Zionism, Replacement Theology, or Other

[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.

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

No, the term Replacement Theology was not used, but Yes, the teacher held the view that because the Jews rejected their Messiah, all of the promises made to Israel in the OT were transferred to "the Church". Not that ALL Jews were rejected, but that from that time on they needed to 'join the Church' in order to receive them. I agree that this is necessary for salvation, but I'm referring to the promises of a restored nation. Those promises were spiritualized, no longer understood literally.

[Heirbyadoption]

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?

Replacement theology was strongly, openly, and unapologetically taught by some of the more conservative element in the fellowship I grew up in (OGBBC). It seems to have been especially predominant and originated in Indiana (at least among our folks, not sure who brought it "in"), though in the last few decades, it also tended to spread across the more conservative element as a knee jerk reaction to the pretrib and sometimes dispensational teachings that were/are pretty commonly taught among the various OGBB groups... Then again, there was typically also a pretty strong cessationist push along with the RT element.

[Thomas_muntzer]

Forgive me if this has been dealt with before.

The intent of this conversation is theological and not political.

Is the current state of Israel God’s chosen people as taught in the majority of evangelical Christian churches or has God’s covenant with Israel been reissued to the church?

With the current events unfolding in the Iran war and the possible deployment of troops, this is a more than necessary debate within the various Christian churches.

For me, the fullfilment fo the old covenant and the law of moses is the Church of Christ, not a political entity founded by the Rothschild bankers.

The letter to the Galatians, written by the Apostle Paul, is very clear to me:

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Dispensationalism was already showing its first signs in the church in Galatia in the first century, and the apostle Paul makes it very clear that we are no longer chosen according to our race; there is neither Greek nor Jew, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Thomas_muntzer]

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".

It's true that sometimes we want to adapt Christ's teachings to our own thinking, and not the other way around. It's important to gather together, even in a church that isn't 100% biblical, because fellowship leads to exhortation and holiness.

[barnhart]

Forgive me if this has been dealt with before.

The intent of this conversation is theological and not political.

For me, the fullfilment fo the old covenant and the law of moses is the Church of Christ, not a political entity founded by the Rothschild bankers...

I was with you up to the last phrase. In my opinion, there is where you cross the line into anti-Semitism.

[JohnH]

I was with you up to the last phrase. In my opinion, there is where you cross the line into anti-Semitism.

To be fair, though, that is who funded the original settlements in Palestine which made the establishment of the political State of Israel possible. It shouldn't be considered antisemitic to observe this (and there is nothing particularly wrong with wealthy bankers who decide to buy up land and share it with people in their ethnic group to go settle there; it certainly seems preferable to funding a war or stealing the land and so forth).

[ohio jones]

I was with you up to the last phrase. In my opinion, there is where you cross the line into anti-Semitism.

To be fair, though, that is who funded the original settlements in Palestine which made the establishment of the political State of Israel possible. It shouldn't be considered antisemitic to observe this (and there is nothing particularly wrong with wealthy bankers who decide to buy up land and share it with people in their ethnic group to go settle there; it certainly seems preferable to funding a war or stealing the land and so forth).

So there's nothing particularly wrong with, for example, wealthy Chinese investors buying up large swaths of farmland in the US?

[JohnH]

I was with you up to the last phrase. In my opinion, there is where you cross the line into anti-Semitism.

To be fair, though, that is who funded the original settlements in Palestine which made the establishment of the political State of Israel possible. It shouldn't be considered antisemitic to observe this (and there is nothing particularly wrong with wealthy bankers who decide to buy up land and share it with people in their ethnic group to go settle there; it certainly seems preferable to funding a war or stealing the land and so forth).

So there's nothing particularly wrong with, for example, wealthy Chinese investors buying up large swaths of farmland in the US?

Not particularly. If a country doesn’t want that they’d need to pass laws against it. The Ottoman Empire was completely fine with the landholding families selling their holdings to the Rothschild family.

[Thomas_muntzer]

Forgive me if this has been dealt with before.

The intent of this conversation is theological and not political.

For me, the fullfilment fo the old covenant and the law of moses is the Church of Christ, not a political entity founded by the Rothschild bankers...

I was with you up to the last phrase. In my opinion, there is where you cross the line into anti-Semitism.

Lord Victor Rothschild spoke in the British Parliament only twice. Once, to request a ban on raw milk and mandatory pasteurization, and another time to request support for the establishment of a state in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine.

Do you consider it anti-Semitic to claim that the Rothschild family was instrumental in the establishment of Israel, but they themselves state it on their website:

https://www.rothschildarchive.org/famil ... eclaration

Here is an interview with Jacob Rothschild literally saying, "My family created Israel":

[barnhart]

Rich and powerful people often live under an exaggerated sense of self importance and bankers fund all types of projects. The anti semitic part is suggesting that Jews are secretly controlling events. The simple fact that Jewish bankers provided the funds is not antisemitic nor is it that meaningful.