• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Is 'Replacement Theology' a Monogamist Heresy?

CecilW

CecilW

Member
Real Person
Male
Had an interesting thought. Such a bizarre happening of late, I figgered to share it. :lol:

So God is a self-described polygamist, right? (Jer 3, Eze 23)

And PM is about addition, not replacement, right? We become plygs by adding a wife, not replacing one.

Replacement theology, as I understand it, says God divorced / rejected / ejected the Jews and now only loves Christians.

In other words, God divorced one group to marry the other.

But God doesn't seem to have that view of marriage. Maybe, just maybe, He didn't divorce the Jews, but simply married the gentile believers as well. That would seem to match up pretty well with Paul's writings about being grafted into the Vine.

Some of our Messianic friends are seen by others of us as going to the opposite extreme with an assimilation theology. Don't know if there is such a technical term or not. But it seems to say that all who follow Jesus must effectively become practicing Jews.

That seems equally inaccurate to me based upon the same model. If I marry a second wife, I value her for herself and her differences. I do not expect her to somehow assimilate into my first wife. Ewwww!

Anyway, thems my thoughts. What say y'all? ;)
 
I agree with you in this Cecil....god never did divorce or replace the jews.....HE just added another wife, us Christians. The jews missed the wedding invite but they will not miss the wedding party at the end. I also agree with you about our Messianic brothers for how am I to get a second or any other wives to assumilate into being just like or joined in some way with my first wife. If I had wnated a wife just like my first one then why have another wife.

Just my thoughs on a cold day in the Gulf.
 
Aren't the Gentiles described as being "adapted" and thus "grafted" into the Jewish vine?

What Bible verses contribute to the concept of the Church being organized into something of a "Jewish first wife" and a "Gentile second wife?" Sounds reasonable, but scripture list would be helpful.
 
Hey Cecil... Welcome back!! It sure hasn't been the same 'round here without you.

While we agree with Cecil's original idea in connecting replacement theology with a monogamy only mindset, (poly minded folk add, they do not replace) we also see some things a bit differently.

The way we (my husband and I) understand it, is that when the new covenant commenced, both the bridegroom (Yeshua/Jesus) and the bride (Israelites of both houses) knew and recognized each other, but many people, not remembering the prophesies about a new name, heart, and spirit for the bride, figured she must be a new rather then renewed creature. And so replacement theologies, and rejection theologies abound.

Another interesting point. While some don't like the idea of two brides becoming one, that is exactly what happened with the Israelites and Ezekiel's two sticks. God was married to both houses, Israel and Judah, divorced the house of Israel, but then rejoined them in Christ, in the renewed covenant. One household, rather then a divided contentious one sure sounds better to me.
 
Thx for the feedback.

It seems I didn't convey my assimilation objection adequately. If all gentiles, upon being grafted in, must become practicing Jews, then they'd be no more a separate body, right?

To me, that would not be like wives coming into total unity, though remaining separate, in a family. No objection to that.

It would be like this 125 lb woman MERGING with that 135 lb woman, and you are left with ONE 260 lb. woman blinking at you and a bit uncomfortable in her skin as she tries to adjust to the merger. (Weight is NOT the issue here. Don't get sidetracked. The unfamiliarity & discomfort is.) General unhappiness all 'round!

Anyway, it's an interesting concept, realizing that even something as generally accepted as the replacement theology is so strongly tainted by Monogamist thinking.

As for being "back", you can only keep a loudmouth shut for so long before something startas bustin' loose! *sigh* :lol: (Sir BumbleBerry's jumping up and down, saying HE wants to write! Sounds dangerous!)
 
Some of our Messianic friends are seen by others of us as going to the opposite extreme with an assimilation theology. Don't know if there is such a technical term or not. But it seems to say that all who follow Jesus must effectively become practicing Jews.
Click to expand...

:shock:
 
Guys I think we are bordering on chaos here. It would be more appropriate if this were moved to the Messianic private forum to be discussed if it is to be continued. I've seen these kind of seemingly "innocent" posts offend too many people I'm the past and create a spirit of division not unity.
 
cecil,
your reasoning is so abstract that I am accepting it as an excellent example of modern art. :D
 
I see. Hmmm.

The Messianic part was actually an afterthought. I apologize to any among us who were offended.

The point of the OP was, as the title suggests, that God ADDED the gentiles, as per PM, rather than REPLACING the Jews, as per monogamy.

I will now retire my abstract, modern art thinking processes back to playing Crazy 8s with Sir BumbleBerry. :lol:
 
This is the shockingest Post I've read yet, on BF. In a friendly discussion among adults that claim to believe in one Great Creator, how are You ever going to learn, if You don't discuss what You think You know? If someone is so shallow minded as to get offended over someone having a different viev of a thing, He/She don't need to be discussing. The Scriptures supports discussions among "Creator's people. "If two or more gather in My name, there I will be also" appearantly, no one invited Him into this discussion, if You're worried about offending someone. I see a lot of thet on these posts.
There is some intelligent people that posts on BF, but nobody wants to learn anything from them, their wasting their time and effort, being on here. I for one, like to hear what other's have to say, as long as it's reasonable. I don't agree with most of it, but that's Me. You all claim to read tha same book, You all claim to believe in the one Creator, how can it be that controversial among You?
I can also can tell who's read the book, and who ain't read that book. The very people with the least knowledge is the ones that get offended.
Are You grown up people or You still Children?
You have a good thing going, if You would use it properly. I'm not offended, just amazed at some people's way of thinking. Remember; Steel sharpens steel, are You going to be steel or a noodle? There's nothing wrong with a good discussion, and no need to appologize, Cecil.
The Creator is not the Author of Confussion.
Now, if I've offended anybody, read My Post.

Just My opinion. Me,
 
Amen to that golden2seal! I have taken part in discussions on this board, but usually it is with my wife, rather then on my own account. I would just like to add that Jesus said he came to bring a sword. The truth divides, and we are to rightly divide the word. If we cannot have fellowship with other Christians who challenge our beliefs, what we have is not fellowship at all, but rather a tip toeing around others to keep from offending them. The word of God can be offensive, maybe that is why Jesus said blessed are they that are not offended in me.
In defense of those who moderate this board I can understand why they might not want contraversial subjects brought up, as they do tend to divide. I'm just thinking there might be a place for those who like doctrinal discussions, that the ultra sensitive and easily offended could just avoid.

Please let me know if you come up with such a place.

As a word of encouragement to others who might get to feeling there is little point in discussing things that cause contraversy, I recently heard from a brother with whom I have had many a heated discussion about polygyny. He has come to the understanding that it is both a Biblical and moral practice. Though he will probably never live it himself, it is nice to know he no longer condemns those who do. Perhaps ruffing up the ground the seed is sown in makes it easier for it to take root.
 
All good stuff and I think we can agree it's easy to accidentally treat each other like typing robots.

I mean how many of us have even shared a meal together with someone from this board?

Isn't it easy to get scared or hurt or blasted in these rather impersonal digital discussions? And none of us want that - we get enough blasting from the local Church, don't need more of it accidentally here.

Please, please, please lead w/love and kindness and sensitivity.
 
Agree with golden2seal, we should be able to discuss difficult matters with our Christian brethren without getting offended.

Even a heretic is your brother! Heresy is defined as:
"a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas"
"The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
Click to expand...
In other words, the heretic "professes the faith of Christ". He is your brother. But he "corrupts its dogmas" - in other words he is wrong about some details (possibly very large details!). But he is still your brother. For if he was not your brother he wouldn't be a heretic - he'd be an atheist, moslem, pagan, buddhist...

The atheist is not your brother. The moslem is not your brother. But the heretical Christian is your brother.

So, even if you believe someone else on this board is in serious error, that's fine. No need to get offended. Just see them as a misguided brother who you can lovingly discuss matters with to help lead them into a better understanding of God's word - or possibly have them lead you into a better understanding if it turns out that you are actually wrong yourself.
 
On the original topic, my view is basically another step further than ChrisM's. I see the marriage relationship between the believer and Christ more on an individual basis rather than as a single bride. When God wanted to choose someone to write about the love between the believer and Christ, who did He choose? Solomon. Song of Solomon was not written to a monogamous, individual bride, but to Solomon's 141st wife. One of a thousand. An insignificant person among many others - but Solomon loved her enough to write that for her. It didn't matter that he had a ridiculous number of other wives, he still loved her. There is a lesson here for us.

If a very fallible human could love a wife like that, just think how God loves every single one of us! And think how it doesn't matter how many other people we bring to Christ, it still doesn't change that love He has for us! And it is our duty to bring others into that wonderful love.

This is a fabulous and encouraging truth that is completely missed in a monogamous view of Christ and his one bride. So I agree with Cecil's general idea that monogamy has been very harmful here. Monogamy parallels the heretical view of many groups (from the Catholic church to the smallest cult) that they are the one bride of Christ and everyone else is left out in the cold. Polygamy doesn't allow this heresy as it reflects the reality that God doesn't accept us because we happen to hang with the right crowd and do the right ceremonies, but we actually have to personally accept Him - and He personally saves each of us individually.

The Bible does talk about large groups of people as God's bride, particularly Israel. But I see this as more of a figure of speech - the many can be referred to as one, but that doesn't mean they are welded into one lump, they're one group rather than one individual.

I too continue to learn, and will do all my life, so feel free to disagree!
 
this board has a stated purpose that is reflected in it's name.
it is not a place for doctrinal disputes. as cb points out (and rightly so) they have happened in the past and have been very damaging to relationships and to the spirit of unity that exists between believers of differing types and stripes.
many of us go to great lengths to come together and spend weekends at retreats where we fellowship around the subject of families biblical. we enjoy greatly spending time together in worship of our Creator.
but, we leave each others doctrine/theology alone. there is no doctrine/theology that is completely free of all heresy, the enemy has simply done his work very effectively. this board needs to be a place that is "safe" for people who may disagree with us on other issues to gather and embrace/discuss the concept of having more than one wife.
rancor and disputations we can get from our local church, a place where we may very well agree in all other areas. ;)

this is why I was surprised when cecil chose to define messianics in order to make his point. I do not believe that he realized that his definition was a mischaracterization, and therefore a slam. just because I believe in following some of the same laws that my savior followed while he walked this earth does not make me a jew. there is no such thing as an "assimilation theology" in our embracing the rules given by our Creator.
in case anyone thought that I was offended, I was not.
I was just, as I said, surprised.
 
JustAGuy said:
I mean how many of us have even shared a meal together with someone from this board?
Click to expand...

Of the 10 people who have posted on this thread I have broken bread with 6 :)

I feel like I should have broken bread with Jolene somewhere along the way, but in reality I have never met her :(
 
Hey there Eternitee, :D (I miss you!)

Thanks for pointing out here that we aren't just typing robots.

Now that you have posted, I'll go in on the count and say that I have broken bread with 7 out of the 11 who have posted here!

Point is that those of us on BibFam who can, do meet and fellowship together at retreats and even other places. Many of our active members have close relationships with one another that have developed and grown over the years. These relationships are such a blessing and are a direct result of the interactions on this website.

P.S. Out of that 11, 5 were at our Covenant Commitment Ceremony on August 12, 2012. :lol:

Love ya girl,
Deborah
 
I agree with Steve that this board is here for polygyny not doctrinal disputes on other matters. However the relationship between polygyny and our understanding of our relationship with God is very much on-topic, as it is about polygyny / monogamy. So I don't have a problem with this discussion, we must not stifle valuable conversations through being over-sensitive. I must say that accepting polygyny has certainly improved my understanding of this topic.

And I have fond memories of that covenant commitment ceremony, while the personal discussions we were able to have at that retreat were worth more than years of typing messages to each other on the internet! So it's 5 out of 11 for me, I hope to be able to raise that number in future. Anyone planning to visit New Zealand? :D
 
steve said:
this is why I was surprised when cecil chose to define messianics in order to make his point. I do not believe that he realized that his definition was a mischaracterization, and therefore a slam. just because I believe in following some of the same laws that my savior followed while he walked this earth does not make me a jew. there is no such thing as an "assimilation theology" in our embracing the rules given by our Creator.
Click to expand...

Steve, I was explicitly NOT referring to you, nor mis-characterizing you or yours. I know quite a number of Messianics, with a variety of views. That is why, in my OP, I specifically said "SOME of our Messianic ...'. My observation DOES apply to SOME.

I am sorry you found it surprising or troubling in any way.
 
that is why I posted the shocked/surprised emoticon.
I was hoping that if there was a misunderstanding that you would clear it up w/out further comment from me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top