Replacement Theology is cloaked anti-Semitism

The great danger of separating Israel from the Church is Two Covenant theology espoused by John Haggee. Haggee and others teach 2 plans of salvation. One for the Jew and one for Gentiles. John Haggee takes Christian Zionism to it's logical end. Check out http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm

The idea that "Replacement Theology" (which as Aaron has pointed out is a incorrect term) is antisemtic is condemning practically every Christian before the mid 1800's as antisemitic. Interesting is that Postmill which denies Israel is still God's people does teach (and I believe correctly) that there will be a end times revival among the Jews but does not segregate them as Disp do but puts them in the Church. Amill does not teach Antisemitism either. It teaches that Jew and Gentiles alike who trust Christ are equal in Christ Jesus. Accusations that Amill, Postmill or Historic Premill are antisemtic is baseless.

 

Is it possible they were neither Catholic or Baptist?

I find it rather amusing someone who constantly posts articles bashing Muslims and Palestinians accuses another of anti-semitism.

 

GH,

BTW, as one who shares many of my more preterist leanings--perhaps you've noticed the common but troublingly "antisemetic" futurist interpretation of Rev. 1:7? That is, if "those who pierced him" is not referring to those who actually did pierce Christ(first century unbelieving Jews--as you and I believe), then John is laying that charge to the Jewish people for all time, isn't he?

Maybe St. John was a Nazi?

Tim

 

And what, if anything, is your point in providing that quote in this thread???

 

LadyEagle said:

There is a difference between spiritual Israel (the church) and physical Israel (Abrahamic covenant). Combining the two is what Replacement Theology does and is in error.

On the contrary: There is a continuity between physical Israel (Abrahamic covenant) and spiritual Israel (the church). Combining the two is what St. Paul does and is in Galatians.

Paul says:

There's the Abrahamic covenant for you. It finds its ultimate fulfillment not in the descendants of Abraham (for they are not all Israel who are of Israel [Rom. 9:6]), but in all nations. Specifically it is those who are in Christ by faith, whether Jew or Gentile for whom the blessings given to Abraham are meant:

and,

and finally,

So if by "replacement theology" you mean that God has shifted his covenant blessings from the physical descendants of Abraham in Jacob to the spiritual descendants of Abraham in Christ, then I give a hearty "Amen!" to replacement theology. I will happily and heartily agree with the words of the apostle Peter who wrote to the whole church:

 

Ah, so you think those verses in the NT are in error? Or perhaps maybe it's just your understanding instead?

 

LadyEagle said:

Then by that reasoning, God didn't make an everlasting covenant with Abraham, even though He said it was. And then God isn't the same yesterday, today, and forever, either.

No, because Paul says that the "everlasting covenant" made with Abraham is fulfilled in Christ and the Church. If the Apostle declares the covenant fulfilled, then a) that is a literal fulfillment of the covenant, and b) that settles the matter.

But in case Paul's words aren't good enough for you, let's try another approach and also take a look at the Abrahamic covenant as it is given in Genesis 17. Let's start with this:

In Galatians, Paul says that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal. 6:15).

Is circumcision an "everlasting" covenant? Not if "everlasting" means "forever and ever." But the Hebrew word translated "everlasting," olam, actually means something like "indefinite" or "without forseeable end."

Why bring this up? Because of Genesis 17:7:

The Abrahamic covenant is an everlasting (olam) covenant in the same sense as circumcision is an everlasting (olam) covenant and in the same sense as the temple ceremonies were to be an everlasting (olam) covenant (see Lev. 24:8). There was no given expiry date, but God knew there was a new covenant coming . . .

 

Replacement Theology is cloaked anti-Semitism

I disagree with this thread title. It is a loose use of the term, anti-Semitism. Wide spread abuse of a term such as this will give people a diminished view of it's importance.

Roy

 

I think that Pastor Larry and LadyEagle should try and work out whether they believe the 2nd and 3rd century church fathers were or were not Catholic. Let me know when you've made up your minds...

As for God's covenant with Abraham, well we are Abraham's children, and His promise is still good for today, praise the LORD! The Jews who failed to accept Jesus as Messiah are most definitely not Abraham's children. If you have trouble with this, then I suggest you read Jn 8:39-44, and lodge your complaints with the LORD, for those are His words, not mine

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Already made up my mind. They were not Catholic in the Roman sense of the word. That is anachronistic to a very high degree.

This is a bit simplistic to deal with the real issues. In this discussion we have to deal with explicit unfulfilled promises made to the physical descendants of Abraham. And in this regard, if you deny that these promises will be fulfilled to the people to whom they were made, then you must lodge your complaints with the Lord. He is the one who made the promises. We didn't make this stuff up.

 

You mean it's plain no-nonsense words? Well, yes, I believe Jesus had a bad habit of using those.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I don't think the SBC has an official position regarding topic of pretrib, posttrib, premil, amil, etc.

I could be wrong though.

 

C.H. Spurgeon quoted from Augustine frequently to illustrate great truths. He did not seem to share your opinion.

Kiffin already answere that. Your views didn't arrive on the scene until the mid-1800's.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001947#000002

Ransom also clearly demonstrated what you call "Replacement" theology was the thinking of Paul as well.

 

It would be hard to show you that since Baptists have not historically been pretrib, Premill. Actually in the 1800's a good majority if not the vast majority of Baptists were postmill. So your premise is incorrect. Baptists from the 16-1800's did not hold to Dispensational Premill theology.


The better question is when did Baptists deviate from Postmill, Amill, Historic Premill and the answer to that would be when Darby and Scofield's theories became popular in the late 1800's and really the 1900's thanks in part to the Scofield Study Bible.