Author Topic: God's argument against replacement theology  (Read 4135 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1232
God's argument against replacement theology
« on: April 12, 2015, 10:57:42 PM »

God gives his argument against replacement theology.



"So I will establish his descendants forever And his throne as the days of heaven. "If his sons forsake My law And do not walk in My judgments, If they violate My statutes And do not keep My commandments, Then I will punish their transgression with the rod And their iniquity with stripes. "But I will not break off My lovingkindness from him, Nor deal falsely in My faithfulness. "My covenant I will not violate, Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips. " Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David. "His descendants shall endure forever And his throne as the sun before Me. "It shall be established forever like the moon, And the witness in the sky is faithful." Selah. But You have cast off and rejected, You have been full of wrath against Your anointed. You have spurned the covenant of Your servant; You have profaned his crown in the dust. You have broken down all his walls; You have brought his strongholds to ruin. All who pass along the way plunder him; He has become a reproach to his neighbors. You have exalted the right hand of his adversaries; You have made all his enemies rejoice. You also turn back the edge of his sword And have not made him stand in battle. You have made his splendor to cease And cast his throne to the ground. (Psalms‬ 89‬:29-44‬ NASB)


Typed with one finger on a iPhone

Zant Law

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
  • ZLaw
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2015, 09:11:40 AM »
Hello Fat

We must have half a dozen threads on Replacement Theology but I can't remember Ps 89 used as an argument.

And all with one finger  8) impressive.

ZLaw

Fat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1232
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2015, 04:56:57 PM »
Hello Fat

We must have half a dozen threads on Replacement Theology but I can't remember Ps 89 used as an argument.

And all with one finger  8) impressive.

ZLaw

To me it is really hard to understand why the word forever so confusing for people.

petrobb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2015, 09:16:57 AM »
To me it is really hard to understand why the word forever so confusing for people.

What you fail to understand is that during Jesus life and after the death of Jesus Israel divided into two parts, Israel who believed in the Messiah, and the unbelieving Israel which rejected Him.

As Paul makes clear in Rom 11.12-24 unbelieving Israel was cut off from the olive tree of Israel (Jer 11.16) leaving believing Israel as the  true remnant (as Paul quote later only a remnant will be saved).

Thus the 1st century church for the first few years WAS the CONTINUATION of true Israel. They were part of the True Vine (John 15.-6). The church WAS ISRAEL.

Then it began to receive Gentile proselytes as Israel had always done and they became a part of the true Israel. This was why there was all the  argument about circumcision. Thus ISRAEL CONTINUED in the church, the believers in the Messiah. Unbelieving Israel CEASED to be Israel.

The promises apply to the continuation of the true Israel (Gal 3.29). Unbelieving Israel has no part in them. They are cast off.


Fat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1232
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2015, 09:24:26 AM »
What you fail to understand is that during Jesus life and after the death of Jesus Israel divided into two parts, Israel who believed in the Messiah, and the unbelieving Israel which rejected Him.

As Paul makes clear in Rom 11.12-24 unbelieving Israel was cut off from the olive tree of Israel (Jer 11.16) leaving believing Israel as the  true remnant (as Paul quote later only a remnant will be saved).

Thus the 1st century church for the first few years WAS the CONTINUATION of true Israel. They were part of the True Vine (John 15.-6). The church WAS ISRAEL.

Then it began to receive Gentile proselytes as Israel had always done and they became a part of the true Israel. This was why there was all the  argument about circumcision. Thus ISRAEL CONTINUED in the church, the believers in the Messiah. Unbelieving Israel CEASED to be Israel.

The promises apply to the continuation of the true Israel (Gal 3.29). Unbelieving Israel has no part in them. They are cast off.

Rom 11
 17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,
18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in."
20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.


petrobb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2015, 11:47:44 AM »
Rom 11
 17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,
18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in."
20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.


Soooo?  Yes members of the outward church who are seen as a part of Israel can cease to be so if they fall into unbelief. Like unbelieving Jew they too will then no longer be Israel. The true Israel is made up of all who believe in Israel's Messiah.

Zant Law

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
  • ZLaw
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2015, 12:19:08 PM »
Soooo?  Yes members of the outward church who are seen as a part of Israel can cease to be so if they fall into unbelief. Like unbelieving Jew they too will then no longer be Israel. The true Israel is made up of all who believe in Israel's Messiah.

 I take it you don't believe in the preservation of the Saints?  Can you lose your salvation once you have it?  Is that biblical?

ZLaw

petrobb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2015, 04:57:48 AM »
I take it you don't believe in the preservation of the Saints?  Can you lose your salvation once you have it?  Is that biblical?

ZLaw

If you will note I said the OUTWARD church. In the outward church there are both true believers and formal believers.  The olive tree of Israel consisted of all who believe in the Messiah, whether true believers or formal believers. Thus the formal believers can be cast off if they become unbelievers.

The question of the preservation of the saints is therefore irrelevant. Formal believers are not saints. The devils are also formal believers as James pointed out  compare also John 2.23-25.

Zant Law

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
  • ZLaw
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2015, 05:32:31 AM »
If you will note I said the OUTWARD church. In the outward church there are both true believers and formal believers.  The olive tree of Israel consisted of all who believe in the Messiah, whether true believers or formal believers. Thus the formal believers can be cast off if they become unbelievers.

The question of the preservation of the saints is therefore irrelevant. Formal believers are not saints. The devils are also formal believers as James pointed out  compare also John 2.23-25.

So now you have unbelievers graphed onto the root, drawing from the promise of Abraham. My bible holds no contradiction .

ZLaw

petrobb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2015, 11:45:22 AM »
So now you have unbelievers graphed onto the root, drawing from the promise of Abraham. My bible holds no contradiction .

ZLaw

So you do not think that Israel prior the coming of Jesus Christ was attached to the root? Well at least you are admitting that they were NOT Israel. When Messiah came the unbeliever were cut off (John 15.1-6).  Gentiles were grafted in.  But again those who produced no fruit were cut off. Pity you Bible excludes John 15 and Romans 11.  I would buy a new one if I were you :)

Zant Law

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
  • ZLaw
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2015, 01:21:36 PM »
So you do not think that Israel prior the coming of Jesus Christ was attached to the root? Well at least you are admitting that they were NOT Israel. When Messiah came the unbeliever were cut off (John 15.1-6).  Gentiles were grafted in.  But again those who produced no fruit were cut off. Pity you Bible excludes John 15 and Romans 11.  I would buy a new one if I were you :)

Whoa there cowboy, hold up for a second, let's not change topics so quick. You’ve given us two forms of believers, the true believer and what you call the formal believer, both being members of what you call the outward church. And apparently one form of these believers can become unbelievers, magically. In reading your statement it appears that you do not know the difference in believing in Christ or of Christ.

You have also made it clear that both forms of believers are grafted to the same vine. And apparently both true believers and formal believers can achieve salvation if they are not cast off at a later time. It also appears that you don't know the difference between the root of a tree in the branches of a tree. I suggest you go back to John and Romans and see if you can come up with an answer.

So just to clarify, you are here to tell us this mystical OUTWARD CHURCH has Saints and non-saints that are part of the body of Christ and capable (some of them) of losing their salvation. 

Quote from:  petrobb
If you will note I said the OUTWARD church. In the outward church there are both true believers and formal believers.  The olive tree of Israel consisted of all who believe in the Messiah, whether true believers or formal believers.

So we have two kinds of Christians, those that have a secure salvation (true believers) and those that don't (formal believers). Both being believers?


petrobb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2015, 06:19:49 AM »
Whoa there cowboy, hold up for a second, let's not change topics so quick. You’ve given us two forms of believers, the true believer and what you call the formal believer, both being members of what you call the outward church.

That is what the church is made up of, true believers and formal believers (I am not going to argue about the terminology. I expect you to use your intelligence).

Quote
And apparently one form of these believers can become unbelievers, magically.

Nothing magical about it. It is happening all the time. Jesus Himself made the distinction in John 2.23-25. There were those who believed on His Name because He performed miracles. But He had no confidence in them. The phrase 'believe on His Name' is also used of true believers (John 1.12). Thus the same term is used of real believers and nominal (formal) believers.

 
Quote
In reading your statement it appears that you do not know the difference in believing in Christ or of Christ.

I would have thought that the opposite was the case. I clearly distinguish the false from the true. You are simply trying to be clever, and not succeeding.  But Scripture uses terms to some extent indiscriminately (as shown above) expecting us to use discernment. 'Believe into' is probably the strongest term and always means true believers.  In John 6.60 nominal believers could be called 'disciples' even though they were only nominal (formal) believers as the outcome demonstrates

Quote
You have also made it clear that both forms of believers are grafted to the same vine. And apparently both true believers and formal believers can achieve salvation if they are not cast off at a later time.


Yes they are grafted into the olive tree of Israel, But that does not mean that they were 'saved'. It simply indicates some form of belief in the Messiah that identifies them with Israel. But no formal believer can experience salvation unless he becomes a true believer. You have to use your intelligence.

Quote
It also appears that you don't know the difference between the root of a tree in the branches of a tree
.

Don't you think you are a little arrogant trying to second guess what I believe? I think so.

The root, being holy, is the true believing Israel, the election. They were also the firstfruit. Paul consistently makes this clear (e.g. 11.1-9).

\the branches were all who outwardly joined themselves to them by 'believing' in the Messiah. Sadly in some cases their faith was not saving faith. It is simple really.

Quote
So just to clarify, you are here to tell us this mystical OUTWARD CHURCH has Saints and non-saints that are part of the body of Christ and capable (some of them) of losing their salvation
 

No that is what YOU are telling us. You are sinfully trying to parody what I said (or are lacking in understanding). There is no mystical outward church lol It is visible. It is simply made up of all who believe in the Messiah. Within that visible church are those who are true believers into Christ. They are visible, but not discernible by us. We do not know who is a true believer and who is not.

Furthermore that visible church is NOT the body of Christ. We only become members of the body of Christ by being spiritually subjoined with Him. The body of Christ is made up only of true believers.

Nor can they 'lose salvation'. Salvation is the work of God not of us. He does not lose anything. What can happen is that a man demonstrates that he has not been saved by ceasing to believe in the Messiah. Had he truly believed into Christ he could not have done so.

Quote
So we have two kinds of Christians, those that have a secure salvation (true believers) and those that don't (formal believers). Both being believers?

Yesterday I watched a Soap. Today I washed myself with soap. You have meanwhile been using soft soap. Are all three soaps the same?  You do ask silly questions to try to put me in the wrong. Of course there ARE two types of Christians, genuine Christians and nominal Christians. There ARE two types of 'believers', genuine believers and nominal believers. The word 'believer' means a different thing in each case. Nominal believers do not 'have salvation' at all. They have never committed themselves to Christ to be saved.  I wonder, have you?

Zant Law

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
  • ZLaw
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2015, 09:33:36 AM »
Quote
That is what the church is made up of, true believers and formal believers (I am not going to argue about the terminology. I expect you to use your intelligence).....Yes they are grafted into the olive tree of Israel, But that does not mean that they were 'saved'. It simply indicates some form of belief in the Messiah that identifies them with Israel. But no formal believer can experience salvation unless he becomes a true believer. You have to use your intelligence.

There is only one body of Christ, One church, One bride and one salvation.

1 Corinthians 12:12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.


You like to bring up Romans 11 as support in your argument. In that chapter Paul reminds us that God has continually save a remnant of His people for His Church (assembly of believers). God tells us of His plan for His people in Joel 3, don't be on the wrong side of this prophecy.


Quote
They have never committed themselves to Christ to be saved.  I wonder, have you?
How does the saying go, if you can't attack the message attack the messenger.
Those that frequent this board know that I am at odds with the teachings of Catechism, I argue theology and doctrine with them but I never challenge their faith. I think we are done here.


petrobb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: God's argument against replacement theology
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2015, 10:13:43 AM »
There is only one body of Christ, One church, One bride and one salvation.
Quote

And they only include true believers, whereas the olive tree, like pre-Christian Israel, included both true believers and nominal believers.

Quote
1 Corinthians 12:12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

who is arguing about that?


Quote
You like to bring up Romans 11 as support in your argument. In that chapter Paul reminds us that God has continually save a remnant of His people for His Church (assembly of believers).


yes, but also that there are those who are not truly His people and are therefore cut off even though they had seemed to be His people.

Quote
God tells us of His plan for His people in Joel 3, don't be on the wrong side of this prophecy.

Joel 3 refers to a time when there were Tyre, and Sidon, and Philistia, and oppression by Greeks. It thus refers to pre-Christian days. It has already been fulfilled. It ends with the arrival of the Gospel and of the Messiah, to establish the true Israel.


Quote
How does the saying go, if you can't attack the message attack the messenger.


How is it an attack to ask you if you have become a true believer? It is my responsibility under God as you did not seem to know the difference between a nominal Christian and a real Christian.

Quote
Those that frequent this board know that I am at odds with the teachings of Catechism, I argue theology and doctrine with them but I never challenge their faith.

Then perhaps you should? And perhaps they should challenge yours? We need to be concerned for each other. There is no more important question.

Quote
I think we are done here.

Sorry you feel like that.  Bye.  God bless you.