Featured In which "Millennial Camp" was ....

From what I understand Calvin would have fit into the Amill camp. If you call your self Reformed then you most likely also fit into the Amill camp.
It is possible to be a 5 pointer and be in different camps however. John MacArthur is Calvinist but he is also in the pretrib camp.

 

If I am remembering correctly, most of the puritans were anything but dispensationialists. I am thinking they were amil, historic pre-mill or post-mill. But someone with more knowledge may correct me if I am wrong.

 

The Pope driven church must be Amil and reject all dispensation, because if not, the acceptance of the false prophet and joining to the Antichrist would also oblige them to agree that they are the ones being discussed.

All groups that held to the pope driven church (Episcopalians, Lutherans, puritans) rather than separating from that evil, also carried with them the Amil view.

Because the Puritans were actively discrediting the Jews (as was Martin Luther, Bach, and other folks of that age) the contention was that the church replaced Israel (replacement theology) and that the world was going to evolve better and better until the world embraced Christ and there would be heaven on earth. A great deal of prophecy and the revelation is taken as allegory, and already fulfilled. This view is also sometimes referred to as Covenant theology.

None of that thinking aligns with Scriptures when taken literally as possible unlike that of dispensation views.

Therefore, there are more than one reformed assembly that also rejects Covenant theology in favor of pre-mil dispensation views.

 

He was historical premillennialist. That is, he believed in a premillennial return of Christ but not a pre-tribulational rapture.

Likewise, Calvin wasn't dispensationalist since that hadn't been invited yet. He was a covenant theologian (or federal thought.)

 

Riddlebarger quotes George Ladd:

"The futurist view has taken two forms which we may call the moderate and extreme futurist views. The latter is also known as Dispensationalism.... A moderate futurist view differs from the extreme futurist view at several points. It finds no reason, as does the latter, to distinguish sharply between Israel and the church."

Riddlebarger adds:

"According to this definition, dispensationalists are thoroughgoing futurists, while historic premillennialists and progressive dispensationalists tend to be moderate futurists."

 

What an ignorant pea brained and grossly erroneous statement this is.

 

I mean this in all humility: Start an outreach to the Jews, and see if you don't come back speaking as did Paul and Luther.

 

40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.. Mt 21

If that's not being 'replaced' then I guess I don't know the meaning of the word.

28 There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without.
29 And they shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. Lk 13

11 And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven:
12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Mt 8

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; Ro 11

When someone is booted out of the kingdom and others take their place, they have been replaced.

When the vineyard is taken from the original keepers and given to someone else, they have been replaced.

When original branches have been broken off and other branches have been grafted back in, they have been replaced.

 

....and I've no doubt whatsoever that the above post will not 'change your mind'. But 'changing your mind' is not my intent.

 

I will ask a question: who was this statement made to?

Israel.

In fact, many, if not most of the Lord's teachings can be seen to be first...to Israel.

When the Disciples were sent out, they went to Jews:


Matthew 10:5-7

King James Version (KJV)

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.



Matthew 15:22-24

King James Version (KJV)

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.



Now, back to the comment on the quoted passage:

You can know what "replaced" means and still not know where it applies to Eschatology.

Like you do here.

I would suggest the word you are looking for is judgment. Not replacement.

That is evident in the Olivet Discourse, where the Lord makes it clear that Jews are in view. Gentiles would not be concerned with the Temple, and the desolation of it.

What that means is that Israel will be relevant as a Nation to the Tribulation, thus does the Lord instruct them on the course of action they are to take.

But we did not see Gentile "take their place," we saw Gentile Inclusion:



Acts 9:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:



Acts 10:45

King James Version (KJV)

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Kind of hard, in light of Scripture, to seriously hold to a replacement theology. The only reason to do so would be to have been indoctrinated into a System of Theology that has to maintain certain doctrines in order to distinguish themselves.

"Replacement" implies exclusion in totality, or we would use a word like "supplement." We do not see that of Jews in Scripture, for it was Jews first sent out to Minister the New Covenant, Jews that the Lord instructed what they should do when the Tribulation began, and Jews spoken of in Prophecy.

The simple fact is that Jews are a part of "All families of the earth."

I guess this...

...was overlooked?

Oh, so Gentiles are watching over Israel and Jerusalem today? Christians are keeping the Covenant of Law?

Again we see that "replaced" is simply an absurd word to define the condition of the establishment of the New Covenant.

In view is a National Judgment against Israel, not a removal of Israel from the Redemptive Plan of God.

Secondly, we know that they were broken off due to unbelief, so not sure how we can "replace" unbelievers.

Since the above proof-text is used to speak of the Jews as a People, then perhaps we can follow that train of thought and instead of seeing Israel replaced, we can see that in view is judgment for unbelief, which was the case with Israel as a Nation, but cannot be applied to all Jews:


Romans 11:20-23

King James Version (KJV)

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.


He came unto His own and His own received Him not.

But, that doesn't mean there were no Jews that believed. The Disciples dispel that notion.

And it doesn't mean that as a Nation Jews will not still inherit the Promises of God. Prophecy and the teachings of Christ dispel that notion.

Now consider that in view is the Tree, which speaks of God's Provision. Branches were broken off and wild branches grafted into the same Tree.

You are, with your Theology...cutting down the Tree.


God bless.

 

Well, I suggest that you ignore it, or refute it.

But making an opinion known is not showing the post was in error, rather might indicate one who got their feelings hurt.

Are you ready to defend the Pope influenced groups I mentioned?

Are you ready to defend the racist views of Luther and Bach toward the Jews?

Are you seriously ready to state that Covenant theology does not teach replacement of Israel with the church - sometimes referred to as replacement theology?

Are you seriously going to contend that dispensation views do not take far more Scriptures in a literal way than that of covenant thinking which is well known and readily admitted by many covenant scholars?

Or perhaps you can, by taking Scriptures literally, demonstrate the validity of the covenant view? (A futile effort, because the covenant scholarship admits that they consider allegorical much of both the prophets and the revelation.)

As far as "out reach to the Jews" that is really a leaping assumption. How do you know I am not a converted Jew, or have political and social links to the Jewish community, or work with Jewish homeland relief efforts, or sponsor missionaries to the Jews, or ... The post is bordering on agreeing with racist thinking toward the Jews.

Posts, such as the two above in my opinion, are worthless, small minded, and do not reflect the character that the two posters usually contribute to the BB.

 

It's not replacement. The Israel of God has always been the Household of Faith. The Temple, the Priesthood and the Offerings are over. They're done. Christ is the real seed of Abraham, now the real High Priest, not according to the Law, which commanded a descendant of Aaron, but according to the power of an endless life. Christ is our real High Priest, after the real order (Melchisedek), standing in the real Holy of Holies, making real intercession for the real Israel, those who are children of Abraham by Faith.

The Law is done. The Levitical priesthood is done. The temple made with hands? Done. Geographical and political Israel? Done. THAT was the Parentheses.

 

Wanna see the Holy Land? Stand in the mirror. The dust of which you are made. That's the abode of God.

 

On the Contrary, if that were the case then the Israel of God would not have come under the Judgment of God and gone into captivity.

If we try to nullify the fact that there was and is an Israel on a National Basis who were the People of God under the Economy of the Covenant of Law...we deny some pretty basic teachings in Scripture.

For example, it was not to the "Israel of God" that the Covenant of Law was established with, but to Israel as a Nation. And we would have a hard time trying to show, from Scripture...that this Nation kept the Covenant of Law.

That is why the New Covenant was promised, specifically because they did not.

That would be, not "Replacement Theology," but Denial Theology."

Some of us happen to think there will be a Temple, Levitical Service, and yes, animal sacrifice...in the Millennial Kingdom.

These services are a matter of heritage, not salvation. Those services never brought about life or remission of sins on an eternal basis, and in the Millennial Kingdom, the sacrifices will have no eternal value either.

It is similar to Communion, and memorial, rather than salvific.

The Covenant of Law is what is done, which doesn't justify making obsolete everything in the Law. The Writer of Hebrews exhorts them to leave the first Principles of Christ, and to go on unto perfection, but does not imply they had to abandon those first principles. That would be like removing the first floor of a skyscraper, and the results equally disastrous.

So was Isaac, Jacob, David, and Judas Iscariot.

Completely different context when we speak about "spiritually being Jews."

We don't nullify the fact that there is a National Israel.

So were the Priests who rendered service to the God Who appointed them to that service.

It's not a matter of Christ being the "real" High Priest, but the Superior High Priest. His Priesthood does not invalidate Levitical Service.

It simply replaces it because Levitical Service is no longer required not that Christ has made Sacrifice and Remission of sins complete.

Agreed, but not contrary to the Law either. The First Principles foreshadow, but do not contradict the Priesthood of Christ.

Christ Himself was made under the Law, and fulfilled the Law in such a manner that no charge of failure on His part could ever be levied.

Also agreed.

Christ is our only High Priest, but that does not change the fact that in the First Century there were those who grew up under the legitimate and God ordained culture which could be considered a Religion. For them...the Levitical Priests were "real" Priests.

So we do not cancel out the History of Scripture just because God has made the Covenant of Law obsolete.

Melchisadec is not the "real order."

Christ is.

Melchisadec simply illustrates and foreshadows Christ, but should not be considered as one that Christ followed, or that Christ adopted characteristics of Melchisadec's Priesthood.

The point is that Christ's Priesthood is contrasted with Melchisadec's, not the Levitical Priest. Which for some Jews could be offensive, particularly for the very religious, who were dedicated to Judaism.

We cannot make a comparison between Melchisadec and Christ when we consider it from an eternal perspective. We can make a comparison to show differences between Christ's Priesthood and the Levitical.

Agreed, this is a very important issue, for Christ did not enter into the tabernacle made with hands, but into the true, that is, Heaven itself.

That does not make the Children of Israel who were unbelievers not of Israel.

I might debate that one too, from an Eschatological position: I believe that during the Tribulation, and possibly prior to the Tribulation, the Law will be practiced by many Jews. I believe there will be a Temple rebuilt, and that this is the Temple in which Antichrist will stand and declare himself god.

As far as being "done" in reality, though, yes, I agree...it is done.

Maybe. You may be right, and I may have my Prophecy all wrong.

As far as being done in terms of bringing atonement for sins, yes, that is replaced through the Work of Christ.

I will say that there is never any call for Jews to abandon their heritage, though, and whether there might be Levitical Service in the Millennial Kingdom, well, that is a highly debated issue. I think there will be, but can understand why some do not.

Does not preclude the Temple of the Tribulation or Millennial Kingdom.

Not even close, lol.

No, it was a picture of what God would ultimately do in Redemption of mankind.

Israel as a Nation is seen as active in the Tribulation, which can be seen in Prophecy.

The creation of Israel was not a parenthetical event, the Law was. Israel is still the People of God, and while she has been blinded in this Age, some of us see a fulfillment of the promises made to her coming.

Sorry for not including Scripture, this post is simply for the purpose of raising points that could be discussed, and depending on which points might raise discussion, the appropriate Scripture will be then introduced.


God bless.

 

Mere opinion, Aaron.

Both the Apostle John and Paul dispute most of your statements, as others have shown.

 

desire sacrifice not

The law does not allow a descendant of Judah to serve in the Temple, and yet, Christ, a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, is made the High Priest.

The priesthood has changed, therefore the law has been annulled, and there is no more basis for a Levitical priesthood. (Heb. 7:12, 7:18) The Levitical priesthood began at Sinai, Melchizedek has no beginning, nor end of days.

The Spirit testifies that as long as the Temple stood, it signified that the way into the Holiest of all is not yet revealed (Heb. 9:8), but it is revealed, therefore the veil was rent and the Temple destroyed.

 

Psa 51:16-17 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

A heritage centered on those things that God neither desires nor in which He delights is a vain heritage. But if you want heritage . . . to whom did Abraham pay tithes? That is the priesthood that is in operation.

 

You quote from the book of Hebrews. The book of Hebrews thoroughly refutes Replacement theology. The premise of the book thoroughly refutes it.
The author is writing to discouraged Hebrew Christians, Jewish believers who had become discouraged because of persecution and trials in life. They were thinking of going back to OT worship, to the Temple. How much easier would that be! They would no longer be the enemy of their former family who no doubt expelled them and even tried to kill them. (Think of what Saul was like before he became Paul).

In the entire book the author sets before his readers two distinct thoughts: OT worship (Israel) and NT worship; the Temple vs. the Spirit; the High Priest of the OT vs. the Great High Priest (Christ) of the NT, etc.
The key phrase is "better than". Christ is "better than," better than every thing that Israel has to offer, than OT worship has to offer, than the Temple has to offer.

They were thinking of going back to "Temple worship," or the OT ways, Judaism, the ways of Israel, or simply becoming an Israelite once again. The book was written just before 70 A.D. Obviously Israel was still in existence. The comparison is made that Christianity and Christ is better than Israel and the Temple and its worship. The entire theme proves the existence of Israel. The church had not replaced Israel. The book of Hebrews proved its existence. What do you think he was writing about???

 

This realization caused me to virtually abandon Dispensational thought.

And this realization causes me to shake my head at those who meet at "the house of God" on Sundays, bring tithes to an "altar", and so forth.


Good stuff, Aaron