According to Craig Blaising, who cites two monographs to support his claim, supersessionism was the mainstream position throughout most church history. Cf. See Stephen G. Wilson, ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, Separation and Polemic (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 2; Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986)); R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). Michael J. Vlach seems to agree.
I haven’t investigated the issue myself, so I don’t have a personal opinion on the historical question. But assuming that supersessionism was the mainstream position throughout most church history, that raises the question of whether Mother Church is getting forgetful in her dotage:
What is the definition of "supersessionism" ?
ReplyDeleteThanks
See lecture #1:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dbts.edu/pdf/rls/Vlach_ReplacementTheology.pdf
Thanks Steve,
ReplyDeleteHow do A-mills and Post-mills deal with the "eternal" (Hebrew: Olam) covenant with Israel in Genesis 13:14-15 (and 17:7-8) ?
The Lord said to Abram . . .
"for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever."
Is the main way to deal with it in Genesis 13:15; Gen. 17:7-8 the fact that Olam (eternal, everlasting) is used for circumcision in Genesis 17:13; and that seems to be fulfilled in the NT? (Galatians, Romans)
But how can the other "eternal" promises/uses of the word be "eternal" if the land and circumcision be reduced to " long time" ?
as the article points out, "fulfilled" is more preferred by those who hold that position; it is better than "replaced" and "superseded"; -
and I have also heard A-mills and Post-mills say, "not replaced, but extended to all the nations".- including Jews who believe in Messiah - Romans 4:13 - Abraham is the heir of the world.
"Replacement theology" seems to be a term meant to shut down discussion and many times accuse that historical view point of anti-Semitism.
"Replacement theology" seems to be a term meant to shut down discussion and many times accuse that historical view point of anti-Semitism.
ReplyDelete*****
You could be right about that. I cited him for definitions, and not to make a case for dispensationalism.
I may address your substantive questions later.