If Replacement Theology simply means that the Gospel has superseded Moses' Law, then I agree with it.
If it means God doesn't have two separate plans of salvation - one for Gentiles, and another for Jews - but only one plan for all, then I agree with it.
If it means there is no moral and spiritual distinction between unsaved Jews and unsaved Gentiles; and if it means that only people who have been born again shall see the Kingdom of God, then it's true.
If it means the time to get saved is now and it will be too late for anyone - including Israel - to get saved once they have seen the second coming of Christ, then I agree with it.
If it means the majority of the Promises and Prophecies regarding Israel were fulfilled by the time of Christ, and by Christ, and by the Gospel, without any need for a future, special era in which Israel must resume Old Covenant-style worship, as Dispensationalism holds, then it sounds good. I'm quite sure Mosaic-style worship isn't intended by God for Israel's future - or for anyone's - ever. Jesus is everything!
I just don't think it's necessary, in order to establish those truths, to allegorise or spiritualise Bible-Prophecies which were about Israel, and make them instead to refer to someone else or something else somewhere else. If treating Bible-Prophecy that way is what is meant by Replacement Theology, then I think it's unnecessary. That would be almost as much a misapplication of Prophecy as Dispensationalism is.
The Apostles' Gospel couldn't have gained much traction in first-century Israel if their Gospel could be established only by either spiritualising Old Testament Prophecy concerning Israel - or by relegating the prophecies to a still-future time. The Apostle's Gospel gained believers precisely because it was established wholly upon the premise that it directly fulfilled Bible-Promises and Prophecy. And aside from teaching this logically, the Apostles also demonstrated it powerfully through the Holy Spirit as they gave witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
If Prophecy was not by-and-large fulfilled by the time Jesus Christ came, then Judaism is intended by God for Israel's future - because a major theme of the prophecies showed Israel carrying-out the Law. But that's not Gospel, because if Judaism is a potent pathway to salvation, then Jesus Christ died needlessly.
But understanding prophecy as fulfilled, and literally so, confirms Jesus as the Messiah; it puts Israel and the Gentiles on an equal footing morally - both in need of a Saviour independent of the works of the Law; and gives believers one and the same blessed hope - the coming and Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the dead.
There's no other hope, and no other lifestyle is required. Just Jesus Christ. He is everything and He is in everyone who believes. Without this message, people are lost - whether they're Gentile or Jew.
If it means God doesn't have two separate plans of salvation - one for Gentiles, and another for Jews - but only one plan for all, then I agree with it.
If it means there is no moral and spiritual distinction between unsaved Jews and unsaved Gentiles; and if it means that only people who have been born again shall see the Kingdom of God, then it's true.
If it means the time to get saved is now and it will be too late for anyone - including Israel - to get saved once they have seen the second coming of Christ, then I agree with it.
If it means the majority of the Promises and Prophecies regarding Israel were fulfilled by the time of Christ, and by Christ, and by the Gospel, without any need for a future, special era in which Israel must resume Old Covenant-style worship, as Dispensationalism holds, then it sounds good. I'm quite sure Mosaic-style worship isn't intended by God for Israel's future - or for anyone's - ever. Jesus is everything!
I just don't think it's necessary, in order to establish those truths, to allegorise or spiritualise Bible-Prophecies which were about Israel, and make them instead to refer to someone else or something else somewhere else. If treating Bible-Prophecy that way is what is meant by Replacement Theology, then I think it's unnecessary. That would be almost as much a misapplication of Prophecy as Dispensationalism is.
The Apostles' Gospel couldn't have gained much traction in first-century Israel if their Gospel could be established only by either spiritualising Old Testament Prophecy concerning Israel - or by relegating the prophecies to a still-future time. The Apostle's Gospel gained believers precisely because it was established wholly upon the premise that it directly fulfilled Bible-Promises and Prophecy. And aside from teaching this logically, the Apostles also demonstrated it powerfully through the Holy Spirit as they gave witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
If Prophecy was not by-and-large fulfilled by the time Jesus Christ came, then Judaism is intended by God for Israel's future - because a major theme of the prophecies showed Israel carrying-out the Law. But that's not Gospel, because if Judaism is a potent pathway to salvation, then Jesus Christ died needlessly.
But understanding prophecy as fulfilled, and literally so, confirms Jesus as the Messiah; it puts Israel and the Gentiles on an equal footing morally - both in need of a Saviour independent of the works of the Law; and gives believers one and the same blessed hope - the coming and Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the dead.
There's no other hope, and no other lifestyle is required. Just Jesus Christ. He is everything and He is in everyone who believes. Without this message, people are lost - whether they're Gentile or Jew.
No comments:
Post a Comment