Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defining Supersessionism
Theological Studies ^ | Michael Vlach

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.


TOPICS: Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: replacementtheology; supersessionism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-90 last
To: roamer_1

LUB BROTHER.

Hope your projects are progressing smoothly and with God’s affirmation and support in tangible ways.

My new book sold a few the first week. Praise God. Will see how it goes along.


51 posted on 05/08/2012 7:40:11 AM PDT by Quix (Time is short: INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Only fools assuming they know more than God dare to trash
God's EVERLASTING PROMISES to the Children of Jacob.

Amen !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
52 posted on 05/08/2012 7:49:15 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GiovannaNicoletta
So the Nazis didn't incorporate Martin Luther's antiSemitism and replacement theology into their genocide against the Jews?

Oh, but they absolutely did, as your quote proves! But it is not the incorporation of Lutheranism itself.

The bottom line, at the end of the day, is that there are people who espouse the same beliefs, whether we want to call it propaganda or not, as the Nazis used as validation for their actions.

Again, very true. And had there not been supersessionism within the largely Lutheran Germany, I doubt the citizens could have turned a blind eye to what was going on. However, that may not be entirely the case - Germany chaffed at the impositions placed upon her at the end of WWI, so they may well have turned a blind eye regardless, in an effort to reclaim the glory days and in order to reclaim a right to be a world power. The general idea that Germans have an air of superiority is not far-fetched.

It was the implication that Naziism was an extension of Lutheranism that I took exception to... Unlike the Roman church, whose European crusades decimated the Jewish people right along with Christian 'heretics'... THAT was most assuredly an extension of the religion itself. Do I make the difference distinct in that example?

Nevertheless, I stand with you, as I said, in the statement that Christianity has been an offense against the Jewish people for 1900 years, which is a crying shame, and against the Word of YHWH.

53 posted on 05/08/2012 7:56:15 AM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
Not "replacement", but fellow citzens of the commonwealth of Israel. This is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16).

Yep, according to Paul God's Israel consists of those outside and inside Israel according to the flesh who share the faith of Abraham, the father of faith, and partake through that faith in the promises of the covenant God established with him. The covenant antedated the Law. N.T. Wright explores this extensively in Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision.
54 posted on 05/08/2012 8:04:32 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

“Godwin’s Law may apply here.”

Godwin’s “law” is used by Godless socialists to discredit the fact that they are, indeed, the heirs to Nazis.

It’s as meaningless in this discussion as elsewhere.


55 posted on 05/08/2012 8:32:29 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (I will never vote for Romney. Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Campion

A primary theorist of Replacement Theolgy was Martin Luther, who was, indeed, a vicious anti-semite.

Luther’s book, “Of Jews and Their Lies” was the cornerstone of Nazi “Christian” Theology and actually set forth a multi-step plan for the Final Solution, down to the concentration camps.


56 posted on 05/08/2012 8:38:20 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (I will never vote for Romney. Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625; Alamo-Girl; Amityschild; AngieGal; AnimalLover; Ann de IL; aposiopetic; aragorn; ...
The covenant was conditional upon the Israelites keeping their end of the bargain.

WHAT KIND OF
WISHY-WASHY
NEVER CHANGING
--EVERLASTING PROMISES--
--OOPS--
--NOT THAT ONE--
ETERNAL ALMIGHTY GOD
POPULATES SUCH A
FLIGHTY, BI-POLAR,
FLIP-FLOPPY
"PSEUDO THEOLOGY?"

Which of the following words, phrases, sentences are unclear?

31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;

32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

33  Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.

34  My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

35  Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

36  His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

37  It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

.

NO AMOUNT of illogical, unBiblical REPLACEMENTARIAN weasel words can escape the plain message in Scriptures like the above.

imho, folks have to LOVE THEIR OWN ILL-CONCEIVED BIASES

MORE than they Love the Word of God

in order to trash such Scriptures;

in order to cast aspersions on and to trash

ALMIGHTY GOD'S EVERLASTING FAITHFULNESS;
ALMIGHTY GOD'S EVERLASTING CHARACTER;
ALMIGHTY GOD'S EVERLASTING PROMISES TO THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB.

I've persistently been shocked these years on FR at the wholesale spiritual, intellectual and Biblical blindness on the part of so many of the REPLACEMENTARIAN folks.

I've come to believe that there MUST BE some demonic forces in high places infecting with such an outrageous dogma from hell. It IS in THEIR interest to, like Satan in the garden assert:

"Did God REALLY say...?"

Only fools listen to such lies from satan.

Only fools assuming they know more than God dare to trash God's EVERLASTING PROMISES to the Children of Jacob.

Perhaps that's too big a chunk to wrap y'all's understanding around. Let's try a smaller chunk.

30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;

31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;

32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

33  Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.

34  My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

Maybe I can try and guess which words are allowing the dogma from hell to infect y'all's weasel-theology thinking.

I wonder if "If" is causing some problems . . . Naw. It's only 2 letters after all. They can probably comprehend "If."

"his?" Naw. They MUST be able to tell the difference between men and women. I hope!

"children?" Naw. Some of them MUST have some children! They probably even know what activity produces from.

"forsake?" Hmmmm Could be. It's a slightly archaic word. However, they probably used it in their marriage vows. They probably understand it.

"my?" Naw. They PROBABLY can tell the difference between yours vs mine. I hope.

"law?" Wellllllllllll they sure seem to exalt in a lot of law type theology. I suspect they have at least a functional understanding of the word.

"and?" Naw. They must understand that common small word.

"walk?" Naw. They probably know the difference between when they are walking vs sleeping.

"not?" Naw. They seem to have negation down pretty well since THEY in THEIR OMNISCIENCE are negating ALMIGHTY GOD'S EVERLASTING PROMISES to HIS buddy Abraham.

"in?" Naw. I suspect they understand that little word. Two letters must be doable even for REPLACEMENTARIANS.

"judgments?" Naw. They seem to have NO TROUBLE AT ALL with judging ALMIGHTY GOD as flakey with HIS EVERLASTING PROMISES.

Verse 33:

"NEVERTHELESS?" Perhaps. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe they don't understand that word. That could explain it.

Maybe I should try and help them. I was an English teacher for 15 years to the Chinese! I realize that a Chinese silk worm might be brighter than a REPLACEMENTARIAN but I'll pretend not, for the sake of argument.

"Nevertheless" means

regardless,
in spite of,
however,
even though, still . . .
I note that--yet it will still be the case that . . .

Soooo, in this Psalm, "NEVERTHELESS" MEANS that ALMIGHTY GOD IS SAYING: "EVEN THOUGH they may well break their side of my Covenant with them . . . and EVEN THOUGH I will discipline them severely for breaking their side of our Covenant,

I WILL NEVER break my side of our Covenant."

"LOVINGKINDNESS?" Naw. Some of them probably manage some of that even though they are pretty harsh with ALMIGHTY GOD--calling HIS EVERLASTING promises worth less than used uhhhh tissue paper.

"WILL?" Naw. They seem, as a group, to understand "will" very well--and to be an incredibly willful lot. They willfully deny the plain meaning of dozens of Scriptures affirming ALMIGHTY GOD'S EVERLASTING PROMISES to the Children of Jacob.

"I?" Naw. They seem to have no trouble proclaiming "I" . . . their own egotistical dogmatic pontifications about GOD'S FLAKEY handling of His EVERLASTING PROMISES. They must understand "I" very well.

"UTTERLY" Hmmmm. That could be a problem. Naw. I don't think it is. They UTTERLY TRASH GOD ALMIGHTY'S CHARACTER AND HIS EVERLASTING PROMISES when they cast him as a liar to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and King David. And they do very well at being UTTERLY IDIOTIC and UTTERLY CLUELESS about dozens of Bible verses affirming the EVERLASTING NATURE OF GOD'S PROMISES to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. I think they are quite familiar with "utterly."

"take?" Naw. They take from ALMIGHTY GOD His reputation and character and trash the same as they trash HIS EVERLASTING PROMISES. They have to know "take" very well. BTW, Watch your daughters, men. These characters are great with weasel words and taking.

"from?" Naw. They don't hesitate to TAKE FROM ALMIGHTY GOD His character and His Faithfulness to His Word and Promises. They seem quite happy, also, to take from the children of Jacob THEIR INHERITANCE.

"from?" Naw. I think they understand that concept quite well. They seem quite gleeful in taking FROM the children of Jacob THEIR inheritance.

"him?" Naw. I think they have those tiny words down pretty well. At least I'm going to assume they are smarter than my collie dog--at least in areas having nothing to do with theology or the Bible.

"nor?" Naw. Even though it's likely not used as much as it was in the past, they seem to have negation down pretty well as I noted above.

"suffer?" Hmmmmm In this context and usage . . . they might not understand the meaning. In this passage, it means to allow, or experience. ALMIGHTY UNCHANGING GOD IS saying He will NOT ALLOW nor allow the children of Jacob to experience any loss of HIS faithfulness to them.

"FAITHFULNESS." Hmmmmmm. It would seem that they have no clue about this word. I wonder how their spouses can possibly trust each other to get the right kind of bread at the store--much less to remain faithful sexually. Evidently "faithfulness" has no use or meaning in their construction on reality and relationships.

"to?" Naw. They must know that simple word. My collie seemed to.

"fail." Naw. They accuse ALMIGHTY UNCHANGING GOD OF FAILING UTTERLY IN HIS EVERLASTING PROMISES in their 24/7/365 blatherings.

Verse 34

"covenant?" They CLAIM to understand the word given the label they put on their own theology. However, evidently they think that THEIR Covenants mean something lasting and dependable while ALMIGHT GOD'S don't. Evidently when it comes to "covenant," they have a very rubbery dictionary.

"break?" Naw. They accuse God of breaking HIS EVERLASTING COVENANTS all the time.

"thing?" Naw. They must know that some things are intangible and some are tangible. I doubt they sit in a chair thinking it's NOT a thing.

"that?" Naw. I'm sure they can point and refer to "that over there." At least, I hope so.

"gone?' Naw. They have, in their omniscience and omnipotence pronounced ALMIGHTY GOD'S EVERLASTING PROMISES TO BE GONE for centuries. I think they understand that concept.

"out?" Naw. They seem to have no trouble proclaiming that the children of Jacob are OUT OF their inheritance from ALMIGHTY GOD. I think they understand that one, too.

"lips?" Naw. Given that most seem to have no trouble producing children and pontificating, blathering, I assume they understand the meaning of lips.

I guess that leaves us with general cussedness, cluelessness, willful stubbornness and cheeky arrogance to so tenaciously declare so perversely that ALMIGHTY GOD is too wishy washy to keep even HIS EVERLASTING PROMISES TO HIS BEST BUD.

May God have mercy on their Bible and truth mangling.

May He protect all the young Christians from being infected with such a mentality . . . such a thinking that if God's EVERLASTING PROMISES to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob aren't worth tissue paper in a hurricane, that Christ's promise of Salvation through His Blood might be just as undependable.

BTW, I'd claim that my fingers were in my cheeks . . . but they mostly weren't.

This hideous, damnable deception from hell deserves the MOST FIERCE condemnation possible.

57 posted on 05/08/2012 8:40:04 AM PDT by Quix (Time is short: INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

“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.


58 posted on 05/08/2012 8:42:24 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (I will never vote for Romney. Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Quix
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.

59 posted on 05/08/2012 8:45:51 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta ("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

” Anyone willing to research the Nazi regime will have to conclude that the quote you refer to is merely propaganda.”

Sadly, as a Christian, I have to see this for what it is: revisionist history. The Nazis enveloped and embraces all forms of German Christianity, and did what they did in the name of my savior Jesus Christ.

This is an anti-Christian site, but it is correct on this issue. The photos are clear.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm


60 posted on 05/08/2012 8:57:55 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (I will never vote for Romney. Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Quix

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.


61 posted on 05/08/2012 9:00:11 AM PDT by fatboy (This protestant will have no part in the ecumenical movement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GiovannaNicoletta

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...


62 posted on 05/08/2012 9:21:52 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012; Quix
Thank you both for sharing those beautiful Scriptures and your insights!

My only contribution to this discussion is that God keeps all of His promises. Every. Single. One.

But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

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

The total number and types of dimensions are both unknown and unknowable. God has not cast off the seed of Israel.

And the Song of Moses will be sung along with the Song of the Lamb:

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses; the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4

His gifts and callings are without repentance:

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

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

God's Name is YHwH which means "He IS" - I AM!.

63 posted on 05/08/2012 9:24:53 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian
“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".

64 posted on 05/08/2012 9:33:06 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 58 | View Replies]

To: GiovannaNicoletta

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.


65 posted on 05/08/2012 9:34:29 AM PDT by Quix (Time is short: INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: fatboy

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.


66 posted on 05/08/2012 9:35:51 AM PDT by Quix (Time is short: INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Thanks for your topflight research and info, as usual.

LUB BRO.


67 posted on 05/08/2012 9:37:46 AM PDT by Quix (Time is short: INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
. My only contribution to this discussion is that God keeps all of His promises. Every. Single. One.

But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

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

The total number and types of dimensions are both unknown and unknowable. God has not cast off the seed of Israel.

And the Song of Moses will be sung along with the Song of the Lamb:

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses; the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4

His gifts and callings are without repentance:

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

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

God's Name is YHwH which means "He IS" - I AM!.
63 posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:24:53 AM by Alamo-Girl

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

!ABSOLUTELY INDEED!

THX THX.


68 posted on 05/08/2012 9:40:45 AM PDT by Quix (Time is short: INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

Naw.

Except for being Biblically responsible for what is taught under their authority, Dispys leave God’s discipline of the REPLACEMENTARIANS

to HIM.


69 posted on 05/08/2012 9:42:11 AM PDT by Quix (Time is short: INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

“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.


70 posted on 05/08/2012 11:27:12 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (I will never vote for Romney. Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Great info, thanks.


71 posted on 05/08/2012 1:10:11 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; Quix
It is my position that sola-scriptura should rightly go where it goes - in spite of in-grained belief - and that, my brother, is exceedingly hard to do,...

Amen Brother. It should always be our goal to seek the Truth.

72 posted on 05/08/2012 1:16:37 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

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


73 posted on 05/09/2012 4:31:11 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Quix

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


74 posted on 05/09/2012 4:35:16 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Amen. Praise God!

Thank you for that beautiful Scripture, dear daniel1212!

75 posted on 05/09/2012 8:35:13 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

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.


76 posted on 05/09/2012 2:39:01 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GiovannaNicoletta
Can you provide the Scripture where man can deny any part of the Word of God and be born again?

Questioning your interpretation of the Word of God is not the same as denying the Word of God.

77 posted on 05/09/2012 4:01:14 PM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fatboy
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 supersessionism/reformed/covenant/replacement theology is correct.

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?

78 posted on 05/09/2012 4:17:53 PM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I don't know that 100% of all REPLACEMENTARIANS are unsaved. I believe many may well be Saved through the Blood of The Lamb and the word of their testimony if they believe Christ came in the flesh etc.

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.

79 posted on 05/09/2012 4:26:14 PM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I don't know that 100% of all REPLACEMENTARIANS are unsaved. I believe many may well be Saved through the Blood of The Lamb and the word of their testimony if they believe Christ came in the flesh etc.

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.

80 posted on 05/09/2012 4:26:15 PM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
It’s that simple but people sure have a way of making it complex.

You won't get an argument from me about election during the Church Age. However, I do believe there are other periods where free will is the guide. The millennial reign is one example that comes to mind.

Please read the next thread in this series about Acts 1:6. I think you might find the argument interesting.

81 posted on 05/09/2012 5:05:36 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: RansomOttawa
So when replacement theologists deny the four-fifths of Scripture that detail that covenants, promises, and plans God has for His covenant, chosen nation Israel and the Jewish people, can you give me the Scripture where Jesus Christ says that those who deny that part of His Word (keeping in mind that He is called the "Word of God") can know Him as Savior?

Thanks in advance!

82 posted on 05/09/2012 8:25:48 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta ("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: GiovannaNicoletta
So when replacement theologists deny

I'm sorry, I lost your argument at the point where you started uttering falsehoods.

83 posted on 05/09/2012 9:40:41 PM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: RansomOttawa
OK, maybe you'll be the one replacement theologist who doesn't dismiss or deny the following:

Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “ I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

35 Thus says the Lord,

Who gives the sun for light by day
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The Lord of hosts is His name:
36 “ If this fixed order departs
From before Me,” declares the Lord, Then the offspring of Israel also will cease From being a nation before Me forever.”

37 Thus says the Lord,

“If the heavens above can be measured And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done,” declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 31: 31-37)

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. (Romans 11:1,2)

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“ The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “ This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. (Romans 11:25-31)

Are the above verses true or false?

84 posted on 05/10/2012 5:06:05 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta ("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: RansomOttawa

Interesting, but wrong.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post though.

The problem with covenant theology is that it assumes that there is a covenant(s) between Jehovah and man: covenants of works, grace and an optional covenant of redemption. I don’t have to proved my position (dispensationalism) to the covenant crowd in the sense that if I’m wrong, that doesn’t make them correct. Covenant theology is not Biblical, period.


85 posted on 05/10/2012 6:08:30 AM PDT by fatboy (This protestant will have no part in the ecumenical movement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GiovannaNicoletta
OK, maybe you'll be the one replacement theologist who doesn't dismiss or deny the following:

Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, . . .

Of course I don't dismiss Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant. Jesus ratified the New Covenant with his blood (Luke 20:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Paul, writing to the Corinthian church, said to the Gentile Christians there that he was a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6).

The author to the Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is the mediator of the new covenant. He quotes that very passage of Jeremiah that you just did, and says it has been fulfilled, now, in the continuing high priesthood of Christ himself before the Father.

(Romans 11:1,2)

What is the context of Romans 11? It's part of the argument that Paul begins in Romans 9, in which he argues that God has kept his promises because a remnant of them had been saved; that the Jews had no excuse for not realizing that the covenant would include Gentiles as well, because the Scriptures spoke of it from the time of Moses.

Yes, Romans 11 says that God will again show mercy to the Israelites, just as his mercy is present on the Gentiles. I see in Romans 11 a prediction of a future mass conversion of the Jews to Christ (and may it come soon).

However, that can be true, without whatever it is you think I believe being false.

In short:

Are the above verses true or false?

True, of course—as understood correctly. Kindly do me the courtesy of not falsely accusing me of denying them, when I deny only your interpretation.

86 posted on 05/10/2012 8:01:45 AM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RansomOttawa
He quotes that very passage of Jeremiah that you just did, and says it has been fulfilled, now, in the continuing high priesthood of Christ himself before the Father.

It's been fulfilled? When God says:

The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”

we know that Jesus will come and remove ungodliness from Israel. Would you say that Israel is now in a state of "ungodliness"? If so, how so? And if you can't give any examples of how Israel is now in a state of "ungodliness", will you still cling to the position that this has been fulfilled?

When God says:

“ This is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”

Have the sins of the Jewish people been "taken away"? If so, how so? And if you can't give any examples of how the sins of the Jewish people have been taken away, where is your Biblical justification for stating that that prophecy has been fulfilled?

itc is a reality now, not merely in the future

But we do know that the New Covenant was meant for the Jews and it's only by the compassion and mercy of God that Gentiles have been added in:

The New Covenant (Deut. 29:4; 30:6; Isa. 59:20–21; 61:8–9; Jer. 31:31–40; 32:37–40; 50:4–5; Ezek. 11:19–20; 16:60–63; 34:25–26; 36:24–32; 37:21–28; Zech. 9:11; 12:10–14; Heb. 8:1-13; 10:15-18) provides for the yet future spiritual regeneration of Israel in preparation for the millennial kingdom. This is an unconditional covenant and is made between the Lord and the nation of Israel and has not yet been enacted for the nation of Israel. The New Covenant is predictive of Israel’s new spiritual condition that begins at the end of the tribulation and continues into and throughout the Millennial Kingdom.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum tells us the following about the New Covenant for Israel:

The announcement of the New Covenant begins with a declaration that it will be a Jewish covenant, for it will be made with both houses of Israel (v. 31). It will be in sharp contradistinction with the older Mosaic Covenant (v. 32). Of the five Jewish covenants, the Mosaic was the only conditional one. Although God had been faithful in keeping His terms of the covenant, Israel had not been so faithful, resulting in the Mosaic Covenant's being broken. For while the Mosaic Covenant showed the standard of righteousness which the Law demanded, it could never impart to the Jew the power to keep it. But that problem will be rectified in the New Covenant (v. 33) through regeneration, which will provide the internal power necessary to meet and to keep the righteous standards of God. The result of the New Covenant will be a total national regeneration of Israel (v. 34). Jewish missions and Jewish evangelism will not be needed in the Messianic Kingdom because every Jew will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest. The sins of Israel will be forgiven and forgotten. While there will be Gentile unbelievers in the Kingdom, there will not be Jewish unbelievers in the Kingdom. To a man, all the Jews will believe. There will be no need to tell a Jew to "know the Lord" because they will all know Him.1

snip

A key to understanding what Scripture teaches on this matter is to recognize that the Old Testament promise of the New Covenant contained both spiritual and material benefits. The church indeed is enjoying the spiritual benefits (e.g., regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit), but the church is not experiencing the material benefits, which remain unfulfilled and will remain unfulfilled until literal national Israel appropriates the New Covenant to experience both its spiritual and physical benefits at the end of the Tribulation and throughout the millennium. Paul says in Romans, “For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things” (Rom. 15:27). Rodney J. Decker has the following explanation of how the New Covenant applies to the church today: The New Covenant, prophesied in the Old Testament to be made with Israel, was ratified at the Cross and implemented as a replacement of the Mosaic Covenant. It is presently the basis on which anyone relates to God and it governs the life of all believers. The church, though not a formal partner of the New Covenant, participates in the covenant both as a subject of its rule of life and as a recipient of promised Abrahamic Covenant blessings for Gentiles that have come through the Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. This explanation does not demand that the church “fulfill” the covenant; that remains for national Israel in the future millennium. It does acknowledge that there is more involved in the New Covenant than could have been known simply from the Old Testament. This in no way changes the meaning of those passages, but does allow for God’s doing more than He promised (though it will be no less than promised). The term “partial fulfillment” is not necessary. If fulfillment is used to describe the relationship of the covenant partners, then fulfillment in any respect should be viewed as future. “Participation” is a better term to describe the present aspects as it both avoids replacement concepts (the church replacing Israel in fulfilling the covenant) and also explains the partial nature of the obedience evident in the experience of the church. Even though the ministry of the Holy Spirit has changed dramatically, based on the ratification and implementation of the New Covenant, the full ramifications of that ministry will not be experienced until the covenant enters the fulfillment stage in the future messianic kingdom. . . . The Old Testament does not say that only Israel will participate in the New Covenant. The Old Testament does say that the New Covenant is made with Israel. That is different, however, from saying that the New Covenant is only for Israel. The New Testament does not violate Old Testament statements when it includes more than was revealed in the Old Testament.2

If one attempts to say that the New Covenant is being fulfilled today, during the current church age, through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, then it would mean that we should not evangelize any more, that every Jew would be saved, and that we would have the Law of God written on our hearts (compare Jer. 31:31–34). This is not the case within the church today. Therefore, it means that we are not currently experiencing the full impact of the New Covenant as described in the Old Testament. Postmillennialists, Amillennialists, Covenant Theologians, and preterists all believe that all aspects of the New Covenant are being fulfilled today. If such were the case then why do we have evangelism and have to teach people the Law? Jeremiah speaking the word of the Lord says, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:33b–34). Believers today simply do not fit this description. Further, the Lord is speaking about what He will do with Israel. Notice to whom the passage is directed: “’But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:33a).

This is certainly not yet a description of the Jewish nation as it exists today. The Bible is clear that Israel will one day receive the benefits of the New Covenant. What a wonderful day that will be when she enters into a right relationship with the Lord after all of those years. At the same time, the church is a partaker in the spiritual blessings that flow from the New Covenant, not “a taker over” of Israel’s promises, as some are inclined to say. God’s plan is on course and will be fully implemented in the course of His timing. Maranatha!

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-%28Part7%29CovenantsandD.pdf

So we know from Scripture that God is not finished with Israel and the Jews, we know that He has made promises to them which are yet to be fulfilled, and we know that replacement theology finds absolutely zero support in the Bible, and is, in fact, in direct contradiction to the Bible and is therefore a demonic doctrine.

87 posted on 05/10/2012 9:08:11 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta ("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: GiovannaNicoletta
The bottom line is, contra the vain imaginations of Dispensationalists such as Dwight Pentecost and others, the New Covenant is happening now, in the present. There is not some other "new covenant" still waiting in the wings to be inaugurated in the future. That is an invention of those who cannot help but read Scripture through the hermeneutical grid of a radical dichotomy between Israel and the Church.

I reject that radical dichotomy, and I reject the slanderous accusation that I "deny" Scripture, merely because I don't need Dispy-coloured glasses or a copy of Clarence Larkin's charts in order to believe my Bible.

88 posted on 05/10/2012 9:51:38 AM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RansomOttawa
Can you produce a Scriptural rebuttal to anything that was posted?

Leave out all the favorite boogymen that those who don't believe the Bible as God wrote it constantly drag out to try to hide behind when they get busted for denying Scripture and called out on it.

Do you have a response that will Scripturally validate your belief?

89 posted on 05/10/2012 9:55:43 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta ("....in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
The text takes on a completely different meaning with the interpretation of the "kingdom of Israel" in Acts 1:6-7. The term "kingdom of Israel" was first used by Samuel with God taking away the kingdom of Israel from Saul and giving it to David. So the whole "Kingdom of Israel" really didn't last very long (not even 100 years).

One should look at the actual time of when the complete "Kingdom of Israel" existed. Saul's reign was miserable with lots of infighting and wars, ruled by a person who later became mentally unstable to the point of calling in a spiritualist and abandoning God. Yet Saul, to his credit, brought Israel together. David reign likewise was great with the fortification of strongholds, etc. Yet for all the greatness of King David, he was nearly kicked out of office in open rebellion, driven out of Jerusalem after a few short years. Solomon created splendor but at a terrible price to the Israelites and sacrificing children to the demonic god Molech, taxed so heavily until the people openly rebelled. (BTW-This was warned by Moses that this would happen if they made a king).

The kingdom was broken into two kingdoms shortly after the death of Solomon; the northern kingdom (Israel) and the southern kingdom (Judah). The actual "kingdom of Israel" was the northern kingdom and was corrupt. It was the first to go followed by the southern kingdom.

I say all of this in that when the disciples were talking to our Lord, the Jews had a very romantic sense in looked forward to the restoration of David's physical kingdom. But the "Kingdom of Israel", whatever that means, was always corrupt.

Christ, OTOH, looked at the kingdom of Israel as a spiritual realm. Not one that was marred with infighting, intrigued and corruption. Rather a perfect one, build on a perfect throne in the linage of David as promised by God. It cannot be corrupted. So I would suggest, as often happened in the case of our Lord and His disciples, in Acts 1:6-7 they were talking about two different things. The disciples having a romantic view of the Kingdom of Israel, and Christ having the actual view-a spiritual view of the restoration of Israel.

Rom 11:25-27 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

The Deliverer did come from Zion. He banished all ungodliness from Jacob by creating the perfect kingdom-His kingdom when He took away our sins.

90 posted on 05/10/2012 6:29:20 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-90 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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