In a November 21st article published at American Vision, writer Joel McDurmon protested over the recent wave of information relative to the dangers of “Replacement Theology.”  In case you didn’t know, Replacement Theology is a form of Christian teaching which claims that the Christian church has inherited the Old Testament blessings which God promised to Israel.  These blessings include Jewish restoration to the land of promise under a “new” or better covenant (Jer. 31: 31-40), and dominion over the nations of the world (Micah 4: 8). 

   The Old Testament prophets declared that these blessings would be fulfilled at the return of Jesus Christ from heaven.  And in A.D. 58, Paul added that although the nation abides now in unbelief, their healing will come at Christ’s second advent, when all Israel will be saved (Romans 11: 26-27; cf. Isaiah 59: 20-21).  Until that time, and while Israel remains dispersed among the nations, salvation is extended to the Gentiles.  And “one new man” is being formed of both Jews and Gentiles–that is, the church (Eph. 2: 15).

  Replacement Theology confounds Scriptures which are specifically addressed to Israel, and appropriates them to the church, robbing the Jews of their future hope.  Taking the land promises, for instance, Replacement Theologians (hereafter designated as R.T.’s) assert that these are now fulfilled “In Christ.” 

   While they insist on a literal fulfillment of the curses, R.T.’s quite simply tell the Jews to no longer expect any Divine restoration under the everlasting covenant (as per Leviticus 26: 40-45; Deut. 30: 1-10), but to accept an allegorical something-or-other held out to them through the Gospel.  Any Gospel, however, that ignores Paul’s message in Romans 11, and claims that the natural branches were broken off that the wild one might take their place and supersede them, promulgates the very error that the inspired apostle warned against (Romans 11: 19-25).  When we hear these teachings preached from the pulpit, or read them on the web, let us know that we have entered the darkling lair of “Replacement Theology.”

  Joel McDurmon, an employee of American Vision, seems generally unwilling to get into theological definitions.  In fact, there is not a single Scriptural citation in his entire article.  Obviously, McDurmon is attempting to do some damage-control work, and doesn’t feel the Scriptures are necessary.   What makes it sad, though, is that he attempts by humor to effect what can only be done by handling the relevant theological issues.  

   McDurmon quotes from a number of articles which recently appeared on the web warning against the errors of Replacement Theology, and mocks at the points that are raised.  Instead of interacting with the arguments, however, he ridicules them.  This, of course, is not the way to prove one’s position.  Nevertheless, with the tactics we’ve seen utilized in past months by American Vision, we were not expecting a great deal of relevant interaction.

   Lacking sound Biblical proof, McDurmon pulls a second-rate stunt, and quotes from the Westminster Larger Catechism of 1648.   He writes:

Moreover, the Westminster Larger Catechism teaches, under the heading “Thy Kingdom Come,” that we are meant to pray “that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the gentiles brought in; . . .” (WLC, Answer 191). As Reformed believers we are instructed to pray that the Jews would come to Christ! And, by the way, this was written in 1648, a direct product of the Reformation. That this pro-Jewish view of God’s plan has been around for 360 years now should signal to the dispensationalists that we do not, in fact, believe in replacement. Call it Fulfillment, Fullness, Expansion, even Grafting Theology-a dozen other labels will do-but replacement will not do, thank you.

   This is all well and good, of course.  For in this Reformed document an unmistakable reference is made to Romans 11: 25, where Paul writes that “Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.”  Very few will argue with that. But McDurmon forgets something very important.  He neglects to tell us that Gary DeMar, the president of American Vision, believes that the fullness of the Gentiles already came in 2,000 years ago!  This conclusion is quite different from that espoused by the Westminster Assembly, and is a direct reflection of Gary DeMar’s erroneous and heretical teaching that Jesus Christ’s second advent occurred in A.D. 70.

  It gets better, though.  Because Gary DeMar is a Preterist, he also believes that the “great harlot” of Revelation 17 is the nation of Israel, which was divorced by God in A.D. 70.  Whereas the “wife” of Revelation 19 is the Gospel church, which became married to Christ as the direct result of His putting away of Israel.  DeMar believes that the divorce of the “great whore” enabled the new marriage to take place.  Therefore, as Israel has been cast out by Jehovah, she may no longer look for any reconstitution of her national or religious privileges.  All of these have now been transferred to Christ’s new bride, the church.  Now, if that isn’t replacement theology, I don’t know what is!

  Perhaps Joel McDurmon can explain whether he feels the same way.  Does he agree that Israel was divorced and the church married in A.D. 70?  If so, then he is a Replacement Theologian.  There is no middle-ground on which he can stand.  He must answer yes or no.  Or, he always has the option of not answering at all: a convenient outlet for those who do not want their ideological festers exposed.  In any event, McDurmon’s absence of Scriptural proof makes it pretty clear (to me, at least) that he has no intention of dealing with facts, but is simply pulling a coverup job.

  Anyone who has the slightest familiarity with Gary DeMar and American Vision knows that the theology McDurmon represents is rotten to the core.  DeMar is so intent on combating the prevailing doctrines of Dispensationalism, that he’ll use any missiles he can get his hands on (even enemy ones) to damage the theological system of his opponents.  His grim repertory of rationalistic and heterodox materials are now in use by the Anti-Christian cult known as “Hyper-Preterism.”  DeMar has steadfastly denied any affiliation with Hyper-Preterism.  However, many of his own teachings (such as that Matthew 25 was fulfilled in A.D. 70) are direct products of the Hyper-Preterist school of theology.  They have nothing to do with that of the Reformation, but are directly opposed to evangelical Christianity, and are the fiery darts that Satan has used at various times to vex the church.

  Apparently, Joel McDurmon has little choice but to accept DeMar’s authority, and parrot the Preterist party-line of “all things fulfilled in A.D. 70.”  But lest any unsuspecting visitor should learn what American Vision teaches right off the bat, McDurmon takes his stand behind the Westminister Larger Catechism: forgetting, of course, that the ideology of his leader is at loggerheads with the very theological position cited as proof that American Vision does not espouse “Replacement Theology.”  Perhaps McDurmon would like to contact me personally, and arrange a public debate on this issue.  Or, if he finds that option a little too close for comfort, he may continue to ride DeMar’s coat-tails while he misrepresents his own (as well as his leader’s) true stance concerning “Replacement Theology.”