Conference yukon::christian_v7

    What is "replacement theology"?

I think that within some limits, there can be a diversity of interpretations of
Scripture on this topic.  I'd hesistate to call replacement theology "bad 
doctrine," as if it were a heresy of great magnitude. 

But I must admit I don't know a lot about what exactly "replacement theology"
means.  What I do know is that it teaches the concept that the Church of Christ
"replaced" Israel as the chosen people.  

From what I know about replacement theology, I don't think I agree with its
interpretation of Scripture, but I think there is a lot of Scripture that
could be used to back up at least some of its concepts, and I don't think it
is necessarily a "na�ve" interpretation of Scripture. 

Personally I have not run across any books that discuss this topic in any
detail, though.

Eric

    >    What is "replacement theology"?
    
    Is that when you serve religion instead of having a personal
    relationship with Jesus Christ?

Hi Nancy,

    I know a tract put out by the Messianic Testimony in the UK.  I don't 
think they operate in the U.S., though JFJ would possibly also cover that 
ground?  The MT one is only a leaflet, but I think it's pretty good.  I 
could mail you one if you like.

						God bless
							Andrew

    
    Hal Lindsay's  book "The Road To Holocaust" is a rebuttal
    to Replacement or Dominion theology, and a warning to such authors as
    David Chilton( Days Of Vengeance) Gary North ( Liberating Planet
    Earth) and Greg Bahnsen ( Theonomy In Christian Ethics).
    
    Dominion theology teaches that the events predicted in the Book
    Of Daniel and the Book Of Revelation have already happened,
    (in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem). Furthermore, it
    says that the Jewish people have forfeited their right as God's
    chosen people, and that the Christian Church should now assume
    that privilege, and go back to adhering to the Mosaic laws.It
    also teaches that Christ's second coming is only a symbol of his
    Church ruling the world, not an actual physical event.
    
    
    Lindsey warns of the dangers of this type of anti-Semitic
    thinking and He uses the teachings of St Paul, to reinforce this:
    
    "...And if our relationship to God is by grace, then it is no longer
    by works; if it were, grace would not be grace...( Romans 11:6)
    
    "...How did we recieve Christ?-By  grace through faith..."(Ephesians
    2:8)
    
    "...You who are tryng to be justified by Law, have been alienated
    from Christ; you have fallen away from grace..." (Galatians 5:3)
    
    
    "...The failure to correctly interpret an issue as clearly revealed in
    the New Testament as Law and Grace is a major doctrinal error.
    The Apostle Paul declared this error serious enough to call those who
    taught it"accursed" ( Galatians 1:6)..." Hal Lindsey
                         

      Hi,
    
        There's probably a lot of different types of 'replacement
        theology' of which I think (not sure) I believe in one
        type of.
    
        I just happen to believe that all promises made to Israel
        are spiritual and are such that any who receive Christ by
        faith will receive.
    
        I happen to believe that any physical interpretation is a false
        interpretation being somewhat analogous to the Israel of 
        Christ's day being unable to see that _temple_ could refer
        to Christ's body.
    
        Any physical interpretation misses the point.  The true 
        interpretation is a spiritual one.  Any physical interpretation
        regarding anything is missing out of a spiritual interpretation
        that God is longing to help us see regarding a deeper understanding
        of the gospel.
    
        That's just the way I see it.
    
                                                   Tony

    Hi Nancy,
    
    The best book on the subject is the Bible itself, from Genesis through
    revelation, but especially Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Romans, with special
    emphasis on chapters 9-11 of that letter.
    
    I posted a list of other sources on the subject in another version of
    the conference.  I'll see if I can dig that reply out and re-post here.
    
    Steve (who is obviously biased on this issue and not at all ashamed of
    that fact)

I'm not sure of the term for the position opposite to Replacement Theology, that
is, those who most strongly oppose replacement theology, but I have a question.

Does this other position say that there are now two equal and valid covenants,
and that salvation may be normally obtained through both covenants?

Or does it teach that Jews can only be saved through the New Covenant?

Eric

� Does this other position say that there are now two equal and valid covenants,
� and that salvation may be normally obtained through both covenants?

No.  It says that none of God's covenants are nullified - as per 
Romans 11:29 : 
	"God's gifts and His call are irrevokable"

This means that the first covenant, a temporal one, is still totally valid, 
as is indicated in Genesis 17:13 :
	"My covenant in your flesh is an everlasting covenant"

That covenant was not essentially one of salvation, though it pointed
forward to salvation (for those who could receive it, because it contained
pictures of the New Covenant).  It was a temporal, earthly, physical one.
It concerned land, descendents and people, and God using and working
through them in this world. 

� Or does it teach that Jews can only be saved through the New Covenant?
Salvation, as in eternal cleansing from sin, is only via Jesus' blood, and 
is part of the New Covenant, not the old.  

Under the old covenant, those who were obedient - possessed the faith of 
Abraham - had the justification of Jesus' death - the New Covenant -
applied to them, as indicated in Hebrews 11:40, for instance.  The Old
Covenant sacrifices they performed never had, in themselves, any
sanctifying effect (eg Hebrews 10:4 indicates, and as David and others
realised eg Psalm 51:16), but these were a demonstration of their faith in
the God Who established them, that He would perform a fulfillment - which
we have seen completed in Jesus' death. 

This might not be as precise as it should be (Steve?),  but it's my attempt 
to Eric's query in .8 .  I hope it clarifies to some extent!

						God bless
								Andrew

    re: .8
    
    Andrew - you were precisely precise!
    
    Simply put - salvation has always been, is now, and forever shall be
    through faith and faith alone.  Before Yeshua's death and resurrection,
    salvation was through faith in the Promise yet unfulfilled.  Since His
    death and rising, salvation is through faith in the Promise that has
    wonderfully been fulfilled!
    
    Steve

    re: .10
    
    I meant .10 to refer back to .9

      Hi,
    
        Here's a different spin on the Covenants...
    
        There are two covenants...the everlasting which is also the new
        and the old.
    
        The everlasting covenant is and has always been that God does
        everything and He calls us to believe.
    
        The old is "All these things we will do" where the underlying 
        method being used is man depending on his flesh.  Man does the
        enabling.  When Abraham tried to have an heir through Hagar, he
        was walking in the old covenant; he depended on himself and not
        God.
    
        When God brought Israel to Sinai, it was clear their mindset was
        old covenant.  So He loaded them up with laws partly for the
        purpose of helping them see the futility of the old covenant 
        and to help them see the new covenant.
    
        Every Christian's experience is a blend of old and new covenant.
        To the extent that we have any unbelief at all, to that extent
        we are walking in the old covenant.  To the extent that we rely 
        by faith in God and His working in us, we are walking in the new
        covenant.  The covenants are matters of condition/experience and
        not matters of time.  Galatians refer to people walking in the
        old covenant (postcalvary).
    
        Hebrews foresees a transition to the new covenant.  It quotes 
        Jeremiah, "I wil put My laws in your heart..."  It foresees a 
        group who rest perfectly in Christ.  It looks forward to the
        conscience being perfectly purged.  It looks forward to a people
        able to inhabit Mount Zion where anything that can be shaken will
        be shaken. It repeatedly speaks of perfection.
    
        What Hebrews foresees is the final generation that goes all the
        way with Christ, the people that enter completely into a new
        covenant experience and that completely leave the old covenant.
        Then and only then is a people's hearts willing to allow God to
        perfectly write His law in the hearts of His people.
    
        The author of Hebrews LOOKED FORWARD to the complete manifestation
        of the new covenant experience and that is nothing short of
        perfection provided by God who can do exceedingly abundantly beyond 
        anything we can even fathom (paraphrase of a scripture).
    
        But, we don't believe it because much of our spiritual walk is old
        covenant. We're infants when it comes to truly living a new
        covenant experience.
    
                                                      Tony

    
    Re.10
    
    Steve,
    
    I wonder...what about the verse that says that 'faith without works is
    dead'?
    
    Cindy

    -1
    
    Cindy it's like saying 10 + 0 = 10
    
    10 represents faith
    0  represents works
    
    If faith doesn't produce then all you have is faith.. without works
    your faith is questionable.
    
    Our faith should manifest itself through our works.

re: 328.12

Hi Tony,
    
>        Here's a different spin on the Covenants...

yes, it is :-)
    
>        There are two covenants...the everlasting which is also the new
>        and the old.

There is *one* everlasting covenant of salvation; the Promise made in the 
garden immediately after man's fall.  The Promise of the One whose heel 
would be bruised but would crush the serpent's head was identified as to 
come of Abraham's lineage through his son Isaac and his son Jacob/Israel 
and his "son" (in time) David.
    
>        The old is "All these things we will do" where the underlying 
>        method being used is man depending on his flesh.  

I disagree.  Observing the Torah was *not* meant for gaining salvation, and 
man was *never* intended to depend upon his own flesh to be good (i.e., 
observe Torah) to "earn" salvation.  G-d never set it up that way.  That 
some have perverted it that way doesn't negate the way G-d established His 
covenant.

>	When Abraham tried to have an heir through Hagar, he
>       was walking in the old covenant; 

Again, I disagree.  Abraham was walking *outside* of the covenant in this 
case.  G-d made a promise and Abram (at the time of Gen 15:6) *believed* 
G-d and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Whether Ishmael is a product of Abraham & Sarah's doubt/lack-of-faith in 
G-d, or their attempt in the flesh to "help" G-d carry out His plan (i.e., 
salvation by works), or some combination of the two, that action is clearly 
walking *outside* of the covenant altogether.

That's a very important point - I hope I communicated it properly.

>        When God brought Israel to Sinai, it was clear their mindset was
>        old covenant.  So He loaded them up with laws partly for the
>        purpose of helping them see the futility of the old covenant 
>        and to help them see the new covenant.

I don't know what you mean by "it was clear their mindset was OC".

I can't begin to imagine what all what going through their heads at that 
time :-) though I would suspect that the Promise had been talked about from 
generation to generation during the slavery in Egypt and no doubt, this was 
one of many very exciting things to contemplate....

Again, if by "futility of OC" you mean that no one could be made righteous 
by observing the Law - you're correct (as David would agree in the Psalms, 
Isaiah would in his prophecies, the writer of Hebrews in his letter, etc.).
    
>        Every Christian's experience is a blend of old and new covenant.
>        To the extent that we have any unbelief at all, to that extent
>        we are walking in the old covenant.  

I just want to make it clear, that *unbelief* does not equal old covenant!  
BELIEF - FAITH in G-d has always been the way G-d designed man to relate to 
Him - both before and after Yeshua's death and resurrection.  See 
especially Heb 11.

>        What Hebrews foresees is the final generation that goes all the
>        way with Christ, the people that enter completely into a new
>        covenant experience and that completely leave the old covenant.
>        Then and only then is a people's hearts willing to allow God to
>        perfectly write His law in the hearts of His people.

Sorry to sound so disagreeable - but again, I just disagree with this.  
G-d is not waiting for some "final" generation - but rather, "if TODAY, you 
hear His voice; don't harden your heart".

In Hebrews 4, it says that the *same* Gospel of Yeshua being preached in 
that day (post Yeshua's resurrection) was also preached to those in the 
Exodus in the wilderness.  And for some of them, it was of no value then 
because they didn't mix what they heard with *faith*.  But to be sure, 
there were many who "went all the way" with Messiah since the time of the 
Garden!
    
>        The author of Hebrews LOOKED FORWARD to the complete manifestation
>        of the new covenant experience and that is nothing short of
>        perfection provided by God who can do exceedingly abundantly beyond 
>        anything we can even fathom (paraphrase of a scripture).

The author of Hebrews *in the present* warned about not entering into G-d's 
rest (the *finished* Work of Yeshua) by faith.

To do that by faith and not by sight, means to rest in the fact that G-d 
said "it is finished", in spite of what it may appear to look like.
    
>        But, we don't believe it because much of our spiritual walk is old
>        covenant. We're infants when it comes to truly living a new
>        covenant experience.

Tony - any time we don't believe, we're *out* of covenant, we're not in 
old/new - we're out altogether.  And it's not we who live the experience 
(Gal 2:20).

FWIW,

Steve

  Hi Steve,

    I read through your entire reply and the fundamental differences
    I see are twofold.

    One is that your posture is that God initiated the old covenant.
    My understanding is that MAN INITIATED IT.

    Let's look at what Galatians says noting that Galatians essentially
    speaks of two gospels...

    Galatians 3:1-3
    O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey
    the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set
    forth, crucified among you?
    This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit...

    1) By the works of the law, or

    2) By the hearing of faith?

    Are ye so foolish?  having 

    1) begun in the Spirit

    are ye now made perfect

    2) by the flesh?

    
    This is the entire theme of Galatians, a theme which Paul addresses
    in different ways.  Paul is alarmed because here is a church that is
    entering into another gospel "which is not another..."

    The above show two gospels.  One is described as the hearing of faith
    and having begun in the Spirit (which is by the hearing of faith) and
    the other is by the works of the law which is equivalent to "by the
    flesh."  Paul later says (Gal. 5:5,6) that righteoussness comes by
    faith which works by agape and that circumcision avails nothing (doing
    good works is not what justifies us) or makes us righteous.  Its the
    other way around!

    Paul goes on in chapter 3 to refer to the law as a _schoolmaster_ to
    lead us to Christ.  Something that AIDS us in seeing the true experience
    that God is trying to lead His people into.

    Galatians continues with the same theme.  The context of the book clearly
    shows that Paul has one single concern.  Now he sets out to differentiate
    the two gospels in another way.  He uses the allegory of Hagar and Sarah:

    Galatians 4:21
    Tell me, ye that desire

    TO BE UNDER THE LAW

    do ye not hear the law?

    Compare Galatians 4:21 notably the phrase "under the law" with Galatians
    3:2 "by the works of the law."  Its the same thing!  We'll see flesh 
    also being used by Paul to link the two gospels in chapter 3 as being
    the same theme in Galatians 4.

    Galatians 4:22,23
    For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid,
    the other by a freewoman.
    But he who was of the bondwoman

    1) WAS BORN AFTER THE FLESH;          [man trying to work it out]
  
    2) but he of the free woman was by promise.   [man letting God work it out]

    Here, Paul has just linked Galatians 4: "after the flesh" with the two
    'gospels' (one false) in Galatians 3 (vs 3: "are ye now made perfect 
    by the flesh?").

    In other words, he's talking about the same thing.  He's concerned...he
    wouldn't be talking about anything else!

    Going on...

    Galatians 4:24
    Which things are an allegory:

    FOR THESE ARE THE TWO COVENANTS;

    the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is
    Agar.

    So Steve, Galatians makes it so clear!  Desiring to be under the law
    is equated to trying to be made perfect by the flesh is equated to
    trying to make an heir through the flesh is equated to ONE OF THE TWO
    COVENANTS.

    Do you see this?

    A disconnect I see is that you seem to infer that this is impossible
    because God would never 'give' such a covenant.

    But, refer to Galatians 3:24

    Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that 
    we might be justified by faith.

    All I'm saying is that Israel's spiritual status at Sinai was one that
    was inclusive of being permeated with trying to 'work it out' by the
    flesh.  I mean they had just erected a golden calf.  They had no idea.

    God simply had to meet them where they were.  Their corporate 'heart-
    status' was such that they needed zillions of schoolmasters to lead 
    them to Christ.  And so God ratified their covenant with a system aimed
    at leading them to His covenant He always planned for them.

    The disconnect (again) is that God is gracious and loving enough to
    meet us where we're at and when Israel demonstrated their incredible
    willingness to be "under the law" (deep old covenant experience), God
    responded by giving them just the perfect schoolmaster (ratify their
    covenant - meet them where they were) to lead them to His everlasting
    covenant.

    Length does not allow me to get into the other source of disagreement.

    But, Steve, please give the little Galatians things I brought up a lot
    of thought.

                                                    God Bless,

                                                    Tony

Hi Tony,

I believe that the basic problem here is that by 'the old covenant', you
mean something totally different from us (Steve and me).  The proof is in 
your opening statement :

�    One is that your posture is that God initiated the old covenant.
�    My understanding is that MAN INITIATED IT.

When we refer to the 'Old Covenant', we are referring to the promises God
gave to Abraham following his obedience to the call, and the special
relationship God has with Israel following on from that.   That was totally 
initiated by God, in order to 

	� Demonstrate to man the reality of his sinfulness
	� Give man the best possible opportunity to realise thath he cannot 
	  fulfil even such simple laws in his own strength
	� Show man that he needs divine provision for salvation
	� Prepare a family nation, complete with prophetic promises, to 
	  provide a setting for the Saviour to be born into and to fulfill 
	  His salvation design purposes.

	- time and space preent me from continuing the list.

The Old Covenant statements, as given by God are recorded in Genesis 
12:1-3, 15, 17, etc.

The conception and birth of Ishmael was no part of the Old Covenant.  If it 
was, the Arabs would be the ones appointed by God to inherit the land, etc. 
However, in Galatians, Hagar and Ishmael are used as a picture of the law 
covenant, which could not inherit freedom.  That does not make them 'a part 
of' the Old Covenant.  Yes, the Hagar / Ishmael event was of man's 
volition.  but *that* was not the old covenant.

Galatians was written to address the problem of legalism.  It was very hard 
for Jews to accept that gentiles could enter into the spiritual promises.  
Some legalistic Jews tried to insist that in order to be a Christian, you 
first had to become a proselyte to Judaism, entering into all the Old 
Testament laws, and (for men) being circumcised.  Paul found this a great 
problem throughout his ministry, from the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15, 
until the opposition which precipitated his arrest in Acts 21:20-21...  His 
frustration with them comes out ultimately in Galatians 5:12.   The 
interpolation of man's legalism, typified by the conception of Ishmael, was 
totally of man.  Not part of God's First Covenant.

The Old Covenant, given by God, did not bring salvation to man in itself, 
but it pointed man to God.  I love that verse - Hebrews 10:1 - which says 
"The law is a shadow of the good things that are coming...".  OK - we can't 
keep the law, but if we could, and to the degree that we can, our lives are 
enriched because it shows us the way God designed us to live together, and 
with Him...  A similar burden is expressed by Galatians 3:24, which yuo 
quoted:
    "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that 
     we might be justified by faith."

�    And so God ratified their covenant with a system aimed
�    at leading them to His covenant He always planned for them.

Tony, I believe you're mixing up two things here.  The Old Covenant, which 
was actually 'too perfect' for man, to make him realise; and 'Man's 
alternative', which is never right, and from which we have to backtrack to 
get back onto the right path again.  The birth of Ishmael ('Man's 
alternative',) resulted in pretty traumatic events for Abraham, before (and
after) he received Isaac, under the Old Covenant.

I hope this clarifies that the difference in our position is not really so 
great when we separate out what is meant by the Old Covenant, the New 
Covenant, and the fig-leaf of man's alternative.

						God bless
							Andrew

    re: .16
    
    Hi Tony.
    
    Not much to add to what Andrew said in .17, so - I won't be entering
    any marathon responses ;-)
    
    Steve

      Hi Andy and Steve,
    
        I guess the primary thing that causes me to be of the position
        I am (in contrast with yours) is...
    
        Galatians 5:24
        Which things are an allegory for these are the two covenants..."
    
        The language doesn't seem to suggest a third.
    
                                                    Tony

Hi Tony,

�        Galatians 5:24
�        Which things are an allegory for these are the two covenants..."
    
�        The language doesn't seem to suggest a third.

There isn't a third covenant!  No-one has suggested that there is! (before 
you did there ;-)  The third 'way' mentioned, of 'man's alternative' is not 
a covenant.  It has no blessing, but only a curse.

In Galatians 4:24, God is using man's alternative as a picture or allegory 
of the law, in that neither of these actually achieved salvation.  He is 
not saying that the Hagar / Ishmael scenario is any part of any covenant.  
Galatians 4 explains this quite explicitly.

						God bless
								Andrew

      Hi Andy,
    
        I must admit, I don't see this!
    
        I read it that Hagar was referred to as a covenant and 
        that which gendered to bondage was referred to as a
        covenant.
    
        Well...I sure need Jesus to open my eyes a lot wider so
        maybe I just ain't seeing something!
    
                                               Tony

�        I must admit, I don't see this!

There again, maybe I'm just using the wrong version ... ;-}

I use the NIV for simplification, and the KJV / NKJV for a bit more 
precision.  Plus others, as they come to hand...

							- Andrew

    There are 2 big problems that go with this that replacement supporters
    seem to forget:  
    
    1.  Most of the blessings God gave Israel, by their very nature, could
        never apply to the Church.
    2.  The curses and the blessings go together.  Replacementists
        conveniently forget the curses (judgment of sin, removal from land,
        etc.) God put on Israel and focus on the blessings only.
    
    There are some basic promises from God that apply to Israel that will 
    never apply to the church:
    
    1. The promise that the Messiah would come to the world through Israel.
    2. The promise of a particular land that was given to Israel as a
       possession forever (Genesis 12:1-3).
    3. The Mosaic law and its accompanying covenants of promise, which
       defined a special relationship between God and Israel.
    4. The visible manifestation of God's presence among them.
    5. The promised regin of the Messiah, on the throne of David in
       Jerusalem, over His chosen people and over the entire world.
    
    God always identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob
    and will continue to do so.
    
    The rest of this is what I just posted in the Rapture topic.
    
    In addition to Romans 11, the Bible is full of passages that show that 
    the Church can never replace Israel.

- Revelation 3:9, Jesus Himself warns the Church of those who will adopt
  Replacement Theology.
- 2 Samuel 7:24, God says Israel will be His people *FOREVER*!
- Jeremiah 31:35-37, 33:23-26, God says Israel will never be forsaken or
  rejected.  Verse 26 was fulfilled in 1948 when Israel became a nation.
- Psalm 89:30-37, God once again declares He will not violate His covenant
  with Israel.
- Isaiah 11:11-12 says how God will gather the Jews together again from all
  over the world just as it is happening now!
- Amos 9:8-15 says that God will never destroy the Jews, even though they will
  go through the Great Tribulation.  God will restore their land afterwards.

The significance of this is great because you will not ever properly understand
Bible prophecy without realizing the importance of Israel with God and its role
in prophecy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to the question on whether the Vatican (or any Church) has replaced
Israel as God's chosen people or not, turn to Romans 2:28-29; 3:1-2:

"2:28  For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that
       circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
 2:29  But he is a Jew, which 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.
 3:1  What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
 3:2  Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles
      of God."

This is the Natural Israel.  The oracles of God were committed to all of the
Jews whether they were circumcised in the heart or not.  Most of them wandered
in the wilderness and died (after receiving the oracles), but they were still
Jews.  

In Romans 9:3-5, Paul tells us:

"9:3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my
      kinsmen according to the flesh:
 9:4  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;
 9:5  Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
      who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Jesus Christ came in the flesh out of the Physical or Natural Israel.  Some
people try to say that Israel is finished and that the Church is now Israel.  
Before the cross, there were only 2 entities: Jew and Gentile.  After the
cross, there are 3 and they are mentioned in I Corinthians 10:32:

"10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the
       church of God:"

In Ephesians 2:15, Paul adds:

"2:15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
       contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so
       making peace;"

The Church of God is composed of both Jews and Gentiles.  When Gentiles come
into the Church of God, that doesn't mean there are no more Gentiles.  Likewise
for the Jews.  When the Jews come into the Church of God, that doesn't mean
there is no more Israel.  Look at Romans 10:1:

"10:1  Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they
       might be saved."

You have to be saved to be in the Church of God, so obviously this applies to a
Physical or Natural Israel.  Spiritual Israel was not promised the land
of Israel.  Spiritual Israel was not scattered across the world and
re-gathered in these last days.  As in Romans 4, though the Jews have specific
promises that apply to them only, they will not inherit the promises of Abraham
unless they have the relationship with God that Abraham had.  As in
Zechariah 12:10, they will recognize Him who they have pierced.  There's a
definite distinction between Israel and the Church of God.

In a sense you could call the Church of God a Spiritual Israel because of our
promises, but that DOESN'T replace Natural Israel.
    

    
    Mike,
    
    .23 is full of holes and really isn't worthy of too much discussion.  I
    would still like you to answer my very direct question in that other
    topic.
    
    thanks!
    jeff

    
    I can't remember the topic number.  But surely you know which one I'm
    talking about.
    
    jeff

    I'm referring to the "holes."
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    re: 644.240 (Jeff)
    
>    I don't think one needs a whole new theology (i.e. replacement
>    theology, whatever that might be) to accept the fact that the church is
>    spiritual Israel.  There are enough clear statements to this effect.
    
    I can accept the church as a "spiritual Israel" in a symbolic sense, but 
    never literally.  It's simply not Biblical.  A literal rejection of
    Israel and replacing it with the Church is what led to the Holocaust.
    
>    Let me ask you this.  According to your theological view of Revelation,
>    has there been, is there or will there ever be, since Jesus's incarnation 
>    until the end of time, one Jew who was, is, or will be saved outside of 
>    the covenant of Jesus Christ?  More specifically, are the Jews, either 
>    mentioned or interpreted as being represented in the Revelation account, 
>    who are counted as righteous by God, made righteous by the fact of their 
>    Judaism and law keeping without their acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior 
>    and Lord?
    
    No, everyone still has to go through the Messiah.  However, the Holy
    Spirit through Paul was still explicit in several epistles in reminding
    us that there are still 3 classes of people:  Jews (natural/physical 
    Israel), Gentiles, and the Church (Jewish + Gentile believers).  Romans
    11 makes it clear that there will always be a remnant (Jewish
    believers) in Israel.
    
    Mike

    
    Oh, the holes.  I really don't want to go through this 'cause its not
    important to me.  I have no real interest in defending "replacement
    theology".  But, as an example, the first two items numbered 1. and 2.
    assume a context that the reader has no knowledge of whatsoever. 
    Secondly, an implication of those statements is that the theologians
    are idiots.  Thirdly, implications in the second item are just plain wrong 
    from what I know of their beliefs.
    
    And then in the next note you equate their position to anti-semitism, a
    loaded, hateful term, making logical argument almost improbable.
    
    In any case, for people thick as me, do you think you can tell me where
    my direct question to you is answered in the referenced note?  And if
    you can do this am I then to suppose that this is your view as well?
    
    jeff

    
    Notes collision!  Thanks, Mike, for answering my question.
    
    I do want to challenge you on one of your statements. It was not a
    Christian theology which caused or led to the Holocaust.  It was the 
    sinfulness of ungodly and truly wicked men.  Hitler had every intention
    of cleansing the land of true Christians too.
    
    jeff

>    theology".  But, as an example, the first two items numbered 1. and 2.
>    assume a context that the reader has no knowledge of whatsoever. 
>    Secondly, an implication of those statements is that the theologians
>    are idiots.  
    
    ...and some of them are.
    
    >             Thirdly, implications in the second item are just plain wrong 
>    from what I know of their beliefs.
    
    You are probably referring to moderate replacementists.  Some carry
    these beliefs to an extreme that is targeted in .23.
    
>    And then in the next note you equate their position to anti-semitism, a
>    loaded, hateful term, making logical argument almost improbable.
    
    Tell me why it isn't Anti-Semitism.
    
>    In any case, for people thick as me, do you think you can tell me where
>    my direct question to you is answered in the referenced note?  And if
>    you can do this am I then to suppose that this is your view as well?
    
    Jeff, I answered your question from 644.* in this topic a couple
    replies back.
    
    Mike

>    I do want to challenge you on one of your statements. It was not a
>    Christian theology which caused or led to the Holocaust.  It was the 
>    sinfulness of ungodly and truly wicked men.  Hitler had every intention
>    of cleansing the land of true Christians too.
    
    Jeff, Hitler is on record as telling the current Pope that he was
    finally dealing with the Jew "problem" that the Roman church was never
    able to do.  It's documented in the book "Vicars of Christ" by Peter 
    DeRosa, who is a Jesuit Catholic historian.  Peter DeRosa says, "In 1936, 
    the Bishop of Austenbrook talked with the Fuhrer, Hitler, for over an 
    hour.  Hitler assured his Lordship that there was no fundamental 
    difference between national socialism and the Catholic church.  'Had not 
    the church', he argued, 'looked upon Jews as parasites, and shut them in 
    ghettos?  I am only doing,' he boasted, 'what the church has done for 1500 
    years, only more effectively!'"  
    
    Mike

'replacement theology' reply to an entry in 644...

I believe that the principle reference used to equate the church with the 
name of Israel is Galatians 6:16
 "Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God."

I have found that the Biblical use of laguage tends to be very strict.  
Words do not generally change meaning, and my understanding, at least, is 
significantly helped by observing this rule.  Hence, I find it profitable 
to carefully examine what is meant by the term 'Israel', particularly in
the New Testament.  I also find that mere repetition is not generally the
New Testament form of emphasis; a rewording carries a different significance.

In the context of the Galatian epistle, Paul has been underlining that
Christianity is distinct from the Old Covenant law, and that circumcision
is not a prerequisite of becoming a Christian (for men, in particular). So 
when he comes to the end, and utters a blessing on those who follow this, 
he emphasises the application of the blessing on one particular group.
I understand that group to be that portion of physical Israel which has the 
faith of Abraham; the spiritual blessing.

									Andrew

>I understand that group to be that portion of physical Israel which has the 
>faith of Abraham; the spiritual blessing.
    
    ...in other words, the remnant of Israel.

�    ...in other words, the remnant of Israel.

Agreed, Mike!