Replacement

[John81]

I'm not looking for a debate on the matter, I'm looking for some information.

I recently read that about 70% of churches teach a Replacement Theology; that God has replaced Israel with the church and thus Israel is irrelevant to an extent since all the promises to Israel now belong to the church (believers, body of Christ, whatever term a person prefers...don't need a debate on that either).

Anyway, I'm hoping folks here can tell me, or list the various churches and/or denominations which hold to Replacement Theology. Also, is it true that about 70% of churches teach this? Would that be just in America, mostly in America, worldwide?

I've never heard such taught or preached in any church I've attended, but since I've only been in a few churches which weren't Independent or Baptist, that could be why.

[DaveW]

Catholics - of course.

And as a result most protestant groups also do. Most of them never reformed very far from the "mother church".

Church of England (Anglican).

Lutheran.

Presbyterian.

SDA.

Mormons (a variation ).

JW's

Some church of Christ.

Some wacky baptists.

Some brethren.

Some "Community churches" (not sure about the US).

Pretty much anyone who counts themselves as "protestant", because it is one thing which they took with them when the protested.

Calvin taught it, so most everyone who holds to "reformed" doctrine, doctrines of grace etc also do.

Also an English thing - look at the British sporting anthem (unofficial ) - Jerusalem. Says a lot in itself.....

 

[John81]

Thank you for your input Dave!

Not being very familiar with overall Lutheran views I didn't realize they hold that view. I've only known a couple Lutherans and not to the point of having any deep conversations. I know some former Lutherans which I know don't hold to the Replacement view but it's possible they changed their view (or the teaching never took) when they left the Lutheran church. Or do maybe some Lutheran churches not teach this? I know there is some differences between their synods but I don't know what they are.

What about Methodists? I attended Methodist Sunday school for years as a child but all I recall is being told I had to "be good" to get to heaven and I had to watch out because the devil was always looking to get me and God was always looking to catch me doing something wrong so He could hammer me.

How about Charismatics or Pentecostals? Do they all follow one view (if so, which one) or are they divided and it depends upon which church one is at? I attended an Assemblies of God church (where I was saved) for awhile (until that pastor moved and they brought in a VERY Charismatic-type pastor and I left). The pastor which was there when I was saved didn't teach Replacement but I wasn't there long enough after that "tongue speaking" new pastor took over to know whether he did or not.

[MountainChristian]

One Methodist preacher here says the church replaced Israel. 

Edited June 6, 2015 by MountainChristian
preacher

[Alimantado]

I've been to Methodist, Baptist, United Reformed, Presbyterian, CofE, Brethren and a good few other churches and I've never seen a statement of faith or a sermon go any further into eschatology than the Apostles creed.

Here's the statements of faiths of two churches I've attended way back, one Baptist and one Brethren (though it doesn't call itself such any more). These were the first two I could find that had a statement on their website, so almost a 'random' sample:

www.salem.org.uk/statementoffaith.html

www.qeccambridge.org.uk/index.php?page=what-we-believe

[DaveW]

To add some info which is a guideline: in general, any church that teaches "universal church" will tend towards the replacement.

This would include most pentecostal and charismatic churches.

To have a biblically local church position makes "replacement theology" very difficult to follow.

Note: this is a generalisation.

[Invicta]

I've been to Methodist, Baptist, United Reformed, Presbyterian, CofE, Brethren and a good few other churches and I've never seen a statement of faith or a sermon go any further into eschatology than the Apostles creed.

Here's the statements of faiths of two churches I've attended way back, one Baptist and one Brethren (though it doesn't call itself such any more). These were the first two I could find that had a statement on their website, so almost a 'random' sample:

www.salem.org.uk/statementoffaith.html

www.qeccambridge.org.uk/index.php?page=what-we-believe

​Many Brethren do not call themselves such today.  I can only speak of those called the Open Brethren, which we were associated with.  The church (I will use that word although they would always call it an Assembly) we attended now calls itself an Evangelical Church.  When we were there it was fairly conservative, being separate, but since we left it has become involved in the ecumenical movement and in fact being a prominent part.  It has also moved to loud rock type music.

 

In our town, Whitstable, there were two Brethren Assmeblies, or Gospel Halls, Harbour Street, long ago changed its name to Harbour Street Evangelical Church and now Harbour St Christian fellowship.  2nd was Essex Street.  Stayed conservative till it dwindled to three members then closed down.

In nearby towns.  Faversham very conservative and inward looking  When I spoke to one of the members about ten years ago when I was researching the history of Baptists and others in the town, there were only four members, a brother and sister married to a sister and brother.  Not heard of them since.  

Herne Bay.  Closed down, now called the Beacon Church.  Charismatic.

Ashford.  Long ago changed its name to South Ashford Evangelical Church.  I expect they are Charismatic, but I don't know.  

Since their beginnings in the early 1800s they, the Brethren, had a rapid rise until about the 1960s, since then they have had just as spectacular demise.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Invicta

[Invicta]

To add some info which is a guideline: in general, any church that teaches "universal church" will tend towards the replacement.

This would include most pentecostal and charismatic churches.

To have a biblically local church position makes "replacement theology" very difficult to follow.

Note: this is a generalisation.

​How many churches did Christ build ?

Matt 16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[DaveW]

John specifically asked for no argument in this thread. 

Your first post added no information at all of relevance, and your second is going against the express purpose of this thread.

Start a post about the meaning of "church" and I will be happy to tear you to shreds on it - but not here.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

I have been to several Independent Baptist churches in SE Indiana, and have never heard of Replacement Theology like you all talk, but I do remember once in a 'meeting' where patriot Americans were having a 'get together' and there were comments about a Primitive Baptist preacher being a 'preterist', and I remember looking it up to see what one was. That was years before I was involved in anything like I believe now. Which some here refer to as Replacement Theology, of which I don't believe. (And I said it, so that is what I mean. Unlike accusations from another thread referring to me saying "I wasn't a Calvinist". And I am not.)

[Old-Pilgrim]

Hi the 'most sound' church here in UK where I live believe in replacement theology and Covenant theology, as far as I know, I have never read their statement of faith though, since I don't intend joining. On Theology, I have been looking a little into New Covenant Theology, It looks like good news for the Church. IE if young Christians feel compelled to study theology, NCT seems to be closer to scripture than CT and DT.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Old-Pilgrim

[DaveW]

You call them "most sound" yet have "never read their statement of faith"????

Curious......

[beameup]

This theology is the cornerstone of Catholicism, going back to the very foundation of the Roman Church under Constantine.  There are other "elements" of this 4th Century Catholic theology that go along with it.  Unfortunately, even IFB churches adopted certain elements of this Catholic doctrine.  One reason for this is that the "Reformers" (like Luther) did not go far enough, and so their teachings are simply adopted and continue to be so.  The Apostle Paul would be weeping if he were alive today.

Edited June 8, 2015 by beameup

[Covenanter]

To add some info which is a guideline: in general, any church that teaches "universal church" will tend towards the replacement.

This would include most pentecostal and charismatic churches.

To have a biblically local church position makes "replacement theology" very difficult to follow.

Note: this is a generalisation.

​I think you are saying that the term "church" always refers to a local gathering of believers, as distinct from the concept of the church also being a general term for all believers regardless of location. In the local situation, church usually replaces synagogue, as recorded in Acts. 

The general meaning is implied e.g. in these verses - Mat. 16:18  1 Cor. 12:28  Eph. 1:22  Eph. 3:10  Eph. 5:22-33  Col. 1:18  Heb. 12:22-24  

In that sense, "church" is only a terminological replacement for "Israel" as, of course Israel continued to exist independently of the church of believers in Jesus Christ which from the beginning at Pentecost comprised only Jews, with Samaritans & Gentiles being added & reluctantly accepted. 

The church is not a theological replacement for Israel, but a continuation of the believing people of God, as it began as the Messianic promises were declared to Israel at Pentecost. The church now comprises believers of all races in the new covenant in Jesus' blood, as distinct from Jews who reject the Lord Jesus Christ, & maintain a belief in the Mosaic Law & the old covenant & who retain the name "Israel." 

There are of course church denominations that have taken an anti-Scriptural "replacement" position in the past to the extent of persecuting Jews. Orthodox, RCs & Lutherans took that position. Do any still maintain "replacement" theology? That's John's OP question. 

 

 

 

 

[No Nicolaitans]

Sorry John, I know this kind of digresses from your OP...

One thing that is often over-looked by those who hold to Replacement Theology is this one simple fact...if the church has replaced Israel, and we are now Israel...why does Paul (in his epistles) still refer to the believers to whom he's writing as...Gentiles? Many of the verses (used as proof arguments) put forth by RT proponents are later followed by this one fact...Paul still refers to them as Gentiles.