12 Reasons Why Supersessionism/Replacement Theology Is Not A Biblical Doctrine

"I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews. We do not think enough of it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible it is this."

"To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence."

Supersessionism is the view that the New Testament Church supersedes, replaces, or fulfills the nation Israel’s place and role in the plan of God. I am convinced that supersessionism / replacement theology is an unbiblical doctrine that violates clear statements in both the Old and New testaments that teach and affirm a national salvation and restoration of Israel. Below are twelve reasons why supersessionism violates the biblical witness:

a. Deuteronomy 30:1-6: Israel would experience dispersion because of disobedience but would one day be saved as a nation and experience restoration to its land.

b. Jeremiah 30, 31, and 33: This prediction of the New Covenant promises a restoration of Israel that includes spiritual blessings and physical blessings.

c. Ezekiel 36–37 This passage promises the future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel to its land.

g. NOTE 1: Even if the NT never discussed the restoration of Israel, the many explicit texts about Israel’s restoration in the OT give enough reason to believe in the restoration of Israel.

h. NOTE 2: Since the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18-21) and New Covenants (Jer. 31) are eternal and unconditional covenants we should expect God to fulfill these covenants with Israel, the people with whom the covenants were made. John Murray is correct that Israel’s restoration is linked to the covenants of the Old Testament: "Thus the effect is that the future restoration of Israel is certified by nothing less than the certainty belonging to covenantal institution."

2. The Old Testament explicitly promises the perpetuity of the nation Israel (see Jer. 31:35-37).

"Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD" (Jer. 31:35-37).

Have you seen the sun, moon or stars today? If so, you can know that the nation Israel still has a place in God’s plan.

3. The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament expectation of a salvation and restoration of Israel.

According to E. P. Sanders, Matt 19:28 "confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel."

b. Matthew 23:37-39 / Luke 13:34-35-- Israel one day will accept her Messiah. Donald Senior states, "In Matthew’s perspective, the rejection of Jesus by the leaders is indeed a grave sin, one that brings divine judgment. Yet the story of God’s relationship to Israel is not concluded, and the day will come when Jerusalem will again receive its Messiah with shouts of praise."

c. Luke 21:24-- Times of the gentiles will come to an end. J. Bradley Chance states, "Close examination of L. 21:24b,c provides a strong hint that Luke did foresee the restoration of Jerusalem."

e. Acts 1:3-7-- Apostles believed in a restoration of the nation Israel after 40 days of kingdom instruction from Jesus. Scot McKnight states: "Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity."

g. Romans 11:26-27-- Salvation of "all Israel" will occur in accordance with the New Covenant promises given to Israel in the Old Testament.

i. C.E.B. Cranfield: "It is only where the Church persists in refusing to learn this message, where it secretly-perhaps quite unconsciously-believes that its own existence is based on human achievement, and so fails to understand God's mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God's mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptural notion that God has cast off His people Israel and simply replaced it by the Christian Church. These three chapters [Rom. 9-11] emphatically forbid us to speak of the Church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people."

ii. Jonathan Edwards: "Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11."

iii. In his comments on Rom 11:26–27, Ernst Käsemann rightly states that "Christianity is already living in the new covenant" while "Israel will begin to do so only at the parousia."

4. The New Testament explicitly states that the Old Testament promises and covenants to Israel are still the possession of Israel even during this church age and even while the nation is currently in a state of unbelief (see Romans 9:3b-4).

"my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises" (Rom. 9:3b-4).

5. The New Testament indicates that God is faithful to Israel because of His promises to the patriarchs of Israel (Romans 11:28).

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (Rom.11:28).

6. The New Testament indicates that Israel’s election/calling is irrevocable (Romans 11:29; see also Deuteronomy 7:6-8).

a. Jürgen Moltmann: "There can be no question of God’s having finally rejected the people of his choice—he would then have to reject his own election (11.29)—and of his then having sought out instead another people, the church. Israel’s promises remain Israel’s promises. They have not been transferred to the church. Nor does the church push Israel out of its place in the divine history. In the perspective of the gospel, Israel has by no means become ‘like all the nations.’"

b. Wolfhart Pannenberg: "How could Christians be certain of their own comparatively new membership in the circle of God’s elect if God for his part did not remain faithful to his election in spite of Israel’s unbelief? This is the apostle’s point when he advocates the inviolability of the election of the Jewish people (11:29; cf. 9:6). He has in mind also Christian assurance of election."

c. The more one believes in the sovereignty of God especially as it relates to election, the more one should be committed to a salvation/restoration of Israel based on God’s election of this people.

7. The New Testament never uses the term "Israel" for those who are not ethnic Jews. Thus, the church is never called "Israel."

a. The title "Israel" is used seventy-three times and always refers to ethnic Jews: The vast majority refer to national, ethnic Israel. A few refer specifically to Jewish believers who are ethnic Jews.

b. The New Testament still consistently refers to national Israel as "Israel" even after the establishment of the church (Acts 3:12; 4:10; 5:21, 31, 35; 21:28).

c. The book of Acts maintains a distinction between Israel and the church. In Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. "Israel" is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.

8. Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament identifies the church as "Israel."

a. Romans 9:6 – Believing Jews are those who are the true spiritual Israel. As William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam state: "But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel."

b. Galatians 6:16 – Paul is referring to Christian Jews in his reference to the "Israel of God." Paul scolded the Judaizers who said circumcision was necessary for salvation, but he acknowledges those Jews in Galatia who had not followed the Judaizers in their error. These Christian Jews are the true "Israel of God." Ronald E. Diprose: "Galatians 6:16 is insufficient grounds on which to base an innovative theological concept such as understanding the Church to be the new and/or true Israel."

c. Romans 11:26 – There is very little chance that "Israel" here refers to the church, something even many supersessionists acknowledge. Like the other ten references to "Israel" in Romans 9–11, Israel in 11:26 refers to ethnic Israel.

9. Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament reinterprets or alters the original OT prophecies in regard to Israel. The alleged "NT Priority" approach of Supersessionism is really ‘structural supersessionism’—a hermeneutic that does not allow the OT passages to speak to the issues they address.

a. How can the NT reinterpret or alter the OT expectation for Israel when the NT actually reaffirms the OT expectation? (see point #3 above).

i. The Old Testament never indicated that the New Covenant would only be for the nation Israel. Isaiah uses the New Covenant concept of "sprinkling" in regard to salvation in Isaiah 52:15.

ii. Paul quotes New Covenant passages in Romans 11:27 to show that the nation Israel will be saved (see Rom. 11:26). Thus, even after the church began Paul sees Israel as still related to the New Covenant.

iii. The purpose of Hebrews 8 is not to address the issue of who is and is not the people of God. Hebrews 8 is directly addressing the superiority of the New Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant, not whether the church is now the true Israel.

iv. Only the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant are mentioned in Hebrews 8:8-13. If the New Covenant were being fulfilled in its entirety we should expect the physical blessings of the New Covenant to be mentioned as being fulfilled with the church. The New Testament never links the church with the physical blessings of the New Covenant.

v. It is best to conclude that the church is participating in the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant while the full eschatological fulfillment of the New Covenant will take place with Israel in the millennium.

i. The main point of the quotation of Amos 9 in Acts 15 is to show that Gentiles becoming the people of God is consistent with or agrees with what the OT prophets like Amos predicted. It is not discussing the complete fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom or calling the church Israel.

ii. Discussion of Israel’s place in the plan of God is not even the focus of Acts 15.

iv. William D. Barrick: "Note, first of all, that James never says that Amos 9 is ‘fulfilled.’ Secondly, James’ reasoning is that the Gospel should continue to go out to the Gentiles because God included them in his redemptive plan according to Amos 9. Amos 9 mentions Gentiles as recipients of God’s kingdom blessings, so how could the early church ever take action to exclude them?"

10. Supersessionists have failed to show that unity between Jews and Gentiles in the church rules out a future restoration of the nation Israel.

a. Ephesians 2:11–22 shows that Gentiles who used to be far from God have now been brought near God because of Christ. Thus, the soteriological status of believing Gentiles has changed. They now share with Israel in Israel’s covenants and promises but they do not become Israel.

b. Believing Gentiles cannot be incorporated into Israel because Paul says they are now part of a new structure—the new man.

c. Howard Taylor: "Superficial logic has continued to argue that there is no more uniqueness for the Jew and physical Israel. Since it is said Christ has broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile [Eph. 2:11–18], Israel’s election is finished. But this is not the logic of the New Testament. Although there is only one way of salvation for both Jew and Gentile, the New Testament teaches that the Jewish people do still have a unique place in the historical working out of God’s redemption of the world in Christ.

d. Rom 11:17–24 stresses that Gentiles are now related to the promises of God. Thus, there is a soteriological unity between believing Jews and Gentiles. But it does not indicate that the church is now the true Israel. There is a difference between saying that Gentiles participate with Israel in Israel’s covenants and claiming that believing Gentiles become Israel. Gentiles are partakers of the covenants not takerovers. This passage does not rule out a future role for national Israel or indicate that the church is now Israel.

11. Israelite language applied to believing Gentiles does not mean the church is Israel.

a. 1 Peter 2:9–10 and Romans 9:24-26 – Yes, language used of Israel in the Old Testament is used of believing Gentiles in the New Testament. But similarity with Israel does not mean identification with Israel. There are occasions in Scripture when "Israel" imagery is applied to non-Israelites without these non-Israelites becoming Israel. Isa 19:24–25, for instance, predicts that Egypt would someday be called "my people." Yet, the context makes clear that Egypt is distinct from Israel since Egypt is mentioned alongside "Israel my inheritance." So, even in the Old Testament it was predicted that non-Israelites would someday carry some of the titles of Israel without becoming identified as Israel.

b. J. Ramsey Michaels says, "Nowhere in 1 Peter are the readers addressed as a new Israel or a new people of God, as if to displace the Jewish community."

c. Galatians 3:7, 29 The New Testament teaches that believing Gentiles are the seed of Abraham but this does not mean that believing Gentiles are Israel. The concept of "seed of Abraham" is used in several different ways in the New Testament. First, it can refer to those who are biological descendants of Abraham. Second, it can refer to the Messiah, who is the unique individual seed of Abraham. Third, it can refer to the righteous remnant of Israel (cf. Isa 41:8 with Rom 9:6). Fourth, it can be used in a spiritual sense for believing Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:29). John Feinberg states, "no sense (spiritual especially) is more important than any other, and that no sense cancels out the meaning and implications of the other senses." Thus, the application of the titles "sons of Abraham" or "seed of Abraham" to believing Gentiles does not mean that believing Gentiles are spiritual Jews or part of Israel.

d. Galatians 3:7-8 links the Gentiles being "sons of Abraham" with the part of the Abrahamic Covenant that predicted that "all the nations of the earth shall be blessed."

12. New Testament prophecy refers to Israel, thus indicating that God’s plan for Israel is alive.

In conclusion, Ronald Diprose is right when he states that in order for supersessionism to qualify as a biblical doctrine there needs to be "positively, passages which clearly teach it and negatively, no passages which actually exclude it." On both counts, supersessionism fails. The New Testament does not call the church "Israel," and nowhere does the New Testament state that the nation of Israel has been permanently rejected by God. Various texts such as Matt 19:28; 23:37–39; Luke 13:35; 21:24; 22:30; and Romans 11 refute supersessionism in that they teach or reaffirm the Old Testament expectation of a restoration of Israel. Thus, we agree with Kaiser when he says, "To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence."

I know that is weird, but it works... and it puts the Rapture mid-trib... living through the time of Jacob's Trouble, enduring the Antichrist, but not the wrath of YHWH. All the saints are with Yeshua when He comes to deliver that, and establish the throne of David!

I have to go back and do some reading to respond to the rest of your post. I still believe the conversion of Israel will occur at His glorious return, but I'll try and give that some thought.

I think the mid trib rapture is not as likely in part because if the church is still present on the Earth it would negate the impact of the 144,000 witnesses and the outcry about prophesy being fulfilled would open peoples eyes.

Give me the indication in the texts that when God tells us that His Bride will return with Him on white horses we are not to take that literally.

I'll need the Scripture that you have that tells you that God doesn't mean that literally.

As for the image of the sword coming from Jesus' mouth, when we go to Ephesians 6:17, we get a definition of what God considers the sword to be:

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

Hebrews 4:12 tells us:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

So we know from Scripture that a "sword" refers to the word of God when it is used by God allegorically. Scripture interprets Scripture if one is willing to look and learn.

Romans 2:16 says:

"on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."

We now have our answer. The word "sword", as used as a symbol by God in the Book of Revelation and pictured as coming from the mouth of Jesus, refers to His Word, with which He will judge the nations.

And we know from Scripture that Christ will literally return, will literally bring His Bride with Him, and will literally judge those who remain alive at the end of the Tribulation. And He will do with with the "sword", or the Scriptures. Men will be judged according to what is contained in the Word of God, which He tells us He values above His own name.

No mystery there whatsoever.

I believe the vehicle God uses to convert the Jews is the Tribulation.

Actually, I think it happens BEFORE that. Perhaps the Battle of Gog/Magog.

Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Can you think of any place where judgment led to repentance? I don’t believe that tribulation or war will bring the conversion of Israel. If we consider the prophetic character of history in scripture, perhaps we should be looking for an event like Joseph reveling himself to his brothers. The details argue against a mid-tribulation rapture.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Do you suppose the rapture will cause a spiritual famine?

Seven_0 (Chevelle)

“Give me the indication in the texts that when God tells us that His Bride will return with Him on white horses we are not to take that literally.
I'll need the Scripture that you have that tells you that God doesn't mean that literally.

As for the image of the sword coming from Jesus’ mouth, when we go to Ephesians 6:17, we get a definition of what God considers the sword to be:....”

Why would you consider the horses (and stables for them and maybe someone to clean the stables...all this in heaven!) literal but that sword not?

You made the assertion of literalness, it's really up to you to show why. Making a statement and then demanding others disprove it is a no-no.

Why would you consider the horses (and stables for them and maybe someone to clean the stables...all this in heaven!) literal but that sword not?

What would make you believe that Jesus would have a literal sword coming out of His mouth? And what on earth makes you think anything needs to be cleaned in Heaven? Where, if at all, did you get your Bible instruction?

You made the assertion of literalness, it's really up to you to show why. Making a statement and then demanding others disprove it is a no-no.

Actually, you expressed doubt about part of the Word of God and it is up to you to prove that your doubt is well-founded. The fact that I shot down that doubt and proved, once again, that the Scripture as God wrote it is inerrant and absolutely true and proved your doubt to be completely without merit puts no obligation on me at all.

If you want to show that God's word has contradictions and errors and cannot be trusted, it's up to you to prove your point.

I already proved mine.

Let me assure you that we are probably pretty close in that - I see the 'tribulation' lasting much longer than the common dispensational idea of seven years - I do see the same final seven years in pretty much the same light - and would tend to assume that the Church will be raptured right at that point (close to the start of those seven years).

I think the Church is on the earth through the end of the Trumpets (at the sound of the 7th Trump) - and that is a fairly extended period of time - which technically puts me in a mid-trib position according to common interpretation, even though the reason for that is because I place the trumpets as occurring earlier, and over a much longer period.

And the antichrist seems to be active longer than those final seven years, because he is already in his power by the time of the 7-year covenant with Israel (else he would not be in a position to make such a covenant)... which means there has already been a whole lot of shaking going on by then. I don't think most dispensationalists allow enough 'pre-game' time.... the whole thing is too compressed...

And I also disagree with the general tone that the Church will leave unscathed - History would prove otherwise - It would seem to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for martyrdom.

As to the 144000, That is PRECISELY the point - to open people's eyes... and there are MANY church-type folks who are currently blind as bats, perhaps myself included.

If you’re going to say the horses are literal then by what means do you determine that another detail isn’t? So why should one be literal and the other not.

Find all the descriptions of white horses as God uses them in Scripture and list them. Then tell me how the descriptions listed differ from how the words are used in Revelation 19.

If something is obviously not to be taken literally, like a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus, then we know that God has provided the literal meaning of that symbol in Scripture and all we have to do is find it.

Like another poster said, and like I said in a previous post, when you come to Scripture already deceived, with a method of interpreting the Bible that is wrong, you will not understand the correct way when it is shown to you. If you don't have the Holy Spirit indwelling you from accepting Christ as Savior, you will never understand Scripture and will always misunderstand and, even when proven wrong, cling to your erroneous interpretations.

That is why you are simply mystified as to how the book of Revelation can have both literal images and symbolic images and that is why you don't know to search the Scriptures for what the symbols mean.

Horses have digestive tracts, they eat and defecate, and unless you are going say these don’t then heaven is going to get quite messy. That is where confusing the literal with the symbolic leads.

You're the only one who is confused. I'm not confused at all and I found the meaning of "sword" in Scripture so I know what Jesus is talking about in Revelation when He says that He will come with a "sword" coming out of His mouth.

The confusion comes from not knowing Christ as Savior and not having the Holy Spirit to open up Scripture to you and making it understandable and from depending on the explanations of men who are just as lost and in the dark as you are.

And you obviously have never read Jesus' words on Heaven or you never would have made such asinine statements about it. More darkness and spiritual blindness.

I did not express doubt about Gods’ word, only your what you say it indicates.

Your exact post:

And bring literal white horses with him? And literally have a sword protruding from his mouth?

People who don't question the validity of something don't bring it up and don't ask about it. Why would you need confirmation on whether Jesus will bring "literal white horses with Him" when He said He will? Why would you need to ask about "literally have a sword protruding from His mouth" when Scripture tells you exactly what a "sword" is when it is used symbolically in Scripture? If you don't doubt it, why did you question the truth of it? And why do you need an explanation from me if you're so sure that that part of Scripture is not really true?

"If something is obviously not to be taken literally, like a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus, then we know that God has provided the literal meaning of that symbol in Scripture and all we have to do is find it."

Unlike much of Scripture which is descriptive, we know that the words spoken by Jesus are transformative, meaning they carry the power of Creation within them so they must be something greater than literal. Jesus words carry the power to change reality. When Jesus said; "“Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. "When He said; “Lazarus, come out!” it was so. When He said; "Your sins are forgiven." they were.

Why then can you reject His words when He said; "This is my body"?

I don't reject His words. I take them in their proper context:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

52"Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

"59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum".

"60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “ This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

So after the Jews heard Him say that He is the "bread of life" and that anyone who "eats of this bread" will have eternal life and after He tells them that "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.", and after they became angry, we see in verse 63 that He tells them that the words He had just spoken to them were spiritual.

So, like I said, Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, interprets itself. We know that the communion is not the literal flesh and blood of Jesus because He tells us Himself that those words are "spiritual".

That isn't "rejecting" His words, it is putting them in the context that He told us to put them in.

This is the question I asked:

“If you’re going to say the horses are literal then by what means do you determine that another detail isn't’t? So why should one be literal and the other not.”

If you don't care to address the question..so be it, but saying I'm in darkness and don't have Christ as a savior, etc. is not an answer by any means.

And when your comments become personal instead it can only go downhill from here and I don't play the insult game.

Thanks for your comments.

LOL!!!

I went above and beyond in explaining to you what you wanted to know. The fact that you don't like what you were told and you choose to reject and deny the Scriptures that state that God has future plans for the Jews and the Scriptures that detail Christ's literal return to earth is not my problem.

If you want to take the truth I gave you as insults go right ahead. Maybe one day you'll actually think about the fact that when you reject and deny Scripture, you are rejecting and denying Christ:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:1-5)

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘ He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:14-18)

Jesus Christ is known as "the Word of God". To deny any part of Scripture is to deny Him.

Something to think about.

"So, like I said, Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, interprets itself. We know that the communion is not the literal flesh and blood of Jesus because He tells us Himself that those words are "spiritual"."

The fact that we disagree and that there are over 30,000 denominations in Christendom, differentiated by one degree or another, on the interpretation of Scripture is all the evidence one needs to reject that hypothesis.

If you go to that very revelation in John 6 you referenced Jesus had an opportunity to say that He was speaking figuratively or symbolically, like He did when He explained being Born again from above to Nicodemus, but He didn't. He reiterated the Real Presence on many occasions, most notably when He taught us how to pray. He called the "daily bread" Epiousios, a word found nowhere else in Greek literature, which is translated as supersubstantial bread and which the Early Church Fathers unanimously referred to the Eucharist. Jesus used a very emphatic means to reveal this to us. He told us what He was going to tell us. He then told us. He then told us again, and again, and again. It is only when you artificially construct the context to presume that the Eucharist cannot be the Real Presence or that Jesus' words cannot be transformative that your position appears sound.

So I will repeat my question in slightly different words, how can you on your own authority accept or reject the Real Presence?

Natural Law, you are Catholic and while we are not going to agree on doctrine and Biblical matters, I have no interest in arguing with you.

I take the Scriptures as the final authority on any subject it covers, and when Jesus says that His description of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" are spiritual and not literal, then I'm going to take that as the final word on the matter even if there are men who don't like that and don't agree with it.

This thread is about replacement theology, and believing God when He says that He is not finished with Israel, and I will say again, I'm not interested in getting into a protracted argument that will accomplish nothing.

God bless you, Natural Law.

"Natural Law, you are Catholic and while we are not going to agree on doctrine and Biblical matters, I have no interest in arguing with you."

I am not trying to get into a discussion or debate on Catholic versus Protestant doctrine. I brought up the Real Presence as an example specifically because we disagree on it.

My question goes to the authority of your interpretation, or more specifically, the lack thereof. How is it that you claim that your interpretation, and not that of a fellow Protestant is correct except upon your own authority and how is it that when a finite human mind fails to fully understand the infinite the presumption is that it is the infinite that must bend?

I do not for a minute doubt the sincerity of your love of Jesus. I simply want to better understand your point of view. Peace be with you.

My issue was with the denial of Scripture which leaves no doubt that God is not finished with his covenant, chosen people or His covenant, chosen nation and has plans for them for the future which He has pretty emphatically spelled out in His Word.

There is no Scriptural basis for claiming that the Church has replaced Israel, and none was offered by those who make that claim.

As for interpretations, I was able to produce Scripture which provided it's own "interpretation" of the passages in question. I know that, for some, that is not sufficient, but it is for me and I feel entirely secure in using Christ's own words to explain what He said.

It is precisely because we disagree that I'd rather not begin a discussion. It will come to nothing, and these kinds of things basically never turn out for good.

I don't doubt your love for Jesus either, Natural Law, and I pray that God will always bless you and your family.

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.