Then you have a bad memory.
My memory is fine. I don't agree that I was actually corrected, because I don't believe I was wrong. I do recall that you and others like you have *tried* to correct me, to get me to use your language of choice. But it never has been an actual "correction" to me.
Why should a non-Amil try to dictate what Amillennialists believe? Let us tell you what we believe instead of you trying to tell us what we believe.
It is not a dictation to Amills of my preferred use of language for your belief system. It is a matter of my choice of language to distinguish clearly the facts as I see them.
I was raised in an Amillennial denomination, in an Amillennial environment. I never thought in Dispensationalist terms at all--not until I'd been in church for 17 years. That, incidentally, is how old I was when introduced to different thinking.
I know the difference, and I've had about 50 years to think about the differences. I don't agree with you on your choice of language to describe those differences. Language control is what one uses when he wishes to control the ideas, as opposed to exchanging ideas.
Replacing a conception of what the Millennium entails is not a case of replacing the nation of Israel with the church. We don't even see the Millennium as being in the future, so how can we be replacing the nation of Israel in the future with the church during a time period that we don't even believe will occur? That makes no sense.
My language of "replacement" doesn't make sense to you because you don't spend enough time thinking about what I'm saying. I'm not saying Amills believe in a Millennium!
I was describing how Premills see a literal Millennium, distinguishing between Israel as a political unit from other nations as political units. It is the common language we use depicting nations as distinct entities.
But Covenant Theology seems to dismiss the value of political differences in the interest of focusing upon our spiritual unity. These things, for Premillennialists, are not opposing concepts. They do not contradict one another.
One can have distinct political nations, and at the same time a spiritual unity across political boundaries. But the importance of political, national distinctions is important for the Premillennialist, and is, as you say, also recognized to some extent by the Amillennialist.
As far as the language of "replacement," I know you don't dismiss the political reality of national Israel. You just don't see it as critical to prophetic fulfillment.
You dismiss the importance of political Israel for the Church. That is what we call "Replacement Theology." It is true, and you just don't like it. You remove "political Israel" from the equation describing the Church. And you "remove" the language of "political Israel" in this context to do so.
I do understand that my use of language describing the "replacement" of political Israel in the destiny of the Church is a challenge to your position. You "replace" Israel in the Church with a small remnant of Jewish believers, as opposed to a true political state, a true nation. This is accurately describing a kind of "replacement" you and Amillennialism indulge in!
But I have every right to describe your belief as a non-Amillennialist--as much right as you have to describe my own position as wrong. Owning a bad theology doesn't make your choice of language, to weaken opposition, a real defense.
You may know the language you like to use, but that language may be very inconsistent with how the Bible describes the political reality of Israel, and nations, in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
And the biblical language of the Millennium, given in Rev 20, may legitimately be viewed as symbolic or literal, depending upon the broader context of biblical prophecy. It really depends on whether we see the political definition of Israel fitting into God's prophetic plans for the future or not.
You in this sense "replace" a political Israel with the international Church in a current Millennium because *you deny a literal Millennium* will even take place in the future. In doing this, you "replace" the promise of a future political Israel with something occurring today that does not fit "saved Israel."
Amillennialism doesn't have anyone being replaced, but rather has Gentile believers being added to (or grafted into) the entity that Jewish believers were in (see Romans 11) to join with them as one body under Christ, so you are misrepresenting our view whether you acknowledge it or not.
I don't acknowledge it because you've just described in essence what our use of the word "replacement" means. It is the replacement of a sensible use of the word "Israel" for a spiritualized concept that includes other nations. That is, for me, an inconsistent use of the language. It is a form of spiritualizing the use of words to make them fit a particular theology.
Amillennialism wouldn't work unless it began with the idea that Israel is eternally dead as a nation to God and cannot possibly be recovered in a future age. And so, the word "Israel" is converted into a different entity including more than one nation. I find that challenging!
Being joined together with Jewish believers doesn't result in anyone being replaced. It was a mystery in Old Testament times, but it was revealed in New Testament times that God's plan all along was to make the Gentiles fellow heirs with the Jews of His promises (Ephesians 3:1-6). That's not a case of anyone being replaced, that's a case of God graciously offering both Jews and Gentiles what was thought to only be offered to the Jews in times past.
You are not representing how we use the word "replacement." I completely agree that Gentiles have been added to the Jews to form a single international Church. But that isn't incompatible with their being political distinctions between nations in God's current and future plans.
It's how I do see it. My focus is not on politics, but rather how Jesus Christ graciously and miraculously brought Jew and Gentile believers together as one body in His church. And how Jew and Gentile believers together are fellow heirs of the promises God made to His people (Ephesians 3:1-6). Making distinctions between Jews and Gentiles makes no sense in light of New Testament scripture. We (Jew and Gentile Christians) are all together as one and that is something to be celebrated.
The distinction between Jew and Gentile is ubiquitous in the Scriptures. It is quite the contrary to what you say. Your theology only covers the essential unity we all have in Christ. It does not even try to address the political distinctions that are implied in biblical prophecies.
Israel is never converted to mean Israel plus other nations. Israel always means Israel, in my opinion. We do agree on the theology of unity, however. I just don't agree that you're in the least "correcting me" in my use of language describing what you believe. I've heard it for years.
What you're doing is imposing what you wish to think I mean by "replacement," and then rebut it But you show that you don't properly treat "replacement" in the way I use the term. No wonder you think I'm so incorrigible--you force yourself to believe I'm saying things that are easily rebutted, while ignoring what I really mean by use of the word.
