Van Impe/replacement theology/catechism

[RedTulipMom]

Below i am posting a question and answer from Jack Van Impe's site www.jvim.com the reason i am posting it is because i ran across his show on tv and he was holding up the Catholic Cathechism and saying he read the entire book and can find nothing wrong in it. I was rather shocked. He also said something about St. Augustine being the first one who came up with the 5 point theology and not Calvin but that the first 400 yrs of the Catholic church didnt teach it and neither does the Catholic church today. Then he quoted Pope John Paul II and said that he teaches that the 1,000 yr reign of Christ will take place and Jesus will literally reign on earth. I am kinda shocked and confused and wondering if anyone knows more or can make sense of any of it? thanks..below is the question/answer for Impe's site:


Please explain Replacement Theology which makes Israel the Church and Jerusalem Heaven.Lorayne McNaughten
Brookstand, TX



RVI: All right, thank you Lorayne, that’s a very good question. A lot of people don’t even know that phrase “Replacement Theology.” Jack, can you enlighten our minds on what this really means.JVI: Edward Gibbons in his writings “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” said all Christians for the first 400 years believed in the thousand year millennial reign of Christ. That should settle it. Do you realize that it was St. Irenaeus who said, “if anyone does not believe in the thousand year reign of Christ [the Millennium] he should not even call himself a Christian”. So there is no doubt about it. At the Council of Nicea in 325, 318 bishops of the Church came together and reaffirmed the thousand-year reign of Christ. But then someone crept in by the name of Origin who was the first heretic in Christendom according to Pope John Paul II, he persuaded Saint Augustine to get rid of this nonsense about a thousand year reign of Christ because that was Jewish teaching and all of the rabbis taught that their Messiah would come and reign for ten centuries upon the earth. So he said, let’s get this Jewish stuff out. So this Replacement Theology was based on hate, and they said every time the word “Israel” appears (over 2400 times), we will translate it as “the church” and every time we come across the word “Jerusalem” that will become “heaven”.

Boy I could quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church and prove how wrong these guys are. It wasn’t long ago that Father Desmond Birch said, “nobody can prove that this happened at the Council of Nicea”. Really? I found out that Gelasius Cyzicus in 476, was able to find the documents of what took place. They reaffirmed the Trinity, reaffirmed the thousand-year reign of Christ, and there is no doubt about it, that those who are teaching this today are preaching the biggest lie that has been propagated in the Christian church. That's what my video will be about that I am going to make next month - Replacement Theology and what God thinks about this erroneous teaching so prevalent in the Protestant churches today.

 

[Caedmon]

Interesting... I used to watch this guy late at night every chance I got, years ago. It was exciting to watch him. The guy seems like he knows his Bible backwards and forwards. That's what used to impress me. Anyway, I can't believe he's read the Catechism. I can't say that I agree with 100% of the things he says, but I'm glad he's not anti-Catholic. He doesn't depend on Chickian lies to sell his message, that's for sure.

 

[ThereseOfLisieux]

I have also watched him in the past. He is not anti-catholic, however he does mislead people about what the Church teaches. JPII did not say that Jesus would literally reign for 1000 years. I don't know what he claims his source to be, but I am sure that JPII does not believe this, it is rediculous to believe that he said such a thing.

Sometimes I wish he were anti-catholic, or at least would leave us out of it. He uses the church to try to lend credibility to his ideas. Augustine wasn't a Calvinist, this guy doesn't have enough to do twisting the bible, now he is twisting the Catechism, the words of the Pope, the words of Saints, and ECF. If nobody looks into things, then they don't know any better. Those who have beliefs like his do not usually spend time reading these things, they focus on scripture alone, and believe the "expert" for the rest.

This guy is a wolf in sheeps clothing, and he is using Christ's Church to further his agenda.

 

[Carrye]

JPII did not say that Jesus would literally reign for 1000 years. I don't know what he claims his source to be

I'd love to see a source (in context) as well.

Augustine wasn't a Calvinist

And there's no way he could have been - Calvin came after Augustine. But look at what he's doing - the same thing that the ancients did - clinging on to an authoritative source to make his doctrines look authoritative too. But there was a precedent for it among the ancients. It's not looked upon favorably today.

 

[Caedmon]

I agree that his ideas are erroneous, and that he's not exactly helping Catholic PR, but I don't think he has malicious intent. Let's keep that in mind and pray for him, while gently correcting and informing others of his misconceptions.

 

[RedTulipMom]

And there's no way he could have been - Calvin came after Augustine. today.

He didnt say that Augustine was a Calvinist. He said Augustine was the first one to come up with the 5 point theolgy.

 

[Carrye]

He didnt say that Augustine was a Calvinist. He said Augustine was the first one to come up with the 5 point theolgy.

He didn't say it, no, but he was implying a connection between the two. Tieing Calvin to Augustine gives more credibility to Calvin.

I don't think Mr. Van Impe is a conspirator or anything, but spin is always bad.

 

[plainswolf]

I was just thinking of something... anyone think that Caedmon and Gerry Mataics look alike?

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30543&stc=1


J.M.J.
Mark

 

[RedTulipMom]

He didn't say it, no, but he was implying a connection between the two. Tieing Calvin to Augustine gives more credibility to Calvin.

I don't think Mr. Van Impe is a conspirator or anything, but spin is always bad.

Just a correction cuz there seems to be some misunderstanding. (and i am not trying to take Impe's side just trying to correctly state what he said) Impe is AGAINST 5 point Calvinism and he called it erroneous doctrine. He was basically stating that though Augustine first believed in the 5 points, the Catholic church never officially taught it and stilll doesnt today.

karen

 

[RedTulipMom]

"He also said something about St. Augustine being the first one who came up with the 5 point theology and not Calvin but that the first 400 yrs of the Catholic church didnt teach it and neither does the Catholic church today."

Above quote taken from my original post in this thread!

 

[thereselittleflower]

I find JVI a very intereseting person . . . of all the tele-evangalists on TV spouting the end of the world is coming and the 7 year tribulation and the 1000 reign of Christ, I find him to be the most respectable . . .

I also find him very misinformed and do not hold to his eschatologial views, though at one time I did.


The quote you provided in your OP demonstrates some of his errors based on misinformation. . . such as

• Edward Gibbons in his writings “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” said all Christians for the first 400 years believed in the thousand year millennial reign of Christ.

Pehaps Edward Gibbons said that, however, if so, then Mr. Gibbons is woefully misinformed . . .

No way did all Christians for the first 400 years believe in the millenial reign of Christ on earth . . . .

Those who did were called Chilaists . . . (chil is the greek for "mil" or "thousand")

And by no means did even the majorit of Chrsitians believe this . . . and by the 3rd century, people like Origen had dealt death blows to such beliefs . . .by the 4th century, it was pretty dead . . . and amillenialsim won out as the Church's eschatological view . . .

I have had some indepth discussion on this with some dispenationalists here, and so had to delve into the history of the Church. . .

What was very interesting to discover (and I don't have access to the resoures right now) is that chilaism kept resurfacing in the history of the Church, but just as in the Early Church, it has always been found to be coupled with heresy, so that it became condemend by the Church.

But this is an example of what JVI is relying on, and how he has misunderstood the facts.

Another is his comments about Orgen . . no, Origen was not the first heretic, and really not a heretic at all . . . There were many heretics before Origen . . .

Origen's name got dragged through the mud a century or 2 AFTER his death because some crazy people took his speculative writings and made doctrine out of them which were heretical . . . and because they used his speculative writings to do this, he got attached to them . . . but this was really unfair . . . If not for this, he probably would have been named a saint and made a doctor of the Church.

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with chilaism . . but Arianism . . . something completely different . . .


When it comes to replacement theology, this has to do with the idea that the Church has replaced Israel . . .

Well, the Catholic Church is not into dispenationalism, which JVI is, which states that Israel and the Church are separate, and that the Church is a parenthesis in between times God is dealing with Israel, and that the Church age will end, and God will start to deal with Israel again . . .

Replacement theology says God is finished with Israel, and in its extreme forms is very anti-Jewish . . . .Such as British Israel movement ..


The Catholic Church is in the middle . . . The Church does not replace ISrael, but is the culmination of God's salvific plan which unites Jew and Gentile together . . .

So there is no more Jew or Gentile, but one NEW man in Christ . . .


Regarding his views on Catholics,

I heard about his show in which he held up the Catechism of the Church . . . I didn't get to see it . . . . I have to wonder, if he agrees with everything that is in it, why isn't he Catholic?


He has always been friendly to Catholics, I have known that for years . . . is he using the Church? I don't think so . . I think he genuinely believes what he says . . .


He is just very and woefully misinformed on many issues . . . . . We should pray for him if he has read the CCC and finds nothing wrong in it, that he will be led into the fulness of faith.


Peace in Him!

 

[LADY DI]

I used to watch Jack Van Impe back in 1991 during the Gulf War. He believed then we were all going to see Jesus return real soon---we just needed to buy his books and videos to know how all the events going on at that time fit together with bible prophecy. I stopped watching him not too long after that.
Well the other day I happened to see him on TV and decided to watch him and see what he had to say after 14 yrs. and guess what??? It's still the same thing he was saying back then---amazing!!!
Go figure.