# Replacement Theology?



## The Author of my Faith (Aug 7, 2009)

I am confused. I am still pretty new to Reformed Theology. From what I have been reading, two books by O Palmer Roberson (Isreal of God and Christ and the Covenants). I am seeing that God does not have a "special" plan for National Israel and that all the promises he made regarding the lad have been fulfilled. The true Israel of God are those who are IN Christ. The true children of Abraham are those who are of the Promise (elect). Is this correct? Please correct me if I am wrong. 

Is this Replacement Theology? Can someone who KNOWS what they are talking about (no offense to anyone) please explain to me in layman terms. And what books can I read to find out more about this issues.

Thanks!


----------



## Philip (Aug 7, 2009)

The short answer to your question is no, it's not replacement theology. I prefer to call it "fulfillment theology" because Christ has fulfilled and expanded the people of God to include Gentiles.

You might want to go over to http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/israel-has-not-been-replaced-church-50717/ for more answers.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 7, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> The short answer to your question is no, it's not replacement theology. I prefer to call it "fulfillment theology" because Christ has fulfilled and expanded the people of God to include Gentiles.
> 
> You might want to go over to http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/israel-has-not-been-replaced-church-50717/ for more answers.



Agreed.

This being said, though, dispensationalists will be quick to label such teaching as 'replacement theology'.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 7, 2009)

Some Reformed people like O.Palmer Robertson, believe that Romans 11 just teaches that there will always be a small number of true believers among the Jews.

Others like Errol Hulse, Johnnie Murray, Robert Dabney, Charles Hodge and John Calvin, believed that Romans 11 taught the above _and_ that there would be a national conversion of the Jews.

People like O.Palmer Robertson tend to be _but not always are _amils.
People like John Murray et al. tend to be _but not always are _postmils.

There's a look at Palmer Robertson's exegesis of Romans 11 here:-

http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/o-palmer-robertson-romans-11-a-51401/

There's an honest disagreement among the Reformed here, which is better than the Byzantine maze of Dispensational eschatology which is partly based on interpreting more straightforward passages by more difficult passages.

Lorraine Boettner's "The Millennium" is a survey of the field, although no doubt there are more up-to-date Reformed surveys available than that.


----------



## The Author of my Faith (Aug 7, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > The short answer to your question is no, it's not replacement theology. I prefer to call it "fulfillment theology" because Christ has fulfilled and expanded the people of God to include Gentiles.
> ...



So what is Replacement Theology and how does it differ from Reformed Theology on this issue?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 7, 2009)

Dispensationalists would probably label either of the above (Palmer Robertson's or John Murray's) "Replacement Theology", because the Jews only find their true raison d'etre and salvation by coming into the Church which is the true Israel of God.

Basically the Jewish nation is cut out of the covenant of grace and has to find salvation in God's providence, as individual Jews are re-ingrafted, or when the nation as a whole is re-ingrafted.


----------



## TimV (Aug 7, 2009)

> So what is Replacement Theology and how does it differ from Reformed Theology on this issue?



Steve, it's important that you understand a few things. First, the term Replacement theology is a political insult made by Christian Zionists to mock what the church has taught for 2000 years. They aren't just attacking Reformed thought. Frankly, not many have heard of Reformed thought.

The idea is that anyone who would not involve the American military in the defence of Israel is evil, since the Bible (to them) teaches that ethnic Jews are God's Chosen Race. So anyone who attacks Israel attacks God, and by implication anyone who doesn't defend Israel is God's enemy.

Those people, mostly Fundie American Baptists, demand that the rest of use believe that the promises made to Abraham's descendants do not apply to the Church, but to ethnic Jews.

The Christian Zionist dislike of what the Church has taught over the last 2000 years is based on modern political concerns. Events they want to see moved along so they can get "raptured" and 90% of all Jews can be killed, both things they believe to be God's revealed, short term will.

Don't go looking to Christian Zionism for profound theology. You won't find it.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Aug 7, 2009)

Please don't let this topic die. I love this subject know that others will be blessed when reading about it for the first time.
I have had some success talking to non-reformed Christians about election with this topic as the starting point, because God the Father not only elects Israel but He does not elect all the others. So when they ask about "fairness" (as Paul knew they would) all you have to do is ask them if it was "fair" for the Father to Adopt a single country/tribe.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 7, 2009)

Spinningplates2 said:


> Please don't let this topic die. I love this subject know that others will be blessed when reading about it for the first time.
> I have had some success talking to non-reformed Christians about election with this topic as the starting point, because God the Father not only elects Israel but He does not elect all the others. So when they ask about "fairness" (as Paul knew they would) all you have to do is ask them if it was "fair" for the Father to Adopt a single country/tribe.



At which point, unfortunately, they will almost invariably say "well, that was the Old Testament, and now we're in the (new and improved?) New Testament era."


----------



## The Author of my Faith (Aug 7, 2009)

I read Israel has not been replaced by the church and it was very helpful.

It makes so much sense especially in light of the scriptures in Romans 9. 

“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Rom 2:28, 29)


“For they are not all Israel which are of Israel... but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6, 8).

I never had or was given a logical answer to Romans chapter 9 under Arminian Theology especiall regarding Jacob and Esau and Pharoah. 

Armian theology cannot answer the question because they don' believe God is sovereign. Their best attempt is to say "God looked ahead and saw the good Jacob would do and the bad esau would do so he choose Jacob. Two problems with that thought is, 1. Jacob was a scoundrel. He seemed to be much worse then Esau. 2. If God looked ahead and choose based on what they would do then it is not Predestiantion it is Postdestination. Besides Paul made it clear that it was not based on what they did or didn't do since they were not even born, but that God's purpose for election might stand. 

But when you believe God is sovereign and that election and predestination are words that were placed in the bible for a reason you see that it makes perfect sense. 

This helps me because I have a freind who has embraced the "jewishness" of Christianity and has blamed those anti semites like "Luther" and others for ignoring the jewshness of Christianity for thousands of years. Now he obeys the dietary laws and say the they were never abolished by Christ. But when you understand that God never meant Christianity to be Jewish then it makes sense.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 7, 2009)

The Author of my Faith said:


> This helps me because I have a freind who has embraced the "jewishness" of Christianity and has blamed those anti semites like "Luther" and others for ignoring the jewshness of Christianity for thousands of years. Now he obeys the dietary laws and say the they were never abolished by Christ. But when you understand that God never meant Christianity to be Jewish then it makes sense.



Tell him to read the tenth and eleventh chapters of Acts and then ask him who told Peter that all animals were clean from eating, and then ask him who he is to stand against God and say that the dietary laws are not abolished...


----------



## Spinningplates2 (Aug 7, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't let this topic die. I love this subject know that others will be blessed when reading about it for the first time.
> ...



That is when I tell them that God is the same (perfect) today and forever. Never failing and never making a wrong choice. If they want to go down the wrong road with Gordon Pinnock and group that claims that the future is unknown to God then I have to knock the dust off my shoes.

I know that you were just kidding about how silly the free-willies debate but thought I would respond simply as a way to say, "Hi, how you doing? Your post have been a real blessing to me lately."


----------



## A.J. (Aug 8, 2009)

Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology by Dr. R. Scott Clark


----------

