This is basicly the begining of a series of articles I was working on about the subject of replacement theology.  I had been asked to write on the subject and had submitted the work below as part one of what was to be a multi-part work.  As often happens life intervened and my best laid plans were radicaly changed.  Below this reprint of part one is a link to an article called Remnant Theology by John Gay.  His article expresses my own position well, and I recommend his article without reservation.

_______________________________________________

Any discussion of eschatology with a dispensationalist will usually result in the charge of “replacement theology” being leveled against anyone who is not dispensationalist.  The preterist, postmillennialist, historicist, and amillenialist all have been accused of this heinous crime.   What exactly is replacement theology, and is it the evil bugaboo that it’s made out to be?

discussions of replacement theology are inextricably intertwined with one's view of Israel’s role in the future millennium.  The charge of replacement theology is sometimes used by dispensationalists as a synonym for anti-semitism.   If one advocates any form of supersessionism (the more or less “official” name for replacement theology)  one will hear the term "replacement theology" bandied about with derision.  Recognizing this fact I anticipate that all manner of epithets will be forthcoming.  It is an emotionally charged term and this fact alone makes it a difficult topic to deal with.

The true difficulty is that the term "replacement theology" has several shades of meaning, depending upon with whom one speaks. Furthermore there is also much mixing of definitions, some are very subtle. To some it indicates any theology other than dispensationalism, for others it is synonymous with anti-Semitism, so my first task in this endeavor is to define my terms.

Wikipedia.org defines replacement theology thus:

“Supersessionism is the traditional Christian belief that Christianity is the fulfillment of Biblical Judaism, and therefore that Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah fall short of their calling as God's Chosen people.

Thus, according to supersessionism, the Jews are either no longer considered to be God's Chosen people, or their proper calling is frustrated pending their acceptance of Jesus as the promised Messiah.”

Religious Tolerance.org defines Supersessionism this way:

“Supercessionism: This is the theological concept that, because Jews in the first century CE did not accept Jesus as their Messiah, God unilaterally terminated his covenants with the Jewish people and transferred them to the followers of Christianity.  It relegates Judaism to an inferior position and recognizes Christianity as the 'true' or 'spiritual' Israel. This concept was first developed by Justin Martyr (circa 100 to 165 CE) and Irenaeus of Lyon (circa 130 to 200 CE). It was largely accepted within the church by the 4th century. It has led to a great deal of persecution of Jews by Christians. Conservative Christians still believe in this principle.”

Thomas Ice, dispensationalist apologist, in his article What do you do with a future National Israel in the Bible? in the seventh paragraph defines replacement theology as:

“Replacement theology is the view that the Church has permanently replaced Israel as the instrument through which God works and that national Israel does not have a future in the plan of God.”

Historically this has been the Amillennial position.  The Amillennialist says that because of the Jews rejection of their messiah the blessings that would have been theirs now belong solely to the church.  Many Post-millennialists subscribe to this view as well. 

Dispensationalists and Messianics are the loudest voices in opposition to supersessionism; Dispensationalists because it is necessary to their eschatology to have national Israel receive the "land promise" in the future, and Messianics due to their perception that supersessionism causes anti-Semitism.

It has been noted that supersessionism has been the historic view of the church regarding the proper place of the church and national Israel regarding the promises of the covenants.  Historic teaching or not, is it a valid teaching?  If not what is the biblical alternative?  Is there any truth in supersessionism or is it completely bankrupt?  These are the questions I hope to answer.

The key to unlocking these questions lies in understanding the distinctions made in scripture between the nation of Israel, spiritual Israel (the remnant), and the church.
_______________________________________________

Please refer to the article linked below for an excellent discussion of these issues.
The article linked below states quite eloquently my own position on this matter.  Since I don't like re-inventing the wheel I will let this article replace what I otherwise would have written since the author makes substantially the same points I would have made, but with more elloquence.  I submit this link for your edification.