Inclusion Not Replacement

Posted on by
Reply

Article “Replacement or Inclusion Theology?” by Dr. Sam Storms (at this link)

I was recently asked by a member at Bridgeway if I believe in what is called “replacement” theology. Although this is a massively complex subject, I tried to provide a brief answer. Here it is.

All biblical interpreters recognize that there is development between the Old Testament and the New. Some say the Old Testament is the seed to which the New Testament provides the flower. Others speak of the relationship as one of symbol to substance, or type to anti-type. The point being that we must strive to understand the progress in redemptive history. And when I look at the relationship between Israel and the Church I see something similar to the relationship between the caterpillar and the butterfly.

The butterfly doesn’t replace the caterpillar. The butterfly IS the caterpillar in a more developed and consummate form. The butterfly is what God intended the caterpillar to become. Likewise, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church IS Israel as God always intended it to be. Let me explain that further.

I believe that what we see in the NT isn’t the replacement of Israel but an expanded definition of who Israel is. During the time of the old testament one was an Israelite (primarily) because one was a physical, biological descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. One’s ethnicity was the deciding factor. But with the coming of Christ and the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, the meaning of what constitutes a “true Jew” has undergone revision, or perhaps a better word would be expansion. Not one believing Jewish person has been replaced. Not one believing Jewish person has been set aside or lost their promised inheritance.

Rather, God now says that a true Jew is one who is circumcised in heart and not just in one’s physical body (Rom. 2:28-29). The key passage is Galatians 3:16-18 and 3:25-29. There Paul says that the promises were made “to Abraham and to his offspring” (v. 16). I prefer the translation “seed” instead of “offspring” but the point is the same either way. In other words, when God gave the promises to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 12-17 it appeared he had in mind Abraham and all his physical progeny. But later we learn that it was limited to the progeny of Isaac and not Ishmael. Then we learn that it had narrowed down even further to be the progeny of Jacob and not Esau. When we get to the NT, Paul says it has been narrowed down even further, to but one Jewish person, Jesus. Here is what Paul says:

“Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring/seed. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings/seeds,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ” (v. 16).

Wow! Paul is saying that God’s ultimate meaning in the Abrahamic covenant was that all the promises would be fulfilled in only “one” of Abraham’s physical seed/progeny . . . Jesus Christ! But just when you feel led to conclude that it’s impossibly narrow, Paul opens it up and says:

“for in Christ Jesus you are ALL sons of God, through faith. . . And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (i.e., the promise made to Abraham) (v. 28, 29).

So, the only relevant question now isn’t whose blood is in your veins (physically speaking) but whose faith is in your heart (spiritually speaking). If you have faith in Jesus and thus are “in” him then you become the seed of Abraham that will inherit the promises! That means being an ethnic Jew or Gentile doesn’t matter when it comes to who inherits the promised blessings. What matters, the only thing that matters, is whether or not you are in Christ by faith.

So, a true “seed” of Abraham or a “true Jew” isn’t a matter of physical descent but of spiritual new birth. No one has been replaced. All ethnic Jews who are in Christ by faith are the seed of Abraham and no less so is it true of all ethnic Gentiles who are in Christ by faith.

This is why Paul said in Ephesians 2:11ff. that believing Gentiles are now equal members of the “commonwealth of Israel” (2:12) and are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (2:19).

One more text from Ephesians will prove helpful. Paul says that in Christ the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been torn down and that he “has made us both one” (Eph. 2:14). Again, he has created “in himself one new man in place of the two” (Eph. 2:15). This “one new man” is the Church of Jesus Christ in which are believing Jews and believing Gentiles, co-heirs of the promises made to the old testament patriarchs.

The old covenant into which God entered with the physical descendants of Abraham was designed to be temporary until the coming of the Messiah and the New Covenant. This is the consistent message of the book of Hebrews. Now, anyone of any ethnicity has equal status as heirs of God’s promises so long as they believe in Jesus.

Whether or not God will save the last generation of living ethnic Jews just before the second coming of Christ is a matter of debate. I hope that is true! Who could possibly protest? But there are texts on both sides of the issue and God-honoring, Bible-believing Christians end up with differing answers. But regardless of one’s conclusion on that matter, I still believe that whoever gets saved, whether now, during the course of church history, or later when Christ returns, all will be members of the one body of Christ, the Church, equal in their inheritance of all that God has promised.

So I don’t believe that God’s saving work among ethnic Jews means that he will reconstitute the old covenant theocracy of Israel. I believe that all believing ethnic Jews, together with all believing ethnic Gentiles, will together constitute the Elect, the Church of Jesus Christ, the one “holy nation” that is in covenant with God (1 Peter 2:9). And because they are all in him, the true seed of Abraham, they are all likewise the seed of Abraham and thus heirs of the promise.

I don’t believe in replacement theology. I believe in inclusion theology: Gentiles have now been included in the commonwealth of Israel and are as much “true Jews” as are believing ethnic Jews. It isn’t replacement, but fulfillment, just as the butterfly fulfills and completes what God intended when he first made a caterpillar.

I Don’t Need Anyone to Teach Me! Really?

Posted on by
Reply

“Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out against all sound judgment.” – Proverbs 18:1

In some sectors of the internet, one can discover professing Christians who live their lives in isolation from the local Church.

Now, we all understand it when someone is providentially hindered from attending a local Church, and that is a very different scenario. I am not speaking of such people. I am referring to those who’s absence from the local Church is willful. Not only so, but they actively encourage others to do the same. I believe this to be extremely dangerous. More than that.. I believe the teaching is demonic in origin. Who else but the enemy of our souls would be the source of a teaching that seeks to remove God’s precious sheep from the nurture, care and protection of God-given elder/shepherds.

One verse championed by these people, taking out of context (as with all falsehood), is 1 John 2:27 which reads as follows:

“But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.”

Note the phrase, “you have no need that anyone should teach you.”

There you go… for these people, this verse clearly teaches that the Christian does not need to have leaders and teachers in their lives. They are more than ok to isolate themselves from the local Church.

But is this what 1 John 2:27 is teaching?

The context of the verse says ‘No… not at all!!’

Here are some notes from Dr. Sam Storms at his website (found here). You will see, once the context is understood, the true meaning of 1 John 2:27 is abundantly clear:

The Doctrinal Test (1) – 2:18-27

1. Antichrists and Christians – 2:18-21
a. the existence of many false teachers is evidence that this is the last hour – 2:18

John emphatically states that we may know this is (the) last hour because of the existence and activity of many antichrists.

Antichrist – occurs only in the Johannine epistles (2:18(2),22; 4:3; 2 John 7). This word is never used to describe the Beast of Rev. 13. The term is a combination of anti (against or instead of) and christos (Messiah, Christ). The Antichrist thus opposes Christ as his adversary or enemy with a view to taking his place. He is a lying pretender who portrays himself as Christ; he is a counterfeit or diabolical parody of Christ himself. See 2 Thess. 2:3-12.

Westcott writes: “It seems to be most consonant to the context to hold that antichristos here describes one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ” (70). Again, “the Antichrist assails Christ by proposing to do or to preserve what He did while he denies Him” (70).

Although they had heard that this person’s appearance is yet future, “even now” (kai nun) says John, many antichrists have already come.

Paul wrote in 2 Thess. 2:7 that “the mystery of lawlessness was already at work.” In 1 John 4:3 he points out that the spirit of antichrist is now at work in the world. What John means in 2:18 is that the “many antichrists” are forerunners of the one they heard was still to come. Because they proclaim the same heresies he will proclaim and oppose Christ now as he will then, they are rightly called antichrists (esp. in view of their denial of Christ in vv. 22-23).

In 2:22, he writes: ‘Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. The spirit of the antichrist, says John, is found in anyone who denies that Jesus is God come in the flesh (1 John 4:3).

Again, in 2 John 7, he writes: ‘For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Thus, for John, ‘antichrist is

* Anyone ‘who denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22)
* Anyone ‘who denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:23)
* ‘Every spirit that does not confess Jesus (1 John 4:3)
* ‘Those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (2 John 7)

Some have argued that John’s point is that there is no other antichrist than the one even then operative in his day or the one who takes up and perpetuates this heresy in subsequent history. In other words, anyone in general can be ‘antichrist, if he or she espouses this heresy, but no one in particular, whether in the first or the twentieth centuries, is the antichrist as if there were only one to whom the others look forward.

In other words, the ‘antichrist’ who his readers were told was yet to come is now with them in the form of anyone who espouses the heretical denial of the incarnation of the Son of God. According to DeMar, for example, it is possible that the early church ‘heard’ that one man was to come on the scene who was to be the Antichrist. John seems to be correcting this mistaken notion (Last Days Madness, 227).

Says B. B. Warfield: Continue reading →

Questions about Inductive Teaching and Closed Communion

Posted on by
Reply

Here are a couple of insightful answers from Jonathan Leeman found at the 9marks ministry website:

Dear 9Marks,

I am a newly appointed missionary and am wrestling with the necessity of preaching in the church context. It’s a fad right now to do inductive style teaching in lieu of preaching in house churches. I brought up the imperative to preach from 2 Timothy 4:2 and the response was that Timothy was likely a missionary and the preaching here is evangelism, not Western-style pulpit ministry. Further, it’s not “practical” and as easily reproducible.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the necessity of monological (for lack of better words) preaching as a transcultural imperative.

Thanks for your time,

—Dave

Dear Dave,

I sent your question to Zane Pratt who serves as the Vice President for Training for the SBC’s International Mission Board. I assumed (rightly, he tells me) that he’s encountered this before. He tells me it has become the party line in some places, in part because people are looking for a ministry program that’s quickly reproducible. Here’s what Pratt said:

This is a great question, and it shows the intersection between missions strategy, our understanding of the church, and our interpretation of Scripture. In the example you’ve been told, missions strategy is in the driver’s seat. The controlling concern is the desire to see churches reproduce quickly. That in turn leads to a desire to remove any feature of church life that might take time to develop—like having pastors who are able to preach. This requires redefining the function of Bible teaching in the church to something that anyone can do immediately after conversion, like leading a Bible discussion. Finally, in order to warrant this conclusion from Scripture, it becomes necessary to rule out proclamation-type verses in the New Testament from having application to the internal life of the church. Does such a procedure stand up to scrutiny?

There are two Greek word groups under consideration here. One is kerygma and its related verb forms, and the other is didache and its related verb forms. The first of these is often best translated as “proclamation,” and it is often used in the New Testament to refer to the proclamation of the gospel to the world—hence, to evangelistic preaching. In fact, 2 Timothy 4:2 begins with this word. The second word is usually translated as teaching. However, the line between these words is by no means solid. For example, the verbal form of kerygma is used in both Acts 15:21 and Romans 2:21 to refer to ordinary instruction and preaching in the synagogue. In the case of 2 Timothy 4:2, the explanatory context uses the word didache—teaching—to describe what kind of proclamation is in mind. This verse does in fact connect proclamation or preaching with the teaching that goes on in the church.

Of equal importance is the complete absence in the New Testament of any examples of inductive Bible study as the central teaching event in the church. Following the examples of Jesus, the synagogue, and the apostles (see, for example, Paul in Troas in Acts 20), the normal form of teaching would have been preaching or proclamation by one teacher. That is not to say that some form of discussion is out of order. It can be very useful. However, the normal pattern of teaching in the church from the earliest days of New Testament church life has been centered on preaching. Training pastors/elders/overseers to preach is a necessary part of healthy church formation, and the legitimate desire to see the gospel spread as quickly as possible does not negate that obligation.

Thank you, Zane. So helpful.

I remember encountering similar ideas in the Emergent Church movement about a decade ago. Therefore, I responded to the trend in my book Reverberation. When Moody suggested republishing Reverberation as Word-Centered Church last year, I assumed the conversation mostly had died, so I cut out the section on dialogical preaching. Apparently, it has now shown up in missionary circles! So, here’s what I wrote in Reverberation:

A number of writers have been promoting dialogical preaching lately. Such preaching focuses on the back and forth nature of dialogue, but places this conversation into the preaching event. It’s said to be particularly appropriate in these postmodern days since no one believes anymore that “one man has all the answers.” Dialogues give every member of the community an opportunity to express him or herself and offer a perspective on God’s Word. . . .

No doubt, group conversations about God’s Word, as in inductive Bible studies, can be rich and sweet. It is encouraging to hear the young and old, mature and immature, testify to their experience of God’s grace through the biblical text being discussed.

At the same time, God has gifted some—not all—to be pastors and teachers and given them as gifts to his church (Eph. 4:7–13). And he means to particularly bless and grow his church through them.

The pattern throughout Scripture is for a man—a judge, a prophet, an apostle, a preacher—to speak authoritatively on behalf of God: “Thus says the Lord. . .” The speaker’s authority does not derive from himself; it derives from the Word. It’s tied to his faithful presentation of it. The congregation, on the other hand, learns what it means to submit to God by submitting to his authoritative Word as it’s preached. The goal isn’t to exchange perspectives, but to hear what God says. Every Christian (including the preacher) must understand that first and foremost we live under God’s authoritative Word. This reality is best demonstrated and practiced through the preaching event, a place where we learn to sit quietly and listen. The preacher, if he has been faithful, has been sitting quietly and listening all week!

I pray something Zane or I have offered is helpful to you.

Dear 9Marks,

I just found out that the church I am a part of practices closed communion. (“Closed communion” is the practice of restricting the Lord’s Supper to members of a particular local church and only that church.) Could you give me Bible references that speak about this issue? It feels very exclusive and arrogant to exclude even close friends who I know have embraced the gospel and are walking with the Lord. I would appreciate any Bible passages that speak either for or against this idea.

—Amy

Dear Amy,

If I may, first a word or correction, then of consolation, and finally of counsel. The correction: you shouldn’t assume people are being arrogant because they are trying to obey the Bible as they understand it. Now, I don’t agree with this particular view of the Lord’s Supper either, but I assume that the church and its leaders are doing their best to obey and submit themselves to God.

I do find it’s somewhat common to criticize as arrogant people with strong opinions about what the Bible teaches. And certainly, such people might be arrogant. But they might also might be the humblest of all, because they put aside their own opinions or popularity, and submit themselves to God. I’ve known people in both camps. For our part, let’s do our best to give people the benefit of the doubt, particularly when it comes to the motives of their hearts.

Now the word of consolation: I agree with you that closed communion mistakenly excludes people from the Lord’s Supper who should not be excluded. But let me start with what this position gets right. The Lord’s Supper is not an individual Christian ordinance, but a church ordinance. It marks off the church from the world. Listen to Paul: “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf” (1 Cor. 10:17). We are shown to be one body when we partake of the one loaf. The Supper is a church revealing meal. He then practically concludes, “When you gather to eat, you should all eat together” (11:33).

This is why the Supper is for the gathered church. It’s for church members. It reveals who the church members are. And this much the closed communion position gets right.

Yet there is another principle we need to remember: the universal church is bigger than just our church. Therefore, it’s the practice of my own church to open the Table to members of other churches. Throughout the New Testament we see examples of churches working together, such as John’s commendation of Gaius for receiving the missionaries he sent (3 John 5–8). What’s more, we see John condemning Diostrephes because he won’t welcome other believers (3 John 9). When we open the Table to members of other churches, therefore, we demonstrate a rightful welcome to the larger body of Christ. So you’ll hear our pastors say something like, “If you’re a baptized member of another gospel-preaching church, then you’re welcome to receive the Lord’s Table here.”

Finally, my counsel. What do you do in your position? First, respect your own church and its leaders. Assume they have good reasons for their position. And, who knows, maybe they’re right and we’re wrong. I think it would be fine for you to have a conversation with the leaders about this issue, and even to present a different view. But I would only do this once, and then I would leave it alone. If you stay in the church, do so only if you can be content to leave the topic alone. Don’t be a source of division. If you feel like you cannot remain in the church because of its position here, that’s fine. But do your best to leave humbly, graciously, and with as little wake behind you as possible.

I pray this is useful. Thanks for your thoughtfulness and care.