Originally posted by seanD
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Eschatology 201 Guidelines
This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Replacement theology
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostBut the earthly covenant (which included land) promised to Abraham and his descendants was vowed to be forever. So I don't see how you can avoid arguing that the church is spiritual replacement of the earthly covenant."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostBut the earthly covenant (which included land) promised to Abraham and his descendants was vowed to be forever. So I don't see how you can avoid arguing that the church is spiritual replacement of the earthly covenant.
Paul shows that the inheritance was through Christ -- the promise was to Abraham and his seed, who is Christ. This is the point made in Galatians.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostOne might argue on the basis that "olam" doesn't exactly mean "forever" so much as it does "indefinitely" or "in perpetuity".
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad PigNot sure what identifying the 144,000 as Jews has to do with "replacement theology."
Originally posted by SeanThen what is the purpose of the reinstatement of the nation Israel, land specifically part of the earthly covenant given to Abraham and his descendants,
and why does Israel play such a pivotal role in global geopolitics today?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI've never found the equivocation of single words to be a convincing argument one way or the other. I'm sure if I researched it I could make a strong case supporting the argument that it does mean forever.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostI concur with Paprika in noting that the Mosaic covenant was not equivalent and did not replace the covenant(s) with Abraham. In a separate discussion on the land promises, one could glean which promises were recognizable as promises to the 'seed' (who is Christ) and which were for the physical descendants of Abraham.
Paul shows that the inheritance was through Christ -- the promise was to Abraham and his seed, who is Christ. This is the point made in Galatians.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SeanDBut the earthly covenant (which included land) promised to Abraham and his descendants was vowed to be forever. So I don't see how you can avoid arguing that the church is spiritual replacement of the earthly covenant.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View PostAs Bad Pig said, one day Christians will own all the land.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostBut this is where I disagree with mikewhitney. The old covenant wasn't "completed" in the first century. It has been replaced with a new covenant, but counted by God as a continuation of the Abrahamic promise, thus replacement theology is an accurate term.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostI've never found the equivocation of single words to be a convincing argument one way or the other. I'm sure if I researched it I could make a strong case supporting the argument that it does mean forever.
There are some cases in the OT where it clearly can't mean "forever" (i.e. when referring to how long a slave would be bound to his master), but I'm not a Hebrew expert and there very well could be contextual or grammatical reasons why it would have to here."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI'm not making this argument, for the record, just guessing how people might dispute it in answer to your question.
There are some cases in the OT where it clearly can't mean "forever" (i.e. when referring to how long a slave would be bound to his master), but I'm not a Hebrew expert and there very well could be contextual or grammatical reasons why it would have to here.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment