And what origins would that be?
Ribera, a Jesuit priest, wrote of a future antichrist in the 17th century which was translated into English in the 18th century, and in the 19th century (1830) Edward Irving preached his dispensational theories which culminated in prophetic conferences. In the church Irving pastored, a Miss Margaret McDonald gave a prophecy in which she spoke of Christ's visible second coming - but in continuing she began to speak of another coming, a coming that was secret and would result in the rapture of believers only; those who were left had to face tribulation.
This spread to the "Plymouth Brethren" church and let to John Nelson Darby systemizing this new doctrine. He wrote over 30 volumes of 600 pages each concerning this new theological theory. Following him, Charles Henry Mackintosh, simply known as C.H.M., popularized the spread of dispensationalism. William Blackstone wrote a book untitled "Jesus is Coming" which taught the secret rapture theory. Next came probably the largest single factor that spread that theory - the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.
Naw, this dispensational theory is a recent addition to the topic of the return of Jesus - and has caused so many other theories to pop up that it is ridiculous to the extreme. In all respect to those who hold to this doctrine, some of my best friends being in that number, I am fully convinced that it lacks a solid scriptural foundation. It is a theory based on a faulty method of interpretation.
This Curtis fellow you keep posting has an impressive array of articles, but if they mis-represent positions and are full of shotty exegesis (which they are) then its a pile of bits at a link. Replacement theology is not true theology, it ignores the priority of the OT text in OT interpretation.
Replacement theology it is not! I would dare you to write on any of the topics he has written on with such clarity. None of what he wrote is new - it's been proclaimed for centuries by various individual who were, so it seems, persecuted and put to death quite often. It upset the ecclesiastical establishment so much that they did all they could to silence it - without success I may add. In fact, most of todays theologians and writers stay away from addressing what he and many others have to say about many topics, including the destiny of man. Replacement theology is dispensationalism, pure and simple; and it uses a rubber dictionary - as FR Quix likes to say.
I am fully convinced that it lacks a solid scriptural foundation. It is a theory based on a faulty method of interpretation.
On the contrary, your side is the one that abandons solid theological method.
Dispensationalism begins with the development of a Biblical theology of the OT based on the grammatical-historical approach to the OT text. Then a Biblical theology of the NT based on the NT text is constructed; then all results are synthesized into a systematic theology.
Non-dispensationalists start with a Biblical theology of the NT, then construct a Biblical theology of the OT based; not on the OT text, but on the NT understanding of the OT text. Then systematic synthesis.
This gives you the justification you need to trash the OT covenants as fulfilled by the church, or the silly position of "it all happened in AD 70."
Replacement theology it is not! I would dare you to write on any of the topics he has written on with such clarity.
Clarity? That is not the issue, sure he can write with clarity, but the theological method and interpretive conclusions he reaches are aberrant. Who cares if he can communicate false doctrine clearly.
Replacement theology is dispensationalism
lol ... you're the first person to claim that.