You are describing yourself perfectly. The opposite is actually the truth. Amillennialists are the ones letting the Bible speak for itself. They don't need to twist the text. It is more than capable of expressing what we believe.
Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
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!
You are totally distorting what Paul is teaching to support ethnic Zionism.
Romans 11:5-7 explains: “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”
This is actually saying the opposite to what you are arguing. In fact, it is actually saying what is says: “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for.” In short, salvation or favor with God has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. It is not about being an Israelite; it is nothing to do with racial status or nationality; it is all to do with being chosen – namely being one of God’s elect remnant. This is the only means of favor with God. This spiritual family are the true Israel and the only accepted people of God. To be of the “election” one has to have a real personal intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.
What “election hath obtained it”? The “election of grace” that pertains to the “remnant.” It is not the whole of Israel, but a remnant that is elected!!!
Romans 11:25: “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness [Gr. porosisor – hardening] in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.”
This passage continues the theme of what Paul has been presenting in regard to the mystery of the dichotomy between the chosen and the hardened of Israel. Paul is nowhere saying that salvation is by way of Israeli birth right; otherwise he would totally reverse everything he has hitherto taught in his epistles, and counter the consistent teaching of Scripture (Old and New Testament) that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. No, Paul is simply expanding upon his preceding comments about an elect people within the physical nation – “a remnant according to the election of grace.” This is true Israel!
He is re-emphasizing the fact that one’s natural birth and Israeli citizenship “hath not obtained” or could obtain “that which he seeketh for.” Many miss this. Paul was referring here to natural Jewish ethnicity. He was once again presenting the great truth that race has no bearing on our salvation.
Blindness in part does not mean that a Jew is half enlightened and half blinded. The fact is, men are either saved or else they aren’t. We learn, not all Israelis are blinded, only part of Israel (albeit, a large part). Only they who have experienced eternal life through faith in Christ are saved. The remaining Israelis that depend upon their own works or innate goodness are deluded. Notwithstanding, they are not all deceived; a remnant will continue to believe (as they always have). The engrafting isn’t restricted to an end-time mass corporate repentance by the whole nation (prior to the Lord’s coming) as Dispensationalists seem to imagine (although a sizeable company of Jews may be saved at the end). This reading makes no such suggestion along that line. It is simply speaking of that portion or part of Israel that is not blinded but has been saved by the precious blood of Jesus. They will continue to come to Christ “while” the Gentiles also come through. Again, this grouping is called “a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5).
Paul underlines in Romans 11:28: “As concerning the gospel, they (Christ-rejecting Jews) are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election (God’s people), they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”
There are two distinct but diverse peoples described here – one saved and the other lost. These two distinct groups operate under two antithetical banners: “enemies” and “the election.” The enemies are the general Christ-rejecting populace of natural Israel. They are also identified as the "blinded." The "election" are the chosen believers.
No one could argue that all natural Israelis are “enemies” as “concerning the gospel.” After all, many have gladly embraced Christ over this past 2,000 years, because of this they are intimately loved of the Father. They are not enemies of God, but rather friends. This fits Paul’s ongoing comparison between those who are loved by God amongst his kinsmen, and those who are enemies.
It is “the election” here that are saved. They are the remnant that belongs to God – His favor rests upon them. The rest are blind and are of their father the devil.
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I didn't complain. We are having a dialog, and the assumption is that we both want to be understood. If we don't understand, we will naturally ask questions.Oh sorry; I won't make the mistake again of asking you why you don't understand.
The Scriptural view is clear to no less than five individuals.
Why not work a little harder at understanding instead of whining and complaining?
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
On the contrary, you are the one who has distorted the passage because first, you don't take into account that Paul has changed the subject in Romans 9, and second, you don't take into account what Paul said in the first five verses of Romans 9.
Paul assumes that it does have something to do with ethnicity in the first five verses of Romans 9.
Being an Israelite is not the sole qualification for God to keep His promise to Paul's kinsmen of the flesh; however, we cannot deny that being an Israelite remains one of the necessary prerequisites. He starts this section of his argument with the premise that salvation belongs to them. Since God is not saving some of them, the question is whether God has kept His promise. Paul asserts that Salvation is their birthright.
He does not argue, as you suppose that God was speaking metaphorically about Israel. Such an argument would fail, which is why Paul didn't make that argument.
The topic includes both ethnicity and election.
Granted but Paul is answering a question based on the premise he set down at the beginning of his argument. Salvation belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh as a birthright.
Granted, but again, the issue is a promise God made to Paul's kinsmen of the flesh.
The verse you mentioned addresses the issue in a way you may not have considered. If, as you suggest, Israel represents the entire population of the elect—both Jews and Gentiles—then Romans 11:25 becomes meaningless. Since Paul would not write something without purpose, it follows that "Israel" cannot refer to the Church. Paul would never claim that a partial hardening has occurred in the body of Christ, the elect of God. Instead, he states that this partial hardening has happened to Israel for a specific period, until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
The ultimate reason why God did not grant salvation to all of Israel was because God hardened the hearts of some of them in order to serve his purposes. THAT is the direct answer to the question.
I agree. But I don't agree with your conclusion that Gentiles are included among that number.
That isn't true. He says that Israel has not obtained it. But he doesn't say or imply that it was impossible for them to attain it. I think you would agree that they would obtain it if they turned to Jesus Christ for salvation and repent of their sins. Yes? So it isn't impossible. Some have done this, while others have not. But it doesn't follow that they never will.
I agree with you here.
While I'm uncertain what you mean here, the prophets speak about a future moment when the whole nation will be saved. Have you considered Malachi chapter 4?
I'm not a dispensationalist, so I can't speak for that body of teaching, but if they teach that the entire nation of Israel will be saved all at once, their view is inaccurate.
As Paul argues, God will always keep a remnant for himself, even up to the end. Nonetheless, God will call the people of Israel to Jerusalem to pray for the deliverance of the nation. (Joel 2) Those who come to Jerusalem and call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. The rest of Israel will be incinerated. (Malachi 4:1) Isaiah refers to these folks as "survivors." (Isaiah 1:9, 4:2)
Paul was talking about Israel taken as a whole.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
You totally contradict yourself. Why would they need Jesus Christ whenever they automatically have salvation through Israeli birthright? This is ridiculous! This is heresy!
Last edited:
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 affirms: “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.”
God’s people are not a physical race but a spiritual race. Paul makes a clear contrast between those who are “the children of the flesh” and those who are “the children of promise.” He shows us 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. He shows that “the children of the flesh” are not “the children of God,” but “the children of the promise.”
Romans 9:18-23 continues: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.”
It is plainly obvious, Romans like every other New Testament book splits mankind into two diverse groupings – saved and lost. The believer is called a vessel of “honour” (or vessel of “mercy”) here, the unsaved is called a vessel of “dishonour” (or vessel of “wrath”). This fits with everything Paul is pressing at in Romans. Race means nothing. Both Jew and Gentile have been brought into Christ, both Jew and Gentile are united in rebellion. These two spiritual groups can be found in every nation. After describing the wicked as being “fitted to destruction” (all of the wicked) Paul turns to the vessels of mercy, telling us that this company are those that God “had afore prepared unto glory.”
The vessel of honour (or mercy) is the elect; the vessel of dishonour (or wrath) is the unregenerate. Jacob was a vessel of honour; Esau was a vessel of dishonour. This is reinforced in the narrative.
Paul asks in Galatians 4:21-31: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”
The whole discourse here focuses in on identifying what is of God and what is not, especially in regard to Abraham’s descendants. The dividing factor comes down to: men are either “born after the flesh” or “born after the Spirit.” This has always been the case from the beginning. Race or physical birthright was never the determining feature when it came to blessing. It was instead spiritual vitality. After all, both of these boys were biological children of Abraham. But the difference between them was that Isaac was a child of promise and Ishmael was not. Those who are merely born naturally (regardless of their race), or who have only experienced one birth, are of the devil, those who have experienced a second birth – a spiritual conversion, belong to God. The writer demonstrates how natural ancestry means nothing, even if your blood father was Abraham himself.
Last edited:
If that were true, Paul would have been leaping with ecstasy. Was he?
Romans 9
2 ...I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Obviously, Paul did not assert "that Salvation is their birthright."
He did assert that:
Romans 9
6 ...they are not all Israel, which are of Israel
8 ...They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God
27 ...Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
...Which explain Romans 9:2-3.
Last edited:
He is simply repeating what many Premillennialist believe today. It is so sad! It is the complete opposite of what the Scriptures teach!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
You claimed that God has kept for himself a remnant from many families other than Jacob's. Since Paul is focused on his own kinsmen in Romans 9-11 the points he makes about Israel are particular to his kinsmen of the flesh.
Since Paul's kinsmen figure prominently in future events during the lead up to the Second Coming of Jesus and after he arrives, then we conclude that the Millennial period follows the Second Coming.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
That is not true. Paul is arguing that the descendants who will in inherit the promise God made to Paul's kinsmen of the flesh are those whom God has chosen.
Paul argues that God promised salvation to his fellow Israelites -- his kinsmen of the flesh. He begins by comparing two descendants of Abraham, followed by a comparison of two descendants of Jacob. In the end, he concludes that the only factor that differentiates them is God's choice. The same holds true for the salvation of Gentiles, but Paul is focused on his own kinsmen in this context.
Isaac was chosen based on a promise made before his birth. Similarly, Jacob was chosen according to a prophetic word given to Rebecca, also before his birth. In this context, the Apostle emphasizes that the salvation of any individual is always God's decision and occurs before that person has the chance to do either good or bad.
A quick review of Romans chapter 9 will reveal that Paul never mentions spirituality at all. Thus I see no evidence supporting your contention that Paul is comparing physical seed with spiritual seed. Rather, the clear comparison is between "being chosen" and "not being chosen."
Some might argue that spirituality is the criterion by which God selects individuals. However, other writings explain that spirituality is actually a consequence of being chosen; it serves as evidence of having been chosen rather than a prerequisite for being chosen.
God marks those He has chosen by circumcising their hearts. In the early chapters of Deuteronomy, Moses urges his people to circumcise their hearts, although they fail to do so (Deuteronomy 10:16). Later, after Israel has experienced both blessings and curses, God promises to bring Israel back to the land and, at that time, He will circumcise their hearts Himself (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.
In this passage, we see the promise of eternal life. God assured the descendants of Jacob that He would circumcise their hearts so that they might live. Logically, if God is both able and willing to circumcise the hearts of Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh, then why hasn’t He done so yet? Furthermore, why doesn’t He do this for every person on Earth? We must remember that spirituality is not the criterion for salvation; rather, it is the result of salvation. God circumcises hearts so that a person may live, and he only circumcises the hearts of those whom he has chosen.
The distinction between a Jew and a Gentile in this context lies in God's prior relationship with the Jewish people. According to Moses, God promised the Jewish people that one day He would "circumcise" their hearts—meaning He would enable them to truly follow Him. While God also transforms the hearts of Gentiles, He did not make them a similar promise.
Romans chapters 9 - 11 explain how God will keep his promise to THEM.
Agreed, bearing in mind that being "born after the Spirit" is a miracle of God and a marker of his choice.
Did God make a covenant with David? Isn't Davidic lineage a condition of being King? God does work with families and family lines. Don't allow your physical/spiritual dichotomy obscure the facts of the case.
I agree as long as we are inserting spirituality into the mix.
I disagree. Paul's argument begins with the premise that eternal life belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. Thus, your conclusion that ancestry means nothing contradicts Paul's opening premise.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
On the contrary, Paul's heaviness and sorrow were caused by the possibility that God's promise might fail, proving him a liar. The premise underlying his concern is contained in the verse you inadvertently skipped.
my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, *
Paul takes it as given that God promised eternal life to his kinsmen of the flesh (Deuteronomy 30:6). He is willing to lose his own salvation if it means that God will keep his promise to them.
________________________
* for an explanation of this phrase, refer to Ephesians chapter one. The phrase pictures our salvation, ultimately our glorification as an inheritance to be granted to us later. Right now, according to Paul, we have been given the "earnest" of the Holy Spirit.
I agree, but consider that Paul's argument about individual election explains why God is fulfilling His promise to Israel, even though only a remnant will be saved.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
True to form, you messed up again. I claimed no such thing.
I hoped that by referencing the actual post via link you might avoid confusion.
Foolish me.
Surely you jest.
Cite the Scripture showing that "Paul's heaviness and sorrow were caused by the possibility that God's promise might fail, proving him a liar."
You must remember that, unlike you, Paul was no dispensational doubter.
Last edited:
Similar threads
