-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Former SBC President: Jews REMAIN God's Chosen People
- Thread starter LadyEagle
- Start date
Daniel David
New Member
I completely agree with Patterson. He is one of my "heroes" if you will.
It has no bearing on what I have said in another thread as he would agree with me.
It has no bearing on what I have said in another thread as he would agree with me.
DD, instead of arguing with me about Replacement Theology, how about we do the mature thing and come to a conclusion about a definition of what Replacement Theology is?
It may be entirely possible we are in agreement but are talking in circles around each other. Men & women do have communication problems sometimes, eh?
I really don't believe it is edifying for us to be on the BB calling each other names over this or making inuendoes, do you? Is that the Spirit of Christ or of edification or building up the Body of Christ? C'mon play nice.
So you agree with the above article. So do I. That's a start.
Does anyone else agree with the above article?
It may be entirely possible we are in agreement but are talking in circles around each other. Men & women do have communication problems sometimes, eh?
I really don't believe it is edifying for us to be on the BB calling each other names over this or making inuendoes, do you? Is that the Spirit of Christ or of edification or building up the Body of Christ? C'mon play nice.
So you agree with the above article. So do I. That's a start.
Does anyone else agree with the above article?
Replacement theology is the teaching that the church has replaced ethnic Israel as the recipients of God's promises in the OT. It is realy not any more complicated than that. Some have tried to say things like fulfillment theology but that is really not accurate. Replacement is what it is. BTW, that does not necessarily have a bad connotation.
It may be entirely possible we are in agreement but are talking in circles around each other. Men & women do have communication problems sometimes, eh?
Patterson is right on this issue. It is an issue that is too often overlooked by people who insert their own ideas into the text. We need to let it stand as it does.
I have long said that replacement theology or covenantalism compromises the integrity of God because it has him making clear and explicit promises to a group of people to whom he never intended to fulfill them. A covenantalist should be more comfortable with open theism because it at least protects the integrity of God in that respect. The church and Israel are distinct. Those who combine them make nonsense out of some very clear passages. They end up making "Israel" mean ethnic Israel when they need to and "church" when they need to. It is eisogesis. Gal 6:16 makes clear that the "Israel of God" is distinct from the church.
I have some good friends who are convanantalists and enjoy a lot of writing by covenantalists. I wish they would be consistent in their theology.
LadyEagle
Thats rather amusing coming from you.
This is what is wrong with most. They cannot see that the church did not replace Israel. Israel became the church. There is a big difference.
The "chosen people" have always been the elect of God, whether OT or NT. O.T. ethnic Israel contained the Chosen, but the NT church are the chosen.
Just like all the physical types and shadows of the Old Covenant, God used them to show a spiritual reality in the New Covenant.
Do you read in the New Testament of any Jew complaining about God's unkept promises to them? If so let me know. If not why would they not be complaining like the Dispys are?
There is no substantive difference. And the biggest problem is that this has never been shown to be the case from Scripture. Once again, this comes down to what Scripture actually says.
Because they are in the church. But Paul reminds us that those promises will be fulfilled.
Replacement theology is the teaching that the church has replaced ethnic Israel as the recipients of God's promises in the OT. It is realy not any more complicated than that. Some have tried to say things like fulfillment theology but that is really not accurate. Replacement is what it is. BTW, that does not necessarily have a bad connotation.
It may be entirely possible we are in agreement but are talking in circles around each other. Men & women do have communication problems sometimes, eh?
Patterson is right on this issue. It is an issue that is too often overlooked by people who insert their own ideas into the text. We need to let it stand as it does.
I have long said that replacement theology or covenantalism compromises the integrity of God because it has him making clear and explicit promises to a group of people to whom he never intended to fulfill them. A covenantalist should be more comfortable with open theism because it at least protects the integrity of God in that respect. The church and Israel are distinct. Those who combine them make nonsense out of some very clear passages. They end up making "Israel" mean ethnic Israel when they need to and "church" when they need to. It is eisogesis. Gal 6:16 makes clear that the "Israel of God" is distinct from the church.
I have some good friends who are convanantalists and enjoy a lot of writing by covenantalists. I wish they would be consistent in their theology. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not agree with covenant theology but I am wondering how you would interpret Phil 3:2,3, "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,"
It seems to me that God had given the gospel to Israel--the jews and they rejected it and so God gave it to the gentiles who would recieve it. Those who received the gospel are the true circumcision.
Do you agree, or am I missing something?
The big question is "chosen" for what?
Under the Old Covenant, there's a clear answer:
They were chosen to bring forth the Messiah, they were singled out to be an example (both good an bad) for us all to learn from, and to exhibit those types and shadows which would ultimately be fulfilled in Christ. To them was comitted the recording and preservation of the Word of God. God promised to reveal His glory in them, and thus lighten all peoples of the world.
By the end of God's revelation to mankind, all these purposes had been fulfilled. And interestingly the word "chosen" under the conditions of the New Covenant refers to those who believe in Christ (Jew or Gentile).
Today, according to the N.T., believers are God's "chosen" people.
So what exactly would it mean for the Jews (simply by virtue of their bloodline) to be chosen now? Chosen for what purpose?
Chosen in Christ,
Tim
Under the Old Covenant, there's a clear answer:
They were chosen to bring forth the Messiah, they were singled out to be an example (both good an bad) for us all to learn from, and to exhibit those types and shadows which would ultimately be fulfilled in Christ. To them was comitted the recording and preservation of the Word of God. God promised to reveal His glory in them, and thus lighten all peoples of the world.
By the end of God's revelation to mankind, all these purposes had been fulfilled. And interestingly the word "chosen" under the conditions of the New Covenant refers to those who believe in Christ (Jew or Gentile).
Today, according to the N.T., believers are God's "chosen" people.
So what exactly would it mean for the Jews (simply by virtue of their bloodline) to be chosen now? Chosen for what purpose?
Chosen in Christ,
Tim
Ransom has a question for you Pastor Larry:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001947;p=6
For they are not all Israel who are who are of Israel" Romans 9: 6
In Paul’s mind there are two Israel’s that exist simultaneously in time and have always existed in this manner.
"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." (Romans 2: 28-29).
Again, 2 Jews.
I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." (Rev 2: 9).
Here is Jesus saying some physical Jews are not Jews.
"And Nathaniel said to him, ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ Philip said to him, "Come and see.’ Jesus saw Nathaniel coming to Him, and said of him, ‘Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!’ Nathaniel said to Him, ‘How do You know me?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.’ Nathaniel answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these.’ And He said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.’" (John 1: 46-51).
Did Jesus recognize Nathaniel by race in calling him an Israelite? No. The phrase using indeed seems to say not only by race but a true "spiritual" Israelite. Jesus clearly recognized the spiritual not the physical.
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.’" (John 8: 38-44).
Does this sound like they were chosen to you?
For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And to those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6: 15-16).
It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as seed. For this is a word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." (Romans 9: 1-9).
So Pastor Larry, are you chosen? Are you of spiritual Israel? Are you a Jew inwardly? Are you of Abraham's seed?
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001947;p=6
Lets see what scripture says.
For they are not all Israel who are who are of Israel" Romans 9: 6
In Paul’s mind there are two Israel’s that exist simultaneously in time and have always existed in this manner.
"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." (Romans 2: 28-29).
Again, 2 Jews.
I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." (Rev 2: 9).
Here is Jesus saying some physical Jews are not Jews.
"And Nathaniel said to him, ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ Philip said to him, "Come and see.’ Jesus saw Nathaniel coming to Him, and said of him, ‘Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!’ Nathaniel said to Him, ‘How do You know me?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.’ Nathaniel answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these.’ And He said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.’" (John 1: 46-51).
Did Jesus recognize Nathaniel by race in calling him an Israelite? No. The phrase using indeed seems to say not only by race but a true "spiritual" Israelite. Jesus clearly recognized the spiritual not the physical.
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.’" (John 8: 38-44).
Does this sound like they were chosen to you?
For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And to those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6: 15-16).
It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as seed. For this is a word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." (Romans 9: 1-9).
So Pastor Larry, are you chosen? Are you of spiritual Israel? Are you a Jew inwardly? Are you of Abraham's seed?
Please find a Scripture that supports this.
I don't know of anyone who disputes that. But the word "chosen" does not always refer to the same thing.
Now, nothing. A Jew chosen now individually would be a member of the church. No OT Jew was a member of the church. In the OT, the nation wase chosen 2 millennia ago to inherit the land in peace forever and to be the line from which Messiah would come.
I have answered that question ad nauseum. All you need to do is read the prophets without your replacement theology and it is very clear.
Right ... But you interpret it backwards. You assume it to mean that some of "non-Israel" is true Israel. But as I said and you quoted, let's read what the text actually says. And what it says that is not all Israel is true Israel. That is, not all Israelites by ethnicity are truly saved. There were many Israelites who never truly believed. That should not be a shock. Paul is not commenting on non-Israelites here. You read that in to support your theology. It didn't come from teh text.
No dispute there. But again, they are both "Israel." One of them is not "non-Isreal." Again, just focus on what the text says, not what it doesn't say.
So far as I know.
Nope.
Nope.
By faith, not by seed. The promises were given to his genetic seed. That does not mean that he does not have spiritual seed as well.
But again, the issue as always comes down to reading what the text actually says. For you coming from your position, you are unwilling to do that.
Back at you
Back at you
</font>[/QUOTE]But the difference is that the text says what I am saying, not what you are saying. You depend on a recharacterization of the text to make your case. You can't make you case as the text stands on its own.
29 And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.
This is not conditional on what race you are, it clearly states if you are in Christ you are the seed of Abraham.
heirs according to promise
What promise? OT promises perhaps?
Larry
So this does not apply to you or any gentiles?
Larry
Land Promises?
Josh. 23:43 So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And Jehovah gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Jehovah delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.
Ps 105:44 And he gave them the lands of the nations; And they took the labor of the peoples in possession:
I Kings 4:20 Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry.
21 And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life.
Neh. 9:22 Moreover thou gavest them kingdoms and peoples, which thou didst allot after their portions: so they possessed the land of Sihon, even the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan.
23 Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land concerning which thou didst say to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it.
24 So the children went in and possessed the land, and thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, with their kings, and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would.
Acts 13:17 The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they sojourned in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm led he them forth out of it.
18 And for about the time of forty years as a nursing-father bare he them in the wilderness.
19 And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years:
Forever?
If this is true:
Jer 25:5They said, "Repent now everyone of his evil way and his evil doings, and dwell in the land that the LORD has given to you and your fathers forever and ever .
Then these must also be true:
Jer 23:40 and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame , which shall not be forgotten.
Jer 25:9 behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith Jehovah, and I will send unto Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and a hissing, and perpetual desolations .
Larry
So the prophecies of the Kingdom being established during the Roman empire did not come to pass? (Dan 2:39-45)
So was Mark also wrong?
Mark 1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled , and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel
Or does this not fit under what you consider "clear statement of scripture'?
Or perhaps you believe God was unable to establish His Kingdom and therefore put it off.
This is not conditional on what race you are, it clearly states if you are in Christ you are the seed of Abraham.
heirs according to promise
What promise? OT promises perhaps?
Larry
"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." (Romans 2: 28-29).
So this does not apply to you or any gentiles?
Larry
No I don't. I read it that just because you are of physical Israel does not make you part of spiritual Israel. For they are not all of "spiritual" Israel who are of "physical" Israel. However scripture teaches that Gentiles can also be "spiritual" Israel.
Land Promises?
Josh. 23:43 So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And Jehovah gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Jehovah delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.
Ps 105:44 And he gave them the lands of the nations; And they took the labor of the peoples in possession:
I Kings 4:20 Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry.
21 And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life.
Neh. 9:22 Moreover thou gavest them kingdoms and peoples, which thou didst allot after their portions: so they possessed the land of Sihon, even the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan.
23 Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land concerning which thou didst say to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it.
24 So the children went in and possessed the land, and thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, with their kings, and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would.
Acts 13:17 The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they sojourned in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm led he them forth out of it.
18 And for about the time of forty years as a nursing-father bare he them in the wilderness.
19 And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred and fifty years:
Forever?
If this is true:
Jer 25:5They said, "Repent now everyone of his evil way and his evil doings, and dwell in the land that the LORD has given to you and your fathers forever and ever .
Then these must also be true:
Jer 23:40 and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame , which shall not be forgotten.
Jer 25:9 behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith Jehovah, and I will send unto Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and a hissing, and perpetual desolations .
Larry
Can you show me a verse that says the Church is not the Kingdom?
So the prophecies of the Kingdom being established during the Roman empire did not come to pass? (Dan 2:39-45)
So was Mark also wrong?
Mark 1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled , and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel
Or does this not fit under what you consider "clear statement of scripture'?
Or perhaps you believe God was unable to establish His Kingdom and therefore put it off.
PL,
A few verses from the N.T. which describe believers as "chosen":
Eph. 1:4, James 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9-10
I think we could also include the use of the term "elect"--but that would be a very long list.
I'm sure you're familiar with these passages, so I'm not sure why you asked. Maybe I missed your point.
Tim
A few verses from the N.T. which describe believers as "chosen":
Eph. 1:4, James 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9-10
I think we could also include the use of the term "elect"--but that would be a very long list.
I'm sure you're familiar with these passages, so I'm not sure why you asked. Maybe I missed your point.
Tim