Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Augustine’s Contribution to Supersessionism
Theological Studies ^ | Michael Vlach

Posted on 05/25/2014 6:31:35 PM PDT by wmfights

Augustine’s contribution to the doctrine of supersessionism is significant. James Carroll points out that Augustine’s attitude toward the Jews was rooted in “assumptions of supersessionism.”[i] According to Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, Augustine (354–430) introduced a “negative element into judgment on the Jews.”[ii] He did so by advancing the “‘theory of substitution’ whereby the New Israel of the church became a substitute of ancientIsrael.”[iii]

In line with supersessionist theology, Augustine explicitly stated that the title “Israel” belonged to the Christian church: “For if we hold with a firm heart the grace of God which hath been given us, we are Israel, the seed of Abraham. . . . Let therefore no Christian consider himself alien to the name of Israel.”[iv] He also said, “The Christian people then is rather Israel.”[v] According to Augustine, when Gentiles believe and become part of the new covenant, their hearts are circumcised and they become part of Israel:

Now what the apostle attributed to Gentiles of this character, how that “they have the work of the law written in their hearts;” must be some such thing as what he says to the Corinthians: “Not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” For thus do they become of the house of Israel, when their uncircumcision is accounted circumcision. . . . And therefore in the house of the true Israel, in which is no guile, they are partakers of the new testament.[vi]

Concerning Israel’s role in the plan of God, Augustine argued that national Israel prefiguredspiritual Israel—the Christian people:

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob three fathers, and one people. The fathers three, as it were in the beginning of the people; three fathers in whom the people was figured: and the former people itself the present people. For in the Jewish people was figured the Christian people. There a figure, here the truth; there a shadow, here the body: as the apostle says, “Now these things happened to them in a figure.”[vii]

For the most part, Augustine’s supersessionist views were not original. In fact, they were mostly consistent with the patristic tradition that preceded him. Augustine’s most original contribution regarding Israel and the church, however, can be found in his reasons for Israel’s continued existence. During Augustine’s time, the existence of the Jews and Judaism posed an apologetic problem for the church. If the church was the new Israel, for what purpose did national Israel exist?

Augustine offered an answer for this perceived dilemma. For him, the Jews functioned primarily as witnesses. They were witnesses to the faith preached by the prophets, witnesses of divine judgment, and witnesses of the validity of Christianity. He wrote, “But the Jews who slew Him . . . are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ.”[viii] The Jews, according to Augustine, shielded Christians from accusations that Christians invented Old Testament prophecies that pointed to Jesus. Thus, the existence of non-Christian Jews was not a problem but an essential testimony to the truth of Christianity.

Hood views Augustine’s contribution in this area as “ingenious” because it “provided a foundation for tolerating Jews within a Christian society.”[ix] Augustine’s contention that the Jews were witnesses to Christianity became especially important when the crusades began and the church began to persecute heretics. Hood asserts that Augustine’s views “shielded the Jews of western Europe from the full force of Christendom’s coercive powers.”[x]

Although devoting much of his attention to matters such as free will, original sin, and predestination, Augustine’s views on the Jews and Judaism carried great weight for many years. In fact, Hood asserts that Augustine’s ideas on these matters “dominated the medieval debate.”[xi] This was so “despite the fact that Judaism and the Jews are not major themes in Augustine’s voluminous writings.”[xii] Yet, because Augustine’s writings in the Medieval Era were so revered, his thoughts on any topic, no matter how sparse, were considered important.

[i] James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), 219.

[ii] Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, “Christianity and Judaism, a Historical and Theological Overview,” in Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 20.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Augustine, On the Psalms 114.3, NPNF¹ 8:550.

[v] Augustine, On the Psalms 114.3, NPNF¹ 8:550.

[vi] Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter 46, NPNF¹ 5:102–03.

[vii] Augustine, On the Gospel of St. John 11.8, NPNF¹ 7:77. Augustine also stated, “In that people [the Jews], plainly, the future Church was much more evidently prefigured.” Augustine, On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 19.33, NPNF¹ 3:304. Augustine expressed a supersessionist perspective when he wrote, “But when they [the Jews] killed Him, then though they knew it not, they prepared a Supper for us.” Augustine,Sermons on New Testament Lessons, Sermon 62, NPNF¹ 6:447.

[viii] Augustine, The City of God Book 18.46, NPNF¹ 2:389.

[ix] John Y. B. Hood, Aquinas and the Jews (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), 12. Carroll states, “It is not too much to say that, at this juncture, Christianity ‘permitted’ Judaism to endure because of Augustine.” Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, 218. See also Jeremy Cohen, “Introduction,” inEssential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, ed. Jeremy Cohen (New York: New York University Press, 1991), 13–14.

[x] Hood, 13.

[xi] Hood, Aquinas and the Jews, 10.

[xii] Ibid.


TOPICS: Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: dispensationalism; supersessionism
Augustine’s contention that the Jews were witnesses to Christianity became especially important when the crusades began and the church began to persecute heretics. Hood asserts that Augustine’s views “shielded the Jews of western Europe from the full force of Christendom’s coercive powers.”[x]
1 posted on 05/25/2014 6:31:35 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wmfights

2 posted on 05/25/2014 6:34:05 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; Kandy Atz; Mrs.Z; CynicalBear; Iscool; amigatec; kjam22; boatbums; imardmd1; metmom
Dispensational Caucus ping

While Augustine's view of supersessionism may have blunted some of the persecution Jews suffered, the underlying belief that Jerusalem should be under Christian control has not changed.

3 posted on 05/25/2014 6:36:25 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
we are Israel, the seed of Abraham. . . . Let therefore no Christian consider himself alien to the name of Israel.”

Who is the "true circumcision"?

Have you read through the root post from the recent thread The Church and Israel in the New Testament?

4 posted on 05/25/2014 7:26:40 PM PDT by Lee N. Field ("And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" Gal 3:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; Lee N. Field

wmfights, you would do well to read lee’s tag line.

Augustine was completely faithful to the Word of God.


5 posted on 05/25/2014 8:10:28 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

I just looked up Supersessionism — Replacement Theology???

I don’t think St. Augustine would have had anything to do with this idea.

Sounds heretical to me.


6 posted on 05/25/2014 8:28:12 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

I’m not sure about these terms of “Replacement theology” and the like, but it seems hard to argue that we aren’t spiritual Israel and the children of Abraham, as that is what we are taught explicitly in the scripture. The Jews, who I do not reckon as to be cast aside, nevertheless are not saved so long as they remain in denial of Christ.

I have heard people claim that the Jews are saved, and need not be preached to at all.


7 posted on 05/25/2014 9:47:27 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; Lee N. Field; one Lord one faith one baptism
One would think something as touted as "Dual Covenant Theology" (DCT) would have at least one clear reference in the New Testament. To the contrary, the book of the Hebrews seems to indicate the new covenant replaces the old covenant:

    "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 KJV)

Note that the old covenant was "ready to vanish away" about 2000 years ago. And we know from the words of Hebrews 9:15-20 that the new covenant is just another name for the new testament.

To render DCT even less credible, all touted old testament (OT) references are far from convincing. For example, a common OT reference claimed to support DCT is Deuteronomy 30:1-6. The problem with that passage, for Israel, is highlighted:

    "And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deu 30:1-6 KJV)

This passage was fulfilled after the Babylonian Captivity; but Israel did not remain faithful, nor did it seem that God expected them to. There was this dire warning later in the chapter:

    "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." (Deu 30:15-20 KJV)

In the next chapter, Moses gave the most dire warning of all:

    "For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." (Deu 31:27-29 KJV)

So, instead of enjoying the blessings of Jesus Christ and his kingdom, they were cursed: all but a faithful remnant, and maybe a few others.

The next chapter (ch. 32) contains the Song of Moses, mentioned in Revelation 15:3. It is also unfavorable for Israel:

    "They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation." (Deu 32:5 KJV)

This is the conclusion to the Song of Moses:

    "For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy. Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people." (Deu 32:40-43 KJV)

In the last verse, you can see why those in the Revelation were singing the Song of Moses: their blood was avenged by the destruction of Jerusalem (which was also the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28.)

And who are his people? St Augustine explains in "A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter:"

    40. . . “They shall all know me,”[Jer. xxxi. 34] He says,—“All,” the house of Israel and house of Judah. “All,” however, “are not Israel which are of Israel,”[Rom. ix. 6] but they only to whom it is said in “the psalm concerning the morning aid”[See title of Ps. xxii] (that is, concerning the new refreshing light, meaning that of the new testament), “All ye the seed of Jacob, glorify Him; and fear Him, all ye the seed of Israel.”[Ps. xxii. 23] All the seed, without exception, even the entire seed of the promise and of the called, but only of those who are the called according to His purpose.[Rom. viii. 28] “For whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”[Rom. viii. 30] “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed: not to that only which is of the law,”—that is, which comes from the Old Testament into the New,—“but to that also which is of faith,” which was indeed prior to the law, even “the faith of Abraham,”—meaning those who imitate the faith of Abraham,—“who is the father of us all; as it is written, I have made thee the father of many nations.”[Rom. iv. 16, 17] Now all these predestinated, called, justified, glorified ones, shall know God by the grace of the new testament, from the least to the greatest of them.

    51. . . By faith, therefore, in Jesus Christ we obtain salvation,—both in so far as it is begun within us in reality, and in so far as its perfection is waited for in hope; “for whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” [Rom. x. 13; Joel ii. 32]

This is the Joel reference:

    "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." (Joel 2:32 KJV)

Note that Joel includes both paths to salvation that Augustine mentioned: 1) being called by the Lord; and 2) calling upon the name of the Lord. Those are the only paths to salvation: the only way anyone will become one of "His People."

Philip

8 posted on 05/25/2014 10:16:42 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Mystici corporis (1943) states: By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (paragraph 29)

Doesn't sound heretical to me at all. It sounds like solid Traditional Catholicism.

9 posted on 05/26/2014 6:31:39 AM PDT by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

>>>I have heard people claim that the Jews are saved, and need not be preached to at all.<<<

This link has some information:

“John Hagee on Salvation for the Jews”

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/357-john-hagee-salvation

Philip


10 posted on 05/26/2014 6:36:00 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: piusv

Then I must be mis-understanding it.

What I got is that they disown the Old Testament and only go by the New Testament. Is that correct?

I understand that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, but I’ve never heard of it totally replacing the Old Testament.


11 posted on 05/26/2014 6:36:37 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I think the key is in the Pope’s comments in my earlier post. Upon Christ’s death things changed from fulfillment to replacement.


12 posted on 05/26/2014 6:52:13 AM PDT by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: piusv
>>>…while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel<<<

That is an underemphasized fact that needs more exposure. This is Jesus:

    "But [Jesus] answered and said, I am NOT sent BUT unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Mt 15:24 KJV)

    "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." (Mt 10:5-8 KJV)

Christ was on a mission to bring many of the lost sheep into the fold before the destruction of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities that would occur forty years later:

    "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mt 10:22-23 KJV)

    "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (Jn 10:14-16 KJV)

Some believe that was the fulfillment of this prophesy by Ezekiel:

    "For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day." (Eze 34:11-12 KJV)

    "Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle. And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the Lord have spoken it." (Eze 34:22-24 KJV)

And this one by Zechariah:

    "The Lord also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah." (Zec 12:7-8 KJV)

Why would God save the tents of Judah, first? Because that was the "umbrella," if you will, for the children of Israel, to whom Christ was directly sent. Later, when the tents of David were raised (Acts 15:14-17, which was the fulfillment of Amos 9:11-12,) Gentiles were allowed into the fold, of which Cornelius was the first (note: David's tabernacle was a tent):

    "Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." (Acts 15:14-17; Amos 9:11-12 KJV)

Philip

13 posted on 05/26/2014 7:13:52 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans; wmfights
I’m not sure about these terms of “Replacement theology” and the like, but it seems hard to argue that we aren’t spiritual Israel and the children of Abraham, as that is what we are taught explicitly in the scripture. The Jews, who I do not reckon as to be cast aside, nevertheless are not saved so long as they remain in denial of Christ.

Absolutely. Outside of Christ, they are lost. In Christ, the dividing wall is broken down. Believing Gentiles are in.

We look forward to the day when the "partial hardening" Paul talks about is taken away, and the Jews are converted to Christ.

If that's "supersessionism", then the argument is with Paul.

14 posted on 05/26/2014 7:39:18 AM PDT by Lee N. Field ("And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" Gal 3:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Kandy Atz; Mrs.Z; CynicalBear; Iscool; amigatec; kjam22; boatbums; imardmd1; metmom
I just looked up Supersessionism — Replacement Theology???

I don’t think St. Augustine would have had anything to do

with this idea. Sounds heretical to me.

Dispensational Ping

This is a great example of why it's so good to go into detail about theological beliefs. My experience witnessing to RC's is they don't know what their church believes. I think you will find that most RC's have no idea that their church believes it should be in control of Jerusalem, or what their eschatological views are.

I believe this eschatological view, of which supersessionism is a part, helps to explain why the RCC has an affinity for islam.

15 posted on 05/26/2014 8:04:53 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
I have heard people claim that the Jews are saved, and need not be preached to at all.

That would be the extreme end of the other end of the spectrum. I don't believe you will find many Evangelical Christians that hold to the belief that there is any other way to be saved other than through Faith Alone in Christ Alone during this Church Age.

16 posted on 05/26/2014 8:07:59 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

>>>I believe this eschatological view, of which supersessionism is a part, helps to explain why the RCC has an affinity for islam.<<<

That is quite a stretch. What’s next, the anti-semite label?

Philip


17 posted on 05/26/2014 8:08:48 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Could you explain this more?

I believe this eschatological view, of which supersessionism is a part, helps to explain why the RCC has an affinity for islam.

18 posted on 05/26/2014 8:59:56 AM PDT by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
>>>I just looked up SupersessionismReplacement Theology??? I don’t think St. Augustine would have had anything to do with this idea. Sounds heretical to me.<<<

Don't let the dispensationalists trick you. Those are new-age aspersions created solely to slander those who believe in legitimate, new covenant doctrine, such as:

1) the new covenant replaced the old covenant:

    "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 KJV)

2) the Church replaced Israel as God's chosen people:

    "For ye are all 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 bond nor free, 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." (Gal 3:26-29 KJV)

    "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth . . ." (Acts 17:26 KJV)

3) Christ rejected an earthly reign:

    "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Mt 4:8-10 KJV)

    "Ye [scribes and Pharisees] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (Jn 8:44 KJV)

    "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world …" (Jn 18:36 KJV)

4) Christ came to create the church, not to rule over the Jews:

    "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Eph 5:25 KJV)

5) The Church is permanent:

    "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph 3:21 KJV)

Philip

19 posted on 05/26/2014 11:28:18 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
>>>I just looked up Supersessionism — Replacement Theology??? I don’t think St. Augustine would have had anything to do with this idea. Sounds heretical to me.<<<

Don't let the dispensationalists trick you.

The irony is dripping here ...

1) the new covenant replaced the old covenant:
5) The Church is permanent:

2 out of 5 ... If you were a baseball player, you'd be an all-star ... but ...

20 posted on 05/26/2014 2:58:29 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; piusv
I fully believe St. Augustine preached the truth of supersessionism.

Just look at the words of the Consecration: "For this is the chalice of My Blood of the New and Eternal Testament".

IMHO, that means older testaments were not "eternal".

21 posted on 05/26/2014 3:15:16 PM PDT by ebb tide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: piusv

And once again, Pius V, you’ve nailed it. Thank you for the truth.


22 posted on 05/26/2014 3:40:19 PM PDT by tomsbartoo (St Pius X watch over us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tomsbartoo

Not about me at all, but thanks. Once a Catholic starts to realize that the Church had a theology before Vatican II, they will find the Truth as well.


23 posted on 05/26/2014 3:52:21 PM PDT by piusv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

>>>2 out of 5 ... If you were a baseball player, you’d be an all-star ... but<<<

You are always good for a laugh. Now if you could learn how to defend your cult’s doctrine, you would be complete.

Philip


24 posted on 05/26/2014 4:31:52 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Now if you could learn how to defend your cult’s doctrine

lol ... says the man who believes that Jesus Christ returned in 70 AD ...

Philip ... it is becoming harder to even take you seriously ...

25 posted on 05/26/2014 5:13:40 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

>>>Philip ... it is becoming harder to even take you seriously ...<<<

After your week performance in our previous debates, I think I can understand your sour grapes. After all, how can one defend a doctrine that has no biblical foundation, such as yours? You may as well cast aspersions, since that is all you seem to do well.

BTW, who is the Antichrist this month? Are you a member of Hal Lindsey’s Antichrist of the Month Book Club? If not, how do you keep current? -:)

Philip


26 posted on 05/26/2014 8:51:54 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
After your week performance in our previous debates, I think I can understand your sour grapes.

I am not trying to win a debate ... I contend with you only because so many people read these forums ... the vast majority here understand that your theological method leads to aberrant conclusions ... but there may be some who would be captured by your empty deception (Col. 2:10), so in the spirit of 'refuting those who contradict' (Titus 1:9) ... I await your next article from wherever you get them.

After all, how can one defend a doctrine that has no biblical foundation, such as yours?

Is that some kind of incantation? Are you trying to change reality by confessing it is so?

You may as well cast aspersions, since that is all you seem to do well.

BTW, who is the Antichrist this month? Are you a member of Hal Lindsey’s Antichrist of the Month Book Club? If not, how do you keep current? -:)

Do you even read what you write?

27 posted on 05/27/2014 1:09:24 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
>>>I am not trying to win a debate ...<<<

I see: your intent has been to smear and redirect all along. I suspected that was the case.


>>>I contend with you only because so many people read these forums ... the vast majority here understand that your theological method leads to aberrant conclusions.<<<

So, everyone should follow the herd? Have you been taking lessons from Al Gore?

Why not be up front with everyone and explain why you object to my doctrine? You have proven you are a comedian (or, at least, you understand baseball, somewhat;) but you have yet to point out in the scriptures where I am wrong. The reason you have not is because you can not!


>>>but there may be some who would be captured by your empty deception (Col. 2:10), so in the spirit of 'refuting those who contradict' (Titus 1:9) ...<<<

Sure. And suppose you tell us who created your false doctrine, and when? And while you are at it, why not explain what you mean by the general statements of Col 2:10, and Titus 1:9. It is one thing to cite scripture. It is another thing to show how it relates. Certainly you can do more than resort to smears and innuendo?


>>>I await your next article from wherever you get them.<<<

You await it? With what, another baseball joke?

Since you brought it up, when are you going to post more articles from Mr. Congenial, Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum? LOL! What a joke he is. I can't believe anyone would label him "congenial?" Barely eight pages into his smear (disguised as a scholarly paper) against anyone who believes in the plain words of Hebrews 8:13, he was throwing the anti-semite label at Reformed Presbyterian legend, Oswald T Allis. "Brother Fruchtenbaum" is just another Pharisee.

You do know that your buddy, the false prophet Hal Lindsey, also does that a lot: smears Reformed Presbyterians with the anti-semite label. "Brother Hal" is even on record as labelling a popular Reformed Presbyterian minister as the anti-Christ! LOL! People do not get any crazier than Hal Lindsey.

Admit it, Dartuser: there are no congenial dispensationalistists! They must resort to smears and innuendo, like Fruchtenbaum and Lindsey do (and like you do,) since their arguments are not biblically founded.

And how about some articles from the false prophet (and lousy "historian,") Mark Hitchcock?


>>>Is that some kind of incantation? Are you trying to change reality by confessing it is so?<<<

More redirection? When are you going to dispute my five points in post #19? Or, are you going to give to give us another baseball joke? Certainly you can show us the error of my ways in at least one of the points? You are a scholar, right?

Dartuser . . . it is becoming impossible to take you seriously . . .

Philip

28 posted on 05/27/2014 7:13:42 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
I see: your intent has been to smear and redirect all along. I suspected that was the case.

I thought I was clear in my last post; I'm not trying to win a debate.

Why not be up front with everyone and explain why you object to my doctrine?

The ping history is full of my remarks concerning your theology ... everyone can read them.

People do not get any crazier than Hal Lindsey.

We finally agree ...

Since you brought it up, when are you going to post more articles from Mr. Congenial, Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum? ...
And how about some articles from the false prophet (and lousy "historian,") Mark Hitchcock?

You can read all you want at

www.pre-trib.org

There is a huge array of articles from seminary professors, pastors, and teachers.

When are you going to dispute my five points in post #19?

I gave you credit for the 2 you got right ... and we have been through the others in the past.

Dartuser . . . it is becoming impossible to take you seriously . . .

What is that a debate 101 technique? Concluding remarks should be the last thing your opponent said and then throw it back at him as if you made the point yourself? Not that clever.

I'll give you the last word on this thread ... see you next thread.

29 posted on 05/27/2014 8:04:58 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
>>>I gave you credit for the 2 you got right ... and we have been through the others in the past.<<<

Let me see, you said you agreed that:

1) The new covenant replaced the old.
2) The Church is forever.

I did not realize that you believe in Replacement Theology. In fact, I am astonished, considering the tone of your previous posts when debating Replacement Theology.

You do realize that those, like me, who believe that the new covenant has replaced the old covenant, also believe that Joshua 11:23, 21:43-45 and 23:14 meant exactly what it says: that God fulfilled his land promises to Israel long ago. Dual-covenant theologists, like Fruchtenbaum, must spiritualize those verses so they mean something else; that is, they must be "reinterpreted" to pretend that God did not fulfil those promises, in order to claim (demand) thus God must fulfil them in the future. I know it seems bizarre, but that is what dual-covenant theologists believe.

These are the three verses from Joshua that plainly indicate fulfillment

    "So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war." (Jos 11:23 KJV)

    "And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." (Jos 21:43-45 KJV)

    "And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof." (Jos 23:14 KJV)

Are you sure you do not want to clarify that position? If not, then welcome to the light.

Philip

30 posted on 05/27/2014 4:17:14 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
>>>I thought I was clear in my last post; I'm not trying to win a debate. <<<

What are you, the Drive-By Media? When you make claims that you do not defend--claims that you run away from--is that not simply an attempt to smear, like the Drive-By's do to those who are not brain-dead?

I made five points in post #19, This is point 2:

2) "the Church replaced Israel as God's chosen people"

I justified my claim with these verses:

    "For ye are all 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 bond nor free, 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." (Gal 3:26-29 KJV)

    "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth . . ." (Acts 17:26 KJV)

In your post #20 you disagreed, and you have been throwing around innuendo since, hoping something will stick. Would you please enlighten us all with scripture that indicates otherwise, or admit you have nothing to prove your innuendo? Either will be fine.

Thanks,

Philip

31 posted on 05/27/2014 4:55:22 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
You do realize that those, like me, who believe that the new covenant has replaced the old covenant
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Is this the covenant the has been replaced?
32 posted on 05/27/2014 6:22:42 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
    "Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

>>>Is this the covenant that has been replaced?<<<

I believe so. Let's put that verse in context, and see if that is the one that has been replaced.

The first verse in the context (the previous verse) indicates that Christ inherited all the promises as the (only) chosen seed of Abraham:

    "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." (Gal 3:16 KJV)

The next verse--the one you posted--states simply that THE LAW cannot disannul (or, cancel) the covenant that was promised to the chosen seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ:

    "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Gal 3:17 KJV)

The next verse in the context expounds why THE LAW has no "authority" over the covenant:

    "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal 3:18 KJV)

So, the inheritance is not by the Law, nor by race, nor by any other rule, but by promise. So, who are the inheritors of the promise? The children of God. And who are the children of God? That was revealed a few verses later:

    "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:26 KJV)

So, if the promise is given strictly according to faith in Christ, then:

    "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, 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." (Gal 3:28-29 KJV)

So, to answer your question: yes, that was the old covenant that was replaced by the new. But it was not replaced by disannulment, but by fulfilment with the blood of Jesus Christ.

There is a very good explanation of the fulfillment by the blood of Christ in the book of the Hebrews, chapter 9. There is also this:

    "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:7-13 KJV)

Note that the old covenant was ready to vanish away at the time the book of Hebrews was written. I suspect it had vanished completely by the time Jerusalem was completely destroyed during the days of vengeance around AD 70.

Philip

33 posted on 05/27/2014 8:00:45 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Are you sure you do not want to clarify that position?

I have clarified it ...

The flaw in your analysis is that Abraham HIMSELF has not possessed the land. Go read the promise ... It will take some courage to believe what the text actually says ... but I know you have it in you.

34 posted on 05/28/2014 6:25:23 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
>>>The flaw in your analysis is that Abraham HIMSELF has not possessed the land. Go read the promise ... It will take some courage to believe what the text actually says ... but I know you have it in you.<<<

No offense, but the notion that "Abraham himself must possess the land" is about the most imaginative of the many unbiblical "interpretations" by dispensationalists. It ranks up there with some of Scofield's and Lindsey's wild-eyed speculations.

Didn't we have this discussion in the past in a thread referencing an article written by Mr Congenial himself, Arnold Fruchtenbaum? And wasn't it shown that Arnold's article was an ideologically-driven mass of hateful, slanderous craziness?

LOL! That Fruchtenbaum is a real character. If his ideologically-driven "interpretations" were not so dangerous to the souls he deceives, he could be a comedian, along the lines of the Christian-hating Bill Maher.

Philip

35 posted on 05/28/2014 7:22:27 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
No offense, but the notion that "Abraham himself must possess the land" is about the most imaginative of the many unbiblical "interpretations" by dispensationalists. It ranks up there with some of Scofield's and Lindsey's wild-eyed speculations.

Let me help you Philip ...

Genesis 13:14 The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
15 for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.

I vote with what the text of Genesis actually says ...

No mindless replacement theological contortions can transform the plain promise here, spoken by God Himself, to Abraham ... into something that Abraham himself would not have understood to be fulfilled literally.

You are in the unique position of having to argue against God here. ...

Job didn't have much luck doing that ...

Perhaps you will fair better.

36 posted on 05/28/2014 10:02:53 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
>>>Genesis 13:14 The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; 15 for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.<<<

>>>I vote with what the text of Genesis actually says ...<<<

I agree with you: I also vote with what the text of Genesis actually says. In the verse you quoted (above) it simply states that God WILL give Abraham the land. What does that mean? Maybe one of these verses will explain (one from a chapter before your passage, and one after):

    "And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him." (Gen 12:7 KJV)

    "And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years. . . In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." (Gen 15:13, 18-21 KJV)

It is almost as if the Lord was trying to tell us that the land promise was intended for Abraham's seed. I wonder how Abraham understood the covenant?


>>>No mindless replacement theological contortions can transform the plain promise here, spoken by God Himself, to Abraham ... into something that Abraham himself would not have understood to be fulfilled literally.<<<

You think so? LOL! In the following passage, Abraham seems to have forgotten that God promised him the land. All he seems to recall is that God promised the land to his seed:

    "And Abraham said unto him, Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again. The Lord God of heaven, which took me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence." (Gen 24:6-7 KJV)

Is it possible that Abraham understood something about the promise that dispensationalists do not? LOL! Maybe the answer can be found in the new covenant book of the Hebrews:

    "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." (Heb 11:8-10 KJV)

    "Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." (Heb 11:12-16 KJV)

So, God promised Abraham a heavenly city: one with foundations. Maybe that is why Christ made this statement:

    "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." (Jn 8:56 KJV)

Note the irony. The Jews, who thought the land belonged to them, were not one bit happy about the Lord's visitation. Abraham, on the other hand, rejoiced: and he was the one who actually received the land promise! Shouldn't that be the other way around? LOL!

But what about the promise to his seed? Shouldn't his seed receive the land forever? Yes, and this is Abraham's seed (you asked for it!)

    "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." (Gal 3:16 KJV)

Let me parse that:

    "to Abraham and his seed were the promises made: not [to] many; but [to] one seed Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)

Yes, Christ was Abraham's seed: the seed that received all the promises. That means Christ received all the land, as well. Christ then extended the promises to his children: to those who believe in him:

    "For ye are all 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 bond nor free, 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." (Gal 3:26-29 KJV)

Therefore, the promised land belongs to Christ, and by inheritance, to me and my fellow Christians. Thank you, Lord, for your loving kindness and many blessings!


>>>You are in the unique position of having to argue against God here. <<<

I have read about, and actually met, dispensationalists who think they are God. But all of you cannot be God, can you? I suspect some of you are not being honest.

Philip

37 posted on 05/28/2014 3:47:58 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
LOL ...

You go to Joshua to show the land promise was literally fulfilled.

Then when you are confronted by the reality of the unfulfilled promises in the OT text concerning Abraham himself ... you run to the NT and read back into the Old to claim that the fulfillment of that promise is spiritual through Christ and the church.

I could not have asked for a better illustration of the theological method fallacies of replacementism ...

See you on the next thread Philip ... nothing more can be said here.

38 posted on 05/28/2014 7:50:53 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
>>>You go to Joshua to show the land promise was literally fulfilled. Then when you are confronted by the reality of the unfulfilled promises in the OT text concerning Abraham himself ... you run to the NT and read back into the Old to claim that the fulfillment of that promise is spiritual through Christ and the church.<<<

Certainly you have not been brainwashed by Fruchtenbaum into believing his ridiculous interpretation of Genesis 13, or have you? Don't you realize how silly that sounds? You are claiming that Abraham must be raised from the dead, and physically take possession of the land of Canaan, before the covenant is fulfilled? Where can we find a hint of that anywhere, even in Genesis 13---the passage you referenced? You gotta be pulling my leg . . .

BTW, both Joshua and Nehemiah have multiple scriptures citing fulfillment of the land promise. You are the one who dismisses their plain words. And you have yet to show any scripture that even hints that the land promise to Abraham has not been fulfilled, either in the old or new testament. Something does not add up. Why are you making such a ridiculous claim?

In any case, I previously posted the three Joshua references. Maybe the readers would appreciate the two Nehemiah references, as well:

    "Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:" (Neh 9:7-8 KJV)

    "Moreover thou gavest them kingdoms and nations, and didst divide them into corners: so they possessed the land of Sihon, and the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan. Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land, concerning which thou hadst promised to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it. So the children went in and possessed the land, and thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, with their kings, and the people of the land, that they might do with them as they would." (Neh 9:22-24 KJV)

Take note that in verses 9:7-8, Nehemiah claims the covenant with Abraham regarding the land was to Abraham's seed, not directly to him, which we all know to be the case.


There are other references that are equally devastating to the false doctrine of dispensationalism on the matter of the land covenant. This is the Lord speaking to Isaac, after Abraham's death:

    "And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed " (Gen 26:2-3 KJV)

Fair enough. God gave the Land to Isaac's seed, Jacob. But wait a minute? How could the Lord give it to Isaac's seed, when, as you claim, he had already given it to Abraham? If what you claim is true, there is only one way this could have occurred: the Lord must have taken the land away from Abraham. Otherwise, he could not have given it to Jacob.

But we all know that what you have claimed is little more than a can of worms. All the references, even the one you cited, Genesis 13, point to fulfillment in Abraham's seed.


Almost forgot: there are also these related words spoken by Saint Stephen, shortly before he was martyred:

    "So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph." (Acts 7:15-18 KJV)

So Stephen stated the time of the promise was still future, even in the days after Jacob! How could Abraham have been promised possession of the land when the promise itself was still hundreds of years in the future?


>>>I could not have asked for a better illustration of the theological method fallacies of replacementism ...<<<

Nor could I ask for a better example of the weakness of dispensational doctrine. You have posted exactly one old-testament passage during this land debate; and even then you were forced to squeeze a false meaning out of the passage with the rigor of a communist attempting to squeeze redistribution out of the plain words of the Constitution.

Funny, but also sad . . .

Philip

39 posted on 05/28/2014 10:36:33 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Philip, you have proved my point over and over again.

As I have always maintained ... Preterism is the easiest theological system to dispense with, but they scream the loudest when challenged.

You really should go the way of Chilton ... realize your inconsistencies and go with Full Preterism and get it over with ... you're gonna blow a gasket soon.

40 posted on 05/29/2014 6:20:09 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
>>>As I have always maintained ... Preterism is the easiest theological system to dispense with, but they scream the loudest when challenged.<<<

Dartuser, you have not been listening to yourself, nor to many other dispensationalists. The internet, bookstores and airways are flooded with the false, new-age doctrine of dispensationalism, interwoven with a myriad of their false prophecies. Dispensationalists have become so brainwashed by their new-age doctrine they no longer believe they are being loud (and nasty,) but rather think they are being "helpful."

I realize that is typical cult behavior; but I am still amazed how easily a nasty, vindictive charlatan like John Nelson Darby, and a convicted felon like Cyrus Ingerson Schofield (convicted and served time for fraud, of course) could gain such a following. This is the legendary Charles Spurgeon in 1869, quoting from a book by another legend, James Grant, titled, "The religious tendencies of the times; or, How to deal with the deadly errors and dangerous delusions of the day," on the arrogance of Darby's cult:

    "No one ever saw a Darbyite at any of our Bible, or Missionary, or other Evangelical Society meetings. The Brethren look upon all other denominations, however evangelical in sentiment, and however high their standard of personal religion, as so largely infected with error in doctrine, as well as wrong in relation to church government, that they believe it would be sinful to associate with them for the promotion of religious ends. And this conviction, which is never absent from their minds, naturally has the effect of puffing them up with spiritual pride. Believing that they alone of all religious bodies have attained to the knowledge of the truth, it could hardly be otherwise than that they should look down on every other Christian sect with supreme pity, mingled, even according to the admission of some of their own number, with contempt. . . ."

http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dbreth.htm

I believe you will find Charles Spurgeon was a straight shooter.


One other point: dispensationalists defend Scofield's criminal past by claiming "he threw away his past and was saved," or something to that effect. If he was "saved" why did he not reconcile with his daughters whom he had abandoned early on? Some Christian he was . . .


>>>You really should go the way of Chilton ... realize your inconsistencies and go with Full Preterism and get it over with ... you're gonna blow a gasket soon.<<<

Is he a preterist? I wasn't sure. If so, your recommendation is about the nuttiest thing I have heard from you. Believing the doctrine of a preterist would be almost as difficult as believing dispensationalism. In either case, I would have to throw the King James Version out the window and embrace man-made doctrine: in the case of dispensationalism, the new-age, man-made doctrine of a very large and dangerous cult. No thanks.

Philip

41 posted on 05/29/2014 8:13:29 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Is this the covenant that has been replaced

I have been working on this issue for a long time. I have a few observations and I am curious to hear your comments. First I don’t believe that the promise and the covenant are the same thing. Note when the covenant was made, many years after the promise to Abraham.
Heb 8:8-9 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Second, The first covenant and it’s accompanying law is a type of the second covenant and it’s accompanying law. The first time the law was written on the tables, the second time it was written on the hearts. Neither covenant made the promise of none effect. I believe the promise is twofold, first to the natural man, second to the spiritual man.

Third, it is significant the word “seed” is singular in Galatians 3:16. Wouldn’t it also be significant in verse 29?

Seven
42 posted on 05/29/2014 8:40:19 AM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

>>>Preterism is the easiest theological system to dispense with, but they scream the loudest when challenged.<<<

When I first read this misdirection (this “sleight of hand”,) I had a nagging feeling that I had been warned of such deviousness years ago.

Then it dawned on me: a fellow named Philip Freneau wrote an editorial in 1792 that warned of such misdirection. He labeled it, “Crying ‘Stop Thief,’ first,” assumedly so the crowd will not realize that you are, in fact, the thief. Your comment (above) is a classic example of such misdirection.

Anyway, Philip Freneau was the editor of the National Gazette, a newspaper owned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. This is a link to the editorial, titled “Rules for Changing a Republic [into a Democracy, then] into a Monarchy;” and it is a true classic: instructing us on how tyrants are able to usurp powers and create unconstitutional law:

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/freneau/republic2monarchy.htm

I first read that editorial in the mid-1970s. It was included with my new Encyclopedia Britannica’s in a companion set of books titled “Annals of America.” The editorial was so breathtakingly revealing that I later adopted my Freeper name from the author.

Philip


43 posted on 05/29/2014 9:07:08 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
Believing the doctrine of a preterist would be almost as difficult as believing dispensationalism.

It all happened in 70 AD, the Second Coming happened already, the resurrection is past history ... and we are currently in Revelation 20 ...

but you're not a preterist ...

Are you in one of those King James Only cults?

44 posted on 05/29/2014 10:35:56 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
>>>I have been working on this issue for a long time. I have a few observations and I am curious to hear your comments. First I don’t believe that the promise and the covenant are the same thing. Note when the covenant was made, many years after the promise to Abraham. <<<

>>>Heb 8:8-9 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.<<<

I am unsure what you are implying. The first blood covenant (the old testament) was confirmed in the wilderness. The second blood covenant (the new testament) was confirmed by the blood of Jesus Christ. Stephen explained the timing of the old covenant in Acts 3:

    "So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph." (Acts 7:15-18 KJV)

The promise was still "future," even after the days of Jacob. Recall that this was the part of the covenant God made with Abraham regarding the land:

    "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." (Gen 15:18-21 KJV)

This was God's confirmation of the covenant to the children of Israel when they were in bondage in Egypt:

    "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord." (Exo 6:3-8 KJV)

The following was God's confirmation of the covenant when they were in the wilderness. Note that with the covenant came both blessings and a warning:

    "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (Exo 19:5-6 KJV)

The convenant was eventually written down and sanctified with blood:

    "And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exo 24:6-8 KJV)

But Israel broke the covenant before "the ink was dry." The Lord was angry, and threatened to destroy all of Israel, except Moses, and give the covenant to Moses and his seed:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?" (Exo 32:9-11 KJV)

But Moses interceded on behalf of Israel, and God relented. But the promise was still future tense:

    "And the Lord said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite: Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way." (Exo 33:1-3 KJV)

The most important thing to understand in the land matter, in my opinion, is this:

    "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me." (Lev 25:23 KJV)

The land never belonged to Israel, or anyone else. It always belonged to the Lord, and always will.


>>>Second, The first covenant and it’s accompanying law is a type of the second covenant and it’s accompanying law. The first time the law was written on the tables, the second time it was written on the hearts. Neither covenant made the promise of none effect. I believe the promise is twofold, first to the natural man, second to the spiritual man. <<<

I agree, but only in that order. Paul explained how the old was replaced by the new in Hebrews 8:13:

    "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 KJV)

At the time Paul wrote the Hebrews, the old covenant temple, organization and rituals were still in place. They disappeared, along with the old covenant, in AD 70 upon the destruction of Jerusalem.


>>>Third, it is significant the word “seed” is singular in Galatians 3:16. Wouldn’t it also be significant in verse 29?<<<

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you implying there might be only a single believer in Christ, or even none? All things are possible, but some things are not likely. LOL!

A casual reading of God's original promise to Abram does not reveal, one way or the other, whether it be singular or plural. It is only in later prophecy that the singular nature of the word "seed," as an individual inheritor, is revealed:

    "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." (Isa 42:1 KJV)

    "I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there." (Isa 65:9 KJV)

Note that in both verses Isaiah implies that only a single seed is the inheritor. But then there is this:

    "They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands." (Isa 65:22 KJV)

Since we know the Lord does not contradict himself, there must be an explanation. And there is. We see the same "sequence," if you will, in Galatians: first, a single-seed inheritor, then multiple inheritors. In Galatians 3:16-29, Christ is the inheritor, and then he distributes his inheritance to his children:

    "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." (Gal 3:16 KJV)

    "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, 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." (Gal 3:28-29 KJV)


Anyway, that is the way I see it.

Philip

45 posted on 05/29/2014 11:25:55 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
>>>>It all happened in 70 AD, the Second Coming happened already, the resurrection is past history<<<

No. I believe there was a partial fulfillment around AD 70, including the first resurrection for the elect. At least, I think that is when the scriptures said it occurred. I believe our resurrection will occur after Satan is defeated in the future, hopefully soon.

For the record, how do you interpret the terms "this generation," or similar phrases, in the following verses? Actually, my question is, are any of these to be interpreted as a generation other than the generation of Jesus Christ and his disciples?

    "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Mt 1:1 KJV)

    "But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation." (Lk 17:25 KJV)

    "And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mk 8:12 KJV)

    "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Mt 24:34 KJV)

    "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mk 8:38 KJV)


I personally believe they all mean the generation of Christ; and there are these supporting statements by Jesus to his disciples that reinforce my belief:

    "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mt 10:23 KJV)

    "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mt 16:27-28 KJV)


Those passages are most convincing that Christ was to (first) return within his own generation to take control of his kingdom. And, of course, there are these statements that make it virtually impossible for the Great Whore, Babylon the Great, to be any other city than 1st century Jerusalem:

    "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." (Lk 11:50-51 KJV)

    "Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." (Lk 13:33 KJV)

    "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Rev 18:20 KJV)

    "And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev 18:24 KJV)


Daniel also wrote of a partial resurrection; and his words indicate it was only for his people, Israel. Note in the following passage the use of the term "thy people," and the term "many of them:"

    "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)


I believe the second resurrection--our resurrection--will occur in the future, exactly as written, when that deceitful Satan and his angels are defeated. It will occur in this manner:

    ". . . we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom 14:10-12 KJV)

    "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:11-15 KJV)

I am aware that the new-agers have tried to reinterpret "judgement according to works" into a bad thing. But don't believe them. Jesus and the apostles spoke of both good and bad works, and Jesus said that he would judge, both good and bad, according to works. In fact, one of the last things he said was this:

    "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Rev 22:12 KJV)

Would Jesus use the word "reward," if his judgement was strictly for punishment?

>>>... and we are currently in Revelation 20 ...<<<

Correct. That is the traditional postmillennial position.


>>>but you're not a preterist ...<<<

I am a postmillennialist, according to Wikipedia. Did you not read the post where I explained how I fit that definition? You should. LOL!

For the record, I personally have no agenda, one way or the other; so I am not forced to mistranslate the Bible to make it fit an agenda.


>>>Are you in one of those King James Only cults?<<<

King James Only Cult? That is a new one. Is that the latest "Dispy Smear" phrase? LOL!

Are you asking if I use the same bible used by all the great protestant ministers for hundreds of years? Yes, mostly. I do occasionally use Young's Literal Translation, and, rarely, some of the others. But mostly the Authorized Version of 1611.

How about you? What translation do you use? Holman's, where they alter the translation of Genesis 15:18 to better fit the new-fangled doctrine of the Southern Baptists?

    "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “I give this land to your offspring, from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates River:" (Gen 15:18 HCSB)

Or, how about the New King James Version, where they completely mistranslate that verse so that, "surprisingly," it becomes a perfect fit for the new-age doctrine of the dispensational cult:

    "On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates--" (Gen 15:18 NKJV)

Of course, most of the new-age translations make that error, in one manner or another, most likely because of those so-called "older" manuscripts they used. But none could get around the plain reading of Galatians 3:16, which the New King James translators were forced to write as follows:

    "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ." (Gal 3:16 NKJV)

However, to the new-age cults, which are obsessed with the old testament (hint: not the one that Christ shed his blood for,) that verse in Galatians, and the related verses in that chapter, are treated as little more than an annoyance, like a gnat.

Philip

46 posted on 05/29/2014 3:44:21 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
You can read all you want at

www.pre-trib.org

There is a huge array of articles from seminary professors, pastors, and teachers.

You can read all you want at

www.monergism.com

There is a huge array of articles from seminary professors, pastors, and teachers.

(Just a recommended resource.)

47 posted on 06/01/2014 10:07:45 AM PDT by Lee N. Field ("And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" Gal 3:29)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

And a good one at that ...


48 posted on 06/01/2014 6:09:23 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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