Skip to comments.12 Reasons Why Supersessionism/Replacement Theology Is Not A Biblical Doctrine
Posted on 04/30/2012 7:51:06 PM PDT by wmfights
"I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews. We do not think enough of it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible it is this."
--Charles H. Spurgeon
"To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence."
--Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
Supersessionism is the view that the New Testament Church supersedes, replaces, or fulfills the nation Israels place and role in the plan of God. I am convinced that supersessionism / replacement theology is an unbiblical doctrine that violates clear statements in both the Old and New testaments that teach and affirm a national salvation and restoration of Israel. Below are twelve reasons why supersessionism violates the biblical witness:
1. The Old Testament explicitly teaches the restoration of the nation Israel.
a. Deuteronomy 30:1-6: Israel would experience dispersion because of disobedience but would one day be saved as a nation and experience restoration to its land.
b. Jeremiah 30, 31, and 33: This prediction of the New Covenant promises a restoration of Israel that includes spiritual blessings and physical blessings.
c. Ezekiel 3637 This passage promises the future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel to its land.
d. Amos 9:11-15
e. Zephaniah 3:14-20
f. Zechariah 1214
g. NOTE 1: Even if the NT never discussed the restoration of Israel, the many explicit texts about Israels restoration in the OT give enough reason to believe in the restoration of Israel.
h. NOTE 2: Since the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18-21) and New Covenants (Jer. 31) are eternal and unconditional covenants we should expect God to fulfill these covenants with Israel, the people with whom the covenants were made. John Murray is correct that Israels restoration is linked to the covenants of the Old Testament: "Thus the effect is that the future restoration of Israel is certified by nothing less than the certainty belonging to covenantal institution."
2. The Old Testament explicitly promises the perpetuity of the nation Israel (see Jer. 31:35-37).
"Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD" (Jer. 31:35-37).
Have you seen the sun, moon or stars today? If so, you can know that the nation Israel still has a place in Gods plan.
3. The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament expectation of a salvation and restoration of Israel.
a. Matthew 19:28 -- Apostles to rule over 12 tribes of Israel.
According to E. P. Sanders, Matt 19:28 "confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel."
b. Matthew 23:37-39 / Luke 13:34-35-- Israel one day will accept her Messiah. Donald Senior states, "In Matthews perspective, the rejection of Jesus by the leaders is indeed a grave sin, one that brings divine judgment. Yet the story of Gods relationship to Israel is not concluded, and the day will come when Jerusalem will again receive its Messiah with shouts of praise."
c. Luke 21:24-- Times of the gentiles will come to an end. J. Bradley Chance states, "Close examination of L. 21:24b,c provides a strong hint that Luke did foresee the restoration of Jerusalem."
d. Luke 22:30-- Apostles to rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.
e. Acts 1:3-7-- Apostles believed in a restoration of the nation Israel after 40 days of kingdom instruction from Jesus. Scot McKnight states: "Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity."
f. Acts 3:19-21 -- Restoration is preached to the leaders of Israel.
g. Romans 11:26-27-- Salvation of "all Israel" will occur in accordance with the New Covenant promises given to Israel in the Old Testament.
i. C.E.B. Cranfield: "It is only where the Church persists in refusing to learn this message, where it secretly-perhaps quite unconsciously-believes that its own existence is based on human achievement, and so fails to understand God's mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God's mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptural notion that God has cast off His people Israel and simply replaced it by the Christian Church. These three chapters [Rom. 9-11] emphatically forbid us to speak of the Church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people."
ii. Jonathan Edwards: "Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11."
iii. In his comments on Rom 11:2627, Ernst Käsemann rightly states that "Christianity is already living in the new covenant" while "Israel will begin to do so only at the parousia."
4. The New Testament explicitly states that the Old Testament promises and covenants to Israel are still the possession of Israel even during this church age and even while the nation is currently in a state of unbelief (see Romans 9:3b-4).
"my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises" (Rom. 9:3b-4).
5. The New Testament indicates that God is faithful to Israel because of His promises to the patriarchs of Israel (Romans 11:28).
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (Rom.11:28).
6. The New Testament indicates that Israels election/calling is irrevocable (Romans 11:29; see also Deuteronomy 7:6-8).
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).
a. Jürgen Moltmann: "There can be no question of Gods having finally rejected the people of his choicehe would then have to reject his own election (11.29)and of his then having sought out instead another people, the church. Israels promises remain Israels promises. They have not been transferred to the church. Nor does the church push Israel out of its place in the divine history. In the perspective of the gospel, Israel has by no means become like all the nations."
b. Wolfhart Pannenberg: "How could Christians be certain of their own comparatively new membership in the circle of Gods elect if God for his part did not remain faithful to his election in spite of Israels unbelief? This is the apostles point when he advocates the inviolability of the election of the Jewish people (11:29; cf. 9:6). He has in mind also Christian assurance of election."
c. The more one believes in the sovereignty of God especially as it relates to election, the more one should be committed to a salvation/restoration of Israel based on Gods election of this people.
7. The New Testament never uses the term "Israel" for those who are not ethnic Jews. Thus, the church is never called "Israel."
a. The title "Israel" is used seventy-three times and always refers to ethnic Jews: The vast majority refer to national, ethnic Israel. A few refer specifically to Jewish believers who are ethnic Jews.
b. The New Testament still consistently refers to national Israel as "Israel" even after the establishment of the church (Acts 3:12; 4:10; 5:21, 31, 35; 21:28).
c. The book of Acts maintains a distinction between Israel and the church. In Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. "Israel" is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.
8. Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament identifies the church as "Israel."
a. Romans 9:6 Believing Jews are those who are the true spiritual Israel. As William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam state: "But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel."
b. Galatians 6:16 Paul is referring to Christian Jews in his reference to the "Israel of God." Paul scolded the Judaizers who said circumcision was necessary for salvation, but he acknowledges those Jews in Galatia who had not followed the Judaizers in their error. These Christian Jews are the true "Israel of God." Ronald E. Diprose: "Galatians 6:16 is insufficient grounds on which to base an innovative theological concept such as understanding the Church to be the new and/or true Israel."
c. Romans 11:26 There is very little chance that "Israel" here refers to the church, something even many supersessionists acknowledge. Like the other ten references to "Israel" in Romans 911, Israel in 11:26 refers to ethnic Israel.
9. Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament reinterprets or alters the original OT prophecies in regard to Israel. The alleged "NT Priority" approach of Supersessionism is really structural supersessionisma hermeneutic that does not allow the OT passages to speak to the issues they address.
a. How can the NT reinterpret or alter the OT expectation for Israel when the NT actually reaffirms the OT expectation? (see point #3 above).
b. Hebrews 8:8-13 and Jeremiah 31:
i. The Old Testament never indicated that the New Covenant would only be for the nation Israel. Isaiah uses the New Covenant concept of "sprinkling" in regard to salvation in Isaiah 52:15.
ii. Paul quotes New Covenant passages in Romans 11:27 to show that the nation Israel will be saved (see Rom. 11:26). Thus, even after the church began Paul sees Israel as still related to the New Covenant.
iii. The purpose of Hebrews 8 is not to address the issue of who is and is not the people of God. Hebrews 8 is directly addressing the superiority of the New Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant, not whether the church is now the true Israel.
iv. Only the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant are mentioned in Hebrews 8:8-13. If the New Covenant were being fulfilled in its entirety we should expect the physical blessings of the New Covenant to be mentioned as being fulfilled with the church. The New Testament never links the church with the physical blessings of the New Covenant.
v. It is best to conclude that the church is participating in the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant while the full eschatological fulfillment of the New Covenant will take place with Israel in the millennium.
c. Acts 15:13-18 and Amos 9:11-15
i. The main point of the quotation of Amos 9 in Acts 15 is to show that Gentiles becoming the people of God is consistent with or agrees with what the OT prophets like Amos predicted. It is not discussing the complete fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom or calling the church Israel.
ii. Discussion of Israels place in the plan of God is not even the focus of Acts 15.
iii. Acts 15 says "agree" not "fulfill."
iv. William D. Barrick: "Note, first of all, that James never says that Amos 9 is fulfilled. Secondly, James reasoning is that the Gospel should continue to go out to the Gentiles because God included them in his redemptive plan according to Amos 9. Amos 9 mentions Gentiles as recipients of Gods kingdom blessings, so how could the early church ever take action to exclude them?"
10. Supersessionists have failed to show that unity between Jews and Gentiles in the church rules out a future restoration of the nation Israel.
a. Ephesians 2:1122 shows that Gentiles who used to be far from God have now been brought near God because of Christ. Thus, the soteriological status of believing Gentiles has changed. They now share with Israel in Israels covenants and promises but they do not become Israel.
b. Believing Gentiles cannot be incorporated into Israel because Paul says they are now part of a new structurethe new man.
c. Howard Taylor: "Superficial logic has continued to argue that there is no more uniqueness for the Jew and physical Israel. Since it is said Christ has broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile [Eph. 2:1118], Israels election is finished. But this is not the logic of the New Testament. Although there is only one way of salvation for both Jew and Gentile, the New Testament teaches that the Jewish people do still have a unique place in the historical working out of Gods redemption of the world in Christ.
d. Rom 11:1724 stresses that Gentiles are now related to the promises of God. Thus, there is a soteriological unity between believing Jews and Gentiles. But it does not indicate that the church is now the true Israel. There is a difference between saying that Gentiles participate with Israel in Israels covenants and claiming that believing Gentiles become Israel. Gentiles are partakers of the covenants not takerovers. This passage does not rule out a future role for national Israel or indicate that the church is now Israel.
11. Israelite language applied to believing Gentiles does not mean the church is Israel.
a. 1 Peter 2:910 and Romans 9:24-26 Yes, language used of Israel in the Old Testament is used of believing Gentiles in the New Testament. But similarity with Israel does not mean identification with Israel. There are occasions in Scripture when "Israel" imagery is applied to non-Israelites without these non-Israelites becoming Israel. Isa 19:2425, for instance, predicts that Egypt would someday be called "my people." Yet, the context makes clear that Egypt is distinct from Israel since Egypt is mentioned alongside "Israel my inheritance." So, even in the Old Testament it was predicted that non-Israelites would someday carry some of the titles of Israel without becoming identified as Israel.
b. J. Ramsey Michaels says, "Nowhere in 1 Peter are the readers addressed as a new Israel or a new people of God, as if to displace the Jewish community."
c. Galatians 3:7, 29 The New Testament teaches that believing Gentiles are the seed of Abraham but this does not mean that believing Gentiles are Israel. The concept of "seed of Abraham" is used in several different ways in the New Testament. First, it can refer to those who are biological descendants of Abraham. Second, it can refer to the Messiah, who is the unique individual seed of Abraham. Third, it can refer to the righteous remnant of Israel (cf. Isa 41:8 with Rom 9:6). Fourth, it can be used in a spiritual sense for believing Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:29). John Feinberg states, "no sense (spiritual especially) is more important than any other, and that no sense cancels out the meaning and implications of the other senses." Thus, the application of the titles "sons of Abraham" or "seed of Abraham" to believing Gentiles does not mean that believing Gentiles are spiritual Jews or part of Israel.
d. Galatians 3:7-8 links the Gentiles being "sons of Abraham" with the part of the Abrahamic Covenant that predicted that "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed."
12. New Testament prophecy refers to Israel, thus indicating that Gods plan for Israel is alive.
a. Revelation 7:4-8 all the tribes of Israel are mentioned.
b. Matthew 24:15ff.
i. The abomination of desolation is clearly related to the Jewish temple.
ii. Jesus tells the residence of Israel what to do in the Tribulation Period.
c. Paul refers to the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
d. If the church is now Israel why do NT prophecies refer to ethnic Israel?
In conclusion, Ronald Diprose is right when he states that in order for supersessionism to qualify as a biblical doctrine there needs to be "positively, passages which clearly teach it and negatively, no passages which actually exclude it." On both counts, supersessionism fails. The New Testament does not call the church "Israel," and nowhere does the New Testament state that the nation of Israel has been permanently rejected by God. Various texts such as Matt 19:28; 23:3739; Luke 13:35; 21:24; 22:30; and Romans 11 refute supersessionism in that they teach or reaffirm the Old Testament expectation of a restoration of Israel. Thus, we agree with Kaiser when he says, "To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence."
The Christian Church has been plagued by an infectiouss disease for centuriess.
Load them all up on trains and send them to camps, maybe?
What position is not wrong? What position is correct and some people are abusing it?
I have yet to meet and discuss theology with any dispensationalists who would disagree. I think where supersessionalists "miss the boat" is by assuming that because God has brought us to Him through His Son that the Jews aren't still in His plan and won't be converted. I believe the vehicle God uses to convert the Jews is the Tribulation.
I agree that in this dispensation God has blessed believers with the Spirit to help them conform to His will and most importantly God has forgiven our sins because of His Son. However, if you read Romans 11 it is clear that this mercy God has shown us has not ended His plan for Israel.
There are many believers of the Old Testament whom God called "righteous"; those were the saints whom Christ brought back with Him at His resurrection and those are the saints who will have exalted positions during the Millennial kingdom.
God's plan for salvation throughout all ages has been based on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And nothing in Scripture indicates that God condemned anyone to hell - He provided salvation, and a person, just like now, either chose to accept that salvation or reject it.
I think where most supersessionalists get confused is they believe dispensationalists are claiming that Jews have a path to salvation that does not include faith in Jesus Christ. I think they get there because of the Tribulation.
You might also wonder about peoples who never had Christ preached to them (typically unbelievers use this as a objection).
Read Romans chapter 1 - it describes why all are without excuse.
What was to constitute “Israel” was not going to be those such in the flesh but those that showed faith. No longer being Jew or Greek mattered since one would be part of “Israel” not by birth but by faith.
That was the point of Romans 9,10, 11 and Paul’s comments to the Galatians.
So just what is “His plan” for the nation of Israel today in the Middle East?
This puts that part of the replacement lie six feet under where it belongs:
Previously I overviewed most of the biblical covenants and examined each one to see if they are still in force today and if they are, how they relate to the church age believer. I have already surveyed all of the biblical covenants except the final onethe New Covenant, which I will seek to do at this time.
THE NEW COVENANT
The New Covenant (Deut. 29:4; 30:6; Isa. 59:2021; 61:89; Jer. 31:3140; 32:3740; 50:45; Ezek. 11:1920; 16:6063; 34:2526; 36:2432; 37:2128; Zech. 9:11; 12:1014; Heb. 8:1-13; 10:15-18) provides for the yet future spiritual regeneration of Israel in preparation for the millennial kingdom. This is an unconditional covenant and is made between the Lord and the nation of Israel and has not yet been enacted for the nation of Israel. The New Covenant is predictive of Israels new spiritual condition that begins at the end of the tribulation and continues into and throughout the Millennial Kingdom.
Arnold Fruchtenbaum tells us the following about the New Covenant for Israel:
"The announcement of the New Covenant begins with a declaration that it will be a Jewish covenant, for it will be made with both houses of Israel (v. 31). It will be in sharp contradistinction with the older Mosaic Covenant (v. 32). Of the five Jewish covenants, the Mosaic was the only conditional one. Although God had been faithful in keeping His terms of the covenant, Israel had not been so faithful, resulting in the Mosaic Covenant's being broken. For while the Mosaic Covenant showed the standard of righteousness which the Law demanded, it could never impart to the Jew the power to keep it. But that problem will be rectified in the New Covenant (v. 33) through regeneration, which will provide the internal power necessary to meet and to keep the righteous standards of God. The result of the New Covenant will be a total national regeneration of Israel (v. 34). Jewish missions and Jewish evangelism will not be needed in the Messianic Kingdom because every Jew will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest. The sins of Israel will be forgiven and forgotten. While there will be Gentile unbelievers in the Kingdom, there will not be Jewish unbelievers in the Kingdom. To a man, all the Jews will believe. There will be no need to tell a Jew to "know the Lord" because they will all know Him.1"
THE NEW COVENANT AND THE CHURCH
We have seen how the New Covenant will be fulfilled for Israel, but an often ask question is does this covenant relate in any way to the church? A New Covenant is mentioned a number of times in reference to the church in the New Testament (Matt. 26:27-28; Luke 22:20; 2 Cor. 3:6). It appears to be the basis for the forgiveness of sins and a spiritual dynamic that is not just reserved for the nation of Israel. I believe that there is one New Covenant, which will be fulfilled in the future with Israel but is participated in relation to the doctrine of salvation by the church today. The Bible clearly teaches that God promised a New Covenant to His people Israel (Jer 31:3134; Ezek 36:2638) and that Jesus established the New Covenant through His death on the cross (1 Cor 11:2526). This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me (1 Cor. 11:25). The inclusion of the Gentiles is substantiated by Jesus statement in Matthew 26 enlarging the scope of the New Covenant when He says, This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28). Luke records a similar statement when Jesus says, This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood (Luke 22:20).
Paul contrasted two covenants in 2 Corinthians 3:618. The first was the old Mosaic Covenant, while the second is the New Covenant. Under the old there are the tablets of stone, the letter, a ministry of death, and fading glory. Under the new there are tablets of flesh (human hearts), the Spirit, a ministry of life, and surpassing glory. The first has passed away. The second is now reigning. Paul is a minister of this New Covenant, as the passage says, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6). So it appears that in some way the New Covenant applies to the current church age, even though none of the specific prophecies relating to Israel appear to have been fulfilled under the New Testament application of the New Covenant to the church age.
We see in Scripture that the Church has not replaced literal Israel in its relationship to the New Covenant, and the New Covenant is not being fulfilled totally in the Church today.
HOW THE NEW COVENANT APPLIES TO THE CHURCH
A key to understanding what Scripture teaches on this matter is to recognize that the Old Testament promise of the New Covenant contained both spiritual and material benefits. The church indeed is enjoying the spiritual benefits (e.g., regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit), but the church is not experiencing the material benefits, which remain unfulfilled and will remain unfulfilled until literal national Israel appropriates the New Covenant to experience both its spiritual and physical benefits at the end of the Tribulation and throughout the millennium. Paul says in Romans, For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things (Rom. 15:27). Rodney J. Decker has the following explanation of how the New Covenant applies to the church today:
"The New Covenant, prophesied in the Old Testament to be made with Israel, was ratified at the Cross and implemented as a replacement of the Mosaic Covenant. It is presently the basis on which anyone relates to God and it governs the life of all believers. The church, though not a formal partner of the New Covenant, participates in the covenant both as a subject of its rule of life and as a recipient of promised Abrahamic Covenant blessings for Gentiles that have come through the Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. This explanation does not demand that the church fulfill the covenant; that remains for national Israel in the future millennium. It does acknowledge that there is more involved in the New Covenant than could have been known simply from the Old Testament. This in no way changes the meaning of those passages, but does allow for Gods doing more than He promised (though it will be no less than promised). The term partial fulfillment is not necessary. If fulfillment is used to describe the relationship of the covenant partners, then fulfillment in any respect should be viewed as future. Participation is a better term to describe the present aspects as it both avoids replacement concepts (the church replacing Israel in fulfilling the covenant) and also explains the partial nature of the obedience evident in the experience of the church. Even though the ministry of the Holy Spirit has changed dramatically, based on the ratification and implementation of the New Covenant, the full ramifications of that ministry will not be experienced until the covenant enters the fulfillment stage in the future messianic kingdom. . . . The Old Testament does not say that only Israel will participate in the New Covenant. The Old Testament does say that the New Covenant is made with Israel. That is different, however, from saying that the New Covenant is only for Israel. The New Testament does not violate Old Testament statements when it includes more than was revealed in the Old Testament."
If one attempts to say that the New Covenant is being fulfilled today, during the current church age, through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, then it would mean that we should not evangelize any more, that every Jew would be saved, and that we would have the Law of God written on our hearts (compare Jer. 31:3134). This is not the case within the church today. Therefore, it means that we are not currently experiencing the full impact of the New Covenant as described in the Old Testament. Postmillennialists, Amillennialists, Covenant Theologians, and preterists all believe that all aspects of the New Covenant are being fulfilled today. If such were the case then why do we have evangelism and have to teach people the Law? Jeremiah speaking the word of the Lord says, I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD, for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, declares the LORD, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will and their sin I will remember no more (Jer. 31:33b34). Believers today simply do not fit this description. Further, the Lord is speaking about what He will do with Israel. Notice to whom the passage is directed: But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD (Jer. 31:33a). This is certainly not yet a description of the Jewish nation as it exists today.
The Bible is clear that Israel will one day receive the benefits of the New Covenant.
What a wonderful day that will be when she enters into a right relationship with the Lord after all of those years. At the same time, the church is a partaker in the spiritual blessings that flow from the New Covenant, not a taker over of Israels promises, as some are inclined to say. Gods plan is on course and will be fully implemented in the course of His timing. Maranatha!
That was pretty straight forward right? God made an everlasting covenant with Israel and they have an everlasting possession of their land. How could anyone say that God broke His covenant with Israel after reading that? The last time I checked God was the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). If God can abandon Israel, whos to say that He wouldnt abandon His covenant with the church?
I think we can forcefully disagree with theologians and church leaders that believe in supersessionism, but most Christians don't understand the point you just made that "if God can abandon Israel, who's to say that He wouldn't abandon His covenant with the church?".
It seems clear to me that most Christians have a hard time understanding The Revelation of Jesus Christ because of supsessionism. If you read this book from the perspective that Christians are not there and it is about God taking the blinders off Israel it is easy to understand. Where dispensationalists diminish their credibility is by stating that Israel does not have to come to faith in Jesus Christ to be saved.
If the Scripture in which the eternal, unbreakable promises that God made to Israel can be denied, then the entire Bible has to be denied, including the sections of the New Testament that Christians believe detail the plan of salvation God provided to the world.
We don't want to be fraudulent, dishonest hypocrites, right? If God breaks His promises, and has broken His promises to His covenant people, the Jews, then He has broken His promises to Gentiles who mistakenly believe they are born again based on the information God has given in His Scriptures.
Where dispensationalists diminish their credibility is by stating that Israel does not have to come to faith in Jesus Christ to be saved.
No dipensationalist I've ever heard or read, with the possible exception of John Hagee and what he actually said has been debated, has ever claimed that there is different path to salvation for Israel apart from Jesus Christ.
And one of the many, many ways that those who cling to the demonic doctrine of replacement theology, in direct and open rebellion and contradiction to the Word of God, lose whatever credibility they may have left after defending replacement theology against all Scriptural proofs against it, is by claiming that God made absolutely no provision for the salvation of Old Testament Jews and Gentiles simply because He chose not to send Jesus Christ at that particular time.
I'm glad you presented this. People who do not read the entire Bible and attempt to reconcile ALL that it says, make the error of confusing modern day Israel with the Israel of God.
That was the point of Romans 9,10, 11 and Pauls comments to the Galatians.
And these are all excellent sources to understand just who the Israel of God is. And it is nothting new. It is who it has always been: every believer, either looking forward to Jesus Christ (the Messiah), or those of us who look back.
Here are some of the most telling verses:
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect, For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Romans 9:6-8)
Galatians really is the heart of this doctrine:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16)
For ye all are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29).
Some may say, this only applies to the NT 'church'. Nonsense. Every faithful son of Abraham will come to Jesus Christ (John 6:37). And Jesus (and John the Baptist) rebuked those who thought by being physical seed that that was sufficient (John 8:39-47, Matthew 3:7-10)). The Bible makes it very clear who these Christ-denying Jews really are:
Who is a liar but he that deneith the Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that deneith the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. (1 John 2:22,23)
The only hope today for anyone (Jew or Gentile) is to come to Jesus Christ. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. God is not a respecter of persons. Only the man of faith can please him.
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Romans 2:28,29)
Radical (basic). And true.
Here are my thoughts: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/israel-chosenorforgotten.html
“As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. “ (Romans 11:28)
Anyone who has done much evangelization among the Jewish understands that the former, while the relative remnant who will come to Christ will realize that latter. To the glory of God.
God is beyond clear that He is not finished with His covenant people, He has a plan for them which He will carry out and He has made promises to them which He will fulfill.
The Ezekiel passages in your link are proof positive of God's keeping His Word: God has gathered His people back into their own land, keeping a promise made to them, and has reestablished them as a nation, keeping a promise made to them.
And He will faithfully keep all the promises He made to His chosen people. We already have proof that He will.
As Jesus said, the kingdom was taken away from the nation of Israel and given to a nation producing its fruits.
No dipensationalist I've ever heard or read, with the possible exception of John Hagee and what he actually said has been debated, has ever claimed that there is different path to salvation for Israel apart from Jesus Christ.
During the Tribulation, those who come to Christ will not have eternal security as the Church does now. They will have to continually "earn" their salvation, so to speak.
I think where most supersessionalists get confused is they believe dispensationalists are claiming that Jews have a path to salvation that does not include faith in Jesus Christ.
What am I to think, when I hear (with my own ears, from the lips of a dispensational teacher I know slightly, associated in some way with LaHaye's pretrib group) that Jews have a different future? A different fate, into eternity?
What am I to think, when I hear some dispensationalists say, that salvation by grace alone ends at some point, replaced by salvation by works?
No gospel implications?
I'd love to know why you continually set yourself up to be shot out of the water.
I know I'm wasting my time, but let's see you do a point-by-point, Scripturally-supported, factual refutation of the original article that that response is attached to. Oh, and you'll have to, for the moment, act like you don't believe that the book of Revelation was fulfilled in 70AD.
I can't wait to see this.
IMHO, the quicker way to understand this doctrine is to study the Session.
Jesus Christ Ascended and was seated at the right hand of the Father.
His session is at the throne of God the Father at present.
His session at the Throne of David is still yet future and will be everlasting.
This points to major differences in eschatological interpretation of Scripture between different theologies.
Pretrib, premil is the only one which preserves the literal hermeneutic when discussing the Covenants of God with man.
Most accurate post yet. God is Savior of one people...a Bride for His Son. Christ is not a polygamist. The Bride of Christ’s redemption started with the promise of Gen 3:15 and all those who put their faith in that promise.
But I do believe that God holds a special place in His heart for the nation that He chose to reveal Himself to the world through. According to Romans, salvation was offered to the Gentiles in part to make the nation of Israel jealous. God will turn His attention back to them when the time is right...adding more to the True Bride of Christ.