Can anyone suggest good Logos Resources that discuss 'Replacement Theology'?

Here in the UK there seems to be a growing trend to accept the views of 'Replacement Theology' which if I understand it correctly suggests that the Church has mistakenly adopted to itself many of the blessings and promises that should only be applied to Israel. And that God has a different plan, path or covenant with the people of Israel than than he does the Christian Church. Can anyone suggest any readings or resources that might help me intelligently work through this conundrum. I'd really appreciate it - thanks. Hmm

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graham Owen

Here in the UK there seems to be a growing trend to accept the views of 'Replacement Theology'

Never heard it called that before but definitely recognise this as something that is happening here, especially as a number of movements seem to be entering a post "health and wealth" period and are trying to make sense of it all. One of the things that I have noticed coming from this is a renewal of interest in the spiritual and heavenly rather than the here and now. I ran a quick search for "replacement theology" in my library (platinum plus some other stuff) and got the following hits:

1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary 2 hits in 1 article
Ariel's Bible Commentary: The Messianic Jewish Epistles 2 hits in 2 articles
Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible 1 hit in 1 article
Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments 3 hits in 2 articles
Discovering John 9 hits in 6 articles
The Enduring Paradox: Exploratory Essays in Messianic Judaism 3 hits in 3 articles
Exploring the New Testament, Volume 2: The Letters and Revelation 1 hit in 1 article
The Footsteps of the Messiah 2 hits in 2 articles
Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology 5 hits in 2 articles
Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary 1 hit in 1 article
Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century 1 hit in 1 article
Israel, Servant of God 1 hit in 1 article
Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology 1 hit in 1 article
Messianic Judaism: A Modern Movement with an Ancient Past 16 hits in 7 articles
The New American Commentary: Hebrews 2 hits in 1 article
The New American Commentary: Zechariah 1 hit in 1 article
The Passion Conspiracy 4 hits in 3 articles
Preaching the Word: Numbers—God's Presence in the Wilderness 1 hit in 1 article
Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel: A Message for Christians 11 hits in 8 articles
Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things 1 hit in 1 article
That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies 2 hits in 1 article
The Voice of the Lord: Messianic Jewish Daily Devotional 1 hit in 1 article
Voices of Messianic Judaism: Confronting Critical Issues Facing a Maturing Movement 8 hits in 5 articles
Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church 4 hits in 3 articles

Graham Owen

suggests that the Church has mistakenly adopted to itself many of the blessings and promises that should only be applied to Israel

Hmmm

So now I'm looking at this, here are a couple of definitions from the hits above and it looks like Replacement Theology is the view so what you are seeing is a move away from Replacement Theology...

Replacement Theology. A concept that emerged from the teachings of some non-Jewish leaders of the second-century Church who taught that the Church had replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.

Moseley, R. (1996). Yeshua : A guide to the real Jesus and the original church (183). Baltimore, MD: Lederer Books.

The New Testament nowhere switches over the Abrahamic promise from Israel to the church—the covenantal doctrine of replacement theology (or realized eschatology) is without biblical foundation.

Geisler, N. L. (2005). Systematic theology, volume four: Church, last things (532). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Christian anti–Semitism feeds on a “wandering Jew” syndrome to justify Jewish suffering and to support the perverse forms of Replacement Theology that grew out of the dark ages. If the curses of Scripture can be laid on the Jews, Christianity can lay claim to the promises which remain unclaimed by the supposedly unwilling, ungrateful, unholy, unworthy Jews. It is wrong to accuse the Jewish people of rejecting Christendom’s Messiah. There would be no Church if many Jews had not believed and followed Jesus. Though Christianity has often chosen to ascribe guilt and condemnation to the Jews as a result of rejecting Jesus, a debt still remains. I submit that Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to those Jews who carried the Christian religion to the Gentiles of the first century.

Weiss, R. A. (2004). The Passion Conspiracy (73). Cedar Hill, Tex.: EICB.

Rosie Perera

Steven, "Replacement Theology" is a name assigned by opponents of this view. You'll find more of a positive defense of it if you look for it under "Covenant Theology." Also I think you might have it backwards. I think you'll find that what is termed derogatorily "Replacement Theology" actually says that many of the promises which have been understood as applying to ethnic Israel actually are meant for the Church (spiritual Israel). The opponents of this view call it "Replacement Theology" because the Church supposedly "replaces" Israel as the recipient of the promises.

A very good book that explains what this is all about, and which I personally found to take some scales off my eyes, was O. Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants. It is unfortunately not available in Logos.

There is one book I know of in Logos that explains the different sides of this particular question, of whether the promises for Israel are meant to be fulfilled in the church or in national Israel. Each side's defense is given by someone who actually holds that position (like in the Counterpoints series) rather than by someone who is trying to refute it. You might want to pick this one up if you don't have it already:

Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, edited by John S. Feinberg (Crossway Books, 1988)

Here is the Table of Contents. You'll see that O. Palmer Robertson, whose book I mentioned above, is the author of one of the chapters in this:

Bruce Waltke, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Regent College (also has taught at Dallas, Westminster, Reformed, and Knox) who wrote chapter 12 of that book also has a really good section in his book An Old Testament Theology on "The Gift of Land, Part 3: The New Testament" which explains this interpretation of the "land" motif running all the way through Scripture, referring to the physical territory of Israel in the OT, but the spiritual Israel (the Church) in the NT. The rest of that book is excellent. I had a hand in it, as I was his T.A. the year he taught the material while he was working on the book, and I fixed up all the Word document formatting of his extensive handouts which eventually became the book. So I guess I'm kind of biased. [;)]

Rosie Perera

I found another book in Logos that has some stuff on this topic, Five Views on Law and Gospel (part of the Zondervan Counterpoints series).

Here are a couple of relevant passages.

From Greg L. Bahnsen:

As we have already observed, the New Testament teaches that some portions of the Old Testament law were “shadows” of the coming Messiah and his redemptive work (Heb. 9:9; 10:1; Col. 2:17). They were considered weak and miserable principles that served as a tutor to Christ and taught justification by faith (Gal. 3:23–4:10). Paul called them “the law with its commandments and regulations” that imposed a separation of Jews from the Gentile world (Eph. 2:14–15). These descriptions, however, do not accurately apply to moral laws of the Old Testament, such as those that forbid adultery or oppressing the poor. Such laws do not foreshadow the redemptive work of Christ, show us justification by faith, or symbolically set apart the Jews from the Gentiles. That laws pertaining to the priesthood, temple, and sacrificial system do accomplish those ends, however, and are to be considered “put out of gear” by the coming of Christ is demonstrated by the author of Hebrews (esp. chaps. 7–10). For instance, the coming of Christ has brought a change of law regarding the priesthood (Heb. 7:12), and the administrative order of the old covenant is vanishing away (8:13). By bringing to realization the salvation foreshadowed in the old covenant, the new covenant supersedes the details of the old covenant redemptive dispensation. We no longer come to God through animal sacrifices, but now through the shed blood of the Savior; both dispensations do acknowledge, however, that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” from the guilt of sin (Heb. 9:22).

In connection with the superseding of the old covenant shadows, the redemption secured by the new covenant also redefines the people of God. The kingdom that was once focused on the nation of Israel has been taken away from the Jews (Matt. 8:11–12; 21:41–43; 23:37–38) and given to an international body, the church of Jesus Christ. The New Testament describes the church as the rebuilding of Israel (Acts 15:15–20), “the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12 NASB), “Abraham’s seed” (Gal. 3:7, 29), and “the Israel of God” (6:16). What God was doing with the nation of Israel was but a type looking ahead to the international church of Christ. The details of the old order have passed away, giving place to the true kingdom of God established by the Messiah, in which both Jew and Gentile have become “fellow citizens” on an equal footing (Eph. 2:11–20; 3:3–6).

Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Reformed View" In , in Five Views on Law and Gospel, ed. Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Collection (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 104-05.

Here's a response to that from Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.:

The Church Replaces Israel as the New People of God

Dr. Bahnsen takes a critical step in the wrong direction when he assures us that

the redemption secured by the new covenant also redefines the people of God. The kingdom that was once focused on the nation of Israel has been taken away from the Jews (Matt. 8:11–12; 21:41–43; 23:37–38) and given to an international body, the church of Jesus Christ. [In its place, Bahnsen argues that] the New Testament describes the church as the rebuilding of Israel (Acts 15:15–20), “the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12 NASB), “Abraham’s seed” (Gal. 3:7, 29), and “the Israel of God” (6:16).

Bahnsen’s alleged continuity has exceeded the bounds of Scripture. If the promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob about the seed and the gospel (e.g., Gen. 12:2–3, 7; 15:4) was “eternal,” by what rule of hermeneutics and logic is it possible to extract or to somehow factor out the significant part that the people to whom the promise was made would play, while maintaining the rest of the features, included in the same covenant, remained unchanged? In Genesis 15:9–21, God, as a “smoking fire pot with a blazing torch,” passed between the pieces of the animals that had been split into two to form an aisle. By this process, the divine promisor obligated himself, and himself alone, to bring about all that he had promised in the covenant, since Abraham was not also obligated to pass between the pieces (and in effect pledge that if he failed to keep his part of the bargain, both his life and the promises of the covenant would be forfeited). Clearly, the pledge to Abraham was a unilateral, unconditional covenant and not a bilateral, conditional one!

Lots of other juicy bits if you buy the book!

Johann

Steven, "Replacement Theology" is a name assigned by opponents of this view. You'll find more of a positive defense of it if you look for it under "Covenant Theology."

[Y]

Sacrifice

I
receive 277 hits in my Logos Library, but what I receive hits for do not do a
very good job of describing and understanding Replacement Theology.

There
is a lot of confusion about what the phrase really means and whether you are
speaking of it in terms of Punitive, Economic, or Structural. Covenant
Theologians such as J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger,
Meredith Kline, and O. Palmer Robertson do agree with a form of what is called
RT in its economic form, but definitely NOT in its Punitive form (but it is
often falsely accused of it). Since the differences are immense and most people only accept a limited definition of the phrase in its punitive form, it is better
to just understand that Covenant Theology IS NOT Replacement Theology.

Some
articles you may find interesting but not available in Logos concerning Replacement
Theology are:

Bibliotheca Sacra 166 where Grudem discusses the differences between RT and
Covenant Theology. He also distinguishes in his Systematic Theology on who the
Church really is … (his Systematic is in Logos)

"To
The Jew First," by Dr. Richard Pratt. Available online

"Amillennialism and the Jews," by Ra
McLaughlin. Available online.

Christ
of the Covenants, by O Palmer Robertson - as Rosie has already suggested and an
excellent resource.

"Covenant
Theology is Not Replacement Theology," by R. Scott Clark. Available
online.

I
would also suggest J. Ligon Duncan's Lectures on Covenant Theology. Available
online.

Dean J

Here in the UK there seems to be a growing trend to accept the views of 'Replacement Theology' which if I understand it correctly suggests that the Church has mistakenly adopted to itself many of the blessings and promises that should only be applied to Israel. And that God has a different plan, path or covenant with the people of Israel than than he does the Christian Church. Can anyone suggest any readings or resources that might help me intelligently work through this conundrum. I'd really appreciate it - thanks.

'Replacement Theology' is a pejorative term which originates in America; it does not accurately define the view, which until the rise of dispensationalism was the only view held in the UK as elsewhere, that the church is the continuation (not replacement) of the faithful remnant of Israel, which now also includes gentiles. This view was not confined to Covenant or Reformed theology, but was the view of all non-dispensationalists, including the Wesleys and the Strict Baptists.

NetworkGeek

As a coincidence, I have been reading a lot about Covenant Theology recently. One excellent book I have found in Logos is Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God's Saving Promises, by Dr. Scott Hahn (this is actually the publication of his doctoral thesis, as such it is more academically oriented but easy to read IMHO). It is only available in some of the collections, but you can purchase just the book itself at Amazon if you decide you want to read it.

To save some effort and to help you decide if you want to read the book, in brief Dr. Hahn explains:

Covenant means "Kinship by Oath" - God's covenants extend the offer to us, to become family with him. The oath (very loosely) comes from original language to mean "solemn promise and curse". The promise to be faithful to the kinship, the curse being the consequences of violating the oath. Or more accurately, as a member of God's family we live in a way (holy). Not living that way violates covenant law; we never are able to break covenant law, we or someone else just get hurt. The best analogy is to compare covenant law to natural law. We can try to break natural law (walking off the roof of a large building), but all we do is hurt ourselves (gravity). Sin is an attempt to violate covenant law that does not break the law, it just hurts us or others.

God has extended his covenant over time to more and more people, eventually extending to all; starting with Adam and Eve (kinship of husband and wife), Noah (family), Abraham (tribe), Moses (nation), David (kingdom), and ultimately with Jesus Christ (universal - "Go and baptize all nations"). There are signs that "seal" all covenants - think of the rainbow with Noah, circumcision, old and new passover. These are explained scripturally, historically, and culturally.

The covenants were violated at all steps until the final covenant - Jesus bore the curses of all prior oaths in fulfillment of the New Covenant.

Covenants are always in place no matter what our behavior - think Forgiving Father and Prodigal son, who are still family no matter how the son behaves. The Forgiving Father loves the Prodigal Son no matter what. The Prodigal Son suffers the consequences of his lifestyle.

Church and worship are acts of love, grace, and intimacy between family (us and them), they do not define the covenant. Dr. Hahn's perspective on covenants with God is that they are exclusively God making us part of his family. Church and worship are what family does, they do not define the existence of family/covenant.

There is much more, as the book is 630+ pages in Logos, but this gives you a basic idea of the theme. Dr. Hahn explains it better than I, and I only offer this summary so people can decide whether to read the book. I do not offer any opinion on its correctness nor do I try and influence anyone's thinking or start theological debates, as that would be in violation of forum guidelines.

EDIT: I forgot to mention there is a condensed version of the book, not yet in Logos, but available at Amazon, called A Father who Keeps his Promises: God's Covenant Love in Scripture. Also by Dr. Hahn, it's only 293 pages and a much easier read to get the basic concepts.

Keith Larson

I hope you realize that the term “Replacement Theology” is a term made up by dispensationalist to disparage their opponents. No non-dispensationalist that I am aware of would ever remotely, suggest that the church “replaces” Israel, rather Gentiles are grafted into the true Israel and all the promises of the Old Covenant are fulfilled and expanded to include not just a narrow little strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, but the whole of the earth!

Anyone who uses the term “replacement theology” is illustrating that their arguments are so weak and unbiblical that they have to resort to name calling and other dirty tricks to advance their theological position. Seeing how intellectually dishonest they are, I do not know how anyone can take them seriously.

BTW not all dispensations are this way, but these people are in a class all by themselves in duplicity.

Room4more

I hope you realize that the term “Replacement Theology” is a term made up by dispensationalist to disparage their opponents. No non-dispensationalist that I am aware of would ever remotely, suggest that the church “replaces” Israel, rather Gentiles are grafted into the true Israel and all the promises of the Old Covenant are fulfilled and expanded to include not just a narrow little strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, but the whole of the earth!

Anyone who uses the term “replacement theology” is illustrating that their arguments are so weak and unbiblical that they have to resort to name calling and other dirty tricks to advance their theological position. Seeing how intellectually dishonest they are, I do not know how anyone can take them seriously.

BTW not all dispensations are this way, but these people are in a class all by themselves in duplicity.

[Y]

George Somsel

Steven, "Replacement Theology" is a name assigned by opponents of this view. You'll find more of a positive defense of it if you look for it under "Covenant Theology." Also I think you might have it backwards. I think you'll find that what is termed derogatorily "Replacement Theology" actually says that many of the promises which have been understood as applying to ethnic Israel actually are meant for the Church (spiritual Israel). The opponents of this view call it "Replacement Theology" because the Church supposedly "replaces" Israel as the recipient of the promises.

A very good book that explains what this is all about, and which I personally found to take some scales off my eyes, was O. Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants. It is unfortunately not available in Logos.

There is one book I know of in Logos that explains the different sides of this particular question, of whether the promises for Israel are meant to be fulfilled in the church or in national Israel. Each side's defense is given by someone who actually holds that position (like in the Counterpoints series) rather than by someone who is trying to refute it. You might want to pick this one up if you don't have it already:

Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, edited by John S. Feinberg (Crossway Books, 1988)

Here is the Table of Contents. You'll see that O. Palmer Robertson, whose book I mentioned above, is the author of one of the chapters in this:

Bruce Waltke, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Regent College (also has taught at Dallas, Westminster, Reformed, and Knox) who wrote chapter 12 of that book also has a really good section in his book An Old Testament Theology on "The Gift of Land, Part 3: The New Testament" which explains this interpretation of the "land" motif running all the way through Scripture, referring to the physical territory of Israel in the OT, but the spiritual Israel (the Church) in the NT. The rest of that book is excellent. I had a hand in it, as I was his T.A. the year he taught the material while he was working on the book, and I fixed up all the Word document formatting of his extensive handouts which eventually became the book. So I guess I'm kind of biased.

Fred Klooster, who wrote the article in section IV "Salvation and the Testaments—The Biblical Method of Salvation: A Case for Continuity" was my systematics professor at Calvin. We didn't agree on a lot of stuff though it was more a matter of procedure than view. Woudstra, who wrote the article in section VI "Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity" really knew how to push my hot button since I disagreed with his view of the OT in so many ways (Don't believe much of anything he says about the OT). Since I haven't read this, I can't say that I either agree or disagree though I suspect I would have more agreement than disagreement.

Jerry M

George Ladd's book The Last Things has two or three chapters that might serve as a jumping off place to begin studies in this direction.

Dave Moser

'Replacement Theology' is a pejorative term which originates in America; it does not accurately define the view, which until the rise of dispensationalism was the only view held in the UK as elsewhere, that the church is the continuation (not replacement) of the faithful remnant of Israel, which now also includes gentiles. This view was not confined to Covenant or Reformed theology, but was the view of all non-dispensationalists, including the Wesleys and the Strict Baptists.

[Y]

C Devin Chaulk

[Y]

BKMitchell

Hello Stephen Thorp,

Christianity and Judaism: Two Covenants

Author: Yehezkel Kaufmann
Translator: C. W. Efroymson
Publisher: Magnes Press
Publication Date: 1995
Pages: 230

http://www.logos.com/product/4743/judaism-and-christianity-collection

Preaching without Contempt: Overcoming Unintended Anti-Judaism

Author: Marilyn J. Salmon
Publisher: Fortress Press
Publication Date: 2006
Pages: 200

http://www.logos.com/product/7987/preaching-without-contempt-overcoming-unintended-anti-judaism

Renewing the Covenant

Author: Eugene B. Borowitz
Publisher: Jewish Publication Society
Publication Date: 1991
Pages: 336

http://www.logos.com/product/9762/renewing-the-covenant

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

Editor: F. L. Cross (Revised Edition edited by E. A. Livingstone)
Publisher: Oxford University
Publication Date: June 2005
Pages: 1,840

http://www.logos.com/product/2227/the-oxford-dictionary-of-the-christian-church-rev-ed

Cynthia in Florida

I won't get into all the details of how I came to study on this matter, but I will share this little bit of tidbit with you after having studied this in great depth for about two years.

NOTE: Not ALL those who practice Covenant/Reformed Theology believes ALL of what follows, but it is the general belief system of this faith system.

Covenant Theology is another name for Reformed Theology. The name Covenant Theology is based off covenants that are not mentioned from biblical covenants (Like Abrahamic, Davidic, Etc.) The belief system is based on two, sometimes three, theological covenants which were formulated in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Primarily, they are the covenants of works and grace. Sometimes there is a third covenant as well, which is really where covenant theologians divide the covenant of grace into two covenants, the covenant of redemption, made between the Father and Son in eternity past, and the covenant of grace. These covenants of covenant/reformed theology are "theological" ones that are postulated by theologians, but are undeclared in scripture.

In order to have the various covenants of the Old Testament conform to the pattern of the covenant of grace, it is necessary to interpret them in other than their literal sense, so since it allows no place for literal fulfillment of Israel's national and racial promises and either cancels them on the grounds that Israels failed to meet the necessary conditions and thus transfers them to the saints in general, they believe the "church" started with Abraham in Genesis 12.

A problem here is that there is a clear inconsistency in hermeneutics since covenant theologians generally interpret the rest of Scripture literally, with prophetic passages being the only general exception. That is why Covenant theology is Amilinnial, because the promises of the King's 1000 year reign, etc., deals with Israel.

People who hold to Covenant Theology are generally Calvanistic regarding salvation and believe in "limited atonement", which means Jesus only died for the elect and not "the world." Further, because Covenant Theology views biblical covenants as progressive revelations of the covenant of grace, they do not make some significant distinctions in the bible which include the distinction between the church and Israel, the distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant, and the distinction between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. Because Covenant Theology teaches that each biblical covenant is a continuation and new phase of the Covenant of Grace (which they say started back in Genesis), issues arise and become apparent again when it deals with the Mosaic Covenant. However, the Mosaic Covenant instituted required conditions which have not been introduced before, so to say that the Mosaic Covenant is a continuation of the Covenant of Grace from Abraham causes a problem in their hermeneutics. This violates a principle that Paul taught in Galatians 3:15 when he declared that once a covenant has been ratified, no one adds conditions to it. Covenant theology attempts to force all these biblical covenants into the one mold of the theological convenant of grace which, as I see it, just doesn't fit.

Anyway, all that being said, Replacement Theology is a belief WITHIN Covenant Theology/Reformed Theology. It is not another name FOR Covenant/Reformed Theology.

I have done more research on this topic then practically "subject" I have ever studied before. If anyone needs further information about this from me, feel free to contact me by private message. I understand that this is a "hot topic" and I really am not trying to start a hot mess. I just wanted to share what I have learned. I disagree that it is a name assigned to the opponents of this view. It is what it is. Replacement Theology is a belief within Covenant theology that the church replaced Israel in its promises and blessings to God, but all the curses go to Israel. What exactly would one ask this belief within the Covenant Theology System to be called? Lately I have heard it called "Unity Theology", to soften the blow I guess because it is something that follows of Covenant Theology squirm about when asked face to face (trust me, this I know), but at the end of the day, it is NOT Unity Theology. Unity is uniting. This is not uniting. This is replacing. Two completely different things.

Praying God's blessing upon you and yours!

Cynthia828us@yahoo.com

Paul-C

Cynthia, you might want to edit your email address in your previous post to avoid getting spammed! You might consider something like: [name] [at] yahoo.com, etc...

Rich DeRuiter

I have done more research on this topic then practically "subject" I have ever studied before.

I assume you mean "...practically any "subject" I have ever studied."

As one who grew up being taught covenant theology, all I can say is that is a quite slanted caricature of what I grew up hearing. I suspect your studies have not been much with covenant theologians themselves, but rather their critics.Let me explain.

Regarding 'replacement theology' as a term, this is certainly not descriptive of what covenant theologians believe. It's descriptive of what dispensationalists and some others think we believe, based on their own preconceptions. A brief study of the word 'ekklesia' in the OT, and the explicit statements about the 'ekklesia' in the NT show that it is the continuation of 'Israel' into which Gentiles are grafted. A better description is continuation theology or ingrafting theology. The 'true Israel' vs. 'false Israel' themes of Paul clearly echo this theme, and should be seen as the basis for it.

EDIT: I probably shouldn't have written this. This isn't the place for it. So I deleted most of this post, and just left what was minimally necessary to respond to the post, and make plain my disagreement with it's basic assumptions & conclusions.

Mike Childs

Here in the UK there seems to be a growing trend to accept the views of 'Replacement Theology' which if I understand it correctly suggests that the Church has mistakenly adopted to itself many of the blessings and promises that should only be applied to Israel. And that God has a different plan, path or covenant with the people of Israel than than he does the Christian Church. Can anyone suggest any readings or resources that might help me intelligently work through this conundrum. I'd really appreciate it - thanks.

How does that differ from Dispensationalism? Is it just a repackaging of Dispensationalism, or is it something different?

Of course, this is not the place to debate such ideas. Just wondering what this "Replacement Theology" is.