Answering the "Replacement Theology" Critics

American Vision ^ | 7 Oct 2005 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

Replacement theology has become dispensationalism's latest prophetic boogeyman. If you want to end a debate over eschatology, just charge your opponent with holding to replacement theology. What is “replacement theology,” sometimes called “supersessionism,” and why do dispensationalists accuse non-dispensationalists of holding it? Here’s a typical dispensational definition:

Replacement Theology: a theological perspective that teaches that the Jews have been rejected by God and are no longer God’s Chosen People. Those who hold to this view disavow any ethnic future for the Jewish people in connection with the biblical covenants, believing that their spiritual destiny is either to perish or become a part of the new religion that superseded Judaism (whether Christianity or Islam).

“Replacement theology” is dispensationalism’s trump card in any debate over eschatology because it implies anti-semitism. Hal Lindsey attempted to use this card in his poorly researched and argued The Road to Holocaust. He wove an innovative tale implying that anyone who is not a dispensationalist carries the seeds of anti-semitism within his or her prophetic system. This would mean that every Christian prior to 1830 would have been theologically anti-semitic although not personally anti-semtic.

[topcat54]

"I want you to notice something about dispensationalists and how they answer the charge that there are no verses that specifically describe what they claim is biblically necessary. When I point out that there is no single verse to support the pre-trib rapture, dispensationalists will maintain that the doctrine is developed from a series of verses that when put together infer the pre-trib rapture. For example, the dispensationalist will say that the seven-year tribulation period is clearly taught in Scripture. When I ask where, I’m taken to Daniel 9:24–27. In order to get a seven-year tribulation period, the dispensationalist must first prove that there is a gap of nearly 2000 years between the 69th and 70th weeks. He must also demonstrate from these verses that the antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews during a post-rapture tribulation. Then there must be proof of a second rebuilt temple that skips over the first rebuilt temple that stood in Jesus’ day. Read Daniel 9:24–27 without the necessary dispensational preconceptions, and see if you find these required dispensational distinctives in these verses. Dispensationalists will argue that the “he” of 9:27 is the antichrist. Does the text say “he” is the antichrist? It does not. One would expect the antichrist of Revelation to make a covenant with the Jews during the so-called seven-year tribulation period since Revelation is an expansion of Daniel’s 70th week. There is no mention of the antichrist making a covenant with anyone, either in Daniel 9:27 or in Revelation. In fact, there is not a single biblical example of antichrist making a covenant with anyone. It’s Jesus who makes a covenant with the many: “this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of the many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). The Bible couldn’t be anymore clear. You can read from the first verse to the last verse of Revelation and not find any mention of “antichrist” or “seven-years,” let alone a seven-year tribulation period." ...

"On the one hand, dispensationalists cannot find one verse that explicitly teaches the pre-trib rapture, and yet they teach it as biblical truth. On the other hand, when the Bible does tell us that the land promises have been fulfilled, they won’t believe it. Dispensationalists are the real replacement theology advocates. They replace God’s Word with a system that has no biblical support."

Answering the "Replacement Theology" Critics (Part 2)

[topcat54]

Reformed Eschatology Ping List (REPL)

[Dark Skies]

"And now let's turn to our own Geraldo Rivero who is with the Apostle Paul." "Geraldo..."

"Thanks Bridgette."

I am here in Jerusalem with the Apostle Paul and I just have one question...Has God cast away his people?"

The Apostle clears this throat.

"Well, Geraldo...of course not. In fact, God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin."

(Romans 11:1)

[topcat54]

Dispensationalists translate Paul's words about "not casting away Israel" into something that looks like "God has two distinct covenant peoples; the church (which includes Jews and gentiles) and Israel (which includes who knows what since it doesn't exist today)".

That, however, is not the biblical perspective on Paul's meaning. Jews are still be saved and the natural branches regrated into the root, ala Romans 11. This will continue as it has for millenia until all the Jews and gentiles that God has chosen as His own are saved. "And thus all Israel shall be saved."

You don't have to invent a two covenant/two people model with gaps and secret raptures ala dispensationalism to make sense of Romans 11.

[Dark Skies]

You don't have to invent a two covenant/two people model with gaps and secret raptures ala dispensationalism to make sense of Romans 11.

I agree. Seems pretty darn clear to me. And, as always with G-d, it makes perfect sense.

[ClearCase_guy]

“Replacement theology” is dispensationalism’s trump card in any debate over eschatology because it implies anti-semitism.

Failure to write clearly, and a willingness to over-complicate basic matters is a bad sign. Reminds me of college professors who say "Patriachical hegemony stems from opression of the proletariat vis a vis the bourgeoisie. Reification of the masses is only possible in the guise of an informed teleological mandate."

[muawiyah]

"running dog lackeys" does it for me though! (LMAOROTFPMP)

[muawiyah]

As obscure as the foregoing debate seems to be, it is alive and well in the religious environment of Supreme Court nominee Ms. Harriet Miers.

Wonder which side (or sides) she comes down on!

[Lord_Calvinus]

Marking for a read.

[HarleyD]

To show you how insidious this talk is at Sunday School yesterday our teacher was discussing Romans 5. When he came across the following verses:

Rom 5:1-2 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

his explanation was that our "hope of the glory of God" was to be excluded from the tribulation and caught up in the rapture.

[gracebeliever]

Replacement Theology: a theological perspective that teaches that the Jews have been rejected by God and are no longer God’s Chosen People. Those who hold to this view disavow any ethnic future for the Jewish people in connection with the biblical covenants, believing that their spiritual destiny is either to perish or become a part of the new religion that superseded Judaism (whether Christianity or Islam).

This seems to be a strange version of replacement theology, especially that the Jews are "no longer God's chosen people." God says Israel was set aside through unbelief, but will be saved in whole at some future date, per Romans 11. Replacement theology is generally defined as the church today has replaced Israel and thus gets the full benefits of the covenants God established with His People, Israel, while the Jews only get the curses of being disobedient. This flies in the face of God being true to His Word and to His people, the Jews, as stated throughout the Bible.

Whereas dispensationalists generally hold to the view that God has two programs, one for His people the Jews and the other for the Church, the Body of Christ. One is an earthly program, as promised through the covenants, and the other a heavenly program as God revealed through Paul in Ephesians and Colossians. One has its doctrine and practice given by God through Moses and the other has its doctrine and practice given by God through Paul. One is prophetic and has been spoken about since the earth began and the other is a mystery kept secret in God since before the world began but now revealed through Paul. One is a religion and the other a relationship. One is based in a Nation, Israel, in which one must bless or be part of that Nation to access God and receive benefits, and the other is a new creature in which everyone has equal access to God and receives blessing directly and immediately. Etc.

[topcat54]

This seems to be a strange version of replacement theology, especially that the Jews are "no longer God's chosen people."

Everybody has their own definition. Usually it's just phrase thrown out to quiet an opponent, like "anti-semite".

God says Israel was set aside through unbelief, but will be saved in whole at some future date, per Romans 11.

Actually, Roman 11 says nothing about a future date. It simply states that God is saving Israel by restoring the "natural branches" to the root, along with "wild branches". This activity will continue "until the full number of gentiles are brought in." In this way "all Israel shall be saved." This speaks of the time in which we live, not some future time. Jews can obtain all the blessings of the covenant -- and avoid the curses -- by coming to Christ today.

It's this kind of fundamental misreading of the Bible that leads folks to erroneous conclusions about two covenants and two people ala dispensationalism.

[gracebeliever]

Actually, Roman 11 says nothing about a future date. It simply states that God is saving Israel by restoring the "natural branches" to the root, along with "wild branches". This activity will continue "until the full number of gentiles are brought in." In this way "all Israel shall be saved." This speaks of the time in which we live, not some future time. Jews can obtain all the blessings of the covenant -- and avoid the curses -- by coming to Christ today.

Paul is addressing the Nation Israel rather than individual Jews in this section of Romans (9-11). The "remnant," or Little Flock of Jewish believers is the true Israel and the rest are apostate. At the time of Paul's writings, there remained a remnant in Israel, but God's program had changed and the only way anyone, including Jews outside the remnant, could be saved was to believe a different message - that of God's grace through the shed blood of Christ. Up to then the message they were to believe is that Christ is their prophesied Messiah.

The basic question Paul is answering is what happened to the Jews and has God abandoned them forever. Of course Paul says God is true to His Word to Israel and at some date they will be saved as a Nation and fulfill His purpose for them on the earth. The time words used in chapter 11 indicates that will be at a future date, not by some ongoing event of continuously "grafting" them back in one at at time. The phrase "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" in its context implies future. Hence Paul can go ahead and use the word "shall" four times in the next two verses. Again, this refers to the future after certain conditions are met.

An example of this is what Peter says to the Jews in Acts 2, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." If they repented and were baptized, then they would receive the Holy Ghost. This is conditional and performance based with nothing said about the shed blood of Christ. Peter then says in Acts 3, "Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord: And He shall send Jesus Christ...Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things..." Israel, as the Nation of God, will not be "graffed" back in until this occurs. And the only way this will happen is for God to do as He covenants in Jer. 31, that He will write His law in thier hearts, so that the "every one of you" who are Jews at that time will be saved, thus "all Israel shall be saved." That will be an unmistakable operation of God, not by Jews becoming Christian one at a time.

It's this kind of fundamental misreading of the Bible that leads folks to erroneous conclusions about two covenants and two people ala dispensationalism.

You are right about misreading the Bible. The covenants only apply to God's people Israel because that is who they were made with. Believers today are beneficiaries of some aspects of the New Covenant, but the full benefit applies to Israel in the Millennial Kingdom. At that time, Gentiles will be blessed through the rise of Israel. Today, we are blessed through the fall of Israel. God does have two programs, one earthly and one heavely with a people, or entity, purposed for each.

[topcat54]

Paul is addressing the Nation Israel rather than individual Jews in this section of Romans (9-11).

Actually, he's addressing both. For he says, "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel". He is addressing the remnant to whom the promise is given. He contrasts the children of beliefs from the children of unbelief by way of the image of Jacob and Esau. The remnant he likens to Jacob. The unbelieving Jews he likens to Esau. "... nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; ..." Paul argument is that just because they are physically descended from Abraham does not automatically make them righteous before God. They must also have the faith of Abraham in order to be called his spiritual children. But Paul is not teaching anything new here. This is as it has always been with God. Righteousness comes by faith, not be law keeping or any other set of externals. A Jew was only righteous and a real member of the covenant community by virtue of faith, the same faith as our father Abraham.

And so Paul is concerned for his fellow Jews that they might also find the same faith as Abraham. That they might be counted as part of the remnant. That they might be regrafted into the root along with believing gentiles, the wild branches, and thus "all Israel shall be saved."

There are not two people in view in Romans or anywhere else. There are not two parallel covenants in view in Romans or anywhere else. There is one people of God, made up of both natural branches and wild branches with Abraham as our father through the Seed, Jesus Christ.

The error of dispensationalism is to try to divide the people of God along racial lines when the entire thrust of Paul and the other apostles is to bring them together into one new man. Romans does not teach any division, either nor or in the future. That is a false view of modern dispensationalism. And it is the central error of that system.

[topcat54]

You are right about misreading the Bible. The covenants only apply to God's people Israel because that is who they were made with.

This is incorrect. The covenant were made by Jesus Christ on behalf of His people. The covenant was established with Abraham through faith and promise. The promise was ultimately with the Seed, Jesus Christ, not "seeds". "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ" (Gal. 3:16).

Try as hard as the dispensaitonalist might, they cannot explain away Gal. 3. Paul also speaks of two covenant, one, pictured by Hagar and physical Sinai, was the old covenant that was passing away (Heb. 8:13). The other, the new covenant made in Christ blood, is pictured by the new Jerusalem. "but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. ... Now we [Jew sand gentiles, the Church] , brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. ... So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. " (Gal. 4:26,28,31). There will be no return to the old covenant with its bloody imperfect sacrifices and imperfect priesthood and shadowy forms.

Neither can dispensationalists explain away the book of Hebrews.

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second" (Heb. 8:6,7).

The "house of Israel and house of Judah" -- those Jews who were coming to faith in Christ -- are the benefactors of the new covenant in Christ's blood, along with gentiles who are now part of the true house of Israel, one new man, one holy nation and royal priesthood (Eph. 2:12-16; 1 Peter 2:9,10). "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him" (Rom. 10:12). In spite of Paul's words clear words, it is the dispensationalist that wants to continue to make a distinction between Jews and greeks based on racial characteristics.

The better covenant in Jesus has arrived in all its fullness and glory. Jews and gentiles together get to participate in this covenant when we come to faith in Christ by His shed blood. There is no future covenant, no return to decayed and faulty ways of old Israel.