Replacement Theology

Which statement? This one:

Or this one,which was edited out after I quoted your post:

I'm assuming you meant the first statement.

The New Covenant replaced the Mosaic Covenant, which was temporary. If there was no New Covenant, there would be no salvation--so yes it is definitely the cornerstone of our faith. Without the New Covenant, we would still be under God's wrath--but now we have a "new and living way" into the very throne room of God.

Hebrews 4:16 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 10:20 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Hebrews 9:15 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

However, the New Covenant was originally made with the nation of Israel, and will be fulfilled (for the nation of Israel) in the Millennial Kingdom.

Matthew 26:29 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Romans 11:27 is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-34 which hasn't happened yet, but will see fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Romans 11:27 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

 

The error of Replacement Theology falls into two camps. Although it is held primarily by Covenant Theologians it can also be held by dispensationalists like yourself. I may have misread your first paragraph, but I don't think I have misread the rest of your post. You answered Linda's post. She has given Biblical answers throughout this thread. And now you have blasted her with a number of aspersions, derogatory names which are totally unnecessary and outside the realm of reasonable debate. It doesn't really matter what side of the debate you are on. Here is what I object to:

"You will continue to use the phrase “replacement theology” within HYPER-Dispy dogmatic slurs"
--Was there a need for this type of language?

"Never mind that replacement theology is being used by Dispensationalists here as a derogatory term in the manner it is presented and that no New Covenant Christian would use it to describe themselves"
--This entire statement is false as we have pointed out time and again. The theology itself is heretical and antisemitic, and I have posted links to illustrate that point, as well as explaining why it is so in my own words.

"it is actually the Dispy that replaces the Church."
--This also is Replacement Theology. You don't have to be a Covenant Theologian to believe in Replacement Theologian. If you believe this then you also believe in Replacement Theology with all of its inherent heresies, or you just misunderstand what it is: one of the two.
The word "dispy" is simply a derogotory term used against others on this board.

"In fact it is the idiotic theology of Dispensationalist that teaches the Church will rapture away and will be REPLACED by Israel. It is the Dispy camp that holds to “replacement theology”! "
--OK, so now your not a Dispensationalist, but you do call them idiots--definitely against BB rules, and worth getting a suspension for. Do you see where I am going with this?
I thought you were not a Covenant Theologian. Now I know you are not a Dispensationalist. Now I don't know what you are, except for one who likes to call people names.

Sorry, but you guys (Dispies) should know this of what you preach… “replacement theology” as the Bible makes it clear that the New Covenant was made with Israel and the Gentiles were grafted in.
--Again disparaging remarks get you nowhere except in the bad books of others. And your ignorance of what Replacement Theology really teaches just shows up more and more.

Yep, if you can go on ahead and have your definition of replacement theology, and I can have mine.
--Herein lies the trouble. You are not willing to study what Replacement Theology is. You have taken the neo-orthodox positon of re-defining terms. Whatever the term is you think you can make up your own. Sorry, but in the real world that is not acceptable. If you are not willling to find out what Replacement Theology really is, why even continue this debate.

 

Amen to that. But it is the “Although” part getting pinned on CT that gets me.

The point (as I saw it) of the OP is that many are using the term “replacement theology” to discredit Southern Baptist Pastors and others in a crusade by the illegitimate use of this tem. I think this call of attention is warranted and has been demonstrated well here as I gave my opinion from the beginning:

“Replacement theology” seems to be a favorite phrase by some who oppose the doctrines of Covenant theologians and these accusations usually go along with calling them anti-Semitic. But the vast majority of CTs do not consider it replacement at all, but rather expansion of a family, “spiritual Israel”.

As you said previously when referring to all the aspersions you have cast to members on this board in this tread that you tend to attack the heresy itself and not the person. Heresy being defined as a opinion that contradicts established religious teaching (meaning yours), I think you to mean a disbelief in your methods of “rightly dividing” the Word or of your idea of who by YOUR definition of the term “replacement theology” should be placed on. (BTW, the links provided have the same MO, not to my surprise) I was only giving you a brief taste of your own medicine with admitted harshness, but apparently you are under a different set of rules than I.

And yes I do see where you are going with this! And I have not ever reported a complaint against another member here, that’s not been my style. If your not man enough to face your own hypocritical behavior without pulling your privileged status on me then I maybe I will ask for some intervention and guidance from the administration considering these circumstances and place my expectations of what constitutes civil and fair debate on this private board in their discernments, so you need not attempt to further bait me into an attack of a moderator in order to invoke your authority upon me for disagreeing with you.

Another false accusation; and the pot calling the kettle black as with the rest of the discourse following only where you would choose to find a definition that suits your theology and this well within the concerns and the subject that began this tread, and which you have willingly ignored IMO.

I would say the same to you, but regardless, at this point I am done debating with you personally within this lopsided arrangement involving pulling rank.

 

Why not look at this a bit more objectively Benjamin. First note that I didn't enter this discussion until page five, post #43. At that point I had just finished reading the previous five pages and saw all the opiniated posts, most of it based on misinformation, and even the OP premise was based on a false premse.

Replacement Theology is not new to me. We have had other threads on the same topic a number of times in the past. I have well researched it. I know what it is. And when someone tries to redefine it, or tell me something other than the orthodox position I can surely recognize what it is. I don't need your opinion; I already know the facts of what Replacement Theology is. It has nothing to do (directly) with either Covenant or Dispensational Theology. It is a theology unto itself with many distinct heresies, as well as anti-semitism, built into it. If you decide to accept it, I pity you. It has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. Again, I would encourage you to do some more research on this topic.

 

I have been a dispensationalist for some time and no one that I know of that is a traditional dispensationalist sees two saved groups in the present age. All who are save in this dispensation, the church age, is the church. However, lost Israel is still a part of the picture in a prophetic and covenant way. This does not make then a separate saved people. If one or all are saved in this time they are a part of the body of Christ. So, a Jew, a Gentile that are saved are the Church, yet the lost Jew and lost Gentile are not but a part of the prophetic program of God regardless.

When the rapture comes all that are saved during the Church age are classified as the body of Christ and will be taken to Heaven with Christ and return 7 years later. All saved of all ages and or dispensations are saved on the basis of Christ death burial and resurrection,. however, they are separate as it relates to the Bride of Christ and will be raised from the dead at the second coming. The Church is raptured out, and the pre law saints, Old testament saints under the law, and the tribulation saints will all be raised at the Second coming. The Church will rule and reign with Christ. I don't think the other saints are predicted or cast into a role, but are not necessarily excluded. Just because a group is not fully explained does not mean they are not included at the start of the Earthly kingdom. It is my understanding that at the end of the Earthly kingdom that all are merged. Others may have a different take on this.

Let me say it one more time. All who are born again after the cross of Christ up to the Rapture are part of the body of Christ.