The beliefs of the early Chiliasts were the antithesis of modern Premil

[covenantee]

Jesus used a well recognized euphemism for Gentiles.

More of your grammatical entertainment.

"Dog" was (and still is) a Jewish racist dysphemism for "Gentile".

Keep that entertainment coming.

 

[WPM]

Howbout a verse that says the judicial and moral Law is still in effect but only the cereminial is done away?


If no verse, you teach major error and are rebuked by James...


10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Colossians 2:14 plainly and unambiguously declares, that Christ's atonement resulted in the “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

The Greek word for “Blotting out” here is exaleiphō (eks-ä-lā'-fō) meaning: ‘to wipe off, wipe away, to obliterate, erase, wipe out, blot out’

These old covenant ordinances (rites and rituals) pertaining to the ceremonial law were obliterated at the cross.

For those that still anticipate the renaissance of the old abolished ordinances we need to ask: When did (or will) the “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances” occur? From this passage it is clear, Christ “took it out of the way” by “nailing it to his cross.” These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

Colossians 2:16-17 tells us: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

The Greek word translated “holyday” here is heorte meaning feast or festival. Of 27 mentions of this word in the normally precise KJV, it is interpreted “feast” in all of them apart from here.

New American Standard interprets: “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day -- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

The Living Bible says, “So don't let anyone criticize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewish holidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these were only temporary rules that ended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing-of Christ himself.”

Paul is saying here that the old covenant feasts and festivals simply served as types and shadows of things that were to come. They looked forward to the new covenant arrangement and the reality and substance in Christ. The Jews of Ezekiel’s day and Zechariah’s day would never have understood this.

Colossians 2:20-22 finally sums up the sums up the biblical position today: “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?”

This is not talking about the moral law, it is talking about the ceremonial law. It is a redundant system. Christ took the whole old system away. The old Mosaic ceremonial law is completely gone. It is useless.

Christianity took us away from the old Mosaic ceremonial law completely. Those who argue for a return to the old system fail to see that it has been rendered obsolete through the new covenant.

Hebrews 7:18-19 makes clear: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

This word “disannulling” is taken from the Greek word athetesis meaning cancellation.

The phrase “weakness and unprofitableness” used here to describe the old abolished system actually reads asthenes kai anopheles literally meaning: feeble and impotent useless and unprofitable.

It is hard to believe that you would promote the return, on the new earth of all places, of such a hopeless discarded arrangement.

 

[WPM]

Howbout a verse that says the judicial and moral Law is still in effect but only the cereminial is done away?


If no verse, you teach major error and are rebuked by James...


10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

You reject that. You say there will be countless more offerings for sin in some imaginary future millennium. You make the Holy Spirit out to be a liar.

You fail to see: Calvary completely finished the Old Testament shadow and type. That is why there is no more sacrifice for sin. I find your belief extraordinary. Honestly! This belief should not be allowed on an evangelical site. It is a direct assault upon the cross. It undermines the finished work of Christ. It abrogates the new covenant.

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

You reject that. You say there remains many more offerings for sin in some imaginary future age. You again make the Holy Spirit out to be a liar.

It is both alarming and sad how many (that sincerely profess Christ) champion the re-starting of rival sin offerings in the future to compete with Calvary when Christ fulfilled and eternally removed them at the cross. Most of this error has emanated from false teaching of men that should know better. The fact is, the New Testament totally forbids the resurrection of the old covenant including the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the restarting of the abolished animal sacrifices, and the resuming of earthly high priest’s office, as part of a God-ordained arrangement. Their expectation to return to the Old Testament type, shadow and figure is gravely misplaced.

John 1:29 records: “John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

Hebrews 9:26: "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

1 John 3:5 confirms: “And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

1 John 1:7: "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

This is an ongoing effectual covenant that enables man to be forgiven.

Revelation 1:5 tells us that Christ “washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

The Levitical sacrifices could not put away sin. They continued for thousands of years involving innumerable sacrifices, but they did not remove one single sin. But the cross of Christ put away all the sin of God’s redeemed.

Hebrews 8:12 also says about repentant sinners: “their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”

 

[WPM]

Howbout a verse that says the judicial and moral Law is still in effect but only the cereminial is done away?


If no verse, you teach major error and are rebuked by James...


10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

The ceremonial law was simply a signpost to Christ. No more. The cross removed this imperfect system. The shadow and the temporal could only remain until the real and eternal arrived. Why would God restore animal sacrifices when He sent His Son to make one final all-sufficient sacrifice for sin? After Christ comes there is no need for the typical sacrifices on the new earth? The fulfilment, the reality, the substance, will be in the midst of God's people. The shadow has been long discarded.

Hebrews 10:5-6 tells us, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.”

There is no room in the plan of God for the return of the imperfect Old Testament sacrifices. Once Christ (the final sacrifice) came and fulfilled His destiny by dying for man’s sin the former was done away. The old has been eternally abolished. God took upon human form. The Son of God being perfect could testify: “a body hast thou prepared me.” That body was perfect and His sacrifice was the sacrifice of sacrifices – the one that ended all the old covenant sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:8-10 confirms: “Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

The old covenant was temporal and imperfect and could never satisfy God’s eternal plan for man. It has now been replaced by the new covenant with its focus upon the one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. The New Testament disallows the re-introduction of the abolished sacrifices and offerings. Christ is that final offering for sin.

When Jesus died on the cross He instituted the new covenant which allowed the believer to access God directly. No longer would the bulk of God’s people be excluded from the presence of the Lord by a veil. No longer did they need an earthly priest to represent them before God. They were now free to approach Him personally by simple faith. Christ removed the partition between God and His people when He laid down His life for our sins. He became man’s final high priest.

Hebrews 8:3-8: “For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law … But now hath He [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry (than the priests that made imperfect sacrifices), by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”

The removal of the faulty old covenant is here connected to the replacement of the old covenant priesthood. The two are inextricably tied together. The one true eternal high priest has perfected the last sacrifice for sin, and now sits in heaven interceding for His elect. Thus He fulfils the two-fold duty of the priest (making atonement for sin, and interceding on the people’s behalf).

 

[WPM]

Howbout a verse that says the judicial and moral Law is still in effect but only the cereminial is done away?


If no verse, you teach major error and are rebuked by James...


10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Romans 6:10 says, “he died unto sin once.”

Hebrews 7:27 says of Christ and His final atonement, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Hebrews 9:12 explains, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

Hebrews 9:26 confirms: “now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Hebrews 9:28 explains that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

Hebrews 10:10 says, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 10:12 says, “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

There it is! Clear and irrefutable! This is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices forever!!! "Forever" actually means "forever."

1 Peter 3:18 says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”

Christ put an end of sin by this final transaction for sin, thus making an end of sin forever for those who would believe. There will never again be a sacrifice for sin. Christ’s atonement satisfied heaven’s holy demands and ensured that there would never again be another sacrifice/offering for sin carrying God’s blessing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you even know what Replacement Theology is? With an avatar like Spiritual Israelite, you are an excellent example of those who believe that the Church replaced Israel.

Do you? Are you aware that not everyone even defines that the same way? In my view I don't have anyone being replaced, I have Jew and Gentile believers being brought together as one. So, I don't care if you want to claim that I promote replacement theology. I promote unity.

I agree. That was then, I am talking about the present and the future.

In Romans 11 Paul was talking about what happened then and how things would be from then on (Gentiles provoking Jews to jealous so they would want to be saved, also).

Romans 11:8

This was your response to me saying that God has not withheld salvation from Israelites. What you're not understanding is that the blindness of any given Israelite is not permanent. They still have the opportunity to repent. Do you understand that some of those who were cut off back then in Paul's day later repented and became saved? They were grafted back in. That is what Paul was talking about when talking about Israelites being grafted back in. Why do you think he was only talking about the future when he talked about that?

Ummm, that's what I said. The fullness of the Gentiles is precisely when the gospel has been preached to every nation - "and then the end will come". ( Matthew 24:14 ).

But, you're saying the Israelites will no longer be blinded at that point and will be saved. No. That contradicts all the scriptures which indicate that Christ will destroy His enemies when He returns. They won't have any time to repent at that point.

Keep in mind, this letter is to the Romans, mostly Gentiles, likely 25 years after Christ's death and resurrection.
"For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

So they have been blinded and will be (in part) until Jesus returns!

Yeah, so? That's the process that God put in place. He made it so that they would be partially blinded so that saved Gentiles would try to help those who were blinded see the truth and be saved. You are not understanding that someone being blinded does not mean they are blinded the rest of their lives. Paul talked about wanting to help some of those who were blinded to be saved, so it clearly wasn't the case that they were blinded permanently. In case you're not getting my point, let me show you from the scripture.

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. Israel ( of the Jewish bloodline) are the remnant to be saved AFTER the Gentiles are full _ complete _ everyone in the Book of Life accounted for.

In verse 11, who was Paul talking about that stumbled but not beyond recovery? The Isrsaelites who were blinded, right? Then notice in verse 14 he talked about his hope of helping to save some of them. So, it's wrong to think that the ones who are blinded are permanently blinded and then one day God will remove the blindness completely and make it so that none of them are blinded anymore. That is not at all what Paul was saying.

Revelation 14:4
These are male virgins "who have not defiled themselves with women". Don't assign false symbolic mumbo jumbo to scripture.

Your belief that it's talking about male virgins if the biggest pile of mumbo jumbo imaginable. You seem incapable of recognizing figurative language. Did you not read the verse I showed you where Paul talked about presenting believers, male and female, as a pure virgin to Christ? But, you just ignore that because you have no interest in learning the truth. You believe what you want to believe even if if makes no sense. Your sexist doctrine is as false as it gets. To think that God would set aside a special group of 144,000 male virgins is laughable. Does He not care about women at all? Of course He does. There is neither male nor female in the church.

Wailing, means also mourning, a sorrowful moment of shame.
"Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen." ASV

I showed other scripture in the book of Revelation supporting my interpretation. Without question there will be many who are wailing in fear of "the wrath of the Lamb" and that is what Revelation 1:7 is talking about.

Are you a Non-Trinitarian? If not then this does not apply to you.

There is no reason to bring them up at all. By bringing them up and comparing them to Amils is ridiculous. Leave other groups that have nothing to do with Amil out of this.

I did not group them together as if they were all in the same group, I just suspect that WPM is.

I suspect that you don't know what you're talking about (as usual), but that has nothing to do with the discussion we're having in this thread.

I ddi think these groups are all off their rockers. I see parellels with these groups, the way they respond to critism, how they avoid, deny, deflect away from the issues, distort the truth.

That is exactly what you do! You have no self awareness.

We see that a lot in the (liberal, Left Wing) news these days.

See, this is the problem. You're equating being Amil with being liberal and left wing! That is very insulting! Being Amil has absolutely nothing to do with being liberal or left wing. Nothing whatsoever. If you disagree with our doctrine, fine, but do you understand that our doctrine emphasizes the kingship of the Lord Jesus Christ and emphasizes His authority as well as the church over the spiritual enemy? What is wrong with that? Even if you disagree with our view, is it really that offensive like the views of left wing nutjobs? Give me a break. You need to stop lumping us in with these horrible non-Christian groups. That is uncalled for. Grow up already.

I asked WPM simply if He was a Democrat and he got upset but did not deny that he was.

He's not a U.S. citizen, that's why. But, what does that have to do with the discussion in this thread, anyway?

He claimed that the angel mentioned in Rev. 29 was a symbolic reference to Jesus. I said Jesus is not an angel, hence I got the idea he was also Non-Trinitarian.

It doesn't mean that He believes Jesus is an angel, it just means He thinks He is symbolically portrayed that way in that verse. I guarantee that he does not believe Jesus is literally an angel. You seem to be purposely trying to rile things up here for no good reason. You come across as incredibly immature.

When someone says something that is not truemthful about me, like being a Pre-Tribber for instance, I will quickly say, no I am not.

Well, good for you. No one likes their views to be misrepresented. No one's view is misrepresented more than Amil's.

If someone mistakenly accused me of being a Democrat _wow _ I would quickly straighten them out.

LOL. Again, he is not a U.S. citizen, so he can't be a Democrat (or a Republican).

I have experienced this wall separating truth from falsehood. There is a dysfunction communication problem that creates this obvious division between certain groups, even amongst believers.
Catholics /WALL/ Protestants
Amillennialist /WALL/ Millennialist.
Trinitarians /WALL/ Non-Trinitarians
The Right /WALL/ The LEFT
Christians /WALL / Everyone else

It doesn't have to be that way as far as Amillennialists and Premillennialists are concerned. Do we not all agree that the only way to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection? Do we not all agree that we belong to Him and want to serve Him any way we can? We're all Christians. Disagreeing on the timing of the thousand years should not divide us. Yes, we disagree and we are passionate about our beliefs, but the fact is that many Amils and Premils work together in ministries to serve the Lord. So, if you allow this to cause division between yourself and Amils, that's on you. It isn't necessary.

I agree partially. Do you have faith in Jesus imminent return to judge sin and evil and banish it, along with Satan and set up His Kingdom on earth? No. But I do.

So what? I do believe that He will come to judge sin and evil and banish it forever (it's only temporary in your case) and that He will judge Satan with an eternal sentence (only temporary in your case) at that time. I believe He will deliver the kingdom to the Father at that point and it will be on the new earth.

You have faith in salvation, but do you think that you can lose it? If for instance, Amillennials all believed that OSAS was not true, then none of them would really have strong faith.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, so I can't comment on it. This is irrelevant to the Amil vs. Premil debate as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Someone show me a verse that says that the ceremonial and judicial Law is done away, but the moral Law is still in effect?

Howbout a verse that says the judicial and moral Law is still in effect but only the cereminial is done away?


If no verse, you teach major error and are rebuked by James...


10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

What exactly are you getting at here? The moral law includes things like not lying, not stealing, not committing adultery. Do you think those things are no longer in effect? Do you think anyone is still required to follow all 613 commandments, including all the dietary laws and all the rituals in the old covenant law? I can't figure out what your point is here, so please explain it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Replacement Theology.
Disagree.

Who exactly is being replaced in replacement theology? Are you saying unbelieving, Christ rejecting Israelites are being replaced by Gentile believers? Is that your description of replacement theology? If so, that is not what anyone here believes. Gentile believers don't replace anyone, they get grafted in with Israelite believers.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Then let me ask you a question tha tonly requires a yes or no answer.

Do you believe as the Scriptures write that Israel as a nation will be saved as a nation and granted a kingdom on earth?

No, I do not. Scripture does not teach that anywhere.

I'm sure your belief is based on Romans 11:25-26, but you are misinterpreting that passage. You have the wrong Israel in in mind.

In which of the two Israels that Paul wrote about earlier in his letter to the Romans are all saved?

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Paul contrasted two Israels here. One was the physical nation of Israel. I highlighted the references to that Israel and the ones who are part of that Israel in red. The other is what many of us call spiritual Israel. I highlighted the references to that Israel and the ones who are part of that Israel in blue.

Notice that Paul said "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". That statement would make no sense at all if there were not two Israels. What he was saying is that not all who are naturally and physically descended from the nation of Israel are part of spiritual Israel. Why not? He explained that. It's because "it is not the children by physical descent who are God's children". So, he made it clear there that nationality has nothing to do with being a child of God. Instead, "it is the children of the promise" who are "God's children" and "Abraham's offspring".

So, the Israel of which all are saved is spiritual Israel consisting of the children of God and Abraham's spiritual offspring (seed). This must be kept in mind when reading Romans 11. Paul was not giving a prophecy about the future in Romans 11:25-26, but rather was quoting an Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 59:20-21) and explaining how all Israel was being and would continue to be saved. By way of the covenant that God made that takes away sins, which is the new covenant that was established by the shed blood of Christ long ago.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And lying is unbvecoming of you.

I never said that nore implied that! You now resort to what seems the standard amil response- just lie about what your opponent says.

So, if you understand that God has never abandoned His people, why do you believe He will restore His people in the future? Why would He need to restore people when He never abandoned them in the first place? I wasn't lying, I was going by things you have said. Maybe you should try to be more clear.

 

[Truther]

You cannot support your error with one single Scripture - because it is not in the Bible. It is in your head. It is a fairy tale. Your teachers have deceived you.

Animal sacrifices were a forward-pointing signpost to Calvary. They made atonement for Israel's sin. They cleansed the sinner outwardly. They covered the sin of God's people temporarily until the promise came. They sanctified the people of God. Then they were rendered redundant by the cross-work.

Hebrews 9:8-11 says, "while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building"

Whether you interpret the word "figure" as symbol is secondary, the fact is the old covenant and all its trappings is gone forever. The blood sacrifices simply pointed forward to Christ! All of the sacrifices, ceremonies, and methods of worship, which related to the law of commandments in the temple, were mere shadows of the reality that God provided in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ coming. These old covenant ordinances could never satisfactorily fulfil the eternal plan of God for mankind. This is seen in the fact that Jesus abolished these through His work on the cross. Everything was accomplished through Jesus' death. These Old Testament rites simply served as a shadow of Christ and His real and final sacrifice. All of these types came to an end at Calvary when the ancient covenant was completely fulfilled. The New Testament makes it very plain that the old covenant, including its temple ritual and its priesthood, pointed to a greater reality in Christ.

The Hebrew writer is constantly pointing the Jews away from the now worthless abolished old arrangement and towards Christ who is the fulfilment. Once the reality and substance came the type and shadow were rendered useless. Christ is the substance, the true and the real. Colossians 2:16-17 confirms: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

Hebrews makes it clear that the Old Testament sacrifices were a shadow of “good things to come” not ‘a millennial memorial of things that have already been’ as Premil requires.

By their very nature they looked forward to the cross in the old covenant.

To bring back the old covenant is to undermine the new covenant reality. I am suggesting that your location and interpretation of Ezekiel is in error and cannot be located after the cross that abolished sin offerings.

Christ has removed the whole purpose of animal sacrifices. They were simply a signpost to the cross. Hebrews 10:1-2 makes it perfectly clear, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.”

Calvary completely finished the Old Testament shadow and type. That is why there is no more sacrifice for sin. I find your belief extraordinary. Honestly! This belief should not be allowed on an evangelical site. It is a direct assault upon the cross. It undermines the finished work of Christ. It abrogates the new covenant.

How will animal sacrifices atone for Israel's sin in your so-called future millennium? In what way?

Again, has the entire Law been removed or just a portion of it?

Please use the 613 commandments and tell me which ones we are to obey and which ones we must not obey?

Thanks. waiting your reply.

 

[Truther]

Did Jesus feed dogs?

Jesus called the gentile woman a dog.

Is that okay?

 

[Truther]

Do they confess their sins according to 1 John 1:9?

They will when Jesus returns to save every single one of them from the least to the greatest per Jer 31.

As a matter of fact, because Jesus will be visible to them and communicate with them verbally, they shall cease saying "know the Lord" for they shall all know him. Witnessing to their neighbors will officially cease.

 

[Truther]

You are way out of your depth in this discussion. That is why you're contradicting yourself so much. That is why you don't have any Scripture to support your wild claims.

There is a big difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law. The moral law encompasses God’s regulations that govern human conduct, and includes the Ten Commandments. Moses receives the Law of God in Exodus 19:1–20:21. In fact, this Law revealed to Moses on the mountain became known as “the Law of Moses” (1 Kings 2:3; Ezra 7:6; Luke 2:22).

The ceremonial law describes the rites, ordinances, temple customs and offices that were given to Israel in the Old Testament as an expression of their outward worship of God. This covered the annual religious feasts and festivals. This embodied the elaborate animal sacrifice system.

God gave the ceremonial law as a temporal old covenant shadow and type of the persona and work of the coming Messiah 2000 years ago. These ordinances that included various sacrifices and offerings such as burnt offering, peace offering, sin offering, trespass offering, meat offering and drink offerings (see Leviticus 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 23).

So, where does your Bible say that only the ceremonial Law is ended and the rest are intact?

Do you agree with the moral Law parts that command burning homosexuals and stoning adulterers?

Howbout Sabbath? Which category does that fall under, since we can kill folks for not adhering to it?

Please expound on these Laws.

 

[Truther]

Nothing left for you to do but whine.

Thanks for the guffaw.

No, I just pointed out how major unscriptural belief systems are created via mass commentary.

 

[Truther]

Colossians 2:14 plainly and unambiguously declares, that Christ's atonement resulted in the “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

The Greek word for “Blotting out” here is exaleiphō (eks-ä-lā'-fō) meaning: ‘to wipe off, wipe away, to obliterate, erase, wipe out, blot out’

These old covenant ordinances (rites and rituals) pertaining to the ceremonial law were obliterated at the cross.

For those that still anticipate the renaissance of the old abolished ordinances we need to ask: When did (or will) the “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances” occur? From this passage it is clear, Christ “took it out of the way” by “nailing it to his cross.” These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

Colossians 2:16-17 tells us: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

The Greek word translated “holyday” here is heorte meaning feast or festival. Of 27 mentions of this word in the normally precise KJV, it is interpreted “feast” in all of them apart from here.

New American Standard interprets: “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day -- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

The Living Bible says, “So don't let anyone criticize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewish holidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these were only temporary rules that ended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing-of Christ himself.”

Paul is saying here that the old covenant feasts and festivals simply served as types and shadows of things that were to come. They looked forward to the new covenant arrangement and the reality and substance in Christ. The Jews of Ezekiel’s day and Zechariah’s day would never have understood this.

Colossians 2:20-22 finally sums up the sums up the biblical position today: “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?”

This is not talking about the moral law, it is talking about the ceremonial law. It is a redundant system. Christ took the whole old system away. The old Mosaic ceremonial law is completely gone. It is useless.

Christianity took us away from the old Mosaic ceremonial law completely. Those who argue for a return to the old system fail to see that it has been rendered obsolete through the new covenant.

Hebrews 7:18-19 makes clear: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

This word “disannulling” is taken from the Greek word athetesis meaning cancellation.

The phrase “weakness and unprofitableness” used here to describe the old abolished system actually reads asthenes kai anopheles literally meaning: feeble and impotent useless and unprofitable.

It is hard to believe that you would promote the return, on the new earth of all places, of such a hopeless discarded arrangement.

I only agree with the Prophets that prophecied the return of sacrifices when Jesus returns.

You must think Jesus will hire an advertising agency to have folks continually remember his sacrifice, since he said to only practice the Lord's supper UNTIL HE RETURNS...

 

[Truther]

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

You reject that. You say there will be countless more offerings for sin in some imaginary future millennium. You make the Holy Spirit out to be a liar.

You fail to see: Calvary completely finished the Old Testament shadow and type. That is why there is no more sacrifice for sin. I find your belief extraordinary. Honestly! This belief should not be allowed on an evangelical site. It is a direct assault upon the cross. It undermines the finished work of Christ. It abrogates the new covenant.

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

You reject that. You say there remains many more offerings for sin in some imaginary future age. You again make the Holy Spirit out to be a liar.

It is both alarming and sad how many (that sincerely profess Christ) champion the re-starting of rival sin offerings in the future to compete with Calvary when Christ fulfilled and eternally removed them at the cross. Most of this error has emanated from false teaching of men that should know better. The fact is, the New Testament totally forbids the resurrection of the old covenant including the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the restarting of the abolished animal sacrifices, and the resuming of earthly high priest’s office, as part of a God-ordained arrangement. Their expectation to return to the Old Testament type, shadow and figure is gravely misplaced.

John 1:29 records: “John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

Hebrews 9:26: "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

1 John 3:5 confirms: “And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

1 John 1:7: "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

This is an ongoing effectual covenant that enables man to be forgiven.

Revelation 1:5 tells us that Christ “washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

The Levitical sacrifices could not put away sin. They continued for thousands of years involving innumerable sacrifices, but they did not remove one single sin. But the cross of Christ put away all the sin of God’s redeemed.

Hebrews 8:12 also says about repentant sinners: “their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”

Since the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, Abel's offering was a memorial.

It is like being baptized in the name of Jesus as a memorial to Jesus death.

They duped you into thinking that the lamb was NOT slain from the foundation of the world, and that God cannot transcend time.

 

[Truther]

What exactly are you getting at here? The moral law includes things like not lying, not stealing, not committing adultery. Do you think those things are no longer in effect? Do you think anyone is still required to follow all 613 commandments, including all the dietary laws and all the rituals in the old covenant law? I can't figure out what your point is here, so please explain it.

Finally a good question!!!

Okay, once a sinner that is actively condemned by the OT active Law by every Law from Gen to Malachi and is exposed by it, they must obey Acts 2:38 to officially get free from the condemning OT Law and are now officially walking in the Spirit.

They now are under the Law of the Spirit which dictates their morality.

Sinners are still under the Law but saints are free from it, as long as they walk in the Spirit.

This is why the ENTIRE Law was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, then we graduate and get out from under the schoolmaster(Law).

For instance, the sacrifices we former sinners were supposed to be making and could not because of civil laws of our land and logistics are replaced for saints by simply obeying Acts 2:38.

This is precisely how we are free from the sacrifices and they are abolished to the SAINTS ONLY.

 

[Truther]

You see folks, the entire OT was the OT Law.

It was made to condemn all mankind.

It cannot be kept perfecly as James mentioned(all or nothing).

It remains in full effect to expose us and drive us to Christ per Acts 2:38 to find remission of sins and be led of the Spirit.

If you are using any part of the OT Law from Gen to Malachi, you are forfeiting the Spirit leading your morality.

Also, if a saint backslides, they backslide straight back to Law school and the schoolmaster from whence they came.

Silly PHD's have broken the Law into segments and teach partial Law, remaining under the schoolmaster all of their lives.

This is the Bible truth.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Paul declares in Romans 11:1-5:

Q. “I say then, Hath God cast away his people?”

A. “God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

Dispensationalists misrepresent, or conveniently circumvent, the wording of this text with their fixation on the whole nation of natural Israel. They seem to imagine that to be considered faithful to Israel, God must be committed to the whole physical nation, even though it was apostate, rejected Christ and nailed Him to a tree. But that is not what Paul was pushing at or demanding. Paul actually takes such an inaccuracy head on. You can glean from his question at the opening of Romans 11 that he feels a real sense that the faithfulness of God is at stake. After all, the majority of his kinsmen had rejected their own Messiah. According to Paul, the evidence that God had not rejected Israel in his day is demonstrated by the fact that there was a notable remnant of believing Jews (including himself) that had accepted Christ and therefore embraced the new covenant arrangement.

Dispensationalist cynics are quick to dismiss the continuity argument by alleging that for such a position to be valid it puts a significant question mark over God’s Word, integrity and faithfulness.

This reasoning results from a misconception of who and what true Israel actually is. Let us be clear: God had not cast away Israel in Paul’s day. He remained faithful to those who desired to experience His only provision for sin and uncleanness. Even though most Israelites rejected Christ, those that were foreknown by God, and were true Israelites, came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. We should not miss this thought as we explore the remainder of his argument in Romans 9-11.

Let us look at Paul’s arguments!

Paul’s first argument is personal. He supports his contention by presenting himself as exhibit A. He volunteers himself as tangible proof of God’s continued faithfulness toward Israel. We should recognize, there is no more compelling a spiritual argument than personal testimony. Paul proves that “God has hath not cast away his people” by presenting himself as an evidence of a chosen Israeli. God had not (nor has not) completely cast away Israel, Paul was living proof of this nearly 2,000 years ago. Even though much of Israel rejected Christ, not all did. Thus, Paul is saying not all Israel rejected the Messiah.

Please note, he did not present the continued survival of national Israel as proof (which many mistakenly do today), no, but rather his own personal relationship with God. He presents his own credentials as “an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin,” as proof that God has not finished with Israel. Paul was showing that he was living evidence that God has not turned his back on all Israel.

Paul’s second argument is theological: “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew” (Romans 11:2). Paul builds upon what he has been previously teaching in Romans 8 and 9. His teaching in Romans 8:29–30 and the whole of Romans 9 set the stage for this. God in His infinite wisdom chooses who He wishes. Paul underlines his overriding argument in Romans 9:18: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Romans 9:21 sums up the whole matter succinctly: “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

Salvation does not emanate from man. It cannot be realized by human effort. Man can no more create his second birth than he can his first birth. It is a Sovereign act of God’s mercy. This may be humbling to the flesh, but it is so. Professor R. Scott Clark asks: “Has God rejected his people? No, the elect are His people and all the elect will be saved … God’s election of some and reprobation of others are the twin facts of the history of redemption which Paul brings to bear on the question of ‘Who is the Israel of God?’”

Even Dispensationalist John McArthur agrees with this. “God didn’t set His people aside, He foreknew them. Notice the term ‘His people, whom He foreknew’ … Foreknowledge in the Bible has to do with predetermined love relationship … Foreknowledge, scripturally, has to do with God’s predetermination to love … This word frequently implies the intimacy of a binding love relationship in its simplest and purest form. And thus it is used in terms of the foreknowledge of God … God has not cast away His people whom He predetermined to have a love relationship with. He has not set aside Israel, and He shows how He always has a remnant. Verse 5: ‘At this present time there is a remnant’” (Is God finished with Israel? Part 1).

Paul’s third argument is historic. He presents Elijah’s day where there was a very small remnant of true Israelites (7,000 in number) as support for the fact that God always has a faithful people who remain in covenant arrangement with their Lord. This proved that his day was not unique or unprecedented at all. McArthur adds: “There are only selected ones of faith who are the true Israel. God always in all Israel’s history had a small remnant that was His elect. In Elijah’s time there were only 7,000 who hadn't bowed to Baal” (Is God finished with Israel? Part 1).

Covenants, scriptures ... and nothing personal ...
The Millennial Kingdom