Debate Regarding Replacement Theology

[IslandRose]

Welcome to the Soapbox.

Repeating the guidelines outlined in previous debates....

Guidelines for the discussion!

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

The participants will be Shiloh 357 and Jadiissie.

[Guest shiloh357]

Well for starters, I don't really see an agrument in what you are presenting.

If you want to debate about Replacement Theology, then make an argument and provide you Scriptural support for it and I will respond to it. That is how it is done in this forum.

You are providing some kind of chart, most of which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue as far as I can tell. In fact, most of it I agree with, assumng I am understanding it at all. I am not going to try and interpret your intentions or try to guess at what you are intending to say with this chart. I may not see what appears crystal clear to you.

So, if you would, just speak plainly and make an argument and don't force me to try and guess at what you are trying to get at.

[Guest shiloh357]

I have presented a chart outlining, God's Replacement Theology. Which is to replace the old Israel of the Past, with the new Israel(born again) of the Present to which is the ROCK that Jesus the Christ will build his church upon. And that is the bride of the Lamb. To which is the future. Past-Present-Future. Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow.

I will provide verses out of the Bible as needed. So far it has not been needed.

The Israel of God and the Church of Jesus the Christ are one. They are one in the same.

Okay, I see where you are going with this. So let's deal with your core assertion.

First of all, God makes no claim in Scripture with regards to replacing biblical Israel with a new entity called "the Church." That is an assumption you have made. To contrary, God says this about Israel:

Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- the LORD of hosts is his name: "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever."

(Jer 31:35-36)

According to YHVH, biblical Israel constintutes His people forever. The only way this will cease to be is if the luminaries in the sky cease to remain in their current order. Last I checked, they are still following their prescribed order. Thus, biblical Israel still constitutes God's chosen people. He has not replaced them with anyone else.

Secondly, as for your assertion about the "Israel of God..." The question that must be answered is what does Paul mean in this passage by the term "Israel of God." The assumption of many commentators is that "Israel of God" is used in juxtaposition to the corporate nation of Israel, the Jewish people. So what we must determine is whether or not the context in which it appears allows for that usage to be applied to Paul's words.

Part of the problem is how Replacement Theologians handle the word

[Guest shiloh357]

"So, the Israel of God is not one and the same with the Church"

Where on Earth is the Israel of God and the Church of Jesus the Christ?

Please read the quote I put forth above from Dr. Vlach. He explains who the Israel of God is. Paul would NEVER have referred to the church as "the Israel of God."

"The Church" is everyone who has believed on Jesus as Savior. Israel is NEVER spiritualized in the New Testament to refer to Gentile believers. Of the some 71 times "Israel" is used in the New Testament, it is always in connection with the physical descendents of Jacob.

[Guest shiloh357]

"So, the Israel of God is not one and the same with the Church"

Where on Earth is the Israel of God and the Church of Jesus the Christ?

Please read the quote I put forth above from Dr. Vlach. He explains who the Israel of God is. Paul would NEVER have referred to the church as "the Israel of God."

"The Church" is everyone who has believed on Jesus as Savior. Israel is NEVER spiritualized in the New Testament to refer to Gentile believers. Of the some 71 times "Israel" is used in the New Testament, it is always in connection with the physical descendents of Jacob.

The Children of God is everyone who believes on Jesus as Savior. Is this True?

The children of the devil is everyone who does not believe on Jesus as Savior. Is this True?

The Bible never says that unbelievers are "children" of the devil. Rather, it teaches that they are slaves to sin.

In John 8:44, Jesus said to His enemies, "you are of your father the devil..." This was not an accusation leveled against all Jews or all unbelievers for that matter. Jesus was speaking to specific group. It was to a particular group of men who were Jesus' enemies that he said this.

Many people like to claim that the Jews are children of the devil based on John 8:44, but that is a misuse of that verse. Jesus was not aiming that comment at the Jewish people, but at a select few who sought to defame Him.

I would point out that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was speaking to unsaved Jews (not a Christian in the bunch) when He said:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 6:16)

So even then, He acknowledged that these unsaved Jews were the children of God, at least in some sense.

To label the entire body of Jewish unbelievers as children of the devil is simply not supported by Scripture.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Children of God is everyone who believes on Jesus as Savior and some some unsaved Jews who do not believe on Jesus as Savior.

Now is this True?

The children of the devil is everyone who does not believe on Jesus as Savior except some unsaved Jews who are the children of God?

Now is this True?

Once again, unbelievers are not the children of the devil. The Bible does not say anything to that effect. The devil has no children. All he has are slaves.

When Jesus said that His enemies were of their father the devil, he was simply referring to their character. He was not claiming that unbelievers, either Jewish or Gentile, are children of the devil. He was leveling a specific charge at a specific and limited group of people, namely the group of religious leaders who were His enemies. It was a figure of speech to denote that their actions and behavior reflected the devil and not God.

[Guest shiloh357]

The Children of God are every man, woman and child who has ever been born of flesh on Earth.The Children of God who are not slaves to the devil.

And the Children of God who are slaves to the devil.

In one sense, yes. In a redemptive sense, no. We are all the children of God in the sense that we have God as our point of origin. He is our creator. However, there is a division between those who simply relate to God as Creator and those who relate to Him as their Savior/Redeemer.

Those who simply relate to God as Creator (whether they believe in Him or not) are sinners in need of Salvation.

Okay, so what has this line of question to do with Replacement Theology? Do you have a point?

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not going to go around the mulberry bush with you. I have addressed all of that stuff. If you cannot form a coherent argument and bring Scripture into it, there is no use continuing as you seem to have nothing meaningful to say.

Either make a point and stop peppering me with weird posts that don't make a clear statement, or just abandon the thread.

Edited May 10, 2011 by shiloh357

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not going to go around the mulberry bush with you. I have addressed all of that stuff. If you cannot form a coherent argument and bring Scripture into it, there is no use continuing as you seem to have nothing meaningful to say.

Either make a point and stop peppering me with weird posts that don't make a clear statement, or just abandon the thread.

The problem you have with this theory.

You are not the Judge.

I have presented my case to the Judge.

If you want to rest your case

so be it as it may.

As for me.

I will speak for myself on my own behalf.

YoursTruly,

jadiissie

The problem is that I am not clear on what your theory is becasue you have presented me with some kind of "chart" that I don't understand and you refuse to break it down for me and make it more understandable. You pepper me with questions which I have answered, but you don't offer an argument. I am not claiming to the be the judge.

I came to this at your request for a debate and so far you have done everything except debate or present an argument. Do you have a coherent argument or are you going to just continue being cryptic and ambiguous? Do you understand how debate works?

Maybe your chart makes sense to you, but you need to realize that what is clear to you may not be as clear to others. So, present an argument and make a point.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is not my argument that I am counting on to win this battle. It was yours.

I am waiting to see if you have anything more to add to what you have already stated.

Is that against the rules?

I was wanting you to frame the debate with an argument and then I would respond. Okay, well that plan isn't working. So I will do this: I will provide you with my position on Replacement Theology and we can see where this goes.

REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

by Shiloh357

Israel is a nation that was born out of a promise of God. One very unique thing about Israel is that it is the only nation in the world whose history, current situation, and future have already been written. Israel is the only nation whose story has already been told from beginning to end.

Unfortunately, there are those in the Church who would seek to hijack that story. There are those who assert that Israel has been rejected by God as a nation. They say that the biblical nation of Israel, after the resurrection of Jesus, has been dissolved, and relegated to the dustbin of history never to be seen or heard from again. Their contention is that Israel is a failure beyond salvage, and that God has now made for Himself a “new Israel,” namely the Church. Some have even gone so far as to call the Church, “The New Jerusalem,” and that all Christians are THE seed of Abraham to the exclusion of and at the expense of the Jewish people. Many assert, based upon a faulty handling of Scripture, that every Christian is a “spiritual Jew,” or a, “true Jew.” These assertions are made without any authority or directive from the Word of God and yet, they are so entrenched within the mindset of so many Christians, the lack of Scriptural authority rarely, if ever, gets challenged. It would appear most Christians who subscribe to these ideas and assertions simply assume that they are scriptural.

Where do these ideas come from? They stem from a belief system known as Replacement Theology. What is Replacement Theology? Replacement Theology is not a particular theological field of study as the name might imply. Rather, it is a deeply ingrained and widely accepted belief dating from as far back as the early church fathers, which is based upon the premise that the Church is now “Israel.” It holds to the notion that the Jewish people are no longer the “chosen people” and that all promises and blessings heretofore, yet unfulfilled by the Jewish people have been transferred to the Church. Replacement Theology holds that apart from salvation and assimilation into the Church, the Jewish people, as a nation have no prophetic future as a nation. It is worth noting that many who maintain this belief system consider the modern nation of Israel to be the product of human initiative and reject its existence as having any prophetic significance.

The remainder of the paper will deal with the above-mentioned components of Replacement Theology. The purpose here is to provide a brief history Scriptural examination of this dangerous, anti-Semitic belief, which has spanned over 1,900 years. I will also discuss why the Bible does not support the notion that the Church is Israel and the replacement theologian’s weak Scriptural base. I believe that after we have reached the conclusion of this brief study, you will agree with me that Replacement Theology is a dangerous belief system that does not reflect a proper Christian, biblical worldview and most certainly should be eradicated from hearts and minds of all believers in Jesus Christ.

The History of Replacement Theology

Replacement Theology finds its origins early in the Christian faith, shortly after the death of the original apostles. Originally, the Christian faith had a much more Jewish flavor. However, as the Jewish leadership died and was replaced by the Gentile leaders, the Jewish flavor of the faith began to fade away. Gentiles were embracing the Gospel in large numbers and began to outnumber the Jewish believers in the early centuries of the Church.

Because of a tragic misinterpretation of the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the Jewish people were viewed with contempt and all throughout the early church, and even into more recent times, the Bible has often been interpreted in the light of this contempt. More to the point, many scholars read their own hatred of the Jews into the Bible, and the New Testament, in particular. For centuries, the Jewish people have been cast as the villains of the New Testament. This can be seen in many books, works of art, and in the movies depicting the life of Christ. Jesus is rarely portrayed as Jewish in art or film. He is portrayed as an antagonist to Judaism; the Jewishness of his life is almost completely expunged in any depiction of Him.

What’s more, it was this less than favorable view of the Jewish people that had festered for nearly 1, 800 years, coupled with a continued punitive view of God’s relationship with the Jewish people due to their national rejection of Jesus as Messiah, that gave rise to moral indifference among much of the Church during the Holocaust years in WWII and pre-WWII Germany. It was not just German Christians who possessed such apathy, but Christians all over the world. Yet, there were sparks of glory. Approximately 11,000 Christians stood above the fog of moral indifference and risked everything to save innocent Jewish people from Hitler’s madness. They gave their lives bravely defying Nazi law and demonstrated true Christian courage at a time when such godly courage was needed.

Replacement Theology has done nothing but bring much pain and suffering to the Jewish people. . It was born of an arrogant, irrational hatred of the Jewish people. It holds them forever responsible for a sin they did not commit, namely the death of Jesus. My friend, the Jewish people did not kill Jesus. No person on this earth is responsible for Jesus’ death. Jesus said in John 10:18, that no one took His life from Him. He said that it was His to lie down and that He would take up again under His own power. Jesus made it clear that He came to earth to give His life as a ransom for all mankind to bring salvation to the world (Mat. 20:28). Jesus’ death was not a murder or execution. Jesus was in full control of His life the entire time he walked this earth. Jesus’ goal was the cross. No one had the power to take His life; not the Sanhedrin, not Pilate, not even Caesar himself. Jesus died at the exact moment He planned to die, and not a minute too soon, nor a minute too late. Jesus’ death on the cross was a sacrifice that He gave out of His love for each of us. To blame anyone else for Jesus’ death is to insult the grace of God. It amounts to robbing Him of the glory He is due, by claiming that Jesus’ death was a product of a human agenda, and not the product of God’s matchless love and mercy.

Scriptural Reasons why the Church is not Israel

One thing that bears noting is that the names, “Israel” and “Jacob” are used interchangeably in the Word of God to refer to the physical descendents of Abraham. More to the point, “Jacob” is often used in Scripture in a representative sense with respect to the twelve tribes of Israel, and is NEVER used in the Scriptures in any fashion as a reference to the Church. While so many in the replacement camp seek to apply to themselves the mantel of “The Israel of God,” I think it is important to note that Bible never makes a distinction between the names, “Israel” and “Jacob.”

Here are verses and passages that demonstrate that Jacob and Israel are interchangeably with respect to the physical descendents of Abraham are: Num. 24: 5, 17, Deut. 33:4,5, 8, 9, 10, 28; 1Kings 18:31; 2Kings 17:34; 1Chron. 16:13, 17; Psa. 14:7, 22:23, 53:6, 78:5, 81:4, 106:6, 10, 23, 114:1, 135:4; Is. 9:8,10:20, 14:1, 27:6, 29:23, 40:27, 41:8, 14, 42:24, 43:1, 22, 28, 44:1, 44:2, 21, 43, 45:4, 46:3 48:1, 12, 49:6; Jer. 2:4, 30:10; Eze. 20:5; Mic. 3:1,8,9; Nah. 2:2, Rom. 11:26.

As you can see, there are just too many cases where “Israel” and “Jacob” are used interchangeably for there to be any substance to the argument that “Israel” refers to a group of people other than the physical members of the twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel. As I stated earlier, the Church is never called by the name “Jacob,” nor is it referred to as a spiritual “twelve tribes” or any other such concept. It is impossible for replacement theologians to use “Jacob” and “Israel” interchangeably with respect to the Church.

Another problem that occurs while trying to make the Old Testament references to Israel apply to the Church is that the Bible gives a description of the Church that differs from Israel. For instance, Israel is a promised a Land, an earthly Kingdom, but the Church is told that our reward/inheritance is laid up in heaven. God promised to scatter and exile Israel from the Land, temporarily for disobedience, and He made good on that promise. There are several places in the Old Testament where God recalls the exile but promises a restoration of Israel to the Land.

The following are references to scattering and regathering of Israel: Deut. 30-3-5, Is. 27:12, 40:11, 54:7, Jer. 31:1-4, 8-11; Eze. 20:34, 34:12; Mic. 4:6; Zeph. 3:19. The Church is never spoken of as being scattered from, much less being regathered to a particular Land.

Scriptures Misused by Replacement Proponents

The belief that the New Testament teaches that the Church is Israel is indeed built upon a very weak foundation. For one thing, there are 71 references to Israel in the New Testament. Of those, Replacement Theology really boils down to only four verses of Scripture: Rom 9:6, 1Cor. 10:18, Gal. 6:16, and Rev 7:4. Replacement Theologians do utilize other passages, but these four are the primary “workhorse” for their doctrine. Please note that in none of these verses is there any attempt by the apostles Paul or John to redefine Israel. That is not object either author has in view in these four verses. Furthermore, one indication of the weakness or strength of any doctrine is any the amount of genuine Scriptural support available for it. The only way the above verses can be used by Replacement Theology advocates is by violating their context.

God’s promise to restore Israel

The Jewish People will always be God’s People (Jer. 31:35-37)

God Promises the Jewish People’s return to the land (Jer. 30:3 Isa. 43:5-7; Eze 36: 24; Eze. 37:11-14)

God’s promise to reunite all twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel (Jer. 3:18; Eze. 37:15-23; Hos. 1:10-11)

The Lord promises both a physical and spiritual restoration of Israel (Jer. 31:31-34 Is. 40:1-2; Eze. 36:24-28 Zec. 12:10)

There is much more that can be presented relative to all the points covered in this paper. I have only scratched the surface where the issue of Replacement Theology is concerned. My prayer is that this paper has been helpful in some fashion to give the reader(s) a biblical response to this very dangerous doctrine.

Edited May 10, 2011 by shiloh357