Reply On Replacement Theology, (kept simple for my own benefit)

[JaumeJ]

I have always been and still am opposed to adding titles of schools of thought to the Word or utilizing such as some new technique of understanding what is already plainly written down for us in the Word, therefore, had you not explained what you intend to say by "Replacement Theology," I would not have a clue as to what you are referencing.

There is no replacement for the Gospel of Yeshua, Jesus. He walked this world, His creation, in the Faith of Abraham. He spread the Good News, Gospel, which is the revelation of the fulfillment of the law and the prophets from Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets. There is not theology to be added to or taken from this knowledge. It is not Yahweh speaking or teaching.

Yes, there are times when using a more modern term to reference the Word may function well without distorting the Word by adding to or taking away from it. My primary example coming to mind is the word, Trinity, when making reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as One, as God. When this word becomes some new theology, it is no longer a referencing word only, and it is distorting what has been given to us by Yeshua, Himself.

Nothing has replaced the faith of Abraham, and this is the only theology, if there is such. I know of no theology outside of the Gospel of Yeshua, and any who attempt to convince me otherwise I regard with high suspicion. I do not speak of you, but I am answering your question according to my faith in Yeshua's having taught us all we need know for salvation.

As far as I am concerned, all labeled theologies are apostetic to some degree once they feel the need to have their own identity apart from the Word, declaring themselves entities in themselves. Keep in mind the Great Whore on seven hills is the mother of whores, and just who do you suppose are those daughters? Of course the members of these churches are not necessarily apostetic, simply not yet aware, because Yeshua has declared in Revelation that He will call His children out of her, the Great Whore that is, and does it not stand to reason they will be called out of her daughters too?

What I share with you is not engraved in stone. What you believe with a clear conscience in the sight of Yahweh is truly all that should be important to you, but you asked, so I share how I believe. Yahweh bless you always, in Yeshua................

 

[Hizikyah]

When the "great" "thelologians" get their hands on something it almost always gets twisted into nonsense, an example:

When they get hold of the word sin you get 124790 characters (letters) of non sense, when you let the men of Yahweh explain it throught the Spirit of Yahweh you get:

"Whoever commits sin, transgresses also the Law; for sin is the transgression of the Law."

apply this theology of 124790 characters to explain or more accurately muddy the waters on what sin is, to all Scriptual topics and you get theological cemetaries..... The choice is yours.

 

[JaumeJ]

And so it goes, guiding innocents on trails leading off of the Way, but Yahweh's children can only be deceived for a while, and they hear Him again and come back. They cannot be deceived. Praise Yah! Amen..

When the "great" "thelologians" get their hands on something it almost always gets twisted into nonsense, an example:

When they get hold of the word sin you get 124790 characters (letters) of non sense, when you let the men of Yahweh explain it throught the Spirit of Yahweh you get:

"Whoever commits sin, transgresses also the Law; for sin is the transgression of the Law."

apply this theology of 124790 characters to explain or more accurately muddy the waters on what sin is, to all Scriptual topics and you get theological cemetaries..... The choice is yours.

 

[Hizikyah]

Revelation 12:9, "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world..."

Mattithyah 24:24, "For there will arise false messiahs and false prophets who will show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they would deceive the very elect."

 

[Katy-follower]

Here is an online definition of it...

Question: "What is replacement theology / supersessionism?"

Answer: Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the church is a continuation of Israel (replacement/covenant theology), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism).

Replacement theology teaches that the church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian church, not in Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” or “allegorized” into promises of God's blessing for the church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?

The view that Israel and the church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. Biblically speaking, the church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost and will continue until it is taken to heaven at the rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). The church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God's program during these past 2000 years of dispersion.

After the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the great tribulation for the second coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth, at the end of the tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial/dispensational understanding of God's plan for Israel. Even so, the strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says six times that Christ's kingdom will last 1000 years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. The church has not replaced Israel in God's plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role as the nation He has chosen (Romans 11).

 

[Katy-follower]

P.S.......

There's only one way to be saved, which is through Jesus. There is no other way. The church is made up of all who believe in Jesus, those who have been born again, whether individual Jew or Gentile, they have become part of the body of Christ.

There are some Jews today who believed and were saved. In the last days it says that through much tribulation that many Jews (and gentiles) will come to believe in Jesus also.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

Here is an online definition of it...
Answer: Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan.

The above seems a little inaccurate to me, as it implies Covenant Theology means people believe the Church has replaced true Israel, rather than being grafted in. Here is a post from Zone on a different thread, which I think presents a more scriptural view than the online definition described (bold formatting mine).

Is Covenant Theology the same as Replacement Theology?

It is not uncommon today to hear the argument advanced that Covenant Theology is anti-semitic, because it it is erroneously accused of teachubg that the New Testament Church replaces God's Old Testament people, ethnic Israel. Some of these critics of Covenant Theology (such as Dispensationalists and Progressive Covenantalists) use the pejorative term “Replacement Theology” to describe what they believe Covenant Theology teaches.

However, this term is an inaccurate and unfair representation of Covenant Theology since no Covenant Theologian we have ever run into would recognize himself to teach such a thing: while it is true that Covenant Theology emphasizes the unity of God's people throughout redemptive history, and denies that the Church is a distinct people of God that exists alongside his other people, ethnic Israel (as does the bible, see questions 19-22 above); yet it most certainly does not teach that the Church “replaces” Israel. Quite to the contrary, it teaches that the Church has been in existence ever since God first established his Covenant of Grace with Adam, and that, while the Church was composed of the believing remnant of national Israel during the Old Testament era, God's design was always to expand it and bring all the nations into its fold, just as he promised Abraham (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:7-9). Today he has done that, and so now, his Church is composed both of the believing remnant of the Jewish nation, as it always has been, and also of a believing remnant of the Gentiles, who have been grafted in and made a part of the same body. So Israel has not been replaced, it has just been expanded to include Abraham's children by faith from every nation on earth (Ephesians 2; Galatians 2 & 3).

Sadly, some Christian theologians of the past have in fact been anti-semitic, both before and after the crystallization of the biblical framework of Covenant Theology; but anti-semitism is not at all intrinsic to Covenant Theology which, when properly understood, demands an ongoing acceptance of the believing remnant of the Jewish nation as a necessary part of God's Church (see Romans 11).

Is Covenant Theology the same as Replacement Theology?

 

[JaumeJ]

Just a reminder of the OP...........

I have always been and still am opposed to adding titles of schools of thought to the Word or utilizing such as some new technique of understanding what is already plainly written down for us in the Word, therefore, had you not explained what you intend to say by "Replacement Theology," I would not have a clue as to what you are referencing.

There is no replacement for the Gospel of Yeshua, Jesus. He walked this world, His creation, in the Faith of Abraham. He spread the Good News, Gospel, which is the revelation of the fulfillment of the law and the prophets from Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets. There is not theology to be added to or taken from this knowledge. It is not Yahweh speaking or teaching.

Yes, there are times when using a more modern term to reference the Word may function well without distorting the Word by adding to or taking away from it. My primary example coming to mind is the word, Trinity, when making reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as One, as God. When this word becomes some new theology, it is no longer a referencing word only, and it is distorting what has been given to us by Yeshua, Himself.

Nothing has replaced the faith of Abraham, and this is the only theology, if there is such. I know of no theology outside of the Gospel of Yeshua, and any who attempt to convince me otherwise I regard with high suspicion. I do not speak of you, but I am answering your question according to my faith in Yeshua's having taught us all we need know for salvation.

As far as I am concerned, all labeled theologies are apostetic to some degree once they feel the need to have their own identity apart from the Word, declaring themselves entities in themselves. Keep in mind the Great Whore on seven hills is the mother of whores, and just who do you suppose are those daughters? Of course the members of these churches are not necessarily apostetic, simply not yet aware, because Yeshua has declared in Revelation that He will call His children out of her, the Great Whore that is, and does it not stand to reason they will be called out of her daughters too?

What I share with you is not engraved in stone. What you believe with a clear conscience in the sight of Yahweh is truly all that should be important to you, but you asked, so I share how I believe. Yahweh bless you always, in Yeshua................

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

I know of no theology outside of the Gospel of Yeshua, and any who attempt to convince me otherwise I regard with high suspicion.

If by Yeshua, you mean Christ Jesus of Nazareth, I agree. But... No one is going to come to you and admit that their theology isn't really scriptural, they just made it up themselves because it felt good, the devil told them to do it, etc. They're all going to say that their theology comes from the scriptures. Which is the reason we have names to describe doctrines (or heresies). All these names/labels do is explain how a group believes the scriptures are interpreted.

Sometimes, as I indicated in the example above, the beliefs are misrepresented (i.e. a straw man is set up, as these are easy to knock down).

 

[JaumeJ]

Yesterday in my Hebrew study I decided to investigate the infinitive, to say, more in depth. I found that in Hebrew to say or amar transliterated, also may be defined as to require. Think about that, and with that in mind recall how Yeshua teaches us to learn from Him...............this is an invitation from the Most High God to any individual who believes Him, who loves Him and cleaves to Him. It is wonderful. Now I know our Lord and Master just said it, and it is not a commandment, but He did say it. For me this confirms what the Holy Spirit has always given me to understand as to what our Lord says as not being a simple request, it is required, but so many would rather hear a second hand gospel from just about anyone else other than what was given to mankind from Yahweh, Himself.

Incidentally, of the past decades I have called on Yeshua, I did use His Greek name or tranliteration up until about three years ago, but I like the English transliteration more, since it is the same as His family and disciples would have called Him. As for the accent on the name, it does vary with individuals but all mean, and this includes the name Jesus, Salvation of Yahweh.. Now you should not feel the compulsion to ask about Who He is. Yahweh bless you always, in Yeshua I pray, amen.

If by Yeshua, you mean Christ Jesus of Nazareth, I agree. But... No one is going to come to you and admit that their theology isn't really scriptural, they just made it up themselves because it felt good, the devil told them to do it, etc. They're all going to say that their theology comes from the scriptures. Which is the reason we have names to describe doctrines (or heresies). All these names/labels do is explain how a group believes the scriptures are interpreted.

Sometimes, as I indicated in the example above, the beliefs are misrepresented (i.e. a straw man is set up, as these are easy to knock down).

 

[notuptome]

The church is not a replacement for Israel. God made His covenant with Israel and will fulfill them completely. Gods plan of salvation remains unchanged. Grace saves in both the NT and the OT.

God is using the Gentile church to provoke Israel to jealousy. The church is the beneficiary of the blessing Israel rejected. The blessing not the covenant has passed to the church for now. Israel will receive judgment through the great tribulation then she will receive blessing when she sees Christ return as she expected Him in great power and glory. Israel did not desire a suffering Savior as described in Isaiah 53 so she rejected Him. When He returns she will receive Him and His blessing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[BradC]

If by Yeshua, you mean Christ Jesus of Nazareth, I agree. But... No one is going to come to you and admit that their theology isn't really scriptural, they just made it up themselves because it felt good, the devil told them to do it, etc. They're all going to say that their theology comes from the scriptures. Which is the reason we have names to describe doctrines (or heresies). All these names/labels do is explain how a group believes the scriptures are interpreted.

Sometimes, as I indicated in the example above, the beliefs are misrepresented (i.e. a straw man is set up, as these are easy to knock down).

In covenant theology what is the purpose that God has redeemed you as a sinner saved by grace through faith through his Son? What is the work that we are called to do in that covenant that has been given to us through redemption? Are you doing that work by faith because you are in a covenant to do so? Has God planned to provide you, by promise, all those things you may need to fulfill the work of that covenant and if you fail to do so will God leave you or forsake you? Has God ever forsaken anything that he has promised to any people? If so, who are those people and why did he forsake and leave them??? Is it heresy to believe that God is faithful to what he has promised in a given covenant with a given people that he has called and chose of His own free will? Can those people be substituted or excluded from those promises through unbelief? Is not God's call made before any good or evil has been done by those who have been called and is that call of God without the possibility of repentance?

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

Is it heresy to believe that God is faithful to what he has promised in a given covenant with a given people that he has called and chose of His own free will?

I think the heresy comes in where people believe and teach that others will be saved simply by their ethnicity or religion (e.g. in a new dispensation), rather than only through the shed blood of Christ Jesus and faith in Him.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Rabble rabble rabble replacement theology rabble rabble.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The above seems a little inaccurate to me, as it implies Covenant Theology means people believe the Church has replaced true Israel, rather than being grafted in. Here is a post from Zone on a different thread, which I think presents a more scriptural view than the online definition described (bold formatting mine).

To be devils advocate here.

I believe Covenant theology was born and raised in the catholic church. The things they teach would prety much line up with what Katy said. As with dispensational theology. There are different sects. Zone, Being a Lutheran, would follow one of those different sects of Covenant theology. Just like I follow a different sect of dispensationalism.

Both Zone and myself agree. Salvation is and always has been since the beginning of time, by the grace of God through his messiah. We share the same gospel, and are brother and sister in Christ, even though we disagree on the issues of these two theologies.

Some covenent theologians (roman) and some dispensationalists, however. believe that God had different plans of salvation in different times on earth.

What we have to do is sort through all the different beliefs out there. and not assume everyone believes what we have been taught they believe, or the general idiology that many people think others believe.

That is what has caused all the frustration and arguing when this topic is discussed.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I think the heresy comes in where people believe and teach that others will be saved simply by their ethnicity or religion (e.g. in a new dispensation), rather than only through the shed blood of Christ Jesus and faith in Him.

I hope you do not think this is what dispensationalism teaches. for it is not.. Even though some may, the majority of dispensationalists do not believe this, I personally know of no one (except a few pastors in the church I grew up in, who as far as I know are no longer pastors) who would teach this theology.

 

[JaumeJ]

The OP point is, there is no validity to any theology outside of the Word. As concerning the covenant, we who are not descended by blood from Abraham are now descended from him by faith, for the covenant made with Abraham gave the Gate for his descentants' enemies to enter. We who believe Jesus, Yeshua, enter by That Gate for that Gate is Yeshua. Covenants are a completely different subject which I have seen discussed to death in this forum. I have contributed some, but there is no need to make it into some kind of science indiscernable by the masses as some tend to do. The covenant is simple, believe Yeshua and accept the free gift of His Blood to cleanse us of our sins, and do as He teaches. The cross.............the Lamb of Yahweh..-Anyone making the covenant anything more or less than grace is complicating the simplicity of yielding the the Lamb of Yahweh. As Paul teaches, so it is:



1Co 2:1
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.


1Co 2:2
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

I hope you do not think this is what dispensationalism teaches. for it is not.. Even though some may, the majority of dispensationalists do not believe this, I personally know of no one (except a few pastors in the church I grew up in, who as far as I know are no longer pastors) who would teach this theology.

If this isn't what it teaches, then why believe in dispensationalism at all? If all must come to Christ for salvation, why make a distinction on the saved based on (alleged) race?

 

[crossnote]

No one is making a distinction of who gets saved based on race.
The distinction is the MEANS or instruments God used to bring His message to the world.

Christ from whom salvation comes made a distinction..

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

And Paul ...

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Romans 9:4-5 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[my_adonai_]

Anything that brings confusion is not worth reading. Basically every truth that the Lord pours in our hearts always has a back-up to it or way of conforming it.... Sometimes we so caught up in knowledge we forget that LOVE edifies.