The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics - see the evidence

[Randy Kluth]

From the beginning, God's Plan has ever and always been exclusively for those who were and are faithful and obedient to Him and His Covenant/Testament. In Old Covenant/Testament Israel, that included both Jews and Gentiles.

Genesis 17:12
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

By the thousands, God slew Israelites who rebelled against Him in unfaithfulness and disobedience.

Numbers 25
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Since Calvary, under the New Covenant/Testament, God's Plan continues through Christ His Son with those who are faithful and obedient to Him: His Church, which encompasses faithful obedient Jews and Gentiles in a global Holy Nation. 1 Peter 2:5,9.

And yes, the New Covenant/Testament has replaced the Old.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things. Unbelieving Israel is not an heir. Galatians 4:30-31.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that those who are in Christ are heirs and joint heirs with Him.

But it is undeniable:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ under His New Covenant/Testament.

Yea, I expect this kind of theological mumbo jumbo that has not a thing to do with the definitions I gave you for "Jew" and "Israel." Brother, I'm not hostile towards you in what you believe. Quite the contrary, I think Amills here, save one or two, are hostile to me.

Marty is a good friend who apparently believes as you do, and I have no problem with either him or his beliefs. I don't know why this is so important to you to have others agree with you. I just am not convinced you're right, whether you are or not.

 

[covenantee]

Yea, I expect this kind of theological mumbo jumbo that has not a thing to do with the definitions I gave you for "Jew" and "Israel." Brother, I'm not hostile towards you in what you believe. Quite the contrary, I think Amills here, save one or two, are hostile to me.

Marty is a good friend who apparently believes as you do, and I have no problem with either him or his beliefs. I don't know why this is so important to you to have others agree with you. I just am not convinced you're right, whether you are or not.

Whether anyone disagrees with me is unimportant to me because it's out of my control.

Feel free to disagree as much as you wish.

 

[WPM]

Someone who cannot resort to a Dictionary definition should not try to look for quotes. I will now quote a Dictionary definition for you:

Jew Definition of JEW:
1
: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people

2
: one whose religion is Judaism

3
a
: a member of the tribe of Judah
b
: israelite

4
: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.

Israel Definition of ISRAEL:
1
: jacob sense 2
2
: the Jewish people
3
: a people chosen by God

How are these "replaced?"

Replacement What is Replacement Theology?:

Replacement Theology-also called Supersessionism-typically holds that the Christian Church has fully and permanently replaced Israel in God’s plan. According to proponents of this view, God’s covenant promises to Israel now find their exclusive fulfillment in the Church. While various streams of historical theology have introduced different nuances to this idea, the central claim remains that the Church, as the “new Israel,” has superseded national Israel’s role in the divine covenantal relationship.

Some believe that "Israel" has not been replaced because it has always represented not the Natural Nation under covenant of Law, but really represented "True Israel," the Elect of God, who were true believers within the whole Nation. As such, when they expanded to include the Gentiles they maintained the original meaning of the name "Israel" as the Elect of God, True Israel, etc.

But this is absurd in the way the language refers to Israel in the Scriptures, which did not set apart only believers, the elect, or the faithful. Paul identified "true Israel" when anybody within the whole Nation were faithful to their calling.

They were called "Israel," inclusively, well before they made decisions to prove their fidelity to God. "Israel" is thus the whole nation, or what one might call "Natural Israel." And this would exclude any merger with other whole nations to produce a confederation called "Spiritual Israel."

The idea that many remnants of different nations can consolidate into an entity called a "nation" is equally absurd. That isn't how "nation is used in Scripture.

The Church and the Nation could've been called "Israel" when only national Israel was being spoken of if it had been a nominal Christian nation. Althoug true Christians are born again, nominal Christians are also called "Christians" and the "Church" in the Bible too. When they are born again they become "true Christians," just as faithful Jews become "true Israel."

There is only nation today that belongs to God – it is a spiritual nation, the redeemed Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You can do that, but your motive will be to provoke, which I think is illegitimate. If you really think my doctrine is dispensationalism, I will question that because some of the essential elements of dispensationalism I reject, such as the Pretrib
Rapture.

But I do hold to the belief in Israel's future national salvation. So yes, I do hold to some elements of Dispensationalism. But I do not personally consider my belief Dispensationalism because of my rejection of some of the essential elements of that system.

I've been offended when some persist in calling me a Preterist, though some have honestly thought that is who I am. Out of ignorance they think I'm a Preterist because I share with that belief system the belief that much of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD. And I'm not offended unless after explaining that I disagree with some of the essential beliefs in that system they persist in calling me that.

I do not believe that most all NT prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD--just the Abomination of Desolation of Dan 9.27 and the AoD of the Olivet Discourse. But unlike Preterism I think that some elements of the Olivet Discourse are future prophecies, eg of Israel's ongoing NT "Great Tribulation." And I think that, unlike Preterism, much of Revelation, including the 2 Beasts, have yet to be fulfilled in a future Antichrist. Those who ignore this and continue to call me a "Preterist" are just being provocative, which I think is illegitimate.

In referring to your system of belief as "Replacement Theology" I am not being provocative, except to you who do not llike the implication that you're replacing something biblical when in fact according to my belief you are. You're replacing the natural definition of literal Israel with a meaning built on replacing a literal meaning with a metaphorical meaning, which is never what the Bible indicated.

The Bible never meant to express by "Israel" only the Elect or redeemed of God in Christ. Rather, it was an indication that all of Israel would have to eventually be culled by the matter of conformity to God's faith requirements. But to get to the refinements one has to begin with the whole nation. You should not define the nation after final judgment, but only before.

So, when the Bible mentions "Israel" as an entire nation, both those who had faith and those whose faith was being tested, you think the reference is only to those who eventually pass the test. But that is not legitimate because it can clearly be shown that "Israel" includes those who failed the test of faith aong with those who had genuine faith. Those who fail are merely "cut off" from Israel *after* failing the test.

Therefore, from my perspective, the issue is that you "replace" the real meaning of biblical "Israel" with an outcome, when that is not really how the Bible presents 'Israel" by definition. Not only that, but you include in the definition of 'Israel" others from other nations who later express a genuine faith. That is adding to the definition of "Israel" other nations who are not biblical "Israel."

I hope you understand? You may disagree but perhaps at least you will understand why I characterize your belief as a "replacement?" I acknowledge your arguments against this, but you should also acknowledge that from my point of view this *is,* in fact, a "replacement" of the definition of "Israel" for something alien to the biblical use of the term?

You are talking as if I claim there is only one Israel. I believe there are two Israels and the one commonly called "Spiritual Israel" does not replace anyone. It is comprised only of believers and is differentiated from national Israel that is comprised of Israelite believers and unbelievers. So, "replacement theology" is not an appropriate term to describe what I believe in any way, shape or form.

 

[WPM]

Don't be like WPM and say I've "said nothing," or "ducked!" I directly addressed the point you're making. I said that Premills do not always hold to the same position with respect to the state of things in the Millennium, who will populate earth during the Millennium, the state of mortality or immortality in the Millennium, and the place and worship of Israel in the Millennium.

My point, once again, is that these elements that may have existed as "options" in early Chiliasm remain "options" today in Premillennialism. The various views are not fundamental to either Chiliasm or Premillennialism.

I, for one, hold to belief that Israel as a nation will be restored in the Millennium. Many Premills today hold to what early Chiliasts held, that the International Church is the New Israel, and that Israel has already exhausted their efforts at national salvation. They believe that Israel will not, as a nation, be restored in the Millennium, much as the Chiliasts seem to have believed at times.

I respect you, but no, I must use a term that others are familiar with. It indicates the nature of the argument from my point of view.

You're welcome to use terms that reflect your point of view. But if we're done, that's okay with me. I'm not here to push my beliefs on others. I refuse to use insulting rhetoric to shame others into agreement with me. We should let the Holy Spirit have His way, particularly so that we remain open to correction ourselves.

Stop avoiding.

1. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of Satan being cast down from heaven at the second coming?
2. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of the binding of Satan at the second coming?
3. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked survive the second coming of the Lord?
4. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Satan survives the second coming?
5. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that Satan is cast into the bottomless pit for 1000 years after the second coming?
6. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the wicked populate a future millennial earth?
7. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that the curse continues unabated on a future millennial earth?
8. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that mortals will populate future millennial earth?
9. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that marriage and procreation continue on on a future millennial earth?
10. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that sin continues on in a future millennial earth?
11. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that death continues on in a future millennial earth?
12. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that corruption continues unabated on in a future millennial earth?
13. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus will rule over his enemies for a thousand years after the second coming?
14. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the saints rule over mortal humanity for a thousand years?
15. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that the glorified Church will rule in the Millennial era, causing all on earth to submit to the rule of Christ at that time?
16. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of the restoring of Israel back to her old covenant theocratic status in a future millennium?
17. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief of Israel retaking her ancient borders in a future millennium?
18. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 240 teach the Premil belief that Satan will be released from the bottomless pit 1000 years after the second coming?
19. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a revival of Satanism 1,000 years+ after the second coming as the wicked in their billions overrun the Premil millennium as the sand of the sea?
20. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus and the glorified saints will be surrounded by billions of wicked mortals led by Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
21. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that Jesus and the glorified saints will be surrounded by billions of wicked mortals led by Satan 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
22. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a second (or 3rd for Pretribbers) rapture when the first earth flees away 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
23. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be a second glorification when the first earth flees away 1,000 years+ after the second coming?
24. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be 2 last days periods - one before the second coming and one after?
25. Where do any of the ancient Chiliasts before AD 270 teach the Premil belief that there will be 2 new heavens and new earths one with sin, sinners and corruption in it and the other perfect?

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are talking as if I claim there is only one Israel. I believe there are two Israels and the one commonly called "Spiritual Israel" does not replace anyone. It is comprised only of believers and is differentiated from national Israel that is comprised of Israelite believers and unbelievers. So, "replacement theology" is not an appropriate term to describe what I believe in any way, shape or form.

I think I explained how I see your "replacement" as a replacement from *my point of view.* I've never said it is a "replacement" from your point of view. I do not see "2 Israels" at all. I could just as well say you're replacing the *one Israel* with two Israels.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think I explained how I see your "replacement" as a replacement from *my point of view.* I've never said it is a "replacement" from your point of view. I do not see "2 Israels" at all. I could just as well say you're replacing the *one Israel* with two Israels.

No, one of the two Israels is national Israel, which you think is the one Israel. No replacing going on there. But, I'm not going to waste any more time arguing against your dispensationalist beliefs.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, one of the two Israels is national Israel, which you think is the one Israel. No replacing going on there. But, I'm not going to waste any more time arguing against your dispensationalist beliefs.

You're now violating your own standards, by deliberately trying to be provocative in calling me a "dispensationalist"....unless, of course, you define "dispensationalist" differently from how I do, and from how many others do? How is calling me a "dispensatioinalist," when you know I don't believe I'm that, any different from my calling you a "Replacement" advocate, when I know you don't want to be called that? So, you believe "two wrongs" make your own wrong right? Or, is this just another, "I can justify my use, but you can't?"

But this is just, in my view, petty bickering. I believe you fit into the category of a "Replacement" advocate. You "replace" Natural or Literal Israel by adding a 2nd "Israel," effectively confusing what should be "one Israel" with "two Israels."

Maybe I should call you a "plural Israel" advocate? Or, perhaps I should say you displace promises God made to Natural Israel with promises made to your "2nd Israel," or "Spiritual Israel?"

We don't have to be confrontive or angry about this? Perhaps we should discuss what promises you think belong to each Israel? That way we will know whether you're confusing who is supposed to get what?

Also, what is your basis for creating a 2nd Israel? And on what authority are you turning the 2nd Israel into a metaphorical "Israel?" If your 2nd Israel is and always has been strictly a remnant within the nation, then it isn't really a "nation" at all, is it? And if other nations are added to it, it's doubly not a literal "nation," is it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're now violating your own standards, by deliberately trying to be provocative in calling me a "dispensationalist"....unless, of course, you define "dispensationalist" differently from how I do, and from how many others do? How is calling me a "dispensatioinalist," when you know I don't believe I'm that, any different from my calling you a "Replacement" advocate, when I know you don't want to be called that? So, you believe "two wrongs" make your own wrong right? Or, is this just another, "I can justify my use, but you can't?"

LOL. Are you actually complaining about being mislabeled and expect me to care about that? You clearly are perfectly fine with using terms that those you're talking to don't believe properly reflect their doctrine, so what is your problem here?

But this is just, in my view, petty bickering. I believe you fit into the category of a "Replacement" advocate. You "replace" Natural or Literal Israel by adding a 2nd "Israel," effectively confusing what should be "one Israel" with "two Israels."

That's not a case of anyone being replaced. That would be addition theology or something. I don't have national Israel being replaced with anything or anyone. I accept what Paul wrote in Romans 9:6-8 where he differentiated between two Israels, one of which is not based on being a physical descendant of the nation of Israel or of Abraham and one of which is dependent on that.

Maybe I should call you a "plural Israel" advocate?

Sure, go ahead. LOL.

Or, perhaps I should say you displace promises God made to Natural Israel with promises made to your "2nd Israel," or "Spiritual Israel?"

You shouldn't say that since that is not the case.

We don't have to be confrontive or angry about this?

Looks like you're kind of angry about it with the way you're talking in this post.

Perhaps we should discuss what promises you think belong to each Israel? That way we will know whether you're confusing who is supposed to get what?

Or whether you are. It's clear to me that you misinterpret Romans 9:6-8, so as long as that is the case, we're just not going to agree about this. And I'm fine with that. I'm just not fine with being misrepresented as believing in replacement theology. Even if you define that differently than everyone else, who is going to know that? You can't come up with any better term than one like that which is already taken and that everyone else defines differently than you do?

Also, what is your basis for creating a 2nd Israel?

I don't create a 2nd Israel. There are clearly two different Israels referenced in Romans 9:6-8 and, in Galatians 6:15-16, Paul refers to "the Israel of God" as being those who have been made new creations in Christ.

And on what authority are you turning the 2nd Israel into a metaphorical "Israel?"

Scripture, of course.

If your 2nd Israel is and always has been strictly a remnant within the nation, then it isn't really a "nation" at all, is it? And if other nations are added to it, it's doubly not a literal "nation," is it?

Spiritual Israel is not just a remnant within the nation of Israel, it's all of the children of God which are all Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ.

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.

I highlighted in red the references to spiritual Israel and in blue are the references to national Israel. Those who are part of spiritual Israel are not part of it by way of being physical descendants, but rather by way of being God's children and the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's spiritual offspring.

 

[covenantee]

Or, perhaps I should say you displace promises God made to Natural Israel with promises made to your "2nd Israel," or "Spiritual Israel?"

Who comprises "natural" Israel? What are their/its identifying characteristics? In God's New Will and Testament, what promises did He make to them?

 

[Randy Kluth]

LOL. Are you actually complaining about being mislabeled and expect me to care about that? You clearly are perfectly fine with using terms that those you're talking to don't believe properly reflect their doctrine, so what is your problem here?

No, I just informed you that you had violated your own standards. You can label me however you please. I don't agree if you mislabel me. But you were the one indicating we should not label someone who did not wish to be so labeled.

I'm fine with you labeling me if you think the label really sticks. But if you're just doing it to be provocative, that's obviously not worthy of discussion.

That's not a case of anyone being replaced. That would be addition theology or something. I don't have national Israel being replaced with anything or anyone. I accept what Paul wrote in Romans 9:6-8 where he differentiated between two Israels, one of which is not based on being a physical descendant of the nation of Israel or of Abraham and one of which is dependent on that.

Paul does not divide "National Israel" in two! He considers those who persist in their unbelief as being subject to rejection. He considers all of National Israel as being capable of relabeling as "Faithful Israel" if they repent and choose to live by the standards God requires of Israel if they are to be regarded as "True."

I'm just not fine with being misrepresented as believing in replacement theology.

Again, *to me* you fit into the category of one who "replaces" belief in National Israel with something else--even if it's "two Israels."

I don't create a 2nd Israel.

Yes you do. You said so yourself. Even if you wish to retain Natural Israel, you'r replacing "one Natural Israel" with "two Israels, one Natural and another something else."

There are clearly two different Israels referenced in Romans 9:6-8 and, in Galatians 6:15-16, Paul refers to "the Israel of God" as being those who have been made new creations in Christ.

No, both Israels in Rom 9 and Gal 6 refer to Natural Israel.

Spiritual Israel is not just a remnant within the nation of Israel, it's all of the children of God which are all Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ.

Remnants of different nations are not "National Israel!" They represent different nations.

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.

Israel was called to be a faithful nation, and God intends to bring them to that end. True Israel is "Faithful Israel" in the end, with those in Israel who are unfaithful being cut off. It isn't that those who unfaithful have stopped being "Israel." It's that they've chosen to follow a path that has them being "cut off" as having failed in their calling.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Who comprises "natural" Israel? What are their/its identifying characteristics? In God's New Will and Testament, what promises did He make to them?

All Jews represent Natural Israel, including those who have chosen to join this ethnic group, despite their nation of origin. The NT promise to Israel is the same as the OT promise to Israel, given to Abraham even before the Law was given. It was that they would be a nation formed from Abraham's natural heirs. But if they failed to live by the moral and spiritual standards of Abraham's faith, then they could be cut off, just as a determined criminal would be cut off from society.

Failing Israel does not stop being "Israel." God just disowns them as a father might reject a recalictrant shameful son.

 

[covenantee]

All Jews represent Natural Israel, including those who have chosen to join this ethnic group, despite their nation of origin. The NT promise to Israel is the same as the OT promise to Israel, given to Abraham even before the Law was given. It was that they would be a nation formed from Abraham's natural heirs. But if they failed to live by the moral and spiritual standards of Abraham's faith, then they could be cut off, just as a determined criminal would be cut off from society.

Failing Israel does not stop being "Israel." God just disowns them as a father might reject a recalictrant shameful son.

Here are three of God's NT promises to Israel, and they are identical to God's NT promises to all of humankind, as de-racialized in Galatians 3:28-29.
There are no promises to Israel or to any who are not in Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Galatians 3
28 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.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[WPM]

No, I just informed you that you had violated your own standards. You can label me however you please. I don't agree if you mislabel me. But you were the one indicating we should not label someone who did not wish to be so labeled.

I'm fine with you labeling me if you think the label really sticks. But if you're just doing it to be provocative, that's obviously not worthy of discussion.

LOL. No. He is playing you at your own game and you do not like it. He is just exposing the usual duplicity of your reasoning.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Here are three of God's NT promises to Israel, and they are identical to God's NT promises to all of humankind, as de-racialized in Galatians 3:28-29.
There are no promises to Israel or to any who are not in Christ.

The NT promise to Israel is the same as the OT promise to Abraham, which was actually before the OT Law.

Gal 3.14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

The promise to Abraham involved the nation Israel, as well as the nations that would come to join Israel in the faith they were called to.

Gen 12.2 I will make you into a great nation.
Gen 17.5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.

When Paul argues that Gentile nations will be added through Christ, he is not doing away with God's promise for Israel, the nation. The promise is not dependent on the OT Law. It was a "promise."

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

This verse has nothing to do with the content of the promises of God. It is strictly saying that God is true to His word. If he promised the nation Israel, He will deliver the nation Israel. Amen.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The promise was to a collective--not just to a plurality. They are all united in faith in one man, Christ. It is not a denial that to a plurality of descendants promises were made. They were to be made into a "nation," which is a collective. They were ultimately to be united by their collective faith.

Galatians 3
28 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.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Faith is determined not by nationality. But this is *not* saying nationality is unimportant or irrelevant to the promise. It is just saying that faith, apart from nationality, is essential because nationality alone cannot determine faith. There are Jews and people from Christian nations who do not have faith. Therefore, in these cases nationality or ethnicity is irrelevant to having faith.

You try to destroy the promises of God. Shame on you! Take God as His word, and you will never go wrong. My opinion only.

 

[WPM]

The NT promise to Israel is the same as the OT promise to Abraham, which was actually before the OT Law.

Gal 3.14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”[i] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

The promise to Abraham involved the nation Israel, as well as the nations that would come to join Israel in the faith they were called to.

Gen 12.2 I will make you into a great nation.
Gen 17.5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.

When Paul argues that Gentile nations will be added through Christ, he is not doing away with God's promise for Israel, the nation. The promise is not dependent on the OT Law. It was a "promise."

This verse has nothing to do with the content of the promises of God. It is strictly saying that God is true to His word. If he promised the nation Israel, He will deliver the nation Israel. Amen.

The promise was to a collective--not just to a plurality. They are all united in faith in one man, Christ. It is not a denial that a plurality of descendants to Abraham were made. They were to be made into a "nation," which is a collective. They were ultimately to be united by their collective faith.

Faith is determined not by nationality. But this is *not* saying nationality is unimportant or irrelevant. It is just saying that faith, apart from nationality, is essential because nationality alone cannot determine faith. There are Jews and people from Christian nations who do not have faith. Therefore, in these cases nationality or ethnicity is irrelevant to having faith.

You try to destroy the promises of God. Shame on you! Take God as His word, and you will never go wrong. My opinion only.

No. You redirect the promises of God to apply to the physical, the natural and the carnal. The New Testament applies the promises of God exclusively to a spiritual people.

God's people are described as a singular nation called out from amongst the nations (plural). The objective unindoctrinated Bible student will see that the people of God have been united as one into a trans-national spiritual nation. Race doesn't matter anymore under the new covenant. It is all about grace.

Peter outlines in Acts 10:34-36, when he witnessed with his own eyes the Gentiles receiving the Gospel of Christ, saying, “I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all).”

This passage is crystal clear in its meaning and explanation of how God views all nations, peoples and tribes equally today. The reading makes it clear: “God is no respecter of persons.” This is not strange or outlandish; it is the constant theme of the New Testament. The Gospel is no longer restricted to the physical race of Israel but it has been opened up to embrace all nations. This means that God doesn’t accept anyone based on their nationality, colour or status but rather on whether or not they fear Him. When it comes to salvation he looks at the inward rather than the outward. Them that fear him and walk righteously “in every nation” are now “accepted with him.” He is assuredly “Lord of all.” He has made all nations, tribes and kindreds the focus of His favour today. It is wrong to elevate one nation over another.

The word interpreted “respecter” in the King James Version is the Greek word prosopoleptes which simply means: one exhibiting partiality. In fact the New King James Version renders this, “Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.”

He came to Israel first to fulfil Scripture; the sheep within that nation heard His voice. The Gospel was then widened out to the nations, where His sheep also have heard His voice and many have believed. Salvation has now come to embrace the Gentiles in an extraordinary way. Millions today have been brought into God’s great covenant of grace.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Premillennialists are quick to throw the Gnostic slur at Amillennialists. But, it may shock a lot of them to know that many of the views they hold, cherish and promote today were sourced and spread in antiquity – chiefly among the heretics. When we look for the originators and formulators of modern-day Premillennialism we actually arrive at four shadowy early figures. The first two operated at the very infancy of early Church history – Cerinthus of Asia Minor (AD 50-100) and Marcion of Sinope, Asia Minor (Born: AD 85, Died: AD 160). Both of these were viewed as arch-heretics and were strongly resisted by the early Church fathers for their corrupt perversion of Christianity.

They invented a dual-covenant concept of two parallel yet coexisting peoples of God, under two different agreements, serving two different deities (God and Jesus), with two different time-tables and two different ultimate outcomes. This was seasoned throughout with Gnostic elements.

The later advocates of ancient Premillennialism who ran with it, and widely promoted it, were Porphyry [or Porphyrius] of Tyre (AD 232- 305) and Apollinarius of Laodicea, Asia Minor (died AD 382). They took up the baton were Cerinthus and Marcion left off. Not surprisingly, these two dubious characters were condemned by the ancient orthodox fathers as heretics and blasphemers. While they held to the main trust of what the other two taught, they watered down some of the more extreme elements from Cerinthus and Marcion in regard to dividing the Godhood.

Notwithstanding, all 4 of these men believed that God has two distinct peoples, with distinct purposes for each. They believed that the Church operates under new covenant promises and natural ethnic Israel operates under old covenant promises. They held that the Mosaic covenant remains valid for the Jews, while the new covenant only applies to the New Testament Church. They considered Israel to be God’s earthly people, and the New Testament Church to be God’s heavenly people. They all viewed the Jewish race as “God’s chosen people” (saved and unsaved).

Like the Pharisees, the early Premillennialist heretics had a hyper-literal earthly expectation of a future physical earthly kingdom, believing that the Old Testament kingdom promises would be fulfilled by ethnic Israel coming to prominence there. They taught that there would be a golden age in the future after the second coming and before the new heaven and new earth that would be centered in earthly Jerusalem for 1000 years. From here Christ and Israel would reign over the subjugated Gentiles. They believed Israel’s old covenant theocracy would be fully reestablished and that she would be restored to her ancient land boundaries in a temporal earthly kingdom.

They took many of the spiritual old covenant predictions pertaining to the First Advent of Christ, the last days and the kingdom of God, and applied them to their supposed future temporal age (and Judaized looking kingdom), after the return of Jesus, which would resemble the old covenant arrangement and character. They repudiating a spiritual interpretation of many of the Old Testament prophetic passages or their current fulfilment in this new covenant period. They opposed the early Chiliast and early Amillennialism method of relating Old Testament typology to Christ and His kingdom. They also rejected a heavenly hope for the Jews.

They promoted the rebuilding of the old abolished covenant infrastructure, including the recommencement of the old covenant priests, customs, rituals and blood sacrifices. They advocated the renewal of all the old covenant feasts and festivals, a return of blood sin offerings in a future temple and the restarting of the old covenant priesthood on a future millennial earth.

The ancient Chiliasts strongly opposed this type of teaching. There was none of them that supported the idea of Israel rising again to a place of racial superiority in a future millennial kingdom. They all looked upon the New Testament Church as true Israel today. They held that the many promises made to Israel, in the Old Testament saw their fulfilment in Christ and His Church during this present age. They rejected any idea of God re-starting or blessing any aspect of the Jewish ceremonial arrangement. They strongly opposed any validity for, or efficacy in, any coexisting dual covenant theory.

They believed that the fulfillment of Israel's promises are found in Christ alone. They held that believers (both Jews and Gentiles) possess all the spiritual territory they need in Christ today. He is the Promised Land. He is our rest. He is our only inheritance. He is our exclusive hope. Because of all this, they believed that all the Old Testament promises have been (or are being) fulfilled in this kingdom age. They saw no requirement for their fulfillment in some future age after the second coming. Most of them were looking, like Abraham, for the glorious, heavenly and eternal Jerusalem, coming down to earth, not carnal, earthly and temporal Jerusalem being re-established to a place of prominence, like the early Premillennial heretics expected.

They resisted any advancement of the fanciful idea of any type of reintroduction of the old abolished covenant system, including the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the performing of multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man for a thousand years in the future. Such a thought was anathema to them. For the 1st 240 years after the cross we cannot find the traditional Dispensational or “Historic” Premillennial teaching in the early Church. These resided exclusively amongst the heretics.

These ancient Premil heretics also differed with the ancient orthodox Chiliasts (like their modern-day counterparts) in their expectation of the continuation of the curse. The heretics saw sin and sinners, decay and disease, crying and dying, war and terror, continuing unabated after Christ’s coming. They saw the full reintroduction of all the bondage of corruption on a future earth. They had a carnal hope of continued procreation, carnal pleasures and excessive feasting in their future millennium.

Once again, the ancient orthodox Chiliasts rejected such an eventuality. The new earth they envisioned was more akin to the Amillennial new earth – it was glorified, perfect and pristine. It was sin-free, sinners-free, Satan-free, corruption-free and death-free. The early heretical apostates found the natural carnal sensual expectations of the Jewish millennial teaching attractive to their thinking.

However, there was no mention of people joining in marriage and enjoying sexual relations, and producing offspring amongst the early Orthodox writers until Commodianus an African writer who wrote between AD 251 and 258. There is no mention of the ungodly or wickedness blighting a future millennium until Victorinus in 270 AD. There are no previous orthodox Christian writings advocating the continuation of earthly carnal pleasures (including excessive feasting, continued marriage, ongoing sexual passion and procreation) and materialistic prosperity after the resurrection. This thinking was thought to belong to the Gnostic camp.

Premillennialist Chris Gousmett even concedes: “This emphasis on material and fleshly delights was seen to be typical of ‘Jewish’ understandings of the prophetic promises, and thus a close connection between Gnosticism and Judaism was postulated” (Shall the Body Strive and not be Crowned? Unitary and Instrumentalist Anthropological Models as keys to Interpreting the Structure of Patristic Eschatology).

Notably, many of these early heretical Premillennialism views have become popular in Premillennialist circles after 1830, with the rise of Dispensationalism.

As it was then, Eschatology is just as confusing as it is today. How many views do we have of Revelation? Dozens. And within those views are yet further variations. Two Christians of any ilk would be hard pressed to agree on 100% of the details within any claimed view.
So trying to identify so-called heretics, a placing the blame in them is somewhat of a denial of looking at oneself in the mirror and asking the question, Is my view the absolute truth?"
Would you bet on it? Are you so firmly guided and assured by the Holy Spirit _ Who should be dwelling inside you _ the true revelation of Christ's Second Coming?
Would you pray to be excluded from any such Pre-Millennial Resurrection and participation of the Millennial Kingdom as literally described in Revelation 20 ... since you believe it is heretical?
Go ahead ... pray now. ??? Or are you not so sure to back up your view?

 

[WPM]

As it was then, Eschatology is just as confusing as it is today. How many views do we have of Revelation? Dozens. And within those views are yet further variations. Two Christians of any ilk would be hard pressed to agree on 100% of the details within any claimed view.
So trying to identify so-called heretics, a placing the blame in them is somewhat of a denial of looking at oneself in the mirror and asking the question, Is my view the absolute truth?"
Would you bet on it? Are you so firmly guided and assured by the Holy Spirit _ Who should be dwelling inside you _ the true revelation of Christ's Second Coming?
Would you pray to be excluded from any such Pre-Millennial Resurrection and participation of the Millennial Kingdom as literally described in Revelation 20 ... since you believe it is heretical?
Go ahead ... pray now. ??? Or are you not so sure to back up your view?

When did I say Premillennialism was heretical?

 

[jaybird]

is heretic bad? it means "to chose" and i like making my own choices. the Nazarene, the sect of Jesus, the church called heretics.

 

[WPM]

is heretic bad? it means "to chose" and i like making my own choices. the Nazarene, the sect of Jesus, the church called heretics.

You may identify as a heretic. But it is not good to be a heretic. They are a schismatic. They divide and destroy.

Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Tit 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.