Another Premillennial absurdity

[WPM]

Don't act like you have a better understanding of Hosea than Paul. He included Gentiles as being the ones who God would call His people who were not formerly His people. You are trying to force Paul to say something different than what he actually said just because of how you read Hosea. Let Paul tell you how Hosea should be understood instead of the other way around.

This is a classic case of theological indoctrination blinding one's ability to see simple truth.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What promise did God make to a mideastern country named "National Israel"?

What promise is in view in Romans 9:6?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'm aware of the Greek background of the Trinitarian discussions. A major reason for the Creeds was the necessity to put into the contemporary language the understanding of Hebrew truths. Paul did not apologize for writing in the Greek language. He wasn't concerned about its Aristotelian background. He tried to describe the truths of God in the current language.

I don't want to hijack this thread--I just find it important to know if what someone said about you in this thread was true. And apparently it is, to some degree. You seem to be saying two opposite things, in effect justifying it by creating your own terminology. To say Jesus is God and Jesus isn't divinity is at the same time saying opposite things in the language of most people here. Trying to correct the problem of "Aristotelian language" doesn't do a thing for most people reading you here.

To stand alone against the traditional Creeds is no different than the cults. It is not just standing against language problems--it is standing against a language watered down sufficiently to allow all Christians of sincere faith and experience to sign on to it, and avoid confusion with language that ended up in heretical territory, such as Arianism and Modalism, as well as the belief that Jesus was strictly human--not God.

If you wish to pursue this, I suggest we take on a separate thread. This probably isn't the best place for the discussion. Thanks for sharing your concerns. I do understand that language is a formidable barrier here. And I am capable of discussing the subject to some degree. For now, my wish here is to express my support for your belief in Israel's national restoration at the Coming of Christ, and to reject any confusion of "Israel" with the International Church. I think you're right about that, and that is in fact part of what's important in this thread.

I agree. I never wanted to talk about this subject anyway.

 

[WPM]

What promise is in view in Romans 9:6?

Romans 9:6-13: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

What this is saying is, those who are not saved have no right to consider themselves as true Israel. The apostle here identifies two Israels; one elect and believing, the other lost and unbelieving. One is true spiritual Israel (“the children of God”/“the children of the promise”), the other is unbelieving and merely “children of the flesh.” Basically: national theocratic Israel was a political entity in which a believing spiritual remnant – true Israel – abode. It is only those Jews who belong to the remnant that are true Israelis in God’s eyes.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Romans 9:6-13: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

What this is saying is, those who are not saved have no right to consider themselves as true Israel. The apostle here identifies two Israels; one elect and believing, the other lost and unbelieving. One is true spiritual Israel (“the children of God”/“the children of the promise”), the other is unbelieving and merely “children of the flesh.” Basically: national theocratic Israel was a political entity in which a believing spiritual remnant – true Israel – abode. It is only those Jews who belong to the remnant that are true Israelis in God’s eyes.

You skipped over the question. Paul says "it is not as though the word of God has failed" Which particular promise does Paul have in view?

 

[Truth7t7]

What promise is in view in Romans 9:6?

I stand with WPM in post #684 100%

Two Israels are seen below "Two"

1.) Israel of the flesh "Ethnic" they aren't the children of God

2 ) Israel of the promised seed "The Church" both Jew and Gentile these are the Children of God

Roman's 9:6-8KJV
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

 

[rwb]

You tell me, I don't play guessing games to well

You made the claim God has an outstanding promise to "Israel" waiting for your response with scriptural support

Oddly, I don't hear Paul asking a question. He makes a statement of fact. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". It seems so simple that even a child should be able to understand that Paul is making a strong argument against the opinion that ethnicity plays a role in who shall be saved.

Romans 9:6 (KJV) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

 

[Truth7t7]

Oddly, I don't hear Paul asking a question. He makes a statement of fact. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". It seems so simple that even a child should be able to understand that Paul is making a strong argument against the opinion that ethnicity plays a role in who shall be saved.

Romans 9:6 (KJV) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Yes, I made a correction to my post while you were responding, I have always taught Israel is "The Church" children of the promised seed

I wanted to see the posters response in baiting the response, didn't happen

 

[CadyandZoe]

I stand with WPM in post #684 100%

Two Israels are seen below "Two"

1.) Israel of the flesh "Ethnic" they aren't the children of God

2 ) Israel of the promised seed "The Church" both Jew and Gentile these are the Children of God

Roman's 9:6-8KJV
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

You can't stand anywhere until you figure out verse 6.

 

[WPM]

You skipped over the question. Paul says "it is not as though the word of God has failed" Which particular promise does Paul have in view?

That is not a question, that is a statement. Hello!

 

[Truth7t7]

You can't stand anywhere until you figure out verse 6.

You arent taken seriously, as you deny Jesus Christ was "Almighty God" manifest in the flesh, in denial of the basic foundational doctrine in the Christian faith seen below, simple, clear, easy to understand, in your face!

Colossians 2:9-10KJV
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:

 

[rwb]

You skipped over the question. Paul says "it is not as though the word of God has failed" Which particular promise does Paul have in view?

What question?

 

[rwb]

That is not a question, that is a statement. Hello!

Yep!

 

[WPM]

Yep!

How can we expect Premils to grasp the deep truths pertaining to this subject when they cannot recognize the difference between a question and a statement?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree. I never wanted to talk about this subject anyway.

Regardless of your Christology, or the description of it, I find your behavior to be Christian--more so than many here. And I hope many follow your example of dedication to getting the message out.

 

[Truth7t7]

Regardless of your Christology, or the description of it, I find your behavior to be Christian--more so than many here. And I hope many follow your example of dedication to getting the message out.

Getting the message out?

Like denying the deity of Jesus Christ being God manifest in the flesh?

Exhorting Christians to read "Darwin" sympathetically, putting their opinions and beliefs aside?

What's Next?

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[WPM]

Reading "sympathetically" isn't about following anyone. I am talking about reading for understanding. In order to truly understand someone, one must provisionally suspend one's own beliefs in order to HEAR (not follow) the other person. Until we actually hear and truly understand someone else, only then will it be possible to give that person a fair hearing and evaluate his or her ideas on their own merits.

I get it. You reject the teachings of Darwin. We all do. But the reason why young people attend college is to learn why bad ideas are bad and how to evaluate new ideas to see if they are sound or not. Wise adults have good reasons to reject Darwin, not simply rejecting him out of hand "because I say so." On the other hand, when kids are young, wise parents guard their children from wrong ideas, presumably having good reasons to reject those ideas. But before kids mature to adulthood, and leave the protection of parents, they need to learn the skills necessary to make wise decisions about new ideas.

With regard to Colossians 2:8, Paul is not rejecting philosophy outright. He rejects only those philosophies that "spoil you" with "the tradition of men." Philosophy means "lover of wisdom" and all Christians should love wisdom. And there are two different kinds of people who love wisdom just like there are two different kinds of people who love ice-skating.

One person loves ice-skating from afar, loving to watch other people skate. One admires the grace and beauty of movement and the seeming ease with which the skater flies around on the ice. Another person loves ice-skating up close, experiencing the activity personally. One learns the techniques of ice-skating, putting those techniques into practice and learning how to perform movement with grace and beauty.

Jesus want's his followers to be lovers of wisdom, not admiring it from afar, but putting wisdom through practice and experience. Don't just believe the faith, put the faith into practice.

The veil is being removed. This is the biggest load of humanistic nonsense that I've ever read on this forum. It is absolute ridiculous. But, i am not surprised considering your strong denunciation of the deity of Christ. Not surprisingly, the only support you have is from Randy K.

 

[rwb]

How can we expect Premils to grasp the deep truths pertaining to this subject when they cannot recognize the difference between a question and a statement?

Now that's a good question!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Getting the message out?

Like denying the deity of Jesus Christ being God manifest in the flesh?

Exhorting Christians to read "Darwin" sympathetically, putting their opinions and beliefs aside?

What's Next?

Jesus Is The Lord

I'm referring to his videos, in case you've seen any of them. There's a lot of Gospel in them, in my opinion. I've already expressed my disagreement with his rejection of the Creeds, and with the way he describes the Deity of Christ. But he has said that Jesus is God, born of a virgin.

We should encourage Christians who believe this to continue to preach the Gospel, particularly when so many may spend their time arguing and dividing from other believers. Paul even said that some preach Christ insincerely, but appreciated the fact they were at least preaching Christ, and getting his name out there.

Our brother is not preaching insincerely--he is, on the contrary, very sincere and thoughtful about what he believes. And he does believe in Christ as the express image of God. The Christological controversy is reserved for discussion in other places, if you don't mind?

 

[Randy Kluth]

The veil is being removed. This is the biggest load of humanistic nonsense that I've ever read on this forum. It is absolute ridiculous. But, i am not surprised considering your strong denunciation of the deity of Christ. Not surprisingly, the only support you have is from Randy K.

Yes, he has some really good videos out there. Perhaps you haven't seen them? I do not support his Christology--shame on you for suggesting I do!

The reason you and I don't get along as Christians is because I think you use a carnal methodology in defending Amillennialism, and perhaps other subjects as well. You see it as a defense of the Gospel. I see your behavior as inconsistent with the Gospel. I hope and pray that changes. But for now, we're at an impasse.

You don't seem to know what "walking in the Spirit" means? It means that we should walk in the love of God, loving the brethren. I don't see you doing that--just a kind of love that appreciates support from others in matters of your own held beliefs.

I don't question your sincerity in your beliefs, or in your right to defend those beliefs. I just find it unfortunate that you wish to group together with other Amills and pursue this kind of partisanship that borders on carnality and divisiveness.

Some Amills like Marty I consider a friend, though we both know we're on different sides of the fence with respect to Amill vs. Premill. Covenantee has been pretty Christian about differences, and he does so without giving up his beliefs at all.

I've seen Christianity in all of you, but I don't see a recognition of this battle between the Spirit and the Flesh in all of you. And there has been a real reckless attitude in disagreeing with other believers, making virtually no effort to be gentle or kind, which are Christian attributes. This isn't just a matter of being thick or thin skinned. Rather, this is a matter of maintaining our witness to Christ at the same time we testify to him.

I'm fine with you befriending those of your own school. But you should do so by each of you minding your spiritual lives, determining to "walk in the Spirit" and not pleasing Man--not even pleasing your best friends and family. Our worship is to be directed towards only one God. Fellowship follows that.