covenantee
Well-Known Member
No, the international Church is not a single nation!
Debunked by 1 Peter 2:9.
It is a single holy nation.
It is not your geopolitical nation.
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!
No, the international Church is not a single nation!
I Agree 100%Nothing could be more unrealistic than unrepentant sinners surviving Jesus coming in the power and great glory of his Father.
The entirety of humanity is Israel.The Western nations, no matter how much blood is mingled in with them, are not Israel ethnically at all.
There was a remnant saved in 66AD, they escaped to Pella. When the Lord strikes the Middle East, Zephaniah 1:14-18, only a remnant, again of the faithful Christian Jews, will be saved. Romans 9:27f it was God's intention to destroy Israel, it would've been completed in the 1st century. But it wasn't.
Jewish Israel has regathered in apostasy and their Zionist, communistic beliefs are far removed from Christianity.Jesus said that when he returns he will regather his people among the Jews. Just before he ascended into heaven Jesus was asked when this restoration of Israel would take place.
You are quite wrong.No, the international Church is not a single nation! Nor is anybody but the nation Israel designed to inherit the Holy Land.
This is right and it proves the fact of how the Israelis claim to be the true descendants of Judah, is false. They are Edomites and Kharzas, etc.Once Jewish peoples are immersed within another nation until they are no longer recognizable as distinct, they cease to be "Jewish."
How does Romans 11:32 answer Paul's implied rhetorical question? It doesn't. Paul is answering an objection to his gospel based on a promise God made to Israel. Let's review that promise.I don't make that claim. I don't believe that the church has replaced Israel. I believe they are two separate entities.
Yeah, so? Some spiritual Israelites are ethnic Israelites and some are ethnic Gentiles.
There's nothing logical about accusing me of believing in replacement theology.
You are the one saying spiritual Israel replaces ethnic Israel, not me. Don't tell me what I believe! You don't decide that for me. I will tell you what I believe.
But, you are interpreting Paul wrongly. You think that the decision on who is saved is entirely up to God, yet Paul himself said that God wants to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:32). Yet, He doesn't have mercy on all people. Why is that? Think about it.
Ezekiel prophesied to Israel on their return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian Captivity, Ezekiel 36 was fulfilled "Long Ago" when Israel returned and built Zerubabbels 2nd templeHow does Romans 11:32 answer Paul's implied rhetorical question? It doesn't. Paul is answering an objection to his gospel based on a promise God made to Israel. Let's review that promise.
Ezekiel 36:26
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Most people think of salvation in terms of God's response to our plea for mercy. But here in Ezekiel we see that prior to our plea for mercy, God must first prepare the heart. (Refer to the parable of the sower.) Here God promises to give Israel a new heart. He promises to pour out his spirit on them. Not only will this cause them to walk in his statutes and observe his ordinances, it will cause them to repent and mourn because of the past. They will remember their evil ways and the deeds that were not good and they will loathe themselves in their own sight.
If we don't get a grip on the Ezekiel passage, and others like it, and come to terms with what it implies, we won't understand the objection Paul has raised to the gospel. We teach that God will forgive anyone who repents, confesses, mourns, and faces God in prayer with contrition and honesty. Here in Ezekiel 36, God indicates that HE will cause his people Israel to have the kind of heart and spirit that will repent, confess and approach God in honesty and contriteness.
Paul also teaches that God is saving those with a circumcised heart. But like Ezekiel 36, Deuteronomy 30 describes a time in Israel's history when God will circumcise the hearts of his people Israel.
Deuteronomy 30:6
Moreover 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, so that you may live.
And here again, we see the will and work of God in action. At some point in Israel's history, after she has suffered all of the curses that she deserves, God declares that he will circumcise their hearts.
And so the implied question is this, given that God has NOT circumcised the hearts of Paul's kinsmen of the flesh as the scriptures say, does this represent a failure of God? Does the absence of universal salvation among Paul's kinsmen indicate a broken promise?
The answer is divine determinism.
You quoted Romans 9:6-8, stopping with verse 8, where Paul declares that God regards the "children of promise" as descendants of Abraham. If those mentioned in Ezekiel 36:26 and Deuteronomy 30:6 are not children of promise, then I don't know who is, since a clear marker of being a child is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Once God pours out his spirit onto a person, that person becomes a child of promise. Refer to Romans 5:5 for instance.
Had you read three verses later you might have read verse 11, where Paul argues that God's choice of Jacob over Esau was NOT based on anything these men did, good or bad. God determined that Jacob would be a child of promise before he was born. And even in light of his behavior, God never changed his mind. As Paul says, "It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy." Romans 9:16
Why has God's word not failed? Because God, not man, chooses whom to bless.
No, all you're doing is *saying* that you've proven you're not an RT without actually showing where your beliefs differ from those of RT. You apparently think RT believes something different from you. What do you think that is? And if you're wrong, and RT does *not* believe what you claim it does, then you've proven nothing.
So quit saying you've proved something, and actually prove it! What is your proof? If you've provided that proof so many times, it should be very easy for you to reiterate?
The "first" resurrection as in the first one that happens chronologically, or the "first resurrection," as in the event mentioned in Rev 20? Jesus was the first resurrection to happen with respect to the New Covenant. But the "first resurrection" mentioned in Rev 20 is a general resurrection, quite distinct from Jesus' own resurrection. Obviously, they are related, but they don't take place at the same time.
You keep saying this, but I'll keep denying it. The corroboration are the Jewish Prophets who foretold of Israel ultimate success as a national theocracy. This doesn't prevent many other nations from entering the fray, as well. Abraham was promised not just Israel, but many nations, who will subscribe to a Christian theocracy. The Kingdom of God is coming to bring this kind of fulffillment to many nations.
No way. Not at all. In fact, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell you that it wasn't. The people were just as evil as before. Nothing at all changed after the captivity.Ezekiel prophesied to Israel on their return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian Captivity, Ezekiel 36 was fulfilled "Long Ago" when Israel returned and built Zerubabbels 2nd temple
So where is your evidence?
The Gospel has gone out from Jerusalem as the prophets predicted. It has enveloped the nations. Jesus defeated every enemy of righteousness at his First Advent. He is now seated at the right hand of majesty on high. He holds all power and authority in heaven and on earth. Christ is currently reigning over His enemies.
I see a distinct, troubling and ongoing pattern in your (and Premil) theology: when the evidence in Scripture blatantly negates, contradicts and exposes your thesis you conveniently invent a second alternative event or period to allow your teaching to fit. Premil does this all the time. They have to.
You invent 2 physical resurrection days for man, when the Bible says there is 1.
Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God was near. He was preaching that to Israel.
Israel had been promised final deliverance in the way ancient judges and kings had delivered Israel from their enemies. The Prophets foretold a *final deliverance,* which has not yet happened for Israel. I'm not going to teach here a course on Israel's *final deliverance.*
God has *always* reigned over His enemies. And yet Jesus said His Kingdom is not yet here.
So what will be here? Israel will experience a final deliverance from her enemies. In the same way, the fallen Christian nations will also experience a final deliverance from their enemies. Many nominal Christians who have fallen away from the faith will return to the faith and restore their nations.
What Christ did at the cross is only preparatory for this event. He provided the legal means for people to become Christians now, and for people in the future to return to him.
This is the gospel of Grace. It has not yet been completed. The ministry of the Gospel is designed to lead up to the establishment of God's Kingdom on the earth. This has not yet happened since Satan is still on the rampage.
There is no evidence that Satan is presently bound and that the Kingdom of God has already been fixed upon the earth. Israel has not yet experienced a final deliverance from their enemies, nor has their punishment come to an end.
And the knowledge of God has not yet been established across the world in many nations on a permanent basis. There is no evidence that this has already been accomplished. I'm not going to keep repeating the same proof texts. But I will continue to repeat the arguments.
I "invented" Rev 20? I quoted Rev 20!!
Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God was near. He was preaching that to Israel.
Israel had been promised final deliverance in the way ancient judges and kings had delivered Israel from their enemies. The Prophets foretold a *final deliverance,* which has not yet happened for Israel. I'm not going to teach here a course on Israel's *final deliverance.*
God has *always* reigned over His enemies. And yet Jesus said His Kingdom is not yet here.
So what will be here? Israel will experience a final deliverance from her enemies. In the same way, the fallen Christian nations will also experience a final deliverance from their enemies. Many nominal Christians who have fallen away from the faith will return to the faith and restore their nations.
What Christ did at the cross is only preparatory for this event. He provided the legal means for people to become Christians now, and for people in the future to return to him.
This is the gospel of Grace. It has not yet been completed. The ministry of the Gospel is designed to lead up to the establishment of God's Kingdom on the earth. This has not yet happened since Satan is still on the rampage.
There is no evidence that Satan is presently bound and that the Kingdom of God has already been fixed upon the earth. Israel has not yet experienced a final deliverance from their enemies, nor has their punishment come to an end.
And the knowledge of God has not yet been established across the world in many nations on a permanent basis. There is no evidence that this has already been accomplished. I'm not going to keep repeating the same proof texts. But I will continue to repeat the arguments.
Please stop avoiding:
1. Which OT prophets, if any, do you consider definitely corroborate the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct physical resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+?
2. Where in the OT does it mention "resurrection days" (plural), pertaining to the end?
3. What OT Scripture do you consider definitely teaches there are two distinct future judgement days (that will see all mankind stand before Christ to give account for their lives) separated by a literal 1000 years+?
4. Where in the OT does it mention "judgement days" (plural), in regard to the end?
5. What Scripture, if any, do you consider definitely corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the Second Advent, then released for a "little season" to deceive the nations, and then destroy them?
The Day of the Lord marks a new era in human history when God will begin to "have his day." That new era will serve God's desire to prove himself among the nations, and restore his holy name. For this reason, in anticipation of that new era, Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
hallowed be thy name:
This phrase, in the King James English, should be read as a request such as "make your name holy." This petition looks ahead to the day when God will vindicate himself among human beings.
Thy kingdom come:
This petition presupposes that the kingdom has not yet come. But the kingdom of light has come in a sense, since Jesus rules over his followers now. So in some sense, the kingdom is now and the kingdom has yet to come.
thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven:
Here Jesus qualifies the earlier petition. In what sense has the kingdom yet to come? The kingdom will be fully realized when God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven. God's will is not being done now. But in the day of the Lord, this aspect of the kingdom will come to fruition.
The Day of the Lord begins with warnings and judgments, which climax at the Second Advent, when Jesus gathers his people to himself and begins to rule from Jerusalem. The run up to the Second advent is filled with darkness, smoke, fire, doom, devastation and such things. During the run-up to the return of Jesus, God sends his "armies" on Israel, which are fires that burn every thing.
The Day comes like a thief in the night in that it surprises those that are asleep. Paul says that it won't surprise those that are awake.
The Day of the Lord is longer than a day. The day lasts for at least a thousand years, maybe longer. At the end of that era, the heavens and earth pass away as it says in Revelation 20.
I think it means what it literally says. This aspect of the Day of the Lord takes place at the end of that day.
One of the biggest difficulties many of us have with Premil, and which was one of the reasons for some of us abandoning it was its mistaken fixation with natural apostate Christ-rejecting Israel, restoring the old covenant, and with real estate in Middle East (that is about to go up in smoke). Premils fail to see that Christ fulfilled all this. The old covenant was only a temporal conditional imperfect signpost, shadow and type of the new covenant – the substance, fulfilment and the reality.
You're just substituting your points for my points, completely failing to disprove my claims. I'm not going to teach a course here on Israel's Hope, as given in the Prophets.
In effect, the Prophets confirmed the Abrahamic Covenant, which guaranteed Israel's permanent placement in Canaan, with a final deliverance from their enemies. As well, the promise reaches out to the nations to create other nations like Israel, called and chosen of God.
I've told you this repeatedly, which you ignore. Instead, you continue to pose your same old questions. You try to cover over my points with your own points. But the real issue here is: what do we do with the Abrahamic Covenant?
Whether any of that is true or not, it isn't relevant to the issue.