Posted on 05/25/2014 6:31:35 PM PDT by wmfights
Augustine’s contribution to the doctrine of supersessionism is significant. James Carroll points out that Augustine’s attitude toward the Jews was rooted in “assumptions of supersessionism.”[i] According to Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, Augustine (354–430) introduced a “negative element into judgment on the Jews.”[ii] He did so by advancing the “‘theory of substitution’ whereby the New Israel of the church became a substitute of ancientIsrael.”[iii]
In line with supersessionist theology, Augustine explicitly stated that the title “Israel” belonged to the Christian church: “For if we hold with a firm heart the grace of God which hath been given us, we are Israel, the seed of Abraham. . . . Let therefore no Christian consider himself alien to the name of Israel.”[iv] He also said, “The Christian people then is rather Israel.”[v] According to Augustine, when Gentiles believe and become part of the new covenant, their hearts are circumcised and they become part of Israel:
Now what the apostle attributed to Gentiles of this character, how that “they have the work of the law written in their hearts;” must be some such thing as what he says to the Corinthians: “Not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” For thus do they become of the house of Israel, when their uncircumcision is accounted circumcision. . . . And therefore in the house of the true Israel, in which is no guile, they are partakers of the new testament.[vi]
Concerning Israel’s role in the plan of God, Augustine argued that national Israel prefiguredspiritual Israel—the Christian people:
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob three fathers, and one people. The fathers three, as it were in the beginning of the people; three fathers in whom the people was figured: and the former people itself the present people. For in the Jewish people was figured the Christian people. There a figure, here the truth; there a shadow, here the body: as the apostle says, “Now these things happened to them in a figure.”[vii]
For the most part, Augustine’s supersessionist views were not original. In fact, they were mostly consistent with the patristic tradition that preceded him. Augustine’s most original contribution regarding Israel and the church, however, can be found in his reasons for Israel’s continued existence. During Augustine’s time, the existence of the Jews and Judaism posed an apologetic problem for the church. If the church was the new Israel, for what purpose did national Israel exist?
Augustine offered an answer for this perceived dilemma. For him, the Jews functioned primarily as witnesses. They were witnesses to the faith preached by the prophets, witnesses of divine judgment, and witnesses of the validity of Christianity. He wrote, “But the Jews who slew Him . . . are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ.”[viii] The Jews, according to Augustine, shielded Christians from accusations that Christians invented Old Testament prophecies that pointed to Jesus. Thus, the existence of non-Christian Jews was not a problem but an essential testimony to the truth of Christianity.
Hood views Augustine’s contribution in this area as “ingenious” because it “provided a foundation for tolerating Jews within a Christian society.”[ix] Augustine’s contention that the Jews were witnesses to Christianity became especially important when the crusades began and the church began to persecute heretics. Hood asserts that Augustine’s views “shielded the Jews of western Europe from the full force of Christendom’s coercive powers.”[x]
Although devoting much of his attention to matters such as free will, original sin, and predestination, Augustine’s views on the Jews and Judaism carried great weight for many years. In fact, Hood asserts that Augustine’s ideas on these matters “dominated the medieval debate.”[xi] This was so “despite the fact that Judaism and the Jews are not major themes in Augustine’s voluminous writings.”[xii] Yet, because Augustine’s writings in the Medieval Era were so revered, his thoughts on any topic, no matter how sparse, were considered important.
[i] James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001), 219.
[ii] Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, “Christianity and Judaism, a Historical and Theological Overview,” in Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 20.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Augustine, On the Psalms 114.3, NPNF¹ 8:550.
[v] Augustine, On the Psalms 114.3, NPNF¹ 8:550.
[vi] Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter 46, NPNF¹ 5:102–03.
[vii] Augustine, On the Gospel of St. John 11.8, NPNF¹ 7:77. Augustine also stated, “In that people [the Jews], plainly, the future Church was much more evidently prefigured.” Augustine, On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 19.33, NPNF¹ 3:304. Augustine expressed a supersessionist perspective when he wrote, “But when they [the Jews] killed Him, then though they knew it not, they prepared a Supper for us.” Augustine,Sermons on New Testament Lessons, Sermon 62, NPNF¹ 6:447.
[viii] Augustine, The City of God Book 18.46, NPNF¹ 2:389.
[ix] John Y. B. Hood, Aquinas and the Jews (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), 12. Carroll states, “It is not too much to say that, at this juncture, Christianity ‘permitted’ Judaism to endure because of Augustine.” Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, 218. See also Jeremy Cohen, “Introduction,” inEssential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict: From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, ed. Jeremy Cohen (New York: New York University Press, 1991), 13–14.
[x] Hood, 13.
[xi] Hood, Aquinas and the Jews, 10.
[xii] Ibid.
Just look at the words of the Consecration: "For this is the chalice of My Blood of the New and Eternal Testament".
IMHO, that means older testaments were not "eternal".
And once again, Pius V, you’ve nailed it. Thank you for the truth.
Not about me at all, but thanks. Once a Catholic starts to realize that the Church had a theology before Vatican II, they will find the Truth as well.
>>>2 out of 5 ... If you were a baseball player, you’d be an all-star ... but<<<
You are always good for a laugh. Now if you could learn how to defend your cult’s doctrine, you would be complete.
Philip
lol ... says the man who believes that Jesus Christ returned in 70 AD ...
Philip ... it is becoming harder to even take you seriously ...
>>>Philip ... it is becoming harder to even take you seriously ...<<<
After your week performance in our previous debates, I think I can understand your sour grapes. After all, how can one defend a doctrine that has no biblical foundation, such as yours? You may as well cast aspersions, since that is all you seem to do well.
BTW, who is the Antichrist this month? Are you a member of Hal Lindsey’s Antichrist of the Month Book Club? If not, how do you keep current? -:)
Philip
I am not trying to win a debate ... I contend with you only because so many people read these forums ... the vast majority here understand that your theological method leads to aberrant conclusions ... but there may be some who would be captured by your empty deception (Col. 2:10), so in the spirit of 'refuting those who contradict' (Titus 1:9) ... I await your next article from wherever you get them.
After all, how can one defend a doctrine that has no biblical foundation, such as yours?
Is that some kind of incantation? Are you trying to change reality by confessing it is so?
You may as well cast aspersions, since that is all you seem to do well.
BTW, who is the Antichrist this month? Are you a member of Hal Lindsey’s Antichrist of the Month Book Club? If not, how do you keep current? -:)
Do you even read what you write?
I see: your intent has been to smear and redirect all along. I suspected that was the case.
>>>I contend with you only because so many people read these forums ... the vast majority here understand that your theological method leads to aberrant conclusions.<<<
So, everyone should follow the herd? Have you been taking lessons from Al Gore?
Why not be up front with everyone and explain why you object to my doctrine? You have proven you are a comedian (or, at least, you understand baseball, somewhat;) but you have yet to point out in the scriptures where I am wrong. The reason you have not is because you can not!
>>>but there may be some who would be captured by your empty deception (Col. 2:10), so in the spirit of 'refuting those who contradict' (Titus 1:9) ...<<<
Sure. And suppose you tell us who created your false doctrine, and when? And while you are at it, why not explain what you mean by the general statements of Col 2:10, and Titus 1:9. It is one thing to cite scripture. It is another thing to show how it relates. Certainly you can do more than resort to smears and innuendo?
>>>I await your next article from wherever you get them.<<<
You await it? With what, another baseball joke?
Since you brought it up, when are you going to post more articles from Mr. Congenial, Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum? LOL! What a joke he is. I can't believe anyone would label him "congenial?" Barely eight pages into his smear (disguised as a scholarly paper) against anyone who believes in the plain words of Hebrews 8:13, he was throwing the anti-semite label at Reformed Presbyterian legend, Oswald T Allis. "Brother Fruchtenbaum" is just another Pharisee.
You do know that your buddy, the false prophet Hal Lindsey, also does that a lot: smears Reformed Presbyterians with the anti-semite label. "Brother Hal" is even on record as labelling a popular Reformed Presbyterian minister as the anti-Christ! LOL! People do not get any crazier than Hal Lindsey.
Admit it, Dartuser: there are no congenial dispensationalistists! They must resort to smears and innuendo, like Fruchtenbaum and Lindsey do (and like you do,) since their arguments are not biblically founded.
And how about some articles from the false prophet (and lousy "historian,") Mark Hitchcock?
>>>Is that some kind of incantation? Are you trying to change reality by confessing it is so?<<<
More redirection? When are you going to dispute my five points in post #19? Or, are you going to give to give us another baseball joke? Certainly you can show us the error of my ways in at least one of the points? You are a scholar, right?
Dartuser . . . it is becoming impossible to take you seriously . . .
Philip
I thought I was clear in my last post; I'm not trying to win a debate.
Why not be up front with everyone and explain why you object to my doctrine?
The ping history is full of my remarks concerning your theology ... everyone can read them.
People do not get any crazier than Hal Lindsey.
We finally agree ...
Since you brought it up, when are you going to post more articles from Mr. Congenial, Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum? ...
And how about some articles from the false prophet (and lousy "historian,") Mark Hitchcock?
You can read all you want at
www.pre-trib.org
There is a huge array of articles from seminary professors, pastors, and teachers.
When are you going to dispute my five points in post #19?
I gave you credit for the 2 you got right ... and we have been through the others in the past.
Dartuser . . . it is becoming impossible to take you seriously . . .
What is that a debate 101 technique? Concluding remarks should be the last thing your opponent said and then throw it back at him as if you made the point yourself? Not that clever.
I'll give you the last word on this thread ... see you next thread.
Let me see, you said you agreed that:
1) The new covenant replaced the old.
2) The Church is forever.
I did not realize that you believe in Replacement Theology. In fact, I am astonished, considering the tone of your previous posts when debating Replacement Theology.
You do realize that those, like me, who believe that the new covenant has replaced the old covenant, also believe that Joshua 11:23, 21:43-45 and 23:14 meant exactly what it says: that God fulfilled his land promises to Israel long ago. Dual-covenant theologists, like Fruchtenbaum, must spiritualize those verses so they mean something else; that is, they must be "reinterpreted" to pretend that God did not fulfil those promises, in order to claim (demand) thus God must fulfil them in the future. I know it seems bizarre, but that is what dual-covenant theologists believe.
These are the three verses from Joshua that plainly indicate fulfillment
"So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war." (Jos 11:23 KJV)
"And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the Lord 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; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." (Jos 21:43-45 KJV)
"And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof." (Jos 23:14 KJV)
Are you sure you do not want to clarify that position? If not, then welcome to the light.
Philip
What are you, the Drive-By Media? When you make claims that you do not defend--claims that you run away from--is that not simply an attempt to smear, like the Drive-By's do to those who are not brain-dead?
I made five points in post #19, This is point 2:
2) "the Church replaced Israel as God's chosen people"
I justified my claim with these verses:
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:26-29 KJV)
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth . . ." (Acts 17:26 KJV)
In your post #20 you disagreed, and you have been throwing around innuendo since, hoping something will stick. Would you please enlighten us all with scripture that indicates otherwise, or admit you have nothing to prove your innuendo? Either will be fine.
Thanks,
Philip
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.Is this the covenant the has been replaced?
I believe so. Let's put that verse in context, and see if that is the one that has been replaced.
The first verse in the context (the previous verse) indicates that Christ inherited all the promises as the (only) chosen seed of Abraham:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)
The next verse--the one you posted--states simply that THE LAW cannot disannul (or, cancel) the covenant that was promised to the chosen seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ:
"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Gal 3:17 KJV)
The next verse in the context expounds why THE LAW has no "authority" over the covenant:
"For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal 3:18 KJV)
So, the inheritance is not by the Law, nor by race, nor by any other rule, but by promise. So, who are the inheritors of the promise? The children of God. And who are the children of God? That was revealed a few verses later:
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:26 KJV)
So, if the promise is given strictly according to faith in Christ, then:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:28-29 KJV)
So, to answer your question: yes, that was the old covenant that was replaced by the new. But it was not replaced by disannulment, but by fulfilment with the blood of Jesus Christ.
There is a very good explanation of the fulfillment by the blood of Christ in the book of the Hebrews, chapter 9. There is also this:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:7-13 KJV)
Note that the old covenant was ready to vanish away at the time the book of Hebrews was written. I suspect it had vanished completely by the time Jerusalem was completely destroyed during the days of vengeance around AD 70.
Philip
I have clarified it ...
The flaw in your analysis is that Abraham HIMSELF has not possessed the land. Go read the promise ... It will take some courage to believe what the text actually says ... but I know you have it in you.
No offense, but the notion that "Abraham himself must possess the land" is about the most imaginative of the many unbiblical "interpretations" by dispensationalists. It ranks up there with some of Scofield's and Lindsey's wild-eyed speculations.
Didn't we have this discussion in the past in a thread referencing an article written by Mr Congenial himself, Arnold Fruchtenbaum? And wasn't it shown that Arnold's article was an ideologically-driven mass of hateful, slanderous craziness?
LOL! That Fruchtenbaum is a real character. If his ideologically-driven "interpretations" were not so dangerous to the souls he deceives, he could be a comedian, along the lines of the Christian-hating Bill Maher.
Philip
Let me help you Philip ...
Genesis 13:14 The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
15 for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.
I vote with what the text of Genesis actually says ...
No mindless replacement theological contortions can transform the plain promise here, spoken by God Himself, to Abraham ... into something that Abraham himself would not have understood to be fulfilled literally.
You are in the unique position of having to argue against God here. ...
Job didn't have much luck doing that ...
Perhaps you will fair better.
>>>I vote with what the text of Genesis actually says ...<<<
I agree with you: I also vote with what the text of Genesis actually says. In the verse you quoted (above) it simply states that God WILL give Abraham the land. What does that mean? Maybe one of these verses will explain (one from a chapter before your passage, and one after):
"And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him." (Gen 12:7 KJV)
"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years. . . In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." (Gen 15:13, 18-21 KJV)
It is almost as if the Lord was trying to tell us that the land promise was intended for Abraham's seed. I wonder how Abraham understood the covenant?
>>>No mindless replacement theological contortions can transform the plain promise here, spoken by God Himself, to Abraham ... into something that Abraham himself would not have understood to be fulfilled literally.<<<
You think so? LOL! In the following passage, Abraham seems to have forgotten that God promised him the land. All he seems to recall is that God promised the land to his seed:
"And Abraham said unto him, Beware thou that thou bring not my son thither again. The Lord God of heaven, which took me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence." (Gen 24:6-7 KJV)
Is it possible that Abraham understood something about the promise that dispensationalists do not? LOL! Maybe the answer can be found in the new covenant book of the Hebrews:
"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." (Heb 11:8-10 KJV)
"Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." (Heb 11:12-16 KJV)
So, God promised Abraham a heavenly city: one with foundations. Maybe that is why Christ made this statement:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." (Jn 8:56 KJV)
Note the irony. The Jews, who thought the land belonged to them, were not one bit happy about the Lord's visitation. Abraham, on the other hand, rejoiced: and he was the one who actually received the land promise! Shouldn't that be the other way around? LOL!
But what about the promise to his seed? Shouldn't his seed receive the land forever? Yes, and this is Abraham's seed (you asked for it!)
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)
Let me parse that:
"to Abraham and his seed were the promises made: not [to] many; but [to] one seed Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)
Yes, Christ was Abraham's seed: the seed that received all the promises. That means Christ received all the land, as well. Christ then extended the promises to his children: to those who believe in him:
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:26-29 KJV)
Therefore, the promised land belongs to Christ, and by inheritance, to me and my fellow Christians. Thank you, Lord, for your loving kindness and many blessings!
>>>You are in the unique position of having to argue against God here. <<<
I have read about, and actually met, dispensationalists who think they are God. But all of you cannot be God, can you? I suspect some of you are not being honest.
Philip
You go to Joshua to show the land promise was literally fulfilled.
Then when you are confronted by the reality of the unfulfilled promises in the OT text concerning Abraham himself ... you run to the NT and read back into the Old to claim that the fulfillment of that promise is spiritual through Christ and the church.
I could not have asked for a better illustration of the theological method fallacies of replacementism ...
See you on the next thread Philip ... nothing more can be said here.
Certainly you have not been brainwashed by Fruchtenbaum into believing his ridiculous interpretation of Genesis 13, or have you? Don't you realize how silly that sounds? You are claiming that Abraham must be raised from the dead, and physically take possession of the land of Canaan, before the covenant is fulfilled? Where can we find a hint of that anywhere, even in Genesis 13---the passage you referenced? You gotta be pulling my leg . . .
BTW, both Joshua and Nehemiah have multiple scriptures citing fulfillment of the land promise. You are the one who dismisses their plain words. And you have yet to show any scripture that even hints that the land promise to Abraham has not been fulfilled, either in the old or new testament. Something does not add up. Why are you making such a ridiculous claim?
In any case, I previously posted the three Joshua references. Maybe the readers would appreciate the two Nehemiah references, as well:
"Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:" (Neh 9:7-8 KJV)
"Moreover thou gavest them kingdoms and nations, and didst divide them into corners: so they possessed the land of Sihon, and the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan. Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land, concerning which thou hadst promised to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it. 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 people of the land, that they might do with them as they would." (Neh 9:22-24 KJV)
Take note that in verses 9:7-8, Nehemiah claims the covenant with Abraham regarding the land was to Abraham's seed, not directly to him, which we all know to be the case.
There are other references that are equally devastating to the false doctrine of dispensationalism on the matter of the land covenant. This is the Lord speaking to Isaac, after Abraham's death:
"And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed " (Gen 26:2-3 KJV)
Fair enough. God gave the Land to Isaac's seed, Jacob. But wait a minute? How could the Lord give it to Isaac's seed, when, as you claim, he had already given it to Abraham? If what you claim is true, there is only one way this could have occurred: the Lord must have taken the land away from Abraham. Otherwise, he could not have given it to Jacob.
But we all know that what you have claimed is little more than a can of worms. All the references, even the one you cited, Genesis 13, point to fulfillment in Abraham's seed.
Almost forgot: there are also these related words spoken by Saint Stephen, shortly before he was martyred:
"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph." (Acts 7:15-18 KJV)
So Stephen stated the time of the promise was still future, even in the days after Jacob! How could Abraham have been promised possession of the land when the promise itself was still hundreds of years in the future?
>>>I could not have asked for a better illustration of the theological method fallacies of replacementism ...<<<
Nor could I ask for a better example of the weakness of dispensational doctrine. You have posted exactly one old-testament passage during this land debate; and even then you were forced to squeeze a false meaning out of the passage with the rigor of a communist attempting to squeeze redistribution out of the plain words of the Constitution.
Funny, but also sad . . .
Philip
As I have always maintained ... Preterism is the easiest theological system to dispense with, but they scream the loudest when challenged.
You really should go the way of Chilton ... realize your inconsistencies and go with Full Preterism and get it over with ... you're gonna blow a gasket soon.
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.