Replacement theology

[Bondservant]

Can someone give me a difinative list of mainline denominations that hold to replacemeny theology ( I've searched the web and can get no difinative list), I know that the Methodist Church holds to this and I believe the Presbyterian Church does also (along RCC) and Lutherans...I have a freind who just started attending a Presbyterian Church (because she thinks the pastor is nice) and she claims she has become convinced of reformed theology...but I am trying to addrees the Replacement Theology stance of the church with her (which I do not support or agree with)...i know many of these churches even donate money to Palestinan causes...any help appreciated...I'm not seeking a debate of the issue here I am seeking a list of churches that hold to Replacement so spare me debate please.

[pilgrimian]

Good question.

You are correct about Methodists and RCC and most Presbyterians, and most definitely Christian Reformed.

I would include Disciples of Christ, too, and Reformed Baptists.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[matheteou]

Can someone give me a difinative list of mainline denominations that hold to replacemeny theology ( I've searched the web and can get no difinative list), I know that the Methodist Church holds to this and I believe the Presbyterian Church does also (along RCC)...I have a freind who just started attending a Presbyterian Church (because she thinks the pastor is nice) and she claims she has become convinced of reformed theology...but I am trying to addrees the Replacement Theology stance of the church with her (which I do not support or agree with)...i know many of these churches even donate money to Palestinan causes...any help appreciated...I'm not seeking a debate of the issue here I am seeking a list of churches that hold to Replacement so spare me debate please.Actually I believe you can find those who hold to RT in all denominations just like you can find dispies (:wave ) spread throughout.

[pilgrimian]

Actually I believe you can find those who hold to RT in all denominations just like you can find dispies (:wave ) spread throughout.

Good answer.

Even Dr. Walvoord came from a Presbyterian background.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[cenimo]

The Reformed preach this openly.
As far as the RCC and Protestan churches named here teaching this, that is news to me. If it's part of their doctrine I have never once heard it in a sermon or a Sunday school class.

By Replacement Theology you mean that the people in present day Israel have no lineage to the Jes of Biblical times, that's all done with, and those in Israel today are "counterfeit" Jews while the Christians are Israel, right?

[twelvesmaster]

older Eastern Christian denominations
Catholics
Anglicans
Episcopalians
Lutherans
Presbyterians
Methodists
Dutch Reformed


I might have missed a couple, but I think those are the main ones.

There's some information at Koenig's website (http://www.watch.org/showprint.php3?idx=56892&mcat=4&rtn=/index.html)

[Bondservant]

Thanks Twelve , that's what I was looking for.

[blitzkreig]

...so spare me debate please. :lol I don't know why but that just humourous...

[seeker42]

I don't think that this thread is accurate.

I come from a Reformed Theology background, and while Some reformed theology does teach this, much of it does not.

AND - there is a need to differentiate between which branch of the Reformed we are talking about, in the same sense that there is a need to differentiate between which branches of the Presbyterians that we are talking about.

There are

1) the individual theologians who took positions in the Reformation

2) the public stands of the official denominations in or near the Reformation

3) the stance & doctrine of the denomination(s) in the 1800s

4) the stance of the denominations before 1940

5) the stance of the denominations AFTER the founding of Israel

6) the stance of these denominations within the past 20 years

I know of several Presbyterian groups that are ACTIVE supporters of Israel.
And there is also the issue of MERGERS within denominations.

The rule of thumb is that the more mergers a denomination has been through, the more liberal and the less literal that it is.

And finally, there is a need to understand most of this in the context of official denominational affiliation with the WCC, the World Council of Churches.

The more that a denomination affiliates and actively works with the WCC, the More likely it is - that the denomination in question - will take an anti-Israel stance and a pro-palestinian stance. This is because the WCC does not like Israel (which is no great secret).

So please, bring up names, dates, books, documents, public statements, or anything relevant, but it is important to have the documentation to back up the assertion.

Seeker
:):

[seeker42]

I want to draw your attention to an "interfaith" letter that was sent to Powell and you can draw your own conclusions about who is on who's side.

The Core of the letter is this paragraphy, which I read as a statement of implied moral equivalence"

About what the U.S. should do:

· Take the lead, in light of possible Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, to increase economic aid (with effective controls by a credible institution such as the World Bank) to support the Palestinian Authority's capacity to provide security, prevent violent attacks on Israelis, and deliver humanitarian aid, vital services, and development assistance to the Palestinian people.

Among others, the statement was supported by Leighton Ford (Brother in law to Billy Graham) and the head Fuller Theological Seminary.

The full statement and the list of supporters can be found at:

http://www.cmep.org/Statements/2004June_Appeal%20to%20Powell.htm

It seems that in some cases, lending support for "Peace" means that the interests of Israel are given the same weight as those of Yasser Arafat...

Seeker
:rolleyes

[seeker42]

I was very disapointed (but not surprised) to find that these leaders are VERY much on the record as STRONGLY opposing Christian Zionism.
:doh

It is THIS group that is one of the stronger forces within Evangelicals...in the attempt to redraw Evangelicalism into an Anti-Israel stance.

See for example, their scathing report Against Christian Zionists at:

http://www.rca.org/images/mission/mideast/christianzionism.pdf

One can read the statement of PCUSA AGAINST supporting Israels right to self defense
at:

http://www.cmep.org/Alerts/2004April27.htm

Again, THAT just goes to show that the leadership of PCUSA is out of touch with MANY Presbyterians who DO support Israel, as they historically have.

PCUSA has been going liberal for the past 25 years, so this is the continuation of that trend...(But it is still unfortunate).


More and more, these denominations will begin to contradict the views that their own denominations have formally helfd for hundreds of years.

The attack against Israel can be seen from their efforts and emails at:

http://www.cmep.org/



Seeker

[Hootmon]

I was very disapointed (but not surprised) to find that these leaders are VERY much on the record as STRONGLY opposing Christian Zionism. That would seem to be a very good 'litmus test' for RT...

[frisian1970]

Incorrect, the Dutch Reformed no longer subscribe to this.

[AnyDayNow]

Back to the OP. I think that replacement theology is a child of necessity. Many Pre-tribbers on this board would be shocked to find that Pre-trib thinking used to be STRONG part of Reformed theology in the 1800's. Then in the 1900's, the Reformed following started purging the PreT position from their churches. Many adopted the Post-Trib position (which makes perfect sense, since it really is no position at all, but rather an "anti-type" to the Pre-trib position), while others adopted a Postie/Preterist viewpoint.

Replacement theology, of course, has great value in any of these positions, so I believe it was adopted along with alternative views to the dispensational/Pre-trib viewpoint. Just MHO.

[JimB]

The addition of the Methodists in this thread concerned me, since I belong to that organization. I have been listening to Methodist sermons for 40+ years and have never once heard this from a Methodist pulpit. So I emailed the UMC and asked their policy on replacement theology.

I have cut and pasted a small excerpt of their response (bolded) and then the entire response below.

The bottom line is the Methodist church does NOT believe in the replacement theology. Not sure where the original information for this thread came from but according to the Methodist church, the original information is not valid.

"The covenant God established with the Jewish people through Abraham, Moses, and others continues because it is an eternal covenant. Paul proclaims that the gift and call of God to the Jews is irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Thus, we believe that the Jewish people continue in covenantal relationship with God. "

Below is the entire response.

Hello and thank you for writing.
We can provide the following information in response to your inquiry.
REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY:
+ Replacement theology, also referred to a supercessionism, has been attributed to Augustine in his writings of about 400 A.D. In this theology, it is believed that Israel, having rejected Christ, lost its special status as the chosen people and has been replaced by the Christian Church. The Christian Church will now be the recipient of the blessings of God originally intended for Israel. (Sources: several websites and Director, Worship Resources at General Board of Discipleship)

Q: What does the UMC believe?

From the 2000 [current] Book of Resolutions

A: The General Conference of the UMC approved the following statements:
* Building New Bridges in Hope, resolution #78 on page 215, states,

"3) Judaism and Christianity are living and dynamic religious movements that have continued to evolve since the time of Jesus, often in interaction with each other and with God’s continual self-disclosure in the world. As Christians, it is important for us to recognize that Judaism went on to develop vital new traditions of its own after the time of Jesus, including the Rabbinic Judaism that is still vibrant today in shaping Jewish religious life."

* And on page 216, it also states,

"(4) Christians and Jews are bound to God though biblical covenants that are eternally valid.

As Christians, we stand firm in our belief that Jesus was sent by God as the Christ to redeem all people, and that in Christ the biblical covenant has been made radically new. While church tradition has taught that Judaism has been superseded by Christianity as the "new Israel," we do not believe that earlier covenantal relationships have been invalidated or that God has abandoned Jewish partners in covenant.

We believe that just as God is steadfastly faithful to the biblical covenant in Jesus Christ, likewise God is steadfastly faithful to the biblical covenant with the Jewish people. The covenant God established with the Jewish people through Abraham, Moses, and others continues because it is an eternal covenant. Paul proclaims that the gift and call of God to the Jews is irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Thus, we believe that the Jewish people continue in covenantal relationship with God.

Both Jews and Christians are bound to God in covenant, with no covenantal relationship invalidated by any other. Though Christians and Jews have different understandings of the covenant of faith, we are mysteriously bound to one another through our covenantal relationships with the one God and Creator of us all."

[JimB]

What is the source of your claim to this statement, concerning the Methodist?

You are correct about Methodists and RCC and most Presbyterians, and most definitely Christian Reformed.

[JimB]

No response, hmmm.

Let me reword the question: What is the source of your claim to this statement, concerning the Methodist?



What is the source of your claim to this statement, concerning the Methodist?

[Christine]

Hi Jim,

They are amillennial. That eschatology is RT, based on the premillennial, dispensational definition of what RT is. In premill, there is a future for Israel as seen in Hosea and Romans 9-11. Amill rejects that and says that the church is "spiritual Israel".

:nod

[JimB]

The Methodist are amill?

Yikes, I must have been out sick that day.

My dad is a Methodist minister and never has he talked about anything but premill.

YBIC
Jim



Hi Jim,

They are amillennial. That eschatology is RT, based on the premillennial, dispensational definition of what RT is. In premill, there is a future for Israel as seen in Hosea and Romans 9-11. Amill rejects that and says that the church is "spiritual Israel".

:nod

[Christine]

Hi Jim,

I cannot speak for your father (or any other local leader), but I can speak to the volumes of information that has been posted here authored by the UMC and by members here who are UMC.

Can you link a denominational position paper in defense of pre-mill authored by them?

[frisian1970]

Hmm, I guess I need to recant what I said about the Reformed Church of America.

http://www.rca.org/herald/columns/renewal/0604.php

[frisian1970]

Hmm, I guess I need to recant what I said about the Reformed Church of America.

http://www.rca.org/herald/columns/renewal/0604.php

And it's less liberal counterpart. The Christian Reformed Church.


http://www.crcna.org/whoweare/beliefs/position_eschatology.asp?WhoWeAreMenu

Crazy thing, to me is, that our minister when I was a kid (At a RCA or Dutch Reformed Church) taught a pre view and about the rapture, and was Jewish.

:confused

[Christine]

I wouldn't be surprised at that, Fris. Denominational positions on things are not always held by individual pastors. It is the core doctrines that matter.

:thumb

[frisian1970]

I wouldn't be surprised at that, Fris. Denominational positions on things are not always held by individual pastors. It is the core doctrines that matter.

:thumb


Hmm, suppose not.

[JimB]

Hi Christine,

I certainly hope I can find an official position paper by the UMC supporting pre-mill beliefs. I will email them and ask for it and of course visit the web site.

I have become increasingly disillusioned by the UMC over the past 10 years or so. I guess the churches I have attended were sheltered from garbage doctrine by my Father.

Recently the UMC had its annual board meeting (not sure of the actual name of it) to discuss doctrinal issues. I read that one major subject of debate was whether to allow homosexuals as ministers. They did vote against it but the most mind boggling thing to me is that the vote was about 45% for and 55% against. I cannot imagine 45% of the leadership of a Christian organization voting to accept something so blatantly opposed by God's word.

Heaven help me I may have to become a BAPTIST - :fear

YBIC

Jim

Can you link a denominational position paper in defense of pre-mill authored by them?

[B A N E]

Heaven help me I may have to become a BAPTIST - :fear


I understand THAT sentiment.

[Christine]

Hi Jim,
Recently the UMC had its annual board meeting (not sure of the actual name of it) to discuss doctrinal issues. I read that one major subject of debate was whether to allow homosexuals as ministers. They did vote against it but the most mind boggling thing to me is that the vote was about 45% for and 55% against. I cannot imagine 45% of the leadership of a Christian organization voting to accept something so blatantly opposed by God's word. This is my point exactly. I would be quite surprised if every leader within a denominational canopy accepted (and believed in) every doctrinal position that the denomination at large held and/or voted to accept.

I have always been very careful in distinguishing local leadership from denominational stance when discussing this stuff. Thank you for reminding me to keep that in the forefront of importance.

:):

[cenimo]

JimB

The Methodist are amill?

Yikes, I must have been out sick that day.

My dad is a Methodist minister and never has he talked about anything but premill.


That's incredible. There was a prophecy conference coming to a nearby town, so I put a poster for it up on the Sunday school class door. Before Sunday school was over the poster was taken down and in the trash.
Peoplke asked the Pastor to cover amill, premill, etc....He passed it on to the Ass't Pastor who told us she'd do it but it put her in a bind because she'd had " all of 2 days of Revelation in Methodist seminary".

The class then was set up with 4 tables, one for premill, postmill, amill, and "I don't know table.
My wife and I and a young kid were at the premill table, all the clergy and most everyone else was at the amill table.....

[Elizabeth_S]

Hi Christine,

I certainly hope I can find an official position paper by the UMC supporting pre-mill beliefs. I will email them and ask for it and of course visit the web site.

I have become increasingly disillusioned by the UMC over the past 10 years or so. I guess the churches I have attended were sheltered from garbage doctrine by my Father.

Recently the UMC had its annual board meeting (not sure of the actual name of it) to discuss doctrinal issues. I read that one major subject of debate was whether to allow homosexuals as ministers. They did vote against it but the most mind boggling thing to me is that the vote was about 45% for and 55% against. I cannot imagine 45% of the leadership of a Christian organization voting to accept something so blatantly opposed by God's word.

Heaven help me I may have to become a BAPTIST - :fear

YBIC

Jim
Well Jim, you can always try the Church of the Nazarene. :D:

[cindyw]

Heaven help me I may have to become a BAPTIST - :fear

YBICJim

:spit Hey guess what Jim..............there are REFORMED Baptists out there, yes siree, they believe in predestination/election (Calvinism)...........

Actually, most baptists do believe in OSAS, just not the version that John Calvin laid out so well. Then you have the group of Arminian Baptists----you can lose your salvation based upon your "works".........

Not all baptists are created equal Jim..... ;): :heh

[JimB]

Hmm Maybe Mormonism then!

Not all baptists are created equal Jim..... ;): :heh

[CanaanBound]

This is called Israelism. And it has caused divisions in the Church since the early 19th. century. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Jews lost the covenant due to their disbelief and rejection of Jesus (whom they believe was only an angel!!!). This philosophy of mankind has taken thousands to hell and counting. :mad

[pilgrimian]

Hi Jim,

I cannot speak for your father (or any other local leader), but I can speak to the volumes of information that has been posted here authored by the UMC and by members here who are UMC.

Can you link a denominational position paper in defense of pre-mill authored by them?

Thanks, Christine!

I've been in and out very little because of work...I appreciate your response to Jim. I was not ignoring anyone.

Jim, is your dad a Free Methodist minister? I should have been more specific. The Methodists I know are United Methodists...not Free...and are liberal in their theology. Free Methodists tend to be more conservative from what I know...but only my barber back in Michigan was Free Methodist. And we never had a talk about theology. :(:

Godspeed,
Matthew

[JimB]

Matthew,

No my Dad is not a Free Methodist minister. He simply uses God's word to teach God's word. He does not accept liberalism that minimizes or humanizes God's word, i.e. does not allow the current social norms to interpret scripture and is not concerned with hurting someones feelings that thinks Gods wrathful judgment is simply to harsh to discuss.

Maybe that makes him a "God's Will - preacher".

I did email the UMC and asked about the pre-, post, and a- mill beliefs. I got a politically correct answer that was designed not to offend anyone. I was saddened by the concept that a church that claims to be of God cannot take a stand for Gods obvious word.

I would appreciate everyones thoughts on this quote.

Here is the exact quote:

"Millennialist view of what will happen at the end of time, or when Christ
returns. A millennium is a 1000 years. There are several different versions of
this approach: pre-millenialist, amillennialist, post-millennialist.

First, this is a recent phenomenon in Christian thought--a way of thinking about the book of Revelation and other apocalyptic texts in the Bible that got a lot of energy and interest only in the last 120 or so years. So, it is a "late comer" made very popular by Hal Lindsey and others.

Second, it is very much on the periphery of our Wesleyan approach to
interpreting scripture and to our focus on loving God and loving neighbor as the heart and soul of discipleship. Wesley focused on Christ and the God's grace that saves us from the guilt and power of sin--not on speculative and
intellectual schemes around the future.

It is all very fascinating, but, I think, a dangerous diversion from the core of
Christian thought and practice.

Daniel Benedict

Worship Resources Director"





Jim, is your dad a Free Methodist minister? I should have been more specific. The Methodists I know are United Methodists...not Free...and are liberal in their theology. Free Methodists tend to be more conservative from what I know...but only my barber back in Michigan was Free Methodist. And we never had a talk about theology. :(:

Godspeed,
Matthew

[B A N E]

FYI: Premil is not new...taught up until Augustine IIRC it was called Chiliasm.

[Bondservant]

Matthew,

I would appreciate everyones thoughts on this quote.

Here is the exact quote:

"Millennialist view of what will happen at the end of time, or when Christ
returns. A millennium is a 1000 years. There are several different versions of
this approach: pre-millenialist, amillennialist, post-millennialist.

First, this is a recent phenomenon in Christian thought--a way of thinking about the book of Revelation and other apocalyptic texts in the Bible that got a lot of energy and interest only in the last 120 or so years. So, it is a "late comer" made very popular by Hal Lindsey and others.

Second, it is very much on the periphery of our Wesleyan approach to
interpreting scripture and to our focus on loving God and loving neighbor as the heart and soul of discipleship. Wesley focused on Christ and the God's grace that saves us from the guilt and power of sin--not on speculative and
intellectual schemes around the future.

It is all very fascinating, but, I think, a dangerous diversion from the core of
Christian thought and practice.

Daniel Benedict

Worship Resources Director"


It's my feeling that the less a "church" knows about Prophecy the more open and susceptible it is to the coming deception. And the deception that is already here. He seems to be saying the study of Prophecy is not important, just love and God and your brother and deeper study is not essential and may even be distractive or disruptive. God has given us the full council of His Word for wisdom.

[JimB]

Well said Bondservant.

You are exactly correct the less we know or the more we let someone else think for us the easier we can be deceived.

Jim





It's my feeling that the less a "church" knows about Prophecy the more open and susceptible it is to the coming deception. And the deception that is already here. He seems to be saying the study of Prophecy is not important, just love and God and your brother and deeper study is not essential and may even be distractive or disruptive. God has given us the full council of His Word for wisdom.

[Bible]

"Take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things."

-- Mark 13:23

[rosenherman]

If you can't count on your church to follow The Word, what good is going to church?

I read the bible almost every day, I pray and seek God's guidance and help several times a day and I'm concerned that if I find a home church, I'll be led the wrong way.

I too am concerned about the acceptance of active homosexuals in churches. The Word says that homosexual activities are wrong. I think if you are homosexual, that isn't a sin, it's a burden, acting on your desires is what makes sin.

[BarbT]

The most important point of this discussion is that we must always thoroughly research each individual denomination before we become members. In addition to essential Christian doctrine it is imperative that we learn a church's views {make that the specific Pastors' and teachers' views} on Israel. You'd be surprised how many bad apples seem to slip into fairly decent churches these days.

By the way, Bondservant old friend, thanks for steering me to Calvary Chapel over on Folsom Blvd. :thumb On my first visit, the person who greeted me mentioned the soon Rapture 30 seconds into our converstation!!! At that point I KNEW I'd found a home! :D:

[Bondservant]

By the way, Bondservant old friend, thanks for steering me to Calvary Chapel over on Folsom Blvd. :thumb On my first visit, the person who greeted me mentioned the soon Rapture 30 seconds into our converstation!!! At that point I KNEW I'd found a home! :D:

:): Happy to hear that. :D:

[Warrior Prophet]

I've got a question for y'all... do you really believe a church is following the Word if they aren't dispensational in their teachings? Or do you simply believe they are heretical because they teach so-called 'replacement theology?'

[Bondservant]

I've got a question for y'all... do you really believe a church is following the Word if they aren't dispensational in their teachings? Or do you simply believe they are heretical because they teach so-called 'replacement theology?'

so spare me debate please.

[cindyw]

Here's an interesting read at The Spurgeon Archive concerning eschatology and dispensationalism...........

http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm

oops, forgot to add this since the website was in answer to you Warrior: many, many churches speak well of Spurgeon and his love for the Lord. I doubt that would be the case if they believed him to be a heretic.

[Warrior Prophet]

Bond, if y'all are going to slam a point of view... and expect no debate you must be living on mars. Or is this just a back slapping thread for dispies? ;):

[Bondservant]

Bond, if y'all are going to slam a point of view... and expect no debate you must be living on mars. Or is this just a back slapping thread for dispies? ;):

Who's "slammin" a point of view? Did you read the original topic post ? Doctrine "debates" do not belong in this forum, if I had wanted to debate the subject I would have posted it elsewhere... and by the way you worded your "question" it will bring debate... slam a point of view...such paranoia..............

[cindyw]

I am trying to addrees the Replacement Theology stance of the church with her (which I do not support or agree with)...i know many of these churches even donate money to Palestinan causes...any help appreciated...I'm not seeking a debate of the issue here I am seeking a list of churches that hold to Replacement so spare me debate please.


I think it was this portion of your OP Bondservant. You, on one hand ask to be spared of debate, yet you clearly take a stance against one viewpoint----which invites debate. If you merely wanted to know which churches taught RT, then that's all you would have needed to ask.

IMHO, all teachings should be open to debate when one takes a stance one way or another. Many times that's how "iron sharpens iron"..........

[Bondservant]

**************************

[Bondservant]

I think it was this portion of your OP Bondservant. You, on one hand ask to be spared of debate, yet you clearly take a stance against one viewpoint----which invites debate. If you merely wanted to know which churches taught RT, then that's all you would have needed to ask.

IMHO, all teachings should be open to debate when one takes a stance one way or another. Many times that's how "iron sharpens iron"..........

THAT"S SLAMMING ?

[cindyw]

THAT"S SLAMMING ?

:): Nope, I don't believe so. My point was this: by defining your own take (against RT---many do not even understand what the true definition of RT actually is) you did invite debate. You did not just ask for RT believing churches/denominations. Whenever any of us puts down what we believe to be wrong or right, it is an invitation for opposing viewpoints---whether we want them or not.............

[Warrior Prophet]

Bond,
Right now I'm just very frustrated with this whole topic. I may go into the former roughhouse explaining what you term 'replacement theology.' It just seems to me that many on this board have some grudge against it and don't really understand why we believe what we believe about Israel and how they work in God's plans.

However, to note, there are very evangelical, sound churches that teach so-called 'replacement theology.' The churches you speak of have bigger problems than eschatology. They are led by extremely liberal ministers. Not only do they deny a rapture or millennial reign, but they deny the virgin birth, inspiration of scripture and accept homosexuality. Now there's where your problem should be. The problem with these denominations isn't the fact that they aren't dispensational. It's the fact that they deny the essenstials that were set forth in the great creeds of the church.

[onsolidrock]

Heaven help me I may have to become a BAPTIST -

Be careful which Baptist Church. American Baptists are only a half a step behind the Methodists on the Homosexual issue.

[B A N E]

Bondservant,
Did you get the answer to your question?

[Bondservant]

Bondservant,
Did you get the answer to your question?


I got an even bigger question answered and confirmation, which I should have heeded prior, thanks :wave

[B A N E]

Unless you wish it reopened, Bondservant...Thread Closed.