Replacement Theology is cloaked anti-Semitism

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Replacement Theology was made popular by a Catholic, Augustine, yet many Evangelical churches today are embracing this disguised form of anti-Semitism: :(

    http://www.biblicist.org/bible/replace.htm

    Replacement Theology is also one of the cornerstones of Adoph Hitler, based upon the writings of Martin Luther and later made popular by Henry Ford (of automobile fame).

    Since when do Baptists embrace doctrines or ideologies of the RCC or Nazis? Yet this is what is happening today in Evangelical circles.

    Sad. [​IMG]
     
  2. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's turn it back. Since when do Baptists embrace doctrines and ideologies of the Plymouth Brethren (pre-millenial dispensationalism)? Sad [​IMG]

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  3. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Disp Premill view popular today that idolizes Israel in much the same way Roman Catholic theology idolizes Mary can only be traced back to Darby and Scofield in the 1800's. It is true Premill was popular among the earliest Church Fathers but they had no concept of Israel being separate from the Church or a pretrib rapture for that matter. We often refer to their position as Historic Premill as opposed to Disp Premill of Darby and the Plymouth Brethern. The earliest Baptist were as a whole Postmill with some Historic Premill and I imagine some Amill's.

    To compare Hitler view of the Jews with Amill, Postmill and even Historic Premill is silly. The earlist Premill's would have held to replacement theology. Read early Premills like Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius. They did not try to segregate God's people as Dispensationalists Premills do. The term CATHOLIC (Which means Universal) as used by the earlist Premill Fathers meant that God had one people and not two.
     
  4. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    It's a common tactic of Jews to align Christians with Hitler whenever their religion is challenged. What do you say of Al Mohler's treatment on Larry King Live back in 2000?

     
  5. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is not a salvation issue.

    No one has yet answered my original question:

    Since when do Baptists embrace doctrines or ideologies of the RCC or Nazis?
     
  6. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Oh, and "Replacement Theology" is a misnomer. Christianity is not the replacement of anything, it is the fulfillment thereof. If anything, true religion was replaced by Judaism and rabbinical tradition in the centuries before Christ.
     
  7. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Of course it's a salvation issue. How can you say it isn't?
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Augustine and Hitler believed in the virgin birth of Jesus, does that mean that we Baptists who also believe in the virgin birth of Jesus are embracing the doctrines or ideologies of the RCC or Nazis?
     
  9. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not a salvation issue so long as it is not asserted that Jews are saved through Judaism - then we stray into murky universalism. To answer the Q posed in the OP, LadyEagle is comparing apples with oranges; one might equally ask "Why does the SBC believe doctrines of the RCC?", since both prohibit women pastors.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  10. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Weren't these early church fathers also RCC? Please start another thread if that is the issue you wish to discuss.

    Anti-Semitism is not from God. No matter who embraces it or what label it goes by.
     
  11. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    You play the "guily by association" game more than anyone I've ever met. You try to connect people that disagree with you with Nazis. Sad. [​IMG]

    But to answer your question, we get TONS of our doctrines and ideologies from the Catholic Church. NT canon, Trinity, Christmas, etc.

    And lastly, don't equate anti-semitism with non-premillennialism. They are not the same thing.
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point. "Replacement theology" means different things to different people. One should clarify how they're using the term before condemning someone else for believing it. [​IMG]
     
  13. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    LadyEagle why don't you take your own advice and quit the character assasination. I understand you take your theology straight from Jack Van Impe, but for those of us who prefer to use the scripture don't label us as anti-semetic.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually no, we get our doctrine from Scripture. They happen to get some of their doctrine from Scripture. So some of our mutually held doctrines come from the same source. We did not get it from them. In a real sense, they got it from "us" since we are the ones following in the pattern of NT doctrine and practice.
     
  15. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually no, we get our doctrine from Scripture. They happen to get some of their doctrine from Scripture. So some of our mutually held doctrines come from the same source. We did not get it from them. In a real sense, they got it from "us" since we are the ones following in the pattern of NT doctrine and practice. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, maybe it's a matter of perspective. [​IMG] Can you find any 2nd and 3rd century Baptists who expounded on the Trinity or the NT canon? ;) I for one am exceedingly grateful for the "Catholic" input on these sorts of things. [​IMG]

    My bigger point is that Lady Eagle is wrong for playing "guilty by association". Her complaint sounds *exactly* (exactly!!) like my JW's friend's complaint as to my belief in the Trinity, etc.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, I would not call anyone in the 2nd or 3rd century "Catholic" as we use it today. That is anachronistic. While the RCC is fond of tracing their heritage back that far, it is a stretch to be sure.

    Secondly, the doctrine of the Trinity or the NT canon do not depend on their exposition, no matter who does it. The doctrines are found in Scripture, not in exposition.
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    LadyEagle, as much as I think Augustine was an idiot, he wasn't Catholic like the modern day catholics. Remember, they invent a new doctrine about every 40-50 years (isn't it time for a new one?).

    Second, antisemitism is a hatred for the jews. I don't think anyone on here hates Jewish people.

    Third, some people see the church as the fulfillment of Israel. Of course they are wrong, but it isn't because they have a conspiracy against the jews.

    Fourth, as a dispensationalist, I reject your silly claims about the antisemitism. I believe in a future, ethnic Israel that will take part in Christ's kingdom. I just don't bow to them like you and the other dispensensationalists do.

    RIGHT NOW ISRAEL IS ANTICHRIST!

    I just preached out of 1 John 4 on Sunday. Anyone who denies the deity and humanity of Christ is lost and has the spirit of antichrist in him. The vast majority of jews reject Christ. Guess what this means?

    Put away the false teachers who only serve to scratch itching ears and burn the Clueless Larkin books.
     
  18. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would. Not as developed as today, sure, but I don't really have a problem accepting them tracing that far back. I'm comfortable accepting the NT canon, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, etc, as "Catholic-given".

    Ah, but we don't absorb ink directly into our brains - our doctrines are the result of *interpretation* of scripture. I agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is in scripture, but I believe that without Catholic explanation and expounding of it via the early fathers, the Creeds, etc., was crucial for us to be accepting of it today. Just my opinion, I realize, but that's how I see it. Also, the doctrine of the NT canon, as you put it, is *not* found in scripture. Nowhere in scripture do I find that James or Hebrews or Revelation, etc., should be in the canon.

    God bless,
    Brian
     
  19. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is nothing inherently antisemetic in believing that the Lord used faithful Israel to form the church, while rejecting unbelieving Jews (note I didn't use the misnomer "replacement theology").

    I believe God's former preference for the Jews has simply been expanded to their spiritual progeny--believing Jews and Gentiles together.
    Christ is now the issue--not one's ethnic heritage.

    Shame on me, my Nazism is coming out again!
    Before I know it, I'll be goose-stepping down the sidewalk.

    Tim
     
  20. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the early Fathers were not RCC. The Catholic Church of the first few hundred years is not synomous with Roman Catholicism. The RCC was a later developement. Catholic simply means "universal" that God's people are all one.
     

Share This Page

Loading...