This sums up your theology - one-liners and avoidance.
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!
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
The title of this thread is interesting. Given that we all are still sinning on a daily basis, aren't we all heretics when applying that test being applied to other Premillennials of the past, and done so with such foolish indifference to the actual origins of that path of eschatology dating back to Paul and beyond?
Some today love wearing the modern, fashionable garb of self-righteousness about the topic of sin, some even espousing the false teaching for an alleged loss of salvation. How foolish indeed in trying to make Christ out to be One who is unfaithful and who denies Himself.
2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
BTW
Some today love wearing the modern, fashionable garb of self-righteousness about the topic of sin, some even espousing the false teaching for an alleged loss of salvation. How foolish indeed in trying to make Christ out to be One who is unfaithful and who denies Himself.
2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
BTW
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You misrepresent my view by saying I replace national Israel when that is not the case at all. You said yourself that God's promises have been expanded to other nations besides Israel, so how is that any different than my belief that God has included Gentile believers as part of His people while not replacing anyone?
It includes individuals from other nations. Your focus on nations instead of individuals in relation to salvation makes no sense to me at all. Salvation is all about an individual, personal relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ.
No, I don't know that because it isn't true. It wasn't the entire nation. That's not what Paul wrote in Romans 11.
Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Individuals from the nation of Israel were blinded and cut off because of unbelief, but there was a remnant of believers at that time in Paul's day. But, even those individuals were not blinded permanently and had the opportunity to repent and be saved after that. But, first, the gospel had to go to the Gentiles and then, in turn, the plan was that they would make those Israelites jealous so they too would want to be saved. And Paul talked about wanting to save some of them in his day (Romans 11:11-14).
I believe every individual descendant of the nation of Israel has the opportunity to be saved, which is what matters.
There are two Israels, not one. You make a strawman argument as if I say the original Israel, if you will (national Israel) has been replaced by "Spiritual Israel", and that's not what I claim at all.
It denies nothing. Have you never read this...
Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 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; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
You wrongly think that God has two different plans for His people. One plan for the church and one for Israel. Absolutely not. Paul made it clear that Gentile believers are fellowheirs with Jew or Israelite believers of God's promises. Why can't you just accept that?
Nonsense. The two Israels are distinct from each other and there's no wresting of the name "Israel" from native Israel. That is utterly ludicrous.
Scripture gives the name "Israel" two meanings, not me! Paul said not all who are descended from Israel are Israel (Romans 9:6). Obviously, the first Israel there is differentiated from the second Israel mentioned there because not all from the first Israel are part of the second Israel. Very simple.
Your explanation is ludicrous. My issue is with you 100%. In my view no one is replaced in any way, shape or form. Period.
It depends on how you define it. Do you define that differently than most others do the way you do with the term "replacement theology" as well? Generally speaking, I disagree with using that term to describe what I believe as well because it's basically the same as the imaginary "replacement theology" label that people try to put on my beliefs.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL. I'm Spiritual Israelite. And I'm talking about the two simple questions WPM asked you that you never answered.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You come across as very ignorant. A heretic is not a true Christian. Just because we all sin doesn't make us all heretics. A heretic is someone who believes things that contradict the core beliefs of Christianity. Such as someone who denies the deity of Christ, for example.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear, I'm deffining "nation" the way the Dictionaries do--not as a political entity that consists of any number of ethnicities, but rather, as a single political entity, as opposed to several or many national entities. A "nation" is a single nation, and not a metaphorical political entity.
By contrast, you argue that your metaphorical 2nd "nation" is composed of a single entity, the Church, which has many ethnicities apart from their political divisions. This is not what Dictionaries describe as a "nation."
So, you permanently displace the Israeli nation descended biologically from Abraham, which had defined promises given to them. You thus replace that particular Israel with an Israel that has now lost their eternal promises.
National Israel has been, for you, "gutted." That is the "replacement," one Israel with promises with one you now think had no such promises given them. To you it is not a "replacement" because you think Israel had no such promises. To me, it is a "replacement" because I think Israel was given those eternal promises which you now have extended to the Church.
So, you've created a 2nd Israel to extort Israel's promises, appropriating them for the Church. And you replace the 1st Israel with another national Israel that no longer has eternal promises given to it.
The Church did begin as a "nation" of sorts--the Roman Nation. But it has now expanded into an international organism, which can not be called a displacement "nation," in my view. The displacement of Israel's promises by the international Church was purely temporary, as I see it.
That is the "replacement" I protest, even if you disagree with what promises had been given to Israel. You are replacing, in my view, the original Israel defined as having eternal promises with the same national Israel, devoid of those eternal promises.
Either that, of you're saying that you retain the same national Israel in the Church, counted among those who are believers. In that case, the Jewish remnant in the Church can no longer be called a "nation."
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
The confusion comes from the fact that, in relation to salvation and God's promises, your focus is entirely on nations while mine is on individuals. I believe that all people, including all national Israelites, have the opportunity to be saved. One's nationality has nothing to do with salvation. Gentile believers are fellow heirs of God's promises, including the promise of eternal life for those who belong to Christ. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile in God's eyes in terms of what matters to Him and what is necessary for salvation. It's about God's grace and our faith and trust in Christ and has nothing to do with nationality.
I don't create a 2nd Israel. Paul very specifically references two different Israels in one verse (Romans 9:6) while making it clear that not all who are part of one of the Israels are part of the other. I didn't create that verse.
I fully understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't even see it as a replacement from your perspective. I don't believe you are making any sense with your view. Obviously, your view doesn't line up with mine, but that's not what I'm saying, which would be an obvious thing to point out.
Yes, I've gathered that from the other 100 times you've pointed that out.
Why are you telling me this as if I don't already know this? Have I ever said that you believe that? Of course not.
I don't wish to continue this, either. It's futile and a waste of time.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
It's never a waste of time if there are misunderstandings that both parties are willing to persevere in working out. You don't understand how I'm using "replacement." I've struggled to explain that and can see you either can't see how I see it, or just want to argue about whether my position is correct?
You say you believe in 2 Israels, but don't "create a 2nd Israel." My position, obviously, is that you do, in fact, create a 2nd Israel. I'm not misrepresenting your position. Rather, I'm presenting my position and how I see your position.
You begin with a national Israel that has only temporary promises given to it, and then produce an "Israel" that has eternal promises given to it. You say you believe they are the same. But clearly, they are not. Sorry, your position doesn't work for me.
If "two Israels" is understood to mean those who are saved within physical Israel, and those who are unsaved within physical Israel, does that clarify the expression?
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Not for me personally. Maybe it does for your position?
My position is that there is only one Israel--not two. But if your position is that there are two Israels, then you're calling part of a nation who are saved a "nation." And you are calling another part of the same nation who are not saved a "nation," as well.
To me, parts of a nation are not a whole nation. That's why it doesn't work for me, even if that's how you personally define two Israels.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
In that case, you aren't taking God's promises literally. God told Abraham He was creating for him "nations." You are simply rejecting what God said.
Furthermore, you are replacing the nation Israel with an Israel that you now say it simply a company of individuals and not a nation. Any way you look at it, you're replacing conventional Israel with something else. You may retain belief in national Israel, but you then strip it of its meaning as a nation.
Yes, you remove the eternal promises God gave to the nation Israel and apply it not strictly to national Israel but to the entire international Church. That is "replacement." Biblically, Abraham had two promises--not one. One was strictly to the Israeli nation. The other was to the international Church. They should not be confused or you will rob today's Israel from its prophesied place in the international Church. Again, that is replacement, as well as displacement.
Two Israels is *to me* robbing Israel of its exclusive disctinction as only one nation. You are replacing the one Israel with two Israels.
If it's a waste of time, I'm not interested either.
Last edited:
Not sure where you're seeing all of that.
I specified "physical Israel". There is of course only one physical Israel.
The word "nation" does not appear in my definition. I'm not "calling" anything.
There is a spiritually saved Israel, and a spiritually unsaved Israel, within one physical Israel.
Thus, two spiritual Israels within one physical Israel.
Is that clearer?
Last edited:
Romans 9:6-13 explains how God’s people and the seed of promise are not a natural but a spiritual seed. In his thesis on the promised seed, we find Jacob and us the believing Gentiles. He affirms: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
God’s people are not a physical race but a spiritual race. Paul makes a clear contrast between those who are “the children of the flesh” and those who are “the children of promise.” He shows us that these are two different diverse peoples. In doing this he is attempting to illustrate the impotence of the natural and the potency of the spiritual. He shows that “the children of the flesh” are not “the children of God,” but “the children of the promise.”
Romans 9:18-23 continues: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 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.”
It is plainly obvious, Romans like every other New Testament book splits mankind into two diverse groupings – saved and lost. The believer is called a vessel of “honour” (or vessel of “mercy”) here, the unsaved is called a vessel of “dishonour” (or vessel of “wrath”). This fits with everything Paul is pressing at in Romans. Race means nothing. Both Jew and Gentile have been brought into Christ, both Jew and Gentile are united in rebellion. These two spiritual groups can be found in every nation. After describing the wicked as being “fitted to destruction” (all of the wicked) Paul turns to the vessels of mercy, telling us that this company are those that God “had afore prepared unto glory.”
The vessel of honour (or mercy) is the elect; the vessel of dishonour (or wrath) is the unregenerate. Jacob was a vessel of honour; Esau was a vessel of dishonour. This is reinforced in the narrative.
Paul asks in Galatians 4:21-31: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”
The whole discourse here focuses in on identifying what is of God and what is not, especially in regard to Abraham’s descendants. The dividing factor comes down to: men are either “born after the flesh” or “born after the Spirit.” This has always been the case from the beginning. Race or physical birthright was never the determining feature when it came to blessing. It was instead spiritual vitality. After all, both of these boys were biological children of Abraham. But the difference between them was that Isaac was a child of promise and Ishmael was not. Those who are merely born naturally (regardless of their race), or who have only experienced one birth, are of the devil, those who have experienced a second birth – a spiritual conversion, belong to God. The writer demonstrates how natural ancestry means nothing, even if your blood father was Abraham himself.
Last edited:
Natural Israel are not chosen today. They rejected (and reject) Christ. Those who hate Christ are not the people of God. They are apostate and of their father the devil. Christ-rejecting Israel is of their father the devil. They are off the synagogue of Satan. That is what the Bible teaches. They are enemies of God. Like all on regenerate people, they are under the wrath of God. That is a New Testament fact.
There is no special favor for ethnic Christ-rejecting apostate Israel since the cross. Quite the opposite. They are under the wrath of God! The kingdom has been removed from them. God has cursed the natural Israeli fig tree and terminated the ancient old covenant Israeli theocracy. But true Israel (Christ-accepting Israel - God's true elect), the faithful remnant, have been expanded to embrace believers in all nations today. God now works through this spiritual Israeli organism to manifest His name throughout the earth. These are the true circumcision. These are the children if Abraham. These are they that reside in true Zion.
Natural Israel and natural Jews can embrace Christ at any time and be grafted into the good olive tree and be at one with fellow Christians. This is the household of faith. This is the only Israel that carries God's favor.
The Jews boasted, “Abraham is our father” (John 8:39).
Christ responded to the ignorance of the Jewish leaders: “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (vv 39-44).
He identifies their true father as Satan. This would have been explosive and offensive to these proud religiously Jewish leaders. Jesus demonstrated that favor with Him didn’t come through natural pedigree but rather spiritual pedigree. Those Jews who rejected God’s offer of salvation were not under blessing but under a curse. They were not in any way considered as God’s chosen people. They were children of the devil and they were heading to hell.
Jesus said in Matthew 23:29-33: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
Jesus never missed the mark.
John the Baptist proclaimed in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
There is nothing vague, ambiguous or complicated here. God only sees those in Christ and those not in Christ. There is also no room for fence-sitting here. If a Jew or Gentile (in the Old Testament or the New Testament) loves the Messiah Christ He is one of God's chosen, if he doesn't he is under the wrath of God. Simple!!! Basically: accept Jesus and God accepts you, reject Him and God rejects you.
I John 2:22-23 solemnly asks, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (or Messiah)? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”
Q. Does Israel overwhelmingly deny “that Jesus is the Christ” or Messiah?
A. Absolutely. Therefore, Judaism without Christ is a counterfeit religion. It is apostate! Any belief that denies Christ His rightful place as man's sole Redeemer is destined for destruction. Anyone that rejects Christ (1) is antichrist, (2) belongs to Satan, (3) is part of the kingdom of darkness and is (4) bound for the Lake of Fire.
Jesus said in John 15:23, “He that hateth me hateth my Father also.”
The whole mission of Jesus Christ in introducing the new covenant was to unite Jew and Gentile in salvation. Nothing could be clearer in the New Testament!
Jesus admonished the church in Smyrna in Revelation 2:9, “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”
Those who reject Christ are indeed of their father the devil. You dismiss these crystal-clear censures from Jesus, arguing: "it's one specific synagogue he addressing, I think." Well, He actually condemns 2 churches here that had large Jewish communities living around them that were apostate. Judaism is apostate. It has rejected their Messiah and is therefore condemned and unregenerate.
The Lord similarly condemns the unbelieving natural Jew in Revelation 3:9 for imagining that he was real Jew. Whilst speaking to the church at Philadelphia, He said, “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”
In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 Christ succinctly describes the Jews that rejects Him and what He achieved at the cross as those who “say they are Jews, and are not.” What he is saying is: they are not real Jews. The Philadelphia Church, which would have been overwhelmingly Gentile, was here promised that God would cause the unbelieving Jews to come and worship at their feet. The Lord again exposed the delusion that did beguile (and does beguile) the natural Christ-rejecting Jews “which say they are Jews” but “are not, but do lie.” The true Jew today is a believer in Yahweh that is spiritually circumcised in heart, not merely physically circumcised.
Well, not all of natural Israel are chosen, right, WPM? Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, right?
Right, and many have. And thus have become part of God's household, His Israel.
Right, this is God's Israel, where worldly ethnicity means nothing, really; it surely doesn't make any one person more righteous or favored in the eyes of God than anyone else. This is what Paul is saying...
- ...in Romans 2 when he writes, "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical... a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God"
- ...and in Galatians 3 when he writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile)... for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
- ...and also in Ephesians 2, when he writes, "in Christ Jesus (Gentiles have) been brought near by the blood of Christ... (f)or He Himself is our peace, Who has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility... that He might create in Himself one new man in place of the two... and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross... through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father... (Gentiles) are no longer strangers and aliens, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God..."
Totally not about that; we all take them literally. The disagreement is regarding to whom they were made.
Is something no one here is doing. But in the sense that you are, you might as well accuse Paul of that. See above.
Ahhh, "as the dictionaries do." That's precisely the problem, actually. <smile> In the Bible, Randy, a nation is not any kind of "political entity." In the Bible, Randy, a nation is a people group... a people. Much like what we say on a smaller level today about a church... it is not a building but a people. And in the larger sense, the Church of Jesus Christ is a people. We can discuss that further if you like, but for now I'll leave you with this: Abraham, Randy, our father Abraham, who was the one who actually entered into the people/land covenant with God... was not of Jewish ethnicity. Abraham ~ and thus Isaac (the child of the promise), and Jacob (who was renamed Israel by God) ~ was very much a Gentile... but he was very much called by God. They were all Gentiles, but... again... called by God.
Grace and peace to all.
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid not. Is that even clear to you? When I refer to "Israel" I refer to a "nation," which you seem to ignore or downplay. This in itself is questionable.
But then you talk about 2 Israels in 1 physical Israel. Sorry, you speak a different language than I do. But thanks for trying...
Exactly! That is because you speak a different language to God's Book.
There has always been 2 Israels - believing and unbelieving, elect and unelected (Romans 9:6). Jacob represented the elect; Esau represented the rejected Israel (Romans 9:9-13). Both had the same Hebrew blood, both were of a privileged natural lineage - but one was true Israel, the other not.
Romans 11:7: "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."
There you have it. Being of ethnic Israel was not enough. One had to be part of the elect to possess the covenant promises.
Jacob was of the "election." Esau was of the "blinded." It has been the same in every generation. It is the same today. It will be the same at the end.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
We all, as Christians, take God's word literally in a general sense--but not in the specific sense I speak of. I'm speaking of taking God's promise to Abraham concerning the nation Israel literally. And Replacement Theology rejects that, and displaces that with God's promise to Abraham concerning the International Church.
You pretend this is just my personal view that WPM and followers are "Replacement Theology" advocates. The truth is, this is the common term for the belief system in which Israel is robbed of its eternal promises and displaced by the International Church. I did not invent the term.
The concern has been that they are being misrepresented as those who deny Israel's existence. That has never been what "Replacement Theology" refers to. It is the displacement of Israel as a nation in terms of their eternal promises and their replacement with something else. Can you be so naive not to understand that?
The effort to ignore Dictionary definitions and replace them with "suspect theology" is purely a means to confuse the language and create a new language that endorses a particular theology. Suddenly, the literal nation Israel with literal promises becomes "theologically unsound" to Replacement advocates.
And you need to teach me this why? Do you want to show me that "Israel" is not a nation with literal promises made to it by God?
And you need to teach me this why? Are you trying to dismiss Abraham's biological posterity in the nation Israel, which was the entire reason why God made this promise to Abraham, to secure hope 1st of all for his own family and future?
Your words betray the very spirit and letter of God's promise to Abraham to preserve Israel forever. That means Israel must be restored as a nation in covenant with God. Jer 31.31.
Similar threads
