Replacement Theology Question

[pentecostalguy]

I have had the same Pastor almost all my life. My current Pastor took over the church I attend when I was abt. 6 years old. My pastor however teaches Preterism whenever he does teach about revelation. However end times is rarely every taught at my church. My question is I have always been taught Replacement Theology (That the Church Replaced Israel) is this an idea that is strictly Preterist or is it an idea held by dispensationist as well.

[RevHam]

Several hold that view - but the Bible does not. You can ask Paul: Romans 11.

[mfblume]

Actually preterism is not replacement theology.

Replacement theology misses the fact that the bible speaks of the covenants of God as naturally leading into the New Covenant, with expectation and intention for Israel to naturally come into the new covenant, and not be replaced by anyone. It's just that gentiles came into the same fellowship with the Jews as far as God was concerned. So, replacement theology is not preterism. Preterism would best be described as espousing COVENANT theology. Check it out on WIKIPEDIA, where you will find a good description of how covenant theology is NOT replacement theology.

[Sept5SavedTeen]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Actually preterism is not replacement theology.

Replacement theology misses the fact that the bible speaks of the covenants of God as naturally leading into the New Covenant, with expectation and intention for Israel to naturally come into the new covenant, and not be replaced by anyone. It's just that gentiles came into the same fellowship with the Jews as far as God was concerned. So, replacement theology is not preterism. Preterism would best be described as espousing COVENANT theology. Check it out on WIKIPEDIA, where you will find a good description of how covenant theology is NOT replacement theology.

Hello Bro. Blume, interestingly enough, my pastor just cited your website for an e-mail he sent yesterday. You and my pastor should talk some times, the similarities between you and him are sort of interesting.

Anyways, I mentioned that to say this, my pastor is very much into the Covenants, but his main difference with you is that he was taught pre-trib, premil, and just has stayed with what he has been taught. When I ask him about it, he can defend his position fairly well, probably better than most other pre-tribs and premils, but I really dislike this brand of eschatology. Anyways, he looks at Covenants, and has a fairly dispensationalist view, where there are 7 Covenants or dispensations as Darby would have put it- can you explain how it is possible for you both to look at the covenants and to be pretrib premil and preterist?

-Bro. Alex

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sept5SavedTeen

Hello Bro. Blume, interestingly enough, my pastor just cited your website for an e-mail he sent yesterday. You and my pastor should talk some times, the similarities between you and him are sort of interesting.

Anyways, I mentioned that to say this, my pastor is very much into the Covenants, but his main difference with you is that he was taught pre-trib, premil, and just has stayed with what he has been taught. When I ask him about it, he can defend his position fairly well, probably better than most other pre-tribs and premils, but I really dislike this brand of eschatology. Anyways, he looks at Covenants, and has a fairly dispensationalist view, where there are 7 Covenants or dispensations as Darby would have put it- can you explain how it is possible for you both to look at the covenants and to be pretrib premil and preterist?

-Bro. Alex

Hi bro.,

Premil and pretrib teachers understand covenants to a degree, but they adhere to premil and pretrib teachings solely due to "following" and comprehending the methodology and logic of the teaching. No one would ever come to that conclusion by studying the bible, itself, though, because the bible simply does not lay that teaching out. One has to DERIVE the conclusions of pretrib teaching to believe it. It simply is not taught by the apostles anywhere. This is the reason I claim pretrib teachers exist. They can follow the logic of the teaching, since it does have some reason behind it. But should they ever stop to think that nobody in the New Testament treated the prophecies of old in the manner pretrib treats them, they woudl realize something is awry.

I claim the difference between pretrib teaching's position and preterism's position, although both see need to understand covenants, is that the prettrib details are novelties the apostles and New Testament writers knew nothing about. Hence, they are wrong. Those beliefs that differ in pretrib teaching are not taught anywhere in the bible, and are simply an elaborate, extrabiblical and fanciful juggling of verses together and are sorted in a way the bible, itself, simply never sorted them out to be in explicit teaching.

If pretribbers could ever stop to consider that the reason their conclusions are never explicitly laid out in scripture, itself, is because they are not meant to be laid out in that manner, they would abandon the entire doctrine. To accept the teaching despite this fact that the bible never explicitly lays prophecies in the manner pretrib teachers do, is to believe God revealed truth that is outside the bible, although it is ABOUT the bible, that the apostles never had. Wm. Chalfatn personally told me that God actually revealed dispensational "truths" to the church world through Darby and Scofield and Larkin since 1830, that the church never knew before. (Sounds like the Catholic argument for the fourth century "revelation" of the trinity). And he claimed that was because no church body before that day had to know about it, since they were not in the last days. Now, how 1830 can be considered the last days, when the previous centuries were not, is beyond me! No one is still around today who lived in 1830 any more than anyone from the previous centuries!