Replacement Theology

[Verve]

I guess you could say I've been doing some research and am amazed by the number of different things I've heard people say they believe or don't.

What are your thoughts on replacement theology, also called supersessionism?

Supersessionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Metal Minister]

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.

 

[crimsonleaf]

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.

 

[Verve]

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.

 

[Metal Minister]

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?

 

[crimsonleaf]

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

 

[Epoisses]

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.

 

[bugkiller]

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

 

[Epoisses]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[Epoisses]

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.

 

[Clare73]

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

 

[mrs94]

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."

 

[Hentenza]

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.

 

[Hentenza]

I guess you could say I've been doing some research and am amazed by the number of different things I've heard people say they believe or don't.

What are your thoughts on replacement theology, also called supersessionism?

Supersessionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its bunk.

 

[Epoisses]

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.

 

[Epoisses]

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.

 

[mrs94]

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.

 

[Epoisses]

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.

 

[crimsonleaf]

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 (!)