Dispensational Hype and So Called Replacement Theology

[Cajun Huguenot]

I want to say something about the Early Church Fathers and their view of the relationship between Israel and the Church, but before doing so let’s look at what some of my Dispensational brothers have said about the so called “replacement theology.” Dispensationalists have made a radical break with most of the Church on this particular issue. I think it is important to look at what some of these opponents (i.e. Dispensationalists) of the historic teachins, about the relationship of Israel and the church, have to say on this issue.

Clarence Wagner in his article The Error of Replacement Theology says the following “it is a doctrinal teaching that originated in the early Church” and also “Replacement Theology was introduced to the Church shortly after Gentile leadership took over from Jewish leadership.” We all know that “Gentile leadership” began, or to use Wagner’s term “took over” as soon as the Apostles had passed away.

In 1977 DTS student Alan Patrick Boyd wrote his Masters thesis titled “A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers.” Boyd says that he undertook this study to “bolster” the dispensational claims, but he had to admit that “[T]his writer believes that the Church rapidly fell from New Testament truth, and this is very evident in the realm of eschatology. Only in modern times has New Testament eschatological truth been recovered.” He further admits “The Majority of the writers/writings in this period (70-165 A.D.) completely identify Israel with the church.”

Isn't this an amazing claim. The WHOLE church was wrong on this issue from the time of the last Apostle until John Darby invented Dispensational theology in the early 1800's.

Boyd writes “In the case of Barnabas, . . . he has totally disassociated Israel from the precepts of the Old Testament. In fact he specifically designates the Church to be the heir of the covenantal promises made to Israel.” The Epistle of Barnabas was written in the very late 1st century or very early 2nd century.

He says this of the Shepherd of Hermas ( which was written before 150 AD) that it contains “the employment of the phraseology of late Judaism to make the Church the true Israel…” And Of Justin Martyr he says “he claims that the Church is the true Israelitic race, thereby blurring the distinction between Israel and the Church.”

Justin Martyr very clearly, with no equivocation, identifies the Church with Israel. It is also important to keep in mind that NO believer then countered or contradicted what Justin said. This is important because the Church has always had a lively discussion on matters of theological disagreement (like we see on this site). But NO ONE disagrees with Justin Martyr on this point until John Darby does so in the 1820s (more than 1600 years later).

But even before Justin it is clear that the Church fathers believed the Church has inherited the promises and blessings that God made to Israel, thereby identifying the Church as the New Covenant Israel of God.

We see this in Clement of Rome’s (30-100 AD) Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written before the end of the first century. Clement knew and was a disciple of the Apostle Paul. He writes in his letter to the Corenthian Church, “it is written: When the Most High divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the measurement of His inheritance. And in another place He saith; Behold, the Lord taketh for Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man taketh the firstfruits of his threshing-floor; and the holy of holies shall come forth from that nation. Seeing then that we are the special portion of a Holy God…”

For Clement Jacob/Israel was “the portion of the Lord” and the Church had become “the special portion of a Holy God.” He, like the others, including the Apostles, makes the Church to be the inheritors of God’s promises to Israel.

It is interesting that the Dispensationalists readily and eagerly blame the post-Apostolic fathers for so-called “Replacement theology” and the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, but our Jewish friends charge the New Testament with both these things. While I disagree with both groups, I believe it is the Jews who have the stronger, more consistent argument. Lets look at what they say on this issue.

In an article titled The Anti-Jewish New Testament we find this:
The summary view of this essay is simple:
Question: What is the source of the common thread of anti-Semitism shared by the historical acts of persecution of the Jewish people?
Answer: The New Testament.

And then this: “The "Christian love for the Jew", of which so much is heard these days, turns out to be conditional in overwhelming majority of cases. Christians, evangelical Christian missionaries in particular, view the Jewish people as blind and in need of being made into "believers". When their missionary efforts fail, or when their deceptions are exposed, their professed love for the Jew quickly turns into hatred and contempt. Today's hand-clapping Jew-loving "new Christians" are evangelical Christian fundamentalists in disguise, some of whom even profess to be "Torah Observant". They teach the same anti-Semitic doctrines as have been taught by "The Church" throughout the Common Era. And while their tactics may have changed, their agenda and message remain the same.”

On their website they give a number of lists that include supposed anti-Semitic verses in the Bible/New Testament. As a Christian I believe these folk are dead wrong in their assessment, but I do believe their argument is far better, and more coherent, than are the arguments and accusations of my dispensational brethren regarding supposed "replacement theology." If our Disbensational brethren are correct (and they are not) then the blame for replacement theology should not be set of the Early Church Fathers, but, as this Jews site argues, the blame must go back to the New Testament itself.

Thankfully both the Dispensationalists and these Jewish folk are wrong.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

 

[JM]

Another view: http://www.tyndale.edu/dirn/source/theology.html

In order to evaluate the writings of the fathers for dispensational concepts, it is necessary to briefly set forth the main features of “classic” or “normative” dispensational theology as presented by men like C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Ryrie. Perhaps the best recent definition of dispensationalism which incorporates the essential features of 1) the distinction between Israel and the church, 2) the hermeneutical principle of literal or normal interpretation, and 3) the purpose of God in history as the glorification of Himself, is that formulated by Robert P. Lightner. He defines dispensationalism,

. . . as that system of theology which interprets the Bible literally—according to normal usage—and places primary emphasis on the major biblical covenants—Abrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, New—and sees the Bible as the unfolding of distinguishable economies in the outworking of God’s major purpose to bring glory to Himself.

In keeping with this belief that God’s primary purpose is self-glorification, Ryrie suggests that the goal of history is the future millennial kingdom in which the glory of God will be uniquely manifested to all mankind. It is obvious that this system of theology is closely associated with and intimately involved in the study of eschatology. In this regard, Ryrie sets forth the following as the salient features of dispensational eschatology: 1) the hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation, which leads to a belief in 2) the literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, which in turn causes one to recognize 3) a clear distinction between Israel and the church, out of which the concept of 4) the pretribulation rapture of the church grows, and the belief in 5) a literal, earthly millennial kingdom during which the covenant promises to Israel will be fulfilled.

Without question the most important figure among the early apologists for Christianity was Justin Martyr. Born in Flavia Neapolis in Samaria in a.d. 100, Justin was a trained professional philosopher. But while walking in a field near the sea one day, he met “a certain old man” who convinced him that Platonic philosophy could not compete with the utterances of that ancient class of men called prophets, who “alone both saw and announced the truth to men . . .” After the old man had spoken these things, wrote Justin,

. . . straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher.

The strong premillennial position found in the Dialogue with Trypho, but absent in Justin’s other works, raises some important questions about his communication with other venerable “old men,” like Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna) and Papias (bishop of Hierapolis). It is assumed on the strength of Eusebius’ testimony that Justin’s dialogue with Trypho on “the Xystus” or broad avenue, took place in Ephesus. The time of this dialogue seems to have been shortly after the Bar Kocheba rebellion in Palestine. Thus it must have taken place roughly between a.d 138 and 140. From Ephesus, a distance of only 41.5 Roman miles to Polycarp’s see at Smyrna (a two and a half day journey), “a visit to this renowned disciple of the Apostles residing in a neighbouring city,” as J. B. Lightfoot points out, “would naturally form part of his programme.”

 

[ClementofRome]

Clement of Rome (1Clem.) clearly sees the Church as true/spiritual Israel.

This Clement of Rome does so too!

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Another view: http://www.tyndale.edu/dirn/source/theology.html

Thanks Street Preacher,

I would like to point out that the quotes you give in no way contradict what was said in the article above. Justin, like the Apostolic Fathers and all the Church up until the rise of Dispensationalism, saw the Church as the true Israel of God. They all saw continuity between Israel and the Church, But the Dispensationalists have (until the rise of "progresive dispensationalism") seen radical dis-continuity between Israel and the Church.

Dispensationalist can certainly point to "pre-millennialists in the early church, no one has ever denied that. But while all Dispensationalists are Premill not all premill are Dispies. Justin Martyr was premill but he was very anti-dispenstional in his view of the relationship between Israel and the Church, as were all Christians before Darby.

I find it hard to believe that the WHOLE church for 1800 years missed such an important doctrine.

Thanks again,
Kenith

 

[JM]

I find it hard to believe that the WHOLE church for 1800 years missed such an important doctrine.

Isn't this the same line used by Orthodox and Catholics about the 5 solas, or the faith that was recovered during the Reformation? "I find it hard to believe that the WHOLE church for 1500 years missed such important doctrines such as sola scriptura, etc., etc."

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Isn't this the same line used by Orthodox and Catholics about the 5 solas, or the faith that was recovered during the Reformation? "I find it hard to believe that the WHOLE church for 1500 years missed such important doctrines such as sola scriptura, etc., etc."

They certainly try to use that argument, but it can be demonstrated that they are mistaken. I wrote about Sola Scriptura on another thread. I think they are dead wrong in their accusations, but as to Dispensationalism the statement is right on target. NO ONE for 1800 years saw what Darby saw.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[JM]

It's been reported that Darby didn't see what William Kelly 'claimed' he saw. I can't remember where, but it was stated that Darby was heavely edited by Kelly, do you know anything about this?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

It's been reported that Darby didn't see what William Kelly 'claimed' he saw. I can't remember where, but it was stated that Darby was heavely edited by Kelly, do you know anything about this?

No. I do not.

Sorry,
Kenith

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Didn't I read once that LS Chafer was into mysticism of one kind or another?

 

[Jon_]

Didn't I read once that LS Chafer was into mysticism of one kind or another?

That would make sense. Most Antinomians (including Chafer) affirm some kind of direct relevation (Montanism) or mystical outlook. Dispensationalism advances the idea that man is a dualistic creature as well, with an unmodified and unmitigated sinful nature, but also with a new, divinely imputed righteous nature (not simply Christ's righteousness, which is the orthodox Protestant view). Many Dispensational authors have further affirmed that this new nature is not something to itself, but is actually something of an emination (similar to Modalism) of Christ himself. One of these is Lewis Sperry Chafer.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[FreeinChrist]

Didn't I read once that LS Chafer was into mysticism of one kind or another?

I once read that Florence Nightengale was into mysticism because she prayed to a spirit - GOD. And I have read that those who believe they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit are mysticists.
So can you quote a source where Lewis Sperry Chafer was a mysticist and in what manner he was one?

 

[JM]

That would make sense. Most Antinomians (including Chafer) affirm some kind of direct relevation (Montanism) or mystical outlook. Dispensationalism advances the idea that man is a dualistic creature as well, with an unmodified and unmitigated sinful nature, but also with a new, divinely imputed righteous nature (not simply Christ's righteousness, which is the orthodox Protestant view). Many Dispensational authors have further affirmed that this new nature is not something to itself, but is actually something of an emination (similar to Modalism) of Christ himself. One of these is Lewis Sperry Chafer.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Scofield and others believe in a tripartite nature of man, where Reformed Church members don't (and it's hard to come to this conclusion from Gen.). If you mean dualistic in terms of soul/spirit being different then I agree that is what is commonly taught, if not I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[Jon_]

Scofield and others believe in a tripartite nature of man, where Reformed Church members don't (and it's hard to come to this conclusion from Gen.). If you mean dualistic in terms of soul/spirit being different then I agree that is what is commonly taught, if not I'm not sure what you're saying.

Well, the dualistic nature of man, i.e. that man has a temporal nature and a spiritual nature is an orthodox teaching.

What I meant is that many Dispensationalists believe regenerate man receives a third nature, which divides the spiritual portion of man into two parts: the "natural" spiritual nature (which is still depraved) and the "divine" spiritual nature (which is an emanation of Christ).

At best, this is heterodoxy.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon