Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology

[ReformedBaptist]

Now, this is a good read for both those who are Covenant in their thinking of the history of Redemption, or dispensational--but esepcially for those who are dispensational in their thinking who view Covenant Theology as being synomous with Replacement Theology (whatever that is).

Whether you agree with the author's views or not, try not to get sidetracked by disagreeing with the theology and see the point of the article: Covenant Theology is not "replacement" theology.

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/covenant-theology-is-not-replacement-theology/

I posted this in another thread, but it would distract that thread a bit...so here it is again. And here are some good quotes:

The promise was that there would be a Savior. The national people was only a means to that end, not an end in itself. According to Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22, in Christ the dividing wall has been destroyed. It cannot be rebuilt. The two peoples (Jews and Gentiles) have been made one in Christ. Among those who ae united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, there is no Jew, nor Gentile (Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).

Reformed covenant theology does not juxtapose Israel and the church. For Reformed theology, the church has always been the Israel of God and the Israel of God has always been the church. Reformed covenant theology distinguishes the old and new covenants (2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10). It recognizes that the church was temporarily administered through a typological, national people, but the church has existed since Adam, Noah, Abraham, and it existed under Moses, David, and it exists under Christ.

 

[Allan]

but esepcially for those who are dispensational in their thinking who view Covenant Theology as being synomous with Replacement Theology (whatever that is).

...snip...

Covenant Theology is not "replacement" theology.

Serious question here RB...

How can you declare that Replacement Theology is not Covenant Theology when you don't know what Replacement Theology is (as per you own statement)???

If you will look into it, you will find that Covenant Theology came out of Replacement Theology and share many of the same views and are very divergent in other areas. But yes, I will agree with you that they are not the same thing. This Replacement view (which is primarily a Catholic doctrine though some other denoms hold to it ito) is known primarily for the stance of how it views Jews and the Jewish people and so from the Replacement Theological view anit-semitism grew in some early christian circles. The views of this group can range from no Jew will ever be saved to the Nation of Israel is no longer of any significance to God now that the Church has 'superceded' it or replaced them.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Serious question here RB...

How can you declare that Replacement Theology is not Covenant Theology when you don't know what Replacement Theology is (as per you own statement)???

If you will look into it, you will find that Covenant Theology came out of Replacement Theology and share many of the same views and are very divergent in other areas. But yes, I will agree with you that they are not the same thing. This Replacement view (which is primarily a Catholic doctrine though some other denoms hold to it ito) is known primarily for the stance of how it views Jews and the Jewish people and so from the Replacement Theological view anit-semitism grew in some early christian circles. The views of this group can range from no Jew will ever be saved to the Nation of Israel is no longer of any significance to God now that the Church has 'superceded' it or replaced them.

I made my statement on a lack of understanding fully. I know the general tenant of replacement theology and agree with the author of the article I posted.

I did some more googling on replacement theology and could only find articles against it, one even stating that RT is a "powerful movement." If this theology is so powerful, where is it? And where did you read in order to learn that Covenant Theology came out of RT?

 

[OldRegular]

I agree. Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology. Reading the information about replacement theology on the internet it appears to be a strawman for the dispensationalists to insist that God has two separate peoples and to deny that the Church consists of all the redeemed of all time.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Now, this is a good read for both those who are Covenant in their thinking of the history of Redemption, or dispensational--but esepcially for those who are dispensational in their thinking who view Covenant Theology as being synomous with Replacement Theology (whatever that is).

Whether you agree with the author's views or not, try not to get sidetracked by disagreeing with the theology and see the point of the article: Covenant Theology is not "replacement" theology.

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/covenant-theology-is-not-replacement-theology/

I posted this in another thread, but it would distract that thread a bit...so here it is again. And here are some good quotes:

Question: "What is replacement theology?"

Answer: Replacement theology essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the Church is a continuation of Israel (replacement theology / covenant theology), or the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism / premillennialism).

Replacement theology teaches that the Church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian Church, not in Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are "spiritualized" or “allegorized” into promises of God's blessing for the Church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?

The view that Israel and the Church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. In this view, the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the Church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the Day of Pentecost and will continue until it is translated to heaven at the Rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). The Church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God's program during these past 2,000 years of dispersion.

After the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the Great Tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the Great Tribulation for the Second Coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the Tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the Tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The Church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial / dispensational understanding of God's plan for Israel. The strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says, six times, that Christ's kingdom will last 1,000 years. The Church has not replaced Israel in God's plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role for the nation He has chosen (Romans chapter 11).

Recommended Resource: Bible Answers for Almost all Your Questions by Elmer Towns.

Got Questions.org ; http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html : 4-6-09

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Question: "What is replacement theology?"

Answer: Replacement theology essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the Church is a continuation of Israel (replacement theology / covenant theology), or the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism / premillennialism).

Replacement theology teaches that the Church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian Church, not in Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are "spiritualized" or “allegorized” into promises of God's blessing for the Church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?

The view that Israel and the Church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. In this view, the Church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the Church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the Day of Pentecost and will continue until it is translated to heaven at the Rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). The Church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God's program during these past 2,000 years of dispersion.

After the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the Great Tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the Great Tribulation for the Second Coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the Tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the Tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The Church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial / dispensational understanding of God's plan for Israel. The strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says, six times, that Christ's kingdom will last 1,000 years. The Church has not replaced Israel in God's plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role for the nation He has chosen (Romans chapter 11).

Recommended Resource: Bible Answers for Almost all Your Questions by Elmer Towns.

Got Questions.org ; http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html : 4-6-09

Yep, that's is exactly how they make the false claim that Covenant Theology is Replacement Theology. Thanks for sharing that.

Dispensational theology is one weird doctrine. lol

 

[GordonSlocum]

Yep, that's is exactly how they make the false claim that Covenant Theology is Replacement Theology. Thanks for sharing that.

Dispensational theology is one weird doctrine. lol

We know who we are, Bible Believing Christians, we can not help it, that is just the way it is, weird or not it is the truth.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

We know who we are, Bible Believing Christians, we can not help it, that is just the way it is, weird or not it is the truth.

This is a weird statement in itself. Those who disagree with the new doctrine (dispensationalism) are also bible-believing Christians.

Nor do we agree that the new doctrine is biblical....and that's why we reject it. When those who disagree can stop the rhetoric about who is being biblcial and who isn't, and discuss as brothers the issues, we may get somewhere.

 

[webdog]

Dispensational theology is one weird doctrine. lol

So is Christianity as a whole...but it's true

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So is Christianity as a whole...but it's true

Christianity is only weird to the unregenerate. But to those of us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Of course, what it sounds like is your comparing dispensational theology to Christianity, that they are the same. I would expect this thinking from those who believe dispensationalism is biblical doctrine.

Then it is not so ugly to say Calvinism is the Gospel, to use another example.

We all advocate doctrine from the prosition that it is true.

 

[GordonSlocum]

This is a weird statement in itself. Those who disagree with the new doctrine (dispensationalism) are also bible-believing Christians.

Nor do we agree that the new doctrine is biblical....and that's why we reject it. When those who disagree can stop the rhetoric about who is being biblcial and who isn't, and discuss as brothers the issues, we may get somewhere.

Let us get one thing straight from the start: If I tell you this is how I think why can’t you accept it. I know what you think and I accept it, I simply don't agree.

My definition of CT is what I arrive at after reading, hearing, etc what CT teaches and states.

Your view of DT takes the same path.

Where is the big deal?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Let us get one thing straight from the start: If I tell you this is how I think why can’t you accept it. I know what you think and I accept it, I simply don't agree.

My definition of CT is what I arrive at after reading, hearing, etc what CT teaches and states.

Your view of DT takes the same path.

Where is the big deal?

Actually, my view that DT is weird is from studying it. By weird I mean odd, not bad. I accept the way you think. I also accept that you believe what you believe because you believe it is founded on Scripture Alone.

My whole point is that debating/discussing the subject from the ground that one is biblical and the other is not, is a waste of time. We are both seeking to base our convictions and understandng and doctrines from Scripture and Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura).

This would be a very different convo then if one of us were Roman Catholic.

-RB

 

[GordonSlocum]

This is a weird statement in itself. Those who disagree with the new doctrine (dispensationalism) are also bible-believing Christians.

Nor do we agree that the new doctrine is biblical....and that's why we reject it. When those who disagree can stop the rhetoric about who is being biblcial and who isn't, and discuss as brothers the issues, we may get somewhere.

I don't have a problem with that. We should have freedom to request of each other mutual respect, which is what we may term agreeing to disagree respectfully. We do see things very differently but we need not be enemies and display ill will.

 

[Revmitchell]

The reason why debates between Reformed folks and Dispensationalists is impossible is the semantics Reformed folks play with words. The op is nothing more than a semantical game. Now you may not like what Dispensationalism assumes or how we characterize your views. None the less Covenant Theology is Replacement Theology no matter what semantics you play on words. And our terminology for your view stands strong and unfettered. Since the op "assumes" its view is correct it has failed to provide a reasonable argument why their theology is not replacement theology.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The reason why debates between Reformed folks and Dispensationalists is impossible is the semantics Reformed folks play with words. The op is nothing more than a semantical game. Now you may not like what Dispensationalism assumes or how we characterize your views. None the less Covenant Theology is Replacement Theology no matter what semantics you play on words. And our terminology for your view stands strong and unfettered. Since the op "assumes" its view is correct it has failed to provide a reasonable argument why their theology is not replacement theology.

Actually, the OP explains why ignorance like your statement here represents here is to be rejected. And by ignorance I mean a lack of knowledge. By persisting in this ignorance you sow division and strife.

DOn't just say its a semantics game. Prove it or move on.

 

[webdog]

Christianity is only weird to the unregenerate. But to those of us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Of course, what it sounds like is your comparing dispensational theology to Christianity, that they are the same. I would expect this thinking from those who believe dispensationalism is biblical doctrine.

Then it is not so ugly to say Calvinism is the Gospel, to use another example.

We all advocate doctrine from the prosition that it is true.

You think a God who dies for His creation is not unusual in any way? I'm regenerated and still think things like the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, etc. are "weird" (not in a bad way, just not the normal way a finite being thinks).

I believe DT is comparable to Christianty. They are both true. All you have to do is look at "Old Testament", "New Testament"...DT in a nutshell

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You think a God who dies for His creation is not unusual in any way? I'm regenerated and still think things like the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, etc. are "weird" (not in a bad way, just not the normal way a finite being thinks).

I believe DT is comparable to Christianty. They are both true. All you have to do is look at "Old Testament", "New Testament"...DT in a nutshell

No, I don't think the Lord Jesus who died for His elect is unusual. Because He opened my eyes and showed me His glory, I have by this learned who He is...which is contrary to depraved human nature, even remaining sin in me that mars my understanding.

Old Covenant and New Covenant are perfect compatable with Covenant Theology...wait...it is Covenants!

 

[Revmitchell]

Actually, the OP explains why ignorance like your statement here represents here is to be rejected. And by ignorance I mean a lack of knowledge. By persisting in this ignorance you sow division and strife.

DOn't just say its a semantics game. Prove it or move on.

It is not a lack of knowledge orignorance. That is the game played by reformed folks. If your view is characterized by any other lense than the reformed lense then you all call it ignorance. The truth is it is just a different characterization based on a different lense or view. And example of this sematical game is:

First, the very category of “replacement” is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking.

Just because it is not something reformed theology expresses or even likes does not make it incorrect. And he is correct it is based on a Dispensational view.

Second, with respect to salvation, Reformed covenant theology does not juxtapose Israel and the church.

So says the reformed. We disagree, and based on that disagreement you hold to replacement theology. The third and the fourth points are really part of the second point and not helpful.

If you want to prove that Covenant Theology is not Replacement Theology then you need to show the difference between the two not that the dispensational view is wrong.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It is not a lack of knowledge orignorance. That is the game played by reformed folks. If your view is characterized by any other lense than the reformed lense then you all call it ignorance. The truth is it is just a different characterization based on a different lense or view. And example of this sematical game is:



Just because it is not something reformed theology expresses or even likes does not make it incorrect. And he is correct it is based on a Dispensational view.



So says the reformed. We disagree, and based on that disagreement you hold to replacement theology. The third and the fourth points are really part of the second point and not helpful.

If you want to prove that Covenant Theology is not Replacement Theology then you need to show the difference between the two not that the dispensational view is wrong.

First of all, your virol reply is unchristian. No one is playing games. That is your attacks. Which are not needed or welcome.

What the author of the article showed is that the very idea of Replacement theology is a dispensational way of thinking. This is not the Covenantal Theological view. In CT the church does not replace Israel.

What dispensationalists should do is be fair to the view they disagree with.

The OP stands. Your reply is just a senseless attack.

 

[Revmitchell]

First of all, your virol reply is unchristian. No one is playing games. That is your attacks. Which are not needed or welcome.

What the author of the article showed is that the very idea of Replacement theology is a dispensational way of thinking. This is not the Covenantal Theological view. In CT the church does not replace Israel.

What dispensationalists should do is be fair to the view they disagree with.

The OP stands. Your reply is just a senseless attack.

It is no more an attack that saying others are ignorant of your view. You description of being "virol" is out of place and sensationalistic. The fails to stand because it fails to be fair to the view it disagrees with.