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

[covenantee]

A nation consisting of minorities does not cancel a national ethnicity--it absorbs them. "One nation" does not describe the International Church! The Church by definition consists of multiple nations, and is not, by definition, a single nation. You're placing loose with the definition of a "nation." In fact, you're using a non-literal definition of "nation."

Scripture describes the Church as a holy nation. 1 Peter 2:5,9

I agree.

 

[WPM]

Really? What do you do with this passage?....

Amos 3.2 You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth.

Israel was specially chosen as God's 1st born among the nations, as the direct descendants of Abraham and Isaac. And they were barred from connecting with pagan nations around them. This involves biological descendancy and restriction to a single ethnicity.

Other nations were not subject to the entire Law of Moses as Israel was. That is discrimination, though certainly not partiality.

All this is debatable. I think all nations have always been under a law of conscience. Lacking the Law of Moses other nations were not without God's Law.

I don't think God's Law was ever kept from people generally. But when they turn away from God, then God gives them a delusion to believe in something other than Himself. That is, He allows them freedom to Sin.

The Law of Moses was a means of exposing sin 1st in Israel and later in all nations so that final judgment can come to the world. Judgment follows God's Law.

I agree that physical characteristics have nothing to do with having Faith. But I wouldn't say physical characteristics are not important to the Promise. Can you have Salvation without human beings? No, neither can you have Salvation unless there are a multitude of nations, including especially Israel. And that's because that is what God promised Abraham, the salvation of both Israel and a company of nations.

Again, this is debatable. I think God knows in advance who His Elect are. And I think we can also know who they are, to some extent. They are those who are open and ultimately willing to respond to the word of Christ.

Israel is called to be a holy nation, but God only chooses those who are or will be His Elect.

These are all arguable points, but thanks for sharing your thoughts and opinions.

Hello! That was under the old covenant. BREAKING NEWS! The old covenant has been abolished. The new covenant has superseded it. There is no racial preference under the new. It is time for you to embrace the New. The cross removed all the old covenant ordinances. Christ nailed them to the tree.

1 Peter 2:9-10 declares, whilst addressing the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy (Hosea 2:23).”

Peter describes the Church as “a chosen generation” (or a chosen race), “a royal priesthood” and “an holy nation.” He relates this to all believers, irrespective of natural race. This shows us the spiritual nature of the Israeli designation in the New Testament.

Peter takes this teaching, which was describing the Israel of God in the Old Testament, directly from Exodus 19, and applies it to the people of God in the New Testament. Far from restricting the “chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” description to the remnant elect of the nation of Israel, Peter expands it out to embrace the many Gentile believers in this new covenant period. In doing so, he explains the continuity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament, showing the people in view to be the New Testament Church (consisting both of Jews and Gentiles). In fact, he applies this mainly to Gentiles.

To support his reasoning, he employs Hosea 2:23 which predicted the enlightening of the Gentiles, and their integration into the people of God. This is demonstrated in verse 23, where he testifies that the mainly Gentile Church who were once “not a people, but are now the people of God” had now been integrated into the Israel of God. He reinforces this point, telling us that they “which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

False. Both the Fig Tree and the Olivet Tree can represent Israel. Gentile believers could be grafted into the Israeli "Tree" during the OT era. Paul used this example in the NT era because there were not yet any nations of faith other than Israel.

Jer 11.16 The Lord called you a thriving olive tree with fruit beautiful in form.

The fig tree in Scripture symbolizes natural Israel. During the Lord’s earthly ministry, He taught of the demise of natural Israel by way of this symbol and by way of a parable, in Luke 13:6-9, saying, “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.”

Here Christ is speaking of Israel’s fruitlessness (as a fig tree). He presents this as the reason why the fig tree must be cut. Here, He is referring to how they rebelled against His message of salvation and hence brought forth no fruit acceptable unto God. That ministry lasted 3 ½ years on this earth and culminated in the Jews crucifying the Messiah. In the parable Christ refers to the length of His ministry.

On the day after His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, many of the citizens of Jerusalem heralded Him, saying, “Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest” (Mark 11:9-11).

But the text continues in Mark 11:13-14, “seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.”

Did Christ curse this fig tree simply to prove His deity? Did He do it for no obvious reason? Or was He impressing some great spiritual truth upon His disciples in regard to natural Israel?

This was not some pointless irrelevant act to prove Christ’s deity or omnipotence; it was an object lesson in regard to Israel. The fig tree symbolically represents the physical nation of Israel whereas the olive tree represents the spiritual people of Israel. When Christ cursed the fig tree He was demonstrating the removing of the exclusive theocratic favor of God from the physical nation of Israel, whereas, the olive tree will exist forever. Years of abusing God’s favor, years of successive misrule among the national judges and kings, and the spiritual leaders, especially among the priests, and ongoing idolatry and stubborn rebellion among the people, finally brought the theocratic reign to an end. Never again will God’s favor be restricted to a genetic temporal earthly nation, but rather to a spiritual eternal heavenly nation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Scripture describes the Church as a holy nation. 1 Peter 2:5,9

I agree.

No, Peter was describing the nation Israel as it had been called to be--not necessarily as it currently was. Israel, in Peter's time, was only being properly represented by Christian believers in Israel. Peter's letters were being directed to Jewish believers.

 

[WPM]

No, Peter was describing the nation Israel as it had been called to be--not necessarily as it currently was. Israel, in Peter's time, was only being properly represented by Christian believers in Israel. Peter's letters were being directed to Jewish believers.

You are always twisting Scripture to say the opposite to what it means. You have been corrected many times on this and yet you refuse the truth. This is willful. Read what is highlighted in blue. Hello! This is indisputable!

1 Peter 2:9-10 declares, whilst addressing the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy (Hosea 2:23).”

Paul in agreement with Peter addresses the same Old Testament reference and applies it to Gentile conversion. He states in Romans 9:22-26, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee (Hosea 1:10 & 2:23), I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

In perfect fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, the Gentiles have been brought into full union and communion with God, and have become a part of the spiritual seed of the righteous, through Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The spiritual blessings and promises that were therefore nearly exclusively restricted to natural Israelites have now been imparted to the Gentiles by faith. The Church is:

1. The “children of the living God.”
2. His “beloved” possession.
3. And are intimately known by God as “my people.”

The Israel of God is not therefore restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above.

This people that Paul is referring to here, who are divinely called, which God said, “were not my people” and which are now loved “which was not beloved” are the elect Gentiles. Paul, referring to Deuteronomy 32:21, in Romans 10:19-21, supports this gracious fulfilment.

 

[covenantee]

No, Peter was describing the nation Israel as it had been called to be--not necessarily as it currently was. Israel, in Peter's time, was only being properly represented by Christian believers in Israel. Peter's letters were being directed to Jewish believers.

1 Peter 2

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

That's vernacular for the NT Church, and nothing but the NT Church. It is reaffirmed in Ephesians 2:19-22.
Notice the "Ye".


9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Notice the "ye". That's the same "ye" as in verse 5. It's the NT Church, and nothing but the NT Church.
And it's "an holy nation".

Unmistakably.

 

[covenantee]

You are always twisting Scripture to say the opposite to what it means. You have been corrected many times on this and yet you refuse the truth. This is willful. Read what is highlighted in blue. Hello! This is indisputable!

1 Peter 2:9-10 declares, whilst addressing the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy (Hosea 2:23).”

Paul in agreement with Peter addresses the same Old Testament reference and applies it to Gentile conversion. He states in Romans 9:22-26, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee (Hosea 1:10 & 2:23), I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

In perfect fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, the Gentiles have been brought into full union and communion with God, and have become a part of the spiritual seed of the righteous, through Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The spiritual blessings and promises that were therefore nearly exclusively restricted to natural Israelites have now been imparted to the Gentiles by faith. The Church is:

1. The “children of the living God.”
2. His “beloved” possession.
3. And are intimately known by God as “my people.”

The Israel of God is not therefore restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above.

This people that Paul is referring to here, who are divinely called, which God said, “were not my people” and which are now loved “which was not beloved” are the elect Gentiles. Paul, referring to Deuteronomy 32:21, in Romans 10:19-21, supports this gracious fulfilment.

Amen bro.

 

[WPM]

Amen bro.

This is so so clear bro. Only someone who is blind could not see this or someone with a religious agenda to twist this to reinforce their taught doctrine.

 

[Randy Kluth]

1 Peter 2

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

That's vernacular for the NT Church, and nothing but the NT Church. It is reaffirmed in Ephesians 2:19-22.
Notice the "Ye".


9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Notice the "ye". That's the same "ye" as in verse 5. It's the NT Church, and nothing but the NT Church.
And it's "an holy nation".

Unmistakably.

As I said, Peter was applying it to Jewish *Christians.* Terms like "nation" and "priesthood" were unmistakeably Jewish terms.

 

[WPM]

Amen bro.

You are truly wasting your time. He does not want to know what it means.

 

[covenantee]

As I said, Peter was applying it to Jewish *Christians.* Terms like "nation" and "priesthood" were unmistakeably Jewish terms.

Thanks for the guffaws.

 

[PinSeeker]

the greek word it comes from means "to choose for ones self".

Yes, the Greek word hairetikos is a noun, jaybird, as is heretic in English. The Greek word was used to describe someone who holds beliefs that deviate from established doctrines, particularly in a religious context (although it could be used in other contexts also). At any rate, this fits well with what I said, that a heretic is a person ~ so a noun, right? ~ holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

The Greek root hairein means "to take" or "to choose," reflecting the idea of choosing a different belief system.

Right, so that's an action, so... a verb. Actually, the correct Greek word to use here would be hairesis, which is "a taking or choosing for oneself," which in a context regarding the Bible would be to stray from commonly held beliefs.

you got to back to the old greek, your using a modern definition.

Hmmm, yeah, see above.

this means if you are moved by the spirit you have to check with the church first as they believe they are above the spirit.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[jaybird]

Yes, the Greek word hairetikos is a noun, jaybird, as is heretic in English.

all words are nouns, verbs, etc. why are you telling me this?

The Greek word was used to describe someone who holds beliefs that deviate from established doctrines, particularly in a religious context (although it could be used in other contexts also). At any rate, this fits well with what I said, that a heretic is a person ~ so a noun, right? ~ holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

and then you go right back to the modern definition

Hmmm, yeah, see above.

everything you ignored, ok

Grace and peace to you.

and the image is like your way of dodging something you dont want to accept. now its making sense

 

[PinSeeker]

all words are nouns, verbs, etc. why are you telling me this?

Because you seem to be confusing the two... using verbs like nouns and vice versa.

and then you go right back to the modern definition

It is what it is.

everything you ignored...

I "ignored" nothing. But now if you want to talk about ignorance... and I don't mean that in a disparaging way, but that's what I pointed out.

and the image is like your way of dodging something you dont want to accept.

LOL! Goodness gracious.

now its making sense

"Making sense" to you... I mean yeah, that's kinda the problem. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, jaybird.

 

[jaybird]

Because you seem to be confusing the two... using verbs like nouns and vice versa.


It is what it is.


I "ignored" nothing. But now if you want to talk about ignorance... and I don't mean that in a disparaging way, but that's what I pointed out.


LOL! Goodness gracious.


"Making sense" to you... I mean yeah, that's kinda the problem. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, jaybird.

no idea what your going on about:

https://oxfordre.com/classics/displ...381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6992

thats the Oxford Classical Dictionary and it says:

The Greek word hairesis, ‘choice’ or ‘option’, was used for a school of thought in philosophy or medicine . .

this is the original meaning.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

The ancient founders of what we have today in modern Premil were heretics. Big difference. Hello! See the evidence. It is irrefutable. That is likely why no Premil is able to rebut it (including yourself). Those believers who follow it today have recived it from a questionable source. Look at the evidence in the Op. Where am I wrong?

All you have is a preterist view of Eschatology. Preterists symbolize scriptures that should be literally interpreted to conform to their beliefs.
It's okay, we di not have to enter into an argument that has always proven to be a future one. Keep your view. But soon these events in Revelation will unfold - then what will you say? You'll quickly trash your view.
But again, since you call Premillennialism heretical, pray to be exempt from all these so called heresies! You won't!
Maybe since you are not expecting an imminent return of Christ and redemption - God won't give you one?
Maybe you are likened to the 5 virgins who did not have oil for their lamps?

 

[PinSeeker]

no idea what your going on about...

Yeah, and at this point, I don't care. Really though, I'm pretty sure you do, you're just being dismissive. And I don't care about that, either.

Grace and peace to you, jaybird.

 

[WPM]

All you have is a preterist view of Eschatology. Preterists symbolize scriptures that should be literally interpreted to conform to their beliefs.
It's okay, we di not have to enter into an argument that has always proven to be a future one. Keep your view. But soon these events in Revelation will unfold - then what will you say? You'll quickly trash your view.
But again, since you call Premillennialism heretical, pray to be exempt from all these so called heresies! You won't!
Maybe since you are not expecting an imminent return of Christ and redemption - God won't give you one?
Maybe you are likened to the 5 virgins who did not have oil for their lamps?

Yaa-dee-dah-dee-dah. Classic Dispensational ad hominem when you have no rebuttal to the facts.

Any way, I am not even Preterist. I am Posttrib Amil.

 

[PinSeeker]

All you have is a preterist view of Eschatology.

Don't think he (WPM) does, Ronald. <smile>

Preterists symbolize scriptures that should be literally interpreted to conform to their beliefs.

Nobody "symbolizes" anything, Ronald. But some do understand the extensive symbolism of the images given in Scripture, and that doesn't just apply to John's Revelation, but also to many other parts of Scripture, Old and New Testament alike.

It's okay, we di not have to enter into an argument that has always proven to be a future one.Keep your view.

Ah, but there it is... Your opinion that it "has always proven to be a future one." I mean, at the time John wrote Revelation ~ that these visions... visions, Ronald, dreams, like Jacob's regarding the ladder with people ascending to and descending from heaven in Genesis 28... were given to him ~ most all the events John wrote about were in the future. Most, but they had already begun happening. Thus, the visions that he was relating were just as relevant and prescient to his original readers as they are to us today.

But soon these events in Revelation will unfold - then what will you say?

<smile> I believe I just said it. See directly above. <smile>

But again, since you call Premillennialism heretical...

He may; I don't. I say it's just wrong. <smile>

Maybe since you are not expecting an imminent return of Christ...

Don't think that's true, either; Christ's return is always imminent... could happen at any time. We cannot know exactly when the fullness of the Gentiles will be brought into God's Israel and the partial hardening that is now on Israel removed. We only know that God does not tarry (even though it may seem that way to us...)

Maybe you are likened to the 5 virgins who did not have oil for their lamps?

Don't think so... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Ronald.

 

[WPM]

no idea what your going on about:

https://oxfordre.com/classics/displ...381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6992

thats the Oxford Classical Dictionary and it says:

The Greek word hairesis, ‘choice’ or ‘option’, was used for a school of thought in philosophy or medicine . .

this is the original meaning.

Why would you want to be a heretic or defend them? Anyway, it is not about our ideas or choices. Christians submit to Him. Rebels choose to paddle their own canoe and fulfil their own plan.

 

[jaybird]

Why would you want to be a heretic or defend them? Anyway, it is not about our ideas or choices. Christians submit to Him. Rebels choose to paddle their own canoe and fulfil their own plan.

the reason i like to chose is to protect myself from being brainwashed and falling under the spell of some jim jones cult and forcing my children to drink poison