Replacement Theology is cloaked anti-Semitism

If you are talking about the War Between the States, I must totally disagree with you. But I mention that only in passing as that's a topic for the History Forum.

 

I was not saying which eschatological interpretation is or isn't correct(if any of them are even close to being correct). I was simply giving a good reference for the history of how Southern Baptist thought has changed in various ways over the centuries.

 

What's the problem with the statement, LadyEagle, other than the fact it is a bit too broad? The Bible teaches that anyone, Jew or Gentile, who denies that Jesus is God in the flesh is antiChrist. But not everyone in the modern political state of Israel is antiChrist as there are some Christians living there.

1 John 2:22-23 (ESV)
[22]Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. [23] No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

1 John 4:2-3 (ESV)
[2] By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, [3] and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

 

Another case unfortunately of the church following the world, rather than the other way around.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Going by what scripture teaches, from OT prophecy to NT fulfillment, we would see that the term "Replacement" Theology doesn't make sense.

Jeremiah spoke of a new covenant that God would make with the house of Israel. Now, if we follow logic, we'll see that that fulfillment took place with Christ and his 12 (were they gentile? no.) apostles, who preached to who? The lost sheep of ISRAEL.

How we fail to see the relationship between the OT and NT. Nobody was replaced, that's like saying Christ replaced (destroyed) the law. He didn't replace it but fulfill it.

It bothers us to "change" our viewpoint when it was taught to us through "grandma and grandpa" doctrine.

 

Don't always get your definitions from those who oppose the position you are trying to define. Instead, get the definitions first hand. I don't go to Mormons to find out what JWs believe, I don't to to a Ford dealership to find out what Chevy's are like, I don't ask a rap artist about classical piano.

God bless,
Brian

 

1)What's been supernatural about it?

2)The United Nations and wanting to do something for Jews as a result of the Nazi holacaust.

3)A superior military with better equipment and superior officers and leaders.

4)Democratic values and capitalism.

Of course, God rules over all of the affairs of mankind in all nations and people groups. God is sovereign.

 

My point is that the place you got that quote from is a premill/pretrib website. I've found that most premill/pretrib websites don't really accurately represent other viewpoints. It sounds like that particular site clumps everyone who is not premill/pretrib together into "replacement theology", which is really not accurate at all. If you want to know if a non-pretrib/premill person "replaces" Israel with the church, ask *them* instead of asking someone who is pretrib/premill. That's all I mean.

God bless,
Brian

 

My point is that the place you got that quote from is a premill/pretrib website. I've found that most premill/pretrib websites don't really accurately represent other viewpoints. It sounds like that particular site clumps everyone who is not premill/pretrib together into "replacement theology", which is really not accurate at all. If you want to know if a non-pretrib/premill person "replaces" Israel with the church, ask *them* instead of asking someone who is pretrib/premill. That's all I mean.

God bless,
Brian </font>[/QUOTE]The first law of effective debate is that you must describe your opponent's position in such a way that he agrees that your description is what he actually believes.

I've found that many pre-trib, pre-millers don't do that. But those who do, I'm willing to listen to. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

Exactly. Hyperdispensationalists should all be rebuked.

Ladyeagle, where do people go who reject Christ? Do they get eternal life, or eternal death? Is it the same for both Jews and Gentiles?

You keep ignoring 1 John 4 (not surprisingly).

 

Lady Eagle,

There are probably not two Southern Baptists who will agree with each other about everything. Just because I believe something does not mean Daniel does. Certainly after all this time on the Baptist Board, you know this to be true.

You should go to the pastor of your local Southern Baptist Church and ask him what he believes and then pray and study the Bible for yourself and see if it lines up.

A question about GARBC beleifs:

Are they saying that they believe that all Jews and all of Israel will be saved in the end?

Joseph Botwinick

 

For many, many years I was taught in Premillennial churches that folks who hold other eschatological views are liberals, heretics, etc.

While I appreciate the Premillennial position (not necessarily all the hyper-dispy stuff), I have come to resent the one-sided, biased, and frankly, dishonest, presentation that seems almost universal in IFB and other fundamental churches. Because, for awhile, they had me believing that other Godly Christians were some sort of liberals or heretics.

I don't necessarily endorse everything on this website, but here is a link to just one site that will show very serious, Godly Christians presenting a different eschatological point of view:

http://www.postmillennialism.com

 

Here's another good site about the post-trib vs. pre-trib debate - www.lasttrumpet.com

 

LadyEagle,

First, each SBC congregation is autonomous. No one can tell it what to teach. The only tie-in for all of these congregations is that they give to the Cooperative Program. The tie-in is financial, not theological.

Second, it has been my experience that the vast majority of Southern Baptists in the pew believe as you do concerning eschatology.

 

LadyEagle, I just want to point out that I am very opposed to "replacement theology". I despise it. I am against all forms of amill, postmill, and preterism.

You apparently do not understand this issue enough to know when to not accuse a person of something they don't believe.