Plain Old Bill
New Member
And who is teaching and promoting it now?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Replacement theology!Who started it?
- Thread starter Plain Old Bill
- Start date
PastorSBC1303
Active Member
how about the replacements ???
Plain Old Bill
New Member
I'm still laughing. Good one.
Archeryaddict
New Member
the RCC has been doing it for years.
For nearly 2000
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
DeafPosttrib
New Member
I asking you, please define what "Replacement Theology" means.
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1914
Here is a link that will help. As for who started it? Satan!!!!!!! Seriously!
[ March 03, 2005, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Here is a link that will help. As for who started it? Satan!!!!!!! Seriously!
[ March 03, 2005, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Enoch ]
APuritanMindset
New Member
Scary thing is...I've heard fellow Baptists preaching similar doctrines. I don't think this is as far from us as we'd like to think.
1. Israel (the Jewish people and the land) has been replaced by the Christian Church in the purposes of God, or, more precisely, the Church is the historic continuation of Israel to the exclusion of the former.
I would agree with the latter portion. The Church didn't replace Israel, Israel became the Church.
2. The Jewish people are now no longer a “chosen people.” In fact, they are no different from any other group, such as the English, Spanish, or Africans.
True.
3. Apart from repentance, the new birth, and incorporation into the Church, the Jewish people have no future, no hope, and no calling in the plan of God. The same is true for every other nation and group.
True.
4. Since Pentecost of Acts 2, the term “Israel,” as found in the Bible, now refers to the Church.
Not sure I agree with this.
5. The promises, covenants and blessings ascribed to Israel in the Bible have been taken away from the Jews and given to the Church, which has superseded them. However, the Jews are subject to the curses found in the Bible, as a result of their rejection of Christ. If you hear a Christian, a minister, or a Church doctrine that ascribes to one of these points, then knowingly or unknowingly they have swallowed the Replacement Theology pill. I say unknowingly because the doctrine is so systemic, most Christians have been brought up in it and hove no idea that these premises are contrary to Scripture.
1. the promises were given to the House of Israel.
2. the Jews were subject to the curses, but only that generation that saw the Messiah. (I Thess. 2:16)
It seems it would be the dispies who must believe the curses are still on the Jews. If the promises are still for the Jews, why aren't the curses also? Does Matt 23 no longer apply? Why not?
Part of an article found here:
http://www.eschatology.org/articles/israelofgod/replacement.htm
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.
I would agree with the latter portion. The Church didn't replace Israel, Israel became the Church.
2. The Jewish people are now no longer a “chosen people.” In fact, they are no different from any other group, such as the English, Spanish, or Africans.
True.
3. Apart from repentance, the new birth, and incorporation into the Church, the Jewish people have no future, no hope, and no calling in the plan of God. The same is true for every other nation and group.
True.
4. Since Pentecost of Acts 2, the term “Israel,” as found in the Bible, now refers to the Church.
Not sure I agree with this.
5. The promises, covenants and blessings ascribed to Israel in the Bible have been taken away from the Jews and given to the Church, which has superseded them. However, the Jews are subject to the curses found in the Bible, as a result of their rejection of Christ. If you hear a Christian, a minister, or a Church doctrine that ascribes to one of these points, then knowingly or unknowingly they have swallowed the Replacement Theology pill. I say unknowingly because the doctrine is so systemic, most Christians have been brought up in it and hove no idea that these premises are contrary to Scripture.
1. the promises were given to the House of Israel.
2. the Jews were subject to the curses, but only that generation that saw the Messiah. (I Thess. 2:16)
It seems it would be the dispies who must believe the curses are still on the Jews. If the promises are still for the Jews, why aren't the curses also? Does Matt 23 no longer apply? Why not?
Part of an article found here:
http://www.eschatology.org/articles/israelofgod/replacement.htm
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.
I am glad to say I have not heard it preached in the SBC. In fact the SBC has a Messianic congregation. I know in the past I found a few articles from the SBC regarding RT and its error. I will try to find them. You are correct that this teaching does not stop with the Mormons, RCC and EOC.
Which is why we need to be aware of RT and not let the deception fill our churches.
Which is why we need to be aware of RT and not let the deception fill our churches.
http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1914
http://www.sbc.net/churchsearch/church.asp?ID=9673%2D77074
Here is the link to the SBC Messianic congregation.
Here is the link to the SBC Messianic congregation.
More on RT:
http://www.biblicist.org/bible/replace.htm
http://www.aquatechnology.net/RESURGENCE.html
I don't know how anyone can read Romans 11 and still believe in RT. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. 1 Cor. 2:14
As far as I'm concerned, RT is nothing more than a cop-out so you can be anti- Jewish with a "clear conscience"!