Featured "the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever"

Replacement Theology is traditionally Roman Catholic, believing that the RCC has "replaced" Israel. After all, they teach there is no salvation outside of the RCC. It is anti-semitic, and heretical. However, it has more recently been adopted by some in the Reform movement.
No dispensationalist would believe in this heresy.

http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_millennium7.php

 

http://americanvision.org/5657/the-charge-of-replacement-theology-is-a-cover-for-fuzzy-theology/

Conclusion

In Jeremiah 31:35–36, God promised the following to 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 the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before Me forever. Jeremiah 31:7 continues: “Thus says the Lord, ‘If the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out below, then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done,’ declares the Lord.”

Jeremiah’s prophecy was given more than 2500 years ago. Prior to 1948 and after A.D. 70, Israel had not been a nation. So we have a few interpretive choices regarding the Jeremiah passage: (1) God lied (impossible); (2) the promise was conditional (not likely); the promise was postponed (always the dispensationalist answer and untenable); (4) or the fulfillment was fulfilled in the new nation that grew out of the New Covenant made up of Jews and non-Jews(most likely). Consider what Jesus tells the religious leaders of His day:

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation, producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust. When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them” (Matt. 21:43–45).

Peter, quoting portions of the Old Testament related to Israel, raises the nation issue as it pertain to “the sons of Israel” (Ex. 19:6): “But you are ‘a chosen race,’ a royal ‘priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession,’ so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were ‘not a people,’ but now you are ‘the people of God; you had ‘had not received mercy,’ but now you have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:9–10). Does this not fulfill what is promised to Jeremiah? There is no need of a parenthesis, a postponement of covenant promises, for a future fulfillment. Peter is clear that a new nation of believers in Jesus Christ has been founded made up of Israelites and non-Israelites.

We need to stop teaching the two-people of God gospel, which is no gospel at all. There is one gospel and one people of God if they are in Jesus Christ: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17)

 

Well said!

 

All Israel

How in the world, then, can Paul go on later to say that “All Israel will be saved” (11:26)? All Israel? It is clear from the unity of the argument in chapters 9 through 11 that “Israel” in 11:26 cannot mean all ethnic physical Israel, but must refer to elect Israel. Since Paul has labored for almost three whole chapters to establish, define, and prove the doctrine of election with special regard to Israel, to show that a vast majority of Israelites never received election but were hardened, to argue for a saved remnant for his day just like in Elijah’s, to say that Israel has not obtained it but only the election has, we must therefore conclude that not all of ethnic Israel will be saved.

But while we know for a fact that not all of ethnic Israel will be saved, we also know for a fact that the elect remnant of true Israel has indeed obtained God’s mercy, and therefore all of elect Israel shall be saved. Therefore, we can only understand this verse rightly to be using the term Israel just as Paul did in his paradoxical-sounding passage in Romans 9:6—elect Israel, the Israel of the promise. “Not all these from [ethnic] Israel are [elect] Israel,” and therefore not all ethnic Israel will be saved; but, “All [elect] Israel will be saved.”

So, all Israel shall be saved, but not all Israel. Get it?

http://americanvision.org/3902/all-israel-will-be-saved-but-not-all-israel/

 

Romans 11:25-26 can just as easily say that the fullness of the Gentiles IS all Israel will be saved. The grammatical reason is because of the word οὕτω which does not necessarily imply sequence like you want but is used for explaining something. Therefore, what does the fullness of the Gentiles mean? "In this way, All Israel will be saved". In other words, all the people of God will be brought in to the flock of God, both Jews and Gentiles.

Chew on that.

 

Paul knew all Israel would not be saved and yet he prayed earnestly that they would be saved. In an utmost selfless act which to us may seem to be totally incomprehensible he is willing to "trade-in" his own salvation that "physical or ethnic" Israel would be saved. He wishes himself accursed from God if Israel could attain salvation.

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
--There is no allegory here. He puts that to rest in the first verse by prefacing his remarks with "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not..."
And then..."I could wish the myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren..."

Just to put to rest that these are not just close relatives he is praying for, he clarifies himself in the next verse:
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
--This was the entire nation that he was praying for including the Sanhedrin which he used to be a part of--the ones that crucified Christ, etc. He prays for them to be saved. It was the entire nation that were given the covenants and the law, not just "his kinsman."

The church did not replace Israel, not was it a continuation of Israel.
To believe such makes Paul a lunatic as he prays such a deep sacrificial prayer for a nation that still existed during his time.

 

Plenty of us around here, myself included, hold to so-called "replacement" theology or supersessionism.

It is an entirely biblical, thoroughly theological position to hold. Most major theologians hold to it (in some form or fashion) and it has been rightly held for the most part of the Church's existence. While not all forms (punitive most specifically) are legitimate, there are other forms which are solid.

I am an economic supersessionist.

Sooooo....feel free to send the slings and arrows.

 

There are hundreds of articles on this.
It is a well known heresy that started with the RCC. If you want to take it to its logical conclusion then someday Islam boasts of replacing Christianity. Sounds about right? Of course someone will--the antichrist!

Here is one good site that I have quoted from before:

http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_millennium7.php

There are many others.

 

That is the way I have chawed it for many years! Not necessarily because I understand the Greek but because that is where my understanding of Scripture leads.

 

Thank you for that clarification...

 

Two points:
1. You don't "win" by labeling a legitimate theological position heresy and attempting to be done with it.
2. Scholarly opinion across the generations affirms the proper view of Israel as being replaced by the Church. The goal of Jesus was not to come and build the new Israel but that He would call together the true Israel.

And this is entirely false. The proper view, the honest view of supersessionism is that the Church has replaced Israel as the conveyors of salvation to the world and it is by the blood of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who grants this new Covenant to the world.

Attempting to slander and libel a theological position by conflating it with Islam is a fool's errand and entirely uncharitable. If for no other reason than Muhammed isn't the Messiah, Jesus Christ is.

If you're going to attempt to critique a theological position, starting in disingenuity and libel isn't a good method.

 

What is called "true Israel" doesn't really exist as a real entity. Paul was simply referring to those of Israel who were true believers.
In the OT called out a nation unto himself. That nation rejected their Messiah, (John 1:11), and now are blinded for a season. In the future they will again turn to their Messiah (Rom.11:26). But even now they exist as a nation, whom Paul prayed for while he was alive (Rom.9:1-5; 10:1-5). If the church was a continuation of Israel was Paul a lunatic to pray for something that didn't exist?
Paul also delineated between three entities:

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
--All three existed during his time, and ours.
1. The Jews, Israel.
2. The Gentiles.
3. The church of God.
--The church did not replace or grow out of Israel. It always remained distinct from it.

The origin of this doctrine came from the RCC and was fraught with heresy from the very beginning. It is inherently anti-semitic.

 

All of Israel shall be saved.

Not all of Israel is Israel.

Both are biblical truths.

 

Those who did not believe, such as Ahab and Jezebel were not of "Israel." That is what he is referring. Among Israel there were unbelievers.
All Israel SHALL be saved. That is the believing remnant which will be alive when Jesus comes again.

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
--When he comes, they, as a nation will turn to him.

 

Rational people would not dispute that!

 

Then 'all' doesn't mean 'all'? God doesn't desire 'all' to be saved, correct?

 

I believe you are correct. If GOD desired all to be saved then HE would save all. Furthermore, believing Jews are saved in the present just as all the Elect. They don't have to wait until Jesus Christ returns!

 

God has always desired ALL to be saved.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
--He is not willing that any should perish.
--His will is that all should come to repentance.

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
--He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
--His will is that all men are to be saved.

The fact that many are not saved is not to be attributed to God, but rather to the hardness of man's heart and his unwillingness to come to Christ, accept his offer of salvation and refuse it instead.