Please Stop Saying "Replacement Theology"

[Dave-W]

The above is also an overstatement and hence not true.

But it has been TAUGHT to the church from that day onward.

 

[A Realist]

The boundaries of the land of Israel are set in Numbers 34. That is a fact

Israel was given all of this land by God, as stated in Joshua 21:43-45. That is a fact.

And yet they never occupied nor did they "conquer" the greater part of the land within those boundaries.

The only time they set foot on land near the Euphrates was during the Babylonian exile. And even then they didn't occupy it. They were exiles in a land occupied by someone else.

Your example is meaningless for the reason I've stated above.

 

[Dave-W]

Where does scripture teach that God accepts into His eternal Heaven those who reject Him after they have died physically?
I can only find the opposite taught.

the opposite is taught under New Covenant theology. Not much said about it under the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants. And that was the covenant(s) in force at the time.

 

[parousia70]

You are taking this farther and farther away from the OP about replacement theology by bringing up a bunch of side issues.

Rather they are PARAMOUNT to the Issue of Identification of Israel and the Church.

 

[GingerBeer]

He was talking about the OT scriptures.

But according to Romans 3.1-2, even the NT scriptures belong to the Jews.

Romans 3:1-2 does not teach that the Jews - those who remain Jews rejecting Jesus Christ rather than receiving Christ and becoming Christians - own the scriptures. The passage teaches that the Jews who come to Christ are the ones who have an interest in God's kingdom while those who reject Jesus Christ do not.

Romans 3:1-8 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, "That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged." 5 But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?--as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

​

 

[parousia70]

And yet they never occupied nor did they "conquer" the greater part of the land within those boundaries.

The only time they set foot on land near the Euphrates was during the Babylonian exile. And even then they didn't occupy it. They were exiles in a land occupied by someone else.

Your example is meaningless for the reason I've stated above.

Hardly... claninja is 100% correct.
I own land I've never set foot on, much less "occupied" or Conquered"... but I still own it. It still is 100% MY Possession and Belongs ONLY to me.

 

[GingerBeer]

But it has been TAUGHT to the church from that day onward.

It is not "replacement theology" it is just exaggeration and overstatement.

 

[Dave-W]

Word: ekklhsia
Pronounce: ek-klay-see'-ah
Strongs Number: G1577

New American Standard uses "congregation" which is the proper translation from the ORIGINAL Hebrew kehilat.

The Hebrew OT never uses the word ekklesia.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The term "replacement theology" is not helpful because:

1. It is uncharitable. It does not seek to listen to or understand covenant theology, but rather to dismiss it without giving it a proper hearing.
   
   
2. It is pejorative. It's meant to cause harm by making our views seem ridiculous and not worthy of consideration.
   
   
3. It is not accurate. No one would assume this label for themselves because no one believes that the church has "replaced" Israel. When this label is used, what comes across is that our views have not really been understood and the person that we're communicating with does not care to take the time to understand our views.

So please stop using the term "replacement theology". Thanks!

Or, maybe we all just need to get off of our respective bandwagons and quite pretending on either side (since both sides do it) that the Bible, even the Apostle Paul, is just so clear, exacting or comprehensive in scope when explaining to us just what "Israel" is, now?

That way, we'll all have to be accountable for looking at what the Scriptures say on the whole, doing our best to thoughtfully, even if sometimes studiously, assess the nature of just what exactly happened between the Law and the Grace of Jesus, between the pre-Christian Jews and the Christians (both Jew and Gentile), and between whether or not Old Israel was displaced by a new ideal of Israel.

Perhaps? I mean, if I weren't open to hear what both sides have to say (sometimes more than those two), then I wouldn't say what I've just said. I agree with you that Covenant theology deserves a hearing among all of us Christians, along with all of the other non-comprehensive attempts to systematize what, I think, God hasn't left for anyone to 'systematize.'

 

[Dave-W]

It is not "replacement theology" it is just exaggeration and overstatement.

Unless you yourself are Jewish you do not get to define what is and is not replacement theology.

 

[parousia70]

Unless you yourself are Jewish you do not get to define what is and is not replacement theology.

Yet here you are doing just that.
Are you the exception to your own rule?

 

[claninja]

Joshua 1.

Joshua 21:43-45 Thus the LORD gave Israel all the land He had sworn to give their fathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, just as He had sworn to their fathers. None of their enemies could stand against them, for the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; everything was fulfilled.

 

[His student]

You can refer back to MY POST #54 in this thread for a brief explanation of that biblical truth if you'd like.

Thanks - I have now done so.

The church always was the covenanted Israel, the church continues to be the covenanted Israel. The only difference is that the NEW covenant of Israel enabled Jewish fullness to be bestowed upon gentile people groups (Gen 12:3).

So the church has not replaced Israel. OT Israel was the church in that period. With the coming of Jesus it has taken a different form. But it is fundamentally one body united to one savior.

I sounds like you guys are pretty much on the same page. I don't think I disagree with you but with one very strong caveat.

I believe in a literal Tribulation period where most or all of national Israel on the earth will come to believe on their Messiah.

Time will tell - but it may well be (put perhaps not) that only those ethnic Jews will believe, reject the Mark of the Beast and be saved to show themselves as among the elect and the true Israel of God. It may well be also that only a remnant of those will physically survive the wrath of the anti-Christ and be alive to see the physical return of Jesus to the earth to rule with a rod of iron for 1000 years.

I believe the scriptures where they tell us about His 1000 year reign.

That remnant will then repopulate the earth and it is their decedents who will rebel at the end of the Millennium - just as they did in the wilderness.

It is my understanding that most of the ones usually labeled "replacement theology" types - spiritualize the promises given to Israel in the O.T. and do the same with those in the N.T.

I disagree with that formulation. In fact I think it bears a strong resemblance to what people do with other doctrines they have trouble with. I don't want to litigate those doctrines here - but people tend to ignore or twist those areas they have trouble with reconciling with their other beliefs rather than striving to combine the two if possible. As a result they fall into a ditch since, as the Lord taught us, only those who have listened carefully and received what the scriptures tell us will be given more.

It is perfectly consistent to believe as you guys do concerning the dual identity of Israel and the church and yet believe in a literal fulfillment of the promises to a national and even ethnic Israel.

But not doing so is why you are, for all intents and purposes, "replacing" the concept of a national Israel with the church.

Believe and reconcile all of the scriptures rather than picking and choosing what you are comfortable with and you will find that few have a problem with "covenant theology". I.e. - they will cease calling it things like replacement theology.

Until you rightly divide the Word of Truth in such a way - you must bear the insult of being branded as believers in replacement theology. That's pretty much what it amounts to as I see it.

 

[claninja]

And yet they never occupied nor did they "conquer" the greater part of the land within those boundaries.

There are parts of my property I do not occupy, that doesn't mean its not mine.

Your going to have to explain why the following verses are wrong then.

Joshua 21:43-45 Thus the LORD gave Israel all the land He had sworn to give their fathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, just as He had sworn to their fathers. None of their enemies could stand against them, for the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; everything was fulfilled.

The only time they set foot on land near the Euphrates was during the Babylonian exile. And even then they didn't occupy it.

What evidence do you have for this claim?

Your example is meaningless for the reason I've stated above.

The reasons you stated don't counter logical reasoning that when you are given a piece of property, it is yours even if you don't occupy all of it.

 

[A Realist]

Hardly... claninja is 100% correct.
I own land I've never set foot on, much less "occupied" or Conquered"... but I still own it. It still is 100% MY Possession and Belongs ONLY to me.

But you still possess it, right?

Ancient Israel never possessed the whole of the land as described in Joshua 1. NEVER.

 

[GingerBeer]

Unless you yourself are Jewish you do not get to define what is and is not replacement theology.

Yes, I do get to define it as much as anybody else. But it is obvious now after your post that you do not intend to discuss this matter properly. Thanks for your comments. I will stop responding to your comments until they are open enough to promote proper discussion.

 

[parousia70]

Thanks - I have now done so.
I sounds like you guys are pretty much on the same page. I don't think I disagree with you but with one very strong caveat.

I believe in a literal Tribulation period where most or all of national Israel on the earth will come to believe on their Messiah.

Time will tell - but it may well be that only those ethnic Jews will believe, reject the Mark of the Beast and be saved to show themselves as among the elect and the true Israel of God. It may well be also that only a remnant of those will physically survive the wrath of the anti-Christ and be alive to see the physical return of Jesus to the earth to rule with a rod of iron for 1000 years.

What, in your view, constitutes "Ethnic Jews & National Israel"?

 

[A Realist]

Joshua 21:43-45 Thus the LORD gave Israel all the land He had sworn to give their fathers, and they took possession of it and settled there.

....but not the land as stated in Joshua 1:1

 

[parousia70]

But you still possess it, right?

Ancient Israel never possessed the whole of the land as described. NEVER.

Sure they did.
Again, one can, in fact, possess a piece of Land they NEVER set foot on.

 

[A Realist]

What evidence do you have for this claim?

Historical fact shows they did not.

What evidence do you have that they did?