Replacement Theology?

[Habakk]

The problem I see with the claim that it still is yet to be fulfilled is that they do not take into account when the prophecies were made and the circumstances which lead up to the changing of the covenants.

Yes they do, as I explained in my previous post.

 

[Keachian]

Also since when were Evangelicals by default dispys?

I consider myself Evangelical and to be perfectly honest dispensationalism to me attacks the sovereignty of God.

 

[Habakk]

Also since when were Evangelicals by default dispys?

I consider myself Evangelical and to be perfectly honest dispensationalism to me attacks the sovereignty of God.

I don’t see why it is a problem with sovereignty. If God chooses to do things that way then he has a reason and a purpose for doing so.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by progmonk

The problem I see with the claim that it still is yet to be fulfilled is that they do not take into account when the prophecies were made and the circumstances which lead up to the changing of the covenants.
​

Yes they do, as I explained in my previous post.

What is your view on how much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled? Thanks...


http://www.christianforums.com/t7392923/
How much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled



.

 

[Keachian]

What is your view on how much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled? Thanks...


http://www.christianforums.com/t7392923/
How much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled



.

4-22 is talking about the lead up to and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 23-28 describes the current age, 29-31 describe what is yet to come, 32-51 give warnings to believers

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Habakk
Replacement theology does exist it is not a misnomer as some try to say. Replacement theology makes null and void God’s express written promise concerning the land of Israel. It has nothing to do with Christ being the only way to salvation it’s simply about the physical promises of the land being denied.

I can accept that the new covenant was made concerning the church and the adoption of gentiles, what I can’t accept is tearing up God’s word concerning a literal, physical reality.

Why is that?

Obviously all God's promises are affirmed in Christ.

The land is already inherited and granted to him.

He rules heaven and Earth. Has all power. So what more is there to do?

Jesus is the Israel of God.

I do not see anything left unfinished in him.

So, what's left for a literal descendent of Jacob that is not already complete in Christ?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here bro, and the phrase that you use (and is often quoted by others) ..'all G-ds promises are affirmed in Christ' refers to what exactly?... as it seems a totally ambiguous statement that is unrelated to the fact that G-d is still at work in the world drawing people to Himself and bringing the Jewish people to a place where they will recognize Him en masse.

Zech 12:
10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

This is a future event that will eventually come to pass just as it is written, and was part of the burden of the L-rd on the heart of the prophets that has been displayed from various angles...and as has already been mentioned, sometimes the prophecies jump from the immediate future to the distant future, but are discerned by their fuller context and by the revelation of the Holy Spirit...by that I mean that although things are written in Scripture, they are often hidden from our understanding until the spark of revelation is ignited according to G-ds purposes and timing...

(the Bible calls it 'sealed'...Dan 12:8 As for me, I heard but could not understand; so I said, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?” 9.He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.)

'Jesus is the Israel of G-d'...Sorry does not compute, and does't align itself with any biblical perspective that I have ever come across...

'I do not see anything left unfinished in him'...Again what are you trying to say in relation to the present fact of extant Israel and the re-unification of the people with the Land as foretold through prophecy?

Again it has to be said that part of the whole problem that centres around the replacement theology argument is that Christians are seemingly happy enough to believe that the land of Israel and the Jewish people no longer figure in the plans of G-d as they have been superceded by the New Covenant and because of disobedience have basically been disowned by G-d....and this despite the many Scriptures that affirm G-ds love for Israel and His plans for their future restoration as a people in the Land and eventually grafted back into the natural Olive Tree.

Amos 9
13 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“When the plowman will overtake the reaper
And the treader of grapes him who sows seed;
When the mountains will drip sweet wine
And all the hills will be dissolved.

14 “Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel,
And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them;
They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine,
And make gardens and eat their fruit.

15 “I will also plant them on their land,
And they will not again be rooted out from their land
Which I have given them,”
Says the LORD your God.

It is my understanding (imperfect though it may be) that the Jewish people are doing what is called 'redeeming the land'.e.g making Israel flourish and the desert to bloom...this is the Physical picture of what G-d is going to cause to happen to Israel Spiritually...that they might know their Redeemer lives. (1 Cor 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.)

 

[Zeek]

I would not say that the jews killed Jesus is an "extreme view" of Replacement Theology
it is not like it is on a spectrum and one side is this and the other side is that

and what do pro-Palestinian groups have to do with a talk on replacement theology?
Christian churches have often spoken out against injustices
apartheid in south Africa
oppression in the Soviet Union
recently with the tragedy in Bangladesh, many Christian churches are speaking out in favor of workers rights
it makes sense that the Palestinians would try to get help from Christians?

Sorry missed your post...just briefly so as not to get side-tracked...

Replacement theology means different things to different people, and this is expressed in different ways...hence my seeing a clear spectrum of understanding, I used the 'extreme vs the soft' as ways of expressing the diversity.

Pro-Pal groups find a welcome mainly within Churches that have a replacement theological stance...I have found that the two things are often complimentary. The Pro-Pal groups may well use human rights issues as the grounds for their visit, but my experience has shown that what they are really after is endorsement of their policies which are firstly the demonization and delegitimization of Israel, and secondly her total deconstruction...therefore it is very pertinent to Replacement Theology that provides a spring-board to anti-Zionist/Israel/Jew propaganda and ideologies...and actively works against godly principles.

 

[Purge187]

Paul told us all we need to know about Replacement Theology in Romans: "I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not!"

It's true that the majority of Jews don't put their faith in Jesus, but when you think about it, tne majority of Gentiles don't either.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
What is your view on how much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled? Thanks...


http://www.christianforums.com/t7392923/
How much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled

4-22 is talking about the lead up to and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70
23-28 describes the current age,
29-31 describe what is yet to come,
32-51 give warnings to believers

Thks for that info. So your view is "Partial Preterist"?

There appears to be some division among Preterists on how much of it is fulfilled.

I helped out a bit with the author of this commentary on Matt 24 and she admitted she was a bit "stumped" beyond verse 34

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenend.html

Bait and Switch?

I had promised that although I am not dogmatic beyond verse 34 that I would explore the issue of Matthew 24 past that point a bit.
However, though I may build on this section in the future, it is not intended to be comprehensive as was the prior section.

There are two primary camps within preterism on this issue:
one view holds that there is a break in Matthew 24 beginning with either verse 35 or 36 [Switch-On],
and another that holds that the entire enchilada primarily belongs to the first century [Switch-Off].
Proponents of the former view include Dan Trotter and Gary DeMar,and
proponents of the latter include Kenneth Gentry and Marcellus Kik.

Frankly there are strong arguments for both, and I have held both positions, in fact in writing this piece I have waffled - when I started writing I was becoming very convinced of a Pro-Switch view, now upon writing it I am back to my former position of a No-Switch view.

If in fact there is any change after verse 34, this would be what I would propose (I have not—or my poor memory is not allowing me to recall—read anyone who has made this type of the characterization): the entire Discourse has primary and typological ramifications as does almost the entirety of the Bible, properly understood.
The subject matter up to verse 34 is strongly primarily speaking of the first century and only very loosely can have thematic application to the future.
After verse 34, Jesus speaks much more loosely, doesn't give a strong time referent and refers in ways that can refer to either the first century, the consummation, or both. I have swayed in various positions so it is unknown if this will be my final resting place. . . . (after completely writing this piece, I am saying probably not).



.

 

[Rhamiel]

why do Christian zionests think that the physical land of Israel belongs to the Jews who reject Jesus insted of the Jews who joined His Church?

the Christian Church is not made up of only Gentiles, it is made up of Jews and Gentiles who follow Jesus

also, many of the promises in the OT are conditional, ifyou do the will of God, He will bless you and your family ect ect ect

do you have any reason to believe that the Jews who rebel agianst Christ would be favored with land rather then the Jews who follow Christ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

why do Christian zionests think that the physical land of Israel belongs to the Jews who reject Jesus insted of the Jews who joined His Church?

the Christian Church is not made up of only Gentiles, it is made up of Jews and Gentiles who follow Jesus

also, many of the promises in the OT are conditional, ifyou do the will of God, He will bless you and your family ect ect ect

do you have any reason to believe that the Jews who rebel agianst Christ would be favored with land rather then the Jews who follow Christ?

Concerning Christian Zionists, this is the response I got from a member concerning my remark about my view of Israel just being another country:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7425735/#post62966813
Christian Zionism - a modern-day heresy?

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Israel is just another country to me.
​

I find it puzzling in the light of Israels historical and spiritual significance that many Christians probably share similar sentiments, I would have thought it would evoke a more positive and passionate response....and like I tried to get across before...

what concerns G-d should also concern us, and my Bible shows He is deeply committed to Israel and the Jewish people for His name's sake.

Is 49:

14 But Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me,
And the Lord has forgotten me.”
15 “Can a woman forget her nursing child
And have no compassion on the son of her womb?
Even these may forget, but I will not forget you.
16 “Behold, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands;
Your walls are continually before Me.

The religion of Judaism practiced in Israel is "anti-Christian" and therefore can even be labeled as an "anti-Christ" religion, since they do not believe Jesus was their Messiah/Redeemer.

But over the centuries, many Jews have come to Christ, and I believe that many more will come to Him over the next coming centuries

....................

 

[PaladinValer]

why do Christian zionests think that the physical land of Israel belongs to the Jews who reject Jesus insted of the Jews who joined His Church?

Because they follow non-Christian doctrines like dual covenant theology...

the Christian Church is not made up of only Gentiles, it is made up of Jews and Gentiles who follow Jesus

Agreed. The whole Jew-priority is rather racist...which is really very hypocritical of them when they accuse people like you and me all the time of being "Antisemites".

 

[Rhamiel]

Agreed. The whole Jew-priority is rather racist...which is really very hypocritical of them when they accuse people like you and me all the time of being "Antisemites".

I might be mistaken
but I think the modern view of Zionism is even more racist then the ancient view of Israel
I might be wrong, but other tribes were given special status as vassels of the Israel, I think there is a verse about what tribes the Jews could leave alone and what tribes they had to wipe out
and the Moabites were taken as slaves or something?
but even as slaves they would have been a protected part of Israel.
or am I mistaken?

 

[motherprayer]

STOP. I didn't intend for this to turn into a racist thread, or a thread ABOUT racism.

 

[PaladinValer]

I might be mistaken
but I think the modern view of Zionism is even more racist then the ancient view of Israel

They certainly think that Christians take a second seat; that's for sure.

I might be wrong, but other tribes were given special status as vassels of the Israel, I think there is a verse about what tribes the Jews could leave alone and what tribes they had to wipe out
and the Moabites were taken as slaves or something?
but even as slaves they would have been a protected part of Israel.
or am I mistaken?

Whether that is so or not, the point is, God commanded the Hebrew people to remember the foreigners in their lands because they were once foreigners in a different land to. Foreigners were expected to adhere to certain prohibitions, but the Hebrew people were told directly to treat them as fellow human beings if you will, not scum. Sadly, Christian Zionists don't either remember this...or they choose to ignore it.

 

[Habakk]

What is your view on how much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled? Thanks...


http://www.christianforums.com/t7392923/
How much of Matthew 24 is fulfilled



.

Like the nature of Psalm 22 (speaks of David and his immediate situation but also prophetically of the Lord and the crucifixion) the passage in Matthew speaks both of the then immediate situation, near future and end times.

Matthew 24: 1-2 Has historic fulfilment in the destruction of the temple.

Matthew 24: 3 Disciples ask three questions.

Matthew 24: 23 – 28 speaks both about the immediate situation leading to destruction of Jerusalem with the usual prophetic overtones of the end times.

Matthew 24 29-31 Future fulfilment and speaks about the end of the age just before the millennial reign.

Matthew 24 32-51 The Fig tree is the land of Israel and much of the content speaks again about the near future but as typical of biblical prophecy the complete picture applies to the end times.

End time prophecy is always hidden or contained within other prophetic uttering. Prophecy is fulfilled within the current historic setting or near future. However several key features remain unfulfilled as they refer to the very end times.

All the prophets display these trends of fulfilment in abundance.

 

[PaladinValer]

STOP. I didn't intend for this to turn into a racist thread, or a thread ABOUT racism.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of the debate IS about racism. Many Christians who do reject supercessionism do so because they view us as racists. This thread is proof of that, and if you'd like to see more, I can oblige by bringing you to a thread where I was personally attacked by several Christian Zionists who called me a racist and, basically, a Nazi.

It is part of the whole debate. That's why they call supercessionism "Replacement theology"; because they believe (wrongly) we are putting the Jews "in their place".

 

[Habakk]

Because they follow non-Christian doctrines like dual covenant theology...

Dual covenant theology is not an accurat description of the beliefs. It's just another inacurate label confusing the issue and is far from the truth.

You really have no idea what other believe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

STOP. I didn't intend for this to turn into a racist thread, or a thread ABOUT racism.

Judaism and Jews are a Religion, not a race, and a lot of Jews are not even pure Semitic/Hebrew, tho I could be wrong on that.

Notice what our bro Paul said here, remembering he was of the tribe of Benjamin, which joined with the tribes of Judah and Levi in the OT which created the House of Judah after the split of Solomon. Thoughts?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=race&t=YLT&sf=5
"race"
occurs 10 times in 10 verses in the YLT

Phl 3:5
circumcision on the eighth day! of the race of Israel! of the tribe of Benjamin!
a Hebrew of Hebrews! according to law a Pharisee!

Act 10:28
And he said unto them, `Ye know how it is unlawful for a man, a Jew, to keep company with, or to come unto, one of another race,
but to me God did shew to call no man common or unclean;

.

 

[Habakk]

STOP. I didn't intend for this to turn into a racist thread, or a thread ABOUT racism.

The thread seems to have now lost its way.