Replacement Theolody-what is it,who teaches it-

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Iconoclast, Mar 23, 2013.

  1. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    In another thread Thomas 15 made a claim that there is a false teaching that is current that he has identified as.....Replacement Theology.
    I do not think he can make his case or identify this teaching...but let's see:wavey:

    Thomas and any others....I do not think this statement is accurate ...at all.
    This is not the norm or mainstream,and I have not seen anyone here on BB teach this.
    Thomas....could you define for us what you mean by this term?
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    It has been claimed that some of the chapter headings in the Old Testament in the 1611 KJV suggested a form of "replacement theology."

    The heading before Psalm 48 was “the ornaments and privileges of the Church.“ “David professeth his joy for the Church” began the heading for Psalm 122. For verse 27 the chapter heading at Jeremiah 31 stated: “His care over the church.” “The Church“ is also mentioned in the chapter heading for Micah 7. The heading before Isaiah 41 asserted: “God expostulateth with his people, about his mercies to the Church.” “God calleth Cyrus for his Churches sake” was the heading before Isaiah 45. Before Isaiah 54, the 1611 KJV stated: “The Prophet for the comfort of the Gentiles, prophesieth the amplitude of their Church.”

    KJV-only author Douglas Stauffer asserted: “Contrary to the [KJV] translators’ biased headings, Isaiah is not primarily about or addressed to the Church” (One Book One Authority, p. 45). Stauffer added: “Each of these provided chapter headings reveals a post-millennial belief” (Ibid.). Stauffer commented: “From these 1611 notes it is obvious that they [the KJV translators] believed that the Church in the New Testament fulfilled the promises to Israel” (p. 43). Stauffer maintained that “their commentary displays a post-millennial and unscriptural replacement theology” (Ibid.).

    Donald Brake wrote: “The King James Version heading used in Isaiah 52:53, ‘The deliverance of the Church,‘ suggests replacement theology--a position that teaches that the New Testament church replaces Israel as God’s chosen people” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 190). The KJV’s rendering “church” at Acts 7:38 could be intended to support the translators’ Old Testament headings.
     
  3. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? Are you saying there is no such thing as Replacement Theology?

    http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/rls/Vlach_ReplacementTheology.pdf

    Maybe you need to convince folks that do not like the term "Replacement Theology" to quit using the term themselves. :laugh:
     
    #3 Winman, Mar 23, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2013
  4. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Good link Winman....it shows that those who cannot follow redemptive history try and invent a false idea concerning the belief of those who correctly follow ROMANS,AND EPHESIANS... so they can hold a view contrary to the biblical revelation,and those who do understand it.:thumbsup:

    Not really in the mainstream of teaching.Some might use this language ,or idea...but it is not accurate, it is not taught mainstream as some would suggest.
     
    #4 Iconoclast, Mar 23, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2013
  5. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,892
    Likes Received:
    37
    Maybe instead of replacement theology it should be adoptive theology as in;

    To Abraham and his seed (singular) Christ were the promises made.

    Therefore the Spirit of adoption received through the singular seed Christ adopts us as sons of Abraham, therefore being also sons of God in Christ.

    Why do you think the beggar Lazarus, Eliezer in Hebrew, the servant of Abraham of whom Abraham wanted to make his heir before God told Abraham, he would have a son, died in the bosom of the Abraham. Abraham adopted the man from Damascus. Maybe?
     
  6. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Logos,
    What three things do you think are the hardest concepts for someone to overcome to head in a more biblical direction on this issue?
     
  7. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Some view it as God has a plan in place and he is fulfilling it in time exactly as He intended to. The adoption as sons...was always plan A.the eternal church has always been in view as Primary.

    39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

    40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
    :thumbsup::thumbsup:
     
  8. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,892
    Likes Received:
    112
    I heard cases where Covenant Theologist begin to express their doctrine where it mimics Covenant Replacement Theology. Although, usually when I hear the term thrown out it is merely used as a strawman.

    Those that cast that strawman or assumption of replacement often have their own serious problems just in making that accusation because it closely relates a "Two Convenant Theology" belief that could be pinned to them for even trying to make "replacment" covenant stick.

    Personally, if debating this I would express a Progressive Covenant Theology that holds to "one" Covenant that is progressively revealed. I am neither Preterist or Determinist/Reformed and strongly reject Pretrib Dispensationalism, but I hold to Covenant Theology and in no way is it replacement. For me, it seems to easy to dispell any attempt to suggest my doctrines about the OC/NC relation amounts to a replacment.

    :type:
     
    #8 Benjamin, Mar 23, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2013
  9. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Well the alternate term, supersessionism, isn't much help either.

    FTR, I am an advocate of economic supersessionism (ala Replacement.) I think it is wholly biblical and taught in the NT.

    That's enough for now...I'll await the slings and arrows. ;)
     
  10. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Hello Benjamin,
    Correct:thumbsup:

    Well said:thumbsup:

    Of necessity the covenant and it's terms are progressively revealed in that in order to get a basic understanding of so Great a Salvation....God in His wisdom goes ahead in a step by step fashion to help us connect the dots.
    This revelation finds it's complete fulfillment in the Son-
    1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

    2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

    3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

    God has placed all that we need at this time in His word and we are to study with a view to faithfully proclaim to the lost how God has accomplished redemption in His Son.

    Interesting.....so where on the spectrum of end-time calendars do you see yourself at this time? We all agree Jesus is returning. How do you see this coming about? How do you view the Kingdom?
    I am between Post/Amill....but still working on it.Even Historic premill would not bother me so much.
    The dispensational scheme does seek to address all 66 books,and has Jesus as victorious......but they fragment the redemptive plan in a way that is against God's stated purpose.

    :applause:
     
  11. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    PJ
    As time permits open that up a little bit if you could.No one is going to attack as this is going to be a nice happy thread:thumbs::flower:
     
  12. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Replacement Theology was a pejorative term used to describe Covenant Theology. It became a bogey man for all sorts of accusations against the Reformed faith. Preterism being one of them. Never mind the fact that most of the Continental and Scottish Reformers considered preterism to be an illegitimate eschatology.
     
  13. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    The way I understand covenant/replacement theology is that the Jews of the OT were a symbol of the Church that is of the NT. The promises that were given to Abraham's seed, was extended to us through Christ and His atoning work of the cross. The Church doesn't replace anything, but the Church is rather, an extension of the offering of Grace bestowed to us through Christ.


    "We both" is in reference to the Jews and Gentiles. God, through His Son, has given us the promises that Abraham had from God.


    When we are saved and placed in Christ, we are given the promises that God gave to Abraham's seeds, many centuries ago.

    So it's not replacement theology, but rather, extending theology....:thumbs: :thumbs:
     
  14. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally I prefer to call it grafted-in theology.
    Romans 11:17 - And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed (grafted) in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

    The unbelieving Jews (natural branches of God's good olive tree) were broken off because of unbelief. Gentiles (branches from a wild olive tree) were grafted in and are partakers of the root (the blessings and promises to Abraham).

    The one good olive tree shows the continuous nature of God's people. Before exclusively Hebrew with rare exceptions under the Old Covenant, now mostly Gentile with a Jewish remnant under the New Covenant now known as the church.

    But one day:
    Romans 11:26 - ...all Israel shall be saved...

    a couple verses before explain that:
    Romans 11:24 - For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

    It's a glorious act of mercy and grace that God grafted us into the good olive tree. How much more glorious will it be when God grafts the Jews back into their own olive tree? Thus God has no separate plan for national Israel, the only redemptive plan is for His one people, now known as the church.
     
    #14 RLBosley, Mar 24, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2013
  15. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    So far we see that this term is not at all accurate and as Herald and Benjamin have pointed out has been used in a negative way to speak against any who would look at other POV's.

    Willis,and RLB have added that indeed the OT people of God looked forward to a time when they would have unbelieving covenant breakers , broken off, and believing gentiles grafted in forming One new man ..IN CHRIST.

    The Nt fully supports this idea,as indeed God's eternal design.

    Simply put....Ot israel in the OT time had no direct access to heaven.

    Moses was faithful in His house, but Christ over the whole house...
    Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

    2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

    3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

    4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

    5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

    6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.


    As no one has spoken or rather typed a contrary post....I hereby declare we have solved this issue, unless there be a contrary witness to our findings!
     
  16. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    HAHA don't you wish it was that easy? :laugh:
     
  17. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like that!
     
  18. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728


    here is my theory RLB,
    The BB is on the worldwide web.We have stated our view very simply. John MacArthur himself has not stepped in to offer correction, so we have won the day :thumbsup:We will give him a day or so to respond....:love2:
     
  19. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    HAHA. John MacArthur. I admit I do like some of his stuff... but he's both a calvinist and a dispensationalist... not for me :tongue3:

    Like your theory though!

    Glad to hear :)

    That understanding of Romans 9-11 is what forced my final break with dispensationalism and pushed me to New Covenant Theology. Now I see how scripture makes a whole lot more sense when it isn't chopped up into pieces.
     
    #19 RLBosley, Mar 24, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2013
  20. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because no one has responded with a contrary post does not mean this theory of yours is correct. Once again, as you do in other areas, you simply ASSUME you are correct. Pure nonsense.

    I cannot speak to this issue because it has not been a study of mine, but the article I gave a link for had several arguments against your view. You simply said the author's view was error without explaining why. You really need to learn how to debate, if you are going to say your opponent is wrong, you need to explain WHY.
     

Share This Page

Loading...