No Reformed, amillennial or postmillennial Christian that I know of believes that they're replacing the Jews in God's eschatology. It's the modern dispensationalist who thinks that the Jews have been replaced by the Church, not resuming their place until after the Church disappears in the rapture!
According to English and every other dispensationalist, the Church has replaced Israel until the rapture. The unfulfilled promises made to Israel are not fulfilled until after the Church is taken off the earth. Thomas Ice, one of dispensationalism’s rising stars, admits that the Church replaces Israel this side of the rapture: “We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ‘as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.’”
-- From the thread Answering the "Replacement Theology" Critics (Part 1)“...the very category of ‘replacement’ is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people was, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement.”
-- From the thread Replacing “Replacement” Theology"The historical premillennialist's view interprets some prophecy in Scripture as having literal fulfillment while others demand a semi-symbolic fulfillment. As a case in point, the seal judgments (Revelation 6) are viewed as having fulfillment in the forces in history (rather than in future powers) by which God works out his redemptive and judicial purposes leading up to the end. Rather than the belief of an imminent return of Christ, it is held that a number of historical events (e.g., the rise of the Beast and the False Prophet) must take place before Christ's Second Coming. This Second Coming will be accompanied by the resurrection and rapture of the saints (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18); this will inaugurate the millennial reign of Christ. The Jewish nation, while being perfectly able to join the church in the belief of a true faith in Christ, has no distinct redemptive plan as they would in the dispensational perspective. The duration of the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:1-6) is unsure: literal or metaphorical."
-- From the thread Four Views on the Millennium
>>> No Reformed, amillennial or postmillennial Christian that I know of believes that they’re replacing the Jews in God’s eschatology.
So I may NOT be a dispensationalist.
The notion that God breaks covenant is the biggest obstacle I see with replacement theology.
I think i’ll side with the person who said earlier that they didn’t like to call themselves anything.
God made a promise to Abraham concerning his people, and to the nation Israel.
God keeps His promises.
I guess if we look at the operative word, and it’s root, we get “dispense”... as in “do away with”.
If that is the case, and God has somehow “dispensed” with Israel, then I find the teaching in grave error.
No doubt Israel has suffered great loss because of their rejection of the Messiah... but that does not place anyone else in line for something God explicitly and exclusively promised to His “Chosen” people.
Whoa there my FRiend. If your using something from Gary Demar as you did from here it's really risky. NO ONE has replaced Israel and never will. Nor have I heard any dispensationist make that claim.
As for the quote Demar claims came from Thomas Ice, I can't find any quote like that from him. In fact, I know he does NOT believe the church has "replaced Israel" at any time. Demar gave no source for that quote and I'm thinking it's Demar twisting the words of Ice as he is prone to do.
No Reformed, amillennial or postmillennial Christian that I know of believes that they're replacing the Jews in God's eschatology.
We can say that repeatedly, until we're blue in the face, and they will not hear it.
The notion that God breaks covenant is the biggest obstacle I see with replacement theology.
Likewise, none of us are saying God breaks his covenant.
From my NT reading yesterday:
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
further down
If that is the case, and God has somehow “dispensed” with Israel, then I find the teaching in grave error.
Israel "kata sarka" needs, like everyone else, to come to Christ, lest they be lost.
but that does not place anyone else in line for something God explicitly and exclusively promised to His “Chosen” people.
Read the epistle to the Hebrews, on what Abraham was looking for, as the fulfilment of God's promise to him.