You know, an excellent book on the subject is Carl E. Olsen’s, “Will Catholics be Left Behind?” Even though it primarily deals with the “pre-tribulation rapture” question, it does a fair job explaining how simply rejecting dispensationalism does NOT make one a “replacement theologian”, or even to the extreme, an “anti-Semite”.
Of course, just glancing at the thread, the thought of “one, universal, visible” Church seems to be an anathema around here.
Which is a shame, because that very concept is the truest, most balanced approach to the two extremes of “replacement theology” and “dispensationalism”. Indeed, the very heart of the debate is the question of ecclesiology, not eschatology, that is, what MAKES a “church” a “church”, and can this concept of “church” be found in the OT.
But enough of that.
Back to your regularly scheduled “which theology is better in the ‘invisible church’, not that it matters, since we are all Christian, but it ‘matters’”, discussion.
Not exactly. But the logical leap that it requires a single visible human head is quite questionable.