Another Premillennial absurdity

[Randy Kluth]

You are wasting your time. He doesn't get it. He cannot engage in a Christian manner. All he has is insults and name-calling. That is because he has nothing to bring to the table.

I have a lot to "bring to the table." For you, the only acceptable input seems to be when someone agrees with you?

It isn't unchristian to point out when someone who is arguing with me is being insulting by claiming "I have nothing." To constantly charge others with "dodging" just after they've offered reasonable counters to your position is insulting rhetoric, and not worthy of Christian ministry. To point that out is not wrong.

Again, all of this argument over style instead of substance gets us off the beaten path. I try, regularly, to avoid the "extracurricular chatter," but it will never work with the hard-hearted. Can we just get back to discussing our differences, rather than feel someone must agree with us? But no, gentlemen cannot be gentlemen if they refuse to be anything but hostile when their positions are challenged.

I think we need to accept that we will all get a bit out of sorts in these exchanges. But at the end of it all, we should be able to get back together and agree on our belief in Christ. Those who refuse to *obey Christ,* however, will not be able to "get it."

 

[CadyandZoe]

Fulfilled in Christ and those in Christ. Read and meditate on 2 Corinthians 1:20; Galatians 3:16,28,29; Hebrews 1:1,2

I don't know what YOU mean by "fulfilled in Christ" since this phrase has become a catch praise with various disparate meanings among Christians. If you mean to say that Christ is the center and basis for a "Christian nation" then I agree. If you mean to say that Christ already established a Christian "nation" then I disagree. The church of Christ is not a nation.

Here is the question:
"By what criteria does God choose the Jews that He will build a nation around?"

You asked Randy about criteria with regard to a Jewish/Christian nation, and I pointed you to a one among many passages of scripture where the criteria is laid down.

Romans 11:28

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; ​

God's constancy, his commitment to his promises and covenants is the criteria for a Jewish/Christian nation. Israel, the nation of Israel, will become a "Christian" nation someday because Jesus will return to earth in order to serve as her king. And when he returns, they will learn the gospel and take Jesus as their savior just like the rest of us. He does this, not for their sake, but for the sake of his holy name.

 

[covenantee]

The church of Christ is not a nation.

The Christian Church is a nation. 1 Peter 2:5,9.

Romans 11:28
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

Why did you not include Romans 11:5, which tells you who the election is?

Hint...There is no Scripture which identifies enemies of the Gospel as the elect(ion).

None.

"They" who are enemies of the gospel are completely and utterly separate and distinct from "they" who are the beloved election.


These issues have been exegeted many times in this and other forums. Why not do some of your own research instead of incessantly attempting to exhume the decayed and vanished old covenant carcass?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, a normal defense doesn't work with a group attacking with a "party spirit." Unity in Christ is being sacrificed to ensure there is agreement in the group to prove they are "right," and to ensure their doctrine remains unchallenged.

I like the distinction you're making between "language disagreements" and "hostility." I can be as guilty as the next guy in "getting loud" to make my point. I let down my guard and capitulate to a kind of argument that is at least partly carnal.

So why can't we dispense with these kinds of insulting exchanges? The Apostle Paul ran into this, and said that all we can do is warn brothers and sisters that "division" isn't spiritual. But Paul also admitted that some aren't going to "get it," and we will have to let them be.

My prayer, of course, is that we all take the right course, and insist on spiritual unity, despite the inevitable disagreements. We must not make these belief systems so important that they become idols.

I agree with your prayer.
I would also like to add to your observations.
About 15 years ago, I served as a tutor for young college students. This was a Great Books college and not only did the college teach the basis of Western Thought by reading the Great Books, they also taught the students how to read. What do I mean? These were college age students so they already knew how to decode the written word. They understood the basics of reading. They had reading skills. What they lacked was the correct perspective and the proper standpoint when reading literary works by authors with which they disagree.

How can a Christian student read Darwin, for example, since Christians typically dismiss evolution theory? They had to learn to read sympathetically, to provisionally suspend their own opinion in order to hear the point the author was attempting to make. A Christian doesn't need to agree with Darwin in order to understand what he was saying or to understand his impact on Western Culture.

The following is an abstract from a paper I found online, which highlights the issues of communication via the written word.

In highly competitive societies, it is easy to fall into the habit of finding holes in the arguments of others and one easy way to do this is to exploit the ambiguity and vagueness of anything said in natural language. Instead, if there is an interest in teamwork and cooperation, it is important to first find a way to interpret the other person’s statements in a way that does make sense rather than a way that does not make sense. Instead, presume that the other person is trying to make a contribution and try to build on it. This imparts three advantages. First, it moves the problem solving forward. Second, it moves the problem solving process forward. Third, it makes the entire process more pleasant for everyone during the problem solving process.*​

Christians, above all people, should have the willingness and ability to find a way to interpret the statements of other Christians, especially those with whom we disagree, in a way that makes sense. We should adopt a sympathetic standpoint, reading to understand the other person rather than reading "to exploit the ambiguity and vagueness of anything said." And, all of us, whether premil or postmil,; amil or premil; osas or nonosas, should be able to work cooperatively to in order to build on each other's knowledge. And not only this, we should allow each other the freedom and space to use our own vocabulary to express what we believe.

Anyway, I know what you mean by "Christian nation" and I believe that you should be able to express your ideas with the vocabulary you choose to use. Freedom of thought, among other things, is the freedom to say what we want to say, using our own vocabulary to say it. I am not offended Just because a Christian doesn't say stuff the way I would say it. If I listen hard enough, I can hear the truth coming through.

Yes?

_________________________________
*Give a Sympathetic Reading

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Christian Church is a nation. 1 Peter 2:5,9.

Peter isn't talking to Gentile Christians, he is talking to Jewish Christians. The Jewish people are the holy nation.

Why did you not include Romans 11:5, which tells you who the election is?

Again, Romans 11:5 is not talking about Gentiles. In that paragraph Paul argues that God has not abandoned his people. While it is true that the Jews, as a general rule, were not coming to Jesus to be saved, it is also true that God keeps a "remnant" for himself. In this context, the remnant is a Jewish remnant.

Hint...There is no Scripture which identifies enemies of the Gospel as the elect(ion).

Of course there are. Have you never read, "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth." Deuteronomy 7:6 In that context, Moses is speaking to his own kinsmen, the Hebrews who came out of Egypt. He chose a particular family line to be his holy people.

These issues have been exegeted many times in this and other forums. Why not do some of your own research instead of incessantly attempting to exhume the decayed and vanished old covenant carcass?

For me to tell you how much research I have done, and it is more than you can imagine, would be self-serving, which is why, until now, I have not brought it up. And I find it distasteful for me to correct you since, in some circles, it is an insult to be corrected. So I don't mean to insult you when I bring up a fact that you seem to have missed.

Paul clearly says that Israel remains an enemy of the Gospel, but they are beloved "for the sake of the fathers." A closer examination of the passage will reveal, I think, that Israel was beloved "BEFORE" the Old Covenant was inaugurated. Why you brought up the "decayed and vanished old covenant" I don't know. It never entered my mind. Why did it enter yours?

 

[covenantee]

Peter isn't talking to Gentile Christians, he is talking to Jewish Christians. The Jewish people are the holy nation.

He is talking to both Jew and Gentile Christians of the dispersion. The metaphors of 1 Peter 2:5,9 are applied exclusively to the Church, not the Jewish people.

1 Peter 1:1 ​

3927 [e] parepidēmois παρεπιδήμοις sojourners Adj-DMP​

"in the N. T. metaphorically, in reference to heaven as the native country, one who sojourns on earth: so of Christians, 1 Peter 1:1;"

 

[WPM]

Peter isn't talking to Gentile Christians, he is talking to Jewish Christians. The Jewish people are the holy nation.

Again, Romans 11:5 is not talking about Gentiles. In that paragraph Paul argues that God has not abandoned his people. While it is true that the Jews, as a general rule, were not coming to Jesus to be saved, it is also true that God keeps a "remnant" for himself. In this context, the remnant is a Jewish remnant.

Of course there are. Have you never read, "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth." Deuteronomy 7:6 In that context, Moses is speaking to his own kinsmen, the Hebrews who came out of Egypt. He chose a particular family line to be his holy people.

For me to tell you how much research I have done, and it is more than you can imagine, would be self-serving, which is why, until now, I have not brought it up. And I find it distasteful for me to correct you since, in some circles, it is an insult to be corrected. So I don't mean to insult you when I bring up a fact that you seem to have missed.

Paul clearly says that Israel remains an enemy of the Gospel, but they are beloved "for the sake of the fathers." A closer examination of the passage will reveal, I think, that Israel was beloved "BEFORE" the Old Covenant was inaugurated. Why you brought up the "decayed and vanished old covenant" I don't know. It never entered my mind. Why did it enter yours?

Premils are quick at assuring unsaved Jews that they are “God’s chosen people.” They do this despite multiple Scriptures forbidding such a contention. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone that rejects Christ’s new covenant made in His blood have no covenant relationship with God and therefore no right to claim God as their own. They are rather children of the devil.

We should not elevate anyone to the position of “Gods elect” until God has placed them there. On the authority of repeated Scripture (Old Testament and New Testament), the elect are continually depicted as all those who truly know God. Jesus said in John 10:14: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” There is an intimate relationship between God and His people. They know each other in a spiritual way. They are in union with one another. They one.

Their relationship with God is real and personal. It is not merely an intellectual knowledge they possess or is it adherence to outward religious rules and regulations. Daniel 11:32 tells us: “the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.”

These are they that have individually experienced a saving knowledge of God through salvation! They are God’s chosen people, those He has sovereignly entered into a personal relationship with. They are a holy “remnant” who are found throughout the ages. They can be found in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Election comes through knowing Christ! Jesus taught in John 17:3: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

To know Him is to possess eternal life. To know Him is to be a child of God. Spiritual election is nowhere said in the Bible to be attained by any merit of oneself or by way of one’s birthdate, birth place or birth parents. It is not a corporate thing. It never was or it never will be. It is an individual thing. Whilst God chose Israel as the nation to exclusively manifest His glory, no one was ever saved according to their race or place; they had to have a personal individual encounter with God. This applies equally to Old Testament and New Testament saints. The sacred text is saturated in these personal encounters with the Lord and their resulting testimonies, from the beginning.

It is only by knowing God that Paul the Apostle could testify with confidence in 2 Timothy 1:12: “for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Favor with God has always come by way of a spiritual transformation appropriated by saving faith. This truth is repeatedly emphasized throughout the Word of God and is far from ambiguous. What is more, it has encompassed both Hebrew and Gentile throughout both testaments. Biological pedigree, religious prowess and social status has never secured favor with God in any age.

The Greek word from which we get our word “elect” is eklektos. It is a participle of the verb eklegomai, which can be used as a noun (i.e. elect) or as an adjective that means “picked out” or “chosen.” Whatever way the theologians may try to water-down this word, it carries a strong meaning in the original Greek. Those who are chosen of God have been specially picked to fulfil a divine purpose.

 

[WPM]

Peter isn't talking to Gentile Christians, he is talking to Jewish Christians. The Jewish people are the holy nation.

Again, Romans 11:5 is not talking about Gentiles. In that paragraph Paul argues that God has not abandoned his people. While it is true that the Jews, as a general rule, were not coming to Jesus to be saved, it is also true that God keeps a "remnant" for himself. In this context, the remnant is a Jewish remnant.

Of course there are. Have you never read, "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth." Deuteronomy 7:6 In that context, Moses is speaking to his own kinsmen, the Hebrews who came out of Egypt. He chose a particular family line to be his holy people.

For me to tell you how much research I have done, and it is more than you can imagine, would be self-serving, which is why, until now, I have not brought it up. And I find it distasteful for me to correct you since, in some circles, it is an insult to be corrected. So I don't mean to insult you when I bring up a fact that you seem to have missed.

Paul clearly says that Israel remains an enemy of the Gospel, but they are beloved "for the sake of the fathers." A closer examination of the passage will reveal, I think, that Israel was beloved "BEFORE" the Old Covenant was inaugurated. Why you brought up the "decayed and vanished old covenant" I don't know. It never entered my mind. Why did it enter yours?

1 Peter 1:1-2 succinctly defines the elect: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered … Elect [Gr. eklektos] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”

Election is shown here to involve spiritual redemptive work. It embodies spiritual regeneration. The elect are the household of faith. They are all those who have put their trust in Jesus Christ. Those, alone, are the recipients of His electing power and have entered into an intimate relationship with God. They are His children. They are the sheep of His pasture. They are the apple of His eye. They have embraced the Messiah Christ and have had their sins forgiven by the blood of Jesus.

Paul the apostle admonishes Christians in Colossians 3:12: “Put on therefore, as the elect [Gr. eklektos] of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering.”

Speaking to the Christian church at Colossae, Paul reminds them of the spiritual qualities that epitomize the elect of God.

 

[covenantee]

I don't know what YOU mean by "fulfilled in Christ" since this phrase has become a catch praise with various disparate meanings among Christians.

What "disparate meanings" are you talking about?

 

[WPM]

He is talking to both Jew and Gentile Christians of the dispersion. The metaphors of 1 Peter 2:5,9 are applied exclusively to the Church, not the Jewish people.

1 Peter 1:1​

3927 [e] parepidēmois παρεπιδήμοις sojourners Adj-DMP​

"in the N. T. metaphorically, in reference to heaven as the native country, one who sojourns on earth: so of Christians, 1 Peter 1:1;"

Peter writes to the scattered congregation of Christ. He uses popular Jewish verbiage to describe the dispersed people of God. This would not have been lost on anyone from a Hebrew background. They would have recognized the Semitic tone of it. The scattered Jews would have been widely known as “those who were strangers or sojourners away from their native land.” Peter deliberately employs this language to describe God’s scattered New Testament Israel – the Church. But Peter was not just writing to natural Jewish Christian, he was also corresponding with Gentile Christians. This reinforces the whole idea of the Church being true Israel in the New Testament.

Anthony A. Hoekema challenges the Dispensational position: “Though the word dispersion is often applied to Jews, it is evident from the contents of this epistle that Peter was writing to Christians in these provinces, many of whom, if not most of whom, were Gentiles. Peter is therefore addressing members of the New Testament church” (The Bible and the Future).

This whole thought is heightened by what the apostle says in 1 Peter 2:3-11, depicting God’s New Testament congregation as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” who has called “out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Peter, here, uses titles that in an Old Testament context related exclusively to national Israel. These were descriptions given to Israel at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:6. But far from restricting the “chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” description to ethnic Israelis, Peter expands it out to include the many early new covenant Gentile believers. To support his reasoning, he employs Hosea 1:10 which predicted that enlightening of the Gentiles, and their integration into the people of God. This is demonstrated in verse 10, where he testifies that the mainly Gentile Church who were once “not a people, but are now the people of God” had now been integrated into the Israel of God. He reinforces this point, telling us that they “which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Pastor Joe Vusich explains: “To make sure his readers didn’t miss the point, Peter heaped together other descriptive terms in 1 Peter 2 … all of which were used in the Old Testament to describe Israel (Isaiah 43:20; 61:6; Deuteronomy 4:20) but which the apostle used to identify the Church of God … Peter plainly and repeatedly identified the scattered, multi-ethnic Church of Christ as Israel, now expanded to other nations.”

 

[Truth7t7]

How can a Christian student read Darwin, for example, since Christians typically dismiss evolution theory? They had to learn to read sympathetically, to provisionally suspend their own opinion in order to hear the point the author was attempting to make.

Christians don't follow Godless men and their worldly traditions

Colossians 2:8-10KJV
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

 

[covenantee]

Peter writes to the scattered congregation of Christ. He uses popular Jewish verbiage to describe the dispersed people of God. This would not have been lost on anyone from a Hebrew background. They would have recognized the Semitic tone of it. The scattered Jews would have been widely known as “those who were strangers or sojourners away from their native land.” Peter deliberately employs this language to describe God’s scattered New Testament Israel – the Church. But Peter was not just writing to natural Jewish Christian, he was also corresponding with Gentile Christians. This reinforces the whole idea of the Church being true Israel in the New Testament.

Anthony A. Hoekema challenges the Dispensational position: “Though the word dispersion is often applied to Jews, it is evident from the contents of this epistle that Peter was writing to Christians in these provinces, many of whom, if not most of whom, were Gentiles. Peter is therefore addressing members of the New Testament church” (The Bible and the Future).

This whole thought is heightened by what the apostle says in 1 Peter 2:3-11, depicting God’s New Testament congregation as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” who has called “out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Peter, here, uses titles that in an Old Testament context related exclusively to national Israel. These were descriptions given to Israel at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:6. But far from restricting the “chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” description to ethnic Israelis, Peter expands it out to include the many early new covenant Gentile believers. To support his reasoning, he employs Hosea 1:10 which predicted that enlightening of the Gentiles, and their integration into the people of God. This is demonstrated in verse 10, where he testifies that the mainly Gentile Church who were once “not a people, but are now the people of God” had now been integrated into the Israel of God. He reinforces this point, telling us that they “which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Pastor Joe Vusich explains: “To make sure his readers didn’t miss the point, Peter heaped together other descriptive terms in 1 Peter 2 … all of which were used in the Old Testament to describe Israel (Isaiah 43:20; 61:6; Deuteronomy 4:20) but which the apostle used to identify the Church of God … Peter plainly and repeatedly identified the scattered, multi-ethnic Church of Christ as Israel, now expanded to other nations.”

Premil/dispen racism attempts to restrict the dispersion to Jews only. The reality is that the dispersion was populated by Israelites, and Israel was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles from its birth, and throughout its entire history. (Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22; et al).

These Jews and Gentiles were clearly Christians, for they are identified in 1 Peter 1:2 as "elect".

Premil/dispen racism is a Scriptural and genetic fantasy and fallacy.

 

[WPM]

Premil/dispen racism attempts to restrict the dispersion to Jews only. The reality is that the dispersion was populated by Israelites, and Israel was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles from its birth, and throughout its entire history. (Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22; et al).

These Jews and Gentiles were clearly Christians, for they are identified in 1 Peter 1:2 as "elect".

Premil/dispen racism is a Scriptural and genetic fantasy and fallacy.

Well said bro!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree with your prayer.
I would also like to add to your observations.
About 15 years ago, I served as a tutor for young college students. This was a Great Books college and not only did the college teach the basis of Western Thought by reading the Great Books, they also taught the students how to read. What do I mean? These were college age students so they already knew how to decode the written word. They understood the basics of reading. They had reading skills. What they lacked was the correct perspective and the proper standpoint when reading literary works by authors with which they disagree.

How can a Christian student read Darwin, for example, since Christians typically dismiss evolution theory? They had to learn to read sympathetically, to provisionally suspend their own opinion in order to hear the point the author was attempting to make. A Christian doesn't need to agree with Darwin in order to understand what he was saying or to understand his impact on Western Culture.

The following is an abstract from a paper I found online, which highlights the issues of communication via the written word.

In highly competitive societies, it is easy to fall into the habit of finding holes in the arguments of others and one easy way to do this is to exploit the ambiguity and vagueness of anything said in natural language. Instead, if there is an interest in teamwork and cooperation, it is important to first find a way to interpret the other person’s statements in a way that does make sense rather than a way that does not make sense. Instead, presume that the other person is trying to make a contribution and try to build on it. This imparts three advantages. First, it moves the problem solving forward. Second, it moves the problem solving process forward. Third, it makes the entire process more pleasant for everyone during the problem solving process.*​

Christians, above all people, should have the willingness and ability to find a way to interpret the statements of other Christians, especially those with whom we disagree, in a way that makes sense. We should adopt a sympathetic standpoint, reading to understand the other person rather than reading "to exploit the ambiguity and vagueness of anything said." And, all of us, whether premil or postmil,; amil or premil; osas or nonosas, should be able to work cooperatively to in order to build on each other's knowledge. And not only this, we should allow each other the freedom and space to use our own vocabulary to express what we believe.

Anyway, I know what you mean by "Christian nation" and I believe that you should be able to express your ideas with the vocabulary you choose to use. Freedom of thought, among other things, is the freedom to say what we want to say, using our own vocabulary to say it. I am not offended Just because a Christian doesn't say stuff the way I would say it. If I listen hard enough, I can hear the truth coming through.

Yes?

_________________________________
*Give a Sympathetic Reading

Well, I think you know that was a very mature Christian statement! I would, of course, wholeheartedly agree. When someone begins to cast another in a negative light it becomes impossible for him or her to read any positives out of what they say.

However, if this was just a rational matter, it could be rationally resolved. It would have a rational solution. But people are sinful, and have to overcome their sin when they want to be rational in matters that attack their pride. When we misunderstand someone and feel offended, our first reaction is to defend our pride, to fight back.

Many Christians come to grips with this, and either repent immediately, or resolve this over time. But some simply won't--they hang onto their pride.

Paul warned us in 2 Corinthians 11 about divisive people who simply were incorrigible. You have to let them go.

In fact, Paul ran into this time and again. He began 1 Corinthians dealing with the same problem. So there just isn't a rational solution for people who are both sinful and refuse to let go of their pride. Sometimes we have to let go of them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Peter writes to the scattered congregation of Christ. He uses popular Jewish verbiage to describe the dispersed people of God.

For me, this sounds like rationalization. I think Peter was writing to dispersed Jews who were believers. Paul acknowledged that Peter's calling was originally to the Jews, establishing a remnant of believers there. If this is the only place where one would fix the word "nation" to the international Church, it is an "outlier," and not credible for the establishment of the belief that the international Church is a "nation."

Amills dismiss literal interpretations of Scripture like this one and the one in Rev 20. The Church turned to Amillennialism when it gave up hope in Israel's national restoration.

And so the Catholic Church has carried a belief system that made themselves God's promised Kingdom, as if they were bringing in the eschatological Kingdom themselves. This is sort of like Postmillennialism, which explicitly believes that the Church brings in God's eschatological Kingdom.

But the book of Revelation paints a picture of Christian defeat before the Kingdom of God comes. We are not the Kingdom of God to come now, nor are we able to bring it in.

 

[CadyandZoe]

He is talking to both Jew and Gentile Christians of the dispersion. The metaphors of 1 Peter 2:5,9 are applied exclusively to the Church, not the Jewish people.

1 Peter 1:1​

3927 [e] parepidēmois παρεπιδήμοις sojourners Adj-DMP​

"in the N. T. metaphorically, in reference to heaven as the native country, one who sojourns on earth: so of Christians, 1 Peter 1:1;"

Gentiles are not aliens in their own country are they? I don't think so.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Premils are quick at assuring unsaved Jews that they are “God’s chosen people.” They do this despite multiple Scriptures forbidding such a contention. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone that rejects Christ’s new covenant made in His blood have no covenant relationship with God and therefore no right to claim God as their own. They are rather children of the devil.

According to God, the family line that came out of Egypt is his chosen people. Deuteronomy 7:4
Paul warned us Gentiles against arrogance. Romans 11:18

 

[CadyandZoe]

1 Peter 1:1-2 succinctly defines the elect: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered … Elect [Gr. eklektos] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”

Election is shown here to involve spiritual redemptive work. It embodies spiritual regeneration. The elect are the household of faith. They are all those who have put their trust in Jesus Christ. Those, alone, are the recipients of His electing power and have entered into an intimate relationship with God. They are His children. They are the sheep of His pasture. They are the apple of His eye. They have embraced the Messiah Christ and have had their sins forgiven by the blood of Jesus.

Paul the apostle admonishes Christians in Colossians 3:12: “Put on therefore, as the elect [Gr. eklektos] of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering.”

Speaking to the Christian church at Colossae, Paul reminds them of the spiritual qualities that epitomize the elect of God.

Gentiles are not strangers in their own land.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What "disparate meanings" are you talking about?

What do you think "fulfilled" means?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Christians don't follow Godless men and their worldly traditions

Colossians 2:8-10KJV
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Why would they follow them? I didn't say they followed anyone.