Geocentrism.co.uk

Anyone who has moved in church circles for very long will be aware of the drive against Replacement Theology. This campaign is also strong on the internet, with statements such as “Replacement Theology places all the blessings of Israel on the Church and all the curses are given to the ‘Old Israel’.” The odd thing here is that I have no difficulty at all finding Christian Zionists, or Hebrew Roots people, or subscribers to Covenant Theology, (the opposite of Replacement) or churchgoers who simply have a great love or veneration for the Jews. But I don’t think I’ve met anyone who subscribes to anything like this definition of Replacement Theology. So the great campaign against such people seems to be lacking a target. What’s going on?

The Bible, obviously our most reliable source on such matters, is pretty clear. God has always sought to bless Man that He created, and has never swerved from that intention. The fact that at times He has seen fit to pour out some heavy punishment, the greatest example being Noah’s Flood, in no way alters that. Through the Flood He saved Noah and his family for a fresh start. This is how God works. Men may fail, but God always has another strategy to give us another chance. One such strategy was His choice of the Jews to receive His blessings, to be an example to other men, and ultimately to be a channel of Salvation for all men. This strategy was fulfilled in a Jew called Jesus, and proclaimed clearly to the World by another Jew called Saul/Paul. This strategy involved an awesome Salvation for all Men. The letter to Hebrews asks “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a Salvation?” Notice that this is in the letter to the Hebrews. The Gospel was first for the Jew. Only later was it preached also to Gentiles. But the order is less important than the fact that this Salvation was for all  men. And it still is.

At the present time many Jews are opposed to Christianity. This is a temporary situation, as the Bible makes it clear that at some point the Great Salvation in Christ will not merely be available to Jews as now, but will actually be embraced by many or all of them. In the meantime, Christians are the ones shouldering the crucial work of propagating the Gospel. Given the history, it seems probable that it was God’s original plan for the Jews first and foremost to be doing this. Clearly they are not, and in this vital sense at least, currently, they have been replaced by Christians. They are not those preaching the Gospel, but rather potential and greatly desired recipients of it. As already pointed out, God’s intentions, His love for all He created, do not change. He already has a plan. For Christians to comply with it, all that is required is to demonstrate God’s love, search always for truth in everything, and explain the Gospel of Christ wherever possible.

So there is currently a replacement, but not at all in the terms quoted in the first paragraph. And it is very difficult to imagine how any honest student of the Bible could arrive at such a view. Again I ask, why this great campaign against a theology that not only lacks Biblical support, but also seems to lack any actual supporters?

Is there an explanation in the two warnings in Revelation about “those who call themselves Jews, but are not, and are a Synagogue of Satan”. These verses receive very little attention, even though many Christians have a strong sense that we are in the End Times, and Revelation is the very book that focuses most strongly on that subject. Are these warnings passed over because they only refer to people “who call themselves” Jews, making it unclear who they are? In fact there is no lack of clarity: if asked my name, since I’m English, I say “My name is Keith.” If I was French, I would say “Je m’appelle Keith,” which translated word-for-word becomes “I call myself Keith.” If we add here Paul’s discourse in Romans that “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly” we get an even clearer picture. Paul is saying you can “Call yourself a Christian”, “Call yourself a Jew” or “Call yourself whatever you like”, but the truth is in the heart. What anyone calls himself doesn’t matter.

So John, in Revelation, seems to be warning against people who claim to be Jews, which infers godliness, but are not really. Then he adds “but are a synagogue of Satan”. That’s a bit strong, isn’t it? For sure, Jews aren’t Christian, but neither are atheists, nor Muslims, nor Hindus, nor Pagans. What’s the difference here? The difference is that many atheists have some regard for Christ as a “Good Man”. Muslims regard Him as a prophet. Hindus often incorporate Him into their Pantheon of gods. And only last week I just had to speak with a beggar who was sitting on the pavement reading a Red Letter Bible. Her dress and her world-view were deeply Pagan, but she thought Jesus was brilliant. For Observant Jews, on the contrary, He is a liar, an apostate, a sorcerer, a blasphemer. A man, and only a man, truly worthy of crucifixion.

Back to Replacement Theology! Contrasting the great awareness of it generated in churches and on the internet, with the near-invisibility of the statements above from Revelation, does suggest a reason for the hype. The hype deflects attention from what the Bible says, and instead disseminates a belief that provides fertile ground for Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism has massive support in the USA, and therefore also plenty of money to defend and promote it. It may seem desirable to have money behind Christian objectives. But the ultimate aim of Zionism is the Restoration of Animal Sacrifice. All attempts at such a Restoration are a blatant denial of the Sacrifice of Christ. Those attempts will continue until they are successful; and will always include strategies to rally Christians in support, or at least to distract them. Christians have no need of Animal Sacrifice. But Jews, like everyone else, need to hear about, understand, and accept the Great Salvation which is in Jesus. Are they likely to hear that Good News from people who, far from seeing the need to promote the Gospel, venerate the Jews and support their programme to restore Sacrifice in the Third Temple? Is the campaign against Replacement Theology a flank attack on anyone who sees that Jews need the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God, not the sacrifice of sheep?

Some twenty years ago the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster was asked this question in a TV interview. He waffled about how nobody really knew, and it was a big and legitimate question. I was shocked that a top churchman could be so ignorant. In those days I hadn’t realised that the Churches represent Constantianism, not Christianity. (See the article on Constantine’s Hijack of Christianity if you haven’t already read it.)

The answer is actually very simple. God gave men Free Will. If you haven’t yet read the Freewill and Predestination article, now would be a good time. God also determined to put men in control of the Earth, which is made clear in the very first chapter of Genesis. People may object here that God made men sinful, but that is a belief of Calvinism, so once more refer to the Freewill and Predestination article. Question answered!

However, those who choose to blame God do not give up so easily. Another criticism of Him is that He is in control of everything and nothing happens outside of His Perfect Will. If this were true, we would all be mere puppets. Such a view is nowhere presented in Scripture. God does not determine whether you have fifty-three or fifty-four beans on your toast today. He knows the number, just as He knows how many hairs you have on your head, and He cares. But that is quite different from micro-managing, second by second, every single thing that happens on the Planet. God is in Ultimate Control, not in Immediate control. Compare your control of a car that you chose to lend to a friend.

Even given the explanations above, people often argue that God has the power to stop bad things, but doesn’t. That is partly true. It is an inevitable outcome of his decision to put Man in control on Earth. He not only puts us in control; He also holds us responsible when we abuse the power He gives. All of that is very clear in the Bible, so Christians, at least, should not be arguing about it. The remaining question here is whether He does intervene at times to prevent bad things. Clearly at times He does. In the Flood He wiped out a wicked and violent generation, and through Noah and his family provided Man with a second chance. In sending Jesus, He provided another chance. These things are documented in the Bible. Does He also intervene in undocumented, lesser ways? Many people can point to events in their lives that were so fortuitous that they seem to have been planned. Were those events coincidence, or did God quietly exercise some beneficial control? In this life we will never know. But what is clear is that such interventions cannot alter the general flow of the affairs of Men, for if they did God would be reneging on his decision to give Mankind control.

This leaves the question of suffering caused by disease, wild animals, earthquakes and the like. A proper understanding of the history of our Planet is vital here, something the Churches are singularly useless at providing, since almost all concur with Darwinian Evolution over millions of years. It is necessary to understand how the Flood changed the Planet. If you are not clear, read “The Rocks Really do Cry Out” and spend as much time as you need on the Science Page. Before the Flood, the Earth really was “Very Good”. When people talk of the beauty and wonder of the World God made with reference to the World as it is today, those statements verge on blasphemy. That is because today’s World is merely the wreckage of the Pre-Flood World. The Flood destroyed everything. After it, the way animals survived was different, the climate was altered, and there was a legacy of volcanoes and earthquakes as the re-formed Earth’s crust settled. A process that still continues today. Much of what we suffer now from “Nature” is an ongoing part of the Judgement and Punishment delivered at the Flood.

Even here people will argue that God is not just, that there should be no on-going effects of the Flood. But these things are given to warn us and to make us think. There is little that is more likely to consign a man to pride and the road to Hell than an easy, comfortable life where nothing ever goes wrong. We need adversity to make us think; we need disease to remind us of our mortality; the very last thing we need is great comfort in this life if we are to think seriously about the next.

So why does bad stuff happen? The answer turns out to have several parts to it. That’s not an excuse for it to be beyond the wit of a Catholic Archbishop. Nor an excuse for it to be beyond the wit of anyone else.

Forty years after University, most of us don’t remember much detail from our lectures. But for me one memory has stuck fast to this day. Like everyone, I was taught Uniformitarian Geology. This is standard, mainstream geology, which says that everything happens very, very slowly over millions of years. As an atheist at that time I had absolutely no reason to doubt it, and it was never mentioned that there has always been an alternative view of geological processes.

One day, in a lecture, the speaker said “The very odd thing is that fossil formation is extremely rapid!” There was no lead-up to this statement, and I sat bolt upright in my seat waiting for what would come next. I’ve always loved learning, and had a half-formed theory that we only really learn when we are surprised; everything else is just more (boring) detail on the framework of what we already know. However, my excitement was short lived, as the lecturer went back to whatever else he was saying, leaving his statement hanging in the air. He wasn’t the sort of man you addressed questions to, so the statement got firmly lodged in my brain, awaiting an explanation.

The explanation is actually rather obvious. Millions of creatures die every day, but they don’t get fossilised. They rot. In order to be become a fossil, an organism must be killed and preserved instantly. This normally involves some kind of catastrophic burial in water and sediment, or volcanic ash. And this process provides the name of the alternative to Uniformitarianism: Catastrophism; a name and a way of thinking that was kept hidden from us at University. What lay behind that lecturer’s sudden, solitary comment? A lapse of concentration? Guilt?

Among the fossils, the most stunning manifestations of catastrophic burial are the “Death Pose Dinosaurs”:

They are found in many parts of the World, and show the classic, gasping, arched-back pose due to lack of oxygen. This pose would not be maintained for long, as death would shortly intervene and the muscles would then relax. The envelopment of these animals that made preservation possible must have been virtually instant. For other fossils, the vast majority of which are marine species, the simple fact of their preservation demonstrates rapid burial and preservation.

If fossils are formed instantly, clearly the rocks in which they are fossilised must also be formed instantly/catastrophically. One can at least understand why the lecturer did not want to delve into an “anomaly” that disproved his entire Uniformitarian Theory!

See also Failed Cup of Coffee Shows Crucial Dynamic in Geology.