Replacement Theology???

[Antonius_Lupus]

Are we Catholics “Replacement theologians?”

I can’t seem to get a clear answer on this one…

 

[reggieM]

“Replacement” is an inaccurate term.

We believe that the promises given to Abraham and his children were fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church is the New Israel, the New Jerusalem. Christ’s Kingdom is His Church - on earth and in heaven (and in purgatory).

The children of Abraham are all of those who are united with the Messiah, Christ. This has nothing to do with racial heritage. In the Kingdom of Christ, there is no longer Jew or Greek as far as having privilege.

So it depends on how you define “replacement theology” but the Catholic Church is the continuation and fulfillment of the religion given by God to Moses, through the Prophets, through the Messiah.

 

[FightingFat]

Are we Catholics “Replacement theologians?”

I can’t seem to get a clear answer on this one…

No. Clear enough?

 

[reggieM]

I can understand the confusion on this topic though.

For example –

Despite all the history, however, the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (2006), states explicitly: “The covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”[34] Just precisely what authority this statement in the catechism has, or whether it is an error, is a matter of internal debate among American Catholics.

I don’t understand what that statement means. The covenant that God made with the “Jewish people” (who are they?) was that a Messiah, the Prince of Peace, would come and deliver them.

I guess that does remain eternally valid, but it’s hard to see that in the quote above.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi “AP” “Replacement Theology” is a derogatory term made up by dispensationalists used to label anyone who believes in Covenant Theology. So, no there are no protestants, nor catholics who call themsleves “Replacement theology”.

print out this link to learn what those of us who believe in covenant theology really believe,
incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/israel.htm

and, next time you run accross dispensationalists trying to put that nasty label on you read Romans 11 to them, followed by posting that outline.

Romans 11:11-32 (King James Version)

11I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

15For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

**17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; **

18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father’s sakes.

29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Ask them, exactly what was the church grafted into?

 

[reggieM]

Very good point.

 

[runandsew]

The Corporate Conversion of Israel
By Jimmy Akin

Since Catholics are not dispensationalists, they frequently assume that we hold the views of replacement theologians.

That is not the case. The Church regards both Jews and Christians as complimentary and overlapping peoples of God. We are both elect. Those Jewish individuals who are also Christians might be regarded as doubly elect, or elect on two grounds. While the Church is the New Israel, this does not obliterate the identity of the Old Israel, nor deprive it from playing any role in God’s plan of the ages. In particular, it does not remove the prophesied conversion of the Jewish people in the last days.

This in turn causes problems for replacement theologians. When they encounter Catholic recognition of the special status of the Jewish people, they may be inclined to regard Catholics as proto-, crypto-, or pseudo-dispensationalists.

 

[moondweller]

“Replacement” is an inaccurate term.

The Catholic Church is the New Israel, the New Jerusalem. Christ’s Kingdom is His Church - on earth and in heaven (and in purgatory).

This is the Roman Catholic version of “Replacement Theology.” Based on a literal delineation of the O.T. prophetic, Scriptures (and the N.T.), the Catholic church is none of the above. So, yes, “Replacement” is a very accurate term for your theology…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Romans 11, is there one olive tree or two olive trees?

The way I read this passage is that there is one olive tree, where those without faith have been removed and those with faith were grafted in – no one should take pride in this. And, in the end all the Jewish people will be grafted in because of faith in Jesus as the Messiah.

As a covenant theologian am I misreading Romans 11 ???

 

[reggieM]

This is the Roman Catholic version of “Replacement Theology.” Based on a literal delineation of the O.T. prophetic, Scriptures (and the N.T.), the Catholic church is none of the above. So, yes, “Replacement” is a very accurate term for your theology…

Ok, I can understand how you picked up the terms “New Israel” and “New Jerusalem” to think that this means a “replacement”.

But those terms indicate a continuity – not the replacement of one thing with an entirely different thing. So it is the fulfillment of the promises of God that is lived in the “new” Israel. It is just as accurate to say that “the Catholic Church is Israel”.

We say “new” Israel in the same way one would call an old home, for example, which has been restored and enhanced the “new” version of that home. It’s not a different house. But it’s new because the potential that was fulfilled by a renovation process.

The Messiah of the Jews has come and he fulfilled the promises given to the Jewish people. Again, that is not a “replacement” of the chosen people, but an extension of them so that Gentiles are bonded spiritually to the olive tree.

God established one Church, through His Messiah. That is the Kingdom of Israel – now a universal Church under the reign of the Prince of Peace.

 

[reggieM]

Based on a literal delineation of the O.T. prophetic, Scriptures (and the N.T.), the Catholic church is none of the above.

Well here I’d point us first to a discussion on Sola Scriptura since that idea is refuted by a large number of arguments.