“We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ‘as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.’” Thomas Ice, “The Israel of God”
su·per·sede
1.to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing.
2.to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, usually in favor of something mentioned; make obsolete: They superseded the old statute with a new one.
—Synonyms
1. See replace. 2. void, overrule, annul, revoke, rescind. (found at Dictionary.com)
I’ll reproduce some of the Ice article here just to show a point.
What is Replacement Theology?
Preterist and covenant theologian, Kenneth Gentry defines replacement theology- to which he holds- as follows: ” We believe that the international Church has superseded for all times national Israel as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world.” [1] Gentry uses supersession as a synonym for replacement. I could almost agree with his definition if he would remove the phrase ” all times.” We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ” as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world.
Gentry adds to his initial statement the following embellishment:
That is, we believe that in the unfolding of the plan of God in history, the Christian Church is the very fruition of the redemptive purpose of God. As such, the multi-racial, international Church of Jesus Christ supersedes racial, national Israel as the focus of the kingdom of God. Indeed, we believe that the Church becomes ” the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), the ” seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:29), ” the circumcision” (Phil. 3:3), the ” temple of God” (Eph. 2:19-22), and so forth. We believe that Jew and Gentile are eternally merged into a ” new man” in the Church of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:12- 18). What God hath joined together let no man put asunder![2]
[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., ” Supersessional Orthodoxy; Zionistic Sadism,” Dispensationalism in Transition, Vol. VI, No. 2; Feb. 1993, p. 1.
[2] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., ” The Iceman Cometh! Moronism Reigneth!,” Dispensationalism in Transition, Vol. VI, No. 1; Jan. 1993, p. 1.
Ice is either ignorant or dishonest here within two paragraphs. These quotes are given by Ice in the reverse order in which they were given by Gentry. No big deal? Notice after the first quote Ice says, “Gentry uses supersession as a synonym for replacement.” Yet if you read the second quote (which is Gentry’s first statement) you will find out exactly what Gentry means by “superseded” in the first paragraph, containing Gentry’s second statement.
Confusing? Okay lets look and Gentry’s two statements only, lets put them in order.
1. “We believe that Jew and Gentile are eternally merged into a ” new man” in the Church of Jesus Christ. What God hath joined together let no man put asunder!” Jan. 93′
2. “We believe that the international Church has superseded for all times national Israel as the institution for the administration of divine blessing to the world.” Feb. 93′
If you were asking what “supersede” means to Gentry in the second statement; why wouldn’t you go to the first? From the writings of Gentry, in the first article titled “Supersessional Orthodoxy; Zionistic Sadism,” you should notice two things. First, Gentry doesn’t, “define replacement theology- to which he holds- as follows:….,” as Ice says he does. Gentry is defining what he calls “supersessionism.” Second, he explains it right here in the quote used by Ice! Gentry would not use “superseded” as a synonym for replace! He in fact used it clearly, as a synonym for “merged into a ‘new man’.” It doesn’t take much of an English expert to know that “merging” is not “replacing.”
Now, if you are looking for a definition for a term an opponent is using, you should ask. If you’re reading an opponent and a definition is given then you don’t need to ask. If you then define a term differently than your opponent has already defined it, you are Equivocating! I don’t think Ice is ignorant by the way, I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Notice that, even though Ice places the quotes backward, he says, “Gentry adds to his initial statement the following embellishment:” Now that’s strange. Ice knows which statement Gentry made first. He cited them in the footnotes, dates included. Ice essentially says that Gentry’s first quote was an “embellishment” on something he hadn’t even written yet! Note also, that Ice calls what is actually the second statement “his initial statement.” Is Ice this stupid? I think not.
Should Gentry have used a different word than “superseded?” Probably, because he did not intend its normal usage as you can see from his original statement. But for Ice to force Ice’s chosen (and accurate) definition of “superseded” on Gentry’s statements where he (Gentry) clearly defines what he means is just plain political dishonesty.
Also, Kenneth Gentry would not call himself a Preterist or a Replacement Theologian. Only Ice would, in an attempt to Poison the Well with Weasel Words.
And finally, although Gentry would not use “supersede” as a synonym for “replace.” Thomas Ice certainly did just that, clearly and strait-forwardly in the quote from the beginning of this article. Check it out in full context if you like. So I ask: Who is the Replacement Theologian of these two?