Replacement Theology--Heresy?

LadyEagle · Nov 9, 2005

Originally posted by DHK:
Please note well what this "heresy" really is:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />After decades of successful rapprochement, a conference last week shows that a long-discredited theological aberration is threatening to open a new rupture between Christians and Jews — in the service of Islam. Replacement theology is, in brief, the idea that Christians are the true inheritors of God's Old Testament promises to Israel. It discards St. Paul's New Testament assurance that God has not rejected His people (Romans 11:2) and, in its extreme form, repudiates the Old Testament after the fashion of the Marcionite sect, which the Church declared heretical in the second century C.E. Marcion articulated his anti-Jewish doctrine in this way around the year 144 C.E.:

"We Christians worship an entirely different God from that of the Jews. We have absolutely nothing in common with them. Their scriptures bear witness to a completely different divinity. Indeed, our Christian religion was founded with the purpose of putting the Jewish heritage to rest once and for all."

Why is the exhumation of musty theological controversies worthy of note? Because these neo-Marcionite replacement theology advocates are mounting in the U.S. and Europe a concerted and thoroughgoing attempt to end support for Israel among Christians, which has been widely noted particularly among Evangelicals for many years. This, of course, plays right into the hands of radical Muslims, who have used Islam's even more virulent form of replacement theology against Jews and Christians alike for centuries in order to justify killing, enslaving, and displacing them.
Click to expand...

Replacement Theology

DHK [/QUOTE]An Excellent Article, DHK!

natters · Nov 9, 2005

Perhaps it's worth saying that "Replacement Theology" means widely different things to different people. Before labelling it all as heresy, you'll have to identify what exactly the heresy is, and then demonstrate that all views which someone might call "Replacement Theology" contain that heresy.

Rom 11: Unbelieving Isreal was broken off, believing Gentiles were grafted on. They can be grafted on again, but only if they believe (v23). Is that "Replacement Theology"?

JackRUS · Nov 9, 2005

Kiffen wrote:

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.
Click to expand...

You are thinking of a "damnable heresy", and not just a heresy. I posted the definition of the term heresy on the bottom of page 3.

And I would argue that Replacement Theology is far more serious a matter that one's view on when Christ returns around the time of the Tribulation. Or if God uses certain dispensations in His dealings with mankind. And DHK gives good reasons why on page 5.

Not to mention the fact that Replacement Theology makes God mercurial instead of immutable, not to mention a liar. And that's a real problem for us all if that was true. Praise His holy Name that it isn't. Heb. 13:8

JackRUS · Nov 9, 2005

Originally posted by JohnB:
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.
Click to expand...

Those Lark folks sound like a bunch of Gnostics to me.

Knowledge = worthy to be raptured huh?

Tim · Nov 9, 2005

Originally posted by natters:
Perhaps it's worth saying that "Replacement Theology" means widely different things to different people. Before labelling it all as heresy, you'll have to identify what exactly the heresy is, and then demonstrate that all views which someone might call "Replacement Theology" contain that heresy.

Rom 11: Unbelieving Isreal was broken off, believing Gentiles were grafted on. They can be grafted on again, but only if they believe (v23). Is that "Replacement Theology"?
Click to expand...

Yes, in it's simplest form, that is Replacement theology. It is a historic belief of the church. The church did not become Israel, but through Christ the church did inherit it's promises in their ultimate fulfillment (Gal.3:14-17).

LadyEagle · Nov 9, 2005

Not to mention the fact that Replacement Theology makes God mercurial instead of immutable, not to mention a liar. And that's a real problem for us all if that was true.
Click to expand...

Yep, if an "everlasting covenant" which came from the lips of God can be broken, then we're all in deep trouble if we can't take what He says as the literal truth....

Not only that, replacement theology makes it seem like salvation for the Gentiles is God's plan B.

Praise God, He never changes - He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. He IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and little ole me, too.

natters · Nov 9, 2005

Originally posted by Tim:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by natters:

Rom 11: Unbelieving Isreal was broken off, believing Gentiles were grafted on. They can be grafted on again, but only if they believe (v23). Is that "Replacement Theology"?
Click to expand...

Yes, in it's simplest form, that is Replacement theology. It is a historic belief of the church. The church did not become Israel, but through Christ the church did inherit it's promises in their ultimate fulfillment (Gal.3:14-17). [/QUOTE]If that's heresy, then sign me up as a bona fide heretic.

Tim · Nov 9, 2005

SO,

Several posts back I elaborated on Romans 11:26, explaining that in order to take it as a unique NT future prophecy, one must pull the statement "all Israel shall be saved" out of it's context. Over and over again the writers of scripture talk about the salvation of a believing REMNANT of Israel. Never is there an indication that 100% of Israel will be saved, but rather Paul says the obligation to believe on Christ is laid upon 100% of Israel. "So" (in this manner) "all Israel shall be saved: as it is written" (according to the manner described by the OT prophet, i.e. by the Deliverer, Christ). Again, he is reinforcing the idea that the New Covenant provides no saftey net for ethnic Jews--they must become Christians, i.e. a part of the church. It is in this way that the church supercedes Israel.

The Biblical purpose of national Israel was fulfilled in the first century. Israel brought forth the Messiah. They preserved the OT scriptures to point to Him. They followed the Law to point to Him. They brought blessing upon all nations through Him, when God brought forth the church through them. God is still in the business of saving Jews (as Paul makes clear), but there is no "chosen nation" in the physical sense under the New Covenant(1 Pet. 2:9.10). That was an Old Covenant concept (Heb. 12:18-29).

ituttut · Nov 9, 2005

Originally posted by SeriousOne:
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.
Click to expand...

A fine and studious book I found by way of The Christian Jew Foundation some years ago.

Tim · Nov 9, 2005

Originally posted by LadyEagle:

Not only that, replacement theology makes it seem like salvation for the Gentiles is God's plan B.

Praise God, He never changes - He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. He IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and little ole me, too.
Click to expand...

This statement illustrates that you do not understand the concept of supersuccession. Paul's whole point in Romans 9-11 is that there is no "plan B"--never has been. It was always God's intention to use Israel to give birth to the Church through Jesus Christ!

LadyEagle · Nov 9, 2005

Paul's whole point in Romans 9-11 is that there is no "plan B"--never has been. It was always God's intention to use Israel to give birth to the Church through Jesus Christ!
Click to expand...

Correct, AND the Church is "grafted" into the root, it doesn't replace the root.

natters · Nov 9, 2005

The root is not Israel, the root is Christ.

ituttut · Nov 10, 2005

Originally posted by LadyEagle in agreement with some others:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Not to mention the fact that Replacement Theology makes God mercurial instead of immutable, not to mention a liar. And that's a real problem for us all if that was true.
Click to expand...

Yep, if an "everlasting covenant" which came from the lips of God can be broken, then we're all in deep trouble if we can't take what He says as the literal truth....

Problems for some, but not God. Can we accuse God of being mercurial, and a liar, when scripture tells us this is what He has done? After Damascus Road God’s people are not to call any man common or unclean as seen in Acts 10. Peter had never preached to a “heathen”, but God is going to force him to do so, this one time. It is very doubtful he ever preached to another Gentile.

You say “yep if an ‘everlasting covenant’ which came from the lips of God can be broken, then we're all in deep trouble if we can't take what He says as the literal truth...." I agree with you, but the “everlasting covenant” won’t be broken. It’s just that today it is not in effect.

What about James as he informs and quotes prophecy? Acts 15:14-15, ”Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written. 16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:” He says He will return for them, after This Church is "caught up". I will stick with His Word and not doubt at all the Holy Spirit.

Not only that, replacement theology makes it seem like salvation for the Gentiles is God's plan B.

This is not plan B, for it is His original purpose. Angels, men, nations do what they want within their means. God created and has all to walk the “fire” walk. This is where sin came from, for this is where “iniquity” was found in Him. Each of us does, as we will. In the case of Israel, they as a nation in its will refused the “kingdom at hand” when they rejected their King, Jesus Christ, and then committed the “unpardonable sin” a year after Pentecost. They were cut-off. Are we to say this surprised God? Are we to say God doesn’t know the beginning from the end? I find it amazing why so many Christians find it so difficult to believe one verse in the Bible? Roman 16:25, ” Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began”.

We today know about the Body of Christ. Who knew this before, this Church?[/I]

Praise God, He never changes - He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. He IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and little ole me, too. [/QUOTE]Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

”For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3. How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6. That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:” Ephesians 3:1-6.

God does not change, but changes His methods when dealing with man. God is not a Robot, unmoving, without feeling and love in His justice. God does not just go in a straight line, as we see in Genesis 6:6, ”And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” God is not sorry, and God doesn’t make mistakes, but God does change directions in dealing with us for He loves us. If not He would have just ended there, so we know God changes happenings for His purpose.

LadyEagle · Nov 10, 2005

Originally posted by natters:
The root is not Israel, the root is Christ.
Click to expand...

The root/firstfruits in the context of this passage in Romans Chapter 11 is the patriarchs, Abraham, etc. God planted the root.

Tim · Nov 10, 2005

Nobody here denies that out of Israel God formed the church, through Jesus Christ and those who believed in Him (initially Jews). That is what Paul is saying in Romans 11.

But that does not mean we can ignore other new testament scriptures that clarify the status of Israel and the church under the terms of the new covenant. (see my post above)

In what way could an unbelieving Jew today be considered one of God's chosen people? If he does not believe in Christ, he will inherit none of the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or David in any physical or spiritual way, but instead will be cast out of God's presence on the day of judgement, and Christ will say "I never knew you". How chosen is that? Surely any Christian, Jew or gentile, is chosen in a way that far supercedes that OT way.

OT Israel was chosen for specific puposes--now fulfilled (note that I did not say replaced) in the NT church.

DeafPosttrib · Nov 10, 2005

Tim,

Well say! AMEN!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

JackRUS · Nov 10, 2005

Originally posted by Tim:
Nobody here denies that out of Israel God formed the church, through Jesus Christ and those who believed in Him (initially Jews). That is what Paul is saying in Romans 11.

But that does not mean we can ignore other new testament scriptures that clarify the status of Israel and the church under the terms of the new covenant. (see my post above)

In what way could an unbelieving Jew today be considered one of God's chosen people? If he does not believe in Christ, he will inherit none of the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or David in any physical or spiritual way, but instead will be cast out of God's presence on the day of judgement, and Christ will say "I never knew you". How chosen is that? Surely any Christian, Jew or gentile, is chosen in a way that far supercedes that OT way.

OT Israel was chosen for specific puposes--now fulfilled (note that I did not say replaced) in the NT church.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you wrote. But the question here is if Jesus will some day reveal Himself to Israel and then both save, and exalt the nation among nations? Read Isa. 2:2-4 and Zechariah 14.

ituttut · Nov 11, 2005

Originally posted by Tim:
Nobody here denies that out of Israel God formed the church, through Jesus Christ and those who believed in Him (initially Jews). That is what Paul is saying in Romans 11.

But that does not mean we can ignore other new testament scriptures that clarify the status of Israel and the church under the terms of the new covenant. (see my post above)

In what way could an unbelieving Jew today be considered one of God's chosen people? If he does not believe in Christ, he will inherit none of the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or David in any physical or spiritual way, but instead will be cast out of God's presence on the day of judgement, and Christ will say "I never knew you". How chosen is that? Surely any Christian, Jew or gentile, is chosen in a way that far supercedes that OT way.

How can that be when today there is no difference between the Jew and the Gentile? Were any of we Gentiles promised to inherit the earth, or were those Old Testament Saints promised the “Body of Christ”? Please show, by scripture, the Gentile will be saved exactly as the Jew. Peter says the Jew (today) can now be saved into the Body of Christ exactly as are the Gentiles.

OT Israel was chosen for specific puposes--now fulfilled (note that I did not say replaced) in the NT church.
Click to expand...

We today should not wish to “inherit the earth”, and today Israel has not done so. Before the “purpose” of Israel can be fulfilled, the Christian Way is to “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved”. ”Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” That is we today (no distinction of lineage) in Christ, a people come of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Something to think about--------------Ephesians 5:5, ” For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” Did God the Father give to Christ Jesus a Kingdom, and Christ gave a kingdom to His Apostles? ”And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me”.Luke 22:29. There are Jews and then there is us today.

[ November 11, 2005, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: ituttut ]

Tim · Nov 11, 2005

Originally posted by JackRUS:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Tim:
Nobody here denies that out of Israel God formed the church, through Jesus Christ and those who believed in Him (initially Jews). That is what Paul is saying in Romans 11.

But that does not mean we can ignore other new testament scriptures that clarify the status of Israel and the church under the terms of the new covenant. (see my post above)

In what way could an unbelieving Jew today be considered one of God's chosen people? If he does not believe in Christ, he will inherit none of the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or David in any physical or spiritual way, but instead will be cast out of God's presence on the day of judgement, and Christ will say "I never knew you". How chosen is that? Surely any Christian, Jew or gentile, is chosen in a way that far supercedes that OT way.

OT Israel was chosen for specific puposes--now fulfilled (note that I did not say replaced) in the NT church.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you wrote. But the question here is if Jesus will some day reveal Himself to Israel and then both save, and exalt the nation among nations? Read Isa. 2:2-4 and Zechariah 14. [/QUOTE]JR,

Glad you agree, though I venture many would disagree when I question whether ethnic Jews are any longer God's chosen people.

Regarding the OT prophecies you cite, I'm not convinced that they remain unfulfilled, though perhaps they yet point to some future events. But considering the fact that Zech. 13:7 (sheep and shepherd) is referred to as fulfilled in the gospels (figuratively) again makes me question whether we should be looking primarily for a physical ( or "literal") fulfillment of Zech.

Zech.14:8 speaks of "living waters" flowing from Jerusalem--something that Jesus refers to when he attends the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7:37, and John says it had a spiritual fulfillment at Pentecost. Zech. 14:16-21 makes direct reference to Temple worship and compulsory observance of an OT feast (even by gentiles). I find it very hard to believe that the OT Law will be reinstituted in the future, considering all the the NT has to say about the Law's completion in Christ (Romans, Galatians, Hebrews). The Feast of Tabernacles was a symbol of deliverance from the oppressors' control. That may be what Zech. ultimately is pointing to -- our deliverance from the power of sin and Satan.

So, again, it comes down to the way we read OT prophecy, and NT fulfillment passages. I think you are giving the OT greater weight in interpretation and understanding, while I believe I'm giving the NT greater weight in those areas. I doubt you'll agree, but that seems to be the gist of our debate about prophecy.

As I see it, the bottom line regarding the status of Israel is the change in nature from the OT to the NT. In the OT, God dealt primarily with nations as groups of people accomplishing His purposes.And those purposes were largely physical and temporal (Law observances, etc.) In the NT, He deals primarily with individuals of all nations as a new chosen group--the church. And His purposes now are primarily spiritual (the spread of the gospel, etc.) God used OT Israel to accomplish the transition from the Old to New covenant. But those old physical things pertaining to Israel(Law observances, temple, and even the nation itself) are eclipsed by the greater spiritual things we inherit in the body of Christ (a greater Law, spritual temple, chosen "nation" of believers).

JackRUS · Nov 11, 2005

Tim.
When I said that I agreed with everything you wrote, I meant in your first post on this page.

I believe that unsaved individual Jews are not chosen or elect in the sense of salvation. But I believe in a future saving of the Jewish nation as a group for Abraham's and David's sake. So then the whole nation will be elect. I don't see how one can spiritualize away Zech. 14:9,12,16-19.

Replacement Theology--Heresy?

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

natters New Member

JackRUS New Member

JackRUS New Member

Tim New Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

natters New Member

Tim New Member

ituttut New Member

Tim New Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

natters New Member

ituttut New Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Tim New Member

DeafPosttrib New Member

JackRUS New Member

ituttut New Member

Tim New Member

JackRUS New Member

Useful Searches

Replacement Theology--Heresy?

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

natters New Member

JackRUS New Member

JackRUS New Member

Tim New Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

natters New Member

Tim New Member

ituttut New Member

Tim New Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

natters New Member

ituttut New Member

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Tim New Member

DeafPosttrib New Member

JackRUS New Member

ituttut New Member

Tim New Member

JackRUS New Member