The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics - see the evidence

[WPM]

Don't be like WPM and say I've "said nothing," or "ducked!" I directly addressed the point you're making. I said that Premills do not always hold to the same position with respect to the state of things in the Millennium, who will populate earth during the Millennium, the state of mortality or immortality in the Millennium, and the place and worship of Israel in the Millennium.

My point, once again, is that these elements that may have existed as "options" in early Chiliasm remain "options" today in Premillennialism. The various views are not fundamental to either Chiliasm or Premillennialism.

I, for one, hold to belief that Israel as a nation will be restored in the Millennium. Many Premills today hold to what early Chiliasts held, that the International Church is the New Israel, and that Israel has already exhausted their efforts at national salvation. They believe that Israel will not, as a nation, be restored in the Millennium, much as the Chiliasts seem to have believed at times.

I respect you, but no, I must use a term that others are familiar with. It indicates the nature of the argument from my point of view.

You're welcome to use terms that reflect your point of view. But if we're done, that's okay with me. I'm not here to push my beliefs on others. I refuse to use insulting rhetoric to shame others into agreement with me. We should let the Holy Spirit have His way, particularly so that we remain open to correction ourselves.

You are identifying one difference with Chiliasm, as if that was it. But there are multiple differences between ancient Chiliasm and modern Premillennialism, a way more than what separates Amillennialism from Postmillennialism. Chiliasm and Premillennialism are completely different animals - from head to tail. They differ in nearly every tenet, apart from a future millennial earth. But that millennial earth that ancient Chiliasts foresaw was identical to that which Amillennialists today anticipate. So, they were essentially Amil in their expectation. There was no continuation of the curse. There was no more future earth blighted with sin and sinners, dying and crying, disease and decay, corruption and crime, riots and rebellion, war and terror and Satan and his minions, as you (and your fellow Premillennialists) promote.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Don't be like WPM and say I've "said nothing," or "ducked!" I directly addressed the point you're making. I said that Premills do not always hold to the same position with respect to the state of things in the Millennium, who will populate earth during the Millennium, the state of mortality or immortality in the Millennium, and the place and worship of Israel in the Millennium.

My point, once again, is that these elements that may have existed as "options" in early Chiliasm remain "options" today in Premillennialism. The various views are not fundamental to either Chiliasm or Premillennialism.

I, for one, hold to belief that Israel as a nation will be restored in the Millennium. Many Premills today hold to what early Chiliasts held, that the International Church is the New Israel, and that Israel has already exhausted their efforts at national salvation. They believe that Israel will not, as a nation, be restored in the Millennium, much as the Chiliasts seem to have believed at times.

I respect you, but no, I must use a term that others are familiar with. It indicates the nature of the argument from my point of view.

You're welcome to use terms that reflect your point of view. But if we're done, that's okay with me. I'm not here to push my beliefs on others. I refuse to use insulting rhetoric to shame others into agreement with me. We should let the Holy Spirit have His way, particularly so that we remain open to correction ourselves.

If I knew that certain terms offended you then I would not use them when talking to you because I would respect that. You can get the point across without using that term. I don't want to ever hear you again talk about people disrespecting you when you have disrespected me and WPM many times yourself. Please stop the hypocrisy.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If I knew that certain terms offended you then I would not use them when talking to you because I would respect that. You can get the point across without using that term. I don't want to ever hear you again talk about people disrespecting you when you have disrespected me and WPM many times yourself. Please stop the hypocrisy.

It's disrespectful to disallow the use of common terms, even if some schools are offended. Goodby for now.

 

[WPM]

It's disrespectful to disallow the use of common terms, even if some schools are offended. Goodby for now.

Why can you not just admit the real issue is: you have no rebuttal (and you know it)? Because of that, you have to deflect blame and take offence.

 

[WPM]

It's disrespectful to disallow the use of common terms, even if some schools are offended. Goodby for now.

Stop avoiding.

1. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of Satan being cast down from heaven at the second coming?
2. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of the binding of Satan at the second coming?
3. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked survive the second coming of the Lord?
4. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Satan survives the second coming?
5. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that Satan is cast into the bottomless pit for 1000 years after the second coming?
6. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked populate a future millennial earth?
7. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that the curse continues unabated on a future millennial earth?
8. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that mortals will populate future millennial earth?
9. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that marriage and procreation continue on on a future millennial earth?
10. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that sin continues on in a future millennial earth?
11. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that death continues on in a future millennial earth?
12. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that corruption continues unabated on in a future millennial earth?
13. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus will rule over his enemies for a thousand years after the second coming?
14. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the saints rule over mortal humanity for a thousand years?
15. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the glorified Church will rule in the Millennial era, causing all on earth to submit to the rule of Christ at that time?
16. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of the restoring of Israel back to her old covenant theocratic status in a future millennium?
17. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of Israel retaking her ancient borders in a future millennium?
18. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that Satan will be released from the bottomless pit 1000 years after the second coming?
19. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as the sand of the sea?
20. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus and the glorified saints will be surrounded by billions of wicked mortals led by Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
21. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus and the glorified saints will be surrounded by billions of wicked mortals led by Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
22. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a second (or 3rd for Pretribbers) rapture when the first earth flees away 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
23. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a second glorification when the first earth flees away 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
24. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be 2 last days periods - one before the second coming and one after?
25. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be 2 new heavens and new earths one with sin, sinners and corruption in it and the other perfect?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Can a term that accurately reflects how I feel about a particular theology be used even when that theology dislikes being characterized in that way? Well, in my view it depends on if there is intentional provocation or not? If the characterization has legitimate concerns, then it is legitimate. But if it is a deliberate mischaracterization then it is not legitimate.

Speech Control or disallowment of a Controversial Term is not a good way of arguing a point. For example, if a Gay Person does not like the word "Homosexual," it is not a good argument for a Gay Person to disallow the term, "Homosexual." It would be better to just argue from the perspective of those who do not agree with Homosexuality and allow use the term "Homosexual" negatively.

Such fear of terms just screams of fear of exposure. As such, there is possibly an implied self-doubt or guilt associated with the practice--not just the term.

If a term seems illegitimate it can be argued. But the term itself can express the basis for disagreement, and so, is legitimate in my thinking. "Homosexual" implies something the Bible forbids, and is negative. That is the position people who oppose it take, and that is why they use the term "Homosexual."

The same thing applies to "Replacement." It suggests, negatively, that those who oppose the belief reject the common biblical reference to Israel as a strictly Natural Nation.

"Replacement," therefore, seems to be an appropriate expression of this negative belief system. Those who reject the term hate to be pigeon-holed into being viewed as anti-biblical, and anti-Israel. But that is how they are viewed who reject their position. And use of the term "Replacement" simply expresses their view.

"Replacement Theology," in my view, properly expresses how I negatively view the Reformed community and their insistence that "Natural Israel" isn't really Israel, but is a kind of metaphor for "Spiritual Israel." This appears to be a word game to me.

I don't think there's a better way of expressing my disbelief in this reduction of "Israel" to a purely carnal, natural entity than to call it "Replacement Theology." I don't think there's a better way of expressing my negative view of this Theology, which calls "Israel" a metaphor for Spiritual Israel than to call it "Replacement Theology?"

If you don't think it is a "replacement" at all, then you have a right to voice your disproval or argue the point--you do not have the right to disallow how someone may legitimately disagree with your view on the matter of "replacement." It is for me a "replacement." It replaces how I view "Israel" with how you view "Israel!" Saying I cannot use the term "Replacement" is like saying "you can't disagree with me by expressing your disagreement in terms that show that disagreement."

Replacing what the Bible meant by "Israel" with something less than National Israel, ie Spiritual Israel, is, in fact, a "replacement" from my point of view. And then, adding more nations to this "Spiritual Israel" is definitely "replacing" the original definition of "Israel" to now be not "Spiritual Israel" within the Jewish nation, but now "Spiritual Israel" including all nations!

Here is a clip from someone else having concerned with "Speech Control" on this subject...

"Replacement Theology" - Is It Wrong to Use the Term? (Part 1) | SHARPER IRON

Recently I have been reminded of the Reformed community’s aversion to the label of supercessionism, or worse, replacement theology. In the last decade or so particularly I have read repeated disavowals of this term from covenant theologians. Not wanting to misrepresent or smear brethren with...

sharperiron.org

"Recently I have been reminded of the Reformed community’s aversion to the label of supercessionism, or worse, replacement theology. In the last decade or so particularly I have read repeated disavowals of this term from covenant theologians. Not wanting to misrepresent or smear brethren with whom I disagree, I have to say that I struggle a bit with these protests.

“We are not replacement theologians” we are told, “but rather we believe in transformation or expansion.” By some of the objectors we are told that the church does not replace Israel because it actually is Israel — well, “true Israel” — the two designations are really one. This move is legitimate, they say, because the “true Israel” or “new Israel” is in direct continuity with Israel in the Old Testament."

So this is the problem I have, as well. I wish to portray my disagreement with the "Reformed community" by stating their position in terms that *offend me.* I'm offended that they apparently take a term of a natural entity, and then turn it into a metaphor of a strictly spiritual entity. They, in effect, "replace" Natural Israel with Spiritual Israel by claiming that "Natural Israel" was always meant to be a metaphor for "Spiritual Israel."

I'm not saying that there isn't rationale for viewing things this way--just stating how I think it is a theology that "replaces" how it *should be read,* that Natural Israel is not and never was meant to be a metaphor for the International Church, but rather, was only ever intended to represent a Natural Nation that lived in the land of Canaan, or in today's Palestine.

To me, the Reformed community holds to a "Replacement Theology." They do not think so, and may call it whatever they like, just as they may refer to my Premillennial beliefs as based on an "imagined Millennium."

 

[covenantee]

Can a term that accurately reflects how I feel about a particular theology be used even when that theology dislikes being characterized in that way? Well, in my view it depends on if there is intentional provocation or not? If the characterization has legitimate concerns, then it is legitimate. But if it is a deliberate mischaracterization then it is not legitimate.

Speech Control or disallowment of a Controversial Term is not a good way of arguing a point. For example, if a Gay Person does not like the word "Homosexual," it is not a good argument for a Gay Person to disallow the term, "Homosexual." It would be better to just argue from the perspective of those who do not agree with Homosexuality and allow use the term "Homosexual" negatively.

Such fear of terms just screams of fear of exposure. As such, there is possibly an implied self-doubt or guilt associated with the practice--not just the term.

If a term seems illegitimate it can be argued. But the term itself can express the basis for disagreement, and so, is legitimate in my thinking. "Homosexual" implies something the Bible forbids, and is negative. That is the position people who oppose it take, and that is why they use the term "Homosexual."

The same thing applies to "Replacement." It suggests, negatively, that those who oppose the belief reject the common biblical reference to Israel as a strictly Natural Nation.

"Replacement," therefore, seems to be an appropriate expression of this negative belief system. Those who reject the term hate to be pigeon-holed into being viewed as anti-biblical, and anti-Israel. But that is how they are viewed who reject their position. And use of the term "Replacement" simply expresses their view.

"Replacement Theology," in my view, properly expresses how I negatively view the Reformed community and their insistence that "Natural Israel" isn't really Israel, but is a kind of metaphor for "Spiritual Israel." This appears to be a word game to me.

I don't think there's a better way of expressing my disbelief in this reduction of "Israel" to a purely carnal, natural entity than to call it "Replacement Theology." I don't think there's a better way of expressing my negative view of this Theology, which calls "Israel" a metaphor for Spiritual Israel than to call it "Replacement Theology?"

If you don't think it is a "replacement" at all, then you have a right to voice your disproval or argue the point--you do not have the right to disallow how someone may legitimately disagree with your view on the matter of "replacement." It is for me a "replacement." It replaces how I view "Israel" with how you view "Israel!" Saying I cannot use the term "Replacement" is like saying "you can't disagree with me by expressing your disagreement in terms that show that disagreement."

Replacing what the Bible meant by "Israel" with something less than National Israel, ie Spiritual Israel, is, in fact, a "replacement" from my point of view. And then, adding more nations to this "Spiritual Israel" is definitely "replacing" the original definition of "Israel" to now be not "Spiritual Israel" within the Jewish nation, but now "Spiritual Israel" including all nations!

Here is a clip from someone else having concerned with "Speech Control" on this subject...

"Replacement Theology" - Is It Wrong to Use the Term? (Part 1) | SHARPER IRON

Recently I have been reminded of the Reformed community’s aversion to the label of supercessionism, or worse, replacement theology. In the last decade or so particularly I have read repeated disavowals of this term from covenant theologians. Not wanting to misrepresent or smear brethren with...

sharperiron.org

"Recently I have been reminded of the Reformed community’s aversion to the label of supercessionism, or worse, replacement theology. In the last decade or so particularly I have read repeated disavowals of this term from covenant theologians. Not wanting to misrepresent or smear brethren with whom I disagree, I have to say that I struggle a bit with these protests.

“We are not replacement theologians” we are told, “but rather we believe in transformation or expansion.” By some of the objectors we are told that the church does not replace Israel because it actually is Israel — well, “true Israel” — the two designations are really one. This move is legitimate, they say, because the “true Israel” or “new Israel” is in direct continuity with Israel in the Old Testament."

So this is the problem I have, as well. I wish to portray my disagreement with the "Reformed community" by stating their position in terms that *offend me.* I'm offended that they apparently take a term of a natural entity, and then turn it into a metaphor of a strictly spiritual entity. They, in effect, "replace" Natural Israel with Spiritual Israel by claiming that "Natural Israel" was always meant to be a metaphor for "Spiritual Israel."

I'm not saying that there isn't rationale for viewing things this way--just stating how I think it is a theology that "replaces" how it *should be read,* that Natural Israel is not and never was meant to be a metaphor for the International Church, but rather, was only ever intended to represent a Natural Nation that lived in the land of Canaan, or in today's Palestine.

To me, the Reformed community holds to a "Replacement Theology." They do not think so, and may call it whatever they like, just as they may refer to my Premillennial beliefs as based on an "imagined Millennium."

Is an ethnic Jew's physical DNA replaced when he/she receives Christ? No, the physical DNA before receiving Christ is the same physical DNA after receiving Christ.

Is an ethnic Jew's opportunity to receive Christ replaced? No, his/her opportunity to receive Christ is no less than that of any and every other individual.

So what is replaced, and what replaces it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's disrespectful to disallow the use of common terms, even if some schools are offended. Goodby for now.

I will start calling your doctrine dispensationalism then. I'm sure you won't mind.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Is an ethnic Jew's physical DNA replaced when he/she receives Christ? No, the physical DNA before receiving Christ is the same physical DNA after receiving Christ.

Is an ethnic Jew's opportunity to receive Christ replaced? No, his/her opportunity to receive Christ is no less than that of any and every other individual.

So what is replaced, and what replaces it?

He doesn't know what is being replaced and by who or what. He just likes to annoy us by using that term while pretending as if he just has no other way to express his thoughts without using that term. What a joke.

 

[WPM]

That was a poor apology. You called him a "Dispensationalist." I also believe not in an "imaginary" future temporary Kingdom, nor in a "carnal" one, if by that you reference the Sin-Dominated "Flesh." But I also am not a Dispensatioinalist. You are failing to acknowledge the distinction.

Those who believe in "imaginary" Kingdoms are dreamers. Premills, like myself, believe in a "real" Kingdom of Christ, which we all believe is coming, whether in a preliminary way for a thousand literal years or in the Eternal Glory we all believe in.

Nor do any Premills that I know of believe that Sin will dominate in this Millennial Kingdom--at least not until the thousand years are over. We believe that this is the time when prophecy of the nations must be fulfilled, since in the Eternal Glory there may not even be national distinctions any longer. Nations must come, I believe, to serve the Lord, just as God's glory must cover the earth "as the waters cover the sea.

But Dispensationalism has baggage that not all Premills wish to share. And that was the point, which you have failed to acknowledge or speak to. I get it that you think a Millennium is symbolic and "imagined," and wish to trash it as "carnal." They did this properly to Cerinthus.

But Premills are not Cerinthus. The Apostle John, who penned the Millennium, despised Cerinthus. And Premills, who do not believe in a "carnal" Kingdom of God, would trash him too.

You promote the same end-time theology as Cerinthus. What he taught was not held by any of the early orthodox Chiliasts. So, you find yourself in the same camp of as the ancient heretics.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I will start calling your doctrine dispensationalism then. I'm sure you won't mind.

You can do that, but your motive will be to provoke, which I think is illegitimate. If you really think my doctrine is dispensationalism, I will question that because some of the essential elements of dispensationalism I reject, such as the Pretrib
Rapture.

But I do hold to the belief in Israel's future national salvation. So yes, I do hold to some elements of Dispensationalism. But I do not personally consider my belief Dispensationalism because of my rejection of some of the essential elements of that system.

I've been offended when some persist in calling me a Preterist, though some have honestly thought that is who I am. Out of ignorance they think I'm a Preterist because I share with that belief system the belief that much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD. And I'm not offended unless after explaining that I disagree with some of the essential beliefs in that system they persist in calling me that.

I do not believe that most all NT prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD--just the Abomination of Desolation of Dan 9.27 and the AoD of the Olivet Discourse. But unlike Preterism I think that some elements of the Olivet Discourse are future prophecies, eg of Israel's ongoing NT "Great Tribulation." And I think that, unlike Preterism, much of Revelation, including the 2 Beasts, have yet to be fulfilled in a future Antichrist. Those who ignore this and continue to call me a "Preterist" are just being provocative, which I think is illegitimate.

In referring to your system of belief as "Replacement Theology" I am not being provocative, except to you who do not llike the implication that you're replacing something biblical when in fact according to my belief you are. You're replacing the natural definition of literal Israel with a meaning built on replacing a literal meaning with a metaphorical meaning, which is never what the Bible indicated.

The Bible never meant to express by "Israel" only the Elect or redeemed of God in Christ. Rather, it was an indication that all of Israel would have to eventually be culled by the matter of conformity to God's faith requirements. But to get to the refinements one has to begin with the whole nation. You should not define the nation after final judgment, but only before.

So, when the Bible mentions "Israel" as an entire nation, both those who had faith and those whose faith was being tested, you think the reference is only to those who eventually pass the test. But that is not legitimate because it can clearly be shown that "Israel" includes those who failed the test of faith aong with those who had genuine faith. Those who fail are merely "cut off" from Israel *after* failing the test.

Therefore, from my perspective, the issue is that you "replace" the real meaning of biblical "Israel" with an outcome, when that is not really how the Bible presents 'Israel" by definition. Not only that, but you include in the definition of 'Israel" others from other nations who later express a genuine faith. That is adding to the definition of "Israel" other nations who are not biblical "Israel."

I hope you understand? You may disagree but perhaps at least you will understand why I characterize your belief as a "replacement?" I acknowledge your arguments against this, but you should also acknowledge that from my point of view this *is,* in fact, a "replacement" of the definition of "Israel" for something alien to the biblical use of the term?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Is an ethnic Jew's physical DNA replaced when he/she receives Christ? No, the physical DNA before receiving Christ is the same physical DNA after receiving Christ.

Is an ethnic Jew's opportunity to receive Christ replaced? No, his/her opportunity to receive Christ is no less than that of any and every other individual.

So what is replaced, and what replaces it?

The "Jews," 1st of all, are defined as a covenant people who had been attached to the Old Covenant of Law, but who now hold to the society that originally embraced that Covenant. So, a "Jew" is both an ethnicity and a religion.

When a Jew converts to the New Covenant of Christ, he remains who he was, and simply has added to his identification with the Jewish culture a new aspect, a new religion. He sees the old religion as fulfilled in the new religion.

A Jew accepting Christ is not "replacing" the definition of a "Jew," though for a Rabbinic Jew it is in the religious sense, though not in the biological sense. What would "replace" the definition of a "Jew" in this would be claiming that a non-Jew accepted Christ and thus became a "Jew."

 

[Davidpt]

You can do that, but your motive will be to provoke, which I think is illegitimate. If you really think my doctrine is dispensationalism, I will question that because some of the essential elements of dispensationalism I reject, such as the Pretrib
Rapture.

But I do hold to the belief in Israel's future national salvation. So yes, I do hold to some elements of Dispensationalism. But I do not personally consider my belief Dispensationalism because of my rejection of some of the essential elements of that system.

I've been offended when some persist in calling me a Preterist, though some have honestly thought that is who I am. Out of ignorance they think I'm a Preterist because I share with that belief system the belief that much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD. And I'm not offended unless after explaining that I disagree with some of the essential beliefs in that system they persist in calling me that.

I do not believe that most all NT prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD--just the Abomination of Desolation of Dan 9.27 and the AoD of the Olivet Discourse. But unlike Preterism I think that some elements of the Olivet Discourse are future prophecies, eg of Israel's ongoing NT "Great Tribulation." And I think that, unlike Preterism, much of Revelation, including the 2 Beasts, have yet to be fulfilled in a future Antichrist. Those who ignore this and continue to call me a "Preterist" are just being provocative, which I think is illegitimate.

In referring to your system of belief as "Replacement Theology" I am not being provocative, except to you who do not llike the implication that you're replacing something biblical when in fact according to my belief you are. You're replacing the natural definition of literal Israel with a meaning built on replacing a literal meaning with a metaphorical meaning, which is never what the Bible indicated.

The Bible never meant to express by "Israel" only the Elect or redeemed of God in Christ. Rather, it was an indication that all of Israel would have to eventually be culled by the matter of conformity to God's faith requirements. But to get to the refinements one has to begin with the whole nation. You should not define the nation after final judgment, but only before.

So, when the Bible mentions "Israel" as an entire nation, both those who had faith and those whose faith was being tested, you think the reference is only to those who eventually pass the test. But that is not legitimate because it can clearly be shown that "Israel" includes those who failed the test of faith aong with those who had genuine faith. Those who fail are merely "cut off" from Israel *after* failing the test.

Therefore, from my perspective, the issue is that you "replace" the real meaning of biblical "Israel" with an outcome, when that is not really how the Bible presents 'Israel" by definition. Not only that, but you include in the definition of 'Israel" others from other nations who later express a genuine faith. That is adding to the definition of "Israel" other nations who are not biblical "Israel."

I hope you understand? You may disagree but perhaps at least you will understand why I characterize your belief as a "replacement?" I acknowledge your arguments against this, but you should also acknowledge that from my point of view this *is,* in fact, a "replacement" of the definition of "Israel" for something alien to the biblical use of the term?

This charge of replacement theology makes no sense. How can anyone be replacing anyone if the ones allegedly being replaced are equally part of the ones being charged with replacement theology? Replacement theology apparently means, according to that view, that the church replaces the Jews. Except the church does not = only Gentiles, it equals both Jews and Gentiles.


Which would logically mean, assuming replacement theology is a legit charge, not only would Gentiles be replacing Jews with the church, so would Jews be replacing Jews with the church. But you never hear those charging Gentiles believers with replacement theology, they also charging Jewish believers with the same thing. Why is that? Once again the church = Jews and Gentiles.

 

[WPM]

The "Jews," 1st of all, are defined as a covenant people who had been attached to the Old Covenant of Law, but who now hold to the society that originally embraced that Covenant. So, a "Jew" is both an ethnicity and a religion.

When a Jew converts to the New Covenant of Christ, he remains who he was, and simply has added to his identification with the Jewish culture a new aspect, a new religion. He sees the old religion as fulfilled in the new religion.

A Jew accepting Christ is not "replacing" the definition of a "Jew," though for a Rabbinic Jew it is in the religious sense, though not in the biological sense. What would "replace" the definition of a "Jew" in this would be claiming that a non-Jew accepted Christ and thus became a "Jew."

Hello! Breaking news: we have entered the new covenant. The old is gone forever. Race means nothing today. It is all about grace. The Gospel is open equally to Jews and Gentiles alike. There is no racial favoritism any more. Thank God!

• We have moved from the old to the new covenant. The rules have therefore changed.
• We are not going back to racial favor.
• People who reject Christ are not God's chosen or His children, they are children of the devil.

Any other gospel is a false gospel. It is another gospel.

 

[covenantee]

The "Jews," 1st of all, are defined as a covenant people who had been attached to the Old Covenant of Law, but who now hold to the society that originally embraced that Covenant. So, a "Jew" is both an ethnicity and a religion.

When a Jew converts to the New Covenant of Christ, he remains who he was, and simply has added to his identification with the Jewish culture a new aspect, a new religion. He sees the old religion as fulfilled in the new religion.

A Jew accepting Christ is not "replacing" the definition of a "Jew," though for a Rabbinic Jew it is in the religious sense, though not in the biological sense. What would "replace" the definition of a "Jew" in this would be claiming that a non-Jew accepted Christ and thus became a "Jew."

Please provide a verbatim quote, author, and source of replacement theology claiming that "a non-Jew who accepts Christ becomes a Jew", and thus replaces the physical DNA, or the opportunity to receive Christ, of any other Jew.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Please provide a verbatim quote, author, and source of replacement theology claiming that "a non-Jew who accepts Christ becomes a Jew", and thus replaces the physical DNA, or the opportunity to receive Christ, of any other Jew.

My source is the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, or any language person who understands what a "Jew" is and what 'Israel" is. By saying that the Jew suddenly becomes a Gentile, or Israel becomes the nations, is "replacement," by definition. I don't need to quote anything on this. It leads to arguments based on a person's theology, as opposed to common sense definitions.

 

[WPM]

My source is the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, or any language person who understands what a "Jew" is and what 'Israel" is. By saying that the Jew suddenly becomes a Gentile, or Israel becomes the nations, is "replacement," by definition. I don't need to quote anything on this. It leads to arguments based on a person's theology, as opposed to common sense definitions.

LOL. You need to move out of the old covenant and enter into the new covenant. This theology is the theology of the early Premillennial heretics. Check the Op out. This is what they taught.

The Apostle declares in Romans 2:25-29: “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit.”

The Holy Spirit shows the change that occurred under the new covenant where physical circumcision has been superseded by just spiritual circumcision through salvation. To admit this would force you to change your theology. But the change is so clear and indisputable. Your rebuttal is just you repeating your own opinions - as if that is a valid argument. It is not. That seems to be a pattern in your posts. Scripture overrides your speculations.

Romans 2:25-29 is quite powerful in that it changes the nature and scope of what a real Jew (the “circumcision”) and a real Gentile (the “uncircumcision”) are in God’s eyes. God takes these common natural terms and spiritualises them, and in doing so redefines the whole argument of true identity.

Throughout the New Testament, the natural ethnic title “uncircumcision” (normally used to describe a Gentile) is amazingly used to describe the unbelieving Jew. Also, the natural ethnic title “circumcision” (normally used to describe a natural Jew) is amazingly used to describe the believing Gentile. This would have been anathema to the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day. It would have been the greatest insult to a Jew.

He is comparing those that are spiritually circumcised (representing all believers – both Jew and Gentile) to those that are spiritually non-circumcised (representing unbelievers – both Jew and Gentile). This is essentially a saved or lost issue, which keeps coming up repeatedly in Scripture. That is the only 2 peoples in this world, not Jew or Gentile.

It would be helpful to categorise the parties in view. Let us illustrate.

(A) Physical circumcision
(B) Physical non-circumcision
(C) Spiritual circumcision of the heart
(D) Spiritual non-circumcision of the heart

What Paul is saying is that A and B means nothing. Salvation is not a natural matter. He is emphasizing here as he continually does in his writings, C and D are what it is all about. This is how God truly views all men. Nothing else matters. He shows that C refers to all irrespective of race, nationality or status that accept Christ. He especially highlights how the Gentile who is by nature a B has been brought into this chosen grouping (C) through the blood of Jesus. He equally shows that D refers to all irrespective of race, nationality or status who reject Christ. He especially highlights the fact there will be those of A that equally belong to D and therefore damned. Nothing could be simpler.

In short, he shows that there will be those that are one thing in the natural and the opposite in the spiritual. Natural Jews can be classed as spiritual Gentiles and natural Gentiles can be classed as spiritual Jews. Of course, a natural Jews can also be a spiritual Jew through Christ, and a natural Gentile can also be a spiritual Gentile through refusing Christ.

 

[covenantee]

My source is the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, or any language person who understands what a "Jew" is and what 'Israel" is. By saying that the Jew suddenly becomes a Gentile, or Israel becomes the nations, is "replacement," by definition. I don't need to quote anything on this. It leads to arguments based on a person's theology, as opposed to common sense definitions.

"By saying that the Jew suddenly becomes a Gentile, or Israel becomes the nations, is "replacement," by definition."
You haven't evinced anyone who is saying that.

If you don't need to quote anything, then I don't need to attribute what you're saying, to anything other than your subjective imagination.

Which I have thus done.

 

[Randy Kluth]

"By saying that the Jew suddenly becomes a Gentile, or Israel becomes the nations, is "replacement," by definition."
You haven't evinced anyone who is saying that.

If you don't need to quote anything, then I don't need to attribute what you're saying, to anything other than your subjective imagination.

Which I have thus done.

Someone who cannot resort to a Dictionary definition should not try to look for quotes. I will now quote a Dictionary definition for you:

Jew Definition of JEW:
1
: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people

2
: one whose religion is Judaism

3
a
: a member of the tribe of Judah
b
: israelite

4
: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.

Israel Definition of ISRAEL:
1
: jacob sense 2
2
: the Jewish people
3
: a people chosen by God

How are these "replaced?"

Replacement What is Replacement Theology?:

Replacement Theology-also called Supersessionism-typically holds that the Christian Church has fully and permanently replaced Israel in God’s plan. According to proponents of this view, God’s covenant promises to Israel now find their exclusive fulfillment in the Church. While various streams of historical theology have introduced different nuances to this idea, the central claim remains that the Church, as the “new Israel,” has superseded national Israel’s role in the divine covenantal relationship.

Some believe that "Israel" has not been replaced because it has always represented not the Natural Nation under covenant of Law, but really represented "True Israel," the Elect of God, who were true believers within the whole Nation. As such, when they expanded to include the Gentiles they maintained the original meaning of the name "Israel" as the Elect of God, True Israel, etc.

But this is absurd in the way the language refers to Israel in the Scriptures, which did not set apart only believers, the elect, or the faithful. Paul identified "true Israel" when anybody within the whole Nation were faithful to their calling.

They were called "Israel," inclusively, well before they made decisions to prove their fidelity to God. "Israel" is thus the whole nation, or what one might call "Natural Israel." And this would exclude any merger with other whole nations to produce a confederation called "Spiritual Israel."

The idea that many remnants of different nations can consolidate into an entity called a "nation" is equally absurd. That isn't how "nation is used in Scripture.

The Church and the Nation could've been called "Israel" when only national Israel was being spoken of if it had been a nominal Christian nation. Althoug true Christians are born again, nominal Christians are also called "Christians" and the "Church" in the Bible too. When they are born again they become "true Christians," just as faithful Jews become "true Israel."

 

[covenantee]

Someone who cannot resort to a Dictionary definition should not try to look for quotes. I will now quote a Dictionary definition for you:

From the beginning, God's Plan has ever and always been exclusively for those who were and are faithful and obedient to Him and His Covenant/Testament. In Old Covenant/Testament Israel, that included both Jews and Gentiles.

Genesis 17:12
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

By the thousands, God slew Israelites who rebelled against Him in unfaithfulness and disobedience.

Numbers 25
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Since Calvary, under the New Covenant/Testament, God's Plan continues through Christ His Son with those who are faithful and obedient to Him: His Church, which encompasses faithful obedient Jews and Gentiles in a global Holy Nation. 1 Peter 2:5,9.

And yes, the New Covenant/Testament has replaced the Old.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

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

Hebrews 8
13 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.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things. Unbelieving Israel is not an heir. Galatians 4:30-31.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that those who are in Christ are heirs and joint heirs with Him.

But it is undeniable:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ under His New Covenant/Testament.