Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Is that not what you did when you suggested he might be among the foolish virgins who are not Christians and will have Jesus tell them He doesn't know them?
The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics - see the evidence
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Duplicity is hanging out of him. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth at one time. The reason why he is running is because he has nothing of biblical weight to bring to the table.
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Certainly that is true. If some have these scars, indicating they think they will be attacked for being a "Replacement Theologian," what can be done to show them they don't have these scars? In fact, the scars are worn because subconsciously they feel that their theology is being treated as deficient, and feel misunderstood if all do not agree with them.
The result, in this case, is to claim to be misunderstood and discriminated against. And there is then a carnal lashing out with personal attacks to prove that they are being victimized by those who question their position or identify them in some way they deem negative. They may "laugh" dimunitively, to hide a sense of dimiished credibility.
Of course, there are many who have this position or the opposite who are not so scarred, and who do not lash out in a carnal or personal way. But those who see themselves as scarred cannot but fight back when they don't feel properly respected.
The answer for me is not to try to accomodate their demand to use PC, or language that they feel gives them an advantage. All arguments need to be couched in language that properly expresses the position, whether the position is correct or not.
As I've said from the start, the only problem is when language is used that is designed to provoke or berate. Otherwise, language can be used without the malicious spirit that wishes to do harm, rather than just properly express an opinion.
There is no rational way to resolve, however, when Christians choose to lapse back, again and again, into a carnal attitude. Like a dog that tastes blood, they have to be removed from society to avoid the spread in violence. By habit, the conscience is gradually desensitized, or cauterized, and Christian violence begins to look to them like "normal," or "God's anger."
Paul simply said to have nothing more to do with those inclined to carnal behavior on a perpetual basis. The hope is that they can be prevented from doing harm to the group, and will learn, alone with God, that they are not acting in accord with proper Christian standards.
Any attempt to correct such ones engaging in "party spirit" or "divisiveness" will only meet your attempt at reconciliation with a snapback reaction and charges of "hypocrite!" They must learn from God because they've lost respect for others even when they openly express a most sincere wish to engage in an irenic or peaceable conversation.
Last edited:
As it has been repeatedly confirmed that neither physical DNA nor the opportunity to receive Christ has been replaced, "Replacement Theologian" is a classic non sequitur.
Again, zero addressing of the issues. More projection. More avoidance, and nonsense talked. You seem to love to hear yourself talk. You are describing yourself and your own Dispensational theology.
Thankfully, Amils do not let you away with, whereupon you quickly throw the victim card.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics - see the evidence
post #566
I appreciate your addressing the point without all of the extracurricular remarks, mocking etc. And I'm happy talking with one person so that it is not like talking with 3 or more people acting as clones of each other or cheerleaders for each other. This is a tempting thing to do, but noble if it is avoided to some degree.
Viewing Peter's letters, written to Jewish exiles, as if they are not Jewish exiles but Christians who have now appropriated that language for themselves appears to some to be a form of "Replacement language." Language that I believe belongs exclusively to the Hebrew People that is being viewed as more properly applied only to elite or spiritual Hebrews is a form of "Replacement Language" to me.
Applying this language to Spiritual Jews and then, by extension, to spiritual non-Jews, is a form of "Replacement Language" to those like me who wish to describe it as a replacement of X value for Y value, a replacement of exclusively native Jews for both native Jews and non-Jews.
I fully understand that you retain the native X value for Hebrew People, even as you claim "true Israel" has only ever meant to represent people of faith, whether Hebrew or non-Hebrew. That is a valid opinion, though I disagree with it and do see what you're doing is "replacing" a name that encompasses an exclusive ethnicity with a group of peoples who comprise many ethnicities.
"True Israel," does refer to faith people within "Israel" but "Israel" is not thereby being redefined. True Israel only involves native Israelites who are called to be faithful or true. In accordance with Hosea we may say that Israel temporarily ceases to be Israel when they are faithless, and then sent away into exile. But to me, it is a "replacement" to say that Israel has ceased to be Israel when the are no longer "True Israel."
I'm not saying Replacement Theology does away with Jews altogether in the Church. Many of them simply state that there are no longer any ethnic divisions in the Church by which to segregate them into "Israel" or non-Israel. They are all a metaphorical "Israel," as such. But in doing so, the traditional sense of Israel as a Hebrew nation is being "replaced" with a different definition, meaning only faithful Jews who become Christians, including non-Jews who become Christians, as well.
Being not "True Israel" is an exclusively Jewish affair, as I see it, and is only a temporary condition before the entire nation becomes true and Christian. You have to "replace" this full national promise to the Jews, exclusively, because you reject a Millennium where this can be fulfilled. Israel is not a Christian nation in the present age.
This is a difficult subject to parse. But I'm trying to explain why Replacement Theology is not a term of contempt for me. It's just useful in pointing out how the OT view of "Israel" is being changed into something else by those who reject a future national conversion of Israel but believe that "Israel" today includes a conglomerate of nations. This is a replacement of a natural definition of "nation" and adopts a "biblical" definition of "nation," based on a "replacement" interpretation.
Supersessionism has been around as long as the Church has been around, and is held by many, many Christians in history, including many that I personally respect. All doctrinally-orthodox Christians believe that the New Covenant has "superseded" the Old Covenant.
Not all believe, however, that the majority of the nation in Israel will remain unbelieving until they are judged and destroyed. "True Israel" must ultimately include a full Jewish nation, as I read it. Today, "True Israel" is the ideal towards which the Gospel mission is working on behalf of the Jews.
God wishes Christian nations to be "True Christians," as well. That does not stop us from referencing "Christian Civilization," even though many so-called "Christians" are purely nominal. Nevertheless, they can be called "Christian Peoples" when they have embraced that title.
This matter is purely a difference of opinion. Some here have made it their career to argue the point, which is okay as long as they don't succumb to the temptation to insult opposing positions. That is not edifying and serves a bad example to others. Thank you. :)
I appreciate the same.
There's no point attempting to continue this dialogue as long as you insist on attempting to judaize Peter's epistles.
It has been shown, both from Scripture and from the exegesis of that Scripture, that Peter is writing to the Church.
Until you acknowledge that, we're on pause.
You decide.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Matt 18.6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
It is unChristian to deliberately provoke others by our comments, and we should exercise restraint in doing so. That is *not* what I'm doing! By Replacement Theology I refer to the common name for it by those who believe, as I do, that the natural meaning of the Israeli nation is being replaced by a different entity. Supersessionists do precisely that.
It is unChristian to deliberately provoke others by our comments, and we should exercise restraint in doing so. That is *not* what I'm doing! By Replacement Theology I refer to the common name for it by those who believe, as I do, that the natural meaning of the Israeli nation is being replaced by a different entity. Supersessionists do precisely that.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with that, brother. You can believe what you want! My purpose here has only been to explain what I believe and why I believe what I believe. I'm sure you've done the same.
And we can agree to disagree agreeably. Some can't do that, but apparently you can. God bless you for that.
As I've referenced, there is a divide on whether Peter was writing to Jewish believers or to Christians in general. There is a strong contingent who believe that Peter was writing to Jewish exiles because he seemed to be explicitly stating that.
Again, go back and read the link I gave you. I happen to agree with those who believe Peter was writing to Jewish believers. So, I suppose we're at an impasse on this particular issue. That's okay. Peace and love.
You like to provoke. You are deliberately misrepresenting others and will not repent. That is on your shoulders.
I've read the link. Nowhere is there acknowledgment in the article that Peter is writing to the Church (e.g. 1 Peter 2:5,9), rather than exclusively Jews. However, farther down in his responses to readers' replies, he does acknowledge "Yes, 1 Pet 2:9 does indeed apply to all in the church." Were you aware of that?
Last edited:
Not true. You duck around post after post here that refutes your error. 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.”
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I was referring to the gist of the link which is that there has been divided opinion on whether Peter was addressed to Jewish believers or to the International Church.
"Scholars have long been divided over the question of 1 Peter’s intended audience, but it seems the majority of classical interpreters took the phrase “exiles dispersed abroad” at face-value, seeing a Jewish audience to be in view..."
The point is, Christians have different views on this, and we'll have to consider the evidence for ourselves and decide for ourselves. It shouldn't be dividing Christians if the evidence appears different to different Christians when both groups of Christians are good and sincere Christians.
Could you show me where in the article you read: "Yes, 1 Pet 2:9 does indeed apply to all in the church."
Was 1 Peter Written to Jews or Gentiles? Why the Answer Matters More Than You Might Think
The opening line of 1 Peter identifies it as a letter from “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those chosen, living as exiles dispersed abroad in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bit…
www.derekdemars.com
Regardless of where your quote is located in the above article I would readily acknowledge that the letters of Peter were for the whole Church, even if they were specifically directed to Jewish Christians. All Christians can learn from a letter to Jewish believers just as all Christians can learn from the Old Testament, which also was written primarily for Jews/Hebrews.
1 Cor 10.6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.
Last edited:
Issue a find on the string.
They were for the whole Church, and were directed to the whole Church. The words "Jew" and "Israel" do not appear in Peter's epistles.
Peter identifies his audience as "elect" (1 Peter 1:2). In the NT, that describes all, both Jew and Gentile, who are in Christ.
AKA His Church.
The OT was written for and about Israel, which was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.
Last edited:
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
These types of writings, although sounding somewhat scholarly when names of historic figures rarely mentioned within earshot of most, are cast into the mix of posts in forums at people who are themselves not historians, can sometimes seem daunting to discuss by those who don't know those figures.
What's almost never brought out concerning this phenomenon is that those who use that tact fail to realize that assuming the influences of writings from the past as absolute corruption of the modern mindset of many to the extent that we can't read scripture for what it says independent of those other writings from the past, and/or that we can't study ancient languages and understand their meaning as defined by their contexts, audience, settings, etc.
Personally, as an Israeli raised in Judaism, then Messianic Judaism, and now a biblicist who has walked away from all those other -isms, I arrived at my Premillennial leanings independent of any and all historic writings.
So, claiming those older sources as the origins is nothing more than a tactical slight-of-hand ploy to avoid admitting that the text and Holy Spirit are fully capable of giving understanding that doesn't fit into the convenient little box of tricks from which accusatory nonsense is dredged up. That's nothing but a distraction away from the influences of the text itself and what Holy Spirit can give to us.
Bottom line, one camp will claim Holy Spirit directed them along one vein of belief about eschatology, another camp will lay claim to the same influences from the same Holy Spirit in the midst of polar opposite beliefs. Logically, they can't both be right on every point, but they can both be wrong, and yet pride on both sides lulls the members of both camps from ever considering that they need to do some more open-minded searching; both within themselves and in the scriptures and in prayer.
I'm not promoting the trash of ecumenicalism but rather a community of people coming together as warriors against ignorance and bias that motivate the desire to be right at any cost...even to one's own integrity.
This idea that the alleged antiquity of a belief somehow legitimizes it beyond question...that too is pure folly.
BTW
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Asserting things that is being argued is something I try to avoid, in order to be as polite as I can. I don't believe Peter was addressing the whole Church when he wrote to the "exiles." It may have been viewed as readable for the whole Church, but it was addressed to an exclusive audience. That's what I *believe.*
I believe the OT Scriptures were addressed to specific audiences. For example, some Prophets indicated they were written in the reigns of certain kings, indicating the target audience was in those days. But the Prophets sometimes knew their words would be for future generations, as well. And we know that we, in the NT era, both Jew and Gentile, are able to benefit from them, as well.
It was addressed to the "elect".
In the NT, that describes all, both Jew and Gentile, who are in Christ.
AKA His Church.
Similar threads
