Replacement Theology is cloaked anti-Semitism

Let's turn it back. Since when do Baptists embrace doctrines and ideologies of the Plymouth Brethren (pre-millenial dispensationalism)? Sad

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Of course it's a salvation issue. How can you say it isn't?

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. 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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.