SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : has the church replaced israel

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )
PosterThread
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
Church governance was never like this in the biblical record. There were no 'pastors', no 'bishops', no 'first presidents'. Just 'beloved brethren'.


To keep the discussion centered around the aspect of Israel and the Church I have started a new thread on this tangent but important ideal: [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2938&forum=36]Early Church Leadership?[/url]


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/2 9:00Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Peter evidently believed God was a respector of persons and that the Jews were the focal point... Peter still struggles with this later and was confronted by Paul. He apparently was compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews.

I don't think that is what Galatians is saying otherwise Paul could not have called Peter's action hypocrisy. He began a pattern of life in which he was 'withdrawing and separating' himself from the Gentiles. (the verbs are in the imperfect tense. It had become his pattern of behaviour) He was to be blamed not because he did not see the truth but that he did see it, but allowed fear of others' opinions to shape his behaviour. God never blames a man for not seeing the revelation, but He does hold a man responsible for his actions when he has seen the revelation; and Peter was to be blamed. [Gal 2:11]

There is an important verse in Eph 2:19. The KJV has; Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; (Eph 2:19 KJV) This gives the impression that Gentile believers have been added to the saints which were Jewish, but this is a misleading translation.

συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων - sumpolitai tOn agiOn:
fellow-citizens of the saints not that Gentile believers are now privileged with Jewish saints, as a distinct class, but that all saints (whether Jew or Gentile formerly) are together privileged as being possessed of the same heavenly citizenship. this is not 'with' the saints but a simple genetive.. of the saints.

Youngs Literal captures the sense; Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, (Eph 2:19 YLT) The thrust of this passage is that He has made 'of twain, one new man'. This is not that the new man is Jewish with some Gentile additions; this is no weld but something quite new/fresh man. God has begun 'afresh' in the Church of Christ. This is a new body and members must be joined to it through the baptising work of the Spirit; irrespective of whether or not they were Jews or Gentiles in the past.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/2 9:04Profile
Rahman
Member



Joined: 2004/3/24
Posts: 1374


 Re: has the church replaced israel




i could be spitting into the wind on this topic, but spit i will ...

First off i thank God for SI because it has made me aware of so many heresies i never knew existed, this "replacement theology" being another, and what i've really found mind blowing is that most, if not all of these heresies began early in Church history ... Satan certainly wasted no time did he? ...

So last night i did some research and this is what i found ...


The Error Of Replacement Theology
By Clarence H. Wagner, Jr.
http://www.therefinersfire.org/replacement_theology.htm


Perhaps you have heard of the term Replacement Theology. However, if you look it up in a dictionary of Church history, you will not find it listed as a systematic study. Rather, it is a doctrinal teaching that originated in the early Church. It became the fertile soil from which Christian anti-Semitism grew and has infected the Church for nearly 1,900 years.

What Is Replacement Theology?

Replacement Theology was introduced to the Church shortly after Gentile leadership took over from Jewish leadership. What are its premises?

1. Israel (the Jewish people and the land) has been replaced by the Christian Church in the purposes of God, or, more precisely, the Church is the historic continuation of Israel to the exclusion of the former.


2. The Jewish people are now no longer a "chosen people." In fact, they are no different from any other group, such as the English, Spanish, or Africans.


3. Apart from repentance, the new birth, and incorporation into the Church, the Jewish people have no future, no hope, and no calling in the plan of God. The same is true for every other nation and group.


4. Since Pentecost of Acts 2, the term "Israel," as found in the Bible, now refers to the Church.


5. The promises, covenants and blessings ascribed to Israel in the Bible have been taken away from the Jews and given to the Church, which has superseded them. However, the Jews are subject to the curses found in the Bible, as a result of their rejection of Christ.


How Do Replacement Theologians Argue Their Case? They Say:


1. To be a son of Abraham is to have faith in Jesus Christ. For them, Galatians 3:29 shows that sonship to Abraham is seen only in spiritual, not national terms: "And if you be Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Rebuttal: While this is a wonderful inclusionary promise for Gentiles, this verse does not exclude the Jewish people from their original covenant, promise and blessing as the natural seed of Abraham. This verse simply joins us Gentile Christians to what God had already started with Israel.


2. The promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham was only a "starter." The real Promised Land is the whole world. They use Romans 4:13 to claim it will be the Church that inherits the world, not Israel. "For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

Rebuttal: Where does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews? It simply says that through the law, they would not inherit the world, but this would be acquired through faith. This is also true of the Church.


3. The nation of Israel was only the seed of the future Church, which would arise and incorporate people of all nations (Mal. 1:11): "For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, My Name shall be great among the nations, and in every place, incense shall be offered to My Name, and a pure offering for My Name shall be great among the nations, says the Lord of Hosts."

Rebuttal: This is great, and shows that the Jewish people and Israel fulfilled one of their callings to be "a light to the nations," so that God's Word has gone around the world. It does not suggest God's dealing with Israel was negated because His Name spread around the world.


4. Jesus taught that the Jews would lose their spiritual privileges, and be replaced by another people (Matt. 21:43): "Therefore I am saying to you, 'The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it.'"

Rebuttal: In this passage, Jesus was talking about the priests and Pharisees, who failed as leaders of the people. This passage is not talking about the Jewish people or nation of Israel. See Teaching Letter #770008, "Did God Break His Covenant With the Jews?"


5. A true Jew is anyone born of the Spirit, whether he is racially Gentile or Jewish (Rom. 2:28-29): "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Rebuttal: This argument does not support the notion that the Church replaced Israel. Rather, it simply reinforces what had been said throughout the Hebrew Scriptures [the Old Testament], and it certainly qualifies the spiritual qualifications for Jews or anyone who professes to be a follower of the God of Israel.


6. Paul shows that the Church is really the same "olive tree" as was Israel, and the Church is now the tree. Therefore, to distinguish between Israel and the Church is, strictly speaking, false. Indeed, people of Jewish origin need to be grafted back into the Church (Rom 11:17-23).

Rebuttal: This claim is the most outrageous because this passage clearly shows that we Gentiles are the "wild olive branches," who get our life from being grafted into the olive tree. The tree represents the covenants, promises and hopes of Israel (Eph. 2:12), rooted in the Messiah and fed by the sap, which represents the Holy Spirit, giving life to the Jews (the "natural branches") and Gentile alike. We Gentiles are told to remember that the olive tree holds us up and NOT to be arrogant or boast against the "natural branches" because they can be grafted in again. The olive tree is NOT the Church. We are simply grafted into God's plan that preceded us for over 2,000 years.


7. All the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament, unless they were historically fulfilled before the coming of Jesus Christ, are now the property of the Christian Church. These promises should not be interpreted literally or carnally, but spiritually and symbolically, so that references to Israel, Jerusalem, Zion and the Temple, when they are prophetic, really refer to the Church (II Cor. 1:20). "For all the promises of God in Him (Jesus) are Yea, and in Him, Amen, unto the glory of God by us." Therefore, they teach that the New Testament needs to be taught figuratively, not literally.

Rebuttal: Later, in this Teaching Letter, we will look at the fact that the New Testament references to Israel clearly pertain to Israel, not the Church. Therefore, no promise to Israel and the Jewish people in the Bible is figurative, nor can they be relegated to the Church alone. The promises and covenants are literal, many of them are everlasting, and we Christians can participate in them as part of our rebirth, not in that we took them over to the exclusion of Israel. The New Testament speaks of the Church's relationship to Israel and her covenants as being "grafted in" (Rom. 11:17), "brought near" (Eph. 2:13), "Abraham's offspring (by faith)" (Rom. 4:16), and "partakers" (Rom. 15:27), NOT as usurpers of the covenant and a replacer of physical Israel. We Gentile Christians joined into what God had been doing in Israel, and God did not break His covenant promises with Israel (Rom. 11:29).


You know i'll give those saints back in the day the benefit of the doubt regarding how they ever came to the conclusion that God was thru with Israel, for they didn't have the benefit of a completed canon, or 2,000 years of subsequent history to look back on in regards Israel and Church ... But i do suspect such a misguided conclusion to have stemed from satan, via self righteous judgment from those early gentile saints ... But If anyone TODAY truly understands blood covenant, which God has with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and thereby their descendants both corporeal and spiritual, this would be an impossibility, not withstanding that God's regathering of Israel in 1948, in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, is modern day proof that apparently they, 1900 years ago, were wrong, for He's still got His eye on Jacob clear to the end of the Revelation ...

 2004/9/2 9:18Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
The Error Of Replacement Theology
By Clarence H. Wagner, Jr.
http://www.therefinersfire.org/replacement_theology.htm


Brother Rahman.. great mining to find this resource at first pursual it looks very worthwhile to read as pertaining to this subject matter we are discussing. Thanks brother.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/2 9:25Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
First off i thank God for SI because it has made me aware of so many heresies i never knew existed, this "replacement theology" being another, and what i've really found mind blowing is that most, if not all of these heresies began early in Church history ... Satan certainly wasted no time did he? ...


The opening reminds me of the testimony which begins "I never knew what sin was till I started to attend this church..." :-D

I think I prefer Greg's 'interesting ideas' to the word 'heresy'.

Quote:
it is a doctrinal teaching that originated in the early Church. It became the fertile soil from which Christian anti-Semitism grew and has infected the Church for nearly 1,900 years.

This statement is just not true. Unless the early church reaches to Chrysostom. I see that replacement theologians are now responsible for anti-semitism; I must have missed some steps in this argument.

Quote:
You know i'll give those saints back in the day the benefit of the doubt regarding how they ever came to the conclusion that God was thru with Israel, for they didn't have the benefit of a completed canon, or 2,000 years of subsequent history to look back on in regards Israel and Church ... But i do suspect such a misguided conclusion to have stemed from satan, via self righteous judgment from those early gentile saints ... But If anyone TODAY truly understands blood covenant, which God has with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and thereby their descendants both corporeal and spiritual, this would be an impossibility, not withstanding that God's regathering of Israel in 1948, in fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy, is modern day proof that apparently they, 1900 years ago, were wrong, for He's still got His eye on Jacob clear to the end of the Revelation ...

I had hoped we might have had a sensible discussion rather than this rabid demonising of people with a different opinion. I am surprised that you don't tremble to look back to those days and pour such condemnation on men and women who sealed their faith with their blood.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/2 9:39Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
I think I prefer Greg's 'interesting ideas' to the word 'heresy'.


Brother Ron you never know you could find that term in 2004 theological workbooks. :-P


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/9/2 9:50Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
This statement is just not true. Unless the early church reaches to Chrysostom. I see that replacement theologians are now responsible for anti-semitism; I must have missed some steps in this argument.



The sheer volume of persecution of the Jews by the Church either directly, indirectly, or by implication throughout the last 1700+ years is so staggering that I had a hard time accepting it when I first started studying Jewish Roots. The amount of antsemetic writing and behavior is absolutely enormous. it cannot be overstated. The early writers did not even bother to try to cover their views or even schroud them in any way. They are clear to read for all who want to read them. These things were not done in a corner. I was so troubled at this writing that it has influenced me to this day. the Church not only has bosated against the broken branches, they have burned and bled them. This is not sharp speech- this is reality.

Dear reader I beseech you to do you history on this. Read the writings of Justin Martyr (CE-135-160 ?) and Origen. Justin Martyr wrote an apology in which he was having a dialogue with a Jew named Trypho. He blasted the Jews for rejecting Jesus, for killing Jesus, etc.. He gloated over the destruction of the Temple as being just punishment for Jewish rebellion. Justin Martyr's writings along with Origen's allegorical method of bible hermeneutic opened the door for replacement theology. If I might so say, Justin Martyr laid the egg and Origen hatched it.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/9/2 10:10Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
The sheer volume of persecution of the Jews by the Church either directly, indirectly, or by implication throughout the last 1700+ years is so staggering that I had a hard time accepting it when I first started studying Jewish Roots.

What do you mean by the church; Roman Catholocism?

Quote:
Dear reader I beseech you to do you history on this. Read the writings of Justin Martyr (CE-135-160 ?) and Origen. Justin Martyr wrote an apology in which he was having a dialogue with a Jew named Trypho. He blasted the Jews for rejecting Jesus, for killing Jesus, etc.. He gloated over the destruction of the Temple as being just punishment for Jewish rebellion. Justin Martyr's writings along with Origen's allegorical method of bible hermeneutic opened the door for replacement theology. If I might so say, Justin Martyr laid the egg and Origen hatched it.

By the early church I mean the biblical period. You have moved into the Apostolic Fathers. Anti-semitism originated with Antiochus Epiphanes and his determination to produce a uniform Greek world. It was Israel's 'studied difference' and their refusal to conform to his universal norms that attracted his fury. I do not defend anti-semites and I am not one. I have wept my way through Auschwitz and Maidenek on more than one occasion.

There was certainly an increase in contention as the Jewish leaders opted for destruction rather than peaceful coexistence. It is seen in John's gospel which has been described as anti-semetic by some. If John's gospel is anti-semetic, so am I. You will recall that Gibson's Passion was given the same condemnation. The reason was 'if it is true to the biblical records it will be anti-semetic'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/9/2 10:29Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
What do you mean by the church; Roman Catholocism?



Hi Bro Ron,

I tried desperately to hold onto that reasoning until I reached "On the Jews and their Lies" by Luther. I then realized why the Jews make no real distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism as pertains to persecution. They see the Cross as a sword dipped in 2000 years of Jewish blood. With Luther my mind reasoned that it was odd that he discarded the books of Hebrews (Jews) and Jude (Ya- hoo- dah or Jew) and then James (which was written to the 12 tribes scattered abroad) and then Revelation which identifies the new city Jerusalem as having gates named after the 12 Tribes, etc. He had to discard it because not even a preterest view of the former chapters could do away with that. Who knows what he was thinking, but the tractate gives us a little insight.

Even though Katz levels boldly upon the Jews their guilt and God's judgment (which is unlike anything I have heard in Messianic circles) we as the Church have inherited a similar fate in that our 'father's' smote the Jews on the right hand and the left. To me it is no different than when Babylon was judged for beating down Jerusalem. What will God say to us on that day for not doing what we can to reach the Jews in spite of these things with understanding and great compassion? To accept Christianity is almost unthinkable to most of them. How can we as the Church seek to heal this situation by God's grace that our generation will get a chance to hear the pure Gospel free from stigma as much as possible.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/9/2 10:52Profile
Rahman
Member



Joined: 2004/3/24
Posts: 1374


 Re:



Brother Ron, i get such a kick outta reading your posts ...


Quote;
The opening reminds me of the testimony which begins "I never knew what sin was till I started to attend this church..."


Ha! ... Ha! ... No i knew what sin was before i started attending church, but what i didn't know was how cleverly creative some in the Church could be in covering sin up ... '0) ... i certainly do now!


Quote;
I think I prefer Greg's 'interesting ideas' to the word 'heresy'.


i can certainly see your point, and my reply to this is in love ... But perhaps if someone with enough guts had of called this "replacement doctrine" a heresy (against God's covenant Word) back then, we wouldn't be discussing it as an "interesting idea" today ... Frankly i find it dangerously dark idea, straight from the pit of hell ... Of course this is my opinion, and i certainly do respect your right to think otherwise ...

i looked up the meaning of her·e·sy;

a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or
standards

So since the term "heresy" seems to be inclusive of man's determinings on the word of God, particularly that of the RCC (which is the epitome of heresy) in this Webster's definition, i wouldn't be adverse in replacing "heresy" with the phrase "gross error" ...


Quote:
I had hoped we might have had a sensible discussion rather than this rabid demonising of people with a different opinion. I am surprised that you don't tremble to look back to those days and pour such condemnation on men and women who sealed their faith with their blood.


It certainly is not my intent to do what you've suggested in the first part of your above quote, and i have no idea what you mean by the second part ... But i've learned that when our Lord dresses one in camel's hair, a leathern girdle about ones loins; and feeds one via ravens, locusts and wild honey, appreciation, and the welcome wagon, should not be expected of the staus quo ...

i do have a tendency to be black and white, call it like i see it, and speak it too, which is why God uses me as He does ... Emperors with no clothes on hate me! ...i just pray that His grooming of me in His love to utilize my traits, personality and characteristics is showing thru ... i have nothing but love for you, and pray that we're all open to ALL lessons that He wants to teach us via this forum ... Amen

 2004/9/2 11:41Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy