Replacement Theology Leads to Anti-Semitism

First of all, Ken, please tell me what you call the theology that you yourself have and how it differs from Replacement Theology.

 

Not my quote,

"The term Replacement Theology is used by millennialists to suggest that God arbitrarily and capriciously set Israel and her kingdom agenda aside, due to her rejection of Jesus. However, for Paul, the church was and is the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel (Romans 15:8f), not the suspension of those promises. Thus, I would agree that the suggestion of a Replacement Theology in the vein suggesting a setting aside of Israel's promises to establish something contrary and unrelated to those promises, is false. However, to affirm that the church is the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel is the Gospel, and herein lies the tragic failure of the millennialists, and the Jews, to see the glory of Christ and the church. It was God's eternal purpose to replace the shadow world of Israel with the body of Christ (Galatians 3:23f). To affirm the fulfillment of those promises is the Gospel.

The fact is, the kingdom of Christ, the church, cannot be replaced! The millennialists is correct on one point, Replacement Theology is wrong. However, it is their doctrine of Replacement Theology, i.e. that the church will one day be replaced by Israel, that is at odds with scripture."

 

Where are you SheEagle9/11? You have been throwing the term "anti-semetic" around alot.

 

Who believes that the church will one day be replaced by Israel? I never even heard that idea, not that I am not a thousand years behind the time.

 

With all due respect, I do not read that as what Grasshopper's original statement is saying.

Furthermore, I believe that willy-nilly you are advocating Replacement Theology by definition. This Replacement Theology may be gaining ground but to me it is a minority doctrine without persuasive Scriptural basis. Here is a quote from an article in the Baptist Press on September 27, 1999, in a conference on the subject of missions to the Jews:

'Likewise, conference speakers largely rejected replacement theology, which teaches that the church is the "new Israel" or "spiritual Israel" and that the Jewish people as a whole will have no special role during end-time events.
But despite the consensus of the conference's speakers, many contemporary theologians indeed hold to replacement theology, said Walter C. Kaiser Jr., president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Mass.
"It has become commonplace among more recent theologians to regard the Christian church as the new successor and replacement for Israel," Kaiser said.
'But he noted that the Apostle Paul, writing in Romans 9-11, would not agree with replacement theology.
'"Paul proposes no new definition for Israel; for him there was only one Israel," Kaiser said. "The pendulum of history swung from Israel to the Gentiles, but it will swing back to Israel again. ... The Jewish people are loved forever by God because of the promise God had given to the patriarchs."'

 

Ken, you believe exactly what Dr. Kaiser defines as Replacement Theology--you just don't use that term. You disagree with the Apostle Paul.

 

I agree that the term "replacement theology" is misleading. When we say that the church replaced Israel, who got left out? Only the UNBELIEVING amoung the Jews. The believing remnant of the Jews was given the highest honor as the "firstfruits" of the church and the tree into which all of us are grafted. How this can possibly be construed as anti-semetic is beyond me. Rather, it is anti-unbelief.

I think that critics of so-called "replacement theology" have missed the fundamental changes which took place from the O.T. to the declaration of the New (by Christ at the Last Supper). The Old is a covenant of based upon one's ethnicity. The New is based upon faith in the blood-sacrifice of Christ.

When we reject ethnicity as a basis for the blessing of God, Zionist groups take that as anti-semetism. They want their ethnicity to still count in the N.T.

But Paul (despite massive misunderstanding of this passage which thinks of it as a prophecy for the future) declares that "all Israel shall be saved as it is written ... a Deliverer shall come out of Zion." In other words, he explains the new obligation placed upon the Jews once Jesus had come. Christ must take away their sins!They can no longer trust in their ethnicity as they did under the Old Covenant.

So according to some, Paul must have been anti-semetic because he denied ethnicity as a basis of the continued blessing of God.

Tim

 

The point that Dr. Kaiser made was Romans Chapters 9 and 11, which you have not addressed either, Tim. When you say that Israel has been set aside for whatever reason that you list, you are advocating what is called Replacement Theology. It is a minority doctrine as far as I know, but it seems to contradict the Holy Bible, because no one is bothering to deal with the Scripture that refutes Replacement Theology. Instead flights of fancy words dealing in generalities are being posted.

 

Ken, that is totally off the subject. You seem to go in a circle in this issue, because you have written that thought before. I say that you, Ken, have been advocating Replacement Theology.

 

'Replacement Theology teaches: 1) Israel has been replaced by the Christian Church, 2) Since the day of Pentecost, the term “Israel” (as referred to in the Bible) now refers to the Church, 3) The blessings, covenants, and promises that were given to Israel in the word of God have been taken away from the Jews and given to the Church, 4) The Jews are subject to the curses found in the word of God as a result of their rejection of Jesus, 5) The Jewish people are no longer a chosen people, and 6) The Jewish people have no future, hope or calling in the plan of God.'

This is a quotation from an internet source that attempts to define the exact meaning of Replacement Theology.

 

Agreed, Ken. As far as I'm concerned, only those who put faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour will be saved - both Jews and Gentiles - otherwise soteriologically it doesn't make sense: if Jews can be saved by the Mosaic Law, what was the point of Jesus' sacrifice? I'd be interested tho to hear if anyone does advocate the view that the Jews are saved without Jesus and how that is worked out soteriologically. Any takers?

Yours in Christ

Matt