# Help on what replacement theology is.



## Covenantson (Feb 19, 2006)

Hello all,
I have a friend who has long accused me, as a reformed person, of falling into the camp of replacement theology. While many conversations have, I think, led her to conclude I don't necesarily fall in that camp, she still believes reformed ecclesiology holds to that point.

Now, as far as I can understand, replacement theology says that the Church is the new Israel.

I was wondering, especially for those who may know about the topic, if this is correct. If we can keep this discussion on the layman's level, that would be great.

Thanks for any input you might have or resources (short online articles preferable) you might have.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Nick


----------



## turmeric (Feb 19, 2006)

here is a thread.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 19, 2006)

The term "replacement theology" is not a common term among reformed theologians, at least not in my circles. The language seems closer to that of dispensationalism--like maybe the term was coined as a derisive term by dispensationalists for explaining a _covenant theology_ they really couldn't get their hands on.

In covenant theology, the Church doesn't *replace* Israel, so much as the Church *IS* Israel, the Israel of God. There is only one "people of God" throughout all history. Under the Old Covenant, beginning with the Exodus, the Church was the theocratic nation of Israel. For example, the NT calls them at one point, "the church in the wilderness" speaking of the 40 years wanderings. The primary purposes for singling out this people was for the gathering together of God's people into "one", and the narrowing of the line-of-promise to the eventual production of the Messiah, according to the flesh in the fulness of time.

I think the notion that the church "replaces" ethnic Israel could, under certain interpretations, lead to the idea that the church could itself be "replaced" later by ethnic Israel, or by some other body. On the other hand, there is a sense in which the outer forms of the church under the OT have been "replaced" by new forms under the world-wide adminstration of the NT Kingdom.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 19, 2006)

Yes, I think "replacement theology" is an emotionally charged term of opprobium used by dispensationalists to disparage covenant theologians.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Yes, I think "replacement theology" is an emotionally charged term of opprobium used by dispensationalists to disparage covenant theologians.



That's being nice.

Being a well studied dispensationalist for over twenty years I can tell you that this term is used to scare you from exploring any other view of eschatology outside dispensationalism. After all, dispensationalism teaches that God will be "turning back" to His chosen people and they will be supernaturally protected and guided (or killed) as God finishes up His last seven years with them.

Now, if anyone disagrees with this, simply paint them as an anti-semite who believes that God's chosen people have been replaced with themselves! (GASP!) Instantly this person has nothing to say that you should even consider.

Dispensationalism paints it's self as the only legitimate "end times" belief system because to allow the eschatological forum to be open to all "Christian" opinion is to expose it's self. So instead, anyone who has an opposite "end times" view may not even be Christian.

It's sickening.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



Not to mention blaming "replacement theology" for the Holocaust, as I've seen some do.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 20, 2006)




----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 20, 2006)

Here is a perfect example of the trickery used by dispensationalism...

Rapture Ready is possibly the most famous dispensational message forum on the internet. While all of it's members do not acurately reflect dispensational thought, no main stream Dispensational teacher rebukes it. If RR promotes your book, lecture, etc. then surely you are going to support them.

Anyway, on to my example.

RR has a forum on their board where different views on end times can be discussed. They like to use this forums existence as proof of their tolerance. However, try to see that board before you register! You can't. It's a "hidden" board that you can only see after you register.

See the trick?

They claim to be tolerant of other views, but you have to register to see the other board. Now tell me, what Post Mill, or A Mill believer is going to register at a place called "rapture ready"? Not too many of course (if any). So the "other views" forum is pretty empty.

This is the common approach Dispensationalists take. 

You know how some of us here debate about Arminians being true Christians or not? Well, many Dispensationalists I know do the same thing except they debate the salvation of those who hold to any other end times view other than their own! It's true, I used to be one of them.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> I prefer to call it "Expansion Theology" rather than Replacement theology.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 20, 2006)

Yes, I refues to automatically assume Jews are carnal, not spiritual like us, and worthy of *only* an earthly kingdom, I refuse to think this way because I LOVE THE JEWS! They are as worthy as anyone that God chooses to redeem. So for me, Dispensationalism is out!!!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 20, 2006)

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 20, 2006)

Good thread.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Feb 21, 2006)

The church is the Israel of OT prophecy. It does not replace Israel; it is its fulfillment.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 18, 2006)

The proper term is Supersessionism. 

"Replacement Theology basically teaches that the church has completely replaced (fullfilled) Israel in God´s plan. 
Adherents of Replacement Theology believe that the Jews are no longer God´s chosen people and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel."


Supersessionalist teach that the church is the new Israel and that when Jews become Christians, they are no longer a Jew.

After finding out that you guys believe in this, I am no longer sure how much I can contribute to this forum. I like the apologetics section, and I am learning alot. Yet, I have to do more research on the issue. I am really in a phase of development in my Christian life, so I am open to various ideas. Yet, this strikes me as astonishing.

[Edited on 5-18-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Casey (May 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> The proper term is Supersessionism.
> 
> "Replacement Theology basically teaches that the church has completely replaced (fullfilled) Israel in God´s plan.
> ...


Friend, is your church dispensational? Perhaps we can be of some assistance in terms of sorting some of this stuff out for you. If you haven't been exposed to Covenant Theology in the past (and a Covenant Theology of the historic, Reformed/Presbyterian sort), you might want to get a good understanding about it before deciding which is more Scriptural.  In this sense, we each contribute to one another's learning on the forum.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 18, 2006)

Caleb

Know that I felt exactly how you do not that long ago.


----------



## JWJ (May 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> The church is the Israel of OT prophecy. It does not replace Israel; it is its fulfillment.



 This is why I like to call it "fulfillment theology"

Jim


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> Friend, is your church dispensational? Perhaps we can be of some assistance in terms of sorting some of this stuff out for you. If you haven't been exposed to Covenant Theology in the past (and a Covenant Theology of the historic, Reformed/Presbyterian sort), you might want to get a good understanding about it before deciding which is more Scriptural.  In this sense, we each contribute to one another's learning on the forum.



Truthfully, I am not sure if there is even anything specific about it stated in our doctrinal statement. I think that the main pastor holds to a pre-millinial viewpoint (I think), and the assistant pastor holds to a post (I think). I am not sure of anybody who believes in supersessionism at my church...




> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Caleb
> 
> Know that I felt exactly how you do not that long ago.


Okay, why did you change your mind? 



> _Originally posted by JWJ_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> ...



Yeah....

[Edited on 5-18-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 18, 2006)

I changed my mind because I found out what "system" was most biblical.


----------



## Average Joey (May 18, 2006)

Romans 9:4-9:6


----------



## BobVigneault (May 18, 2006)

Caleb,
to hold to a strict dispensational view requires one to apply a different and strained hermeneutic to so-called 'futurist' verses (this includes making scripture fit present news headlines) than we use for scripture as a whole (Let scripture interpret scripture). It means we hold that God kept changing his themes and purposes. It means that he has two different plans of salvation, one for the jews and another for the rest.


----------



## tdowns (May 18, 2006)

*Caleb,*

Hey Caleb, from someone who is everyday finding more things he doesn't know, let me suggest being patient, reading alot, and don't shut down any of the ideas you might read about on this message board EVEN IF you get an emotionally charged response from people at your church. It is truly amazing--but actually not surprising given the group-think tendencies of human nature--how many people in the American Church are clueless when it comes to biblical world views other than their own.

I would not be surprised at all, if the two pastors you are talking about are both Pre-Mill, but one is Pre Trib and the other Post Trib. I remember when I first started asking--Pastors, Elders, long time Christians--what they thought about issues like Post Mil, and Amil, and they so didn't understand the subject, they'd go right into a Pre Trib, Post Trib discussion....Bottom line, keep reading and know that after about a week on this board you'll know more about the positions than 90% of the church...but don't rush off to debate and decide, just read and reflect for a while.


----------



## gregbed (May 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



I, too, was over 20 years in a dispensalionist church, 18 of those as an elder, and the last 3 as an adult Sunday School teacher (and most of the other levels before that). I changed my mind over a period of time, not by reading any books or engaging covenant theologians, but just trying honestly to answer questions. One thing I started to do was always pay attention to OT quotes in the NT (NASB is great for highlighting these in bold). When I would come across one, I would ask "how is this NT author using this OT text (i.e., literally, typically, allegorically, etc.). It seriously slows down your study, since you have to go back to the OT to understand the original context. (e.g., Matt 1:15 use of Hos. 11:1). What I realized was that what I was taught as the only acceptable hermeneutic was regularly violated by the NT authors. I fully aware of the answers that are given to this, but they are not answers from the NT, they are only what might be if disp. is to remain true. In other words I found myself in a hermeneutical quagmire with disp. Which is ironic since its proponents were always saying that was where I would end up with the other systems.
The other question that was always in my mind when I was studying was "Does this text (especially in its larger context) tell me anything about how the author viewed the relationship between the new Church and the existing and pre-existing Israel? Passages like Rom. 11:17, especially in its large context of Rom 9-11; Ephesian 2:11-22: most of the letter to the Hebrews but esp 3:1-6 & 11:40. Also, passages like 1 Cor 10:1 use of the phrase "our fathers to refer to OT saints when writing to Gentile Christians and his need to distinquish national Israel in verse 18 as "Israel according to the flesh" 
I think those are 2 worthwhile questions to ask of the text you are reading. See where it leads you.


----------



## caddy (May 18, 2006)

Sound advice 



> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> Hey Caleb, from someone who is everyday finding more things he doesn't know, let me suggest being patient, reading alot, and don't shut down any of the ideas you might read about on this message board EVEN IF you get an emotionally charged response from people at your church. It is truly amazing--but actually not surprising given the group-think tendencies of human nature--how many people in the American Church are clueless when it comes to biblical world views other than their own.
> 
> I would not be surprised at all, if the two pastors you are talking about are both Pre-Mill, but one is Pre Trib and the other Post Trib. I remember when I first started asking--Pastors, Elders, long time Christians--what they thought about issues like Post Mil, and Amil, and they so didn't understand the subject, they'd go right into a Pre Trib, Post Trib discussion....Bottom line, keep reading and know that after about a week on this board you'll know more about the positions than 90% of the church...but don't rush off to debate and decide, just read and reflect for a while.


----------



## Casey (May 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> ...


Caleb, we prefer to have Covenant Theology called Covenant Theology, and not "replacement theology" or "supersessionism." Covenant Theology is essentially the same thing as Reformed Theology, which is what all historic Presbyterian / Reformed / Congregational and even (many) Baptist churches used to teach.

Dispensationalism, which I would gather your church holds to, is a novel doctrine with not even 200 years of history to back it . . of course, history doesn't prove which doctrine is right, but we shouldn't just shrug it off, either. 

I originally held to more of a Baptist mind-set (actually, I was a lot of things) but gradually came to a more and more Reformed position, and finally joined a Presbyterian church. Infant baptism, the occasional reading of a creed during worship, and a few other things were very new to me--honestly, I didn't at first understand why such things were done.

But for me, I had come to embrace what is called Calvinism, and I wanted a church that held to that teaching. Since I knew very little about church history, I didn't understand what differences there were between different denominations (though I gradually picked up on these things). I also didn't have much of a foot-hold on historic theology, so I didn't have a framework to consider why these different beliefs existed in the first place.

Friend, I encourage you to read articles/books about Covenant/Reformed Theology that are written by those who hold to that system of doctrine. Why? Well, I have first-hand experience with _other_ people writing about it (those who disagree with it), and misrepresenting it, and arguing against it as though they were trying to knock down a straw man (I have experienced this both with Calvinism and Covenant Theology). In fact, the term "replacement theology" is an example of a misunderstanding of Covenant Theology, and thus a misnomer (I won't explain why now).

Anyway, it looks like a number of folks here on the board have already encouraged you in a number of good ways. In the end, you can learn even from those you disagree with.

Welcome to the board.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 18, 2006)

Thanks all for your thoughts and references. I will check them out. Thanks. -Caleb


----------



## turmeric (May 18, 2006)

I do not believe that the church REPLACED Israel, but was rather grafted on, so that the Old Testament believers and the Church are the same people of God, the people who will inherit the New Heaven and New Earth. Notice that the walls of the New Jerusalem have twelve foundations with the Apostles on them and twelve gates with the twelve tribes of Israel on them. No-one is replacing anyone.

[Edited on 5-18-2006 by turmeric]


----------

