Replacement Theology Refuted

jgr said:

Scripture interprets, clarifies, amplifies, and illuminates Scripture.

Scripture does not "suppress" Scripture. The Scripture I cite does not "suppress" the Scripture you cite.

Your "suppression" allegation is false.

Click to expand...

But your doctrines suppress scripture, especially the grammatical-historical interpretation of scripture.

claninja said:

My interpretation is simply reading romans 9, which clearly has hosea 1:10 and hosea 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the gentiles, with Jews, as the vessels of mercy.

Romans 9:24-26 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Paul does not mention Ephraim.

Click to expand...

As I stated, your interpretation is anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally. The preponderance of the context of Romans 9 concerns who is the true Israel God amongst the descendants of Jacob and Abraham and parenthetically the inclusion of the gentiles as chosen vessels also. Your comment that Paul does not mention Ephraim especially shows a lack of erudition, anthropologically as well as scripturally. Every time Paul used the term “Israel” he is referring principally to Ephraim and Manasseh according to scripture.


And this is why the title “Israel” went to the northern kingdom, as opposed to the southern. I’ll stick to the chronological and anthropological accuracy of the grammatical-historical interpretation of scripture, which maintains the principal interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 pertains to Ephraim, your supersessionism notwithstanding.

claninja said:

Yes, I was. How many times have I said now that Ephraim became as gentiles?

Hosea 1:9 And the Lord said, “Call his name Not My People,b for you are not my people, and I am not your God.”c

Click to expand...

You obviously think your repetition of an anachronistic and anthropological misrepresentation makes it acceptable. Isaiah 11:13, Ezekiel 37:19 and Hosea 1:10 substantiate the grammatical-historical interpretation that the 10 northern tribes are perceived by God as a nation and people, Ephraim, at the second advent. This and other evidence expose supersessionism as fallacious.

claninja said:

The prophesies of enmity between Judah and Ephraim are found fulfilled with Judah persecuting the body of Christ, according to Paul.

Galatians 4:28-29 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.

Click to expand...

See, your backpedaling. You conceded that Ephraim was gathered in Christ at the first advent to proclaim the great commission. There is the enmity between Judah and Ephraim that was prophesied in Zechariah 11:14, by your own concession. Throughout our controversy, you had conceded that Ephraim is contrasted from Judah in that Ephraim accepted the gospel and Judah did not, the remnant of Judah through the apostles notwithstanding. As I stated, this is clear backpedaling.

claninja said:

So the enmity doesn't end by Judah and Ephraim becoming brothers under Christ?

hosea 1:11 And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head.

Ezekiel 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms

Click to expand...

Supersessionism has difficulty discerning fulfillment from consummation. The process of reconciling Ephraim and Judah commences with the first advent, it begins to be fulfilled, but it is exclusively consummated upon the second, then all Israel will be saved, according to Romans 11:26. Isaiah 11:13, Ezekiel 37:19 and Hosea 1:10 concern the consummation, not the commencement at the first advent. The kingdom of Christ is consummated, established, at his return and not the first advent, which what Christ relates when he proclaimed, he did not come to bring peace in Matthew 10:34. Until the consummation, he waits until his enemies are made his footstool (Psalms 110).

claninja said:

Correct, Paul is discussing the enmity between biological descendants of Abraham and Gentiles. However, under the old covenant at the time of Christ, where does Ephraim fall in regards to the commonwealth of Israel and recipients of the promise, Jews or Gentiles?

Ephesians 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world

Ephraim was separated from the commonwealth of Israel and covenants of promise at the Assyrian exile, they became "not my people". They became as gentiles. Ephraim had been cut out of the root 700 years prior to Christ.

Hosea 1:8-9 When she had weaned No Mercy, she conceived and bore a son. And the Lord said, “Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God.

Thus, the killing of hostility between Jew and Gentile, by Christ abolishing the law, fulfills the end of hostility between Judah and Ephraim.

Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Click to expand...

Note that you cannot resist agreeing with THT that the prophecies of Ephraim were commenced at the first advent! They took the great commission, while the Jews as a nation did not, which created the enmity. Your conceding Ephraim is amongst the gentiles; I agree. And you previously had to concede that Ephraim took up the great commission; I agree. What supersessionism has difficulty discerning is fulfillment from consummation; they are related, but not the same.

claninja said:

I disagree with your interpretation, most likely because we disagree with the definition of the kingdom of God.

Jesus has the kingdom of God coming upon those in the 1st century

Matthew 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Jesus states some in front of him would not die until they kingdom of God after is comes with power.

mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”

Click to expand...

Again, supersessionism has difficulty discerning fulfillment from consummation; the "kingdom of God" is obviously not the promised Davidic kingdom when the grammatical-historical interpretation is upheld. The object of the Davidic Kingdom is to restore the promised land to the biological descendants, including Samaria, and execute justice and righteousness so that Judah and Israel/Ephraim can dwell securely.


Christ’s proclamation that he did not come to bring peace in Matthew 10:34 and the evidence in the NT that we must endure fiery trials until he returns (1 Peter 4”12-13), such as injustice and unrighteousness, is clear evidence that we are not abiding in the Davidic kingdom. That is not to say that some elements of the Davidic kingdom do not manifest in this age, such as John 14:27, but the Davidic kingdom simply cannot be upheld as this age through the NT. As I stated supersessionism has difficulty discerning fulfillment from consummation.

claninja said:

Satan has two little seasons?

Revelation 20:3 After that he must be released for a little while.

Revelation 12:12 because he knows that his time is short!”

Click to expand...

You’re failing to take into account Satan is cast to the earth in Revelation 12 and makes war with the saints, which is recapped in the next chapter. In the next chapter Satan, the dragon, gives the sea-beast his throne and great authority over “all the world” to war with the saints and overcome them, for the same amount of time the woman is in the wilderness. In Revelation 20:3 the dragon, Satan, is stripped of this ability to deceive the nations and is cast in a pit for 1000 years and then released to fulfill the prophecy of Ezekiel 38. In Ezekiel 38 God has Gog come against the “land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.” Gog says, “I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land” (Ezekiel 38:8-12). Ezekiel’s description of the land of unwalled villages is precisely the security that Jeremiah 23:1-6 prophecies about the Davidic kingdom. There is no doubt in the minds of those who maintain the grammatical-historical interpretation, as well as progressive revelation, that the Revelation upholds premillennialism as opposed to the amillennialism or postmillennialism that you're asserting. BTW, which is it that you are asserting?

claninja said:

I disagree, as Jesus received his kingdom upon ascension to the Father.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Daysand was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return.

Click to expand...

As I confirmed, Christ can retain the authority that he had laid aside to become a man (Philippians 2:6-10), and yet not consummate the Davidic kingdom.

claninja said:

Which spring festival involved the high priest entering the holy places, in the presence of God, once a year? I'm not quite familiar with that spring feast.....

Hebrews 9:24-25 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own

The veil was not the presence of God.

Which "holy places" is the author of the Hebrews talking about the first compartment or the second compartment?
Hebrews 9:7-8 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing.

So you don't believe Christ has yet atoned for sin?

Click to expand...

The earthly temple was a shadow of the heavenly sanctuary; the heavenly sanctuary is not bound by the earthly one. Hebrews 10:20 reveals Christ as the antitype of the veil suspended in the earthly sanctuary, and as that antitype, he resumed the presence of the Father to offer himself as the antitype of the Passover lamb to put away sin, which what Hebrews 9 conveys. As the mediator between man and God he had held that position before he humbled himself to become a man (Philippians 2:6-10). Supersessionism’s perception that the phenomenon of Hebrews 9:24-25 conveys the day of atonement is based on the nuances of the “presence” of God and “every year” to force their perception into the context that Christ “put away sin” at the first advent. As I stated, the nuances are explained by Christ is the antitype of the veil and that the phrase “every year” is explained by the “daily” sin offerings performed at the earthly sanctuary, in essence, done year after year. The preponderance of the context does not hold to the perception that the day of atonement was performed at the first advent, in indifference with the seven months that separated the spring and autumnal festivals.

Daniel 7, in contrast, conveys the antitype of the autumnal festivals. The judgment that is set in verses 9-10 is for the purpose of taking away the dominion of the little horn and to destroy and consume him, and to give that same dominion that the little horn ruled to the saints in verses 26-27. Of course, this kingdom must be secure for the saints, which I addressed in my preceding comments.

jgr said:

Since you claim knowledge of "my doctrines", I invite you to select any Scripture from those which I've cited, and explain how "my doctrines" suppress that Scripture.

Click to expand...

Your doctrines have been put forth by claninja and I've been addressing them. If you have anything original I'll address it.