Replacement Theology--Heresy?

quote from go2church: (p.s. I would make this bold if I knew how)
Folks, where is Jesus in all of your eschatology? What does "I came to fulfill the law" mean to you? After a quick read of the posts has anyone mentioned Galatians 6:16 - who are the Israel of God that Paul mentions? To what extent are Christians heirs with Abraham?
------------------------------------------------------
answer: Christ came to fulfill the law-meaning that HE kept the moral, ceremonial and judicial law - all 613 commandments (which by the way are no where in Scripture separated-the "Law" means the whole law) perfectly on behalf of all who by grace would trust HIM alone by faith alone. It had to be "fulfilled" it could not simply be set aside.
Galatians 6:16 reads "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them AND upon the Israel of GOD" The "Israel of GOD is a reference to all Jewish believers in Christ-those who are both physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham.
We are heirs with Abraham because Abrahams "children" are those who come to salvation by FAITH apart from works-please read Romans 4. Also: Gal. 3:6,7 "Even as Abraham BELIEVED GOD and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of FAITH, the same are the children of Abraham" The church has been grafted into the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant which is the gist of Romans 11:13-36 and the church is warned not to think of herself as somehow superior vv20-21.
Ultimately, ALL Israel will be saved (future) vv26-28. As for Israel now having been regathered, according to Scripture this is the first regatering in UNbelief, there is another to come where GOD will purge Israel (that is the focus of the seven year Tribulation) and she will again be the focus of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic as well as the other UNconditional Covenants which GOD made with her.
Please check out the website:

http://www.ariel.org

Click on "Fruit" for some excellent articles which are immersed in Scripture.

Maranatha

 

Regarding "Replacement Theology":

The "bottom line" is hermeunitics or "how" we "view" Scripture.

Do we take it at is "normal" meaning (literalism) and allow for similies and metaphors, or do we look at Scripture and make those passages that are prophetic (over 3/4 of the Bible) "figurative"?

Speaking to prophecy:
One who is a literalist understands that some passages are extremely difficult to understand but at the same time also knows that those very passages are absolutely "explained" elsewhere in Scripture. Whereas one who approaches prophetic passages and makes them all figurative has no absolutes. It's a "your guess is as good as mine" theology. And frankly, that scares me.

 

I really don’t believe God thinks it appropriate for Christians to call Paul’s gospel heretical. I believe Peter is shown in Acts 10 (unbeknownst to him at the time) of what was being instituted, and had its beginning on Damascus Road. God (three times, each agreeing, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) showed Peter what was happening. Heaven is opened to the “whole world”, for those that will, but at the rapture it will be closed, just as the “Red Sea” divided giving safe passage to the other side, and then It closed. Three times from heaven to down here, and then taken up, just as we will be at the rapture. The set aside nation of God has been replaced, but was only temporarily set aside, enabling His Only Begotten Son to save out a Kingdom to Himself, John 18:36 “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

Those of “covenant” gospel make a misnomer in order to try and show heresy, as scripture by them is not understood. Israel and prophecy thereto was stopped. I don’t care what one may believe, the truth to be know is “the kingdom promised and was at hand” did not appear.

So what happened? It is now the Gentile to present the gospel of Christ Jesus in heaven with the message of believe on the name of Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Only those elected of God in the Jewish community today will be saved, along with saved Gentiles, we therefore are recognized as Christians in the Body of Christ as you point out in I Corinthians 6:32. Have we replaced them? No for we have been “inserted” into the Body of Christ for we shall be “like Him”. Is Moses going to be “like Him”, John the Baptist, the earthly Apostles? These are called “His friends”. The Apostles have their own kingdom, and will judge Israel. We are not Israel.

Ezekiel 37:10-14, ” So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
11. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. 12. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14. And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.”[qb]

 

i personally view the scriptures as mostly literal, yet i understand that alot of the verses are symbolic also. such as the prophecies in the OT refering to Jesus in the NT.

i also understand that the title "heretic" or "heresy" is a very strong title. i don't think i will use that word to describe "replacement theology" or "supercessionism." i will however title it false teachings or false doctrine. it's not as strong and doesn't get people as riled as the title heresy.

now to support the view i obtain on replacement theology:

i will start with romans chapter nine and progress to chapter 11.

Chapter Nine:
v4. Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; v5. whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

this i believe is saying: 'for the israelites, the following belongs to them...' things such as the covenants, promises, giving of the law etc. remember that all paul had as a basis of education was the old testament, and seeing all the things Jesus had done.
v6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel: v7. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED. v8. That is, they which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
well, v6 i believe is saying that all who live in Israel is not of Israel. the second 'israel' may or may not be Jacob a.k.a. Israel. v7 is plain and simple: in isaac shall they seed be called. not ishmael, not the servants of abraham etc. in ISAAC. v8 is plainly saying: whoever is of the flesh nature, is not a child of God. BUT the children of the promise counted for the seed. I will go back to v4. where it says that Israel is entitled to God's promises (from the old testament). therefore the children of the promise is Israel.
in verses 9-33 it explains a little deeper why it is the majority of Israel has not accepted Jesus. it's because God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. God has hardened Israel's heart for the time being, just like pharoah, so that the gentiles would beable to accept Jesus.

Chapter 10

v1. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. v2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. v3. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Israel is God's chosen people. the church does not replace Israel. Israel is still there. Israel is Israel is Israel. look on any map. can you find Israel? i bet you can. unless you're ignorant. but no-name-calling here.

Chapter 11.
(this is a gooder.)

v1. I say the, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. v2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew...
'his people' refers to Israel. not the church. if it did refer to the church, paul would have said that he was a roman. (paul was half-roman, half-jewish. him being a pharisee and all.) but since he says he 'also am an Israelite' the 'his people' refers to literal (sorry to those who think the bible is not literal at all, this verse is. too bad.) literal Israelites.
v2b-10 is explaining more that God has hardened the heart/eyes of Israel. (now if the church is the 'israel of today' and it says Israel's eyes are darkened... hmmm... doesn't click together for me there...)
v11. I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealosy.
that's just supporting what i mentioned earlier.
v17-24 (i love this part.) Israel will be restored. Every knee shall bow. "God is able to graff them in again." it's all self explanitory. we gentiles are graffed into the olive tree. us being the wild branches. if God did get rid of Israel (which he didn't) then how much more would he get rid of us if Israel is the natural branches?
i love v26. "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, THERE SHALL COME OUT OF SION THE DELIVERER, AND SHALL TURN AWAY UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB: v27. FOR THIS IS MY COVENANT UNTO THEM WHEN I SHALL TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.
i think all the above sums up (mainly, there are other verses that i will give later. i have no time right now.) what i believe about the "replacement theology" the church has not replaced Israel, Israel does have everything to do with us, the church does not take on the promises that were laid out for Israel in the old testament. (funny, alot of supercessionists say they only take on the promises, none of the curses... hmm...) i am fully against "replacement theology"

there's my spiel so far.
gekko.

by the way. have a look at this Messianic Jewish MC. (messianic jew= a jewish individual who believes that Jesus was the son of God, died, and rose the third day. in other words, a jewish christian. no it's not an oxymoron.)
50 Shekel

 

i will make a note for those of you who might say "why don't you use ALL the verses of those chapters?" well, it's because i have more of an understanding from the Holy Spirit on the ones that i did use. i'm still learning.

 

I think you are all building strawmen. You are going off on rabbit trails. This is about a position which some have built a theology around. It is the position itself that is heretical. You can build whatever theology you want. That doesn't matter. You can be pre-mil, post-mil, pre-trib, mid-trib., etc. Your eschatology doesn't matter. Your position that the "Church" has replaced Israel does. That is the crux of the matter.
One link by Gary LeMar says this the card used by dispensationalists. That's foolishness.

As far as theology is concerned The Catholic Church has believed in a type of Covenantal theology for years. For years they have spread anti-semitism (though only recently through John Paul II, they have toned it down). That Pope was going to make it public, and take public blame for the holocaust in 1994, but the next day retracted his statement, because the statements of previous popes are infallible and can't be changed.
This has been the position of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries--that they have replaced Israel. The "holy city of Rome" has replaced "the holy city of Jerusalem." Rome never was and never will become a holy city. It is the Babylon of Revelation, the great harlot, not a holy city.
But Satan is a great imitator.

The Protestants of that time, who opposed the Catholic Church and this horrible theology didn't exactly have the same eschatological views that we have today. It is the position that is heretical--that the "Church" has replaced Israel.
Israel--God's people--has been set aside, put on a shelf as it were, but will indeed be restored Restoration is different than replacement.
DHK

 

The Protestants of that time, who opposed the Catholic Church and this horrible theology didn't exactly have the same eschatological views that we have today. It is the position that is heretical--that the "Church" has replaced Israel.

So exactly how DID Calvin see this?



Jesus should properly be seen as the restoration of Israel. Or was His death and resurrection to small to save Israel - such that another development is necessary.

Most Jews didn't believe Jesus when He claimed to be that - and most today don't either!

 

I haven't read every post, so forgive me if I am redundant.

I thought "replacement" theology was just another term for traditional Reformed Covenant theology, what Presbys have been teaching for 400 years.

R C Sproul would be the most popular proponent of this.

Is this not the case? Is replacement theology different from Covenant theology, and if so, how?

 

Supersessionism (or Replacement theology as it is called by critics) is the part of Covenant theology that deals with the status of Jews since the time of Christ.

Yes, the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions have subscribed to this position for a long time, as have many Methodist and Baptist churches.

 

Like every other theological duality in Christendom, it helps us feel better about ourselves when we call the other side "heretic" instead of actually listening to them and considering the possibility that I could be wrong.

Calvinism : Arminianism
OSAS : non-OSAS
Dispensationalism : Covenant Theology
KJVO : non-KJVO

 

Good points Gold Dragon.

Heresy is a term many use lightly and broadly, applying it to any "incorrect" point of theology.

I apply it only in a narrow sense as in "If you believe this, you cannot be saved." For example, denying the deity of Christ would be a heresy.

So, for me, though I would not ascibe to replacement theology, I do not see it as heresy.

(Just as a side note, I used to be a big fan of RC Sproul and subscribed to his Tabletalk magazine. But I got fed up with his ministry because he & his son continually labeled dispensationalism and any non-Calvinistic soteriology as heresies.)

 

Please note well what this "heresy" really is:

Replacement Theology

DHK

 

To use the term Heresy so lightly is to imply those who hold to this "Heresy" are not Christians or preach a perverted Gospel. Heresy is a strong word that should be used for a deviation from Cardinal doctrone such as the Trinity, Incarnation, Deity of Christ, Christ substitionary death, Justification by Faith etc... All schools on the end times affirm the Second Coming of Christ, they just don't agree on the details.

There is no worldwide conspiracy by Amills, Postmills and Historic Premills to destroy Israel. Using extremists to prove a point is unwise and charges of anti semiticism cannot be taken serious and is a ploy to change the subject when on's argument is weak. It would be unfair to use John Hagee as an example of Dispensationalists since he believes in 2 different ways to Heaven for Jews and Gentiles and has Christ denying rabbis fill his pulpit and his veneration of Israel reminds me of how Roman Catholics venerate the virgin Mary. John MacArthur who is a Dispensationalist but rejects Hagees heresy, represents a mere balanced form of Premill Dispensationlism .

Premill Dispensationlism is not a heresy. An error in my opinion, yes! It can and will become a heresy however if those who advocate it, make such a theory, a basis of fellowship when in reality all theories of the End times be it Premill Dispensationlism or Amill, Postmill and Historic Premill are theories and not proven fact. None of these theories should ever be used as a basis of fellowship.

 

Does anyone on this thread believe that the Church replaced Israel? I know I don't. My guess is very few if any believe this.

 

A satirical posting from Lark News in case we think we can have all our theology correct.

OTTAWA — The Rapture occurred March 31, 2005, at 9:43 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time and took both people on the planet whose theology was exactly correct.
Dan Wilson of Ottawa, Canada, was snatched away while sleeping.
"He spent years refining his eschatological scheme," says his wife. "Just last week he told me he had it all right, but I still disagreed with him on a minor point. I regret that now."
Rejna Thanawalla of New Delhi, India, also experienced the Rapture, say friends.
"She knew exactly what the books of Revelation and Daniel meant," they say. "Sadly, none of us listened to her."
In a surprise, Tim LaHaye says he was "slightly wrong on the subject of the Beast," and was left behind. Other prophecy experts say they, too, botched minor points in their end times charts.
"Looks like we'll have to stay and wait this out," said one disappointed pastor.

 

Tim,
I am not dispy by default, I have studied both sides carefully from the perspective of those respected on both sides.

I would suggest a book which deals with the position from both sides point by point. "ISRAELOLOGY-THE MISSING LINK IN SYSTEMATIC THEOLOBY" by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, I have found it a most interesting study. Also, "UNDERSTANDING END TIMES PROPHECY - A Comprehensive Approach" by Paul Benware Both deal with hermeunitics and ISRAELOLOGY does an excellent job of allowing Scripture to prove Scripture.

 

Go Canada!

 

Yes.

I have much to say on this subject but do not have time right now. Be back later.