22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

How so? All you do is make claims and do nothing to explain what you mean or back up your claims. How can I possibly take you seriously when that is the case?

You're confused. I make claims, yes. And in subsequent posts, make short, summary statements alluding to claims I already defended.

Why do you use an appellation, "spiritual Israel", that by it's very nature indicates replacement? Why not use a neutral term from the Bible itself like "Eklesia," or "Church", or "the fulness", [which is the term that Paul uses.]

Which rhetorical question are you referring to? Can you please try to be more specific when talking to me so that I don't have to try to guess as to what you're talking about?

You know, I'm trying to get you to study the passage instead of using it as a proof text. I was hoping you would. Well, let me explain how I see it and demonstrate an abbreviated example of my hermeneutical technique.

Consider the book of Romans as a whole and ask, why did Paul spend so much time writing this epistle to the Romans? Answer: It happened that all Christian believers were ordered to leave the city of Rome. Christianity was becoming a problem with Rome because Christians refused to worship the Roman Gods. Later, after a new emperor came to power, Christians were allowed to return to Rome. Paul was unable to visit Rome to encourage believers and answer various objections to the gospel they were hearing from Jewish objectors. So he decided to write a letter.

Paul spends the first four chapters teaching the core gospel, summarizing the gospel in chapter 5. Beginning in chapter 6, Paul begins to answer objections to the gospel, which his readers might encounter. His rhetorical structure comes as a series of rhetorical questions, which he then answers. The question typically follows this pattern, "What are we saying then . . . X? May it never be!" For example, chapter 6 begins, "What are we saying then, shall we continue in sin that Grace might abound? May in never be."

Paul doesn't stop answering objections to the gospel until chapter 12. Paul continues to defend his gospel in Chapter 9. What is the objection he addresses there? Can you see it? He sets it up for us.

If his rhetorical pattern held he would have asked, "What are we saying then, has the word of God failed? May it never be." What follows is Paul's answer as to how the word of God hasn't failed.

Now, we can test our interpretation of this passage by comparing our interpretation with the implied question. What particular promise does the gospel of grace potentially threaten, such that it requires special attention from Paul?

As I said, Paul sets up the problem in the first five verses. He grants that the adoption as sons BELONGS to his kinsmen of the flesh. It doesn't belong to anyone else. This is key, the adoption as sons belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. By virtue of their birth, Paul says, God promised to give them the adoption as sons. I've said it three times for emphasis. The subject of Romans 9 is a promise God made to Jacob and his progeny. his people.

To rephrase the question in light of the first five verses, let's state it this way. "What are we saying then, Did God fail to keep a promise he made to my kinsmen of the flesh?"

The answer is NOT: God is saving all the spiritual children of Abraham. Why? Because, Paul says, salvation a choice God makes, which does NOT depend on a choice we make. An essential feature of salvation is circumcision of the heart and God can circumcise ANYONE he wants at any time he wants. He literally could, if he wished it, circumcise each and every person on the earth right now.

The answer isn't, "God didn't save them because they refused to believe." Why, because God said that he could, anytime he wanted, cause a person to believe. It all comes down to his wishes and his purposes.

So, given this reality, Paul has set out to explain why God is NOT going to cause each and every descendant of Jacob to believe in him. Since he isn't going to do that, then one is right to ask whether God broke a promise to his kinsmen.

If my interpretation of Romans 9:6 doesn't answer the question, then I have work to do.

In my view, the interpretation you hold doesn't answer the implied objection to Paul's gospel. It completely ignores the first five verses.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Can you explain how any unrepentant sinners will survive the return of Christ in light of what is taught in passages like this:

2 Thess 1:6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

If your question is, "How many unrepentant sinners survive eternal punishment?" I'd say none. Now, I'll ask you a question. How is God going to "back back trouble" to those who are dead and destroyed? Will they be punished with everlasting destruction? Yes, but in your view, when will they suffer affliction?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Revelation 19 forbids your theology!

A plain reading of the passage before us reveals that Christ is coming back with wrath to execute judgment and destroy all those left behind.

The plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus is going to shepherd them, not kill and destroy them. Jesus will kill soldiers not civilians.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Says who? Where is your evidence?

There is lots of evidence but you refuse to accept it.

 

[WPM]

Why do you use an appellation, "spiritual Israel", that by it's very nature indicates replacement? Why not use a neutral term from the Bible itself like "Eklesia," or "Church", or "the fulness", [which is the term that Paul uses.]

This battle has been a long (and comprehensively) won. Stop fighting the Scriptures. We are the true children of Abraham, not ethnic Israel. We are the children of promise, not ethnic Israel. We are true Israeli citizens, not ethnic Israel. We are the circumcision, not ethnic Israel. We are the spiritual Jews, not ethnic Israel. Those who are part of this symbolic tree enjoy a common spiritual identity that is reflected in a new type of citizenship. It is a spiritual citizenship that is heaven-centered which only believers can enjoy. This symbolic tree represents the Israel of God from throughout the nations – the only Israel God recognizes. No unbeliever is part of it because partaking in its blessing and sustenance comes through the exercise of faith. This joining of Jews and Gentiles together fulfilled many of the promises Abraham received about the nations being blessed in him (Genesis 12:1-3, 17:3-8, 17:15-16, 18:18 and 22:16-18).

Ephesians 2:11-19 declares, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth [Gr. politeia or citizenship] of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby … Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens [Gr. sumpolites] with the saints, and of the household of God.”

The context of the passage in view is basically comparing the dark hopeless condition the Gentiles found themselves in before the cross to the liberated enlightened position those Gentiles who embraced Christ were after the cross. It is only upon conversion that our sins are washed away and the blood of Jesus becomes effectual. Through Calvary, the believing Gentile has been brought into a new dominion and therefore enjoys a new citizenship, with its consequential new benefits. The believing Gentile has been given favor with God and has now fully entered into:

· Christ
· The citizenship of Israel
· The covenants of promise
· Spiritual hope
· Union with God in this present world

This passage is speaking of five distinct, yet inextricably linked, states of alienation that the Gentile believer once suffered before they received the glorious Gospel of Christ. Paul the Apostle makes it clear that all five have been graciously opened up to the Gentiles since Christ’s first advent. The Gentile believer can now experience God in the same way the Jew could prior to the cross through their surrender to Christ and their trust in “the blood of Christ.” Gentiles Christians under the new covenant now enjoy the same undeserved favor and blessing that Israeli Jewish believers did under the old covenant. We essentially see the incorporation of the once darkened Gentiles into true Israel. They now share with Israel its Messiah, Israeli citizenship, spiritual covenants, promises, hope and God.”

The whole thrust here is showing the supernatural change of status that occurred to the believing Gentiles through trusting in Christ and His shed blood on the cross. These darkened Gentiles went from being “aliens, “strangers” and “foreigners” to being “fellowcitizens” in the Israel of God. They went from being “afar off” to being “nigh.” This is talking about a spiritual transaction that occurred through the cross.

Paul says in Romans 11:17-24: “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them, partakest of the root and fatness [or oiliness] of the olive tree. Boast not against the branches [Israel]. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root [Jesus], but the root [Jesus] thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches [Israel] were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?”

No one could surely dispute we are looking at an Israeli tree. Romans 11:24 explains, speaking about natural Israel: “these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?” This is an Israeli tree that holds Israeli citizens. But it was not merely a natural Israeli tree but a spiritual Israeli tree. After all, if it were simply natural there would be absolutely no reason to cut out natural Israelites simply on the grounds of their race. We are clearly looking at a spiritual tree that accommodates both the believing Jew and the believing Gentile from both Old and New Testament. It embodies all those who belong to the “household of faith” throughout time.

Those who are part of this symbolic tree enjoy a common spiritual identity that is reflected in a new type of citizenship. It is a spiritual citizenship that is heaven-centered which only believers can enjoy. This symbolic tree represents the Israel of God from throughout the nations – the only Israel God recognizes. No unbeliever is part of it because partaking in its blessing and sustenance comes through the exercise of faith. This joining of Jews and Gentiles together fulfilled many of the promises Abraham received about the nations being blessed in him (Genesis 12:1-3, 17:3-8, 17:15-16, 18:18 and 22:16-18).

A renunciation of racial superiority was pressed hard by that Hebrew of the Hebrews Paul the Apostle throughout the New Testament in clear, unambiguous and unwavering terms. It left no room for uncertainty. Galatians 6:15-16 emphasizes: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

Scripture couldn’t be clearer! Race means nothing today. Salvation renders racial distinctions unimportant and irrelevant. Jewishness is nothing, neither is Gentilenesss. The race barriers have been demolished under the new covenant. Those that would argue that a man’s natural race carries any worth or virtue before God when it comes to salvation or that it in any way adds anything to a man’s spiritual status are severely censured by passages like these.

N. T. Wright asserts: “Paul makes it abundantly clear that there is no covenant membership, and consequently no salvation, for those who simply rest on their ancestral privilege” (The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology).

Galatians 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

There is no allowance for ethnic difference within the body of Christ. There are no subgroups, cultures, color’s or creeds, just one harmonious redeemed company that has been unified through the person and work of Christ our Savior. Those that have the Spirit of Christ in both the Old and the New Testament are the true seed of Abraham – that father of the faith.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, why do you never do that? Your posts rarely contain any scriptural support. You can't be expected to be taken seriously when that is the case. You should do something to back up your claims.

What rhetorical question are you talking about?

Think about it. Surely you must realize that I am not here to make a case for Premillennialism. This thread is a polemic against the Premillennial view. As such, we are here to answer Paul M's objections to our view. Because of this, we are responding to scriptures he raises. We can offer scriptures to support our view, but this is not the proper place to make a positive case FOR the Premillennial view. We are busy answering objections.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Look again. Peter is talking about "The Day of the Lord", which is NOT a day when the world ends.

How do you interpret this passage:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Can you break this down for me?

What is the day of the Lord and what does it mean for it to come as a thief in the night?

What do you think it means when it talks about heavens passing "away with a great noise", the elements melting "with fervent heat" and "the earth also and the works that are therein" being burned up?

Why is it important for Peter's readers to consider "what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness" in relation to the coming of the day of the Lord?

What is "his promise" that Peter referred to in verse 13 which is in accordance with the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth?

 

[WPM]

Why do you use an appellation, "spiritual Israel", that by it's very nature indicates replacement? Why not use a neutral term from the Bible itself like "Eklesia," or "Church", or "the fulness", [which is the term that Paul uses.]

You know, I'm trying to get you to study the passage instead of using it as a proof text. I was hoping you would. Well, let me explain how I see it and demonstrate an abbreviated example of my hermeneutical technique.

Consider the book of Romans as a whole and ask, why did Paul spend so much time writing this epistle to the Romans? Answer: It happened that all Christian believers were ordered to leave the city of Rome. Christianity was becoming a problem with Rome because Christians refused to worship the Roman Gods. Later, after a new emperor came to power, Christians were allowed to return to Rome. Paul was unable to visit Rome to encourage believers and answer various objections to the gospel they were hearing from Jewish objectors. So he decided to write a letter.

Paul spends the first four chapters teaching the core gospel, summarizing the gospel in chapter 5. Beginning in chapter 6, Paul begins to answer objections to the gospel, which his readers might encounter. His rhetorical structure comes as a series of rhetorical questions, which he then answers. The question typically follows this pattern, "What are we saying then . . . X? May it never be!" For example, chapter 6 begins, "What are we saying then, shall we continue in sin that Grace might abound? May in never be."

Paul doesn't stop answering objections to the gospel until chapter 12. Paul continues to defend his gospel in Chapter 9. What is the objection he addresses there? Can you see it? He sets it up for us.

If his rhetorical pattern held he would have asked, "What are we saying then, has the word of God failed? May it never be." What follows is Paul's answer as to how the word of God hasn't failed.

Now, we can test our interpretation of this passage by comparing our interpretation with the implied question. What particular promise does the gospel of grace potentially threaten, such that it requires special attention from Paul?

As I said, Paul sets up the problem in the first five verses. He grants that the adoption as sons BELONGS to his kinsmen of the flesh. It doesn't belong to anyone else. This is key, the adoption as sons belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. By virtue of their birth, Paul says, God promised to give them the adoption as sons. I've said it three times for emphasis. The subject of Romans 9 is a promise God made to Jacob and his progeny. his people.

To rephrase the question in light of the first five verses, let's state it this way. "What are we saying then, Did God fail to keep a promise he made to my kinsmen of the flesh?"

The answer is NOT: God is saving all the spiritual children of Abraham. Why? Because, Paul says, salvation a choice God makes, which does NOT depend on a choice we make. An essential feature of salvation is circumcision of the heart and God can circumcise ANYONE he wants at any time he wants. He literally could, if he wished it, circumcise each and every person on the earth right now.

The answer isn't, "God didn't save them because they refused to believe." Why, because God said that he could, anytime he wanted, cause a person to believe. It all comes down to his wishes and his purposes.

So, given this reality, Paul has set out to explain why God is NOT going to cause each and every descendant of Jacob to believe in him. Since he isn't going to do that, then one is right to ask whether God broke a promise to his kinsmen.

If my interpretation of Romans 9:6 doesn't answer the question, then I have work to do.

In my view, the interpretation you hold doesn't answer the implied objection to Paul's gospel. It completely ignores the first five verses.

Remember, the Pharisees made the same mistake as Premils make today in regard to natural Israel. The Pharisees were filled with racial pride, consumed with a sense of national superiority, obsessed with religious rituals and temple ordinances and fixated with earthly real estate instead of the heavenly kingdom. They were looking to an earthly Davidic throne, with Messiah ruling over the Gentiles with a rod of iron. They believed in racial division and superiority. This obsession with the wrong city, land, Kingdom, consequently caused them to reject Christ and nail Him to a tree as an impostor. They missed the heavenly spiritual kingdom He brought.

The prophets were fixated with Christ (thee hope of Israel), redemption (deliverance from sin), His majestic kingdom (a spiritual edifice) and eternal glory (being delivered from every enemy - natural and spiritual). Messiah's appearance was the ongoing perpetual hope for every true Israelite (believing Israel). It was the Pharisees that were fixated with the land. They wanted to lord over the nations in a show of racial superiority. They were captivated with the natural, physical, earthly, visible and temporal whereas the elect were captivated with the supernatural, spiritual, heavenly, invisible and the eternal.

Many today mistakenly elevate Israel to the place that belongs alone to Christ. In doing this they undermine the Scriptures and depose Christ of His rightful place. I hear American believers frequently claim: "God blesses America because they support Israel." That is nonsense! God's blessing revolves around how people treat Christ! The fact is, all the old covenant promises, all the Old Testament covenants, the law, Moses and the prophets all had their sight and end in Christ. If one’s interpretation of Scripture does not point to Christ, exalt Him and see the realization of God’s blueprint for redemption in His final sacrifice for sin then it is in error. The Bible is undermined by the many false theories that exist today about Israel and the mistaken expectation that some Christians have of the rebuilding of a Judaic temple, the instigation of a failed Israeli priesthood, and the return to useless animal sacrifices. This unhealthy fixation with natural Israel and physical real estate in the Middle East where Israel would enjoy racial superiority over all the nations is wrong, misplaced and contrary to repeated New Testament Scripture. That will never again happen; it has gone forever. All nations today are equally chosen and the boundaries of Israel have been extended outward to embrace the whole world (the Gentile nations). The Gospel many preach today is a flawed gospel that diverts people away from Christ to man and land that is about to go up in a puff of smoke when Jesus comes. Christ is the focus of all Scripture Old and New. He was the anticipated fulfilment of every Old Testament hope.

 

[WPM]

There is lots of evidence but you refuse to accept it.

Yeah, right? Where is it? Nowhere! That is why you cannot produce it. This is the usual evasive Premil response.

 

[jeffweeder]

I believe that no one would interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 in such a way that it's not referring to the end of the world if it wasn't for doctrinal bias. It's interesting how Premils throw their literal rules of interpretation out the window when it comes to passages like that one.

It's clearly the end gift wrapped in a second coming context, with one thing for us to look forward to, a NHNE.
Clearly the ungodly suffer not only judgment but total destruction.


7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly people.

8 Nevertheless, do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day. 9 The Lord does not delay [as though He were unable to act] and is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is [extraordinarily] patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.


10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will vanish with a [mighty and thunderous] roar, and the [material] elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and the works that are on it will be burned up.

11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be [in the meantime] in holy behavior [that is, in a pattern of daily life that sets you apart as a believer] and in godliness [displaying profound reverence toward our awesome God], 12 [while you earnestly] look for and await the coming of the day of God. For on this day the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the [material] elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But in accordance with His promise we expectantly await new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

14 So, beloved, since you are looking forward to these things, be diligent and make every effort to be found by Him [at His return] spotless and blameless, in peace [that is, inwardly calm with a sense of spiritual well-being and confidence, having lived a life of obedience to Him]. 15 And consider the patience of our Lord [His delay in judging and avenging wrongs] as salvation [that is, allowing time for more to be saved]; just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him [by God], 16 speaking about these things as he does in all of his letters. In which there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the untaught and unstable [who have fallen into error] twist and misinterpret, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Here is the passage yet again:

Luke 24:25 Then Jesus said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to trust and believe in everything that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and [only then to] enter His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and [throughout] all the [writings of the] prophets, He explained and interpreted for them the things referring to Himself [found] in all the Scriptures.

You're trying to tell me that they understood all of the Old Testament scriptures, yet this passage indicates that Jesus had show them and explain to them the OT passages that were about Him. So, what you're saying blatantly contradicts what this passage indicates. Yes, they SHOULD have understood, but they didn't because of their lack of faith in what the prophets had spoken. If they had more faith in the scriptures that God inspired, then God would have showed them what they meant. But, since they didn't, then they needed Jesus to explain and interpret for them the scriptures that referred to Him. If they understood what they read, as you are falsely claiming, then there would not have been any need for Jesus to explain it to them. Can you not understand that?

One should not suppose that these men were ignorant of the meaning of the text, or that Jesus would cruelly scold someone for misunderstanding something written in the OT. Jesus corrects those who misunderstand what is written. If someone gets it wrong, or if someone should misconstrue what is written he patiently corrects, he is not critical of those who don't understand things.

Secondly, we must be careful to avoid accusing these men of unbelief. Jesus said they were slow to trust and believe; he didn't say they were unwilling to trust and believe. Conversion, like childbirth, is unique to the individual. Everyone has a different story. Some are quick to believe; some are slow to believe, but eventually we all get there.

Is Luke suggesting that Jesus interpreted the meaning of the OT to these men? Yes and no. Prophecy is a bit tricky. Prophetic oracles are cryptic by nature and one is not able to truly understand the meaning of a prophetic word until the event actually takes place. And when the event finally takes place, one does not always have the confidence to make a firm judgment with regard to the question of whether it perfectly aligns with what the prophet said.

Jesus was able to match up events with predictions, which is something these men could have done themselves given enough time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're confused.

No, I'm not.

Why do you use an appellation, "spiritual Israel", that by it's very nature indicates replacement?

Why does it indicate that? When you consider a passage like Romans 9:6-8, you should understand that that are two Israels rather than one, with one replacing the other. So, the term "spiritual Israel" does not imply a replacement. That would be the case only if I claimed that there was only one Israel. But, I don't claim that.

Why not use a neutral term from the Bible itself like "Eklesia," or "Church", or "the fulness", [which is the term that Paul uses.]

Why do you care what term I use when there are many terms we can use for the church/body of Christ/bride of Christ/etc.?

You know, I'm trying to get you to study the passage instead of using it as a proof text.

LOL. I have studied the passage. It's ridiculous for you to think otherwise.

I was hoping you would.

You don't have to hope. I have studied all the things that we talk about on this forum in great depth.

Well, let me explain how I see it and demonstrate an abbreviated example of my hermeneutical technique.

Consider the book of Romans as a whole and ask, why did Paul spend so much time writing this epistle to the Romans? Answer: It happened that all Christian believers were ordered to leave the city of Rome. Christianity was becoming a problem with Rome because Christians refused to worship the Roman Gods. Later, after a new emperor came to power, Christians were allowed to return to Rome. Paul was unable to visit Rome to encourage believers and answer various objections to the gospel they were hearing from Jewish objectors. So he decided to write a letter.

Paul spends the first four chapters teaching the core gospel, summarizing the gospel in chapter 5. Beginning in chapter 6, Paul begins to answer objections to the gospel, which his readers might encounter. His rhetorical structure comes as a series of rhetorical questions, which he then answers. The question typically follows this pattern, "What are we saying then . . . X? May it never be!" For example, chapter 6 begins, "What are we saying then, shall we continue in sin that Grace might abound? May in never be."

Paul doesn't stop answering objections to the gospel until chapter 12. Paul continues to defend his gospel in Chapter 9. What is the objection he addresses there? Can you see it? He sets it up for us.

If his rhetorical pattern held he would have asked, "What are we saying then, has the word of God failed? May it never be." What follows is Paul's answer as to how the word of God hasn't failed.

Now, we can test our interpretation of this passage by comparing our interpretation with the implied question. What particular promise does the gospel of grace potentially threaten, such that it requires special attention from Paul?

As I said, Paul sets up the problem in the first five verses. He grants that the adoption as sons BELONGS to his kinsmen of the flesh. It doesn't belong to anyone else. This is key, the adoption as sons belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. By virtue of their birth, Paul says, God promised to give them the adoption as sons. I've said it three times for emphasis. The subject of Romans 9 is a promise God made to Jacob and his progeny. his people.

To rephrase the question in light of the first five verses, let's state it this way. "What are we saying then, Did God fail to keep a promise he made to my kinsmen of the flesh?"'/quote]If you continue reading from there, you should see how Paul explains that Gentile believers share in those promises. He said in Romans 10:12-13 "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

So, Paul is not intending to teach that God has separate plans for Israel and for the Gentiles. He is indicating that God has a plan for all believers to be together as one.

The answer is NOT: God is saving all the spiritual children of Abraham. Why? Because, Paul says, salvation a choice God makes, which does NOT depend on a choice we make.

This is opening up another can of worms altogether. I do not agree with Calvinist doctrine. Everyone is responsible to make a decision about Christ, including all Israelites. So, I disagree with your perspective on this. I don't want to turn this thread into a free will vs. Calvinism debate, though.

An essential feature of salvation is circumcision of the heart and God can circumcise ANYONE he wants at any time he wants. He literally could, if he wished it, circumcise each and every person on the earth right now.

Yes, but He decided to make everyone responsible to choose to repent and believe or not. And He wants everyone to do so (2 Tim 2:3-6, 1 John 2:1-2, 2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:31, etc.).

The answer isn't, "God didn't save them because they refused to believe."

Yes, it is.

Why, because God said that he could, anytime he wanted, cause a person to believe. It all comes down to his wishes and his purposes.

Yet, scripture teaches He wants everyone to be saved and to repent. What does that mean to you?

So, given this reality, Paul has set out to explain why God is NOT going to cause each and every descendant of Jacob to believe in him. Since he isn't going to do that, then one is right to ask whether God broke a promise to his kinsmen.

If my interpretation of Romans 9:6 doesn't answer the question, then I have work to do.

I definitely believe you have work to do. The first thing I would suggest is to stop believing in Calvinism which contradicts all the scriptures which teach that God wants everyone to repent and to be saved. As Paul himself wrote in Romans 11:32, He wants to have mercy on all people. So, while it's true that He can have mercy on whoever He wants, as Paul talked about in Romans 9, He wants to have mercy on all people. This shows that He makes people responsible to choose.

[quoe]In my view, the interpretation you hold doesn't answer the implied objection to Paul's gospel. It completely ignores the first five verses.

No, it doesn't ignore those five verses at all. Unfortunately, your apparent belief in Calvinist doctrine is leading you astray in your understanding of Romans 9-11.

 

[CadyandZoe]

We are the true children of Abraham, not ethnic Israel.

Your comparison between these two ideas is clear evidence of Replacement Theology, because fair minded people understand that some among the true children of God are also ethnic Israel. These are NOT mutually exclusive categories as you suppose.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

One should not suppose that these men were ignorant of the meaning of the text, or that Jesus would cruelly scold someone for misunderstanding something written in the OT. Jesus corrects those who misunderstand what is written. If someone gets it wrong, or if someone should misconstrue what is written he patiently corrects, he is not critical of those who don't understand things.

It plainly says that He explained and interpreted the scriptures that concerned Him. Was He explaining and interpreting things that they already understood? No way. Why would He do that? That would be a waste of time. Yes, they should have understood, but they didn't, so He had to explain it to Him. That is what the text indicates.

Secondly, we must be careful to avoid accusing these men of unbelief.

Where did I do that? It says they were slow to trust and believe. I'm not saying any differently. They were criticized for their slowness to trust and believe and not for not trusting and believing at all.

Jesus said they were slow to trust and believe; he didn't say they were unwilling to trust and believe.

I didn't say otherwise.

Conversion, like childbirth, is unique to the individual. Everyone has a different story. Some are quick to believe; some are slow to believe, but eventually we all get there.

I didn't say otherwise.

Is Luke suggesting that Jesus interpreted the meaning of the OT to these men? Yes and no. Prophecy is a bit tricky. Prophetic oracles are cryptic by nature and one is not able to truly understand the meaning of a prophetic word until the event actually takes place. And when the event finally takes place, one does not always have the confidence to make a firm judgment with regard to the question of whether it perfectly aligns with what the prophet said.

I don't understand what you were trying to say here. It very clearly indicates that He explained and interpreted for them the OT prophecies about Him.

 

[WPM]

Your comparison between these two ideas is clear evidence of Replacement Theology, because fair minded people understand that some among the true children of God are also ethnic Israel. These are NOT mutually exclusive categories as you suppose.

It seems like name-calling has become the default response for Premils and their means of dealing with the Amil arguments. So telling! You have clearly nothing to rebut my post. Your silence is deafening.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your comparison between these two ideas is clear evidence of Replacement Theology, because fair minded people understand that some among the true children of God are also ethnic Israel. These are NOT mutually exclusive categories as you suppose.

You're not understanding the point. The true or spiritual children of Abraham includes both ethnic Israelite believers and Gentiles. One's nationality has nothing to do with being a spiritual child of Abraham, as Paul indicated in Galatians 3:26-29. So, no one was saying that there aren't some among the true children of God who are of ethnic Israel.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Think about it. Surely you must realize that I am not here to make a case for Premillennialism. This thread is a polemic against the Premillennial view. As such, we are here to answer Paul M's objections to our view. Because of this, we are responding to scriptures he raises. We can offer scriptures to support our view, but this is not the proper place to make a positive case FOR the Premillennial view. We are busy answering objections.

You should answer objections by using scripture and telling us how you interpret the scripture. Instead, in most of your posts, you make all kinds of claims left and right without explaining how you come to your conclusions.

Take your post #2829, for example. You said "Look again. Peter is talking about "The Day of the Lord", which is NOT a day when the world ends.". How is that helpful? Why didn't you do anything to back up what you said? What is the point of making the claim that you did without backing it up at all?

 

[CadyandZoe]

How do you interpret this passage:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Can you break this down for me?

What is the day of the Lord and what does it mean for it to come as a thief in the night?

What do you think it means when it talks about heavens passing "away with a great noise", the elements melting "with fervent heat" and "the earth also and the works that are therein" being burned up?

Why is it important for Peter's readers to consider "what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness" in relation to the coming of the day of the Lord?

What is "his promise" that Peter referred to in verse 13 which is in accordance with the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth?

The Day of the Lord marks a new era in human history when God will begin to "have his day." That new era will serve God's desire to prove himself among the nations, and restore his holy name. For this reason, in anticipation of that new era, Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

hallowed be thy name:
This phrase, in the King James English, should be read as a request such as "make your name holy." This petition looks ahead to the day when God will vindicate himself among human beings.

Thy kingdom come:
This petition presupposes that the kingdom has not yet come. But the kingdom of light has come in a sense, since Jesus rules over his followers now. So in some sense, the kingdom is now and the kingdom has yet to come.

thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven:
Here Jesus qualifies the earlier petition. In what sense has the kingdom yet to come? The kingdom will be fully realized when God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven. God's will is not being done now. But in the day of the Lord, this aspect of the kingdom will come to fruition.

The Day of the Lord begins with warnings and judgments, which climax at the Second Advent, when Jesus gathers his people to himself and begins to rule from Jerusalem. The run up to the Second advent is filled with darkness, smoke, fire, doom, devastation and such things. During the run-up to the return of Jesus, God sends his "armies" on Israel, which are fires that burn every thing.

The Day comes like a thief in the night in that it surprises those that are asleep. Paul says that it won't surprise those that are awake.

The Day of the Lord is longer than a day. The day lasts for at least a thousand years, maybe longer. At the end of that era, the heavens and earth pass away as it says in Revelation 20.

What do you think it means when it talks about heavens passing "away with a great noise", the elements melting "with fervent heat" and "the earth also and the works that are therein" being burned up?

I think it means what it literally says. This aspect of the Day of the Lord takes place at the end of that day.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Remember, the Pharisees made the same mistake as Premils make today in regard to natural Israel. The Pharisees were filled with racial pride, consumed with a sense of national superiority, obsessed with religious rituals and temple ordinances and fixated with earthly real estate instead of the heavenly kingdom. They were looking to an earthly Davidic throne, with Messiah ruling over the Gentiles with a rod of iron. They believed in racial division and superiority. This obsession with the wrong city, land, Kingdom, consequently caused them to reject Christ and nail Him to a tree as an impostor. They missed the heavenly spiritual kingdom He brought.

The prophets were fixated with Christ (thee hope of Israel), redemption (deliverance from sin), His majestic kingdom (a spiritual edifice) and eternal glory (being delivered from every enemy - natural and spiritual). Messiah's appearance was the ongoing perpetual hope for every true Israelite (believing Israel). It was the Pharisees that were fixated with the land. They wanted to lord over the nations in a show of racial superiority. They were captivated with the natural, physical, earthly, visible and temporal whereas the elect were captivated with the supernatural, spiritual, heavenly, invisible and the eternal.

Many today mistakenly elevate Israel to the place that belongs alone to Christ. In doing this they undermine the Scriptures and depose Christ of His rightful place. I hear American believers frequently claim: "God blesses America because they support Israel." That is nonsense! God's blessing revolves around how people treat Christ! The fact is, all the old covenant promises, all the Old Testament covenants, the law, Moses and the prophets all had their sight and end in Christ. If one’s interpretation of Scripture does not point to Christ, exalt Him and see the realization of God’s blueprint for redemption in His final sacrifice for sin then it is in error. The Bible is undermined by the many false theories that exist today about Israel and the mistaken expectation that some Christians have of the rebuilding of a Judaic temple, the instigation of a failed Israeli priesthood, and the return to useless animal sacrifices. This unhealthy fixation with natural Israel and physical real estate in the Middle East where Israel would enjoy racial superiority over all the nations is wrong, misplaced and contrary to repeated New Testament Scripture. That will never again happen; it has gone forever. All nations today are equally chosen and the boundaries of Israel have been extended outward to embrace the whole world (the Gentile nations). The Gospel many preach today is a flawed gospel that diverts people away from Christ to man and land that is about to go up in a puff of smoke when Jesus comes. Christ is the focus of all Scripture Old and New. He was the anticipated fulfilment of every Old Testament hope.

Whether any of that is true or not, it isn't relevant to the issue.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If your question is, "How many unrepentant sinners survive eternal punishment?" I'd say none.

If your question is, "How many unrepentant sinners survive eternal punishment?" I'd say none.

Did you not read my post carefully? I said "Can you explain how any unrepentant sinners will survive the return of Christ in light of what is taught in passages like this (and then I quoted 2 Thess 1:7-10). My question is clear. I was asking you how any unrepentant sinners can survive Christ's return. It says He will punish (take vengeance on) those who don't know God and don't obey the gospel of Christ when He returns. So, all unbelievers will be killed when He returns. Believers, meanwhile, will be changed and have immortal bodies. What mortals does that leave to populate the earth at that point?

Now, I'll ask you a question. How is God going to "back back trouble" to those who are dead and destroyed? Will they be punished with everlasting destruction? Yes, but in your view, when will they suffer affliction?

The judgment happens right after He physically destroys the living unbelievers on the earth when He returns. This scenario is shown in Revelation 20:9-15. Matthew 25:31-46 also has shows Jesus punishing unbelievers with everlasting destruction just after His second coming.