 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 11/22/2004 9:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Can someone tell me what "Replacement Theology" is?
Thanks,
Jo-Anne
Jo-Anne,
Replacement theology is a belief that after the coming of Jesus, the church has replaced Israel as God's people. Israel has been rejected as to the promises made to the genetic Jews. The fulfillment of the prophecies made to the Jews is now to be found only in the church. There can be a kind of "continuum" regarding how much has actually been replaced. This concept has been used to justify "christian anti-semitism." This is the basis for men claiming that Britain was the new Israel or even that God had raised up America to be the new Israel.
I believe that Israel is Israel and the church is the church. The biggest implications regarding replacement theology is found in eschatology. For a good succinct overview on both positions, there was a debate on this issue sponsored by KKMS. They must have tapes available.
Hey Jo-Anne!
This shows me Spen is again in disagreement...oh well:) I don't go around saying I am for replacement theology. It is controversial. What is also controversial: DO Jews today, physical Israel, have a different hope, a different way to salvation than the rest of humanity? the replacement theologists (RT) would say NO. Those in dispensationalism have said...the Jews today are not to be evangelized because it is not their time. their time will come after the church is raptured and the 7 year tribulation is in effect...then God will open their eyes and they'll flood into the Kingdom.
I beleive with those who read Romans 9-11 and see that Paul says there is only one people of God, only one way into His Kingdom, and the time to be saved is NOW. The Jew and the Gentile have become one in Christ. I encourage people to check out writing of Gary DeMar on this issue,
Barry | | Back to Top | | |
|
pdaviesoz
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 11/22/2004 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I think you're both saying the same thing in different ways.
God has plans for Israel, which will fulfill the church. We are all heirs of Abraham.
"No-one comes ot the Father BUT BY ME" - seems pretty clear.
Paul D | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/28/2004 3:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne,
quote:
What are the practical/impractical implications of replacement theology?
At bare minimum, one who holds to replacement theology will teach his/her kids that the doctrine is true. It, or any other doctrine deemed as important for that matter, will also cause one to seek certain kinds of churches and bible studies for fellowship, etc.
This division, in turn, diminishes the kind of inter-church edification we can have which ultimately diminishes the kind of impact we can have in general. It is not for naught that the Scripture tells us to be of one mind. All theological differences diminish unity (and consequently our corporate witness and edification) to some degree or another. The prophet said, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3)
And again, hermeneutical differences will inevitably affect how we exegete other texts on other matters. This forum is a constant demonstration of that fact with respect to a host of theological issues.
Does that mean that less unity means NO unity? Of course not, but one will not seek greater unity if one does not value it. And hermeneutics is one of those issues that simply must be dealt with when seeking doctrinal unity.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 11/28/2004 9:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Jo-Anne,
quote:
What are the practical/impractical implications of replacement theology?
All theological differences diminish unity (and consequently our corporate witness and edification) to some degree or another. The prophet said, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3)
Does that mean that less unity means NO unity? Of course not, but one will not seek greater unity if one does not value it. And hermeneutics is one of those issues that simply must be dealt with when seeking doctrinal unity.
Hi,
Do you think that being an open theist diminishes unity? I am in a church where one other person is open theist...the vast majority have never even heard of such a thing, and most get upset when you start to talk about it (I'm very cautious now). It is virtually impossible for us to be unified theologically, so I can't help but believe that the unity Jesus was talking about, the likemindedness, meant something different than agreeing theologically. To me, a unity of spirit is what is most important, and is evident when we can agree (lovingly) to disagree, when love is more important than theology. That is unity to my way of thinking, so it shouldn't necessarily be diminished by holding to a different theological perspective...understand? What do you think?
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 11/29/2004 12:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Hi,
Do you think that being an open theist diminishes unity? I am in a church where one other person is open theist...the vast majority have never even heard of such a thing, and most get upset when you start to talk about it (I'm very cautious now). It is virtually impossible for us to be unified theologically, so I can't help but believe that the unity Jesus was talking about, the likemindedness, meant something different than agreeing theologically. To me, a unity of spirit is what is most important, and is evident when we can agree (lovingly) to disagree, when love is more important than theology. That is unity to my way of thinking, so it shouldn't necessarily be diminished by holding to a different theological perspective...understand? What do you think?
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
Jo-Anne,
I don't believe that we "unify" around things like the OV. The OV is not central to Christianity, all it attempts to do is to explain "why" we believe in the gospel, not the content of the gospel itself. The gospel is central, and I am in unitiy with all those that hold it to be so, including those on this board. Love is found in the gospel, any love that opposes the gospel is not love. Any love that opposes the gospel's loving opposition as it contends for the faith once for all delivered to the saints is not love. If there is no standard of truth combined with that love, there is no love of the kind that saves us.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/29/2004 2:02 AM (GMT -6) | | I think I’m probably a replacement theologian, though I would never use those words to describe myself. I much prefer “inclusion” theology. We Gentiles are “included” in the promises. We don't "replace" anybody. But we are "included." There’s one people of God, one olive tree, that both Jews and Gentiles either belong to or do not, and that by faith through Christ. Done deal.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/30/2004 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne,
quote:
Do you think that being an open theist diminishes unity? I am in a church where one other person is open theist...the vast majority have never even heard of such a thing, and most get upset when you start to talk about it (I'm very cautious now). It is virtually impossible for us to be unified theologically, so I can't help but believe that the unity Jesus was talking about, the likemindedness, meant something different than agreeing theologically. To me, a unity of spirit is what is most important, and is evident when we can agree (lovingly) to disagree, when love is more important than theology. That is unity to my way of thinking, so it shouldn't necessarily be diminished by holding to a different theological perspective...understand? What do you think?
Well, for me, love is only properly defined THEOLOGICALLY. 1 Cor. 13 says love rejoices with the truth. Christ said that the law and the prophets define what love should look like. So I don't see how we can separate love from scripture. I think one-mindedness is the goal whether or not we ever attain it.
Do this thought experiment. Consider what belief or beliefs you think are necessary to even BE a Christian. Then imagine that ALL other beliefs could not be discussed with fellow believers or anyone because they "get upset when you start to talk about it," as your church members do about OV. Would you feel better or worse if that were the case? I know I would feel worse. Maybe I'm just a whimp! 
I agree with Doc that "The more rational sense a belief makes, the more passionately it can be embraced." But I also think we can be more passionate when our brothers and sisters embrace those beliefs with us.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|