Zionism, Replacement Theology, or Other

[JohnH]

Several months ago I received an email from Europe. Here is an excerpt from that email...

"My wife and I are looking for a church. We would also like to emigrate. The following points are important to us.

The church should be pre-millennial, or better yet, dispensational, meaning they believe in a pre-rapture, how many years before the return in power and glory, is not a major concern for us. The fact that there is a seven-year tribulation period in the future, followed by a 1,000-year kingdom of peace on earth, and that the people of Israel according to the flesh (12 tribes) have a future and that one-third of them will be saved, as stated in Zechariah 13:8-9. Therefore, we reject replacement theology. There may be fellow believers in the church who believe this way, but it should not be taught, or at least not be the church's doctrine."

I sigh.

Well, I could have thought of some good churches for them until the one-third part. I don't know of any (at least locally) that would hold to that as strict doctrine, although I guess one probably does exist somewhere.

A conversation I often grow tired of is someone telling me he wishes he could find a church, but there just isn't any to go to that agrees with the doctrine he believes in. Then I drive home, and drive past dozens of churches. There are over a thousand churches in less than an hours' drive from me. It baffles me that for many people, not 1 of them is "good enough".

[Neto]

Replacement Theology is one of those terms like Antinomianism. I don't know of anyone who claims to believe in Replacement Theology or Antinomianism. Both are terms that people with certain beliefs typically use in a pejorative way to describe others with different beliefs.
...

I have heard it taught.

[Pelerin]

Several months ago I received an email from Europe. Here is an excerpt from that email...

"My wife and I are looking for a church. We would also like to emigrate. The following points are important to us.

The church should be pre-millennial, or better yet, dispensational, meaning they believe in a pre-rapture, how many years before the return in power and glory, is not a major concern for us. The fact that there is a seven-year tribulation period in the future, followed by a 1,000-year kingdom of peace on earth, and that the people of Israel according to the flesh (12 tribes) have a future and that one-third of them will be saved, as stated in Zechariah 13:8-9. Therefore, we reject replacement theology. There may be fellow believers in the church who believe this way, but it should not be taught, or at least not be the church's doctrine."

I sigh.

I once perused the introduction of a book by Tim LaHaye in which he explained he felt compelled to write the book after a devastating conversation with someone he had considered a friend in which the friend confessed that he no longer believed in a dispensationalist premillennial pretribulational rapture but had instead begun to believe in a dispensationalist premillennial midtribulational rapture. (He may have used the word betrayal to describe the conversation.)

I believe the book was End Times Controversy with the helpful subtitle, "The Second Coming Under Attack" but I wasn't able to find a scan of the introduction online to confirm my memory.

[Valerie]

It seems to me know one is exactly sure about all this but perhaps seekers that lean towards one theology or the other has a hard time in fellowship in a church that leans heavily another direction.

When I read in the NT the references to the “elect” it seems to me to be talking about the NT Church, not the former use of the word “elect “ in the OT- is that where the “Replacement” label came from?

[Neto]

I did some on-line searching & reading yesterday afternoon and evening, attempting to understand the core differences between 'Replacement Theology" and "Fulfillment Theology". Some seem to go on and on about how they are different, and how the latter is not like the former. Others say that it's a 'word game' and the actual end result is the same, in the sense that it appears to me that the OT promises are regarded by proponents of both as no longer being 'active' for the Israelites, UNLESS they are 'grafted into' the Gentile church, and even then, the promises of the OT are 'spiritualized', and are no longer to be understood literally as they were originally stated.

I'd like to hear how folks here view these two outlooks, and how they are seen as similar and how they are seen as distinctive. (The type of dispensationalism with which I am most familiar teaches a sort of 'time out' in the OT time line - think the 70 weeks of Daniel - to make room for the Gentiles to "have their place in the sun", after which the OT time line comes back into play in the Last Days.)

[MattY]

I did some on-line searching & reading yesterday afternoon and evening, attempting to understand the core differences between 'Replacement Theology" and "Fulfillment Theology". Some seem to go on and on about how they are different, and how the latter is not like the former. Others say that it's a 'word game' and the actual end result is the same, in the sense that it appears to me that the OT promises are regarded by proponents of both as no longer being 'active' for the Israelites, UNLESS they are 'grafted into' the Gentile church, and even then, the promises of the OT are 'spiritualized', and are no longer to be understood literally as they were originally stated.

I'd like to hear how folks here view these two outlooks, and how they are seen as similar and how they are seen as distinctive. (The type of dispensationalism with which I am most familiar teaches a sort of 'time out' in the OT time line - think the 70 weeks of Daniel - to make room for the Gentiles to "have their place in the sun", after which the OT time line comes back into play in the Last Days.)

I think it's basically the same thing. It's the same view repackaged in a different way to try to avoid the label "replacement theology". Historically this view really did often use "replacement" terminology (replaced by, in place of, taken the place of, etc.) to describe its views, and the objections to such terminology seem to be pretty recent (21st century). The challenge of dispensationalism and the events of the 20th century, especially the Holocaust, led many Christians to do a lot of thinking regarding the Jewish people and to back away from "replacement" terminology - even if they didn't become dispensationalist. But the arguments and Scripture references used by people who argue for "fulfillment" terminology are pretty much the same as the older arguments by people who used replacement terminology, and the end result is the same. However I don't use the term "replacement theology" very often; I would use words they prefer and avoid argument by pejoratives.

[Neto]

I did some on-line searching & reading yesterday afternoon and evening, attempting to understand the core differences between 'Replacement Theology" and "Fulfillment Theology". Some seem to go on and on about how they are different, and how the latter is not like the former. Others say that it's a 'word game' and the actual end result is the same, in the sense that it appears to me that the OT promises are regarded by proponents of both as no longer being 'active' for the Israelites, UNLESS they are 'grafted into' the Gentile church, and even then, the promises of the OT are 'spiritualized', and are no longer to be understood literally as they were originally stated.

I'd like to hear how folks here view these two outlooks, and how they are seen as similar and how they are seen as distinctive. (The type of dispensationalism with which I am most familiar teaches a sort of 'time out' in the OT time line - think the 70 weeks of Daniel - to make room for the Gentiles to "have their place in the sun", after which the OT time line comes back into play in the Last Days.)

I think it's basically the same thing. It's the same view repackaged in a different way to try to avoid the label "replacement theology". Historically this view really did often use "replacement" terminology (replaced by, in place of, taken the place of, etc.) to describe its views, and the objections to such terminology seem to be pretty recent (21st century). The challenge of dispensationalism and the events of the 20th century, especially the Holocaust, led many Christians to do a lot of thinking regarding the Jewish people and to back away from "replacement" terminology - even if they didn't become dispensationalist. But the arguments and Scripture references used by people who argue for "fulfillment" terminology are pretty much the same as the older arguments by people who used replacement terminology, and the end result is the same. However I don't use the term "replacement theology" very often; I would use words they prefer and avoid argument by pejoratives.

Thanks Matt. Fulfillment Theology was a new term for me (as I have done very little reading of modern theologians), and I wanted to understand this new-to-me 'position'.

[ohio jones]

... UNLESS they are 'grafted into' the Gentile church ...

Which is of course directly opposite to the way Paul describes it.

[Ernie]

Replacement Theology is one of those terms like Antinomianism. I don't know of anyone who claims to believe in Replacement Theology or Antinomianism. Both are terms that people with certain beliefs typically use in a pejorative way to describe others with different beliefs.
...

I have heard it taught.

Using the term Replacement Theology? And as a belief that the teacher held?

[barnhart]

Replacement Theology is one of those terms like Antinomianism. I don't know of anyone who claims to believe in Replacement Theology or Antinomianism. Both are terms that people with certain beliefs typically use in a pejorative way to describe others with different beliefs.
...

I have heard it taught.

Using the term Replacement Theology? And as a belief that the teacher held?

What euphemisms have you heard used?