Replacement Theolody-what is it,who teaches it-

[Iconoclast]

In another thread Thomas 15 made a claim that there is a false teaching that is current that he has identified as.....Replacement Theology.
I do not think he can make his case or identify this teaching...but let's see:wavey:

Icon, there are other Geneva notes that do not work with the modern preterist movement, which by the way comes from the historist movenent which in turn comes from a liberal theology. But it is sufficient for this conversation and I'm not going to be baited into protracted debate over the small details of preterism when the backbone of the system, covenant/reformed/replacement theology is faulty from a Biblical perspective.

Have a blessed day Icon.

Thomas and any others....I do not think this statement is accurate ...at all.
This is not the norm or mainstream,and I have not seen anyone here on BB teach this.
Thomas....could you define for us what you mean by this term?

 

[Logos1560]

It has been claimed that some of the chapter headings in the Old Testament in the 1611 KJV suggested a form of "replacement theology."

The heading before Psalm 48 was “the ornaments and privileges of the Church.“ “David professeth his joy for the Church” began the heading for Psalm 122. For verse 27 the chapter heading at Jeremiah 31 stated: “His care over the church.” “The Church“ is also mentioned in the chapter heading for Micah 7. The heading before Isaiah 41 asserted: “God expostulateth with his people, about his mercies to the Church.” “God calleth Cyrus for his Churches sake” was the heading before Isaiah 45. Before Isaiah 54, the 1611 KJV stated: “The Prophet for the comfort of the Gentiles, prophesieth the amplitude of their Church.”

KJV-only author Douglas Stauffer asserted: “Contrary to the [KJV] translators’ biased headings, Isaiah is not primarily about or addressed to the Church” (One Book One Authority, p. 45). Stauffer added: “Each of these provided chapter headings reveals a post-millennial belief” (Ibid.). Stauffer commented: “From these 1611 notes it is obvious that they [the KJV translators] believed that the Church in the New Testament fulfilled the promises to Israel” (p. 43). Stauffer maintained that “their commentary displays a post-millennial and unscriptural replacement theology” (Ibid.).

Donald Brake wrote: “The King James Version heading used in Isaiah 52:53, ‘The deliverance of the Church,‘ suggests replacement theology--a position that teaches that the New Testament church replaces Israel as God’s chosen people” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 190). The KJV’s rendering “church” at Acts 7:38 could be intended to support the translators’ Old Testament headings.

 

[Winman]

What? Are you saying there is no such thing as Replacement Theology?

The title, “replacement theology,” is not well received by some. Several have noted that they would rather be known as “fulfillment theologians” or some other title that is more positive. Steve Lehrer, for example, shies away from the term “replacement theology” since he does not see the church replacing the nation Israel. He says, “Instead I would rather use the term ‘fulfillment theology.’ Israel was simply a picture of the true people of God, which the church fulfills.”4 This sentiment has been expressed by others as well.

Unfortunately for those who desire a different label, the titles “replacement theology” and “supersessionism” are more well established and do not appear to be going away any time soon. Plus, many theologians who espouse a supersessionist view have used the terms “replace” and “replacement” in regard to Israel and the church. It is not simply the case that nonsupersessionists have imposed the title “replacement theology” against the will of supersessionists. Those who espouse the supersessionist view are partly to credit (or blame) for this title since they often have used “replacement” or similar terminology themselves.

http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/rls/Vlach_ReplacementTheology.pdf

Maybe you need to convince folks that do not like the term "Replacement Theology" to quit using the term themselves. :laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

What? Are you saying there is no such thing as Replacement Theology?



http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/rls/Vlach_ReplacementTheology.pdf

Maybe you need to convince folks that do not like the term "Replacement Theology" to quit using the term themselves. :laugh:

Good link Winman....it shows that those who cannot follow redemptive history try and invent a false idea concerning the belief of those who correctly follow ROMANS,AND EPHESIANS... so they can hold a view contrary to the biblical revelation,and those who do understand it.:thumbsup:

What? Are you saying there is no such thing as Replacement Theology?

Not really in the mainstream of teaching.Some might use this language ,or idea...but it is not accurate, it is not taught mainstream as some would suggest.

 

[percho]

Maybe instead of replacement theology it should be adoptive theology as in;

To Abraham and his seed (singular) Christ were the promises made.

Therefore the Spirit of adoption received through the singular seed Christ adopts us as sons of Abraham, therefore being also sons of God in Christ.

Why do you think the beggar Lazarus, Eliezer in Hebrew, the servant of Abraham of whom Abraham wanted to make his heir before God told Abraham, he would have a son, died in the bosom of the Abraham. Abraham adopted the man from Damascus. Maybe?

 

[Iconoclast]

It has been claimed that some of the chapter headings in the Old Testament in the 1611 KJV suggested a form of "replacement theology."

The heading before Psalm 48 was “the ornaments and privileges of the Church.“ “David professeth his joy for the Church” began the heading for Psalm 122. For verse 27 the chapter heading at Jeremiah 31 stated: “His care over the church.” “The Church“ is also mentioned in the chapter heading for Micah 7. The heading before Isaiah 41 asserted: “God expostulateth with his people, about his mercies to the Church.” “God calleth Cyrus for his Churches sake” was the heading before Isaiah 45. Before Isaiah 54, the 1611 KJV stated: “The Prophet for the comfort of the Gentiles, prophesieth the amplitude of their Church.”

KJV-only author Douglas Stauffer asserted: “Contrary to the [KJV] translators’ biased headings, Isaiah is not primarily about or addressed to the Church” (One Book One Authority, p. 45). Stauffer added: “Each of these provided chapter headings reveals a post-millennial belief” (Ibid.). Stauffer commented: “From these 1611 notes it is obvious that they [the KJV translators] believed that the Church in the New Testament fulfilled the promises to Israel” (p. 43). Stauffer maintained that “their commentary displays a post-millennial and unscriptural replacement theology” (Ibid.).

Donald Brake wrote: “The King James Version heading used in Isaiah 52:53, ‘The deliverance of the Church,‘ suggests replacement theology--a position that teaches that the New Testament church replaces Israel as God’s chosen people” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 190). The KJV’s rendering “church” at Acts 7:38 could be intended to support the translators’ Old Testament headings.

Logos,
What three things do you think are the hardest concepts for someone to overcome to head in a more biblical direction on this issue?

 

[Iconoclast]

Maybe instead of replacement theology it should be adoptive theology as in;

To Abraham and his seed (singular) Christ were the promises made.

Therefore the Spirit of adoption received through the singular seed Christ adopts us as sons of Abraham, therefore being also sons of God in Christ.

Why do you think the beggar Lazarus, Eliezer in Hebrew, the servant of Abraham of whom Abraham wanted to make his heir before God told Abraham, he would have a son, died in the bosom of the Abraham. Abraham adopted the man from Damascus. Maybe?

Some view it as God has a plan in place and he is fulfilling it in time exactly as He intended to. The adoption as sons...was always plan A.the eternal church has always been in view as Primary.

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Benjamin]

I heard cases where Covenant Theologist begin to express their doctrine where it mimics Covenant Replacement Theology. Although, usually when I hear the term thrown out it is merely used as a strawman.

Those that cast that strawman or assumption of replacement often have their own serious problems just in making that accusation because it closely relates a "Two Convenant Theology" belief that could be pinned to them for even trying to make "replacment" covenant stick.

Personally, if debating this I would express a Progressive Covenant Theology that holds to "one" Covenant that is progressively revealed. I am neither Preterist or Determinist/Reformed and strongly reject Pretrib Dispensationalism, but I hold to Covenant Theology and in no way is it replacement. For me, it seems to easy to dispell any attempt to suggest my doctrines about the OC/NC relation amounts to a replacment.

:type:

 

[preachinjesus]

Well the alternate term, supersessionism, isn't much help either.

FTR, I am an advocate of economic supersessionism (ala Replacement.) I think it is wholly biblical and taught in the NT.

That's enough for now...I'll await the slings and arrows.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Benjamin,

I heard cases where Covenant Theologist begin to express their doctrine where it mimics Covenant Replacement Theology. Although, usually when I hear the term thrown out it is merely used as a strawman.

Correct:thumbsup:

Those that cast that strawman or assumption of replacement often have their own serious problems just in making that accusation because it closely relates a "Two Convenant Theology" belief that could be pinned to them for even trying to make "replacment" covenant stick.

Well said:thumbsup:

Personally, if debating this I would express a Progressive Covenant Theology that holds to "one" Covenant that is progressively revealed.

Of necessity the covenant and it's terms are progressively revealed in that in order to get a basic understanding of so Great a Salvation....God in His wisdom goes ahead in a step by step fashion to help us connect the dots.
This revelation finds it's complete fulfillment in the Son-
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

God has placed all that we need at this time in His word and we are to study with a view to faithfully proclaim to the lost how God has accomplished redemption in His Son.

I am neither Preterist or Determinist/Reformed and strongly reject Pretrib Dispensationalism, but I hold to Covenant Theology and in no way is it replacement.

Interesting.....so where on the spectrum of end-time calendars do you see yourself at this time? We all agree Jesus is returning. How do you see this coming about? How do you view the Kingdom?
I am between Post/Amill....but still working on it.Even Historic premill would not bother me so much.
The dispensational scheme does seek to address all 66 books,and has Jesus as victorious......but they fragment the redemptive plan in a way that is against God's stated purpose.

For me, it seems to easy to dispell any attempt to suggest my doctrines about the OC/NC relation amounts to a replacment.

:applause:

 

[Iconoclast]

Well the alternate term, supersessionism, isn't much help either.

FTR, I am an advocate of economic supersessionism (ala Replacement.) I think it is wholly biblical and taught in the NT.

That's enough for now...I'll await the slings and arrows.

PJ
As time permits open that up a little bit if you could.No one is going to attack as this is going to be a nice happy thread:thumbs::flower:

 

[Herald]

Replacement Theology was a pejorative term used to describe Covenant Theology. It became a bogey man for all sorts of accusations against the Reformed faith. Preterism being one of them. Never mind the fact that most of the Continental and Scottish Reformers considered preterism to be an illegitimate eschatology.

 

[convicted1]

The way I understand covenant/replacement theology is that the Jews of the OT were a symbol of the Church that is of the NT. The promises that were given to Abraham's seed, was extended to us through Christ and His atoning work of the cross. The Church doesn't replace anything, but the Church is rather, an extension of the offering of Grace bestowed to us through Christ.

Eph. 2:10-18
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

"We both" is in reference to the Jews and Gentiles. God, through His Son, has given us the promises that Abraham had from God.

Gal. 2:27-29
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

When we are saved and placed in Christ, we are given the promises that God gave to Abraham's seeds, many centuries ago.

So it's not replacement theology, but rather, extending theology....:thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[RLBosley]

Personally I prefer to call it grafted-in theology.
Romans 11:17 - And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed (grafted) in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

The unbelieving Jews (natural branches of God's good olive tree) were broken off because of unbelief. Gentiles (branches from a wild olive tree) were grafted in and are partakers of the root (the blessings and promises to Abraham).

The one good olive tree shows the continuous nature of God's people. Before exclusively Hebrew with rare exceptions under the Old Covenant, now mostly Gentile with a Jewish remnant under the New Covenant now known as the church.

But one day:
Romans 11:26 - ...all Israel shall be saved...

a couple verses before explain that:
Romans 11:24 - For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

It's a glorious act of mercy and grace that God grafted us into the good olive tree. How much more glorious will it be when God grafts the Jews back into their own olive tree? Thus God has no separate plan for national Israel, the only redemptive plan is for His one people, now known as the church.

 

[Iconoclast]

So far we see that this term is not at all accurate and as Herald and Benjamin have pointed out has been used in a negative way to speak against any who would look at other POV's.

Willis,and RLB have added that indeed the OT people of God looked forward to a time when they would have unbelieving covenant breakers , broken off, and believing gentiles grafted in forming One new man ..IN CHRIST.

The Nt fully supports this idea,as indeed God's eternal design.

Simply put....Ot israel in the OT time had no direct access to heaven.

Moses was faithful in His house, but Christ over the whole house...
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.


As no one has spoken or rather typed a contrary post....I hereby declare we have solved this issue, unless there be a contrary witness to our findings!

 

[RLBosley]

As no one has spoken or rather typed a contrary post....I hereby declare we have solved this issue, unless there be a contrary witness to our findings!

HAHA don't you wish it was that easy? :laugh:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Personally I prefer to call it grafted-in theology.
Romans 11:17 - And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed (grafted) in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

The unbelieving Jews (natural branches of God's good olive tree) were broken off because of unbelief. Gentiles (branches from a wild olive tree) were grafted in and are partakers of the root (the blessings and promises to Abraham).

The one good olive tree shows the continuous nature of God's people. Before exclusively Hebrew with rare exceptions under the Old Covenant, now mostly Gentile with a Jewish remnant under the New Covenant now known as the church.

But one day:
Romans 11:26 - ...all Israel shall be saved...

a couple verses before explain that:
Romans 11:24 - For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

It's a glorious act of mercy and grace that God grafted us into the good olive tree. How much more glorious will it be when God grafts the Jews back into their own olive tree? Thus God has no separate plan for national Israel, the only redemptive plan is for His one people, now known as the church.

I like that!

 

[Iconoclast]

HAHA don't you wish it was that easy? :laugh:

here is my theory RLB,
The BB is on the worldwide web.We have stated our view very simply. John MacArthur himself has not stepped in to offer correction, so we have won the day :thumbsup:We will give him a day or so to respond....:love2:

 

[RLBosley]

here is my theory RLB,
The BB is on the worldwide web.We have stated our view very simply. John MacArthur himself has not stepped in to offer correction, so we have won the day :thumbsup:We will give him a day or so to respond....:love2:

HAHA. John MacArthur. I admit I do like some of his stuff... but he's both a calvinist and a dispensationalist... not for me :tongue3:

Like your theory though!

I like that!

Glad to hear

That understanding of Romans 9-11 is what forced my final break with dispensationalism and pushed me to New Covenant Theology. Now I see how scripture makes a whole lot more sense when it isn't chopped up into pieces.

 

[Winman]

So far we see that this term is not at all accurate and as Herald and Benjamin have pointed out has been used in a negative way to speak against any who would look at other POV's.

Willis,and RLB have added that indeed the OT people of God looked forward to a time when they would have unbelieving covenant breakers , broken off, and believing gentiles grafted in forming One new man ..IN CHRIST.

The Nt fully supports this idea,as indeed God's eternal design.

Simply put....Ot israel in the OT time had no direct access to heaven.

Moses was faithful in His house, but Christ over the whole house...
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.


As no one has spoken or rather typed a contrary post....I hereby declare we have solved this issue, unless there be a contrary witness to our findings!

Just because no one has responded with a contrary post does not mean this theory of yours is correct. Once again, as you do in other areas, you simply ASSUME you are correct. Pure nonsense.

I cannot speak to this issue because it has not been a study of mine, but the article I gave a link for had several arguments against your view. You simply said the author's view was error without explaining why. You really need to learn how to debate, if you are going to say your opponent is wrong, you need to explain WHY.