PDA

View Full Version : Replacement Theology



cwb
Oct 25th 2007, 02:26 PM
I am just curious why people who say that the Church replaced Israel are offended by the term "replacement theology".

Mograce2U
Oct 25th 2007, 03:01 PM
I am just curious why people who say that the Church replaced Israel are offended by the term "replacement theology".Because it was a term invented to do just that.

losthorizon
Oct 25th 2007, 03:44 PM
I am just curious why people who say that the Church replaced Israel are offended by the term "replacement theology".
Speaking for myself – I would have to read your definition of this non-biblical term before I could say if I am offended on not offended. Do you have any problem with the biblical concept of replacement where the “kingdom of God” was taken away from the nation of Israel and given to a “nation bringing forth…fruit”? Does this constitute a “replacement” in your theology?

What is your definition of ‘replacement theology’?

matthew94
Oct 25th 2007, 04:31 PM
I am just curious why people who say that the Church replaced Israel are offended by the term "replacement theology".

It's a label given to people who don't believe that the 'church' has replaced 'Israel'

There are multiple definitions of Israel in the NT
1. General Israel
2. Believing Jews (true Israel)
3. Unbelieving Jews

We don't believe the 'church' replaced 'general Israel'
We don't believe the 'church' replaced 'believing Jews'
We don't believe the 'church' replaced 'unbelieving Jews'

So why call it 'replacement' theology

We believe that #3's were broken off of Israel
We believe that #2, it turn, became 'true Israel'
We believe that believing gentiles were added to #2
We believe that the COLLECTIVE #2 is the church

So if the church is made up of believing Jews & gentiles, why would 'replacement' theology be a good term? Did the believing Jews replace themselves? Only in one sense was anyone 'replaced.' Unbelieving Jews were, in a sense, replaced by believing Gentiles. But that's not the church replacing Israel since believing gentiles don't monopolize the term 'church' and unbelieving Jews don't monopolize the term 'Israel.' Plus, 'replacement' is a bad term b/c unbelieving Jews are welcome back into 'true Israel' at any time!

Find someone on this board that believe the church is just gentiles and Israel is all Jews and I'll agree that we have a replacement theologian present. While such people, I'm sure, exist, I've frankly never met any of them.

matthew94
Oct 25th 2007, 05:49 PM
So you do think it is mere coincidence that a state of Israel is living on at least part of the land God promised ancient Israel?

Coincidence is something random

The presence of a state of Israel is hardly a 'random' reality

~ Their past history with God gave them a great sense of purpose, aiding their survival
~ Their past history with God gave them moral standards, aiding their survival
~ The guilt of nations over anti-semitism caused political sympathy
~ A well orchestrated Zionist Movement by Theodor Herzl worked for their statehood
~ A week political structure in 20th century Palestine aided their quest for Statehood
~ Superior military technology and political alliances aided their statehood
~ Financial support from dispensationalists has played a role in continued statehood and political strength

There are many possible explanations for how Israel became a State with or without Biblical prophecy.

cwb
Oct 25th 2007, 05:55 PM
Speaking for myself – I would have to read your definition of this non-biblical term before I could say if I am offended on not offended. Do you have any problem with the biblical concept of replacement where the “kingdom of God” was taken away from the nation of Israel and given to a “nation bringing forth…fruit”? Does this constitute a “replacement” in your theology?

What is your definition of ‘replacement theology’?

My definition is exactly what I said in my question. Replacement theology means saying that the church replaced Israel.

cwb
Oct 25th 2007, 05:56 PM
It's a label given to people who don't believe that the 'church' has replaced 'Israel'

There are multiple definitions of Israel in the NT
1. General Israel
2. Believing Jews (true Israel)
3. Unbelieving Jews

We don't believe the 'church' replaced 'general Israel'
We don't believe the 'church' replaced 'believing Jews'
We don't believe the 'church' replaced 'unbelieving Jews'

So why call it 'replacement' theology

We believe that #3's were broken off of Israel
We believe that #2, it turn, became 'true Israel'
We believe that believing gentiles were added to #2
We believe that the COLLECTIVE #2 is the church

So if the church is made up of believing Jews & gentiles, why would 'replacement' theology be a good term? Did the believing Jews replace themselves? Only in one sense was anyone 'replaced.' Unbelieving Jews were, in a sense, replaced by believing Gentiles. But that's not the church replacing Israel since believing gentiles don't monopolize the term 'church' and unbelieving Jews don't monopolize the term 'Israel.' Plus, 'replacement' is a bad term b/c unbelieving Jews are welcome back into 'true Israel' at any time!

Find someone on this board that believe the church is just gentiles and Israel is all Jews and I'll agree that we have a replacement theologian present. While such people, I'm sure, exist, I've frankly never met any of them.

Your post is very confusing. It still sounds to me that you are saying that the church replaced Israel except you have changed the definition of Israel.

matthew94
Oct 25th 2007, 06:15 PM
Your post is very confusing. It still sounds to me that you are saying that the church replaced Israel except you have changed the definition of Israel.

It's not a confusing post at all. Take it line by line and you'll see my view clearly. You might disagree with it, but I can't really believe it's confusing.

I didn't change the definition of Israel, Jesus & Paul taught that there were different definitions of Israel.

God always has His people.
In the Old Covenant that was VISIBLY national Israel and INVISIBLY the remnant (true Israel)
In the New Covenant that is VISIBLY the institutional church and INVISIBLY the remnant plus believing gentiles (collectively true Israel)

The institutional church certainly didn't replace national Israel in any real sense since neither of those were really synonymous with God's people anyways. And the true church didn't replace the remnant b/c the remnant is PART OF the true church.

My heart's Desire
Oct 25th 2007, 06:24 PM
Coincidence is something random

The presence of a state of Israel is hardly a 'random' reality

~ Their past history with God gave them a great sense of purpose, aiding their survival
~ Their past history with God gave them moral standards, aiding their survival
~ The guilt of nations over anti-semitism caused political sympathy
~ A well orchestrated Zionist Movement by Theodor Herzl worked for their statehood
~ A week political structure in 20th century Palestine aided their quest for Statehood
~ Superior military technology and political alliances aided their statehood
~ Financial support from dispensationalists has played a role in continued statehood and political strength

There are many possible explanations for how Israel became a State with or without Biblical prophecy.


True, yet could the explanations you give also not have been mere coincidence?
I think this post was supposed to have stayed in the 1948 thread? :)

Fenris
Oct 25th 2007, 06:27 PM
True, yet could the explanations you give also not have been mere coincidence?
Not coincidence; prophecy in action!;)

matthew94
Oct 25th 2007, 06:39 PM
True, yet could the explanations you give also not have been mere coincidence? :)

Explanations and coincidences are like opposites :)

losthorizon
Oct 25th 2007, 07:15 PM
My definition is exactly what I said in my question. Replacement theology means saying that the church replaced Israel.
Does the Bible teach that the "Kingdom of God" was taken from national Israel when that nation rejected their Messiah? Does the Bible teach that the Kingdom was then given to a new nation, spiritual Israel? Does the Bible teach that from God’s perspective the “Jew” is not one who is so physically, but the Jew is one who is so inwardly (spiritually) (Romans 2:28-29)?

Jesusinmyheart
Oct 25th 2007, 08:08 PM
Israel has certainly not been replaced, but rather the Gentiles are added into it.

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

This IMO also refutes all debates about what Laws or not apply.

Exo 12:49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you."

But i digress... Shalom my friends,
Tanja