the government it deserves" - Joseph Marie de Maistre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I think the issue is whether God still has a special place and role for Israel.

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.

7 posted on 11/24/2008 7:53:54 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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.


8 posted on 11/24/2008 7:57:46 PM PST by Tamar1973 (Riding the Korean Wave, one Bae Yong Joon drama at a time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973
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.

9 posted on 11/24/2008 8:01:36 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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.


10 posted on 11/24/2008 8:01:37 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

If there’s only the new and there’s no old, then “replacement theology” is an accurate term to describe your theology.


11 posted on 11/24/2008 8:04:24 PM PST by Tamar1973 (Riding the Korean Wave, one Bae Yong Joon drama at a time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Demonic anti-Jew hatred has tried to legitimate itself in church doctrine from very early on. Each time, it is beaten into the dirt. God is Immutable.

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.

12 posted on 11/24/2008 8:09:59 PM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973
If there’s only the new and there’s no old, then “replacement theology” is an accurate term to describe your theology.

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.

13 posted on 11/24/2008 8:11:30 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I don’t think Christ-centered is in juxtaposition relative to Israel.

Let's explore this. When you use the term "Israel" in this context, what exactly are you referring to?

14 posted on 11/24/2008 8:15:08 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; xzins
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.

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.

15 posted on 11/24/2008 8:21:53 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973

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)


16 posted on 11/24/2008 9:36:59 PM PST by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward--Anonymous))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973

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.


17 posted on 11/24/2008 9:54:24 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“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.”


18 posted on 11/24/2008 11:27:27 PM PST by Mack Truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord; xzins
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.

See #14.

19 posted on 11/25/2008 5:26:45 AM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mack Truck
“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.”

???

20 posted on 11/25/2008 5:27:27 AM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
The Bible makes it plain that the Church is neither Jew nor gentile, but a new man.

Snicker. What a contradiction. You left out the part of "neigher male nor female." So, have you traded in your y chromosone yet?
21 posted on 11/25/2008 5:33:51 AM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973
If there’s only the new and there’s no old, then “replacement theology” is an accurate term to describe your theology.

You've got it dead on. Pure, unadulterated replacement theology. Supercessionism was Luther's and Calvin's creedo, and their vicious anti-Semitic words were used by later men (Adolf Hitler et al) to justify mass murder. Read Luther's "Jews and Their Lies" - it is the end result of "replacement theology."
22 posted on 11/25/2008 5:39:07 AM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mack Truck
“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.”

I like your term, "derivitive theology" - you've left them scratching their heads with that one.
23 posted on 11/25/2008 5:42:51 AM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
Snicker. What a contradiction. You left out the part of "neigher male nor female." So, have you traded in your y chromosone yet?

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?

24 posted on 11/25/2008 5:43:06 AM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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.


25 posted on 11/25/2008 6:43:41 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins
When I speak of Israel, I’m thinking of a genetic marker. ... 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?

26 posted on 11/25/2008 7:06:13 AM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: safisoft; Mack Truck
I like your term, "derivitive [sic] theology" - you've left them scratching their heads with that one.

Or perhaps the comment was incoherent.

27 posted on 11/25/2008 7:10:15 AM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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?


28 posted on 11/25/2008 7:14:44 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I read an interesting theory a while back -- mind you, this is NOTHING but an interesting theory -- that says that genetic Israel and the modern church are the same.

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.

29 posted on 11/25/2008 7:16:03 AM PST by Terabitten (To all RINOs: You're expendable. Sarah isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“ON” hospital visits.

Sheesh...gotta learn to spel beder :>)


30 posted on 11/25/2008 7:20:27 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
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.

31 posted on 11/25/2008 7:30:30 AM PST by Lee N. Field (Dispensational exegesis not supported by an a-, post- or historic pre-mil scholar will be ignored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Israel and Jewish people have standards. What are they?

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?

32 posted on 11/25/2008 7:58:00 AM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973
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.

Amen Sister !

Preach on.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
33 posted on 11/25/2008 8:01:45 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their ROCK, And the Most High God their Redeemer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Tamar1973; Lee N. Field
Those of us who espouse Expansion Theology or Grafting Theology firmly believe in one new Israel made up of believing Jews and gentiles. We are Abraham’s children by virtue of faith in Christ.

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.

34 posted on 11/25/2008 8:49:18 AM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field; Tamar1973; XeniaSt; xzins
In part 3, the author writes:
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 Horner’s 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 God’s favor to His people, not exactly the “Future Israel” that dispensationalists lead us to expect.

This is because they don’t advertise the dark aspects of their love for God’s 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 God’s 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.


35 posted on 11/25/2008 9:45:15 AM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Tamar1973; Lee N. Field
Expansion Theology or Grafting Theology

Is this a new euphemism for Preterist Replacement theology ?

The theology started by the Jesuit Luis De Alcazar,
or Alcasar (1554-1613) of Seville Spain during the Counter-Reformation.

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.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
36 posted on 11/25/2008 3:16:58 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their ROCK, And the Most High God their Redeemer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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.”


37 posted on 11/25/2008 4:05:03 PM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

The word “covenant” is not found in Hebrews 8:13. Surely you know that?


38 posted on 11/25/2008 4:09:58 PM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; topcat54
Is this a new euphemism for Preterist Replacement theology ? The theology started by the Jesuit Luis De Alcazar, or Alcasar (1554-1613) of Seville Spain during the Counter-Reformation.

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.

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.

39 posted on 11/25/2008 4:15:45 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
read it for yourself.

Jesuit Luis De Alcazar

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

40 posted on 11/25/2008 4:36:07 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their ROCK, And the Most High God their Redeemer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
s this a new euphemism for Preterist Replacement theology ?

blah blah blah

Inflammatory rhetoric is an example of the "hesed" you're urging on us?

He wrote a 900 page treatise, creating out of whole cloth the the belief that all prophesy ended in 70CE.

Dispensationalism has an equally shaky historical foundation.

41 posted on 11/25/2008 5:40:18 PM PST by Lee N. Field (Dispensational exegesis not supported by an a-, post- or historic pre-mil scholar will be ignored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
The Catholic Church also gave us the creeds that we believe today. Do you want to throw them away too?

Good question. He just might.

42 posted on 11/25/2008 5:44:05 PM PST by Lee N. Field (Dispensational exegesis not supported by an a-, post- or historic pre-mil scholar will be ignored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
The word “covenant” is not found in Hebrews 8:13. Surely you know that?

It's called context, my friend. See verse 8.

43 posted on 11/25/2008 6:27:15 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; XeniaSt

The rants are getting more irrational. The response to direct questions has stopped. It’s apparent that those who espouse the new theology of messianism, like their dispensational cousins, have no good answers to the tough questions. And so they are reduced to name-calling and guilt by association.

We should not be surprised. The truth is far from the children of Darby and Scofield. The historic Reformed faith has been vindicated on more than one occasion. It is truth found in the Lord Jesus Christ that will appeal to the elect of God from every nation, both Jew and gentile, the one new man is being built up without regard to race or ethnicity. The children of Abraham can rejoice together because the barrier has been torn down once for all.


44 posted on 11/25/2008 6:39:02 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
The same standard of measurement is applied the Jew and Gentile as male and female.

And what would that be in terms of standing and responsibility before God?

45 posted on 11/25/2008 6:40:13 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; Tamar1973; Lee N. Field; Calvinist_Dark_Lord

I realize you are on a roll with your rants, but are you ever going to tell us what tribe of Israel you are from to confirm your ethnicity?


46 posted on 11/25/2008 6:43:25 PM PST by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends become dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

In terms of answering who Jews think the Jews are, I’d think the rabbinic standards were the gold standard.


47 posted on 11/25/2008 6:50:42 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field
It must be embarrassing to have been snookered
by a counter reformation Jesuit's scam.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

48 posted on 11/25/2008 7:03:56 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their ROCK, And the Most High God their Redeemer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
The response to direct questions has stopped.

So I've noticed.

49 posted on 11/25/2008 7:10:57 PM PST by Lee N. Field (Dispensational exegesis not supported by an a-, post- or historic pre-mil scholar will be ignored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Tamar1973; Lee N. Field; Calvinist_Dark_Lord
I realize you are on a roll with your rants, but are you ever going to tell us what tribe of Israel you are from to confirm your ethnicity?

I have not had my DNA tested.

But you know from Paul, it does not matter.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
50 posted on 11/25/2008 7:11:11 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their ROCK, And the Most High God their Redeemer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-115 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson