22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

Your position is such a contradiction. You seem to make it up as you go. My last post totally demolishes your whole argument.

Your argument relies on redefining words, "spiritual Israel" and so forth. You can't find such terms in the Bible so you make them up. This is why you haven't proven anything at all. In order to prove your case, you need to stick to the proper definition of words.

To review, you want to argue that Natural Israel has no place in God's economy. Your strategy is to define natural Israel out of existence. Nice trick but it is worthless, because it doesn't mean a thing.

One could claim that blue skies don't exist by claiming that one is talking about a "spiritual" sky, not the natural sky. Okay, delusions come in many forms. But it doesn't mean it is true.

The Church is true Israel and true Israel is the Church.

Your assertion is unfounded.

Matthew 18:15-17 is not talking about an assembly of Jesus followers. He is talking to Jews about Jewish culture and practices.

Acts 7:36-28 is talking about the assembly of those who came out of Egypt, not an assembly of Jesus followers.

Peter Ditzel is speaking about typology, which isn't a real thing. There is no such thing as "typology."
[/quote]
The Roman Catholic Church was the first to change the meaning of ekklesia from the congregation of God’s people to a religious institution of man replacing physical Israel.
[/quote]
Not relevant. Just because the RCC change the meaning of the word, it doesn't follow that the assembly who came out of Egypt were Jesus followers.

The author of Hebrews is quoting the Psalms and therefore, the meaning of the word ekklesia is understood in THAT context, which refers to the assembly of those who came out of Egypt, not those who were Jesus followers.

When Jesus states in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church [Gr. ekklesia]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” He is only referring to the elect of God. He is describing the faithful remnant that have entered into spiritual union with God. This is the invisible ekklesia.

Right, Jesus is talking about a church that HE is building, not one that already exists.

Your view relies heavily on equivocation and obfuscation and conflation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your argument relies on redefining words, "spiritual Israel" and so forth. You can't find such terms in the Bible so you make them up. This is why you haven't proven anything at all. In order to prove your case, you need to stick to the proper definition of words.

The concept of spiritual Israel is there in scripture. Who cares if those actual words are used? What else do you want to call the Israel of which not all of the nation of Israel are part?

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paul won't argue for an idea shared by his friends and his opponents. The idea that a Jew must be physically circumcised is a well established cultural practice among the Jews of Paul's day.
Remember, the sentence you quoted comes from a paragraph which begins, "If you bear the name Jew and rely upon the law . . ." The subject of the sentence are ethnic Jews. The question is, who among the ethnic Jews are true Jews? Among the circumcised, those with circumcised hearts are true Jews.

Elsewhere Paul argues that all believers in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile are circumcised of heart. But contrary to the claim in this thread, Paul never concludes that all those of circumcised hearts are "Jews" in some spiritual sense.

But, that's exactly what Romans 2:28-29 indicates because Paul specifically said "he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly". So, he was talking about a different type of Jew there than someone who is a Jew outwardly by way of physical circumcision.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, okay.

The term "Israel" colored red in verse 6, indicates the people and nation of Israel who will exist during the time when God will fulfill his promise to that people group. The term "Israel" colored blue in verse 6 indicates Jacob the man. God changed Jacob's name from Jacob to Israel just after he wrestled with God and prevailed. Genesis 32:27-29

Good grief. I'm sorry, but this is possibly the worst interpretation of a passage that I've ever seen.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

No, Paul was not saying the term "Israel" colored in red "indicates the people and nation of Israel who will exist during the time when God will fulfill his promise to that people group". Not even close. He was talking about a current reality. To change it to be about the distant future is a case of twisting the text to fit your doctrine. What Paul was saying here is that not all who are descended from the earthly nation of Israel are part of the Israel who are God's children which are those who are "the children of the promise" and Abraham's spiritual offspring. I say they are Abraham's spiritual offspring because Paul clearly said "It is not the children by physical descent who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring". Paul was clearly talking about an Israel that had no ethnic or nationality requirements to be part of it. This is very clear in the text.

And, no, Paul was absolutely not saying the Israel colored in blue "indicates Jacob the man". Again, not even close. Look at what I showed in blue. That Israel represents Abraham's natural descendants - "the children by physical descent". That is clearly referring to the earthly nation of Israel. And it indicates that not all who are natural descendants of Abraham and the nation of Israel are part of the other Israel, which many of us call spiritual Israel.

The qualifications for being part of spiritual Israel are shown in red. They are "Abraham's children" ("Abraham's offspring"), "God's children" and "the children of the promise". Who are God's children who are also children of the promise and of Abraham? Paul wrote about that here:

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

So, this passage indicates that God's children who are also children of the promise and of Abraham are those who belong to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. So, those who belong to Christ are the ones who are part of the Israel of which not all of the nation of Israel are part. That is spiritual Israel. All of us Christians are part of it. It is that "holy nation" that Peter referenced here:

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Don't ever tell me that I don't think scripture means what it says. I always believe it means what it says, but you and I don't always agree on what it means. I disagree with you, not scripture.

You've been following the discussion, right? I believe I have clearly explained why I interpret it the way I do. What are you confused about in regards to the explanations I've given? It says they (Gentiles) used to be excluded from citizenship in the "commonwealth of Israel" but now they (Gentile believers) are fellow citizens. That tells me they are now fellow citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. And we know they are not citizens of the earthly nation of Israel, so that means it has to be talking about them being fellow citizens of spiritual Israel.

I believe I'm being very clear here, but just let me know if you're still not understanding why I interpret Ephesians 2:11-13 the way I do.

I also think you are being clear. We both agree that they are not citizens of the earthly nation of Israel. I agree with you there. But I think you see an inference that Paul didn't intend to make. I understand your logical deduction and I see how you came to it. But there is another interpretation that better fits with what Paul actually meant to say.

Concluding that the Gentiles were added to an existing "spiritual commonwealth" is a fair deduction but this interpretation ignores or minimizes a significant piece of information.

Let me explain. In the context Paul says that Jesus "destroyed the middle wall of partition." Why does Paul mention this? Let's suppose that Paul was discussing an existing spiritual commonwealth. Would the polity of an existing spiritual commonwealth include an actual, physical wall of separation? No, I don't think it would. The presence of a statement concerning a middle wall of partition seems out of place, a non-sequitur.

Suppose, then, that Paul was discussing an existing civil polity, which does involve a middle wall of partition. Might this fact support Paul's contention that the Ephesians were excluded? Isn't Paul talking about a form of government based on the Law of Moses, which includes apartheid as a statutory requirement? And wasn't this wall a matter of enmity between Jews and Gentiles? Wasn't it exclusion from Israeli citizenship that kept the Ephesians from approaching the temple? And didn't the blood of the cross essentially break down that wall?

Earlier I suggested another way that two people can become fellow-citizens. Instead of one person entering into an existing polity, another way to become fellow-citizens is if both people enter into an entirely new and different polity together.

Finally, I don't see why Paul would ever suggest that anyone was excluded from the spiritual commonwealth. From what I understand, no one is turned away.

 

[Keraz]

Finally, I don't see why Paul would ever suggest that anyone was excluded from the spiritual commonwealth. From what I understand, no one is turned away.

Paul says it clearly in Galatians 3:26-29 It is thru faith that you are made sons of God......If you belong to Christ, you ARE the children of Abraham...

As for who are the descendants of the ten Northern tribes of the House of Israel, they are God's secret. He has hidden them among the nations, only He knows where they all are. Amos 9:9 That issue is not our concern, we must as individual Christians: keep firm in our faith and pray for the Lord to bring on His Justice, as is Prophesied.

 

[CadyandZoe]

But, that's exactly what Romans 2:28-29 indicates because Paul specifically said "he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly". So, he was talking about a different type of Jew there than someone who is a Jew outwardly by way of physical circumcision.

Yes, of course. But I don't think Paul meant to universalize the term "Jew" in order to include the Gentiles. Rather, Paul is explaining how and in what way physical circumcision is valuable. (see verse 25) Physical circumcision has value as a marker of Jewishness. And the question is this. If a Jewish teacher is physically circumcised, does his physical circumcision mark him as authentically Jewish?

Let's place this in a Christian context. Why do some Christians wear a cross around the neck? It seems to me that wearing a cross is intended to mark the person as a Christian. The one who wears the cross is telling the public, "I am a devout follower of Jesus Christ." That is, the outward marker of discipleship is intended to communicate loyalty and devotion to him and his teaching. What if the person is seen carousing and partying and stealing things from the company, or lying to the boss? The cross around the neck says one thing, the behavior says another thing.

Circumcision has value as an indicator of being Jewish, just as a cross around the neck is valuable as an indicator of being a Christian. BUT these signs lose all value if the person isn't actually Jewish inside or Christian inside. This is why Paul says that a Jew is not one on the outside. He means those who are Jewish on the outside, having already been circumcised, are not truly Jewish unless that person is also Jewish on the inside. In other words, the sign of circumcision fails if it doesn't represent actual Jewishness.

Paul wouldn't talk this way to a Christian because Christians don't typically accept circumcision as a sign of their Christianity. But Paul might say to a Gentile Christian, "Wearing a cross doesn't make someone a Christian. A true Christian is one on the inside. That is, among those who wear a cross around the next as a sign of being a Christian, only those who are Christian on the inside are true Christians.

Verses 28 and 29 conclude Paul's argument that circumcision has value if it represents a real Jew.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, let's say this was the correct way to interpret the passage (even though I still disagree). What could we call this "entirely new type of commonwealth"? Why couldn't we call that something like, say, spiritual Israel?

Well, there is no logical reason why we couldn't. But something very important and significant is at stake for those who commonly use that appellation. I'm not claiming that you think this is true, but the phrase "spiritual Israel" is a common phrase among those who believe in Replacement theology; Supersessionism, Covenant theology, and of course, those who affirm the Amillennial doctrine.

I have no problem with the idea that the body of Christ contains those from every nation, tongue, and people. I have no problem saying that the Old Covenant is no longer in effect and that the New Covenant has begun.

My argument with the OP is the redefinition of words, which are intended to steer some people away from what the Bible actually says about Israel. In my view, God is not done with Israel, and if I told you what was about to happen to them, you wouldn't want to be an Israelite.

Oh, I forgot to answer your question. Sorry. Paul's word for the universal church is "the fullness" πλήρωμα He argues that Jesus has assigned apostles to serve as head stewards in the household of God. Every true believer down through time has been brought under Christ and the sum total of all believers considered as one group, Paul calls πλήρωμα "fulness."

 

[CadyandZoe]

No. LOL. We have you in a check-mate and you have nowhere to go. The Bible says we part of the citizenship of Israel. You admit that. Which one - ethnic or spiritual?

It is time to cough up or shut up. You choose!

Your dreaming.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Okay, so that means Isaiah 65:20 is talking about the same thing as verse 19, right? And you already indicated that you believe Isaiah 65:17-19 is about the new heavens and new earth, right? So, that means verse 20 is about the new heavens and new earth as well. So, what are you going to do with this new knowledge you have obtained?

No. As I’ve said, I think it jumps in verse 19 to taking about Jerusalem, not the new Jerusalem. I do think He will make Jerusalem a joy during the 1000 years, but the fact that any death exists at all makes me see it has jumped and can’t be talking about NHNE.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

What I was saying is that it makes no sense to bring up a subject in one verse and then immediately change the subject in the very next verse.

Isaiah did that here. In fact, it isn’t even changed in 2 verses - It changes within one sentence!

2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,

 

[CadyandZoe]

Good grief. I'm sorry, but this is possibly the worst interpretation of a passage that I've ever seen.

Really? Wow. You must have seen a lot of interpretations then?

No, Paul was not saying the term "Israel" colored in red "indicates the people and nation of Israel who will exist during the time when God will fulfill his promise to that people group". Not even close. He was talking about a current reality.

Well, If we consider verse 6 in isolation I suppose one could read it that way. But if one takes in the entire scope of Paul's argument, I don't see how we could draw any other conclusion.

To change it to be about the distant future is a case of twisting the text to fit your doctrine. What Paul was saying here is that not all who are descended from the earthly nation of Israel are part of the Israel who are God's children which are those who are "the children of the promise" and Abraham's spiritual offspring.

I take note of Paul's comparisons. He contrasts Isaac with Ishmael; he contrasts Jacob and Esau. If Paul is contrasting physical descendants of Abraham, why would I conclude that Paul intended to make a general statement about the entire body of believers. I wouldn't and didn't. And Paul seems clear enough about his subject matter in the first five verses. :)

And, no, Paul was absolutely not saying the Israel colored in blue "indicates Jacob the man". Again, not even close. Look at what I showed in blue. That Israel represents Abraham's natural descendants - "the children by physical descent". That is clearly referring to the earthly nation of Israel. And it indicates that not all who are natural descendants of Abraham and the nation of Israel are part of the other Israel, which many of us call spiritual Israel.

Look again. What does this mean? " For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" We know that for every line of descent, there is a progenitor. Who is the progenitor of the descendants in view here?

The qualifications for being part of spiritual Israel are shown in red. They are "Abraham's children" ("Abraham's offspring"), "God's children" and "the children of the promise". Who are God's children who are also children of the promise and of Abraham? Paul wrote about that here:

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

All of that is true, but Paul is focused on specific promises God made to Jacob's children. Who stands to inherit the specific promise implicated in Romans 9:6? His entire line of thinking is predicated on the idea that God made specific promises to ethnic Israel. If that was not true, then Paul's letter wouldn't include chapter 9, 10, and 11.

Also, I think if one were to read all three chapters in one sitting, performing a word study on the word "Israel", Paul's usage of that word always connotes ethnic Israel.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

In this context, Peter is talking about ethic Israel. They are the holy nation. (Refer to Deuteronomy 7:6)

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul says it clearly in Galatians 3:26-29 It is thru faith that you are made sons of God......If you belong to Christ, you ARE the children of Abraham...

As for who are the descendants of the ten Northern tribes of the House of Israel, they are God's secret. He has hidden them among the nations, only He knows where they all are. Amos 9:9 That issue is not our concern, we must as individual Christians: keep firm in our faith and pray for the Lord to bring on His Justice, as is Prophesied.

Of course, we are children of Abraham. But this is exactly why we are not spiritual Israel. Our salvation is not predicated on a promise God made to Israel; our salvation is predicated on a promise God made to Abraham. Refer to Galatians 3:17

 

[CadyandZoe]

Isaiah did that here. In fact, it isn’t even changed in 2 verses - It changes within one sentence!

2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,

Yes, Jesus quotes the verse but leaves out the last part. Interesting?

 

[Keraz]

Of course, we are children of Abraham. But this is exactly why we are not spiritual Israel. Our salvation is not predicated on a promise God made to Israel; our salvation is predicated on a promise God made to Abraham. Refer to Galatians 3:17

This is semantics gone mad!
Israel - is a word that has the meaning of; One who prevails with God. An overcomer for God, as Jacob was.
Spiritual - is a word that means; not physical, or ethnic.

Therefore: every faithful, righteous Christian IS a spiritual Israelite.
Who are NOT true Israelites or true Jews; are those people who call themselves Israel, but never acknowledge God as their Protector and who fail to obey His Commandments.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I also think you are being clear. We both agree that they are not citizens of the earthly nation of Israel. I agree with you there. But I think you see an inference that Paul didn't intend to make. I understand your logical deduction and I see how you came to it. But there is another interpretation that better fits with what Paul actually meant to say.

Concluding that the Gentiles were added to an existing "spiritual commonwealth" is a fair deduction but this interpretation ignores or minimizes a significant piece of information.

Let me explain. In the context Paul says that Jesus "destroyed the middle wall of partition." Why does Paul mention this? Let's suppose that Paul was discussing an existing spiritual commonwealth. Would the polity of an existing spiritual commonwealth include an actual, physical wall of separation? No, I don't think it would. The presence of a statement concerning a middle wall of partition seems out of place, a non-sequitur.

Suppose, then, that Paul was discussing an existing civil polity, which does involve a middle wall of partition. Might this fact support Paul's contention that the Ephesians were excluded? Isn't Paul talking about a form of government based on the Law of Moses, which includes apartheid as a statutory requirement? And wasn't this wall a matter of enmity between Jews and Gentiles? Wasn't it exclusion from Israeli citizenship that kept the Ephesians from approaching the temple? And didn't the blood of the cross essentially break down that wall?

Earlier I suggested another way that two people can become fellow-citizens. Instead of one person entering into an existing polity, another way to become fellow-citizens is if both people enter into an entirely new and different polity together.

Sorry, but I just completely disagree with you on this. What more can I say? I've already explained why and nothing you said here changes anything for me.

Finally, I don't see why Paul would ever suggest that anyone was excluded from the spiritual commonwealth. From what I understand, no one is turned away.

It isn't that Gentiles were turned away and didn't have any opportunity to be saved. That's not what Paul was saying. But, they were at a disadvantage compared to the Jews since they didn't have God's word and they were "foreigners to the covenants of the promise" back then. Look again at what Paul said about them (keep in mind he was speaking generally here and not about every single Gentile):

Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For them to be "foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world" did mean that they were excluded from the spiritual commonwealth. Clearly, to be "without hope and without God in the world" is not describing people in the spiritual commonwealth. But, they were at a disadvantage back then because of being "foreigners to the covenants of the promise". That's just how God did things up to that point before bringing Jew and Gentile believers together as one in the body of Christ/church because of the blood of Christ. So, I'm not convinced by the argument you're using here against the idea that he was talking about the spiritual commonwealth of Israel rather than the earthly nation of Israel.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Really? Wow. You must have seen a lot of interpretations then?

Yes, I've seen a lot of interpretations and I'm just being honest when I say that your interpretation of Romans 9:6-8 is possibly the worst I've seen. But, probably not. I forgot at the time that a certain poster has maybe even worse interpretations on a regular basis. Anyway, I obviously found it to be a really bad interpretation of that passage.

Well, If we consider verse 6 in isolation I suppose one could read it that way. But if one takes in the entire scope of Paul's argument, I don't see how we could draw any other conclusion.

I don't see how anyone could draw the conclusion you're drawing no matter what. I highly doubt you could find anyone else who interprets that passage the way you do. So, did God reveal the meaning of that passage only to you or should you take another look at it?

I take note of Paul's comparisons. He contrasts Isaac with Ishmael; he contrasts Jacob and Esau. If Paul is contrasting physical descendants of Abraham, why would I conclude that Paul intended to make a general statement about the entire body of believers. I wouldn't and didn't. And Paul seems clear enough about his subject matter in the first five verses. :)

No idea of what you're saying here. Please try to communicate more clearly.

Look again. What does this mean? " For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" We know that for every line of descent, there is a progenitor. Who is the progenitor of the descendants in view here?

Again, I don't know what you're saying. You're being far too vague. It's saying that they are not all part of Israel #1 who are descended from Israel #2. That means some of Israel #2 are part of Israel #1, but not all of them. Very simple. You're making something simple into something very convoluted and I think it's because of doctrinal bias.

All of that is true, but Paul is focused on specific promises God made to Jacob's children. Who stands to inherit the specific promise implicated in Romans 9:6?

The children of God who are the children of promise and are Abraham's seed. I showed you who that describes by quoting Galatians 3:26-29. Did you miss that? That passage indicates that the children of God who are the children of the promise and are Abraham's seed are those who belong to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

His entire line of thinking is predicated on the idea that God made specific promises to ethnic Israel. If that was not true, then Paul's letter wouldn't include chapter 9, 10, and 11.

What promises are you referring to exactly? Again, please try to communicate more clearly so that I can tell what exactly you're talking about.

Also, I think if one were to read all three chapters in one sitting, performing a word study on the word "Israel", Paul's usage of that word always connotes ethnic Israel.

I have done that and I did not come to that conclusion, so you're wrong about that.

In this context, Peter is talking about ethic Israel. They are the holy nation. (Refer to Deuteronomy 7:6)

Good grief. No, he is not talking about ethnic Israel in 1 Peter 2:9! Ethnic Israel includes people who reject Christ! They are not holy! I think I need to reconsider what I said about your interpretation of Romans 9:6-8 because this interpretation might be even worse.

 

[Phoneman777]

What happens right after Jesus returns and sends fire down on the earth is the judgment, as can be clearly seen in Matthew 25:31-46. You somehow don't have that event happening until 1000+ years later.

I wrote about that in a recent post. The fire falls down and burns up the wicked after the 1,000 years...when they are resurrected, judged, and take the divine lava shower.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Isaiah did that here. In fact, it isn’t even changed in 2 verses - It changes within one sentence!

2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,

My goodness, I don't think you're even trying to understand my point. Did he go on to talk about "the day of vengeance of our God" in verse 3? No. Did he go on to talk about things related to "the year of the Lord's favor" in verse 3? Yes. So, he didn't change the topic from a time relating to "the year of the Lord's favor" in one verse to the next. The reference to "the day of vengeance of our God" was just a side note in verse 2, while the main topic being discussed there was a time relating to "the year of the Lord's favor". If it would have continued talking about "the day of vengeance of our God" into verse 3 then that would be an example of bringing up a topic in one verse and then changing the topic in the next verse (or the same verse) and then talking about a different topic. But, that isn't the case here since verse 3 does not talk about "the day of vengeance of our God". I'm not going to say any more about this because I don't feel like you're even trying to get my point, so I'm just wasting my time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I wrote about that in a recent post. The fire falls down and burns up the wicked after the 1,000 years...when they are resurrected, judged, and take the divine lava shower.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Matthew 25:31-46 indicates that they are judged right after Christ returns, not 1000+ years later.