Posted on 05/07/2012 2:38:10 PM PDT by wmfights
This section we will attempt a precise definition of supersessionism. Various titles have been used in identifying the view that the church has permanently replaced Israel in God’s plan. As Marten H. Woudstra observes, “The question whether it is more proper to speak of a replacement of the Jews by the Christian church or of an extension (continuation) of the OT people of God into that of the NT church is variously answered.”[i] The most common designation used in recent scholarly literature to identify this position is “supersessionism.” Commenting on this term, Clark M. Williamson writes, “‘Supersessionism’ comes from two Latin words: super (on or upon) and sedere (to sit), as when one person sits on the chair of another, displacing the latter.”[ii] In addition, the title “replacement theology” is often viewed as a synonym for “supersessionism.”[iii]
Several theologians have offered definitions of “supersessionism” or “replacement theology.” According to Walter C. Kaiser, “Replacement theology . . . declared that the Church, Abraham’s spiritual seed, had replaced national Israel in that it had transcended and fulfilled the terms of the covenant given to Israel, which covenant Israel had lost because of disobedience.”[iv] Ronald E. Diprose defines replacement theology as the view that “the Church completely and permanently replaced ethnic Israel in the working out of God’s plan and as recipient of Old Testament promises to Israel.”[v] R. Kendall Soulen argues that supersessionism is linked with how some view the coming of Jesus Christ: “According to this teaching [supersessionism], God chose the Jewish people after the fall of Adam in order to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Savior. After Christ came, however, the special role of the Jewish people came to an end and its place was taken by the church, the new Israel.”[vi] Herman Ridderbos asserts that there is a positive and negative element to the supersessionist view: “On the one hand, in a positive sense it presupposes that the church springs from, is born out of Israel; on the other hand, the church takes the place of Israel as the historical people of God.”[vii]
These definitions from Kaiser, Diprose, Soulen, and Ridderbos appear consistent with the statements of those who explicitly declare that the church is the replacement of Israel. Bruce K. Waltke, for instance, declares that the New Testament teaches the “hard fact that national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the church and the New Covenant.”[viii] According to Hans K. LaRondelle, the New Testament affirms that “Israelwould no longer be the people of God and would be replaced by a people that would accept the Messiah and His message of the kingdom of God.”[ix] LaRondelle believes this “people” is the church who replaces “the Christ-rejecting nation.”[x] Loraine Boettner, too, writes, “It may seem harsh to say that ‘God is done with the Jews.’ But the fact of the matter is that He is through with them as a unified national group having anything more to do with the evangelization of the world. That mission has been taken from them and given to the Christian Church (Matt. 21:43).”[xi]
When comparing the definitions of Kaiser, Diprose, Soulen, and Ridderbos with the statements of those who openly promote a replacement view, it appears that supersessionism is based on two core beliefs: (1) national Israel has somehow completed or forfeited its status as the people of God and will never again possess a unique role or function apart from the church; and (2) the church is now the true Israel that has permanently replaced or superseded national Israel as the people of God. Supersessionism, then, in the context of Israel and the church, is the view that the New Testament church is the new Israel that has forever superseded national Israel as the people of God. The result is that the church has become the sole inheritor of God’s covenant blessings originally promised to national Israel in the Old Testament. This rules out any future restoration of national Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Marten H. Woudstra, “Israel and the Church,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1987), 237. Woudstra believes that the terms, “replacement,” and “continuation” are both acceptable and consistent with biblical teaching. See also G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 55.
[ii] Clark M. Williamson, A Guest in the House of Israel: Post-Holocaust Church Theology(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 268, n. 9.
[iii] Diprose views the titles “replacement theology” and “supersessionism” as being synonymous. He also notes that the title “replacement theology” is a “relatively new term in Christian theology.” Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought (Rome: Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 31, n. 2. In this present work, we will use the titles “supersessionism” and “replacement theology” as synonyms. We acknowledge, though, that these designations may not be entirely satisfactory to those who view the church more as the continuation or fulfillment of national Israel. See Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard De Witt. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 333–34; Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 1058–59.
[iv] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “An Assessment of ‘Replacement Theology’: The Relationship Between theIsrael of the Abrahamic–Davidic Covenant and the Christian Church,” Mishkan 21 (1994): 9.
[v] Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought, 2.
[vi] R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 1–2.
[vii] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard de Witt. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), Paul, 333–34.
[viii] Bruce K. Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, 274. He also states, “The Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God; that place has been taken by the Christian community which fulfills God’s purpose for Israel” (275). Emphasis in original.
[ix] Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy, Principles of Prophetic Interpretation(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983), 101. Emphasis in original.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1957), 89–90. According to Bright, “The New Testament triumphantly hails the Church as Israel . . . the true heir of Israel’s hope.” John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), 226.
As another poster said the reformed among us like to talk up Sola Scriptura but when it comes to defending covenant theology, it takes them mere seconds to resort to the historic creeds, confessions and writings of the ECFs to back up their claims.
I think it ironic that those who disparage the dispensationalist among us by insisting that they rely on the writings of Darby and Scofield themselves toss the Scriptures aside in order to defend their position. The truth is in the Bible, the rest of it is well, you know, the writings and ideas of the fallable and corrupt.
It is easy to say that, but the longer i live the more i see that overall good men can have blind spots (including early Reformers), or (in this case i think) in their noble endeavor to reconcile Bible texts, they come to wrong conclusions.
But then again, while allowing that in this case, i do not know of any that i esteem as classic Bible commentators (Henry, Clarke, Barnes, Gill, etc.) who hold to Supersessionism.
Though this has not been a major area of debate for me, I do see Roman 11 as most clearly teaching that the Lord will “reverse the curse” (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/israel-chosenorforgotten.html), so that the eyes of the remaining Jews come to faith in the last days (which the RC catechism also speaks of briefly). Further research on views supplies the below excerpts by JEREMY P. ROBERTS
of SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY (http%3A%2F%2Fjeremyroberts.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F02%2Froberts-jeremy-research-paper-for-john-s-hammett.pdf)
Patristic Era (A. D. 100–451)
Supersessionism first arose after the revolt of the Bar Kochba in A.D. 135.11 Second century Christians such as Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, and the Letter of Barnabas expressed this process of beliefs.12
It became the predominant viewpoint of the Christian Church.13 Chrysostom, Origen and Augustine were other contributors to the surge of supersessionism. Chrysostom, in the fourth century, complained that the Jews were always perversely out of step with the times, disobeying the Mosaic Law while it was in force and cleaving it after being annulled.14 Origen perceived in unbelieving Israel the unfolding of a benign providence that was ultimately directed to the redemption of Jew and Gentile alike.15
Augustine purported an influential stance by arguing that God preserved the Jews in existence for the sake of their unwilling testimony to Christian faith. The Jews honored the Old Testament by demonstrating that it was no forgery of the church, but legitimate prophecy that predicted long ago the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the rise of the spiritual church.16
The contributions of Chrysostom, Origen and Augustine resulted in the preservation of Christian theology in a backhanded fashion with a limited theological rationale for the continued existence of the Jewish people.17 Despite being “superseded in principle and besieged in fact,” carnal Israel was given the opportunity to exist within Christendom because of its incontrovertible connection to the God of Christian confession, the God of Israel.18
Medieval Era (A. D. 452–1517)
In the Medieval Era, art portrays the split of supersessionism and dispensationalism.19 At Reims Cathedral, a sculpture depicts a crowned Ecclesia while another shows a defeated and blindfolded Synagoga.20 At Notre Dame de Paris, another sculpture of a fallen Synagogue exists.
The Synagogue is depicted as a blindfolded woman whose torso is slumping and crown is shattered. “The staff she is holding in her left hand is broken while the five books of Torah are about to slip from her right hand.”21 Grover Zinn explains the anti-Semitic nature of this art, and describes it as “one of the most shocking portrayals of Judaism in European cathedrals.22
6
Many theologians in the Medieval Era accepted supersessionism as a “given.”23 Thomas Aquinas, one of the prominent Medieval Era theologians, purported a long-standing contribution of supersessionism theology. Hood notes that Aquinas “served as a major conduit of the traditional Christian view of the Jews for some seven hundred years.”24
Reformation Era (A. D. 1517–1648)
Throughout the Reformation era, supersessionism was approached with mixed views. Luther espoused a punitive supersessionist stance while Calvin supported a mild form of supersessionism.29 The predominant theological stance gleaned from this era is Reformed theology. Olevianus exerted considerable influence on the shape of Reformed theology.30 As a teacher and pastor in Heidelberg and Herborn he influenced hundreds of students who reflected his theological stances of Calvinism and supersessionism.31 Olevianus penned a German exposition of covenant theology, Gnadenbund Gottes, published in 1595.32
Huldrych Zwingli is another theologian from the Reformation era who influenced the progression of supersessionism. His message spoke especially to the urban middling and lower classes.33 Zwingli, combating Anabaptism, set forth his beliefs in supersessionism, which were later taught by Heinrich Bullinger and other Swiss reformers. His instrumentality in laying the foundation for supersessionism pushed it into continued popularity despite its mixed views by others during this era.
Modern Era (A. D. 1648–1950)
Karl Barth (1886–1968) played a crucial role in the relationship of the Church and Israel. Barth’s hermeneutical vista stems from his understanding of election. Seeing an essential unity between the Synagogue and the Church, Barth views Jesus as the “elect one,” but what is elected in Christ is a community with a two-fold form: Israel and the Church.34 Barth states that “Israel is the people of the Jews which resists its election; the Church is the gathering of Jews and Gentiles called on the ground of its election.”35..
History of Dispensationalism When examining the history of dispensationalism, a typical statement goes like this: “Dispensationalism was formulated by one of the nineteenth-century separatist movements, the Plymouth Brethren.”47 A statement such as this implies two charges: [1]
Dispensationalism is recent, and is therefore unorthodox; [2] It was born out of a movement of separatists and should be shunned.48 The implication of such charges is one of prejudicial theological hubris.
Ryrie explicates an example of this when quoting Daniel Fuller: Ignorance is bliss, and it may well be that this popularity [of dispensationalism] would not be so great if the adherents of this system knew the historical background of what they touch. Few indeed realize that the teaching of Chafer came from Scofield, who in turn got it through the writings of Darby and the Plymouth Brethren.49...
George Ladd argues that sources are not available to prove the existence of dispensational thought prior to Darby and Kelly.51 Ladd, however, is mistaken. Sources are available. Arnold E. Ehlert wrote “A Bibliography of Dispensationalism” before Ladd was born—the sources were available to him.52
….Irenaeus (130–200) also held to dispensational concepts. His analysis of the reason for only four gospels explicates his theology of periods (or dispensations). The periods he references are [1] prior to the deluge, under Adam; [2] after the deluge, under Noah; [3] giving of the law, under Moses; [4] raising and bearing men upon the wings of the Gospel into the heavenly kingdom.55
Another example of dispensational concepts in Christian history is from Clement of Alexandria (150–220). He distinguished three patriarchal dispensations (in Adam, Noah, and Abraham) as well as the Mosaic.56 Samuel Hansen Coxe’s sevenfold dispensational theme stems from Clement’s fourfold one.57.
Before Darby Dispensational concepts were touted before Darby by authors such as Pierre Poiret, John Edwards, and Isaac Watts. Also called “Developing Dispensationalism,” this period of time gave greater momentum to dispensational thought before it became a system.
Pierre Poiret (1646–1719) wrote a six volume magnus opus entitled L’OEconimie Divine that began as a development of the doctrine of predestination, but it expanded into a systematic theology text that encompasses Calvinism, premillenialism, and dispensationalism.58 Ryrie, Lewis, and Ehlert all agree that Poiret’s work is a genuine dispensational scheme.59 Ehlert explains Poiret’s scheme in the following manner: He [Poiret] uses the phrase “period or dispensation” and his seventh dispensation is a literal thousand-year millennium with Christ returned and reigning in bodily form upon the earth with His saints, and Israel re-gathered and converted. He sees the overthrow of corrupt Protestantism, the rise of Antichrist, the two resurrections, and many of the general run of end-time events.60
John Edwards’ (1637–1716) “three great ‘Catholic and Grand Oeceonomies’” serve as “the beginnings of dispensationalism in its larger sense.”61 Edwards’ dispensational scheme was as follows: I. Innocency and Felicity, or Adam created upright II. Sin and misery, Adam fallen III.
Reconciliation, or Adam recovered, from Adam’s redemption to the end of the world A. Patriarchal economy 1. Adamical, antediluvian 2. Noahical 3. Abrahamick B. Mosaical C. Gentile (concurrent with A and B)
D. Christian or Evangelical 1. Infancy, primitive period, past 2. Childhood, present period 3. Manhood, future (millennium) 4. Old age, from the loosing of Satan to the conflagration62
Isaac Watts (1674–1748) also served as an author prior to Darby who expressed dispensational concepts in his writings. He recognized dispensations as conditional ages wherein God had expectations of men. The following is Watts’ definition of dispensations: The public dispensations of God towards men are those wise and holy constitutions of his will and government, revealed or some way manifested to them, in the several successive periods or ages of the world, wherein are contained the duties which he expects from men, and the blessings which he promises, or encourages them to expect from him, here and hereafter; together with the sins which he forbids, and the punishments which he threatens to inflict on such sinners, or the dispensations of God may be described more briefly, as the appointed moral rules of God’s dealing with mankind, considered as reasonable creatures, and as accountable to him for their behaviour, both in this world and in that which is to come.63
Watts’ outline of dispensationalism is the exact same as that in the Scofield Reference Bible excluding the Millennium (he did not consider it to be a dispensation). This proves that Scofield viewed Watts’ writings to be so foundational to dispensationalism that he used Watts’ outline on the subject instead of Darby’s.
Systematized Dispensationalism John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) was a leader of the Plymouth Brethren in Great Britain where he, according to virtually all investigators, was the systematizer of modern dispensationalism.64 Born into a well-to-do Irish family, the son of a landowner and merchant, Darby benefited from his privileged upbringing and became an excellent student. After attending Trinity College, Dublin, in 1819, he forsook a career in law for the Anglican Church, where he served as an ordained priest. 65
After less than five years serving the Anglican Church, Darby “left the encumbrance of ecclesiastical tradition” and joined a free church in Dublin called the “Brethren.”66 After traveling to Switzerland, France, Germany and Italy, Darby returned to England where dissension was severing the Brethren, so he formed the “circle of fellowship” to restrict those outside his doctrinal beliefs.
Darby eventually traveled to North America to spread his dispensational theology. North Americans were open to his teaching.
Among the many new dispensationalists swayed by Darby was, probably his single most important convert, a lawyer named Cyrus Ingersoll Scofield (1843–1921). Scofield, in turn, led his single most important convert, Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1951), to propagate dispensationalism to the extent where Chafer eventually founded Dallas Theological Seminary—the flagship academic institution for dispensationalism.67
Although Darby is an extremely important person in the history of dispensationalism, he is not the originator of such a theology. Scofield did not parrot Darby’s pattern of teachings—he instead parroted Watts.69
As a result of the growth of dispensationalism through the years, from concepts to a systematized stance, it now serves as the predominant view.70 Definitions and the historicity of both sides of this eschatological debate have been extrapolated. In order to refute common continuity arguments against the relationship of Israel and the church, the variations of the arguments necessitate clarification.
Variations within Supersessionism Punitive Also known as “retributive supersessionism,” the punitive variation emphasizes that God has rejected the Jews because they first rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Emphasis is placed on Israel’s disobedience and the consequence of God’s punishment. Divine interventions took place in A.D.
70 and A.D. 135 that served as a political way for God to abandon Israel for her disbelief in Jesus as the Christ. In order to fill this void left by Israel, the Church served as the process of continuation. God disinherited Israel in order to serve as a form of punishment for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah and they have been replaced by a new Israel—the Church of the New Testament....
Economic The economic variation is even more potent than punitive supersessionism. Arguing that from the beginning, God’s purpose for unrepentant Israel in the economy of salvation was destined to see fulfillment completed by the coming of Jesus, after which the Church was to take its place.75
In the economic sphere, God always planned on replacing Israel as an ethnic group with the church as an all-encompassing people. Within this variation, national Israel corresponds to Christ’s church in a prefigurative and carnal way.76.
Structural Structural supersessionism refers to the ordo salutis. Taking the form of “creation-fallredemption-new creation,” the structural variation is present whenever the Old Testament does not determine Christology.77 As opposed to punitive and economic supersessionism, the structural variation is less of a theological position pertaining to Israel and more of a transition in hermeneutics with the Jewish Scriptures...
Dualistic Dualistic supersessionists believe the church is the new Israel, but there is still a future for national Israel.83 Church history documents this moderate adherence to supersessionism.
Tertullian declared that the church overcame Israel as the people of God and Israel was “divorced” by God while also encouraging Christians to “rejoice” at the coming “restoration of Israel.”84 In the Middle Ages, John Y. B. Hood asserted, “. . . Christians believed Jews would eventually accept Christ and be saved, but they also saw them as dangerous infidels who had been rejected and punished by God.”85
Refuting All Variations within Supersessionism A refutation of each of the three variations of supersessionism will lead to a conclusive refutation of supersessionism as a whole. Punitive, economic, and structural supersessionism each have unique angles of improper logic and hermeneutics...
My only contribution to this discussion is that God keeps all of His promises. Every. Single. One.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. - Jer 31:33-37
And the Song of Moses will be sung along with the Song of the Lamb:
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.
For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance. - Romans 11:25-29
“So, y’all let me know when the pogrom begins, OK.”Do you have any doubt Obama would instigate a final solution to the Jews in the USA, given the opportunity?
His “Black Liberation” theology is replacement theology, but with blacks in place of Jews.
Given the heated rhetoric ("an infection in the Chrisstian Church for centuriesss") and invincible ignorance displayed, I was thinking of a pogrom against "replacement theologists".
It’s not unclear, Quix, but it does have to be denied for replacement theology to work.
The problem is a spiritual one and until that is fixed the self-deception will continue and the enmity with God will continue.
@@@@
INDEED TO THE MAX.
THX
LUB DEAR SISTER IN CHRIST.
As another poster said the reformed among us like to talk up Sola Scriptura but when it comes to defending covenant theology, it takes them mere seconds to resort to the historic creeds, confessions and writings of the ECFs to back up their claims.
I think it ironic that those who disparage the dispensationalist among us by insisting that they rely on the writings of Darby and Scofield themselves toss the Scriptures aside in order to defend their position. The truth is in the Bible, the rest of it is well, you know, the writings and ideas of the fallable and corrupt.
INDEED.
The Darby Schofield farce has been demonstrated to be inaccurate, untrue multiple times and they still use it.
Yet they are quick to rant at RC’s who do similar things.
What rank hypocrisy.
Thanks for your topflight research and info, as usual.
LUB BRO.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. - Jer 31:33-37
And the Song of Moses will be sung along with the Song of the Lamb:
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.
For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance. - Romans 11:25-29
THX THX.
Naw.
Except for being Biblically responsible for what is taught under their authority, Dispys leave God’s discipline of the REPLACEMENTARIANS
to HIM.
“I was thinking of a pogrom against “replacement theologists””
Unlikely. I am unaware of Christians who reject the heresy of replacement theology having committed any pogroms.
I do know, however, that replacement theologians have murdered millions.
Perhaps the desire to murder millions is a fruit of whatever spirit replacement thelogians worship.
After all, by “the fruit” shall we know Christians.
Great info, thanks.
Amen Brother. It should always be our goal to seek the Truth.
Praise God. The Lord know that who trust in Him (that being His idea), and will deliver them. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation [at so great a cost for so great an eternity]; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;” Hebrews 2:3
A Song or Psalm of Asaph. 1 Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God. 2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. 3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. 4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. 5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6 The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 7 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; 8 Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah. 9 Do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison: 10 Which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth. Psalms 83:1-10
Thank you for that beautiful Scripture, dear daniel1212!
One is either choosen and called by God or they are not. If you are called you belong to Him. If not then you don’t belong to Him. This was true for Israel as it is the church.
It’s that simple but people sure have a way of making it complex.
Questioning your interpretation of the Word of God is not the same as denying the Word of God.
If the God of the Bible is all-knowing, and Jesus is God in the flesh and thus has a divine perspective on the future, then one can surmise that the covenant promises made to the patriarchs are suspect if Dispensationalism's false dichotomy between Israel and the Church is correct.
See, I can assert exactly the opposite as you, as long as we don't have to actually support our assertions with actual exegesis.
It is interesting to note that the “New Covenant” referred to in the New Testament has little to do with gentile Church.
Questionable. Paul's teaching on the Lord's table in 1 Corinthians 11—written to a predominantly Gentile church—ties the remembrance of Christ's death with Christ's inauguration of the New Covenant with his blood (Luke 2:20; 1 Cor. 11:25-26).
When this Gentile Christian partakes of the Eucharist, I am declaring myself to be a partaker in the New Covenant alongside my Hebrew brethren. Little to do with the Gentile church? It has everything to do with the Gentile church—it says Jew and Gentile both attain salvation on the same terms.
The reformed crowd is long on talk but short of Biblical proof for their position.
I'll just note for the record: of the two of us, to this point, which one of us has cited specific Bible passages in support of his opinions, and which has not?
That's mighty white of you. Let me also congratulate you on the remote possibility that you might also be saved!
HOWEVER, Giovanna makes a worthy point that DISBELIEVING such as the Scriptures below puts one in OPPOSITION TO GOD ALMIGHTY.
Giovanna commits the fatal category error of confusing disagreement with his hermeneutic and disagreement with God himself. What utter nonsense.
Furthermore, I reject the label "replacementarian." Had you actually read my previous posts, you would know that I don't believe the Church has replaced Israel. Believing Gentiles have been added into Israel: "grafted in," to borrow Paul's metaphor, where the unbelieving Israelites have been pruned away.
I can have a rational debate about this issue, but not with someone who cannot even get my argument right even when it's there in black and white.
That's mighty white of you. Let me also congratulate you on the remote possibility that you might also be saved!
HOWEVER, Giovanna makes a worthy point that DISBELIEVING such as the Scriptures below puts one in OPPOSITION TO GOD ALMIGHTY.
Giovanna commits the fatal category error of confusing disagreement with his hermeneutic and disagreement with God himself. What utter nonsense.
Furthermore, I reject the label "replacementarian." Had you actually read my previous posts, you would know that I don't believe the Church has replaced Israel. Believing Gentiles have been added into Israel: "grafted in," to borrow Paul's metaphor, where the unbelieving Israelites have been pruned away.
I can have a rational debate about this issue, but not with someone who cannot even get my argument right even when it's there in black and white.
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.