SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : "replacement theology"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Honestly, I've never understood that replacement theology. It's such hogwash...


this could serve as a good definition of bigotry.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/6 5:01Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re: what is replaced with what?

I realize that a new thread has been started but I am bumping this one, because I am more comfortable with the less "charged" thread heading.

In a sense I firmly believe in replacement theology: “The old has gone the new has come”. “I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I that liveth, but Christ that liveth in me.” It is about the old man being replaced by the New: Christ – the seed promised to Abraham.

Also I believe in the replacement of the temporal with the eternal, the perishable with the imperishable, the natural with the spiritual (from 1 Cor. 15) Replacement is found in the resurrection!

But, alas, as long as this good theology is not cracked open in our hearts and consciences of man is useless, if not dangerous – merely a “theology”.

This morning the Lord led me to a verse which I believe was meant to be attached to this topic. It is all about the OUTWORKING of this replaced (exchanged) life:

“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience. Bear with one another and FORGIVE whatever grievances you may have against one another, FORGIVE AS THE LORD FORGAVE YOU….” Co.. 3:12

The Bible has much to say about this new life that Christ came to give. And that is the life that links us with the eternal city: the New Jerusalem. That is what Abraham could see: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations whose architect and builder is God.” Heb. 11:10

I do not see replacement as a matter of replacing one temporal entity with another:

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus for all of you who were baptized with Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:26 (!!)
There is no place for hostility between races in the replaced (exchanged)life!

Apart from that New Life Abraham's descendents dwell in the Jerusalem which is from below: “Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in SLAVERY with her children. But the Jerusalem that is from above is FREE, and she is our mother.” Gal. 4:24

Am I sinning against anyone if I regard all who are saved, whether Jew or Gentile, as part of this kingdom – and nothing else? And if God does have a special role for our Jewish friends in a future era, surely that he can take care of it. Surely we don’t need to overly strain that issue. That just seems to get us into messy quagmire and rifts. How can we know who are genetically linked to Abraham? I may very well be. And with so many proselytes having been added to Judaism over the centuries – even during Bible days, I don’t think we can easily make two distinct groups of people, apart from a lot of misfires. Why! I just read on a site where the New Jerusalem was "proven" to be the Bible Belt in the USA (Wouldn't that make Abraham groan!)

Diane


_________________
Diane

 2007/3/6 11:59Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

Quote:
I just read on a site where the New Jerusalem was "proven" to be the Bible Belt in the USA (Wouldn't that make Abraham groan!)




WOW! As one brother said, "The Bible Belt holds up the pants of hypocrisy."


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2007/3/6 12:56Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

by roadsign on 2007/3/6 16:59:35

Quote:
In a sense I firmly believe in replacement theology: “The old has gone the new has come”. “I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I that liveth, but Christ that liveth in me.” It is about the old man being replaced by the New: Christ – the seed promised to Abraham.


I don't call myself a 'replacement theologian' but would prefer 'Transposition Theology'. That is my own label by which I hint at the way a tune can be transposed into another key.

Perhaps if we can gently examine some of the texts we can see where we may agree and where we may differ.Heb. 8:13 (KJVS) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb. 10:9 (KJVS) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
In your understanding what is the writer referring to in these two references. The phrase 'taketh away the first, that he may establish the second' could almost be a dictionary definition of the word 'replacement'. It seems to me that Hebrews is definitely teaching that the 'second' or 'new' covenant has 'replaced' the 'old'. How do you see these passages?

edited 07/03/2007
My online dictionary...
replacement |riˈplāsmənt| noun the action or process of replacing someone or something : the replacement of religion by poetry | a hip replacement. • a person or thing that takes the place of another.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/6 13:45Profile
mom23beagles
Member



Joined: 2007/2/25
Posts: 55
Appleton, Wisconsin, USA

 Re:

Well, this one kind of blew my socks off today as I was in the Word, and it made me think of this discussion here - what do you guys think about this verse? It's in keeping with the "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16):

Mark 7:25-30 (KVJ):

"For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:

The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.

And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed."

The Life Application Bible has the following commentary about this passage:

[i]"Dog was a term the Jews commonly applied to any Gentiles, because the Jews considered these people no more likely than dogs to receive God's approval. Jesus, however, was not degrading the woman by using this term, but simply explaining to her [b]God's plan to present his message first to Jews.[/b] (emphasis mine).

The woman did not try to argue. Using Jesus' choice of words, she pointed out that she was willing to be considered a dog as long as she could receive God's healing forher daughter. Ironically, many Jews would lose God's spiritual healing because they rejected Jesus, while many Gentiles, whom the Jews considered "dogs" would find salvation because they recognized Jesus."[/i]

 2007/3/7 0:54Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

mom23beagles
This may be difficult for us dog-loving folks to appreciate ;-) but the Jews did not like dogs generally and only the 'greyhound' gets any biblical appreciation!

The name 'Caleb' actually means 'dog' and Caleb was not a bloodline descendent of Judah but a descendent of Esau who became a leader in Judah. His name may well have had a derogatory sense to it.

'dogs' was the term for those outside the covenant.

Quote:
It's in keeping with the "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16):


Yes, it is. However we need to ask the question does 'first' mean in rank or time? Does 'to the Jew first' mean that all Christians have an obligation to prioritise evangelism among the Jews, which is what some teach, or is it simply a chronological statement?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/7 2:03Profile









 Re: I'm rather confused!

Quote:

bartle wrote:
I was watching Dr. Michael Brown speak on this:

[url=http://www.jewishvoice.org/TV/ram/tv865_56K.rm.ram]Dr Michael Brown on Replacement theology[/url]



Hi everyone

I wasn't able to play this, so don't know what Dr Brown said.

However, I'm a little confused with this discussion. What some of you seem to be talking about isn't what I thought was the main problem with Replacement "Theology.

To me there are two main aspects to "Replacement Theology":

1. The concept that "in Christ there is no Jew or Greek...but we are all one in Christ Jesus"

2. The idea that God has totally "finished with", and has no more purpose for, the Jews and the nation of Israel "after the flesh" on the world stage.

I can understand the first, and basically agree with it. That "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" has, I think, been quoted. Also the concept of the faithful remnant, and the "Israel of God - Jew and Gentile together - one in Christ. The foundations of the City in Revelation are both the 12 tribes and the 12 apostles... One City, one people in Christ.

However, I do [i][b]not[/b][/i]believe that God has finished with the present day Jewish nation and people. As Paul said, they are "beloved for the fathers' sakes. And I believe they are still beloved - even those who reject their own Messiah, and will in the end be lost.

The Jews, (including the unbelieving ones)and especially the nation of Israel, are still the Lord's "witnesses" in this present age - whether they like it or not!

Why else does the antichrist spirit in the world continually stir up hatred and attempt to destroy them? Hitler wasn't the first and definitely not the last. Anti Semitism is if anything on the increase. The nation is threatened on every side; many Muslims - even if they don't support terrorism - want to see Israel wiped off the face of the map.

Why,if God has no more purpose for her in the earth?

Yours in Him

Jeannette

 2007/3/7 5:36
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re:

Quote:
I don't call myself a 'replacement theologian' but would prefer 'Transposition Theology'. That is my own label by which I hint at the way a tune can be transposed into another key.


You are speaking my language, for sure. Might I add a few thoughts to this analogy of tonal transposition: Musicians typically don’t prefer to transpose a song into another key – especially if it is one they are not familiar with. It’s like trying to find your way around unfamiliar turf. We prefer our safety zones. But God doesn’t oblige us by compromising.

God transposes BOTH Jew and Gentile into a brand new key - via salvation.

Here’s another consideration: You can’t play a tune in two keys simultaneously! And I think that this is where we get all our dissonant sounds: wanting to maintain some of the old and familiar key but also play some notes in the new tune. It is a temptation of both Jew and Gentile Christian.

Paul understood the need to let go of the old tune entirely, and even counted it as rubbish! He was bent on that new “key” – through and through!

I was circumcised when I was eight days old. I am a pure-blooded citizen of Israel and a member of the tribe of Benjamin—a real Hebrew if there ever was one! I was a member of the Pharisees, who demand the strictest obedience to the Jewish law. I was so zealous that I harshly persecuted the church. And as for righteousness, I obeyed the law without fault.

I once thought these things were valuable, but now I consider them worthless because of what Christ has done. 8 Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ and become one with him. I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ.[c] For God’s way of making us right with himself depends on faith. I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead. I want to suffer with him, sharing in his death, so that one way or another I will experience the resurrection from the dead! Phil 3:4- 11 NLT

Quote:
Heb. 8:13 (KJVS) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb. 10:9 (KJVS) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

In your understanding what is the writer referring to in these two references. The phrase 'taketh away the first, that he may establish the second' could almost be a dictionary definition of the word 'replacement'. It seems to me that Hebrews is definitely teaching that the 'second' or 'new' covenant has 'replaced' the 'old'. How do you see these passages?



It seems so obvious – in Christ we have an entirely new identity! Yet, I wonder, why is there such a longing to look back and cling to the old? I’m not speaking about Jews, but also about Gentiles.

Generally speaking the church fails to the see the truth, and thus the church fails to be a witness of the New Life to the Jew. Nor can it be burdened for the Jew receiving this NEW life. Maybe that’s why there seems to be such an interest in Old Covenant things, and a longing for the restoration of the old. Surely that cannot be of the Lord. It seems to be a denial of the New Covenant promises - a moving backwards.

In THAT sense I agree with Dr. Brown, that we the church have failed the Jews.

Before we condemn our Jewish friends for failing to let go of their “old tune” maybe we need to acknowledge where we also cling to an “old tune”. Nationalism is just as important to Jews as it is to westerners. So is religious affiliation, identity, and practises.

Of course I am speaking of the heart dependencies here – not merely the fact that one may be a member of an institution - be it national or religious.

After all, Paul was still an Israelite. He just didn’t play his tune in that “key”.

Diane




_________________
Diane

 2007/3/7 7:46Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Can we agree then that the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant and that these two covenants cannot co-exist? Paul seems to state this very plainly in Galatians 4.“For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” (Gal 4:25-31 KJVS)This is pretty strong stuff! Cast out the bondwoman and her son! The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman! What is left of the Old Covenant after that?

By the 'Old Covenant' I mean that of Sinai, as Paul defines it above. It did and only ever can produce bondage. Not my words but Pauls.

If we are agreed that the Old/Sinaitic/Mosaic covenant is utterly obselete and not only without value but positively bondage inducing, we need to re-examine the terms of that Covenant in Exodus 19f to see what has gone. We shall discover that that Covenant was 'land based' and formed a tenancy agreement between Jehovah and his people. eg “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” (Ex 20:12 KJVS)

This Covenant could only be maintained as a result of an integral priesthood. (“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb 7:12 KJVS)) The Old Covenant which guaranteed their right to the land cannot function without the Levitical priesthood. The Sinaitic Law and the Sinaitic Priesthood are inseparable. The Old Covenant operated for approximately 13-14 centuries; patchily at times. There has been no proper Yom Kippur now for over 19 centuries. There is no priest to sprinkle the blood and no mercy seat upon which to sprinkle it. The Old Covenant with all its promises and curses now stands null and void.

Perhaps we should also remind ourselves that the Old Covenant was only ever intended to be temporary; “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, [u]till[/u] the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” (Gal 3:19 KJVS) We should also remind ourselves that the Old Covenant lasted from Exodus 20 to its fulfillment in Christ at Calvary. The time before that was pre-Old Covenant and the time after that is New Covenant.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/7 10:07Profile









 Re: 'replacement theology'

philologos said

Quote:
The Old Covenant with all its promises [b]and curses[/b] now stands null and void.

'and [i]curses[/i]...'?

'...now stands null and void.' This is a new thought. I like it.

 2007/3/7 16:24





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy