Dispensationalism + Replacement Theology

[BereanTodd]

There have been some questions as to whether dispensationalism constitutes replacement theology. The question has been brought by more than one, but in particular I will draw on this quote from another thread:

From what I read, Replacement Theology ties in quite strongly with dispensationalism.

I challenge this assertion very strongly. First off, just a historical study and awareness of debates within theology would show that historically dispensationalists have not only most strongly attacked and been at odds with RT, but that the term was actually coined by dispensationalists. Almost no one self-identifies as a Replacement Theologian. Let us start with a definition of what Replacement Theology actually contitutes. Although I'm not always comfortable with the site, I will go with Wikipedia's introduction tot he topic as a good working definition.

Supersessionism and replacement theology are modern terms for particular interpretations of New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament) claims, that see God's relationship with Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) as superseding his prior relationship with ethnic Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews). Biblical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) expressions of God's relationships with people are known as covenants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28biblical%29), so the contentious element of supersessionism is the idea that God's covenants with the Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church) replace his covenants with Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Israel).

The core issue of dispensationalism on the other hand is the very fact that God has not either cast away Israel, nor has He replaced Israel in His plans with the church. Israel remain the chosen people of God in the dispensational understanding, and the church only shares in the promises which were made to and remain for Israel, only in so much as we are grafted into Israel (Romans 11).

So, for anyone who claims that dispensationalism is equivelent to RT, I challenge you to come in and defend those claims.

[BereanTodd]

In addition to what is said above, I will point out that you will be hard pressed to find anyone who self-identifies as a Replacement Theologian. The term RT was coined by dispensationalists to refer to supersessionists, and is applied to reformed theology. Most Reformed Theologians see it as a slur and dislike the term. Here are some articles dealing with just that, not all from a dispensational PoV.

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/10-07-05.asp This is a 4 part article by a non-dispensationalist, complaining about the use of the term Replacement Theology and it's application to covenentalists.

http://thekingdomcome.com/replacement_theology_one_nation_under_god another article from a non-dispensational believer

http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html

http://www.christiansstandingwithisrael.com/christianzionism.html

[Bananna]

Thanks.
Dispensations comes from God working in various ways with various people at different times.

While replacement theology says that the Jews and laws and former promises have been done away with in this dispensation.

How one sees what happens in this dispensation... the time period after Christ can vary greatly.

Bananna

[muffler dragon]

Dispensationalism is, IMO, a form of replacement theology, but strictly in a matter of Torah terminology. In Dispensationalism, the Torah is not adequate in an of itself, it needed something more. In this regard, the supposed work of the cross and resurrection supercede the Torah.

Thus, while Israel is not displaced by a Gentile group, the very document that sustains Judaism's purpose is circumvented and dismissed.

[BereanTodd]

Dispensationalism is, IMO, a form of replacement theology, but strictly in a matter of Torah terminology. In Dispensationalism, the Torah is not adequate in an of itself, it needed something more. In this regard, the supposed work of the cross and resurrection supercede the Torah.

I would say that dispensationalism does not nescesitate not following Torah, but as to what I emboldened, I would say that it is very clear from Scriptures that Torah was not adequate in and of itself. You are darned right that the cross and the resurrection supercede Torah, were there no cross there would be no salvation, and Paul makes the argument in 1 Cor 15 that were there no resurrection then we are most pitable of all men.

If you feel that the cross and the resurrection were not nescasary then I would have to question your salvation.

Thus, while Israel is not displaced by a Gentile group, the very document that sustains Judaism's purpose is circumvented and dismissed.

If one follows and accepts the NT, then yes, absolutely - the Torah is not cast away nor useless, but it IS insufficient without the cross and the resurrection.

[muffler dragon]

I would say that dispensationalism does not nescesitate not following Torah, but as to what I emboldened, I would say that it is very clear from Scriptures that Torah was not adequate in and of itself.

Quite true. That is the impression left by Paul.

You are darned right that the cross and the resurrection supercede Torah, were there no cross there would be no salvation, and Paul makes the argument in 1 Cor 15 that were there no resurrection then we are most pitable of all men.

So, apparently, you do agree that there is supercessionism within the Dispensationalism movement.

Btw, if you're that emotionally invested in this particular topic; then let me know if you would like to discuss the un-Judaic nature of this Pauline understanding that you present above.

If you feel that the cross and the resurrection were not nescasary then I would have to question your salvation.

Question it all you want. I need the cross and resurrection as much as I need a hernia. My relationship with G-d is perfectly fine without a mediator.

If one follows and accepts the NT, then yes, absolutely - the Torah is not cast away nor useless, but it IS insufficient without the cross and the resurrection.

Thus, you can see that Simchat_Torah's statement is not unfounded as you attempted to show in your OP. From a Judaic POV, Dispensationalism does support supercessionism.

[simchat_torah]

If you feel that the cross and the resurrection were not nescasary then I would have to question your salvation. Its funny how this will be so easily tossed out by those who are losing an argument. Can't win the argument by means of the subject at hand? Then question the salvation of the one you're debating with.

[Steve Petersen]

Let me merely add: Dispensationalism sucks!

[muffler dragon]

Its funny how this will be so easily tossed out by those who are losing an argument. Can't win the argument by means of the subject at hand? Then question the salvation of the one you're debating with.

J:

Did I presume correctly about how you were determing the ties between Dispensationalism and RT?

[muffler dragon]

Let me merely add: Dispensationalism sucks!

We have a first, ladies and gentlemen!!!

I agree with Steve. :D

[HaNotsri]

Actually, I would say that dispensationalism "sets aside" not supercedes. Dispensationalists believe that all of the promises God has for Israel will come to fruition once this dispensation of grace has ended and the dispensation of the Kingdom begins.

Dispensationalists also believe in a distinction between the Church and Israel

[muffler dragon]

Actually, I would say that dispensationalism "sets aside" not supercedes. Dispensationalists believe that all of the promises God has for Israel will come to fruition once this dispensation of grace has ended and the dispensation of the Kingdom begins.

Dispensationalists also believe in a distinction between the Church and Israel

And I would say, "Semantics". The belief that Israel will get the promises of G-d fulfilled is NOT an acceptance of the Torah. It's a dismissal with a kiss; instead of a punch.

[simchat_torah]

J:

Did I presume correctly about how you were determing the ties between Dispensationalism and RT?El Correcto-mundo.

[simchat_torah]

And I would say, "Semantics". The belief that Israel will get the promises of G-d fulfilled is NOT an acceptance of the Torah. It's a dismissal with a kiss; instead of a punch.LOL... I wish you'd post more ;)

[muffler dragon]

LOL... I wish you'd post more ;)

I understand. Just not that easy at home or work. ;)

[muffler dragon]

Here's an interesting article by Theology News Network:

Dispensationalism: Root Cause Of Antinomianism (http://www.tnnonline.net/theonews/church-history/dispensationalism/index.html)

Here are some excerpts about the Torah:

The majority of those in the conservative Messianic movement believe, in contrast to mainstream Christian theology, that the Torah or Law of Moses is still to be followed today and that it is relevant instruction for all Believers. We believe that Yeshua the Messiah upheld the Torah in His teachings and actions, and that all Believers must have a foundation in it in order to understand the remainder of Holy Scripture. Contrary to this position, many in mainstream Christianity relegate the Torah to only being valuable to know for the sake of Biblical history, and perhaps sometimes for the stories that it tells, but not as direct, relevant instruction for our times today. Holding the Law of God in very low esteem can lead to what is theologically termed antinomianism—the denial of the importance of the Law of God. Alexander M. Renwick, in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, remarks that “It refers to the doctrine that the moral law is not binding upon Christians as a rule of life. In a wider sense it is applied to the views of fanatics who refuse to recognize any law but their own subjective ideas which they usually claim are from the Holy Spirit.”[1]

Dispensationlism, advocating that Scriptures clearly for Israel do not apply to the Church, is the root cause of what is called antinomianism. Antinomianism, in one of its forms, is the case of the anti-Torah attitude which asserts that the Law of Moses has been abolished and done away by the work of Messiah Yeshua, contrary to His words on the matter (Matthew 5:17-19). As it relates to the present restoration of all Israel that is occurring in our day, it is arguably the greatest stumbling block on which most opposition to it will rest. Dispensationlists will argue that from their point of view what we believe is in error. They claim that it is in error because we deny the uniqueness of the Church as a separate group of elect, and advocate that the Torah is still to be followed today. On these points, they are entirely correct. It is our responsibility as students of the Word to understand why dispensational methods of examining Scripture are flawed and in error.

Belief in dispensationalism is the reason why many evangelical Christians today discard the importance of the Torah, and do not believe that things like the seventh-day Sabbath, the appointed times of Leviticus 23, or the kosher dietary laws are at all important. The understanding of holiness, sadly, is narrowed down to what one exclusively sees in the life example of Yeshua (Jesus). But any understanding of that life example of Yeshua is, of course—neutered—because in order to properly understand the Messiah’s mission one must have a strong foundation in the Tanach (Old Testament), and specifically the Torah. The all-important truths in the Torah serve to consecrate God’s people unto Him and to set them apart from the world. God told Ancient Israel in Deuteronomy 7:6, “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” Ancient Israel was to be holy because they observed His statutes and ordinances, and hence were separated out.[4]

Dispensationalism, advocating that God has two groups of elect, validates many Christians’ claim to transgressing what are improperly viewed as “Jewish commandments,” only given to Israel. Since dispensationalists see themselves as part of a separate entity known as “the Church,” Scriptures that without any doubt are given to Israel—namely the Torah—do not apply as far as obedience is concerned. In actuality, however, the Torah contains commandments that were given to all Israel, and according to the Apostle Paul all Believers in Yeshua are a part of the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-22), or the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). As many Believers begin to recognize themselves as a part of Israel, come out of mainstream Christianity, and enter into the Messianic movement—it should be obvious that dispensationalism poses a major challenge to us.

The above kind of re-iterates what I had written before regarding Israel and the Torah.

[muffler dragon]

Btw, for those who aren't familiar with dispensation theology, a quick kicker that I normally mention is the Left Behind series. This is based on pre-tribulation eschatology and dispensationalism.

Here's what wiki has on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

Note what is said about Israel:

In contrast to the above discussion, dispensationalism teaches that the Christian Church is a "parenthesis", that is, an interruption in God’s divine dealings with the Jewish people, when the Gospel began to be preached to the Gentiles, but that God’s continued care for the Jewish people will be revealed after the end of the Church Age (or Dispensation), when Israel will be restored to their land, and then they will accept Jesus as their Messiah, as is recorded in Zechariah, Chapter 12 verses 8-10 (KJV).

Here's what is stated regarding the Dispensation of the Law:

In the dispensation of the Law, for instance, those who were saved were required to participate in the Jewish Law, including the sacrificial system. This did not entitle them to salvation, but it was made incumbent upon them as a requirement. In the current dispensation, baptism is a requirement for those who have believed (in the work of Jesus Christ) and are thereby saved.

And, lastly, just for fun: I figured I would share a little snippet of m.d. history...

I used to be a Dispensationalist. *gasp* :D

[HaNotsri]

And I would say, "Semantics". The belief that Israel will get the promises of G-d fulfilled is NOT an acceptance of the Torah. It's a dismissal with a kiss; instead of a punch.

Dispensationalism, advocating that God has two groups of elect, validates many Christians’ claim to transgressing what are improperly viewed as “Jewish commandments,” only given to Israel. Since dispensationalists see themselves as part of a separate entity known as “the Church,” Scriptures that without any doubt are given to Israel—namely the Torah—do not apply as far as obedience is concerned. In actuality, however, the Torah contains commandments that were given to all Israel, and according to the Apostle Paul all Believers in Yeshua are a part of the Commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-22), or the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). As many Believers begin to recognize themselves as a part of Israel, come out of mainstream Christianity, and enter into the Messianic movement—it should be obvious that dispensationalism poses a major challenge to us.

Simply put, I was giving you my input on dispensationalism.

Now let me tell you my view on this whole mess.

I believe in a distinction between the Church and Israel. I believe they are two seperate groups of people in the eyes of God. I do believe that there are members of Israel within the Church today (aka our Messianic Jewish members).

I do not believe in any sort of supersessionism in that God has replaced the Jewish people (Israel) with the Church. I believe all that was promised to Israel is coming to fruition through God's Divine Mercy and the Jewish response to God's Will (but moreso through God's Divine Mercy).

I believe all of what is called Israel is compromised of the Jewish people today. I believe the Jewish people have representatives of all sh'vatim in their ranks as well are increasing their ranks through halachic conversions to Judaism (as it says in the Gemara that God allowed the dispersion in part, to increase converts). While I do believe there are lost instances of Jewish tribes among the gentile world, I trust that God will awaken those exiles and reunite them with the rest of the Jewish people (therefore, I reject any sort of Two-House or British-Israelism thought). I think He is doing that in our days (i.e. Falasha Mura, B'nei Menashe, etc).

I believe that Church is "grafted-in" into God's people (the commonwealth of Israel) and have become heirs of the Promise and children of Abraham through Christ. But I don't believe that makes the Church Israel, nor nullifies God's continued work through Israel. In fact, throughout the Bible it shows that God moves through Israel to the very end of time.

As far as the Torah goes, I believe that is everlasting for the Jewish people (whether they place trust in Christ or not). It's a covenant they made with God and should abide by it. When it comes to Christian observing the Torah, I do not believe that those who are gentile are necessarily obligated to observe the Torah though can pursue such observance if they feel led to. I get a lot of flack for this among the Messianic crew because it seems to go against the idea that there is no Jew or gentile in Christ (which I think is taken out of context). The simple matter is that we all have our roles to play in the Divine theatre. Whether we're Jews or Gentiles, Men or Women, Husband or Wife, etc. God has created these roles for us and even though we're all looked upon with equal love of God (which was what I believe that verse was referring too), we still have our roles to play.

Now we could talk the issue of salvation. But our two faiths have two different ideas of what that is. I could tell you all day long that even though I believe God continues His program through Israel, ultimately one is brought to salvation individually through the saving work of Christ (which is why I support some aspects of the Messianic/Hebrew-roots Christian movmements). Additionally, you can tell me that I am worshipping an idol and am a rasha for doing so. Ultimately, I believe that HaShem is the Dayan haEmes and as it states in Romans: He'll have mercy upon whom He'll have mercy. God is in control and ultimately, He is the decider. But what is that going to bring to our table?

Michael

[muffler dragon]

Simply put, I was giving you my input on dispensationalism.

Sorry. I've been defensive lately. My apologies to you.

Now let me tell you my view on this whole mess.

I believe in a distinction between the Church and Israel. I believe they are two seperate groups of people in the eyes of God. I do believe that there are members of Israel within the Church today (aka our Messianic Jewish members).

I do not believe in any sort of supersessionism in that God has replaced the Jewish people (Israel) with the Church. I believe all that was promised to Israel is coming to fruition through God's Divine Mercy and the Jewish response to God's Will (but moreso through God's Divine Mercy).

I believe all of what is called Israel is compromised of the Jewish people today. I believe the Jewish people have representatives of all sh'vatim in their ranks as well are increasing their ranks through halachic conversions to Judaism (as it says in the Gemara that God allowed the dispersion in part, to increase converts). While I do believe there are lost instances of Jewish tribes among the gentile world, I trust that God will awaken those exiles and reunite them with the rest of the Jewish people (therefore, I reject any sort of Two-House or British-Israelism thought). I think He is doing that in our days (i.e. Falasha Mura, B'nei Menashe, etc).

I believe that Church is "grafted-in" into God's people (the commonwealth of Israel) and have become heirs of the Promise and children of Abraham through Christ. But I don't believe that makes the Church Israel, nor nullifies God's continued work through Israel. In fact, throughout the Bible it shows that God moves through Israel to the very end of time.

Okay.

As far as the Torah goes, I believe that is everlasting for the Jewish people (whether they place trust in Christ or not). It's a covenant they made with God and should abide by it. When it comes to Christian observing the Torah, I do not believe that those who are gentile are necessarily obligated to observe the Torah though can pursue such observance if they feel led to. I get a lot of flack for this among the Messianic crew because it seems to go against the idea that there is no Jew or gentile in Christ (which I think is taken out of context). The simple matter is that we all have our roles to play in the Divine theatre. Whether we're Jews or Gentiles, Men or Women, Husband or Wife, etc. God has created these roles for us and even though we're all looked upon with equal love of God (which was what I believe that verse was referring too), we still have our roles to play.

As a Noachide, I agree.

Now we could talk the issue of salvation. But our two faiths have two different ideas of what that is. I could tell you all day long that even though I believe God continues His program through Israel, ultimately one is brought to salvation individually through the saving work of Christ (which is why I support some aspects of the Messianic/Hebrew-roots Christian movmements).

Salvation from what?

Additionally, you can tell me that I am worshipping an idol and am a rasha for doing so. Ultimately, I believe that HaShem is the Dayan haEmes and as it states in Romans: He'll have mercy upon whom He'll have mercy. God is in control and ultimately, He is the decider. But what is that going to bring to our table?

Michael

To be honest, I'm not concerned with your theological beliefs regarding G-d. I find you to be an amenable and respectable person. That's good enough for me.

[BereanTodd]

Simply put, I was giving you my input on dispensationalism.

Now let me tell you my view on this whole mess.

I believe in a distinction between the Church and Israel. I believe they are two seperate groups of people in the eyes of God. I do believe that there are members of Israel within the Church today (aka our Messianic Jewish members).

I do not believe in any sort of supersessionism in that God has replaced the Jewish people (Israel) with the Church. I believe all that was promised to Israel is coming to fruition through God's Divine Mercy and the Jewish response to God's Will (but moreso through God's Divine Mercy).

I believe all of what is called Israel is compromised of the Jewish people today. I believe the Jewish people have representatives of all sh'vatim in their ranks as well are increasing their ranks through halachic conversions to Judaism (as it says in the Gemara that God allowed the dispersion in part, to increase converts). While I do believe there are lost instances of Jewish tribes among the gentile world, I trust that God will awaken those exiles and reunite them with the rest of the Jewish people (therefore, I reject any sort of Two-House or British-Israelism thought). I think He is doing that in our days (i.e. Falasha Mura, B'nei Menashe, etc).

I believe that Church is "grafted-in" into God's people (the commonwealth of Israel) and have become heirs of the Promise and children of Abraham through Christ. But I don't believe that makes the Church Israel, nor nullifies God's continued work through Israel. In fact, throughout the Bible it shows that God moves through Israel to the very end of time.

As far as the Torah goes, I believe that is everlasting for the Jewish people (whether they place trust in Christ or not). It's a covenant they made with God and should abide by it. When it comes to Christian observing the Torah, I do not believe that those who are gentile are necessarily obligated to observe the Torah though can pursue such observance if they feel led to. I get a lot of flack for this among the Messianic crew because it seems to go against the idea that there is no Jew or gentile in Christ (which I think is taken out of context). The simple matter is that we all have our roles to play in the Divine theatre. Whether we're Jews or Gentiles, Men or Women, Husband or Wife, etc. God has created these roles for us and even though we're all looked upon with equal love of God (which was what I believe that verse was referring too), we still have our roles to play.

Now we could talk the issue of salvation. But our two faiths have two different ideas of what that is. I could tell you all day long that even though I believe God continues His program through Israel, ultimately one is brought to salvation individually through the saving work of Christ (which is why I support some aspects of the Messianic/Hebrew-roots Christian movmements). Additionally, you can tell me that I am worshipping an idol and am a rasha for doing so. Ultimately, I believe that HaShem is the Dayan haEmes and as it states in Romans: He'll have mercy upon whom He'll have mercy. God is in control and ultimately, He is the decider. But what is that going to bring to our table?

Michael

What more can I say except for :amen:

[GerTzedek]

At least we finally have people in the forum who understand that "grafted in" and "part of the commonwealth" doesn't mean the Church is part of Israel.

I for one am grateful for small things. This small thing respects the integrity of Israel, and holds the line.

While I may not agree with Berean Todd and HaNotsri with every opinion they have, I certainly THANK them for what they have said in this respect.

[GerTzedek]

Michael:

Have you ever considered that your "individual salvation" ideas are very limited, and that scripture has much to say regarding salvation of peoples? It is not that HaShem doesn't care about individuals. But do you think he cares ONLY about individuals? You and I have inherited this orientation regarding salvation from the gentile Christian church. But is it reflected exclusively in Scripture? The longer I live, and the more I study, the more I am convinced that standard Chrsitainity puts G-d into a box, and oversimplifies his plans. There is simply too much in scripture that doesn't fit.

[PattyOfurniture]

At least we finally have people in the forum who understand that "grafted in" and "part of the commonwealth" doesn't mean the Church is part of Israel.

I for one am grateful for small things. This small thing respects the integrity of Israel, and holds the line.

While I may not agree with Berean Todd and HaNotsri with every opinion they have, I certainly THANK them for what they have said in this respect.
The words 'integrity' and 'Israel' in the same sentence,interesting.

[ContraMundum]

Dispensationalism is a heresy and so is supersessionism/replacement theology, IMHO. There has never been any authentic ecumenical ratification of them and I can think of a few important churches of long standing that have confessionally rejected them.

Too bad so many denominations and groups in modern theology embrace this junk (but this is more a result of pop theology). One reason I've had trouble embracing a few of the Messianic denominations is because a number of them embrace dispensationalism at the same time while denying supersessionism.

What I'd like to see discussed (by Messianic Christians here) is the varying positions that make up supersessionism, and those that reject it. I think this is important, because I personally know of one person who left salvation behind because they couldn't figure out how the varying versions of this doctrine worked, and they then assumed that all Christianity believed in the worst kind of supersessionism and thus all Christianity is to be rejected. Naturally, as we can see, this was poor logic and its sad that modern day Christians seem to feel adverse to elucidating the question. (The reason is, I believe, because modern eschatology and ecclesiology is trapped in a protestant paradigm that lacks the ability to think outside of the box and deconstruct the entire process in support of a more foundational approach based on text and ecumenical consensus.)

I'd love to hear all your positions on this. :)

[ContraMundum]

Again, I get this:


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HaNotsri again.

[muffler dragon]

The words 'integrity' and 'Israel' in the same sentence,interesting.

Reads as though you're really one to talk. ;)