Question: What if you’re not dealing with a head-on declaration that God has replaced the Jews, but instead has preferred the grafted in branch to the root? I think that’s more of the implied level that I experience. Subtle jabs at Israel‘s unfaithfulness, pointing out the continued rejection of the Messiah, replacement of covenant language with gentile thought, reminders to lend our support to Israel because they need us, etc. Just this Sunday, a teacher told the congregation that we would be elevated to “kings and queens” so we could commune with God and that is what it meant “to rule and reign” with God, a clearly gentile understanding of what it means to rule and reign, not at all connected to Adam and Eve’s, original command to rule the Earth. I’m convinced that ruling and reigning looks more like farming than sitting on a hierarchy of never ending thrones.
Cathy, yes, that “preferred branch over the root” posture is exactly how replacement theology usually lives in the room: not as a an out right mantle, but as a tone. Paul’s Romans 11 logic won’t allow it. The Gentiles don’t replace the root, and they don’t get to critique the root from above it , they’re supported by it.
I’m with you on “rule and reign.” In Scripture, dominion is stewardship before it’s ever status. Eden “rule” looks like tending, guarding, cultivating, more like farming than thrones. When church culture turns reigning into hierarchy cosplay, it quietly replaces covenant categories with Gentile ones.
This leads me to what I was reading in Exodus yesterday morning about the very intentional humanization of Moses. It's the undertone of all scripture that men are simply men. Elevating ourselves is going to lead to an unfair and actually unrighteous perspective.
You’re hitting the main thing that I struggle with on several accepted doctrines: they impune God’s character. They assert God CHANGES. Above all else, God is holy and therefore cannot change. Charnock wrote that this is the worst kind of attack.
I struggle with that too, and it took me a long time to isolate this idea. There were so many things about that doctrine that I always struggled with when it came to the Tulip framework, but at the root of it, it is about God's character. And I wish I had more time because I would unpack other denominations like Mormonism and the Watchtower that have a different view of God's character. What hits me hardest is we miss the simple fact that he says, "I am who I am," and there's going to be many that don't know what that looks like and don't know me. We have to have a deep desire to understand who he truly is and what he truly wants from us! You'll have to send me that reference, Cathy. I'll take a look at it. I've never heard that name before.
Stephen Charnock, The Attributes of God. Most intense, in-depth, difficult to read book I’ve ever attempted. I think I’ve reread the chapter on holiness at least 30 times and I still don’t understand it 100%. That’s how good it is. I understand he influenced Calvin, but when I read Calvin, I think he tried to simplify, and lost things in the translation. I am not a fan of current Calvinism’s translation of who God is. You mentioned the Tulip… That’s one of the things that I believe impunes God’s holiness. Another doctrine is cessationism and dispensationalism, its root. If God changes, then he is no longer holy.
Modern Christians do not read the Old Testament, and they only take the human dimension from Jesus Christ, not the dimension of the Messiah, because they can reduce such a "god" to the level of manipulation.... thank you for the wonderful text 💙
I love how you worded that, Ursa. That's so true. Thank you very much for taking the time to read and thank you for your comment, my friend. Have a blessed week and shalom.
Question: What if you’re not dealing with a head-on declaration that God has replaced the Jews, but instead has preferred the grafted in branch to the root? I think that’s more of the implied level that I experience. Subtle jabs at Israel‘s unfaithfulness, pointing out the continued rejection of the Messiah, replacement of covenant language with gentile thought, reminders to lend our support to Israel because they need us, etc. Just this Sunday, a teacher told the congregation that we would be elevated to “kings and queens” so we could commune with God and that is what it meant “to rule and reign” with God, a clearly gentile understanding of what it means to rule and reign, not at all connected to Adam and Eve’s, original command to rule the Earth. I’m convinced that ruling and reigning looks more like farming than sitting on a hierarchy of never ending thrones.
Cathy, yes, that “preferred branch over the root” posture is exactly how replacement theology usually lives in the room: not as a an out right mantle, but as a tone. Paul’s Romans 11 logic won’t allow it. The Gentiles don’t replace the root, and they don’t get to critique the root from above it , they’re supported by it.
I’m with you on “rule and reign.” In Scripture, dominion is stewardship before it’s ever status. Eden “rule” looks like tending, guarding, cultivating, more like farming than thrones. When church culture turns reigning into hierarchy cosplay, it quietly replaces covenant categories with Gentile ones.
This leads me to what I was reading in Exodus yesterday morning about the very intentional humanization of Moses. It's the undertone of all scripture that men are simply men. Elevating ourselves is going to lead to an unfair and actually unrighteous perspective.
To your last point: this is why I cannot agree with orthodox or Catholic traditions that elevate any human.
AMEN!
Excellent! Praise God for bringing us clarity and truth through your gifts Sergio.
You're too kind, Brian. Thank you very much, my friend. I appreciate you, brother 🙏
You’re hitting the main thing that I struggle with on several accepted doctrines: they impune God’s character. They assert God CHANGES. Above all else, God is holy and therefore cannot change. Charnock wrote that this is the worst kind of attack.
I struggle with that too, and it took me a long time to isolate this idea. There were so many things about that doctrine that I always struggled with when it came to the Tulip framework, but at the root of it, it is about God's character. And I wish I had more time because I would unpack other denominations like Mormonism and the Watchtower that have a different view of God's character. What hits me hardest is we miss the simple fact that he says, "I am who I am," and there's going to be many that don't know what that looks like and don't know me. We have to have a deep desire to understand who he truly is and what he truly wants from us! You'll have to send me that reference, Cathy. I'll take a look at it. I've never heard that name before.
Stephen Charnock, The Attributes of God. Most intense, in-depth, difficult to read book I’ve ever attempted. I think I’ve reread the chapter on holiness at least 30 times and I still don’t understand it 100%. That’s how good it is. I understand he influenced Calvin, but when I read Calvin, I think he tried to simplify, and lost things in the translation. I am not a fan of current Calvinism’s translation of who God is. You mentioned the Tulip… That’s one of the things that I believe impunes God’s holiness. Another doctrine is cessationism and dispensationalism, its root. If God changes, then he is no longer holy.
Alright, thank you very much. I'm going to check it out. If I'm understanding you correctly, it was written in the 1500s?
Yes! I recommend the Kindle version. It’s massive.
Yeah, I just saw that, and it's expensive lol. I have to get through Mary's books before I start reading this one.
Modern Christians do not read the Old Testament, and they only take the human dimension from Jesus Christ, not the dimension of the Messiah, because they can reduce such a "god" to the level of manipulation.... thank you for the wonderful text 💙
I love how you worded that, Ursa. That's so true. Thank you very much for taking the time to read and thank you for your comment, my friend. Have a blessed week and shalom.
Haven’t started reading yet but I’m LOVING the subtitle!!!!
Thank you, Miss Cathy. Let me know your thoughts. I'm curious :)