Monday, March 15, 2010

What's wrong with replacement theology?

I don't know if "replacement theology" is a technical term or if it's just a term of derision. I've only heard it used by people who don't approve of it. I've heard people describe replacement theology who seem to agree with it, but they don't call it "replacement theology." I don't know what they call it. I'm not very well read on covenant theology and all those different theological options.

Anywho, I tend to lean toward replacement theology as I understand it. I'm not going to explain why in this blog. I just wanted to share a thought I had the other day.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that a whole mass of gentiles all converted to Judaism. And then all the people who were Jews before came to believe that Jesus was the messiah, in which case, they're not Jews anymore. (Just about every Jew I've talked to has told me that when a Jew believes in Jesus, they are no longer a Jew.) Now the only Jews are people who were gentiles before. Wouldn't that be a kind of replacement?


At 12/20/2010 12:15 PM , Blogger Dogbyte said...

i guess im not clear on the meaning of replacement theology exactly as well, but every discussion its came up in, is when the subject of Israel (physical Israel) no longer being God's chosen people. by physical Israel i mean, physically descendant from Abraham.

As Paul taught, the change from physical Israel to spiritual Israel was done, when Israel turned away from God, and therefore broke their covenant agreement. God said, "if" you be my people, then i will be your God. Paul goes on talking about the gentiles being grafted IN, and that if they become prideful or like Israel became, then they could be "cut off" just as well. the fundamental difference that i see these discussions coming down to, is the concepts of unilateral and bilateral covenants. bilateral promises are contingent upon both sides holding up their end of the deal, like Israel did not. unilateral covenants are continent upon no one, the originator can carry out the promise without any bearing on a 2nd party's influence, like God's promise to Abraham.

So, therefore, i see that the righteous will be defined, as it has always been done, as those that did not commit the unforgivable sin, which is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. If you instead listen to, and follow His guidance, you will be a spiritual member of Israel, a spiritual descendant of Abraham.

To deny God, or turn away from the prodding of the Holy Spirit to accept Jesus as our savior, in my view is to blaspheme against the HS, which is said to be non-forgivable, which is to say that a person will suffer the second death, as Jesus did, being separated from God the father on the cross. Satan, his angels, and all other humans that fail to be judged righteous, will suffer the same fate, which will be non existence. "righteous" is more than just a "believer" or "non-beleiver", because i promise you if you dont think ALL resurrected in Revelations,(before the wicked are destroyed) they will be believers as well at that point, then your crazy. But being deemed righteous has to do with courtroom scene in Daniel 7, righteous is a judgement, where a person is said to be found innocent, where Jesus intercedes having paid the price for their guilt. the opposite standing, will be where Jesus is not willing to intercede, and the guilt will be on their own head.

replacement theology to me, means that God is able by any means necessary to carry out his unilateral covenant with Abraham. a spiritual Israel is still descendant of Abraham.

the issue of salvation by faith, has been the same since the first Adam. just as it was with Abraham, just as it was with Daniel, just as it was with the disciples, just as it is with me.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home