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









 Re: 'replacement theology'

Hi David,

Quote:
the fact that Jesus told the thief "today you will be with me in paradise". Which tells me Jesus decended to that realm and got,took, retrieved, or led the patriarchs out of there. is this correct?

Some people believe this is what is meant by Peter's statement:

1 Peter 3:19
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

At the moment, I don't have an opinion about what Peter was referring to, but, with regard to 'led captivity captive', I have [i]always[/i] heard that (in my spirit....)(not heard it expounded though), as being the [i]entity[/i] of captivity... a spiritual force which is able to overcome people on the inside of their lives. This is where people remain imprisoned by fears, wounds, hope deferred, and that sort of thing. I'm not sure one could say this of the patriarchs, as Jesus Himself corrected His contenders with

Matthew 22
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? [b]God is not the God of the dead, but of the living[/b].

I am reminded of this

Psalms 133:3
As the dew of Hermon, [i]and as the dew[/i] that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, [i]even[/i] [b]life for evermore[/b].

 2007/3/13 8:43
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re:

Quote:

Compliments wrote:
This subject and all subjects relating to the last days etc.. is not my number #1 choice. I would rather study the love of God and the joys of union in Christ. I've said many times to the LORD, "Why do you show me this, give this to someone else who has a mind for it, who loves talking about eshatology" I avoided the Revelations, don't like reading it, don't like talking about it. But here I am. The more I get into this though, the more I see Jesus high and lifted up, and I guess that is a good incentive to studying this.



The "love of God" and the "joys of union" find ultimate expression in eschatology. As I mentioned, this is a topic that I have waded into, but may I suggest that the Prophetic Books of the Bible (ie, Isaiah to Malachi) particularly the minor prophets open up much on this topic. Revelation makes a lot more sense in the light of the OT prophets, as a lot of the symbols used find their explanation here.

I for one wrestle with a temptation to over emphasise eschatology, and therefore humbly decline to offer specifics at this point on time. Having said all this, I firmly believe that there is incredible importance to understanding eschatology, and that the role of Israel, as a nation, is of great importance.

Regarding the Van Impes, let's just say that they and I would disagree on much. And with Art Katz, I heard him say that he had a "studied disinterest in the end times", but then he went on to major in it. Go figure. I guess one can put it down to God and His sense of humour.


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2007/3/13 9:01Profile









 Re: 'replacement theology'

CJaKfOrEsT said

Quote:
... but see that we have been grafted into the Hebrew vine ...

Hello Aaron,

Would you please explain this further?

Please also make reference to those who are not and never will be grafted into anything of God (- meaning His death, His resurrection, sonship or eternal life)?

I'm not asking for copious scripture... just a bunch of keys. 8-)

 2007/3/14 17:35
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re:

Quote:

dorcas wrote:
I'm not asking for copious scripture... just a bunch of keys. 8-)



I'll try my best;-). I believe that it is Romans or Hebrews that mentions how the gentiles are the wild olive vine, and the jews are the cultivated. It goes on to say that we should get too cocky because it would be easier to regraft in the cultivate branches, who had been pruned, than for us to be grafted in in the first place.

Israle is the chosen people of God. Part of the "choseness" (if that is a real word) is to have it's majority slain through chastening, while a remnant shall be preserved. To say that the church has taken Israel's place, as God's chosen people, is as much an error as to say that Israel will be spared, out of a sentimental pact from God.

Israel is God's chosen people, and we have been grafted into that. However, only a remnant of Israel will be spared, just as many of us gentile believers will also fall away.

I hope that helps:-)


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2007/3/15 9:56Profile









 Re: "replacement theology"


Aaron, thank you. I have a few comments and a question.

[EDIT] Okay; more truthfully, more than one question ;-) [end EDIT]

Quote:
Israle is the chosen people of God. Part of the "choseness" (if that is a real word) is to have it's majority slain through chastening, while a remnant shall be preserved. To say that the church has taken Israel's place, as God's chosen people, is as much an error as to say that Israel will be spared, out of a sentimental pact from God.

Israel is God's chosen people, and we have been grafted into that. However, only a remnant of Israel will be spared, just as many of us gentile believers will also fall away.


'Part of the "choseness" (if that is a real word) is to have it's majority slain through chastening,'

Brother, I think I know what you're trying to say here, but I wouldn't call it chastening if the end is death. This is not what is meant by:

Hebrews 12:7
If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?

'while a remnant shall be preserved.'

OK. But, just as Abraham, before either Covenant existed, was counted righteous through believing God's Personal word to him personally, surely this is a basic requirement to be counted as part of 'Israel', today?

Adherance to a form of religion based on a misinterpretation of Old Testament scriptures - the scriptures from which the gospel was preached by the first (Jewish by first birth) Christians - will not save them.... will it?

Am I right to assume you are taking for granted that those who will be 'spared' from the slaying, will be those who [i][b]also believe[/b][/i]?

Hebrews 3
18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?
19 So we see that they could not enter in [u]because[/u] of [b]unbelief[/b].


'To say that the church has taken Israel's place, as God's chosen people,'

Surely? [b]Peter[/b] who preached to Cornelius was not limiting the conditional 'choseness' he quotes from Exodus 19, to Jewish Christians, in his letter (1:1:20 - 1:2:12).

The significance of his mention of 'Gentiles' (v 12) marks the Church out as 'Israel' more than ever, since it comes from the lips of the man given the unenviable role of being the little rock on which the Church was (to be) built - by Jesus Himself.


EDIT: This adds to the significance of Jesus giving him a new name, and what that new name was, especially in the light of the 'living stones' analogy Peter uses, which is totally endorsed by Paul's words:

1 Corinthians 3
9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, [you are] God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner[i]stone,[/i]

There were both Jews and gentiles in both the Corinthian and the Ephesian churches, just as there must have been in those scattered to whom Peter was writing. How have we ended up with an interpretation that assumes Peter was writing to Jewish Christians only? [EDIT end]


'is as much an error as to say that Israel will be spared, out of a sentimental pact from God.'

I agree that old Israel was and is not spared, time and time again, much of which is predictable from Moses' prophecies in Deuteronomy, and many other prophets' words, because God is after truth in the inward parts.

Therefore Paul reiterates the meaning of true Jewishness in God's sight, in Romans 2:29. But, if true Jewishness - by God's definition - the revelation of His own nature in a man born from above - resides in the Church, then while Israel transformed [EDIT](through second birth)[EDIT end] remains Israel under the New Covenant and, this grace is extended to gentiles also (under the New Covenant - remembering Israel under the Old Covenant was bound to accept those who wanted to join themselves to God's people from out of any other nation eg Ruth and Rahab, who are in Christ's human geneology), then why should this lead to [i]any[/i] controversy?


I am genuinely mystified.

We cannot exclude any verse of scripture from our understanding.

Just as Peter's mention of 'Gentiles' sets the Church forth clearly as 'Israel', so do Paul's writings (at the end of Galatians 6), particularly in Ephesians 2:14 and Romans 11:26.

This is enough controversy from me for now. :-)

 2007/3/16 7:59
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
I believe that it is Romans or Hebrews that mentions how the gentiles are the wild olive vine, and the jews are the cultivated.


Still hoping that we can discuss this in a gentle fashion. Don't worry about not agreeing with me on all points... I don't agree with myself all the time!

This is introduced almost as an axiom but I would like to examine it more carefully. Just what is that root? You say 'the jews' but 'jews' demands a definition and the problem is that we don't have one such definition but many, so we have to ask what kind of 'jews'? Technically of course however you interpret the root it is long before 'jews'.

I think it refers to Abraham rather than to a race. It also refers to Abraham in a special sense; Abraham is the father of all believers. It is right and proper that Paul should warn his Gentile readers against any kind of Gentile chauvinism but he is surely not advocating 'Jewish' chauvinism? The theme of Romans is that the gospel of Christ is ‘the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes; to Jew first and also so Greek’. The theme is underlined twice by the repetition of a choice phrase; Rom. 3:22 (KJVS) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for [b]there is no difference[/b]:

Rom. 10:12 (KJVS) For [b]there is no difference[/b] between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. The context of each of these instances is ‘faith’. The Rom 10:12 shows that we cannot disengage Romans 9-11 from the rest of Paul’s argument. This is integrated revelation.

Abraham is the archetypical believer; he sets the pattern for all who believe unto salvation. As Paul makes clear in Galatians the interesting thing about Abraham’s justifying experience was that it took place before he bore the marks of covenant; when he was just an individual, and an uncircumcised individual at that. Although the relationship between God on the descendants of Abraham has a family theme that covenant of promise was specifically repeated making him the God of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob. Not just the God of Abraham’s family but the God of Abraham’s believing family. In fact members of Abraham’s family who were not believers are excluded from that covenant and promise eg Ishmael and Esau.

Seen in this light the root is not racial but faith based. Their racial roots have no power to guarantee an inheritance of the promise. This is part of the radical preaching of John Baptist too; “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” (Luke 3:8 NKJV) The authentic olive of Israel was not those who had the right genealogy but those who obeyed and believed; “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.” (Rom 4:11-12 NKJV)
The Romans 11 passage makes it plain that insertion and removal from that authentic Israel is faith-based. Unbelief will yet remove those who had believed from the olive, and faith will add those who were Jewish unbelievers (and thus broken off) into the olive. The irreducible minimum criteria is faith; this is the whole theme of Romans.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/16 10:10Profile
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re:

Quote:

philologos wrote:
Still hoping that we can discuss this in a gentle fashion. Don't worry about not agreeing with me on all points... I don't agree with myself all the time!



I have intentionally avoided any detailed answers/explanations, as I strongly believe that the Lord would have me give emphasis to other areas at present. My comments about finding something to disagree with you about, is that I have found that I agree with much that you have to say. However, I knew that we'd have to reach this point, due to our differences of opinion regarding Katz, Bonhoeffer, Barth, etc.

Perhaps, God willing, there will be a time to dive into this theme in a more involved way, but alas this is not now. My initial comments were a bewildered, dare I say, "protest" in the light of Neil's rather forced departure. Considering that we had finally found an issue that we seem to agree on, it was quite sad to see him go, so suddenly.


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2007/3/16 10:31Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Neil's rather forced departure


i was away preaching over the weekend so this took me by surprise too. :-(


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/16 11:25Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re: replace or include

Quote:
Perhaps, God willing, there will be a time to dive into this theme in a more involved way , but alas this is not now.



In God’s timing, I trust. Of course, with the severance, opportunities for clarification and restoration are lost. It’s not unlike a death, only when a person dies, at least their name remains - on a tombstone.


This topic has been a real eye opener for me. By learning more about anti-Semitism as it relates to the relationship of the historical church with the Jew over the centuries, I can understand a bit of the way Neil sees things. I can see why the words, “Replacement theology” could have a distasteful ring to it – when it is so enmeshed with hatred towards the Jews. So, defending the one (its bibical meaning) is essentially equated with defending the other (hatred).

“His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this ONE body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. Eph. 2:15

Maybe “Inclusive Theology” is more accurate - but, oh my, wouldn’t that term raise some hackles!


Sidenote: What does "the dividing wall of hostility" Eph. 1:14 mean - theologically, and in its outworking?

Diane


_________________
Diane

 2007/3/17 22:39Profile









 Re: "replacement theology"


I said I would post in this thread, here, p3 'What is a lie?' in General Topics, because 'replacement theology' was broached to me at a wedding I attended two weeks ago tomorrow.

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16646&forum=35&start=20&29]http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16646&forum=35&start=20&29[/url]


After the wedding, I had a dream which gradually rose more and more to my consciousness, and which is finally going to drive me to a study I've never done before, on what may be the reason Jesus said


Matthew 10:6
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


I don't for one second believe that who are called 'the Jews' in a general way according to modern usage - rolling up ethnicity, religiosity and personal preference for being so identified - under one very loose title - are excluded from embracing the New Covenant.


But, scripture makes historical distinctions, which I need to research.

 2007/5/11 9:59





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