"Replacement" Theology

[Genesius]

For lack of a better term I will be referring to certain aspects of Dispensationalist Theology as Replacement Theology in this thread. The reason will become apparent. I should also preface by saying that I am in no way implying that ALL Baptists or Dispensationalists would agree with me about having no issue with Peter being the first Pope.

I am a Catholic Convert. However, even as a Protestant for years I had no issue with the idea of St. Peter being the first head bishop of the Catholic Church.
What led my thinking process was partially my Baptist upbringing which was inundated with Dispensationlist Theology. According to their logic Jesus had become fed up with the Jews of His day and established Christianity to REPLACE Judaism rather than fulfill it. As the logic followed, they could therefore claim that the Protestant Movement was a ‘replacement’ of Catholicism, as a result of God being fed up with the evil practices of the Catholic Church just as He had *replaced *Judaism for the same reason. Note: I’m always careful not to refer to it as the “Reformation” since there was no real reform taking place, but rather chaos and confusion]

Now, let us rewind. With that consideration in my mind, if it were true that Jesus had replaced the Catholic Church with Protestantism it would have no bearing on how the Church had been for 1500 years prior, especially St. Peter’s appointment as the first head bishop, since the ‘corruption’ had not emerged until much more recent centuries. After all, it was precisely because the Catholic Church had strayed from it’s original teachings and practices that it had to be replaced.

Of course there are many holes in this way of thinking that I had not considered at that time. For one, the determination of exactly when the Church became ‘corrupt’. In order for Christ to change the structure and practices of it so radically as Protestants had, it would have had to become corrupt in the first few centuries, even before the canon of the NT, and therefore the authority and inspiration of the NT Canon would have to be in question (of course with the exception of the KJV, since we know it was that version that Jesus Himself edited…LOL), not to mention the authority of the Apostles themselves. But, alas, I was in invincible ignorance at the time, being ignorant of all the early fathers and most of the history and practices of the Catholic Church.

I also didn’t take into account the authority of the teaching office of the papacy in general. When He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. In essence, He is saying that the gates of hell will not prevail against the teaching authority of the Church… the papacy…the same authority He just gave to Peter. It would prevail for all time.

Needless to say, there were many other factors I had not taken into account.

Any comments?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Great insight. this is one thing that i have not heard people touching upon. but it make sense that protestants think exactly that. that the CC was replaced by protestantism.

i think that is what is keeping them where they are.

they cannot understand the authority stablished by Christ in the Church. if they could see this, it would be a lot easier for them to convert.

Authority is something that people always rebel against and find that many adheres to it.
now and days it has become very hard for the CC to mantain here authority. just look around we see rebelious people all over the Church. they are standing the test of times. remember what ST Paul said. those who endure until the end.

 

[Spirithound]

As the logic followed, they could therefore claim that the Protestant Movement was a ‘replacement’ of Catholicism, as a result of God being fed up with the evil practices of the Catholic Church just as He had *replaced *Judaism for the same reason. Note: I’m always careful not to refer to it as the “Reformation” since there was no real reform taking place, but rather chaos and confusion]

…

Any comments?

Why yes, thank you

I like how you referred to the “Protestant Movement”. It was, and still is complete chaos. Any Protestants nowadays who subscribe to RT would need to justify not only when their specific denomination split, but when their mother denomination split from its mother denomination, and so on, because their denomination, as the “true replacement” of the Catholic Church is also the “true replacement” of the mother denomination, which was a “true replacement”. Frankly, the crisis that led up to the beginning of the Protestant Movement was earth-shattering and makes an emotionally appealling case, but since then, the justifications have just gotten pettier and pettier.

 

[theoldman]

Let me ask, do you know what “replacement” theology is? I will be back later for your answer. Now it is time for work.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology are two completely different things.

I honestly never heard anything like what you are saying here. Jesus replaced the church with Protestantism?? Where did you hear that?

 

[Genesius]

Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology are two completely different things.

I honestly never heard anything like what you are saying here. Jesus replaced the church with Protestantism?? Where did you hear that?

My Response: To you and to theoldman. First, if you recall my first paragraph:

For lack of a better term I will be referring to certain aspects of Dispensationalist Theology as Replacement Theology in this thread. The reason will become apparent. I should also preface by saying that I am in no way implying that ALL Baptists or Dispensationalists would agree with me about having no issue with Peter being the first Pope.

Here are some quotes concerning Replacement Theology which is also known as Supersessionism or Fulfillment Theology:

“Replacement Theology - reduced to its simplest form - teaches that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan.” www.shema.com

“This view teaches that the Church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian Church” www.biblicist.org/bible/replace

“Replacement theology “is the view that the church is the new or true Israel that has permanently replaced or superseded Israel as the people of God.” www.midnightcall.com/articles/prophetic/replacement

This is different from what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that far from REPLACING Judaism, Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism; that the Catholic Church is in a sense the continuation of the Jewish faith. In fact, she refers to the Patriarchs of the O.T. as our spiritual fathers. I realize that some of the above quotes attempt to equate “replacement” and “fulfillment”, but they are two completely different ways of thinking.

How Replacement Theology stems from Dispensationalist Theology is that Dispensationalism teaches that the history of the world, from it’s conception to it’s final end is divided into seven different periods of history known as dispensations. The current dispensation we are living in is the dispensation of grace (or Christianity), which replaced the dispensation of the law (or Judaism). *On a side note, when I was exploring Presbyterian theology I discovered a very similar theology to Dispensationalism called “Reformed or Covenant Theology”. It is essentially the same except they think in terms of Covenants vs. Dispensations].

Now, having established that logic, I am simply saying that it’s easy for a dispensationalist and/or one who holds to Replacement Theology to follow that same logical pattern, applying it to the necessity for the Protestant Movement to ‘replace’ the ‘evil Catholic institution’, thus was the mindset of the early “Reformers” such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others.

I was raised in the Baptist Church in my formidable years. I am very thankful to them for many things, such as being able to bring to mind certain Bible passages that I memorized as a child, a song of NT books in Sunday School class that I still use in my mind when looking up a book in the NT, etc. Even giving me a greater appreciation for the Mass each Sunday when I hear references to different passages all throughout the liturgy.

However, I also remember enough about what they taught me concerning Dispensationalism to know it influenced my thinking process later in life when I was struggling with questions about coming home to Rome. At one point I thought to myself, “It’s obvious to me that Jesus established the Church to replace the evil Pharisees’ religion [Judaism] because there are witnesses to that end, and He was there and told them what was what. However, how do I know the same happened with Protestantism to replace the Catholic Church? If Jesus would just appear to tell me what was what…but alas, He won’t. So how do I know one way or another?”

You see, at that point I was confused. Mine wasn’t a matter of remaining Protestant out of spite, but rather out of uncertainty as to what God’s plan was.

Of course, the rest…as they say…is history…LOL.

 

[Genesius]

Why yes, thank you

I like how you referred to the “Protestant Movement”. It was, and still is complete chaos. Any Protestants nowadays who subscribe to RT would need to justify not only when their specific denomination split, but when their mother denomination split from its mother denomination, and so on, because their denomination, as the “true replacement” of the Catholic Church is also the “true replacement” of the mother denomination, which was a “true replacement”. Frankly, the crisis that led up to the beginning of the Protestant Movement was earth-shattering and makes an emotionally appealling case, but since then, the justifications have just gotten pettier and pettier.

Yes, thank you, and just for the benefit of those who are unaware true reform did occur in the form of the “Counterreformation”. That is, reform WITHIN the Church as opposed to outside. Otherwise, it cannot be true reform simply by way of definition. If I’m not mistaken, the CR took place, and is still taking place, over a period of centuries, taking into account some of the original objections of people like Luther. Some believe that if Luther were alive today he would be amazed at the reform that has taken place and would have no problem being Catholic. Thank God for the Ecumenical Councils (i.e. Vatican’s I and II, etc.). However, it’s also good to know that our true Catholic identity has not been compromised as well.

 

[Genesius]

Another thing that comes to my mind is something Dispensationalism doesn’t take into account. In order for them to justify ‘Sola Scriptura’ there would have to be an additional Dispensation; the “Dispensation of the Bible” as separate from the “Dispensation of the Apostolic Age”.

Should they just be granted a Dispensation? Okay, don’t get your blood pressure up…it’s just a joke.

 

[theoldman]

Dispensationlist do not believe the the Church has permanently replaced Israel nor do they believe that all tha promises for Isreal will be fulfilled by the Church. They believe that because Israel reject Christ that God has set Isreal aside until the end of the Church age when God will being Israel back to it’s former glory

 

[Genesius]

Dispensationlist do not believe the the Church has permanently replaced Israel nor do they believe that all tha promises for Isreal will be fulfilled by the Church. They believe that because Israel reject Christ that God has set Isreal aside until the end of the Church age when God will being Israel back to it’s former glory

Okay, theoldman. Thank you for clarifying that. It’s been a while since I was Baptist. I do remember some things, but other things escape me…especially in my old age…LOL. I really am glad you happened by to keep things in perspective.

 

[Genesius]

Dispensationlist do not believe the the Church has permanently replaced Israel nor do they believe that all tha promises for Isreal will be fulfilled by the Church. They believe that because Israel reject Christ that God has set Isreal aside until the end of the Church age when God will being Israel back to it’s former glory

Okay. let me ask you a question. How does a Dispensationalist explain how a Jew who rejects Christ can be saved? Are they saying that Jews are an exception to the rule of how one gets ‘saved’?

Here’s another question that I would pose to you, as well as anyone else…what exactly is a Jew? I can think of several different definitions. A Jew could be defined as one who is Jewish by race; that is, one could be a Jewish Baptist, just like one could be an Irish Baptist or a German Baptist, that is, of that descent. Another way one could be a Jew is by belief. One could be of German and Scot descent (such as myself) and have as their religion, Judaism. Another way could simply be cultural.

Sorry, I don’t mean to chase rabbits and get off the subject. Just an observation.

 

[Lev23]

Okay. let me ask you a question. How does a Dispensationalist explain how a Jew who rejects Christ can be saved? Are they saying that Jews are an exception to the rule of how one gets ‘saved’?

They cannot be saved for rejection of Jesus, and no they are not an exception to the rule.
Though unsaved Israel will nationally turn to the Lord and receive Jesus Christ as their Messiah in the prophetic future.

Here’s another question that I would pose to you, as well as anyone else…what exactly is a Jew? I can think of several different definitions. A Jew could be defined as one who is Jewish by race; that is, one could be a Jewish Baptist, just like one could be an Irish Baptist or a German Baptist, that is, of that descent. Another way one could be a Jew is by belief. One could be of German and Scot descent (such as myself) and have as their religion, Judaism. Another way could simply be cultural.

Sorry, I don’t mean to chase rabbits and get off the subject. Just an observation.

The broadest use of one who is a Jew is anyone who is born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob(Israel). The term Jew and Israel became synonymous about the time of the Babylonian captivity.

 

[theoldman]

They cannot be saved for rejection of Jesus, and no they are not an exception to the rule.
Though unsaved Israel will nationally turn to the Lord and receive Jesus Christ as their Messiah in the prophetic future.

There is nothing in the Bible that says a Jew can not become a Christian.

The broadest use of one who is a Jew is anyone who is born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob(Israel). The term Jew and Israel became synonymous about the time of the Babylonian captivity.

True - a Jew is someone with the Hebrew blood line ,like me. A gentile that has embraced the Jewish religion is not a Jew

 

[Genesius]

There is nothing in the Bible that says a Jew can not become a Christian.

True - a Jew is someone with the Hebrew blood line ,like me. A gentile that has embraced the Jewish religion is not a Jew

Okay, your first statement would be true enough if you accept ONLY the definition in your second statement. However, there are plenty of Orthodox Jews who still reject Christ as the Messiah (whether they have a Hebrew bloodline or not). A gentile who has embraced the Jewish religion may take offense at your definition above, as possibly would many blood Jews who have accepted them into their religion. Of course, there are also about as many different kinds of Jews as there are Protestant denominations (speaking strictly from a religious vs. bloodline point of view). You have anywhere from liberal to ultra conservative, Messianic to Orthodox and everything in between.

And then we must remember that the Apostles themselves were all Jewish, as well as Jesus’ mother. You could say the first ‘Christians’ were Jewish…

 

[James224]

For lack of a better term I will be referring to certain aspects of Dispensationalist Theology as Replacement Theology in this thread. The reason will become apparent. I should also preface by saying that I am in no way implying that ALL Baptists or Dispensationalists would agree with me about having no issue with Peter being the first Pope.

I am a Catholic Convert. However, even as a Protestant for years I had no issue with the idea of St. Peter being the first head bishop of the Catholic Church.
What led my thinking process was partially my Baptist upbringing which was inundated with Dispensationlist Theology. According to their logic Jesus had become fed up with the Jews of His day and established Christianity to REPLACE Judaism rather than fulfill it. As the logic followed, they could therefore claim that the Protestant Movement was a ‘replacement’ of Catholicism, as a result of God being fed up with the evil practices of the Catholic Church just as He had *replaced *Judaism for the same reason. Note: I’m always careful not to refer to it as the “Reformation” since there was no real reform taking place, but rather chaos and confusion]

Now, let us rewind. With that consideration in my mind, if it were true that Jesus had replaced the Catholic Church with Protestantism it would have no bearing on how the Church had been for 1500 years prior, especially St. Peter’s appointment as the first head bishop, since the ‘corruption’ had not emerged until much more recent centuries. After all, it was precisely because the Catholic Church had strayed from it’s original teachings and practices that it had to be replaced.

Of course there are many holes in this way of thinking that I had not considered at that time. For one, the determination of exactly when the Church became ‘corrupt’. In order for Christ to change the structure and practices of it so radically as Protestants had, it would have had to become corrupt in the first few centuries, even before the canon of the NT, and therefore the authority and inspiration of the NT Canon would have to be in question (of course with the exception of the KJV, since we know it was that version that Jesus Himself edited…LOL), not to mention the authority of the Apostles themselves. But, alas, I was in invincible ignorance at the time, being ignorant of all the early fathers and most of the history and practices of the Catholic Church.

I also didn’t take into account the authority of the teaching office of the papacy in general. When He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. In essence, He is saying that the gates of hell will not prevail against the teaching authority of the Church… the papacy…the same authority He just gave to Peter. It would prevail for all time.

Needless to say, there were many other factors I had not taken into account.

Any comments?

Very good! If protestantism replaced Catholicism, where is that prophecy in the bible? I remember reading “The Trail of Blood” put out by the Baptists. This showed the Catholic Church going bad right from the beginning - 300’s. I say 300’s because that’s when they say the Catholic Church started. I was active on CARM for many years and every now and then I would ask: If you know that the Catholic Church went bad in the 300’s, then you must know of some leader who went underground and kept the true faith back then, otherwise, you wouldn’t even know the Catholic Church became corrupt. Name me one person, say, from the 100ad to say 1,000 ad that you agree with? Of course, I never received an answer.

 

[Genesius]

Very good! If protestantism replaced Catholicism, where is that prophecy in the bible? I remember reading “The Trail of Blood” put out by the Baptists. This showed the Catholic Church going bad right from the beginning - 300’s. I say 300’s because that’s when they say the Catholic Church started. I was active on CARM for many years and every now and then I would ask: If you know that the Catholic Church went bad in the 300’s, then you must know of some leader who went underground and kept the true faith back then, otherwise, you wouldn’t even know the Catholic Church became corrupt. Name me one person, say, from the 100ad to say 1,000 ad that you agree with? Of course, I never received an answer.

I might add also if one believes the Church didn’t go bad until the 300’s and they are not Catholic, then they have a lot of explaining to do. Both St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Ignatius of Antioch were bishops living around the 1st and 2nd centuries, and their writings are very Catholic in nature. One of them describes the Mass, which has been virtually unchanged for 2000+ years.

And then of course, there’s that whole issue about the canonization of Sacred Scripture, which I’m pretty sure was considered finalized at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. So, in order to accept the whole Sola Scriptura idea they would have to say the Church had not been corrupted until after that, which I guess would still leave 3-4 years, but I suspect they probably dated the corruption much sooner.