Replacement Theology

[Wayne]

Would someone on the PB please bring me up to speed on the topic of "Replacement Theology"? I have to reply later today to a caller asking about that, in part.

In my limited understanding, the matter might be broken down into at least three variations:
1. Standard Reformed teaching that the Church replaces national Israel.
2. Aberrant teaching (Armstrongism)--Britain & the US now replace or are the continuation of national Israel.
3. Palestinian Christians and others appear to hold to the view that they are the continuation of national Israel. [admittedly at this point I'm pretty much in the dark]

For one, is "replacement theology" properly understood as something entirely other than good solid biblical teaching? (in which case, #1 above isn't a variation)

 

[Covenant Joel]

I believe the last two uses are pretty rare (at least currently).

Typically, the term is used by dispensationalists to describe the Reformed/covenantal approach. John MacArthur, for example, used it regularly in his series on eschatology as something less than a term of endearment for the Reformed approach.

It seems that when dispensationalists use it, they don't really get what covenant theology teaches. It's not exactly that the church replaces Israel (though in a sense that's true), but that the physical people was typological of the full reality of the church, which is the expanded people of God among the nations through Christ. So basically, I believe it's usually a term used to pejoratively describe covenant theology.

 

[CharlieJ]

Yes, it implies that if the church receives the fulfillment of the OT promises, then Israel must have been discarded. From the Dispensational point of view, God breaks his promises to Israel by granting them to the church. Of course, this only makes sense if you are thinking of the promises as being to national Israel and if you deny a continuity between spiritual Israel and the Church.

 

[Particular Baptist]

I believe the last two uses are pretty rare (at least currently).

Typically, the term is used by dispensationalists to describe the Reformed/covenantal approach. John MacArthur, for example, used it regularly in his series on eschatology as something less than a term of endearment for the Reformed approach.

It seems that when dispensationalists use it, they don't really get what covenant theology teaches. It's not exactly that the church replaces Israel (though in a sense that's true), but that the physical people was typological of the full reality of the church, which is the expanded people of God among the nations through Christ. So basically, I believe it's usually a term used to pejoratively describe covenant theology.

I would agree with you. Even though I love MacArthur, he does use the term 'Replacement Theology' in a way which paints all the Reformed as believing that God has no plan to bring Israel back into the true Israel of God, the Church.

 

[The Author of my Faith]

Being new to reformed theology I could be wrong but from what I understand there really is no such thing as replacement theology but it is a term used by dispensationalist to discredit reformed covenant theology. The church never replaces anything, there is not replacement in God's plan but fulfillment. The branches of unbelieveing jews were cut off and what remained was believing jews and believing gentiles were grafted in, that is not replacement but addition. the two becoming one in Christ. Paul speaks of that mystery of the gospel that the gentiles are partakers of the promises in ephesians. I hope I am on the right page or at least in the right zip code on this one but this is how I understand the topic in a nut shell. The Israel of God consists of jews and gentiles so if there was replacement theology it would seem to suggest that God cut off all jews and replaced them with gentiles or God cut of Israel and replaced it with the Church. But again the Israel of God is not the physical nation of Israel but consists of those who are of faith, elect, chosen by God both jew and gentile.

 

[TimV]

Ditto to all of the above. Armstrongites use phrases like Israelite Vision etc..; there's no relationship to RP with them. It's just like Steve said, a term to discredit or mock what the Church has taught for the last 2000 years. WorldNetDaily is probably the most influential website that pushes this thinking.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Wayne,

All the above posts have answered this well. As this is a topic I write on a good bit (I’m a Jew myself) with a view to evangelizing Jews and refuting dispensationalists, I give a few posts below on the subject. As you will see (and has been said above), the term “Replacement Theology” is a slur against the Reformed (Biblical) understanding, and a misnomer.

This first one I’ve been planning to revise a little and polish, though it’s informative. So also the attached piece, “Spiritual Identity Theft”: http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/first-replacement-theologian-23590/.

This one Scripturally establishes that http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/israel-has-not-been-replaced-church-50717/, but is pretty much as Steve said above in post 5.

This is a look at the great damage dispensationalists do in the Middle East with their view of Israel: http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/what-jerusalem-what-temple-23589/

Hope this helps.

 

[Scott1]

This is a large topic and I am by no means expert.

The term "replacement theology" often has a negative connotation and is used simplistically to try and cast aside anything but a dispensational framework for interpreting the whole of Scripture.

I've usually begun (explaining to layman) that covenant theology is not really "replacement" but rather "fulfillment" of God's promises from the very beginning to redeem people from every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue.

Then to explain that that plan has, is, and will always be centered on redemption by grace through faith in Christ until our Lord returns. It has always been about redemption through Christ, Old and New Testament, Jew and Gentile.

There never has been any separate plan for redemption for those with some Jewish ancestry outside of Christ. Nor have there been different means of redemption at different times in history other than by grace through faith (in Christ's righteousness alone).

This usually disarms the "replacement" label, and can lead to much better discussion of what covenant theology is, and how its framework of interpretation of the whole of Scripture compares with dispensationalism.

 

[Herald]

The bible college I attended uses replacement theology as a pejarotive term. In fact, their school catalog includes replacement theology and Calvinism as two belief systems that are not allowed to be discussed at the school. You have to be careful of us CT's and Calvinists. We're really dangerous.

 

[Peairtach]

There are two views regarding ethnic Israel among Covenant Theologians, largely based on Romans 9-11.

(a) Some believe that the Church, both Jewish and Gentile believers and their children, is the true Israel of God, and that although there will always be a small number of ethnic Jews in the true Israel of God, there will not be a future national conversion of the ethnic Jews which will incorporate them nationally into the true Israel of God again.

(b) Others believe that the Church, both Jewish and Gentile believers and their children, is the true Israel of God, and that there will always be a small number of ethnic Jews in the true Israel of God, which will be joined by the vast majority of ethnic Jews in a future national conversion which will incorporate them into the true Israel again as a nation and be a blessing to the Church and World.

As I see it, God is incorporating the whole world - both Jews and Gentiles - into the true Israel of God, because Christ is the King of Israel and He has asked His Father for the nations (Psalm 2).

Christ is the Israel of God's Moses-Joshua, and David-Solomon, and the whole Earth is the focus of His conquest, not just Israel/Palestine.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Being new to reformed theology I could be wrong but from what I understand there really is no such thing as replacement theology but it is a term used by dispensationalist to discredit reformed covenant theology.

I know what you are saying, but I would caution that there is such a thing as replacement theology - though it is only espoused in fringe sects/cults (such as Armstrongism and others). Dispensationalists' use of the term pejoratively against covenant theology is its most common application, but it does exist as a heretical doctrine of which we should probably be aware, if only to be better informed when the term is hurled at us.
Just a thought!

 

[The Author of my Faith]

Being new to reformed theology I could be wrong but from what I understand there really is no such thing as replacement theology but it is a term used by dispensationalist to discredit reformed covenant theology.

I know what you are saying, but I would caution that there is such a thing as replacement theology - though it is only espoused in fringe sects/cults (such as Armstrongism and others). Dispensationalists' use of the term pejoratively against covenant theology is its most common application, but it does exist as a heretical doctrine of which we should probably be aware, if only to be better informed when the term is hurled at us.
Just a thought!

Thanks!!! I recieve that

 

[MW]

1. Standard Reformed teaching that the Church replaces national Israel.

"Replacement" is language sometimes used in describing the continuity/discontinuity between the Testaments, but not necessarily descriptive of the standard position. There is no genuine replacement for the simple reason that there was no original displacement. Israel was the church under the Old Testament. Believing Israel continues to be the church under the New Testament, with the addition that believing Gentiles are incorporated with believing Jews in the church. Unbelieving Jews were cut off and thereby disinherited. Their inheritance is thus legitimately "transferred" to the continuing body of believing Jews and Gentiles. If anything, "transferrence theology" would be a better description, and one which accords with the New Testament themes of inheritance and adoption to explain the inclusion of the Gentiles.