Posted on 10/30/2010 4:03:35 PM PDT by Rashputin
Stunning Michael Geer
The Vatican has called for Israel to end its occupation of "Arab lands," noting that all of what we define currently as Israel is "Arab land."
That the Bible must not be used to justify either their ‘occupation' nor their ‘injustices' against Palestinians.
"The Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands," Monsignor Cyril Salim Bustros, Greek Melkite archbishop of Our Lady of the Annunciation in Boston, Massachusetts, and president of the "Commission for the Message," said at Saturday's Vatican press conference.
"We Christians cannot speak of the ‘promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people. This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people - all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."
You've just been witness to a significant event in the End Times unfolding, amigo. The Vatican stating that Israel is "no longer a chosen people".
The Vatican has just nullified the Bible, and elevated Replacement Theology in full public view.
This is .... stunning.
The author conveniently omits to mention that Marcion was condemned as a heretic by the Catholic bishops. He’s cited here as one of the roots of Replacement Theology, with the implication that he was Catholic.
Marcion was condemned precisely because he wanted to cut off the Jewish heritage. The rest of the Church overwhelmingly chose to keep it. That’s what Origen’s figurative exegesis was all about—all the Fathers of the Church expended great effort to retain the Hebrew Scriptures by reading them through the lens of Christ: fulfillment, not supersession/replacement.
The author of this article tellingly is unable to cite any Catholic sources. But he blows enough words around to give the impression that supersessionism/replacement has an ancient Christian/Catholic pedigree.
It’s a tad disingenuous.
Correct doctrine is one of the major Pauline themes in the Pastoral epistles.
Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 1:4 combined, and judging from a map of today’s boundaries, this includes:
... everything from the Nile in Egypt to Lebanon and
... everything from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River
In other words:
... all the land holdings of Israel today,
... plus all of the land the Palestinians hold in the West Bank & Gaza,
... plus some of Egypt and Syria,
... plus ALL of Jordan,
... plus some of Saudi Arabia & Iraq.
I don’t see a time in history that Israel possessed this entire territory. Beyond that is God’s statement that it would belong to Abram’s descendants “forever”.
best,
ampu
“Most people are innately good.”
That is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches the exact opposite. Our wicked nature is why we need grace (an unmerited gift) and why the sacrifice on the cross was necessary. I usually don’t spend a lot of time quibbling about doctrine and don’t pretend to have solid answers to issues such as the post to which you responded—the Bible speaks diversely about things like predestination, grace and works and how they all fit together in salvation. I muddle thru those as best I can. But on the fallen nature of man, the Bible is quite clear and the answer profoundly affects how we relate to and pray to God.
I also think, if you look at history, the fallen nature of man is obvious from our behavior, repeated again and again.
I'm just curious, not looking for an argument.
"As iron sharpens iron..."
The author cites Irenaeus dishonestly. “God has rejected Israel” is exactly what St. Paul said—but St. Paul added, “for a time, in order to graft in the Gentiles”—at the end of time, Israel would be converted. Irenaeus’s “rejected” is not supersessionism, which the author of this piece would know if he had actually read Irenaeus in detail rather than cherry-picking a quotation.
The only other medieval source the author cites is Visigothic—whether it stems from the Arian period of the Visigoths or after they became Catholic (shortly before they were conquered by the Muslims), is not clear. I rather suspect its from the earlier, Arian Visigoths, otherwise I doubt the lable “Visigoth” would be used. The author flaunts the name “Professor Paul Halsall of Fordham”—Halsall simply is the professor who assembled a wide variety of medieval sources in translation at his website. The text quoted has nothing to do with Halsall, but the author uses Halsall to imply that this is some authoritative proof text.
My humble opinion is that your post was beautiful,
but didn’t deal with God’s specific promises. Even
if everything you wrote is absolutely true, God
not only said it, HE passed through the pieces of
the sacrifice ALONE as an unconditional covenant.
He also specified the exact boundaries. He also
stated it would be a possession “forever”.
If God breaks this specific promise to the descendants
of Abram, then you have no right to think He would
fulfill any promise He made to YOU.
I can hear him saying now, “Lex, yes, I said that about
salvation, but you are seeing the hand and not the
shadow... it was just an allegory.”
blessings
ampu
Actually ... it says both Abraham AND his descendants will possess it ...
Since Abraham never did ... just this fact ALONE means the fulfillment is still future.
Hmmm...
Looks to me like he hardly mentions the Catholic Church.
You’re pretty sensitive.
“... This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people - all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people.”
WHAT?
Mathew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
“Granting you, for the sake of discussion, a purely literal interpretation sans any allegory, how would you see this expansion coming about in purely contemporary, political terms?
I’m just curious, not looking for an argument.
“As iron sharpens iron...” “
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have no problem at all with you or any other believer
disagreeing with what I wrote. Let each be convinced in his
own mind.”
How God fulfills His Word is beyond me. It’s all I can
do to cope with running a business and family in the
Great Obama Economy!
How is up to Him. I am willing to take Him at His Word
whenever He puts His absolute credibility on the line.
I expect no less than a miraculous event that we would
be surprised to witness, should we be alive at that
point. And it may not be until His fulness of time.
I don’t worry about that at all.
I remember once, hearing about a group of seminary
graduates (differing seminaries) discussing their
(differing views) of the end times. After a lot
of heated debate, they heard a wife’s voice say,
“Well, I’m a Panmillenialist”. They looked at her
with blank faces... she added, “I’m just going to
wait and see how it pans out.”
best,
ampu
Yeah, sensitive to disingenuity. Look, if this Protestant critic of Replacement theology had been honest, he’d have started with Luther and Calvin. But no, he has to give the heresy long historical roots. What comes before Luther and Calvin? Hint? It’s not the Quakers or the Pentecostals. For most people it’s the Catholic Church. I pointed out that he doesn’t mention the Catholic Church. He couldn’t, but he darn sure intended to imply the Catholic Church. That’s what makes it such a cheap shot.
Replacement theology is an invention of the Reformation era.
You posted this on a thread whose starting point was the claim that Catholics endorse replacement theology.
Why did you post it? In exactly what way did you think it contributed to the thread?
They are cut off until they are regrafted by faith to spiritual Israel, the Church.
God has called Israel to inherit the land...God will not repent from that covenant...And that covenant was never given to the church...
It is misleading to keep repeating this promise while covering up the requirement for a reciprocating faithfulness that is unfulfilled by Jews outside the Church.
“Correct doctrine is one of the major Pauline themes in the Pastoral epistles.”
Of course it is. But getting it completely right is, fortunately, not a condition of salvation. That is good, because I cannot, for example, reconcile portions of Paul and James. I know God can; but that is not in my ability to understand (and devout, intelligent, well-studied Christians throughout the ages have resolved those issue differently). I do the best I can to understand and put my faith in the Lord that the Holy Spirit will guide me to a correct understanding.
That isn't antisemitism, that's simply what the Scriptures state. Therefore the unrest depicted in some end times scenarios may indeed play out to the tune of a tragic and horrifying cost in human life, yet within the bounds of providence.
I see that the Visigoth quotation is from 680ff, so it’s after the Catholic conversion of the Arian Visigoths. But the statement itself has nothing remotely approaching supersessionism in it. This long quotation is totally irrelevant to the author’s claim of long historical roots for Replacement Theology. He’s scraping the bottom of the barrel to find (non-existent) significant precedents for Luther and Calvin.
Yeah but it wasn’t the whole people of Israel clamoring. It was an elite ruling class. That’s what “the Jews” always refers to in John’s Gospel. The author of John’s Gospel may well have had close ties to that ruling elite (he tell us that the Apostle John was known to the High Priest).
So you are using this prooftext falsely.
“That isn’t antisemitism, that’s simply what the Scriptures state. Therefore the unrest depicted in some end times scenarios may indeed play out to the tune of a tragic and horrifying cost in human life, yet within the bounds of providence. “
You may very well be right!
No scenario I read in Scripture sounds like a walk in
the park.
“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.” Zech 12:10
I posted it because I think this is dangerous theology, and it highlighted the really bad places Luther's failure to take the things concerning Israel as literally as he took salvation by faith led.
Actually, he did start with them.
You just don't like the fact that he then pointed to deeper historical roots for this destructive heresy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.