Sure it does, maybe not yours - but it does describe some people's views. These are all reasonable terms, maybe they are not reasonable to you, or apply to your beliefs, but that does not mean they do not apply to others.It's a straw man. It doesn't accurately describe anyone's actual views.
No.....it's an actual "thing".It's a straw man. It doesn't accurately describe anyone's actual views.
Hmmm. The very fact you see them as "propaganda" proves the validity of what I said.These are great examples of propaganda pieces that badly misconstrue peoples' actual views.
Hmmm. The very fact you see them as "propaganda" proves the validity of what I said.
Find me a white supremacist that willingly assumes the label "racist" for themselves.Find me a person who willingly assumes this label for themselves and I will soften my approach a bit.
Find me a white supremacist that willingly assumes the label "racist" for themselves.
The fact is both the racist and the replacement theology guy do NOT think there is anything wrong in their viewpoints. So of course they will not accept a negative label.
That is called "deception," believing something false to be true.
The term "replacement theology" is not helpful because:
So please stop using the term "replacement theology". Thanks!
- It is uncharitable. It does not seek to listen to or understand covenant theology, but rather to dismiss it without giving it a proper hearing.
- It is pejorative. It's meant to cause harm by making our views seem ridiculous and not worthy of consideration.
- It is not accurate. No one would assume this label for themselves because no one believes that the church has "replaced" Israel. When this label is used, what comes across is that our views have not really been understood and the person that we're communicating with does not care to take the time to understand our views.
Sure it does, maybe not yours - but it does describe some people's views. These are all reasonable terms, maybe they are not reasonable to you, or apply to your beliefs, but that does not mean they do not apply to others.
would it be fair then to call replacement theology a straw man argument if indeed no one is claiming it and it is a false premise?The term "replacement theology" is not helpful because:
So please stop using the term "replacement theology". Thanks!
- It is uncharitable. It does not seek to listen to or understand covenant theology, but rather to dismiss it without giving it a proper hearing.
- It is pejorative. It's meant to cause harm by making our views seem ridiculous and not worthy of consideration.
- It is not accurate. No one would assume this label for themselves because no one believes that the church has "replaced" Israel. When this label is used, what comes across is that our views have not really been understood and the person that we're communicating with does not care to take the time to understand our views.
that neither one of them are listening.Imagine you're counseling a young couple.
Husband says: "When my wife says X it makes me really angry." Wife says: "But I'm not saying X at all. I'm really saying Y. I'm mad at my husband because he can't hear me saying Y."
How would you diagnose their problem?
would it be fair then to call replacement theology a straw man argument if indeed no one is claiming it and it is a false premise?
Racism is a "thing". Some people are racists.I know you can pull up articles of people writing about it. But this doesn't mean that it accurately describes anyone's views or that anyone would assume the label for themselves.
It's kindof like saying that all Trump supporters are racists. While this may be true of some, the majority would not at all believe that this is a fair way to understand their views or identify them and they would not at all assume this label for themselves.
Racism is a "thing". Some people are racists.
Supercessionism is a "thing". Some people believe in supersession. If it wasn't a thing, it wouldn't be a thing.
If you can find me one person who assumes the label "supersessionist" for themselves then I will soften my approach a bit.
except it's not really an argument it's a term. it would need some unpacking to know if it, in fact, is a straw man or a misnomer. what terms would you prefer? I've heard "fulfillment theology" as a contender, would you agree to that?Yes. If your description of your opponents views would be rejected by your opponent, then you're fighting with a straw man. At this point all of your criticisms of his views are irrelevant because you're not actually interacting with his views.
There are many idiots out there who don't agree they're idiots.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?