Amillenial Baptists?

[Hentenza]

If I am father to my children as well as their progenitor does one title "replace" the other?

Israel and the church are the same thing, which is why the London Baptist confession calls Israel "the Church under-age".

The Church and Israel are not the same thing.

 

[JM]

Both Amil and Premil can find some support in the ECF's, however, the Bible tells us nothing of a Pretrib, Premil eschatology.



Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 80: "I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."[4]

For more on the Amil view of the Early Church Fathers visit here.

LOL!! But it did. What early (first 2 centuries) apostle or ECF taught amil?

Which early (first 2 centuries) apostles or ECF taught Dispensational PreTribulationalism?

 

[Hentenza]

Both Amil and Premil can find some support in the ECF's, however, the Bible tells us nothing of a Pretrib, Premil eschatology.

It does. Clearly. lol

Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 80: "I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."[4]

For more on the Amil view of the Early Church Fathers visit here.

3rd century. You have anyone earlier?

Which early (first 2 centuries) apostles or ECF taught Dispensational PreTribulationalism?

Define dispensational pretribulation please.

 

[JM]

nothing to add.

 

[Pete_Martinez]

JM, I do offer my sincerest apologies. I got very carried away and hijacked the thread. I don't know why but i get so excited when discussing textual matters I don't think when I post, except to excel my cause. I understand this is not necessarily the time nor place to discuss this type of thing. Maybe one day in the future we can all get together and discuss peaceably on this matter. On the other hand, our vision on soteriology goes hand in hand and I know one day I'll stand by your side fighting against salvation by works.

 

[edie19]

Are there any amillenial Baptists?

me (and just about everyone else at my church, including the pastor)

 

[Communion]

Still not seeing the ECF proof texts..

 

[Anoetos]

The Church and Israel are not the same thing.

Yes, they are.

 

[JM]

Still not seeing the ECF proof texts..

I agree. Nothing has been posted that would lead us to believe the early church was dispensational and pretrib. We have two ideas present in the writings of the early church fathers along with the authority of the Bishop, getting baptized naked, etc. and the church finally rejected Premil (and being baptized nude!). With the raise of Modernism in the church John Nelson Darby created Dispensationalism Pretribulationalism.



It should be noted that historically, Amil and Postmil were not separate ideas in eschatology. I believe it was Abraham Kuyper first used the term Amil.

jm

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, they are.

Nope. The church (gentiles plus converts from Judaism) is grafted into the olive tree (Israel). Tell me, who is the new covenant made with?

 

[Hentenza]

Still not seeing the ECF proof texts..

Here are several. I'll let you look them up so that you can't accuse me of proof texting. lol

John the Prebyster, as cited by Papias.
Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Polycarp.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue of Justin.
Iranaeus, Against Heresies.
Lactantius, Divine Institutes.

This is a start. Now, can you cite any early ECFs (1st and 2nd. centuries) that were against the millennium reign of Christ?

 

[Hentenza]

I agree. Nothing has been posted that would lead us to believe the early church was dispensational and pretrib. We have two ideas present in the writings of the early church fathers along with the authority of the Bishop, getting baptized naked, etc. and the church finally rejected Premil (and being baptized nude!). With the raise of Modernism in the church John Nelson Darby created Dispensationalism Pretribulationalism.



It should be noted that historically, Amil and Postmil were not separate ideas in eschatology. I believe it was Abraham Kuyper first used the term Amil.

jm

You still have not defined dispensational pretribulation. In your own words please.

 

[JM]

Tell me, who is the new covenant made with?

The church. Jeremiah 31:8-10 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 are applied to the church…if you read it literally in Hebrews 8:8-10 and Hebrews 10:16-17. (see also Matthew 26:28 and1 Corinthians 2:14)

From Genesis 12 through Revelation we trace the story of Abraham’s seed in the world with the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham in the Gospel itself, for Christ came “To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he swear to our father Abraham,” (Luke 1:72,73)

In Galatians 3:7 we find that all who have faith are Abraham’s children and that we are blessed with him (v.9) because of our faith. Christ died so this blessing might come to the gentiles (v.14). We read that Abraham was justified by his faith in the promise of the Gospel (Galatians 3:6-9, 18) and Christians today are justified by faith in the same Gospel. We are Abraham’s true seed when we are “baptized into Christ” and have “put on Christ” (v.27, see also Romans 6:3) becoming “one with Christ Jesus.” (v.28)

“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:29)

The whole of the Old Covenant “decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13) and has with the destruction of the Temple in 70a.d. The New Covenant made in Christ’s blood replaced the Old Covenant(s) and all the physical trappings attached to it are now gone, I don’t believe they are quietly placed aside until some future date but gone completely. The promises we have in Christ are far better. The New Covenant is made with the true spiritual Jew and it's not a matter of replacing Israel with the church but a fulfillment of Old Testament promises,

[FONT=&quot]"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, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2:28-29.
[/FONT]

 

[JM]

You still have not defined dispensational pretribulation. In your own words please.

Dispensational = Dispensationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pretrib = Rapture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hentenza]

The church. Jeremiah 31:8-10 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 are applied to the church…if you read it literally in Hebrews 8:8-10 and Hebrews 10:16-17. (see also Matthew 26:28 and1 Corinthians 2:14)

Lets see if than pans out. I'll start it at verse 7.

Jer. 31:8-10 (NKJV)
7 For thus says the LORD:


“ Sing with gladness for Jacob,
And shout among the chief of the nations;
Proclaim, give praise, and say,

‘ O LORD, save Your people,
The remnant of Israel!’
8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country,
And gather them from the ends of the earth,
Among them the blind and the lame,
The woman with child
And the one who labors with child, together;
A great throng shall return there.
9 They shall come with weeping,
And with supplications I will lead them.
I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters,
In a straight way in which they shall not stumble;
For I am a Father to Israel,
And Ephraim is My firstborn.
10 “ Hear the word of the LORD, O nations,
And declare it in the isles afar off, and say,

‘ He who scattered Israel will gather him,
And keep him as a shepherd does his flock.’

This can not be applied to the church since the promise is to Israel. In order to apply it to the church one must allegorize and claim a promise not given to a party. It is clear that this is given to the "remnant of Israel" as clearly and literally stated in verse 7. Is the "remnant of Israel" the church?

Jer. 31:31-34 (NKJV)
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

The church is NOT the house of Judah and consequently, can not claim this promise. Paul explains plainly and literally HOW the church can be a part of this promise in Rom. 11 and that it by grafting in not by replacing.

Heb. 8 (NKJV)
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

This talks about the new covenant (quoting Jeremiah 31). My answer is the same. The church can partake in this promise by virtue of being grafted into the covenant.


Heb. 10 (NKJV)
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Again, this is only applied to the church through the grafting into the covenant.

From Genesis 12 through Revelation we trace the story of Abraham’s seed in the world with the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham in the Gospel itself, for Christ came “To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he swear to our father Abraham,” (Luke 1:72,73)

Yes we do. We see the literal fulfillment of Isaiah 56 in the salvation of the gentiles. There are also unfulfilled promises to Israel that will be also literally fulfilled in the end of times.

In Galatians 3:7 we find that all who have faith are Abraham’s children and that we are blessed with him (v.9) because of our faith. Christ died so this blessing might come to the gentiles (v.14). We read that Abraham was justified by his faith in the promise of the Gospel (Galatians 3:6-9, 18) and Christians today are justified by faith in the same Gospel. We are Abraham’s true seed when we are “baptized into Christ” and have “put on Christ” (v.27, see also Romans 6:3) becoming “one with Christ Jesus.” (v.28)“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:29)

All, both in the OT and now in the NT, have been saved by the grace of God through faith. There is no soteriological difference between the OT and NT. Israel is Abraham's true seed with the gentiles being grafted into the promise through faith in the Son.

The whole of the Old Covenant “decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13) and has with the destruction of the Temple in 70a.d. The New Covenant made in Christ’s blood replaced the Old Covenant(s) and all the physical trappings attached to it are now gone, I don’t believe they are quietly placed aside until some future date but gone completely. The promises we have in Christ are far better. The New Covenant is made with the true spiritual Jew and it's not a matter of replacing Israel with the church but a fulfillment of Old Testament promises,

You have an incorrect understanding of the result of Jesus fulfillment of the law. The law is not gone. Not one jot will pass away UNTIL all is fulfilled (paraphrase of Matt. 5:18). Not all is fulfilled. The Christian (believer) is under grace not the law. That means that we no longer need a tutor to point us to Christ. The unbeliever, on the other hand, is still under the law. They need a tutor. There is no "spiritual" Jew. In the NC there is no Jew nor Greek (gentile). All are in Christ.

The unfulfilled prophesies regarding Israel will be fulfilled at the end of times which includes the tribulation and once the "fullness of the gentiles" is completed. God keeps His promises. No prophesy will remain unfulfilled.

"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, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2:28-29.

This passage does not help your case. The teaching here regards the outward appearance of those in Christ. Context is important. See the first verse:

1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.


ETA: Why is the city of God depicted in Rev. 21 called the New Jerusalem?

 

[Hentenza]

Dispensational = Dispensationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pretrib = Rapture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't debate with links. What is your understanding?

 

[JM]

This can not be applied to the church since the promise is to Israel.

I have to ask myself, why bother posting?

If what I post is just going to be ignored for your system of dispensationalism why bother?

By stating, "this cannot apply" does not prove your point since your point is assumed and it's assumed against the writers of the New Testament.

You ignore how the New Testament understands these passages for a pretend literalism. Read Romans 2 literally. It does help my case since you are guilty of claiming that God will look upon ethnic Israel in the future simply because they are ethnic Israel! Even when we clearly see the old covenant is down away with.

When addressing Hebrews (Heb. 12:24 see also 1 Pet. 1:2 and 1 John 2:1) you revert to a non-argument, ignore how the passage from Jeremiah and how the Spirit inspired the New Testament writer to use it.

That's not literalism but reading into a text, your Dispensational goggles are making you see things through unbelieving Jewish eyes.

jm

 

[JM]

I don't debate with links. What is your understanding?

This isn't a debate but a chat...what's your definition of a debate?

 

[Anoetos]

Nope. The church (gentiles plus converts from Judaism) is grafted into the olive tree (Israel). Tell me, who is the new covenant made with?

In Christ, Israel includes both ethnic Jews and believing Gentiles in one tree. The tree is Israel, it is the people of God in every age. To limit it to a bioethnic group is contrary to the New Testament which in many places takes pains to completely obliterate distinctions between "Jews" and "Greeks". The same kind of mistake is made when "the Church" is understood to be a "Gentile" entity and "Israel" a "Jewish" entity, the two not being reconciled until the end of days.

The Bible says that the two ARE one, not that they shall be made one.

Such distinctions are the products of a false, superimposed theological imperative.

The predominance of the expression "Israel" to describe the people of God in the Old Testament, and the predominance of the word "Church" to describe the same people in the New Testament should confuse no one. They are the same thing; i.e. the People of God, the Elect. It is not for nothing that Greek translations of the Old Testament call Israel, gathered for war or for worship, "Ekklesia".

When distinctions are drawn between Israel and Gentiles in the New Testament it is for a didactic purpose and almost always to show that, in Christ, for believers, such distinctions have become meaningless.

You will search far and wide and never find a distinction between "Israel" and "the Church" though. This is because such a distinction would be like distinguishing between male human beings and men or between the house cat and Felis domesticus.

 

[Hentenza]

I have to ask myself, why bother posting?

If what I post is just going to be ignored for your system of dispensationalism why bother?

By stating, "this cannot apply" does not prove your point since your point is assumed and it's assumed against the writers of the New Testament.

JM, none of the verses that you posted address the taking of the promise by the church. I am not ignoring what you posted and addressed every single portion of it.

Brother, It seems that you like to lump everyone into a label which is why I asked you to define some terms in your own words so that we can discuss that understanding. I agree with the dispensationalists view as far as reading the bible literally (except when literary devices makes it obvious that it is not).

You ignore how the New Testament understands these passages for a pretend literalism. Read Romans 2 literally. It does help my case since you are guilty of claiming that God will look upon ethnic Israel in the future simply because they are ethnic Israel! Even when we clearly see the old covenant is down away with.

Who said anything about ethnic Israel? Presently, ethnic Israel is mainly secular with pockets of the religious. God ordained a future tribulation to bring Israel into His fold. Examples of God doing this are plenty in the OT. God's promise that Israel will be His people and He will be their God will be fulfilled in the end of times not before.

When addressing Hebrews (Heb. 12:24 see also 1 Pet. 1:2 and 1 John 2:1) you revert to a non-argument, ignore how the passage from Jeremiah and how the Spirit inspired the New Testament writer to use it.

Huh? The NT writers are quoting the OT because it is still pertinent not because the church is now the sole recipient of the promise.

That's not literalism but reading into a text, your Dispensational goggles are making you see things through unbelieving Jewish eyes.

Excuse me but you have not provided a single literal verse that teaches that the church is now Israel. I am not the one allegorizing scripture. Verses must be taken in context.

Again, why is the city of God depicted in Rev. 21 called the New Jerusalem?