Where did the idea of "Replacement Theology" come from?

[KenH]

The promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him had no conditions tied to it. God was going to save His people through Christ Jesus who would come physically through Abraham's lineage.

The promise to the children of Israel that they would have the land of Canaan was a conditional promise that they failed to meet the terms of. Eventually, they were removed from the land of Canaan permanently as any semblance of a theocracy in 70 A.D.

The gospel is now to be broadcast to everyone - Jew and Gentile alike - and will continue to be until Christ returns and brings in the new heavens and earth.

Ken

[ October 03, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
The promise to the children of Israel that they would have the land of Canaan was a conditional promise that they failed to meet the terms of. Eventually, they were removed from the land of Canaan permanently as any semblance of a theocracy in 70 A.D.

This is the most common misconception and misunderstanding about the OT. The promise of ownership was unconditional, just like the promise of blessing. The possession of the land for a given generation was conditional but in Deut 30, we find that the ownership is not removed when disobedience takes place. In fact, in Jer 31 and Ezek 37, we are reminded again that the promise of the land is unconditional to the nation, but not unconditional to a generation of the nation. Jer 31 explicitly says that disobedience will not remove the promise of the land but when the new heart is given and the nation repents, then they will be restored to a land that will dwell forever more in peace. It is right there in the text. There is no way that the OT can legitimately be interpreted to mean that the land will not be returned to the Jews. God's promises are true.

 

[KenH]

Could someone explain why there is such animosity by dispensationalists toward Replacement Theology? Since the desire of Christians is to see both Jews and Gentiles saved by the grace of God, why does it matter whether one sees a continued idea in the New Testament that at some point physical Jews are placed back in a physical Canaan? The hope of Jews and Gentiles is a true relationship with God in the new heavens and earth, not living on a particular piece of dirt on this present earth, isn't it?

(I can already hear someone typing "because it is prophesied." And, of course, we can go round and round and round and round what prophecies have been fulfilled or haven't been fulfilled and how they will be fulfilled as we are an almagamation on this board of amillennialists, postmillennialists, historical premillennialists, and dispensational premillennialists. So if that was going to be your statement, it has been noted and logged.

)

Ken

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by SheEagle911:
So where did this arrogant "replacement theology" come from?

Hi, SheEagle911. Even though I know we don't agree on eschatology, maybe I can be of assistance here.

My primary answer is that Replacement Theology comes from...the Bible.

Now that my obligatory answer is out of the way...

As far as popularizing the idea in the early church, Augustine rejected historical premillennialism and advocated the idea that the church was the focus of God's redemptive plan after the cross. In the early church, there were no systematic theologies so issues tended to sway around multiple ideas until a church council or widely accepted theolgian helped to settle the issue as to what was the orthodox view. Through the process of argumentation and debate, after a few hundred years, the church came down on the side of the doctrines of the Trinity, Jesus as being divine, original sin, predestination, and the rejection of chiliasm(or historical premillennialism). This last item meant that the church was not to look for a materialistic kingdom during a 1000 year period or for a materialistic blessing of the Jews as separate from the Gentiles. At least that's how I understand early church history.

Hope this helps, SheEagle911.

Ken

 

[Rev. G]

The NT passages never contradict it; to the contrary they maintain the distinction between Israel and the church.

Again, there are brothers and sisters who disagree with you on this point. Consider the following:

Ephesians 2:11-22, particularly vv. 14, 19-22 - For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility. . . . Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in teh Lord. And in Him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit."

1 Peter 2:4-10, especially v. 9 - "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light."

Consider, friend, that this phrase was used of Israel in the OT.

Rev. G

 

[blackbird]

If you allow an analogy! God ain't through with Israel.

Its sort of like two pots on the stove there in the kitchen. You get the first pot going, then after awhile you put a lid on it and set it on the "back burner" while you get the other pot going! Right now, God is "stirring" the church pot on the front burner! But He ain't forgotten whats on the back burner. Then one day, God's gonna take the fire off of the church(as in rapture/resurrection) and He's gonna finish up with the Israel pot there on the back burner! He's gonna take the "Israel" pot off of the back burner and stick it back above the flame of the front burner--He's gonna heat it up until its done and OOOOOHHHHHHH---can you imagine the smell in the kitchen! Can you imagine how Jesus' kitchen smells in the nostrils of God???!!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

[Bible-belted]

To believe that the Israel of God is the whole people of God including Jews and Gentiles does not mean that God is through with national Israel. National Israel has a role to play in the end times.

 

[Rev. G]

To believe that the Israel of God is the whole people of God including Jews and Gentiles does not mean that God is through with national Israel. National Israel has a role to play in the end times.

Quite correct! Blackbird, interesting analogy! I suppose "Baptist biscuits" are being cooked, eh?

Just a note, for those of you who are "Dispensatioalists," the belief of separating the "rapture" from the second coming didn't come around until the 19th century, quite late in church history / doctrine.

Rev. G

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Could someone explain why there is such animosity by dispensationalists toward Replacement Theology?

Becuase it is prophesied ... (I know I know ... you didn't want that answer but bear with me). More than prophecy is at stake. The character of God is at stake. If God can make an unconditional promise and then back away from it because of conditions, then the faithfulness of God must, of necessity, be called into question. You would never let that proposition stand in soteriology. If someone came along and said that God could make a promise to his elect, but later change that promise and give to a non-elect person, you would rightly be up in arms and throwing out charges of heresy or close to it. Yet when it comes to other promises of God, you seem quite ready to allow God's truthfulness and faithfulness to be dispensed with to maintain a system. That is the problem I have with it. I am of the opinion that we simply let the text say what it does without changing it to fit our system.

As for Rev G and the brothers and sisters who disagree, I realize that. However, both of those passages prove my point very well, that in the church, all are one. There is no distinction in the church. But that does not affect the issues at hand here.

Lastly as for the recentness of pretrib position, I disagree that it is recent. I think it is the NT teaching as evidenced by Scripture. However, it is not the position of church history. Yet if you study church history, you find that doctrines are systematically studied in stages. The early stages of church history were about Christology. There was a stage of church history about soteriology. There was a stage about eschatology. There seems to be currently a stage about theology proper. This is nothing to worry about. The issue is not, "Who believed it" but rather "Does Scripture teach it?"

Having said that, I used to get very involved in these discussions and backed away because there is not much to be gained until we agree on a hermeneutic. Since I doubt that will happen, this will involve the laying out of views, the trading of rebuttals, and the death of the second page of the forum.

I think this issue has serious ramifications for preachign and the right handling of the text. I do not think it is the difference between belief and unbelief. All my covenantal friends can congratulate me in heaven during the tribulation. I won't make you do it now

[ October 04, 2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
All my covenantal friends can congratulate me in heaven during the tribulation. I won't make you do it now

If you turn out to be right, Pastor Larry, I'll be happy to do so.

Ken

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
All my covenantal friends can congratulate me in heaven during the tribulation. I won't make you do it now

If you turn out to be right, Pastor Larry, I'll be happy to do so.

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]I am sure, Larry, that you know that you can likewise count on having us support and encourage you in the midst of Tribulation on earth.

 

[Daniel David]

Latreia, are you saying you aren't saved and that you don't think Larry is saved?

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Latreia, are you saying you aren't saved and that you don't think Larry is saved?

I'm sorry, maybe its the fever I seem to be developing, but I don't see the joke...

 

[Daniel David]

I am pretrib and only believe unbelievers will be around at the beginning of the tribulation.

I was just saying that by you indicating you and Larry would be in the tribulation, you are not saved.

Out like my dry sense of humor.

 

[Bible-belted]

Ok, I get it now.

Must be the fever slowing my wits... Silly thing has gone from normal to 101 in the last 2 hours...

Think I am 4 bed...

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Mr. Hamilton,
You asked why the dispensationalists had such animosity towards replacement theology. I do because we are told that we are to bless Israel and we will be blessed. Jews are still the apple of His eyes. The apple of your eye is your pupil the most sensitive part. If someone hurts that part you will be very upset. So, when others try to kill off the Jews as is happening presently. God is not pleased with that.
Didn't you notice that in the past many have tried to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth? So, if they are not special to God than it does not matter what Arafat does, right? Or do we need to pray for the peace of Jerusalem?
So, for you who do not believe that Revelation is literal, the 144,000 are fictional, is that right?
Why do you think then that many have tried to kill off the Jews in the past? I do remember that Herod tried to kill all boys under two when he knew the Messiah was coming. And another man tried to kill all the boys when when Moses was to arrive. Do you not think there is a significance to the killing that is going on and has been going on of Jews?

HCL

 

[Pete Richert]

I can't decide on biblical grounds to be pre or post trib, but I'M SURE HOPING FOR PRE!!! I would much rather be thanking Pastor Larry for his good exegetical knowledge in heaven during the tribulation then comferting him here on earth as we get ready to be beheaded.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
I do because we are told that we are to bless Israel and we will be blessed.

Headcoveredlady, what are you talking about? Where does God say this? I am pretrib and dispensational, but the Bible does not say this. Antisemitism is evil but the Jews are just like everyone else that does not receive Christ; they go to hell. Does God send the most sensitive part of him to hell?

Also, do not forget that Jesus damned the Jewish generation he lived during in Matthew 23. He also said that the kingdom would be given to a nation bearing fruit. The future Jewish generation that turns to Christ will again be the apple of his eye. The current Jews are against us right now (read Romans 11).

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
Why do you think then that many have tried to kill off the Jews in the past? I do remember that Herod tried to kill all boys under two when he knew the Messiah was coming. And another man tried to kill all the boys when when Moses was to arrive.

Herod tried to kill all the boys because he heard about a king being born.

Pharoah tried to kill all the boys because he was afraid the Jews would grow in numbers more than the Egyptians. Neither of these points have anything to do with replacement theology (which I am against). Not only do we have to believe correctly, but we have to present issues relevant to the discussion.

 

[KenH]

I seem to recall the blessing those who bless you referred to Abraham and we are told that it is those who are of the faith of Abraham who are his true children, not those of physical lineage.

(Gen 12:3 NKJV) I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

(Rom 3:28-29 NKJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. {29} Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,

(Rom 4:16-17 NKJV) Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all {17} (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") in the presence of Him whom he believed; God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;

(Gal 3:7-9 NKJV) Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. {8} And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." {9} So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

One can support the modern political state of Israel(as I do) without being a dispensationalist.

As we all know the book of Revelation is subject to varying interpretations by four major eschatological groups who are all within Christian orthodoxy.

The Jews as well as other people groups have been the object of genocide.

Ken

 

[Rev. G]

Yet when it comes to other promises of God, you seem quite ready to allow God's truthfulness and faithfulness to be dispensed with to maintain a system. That is the problem I have with it. I am of the opinion that we simply let the text say what it does without changing it to fit our system.

It is not an attempt to make it "fit the system." Rather, it is understanding the OT in light of the NT. Isn't that why Peter writes as he does? Why Paul writes as he does? Why John writes as he does?

As for Rev G and the brothers and sisters who disagree, I realize that. However, both of those passages prove my point very well, that in the church, all are one. There is no distinction in the church. But that does not affect the issues at hand here.

I'm not sure I understand you here, brother. What do you mean that there is no distinction in the church, and yet there is always a distinction between the Jews (Israel) and the Church?

Lastly as for the recentness of pretrib position, I disagree that it is recent. I think it is the NT teaching as evidenced by Scripture. However, it is not the position of church history. Yet if you study church history, you find that doctrines are systematically studied in stages. The early stages of church history were about Christology. There was a stage of church history about soteriology.

What do you mean that you disagree that it is recent? You can't find it before the 19th century! The "classical" / "historical" pre-mill. position was found in the Early Church, but not the "dispensational" position. Yes, you are correct, some areas of theology have been studied in "stages," however, if you pass 1800 years before coming to a "novel" position, then it is suspect at best.

Brother, I appreciate your concern - we should all always be concerned about the integrity of God's character. However, "my" position in no way denigrates God's work. Rather, it understands the OT in light of the NT.

Rev. G