Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[covenantee]

We gain an understanding of a passage from the immediate context.

Romans 11:2-5​

God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.​

What is Elijah's concern, and what complaint does he raise against Israel? He accuses Israel of killing everyone who feared God and remained faithful. From his perspective, Elijah believes he is the only faithful believer in the nation. However, God reveals that He has preserved a remnant of 7,000 men who have not bowed their knee to Baal. This means that Elijah is not alone; he is not the last believer among his people.

Paul argues that, similarly, there is a remnant of faithful believers among his kinsmen. He explains that the reason this remnant exists is because of God's choice. God decides who will remain faithful and who will not.

By God's grace, He keeps them safe from those who wish to harm them. Both Paul and Jesus have warned us about the dangers that believers face during times of persecution and opposition. Sometimes, according to God's grace, He delivers some from harm.

Contrary to your position that God is no longer dealing with natural Israel, Paul argues to the contrary. Natural Israel will continue to serve God's purpose.

Numbers 25
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Why did God choose to deal with those natural Israelites as He did?

 

[WPM]

He argues that point in Romans 11.

Yes. That is the dough analogy. If the piece of dough is holy then so is the entire lump. The part stands in for the whole. If the root of a tree is holy then so are the branches. The part stands in for the whole.

Even so, they remain holy. Have you never read,

Romans 11:28-29 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; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. ​

God loves them, even though they are enemies of the gospel, because of the fathers.


Contrary to popular belief, "holy" doesn't mean "good" or "righteous." It means "set aside to serve the purposes of God to play a significant role in his glorification."

Quote where the unbelieving branches are holy?

 

[WPM]

Finally you get it. Even so, it doesn't contradict what I said about the future.

We have been united to the believing remnant of Israel.

 

[WPM]

He argues that point in Romans 11.

Yes. That is the dough analogy. If the piece of dough is holy then so is the entire lump. The part stands in for the whole. If the root of a tree is holy then so are the branches. The part stands in for the whole.

Even so, they remain holy. Have you never read,

Romans 11:28-29 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; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. ​

God loves them, even though they are enemies of the gospel, because of the fathers.


Contrary to popular belief, "holy" doesn't mean "good" or "righteous." It means "set aside to serve the purposes of God to play a significant role in his glorification."

In the light of the introduction of the new covenant, and within a New Testament context, Paul takes time to examine the whole dynamic between national Israel and God’s righteous remnant. Romans 11:25-29 tells us: “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”

There are many inconsistencies in the dispensationalist hermeneutical system. While they passionately insist that the phrase “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26) relates to the whole nation of national Israel at a future time, they quickly paper-over a similar statement leading to the Gentiles, which says, “the fulness of the Gentiles come in” as having no wholesale meaning.

This is a passage above that has confused many Christians over the years. The reason for this seems to revolve around the phrase “all Israel shall be saved.” There are many that deduce corporate salvation for natural Israel from this. But is Paul contradicting himself in his Romans 9-11 discourse? In one breath in Romans 9:27 he is saying “a remnant shall be saved” (future, passive, indicative), in the next, in Romans 11:26, he is saying “all Israel shall be saved” (future, passive, indicative).

Let us be absolutely assured: Paul is definitely not opposing himself, neither is the Holy Spirit, who inspired him to pen this, confused. He is in no way teaching corporate salvation in Romans 11:25-29, as some would suggest, or else he would be reversing everything he has just taught in the preceding verses and chapters of this book (and his other Epistles) in regard to an elect remnant. Salvation was never secured on the grounds of race; it was always by grace through faith. Moreover, the Gospel opportunity in the New Testament is always shown to be open to all nationalities equally; this includes natural Israel.

Romans 9:6-13 explains how God’s people and the seed of promise are not a natural but a spiritual seed. In his thesis on the promised seed, we find Jacob and us the believing Gentiles. He asserts: “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. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

The whole of Paul’s teaching in this New Testament passage is establishing who “the children of God” really were/are. We see that Abraham had a natural lineage and also a spiritual lineage. Significantly, it was only the spiritual seed that carried any spiritual credentials. Paul distinguished here between biological Israel and faithful Israel. He shows that these are two different diverse peoples. In doing this he is attempting to illustrate the impotence of the natural and the potency of the spiritual.

Just because they belonged to Israel (or the natural seed of Abraham) did not signify that they were God’s chosen people. He shows how “the children of the flesh” are not “the children of God;” it is rather “the children of the promise” – faithful believing Israel. How can Dispensationalists get around this? No one should miss the distinction between the true spiritual seed of Abraham and the mere natural seed. Plainly: “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children” (Romans 9:6). Paul demonstrates that it is “the children of the promise” that “are counted for the seed.” This spiritual company are the ones that really matter.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Numbers 25
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Why did God choose to deal with those natural Israelites as He did?

What is your point? You raise this issue often without any explanation. And how does this passage speak to the post I wrote?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Quote where the unbelieving branches are holy?

Let me explain. Imagine you have a large jar filled with red marbles. Close your eyes, reach into the jar, and take out a handful of marbles. Without looking, you can confidently say that the marbles in your hand are red because every marble in the jar is red. In this case, the handful of marbles you pulled out represents the entire collection in the jar. The part represents the whole.

Likewise, Paul asserts that when a piece of dough is holy (having no leavening inside) we automatically know that the entire lump of dough is holy (lacking any leavening inside) The part represents the whole.

Given that premise, Paul then argues that if the root of a tree is holy, then the entire tree is holy. Therefore, ALL of the branches are holy, even those that are broken off.

 

[CadyandZoe]

We have been united to the believing remnant of Israel.

Since Paul strives to maintain the distinction between an individual Jew and the Nation of Israel taken as a whole, then so should we. It is unlikely that Paul would suggest that we have been united to a believing nation. Rather, he argues that Jews and Gentiles alike have been united with Christ.

 

[covenantee]

What is your point? You raise this issue often without any explanation. And how does this passage speak to the post I wrote?

You claim that God deals with natural Israel.

Does He have reasons for His dealings with natural Israel, or are His dealings merely arbitrary and capricious?

If He has reasons, what was His reason for slaying 24,000 natural Israelites in Numbers 25?

 

[CadyandZoe]

There are many inconsistencies in the dispensationalist hermeneutical system.

I am not a dispensationalist and neither do I argue from dispensationalist principles.

While they passionately insist that the phrase “all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26) relates to the whole nation of national Israel at a future time,

I agree that Paul is speaking about a time in the future when God will save "all of Israel." We bear in mind, as @covenantee reminded us, that Paul defines "all Israel" as the kinsmen of Paul whom God chose for salvation. God is not going to save the whole nation of Israel, as Paul said. But he will save them together as a Nation at some time in the future.

There are many that deduce corporate salvation for natural Israel from this.

They are correct. Paul is talking about corporate salvation for natural Israel. Remember the question that Paul raised in Romans 9:6, which is a promise that God made to grant corporate salvation to natural Israel. If God doesn't grant corporate salvation to natural Israel, then God's word will be broken.

Let us be absolutely assured: Paul is definitely not opposing himself, neither is the Holy Spirit, who inspired him to pen this, confused. He is in no way teaching corporate salvation in Romans 11:25-29, as some would suggest, or else he would be reversing everything he has just taught in the preceding verses and chapters of this book (and his other Epistles) in regard to an elect remnant.

I disagree. The idea of corporate salvation for natural Israel does not contradict Paul's previous teaching in the first eight chapters. Rather, Paul expects his readers to consider what he previously said as they read about the corporate salvation of natural Israel. To understand Paul's perspective, one must suspend or abandon the concept of merit-based salvation.

Contrary to the beliefs of folk Christianity, which holds that God saves a person in response to their belief in Jesus, the Bible teaches that belief in Jesus is based on God's choice. This choice is evident in those whom He is saving, as shown by the fruits of the Spirit, which include faith. Being born again precedes faith in Jesus.

In light of this, and as foretold by the prophets, God will circumcise the hearts of His people, leading them to respond positively to Him. In other words, Israel's collective salvation will start with God transforming the hearts of the chosen Israelites living in Israel, who will then respond in faith to His call.

Salvation was never secured on the grounds of race;

Agreed. However it was promised to an entire race.

The whole of Paul’s teaching in this New Testament passage is establishing who “the children of God” really were/are.

I disagree. Both Jews and Gentiles in Christ are among the children of God. Romans 9-11 is Paul's defense of God, who appears to have forgotten his promise to Israel -- the nation. (Or if you like, Jacob's family line.) He argues from the premise that salvation BELONGS to them.

 

[WPM]

Since Paul strives to maintain the distinction between an individual Jew and the Nation of Israel taken as a whole, then so should we. It is unlikely that Paul would suggest that we have been united to a believing nation. Rather, he argues that Jews and Gentiles alike have been united with Christ.

The opposite is actually the truth. He is constantly differentiating between the blinded Israeli and the elect Israeli (known also as the chosen or election). You teach the opposite.

Jews are either saved or lost. Jesus said in John 5:23b-24, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

Those Jews and Gentiles that don’t accept Christ don’t accept the Father. Christ-rejecting Jews and Gentiles are under condemnation and are therefore of their father the devil.

I John 2:22-23 solemnly asks, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ (or Messiah)? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”

Jews who accept Christ as Saviour and Lord are true children of Abraham, Gentiles who accept Christ as Saviour and Lord are true children of Abraham. Jews who reject Christ as Saviour and Lord are not true children of Abraham, Gentiles who reject Christ as Saviour and Lord are not true children of Abraham.

Jesus said in Luke 9:48, “whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me.”

The overwhelming amount of Jews for 2,000 years have rejected Christ, Christ will therefore reject them. Notwithstanding, there has always been a redeemed remnant that have accepted God's only provision for sin and uncleanness. Those that accepts Christ are accepted of the Father. Those that deny Him are denied by the Father.

Jesus said in John 15:23, “He that hateth me hateth my Father also.”

How can they be of God's if they reject God's only means of reconciliation between man and God? The unsaved Jew does not receive Christ; therefore the Father does not receive him. He is not God's, he is the devil's. God's favour and blessing is upon those who accept His Son. His judgment is upon those who reject Him.

John the Baptist said in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

If the Jew loves Christ He is one of God's chosen, if he doesn't he is under the wrath of God. Simple!!!

 

[WPM]

Let me explain. Imagine you have a large jar filled with red marbles. Close your eyes, reach into the jar, and take out a handful of marbles. Without looking, you can confidently say that the marbles in your hand are red because every marble in the jar is red. In this case, the handful of marbles you pulled out represents the entire collection in the jar. The part represents the whole.

Likewise, Paul asserts that when a piece of dough is holy (having no leavening inside) we automatically know that the entire lump of dough is holy (lacking any leavening inside) The part represents the whole.

Given that premise, Paul then argues that if the root of a tree is holy, then the entire tree is holy. Therefore, ALL of the branches are holy, even those that are broken off.

Your illustration is extra-biblical and your teaching is extra-biblical. Christ rejecters are wicked. They are not holy. They're of their father the devil, as Jesus taught. I refer you back to my last post that still stands strong.

 

[covenantee]

Numbers 25
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

Why did God choose to deal with those natural Israelites as He did?

What is your point? You raise this issue often without any explanation. And how does this passage speak to the post I wrote?

You claim that God deals with natural Israel.

Does He have reasons for His dealings with natural Israel, or are His dealings merely arbitrary and capricious?

If He has reasons, what was His reason for slaying 24,000 natural Israelites in Numbers 25?

Waiting.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The opposite is actually the truth. He is constantly differentiating between the blinded Israeli and the elect Israeli (known also as the chosen or election). You teach the opposite.

Here you are speaking of individuals as an answer to what I said about the nation. Granted, some Israelis don't believe, just like some Gentiles don't believe. But doesn't follow that God will fail to keep his covenant to the nation.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Your illustration is extra-biblical and your teaching is extra-biblical.

I don't know how else to explain the concept of "the part taken for the whole", which Paul used twice in Romans 11. I used an "everyday" example so that you might understand.

Christ rejecters are wicked. They are not holy.

Contrary to what you believe, "holy" doesn't indicate morality. The term "holy" means "chosen for a special and unique purpose." A holy one is not necessarily a righteous one or a believer.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Waiting.

We have gone over this several times. Why ask the same question over and over?

God chose the family of Jacob to be his holy people. Peter tells you the reason. Speaking of Natural Israel, Peter says,

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

The part I underlined is the reason why God chose them.

Now, if some of them disobeyed and lived in unbelief, does that nullify the faithfulness of God? No.

Romans 3:3-4 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.”​

God intends to bring salvation to Paul's kinsmen just as he promised. The fact that some of them were disobedient does not nullify the faithfulness of God.

 

[WPM]

Here you are speaking of individuals as an answer to what I said about the nation. Granted, some Israelis don't believe, just like some Gentiles don't believe. But doesn't follow that God will fail to keep his covenant to the nation.

No! You're wrong! You are teaching the opposite to what Paul was teaching here. You're teaching the opposite to what Jesus taught. God is bound to a spiritual elect people, not a natural Christ-rejecting ethnic people.

You are teaching a false gospel. You are preaching a racial gospel. There is no favoritism now with God. The Gospel has reached out to all nations today under the new covenant.

It is therefore time for you to leave the old covenant. It has gone forever. It has been superseded by the new covenant. It is time for you to enter into the new covenant arrangement. It has rendered the old redundant. This is a far-superior and longer-lasting covenant

 

[WPM]

I don't know how else to explain the concept of "the part taken for the whole", which Paul used twice in Romans 11. I used an "everyday" example so that you might understand.

Contrary to what you believe, "holy" doesn't indicate morality. The term "holy" means "chosen for a special and unique purpose." A holy one is not necessarily a righteous one or a believer.

Not true. Again, you are constantly butchering the meaning of words in order to fit your false teaching. The word "holy" refers to the "saints" of God. It is talking about those that have a personal relationship with God. It is not talking about children of the devil. It speaks about those that are set apart and sanctified for a holy purpose. It is talking alone about the redeemed.

 

[WPM]

Here you are speaking of individuals as an answer to what I said about the nation. Granted, some Israelis don't believe, just like some Gentiles don't believe. But doesn't follow that God will fail to keep his covenant to the nation.

His covenant is not with an ethnic physical nation today, especially one that rejects Him. He has already cursed the fig tree. The old ethnic theocracy is gone forever. He is committed to a new nation, a spiritual nation, the International NT Church, true Israel, those that accept His Son - the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[covenantee]

We have gone over this several times. Why ask the same question over and over?

God chose the family of Jacob to be his holy people. Peter tells you the reason. Speaking of Natural Israel, Peter says,

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

The part I underlined is the reason why God chose them.

Now, if some of them disobeyed and lived in unbelief, does that nullify the faithfulness of God? No.

Romans 3:3-4 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, And prevail when You are judged.”​

God intends to bring salvation to Paul's kinsmen just as he promised. The fact that some of them were disobedient does not nullify the faithfulness of God.

Did God bring salvation to the 24,000 that He slew?

 

[RLT63]

David's literal physical throne was destroyed in the first destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 589 BC.

How will Jesus sit on it?

That one was a copy and you still call it David's throne, the same as the one that will be rebuilt in the future