Replacement Theology

[Theolog]

:ahem: REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

I marvel at how evil “evil” really is. Take the Dispensational Zionist claim that “Christianity” somehow “replaced” Judaism when in fact their nitwit theology teaches the Church rapture away and will be replaced by Judaism.

The early Church was originally Israel and forever will be Israel.

The New Covenant was made with “ISRAEL” not gentiles, not Rome. I repeat, “The New Covenant was made with “ISRAEL” not gentiles, not Rome. It is quite clear that the early Church was Jewish and Israel.

Gentiles are grafted into what??? ISRAEL!!!!

The Church is New Covenant Israel.

Judaism is Old Covenant Israel.

I seriously doubt if many dispensationalist understand that their “replacement theology” teaches that the New Covenant will be abolished and all mankind will be placed under “the law of sin and death once more”. How clever of them to attempt to undo the work of Christ and abolish The New Covenant.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

:ahem: REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

I marvel at how evil “evil” really is. Take the Dispensational Zionist claim that “Christianity” somehow “replaced” Judaism when in fact their nitwit theology teaches the Church rapture away and will be replaced by Judaism.

The early Church was originally Israel and forever will be Israel.

The New Covenant was made with “ISRAEL” not gentiles, not Rome. I repeat, “The New Covenant was made with “ISRAEL” not gentiles, not Rome. It is quite clear that the early Church was Jewish and Israel.

Gentiles are grafted into what??? ISRAEL!!!!

The Church is New Covenant Israel.

Judaism is Old Covenant Israel.

I seriously doubt if many dispensationalist understand that their “replacement theology” teaches that the New Covenant will be abolished and all mankind will be placed under “the law of sin and death once more”. How clever of them to attempt to undo the work of Christ and abolish The New Covenant.

Theolog! Where have you been??

I pretty much agree, btw.

[Berean Todd]

It shows pretty poor form when you can do little more than name call and cast aspersions, so I probably shouldn't even bother to respond, but against my better judgement here it goes.

:ahem: REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

I marvel at how evil “evil” really is. Take the Dispensational Zionist claim that “Christianity” somehow “replaced” Judaism when in fact their nitwit theology teaches the Church rapture away and will be replaced by Judaism.

We do not teach that Judaism will replace Christianity, that is a blatant lie. Please provide proof for this claim or else retract it.

The early Church was originally Israel and forever will be Israel.

The church has been grafted into Israel, yes, it has not replaced Israel, nor has Israel been removed from the promises of God. God is also no liar, and He has given Israel countless promises, which He has sworn to keep, not on the basis of their faithfullness, but because of His own name's sake/

The New Covenant was made with “ISRAEL” not gentiles, not Rome. I repeat, “The New Covenant was made with “ISRAEL” not gentiles, not Rome. It is quite clear that the early Church was Jewish and Israel.

The New Covenant has not yet fully come, as would be plain and clear if you actually read Jeremiah 31.

I seriously doubt if many dispensationalist understand that their “replacement theology” teaches that the New Covenant will be abolished and all mankind will be placed under “the law of sin and death once more”. How clever of them to attempt to undo the work of Christ and abolish The New Covenant.

Again, you bring lies. Show us where we teach that the New Covenant will be abolished or that the law will again be re-instated. If you can not produce such proof, kindly retract your lies.

[Theolog]

Hello Todd
Yes you are waisting your time. You seem to be the very ones I am talking about. I believe you don't really understand how you are seen by other Christians. Of course the whole conflict is really how we interpret the Bible. And unless you want to change the way you deal with scripture conversation is useless. You somehow apparently read scripture as if it was written to people thousands of years in the future and kill any first century literal, historical, cultural, context. Sorry but you need to know this.

[gharfish]

...said the hyper-preterist.

[Berean Todd]

Hello Todd
Yes you are waisting your time. You seem to be the very ones I am talking about. I believe you don't really understand how you are seen by other Christians. Of course the whole conflict is really how we interpret the Bible. And unless you want to change the way you deal with scripture conversation is useless. You somehow apparently read scripture as if it was written to people thousands of years in the future and kill any first century literal, historical, cultural, context. Sorry but you need to know this.

First off, I know how I read the Bible. Secondly, you are again LYING on us. Dispensationalism is built upon the Literal-Gramatical-Historical Hermeneutic, and it is at the core of our beliefs. We spend a great deal of time on the historical context of Scripture.

So again, you have made several claims about us that are unfounded, and I challenge you to show one iota of proof.

1. You say that we claim the church will be replaced by Judaism - show us proof.
2. You claim that the New Covenant has allready fully come, show me that all of Jeremiah 31 has been fulfilled then.
3. You claim we teach that the NC will be repealed and the OC/Law reinstated. That is the biggest of your lies probably, and agin - show us proof of this claim.
4. Now you even claim that we ignore historical context, when it is at the core of what we teach. Again show us proof. Hell, read any book on hermeneutics by a dispensationalist - Basic Bible Interpretation by Zuck, Hermeneutics by Virkler, Living by the Book by Hendricks ...

[Geek Eclectic]

Theolog: Dispensationalism and replacement theology are at entirely different ends of the spectrum. You can disagree with one or both of them, but saying they are the same thing is patently false.

Berean: I disagree with your point #4. Rather than merely assert the dispensationalists take historical context into account when evaluating certain claims, I wish you'd actually show how they do so. I find historical context to be extremely antithetical to dispensational belief.

[Berean Todd]

Berean: I disagree with your point #4. Rather than merely assert the dispensationalists take historical context into account when evaluating certain claims, I wish you'd actually show how they do so. I find historical context to be extremely antithetical to dispensational belief.

LS, just read any of the books I listed. All are written by dispensationalists, and all spend significant time on the importance of historical context of the Scriptures. The whole entire process of dispensational hermeneutics is 1. what did the original author intend to the original audience 2. What is the timeless truth from that which would apply to anyone in any context 3. How does that timeless truth apply to us today. That is an extremely dumbed down version, but again, I listed 3 outstending books (in order of ease of reading --> more scholarly approach I would list them 1. Hendricks 2. Zuck 3. Virkler) which deal with those issues at great leangth.

For the record, I hold an undergrad degree from a dispensational school in Christian Ministry and Biblical Studies (dual major) and I am a current student in the Masters of Theology degree (120 hour masters degree) from Dallas Theological Seminary. In other words I am very well versed in dispensational theology and hermeneutics.

[Theolog]

OK, whatever you are, tell me, Do you think interpreting scripture in 21 century context is literal??? If so please explain why and what hermeneutic principle do you use to justify doing so??

[gharfish]

Are you still steering this thing ? At least you remain confident. But, unless this is a personal matter between just the two of you and you have established some sort of mutual understanding of these (odd) terms that he understands..... :huh: ??

I hope at least it goes down quickly ! You sure are gutsy, and blowing in here like this: "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY" And the latest: "OK, whatever you are..." (?) You know precisely what he is !

[Theolog]

Theolog: Dispensationalism and replacement theology are at entirely different ends of the spectrum. You can disagree with one or both of them, but saying they are the same thing is patently false.

Berean: I disagree with your point #4. Rather than merely assert the dispensationalists take historical context into account when evaluating certain claims, I wish you'd actually show how they do so. I find historical context to be extremely antithetical to dispensational belief.

The term “replacement theology” is intended to be a derogatory term; dispensationalists use it in that manner. No New Covenant Christians would ever use that term to describe themselves.
The bible makes it clear that the New Covenant is made with Israel and Gentiles are grafted into Israel. And yes the promises go to Israel, the Church. Christians are the faithful elect of God, the Israel of God and Judaism is the cursed apostate Israel, doomed to perdition and lake of fire for their rejection of the Messiah as King.

As far as I understand dispensational theology the church raptures out here and goes to heaven and God then deals again with the Jewish dispensation that rejected Him as their king. Thus apostate Israel gets another chance. Some nutty idea that the kingdom of heaven is for Christians and the kingdom of God is for Israel. Thus the gentiles and Jews are separated forever. It is not that far fetched to see dispensationalist’s believing apostate Israel is replacing the church. If you can have your replacement theology and I can have mine.:lol:

[Theolog]

Are you still steering this thing ? At least you remain confident. But, unless this is a personal matter between just the two of you and you have established some sort of mutual understanding of these (odd) terms that he understands..... :huh: ??

I hope at least it goes down quickly ! You sure are gutsy, and blowing in here like this: "REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY" And the latest: "OK, whatever you are..." (?) You know precisely what he is !
Hey fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Dispensationalists come in more flavors than tofu. But they all have one thing in common. And that is God has a separate plan for the Jews when the “times of the gentiles is fulfilled” I see it as "replacement theology.":wink:

[Geek Eclectic]

The term “replacement theology” is intended to be a derogatory term; dispensationalists use it in that manner. No New Covenant Christians would ever use that term to describe themselves.:doh: Okay, you need to answer something. What do you mean here? Earlier you said that dispensationalism and replacement theology are the same things. Now it sounds like you're claiming that "replacement theology" is a derogatory term used by dispensationalists to refer to a view that they do not agree with. Do you not understand that this is a completely different claim than the one you made in your original post? Do you even understand what you are saying?As far as I understand dispensational theology the church raptures out here and goes to heaven and God then deals again with the Jewish dispensation that rejected Him as their king. Thus apostate Israel gets another chance. Some nutty idea that the kingdom of heaven is for Christians and the kingdom of God is for Israel. Thus the gentiles and Jews are separated forever. It is not that far fetched to see dispensationalist’s believing apostate Israel is replacing the church. If you can have your replacement theology and I can have mine.:lol:Give it up. As far as you understand dispensationalism isn't far at all. You'd do better to do a bit more study before going off on an ill-informed, disjointed, loud-mouthed rant. Ouch. Some of my points grazed me a little, I think. Oh, well. Off to study more! :lol:

[Geek Eclectic]

Dispensationalists come in more flavors than tofu. But they all have one thing in common. And that is God has a separate plan for the Jews when the “times of the gentiles is fulfilled” I see it as "replacement theology.":wink:I'm not certain you can make yourself look more stupid than you've already managed to do, but I'd advise you to just shut up and let this thread die in order to avoid any more embarrassment. You do not get to redefine the term to suit your whim when you're called on it. You came in here and blared your trumpet while using a well-defined term in Christian theology, and you were promptly called on your gross error. You do not get to escape this by claiming after the fact that you didn't actually mean what the term is understood to mean in these parts.

[Theolog]

LS, just read any of the books I listed. All are written by dispensationalists, and all spend significant time on the importance of historical context of the Scriptures. The whole entire process of dispensational hermeneutics is 1. what did the original author intend to the original audience 2. What is the timeless truth from that which would apply to anyone in any context 3. How does that timeless truth apply to us today. That is an extremely dumbed down version, but again, I listed 3 outstending books (in order of ease of reading --> more scholarly approach I would list them 1. Hendricks 2. Zuck 3. Virkler) which deal with those issues at great leangth.

For the record, I hold an undergrad degree from a dispensational school in Christian Ministry and Biblical Studies (dual major) and I am a current student in the Masters of Theology degree (120 hour masters degree) from Dallas Theological Seminary. In other words I am very well versed in dispensational theology and hermeneutics.



So I have to filter Scripture through what you call "Timeless Truth" to get real truth. :lol: Real funny. Can you tell me exactly how "timeless truth" differs from regular old everyday "truth"????? Are you sure you are not confusing presupposition truth with real truth.

Sorry to disagree with you professor. I'm just a bonehead old woodcarver that can barely read. But when someone says He is coming soon to a group of people two thousand years ago I would bet the ranch he was not talking to us. Now that is what I would call "timeless truth".:wink:

[Theolog]

:doh: Okay, you need to answer something. What do you mean here? Earlier you said that dispensationalism and replacement theology are the same things. Now it sounds like you're claiming that "replacement theology" is a derogatory term used by dispensationalists to refer to a view that they do not agree with. Do you not understand that this is a completely different claim than the one you made in your original post? Do you even understand what you are saying?Give it up. As far as you understand dispensationalism isn't far at all. You'd do better to do a bit more study before going off on an ill-informed, disjointed, loud-mouthed rant. Ouch. Some of my points grazed me a little, I think. Oh, well. Off to study more! :lol:

This may be a little too deep for you. Perhaps if you study the post more you will get it.
Thanks anyway.

[Geek Eclectic]

Dispensationalists come in more flavors than tofu. But they all have one thing in common. And that is God has a separate plan for the Jews when the “times of the gentiles is fulfilled” I see it as "replacement theology."I don't care how you see it. You're using the term wrong! Period.
So I have to filter Scripture through what you call "Timeless Truth" to get real truth. :lol: Real funny. Can you tell me exactly how "timeless truth" differs from regular old everyday "truth"????? Are you sure you are not confusing presupposition truth with real truth.Pseudophilosophical babble I'm 99.8% certain you don't understand yourself. Gag me.
Sorry to disagree with you professor. I'm just a bonehead old woodcarver that can barely read. But when someone says He is coming soon to a group of people two thousand years ago I would bet the ranch he was not talking to us. Now that is what I would call "timeless truth".:wink:Here's a clue for you -- I'm a Preterist. I do not agree with dispensationalism. I just find your errors in this thread, and your refusal to admit them when called on them, stupid.

[Theolog]

Theolog! Where have you been??

I pretty much agree, btw.
Been busy, busy, busy,

I'm glad you agree. You're swimming with the sharks now.:lol:

[Theolog]

I don't care how you see it. You're using the term wrong! Period.
Pseudophilosophical babble I'm 99.8% certain you don't understand yourself. Gag me.
Here's a clue for you -- I'm a Preterist. I do not agree with dispensationalism. I just find your errors in this thread, and your refusal to admit them when called on them, stupid.

I don't care what you are or what you think. It is clear that you are incapable of usderstanding what I mean so you call me stupid. If you talked to me like that in person you had better do it with a smile.

Run along now little girl and play with your dolls.:sigh:

[Geek Eclectic]

I don't care what you are or what you think.Wow. Real mature. If I am wrong about something, then show me where. Dodges like this just expose your complete inability to answer my charges.
It is clear that you are incapable of usderstanding what I mean so you call me stupid.I understand that you've said two conflicting things at various places in this thread. In posts #1 and #12 you said that dispensationalism is replacement theology. In post #11, you said something different -- that dispensationlists merely use the term to refer to new covenant theology in a derogatory manner. These statements are in conflict. Did you mean one? Did you mean the other? Did you mean both? A simple answer to this question would clear up a lot, and would help me know what degree of loony I should consider you.
Run along now little girl and play with your dolls.:sigh:They're called action figures!

[Berean Todd]

OK, whatever you are, tell me, Do you think interpreting scripture in 21 century context is literal??? If so please explain why and what hermeneutic principle do you use to justify doing so??

You would have to define what you mean by "interpreting scripture in the 21st century context" means in order for me to answer that question. However I would say, as I did in an earlier post, that scripture should be understood first and foremost within its historical-grammatical context. Before we can understand what it means to us today we must first discern what the original author intended to the original audience.

You list hermeneutics as one of your passions/interests, I am honestly asking you - have you ever read any dispensational books on hermaneutics? I have listed three excellent ones in this thread. If you honestly want to understand our hermeneutics (which are far different from what you are insinuating) then I suggest you read one (or all) of:

Living by the Book by Howard Hendricks
Hermeneutics by Henry Virkler
Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy Zuck

[Berean Todd]

As far as I understand dispensational theology the church raptures out here and goes to heaven and God then deals again with the Jewish dispensation that rejected Him as their king. Thus apostate Israel gets another chance. Some nutty idea that the kingdom of heaven is for Christians and the kingdom of God is for Israel.

Yes, the church will be raptured out, but I would correct your understanding in the following matters:

1. The New Covenant is never taken away
2. The Old Covenant/Law is never re-instated
3. Although sacrifices will be made by the Jews, they are not pleasing to God and are not sufficient to bring salvation. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone.
4. I take issue with your phrasing of "Israel gets another chance." Paul is clear in Romans 11 that Israel has NOT been taken out of God's plans, and that His promises to them remain.

[Berean Todd]

Hey fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Dispensationalists come in more flavors than tofu.

And non-dispensationalists don't? :lol: From the many infights within Catholocism, the EO-RCC divisions, differences within covenantal theology (pre-, a-, post-mil, not to mention soteriological differences ...), preterists (partial and hyper/full) ... on and on. Part of our fallen state is shown through in the divisions within any group of theology. However, for my purposes when discussing dispensationalism I am not fond of the sensationalists, or even most charismatics, I am coming from the perspective of DTS/Moody driven dispensationalism, the conservative, evangelical root and core of the teaching.

But they all have one thing in common. And that is God has a separate plan for the Jews when the “times of the gentiles is fulfilled” I see it as "replacement theology.":wink:

God's plan is not separate for Jews and the church. There is salvation in Christ alone, the end times are not about another path to salvation for the Jews, it is about bringing the Jews to Messiah, to the realization that they missed the boat when they (mostly) missed Jesus at His first advent, and when they will return to the foot of the cross, where alone any person may find salvation.

[Berean Todd]

So I have to filter Scripture through what you call "Timeless Truth" to get real truth. :lol: Real funny. Can you tell me exactly how "timeless truth" differs from regular old everyday "truth"????? Are you sure you are not confusing presupposition truth with real truth.

Sorry to disagree with you professor. I'm just a bonehead old woodcarver that can barely read. But when someone says He is coming soon to a group of people two thousand years ago I would bet the ranch he was not talking to us. Now that is what I would call "timeless truth".:wink:

It's not about my professors, it is about:

a. common sense
b. informed opinions.

First off i would critique the fact that you list hermeneutics to be amongst your interests, and yet you so clearly have not read a single book of dispensational hermeneutics. If you are going to come in here and cast aspersions, kindly read a book written by one of us first in order that your points can be informed. Your points have no basis in truth, and are derogatory towards us. I take great offense at them frankly, and they show quite clearly that while you may have read some critiques of dispensationalism, you clearly have never actually read any hermeneutics or theology books actually written by any respected dispensationalist.

[Theolog]

You would have to define what you mean by "interpreting scripture in the 21st century context" means in order for me to answer that question. However I would say, as I did in an earlier post, that scripture should be understood first and foremost within its historical-grammatical context. Before we can understand what it means to us today we must first discern what the original author intended to the original audience.

You list hermeneutics as one of your passions/interests, I am honestly asking you - have you ever read any dispensational books on hermaneutics? I have listed three excellent ones in this thread. If you honestly want to understand our hermeneutics (which are far different from what you are insinuating) then I suggest you read one (or all) of:

Living by the Book by Howard Hendricks
Hermeneutics by Henry Virkler
Basic Bible Interpretation by Roy Zuck

As long as you want to make me the issue here is something for you to work on.
I have read all of Thomas Ice stuff.
I have heard and own most of John Mc Arthur’s sermons Bible studies.
I have read every issue of friends of Israel and many of their books, I even have them on my computer. And use them a lot.
I have always gone to a dispensational church and even taught through most of the issues differing to my pastor’s theology. My first Bible was a Schofield study bible I literally read ever word many times and repaired it many times until I burned it. That version caused me to learn hermeneutics and as I suspected Schofield was nuts. Reading the Bible without filtering it through someone else’s system produced a completely different Theology.
I switched to Sproul.

I found the Ramm book useful and currently I am reading The Scripture & Hermeneutic series put together by Graig Bartholomew. It is very useful.


Why would I want to read a bunch of dispensationalist teach there version of hermeneutics? I call your method, after using it for years, “selective literalism”. That alone insures that a logical theology will never take place.

[Berean Todd]

As long as you want to make me the issue here is something for you to work on.
I have read all of Thomas Ice stuff.
I have heard and own most of John Mc Arthur’s sermons Bible studies.
I have read every issue of friends of Israel and many of their books, I even have them on my computer. And use them a lot.
I have always gone to a dispensational church and even taught through most of the issues differing to my pastor’s theology. My first Bible was a Schofield study bible I literally read ever word many times and repaired it many times until I burned it. That version caused me to learn hermeneutics and as I suspected Schofield was nuts. Reading the Bible without filtering it through someone else’s system produced a completely different Theology.
I switched to Sproul.

I found the Ramm book useful and currently I am reading The Scripture & Hermeneutic series put together by Graig Bartholomew. It is very useful.


Why would I want to read a bunch of dispensationalist teach there version of hermeneutics? I call your method, after using it for years, “selective literalism”. That alone insures that a logical theology will never take place.

The problem is that you may have had exposure to some dispensational thoughts and even books, but you have not had any real understanding of the theology/hermeneutics that underly it. You show that very clearly by the false assertions that you have made.

Moreover, I would question just how much you really read because you have claimed that we believe and teach some things that we very clearly do not. And additional to this I would say that I myself am not a big fan of Schofield, and many well known dispensationalists disagree with Schofield on many things.

Now, you ask why you should read these books which I have suggested. I would say that it is important to understand things if you are going to both critique them, and to make informed choices on truth. I have read books on theology and hermeneutics from covenental teachers, I have loved much of Sproul's ministry. Heck, for a time I even disavowed my dispensationalism and considered myself to be an amillenial covenental theologian. However, continued study of the Scriptures drove me back to dispensationalism, and I am quite comfortable in my theology now.

The point though is this - if you want to sit in your corner and be happy with your personal beliefs, that is fine, and I have no problem with that. I am not here to convert you to my beliefs. However, if you are going to come in and make comment on commentary on dispensational teaching and hermeneutical approaches, then make sure that your statements are informed and factual, which your comments in this thread have not been.

[Geek Eclectic]

I know I'm definitely going to have to check out those books. :thumb:

[Berean Todd]

I know I'm definitely going to have to check out those books. :thumb:


I appreciate your comments in this thread LS. I would say this in regards to the books. All of them are good, but:

BBI by Zuck - would be my favorite, and in my opinion the best presented of the three (although there is one early chapter that some covenantal believers would take some minor issue with perhaps).

Hermeneutics by Virkler - would be perhaps the deepest, and perhaps most scholarly, though perhaps not as well presented (in my personal opinion) as Zuck).

LBtB by Hendricks - is the easiest and quickest to read. It is a very good book, but it is aimed much more at the layman's level, and thus is not perhaps as complete or deep as the others.

[Theolog]

The problem is that you may have had exposure to some dispensational thoughts and even books, but you have not had any real understanding of the theology/hermeneutics that underly it. You show that very clearly by the false assertions that you have made.

Moreover, I would question just how much you really read because you have claimed that we believe and teach some things that we very clearly do not. And additional to this I would say that I myself am not a big fan of Schofield, and many well known dispensationalists disagree with Schofield on many things.

Now, you ask why you should read these books which I have suggested. I would say that it is important to understand things if you are going to both critique them, and to make informed choices on truth. I have read books on theology and hermeneutics from covenental teachers, I have loved much of Sproul's ministry. Heck, for a time I even disavowed my dispensationalism and considered myself to be an amillenial covenental theologian. However, continued study of the Scriptures drove me back to dispensationalism, and I am quite comfortable in my theology now.

The point though is this - if you want to sit in your corner and be happy with your personal beliefs, that is fine, and I have no problem with that. I am not here to convert you to my beliefs. However, if you are going to come in and make comment on commentary on dispensational teaching and hermeneutical approaches, then make sure that your statements are informed and factual, which your comments in this thread have not been.

Todd Thank you for your permission for me to keep quite and sit in the corner. This is an eschatology form and I have a right to post what I believe as much as you do. For your information I have been active studying the Bible since 1965 I taught a Bible study for 15 years every Tuesday and spent at least 30 hours a week preparing for it. Many times we had over 30 people attend which is more that most of the churches have on sunday mornings around here. Not a day goes by when someone asks when I will start up the study again. So don't give me a bunch of nonsense that I am granted permission to keep my mouth shut because you do not agree with me.

There are many different types of dispensationalism and it is my very humble opinion that they are all based on emotional decisions and very little, if any, logic is used. I think most people are comfortable parroting others theology because they don't have to think much. You should break that habit.

[Theolog]

I know I'm definitely going to have to check out those books. :thumb:
you'd just misplace them.

[Berean Todd]

Todd Thank you for your permission for me to keep quite and sit in the corner. This is an eschatology form and I have a right to post what I believe as much as you do.

You are right, you have every right to post whatever you want. However, if you want to be taken seriously you have a responsibility to also post something factual. You have not made one claim about dispensationalism that is true in this entire thread, with the single exception of those among dispensationalists who use the term "replacement theology" as a slur. Not one other comment you have made about disp. theology has been true. I have left four challenges for you, each of which have thus far gone unanswered. I will restate them now ...

From any reputable, scholarly or respected dispensational source:

1. You say that we claim the church will be replaced by Judaism - show us proof.
2. You claim we teach that the NC will be repealed and the OC/Law reinstated. That is the biggest of your untruths probably, and agin - show us proof of this claim.
3. Now you even claim that we ignore historical context, when it is at the core of what we teach. Again show us proof, or else retract your claim.
4. You claim that the New Covenant has allready fully come, show me that all of Jeremiah 31 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Jeremiah+31)has been fulfilled then (this one of course is a biblical challenge, so the information should not/would not need to come from a dispensational source).

For your information I have been active studying the Bible since 1965 I taught a Bible study for 15 years every Tuesday and spent at least 30 hours a week preparing for it. Many times we had over 30 people attend which is more that most of the churches have on sunday mornings around here. Not a day goes by when someone asks when I will start up the study again. So don't give me a bunch of nonsense that I am granted permission to keep my mouth shut because you do not agree with me.

I commend you for that brother, and I am glad that there are those who are so moved by your teaching. Keep it up, we are at the core of it, brothers in the Lord. However, that does not remove the fact that you have begun a thread dealing with dispensational hermeneutics, one that is quite derogatory towards us, and in which not a single one of your claims have any basis in the truth. You may have a great knowledge of the Bible, and for that I commend you. However you have shown yourself to either have no understanding of dispensational theology and hermeneutics, or else to be purposefully misrepresenting them.

There are many different types of dispensationalism and it is my very humble opinion that they are all based on emotional decisions and very little, if any, logic is used. I think most people are comfortable parroting others theology because they don't have to think much. You should break that habit.

First off, there is more than one ad hom attack in there, nice form brother. Secondly, there are just as many types of covenental theology and of Catholic theology as there are of dispensational, so stop trying to insinuate that we are the only ones with some disagreement. There are not as many flavors as you are trying to make out either.

Moreover "little if any logic is used". That is a derogatory, ad hom statement. Please provide proof for your assertion. Dispensationalists are at the forefront of theology and of many other Biblical fields. Our hermeneutics are logical and extensive, and you show yourself to have absolutely no understanding of them. Through this entire thread you have yet to show one single piece of corroborating evidence for a single one of your claims. I still challenge you to do so.

[Theolog]

Glad to see that you understand the dispensational community uses the term “replacement theology” as a slur for New covenant Chrisitans. Turn about seems like fair play to me. How does it feel?


1. You say that we claim the church will be replaced by Judaism - show us proof.

The church raptures to heaven for a seven year wedding feast dinner, I know some dispensationalist that believe Christian Jews will not rapture and will be “left behind”. But most of the dispensationalists I know say all Christians will rapture. At that point Dispensationalism says the Church dispensation will end and God will then restore the Jewish dispensation. Hold that thought for a moment…. Christians are gone……..God goes back to dealing with the Jewish dispensation. Say this; “The Church is gone and God is dealing with the Jewish dispensation” And if you are still here and someone ask you “Where’s the Church” you can say “The Church went to heaven and was replaced by the Jewish dispensation. Now say this; Israel replaces the church.

2. You claim we teach that the NC will be repealed and the OC/Law reinstated. That is the biggest of your untruths probably, and agin - show us proof of this claim.

You yourself admitted that the sacrifices will be restored. And all dispensationalists teach that the “Fall feasts” were not fulfilled”. How will they be fulfilled if the Law of Moses is not restored. I know many Messianic Jews that still think we are under the Law of Moses.


3. Now you even claim that we ignore historical context, when it is at the core of what we teach. Again show us proof, or else retract your claim.
Scripture teaches a 7 year great tribulation culminating in a judgment of Israel and the beginning of a New Covenant age, Coming soon was the literal cry by everyone.

History clearly shows us the in AD 63 Nero started a great persecution of the Church that made the Jewish persecutions look like child’s play. This 7 year Great tribulation culminated in the end of the Old Covenant age with the complete destruction of Israel and made it possible for the Church to eventually rule the Roman Empire.

Yes I would say that you ignore a great deal of history. New Covenant Christianity has been changing the world for the last 2000 years.



4. You claim that the New Covenant has allready fully come, show me that all of Jeremiah 31 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Jeremiah+31)has been fulfilled then (this one of course is a biblical challenge, so the information should not/would not need to come from a dispensational source).

The Old Covenant is full of types and shadows that portray a spiritual reality. The earthy temple was a model or copy of the heavenly Jerusalem where the true throne of David rests. My position is that all verses in scripture that refer to the eternal state or some utopian dream world are really referring to the spiritual realm where God/Christ and the heavenly hosts dwell.

Scripture uses apocalyptic language and also a spiritual language. Because of the nature of this literature it is highly figurative and uses types, hyperbole, and various other forms of figurative language. Simply put Jeremiah 31 is revealing the only real utopian dream available.


I was not trying to insinuate anything. You ask me to bring dispensational proof but you yourself don’t even believe the Schofield bible. If I do bring dispensational “proof to you” you will just say not that version of Dispensationalism.

I used to use this as my signature but they made me stop. “Pentecostalism and Dispensationalism are the two horns on the stinking goat of hillbilly theology.”

They made me quit using it because it made hillbillies look bad.

[Berean Todd]

Glad to see that you understand the dispensational community uses the term “replacement theology” as a slur for New covenant Chrisitans. Turn about seems like fair play to me. How does it feel?

I don't believe ad homs are an effective means of debating or discussing topics. I think that if our positions are as sound as we think they are, then they should stand up to scrutiny and we should be willing to read and consider other's opinions and views and be able to discuss and debate the validity of competing claims.


1. You say that we claim the church will be replaced by Judaism - show us proof.

The church raptures to heaven for a seven year wedding feast dinner, I know some dispensationalist that believe Christian Jews will not rapture and will be “left behind”. But most of the dispensationalists I know say all Christians will rapture.

Ok, you are good up until this point ...

At that point Dispensationalism says the Church dispensation will end and God will then restore the Jewish dispensation. [

Now you are off-track. That is false. Either you know it to be false and are saying it anyways, or you are showing your ignorance of dispensational teaching and thought. The "Jewish dispensation" (not a term that any dispensationalist I have ever read has ever used) will not be brought back, the law will not be re-instated, the temple sacrifices will not be acceptable in the sight of God.

Hold that thought for a moment…. Christians are gone……..God goes back to dealing with the Jewish dispensation. Say this; “The Church is gone and God is dealing with the Jewish dispensation” And if you are still here and someone ask you “Where’s the Church” you can say “The Church went to heaven and was replaced by the Jewish dispensation. Now say this; Israel replaces the church.

The end times are about God's dealing with the Jews, but it is not about the OC being brought back, it is not about the sacrifices being acceptable in God's sight (Hebrews clearly says that the blood of bulls was NEVER sufficient ....). Rather the End times are about God bringing the Jewish people to the realization that Jesus was and is the Messiah. There is salvation in none other than Christ Jesus. The 144,000 witnesses are not about the "OC" system, it is about bringing God's chosen people (Israel) into the Kingdom, through returning to and accepting their Messiah, Yeshuah Ha-Masheach.

2. You claim we teach that the NC will be repealed and the OC/Law reinstated. That is the biggest of your untruths probably, and agin - show us proof of this claim.

You yourself admitted that the sacrifices will be restored.

But ask yourself this question: Who will "reinstate" the sacrificial system? You see, if it is God that says "This is my will, start offering sacrifices to me, the OC is being reinstated" then you would be correct. We do not teach that. The JEWS will rebuild their temple and begin sacrificing again, we do not claim that this is acceptable or desireable by God.

But one of the two points of the end times is about bringing the Jewish people to Messiah Jesus (the other of course being God's wrath poured out on wickedness).

3. Now you even claim that we ignore historical context, when it is at the core of what we teach. Again show us proof, or else retract your claim.
Scripture teaches a 7 year great tribulation culminating in a judgment of Israel and the beginning of a New Covenant age, Coming soon was the literal cry by everyone.

History clearly shows us the in AD 63 Nero started a great persecution of the Church that made the Jewish persecutions look like child’s play. This 7 year Great tribulation culminated in the end of the Old Covenant age with the complete destruction of Israel and made it possible for the Church to eventually rule the Roman Empire.

Yes I would say that you ignore a great deal of history. New Covenant Christianity has been changing the world for the last 2000 years.

Because we disagree with your interpretation of Nero/the tribulation you make the blanket statement that we ignore historical context, when historical context is at the CORE of dispensational hermeneutics.

I was not trying to insinuate anything. You ask me to bring dispensational proof but you yourself don’t even believe the Schofield bible. If I do bring dispensational “proof to you” you will just say not that version of Dispensationalism.

I do not disagree with Schofield on all things, he is just sloppy and inconsistent and in error on some things. But I have said quite clearly - produce any respected, scholarly or reputable dispensational proof for your claims. It doesn't have to be someone who is in perfect agreement with me. Just someone respected, scholarly, and reputable. In this entire post of yours, you have done nothing but parot back your unfounded assertions. I once more challenge you to provide proof and coroboration for your claims, or else to retract them.

[gharfish]

"Pentecostalism and Dispensationalism are the two horns on the stinking goat of hillbilly theology. They made me quit using it because it made hillbillies look bad."

Ha ! Man, I've got a million of 'em !

[Theolog]

Originally posted by Theolog
Glad to see that you understand the dispensational community uses the term “replacement theology” as a slur for New covenant Chrisitans. Turn about seems like fair play to me. How does it feel?
I don't believe ad homs are an effective means of debating or discussing topics. I think that if our positions are as sound as we think they are, then they should stand up to scrutiny and we should be willing to read and consider other's opinions and views and be able to discuss and debate the validity of competing claims.



1. You say that we claim the church will be replaced by Judaism - show us proof.

The church raptures to heaven for a seven year wedding feast dinner, I know some dispensationalist that believe Christian Jews will not rapture and will be “left behind”. But most of the dispensationalists I know say all Christians will rapture.


Ok, you are good up until this point ...


At that point Dispensationalism says the Church dispensation will end and God will then restore the Jewish dispensation.
[

Now you are off-track. That is false. Either you know it to be false and are saying it anyways, or you are showing your ignorance of dispensational teaching and thought. The "Jewish dispensation" (not a term that any dispensationalist I have ever read has ever used) will not be brought back, the law will not be re-instated, the temple sacrifices will not be acceptable in the sight of God.


This shows I am not "off track" and it puts the rest of your post Off track.
This is from Wikipedia;

In contrast, dispensationalism teaches that the Christian Church is a "parenthesis" in God's dealings with the Jews, when the Gospel began to go to the Gentiles instead of the Jews, but that God's continued care for the Jews will be revealed after the Church Age (or Dispensation), when the Jews will be restored to their land, and will accept Jesus as their Messiah. Hence, dispensationalists typically believe in a Jewish restoration.

If that is not a replacement theology then what is.

Please try to think... The Church is raptured and there is a Jewish Restoration. With the Church gone do you think the Jews will will all just say "Oh wow, Christ is the way, lets rebuild the temple and forget the Law of Moses" ?? I think not.

At least I am not the only one that knows more about Dispensationalism than you. How long have you been studying this stuff. You don't even understand the basics. I know that dispensationalism has been changing a lot but Please.....

You don't really want me to read those books and look for something that is not there do you???

You are right on one thing. The temple sacrifices will not ever be acceptable to God. If they ever do rebuild the Temple and restore the sacrifices I am sure Christ help the Arabs nuke Jerusalam.

[Berean Todd]

This shows I am not "off track" and it puts the rest of your post Off track.
This is from Wikipedia;

Yes, Wikipedia, that great and well respected dispensational theologian :lol:

In contrast, dispensationalism teaches that the Christian Church is a "parenthesis" in God's dealings with the Jews, when the Gospel began to go to the Gentiles instead of the Jews, but that God's continued care for the Jews will be revealed after the Church Age (or Dispensation), when the Jews will be restored to their land, and will accept Jesus as their Messiah. Hence, dispensationalists typically believe in a Jewish restoration.

If that is not a replacement theology then what is.

Please try to think... The Church is raptured and there is a Jewish Restoration. With the Church gone do you think the Jews will will all just say "Oh wow, Christ is the way, lets rebuild the temple and forget the Law of Moses" ?? I think not.


You miss the point. Yes, they do rebuild the temple (which could be before the rapture or after, there is no real indication of when this will happen). Yes they will be offering sacrifices and following the law. That is what they will be doing. What God will be doing is working to peel back the scales from their eyes and bring them to acceptance of Messiah Yeshua.

Again, you are lacking in bringing in any quotes or offerings from any actual dispensationalists.

At least I am not the only one that knows more about Dispensationalism than you. How long have you been studying this stuff. You don't even understand the basics. I know that dispensationalism has been changing a lot but Please.....

You don't really want me to read those books and look for something that is not there do you???

:lol: Yes, it is me who doesn't understand. We are three pages into this thread and still all you can do is make personal attacks and ad homs, after repeated attempts by me to get you to provide coroboration for your claims the best you can do is come up with some sort of weak quote from Wikipedia, which even that does not make your point. I am still waiting for your proof, but for the record I'm not holding my breath.

[Theolog]

[/COLOR]

Yes, Wikipedia, that great and well respected dispensational theologian :lol:



You miss the point. Yes, they do rebuild the temple (which could be before the rapture or after, there is no real indication of when this will happen). Yes they will be offering sacrifices and following the law. That is what they will be doing. What God will be doing is working to peel back the scales from their eyes and bring them to acceptance of Messiah Yeshua.

Again, you are lacking in bringing in any quotes or offerings from any actual dispensationalists.



:lol: [COLOR=black]Yes, it is me who doesn't understand. We are three pages into this thread and still all you can do is make personal attacks and ad homs, after repeated attempts by me to get you to provide coroboration for your claims the best you can do is come up with some sort of weak quote from Wikipedia, which even that does not make your point. I am still waiting for your proof, but for the record I'm not holding my breath.

Ad hominem??? I believe you are the one that started with personal attacks. I also believe it was you that had to be chastised and have your posts edited by the mods... I don't know what you said but it could not have been nice.

If you do not agree with what Wikipedia said about the Dispensationalist whacky idea of the "parenthesis", which really is the heart of those pathetic doctrines then why don't you rebut what it says????

Actually the entire Jewish dispensation, (as you would call it) was the real "parenthesis" The promise was given to Abraham who was a gentile were given before Jews even existed. . The Jewish era was given for the sole reason to point to the coming Messiah. Well that happened 2000 years ago and it is finished. Judaism was only a temporary dispensation not forever. The promises to Abraham were given to those that believe God in all ages not just the Jews.

I do have many more quotes for you but let's go back and talk about the Wikipedia definition first.

PS.

I have always wondered how the Church could become obsessed with this crazy Zionist agenda in only 150 years. I think I have it figured out. It all started with one of the worlds biggest capitalists Baron Rothschild in of all places, England. It really wasn’t some "national identity" crisis for the Jews it was all about Oil. Rich western capitalists needed a presence in the Middle East so they would have more control and a reason for being there. There was only one thing that would move the population to accept this crazy invasion of the holy lands and starting an endless war with Islam and that was the emotions of mindless religion? Using their control over the media and focusing on emotional issues they easily won control over mindless minions and the public went for it. If the west ever wakes up it will be too late. Promoting Zionism became Christian. This would not be a consertive idea.

So what was once called Liberal Christianity became the standard for lame-brained Christianities new right. Go figure.

[gharfish]

This hyper-preterist; a highly unorthodox fellow, isn't he ?

[Theolog]

This hyper-preterist; a highly unorthodox fellow, isn't he ?Sense when is being nondispensational unorthodox? I am Preterist. Over 90% of Christianity is Preterist. What's with this "Hyper" nonsense? Are you defending Dispensational theology? From what I have read Dispensationaism is not even considered a systematic Theology by most scholars. Spare me your slanderous remarks. Is this some lame attempt to make me the subject instead of the topic at hand??? Do you consider yourself a deep thinker???? WOW!

Maybe you should be the topic.

[gharfish]

I didn't say that being nondispensational is unorthodox. You spare me ! Full or hyper preterism is unorthodox; that's the point, and you've got to know this IS the prevailing verdict on your extreme views.

It is, in fact, seriously heretical ! From the far fringes you have the gall to go straight to attacking classic dispensationalism. So, yeah--nuts to you, bro. dog.

And "slanderous remarks," huh ? Wow. And here I've been thinking that you have defined your beliefs as consistent with that camp's for us in your user profile.

Now, isn't that so ? .....Or did you somehow manage to screw up quite badly and click on the box you didn't intend to in there ? Surely you wouldn't be pulling legs with the "hyper" label for yourself just to get attention...for effect. (Right ?)

You have been posturing as a billybadass from your OP and all along the way down through 3 pages, so you can be tough enough now to choke on one small bitter pill--some of your own medicine, here in the end.


P.S.: your PS ramblings up there are just priceless, and N/A.

[Theolog]

Hi there.
Classic Dispensationalism???? Don't you mean, "Revised Dispensationalism"? Based on the revised Schofield bible. To bad Schofield didn't live a little longer we could blame "progressive Dispensationalism" on him. Of course So called Classic Dispensationalism wasn’t invented until the sixties. I suspect they used the term “Classic” to make it look old as to garner some respect. Being based on the new King James Version presented some real problems for you guys down in Texas, did you ever get it worked out or are the pastors still making theology on the fly.

Your lame attempts to change the topic to me are typical of someone that can't think on their own.
The message is true and you have no response other than attacking me.

None of you have answered my charge that Dispensationalism so called "parenthesis" is nothing less than national Israel replacing the Church. Dispensationalism is a "replacement theology".

Hello I know this is not the Replacement Theology you are used to but the one you know is not true and I am only seeking to enlighten you as to the Real replacement theology. I know it is a hard thing for you presupposition theologians to cognize, just give it some time.

Of course revising Bible meant revising the notes and that meant revising the whole game. Hardly what I would call "classic"

[TyRockwell]

A texan here, not a pastor, though. I think some ideas are called replacement theology that are misunderstood as such. But really, replacement T is a misnomer. There was no replacement. All the early church was Israel, before the good news was opened to the gentiles. Paul said that both gentiles and 'Israel according to the flesh' were in the same boat, outside of the New Man, in Christ.

[gharfish]

How in the blazes can you say that "national Israel has replaced the church" in Dispensationalism ?! Define "replaced," clearly, you crazy old stoner. Make it real... I'm sick of your 'charges.' You guys appear regularly with this nonsense. Last time it was some swaggering in "I'm considering Catholicism" dope with: 'Dispensationalim is like the heresy of MarcionZ.'


There was a need to classify it as "classic" when the errant "progressive" came along. Dispensationalism is STILL very well defined and defended in Dr. Charles Ryrie's "Dispensationalism," now some thirty years old.

Theolog, you say you like R.C. Sproul. He doesn't like full preterism ! He is a partial preterist.

[Theolog]

A texan here, not a pastor, though. I think some ideas are called replacement theology that are misunderstood as such. But really, replacement T is a misnomer. There was no replacement. All the early church was Israel, before the good news was opened to the gentiles. Paul said that both gentiles and 'Israel according to the flesh' were in the same boat, outside of the New Man, in Christ.
Replacement theology has been used as an ad homein by Dispensationalists used to teach that the covenant theologians believe that church has replaced Israel. The Church is New Covenant Israel.

You are right the new covenant was made with Israel. The fact remains that the early Church was purely Jewish and the Gentiles were allowed to join.

The Whole dispensational chain of thought is based on Schofield's error that the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven are two distinct different places. It was some years before anyone actually read the Bible and realized that this is not true. There is only one kingdom of heaven/god.

After Dispensationalist learned to read they began to revise things but alas the house of cards began to tumble. They have been patching things every sense. They have been making up theology on the fly and made an even shakier Theology.

Any way I am glad you know their error. Thanks

[Theolog]

How in the blazes can you say that "national Israel has replaced the church" in Dispensationalism ?! Define "replaced," clearly, you crazy old stoner. Make it real... I'm sick of your 'charges.' You guys appear regularly with this nonsense. Last time it was some swaggering in "I'm considering Catholicism" dope with: 'Dispensationalim is like the heresy of MarcionZ.'


There was a need to classify it as "classic" when the errant "progressive" came along. Dispensationalism is STILL very well defined and defended in Dr. Charles Ryrie's "Dispensationalism," now some thirty years old.

Theolog, you say you like R.C. Sproul. He doesn't like full preterism ! He is a partial preterist.

Dispensationalists teach that Covenant Theology believe that the Church replaced National israel as Gods chosen/elect people.

In reality Covenant Theology really teaches that the church is the New Covenant Israel. Not a replacement but a continuation.

Dispensational also teach that the Church age will end with the rapture of the church and National Israel will replace the Church and once more become Gods chosen/elect people.

Dispensationalist know that we teach a continuation and not a replacement. I am merely pointing out the the truth is Dispensationalist teach that National Israel will replace the church at the rapture.. I call that an evil deception. They lie and accuse us of the very thing they are doing. I call that evil, mean and very ungodly. I know this is over you head but give it some time.

You are wrong. I do not like Sproul, I love him. I also love John McAurther. Heck I even love Dave Hunt. But they also are wrong.

I see you are still trying to make me the topic. Stop it.

[Theolog]

Does Israel replace the Church at the rapture??????????????

[TyRockwell]

Does Israel replace the Church at the rapture??????????????
No, they do not replace the church. They have to enter by the Door, there is no other Way, Truth, and Life.

[TyRockwell]

No, they do not replace the church. They have to enter by the Door, there is no other Way, Truth, and Life.
They, some of them, can be grafted back in, when they "look to, or on him whom they pierced, according to Zechariah 12: 10.

[gooner]

. ....................................................show me that all of Jeremiah 31 has been fulfilled then.

The New Covenant was publically proclaimed to the nation of Israel on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) The 3000 converts were the firstfruits of that New Covenant. They were from the house of Israel and the house of Judah ( James addresses his letter to the 12 tribes sacattered abroad). There were no gentiles among them. All New Covenant Jews were Christians. All Christians were Jews. Gentiles were then grafted into Israel aka The Church. The early Jewish Church entirely fulfilled the New Covenant prophesy of Jerimiah 31.

[gharfish]

Dispensationalists teach that Covenant Theology believe that the Church replaced National israel as Gods chosen/elect people.

In reality Covenant Theology really teaches that the church is the New Covenant Israel. Not a replacement but a continuation.First of all, is that what "Covenant Theology" is ? ...and who are you saying "it" belongs to (above) ?

My understanding of dispensationalism is that the Jewish race is still the race that is God's chosen... But, now, a definition of "God's chosen/elect people" is in order. He chose them as the people that He would work through to reveal himself to all others. He would become incarnate at a certain time and place and as a member of that ancient ethnic group. They (the Jews) had a great status from the beginning; we cannot know most of the "whys" behind that. Why does it matter which race God used ? That is His call, and they did turn out to be up for the job. I'm sure He "had His reasons' for" selecting them ! They rejected their Messiah at the time, but that doesn't mean that God the Holy Spirit is not right now/today calling the individuals therein to trust in Jesus as Savior and to follow Him as Lord. They, as individuals, are on an even footing with any individual gentile to respond--obey--the gospel of salvation through Jesus, God's Son...and their Messiah. So, Jesus truly belongs to the whole world.

Yes, of course dispensationalists believe that Christianity is simply Judaism continued; that it IS GOD'S TRUTH not cut short by the early rejection of Jesus by the vast majority of Jews that were Jesus' contemporaries. They remain, as a group, very resistant to accepting Jesus. They are culturally-socially predisposed not to. He has for most, in their hearts and minds (obviously), become someone strictly for the gentiles--not for them. That is saddening for most Christians, I'm sure. I regard it as very tragic, but this is the choice that they are making, individually; as a "block" too it has become the norm.

'For the record,' I'd like to say that I already was essentially holding to what I later came to formally know as dispensationalim, from some time ago. I wasn't converted and am now going about touting the great truths of... It naturally squared up with how I saw God's plan throughout human history. (I'm not trying to be different !) I did agree with the eschatology of it, before I got to know it as a 'named' theological system--an "Ism."Dispensational also teach that the Church age will end with the rapture of the church and National Israel will replace the Church and once more become Gods chosen/elect people.Yes, that's true, if by the "Church age" you mean that all true believers in Jesus--no matter the ethnic group, BTW, are physically absent from the world in one fell swoop. It ends, because the "Church" means believers in Jesus' salvation plan--they have for sure acted, as required, on it in faith. Any faithful/trusting Jew is a part of the Church in this age; he or she would go in the rapture event. So, all unbelieving people, Jew and gentile alike, would remain here on earth at that time. Then God does turn His focus on the Jewish people again in a concerted effort to bring them as a whole into repentance and belief in Jesus. He never was done with them / His everlasting covenant could not (according to his will to promise) be broken.

Their "national" pain, and don't forget God's demonstations of His faithfulness to rescue and preserve them will turn some of the individuals to God and exercising faith in His Son. It will be an intense crucible like no other they have ever seen before. It will be hell unleashed on everybody for some 3 1/2 years.

Dispensationalist know that we teach a continuation and not a replacement. I am merely pointing out the the truth is Dispensationalist teach that National Israel will replace the church at the rapture.. I call that an evil deception. They lie and accuse us of the very thing they are doing. I call that evil, mean and very ungodly. I know this is over you head but give it some time.National Israel if unbelieving would remain behind; yes. So too would billions of unbelieving gentiles.

I think "we" all do recognize that Christianity is not Judaism because Judaism is called Judaism because it stops at Jesus' first advent. That is what I see as the discontinuation ! Naturally ! Those who call themslves Jewish believers do not recognize any other/later scriptures as inspired of God, so their canon closes tightly shut and the gospels are left outside. It is all about Jesus forming a new "false" religion--a Jewish cult of sorts.

Both preterists and dispensationalists see Christianty--as you say, as "a continuation and not a replacement." From the very beginning of this thread though you departed from the notion of "replacement theology" as it is normally defined. If you are up on preterism then you know what 'classic' dispenstionalists mean by the term. I reject that dispensationalism "teaches" that the unbelieving Jews have been replaced by believers in Christ Jesus in any other way than that God has some unique promises and plans that are given to each, and appropriately so in time.

The dispensation in effect, as I imagine you know, is that of God's merciful and lovingly kind offer: it's the dispensation of grace, ever since He provided the way of forgiveness of sins and the way to live anew spiritually and as a whole person (body and soul) everlastingly with Him.You are wrong. I do not like Sproul, I love him. I also love John McAurther. Heck I even love Dave Hunt. But they also are wrong.

I see you are still trying to make me the topic. Stop it.Are you a full preterist ? If so, you are also referred to as a "hyper" preterist. I'm not slamming your position with "hyper." The term comes from within the preterist camp. I am outside of that camp. Like I said, unless you accidentally clicked on the wrong button in there, in forming your user profile, you are neither a mild preterist, nor are you a partial preterist.

And, R.C. Sproul is a partial preterist--it's obvious in his writings and speeches--so it makes sense if you "love" him but also think he is "wrong" IF you are a full/hyper preterist.

[dizzle]

Gar - butting in for a second. Theolog knows that he cannot promote hyperpreterism in this section, and I think he is trying to cooperate with the rules, so please don't draw him into a discussion on hyperpreterism, cause the second he complies, the thread gets moved, which really isn't fair to him. So far, while he is indeed a hyperpreterist, he hasn't tried to promote that within this section. It is fine to note that you don't hold much credibility to him because of his heretical views, but after that, he is following the rules to not discuss it in this section, so we shouldn't pursue him to do so. Make sense? If you would like answers to questions on his hyperpreterism, perhaps invite him to a thread in Unorthodox Theology?

[gharfish]

Gar - butting in for a second. Theolog knows that he cannot promote hyperpreterism in this section, and I think he is trying to cooperate with the rules, so please don't draw him into a discussion on hyperpreterism, cause the second he complies, the thread gets moved, which really isn't fair to him. So far, while he is indeed a hyperpreterist, he hasn't tried to promote that within this section. It is fine to note that you don't hold much credibility to him because of his heretical views, but after that, he is following the rules to not discuss it in this section, so we shouldn't pursue him to do so. Make sense? If you would like answers to questions on his hyperpreterism, perhaps invite him to a thread in Unorthodox Theology?Oh. I didn't get that--that he couldn't promote hyper-preterism in this section. Where would the thread get moved to, I wonder. It doesn't matter; I just wasn't aware that he is under such a rule. I was dumbfounded that he was (it seemed) somehow unaware that full preterism is called hyper-preterism !! So, he knows it's unorthodox. I guess that is where this thread would go ? That's fine. I finally decided to just address the "charges" a bit and stop being passive-aggressive (...at best. Riled-up mad at worst).

Rats, NOW I notice that a discussion on hyper-preterism would be, by the TWeb guidelines, indeed in Unorthodox Theology. I won't press him. No. Don't care about that heresy. What can a person tell him anyway ??

I was just indignant that somone coming from a heretical POV would have the gall to roll in here like that...and not back off on the noise. He and Berean Todd must have feuded in the past. I went "Texan" on him eventually (...the 'crazy old stoner' insult. It was wrong to do that.)

[Theolog]

If I am "Hyper" anything it is "Hyper Christian". Oh I almost forgot "Hyper logic" fits also. If you disconstruct your theology you will find "emotion" and not Logic at the roots.

Your emotion shows and I can smell it from here.

Replacement Theology Dispensationalism teaches the Church will be raptured to heaven and the nation of Israel will replace it.

True or not.

[gharfish]

Replace it as what ?

[Theolog]

Gar - butting in for a second. Theolog knows that he cannot promote hyperpreterism in this section, and I think he is trying to cooperate with the rules, so please don't draw him into a discussion on hyperpreterism, cause the second he complies, the thread gets moved, which really isn't fair to him. So far, while he is indeed a hyperpreterist, he hasn't tried to promote that within this section. It is fine to note that you don't hold much credibility to him because of his heretical views, but after that, he is following the rules to not discuss it in this section, so we shouldn't pursue him to do so. Make sense? If you would like answers to questions on his hyperpreterism, perhaps invite him to a thread in Unorthodox Theology?

Have no fear big mama I will try my best to avoid getting sucked into breaking the rules. For the past year I have been studying the Early Church fathers you base the orthodox idea on and have found them lacking. As you must know by now they were all mystics that used pure allegory to interpret scripture which apparently confused the lot of them. If you want to cast your lot with them it's fine with me. I had such higher hopes for you.:teeth:

[Theolog]

Replace it as what ?
exactly
:sigh:

[gharfish]

.