|
Post by Josh on Apr 26, 2009 20:43:57 GMT -8
Yeshuafreak/John,
I hear a lot of talk against "replacement theology" on your forums. I'm wondering if you could provide your definition of the term, because I've heard "replacement theology" defined many different ways.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 27, 2009 11:59:48 GMT -8
replacement theology was originally the theology that since the jews denied Yeshua, YHVH denied the jews as his chosen peoples. therefore, he replaced this spot of 'chosen people' with the church, who can be either jews or gentiles. so Yisrael as a nation is not to be worried about, only the jews that accept Yeshua (which , at the time of this theology's creation and now, jews that accept yeshua are not considered jews by many people).
this is a well diguised lie from hasatan.
what is actually taught is that there are two trees- a gardened olive tree (israel) and a wild olive tree.(gentiles [goyim]). now, shaul (paul) definately states that the jews are still YHVH's people many times throughout the book of romans, so romans 11 must have a different interpretation than replacement theology's idea. what shaul is actually saying is that jews who do not accept Yeshua as their mashiach will be cut off from the olive tree. but this is a BRANCH, NOT the WHOLE TREE. shaul later states that those fallen branches can be grafted in again. but those from the wild olive tree can be cut off as individual branches and be grafted into the tree of Yisrael. So, while the individual branch is still wild, it is still part of the gardened olive tree. not also that wild olive trees do not bear fruit. so by grafting the gentiles into the gardened tree of Yisrael, the gentiles are able to bear fruit.
this is what the true doctrine is.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 27, 2009 15:44:40 GMT -8
Thanks for providing a definition I can respond to. As you'll see, there are certain aspects of this definition that I disagree with and other parts I strongly agree with. I'll give my take on this bit by bit: God has never denied his chosen ones. However, His chosen ones (spritual Israel) have never been exactly synonymous with the Jewish race (physical Israel), as Paul told us: Romans 9:6-8 6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.There is no "replacing". God's people, the true Israel, have always been and will always be those who follow Him, whether Jew or Gentile. The Jewish race was only special in that God chose to reveal Himself in a unique way to them in history before the breaking out of Messiah's kingdom throughout the world. The nation of Israel isn't any more important than any other nation in the New Covenant, except that it is possible that a few prophecies about it remain to be fulfilled. My perspective is that most Old Testament prophecies about the future of Israel in the age of the Messiah are prophecies about spiritual Israel (the Church), not about the physical state of Israel. It seems we have some agreement and some differences of perspective. I'm a bit leary that you're already potentially attributing some of my views to satan as that might stifle the conversation a bit Perhaps we can reserve our judgments until all is talked through a bit further.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 27, 2009 21:06:45 GMT -8
Hi John,
Just for clarification, do you have another name for "Replacement Theology" that might be more recognizable? I don't know anyone who claims to subscribe to "Replacement Theology", but I do know a lot of people who use that term as a pejorative to describe people with a certain theological perspective.
I'm just wondering if you know what that perspective is called and the arguments that they would actually use to support their view.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 28, 2009 11:04:45 GMT -8
the theological term IS replacement theology. i dont get what you are asking, but i am sure it wont be a problem if you clarify it.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 28, 2009 11:05:52 GMT -8
oh yeah- JOSH:
i dont want you to think that some individual ideas in replacement theology are from Hasatan-- just like every other doctrine, it has some truth to it. HOWEVER, the doctrine as a whole is from hasatan (the advesary)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 28, 2009 14:08:32 GMT -8
Waht Christopher is saying is that the people who are accused of holding "replacement theology" don't actually call it that themselves. It's a derisive term used by their opponents.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 28, 2009 17:32:55 GMT -8
i dont know- even by supporters i have understood it to be the official term. but if you can come up with a better term that also explains what the dotrine is about, than i wil use it.
do you find the term offensive?
shalom and sorry if youj do, john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 28, 2009 18:56:50 GMT -8
interesting. I just know that I've heard people be accused of "replacement theology" for holding that there are not 2 peoples of God (Jew and Gentile) , but, in Christ, only one people of God= the true/spiritual Israel/the Church. I've also seen it applied to people who don't think we should expect post-Messianic prophecies about Israel to be referring to national Israel, but rather, to be pointing to the Church.
I believe both of the above, and wouldn't use the term "replacement theology" to describe my perspectve.
Partial-preterist, yes. Amillenialist, yes. But not "replacement theology".
Just wanted to clear it up a bit. Wasn't offended...Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 28, 2009 20:33:58 GMT -8
Very good. The truth is, there is no "official term". It's a term that is made up by those who oppose the idea that God has expanded His definition of "Israel" to that of a spiritual kingdom rather than an earthly one. But, contrary to popular belief, the concept is quite biblical and nobody needs to feel threatened by it. It's not "replacement theology", but rather fulfillment theology. God's kingdom (as you correctly pointed out) is composed of one olive tree, with both Jews and Gentiles on it, hence making everyone who is in Christ, a Jew (in the spiritual sense). However, those who hold this belief (as Josh and I do) also believe that the political nation of Israel (made of mostly of non-Jewish people as I understand it) has nothing to do with God's prophetical plans (at least as far as scripture reveals to us that is). Incidentally, Jesus and the apostles believed in this theology as well (read Matt 21:43 compare with 1Pet 2:9-10) You see, God never changed kingdoms, only expanded its borders. Only the faithful remnant of Israel was ever a true part of this kingdom in the first place. They were never thrown out as Paul points out in Romans 11. But the unfaithful were cut off, and he says the wonderful mystery of that is that their disobedience actually opened the door for the rest of the world to flood into this newly expanded kingdom of God. "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!" John, you are a obviously a very learned young man. But I would be very cautious about attributing anyone's theology to Satan lest you find that yourself making the same error the pharisees made (Matt 12:24). Better, I think, to try to understand what someone really believes and judge it objectively by the merits and/or flaws of the viewpoint. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 29, 2009 11:03:20 GMT -8
you got these things only partially right. but i will explain in a few- g2g to the library for school.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2009 15:06:53 GMT -8
This is from our other thread, but I think it fits here because it highlights a difference in perspective we have on the subject of eschatology:
yeshuafreak wrote:
To which I responded:
One major difference you'll find between us touches on the issue of the "new age". Many of us would argue that the "new age" you speak of began to be unfurled during Jesus' earthly ministry and came into full effect in AD 70 at the destruction of the Temple.
So, to us, we have already passed into the Messianic age.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 29, 2009 15:43:12 GMT -8
why then (at the destruction of the temple)? and the new age i speak of is when the ressurection happens. scripture makes it clear that the ressurection is the mark of this new age.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 29, 2009 16:00:53 GMT -8
The official end point of the old covenant/ the end of sacrifices. The fulfilling of the 70's 7.
Which Scripture are you thinking of?
You must understand that from my perspective we are in the millenium currently and that after the final return of Christ, we will enter into another new age, in which death is finally defeated.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Apr 29, 2009 16:10:39 GMT -8
we are not in the mellinium. i never heard of such lies. (no offense to you personally). but okay... and how do you figure the temple was the end of the 70 7's of daniyel? should we discuss this on another thread? i always am trying to get the gist of the 70 weeks right now. i dont understand some of it.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 2, 2009 13:16:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on May 2, 2009 15:09:19 GMT -8
i will soon.
shalom john
|
|