Are the Jews still God's people?

[webdog]

Yes it is...is the Lord a "thief in the night"

How can you physically and literally burn a "work"

 

[DHK]

Not so fast DHK.... A believing Gentile IS part of the Church. A non-believing gentile is not under the direction of the Holy Spirit. I don't think this statement is factual, "Paul delineates three distinct groups of people".

Also note, a believing Jew IS part of the Church. A non-believing Jew is who we bring to question in this thread. By your theory, a non-believing Jew is the same as a non-believing gentile and the Church which I don't believe is right.

So Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, according to you is telling a lie?
He is not being factual.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

 

[Amy.G]

Yes it is...is the Lord a "thief in the night"

How can you physically and literally burn a "work"

I can't say that I've ever heard anyone say this verse was figurative.

John McArthur disagrees with you, as do the notes in the Life App. Bible, Strong's says "consume wholly".

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I thought you guys took things literally?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I believe some may need to read this passage again.

Ge 17:1 ¶ And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4 ¶ As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7 ¶ And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

GE:
If you want to be 'literal', HP, be 'literal' consistently!
"I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee" --- two generations; no more = "for an everlasting possession"

Paul though, speaks of this 'seed' in the Singular, as of Christ; therefore it should not be understood literally; and so also not the word 'everlasting'.

"the land wherein thou art a stranger" ---- for as long as a stranger in the land; that was not for 'everlasting'.

".... all the land of Canaan ...." never, had been the possession of all Israel or only some of Israel. In fact, Hebrews says Abraham - or for that matter any believer - never possessed as much as a hand's width of all Canaan.

".... I will be their God" for everlasting? Israel often rejected God for their God, and the last time in Jesus Christ, they lost God for their God for always. So their 'everlasting' covenantal relationship with God was of but short duration.

 

[webdog]

Many people have the wrong view on earth and God's plan not to only redeem mankind, but creation. I don't hold that against y'all

...am curious how you can literally burn a work, though...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

LeBuick:
"A non-believing Jew is who we bring to question in this thread. By your theory, a non-believing Jew is the same as a non-believing gentile and the Church which I don't believe is right."

GE:
In Galatians Paul at length argues how he as a Jew first had to become (like) a Gentile in order to be saved by grace through faith --- not as a Jew; but as if an uncircumcised. In fact therefore, Paul is precisely arguing "a non-believing Jew is the same as a non-believing gentile".

 

[LeBuick]

It seems the problem in this thread is that some people want to spiritualize everything or allegorize everything instead of reading the text in context and comparing Scripture with Scripture.

But God is a spirit and in case you didn't notice, His promises are spiritual. We were not physically grafted into Israel or the vine, we were spiritual included.

 

[LeBuick]

Then the Bible's not true?

Exodus 4:22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.

You sure that passage means all of Israel to include those who rejected Christ?

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[LeBuick]

So Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, according to you is telling a lie?
He is not being factual.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

No, Paul is not telling a lie. It is your interpretation of what Paul said that isn't factual. What Paul said is 100% correct. You're just reading it wrong (in my view).

 

[LeBuick]

GE:
If you want to be 'literal', HP, be 'literal' consistently!
"I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee" --- two generations; no more = "for an everlasting possession"

Paul though, speaks of this 'seed' in the Singular, as of Christ; therefore it should not be understood literally; and so also not the word 'everlasting'.

"the land wherein thou art a stranger" ---- for as long as a stranger in the land; that was not for 'everlasting'.

".... all the land of Canaan ...." never, had been the possession of all Israel or only some of Israel. In fact, Hebrews says Abraham - or for that matter any believer - never possessed as much as a hand's width of all Canaan.

".... I will be their God" for everlasting? Israel often rejected God for their God, and the last time in Jesus Christ, they lost God for their God for always. So their 'everlasting' covenantal relationship with God was of but short duration.

AMEN... Great post!!!

And to add, if Paul thought Israel was saved, why would he take the time to pry for their salvation?

Ro 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

 

[LeBuick]

Many people have the wrong view on earth and God's plan not to only redeem mankind, but creation. I don't hold that against y'all

...am curious how you can literally burn a work, though...

We appreciate that...

 

[LeBuick]

LeBuick:
"A non-believing Jew is who we bring to question in this thread. By your theory, a non-believing Jew is the same as a non-believing gentile and the Church which I don't believe is right."

GE:
In Galatians Paul at length argues how he as a Jew first had to become (like) a Gentile in order to be saved by grace through faith --- not as a Jew; but as if an uncircumcised. In fact therefore, Paul is precisely arguing "a non-believing Jew is the same as a non-believing gentile".

AMEN again Brother... No improvement can be made to that post... :thumbsup:

 

[Allan]

HP: Now you have made quite a claim. Now all you need to do is to show us the evidence to support such a remark. :wavey:

oops, that should be ad. not bc.

The claim is pretty easy to validate by looking into the works of Chafer or most any other person specializing in Church History.

Here is a good site to see what I'm speaking of. The site itself isn't authoritive but he quotes the works of these men who are consider quite authoritive and sets forth the names of the early church fathers as well.

Such as these:
Peters states regarding the above: "These all lived between A.D. 1-100; John, it is supposed -- so Mosheim, etc. -- died about A.D. 100. (All these are cited by Papias, who, according to Irenaeus, was one of John's hearers, and intimate with Polycarp. John is also expressly mentioned by Justin. Now this reference to the apostles agrees with the facts that we have proven: (a) that the disciples of Jesus did hold the Jewish views of the Messianic reign in the first part of this century, and (b) that, instead of discarding them, they linked them with the Sec. Advent)."

10. Clement of Rome A.D. 40-100
11. Barnabas A.D 40-100
12 Hermas A.D 40-150
13 Ignatius A.D. 50-115
14 Polycarp A.D. 70-167
15. Papias A.D. 80-163


None can be cited in this century to be against The Premillennial view.

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 2nd Century:
1. Pothinus A.D. 87-177
2. Justin Martyr A.D. 100-168
3. Melito A.D. 100-170
4. Hegisippus A.D. 130-190
5. Tatian A.D. 130-190
6. Irenaeus A.D. 140-202
7. The Churches of Vienne and Lyons - a letter A.D. 177
8. Tertulian A.D. 150-220
9. Hippolytus A.D. 160-240
10 Apollinaris A.D. 150-200


None can be cited in this century to be against Premillennialism. The common belief of the Church was Chiliastic (Premillennial).

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 3rd Century:
1. Cyprian A.D. 200-258
2. Commodian A.D. 200-270
3. Nepos A.D. 230-280
4. Coracion A.D. 230-280
5. Victorinus A.D. 240-303
6. Methodius A.D. 250-311
7. Lactantius A.D. 240-330


There were only four in this century that opposed the Premillennial view:
1. Caius (or Gaius), wrote about A.D. 210
2, Clemens Alexandrinus, died A.D. 202, great influence on Origin
3. Origin A.D. 185-254
4. Dionysius A.D. 190-265

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 1st Century:
1. Andrew
2. Peter
3. Philip
4. Thomas
5. James
6. John
7. Matthew
8. Aristio
9. John the Presbyter

HP: Allen, first, tell us in a nutshell just what you see this ‘pre-mill’ view as consisting of.

I have to admit that I had to smile when I read the list of Pre-Mil Advocates of the first century. Maybe you could help us. Start with Andrew. How is it established that he was pre-mil in the sense you are using the term?

 

[LadyEagle]

Wow, Allan - thanks for providing this and for the link! You backed up what I said earlier in this thread with historical facts, way to go! :thumbs:

Of particular interest is this paragraph:

The Biblically based doctrine of Premillennialism disappeared when Christianity became a world power:


VI. CHILIASM BEGAN TO BE RESTORED IN THE REFORMATION The entire character of Biblical testimony was changed by Gnostic and Alexandrian influences, and, along with all vital truth, the church lost her conception of the purifying hope of Christ's return, and, eventually, under Constantine, exchanged the divine program of a returning Lord for a world-conquering church. Of this, Dr. James H. Brooks (Maranatha, p. 536) quotes Bengel as saying: "When Christianity became a worldly power by Constantine, the hope of the future was weakened by the joy over the present success." Similarly, Auberlen (Daniel, p. 375) has this to say: "Chiliasm disappeared in proportion as Roman Papal Catholicism advanced. The Papacy took to itself, as a robbery, that glory which is an object of hope, and can only be reached by obedience and humility of the cross. When the Church became a harlot, she ceased to be a bride who goes out to meet her bridegroom; and thus Chiliasm disappeared. This is the deep truth that lies at the bottom of the Protestant, anti-papistic interpretation of the Apocalypse" (both references cited by Peters, op. cit, I, 499) (Chafer Vol. 4, p. 277-278).

I wish there was a way to save your post for future discussions bashing pre-millenianism. Not that the other side will take the Early Church Fathers' word for it. :tear:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

LadyEagle: Wow, Allan - thanks for providing this and for the link! You backed up what I said earlier in this thread with historical facts, way to go[/quote!]

HP: So the mere list of a bunch of names, or a mans opinion as to what the other means by what he said is proof of a position? It certainly does not take much to prove a point to some. Why not wait and see if Allan can show us the connection of Pre-mil and the first name on the list of those in the first century that supposedly believed in the Pre-mil position, again, whatever that entails to Allan. How is a link to a web site and a list of names proof of the Pre-Mil position? Besides that, there are more than likely differing positions of the Pre-Mil position, are there not? For which position is this supposed proof backing?

 

[LeBuick]

Wow, Allan - thanks for providing this and for the link! You backed up what I said earlier in this thread with historical facts, way to go! :thumbs:

Of particular interest is this paragraph:

I wish there was a way to save your post for future discussions bashing pre-millenianism. Not that the other side will take the Early Church Fathers' word for it. :tear:

One question LE, did you notice a name conspicuously missing from the list of 1 Century names?

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 1st Century:
1. Andrew
2. Peter
3. Philip
4. Thomas
5. James
6. John
7. Matthew
8. Aristio
9. John the Presbyter

Where is the Apostle Paul's name? Is this to imply all the Apostles didn't agree?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

LeBuick: One question LE, did you notice a name conspicuously missing from the list of 1 Century names?

HP: I thought you were going to ask about Jesus. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Amy.G]

CHILIASM BEGAN TO BE RESTORED IN THE REFORMATION The entire character of Biblical testimony was changed by Gnostic and Alexandrian influences, and, along with all vital truth, the church lost her conception of the purifying hope of Christ's return, and, eventually, under Constantine, exchanged the divine program of a returning Lord for a world-conquering church.

I assume Chiliasm is the same as pre-mil?

I am not aware of anyone on this board who does not believe that Christ will return and instead looks for a world conquering church.


Also, I would like to know how you can prove that the disciples were pre-mil. (oops, sorry. This one belongs to LE)

 

[LeBuick]

HP: I thought you were going to ask about Jesus. :smilewinkgrin:

I did originally then edited my post since I know they would call foul... :thumbsup: