• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Replacement Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metal Minister

New Year, Still Old School!
May 8, 2012
12,142
591
✟44,999.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's a very interesting idea. I myself (being a "gentile") would never have been under the old covenant to begin with as far as I know. In fact Jesus sent Paul and Peter to spread the word amongst the differing peoples, with Peter for the Jews, and Paul for the gentiles. You have certainly got me thinking! I think you may find most major differences come between denominations for the most part.
 
Upvote 0
C

crimsonleaf

Guest
John MacArthur is interesting on this subject. He describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist" and decries replacement theology as unbiblical. His main point is that the covenant made with Abraham by God was unilateral, ie had no promise or agreement from Abraham. God acted alone in making the covenant and on that basis there is nothing Abraham (the Jews) can do to break it. Because (MacArthur argues) God still sees the covenant as valid, all His promises are valid, and the Jews will eventually get their kingdom, with all references to "Israel" in the bible applying to Israel literally, and not the Church as some would have it.

His whole argument is about 8 hours long on mp3, and can be found free on the Grace to You website, under eschatology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Verve
Upvote 0

Verve

No grit, no pearl.
Apr 12, 2011
11,307
1,382
✟39,640.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I got interested when I was poking around the MJ section of CF.

When I was younger I remember being taught more replacement and there was a large focus on grace.

As I've gotten older and approached other studies I find myself drawn more towards the Calvinist ideas of Covenant Theology. That it's all the same covenant from the beginning.

Though I've also read a bit about Olive Tree Theology, I'm currently trying to see how that is different from Calvinist Covenant Theology.
 
Upvote 0

Metal Minister

New Year, Still Old School!
May 8, 2012
12,142
591
✟44,999.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
crimsonleaf said:
John MacArthur is interesting on this subject. He describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist" and decries replacement theology as unbiblical. His main point is that the covenant made with Abraham by God was unilateral, ie had no promise or agreement from Abraham. God acted alone in making the covenant and on that basis there is nothing Abraham (the Jews) can do to break it. Because (MacArthur argues) God still sees the covenant as valid, all His promises are valid, and the Jews will eventually get their kingdom, with all references to "Israel" in the bible applying to Israel literally, and not the Church as some would have it.

His whole argument is about 8 hours long on mp3, and can be found free on the Grace to You website, under eschatology.

I love John MacArthur, but I may have to disagree with him here. Do you know the names of the sermons, or can you provide a link to them?
 
Upvote 0
C

crimsonleaf

Guest
I love John MacArthur, but I may have to disagree with him here. Do you know the names of the sermons, or can you provide a link to them?

I realised afterwards that it's a big website and MacArthur's indexing is dire. The link to the free, downloadable mp3's is here:

Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist

I'm unsure of my own dispy/covenant premil/amil status, so I investigate anything! That said, I've listened to over 200 hours of JM's sermons. He's a good teacher and seems to know his stuff.

Edit again: Here's a useful blog rebutting dispensationalism. Click on the word "dispensationalism" in the tag cloud to read more. This should help with the replacement theology argument:

Darby’s Dubious Method of Bible Intepretation : RealApologetics Blog
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Epoisses

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2012
429
23
East coast
✟671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
His main point is that the covenant made with Abraham by God was unilateral, ie had no promise or agreement from Abraham. God acted alone in making the covenant and on that basis there is nothing Abraham (the Jews) can do to break it.

The covenant given to Abraham and the new covenant are essentially the same thing. Most don't realize that the covenant of promise and the covenant of law (given to Moses) are both found in the Torah. This is why Paul used Hagar and Isaac as types of the two.
 
Upvote 0

bugkiller

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2015
17,773
2,629
✟95,400.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
The covenant given to Abraham and the new covenant are essentially the same thing. Most don't realize that the covenant of promise and the covenant of law (given to Moses) are both found in the Torah. This is why Paul used Hagar and Isaac as types of the two.
How are they essentially the same thing?

bugkiller
 
Upvote 0

Epoisses

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2012
429
23
East coast
✟671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How are they essentially the same thing?

bugkiller

Both are based on God's promise to make us righteous without having to try or work or keep the law. The only requirement on our part in the covenant of promise is faith or belief. 'Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness.' 'Therefore only those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham.'

You don't think they're the same thing? Abraham wasn't given any Law to keep.
 
Upvote 0

bugkiller

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2015
17,773
2,629
✟95,400.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Both are based on God's promise to make us righteous without having to try or work or keep the law. The only requirement on our part in the covenant of promise is faith or belief. 'Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness.' 'Therefore only those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham.'

You don't think they're the same thing? Abraham wasn't given any Law to keep.
Nope! Please read Gen 26:5 most often quoted by the SDA and MJ folks. And Jer 31:31-34 might be interesting. Yes I know very well it is usually only applied to the covenant made with the COI at Sinai.

bugkiller
 
Upvote 0

Epoisses

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2012
429
23
East coast
✟671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nope! Please read Gen 26:5 most often quoted by the SDA and MJ folks. And Jer 31:31-34 might be interesting. Yes I know very well it is usually only applied to the covenant made with the COI at Sinai.

bugkiller

Wrong. The covenant given to Abraham and the one given to Moses are not the same. Paul used Abraham over and over as a type of the covenant of faith. Faith was not a requirement for the old covenannt. Only outward compliance to a set of laws. The bible is clear that Abraham did obey God's word and commandments but it was by faith. If we look at Abraham's performance, he lied several times, he killed and went to war and showed a lack of faith when he listened to his wife and slept with Hagar. Not a shining example of commandment keeping.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
30,182
7,788
North Carolina
✟369,453.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
John MacArthur is interesting on this subject. He describes himself as a "leaky dispensationalist" and decries replacement theology as unbiblical. His main point is that the covenant made with Abraham by God was unilateral, ie had no promise or agreement from Abraham. God acted alone in making the covenant and on that basis there is nothing Abraham (the Jews) can do to break it. Because (MacArthur argues) God still sees the covenant as valid, all His promises are valid, and the Jews will eventually get their kingdom, with all references to "Israel" in the bible applying to Israel literally, and not the Church as some would have it.

His whole argument is about 8 hours long on mp3, and can be found free on the Grace to You website, under eschatology.
Does he address:

"Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of heaven will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. . .When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them." (Mt 21:43-45)

In the faith,
Clare
 
Upvote 0

mrs94

Follower of Yeshua
Sep 29, 2012
211
13
✟22,892.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Both are based on God's promise to make us righteous without having to try or work or keep the law. The only requirement on our part in the covenant of promise is faith or belief. 'Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness.' 'Therefore only those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham.'

You don't think they're the same thing? Abraham wasn't given any Law to keep.

Abraham was given the circumcision commandment. Furthermore, he knew something of God's ways without having the Holy Spirit to guide him. Kind of interesting when you think about it.

Genesis 18:19 "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
38,996
6,631
On the bus to Heaven
✟234,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wrong. The covenant given to Abraham and the one given to Moses are not the same. Paul used Abraham over and over as a type of the covenant of faith. Faith was not a requirement for the old covenannt. Only outward compliance to a set of laws. The bible is clear that Abraham did obey God's word and commandments but it was by faith. If we look at Abraham's performance, he lied several times, he killed and went to war and showed a lack of faith when he listened to his wife and slept with Hagar. Not a shining example of commandment keeping.

Everyone that was saved in the OT was saved through faith. See Hebrews 11. Faith is what saves.
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Site Supporter
Mar 27, 2007
38,996
6,631
On the bus to Heaven
✟234,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Epoisses

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2012
429
23
East coast
✟671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Everyone that was saved in the OT was saved through faith. See Hebrews 11. Faith is what saves.

I agree but if you study the first five books of the bible (Torah) - faith was not a requirement. God said over and over to the Israelites, keep my commandments and do them. He wasn't concerned with motive only outward compliance. Therfore the old or Mosaic covenant was far different than the Abrahamic covenant and herein lies the problem.
 
Upvote 0

Epoisses

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2012
429
23
East coast
✟671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Abraham was given the circumcision commandment. Furthermore, he knew something of God's ways without having the Holy Spirit to guide him. Kind of interesting when you think about it.

Genesis 18:19 "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."

Yes, Abraham was given circumcission which was a sign of the righteousness he had by faith. And because faith was so little understood back then the sign turned into a work which needed to be performed in order to be saved. Which was a main point of contention all the way up to Christ's day. There is nothing that the sinner can do to save him or herself. This is the one message that never changes from Adam to the end of the world.
 
Upvote 0

mrs94

Follower of Yeshua
Sep 29, 2012
211
13
✟22,892.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Yes, Abraham was given circumcission which was a sign of the righteousness he had by faith. And because faith was so little understood back then the sign turned into a work which needed to be performed in order to be saved. Which was a main point of contention all the way up to Christ's day. There is nothing that the sinner can do to save him or herself. This is the one message that never changes from Adam to the end of the world.

Let me be clear. I believe, as you, that faith alone saves. But, you said that Abraham had no law (ie. rule) given to him when he clearly did.
 
Upvote 0

Epoisses

Well-Known Member
Apr 26, 2012
429
23
East coast
✟671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Let me be clear. I believe, as you, that faith alone saves. But, you said that Abraham had no law (ie. rule) given to him when he clearly did.

Abraham was given circumcision as a sign of the covenant and he also offered sacrifice. Both were signs of faith but were perverted by the Jews into legalistic works.

Romans chap. 4 gives a good expose on the importance and meaning of circumcision. It can be seen as a sign of righteousness by faith or as a rule which must be performed to be saved. Gentiles could be saved without being circumcised so it's all about faith not rules.
 
Upvote 0
C

crimsonleaf

Guest
Does he address:

"Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of heaven will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. . .When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them." (Mt 21:43-45)

In the faith,
Clare
Yes he does Clare. He argues that the parable speaks of a temporary situation, rectified when the Jews finally inherit their kingdom. He also argues that Reformed believers should take special note, because if God reneges on His promises to Abraham, given in a unilateral covenant and therefore not conditional on Abraham's or the Jews behaviour, then who's to say He won't renege on His promises of salvation to the Church.

It's an interesting listen if you have eight hours to spare (!)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.