Not ALL the physically dead are raised at the same time, the dead in Christ rise FIRST.

[CadyandZoe]

Whom to believe?
1. You
2. Jesus
Need a hint?

Do you doubt my claim that the original New Testament wasn't written in English? Jesus didn't say "nation" did he? No he didn't. Even if he did mean to say "nation", He wasn't talking about his church.

Matthew 21:43
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

Jesus addressed the chief priests and the elders, discussing a kingdom currently under their leadership. He mentioned that this kingdom would be taken from them and given to others, as illustrated in the parable. To understand Jesus' statement, we just need to consider whether these men ever ruled over Jesus' church. They did not. Therefore, Jesus is not referring to his church but to the kingdom that was in effect when he told the parable.

The kingdom of God, which at the time consisted of twelve tribes, was currently led by the chief priests and the elders. In the regeneration, the Apostles will be given their place and will rule over the twelve tribes. During Jesus's time, the chief priests and elders led the twelve tribes; In the regeneration, the Apostles will lead the twelve tribes.

Matthew 19:28

And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

Revelation 20:4

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.​

Yes, Peter didn't dare address the Church, did he, because he knew that you'd see it.

The question is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. Peter tells us to whom he is speaking.

1 Peter 1:1-2

To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.​

To those who reside as aliens
Peter addressed his letter to "aliens" scattered throughout Pontus, etc. The Greek word translated "aliens" here is [διασπορᾶς: diaspora]. The particular "diaspora" in view was the dispersion or spread of the Jews from their original homeland, Israel. Peter is talking to his fellow Jews living abroad.

by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ
As anyone can see, Peter is talking to a Jewish community who have Jewish roots and ethnicity and who also are spirit-filled followers of Jesus Christ. In other words, he is talking to a Jewish subgroup of the church.

Why does this matter? It matters because Peter makes assertions about THEM that aren't true for every other Christian. The following is true about the Jewish believers in Christ but not true about Gentile Believers.

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; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.​

The Gentiles were never a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, or a people for God's own possession.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Not in God's economy.

I can find it on a map.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Oh, so it is their DNA that determines who "his people" are.

Yes. His people are the descendants of Jacob who came out of Egypt.

Salvation by DNA.

Yes. Descent from David is one qualification Jesus met.

Does it save them today?

You have now changed the subject. We weren't talking about salvation in the general sense; we were talking about God's prophetic word that he would bring his people back to the land and circumcise their hearts. All of those whom God shall circumcise shall be saved.

Scripture, please.

Read and meditate on Deuteronomy 30.

 

[covenantee]

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; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
The Gentiles were never a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, or a people for God's own possession.

They were when they received the Gospel and received Christ.

Your dispensational racism is on full display.

You've ignored the following Scriptures in order to perpetuate your dispensational delusion:

1 Peter 2:5
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

That description is reserved specifically for all of the Church, as Paul affirms.

Ephesians 2
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

 

[covenantee]

Yes. His people are the descendants of Jacob who came out of Egypt.

From its beginning and throughout its history, Israel was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

Your dispensational racism is repudiated by Scripture.

Genesis 17:12
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

 

[PinSeeker]

There is no direct correlation between Calvinism and Amillennialism...

In your opinion. Okay, we can agree to disagree, I think, right?

...as if you can only believe in both or neither of those. In other words, it's not the case that a belief in one of those necessitates a belief in the other as well. Would you agree with that?

Sure. That was not my insinuation.

You understand that dispensationalism isn't the only form of premillennialism, right?

Absolutely. This is not something to argue about, but I think that's kind of backwards... unless you're saying that not all dispensationalists are premillennial; premillennialism is a subset of dispensationalism, not the other way around.

So, again, there is nothing which would indicate that if you're an Amillennialist you must also be a Calvinist.

Sure. Again, that's not what I insinuated. But, if one is one or the other, he/she is (much) more likely to be the other.

It appears that what you're saying is, based on what Calvin himself believed in relation to covenant theology, his view fit with amillennialism. Okay, sure. But, obviously, some other Calvinists don't believe in amillennialism...

Sure, fair enough.

...so, apparently, those Calvinists didn't ascribe to what he taught about eschatology, if they are even aware of it.

Ah, as I said, John Calvin didn't say/write much about eschatological matters, per se. I think the issue here is really more along the lines of Calvinism versus Arminianism, which is a different thing, really, and the reason that maybe you and I are kind of "missing" each other, it seems. I would submit that those Calvinists you're referring to ~ as is the case with John MacArthur... and you, I think ~ believe more along the same lines as Jacobus Arminius on at least his point one (regarding the natural condition of humanity), which is refuted under John Calvin's 'T' in the TULIP acronym. I don't mean any offense by this, so please don't take any, but anyone who doesn't embrace the idea of total depravity and man's inability in and of himself to change his own heart, and rather leans toward Arminius on this, then that kind of stops the dominoes from falling.

But where these two things meet, I guess you could say... even in John Calvin's understanding of Scripture and his systematic theology, is that God's millennium is the time in which God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is:

• in Paul's words, the time in which God is removing the partial hardening that has come upon Israel and bringing the fullness of the Gentiles in, thus saving all Israel (Romans 11:26-26)
• in Ezekiel's words, the time in which God is giving people a new heart, putting a new spirit within them, removing the heart of stone from the flesh and giving them a heart of flesh... putting His Spirit within them and causing them to walk in His statutes and to be careful to obey His rules (Ezekiel 36:26-27)

These things correlate intensely with Paul in all of his letters, particularly Ephesians 1 and 2 and Peter in 1 Peter 1:3-5. In those whom God chose before the foundation of the world, in doing this, and that time is now. Since the time of Jesus and continuing until His return. John Calvin was clear on this. So yes, one's maintaining himself/herself to be Calvinist and premillennial (or postmillennial, or preterist) is certainly not unheard of, and certainly possible, it is at least indirectly inconsistent with John Calvin and Calvinism, but infinitely more importantly, Scripture itself.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

I can find it on a map.

So glad to hear you are at least somewhat geographically astute. Me, too. <smile>

But God's true Israel is a people, and they ~ we ~ will inherit the earth. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In your opinion. Okay, we can agree to disagree, I think, right?

Did you read my explanation for what I meant by that? Do you think that someone cannot be both an Amil and a non-Calvinist? I, and many others, are proof that isn't true. And there are plenty of Calvinists who are not Amils. So, it doesn't seem like just an opinion to me. Based on what I'm actually saying, it's a fact. But, I don't know if you're understanding what I'm saying or not. It seems not.

Sure. That was not my insinuation.

Now you're saying that it's not the case that there is a direct correlation between Calvinism and Amillennialism after you just disagreed with me about that. This is obviously a waste of time since you are not understanding what I'm saying and you somehow both agree and disagree with me at the same time.

Absolutely. This is not something to argue about, but I think that's kind of backwards... unless you're saying that not all dispensationalists are premillennial;

No, of course I'm not saying that. Though there is one amil in particular here who seems to think more like a typical dispensationalist than an amillennialist. But, that's the rare exception.

premillennialism is a subset of dispensationalism, not the other way around.

I disagree. Historic premillennialism is not a subset of dispensationalism. It's the other way around. One subset of premillennialism is dispensationalism and another is historic premillennialism.

Sure. Again, that's not what I insinuated. But, if one is one or the other, he/she is (much) more likely to be the other.

I disagree, but what's the point of arguing about something like this? There is no point to it, of course.

Ah, as I said, John Calvin didn't say/write much about eschatological matters, per se. I think the issue here is really more along the lines of Calvinism versus Arminianism, which is a different thing, really, and the reason that maybe you and I are kind of "missing" each other, it seems. I would submit that those Calvinists you're referring to ~ as is the case with John MacArthur... and you, I think ~ believe more along the same lines as Jacobus Arminius on at least his point one (regarding the natural condition of humanity), which is refuted under John Calvin's 'T' in the TULIP acronym. I don't mean any offense by this, so please don't take any, but anyone who doesn't embrace the idea of total depravity and man's inability in and of himself to change his own heart, and rather leans toward Arminius on this, then that kind of stops the dominoes from falling.

I don't know that I would identify completely with Arminianism. There is something called Provisionism that I think I align with more closely than that. I think even Arminius himself believed in total depravity based on what I've read about him. I don't follow after men so I don't even know everything he believed as I don't even really care what he believed. I just know that I disagree with the doctrines that collectively are called Calvinism and are represented by the TULIP acronym.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Oh, so it is their DNA that determines who "his people" are.

Salvation by DNA.

What took you so long to admit it?

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

24K poor souls whose DNA didn't save them then.

Does it save them today?

Scripture, please.

Silly us for thinking that those who belong to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, are God's people. I guess he thinks that Paul didn't know what he was talking about?

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you doubt my claim that the original New Testament wasn't written in English? Jesus didn't say "nation" did he? No he didn't. Even if he did mean to say "nation", He wasn't talking about his church.

Matthew 21:43
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.

Jesus addressed the chief priests and the elders, discussing a kingdom currently under their leadership. He mentioned that this kingdom would be taken from them and given to others, as illustrated in the parable. To understand Jesus' statement, we just need to consider whether these men ever ruled over Jesus' church. They did not. Therefore, Jesus is not referring to his church but to the kingdom that was in effect when he told the parable.

The kingdom of God, which at the time consisted of twelve tribes, was currently led by the chief priests and the elders. In the regeneration, the Apostles will be given their place and will rule over the twelve tribes. During Jesus's time, the chief priests and elders led the twelve tribes; In the regeneration, the Apostles will lead the twelve tribes.

Matthew 19:28

And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

Revelation 20:4

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.​

The question is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. Peter tells us to whom he is speaking.

1 Peter 1:1-2

To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.​

To those who reside as aliens
Peter addressed his letter to "aliens" scattered throughout Pontus, etc. The Greek word translated "aliens" here is [διασπορᾶς: diaspora]. The particular "diaspora" in view was the dispersion or spread of the Jews from their original homeland, Israel. Peter is talking to his fellow Jews living abroad.

by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ
As anyone can see, Peter is talking to a Jewish community who have Jewish roots and ethnicity and who also are spirit-filled followers of Jesus Christ. In other words, he is talking to a Jewish subgroup of the church.

Why does this matter? It matters because Peter makes assertions about THEM that aren't true for every other Christian. The following is true about the Jewish believers in Christ but not true about Gentile Believers.

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; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.​

The Gentiles were never a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, or a people for God's own possession.

Total nonsense! Notice that Peter calls them "a royal priesthood". Are Gentile believers not included in what John wrote here?

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

The "royal priesthood" includes all those who have been made "kings and priests unto God and his Father". That includes both Jew and Gentile believers because that is clearly who John was addressing there. Don't try to separate what the blood of Christ brought together as one.

Notice what else it says about them. It says "you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.". That is something Paul related to the church here:

Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They were when they received the Gospel and received Christ.

Your dispensational racism is on full display.

You've ignored the following Scriptures in order to perpetuate your dispensational delusion:

1 Peter 2:5
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

That description is reserved specifically for all of the Church, as Paul affirms.

Ephesians 2
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Right. What Peter described is the same church, consisting of Jew and Gentile believers, that Paul described. It couldn't be more clear.

 

[covenantee]

You have now changed the subject. We weren't talking about salvation in the general sense; we were talking about God's prophetic word that he would bring his people back to the land and circumcise their hearts. All of those whom God shall circumcise shall be saved.

I haven't changed any subject. DNA didn't save them then, and it doesn't save them now.

 

[covenantee]

Read and meditate on Deuteronomy 30.

Read and meditate on Deuteronomy 28:15-68.
Then read and meditate on Deuteronomy 31:16-22,29-30.

 

[covenantee]

Have you never read that he will bless those who fear the Lord and burn up those who are arrogantly evil?

Will God burn up those who are arrogantly evil if they possess Hebrew DNA?

1. Their DNA
2. Their religion
3. Their culture
4. Their domicile
5. Their faithfulness and obedience to God and His Son
6. Something else

Are "those who fear the Lord" those who are faithful and obedient to God and His Son?

 

[PinSeeker]

Did you read my explanation for what I meant by that?

Actually, in post 126 above, Spiritual Israelite, I missed that you actually had said "direct correlation," rather than "positive correlation," which is what I had said. The two are different. Since then we've been missing each other. So again, yes, I do agree with you that there is no direct correlation (one doesn't necessitate or cause the other), but there is a positive correlation (it is more likely that the second thing is true if the first thing is true). And again I will say that if one is a Calvinist, he or she is more likely to be amillennial than premillennial (or post-millennial, or preterist), and, yes, if one is amillennial, he or she is more likely to be Calvinist rather than Arminian.

Do you think that someone cannot be both an Amil and a non-Calvinist?

No, I do not think that, SI.

...there are plenty of Calvinists who are not Amils.

Sure. All I said was, SI... and now I'm quoting myself... if one is one or the other, he/she is (much) more likely to be the other. And that is the very definition of "positive correlation."

But, I don't know if you're understanding what I'm saying or not. It seems not.

I am/did. See above.

Now you're saying that it's not the case that there is a direct correlation between Calvinism and Amillennialism after you just disagreed with me about that.

See above. Again, I was agreeing with your statement that you disagreed with any notion that "belief in one of those necessitates a belief in the other as well." I never said anything about a direct correlation, but rather a positive correlation; those are two different things, Spiritual Israelite. Yet again, all I said was, if one is one or the other, he/she is (much) more likely to be the other.

This is obviously a waste of time...

It has become that, yes.

since you are not understanding what I'm saying and you somehow both agree and disagree with me at the same time.

See above. A direct correlation and a positive correlation are two different things.

No, of course I'm not saying that.

Great!

I disagree. Historic premillennialism is not a subset of dispensationalism. It's the other way around.

Okay so I'm going to take back something I said, which was "premillennialism is a subset of dispensationalism, not the other way around"; I think I had my wires crossed when I said that. But dispensationalism is not a subset of historic premillennialism; rather, historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism are both subsets of premillennialism., the latter originating in the 1830s in the teaching of John Nelson Darby and popularized in the United States through the Bible Conference movement. Anyway, both groups/camps are premillennial; thus the attachment of premillenialism to both descriptors. And actually, premillennialism has... quite a few subsets, really; there are several different kinds of premillennialists (which says something about premillennialism itself), and one of them is dispensational premillennialism, which generally holds that Israel and the Church are distinct entities (which is not the case), among other things. Goodness gracious. Is this even worth arguing about? I say no...

I don't know that I would identify completely with Arminianism.

Okay, but at least somewhat...

There is something called Provisionism that I think I align with more closely than that.

You "think"... Hmmm, interesting... <smile> Okay, well, Arminianism and provisionism are alike in some crucial ways:

Arminians and Provisionists Conflate Ability with Responsibility​

"The Arminian and Provisionist view that equates responsibility with the ability to respond in faith does not adequately account for the biblical and practical realities of human experience. Scripture affirms human responsibility alongside the clear teaching of human inability due to sin. Just as in everyday life where people are responsible for debts they cannot repay, humans are responsible before God for their sin, despite their inability to seek Him without divine intervention. Reformed theology upholds that God’s sovereign grace is the means by which He enables the elect to fulfill their responsibility to respond in faith, thereby highlighting the magnificence of God’s mercy and the depth of human dependence on His grace."

I think even Arminius himself believed in total depravity based on what I've read about him.

He did not.

I don't follow after men

<sigh> Okay. But you do believe at least some of the things that other men have before you. <smile> As do I. This does not mean you or I "follow after men" in the way you mean that.

I just know that I disagree with the doctrines that collectively are called Calvinism and are represented by the TULIP acronym.

All five? Okay. Well that would make you Arminian... <smile> I say that's unfortunate, but I have no problem with that.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

They were when they received the Gospel and received Christ.

Becoming a Christian doesn't change a person's race. The only chosen race is the descendants of Jacob.

Your dispensational racism is on full display.

Name-calling is indicative of a weak argument

You've ignored the following Scriptures in order to perpetuate your dispensational delusion:

1 Peter 2:5
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

I didn't ignore that verse.

That description is reserved specifically for all of the Church, as Paul affirms.

I agree. Now, when are you going to deal with my essential argument?

 

[CadyandZoe]

From its beginning and throughout its history, Israel was comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

Indeed, the book of Ruth serves as a profound testament. It illustrates how Gentiles, who desired to be part of the people of God, willingly integrated themselves into this community.

But don't ignore the obvious. The scriptures contain many examples of God choosing family lines for a specific purpose. For instance, only a son of David was allowed to be the king of Israel, and only a son of Levi could serve as a priest. And please don't forget to consider the following verses.

1. Deuteronomy 4:37
   Because He loved your fathers, He chose their descendants after them. And He personally brought you from Egypt by His great power,
   
   
2. Deuteronomy 7:6
   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.
   
   
3. Deuteronomy 10:15
   Yet on your fathers did the Lord set His affection to love them, and He chose their descendants after them, even you above all peoples, as it is this day.
   
   
4. Deuteronomy 14:2
   For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
   

 

[CadyandZoe]

So glad to hear you are at least somewhat geographically astute. Me, too. <smile>

But God's true Israel is a people, and they ~ we ~ will inherit the earth. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

The Bible doesn't discuss the concept of a true Israel.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Total nonsense! Notice that Peter calls them "a royal priesthood". Are Gentile believers not included in what John wrote here?

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

You have committed a category mistake. An apple and a stop sign are both red, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. They only share one common characteristic. Just because we are a royal priesthood doesn't mean we are a chosen race.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I haven't changed any subject. DNA didn't save them then, and it doesn't save them now.

So what? Israel is back in the land as the prophets predicted, defeating the allegorical method of interpretation. Those who believe e the Amillennial view of eschatology don't have the truth because allegorizing the scripture has hidden it's intended meaning.