If no Rapture - then what ?

  • 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!

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Michael,

So which promises do you believe will not be fulfilled if the earthly millennial reign does not take place? All the promises of God are "yes" to us in Christ...I dont think the lack of a millennial reign negates any of Gods promises to us in Jesus.

I dont see why the text in Hebrews and the "judging of angels" in 1 Corinthians mandates a millennial reign. Can't all that happen without a 1000 year period where Satan is caged and then released?

In my understanding, Satan is already bound by the preaching of the Gospel. Revelation is very specific about what this "binding of Satan" entails. It speaks of Satan's ability to "deceive the nations." Nothing about Satan's binding speaks of world peace, long lives, or all evil being removed. All these concepts are inserted into the millennium from other places in the Bible that do not specifically mention any millennial period. Revelation is the only place in the Bible that mentions a millennium and the book is full of symbolic numerology (in my opinion), and so there is no real reason to expect the number 1,000 here to be literal. Again, this is my opinion and I know Im probably in the minority here :).
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
I appreciate all the viewpoints everybody .... thanks .... keep 'em coming

How many here feel the tribulation period is also known as .... "The Day of the Lord" .... (personally I think it is)

Even though I dislike long copy and paste scriptures in posts .... I am going to do it now ... :)

The NIV uses ...... "Day of the Lord" .... 27 times and I reproduced them below

There are many more times in the bible that are simply called .... "the day" ..... but for now here are the easy ones ....



Isaiah 13:6
Wail, for the day of the Lord is near; it will come like destruction from the Almighty.


Isaiah 13:9
See, the day of the Lord is coming —a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it.


Ezekiel 13:5
You have not gone up to the breaches in the wall to repair it for the people of Israel so that it will stand firm in the battle on the day of the Lord.

Ezekiel 30:3
For the day is near, the day of the Lord is near— a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations.


Joel 1:15
Alas for that day! For the day of the Lord is near; it will come like destruction from the Almighty.


Joel 2:1
[ An Army of Locusts ] Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on my holy hill. Let all who live in the land tremble, for the day of the Lord is coming. It is close at hand—


Joel 2:11
The Lord thunders at the head of his army; his forces are beyond number, and mighty is the army that obeys his command. The day of the Lord is great; it is dreadful. Who can endure it?

Joel 2:28
[ The Day of the Lord ] “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.

Joel 2:31
The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.


Joel 3:14
Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.

Amos 5:18
[ The Day of the Lord ] Woe to you who long for the day of the Lord! Why do you long for the day of the Lord? That day will be darkness, not light.

Amos 5:20
Will not the day of the Lord be darkness, not light— pitch-dark, without a ray of brightness?

Obadiah 1:15
“The day of the Lord is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head.

Zephaniah 1:2
[ Judgment on the Whole Earth in the Day of the Lord ] “I will sweep away everything from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord.

Zephaniah 1:7
Be silent before the Sovereign Lord, for the day of the Lord is near. The Lord has prepared a sacrifice; he has consecrated those he has invited.

Zephaniah 1:14
The great day of the Lord is near— near and coming quickly. The cry on the day of the Lord is bitter; the Mighty Warrior shouts his battle cry.


Zechariah 14:1
[ The Lord Comes and Reigns ] A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

Malachi 4:5
“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.


Acts 2:20
The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 5:5
hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 1:14
as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 5:1
[ The Day of the Lord ] Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you,

1 Thessalonians 5:2
for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

2 Thessalonians 2:2
not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

2 Peter 3:1
[ The Day of the Lord ] Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
 

Alanforchrist

Member
Dec 25, 2007
502
9
18
74
Arnie Manitoba said:
.

Thank you Michael .... I am off to a family gathering this afternoon ... so a short reply for now ..... I have displayed your post in red with my comments in black


.
Christians who die during the Church age, Are not experiencing the wrath of God, God is't killing people, He is blessing them, It's the devil who has com to kill steal and destroy, NOT GOD.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Michael,

So which promises do you believe will not be fulfilled if the earthly millennial reign does not take place? All the promises of God are "yes" to us in Christ...I dont think the lack of a millennial reign negates any of Gods promises to us in Jesus.

I dont see why the text in Hebrews and the "judging of angels" in 1 Corinthians mandates a millennial reign. Can't all that happen without a 1000 year period where Satan is caged and then released?

In my understanding, Satan is already bound by the preaching of the Gospel. Revelation is very specific about what this "binding of Satan" entails. It speaks of Satan's ability to "deceive the nations." Nothing about Satan's binding speaks of world peace, long lives, or all evil being removed. All these concepts are inserted into the millennium from other places in the Bible that do not specifically mention any millennial period. Revelation is the only place in the Bible that mentions a millennium and the book is full of symbolic numerology (in my opinion), and so there is no real reason to expect the number 1,000 here to be literal. Again, this is my opinion and I know Im probably in the minority here :).
Well for one thing, I don't believe in replacement theology and God made a number of promises to the descendants of Abraham, both to that of the son of promise, and to the descendants of Ishmael. Israel has never occupied all the lands promised to Abraham and his descendants and that is just one unfulfilled promise. The promised inheritance to Israel was the lands, with the exception of the tribe of Levi who were promised a different inheritance. The inheritance of Christians is not specifically the lands, but is more akin to the promise given to the Levites, that is, the Lord is our inheritance. Many verses have to be spiritualized in order to rule out a literal millennial kingdom, and I don't consider that to be sound exegetically, but I can't be dogmatic about the future, only about the things which God has clearly said.
Now with respect to the binding of Satan, I believe that Satan can only do that which the Lord allows or has made provision for in His Sovereign purposes. I would never attribute the terrible things going on in the world today, including the violence perpetrated against Christians, to God's will, but rather to Satan (and man's) rebellion. God has planned for it and provided ultimately that it work toward the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose, but like in the story of Jacob's sons selling their brother Joseph into slavery (who some just wanted to murder), what they meant for evil, God meant for good.

Alanforchrist said:
Christians who die during the Church age, Are not experiencing the wrath of God, God is't killing people, He is blessing them, It's the devil who has com to kill steal and destroy, NOT GOD.
You sound like a dispensationalist, which is to say that somehow Jesus is not the same yesterday, today, and forever. The church age is an artificial distinction to God. We experience time as part of our physical world, but the Lord sees all time as just part of His creation. Prior to Christ's coming, people were saved by looking forward to His coming. We look back to His first appearance and forward to His second. He said Himself that He would build His church upon Peter's declaration that He is the Christ, but even those who looked forward to His coming were seeing just that (as in the book of Isaiah and the passages about the "son given") and no less a part of His church. God started preaching the gospel to Adam and Eve before they were expelled from the garden of Eden, there may be multiple ages, but there aren't multiple "dispensations."

When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. Ezekiel 33:13
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Michael,

Well, Im really not fond of the phrase "replacement theology" because it suggests that one is being replaced with the other. First, I think it is important to note that the Church from its inception was Jewish, not predominately Gentile. Gentiles were grafted in and so the Church consists of Israel and grafted in Gentiles. Thus, it is not "replacing" Israel but consists of faithful Israel and believing Gentiles.

Moreover, I think your view also negates much of Paul's writings. Paul makes it clear in Galatians that the promise of God was directed at Abraham's "seed" (which is Christ) not "seeds" (Israel). Also, Paul scorns those who continue to look to "earthly Jerusalem" as recipients of God's promises and says it is those who seek the "heavenly Jerusalem" that are the true heirs. Those who pursue and focus on the flesh of a national people and an earthly land, according to Paul, are slaves who are those who are of the flesh of Abraham (like Ismael) but are not born of the faith of Abraham (like Isaac). God's promises have never been about a nationality, but have been about a people of faith who are now identified through in Christ. Paul goes to great lengths to show that this is not something "new" but is the way God has always operated (see Romans 4). Thus, this is not "replacement" but is fulfillment of God's original intent for his promise to Abraham's "seed" and those who walk in faith rather than rely on the flesh.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Michael,

Well, Im really not fond of the phrase "replacement theology" because it suggests that one is being replaced with the other. First, I think it is important to note that the Church from its inception was Jewish, not predominately Gentile. Gentiles were grafted in and so the Church consists of Israel and grafted in Gentiles. Thus, it is not "replacing" Israel but consists of faithful Israel and believing Gentiles.

Moreover, I think your view also negates much of Paul's writings. Paul makes it clear in Galatians that the promise of God was directed at Abraham's "seed" (which is Christ) not "seeds" (Israel). Also, Paul scorns those who continue to look to "earthly Jerusalem" as recipients of God's promises and says it is those who seek the "heavenly Jerusalem" that are the true heirs. Those who pursue and focus on the flesh of a national people and an earthly land, according to Paul, are slaves who are those who are of the flesh of Abraham (like Ismael) but are not born of the faith of Abraham (like Isaac). God's promises have never been about a nationality, but have been about a people of faith who are now identified through in Christ. Paul goes to great lengths to show that this is not something "new" but is the way God has always operated (see Romans 4). Thus, this is not "replacement" but is fulfillment of God's original intent for his promise to Abraham's "seed" and those who walk in faith rather than rely on the flesh.
Fair enough, but this doesn't answer the unfulfilled promises to Abraham's descendants with respect to the lands about modern day Israel, nor the promises of a national restoration with a return to the land which is touched upon repeatedly in the old testament scripture.
30 “Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 that the Lord your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you. 5 Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. 6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Deuteronomy 30:1-6
This promise by no means stands alone and can't be said to have been fulfilled in the context of the church. Jacob was and is a holy people, separated to the blessings of the law and to the curses of the law. Would the Lord bring all the curses upon them according to His word and then not restore them as He also promised? It is not possible for God to lie. The day is coming and is nearly here, when the Lord shall turn Jacob away from transgression and restore those whom He has afflicted. Amen
While I don't understand how the Lord will keep His word, given that this was tied to the "Mosaic" covenant, I'm still quite sure that He will keep His word. Has even one word of His ever fallen to the ground? Paul also spoke of a restoration of national Israel in the book of Romans:
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”


28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. Romans 11:25-32
I understand that you don't like the term "replacement theology," so you probably aren't too fond of the terms "anti-Semitic" and "racist." But the Jews have been trodden underfoot at every opportunity since their rejection of the messiah, and doctrines which deny God's promises to them typically have their origin in racism and a genuine hatred for the "Christ killers." Please don't misunderstand, I'm not accusing you of such grievous sin, but it certainly has been demonstrated in the hearts of men who otherwise appeared to have been zealous Christians. When it comes to the restoration of Israel, It seems that Paul would agree with me (or actually that I'm agreeing with him.)
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Michael,

God's promise in Deuteronomy to return Israel to their land after they had been exiled was fulfilled by the Medes and Persians. This is what the entire books of Ezra and Nehemiah are about! Cyrus conquered the Babylonians and returned Israel to their homeland which they occupied until the Greeks (Selucids and Ptolemies) (who were later conquered by the Romans) conquered them just a few hundred years before Christ. Nowhere in Paul's writings do we see him claim that Christ would not return until the Romans were conquered and Israel had sole possession of their homeland! Rather, Paul and the other Apostles seem to indicate that Christs return could take place at any moment and people should be ready.

The text you point to in Romans has nothing to do with the land or a millennial age for national Israel. It says that God loves Israel and their rejection (in large part) of their messiah does not mean God has rejected them. God still loves Israel, but he will only save them through faith in Jesus. The Jerusalem, land and peace Israel (and all the nations for that matter) seek will be restored in Christ. This is the ultimate culmination of God gathering his people who have been dispersed. In Christ, God is gathering all his scattered children (both Jews and Gentiles) and will establish them in the New Jerusalem. Just as Hebrews says, "For he was looking forward to vthe city that has wfoundations, xwhose designer and builder is God." This is what all the children (children who are born of the faith of Abraham) of Abraham seek.

The text in Romans that says, "and so all Israel shall be saved" is referring to the means by which all Israel will be saved (by faith in Christ) and not a claim that national Israel is guaranteed to all come to salvation before the end. In fact, Paul goes to great lengths to show in Romans that Gods promises are not unfulfilled if much of Israel does not embrace Christ. That is the whole point of chapters 9-10. God has bound all men to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Thus, all find mercy by God's grace in Christ and not by lineage or nationality. There is no special plan for Israel apart from Christ. God can graft them back in if they come by faith and will cut off those who do not remain in faith. Yet all salvation and all of God's plan to gather his children is only through Christ.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Michael,

God's promise in Deuteronomy to return Israel to their land after they had been exiled was fulfilled by the Medes and Persians. This is what the entire books of Ezra and Nehemiah are about! Cyrus conquered the Babylonians and returned Israel to their homeland which they occupied until the Greeks (Selucids and Ptolemies) (who were later conquered by the Romans) conquered them just a few hundred years before Christ. Nowhere in Paul's writings do we see him claim that Christ would not return until the Romans were conquered and Israel had sole possession of their homeland! Rather, Paul and the other Apostles seem to indicate that Christs return could take place at any moment and people should be ready.

The text you point to in Romans has nothing to do with the land or a millennial age for national Israel. It says that God loves Israel and their rejection (in large part) of their messiah does not mean God has rejected them. God still loves Israel, but he will only save them through faith in Jesus. The Jerusalem, land and peace Israel (and all the nations for that matter) seek will be restored in Christ. This is the ultimate culmination of God gathering his people who have been dispersed. In Christ, God is gathering all his scattered children (both Jews and Gentiles) and will establish them in the New Jerusalem. Just as Hebrews says, "For he was looking forward to vthe city that has wfoundations, xwhose designer and builder is God." This is what all the children (children who are born of the faith of Abraham) of Abraham seek.

The text in Romans that says, "and so all Israel shall be saved" is referring to the means by which all Israel will be saved (by faith in Christ) and not a claim that national Israel is guaranteed to all come to salvation before the end. In fact, Paul goes to great lengths to show in Romans that Gods promises are not unfulfilled if much of Israel does not embrace Christ. That is the whole point of chapters 9-10. God has bound all men to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Thus, all find mercy by God's grace in Christ and not by lineage or nationality. There is no special plan for Israel apart from Christ. God can graft them back in if they come by faith and will cut off those who do not remain in faith. Yet all salvation and all of God's plan to gather his children is only through Christ.
Not exactly true. The tribes of Israel, those who rejected Rehoboam and defected with Jeroboam, were dispersed and never returned to the land. It was Judah and Benjamin that were allowed to return to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, so that promise was never fulfilled, nor were all the lands promised to Abraham ever a possession of the kingdom, before or after it was split. You've really only answered scripture with doctrinal interpretation and provided no biblical proof to support your statements, other than a partial quote from Hebrews taken out of context.
By the way, the quote from the book of Hebrews tells us about Abraham's desire, not about God's promises to His descendants. The passage is about faith and has nothing to do with the inheritance in the land. Do you have something more than that?
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sure. If you'd like to examine Scripture in depth on the matter, I would be happy to look at a broad scope of texts. Here's just a start:

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16, ESV)
This text makes it very clear in my mind that the "promise" God made to Abraham is directed specifically at Jesus alone. So this pretty much undoes most of your claims about God's promise to Israel through Abraham.

“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” (Galatians 4:22–26, ESV)
In my mind, this text also makes it clear that the New Covenant in Christ is the fulfillment of God's plans for Israel. Those who think the focus of God in the OT was national Israel and the Law need to revisit this text. Paul makes it abundantly clear that the promise of God belongs to those who are of the faith of Abraham. The flesh counts for nothing. As John the Baptist said, "Do not say to yourselves, we have Abraham as our father. From these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."

Also, I reject strongly your claim that I am taking Hebrews out of context. The purpose of "Hebrews" is to challenge Jewish Christians to remain true to their faith in Christ. In the midst of persecution and suffering, some Jewish believers were going back to Judaism and turning away from Christ. This is the focus of the entire letter. Thus, the point that Abraham was seeking a city whose builder was God has everything to do with the land and God's promises for his people. So you get a fuller sense of the context...

“These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:13–16, ESV)
Tell me, what else could this mean other than God's promise to Abraham about the land. Abraham, who received the promise, lived in tents and did not own the land. His real focus was a homeland provided by God...a heavenly one...not an earthly one...as ours should be.

“At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:26–29, ESV)
The notion that God has a separate plan for national Israel for a few brief years before the end of the world than what he has had for 2000 years since Christ's resurrection is a confounding idea to me. God does not have a separate plan for national Israel in the end times than what he had for them in the first century. Jesus is the plan and that plan is fulfilled. We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken (remember this passage is directed to "Hebrews"). Its a heavenly kingdom. That was the focus of early Jewish Christians and I think we do violence to the Gospel if we teach that this is not God's plan for both Jews and Gentiles today.

“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ” And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.”” (Romans 9:22–29, ESV)
Again, here Paul is showing that God's call and promises belong to both Jews and Gentiles. God will call those who are "not my people" (Gentiles in this context) his beloved and sons of the living God. And Israel, though as sand on the sea, will find that only a remnant is saved. Thus, Gods promises belong to a people of faith...and they are called his people and sons of the living God. Can you provide me with a text in the NT that says God has a separate plan to save national Israel and that they are his true "chosen people?"

On the contrary, 1 Peter (directed to Gentiles) speaks of believing Gentiles and the church in this way...
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (1 Peter 2:9–10, ESV)
These OT phrases used specifically of national Israel are used by Peter (a Jew) toward believing Gentiles in the Church. "Chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation, a people for his own possession."

Finally, time does not permit for me to go into how Jesus fulfills the shadow that was national Israel. God called his "son" out of Egypt....Jesus. He was in the desert 40 days (like the 40 years of Israel). However, he prevailed where Israel failed. Many OT texts that speak of Israel are used in the NT as being references to Christ because Christ is the "seed" and he is the true son. Thus, true Israel are those who are "in Christ." This true Israel has no distinction between Jew, or Greek, slave or free, male or female. If you are in Christ, you are true Israel and sons and daughters of Abraham. This is the mystery of the Gospel Paul was preaching and the reason why he was persecuted by other Jews.

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” (Romans 9:6–8, ESV)

In my opinion, those who are fixated on natural lands and national peoples are unraveling the power of the Gospel and the reality of who Jesus is and what he accomplished. He demolished the dividing wall that kept Jews and Gentiles apart. Why are we now trying to rebuild those walls by claiming who "God's chosen people" really is or to whom the "promises of God" are really directed....a people born of the flesh of Abraham! Certainly not!
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Sure. If you'd like to examine Scripture in depth on the matter, I would be happy to look at a broad scope of texts. Here's just a start:

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16, ESV)
This text makes it very clear in my mind that the "promise" God made to Abraham is directed specifically at Jesus alone. So this pretty much undoes most of your claims about God's promise to Israel through Abraham.

“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” (Galatians 4:22–26, ESV)
In my mind, this text also makes it clear that the New Covenant in Christ is the fulfillment of God's plans for Israel. Those who think the focus of God in the OT was national Israel and the Law need to revisit this text. Paul makes it abundantly clear that the promise of God belongs to those who are of the faith of Abraham. The flesh counts for nothing. As John the Baptist said, "Do not say to yourselves, we have Abraham as our father. From these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."

Also, I reject strongly your claim that I am taking Hebrews out of context. The purpose of "Hebrews" is to challenge Jewish Christians to remain true to their faith in Christ. In the midst of persecution and suffering, some Jewish believers were going back to Judaism and turning away from Christ. This is the focus of the entire letter. Thus, the point that Abraham was seeking a city whose builder was God has everything to do with the land and God's promises for his people. So you get a fuller sense of the context...

“These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:13–16, ESV)
Tell me, what else could this mean other than God's promise to Abraham about the land. Abraham, who received the promise, lived in tents and did not own the land. His real focus was a homeland provided by God...a heavenly one...not an earthly one...as ours should be.

“At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:26–29, ESV)
The notion that God has a separate plan for national Israel for a few brief years before the end of the world than what he has had for 2000 years since Christ's resurrection is a confounding idea to me. God does not have a separate plan for national Israel in the end times than what he had for them in the first century. Jesus is the plan and that plan is fulfilled. We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken (remember this passage is directed to "Hebrews"). Its a heavenly kingdom. That was the focus of early Jewish Christians and I think we do violence to the Gospel if we teach that this is not God's plan for both Jews and Gentiles today.

“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ” And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.”” (Romans 9:22–29, ESV)
Again, here Paul is showing that God's call and promises belong to both Jews and Gentiles. God will call those who are "not my people" (Gentiles in this context) his beloved and sons of the living God. And Israel, though as sand on the sea, will find that only a remnant is saved. Thus, Gods promises belong to a people of faith...and they are called his people and sons of the living God. Can you provide me with a text in the NT that says God has a separate plan to save national Israel and that they are his true "chosen people?"

On the contrary, 1 Peter (directed to Gentiles) speaks of believing Gentiles and the church in this way...
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (1 Peter 2:9–10, ESV)
These OT phrases used specifically of national Israel are used by Peter (a Jew) toward believing Gentiles in the Church. "Chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation, a people for his own possession."

Finally, time does not permit for me to go into how Jesus fulfills the shadow that was national Israel. God called his "son" out of Egypt....Jesus. He was in the desert 40 days (like the 40 years of Israel). However, he prevailed where Israel failed. Many OT texts that speak of Israel are used in the NT as being references to Christ because Christ is the "seed" and he is the true son. Thus, true Israel are those who are "in Christ." This true Israel has no distinction between Jew, or Greek, slave or free, male or female. If you are in Christ, you are true Israel and sons and daughters of Abraham. This is the mystery of the Gospel Paul was preaching and the reason why he was persecuted by other Jews.

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” (Romans 9:6–8, ESV)

In my opinion, those who are fixated on natural lands and national peoples are unraveling the power of the Gospel and the reality of who Jesus is and what he accomplished. He demolished the dividing wall that kept Jews and Gentiles apart. Why are we now trying to rebuild those walls by claiming who "God's chosen people" really is or to whom the "promises of God" are really directed....a people born of the flesh of Abraham! Certainly not!
To my knowledge, no one has claimed that the promises of God were uniquely given to the Jews or Hebrews. To the contrary, God has always promised to expand His grace to the gentiles and the Jews are a people chosen by God as an example to those who would examine their history and the scripture which came to us through them.
In my opinion those who ignore what the scripture says and use doctrine to interpret scripture, rather than let scripture define doctrine, remain immature in their understanding, having taken an anthropocentric point of view, rather than a God centered point of view.
You're certainly entitled to your understanding, but why would you choose to see God as inconsistent in His promises, rather than as faithful and true. Is God a man that He should change His mind?
Deuteronomy 30:1-6 is not given to Abraham, but to Jacob's seed, an important and not insignificant distinction. Please don't try to make God out to be a liar. He might not be offended, but many of us human types are.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Michael,

First, let me just say that as we discuss these issues of Scripture, let us try to keep this a discussion where we honor one another and respect each other as brothers in Christ. I may strongly reject a doctrine you hold and defend my views strongly, but this is much different than claiming that one person is making God a liar or is being offensive to another simply because they disagree on a doctrine. I could certainly be wrong in this area, but as you requested, I tried to provide a number of Scriptural references that backed my views. Your only response to all these texts I provided was that I am using doctrine to interpret Scripture and that I am making God a liar. Please do me the justice of explaining these very strong claims with explanation and Scripture. If I have come across as angry or offensive in my responses, please forgive me. I am not angry, nor am I trying to be offensive. I am just defending my position and showing why I do not hold to your position. So, let me briefly respond to your very brief response.

Can you show me where I am ignoring Scripture? I arrived at my position by studying Scripture...not by having someone teach me a doctrine which I try to find a way to back with the Bible. I could be wrong in my understanding of Scripture on this issue, but I assure you that I am basing my position on the NT teachings...as I have tried to show by the texts I have provided. In my defense, you have only provided two passages (one in Romans and one in Deuteronomy). I have tried diligently to show you how I understand those texts and why I do not believe they teach what you are suggesting.

Since you brought Deuteronomy 30:1-6 up again, allow me to follow up. If you continue reading that passage to verse 7 and following, you will read a section that Paul quotes in Romans 10:6ff. I find it striking that Paul uses verses in the context of Israel 's upholding of the law to remain in the land as the very text which he uses Christ as the means by which Israel could uphold the law: by faith in Christ. I believe the NT teaches that Christ is the bread from heaven that sustains Israel, the struck rock that pours water for Israel, the Yeshua who gives his people true rest...rest that Joshua did not provide. He is the true Temple that fulfilled the shadows of the Temple in Israel, and those who put their faith in him are living stones that make up that Temple. He is the food, the drink, the Temple, the land, the promises, the priesthood, the sacrifice and everything the OT pointed to finds its culmination in him. I think the refocusing on a people group and a physical land misses this important teaching.

You claimed that the return of Israel from captivity in Babylon could not be the fulfillment of God's promises in Deuteronomy because some tribes were not included. 1) Then I would argue that the prophecy could never be fulfilled to our knowledge. Who now is currently tracking the genealogy of Israel, especially the tribes dispersed by Assyria? If the only way to say this is fulfilled is to have a list of people from every tribe at our disposal, then it will never happen because no such list exists. So the standard you are holding against the first return to the land as insufficient to meet this prophecy's requirements is certainly too strict for any such return today or in the future. Moreover, how do you know some of the people dispersed by Assyria did not return at the decree of Cyrus? Maybe not formally as recorded by the tribes who left Babylon, but certainly many peoples (not just Israel) from all over the world returned home at the decree of Cyrus. 2) This text in Deuteronomy is not a prophetic declaration but a promise of restoration to a repentant people. So this is a promise of God's ability to forgive and restore, not a prediction that a return to the land will happen in some prescriptive way. 3) I think Paul makes it clear here in Romans 10:6ff that the fulfillment of the deliverance God promised in that passage in Deuteronomy is found in Christ and is for both Jews and Gentiles. Paul quotes the immediate context of Deut. 20:1-6 to show that Christ was their current means of deliverance.

I believe the NT declaration that God no longer makes distinction between Jew and Gentile. His children are children of faith in Jesus. They are natural Israel (believing Jews) and unnatural/grafted in Israel (believing Gentiles). They will be gathered from all over the world to inhabit God's city of promise at the return of Christ. Those who do not believe, no matter their nationality, are not children of God. I think Jesus made that clear. I think the doctrine that God has a special plan to bring an unbelieving Israelite to salvation apart from his plan for the rest of the world goes against the teaching of Paul that God shows no favoritism and is no respecter of persons.

“They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:39–44, ESV)
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Michael,

First, let me just say that as we discuss these issues of Scripture, let us try to keep this a discussion where we honor one another and respect each other as brothers in Christ. I may strongly reject a doctrine you hold and defend my views strongly, but this is much different than claiming that one person is making God a liar or is being offensive to another simply because they disagree on a doctrine. I could certainly be wrong in this area, but as you requested, I tried to provide a number of Scriptural references that backed my views. Your only response to all these texts I provided was that I am using doctrine to interpret Scripture and that I am making God a liar. Please do me the justice of explaining these very strong claims with explanation and Scripture. If I have come across as angry or offensive in my responses, please forgive me. I am not angry, nor am I trying to be offensive. I am just defending my position and showing why I do not hold to your position. So, let me briefly respond to your very brief response.
I hope that you're really not going to make me give a list to you of all the passages that speak to a restoration of national Israel. It's huge and will take me hours even with bible software. But I'll provide a few, however at this point it seems like an exercise in futility.
22 Thus says the Lord God:

“Behold, I will lift My hand in an oath to the nations, And set up My standard for the peoples;
They shall bring your sons in their arms, And your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders;
23 Kings shall be your foster fathers, And their queens your nursing mothers;
They shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth, And lick up the dust of your feet.
Then you will know that I am the Lord,
For they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me.” Isaiah 49:22-23
This was fulfilled by Cyrus's decree? Or by any of the Medes and the Persians? I am glad that I looked at this as it does support the notion that the glorified church will have a responsibility for the sons and daughters left alive at the end of the tribulation.
11 “O you afflicted one, Tossed with tempest, and not comforted, Behold, I will lay your stones with colorful gems, And lay your foundations with sapphires.
12 I will make your pinnacles of rubies, Your gates of crystal, And all your walls of precious stones.
13 All your children shall be taught by the Lord, And great shall be the peace of your children.
14 In righteousness you shall be established; You shall be far from oppression, for you shall not fear; And from terror, for it shall not come near you.
15 Indeed they shall surely assemble, but not because of Me. Whoever assembles against you shall fall for your sake.
Isaiah 54:11-15
How in the world or in Christ can you see this as fulfilled in the church and who is going to assemble against the church after it's glorified? I'm quite anxious to hear an explanation of this promise; it should be quite profound indeed.
No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people,
And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the Lord, And their offspring with them.
Isaiah 65:20-23
Again, in what manner or fashion are these promises fulfilled in the church either now or when its been glorified? Do you think that glorified believers, no longer given in marriage, are going to produce mortal offspring?
I don't think that I've exhausted Isaiah yet, but there are a whole lot more verses in the prophets about the national restoration and God's earthly kingdom. I've never said that this somehow occurs outside of Christ, and that would be absurd. These promises are real, they are the word of God, and I'd be fascinated to hear your explanation of their "fulfillment."
Did it ever occur to you that God doesn't need a genealogical list to identify the ten northern tribes from among the peoples of the earth? He is able to restore the tribes by name if He so desires, and since His word promises these things, it must be part of His plan to do so. But go ahead and clarify the error of all those who believe that God will keep His word to those whom He has afflicted, not just before the appearing of Christ, but since then as well.

7 “The Lord will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall not become greater than that of Judah. 8 In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the Lord before them. Zechariah 12:6-8
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well I can see the tone of this will likely not change. That is unfortunate. Anyways...

Id be happy to respond to your verses when you begin to respond to mine. Ignoring everything I have written really kinds of makes this discussion pointless. Are we trying to understand each other here or have you already determined my views to be "absurd" and therefore hardly worth skimming or giving a response.

Understand that it is not me, but the NT writers who continually point to the promises of the OT and the hope of Israel being found in the resurrection...not in military dominance of a national people group. Moreover, it is the NT writers, not me, who continually speak of true Israel as believing Jews and Gentiles. So if the NT writers understood the Church to be true Israel, why wouldn't they expect the promises of the OT to be for them (believing Jews and Gentiles)...not for Jews only?

Why did Matthew interpret "out of Egypt I have called my Son" to be a reference to Jesus? Go read the OT text he quotes and tell me if that is a reference to Jesus. Why did the Author of Hebrews see Melchizadek as a reference to Jesus? Why did Peter use the phrases "kingdom of priests, holy nation, chosen race" as referring to uncircumcised Gentiles when those phrases are ONLY used of national Israel in the OT? The problem here is not what the OT says, but how the NT authors understood the Church and Jesus in light of the OT. They used texts that were speaking clearly of Israel and applied them to Jesus and the Church. So for you to say, "This can only be for national Israel" is baseless to me. Point to one NT text that says there is a specific promise for the Jewish nation of which Gentile believers are excluded.

Who is going to assemble against the church after its glorified? I don't know, but I know the New Jerusalem has walls and with gems (amazingly like the gems of Isaiah 54). Why would we need walls in the new earth? Or maybe there is some poetic symbolism in some of this prophetic talk. I don't think anyone will be holding a clipboard saying "Wait...this cant be the fulfillment unless one of these guys comes and literally licks the dust from my boot!" Yes, a day when children will be 100 when they die. Also a day when the plowman will overtake the reaper (which Paul uses in reference to the preaching of the Gospel). God also owns the cattle on 1000 hills. But who is arguing that hill #1001 does not belong to God? I think its interesting where we determine whats literal and whats a figure of speech. I find it seems to revolve around the doctrine we choose to defend.

Did it ever occur to you that God doesn't need a genealogical list to identify the ten northern tribes from among the peoples of the earth? He is able to restore the tribes by name if He so desires, and since His word promises these things, it must be part of His plan to do so.
God promised to restore those who repent (which is fulfilled in Christ (Romans 10:6ff which mentions this very text!)). He was not making a prophetic declaration to restore all 12 tribes exactly in some prescriptive way. There is a difference between a promise to faithfully restore the repentant and a prophetic declaration that something specific will occur in the future. If I promise to give you 10$ if you give me a ride to the store, then I will give you 10$ if you give me a ride. Its not a prophetic declaration that one day in the future you'll give me a ride and ill give you 10$. If you don't give me a ride...you don't get $10. See the difference? Unbelieving Israelites did not receive OT promises just as unbelieving NT Israelites will not receive those promises either.

You don't have to tire yourself by quoting OT texts that you feel prove your point. Just simply do this: Show me some NT texts that make the case that God has a separate plan and separate promises for the Jews that do not apply to believing Gentiles. If you cant do that, then I will just assume that my understanding of how Paul and the other Scripture writers saw the church is accurate and the focus to which the OT promises were made.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
I wish to thank everybody who has expressed their personal views on the rapture topic.

It can be difficult when we discuss what we actually believe ... as compared to what we have been led to believe

I am prepared to go through the great tribulation even though I am pre-trib by beleif

I am pre-trib for several reasons
-- I like the sounds of it
-- it keeps me from the wrath to come
-- it is an easy way out of trouble
-- it makes me feel smarter than those who think they will go through it
-- it makes me have security in Jesus Christ and that he will protect little old me
-- if I do not have that security then it all depends on what I do
-- if Christianity depends on what i do ... then Christianity is in trouble
-- if Christianity depends on what Christ does ... then we will be OK
-- I depend on him
-- without Him it will not work
-- the great tribulation has nothing to do with what i think or beleive
-- it is between Christ and those folks who do not want Christ
-- I only know I want Him
--- and he will not hold that against me.


best wishes to everybody

your friend arnie
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
The 'harpazo' event ("caught up" of 1 Thess.4) is about the revealing of the Heavenly dimension right here on earth when Jesus comes, and His gathering of His Church to Him In Jerusalem. It's that simple.

It is NOT a 'rapture' out of this world away from the earth to where The Father's Abode is, it is a gathering to Jerusalem where Jesus returns as written. It is the end of this present world and the things of it.

As per Isaiah 25 and Revelation 22:14-15, all nations and peoples who refused Christ Jesus will go through the change of a different body also, except they just won't be gathered by Christ Jesus. They will remain separate throughout Christ's thousand years reign with His elect.

But what are men's doctrines teaching instead? Those whom God did not send teach that we 'fly away' off this earth to Heaven while everyone is "left behind" to suffer the great tribulation, and then come back to earth with Jesus after the tribulation. That idea of course is NOT written anywhere in God's Word.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How convenient it is that everything you believe is God's teaching while everyone who disagrees with you is consumed by men's doctrines. I agree with you that there is no secret rapture, but I would never say that those who believe in a secret rapture are consumed by men's doctrines and are not sent by God. These are peripheral matters and you act as if they are essential beliefs for salvation. You would probably find these forums more enjoyable and edifying if you were a little less judgmental and accusatory toward others and actually tried to learn what others believed and examined the Scriptures honestly regarding their validity.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Wormwood said:
How convenient it is that everything you believe is God's teaching while everyone who disagrees with you is consumed by men's doctrines. I agree with you that there is no secret rapture, but I would never say that those who believe in a secret rapture are consumed by men's doctrines and are not sent by God. These are peripheral matters and you act as if they are essential beliefs for salvation. You would probably find these forums more enjoyable and edifying if you were a little less judgmental and accusatory toward others and actually tried to learn what others believed and examined the Scriptures honestly regarding their validity.
Is that some attempt to put your anger into words for my revealing of God's Truth as written?

IF you really read God's Word for yourself then you'd understand what I'm saying. But you cannot because you don't listen to Him in His Word, but to a bunch of doctrines formed by 'men' instead, great walls of untempered mortar that are soon to be washed away!

Try reading what God said in Ezekiel 13 for 'yourself' next time before you go murmuring.


Isn't that what some love to do brethren with the parts of God's Word they REFUSE to accept? They start looking for someone else to blame God's warnings on instead of heeding The One Who gave those warnings!!! Don't they know they are rejecting HIS WORD, and not that of another???

Ezek 13:18-23
18 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of My people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you?
19 And will ye pollute Me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to My people that hear your lies?
20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
21 Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver My people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:
23 Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
(KJV)
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Well I can see the tone of this will likely not change. That is unfortunate. Anyways...
[SIZE=medium]Id be happy to[/SIZE]



[SIZE=medium]I find the online editor more than a little "user unfriendly" so I'll quote you in green and with an indent.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Id be happy to respond to your verses when you begin to respond to mine. Ignoring everything I have written really kinds of makes this discussion pointless. Are we trying to understand each other here or have you already determined my views to be "absurd" and therefore hardly worth skimming or giving a response. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] I don’t consider your “views” to be absurd, but do see them as limited and narrow. They are limited in the sense that they discount huge sections of the scripture, the word of God, as irrelevant and somehow meaningless, as though God said it and then later changed His mind (It really wasn’t what He meant to say.) The latter is certainly absurd. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Your views are narrow in the sense that you can’t see a purpose to the restoration of Israel in God’s redemptive plan and purpose. I’ve never said that His promises were only for the Jews, but clearly He’s made promises to Abraham that were given be a blessing to all peoples , and other promises to an unredeemed people, descendants of Jacob, that were tied to His covenant on Mt. Sinai. The covenant of law is fulfilled in Christ Jesus, but clearly there are descendants of Jacob who have never entered into His new Covenant. The fact that the Covenant of law is superseded by the covenant of mercy, does not abrogate God’s promises. Since some remain unfulfilled within the context of the church, then clearly God still has a plan for those who haven’t received Him. If you think God’s plan for those peoples is hellfire, then you aren’t understanding who God is. If you don’t believe in hell, then you’re rejecting what Jesus Himself taught.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Understand that it is not me, but the NT writers who continually point to the promises of the OT and the hope of Israel being found in the resurrection...not in military dominance of a national people group. Moreover, it is the NT writers, not me, who continually speak of true Israel as believing Jews and Gentiles. So if the NT writers understood the Church to be true Israel, why wouldn't they expect the promises of the OT to be for them (believing Jews and Gentiles)...not for Jews only? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Paul wrote the majority of New Testament scripture and he saw a future restoration of Israel, as demonstrated in the passage from Romans that I’ve already posted in response to your doctrine. Paul never said that the promises were for Jews only and neither did I. On the contrary, the Church remains a necessary part of God’s plan in the restoration of a national Israel. If we are to be “rulers” together with Christ in His kingdom, over whom shall we rule? It certainly isn’t over other Christians; I’ll be your king and you can be mine? Who is that lowly servant in India or Africa or Iraq, ruling over when he’s dragged out of his bed in the middle of the night and beheaded or burnt alive for his faith in his redeemer? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]22 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Thus says the Lord [/SIZE]God: “Behold, I will lift My hand in an oath to the nations, [SIZE=medium]And set up My standard for the peoples; They shall bring your sons in their arms, And your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders; [/SIZE][SIZE=small]23 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Kings shall be your foster fathers,[/SIZE] And their queens your nursing mothers; They shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth, And lick up the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord, For they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me.” [SIZE=medium]Isaiah 49:22-23[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Why did Matthew interpret "out of Egypt I have called my Son" to be a reference to Jesus? Go read the OT text he quotes and tell me if that is a reference to Jesus. Why did the Author of Hebrews see Melchizadek as a reference to Jesus? Why did Peter use the phrases "kingdom of priests, holy nation, chosen race" as referring to uncircumcised Gentiles when those phrases are ONLY used of national Israel in the OT? The problem here is not what the OT says, but how the NT authors understood the Church and Jesus in light of the OT. They used texts that were speaking clearly of Israel and applied them to Jesus and the Church. So for you to say, "This can only be for national Israel" is baseless to me. Point to one NT text that says there is a specific promise for the Jewish nation of which Gentile believers are excluded. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] Matthew wrote of scriptural fulfillment in Jesus’ stay in Egypt because God told Moses to tell Pharaoh to release His Son, and yes, this did refer to Jesus in the form of the Holy Seed, the son of promise. The author of Hebrews wasn’t using Melchizadek as a reference to Jesus, but as a "type" of Jesus, being of a “different” priesthood. The comparison was between the Levitical priesthood, promised to the sons of Levi and specifically to the descendants of Aaron (Jesus was not descended from Aaron according to the flesh or at least according to the author of the letter we have as “Hebrews”.) Hebrews is about the excellencies of Christ and of that of the covenant which is by faith as compared to the covenant of law (or of “dead works.”)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Who is going to assemble against the church after its glorified? I don't know, but I know the New Jerusalem has walls and with gems (amazingly like the gems of Isaiah 54). Why would we need walls in the new earth? Or maybe there is some poetic symbolism in some of this prophetic talk. I don't think anyone will be holding a clipboard saying "Wait...this cant be the fulfillment unless one of these guys comes and literally licks the dust from my boot!" Yes, a day when children will be 100 when they die. Also a day when the plowman will overtake the reaper (which Paul uses in reference to the preaching of the Gospel). God also owns the cattle on 1000 hills. But who is arguing that hill #1001 does not belong to God? I think its interesting where we determine whats literal and whats a figure of speech. I find it seems to revolve around the doctrine we choose to defend.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] God’s promises are not “figures of speech.” The reason that you don’t have answers to such questions is because your doctrine doesn’t allow for it: I.E.: You let your doctrine interpret scripture.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]God promised to restore those who repent (which is fulfilled in Christ ([/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Romans 10:6ff[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] which mentions this very text!)). He was not making a prophetic declaration to restore all 12 tribes exactly in some prescriptive way. There is a difference between a promise to faithfully restore the repentant and a prophetic declaration that something specific will occur in the future. If I promise to give you 10$ if you give me a ride to the store, then I will give you 10$ if you give me a ride. Its not a prophetic declaration that one day in the future you'll give me a ride and ill give you 10$. If you don't give me a ride...you don't get $10. See the difference? Unbelieving Israelites did not receive OT promises just as unbelieving NT Israelites will not receive those promises either. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] Reducto absurdium.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]You don’t have to tire yourself by quoting OT texts that you feel prove your point. Just simply do this: Show me some NT texts that make the case that God has a separate plan and separate promises for the Jews that do not apply to believing Gentiles. If you cant do that, then I will just assume that my understanding of how Paul and the other Scripture writers saw the church is accurate and the focus to which the OT promises were made. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I don’t “feel” that the scripture proves my point. God’s word stands upon its own. God doesn’t have a separate plan and separate promises for the Jews and the gentiles, but your doctrine will only allow you to see scripture in that light (or perhaps lack of it.)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I have a question for you, that might help me to understand exactly where you’re coming from. Why do you use the screen name “wormwood,” given that wormwood is the biblical equivalent of “bitterness?”[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Michael,
I don’t consider your “views” to be absurd, but do see them as limited and narrow. They are limited in the sense that they discount huge sections of the scripture, the word of God, as irrelevant and somehow meaningless, as though God said it and then later changed His mind (It really wasn’t what He meant to say.) The latter is certainly absurd.
Maybe this is how you read my interpretations, but this is certainly not what I have said. I have never claimed that God did not mean what he said. I am saying that "Israel" and the promises made to this people group is defined in the New Testament as Jews and grafted in Gentiles who believe in Jesus. Thus, the promises in the OT to God's faithful people belong still to God's faithful people (which are now defined as those who have faith in Jesus). Jesus IS Israel fulfilled and those who are in Christ are true Israel. Paul makes this astoundingly clear. So the problem here is not that I discount God's promises, but that I believe those promises are fulfilled in Christ (as Paul makes clear in Galatians 3). God always saved people of faith and has never been a deliverer of the faithless. If the OT teaches us anything, its that God did not deliver Israel when she was faithless...rather he judged her. So the fact that you still want to make the promises of God apply to a nationality rather than a people of faith discounts the teaching of both the New and Old Testaments in my opinion. I hope this helps.


The author of Hebrews wasn’t using Melchizadek as a reference to Jesus, but as a "type" of Jesus, being of a “different” priesthood.
Doesn't a "type" of Jesus make reference to Jesus?

God’s promises are not “figures of speech.” The reason that you don’t have answers to such questions is because your doctrine doesn’t allow for it: I.E.: You let your doctrine interpret scripture.
God communicates to us through language such as poetry, proverbs, parables, narratives, apocalyptic literature, etc. God is not a 21st century Western American who wants to make everything fit into a science book. Are you telling me that there is literally going to be a multi-headed dragon that erupts from the sea and beast-like creatures are going to crawl out of the ocean and ground as declared in Revelation? I mean, if you want to be "literal" and take God at his word...this is what you are saying...right? So who gets to decide what is a metaphor, image, or literal declaration? Why is it okay for you to view this symbolically, but is an offense to God's word for me to view Isaiah's prophetic vision of paradise that way? Are you suggesting the New Jerusalem will be a literal cube with walls around it that have gems in them? What good would walls be in heaven? What good are walls today??? The locusts with long hair and teeth....what about those? The prophets in the OT often paint beautiful pictures of the promises of God in to a people who are about to undergo horrible judgment. These pictures are way better when understood in their imagery than when flattened by a Western modernistic agenda. For example. Jesus said we should forgive like the Father forgives...70x7. Does that mean God only forgives 490 times? or, is 7 a number of perfection and completion multiplied by itself times 10? Which is more beautiful and powerful? Which is a more limiting and narrow look at God's word?

Veteran,
Is that some attempt to put your anger into words for my revealing of God's Truth as written?

IF you really read God's Word for yourself then you'd understand what I'm saying. But you cannot because you don't listen to Him in His Word, but to a bunch of doctrines formed by 'men' instead, great walls of untempered mortar that are soon to be washed away!

Try reading what God said in Ezekiel 13 for 'yourself' next time before you go murmuring.
No, its my attempt to show that it is a good thing for fellow Christians to show respect and kindness to each other...even when they disagree.

I read God's word for myself...unless I'm listening to it on my iPhone. We all approach the Word of God with preconceptions. Whether you like it or not.

I will read Ezekiel 13 for myself, and I will be sure not to direct my comments (I assure you there was no murmuring going on...perhaps a bit of chuckling though :) ) at you in the future since they trouble you so much.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Wormwood said:
Veteran,

No, its my attempt to show that it is a good thing for fellow Christians to show respect and kindness to each other...even when they disagree.

I read God's word for myself...unless I'm listening to it on my iPhone. We all approach the Word of God with preconceptions. Whether you like it or not.

I will read Ezekiel 13 for myself, and I will be sure not to direct my comments (I assure you there was no murmuring going on...perhaps a bit of chuckling though :) ) at you in the future since they trouble you so much.
It is good when two people can converse like adults, but that doesn't mean a rebuke isn't warranted at times.

And no, we do not ALL approach God's Word with preconceptions, since the preconceptions idea you're inferring points to men's traditions instead of staying with the Scripture itself.

When a believer on Christ Jesus has studied enough of God's Word for theirself the way God said do it, and learns to listen to Him in His Word regardless of the popular traditions of men, that's when those preconceptions begin to leave. One learns to accept what God reveals as written, regardless of being able to fully understand how what is revealed can be.

So when God said He is against those false prophets of the house of Israel who hunt the souls to make them fly per Ezekiel 13, and that He did not 'send' them, that's HIM speaking, not me.