Where did the idea of "Replacement Theology" come from?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Oct 1, 2002.

  1. LadyEagle

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

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Replacement meaning the promises for the Children of Israel are now null and void & the Church is now the recipient of God's promises to Israel. :rolleyes:

    Where did this idea originate? It certainly cannot be construed from the "grafting in" Scripture. :rolleyes:

    I've seen it posted & implied that God's Promises to Israel no longer exist and those promises now apply to the Church since Israel rejected Christ as the Messiah. :(

    I say this is hogwash. God's promises to Israel are just the same today as ever. God does not change. Neither does His Word. [​IMG]

    So where did this arrogant "replacement theology" come from? :eek:
     
  2. Optional

    Optional
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    I imagine the same place as "absolutely no drinking under any circumstances" and "you can't go to the beach" and "men must have shaved heads" and "women must have long hair", etc.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It probably originated in the 3rd or 4th centuries when the promises of God to the nation of Israel were not fulfilled. The people assumed that they must be fulfilled some other way. Therefore they developed replacement theology. See ISBE on the millennium for a brief discussion of this. See also Showers' There Really Is A Difference.
     
  4. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi,
    I truly believe it is satanic in nature. Satan has tried to kill off the Jews for a very long time. He hates the Jew. He knows that they will play a very important role in the tribulation, bringing many to Christ.
    I know there are Christians that hold to this teaching, but I hope they will reconsider.

    hcl
     
  5. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    HCL, I agree that "replacement theology" is sloppy exegesis and contrary to the totality of Scripture. However, not all "replacement theologians" are anti-Jew or even against the modern state of Israel.
     
  6. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it has something to do with Paul refering to the Church as the "new Israel" and "true Israel" and that not everybody by birth is a child of Abraham but those who are children of the promise.
     
  7. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pete, that would be fine except that Paul never calls the "church" the true "Israel".

    If you are thinking of Galatians 6, read it again. [​IMG]

    Like the consistency of replacement theology, I am out.
     
  8. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Then who are the Israel of God in Galatians 6:16?
    BTW this is a great topic, glad someone brought it up.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Israel. It is a different group than addressed in the previous statement (those who walk by this rule) and therefore is contrasted with them, not equated with them.
     
  10. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Israel of God refers to the NT peole of God including both believing Jews as well as Gentiles. See Ro. 3:29; 9:6. Check the context.
     
  11. Rev. G

    Rev. G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendents are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.' In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring."
    * Romans 9:6-8

    "Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: 'All nations will be blessed through you.' So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. . . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
    * Galatians 3:7-9, 29

    It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Hopefully from just these two passages you can see why some brothers and sisters differ with you.

    Rev. G
     
  12. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    True anti-semitism would be to purposely withhold the gospel from Jews. IMO
     
  13. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't forget however that the promise made to Israel in teh OT were unbreakable promises. They depended only on the character of God. If those promises are broken, God is at stake. Therefore the Israel of God is still Israel. The NT passages never contradict it; to the contrary they maintain the distinction between Israel and the church. Remember Gal 3:17 -- that the Law (and its breaking) did not make the promise void. The promise is still good. Never forget it.
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not believe in full replacement theology. But I have a few comments to make, because I like to make people think. [​IMG]

    Jer 31:31 says "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". Yet this "new covenant" is basically what defines and establishes the church, as specificall explained and quoted in Heb 8:8-13. It is not a covenant that is still future.

    Hos 1:10 says "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God." Yet Paul finds fulfillment of this in the church, as explained in Rom 9:24-26.

    Phil 3:3 says we are the circumcision, Gal 3 says we are the children of Abraham.

    Somewhere in my notes I have a larger list of OT "Israel" prophecy fulfilled in the church, I'll see if I can find it as it might be interesting to discuss.

    Yes, there is still a distinction between "Isreal" and the "church", and I'm not saying that the two words are interchangeable in the New Testament, but I also believe the distinction is not as sharp as many believe.

    [ October 03, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
  15. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is where I believe you are wrong. The church does not fulfill the promises. There are some promises that the church is a partaker of. On what grounds do you say the church fulfills certain promises?
     
  16. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference between "fulfill" and "partake" is very blurry.

    Genesis tells us that circumcision was an "everlasting" covenant. How is the promise that it will be an everlasting covenant fulfilled today? (Keep in mind that Paul tells us that physical circumcision is nothing.)
     
  17. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, circumcision of the heart is.
     
  18. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. The promise that circumcision being everlasting is now being fulfilled, not any longer in physical circumcision of "Israel", but in spiritual circumcision of those who are in the church. Rom 2:28-29.
     
  19. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Election was never about race but grace. Israel is not "replaced" as in displaced. Israel the nation is included in Isarael the epopel of God.
     
  20. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. I'm not talking about election. I'm talking about God's promise that circumcision was an "everlasting" covenant. In the OT, if you were under that covenant, you were considered part of Israel. Today, if you are under that covenant, you are considered part of the church. That's all I meant.
     

Share This Page

Loading...