The Real John Calvin

That is exactly what it means. And it is not my term - never heard of it until I came to this board and read some outlandish posts. Also, things like the 144,000 are "figurative." God divorced Israel, He is finished with Israel. The Church has replaced Israel. Those kinds of posts.

 

I figure you need to judge people in context of the culture. Calvin would be viewed today as a vicous psychopath, but he was relatively gentle for the times in which he lived.

He just had a skewed idea of what God wanted him to do.

 

That is exactly what it means. And it is not my term - never heard of it until I came to this board and read some outlandish posts. Also, things like the 144,000 are "figurative." God divorced Israel, He is finished with Israel. The Church has replaced Israel. Those kinds of posts. </font>[/QUOTE]The term "Replacement Theology" was not coined by people who hold to Covenant Theology. It was coined as a description for Covenant Theology by Dispensationalists.

Reading 144,000 as figurative is an element of Amillenialism which says that there is no 1000 year kingdom to come but that God has already established the Kingdom now and we exist in it but that it's a spiritual kingdom. I don't hold to that view of Eschatology but there is a difference between a persons end time theology and their view of Covenant Theology. I believe in Covenant Theology---I am not a Dispensationalist, yet I also believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth to come. I know the difference because I used to be Amillinial before I became pre-millenial----but I am still Covenant.

Amillinialist who hold to Covenant theology see that there is only one people of God and since the millenium is now, the 144,000 has to be a figurative representation of the entire people of God complete. I used to believe that.

Covenant Premillenalism teaches that the 144,000 Jews reveals that God is going to save the Jews as well as the Gentiles. But there is only one nation--the people of God.

Dispensational Premillenialism (what you most likely are from what you have said thus far), teaches that the church will be raptured out so that God can continue is true purpose with the Nation of Israel---save the 144,000 who will be the rule under King David in the New Israel in the Millenium Kingdom and Christ will rule with the Church seperately over the rest of the world.

I don't believe that---Jews and Gentiles will have only One King---King Jesus---who already has begun his reign in Heaven and will bring it to earth in the New Jerusalem after the Tribulation and where Jew and Gentile will physically be one people together Under Christ Physically, as we already have begun now Spiritually.

The OT was a picture of the perfect nation of God to come----but one which will include Gentiles as equal partners (adopted brethren) with the Jews.

That's what I believe----when people talk about replacement theology they are referring to Covenant Theology---not End times Theology----but Amillenialism has the appearance of Replacement theology because it's sometimes oversimplfied by some to simply say that the church has replaced Israel.....but that's not what has happened----the Gentiles have been added to Israel and the nation on earth has been destroyed ---and now we like the jews (who are christians) are a people wondering in a foreign land -- with no nation--- on a pilgramage to the promised land which will be inaugerated in the Millenium Kingdom.

Dispensationalists steal that promise away from the church which has been promised to them as well as to Israel when we became adopted sons of Abraham.

I hope that sheds light.

 

What is interesting is that the dispensationalists have a Replacement Theology that they advocate - that Israel will one day replace the church. And they are wrong.

 

Never heard of that one, Ken. Did you just make that up cause you ate too much turkey?

 

Ladyeagle is not qualified to discuss dispensationalism. She is all over the place in her view of Israel and the Church.

Walldoctor, I am a dispy and only believe in ONE people of God. My support for Israel is because they are a democrasy. It has NOTHING to do with them being Jews. Why? Because Paul called Jews our enemies according to the gospel. I guess if Ladyeagle actually read the N.T. instead of Clarence Larking (because he was pious in her eyes which must mean he is correct).

I do tire of the C.T. side of the debate not having a clue either about dispy teaching. Your understanding is flawed, severely.

 

I have never "been all over the place" in my view of Israel and the church, but have consistently held one view and one view only. I challenge you to show one of my posts to the contrary - you won't find one anywhere on this Board.

I do tire of the RT side of the debate cloaking themselves as dispies. Wolves in sheep's clothing.

Source

 

Ladyeagle, I have seen too many of your bizarre posts to say anything different than what I did.

You seem to think that the current nation of Israel are God's people, the apple of his eye, etc.

This is completely false.

Paul said they were enemies according to the gospel. If God is for the gospel of his son, and Jews are enemies of the gospel, how can they be his people?

Further, true dispensational theology recognizes that it is a time in the future when Israel will be part of the New Covenant, they will be his people (one day), etc. You supperimpose some radical Christian Zionism upon the entire New Testament for people who are opposed to Christ.

Still further, John says in his epistle that the spirit of antichrist is that which denies that Christ has come in the flesh. Do Jews deny that Christ came in the flesh Ladyeagle? The answer is yes. They have the spirit of antichrist.

Now, for you to call me an advocate of replacement theology demonstrates that your understanding of eschatology, replacement theology, and dispensational theology, is so far whacked that discussion with you is obviously going to be futile.

I am a dispensationalist who believes that ethnic Israel will be God's people again, one day. That is also what Paige Patterson (a personal hero of mine) believes.

This is why Paul forbids women from being teachers.

 

Does venom from your tongue come natural for you DD, or is that something you learned in seminary?

You haven't a clue about Paul.

 

You managed to run this member off, after 39 posts, he got disgusted with your venom along the same line. Remember this thread?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2527.html

Guess you didn't read what your hero said. Read the first line again - he says they are. "A Southern Baptist leader says Christians need to strongly oppose the false doctrine that the church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people."

Clue: Get new glasses.

 

Okay folks, this thread is bordering on becoming a personal battle instead of a discussion of the topic. Let's keep it on subject please.

Roger
C4K
Moderator

 

Part of this discussion is about Calvin's view of Israel, Roger.

Anyway Ladyeagle, you didn't answer any of my questions, because each one answered correctly would indict your bizarre form of dispensationalism.

Paul said that Jews were enemies of the Gospel. Do you agree with Paul, or was he also anti-semetic? Snicker snicker.

Further, you obviously don't understand what Paige is saying. I have tried to explain to you what he was saying, but your brain is too tightly wound in nonsense to understand.

I have moved to pity for your theology.

 

DD,

Each other's view of Iseal is fine.

and

have nothing to do with the issue. If civility cannot be maintained the thread will be closed.

 

Roger, will you please note that DD started the offensive attack on me, unprovoked, in his usual fashion. Please also note, that even after your request to not do personal attacks, he has shown such little respect for you, also, that he has continued to personally attack me in his very next post: "but your brain is too tightly wound in nonsense to understand."

Yes, please close the thread. It is impossible to have any kind of a meaningful discussion when someone is so obviously wrong with their views that they must resort to unprovoked personal attacks in the fashion of a preadolescent. I fail to see why DD gets a pass once again for this typical crude behavior which soils the board.

 

I think this may be the very first thread ever closed in the History Forum.