22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

The principal element that joins the old and the new, Jew and Gentile, together is shown to be Jesus Christ. He overlaps both covenants, He brings a continuity in salvation and is at the core of meeting man’s greatest need in any day.

Sure, but this is NOT the subject of Romans 9-11. Paul is not talking about individual Gentiles or individual Jews in those chapters. In those chapters, the term "Israel" represents the nation God formed at Mt. Sinai; the term "Gentiles" represent all the other nations of the world.

Paul shows how national religious Israel missed the boat because they rejected Christ (“they stumbled at that stumblingstone”). Also, they were bound to a religious aberration that revolved around keeping the law.

Negative, Israel's problem was NOT that they failed to keep the Law. They were keeping it just fine. Israel's problem is that she sought justification through obedience outside the purview of faith. (Romans 9:32) Israel did not arrive at justification because she did not "pursue it by faith."

Albert Barnes explains: “This rock, designed as a corner stone to the church, became, by the wickedness of the Jews, the block over which they fall into ruin.”

I disagree with Barnes. Wickedness was always found among the nation of Israel. And she persecuted many of the prophets, not just Jesus exclusively. What was the offence of Jesus? His offence was the fact that, being a man, he claimed to be the son of God, the messiah. That was the offence that caused Israel to stumble.

Dispensationalists argue that Romans 9–11 is all about ethnic Israel. But it clearly isn’t!

Clearly it is. His argument opens with the following statement.

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.​

How one can miss this I don't know.
Your explanation quickly skips and ignores this. Too bad.

In these three chapters he speaks about the nation Israel, not individual Jews. In that context he argues that God is not done with Israel, the nation.

 

[WPM]

I asked you to provide scriptures where Jesus or the Apostles refer to the New Testament church as "Israel." I read and understood your narrative, but you need to prove it, not simply restate it. Amillennial doctrine redefines terms, especially the term "Israel." The fact is, the New Testament NEVER redefines the New Testament Church as Israel. Not ever, not once. You have NO Biblical evidence for that view. Period.

I showed you proof above and you skipped around it again. That is the Premil MO on these forums. They have to! They have no answer to the sacred text.

Negative. Paul, in Ephesians, acknowledges that the Gentiles are NOT citizens of Israel, but not to worry, both Jew and Gentiles are united in a NEW anthropos.


Negative, the Olive Tree doesn't represent Israel. The Olive Tree represents generations of people who have access to the Abrahamic promises.


Negative. Gentiles are being added to the household of God, not the household of Israel.


The tree doesn't represent Israel. No one is grafted onto Israel. There is no such thing as "natural Israel" vs. "Spiritual Israel." You have misconstrued Romans 11.

Amillennial doctrine confuses and conflates "Jew" (the individual) with "Israel" the nation. Paul's argument in Romans 11 is concerned with Israel, the nation. Not a Jew taken as an individual. Paul would never argue, for instance, that a Jew was cut off the tree so that a Gentile might be grafted to the tree.

My previous posts refute this. Please address.

 

[WPM]

Sure, but this is NOT the subject of Romans 9-11. Paul is not talking about individual Gentiles or individual Jews in those chapters. In those chapters, the term "Israel" represents the nation God formed at Mt. Sinai; the term "Gentiles" represent all the other nations of the world.


Negative, Israel's problem was NOT that they failed to keep the Law. They were keeping it just fine. Israel's problem is that she sought justification through obedience outside the purview of faith. (Romans 9:32) Israel did not arrive at justification because she did not "pursue it by faith."


I disagree with Barnes. Wickedness was always found among the nation of Israel. And she persecuted many of the prophets, not just Jesus exclusively. What was the offence of Jesus? His offence was the fact that, being a man, he claimed to be the son of God, the messiah. That was the offence that caused Israel to stumble.


Clearly it is. His argument opens with the following statement.

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.​

How one can miss this I don't know.
Your explanation quickly skips and ignores this. Too bad.

In these three chapters he speaks about the nation Israel, not individual Jews. In that context he argues that God is not done with Israel, the nation.

Paul continually differentiates between the Israelite according to “the flesh” and Israelite according to “the Spirit.” He frequently qualifies his use of the Israeli or Jewish label, showing that there is both a natural and a spiritual understanding in these designations. 1 Corinthians 10:18 says, “Israel after the flesh.” In Romans 9:3 he describes the natural Jew as “my kinsmen according to the flesh” and in Romans 9:4-5 describes them as “Israelites ... as concerning the flesh.” Paul describes natural Israel as: “them which are my flesh” (Romans 11:14).

Acts 13:26 talks about “children of the stock [Gr. genos or genealogy] of Abraham” and Philippians 3:5 those “of the stock [Gr. genos] of Israel.” The Bible is here speaking in a natural sense. The Greek word genos basically means kindred or offspring.

Acts 14:2 speaks about “the unbelieving Jews” or in Acts 17:5 “the Jews which believed not.”

Romans 10:1-3 tells us: “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

National Israel didn’t get it. They were sold on a religious delusion. What is more, “the zeal of God” they had was “not according to knowledge.” They were ignorant. They were blind. They had a false perception of truth in their head, which resulted in them practicing a faulty religious system. The nation had invented a religion of good works, which was an anathema to God. The reason they did this was because they were “ignorant of God's righteousness.” They had no revelation of imputed righteousness.

Romans 9:32 tells us: “Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone.” Basically, they stumbled because of Jesus Christ. They didn’t get who He was and what He came to do. They rejected man’s only hope of redemption.

National religious Israel missed the boat because they rejected Christ (“they stumbled at that stumblingstone.”). Also, they were bound to an apostate system that revolved around keeping the law. The fact is: none of them could keep it. They were totally deceived in thinking they could. They were not a believing people which is why they were cut out of the good Israeli olive tree.

 

[WPM]

As I said in my previous post, Paul never argues that Gentile have been united to Israel. Rather, as he says in Ephesians, both Jew and Gentile are united in "one new man" or a "new anthropos." Paul is not advocating for an improved Israel. He announces an entirely new thing.

Yes, we are being added to the household of God as I said in my previous post. But Paul isn't saying that Gentiles have become citizens of Israel as you suppose. He did not say that.

Where? Only you designate the church as "Israel" The Bible doesn't do that. As I say, you confuse and conflate two distinct concepts: a person considered as an individual person, and a nation considered together as a group of people. Once one abandons that error, it is much more difficult to support Amillennialism.

Does the New Testament teach that Christ has united both Jews and Gentiles under himself? Yes. Does result in a new Spiritual Israel? No.

This is getting tiresome. Stop constantly avoiding the issues. Address the evidence before you. My previous posts refute this. Please address.

 

[Timtofly]

Keep your childish threats to yourself. They do not intimidate me or move me. There was no insults intended in my last post. There was no misrepresenting of your position. Because you could not deal with what I said you resort to threats of spreading lies about Amil. Really? Is this Christ-like? Does this advance your cause?



With the first advent of Christ, God introduced a new religious arrangement that changed the format of God’s engagement with man, and also enlarged the geographical range of His grace. Israel lost its exclusive privileged place under the new economy. The theocratic system was dismantled. The old covenant ceremonial system was replaced with a better, stronger, broader, more glorious and longer-lasting covenant. Under the new covenant there was absolutely no difference placed between Jews and Gentiles. Both enjoy equal status through faith in Christ. The New Testament expanded the Gospel thrust to embrace all nations. The new covenant knew no ethnic, political or religious boundaries. It was a global trans-national scheme that targeted a fallen world.

A lot of Christians today overlook this reality because they have a bias and faulty perspective of natural Israel. They make the mistake of viewing physical Israel today through Old Testament glasses. They fail to see that the Old Testament dispensation has gone forever and the New Testament era has fully and wholly superseded it. The old system has been totally dismantled and abolished because it was only ever intended to be a temporary covenant with an expiration date. Its conclusion occurred when Christ died on the cross. We see that with the ripping of the curtain in the temple at the very moment Jesus breathed His last breath (Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46). It therefore has no further purpose for time and eternity.

Ignorance of New Testament truth leads many to a distorted and erroneous understanding of Old Testament truth. Ironically, and paradoxically, especially allowing for how they describe themselves, many Futurists choose to live in the past. They understand ethnic Israel today in an old covenant sense, rather than a new covenant context. It is as if the old covenant is still active and valid and the new covenant has yet to arrive. Futurists seem unable (or unwilling) to recognize the seismic shift that occurred through the introduction of the new covenant. When pressed, they continually run back to the Old Testament for some type of support for a favored place for national Israel, a return of the Jews to their ancient land boundaries, the reintroduction of the old covenant apparatus, including a rebuilt physical temple, animal blood sacrifices, and a restored Old Testament priesthood. They have to pitch their tent in the Hebrew Scriptures because they have absolutely no endorsement in the New Testament for their theological model.

Sensible and enlightened Bible scholars place greater emphasis on the New Testament because it is the fuller revelation and it is where we now reside. God’s truth has been a gradual progressive unfolding and unveiling of truth to mankind from the beginning. The change and advancement that came with the New Testament era did not jettison the old Hebrew promises but rather fulfilled them. The doctrinal light became a lot clearer with Christ’s appearance and vivid illumination of the whole dynamic between the Old and the New Testament and the first and second advents. Our Lord removed the existing vail, dispelled the religious mist and has shed much-needed light on God’s redemptive plan.



You are so entangled in Zionism that you fight with Christ, Paul and the NT writers that show true Israel to be that believing remnant that expanded out to the nations. We have been grafted into believing Israel.

Read the inspired NT text and see how the Holy Spirit deems modern-day Christ-rejecting Jerusalem, that you are mistakenly besotted with:

Galatians 4:22-31 says, “Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.”

Revelation 11:8 explicitly states, “the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.”

These are not commendations but condemnations. They expose modern-day Premil Zionism. This was theology birthed by the heretical founders of modern-day Premil - Cerenthius, Marcion and Apollinarius. Such was rejected by ancient Chiliasm and ancient Amil.

It was always God’s heart to expand His old covenant congregation (the ekklesia) out beyond the borders of national Israel, to reach the Gentile people. The Church itself was not a mystery (or secret) prior to Paul, neither was God’s great eternal plan of redemption, neither was the ingathering of the Gentiles. Passage after passage in the Old Testament predicted these events. What was a mystery was the Gentiles being “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” Dispensationalists make the existence of the ekklesia the “mystery” in order to support their theology, even though it has been around as long as there have been believers.

Mirroring the process that a caterpillar undergoes developing into the maturity and beauty of a colorful butterfly, the Old Testament Church underwent a significant metamorphic change in the New Testament, progressing into the current Spirit-filled international New Testament Church. The ekklesia essentially took on wings! That is not to say that we can separate the elect of God in either dispensation or view them as two different entities. Rather, we must view both as the same organic entity.

With such sweeping changes, how is this not a form of dispensational thought? Why is your dispensational imaginings of symbolic gesture better than any other human's attempt at dispensations?

The OT were in Christ, the same as we have been since 30AD. The difference is their souls no longer reside in Abraham's bosom. Since the Cross those in Christ go straight to Paradise. The means has been the same since Enoch. The place of the soul changed at the Cross.

The gospel still was the only light in the world since Noah, just like it is the only light in the world now. When Christians speak louder than the Gospel is when humans are still in darkness.

Certainly the gospel was seen walking in the furnace of fire during the Babylonian captivity. The Gospel is only a mystery, when human imagination speaks louder than the gospel is allowed to do in our conversations.

 

[Timtofly]

I am shocked that you deny that Jesus is the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 presents Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Revelation 1:5 uses the same Greek word to describe Christ’s triumphant resurrection, saying, “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Paul similarly says in 1 Corinthians 15:20, “now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”

Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

This is evidence! This is corroboration!

I am shocked you reject the OT redeemed as being the firstfruits of Jesus who is the Resurrection and the Life.

The first resurrection was physical. Do you claim Jesus was only symbolically resurrected, or physically resurrected. The first resurrection is physical and Jesus proved that by resurrecting Lazarus from a physical grave. Jesus had a physical resurrection out of the grave. That is the first resurrection. After Armageddon there is a first physical resurrection of those just beheaded in the previous 42 months that ended at Armageddon.

Revelation 20:4 is not the resurrection in 30AD. Those beheaded have not even been beheaded yet, as we post about it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I am shocked that you deny that Jesus is the first resurrection.

All depends on how you want to tdefine the resurrection.

If it is simply someone rising from the dead- No Jesus wasn't. OT poeople were risen from teh dead, Lazarus was risen from the dead, widows son of Naim was risen etc.

2. If you mean risen never to die again? Yes Jesus is the first.

3. As to Rev. 20- that is the end times general resurrection and Jesus was risen now it will be at least 3,000 years before that first resurrection.

What I ma surprised at is that you demand be the firsat Resurrection of REvelation 20 and yet cannot name when the saints who were beheaded for not taking the mark lived and died and were resurrected!

 

[WPM]

All depends on how you want to tdefine the resurrection.

If it is simply someone rising from the dead- No Jesus wasn't. OT poeople were risen from teh dead, Lazarus was risen from the dead, widows son of Naim was risen etc.

2. If you mean risen never to die again? Yes Jesus is the first.

3. As to Rev. 20- that is the end times general resurrection and Jesus was risen now it will be at least 3,000 years before that first resurrection.

What I ma surprised at is that you demand be the firsat Resurrection of REvelation 20 and yet cannot name when the saints who were beheaded for not taking the mark lived and died and were resurrected!

You know exactly what I meant and what Scripture means. Lazurus never conquered the grave. He eventually died. Jesus was the first to conquer the grave. He was the first to rise and never to die again. That is a biblical fact! This proves the location of Rev 20 is ongoing. It was through that great victory that the redeemed dead conquer the grave and go into the immediate presence of Jesus. That is what Rev 20 is showing. Jesus is indeed "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You know exactly what I meant and what Scripture means. Lazurus never conquered the grave. He eventually died. Jesus was the first to conquer the grave. He was the first to rise and never to die again. That is a biblical fact! This proves the location of Rev 20 is ongoing. It was through that great victory that the redeemed dead conquer the grave and go into the immediate presence of Jesus. That is what Rev 20 is showing. Jesus is indeed "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5).

Then I agree with you that Jesus is the first. But I have learned to be punctiliously specific on thes site cuz people will howl like a werewolf!

 

[CadyandZoe]

I showed you proof above and you skipped around it again.

No, you did not show proof. You simply explicated the text based on your presumed narrative. But your narrative also needs to be proven. I maintain that the New Testament NEVER refers to the church as Israel.

My previous posts refute this. Please address.

Your interpretation of the Olive Tree is without support. Paul NEVER says or even hints that the Olive Tree represents Israel. He doesn't.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul continually differentiates between the Israelite according to “the flesh” and Israelite according to “the Spirit.”

Where? You are making this up.

He frequently qualifies his use of the Israeli or Jewish label, showing that there is both a natural and a spiritual understanding in these designations. 1 Corinthians 10:18 says, “Israel after the flesh.” In Romans 9:3 he describes the natural Jew as “my kinsmen according to the flesh” and in Romans 9:4-5 describes them as “Israelites ... as concerning the flesh.” Paul describes natural Israel as: “them which are my flesh” (Romans 11:14).

Yes, he uses the phrase "Israelite according to the flesh." But he NEVER uses the phrase "Israelite according to the spirit."

Acts 14:2 speaks about “the unbelieving Jews” or in Acts 17:5 “the Jews which believed not.”

Again, I maintain that the Bible NEVER refers to the body of Christ as "Israel."

Romans 10:1-3 tells us: “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

National Israel didn’t get it.

Paul didn't say "National Israel" YOU DID. He doesn't make the distinction you are making. He doesn't. Not ever. Israel is Israel. That's it.

National religious Israel missed the boat because they rejected Christ (“they stumbled at that stumblingstone.”). Also, they were bound to an apostate system that revolved around keeping the law. The fact is: none of them could keep it. They were totally deceived in thinking they could. They were not a believing people which is why they were cut out of the good Israeli olive tree.

Paul doesn't say National religious Israel missed the boat. In fact, he says just the opposite. He tells you that National religious Israel is partially hardened until the Gentiles come it. Once the Gentiles come in, God will save ALL Israel.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is getting tiresome. Stop constantly avoiding the issues. Address the evidence before you. My previous posts refute this. Please address.

No, your posts do NOT refute what I said. My posts refuted what you said. It's your turn to address my rebuttal. Don't get lazy on me. Do the work.
Your posts simply reflect your presumed narrative, i.e. that the Bible speaks about a "spiritual Israel", and a "spiritual Zion." But you have no scriptures that support your presuppositions. You are reading a narrative INTO the text.

Also, although most if not all Christians agree with Paul's statement in his epistle to the Galatians, that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female", you mistakenly superimpose that truth everywhere Paul mentions Israel. Paul never mentions the idea that there is a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. He doesn't. There is only one Israel.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Either God is the creator of all things or a myth.
It is either God never changes ,is the same Yesterday [ past] today [ present ] and forever, [ future]; or his mind is in constant turmoil, changing every many years or more.

Ppl you can't have it both ways. There is a right way ( God's) and a wrong way ( man's) but AGAIN IT CAN'T BE BOTH WAYS !

Is God fallible? Is man infallible ?
See how backwards this thinking is. God is INFALLIBLE and man is FALLIBLE. He is the great " I AM", has always been,will always be.
We are a vapour,here today gone tomorrow.
HOWEVER WE WIL...ALL... FACE JUDGMENT.

Today is the time to get SALVATION right. ALL other beliefs,thoughts,opinions,interpretations and teachings will pass away.
God's word will stand and judge all.

 

[Timtofly]

the new covenant, Gentile believers are being integrated into the citizenship of Israel.

No they are not. They are being transformed into the image of Jesus.

Even you pointed out the difference between the root, Jesus, and a mere branch, Israel. There are two branches that were broken off. The ten lost tribes, and Judah. The Gentile branch is grafted into Jesus, not the removed branch, Israel.

 

[Timtofly]

Ephesians 2:11-19 declares, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth [Gr. politeia or citizenship] of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby … Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens [Gr. sumpolites] with the saints, and of the household of God.”

We cannot fail to see that there are two distinct ethnic groupings in this reading that are supernaturally knitting together into one. Whilst they start off separate, they end up as “one new man.” There are many Christians today that try to make two out of one, but the Holy Spirit actually does the opposite. There is no “them” and us” within the body of Christ. The New Testament ultimately classifies people according to their faith in Jesus or lack thereof, not race. One is either saved or lost.

The “one new man” here is neither a Jewish man or a Gentile man but an altogether new spiritual entity comprising of all those who love Christ. Jews and Gentiles finish up sharing the same citizenship and enjoying the same blessings. Gentiles are described as being “fellowcitizens” with Jews through the sovereign work of the Lord. What is this citizenship? It is plainly and unambiguously identified in the reading as “the citizenship of Israel.” God did not create a new Israel; the Gentiles were grafted into an existing organism.

Ephesians 2:19 shows that faithful Gentiles are “no more strangers and foreigners” (as in literal outsiders), but rather have become real active participating “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Through Christ, they enjoy a common “citizenship of Israel.” They are no longer alienated. There is no distinction between them in Christ.

We should carefully note: to belong to “the citizenship of Israel” requires saving faith. This proves that we are looking at a spiritual organism. What is more, natural birthright means absolutely nothing in regards to participating in this spiritual entity. Significantly, the people of God of all races have been integrated into true Israel – spiritual Israel, not natural Christ-rejecting Israel. Those Jews that made up the membership of the early Church – faithful Israel, have been joined by faithful Gentiles throughout the nations under the select designation of “the citizenship of Israel.”

Paul the Apostle is careful in Ephesians 2 and 3 to show the tight unity and continuity between the largely Jewish Old Testament Church and the largely Gentile New Testament Church. He demonstrates how they are not two separate spiritual entities (as many modern writers try to suggest) but one harmonious whole. The lone spiritual edifice that holds the elect throughout time is symbolically described by the Apostle as both a building and a body. These are common representations for the elect elsewhere in Scripture.

Ephesians 2:21-22 shows how both are “builded together” and “framed together” into a “building,” “an holy temple” and “an habitation of God through the Spirit.” The people of God throughout time are frequently described throughout the New Testament in building terms. They are figuratively described in Scripture as a spiritual construction that is built up in Christ into “the temple of God” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). “God's building” (1 Corinthians 3:9) – “built up in him and stablished in the faith” (Colossians 2:6-7) “as lively stones” – is “built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).

You are also calling all of natural Israel the body of Christ, since you claim a distinction between natural Israel and every one else. Paul also pointed out that all of Israel was not Israel.

Israel as the branch removed is in the same condition as a wild branch never a part of the tree to begin with. If your distinction is being grafted into and now citizens, why do you so vehemently deny a future where both branches are grafted back into the root, Jesus?

Being in Christ is the only claim to citizenship we have. The word church has not replaced the word Israel. The church was always the church, and Israel was always Israel. Enoch was a foreshadow of the church. Noah was both the church and the father of all nations. Abraham was the church and the father of two nations. Jacob was the church and the father of Israel and also Israel. Paul was a natural born Israelite and the church in the same person. Paul did not loose one identity for another identity. Paul had both identities.

 

[WPM]

No, your posts do NOT refute what I said. My posts refuted what you said. It's your turn to address my rebuttal. Don't get lazy on me. Do the work.
Your posts simply reflect your presumed narrative, i.e. that the Bible speaks about a "spiritual Israel", and a "spiritual Zion." But you have no scriptures that support your presuppositions. You are reading a narrative INTO the text.

Also, although most if not all Christians agree with Paul's statement in his epistle to the Galatians, that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female", you mistakenly superimpose that truth everywhere Paul mentions Israel. Paul never mentions the idea that there is a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. He doesn't. There is only one Israel.

You refuse to address the multiple holes in your theological position. You have to. Your posts are constantly evasive. You sidestep the many arguments that forbid your teaching. This is something we Amils are accustomed to on these forums. This demonstrates the extra-biblical error of Premil.

You create two peoples of God in violation to the inspired facts. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

Ephesians 2:11-19 declares, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth [Gr. politeia or citizenship] of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby … Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens [Gr. sumpolites] with the saints, and of the household of God.”

The context of the passage in view is basically comparing the dark hopeless condition the Gentiles found themselves in before the cross to the liberated enlightened position those Gentiles who embraced Christ were after the cross. It is only upon conversion that our sins are washed away and the blood of Jesus becomes effectual. Through Calvary, the believing Gentile has been brought into a new dominion and therefore enjoys a new citizenship, with its consequential new benefits. The believing Gentile has been given favor with God and has now fully entered into:

· Christ
· The citizenship of Israel
· The covenants of promise
· Spiritual hope
· Union with God in this present world

This passage is speaking of five distinct, yet inextricably linked, states of alienation that the Gentile believer once suffered before they received the glorious Gospel of Christ. Paul the Apostle makes it clear that all five have been graciously opened up to the Gentiles since Christ’s first advent. The Gentile believer can now experience God in the same way the Jew could prior to the cross through their surrender to Christ and their trust in “the blood of Christ.” Gentiles Christians under the new covenant now enjoy the same undeserved favor and blessing that Israeli Jewish believers did under the old covenant. We essentially see the incorporation of the once darkened Gentiles into true Israel. They now share with Israel its Messiah, Israeli citizenship, spiritual covenants, promises, hope and God.”

This Epistle reveals how there has been a major alteration wrought in their spiritual standing of these Gentiles in the New Testament age through Jesus Christ. What is more we see a complete redefining of terms and appellations. This passage shows how Gentiles have gone from being naturally considered “Gentiles” to being spiritually of “Israel.”

The word rendered “commonwealth” in the King James Version here is the Greek word politeia (Strong’s 4174) which means citizenship or community. This passage illustrates how Gentile Christians in this New Testament era have graciously entered into “the citizenship of Israel” through the work of Christ.

According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon a meaning of politeia is "the conditions and rights of the citizen, or citizenship.”

This passage speaks of God bringing natural Israelis together with natural Gentiles into the exact same standing and privileges. In fact, in this new covenant age they are classed as “one body” and “one new man.” How can this be? What are the grounds for this union? Is it speaking of a natural or spiritual reality? There can be no doubt by the clarity and straightforwardness of this narrative that Jews and Gentiles are joined together in this passage on the sole grounds of “the blood of Christ.” This is the only means of cleansing and freedom God knows or accepts.

Galatians 6:15-16 asserts: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

We need to ask for clarity: who are the “as many” referred to here who “walk according to this rule”? Gentile believers only, as Dispensationalists claim? Jewish believers alone? No! It is all those who have become a “new creature” in Christ, irrespective of race. It is the redeemed of God.

The repentant sinner (whether Israeli or Gentile) is supernaturally grafted into Christ’s mystical body – the Church – on the exact same basis. There is no racial discrimination or favoritism in regard to nationality.

Dispensationalists are keen to create an ethnic division within the body of Christ. However, this is forbidden in the New Testament and is prohibited in the actual text before us. Any schism that existed has been done away “in Christ Jesus” and His substitutionary atonement on the cross. Those who have experienced the new birth and have become “a new creature” are those that are identified here as “the Israel of God.” This is a spiritual community where “circumcision” or “uncircumcision” means nothing. One’s race or physical condition carries no special favour with God in our age. Paul has gone out of his way to make this clear in the preface to his comments on “the Israel of God.” He carefully and plainly demolishes such a mistaken notion.

Moreover, the Greek word used in this passage for “rule” is the word kanoni, which means a rule or canon, i.e. a standard of faith and practice; by implication, a boundary, i.e. a sphere of activity. There is hence an important proviso cited here for one being of the spiritual “Israel of God,” and therefore enjoying the “peace” and “mercy” of the Lord; that is: irrespective of colour, creed, gender, birth-date (pre or post Calvary) or status that one is born again of the Spirit.

 

[WPM]

No, your posts do NOT refute what I said. My posts refuted what you said. It's your turn to address my rebuttal. Don't get lazy on me. Do the work.
Your posts simply reflect your presumed narrative, i.e. that the Bible speaks about a "spiritual Israel", and a "spiritual Zion." But you have no scriptures that support your presuppositions. You are reading a narrative INTO the text.

Also, although most if not all Christians agree with Paul's statement in his epistle to the Galatians, that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female", you mistakenly superimpose that truth everywhere Paul mentions Israel. Paul never mentions the idea that there is a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. He doesn't. There is only one Israel.

Paul says in Romans 11:17-24: “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them, partakest of the root and fatness [or oiliness] of the olive tree. Boast not against the branches [Israel]. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root [Jesus], but the root [Jesus] thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches [Israel] were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?”

No one could surely dispute we are looking at an Israeli tree. Romans 11:24 explains, speaking about natural Israel: “these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?” This is an Israeli tree that holds Israeli citizens. But it was not merely a natural Israeli tree but a spiritual Israeli tree. After all, if it were simply natural there would be absolutely no reason to cut out natural Israelites simply on the grounds of their race. We are clearly looking at a spiritual tree that accommodates both the believing Jew and the believing Gentile from both Old and New Testament. It embodies all those who belong to the “household of faith” throughout time.

Those who are part of this symbolic tree enjoy a common spiritual identity that is reflected in a new type of citizenship. It is a spiritual citizenship that is heaven-centered which only believers can enjoy. This symbolic tree represents the Israel of God from throughout the nations – the only Israel God recognizes. No unbeliever is part of it because partaking in its blessing and sustenance comes through the exercise of faith. This joining of Jews and Gentiles together fulfilled many of the promises Abraham received about the nations being blessed in him (Genesis 12:1-3, 17:3-8, 17:15-16, 18:18 and 22:16-18).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nope. I never said the prophecy jumped at the very next verse, verse 18. The only thing I’m certain about is that at least by verse 20, a jump backwards has occurred because I do not think there will be any death at all on the NHNE. I even got into a let’s suppose discussion about the no crying heard by others as to if it could be where the jump occurs when I don’t clearly see a jump until verse 20.
So that’s what I’m focused on - not on supposing but rather on what I DO clearly see.

There is no indication whatsoever that the subject changes away from the new heavens and new earth in verse 20.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

There is no indication whatsoever that the subject changes away from the new heavens and new earth in verse 20.

Well, not to you anyway.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Just because 12 does not follow 11 chronologically, does not mean every other single chapter in Revelation does that.

I'm not saying that "every other single chapter in Revelation does that". I was just using that as an example. It isn't the only place where it's not chronological from one chapter to the next, though.

You are basing your whole chronology on chapters 11 and 12.

No, I'm not. As usual, all you have to offer are false accusations.

Because every time a poster states chronology, all you have to offer is: "Well chapter 11 and 12 don't".

Because that proves that not everything in the book is chronological, as some seem to assume. So, since it clearly is not chronological from the end of chapter 11 to chapter 12, then people should consider the possibility of it not being chronological in other places such as Revelation 19 and 20 as well.

Has it not occured to you that chapter 12 is the only chapter that goes back to the birth of Jesus?

What is your point? That is irrelevant to anything that we're discussing.