THE UNSCRIPTURAL THEOLOGIES OF AMILLENNIALISM AND POSTMILLENNIALISM

RandyPNW said:

I don't personally feel that Paul was happy with just a remnant being saved *for the time being.* He seems to express the hope that one day something better would happen for Israel, *after* the time when only a remnant of Israel is being saved.

Click to expand...

DavidPT said:

Do you disagree that Zechariah 14 involves the last days, keeping in mind that the last days began with the first coming?

Assuming you don't disagree, how many day of the Lord events do you see recorded in the NT? Just one, or more than one? IOW, everything recorded about the day of the Lord in the NT, are all those passages involving the same event or are some of them involving a different day of the Lord event? Where does the NT locate the day of Lord in time? Is it not in the end of this age after the trib of those days? Does not the DOTL involve the 2nd coming? In Zechariah 14, does it look like in verse 2 that the Lord has already come at that point? It is not even until verse 3 that the Lord takes action, therefore it is in verse 3 and 4 that the 2nd coming takes place, thus, that is where the DOTL mentioned in Zechariah 14:1 fits. Or are you instead going to argue, that even though Zechariah 14 involves the last days, the DOTL meant in verse 1 is not meaning any DOTL recorded in the NT but is meaning another DOTL only recorded in Zechariah 14? As if that is supposed to make some kind of sense.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

I totally disagree.

When the New Testament uses terms like “the children of Abraham, “Israel,” “Jews,” “the circumcision” and “Zion” (“Sion”) in a natural sense it is talking exclusively about the natural Hebrew descendants; when it uses them in a spiritual context it is referring solely of the elect of God regardless of ethnicity. It is speaking of God’s true people, the redeemed assembly of Jesus Christ – all those that have experienced salvation by simple faith. While Hebraic terms are used in the New Testament in a natural national sense, it is never in the sense of superiority, dominance or elitist status, it is rather normally in the sense of rebuke, renunciation and judgment. When they are used in a spiritual context they are always the focus of affection, favor and blessing.

Romans 4:9-12 reinforces the non-ethnic character of this covenant with man: “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”

We can categorically determine that the principal thrust of this promise was not directed toward a physical people through keeping the law or a set of religious rules or rituals but rather a spiritual people of faith. This covenant was made with a faithful believing people (irrespective of circumcision or uncircumcision) who were in a right standing with God. God’s chosen people (the elect) were (and always have been) a people of active saving faith.

While Paul is recognizing that Abraham is the father of the old covenant circumcised believers, he is also telling us that he is equally the father of the new covenant uncircumcised believers. He is primarily highlighting that “faith” is the key element here. It is the essential requirement for being a true child of Abraham, and experiencing the blessed favor of God. Paul does not dismiss the natural terms “the circumcised” and “the uncircumcised” or even dilute them in a physical sense, that would be confusing, he uses them to show that natural designations mean nothing today; only spiritual heritage (regardless of birthplace) is beneficial.

Either man is found in Christ, and are therefore heirs of God according to the promise, or else he belongs to the devil and is damned. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile; all who believe in Him are one. The Israel of God is not therefore restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above.

We see an explanation and identification of who the children of Abraham actually are throughout the New Testament. Paul the Apostles informed the largely Gentile church in Rome, in Romans 4:13-15, “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law (natural Israelites) be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.”

Paul keeps pressing home this point in his writings that the true seed of Abraham is not physical, but spiritual. These are a redeemed people of all nations that have entered into the household of faith. The fundamental thrust of the Abrahamic promise is continually shown not to be directed toward a physical people through keeping the law or a set of religious rules or rituals but rather a spiritual people of faith. This covenant was made with a faithful believing people (irrespective of circumcision or uncircumcision) who were in a right standing with God. God’s chosen people (the elect) were (and always will be) the Lord’s redeemed saints.

The whole teaching of Paul in Romans 2:17-29 revolves around defining what a real Jew is under the new covenant and what a true heathen is. Paul continues in Romans 2:25-29: “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit [Gr. pneuma].”

Paul basically spiritualizes the terms circumcision and Jew to mean believer, and uncircumcision or Gentile to mean unbeliever. He teaches, if a man accepts Christ (regardless of his ethnicity) he is a spiritual Jew (or true circumcision); if a man rejects Christ (regardless of his ethnicity) he is a spiritual heathen (or true uncircumcision). Essentially, he is showing: Gentiles can become true Jews through faith in Jesus, and Jews can forfeit their right to be considered true Jews if they reject Jesus.

Talking about believing Gentiles, in Romans 2:26-29, Paul’s point is that through salvation, Gentiles who are physically uncircumcised are considered as circumcised and regarded as true Jews. They are indeed spiritual Israel. The key of course is faith in Christ – which only comes through the regenerating power of the Spirit of God. Under the new covenant, true Jewishness and circumcision are not physical realities but spiritual concepts made possible by the work of the Spirit of God. It is totally impossible for someone to come into a living relationship with God outside of Christ and the work of the Spirit. Each believer must, of necessity, be ‘born of the Spirit’. (John 3:3-8).

Paul further reinforces his argument in Philippians 3:3, speaking of the Church generally, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit [Gr. pneuma], and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

This verse is another that presents a major difficulty for the literalists. Their insistence that every reference to Israel, Jew, children of Abraham and circumcision must be strictly interpreted literally is exposed by passages like this.

Click to expand...

Christian Gedge said:

Maybe you could start a dedicated thread? Or call from my website so we can talk page size restraints etc.

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

He hoped that some of them would be saved after that time when a remnant was saved in his day (Romans 11:5).

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

He went from hoping to save some of them to saying they would all be saved 12 verses later? How does that make any sense?

How do you interpret Romans 9:6-8? Do you understand that Paul spoke of 2 different Israels there? If so, of which one are all saved and of which one are not all saved?

If you don't think Romans 9:6-8 refers to 2 different Israels, then how do you make sense of Paul saying "they are not all Israel who are of Israel"?

Click to expand...

RandyPNW said:

No, I don't have a problem with that verse, and no I'm not an ultra-literalist who is unable to use metaphors. But neither am I willing to confuse the two testaments.

The OT was not just given to show that it was irrelevant except to show that everything is spiritual. No, it was a system that applied to a literal nation, because people are in the process of determining their eternal status as it relates to God's word.

God makes covenants not just with individuals but with entire nations, and each individual in each nation must determine whether they will conform to God's word or not. In other words God is willing to accept into his "earthly Church" an entire nation if it will covenant together with Him to obey His word. But they will not remain in God's Church if they only partly commit to God's word, and do not accept Jesus as their Lord.

The OT system certainly was not irrelevant and purely symbolic. It was a very real contract of human relationship with God's word, including an entire nation. It was a temporary, fill-in system of atonement so that this people could remain in good status with God.

Obviously, eternal life was needed, and not just a temporary relationship with God. And this is determined not by legalism, which is following laws insincerely. Perfunctory performance was never what the Law was all about.

So yes, true conformity to God's word, whether under the Law or in receiving eternal life, has always been a spiritual thing. Receiving eternal life was never a legal thing that we could do in performing works, but only something that could be done by Christ's work, though God was satisfied when Israel obeyed His word under the Law.

So both covenants were valid, and both were spiritual. But only Christ's work brought to completion the previous works under the Law by providing a better system, giving eternal life. And it had no further need for the Law of Moses, but only laws conforming to Christ himself, the fulfillment of the Law.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

Favor with God has always come by way of a spiritual transformation appropriated by saving faith. This truth is repeatedly emphasized throughout the Word of God and is far from ambiguous. What is more, it has encompassed both Hebrew and Gentile throughout both testaments. Biological pedigree, religious prowess and social status has never secured favor with God in any age.

The Greek word from which we get our word “elect” is eklektos. It is a participle of the verb eklegomai, which can be used as a noun (i.e. elect) or as an adjective that means “picked out” or “chosen.” Whatever way the theologians may try to water-down this word, it carries a strong meaning in the original Greek. Those who are chosen of God have been specially picked to fulfil a divine purpose.

God's people are a chosen people. Regardless of where people fall on the doctrines of grace (Calvinism - v - Arminianism), Christians all accept that God's elect are the Church of Jesus Christ. We are one with God's elect in the OT. There is no denying the explicit teaching of Scripture. Ephesians 1:3-5 states:...

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

This is talking about redeemed Christians, not a physical Christ-rejecting nation of Jews. It is talking about born again believers who reside within the New Testament Church. Any other deduction is a misrepresentation of New Testament truth.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

It is the redeemed of all races that this is speaking about. Christ did not come to redeem only Jews. He came to break the division between Jews and Gentiles. Anyone who sees only Israelites here possess a faulty racist Gospel that is blinding them to the truth.

Click to expand...