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

[WPM]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. People are free to present *what they think* characterizes another position. But they are not free to be malicious or provocative about it.

I do not believe I'm holier than you, or than Amills. I don't know why you think this? I just want a respectful exchange of ideas, even if we strongly disagree. Is that too much to ask?

There are some people the Bible says simply will not comply, and the Bible says we are to have nothing to do with them. They are troublemakers and unless their heart changes they will continue in their malicious, provocative ways.

I see nothing wrong or "ironic" about the above? My positions are clear to this Amill group. But others may read and not know what I believe. WPM is blatantly misrepresenting not just the name of a "school," but the specific positions I hold.

When I refer to your school as "Replacement Theology," I define how I believe your positions represent a "replacement" to me. I know you don't think the shoe fits, but the point is, I do, and explain why. You may not agree, and that's okay, but there is no malice in using the name that many use in order to avoid excessive explanation.

If you want to be like WPM, then don't communicate with me anymore. I only wish to have respectful conversations. Referring to your belief as "Replacement Theology" is precisely how it is defined by everybody who holds to my position. It is not intended to be fought over, regardless of how you view things.

You may call my school the School of Millennial abuse. In fact, that is how I've been regularly treated, as if I "abuse" the biblical "Millennium." But I'm not going to throw a fit just because you wish to define my "school of thought" in this way. Neither should you throw a fit because I see your view as a "replacement" and refer to your school as "Replacement Theology."

To me, your belief is a "replacement" of a single "Israel" with "two Israels" or with a "metaphorical Israel," or with the International Church. Your belief that natural Israel exists in the Middle East is something everybody agrees on and has nothing to do with your denial that you are "replacing" our conventional belief in Natural Israel with something Metaphoricall, New Testament, Spiritual, and International.

It is a "replacement" to people like me, and I'm not doing it to insult, provoke, or belittle you. I'm using the term to avoid unnecessary explanation or repetition, explaining that my concern is that you're "replacing" something biblical with something unbiblical. What you're doing is simply trying to remove my complaint that you are "replacing" the definition of "nation" and "Israel" with something else.

If you wish to pursue the negativity like WPM, then I have zero interest in you anymore. Please do not speak lies about me behind my back, like WPM has just done. If you want to carry on a respectful conversation, I'm always read to do that, including WPM.

You have been pushing this nationalistic theocratic Christian nations replacement theology error for years without any biblical support. Many have challenged you but you refuse to change. The reality is: the Gospel was given to a spiritual organism – the Church – to bring to a lost world of sinners. It was not sent to secular governments as you wrongly allege. Where is your biblical evidence? Nowhere! Sadly, you refuse to receive scriptural rebuke and cease spreading this error.

You do not even know what a Christian is. You invent your own extra- biblical definition to support your error:

"Christians," biblically, are those who start out following Christ. But they have yet to prove they are really in the faith, and completely committed. Many fall away.

Christian nations fit in part the definition of the Abrahamic covenant, that he would father many *nations.*

Many of the Christian nations of the past *were* in a real sense theocracies!

The Great Commission was meant to fulfil the Abrahamic Covenant, which intends to convert entire nations to theocracies!

if we go back to the idea of Christian countries, before all of this modern apostasy set in, you will understand what I mean by "Christian nations," and "Christian theocracies." It is not the perverse kind of theocracy, but the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God enmeshed in the laws of nations.

the U.S. has in fact been a Christian country and so has been in a limited sense a "theocracy."

What utter nonsense! Amils oppose Replacement Theology. They believe in Expansion Theology. You are the No. 1 promoter of this on these boards:

Christian nations have existed since the time that the Roman Empire was Christianized under Theodosius. And since that time we've had Christian France, Christian Germany, Christian Scandinavia, and in the East Christian Byzantium, and many Slavic Christian nations.

There is no such thing in the New Testament as Christian nations. That is your own theory that you have taken from Wikipedia. There is just one unitary spiritual nation – the Israel of God, that God spiritually reigns over today. You have no answer for the clear scriptures that I have already presented. You've skipped around each of them. You have to!

Secular governments have shown themselves throughout history to be man-made entities that exist to represent the people. But the kingdom of God (on the other hand) is here to represent God on earth. Your teaching is an innovation you have personally thought up that you have failed to support with any NT Scripture. Thankfully few have bought into it, even amongst our Premil brethren. You have yet to show us one single Christian government throughout the world. That is because it does not exist.

We must call Christian nations "Christian nations," if that is the intention of the people to as a majority adopt the Christian faith and Christian morality for the people of that nation. But it certainly doesn't mean every citizen of a Christian State will be sincere or will last.

I'm turning the tables on your false claim that "Christian nations," or "theocracies" in this regard, are a "figment of my imagination."

What the NT shows is that Church is indeed a nation made up of members from all nations, tribes, and kindreds shining a light in this world.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, of course--just like every country.

So "two Israels" in a spiritual context is an entirely reasonable and logical expression. "Two" denotes that there is a particular distinction between one part of an entity and another part of that entity, resulting in two of the entity. "Israel" identifies the entity. The "two Israels" which this expression therefore identifies spiritually are "saved Israel" and "unsaved Israel".

Is that not reasonable and logical?

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's not too much to ask at all, but you are not being respectful by misrepresenting my view over and over again. Why can't you understand such a simple thing as that? You act as if I say that national Israel no longer exists and has been replaced and that is not what I believe.

I have said again and again that I recognize you accept national Israel exists, and my response has been that this does not mean you don't have "Replacement Theology." The name "Replacement Theology" does not mean that you reject the existence of national Israel. It just means that regardless of your acceptance of it, you then add a different meaning to it than just "national Israel." You then qualify "Israel" as "Spiritual Israel," denying that all Jews are part of Israel. This constitutes a "replacement," which is precisely why it is called "Replacement Theology." The meaning of "Israel" changes, or replaces the earlier conventional meaning from OT times.

How about you focus on yourself and stop misrepresenting our view?

I just told you that my description of your view as a "replacement" is based not on your view but on my view. That is how I characterize it, whether you agree or not. I'm therefore not misrepresenting your view--I'm representing my own view. Your view is what it is, recognizing the existence of national Israel. But then you make "Israel" into "Spiritual Israel" with the addition of a multitude of other nations who are Christian. This is not the original view from OT times. This is an addition or an advancement of the Gospel from Israel to the nations, now called "Spiritual Israel." That terms "replaces" the earlier conventional term applied to all Israel and only to Israel.

Since you do not wish to understand, there's no sense going on. You call my view wrong, and depict it in ways that are negative to me. But as long as you properly represent what I believe, I'm fine with whatever name you wish to attach to it.

When I attach "replacement" to your view, it accurately reflects the positions that I call a "replacement."

The word "replace" or "replacement" has nothing to do with what we believe.

I've explained it to you. How many times must I explain it? You've "replaced" the OT conventional use of the word "Israel" to now apply to the whole Church. That is a replacement! What once applied to a single nation, and to the whole nation, you now apply to remnants of many nations. That replaces the original definition of "nation" for a conglomeration of national remnants.

You don't want me to use the term "Replacement Theology" when that is precisely what Dictionaries describe it as. Look up the term, and then denounce the Dictionaries.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I have said again and again that I recognize you accept national Israel exists, and my response has been that this does not mean you don't have "Replacement Theology." The name "Replacement Theology" does not mean that you reject the existence of national Israel. It just means that regardless of your acceptance of it, you then add a different meaning to it than just "national Israel." You then qualify "Israel" as "Spiritual Israel," denying that all Jews are part of Israel. This constitutes a "replacement," which is precisely why it is called "Replacement Theology." The meaning of "Israel" changes, or replaces the earlier conventional meaning from OT times.

I just told you that my description of your view as a "replacement" is based not on your view but on my view. That is how I characterize it, whether you agree or not. I'm therefore not misrepresenting your view--I'm representing my own view. Your view is what it is, recognizing the existence of national Israel. But then you make "Israel" into "Spiritual Israel" with the addition of a multitude of other nations who are Christian. This is not the original view from OT times. This is an addition or an advancement of the Gospel from Israel to the nations, now called "Spiritual Israel." That terms "replaces" the earlier conventional term applied to all Israel and only to Israel.

Since you do not wish to understand, there's no sense going on. You call my view wrong, and depict it in ways that are negative to me. But as long as you properly represent what I believe, I'm fine with whatever name you wish to attach to it.

When I attach "replacement" to your view, it accurately reflects the positions that I call a "replacement."

I've explained it to you. How many times must I explain it? You've "replaced" the OT conventional use of the word "Israel" to now apply to the whole Church. That is a replacement! What once applied to a single nation, and to the whole nation, you now apply to remnants of many nations. That replaces the original definition of "nation" for a conglomeration of national remnants.

You don't want me to use the term "Replacement Theology" when that is precisely what Dictionaries describe it as. Look up the term, and then denounce the Dictionaries.

I can't believe you are for real. You continue to insist on trying to tell me what I believe instead of accepting my explanation of what I believe. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but you should stop misrepresenting my beliefs. In my doctrine, national Israel is national Israel and has not changed and hasn't been replaced and the same is true of spiritual Israel. They have both existed for a long time now as distinct entities. No replacement going on there at all.

But, the way you explain "replacement theology", that term could be applied to your beliefs as well, since, as WPM showed in his quotes of things you have said in his post #765, you apply God's promises that originally were made to Israel to other nations as well. So, based on how you look at things, we could say that you have replaced God's original promises to Israel with the promises being made to Israel and other nations as well. How is that any different than you saying to me: "you make "Israel" into "Spiritual Israel" with the addition of a multitude of other nations who are Christian"? Which does not even accurately reflect what I believe because I don't claim there is such thing as "Christian nations". There are Christian individuals from all nations.

This is all so incredibly stupid. Why can't you just respect me enough to not use that term when talking to me? That's all I ask. You know I don't like it and strongly disagree with the idea that it accurately describes my beliefs, so why not have enough respect to not use it when talking to me? Use it all you want otherwise. But, respect me enough to refrain from using it when talking to me. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[WPM]

I have said again and again that I recognize you accept national Israel exists, and my response has been that this does not mean you don't have "Replacement Theology." The name "Replacement Theology" does not mean that you reject the existence of national Israel. It just means that regardless of your acceptance of it, you then add a different meaning to it than just "national Israel." You then qualify "Israel" as "Spiritual Israel," denying that all Jews are part of Israel. This constitutes a "replacement," which is precisely why it is called "Replacement Theology." The meaning of "Israel" changes, or replaces the earlier conventional meaning from OT times.

I just told you that my description of your view as a "replacement" is based not on your view but on my view. That is how I characterize it, whether you agree or not. I'm therefore not misrepresenting your view--I'm representing my own view. Your view is what it is, recognizing the existence of national Israel. But then you make "Israel" into "Spiritual Israel" with the addition of a multitude of other nations who are Christian. This is not the original view from OT times. This is an addition or an advancement of the Gospel from Israel to the nations, now called "Spiritual Israel." That terms "replaces" the earlier conventional term applied to all Israel and only to Israel.

Since you do not wish to understand, there's no sense going on. You call my view wrong, and depict it in ways that are negative to me. But as long as you properly represent what I believe, I'm fine with whatever name you wish to attach to it.

When I attach "replacement" to your view, it accurately reflects the positions that I call a "replacement."

I've explained it to you. How many times must I explain it? You've "replaced" the OT conventional use of the word "Israel" to now apply to the whole Church. That is a replacement! What once applied to a single nation, and to the whole nation, you now apply to remnants of many nations. That replaces the original definition of "nation" for a conglomeration of national remnants.

You don't want me to use the term "Replacement Theology" when that is precisely what Dictionaries describe it as. Look up the term, and then denounce the Dictionaries.

You are so stubborn in your nonsense. It is pointless engaging with you. You are also a hypocrite. You are the biggest proponent of this. This is all projection.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You come out with wild claims, but are unable to substantiate them. When asked simple questions you cannot reply. When your views are refuted you are incapable of rebutting the counter-argument. Your MO is to simply voice your opinions (or what you have been taught). Arguing that the cross was not known or predicted in the OT even when I showed you what Scripture teaches, highlights how pointless it is engaging with you. It seems like, you are in love with what you have been taught, rather than biblical truth. This tells me you either have no rebuttal or are unable to support your claims.

Here are 2 simple questions you avoided. I wonder why?

• Do you believe in the importance hermeneutical principle of supporting Scripture with Scripture?
• Who do you think Amils think they have replaced?

What are you sacred of?

Yes, I already answered that with an affirmation for Systematic Thelogy as a practice.

Amils are like anyone else when it comes to replacement ideologies concerning Israel.

So, I have once again answered these two questions.

BTW

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I already answered that with an affirmation for Systematic Thelogy as a practice.

Amils are like anyone else when it comes to replacement ideologies concerning Israel.

So, I have once again answered these two questions.

BTW

You have not answered those two questions. Why are you lying about that?

 

[WPM]

Yes, I already answered that with an affirmation for Systematic Thelogy as a practice.

Amils are like anyone else when it comes to replacement ideologies concerning Israel.

So, I have once again answered these two questions.

BTW

No. You avoid. You have to. The reader can see for themselves. That is where Premil has arrived online. They are on the back-foot. They are on the run. The battle has been well won. The debating is over.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I can't believe you are for real. You continue to insist on trying to tell me what I believe instead of accepting my explanation of what I believe. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but you should stop misrepresenting my beliefs. In my doctrine, national Israel is national Israel and has not changed and hasn't been replaced and the same is true of spiritual Israel. They have both existed for a long time now as distinct entities. No replacement going on there at all.

I equally have trouble believing you are for real. I've just told you and acknowledged that you accept the existence of National Israel. And now you claim I misrepresent your view?

But, the way you explain "replacement theology", that term could be applied to your beliefs as well, since, as WPM showed in his quotes of things you have said in his post #765, you apply God's promises that originally were made to Israel to other nations as well.

I'm disinterested in reading most of WPM's posts to me or about me.

I do agree that the NT Gospel advances the membership in God's People to include other nations besides Israel. As you likelly know, Israel the nation was exiled indefinitely, at least until the Return of Christ. Since you believe the Return of Christ is the absolute end of history, then you don't believe national Israel has a chance of returning.

But advancing the Gospel ministry from the Jewish People to the nations is not a change in name. You retain the name "Israel" to identify both Jews and Gentiles under that one name--some call it "Spiritual Israel."

Again, I don't have a problem with including other nations or other ethnicities in God's People. I just have a problem calling the whole group "Israel," because that tends to deny the promises God made to Abraham to retain native Israel as part of His People. You deny both nationality and native Israel in the Church, and you have wrested the name "Israel" from native Israel to apply to the International Church--a 2nd "Spiritual Israel" if you will.

So, based on how you look at things, we could say that you have replaced God's original promises to Israel with the promises being made to Israel and other nations as well. How is that any different than you saying to me: "you make "Israel" into "Spiritual Israel" with the addition of a multitude of other nations who are Christian"? Which does not even accurately reflect what I believe because I don't claim there is such thing as "Christian nations". There are Christian individuals from all nations.

I know you do. You take the name for a single nation, "Israel," and change the name to have two meanings, one native Israel and another metaphorical for the whole Church.

This is all so incredibly stupid. Why can't you just respect me enough to not use that term when talking to me?

I've explained this to you thoroughly. "Replacement" reflects your school from my pov, and it is regularly understood by Dictionary definition. Your belief system, properly understood, is defined by Dictionaries and by Encyclopedias as "Replacement Theology." Take the issue up with them, and tell them they're "stupid?"

That's all I ask. You know I don't like it and strongly disagree with the idea that it accurately describes my beliefs, so why not have enough respect to not use it when talking to me? Use it all you want otherwise. But, respect me enough to refrain from using it when talking to me. I don't think that's too much to ask.

But "replacement" is the whole argument. So, if I talk with you about it, it's going to be about an illegitimate "replacement" from my pov.

Honestly, we don't even have to discuss this subject. It's less important to me than it is to some Amills here. So, if we talk about other subjects I don't at all have to bring up this subject, or the name "Replacement Theology." Do you find Supersessionism equally distasteful?

 

[WPM]

Yes, I already answered that with an affirmation for Systematic Thelogy as a practice.

Amils are like anyone else when it comes to replacement ideologies concerning Israel.

So, I have once again answered these two questions.

BTW

More lies!

 

[WPM]

I equally have trouble believing you are for real. I've just told you and acknowledged that you accept the existence of National Israel. And now you claim I misrepresent your view?

I'm disinterested in reading most of WPM's posts to me or about me.

I do agree that the NT Gospel advances the membership in God's People to include other nations besides Israel. As you likelly know, Israel the nation was exiled indefinitely, at least until the Return of Christ. Since you believe the Return of Christ is the absolute end of history, then you don't believe national Israel has a chance of returning.

But advancing the Gospel ministry from the Jewish People to the nations is not a change in name. You retain the name "Israel" to identify both Jews and Gentiles under that one name--some call it "Spiritual Israel."

Again, I don't have a problem with including other nations or other ethnicities in God's People. I just have a problem calling the whole group "Israel," because that tends to deny the promises God made to Abraham to retain native Israel as part of His People. You deny both nationality and native Israel in the Church, and you have wrested the name "Israel" from native Israel to apply to the International Church--a 2nd "Spiritual Israel" if you will.


I know you do. You take the name for a single nation, "Israel," and change the name to have two meanings, one native Israel and another metaphorical for the whole Church.

I've explained this to you thoroughly. "Replacement" reflects your school from my pov, and it is regularly understood by Dictionary definition. Your belief system, properly understood, is defined by Dictionaries and by Encyclopedias as "Replacement Theology." Take the issue up with them, and tell them they're "stupid?"

But "replacement" is the whole argument. So, if I talk with you about it, it's going to be about an illegitimate "replacement" from my pov.

Honestly, we don't even have to discuss this subject. It's less important to me than it is to some Amills here. So, if we talk about other subjects I don't at all have to bring up this subject, or the name "Replacement Theology." Do you find Supersessionism equally distasteful?

You actually believe there are Christian nations today that have replaced natural Israel. This slur of Replacement Theology that you love to hurl at Amils to incite them is therefore complete duplicity. You are the one who holds to Replacement Theology. Here are your views:

“The NT did supersede the OT, yes.”

"Yes, what Israel had, has now been passed on to many European and other nations.”

“So, the kingdom of priests given to Israel has been given to many nations."

"Many Christian nations have now entered into the promise God made to Israel that they would be a kingdom having a priesthood."

• Who are the European "Christian" nations that you speak about?
• Maybe you could name these "entire nations" that "have [supposedly] professed the Gospel, and ... can be considered to have been part of 'the Church'"?
• What is the criteria for becoming one of these?
• Where do you get this in the NT?

So assuming we both use the biblical definition of "Christian," we must ask ourselves, does Paul's use of "Christian" apply only to those who have received eternal life? I would say no, because Paul is always challenging Christians to *prove* who they are, to see if they've really received eternal life. Obviously, "Christians," biblically, are those who start out following Christ. But they have yet to prove they are really in the faith, and completely committed. Many fall away.

So are there Christian *nations* that allow for this definition? Of course. Christian nations include a majority of citizens who start out claiming Christianity. But many, obviously, do not work out in this religious commitment.

First, you are misrepresenting Paul the apostle. Not surprisingly, you present no Scripture to support your claims. This is (sadly) a common trait for you.

Secondly, you are building your argument upon that false misrepresentation.

Your argument is therefore built upon sand here.

The salvation of nations often refer to *political salvation.* A nation is delivered from its enemies when that nation obeys God, when the nation is under covenant with God.

A "Christian nation" is one that subscribes to the Christian religion, whether or not the citizens fully practice it or even believe it. You can start with the Roman Empire, which under Theodosius became a Christian Empire. You can go with the Franks, the Germans, in both Western and Eastern Europe. You can include Russia, and the U.S., and all of the British Commonwealth. These have been or are still "Christian nations."

You are saying "Russia" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? You are saying the "USA" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life. It sounds like you are pulling at straws.

Randy K is the real Replacement Theologian, not Amils. Amils and Postmils do NOT believe in Replacement Theology. We believe we have been grafted into true Israel (believing Israel). We believe in Inclusion Theology! In this position we stand with Christ, Paul and the NT writers, and also the ECFs. So, we are in good company. Natural Israel is still natural Israel. True Israel or the true spiritual Jews are the NT Church of all nations.

 

[PinSeeker]

You are at the door sister...

Ah, you know, I love our sisters in Christ... especially the really hot ones... <smile> ...but I'm a brother. That seems fairly obvious from my avatar, but whatever... LOL!

If you are not of GOD, you are not of the elect.

Hmmm... well, in that case, yes, not of God, so not born again of the Spirit, but you may be elect, but not yet born again, but at some point you will be. I'm not talking about you, here, per se, but one is elect from before the foundation of the world, and in that case predestined to be of God and thus conformed to the image of Christ.

Rem, even Israel OT believers,The remnant of Israel and all the OT believers that He had put aside are the elect.

Sure, absolutely. Old Testament believers were saved through faith and thus in Christ, just as we are in New Testament times. And all these together are God's elect. Sure. But again, there are more out there who are elect, they just haven't yet been born again of the Spirit and thus of God. But... it'll happen. <smile>

Yet, from the first century Israel on a whole was partially blinded.

Oh, I would say longer than that, but no matter.

However, many (the elect) have still found their way to God. Keep in mind that when Daniel's 70th gets here, 2/3 of the Jewish population will die. Now compare that with WWII where Hilter and the war in general killed about 1/3 of their population then. Yet out of that population that flees judah (Rev 12) are elect and will be feed and watered for 42 months or 1260 days, 3.5 years until Daniel's 70th week is finished.

Hmmmm... <smile>

do we not see Jews in NY, russia, and spread throughout the world. Yet, the valley of dry bones of those that have died are leaving these places and finding themselves in Israel. their homeland. Last time I counted, out of 120 countries, there were around 115 ethnic groups of Jews in Israel.

Hmmmm... <smile> I would exhort you to be careful what you're doing when you reference Ezekiel 37 here. Ugh. <smile>

The Law showed mankind what sin was.

And still does. Sure.

Ancient Israel did not know about Jesus?

Um, I surely did not say that... <smile>

your trying to make this personal...

Nope.

Ezekial 36:22-32. Both the saints of the church have and will receive this covenant and the remnant of Israel as well

It's not a covenant. Surely, God is telling us what He will do, there, and how He will do it. This is how we are all saved.

If everything happened in the past...

I have never said that, either. What I have said is that it began happening in the past... aproximately 2000 years ago, and continues to happen to this day, and will continue for an unspecified amount of time... until the fullness of the Gentiles is brought into God's Israel and the partial hardening that is now on Israel removed, and thus all Israel saved (Romans 11:25-26).

And concerning Revelation 20... which is of such great interest and, well, hand-wringing, to some... <chuckles> ...here is what I will say:

John relates to us seven visions through the course of Revelation, and each one is concurrent, spanning the entire millennium, the thousand years of Revelation 20 (which is the seventh and final vision). The thousand years should be understood in the same context as what David says in Psalm 50:10 when he says "For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills," and then again in Psalm 90:4 when he says, "a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night." (Peter quotes the latter in 2 Peter 3:8.) The point is, as in these passages, the thousand years of Revelation 20 is not literally one thousand 365-day periods, but a fullness of time, with no real reference to our days, months, and years. If someone asks us to do something, we might say, "Oh, I'll do it, and I won't delay in doing it. And if you want to know how long it will take for me to actually do it, well, I'll do it in my own time, and it'll take me as long as it takes me, but in the fullness of time, it will come to pass." That's how we should understand the "thousand years" of Revelation 20. We could talk about God's reference to "a thousand generations" in the same light; it is not literally one thousand generations, but all generations.

Now back to what you were saying here... I think; correct me if I am wrong... I think you, as a premillennialist, say "everything will happen in the future." If that's true, then for 2000-plus years people have been reading about something that is totally irrelevant to them, and can't really have been blessed in reading John's Revelation all that time... which is absolutely contrary to what he wrote in Revelation 1:3, "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near."

GOd covenants with Abraham and all the others are null and void.

A question you have to ask your self...

<chuckles>

Is it because Israel will be the capital of the World with Jesus Christ at the center. Your covenant theology needs to answer this...it is denying Israel their birthright/inheritance

And I say your idea of what and who Israel is and what our true inheritance is is far, far too small.

why the smile....yes it is about Israel.

No, I agree that it is about Israel, but you and I disagree on what and who God's Israel really is.

That is what the tribulations is for, Placing Israel up against the wall, so to speak.

What if God is maturing us as Christians, making us more like Jesus, actually, through our trial/tribulation? You know, so we will be complete, lacking in nothing. Well... then, knowing this, we could count all this trial/tribulation as joy, I mean, if that sounds familiar, it's pretty much exactly what James says in the first chapter of his epistle... <smile>

where do you see it getting better?

I actually see it getting worse... and better... at the same time. You probably won't really get what I'm saying here...

Yes, the earth is degrading just as much as the human race... Jesus tells us there is nothing "New" under the sun...

Agreed. Well, Solomon tells us that in Ecclesiastes 1:9. That has nothing to do with the fact that God is "making all things new." In the latter, in the New Heaven and New Earth, everything ~ all of creation ~ will finally be "made new" in the sense of being finally and completely renewed, restored to its original state without sin.

I see you do not know your Bible.

Ah, well, I don't know it the way you apparently want me to know it. <smile>

Wait... what was that you were saying before about making things personal...? <chuckles>

The valley of dry Bones, Ezekial 37. you need to read it...

Ah yes. Love it. Have read it a thousand... see what I did there? <smile> ...times. Maybe in light of what I said above you should read it again...

...in 1948...

Hmmmm... <smile> I mean... not an insignificant thing, for sure, but...

Still personal...

Well, in the sense that you characterize it that way, yes, you understand it that way, yes.

may the Lord God Jesus Bless you and yours. good day.

To you also! Grace and peace to you.

 

[Bladerunner]

Ah, you know, I love our sisters in Christ... especially the really hot ones... <smile> ...but I'm a brother. That seems fairly obvious from my avatar, but whatever... LOL!

apologize but your avitar tells me nothing about your sex.

Now back to what you were saying here... I think; correct me if I am wrong... I think you, as a premillennialist, say "everything will happen in the future." If that's true, then for 2000-plus years people have been reading about something that is totally irrelevant to them, and can't really have been blessed in reading John's Revelation all that time... which is absolutely contrary to what he wrote in Revelation 1:3, "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near."

Its called perseverance, accoding to His words, He has be gone about 2.5 days and we cannot even stay faithful that period of time

 

[Bladerunner]

Nobody is saved by their DNA, as you seem to suggest. However, what I believe is that *God's Word* required that there be DNA representing each nation so that there would be saved people in every nation.

This is the current condition of the Church. Christian nations have gone away, both Jewish and non-Jewish. So, there are only semi-Christian nations and nonChristian nations, in which there are true Christian remnants.

But I believe the Promise God made to Abraham required not just remnants in all nations, but also nations themselves who would devote themselves, albeit imperfectly, to God. We have had Christian nations in the past, and we have had Israel's Davidic theocracy in the past. But all these have failed over time.

This does not prevent God from restoring them. If they've existed in the past, albeit imperfectly, He can restore them again at the 2nd Coming. This is, I believe, the Promise God made to Abraham, to have the nation Israel, and many nations devoted to the faith of Abraham.

Israel has yet to become a Christian nation. But being that they have the DNA and the potential for national reconciliation with God we wouldn't call them "Saved" yet, but we can call them Israel--not yet "True Israel" in the sense of being faithful, but still "Israel."

Israel is still protected by GOD even though they are partially Blinded...

 

[WPM]

Israel is still protected by GOD even though they are partially Blinded...

What is partially blind? Is that one eye can see and the other cannot?

 

[covenantee]

Israel is still protected by GOD even though they are partially Blinded...

Protected like these?

Numbers 25
3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Or these?

Matthew 23
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Or these?

1 Thessalonians 2
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the
uttermost.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Israel is still protected by GOD even though they are partially Blinded...

NO, this is where you are grossly misunderstood. Next time, try to quote a Scripture with the context to make sure you know what you are talking about, please!

Rom 11:25-27
(25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
(26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
(27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Actually, God promised that blindness would be upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, and so (literally, thusly) shall all Israel be saved. It doesn't say, "and after that I shall save Israel again." The Dispensationalists "ADD" that to God's word, but it actually is not there!!

Unfortunately, some Christians are still ignorant of the full import of "this mystery" to this very day. The controversy comes in the phrase, 'Blindness in part has happened to Israel till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.' Many people are confused as to what this means. Two things.

First, what they fail to understand is that God did not blind all Israel after they rejected their Messiah, the Prince. The blindness was only “in part.” That means there were some Jews to believe the gospel and be grafted back into the covenant tree, together with the Gentiles. The verse does not teach that Israel’s blindness will suddenly vanish only after every Gentile Christian has come in and then God will save national Israel again. Rather, it shows that throughout this age, both Jews and Gentiles alike are being saved into the same covenant through Christ by hearing the Gospel! Period.

Second, it is simply building upon what Paul has just previously stated in the chapter. He says he doesn't want them to be "ignorant of the mystery" which is that the Gentiles are to be part of this same covenant and 'One Body,' which is Christ, the Israel of God. He has spoken of the revelation of the mystery that has always been God's plan, but had been kept secret. The secret is that the Gentile nations would be made a part of Israel, grafted into the very same New Covenant Israel (represented symbolically by the Olive Tree of Romans 11).

Ephesians 1:9-10

• "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in Himself:
• That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:"

In the fullness of time, it was revealed that the Gentiles would also be a part of the commonwealth of Israel. That is the mystery kept secret from the foundation of the world, but is now revealed. For example, to the Jew first, and then the Gentiles. It is NOT Jew, Gentile and back to Jew again. No, it is to one, and then the other. And that is what this chapter is talking about. They were first, now they're last, as it's now the Gentiles' turn. There is no special dispensation of time for the salvation of Jewish people after the fullness of the Gentiles come in. Understand carefully that the Word of God says the "Jew is first (not first and third), and then the Gentiles" grafted in. And thus (in this way) all Israel shall be saved. That is it! All nations have the same opportunity to be children of God. God has revealed the mystery that has been hid from other ages, and Paul doesn't want the Romans to be ignorant or un-knowledgeable about this mystery. Gentiles are fellow heirs with the Jews. There is no separation, there is one body, one Head, One Olive tree, One new Covenant Israel. The same mystery Paul wrote to the Ephesians in explaining:

Ephesians 3:3-6

• "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
• Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the
  mystery of Christ)
• Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
• That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and OF THE SAME BODY, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:"

Jews are not a different body as Dispensationalists unbiblically surmise, they are of the same body. The Jews are not coming in "after" this dispensation, they are not a different elect or a different chosen of God, and they are not a different congregation. The Gentiles are not obtaining a separate inheritance apart from the Jews, but the Gentiles are fellow heirs of the same body of Jews, and partaking of the 'same' promises, the same fatness of the Olive Tree which unambiguously[ is Israel. They are being grafted into Covenant Israel, and when the fullness of them be come in, So (in this manner) all Israel shall be saved. Even history shows salvation went to the Jews first, but now also goes to the Gentiles.

That Greek word translated "so" [houto] in Romans chapter 11 (so all Israel shall be saved) is never translated "then", meaning "following this" or after this. It is a word which means Thusly or "in this manner." That is a fact which you need to check for yourselves.

Selah

 

[PinSeeker]

apologize but your avitar tells me nothing about your sex

No apology necessary... But it is a bit curious; you just assumed I was of the female gender and called me "sister"...? Hm. Well, again... no matter.

Its called perseverance, according to His words, He has be gone about 2.5 days and we cannot even stay faithful that period of time

What are you even talking about here, Bladerunner? Certainly not Revelation 1:3...

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near."​

Certainly, our perseverance through our lives is in view, here, in that part of the blessing we would have in reading and keeping what is written in his prophecy is perseverance throughout our Christian walk. But my point was (and is) that what he wrote in his prophecy was just as relevant for his contemporary readers as it is for us today. Premillennialists unwittingly ~ I guess ~ completely rebuff this by holding that everything John wrote concerned events that would only take place in what is still even now, over 2000 years later, the future. That's just not the case... ridiculous, really. So, no, we are in the millennium of Revelation 20 now... have been since John's day, and will be until... well, the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in, and the partial hardening now on Israel is removed, and thus all Israel saved.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

What are you scared of? You're the one that was on the attack. You seem to know it all. Yet, when you're asked you cannot even answer a simple question.

Ok, so it looks like I'll have to use the cliche' of "I asked you first!"

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You have not answered those two questions. Why are you lying about that?

Who are you and what are you talking about?

BTW