The Church is Israel - Amillennialism

[zone]

i highly recommend this read.

Tobby i won't post the whole thing...but will you read it? puleeze?

all issues beautifully resolved. unity of Redemptive History maintained.
eschatology made easy.
dispensationalism debunked.

you can scroll to the issue you're interested in.


JESUS CHRIST GLORIFIED


semi-summary:

CONCLUSION
The lack of understanding of the scriptures, and the promises concerning the nation of Israel is what drives those who hold doctrines such as Premillennialism, to condemn what is obviously Biblical. To these Theologians, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah refers exclusively to the literal nation or physical posterity of Israel, and so the promises of redemption to Israel they believe is yet future. But they are unable to explain how Christ did all His redeeming of Israel at the cross, and yet their doctrine are that scripture speaks of Him coming again for a future redemption for Israel to fulfill the prophesy that "all Israel shall be saved." Is Christ going to the cross a second time to redeem or take away sin of Israel? Or is it that redemption and all those scriptures that speak of it, are already fulfilled, and the lack of acceptance of Christ's Word of fulfillment is at the root of their error. Answers to these questions come in our receiving the New Testament explanation of the old. We must of necessity receive what has been revealed in scripture. All Israel shall be saved, but it will be all the Israel of God. For God has already declared (to those who will receive it) that ALL Israel (the nation) are not Israel. Therefore, the All Israel could never be the literal nation.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amillennial.shtml



if you're blessed by it please post! enjoy!

 

[texian]

"The lack of understanding of the scriptures, and the promises concerning the nation of Israel is what drives those who hold doctrines such as Premillennialism, to condemn what is obviously Biblical. To these Theologians, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah refers exclusively to the literal nation or physical posterity of Israel, and so the promises of redemption to Israel they believe is yet future. But they are unable to explain how Christ did all His redeeming of Israel at the cross, and yet their doctrine are that scripture speaks of Him coming again for a future redemption for Israel to fulfill the prophesy that "all Israel shall be saved."

The contemporary Reformed "church" has called dispensationalism premillennialism, as though dispensationalism were the only view which holds to Revelation 20: 1-8. This confuses the dispensationalist teaching that the millennium is to be a Jewish millennium, and that salvation for physical Israel is postponed until the tribulation or the millennium. They stick to the Catholic view - amillennialism - and Revelation 20: 1-8 just refers to the entire "church" age, which Calvin authorized when he said Christians should get their theology from the Catholic Augustine. But not all Reformed people are amillennial. Some, follow historical premillennialism.

 

[zone]

"The lack of understanding of the scriptures, and the promises concerning the nation of Israel is what drives those who hold doctrines such as Premillennialism, to condemn what is obviously Biblical. To these Theologians, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah refers exclusively to the literal nation or physical posterity of Israel, and so the promises of redemption to Israel they believe is yet future. But they are unable to explain how Christ did all His redeeming of Israel at the cross, and yet their doctrine are that scripture speaks of Him coming again for a future redemption for Israel to fulfill the prophesy that "all Israel shall be saved.".

amen.

"
The contemporary Reformed "church" has called dispensationalism premillennialism, as though dispensationalism were the only view which holds to Revelation 20: 1-8. This confuses the dispensationalist teaching that the millennium is to be a Jewish millennium, and that salvation for physical Israel is postponed until the tribulation or the millennium. They stick to the Catholic view - amillennialism - and Revelation 20: 1-8 just refers to the entire "church" age, which Calvin authorized when he said Christians should get their theology from the Catholic Augustine. But not all Reformed people are amillennial. Some, follow historical premillennialism.

umm...yes.
many people follow 'historical premillennialism'.
just because we put the word "historical" in front of premillennialism doesn't make it true.
its still unbiblical and judaic.
it still denies the Finished Work.

not sure what your position is, or if you were just making an observation.

Rome or Calvin or Auggie have nothing to do with it.

 

[1still_waters]

I don't like saying the church is Israel. Although in a technical way it's true, it seems to push aside God's promises to Israel.

The church is the believing remnant of Jews who trust Jesus and the grafted in Gentiles who trust Jesus.

 

[1still_waters]

I'd prefer a term like...

We're the United Israel. United genetic Jews who trust Jesus with the gentiles who are grafted in. United through Jesus. Hence a United Israel.

 

[1still_waters]

Or the the 'blessed Israel'.

 

[zone]

I don't like saying the church is Israel. Although in a technical way it's true, it seems to push aside God's promises to Israel.

The church is the believing remnant of Jews who trust Jesus and the grafted in Gentiles who trust Jesus.

but God's promises to Israel are fulfilled in the true Israel of God, Jesus and His church
its scripture itself that uses the terms. its what we have to work with.

The church is the believing remnant of Jews who trust Jesus and the grafted in Gentiles who trust Jesus

so who is israel?

 

[zone]

Or the the 'blessed Israel'.

uh oh....then there'll be an 'unblessed israel'.
back to square one.

 

[1still_waters]

but God's promises to Israel are fulfilled in the true Israel of God, Jesus and His church
its scripture itself that uses the terms. its what we have to work with.

The church is the believing remnant of Jews who trust Jesus and the grafted in Gentiles who trust Jesus

so who is israel?

Yeah but that kinda sounds like what Catholics do when they call Mary immaculate based on this logic...

Jesus is the Son of God.
Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Mary is the mother of God.
Therefore Mary isn't human.

...

 

[zone]

Yeah but that kinda sounds like what Catholics do when they call Mary immaculate based on this logic...

Jesus is the Son of God.
Mary gave birth to Jesus.
Mary is the mother of God.
Therefore Mary isn't human.

...

ok.
but then we end up with what seems like/sounds like a distinction between the church and israel again per Darby et al.

i.e:

the church is not israel
israel is not the church

2 separate peoples...2 plans

i don't think we're allowed to do that.

 

[1still_waters]

ok.
but then we end up with what seems like/sounds like a distinction between the church and israel again per Darby et al.

i.e:

the church is not israel
israel is not the church

2 separate peoples...2 plans

i don't think we're allowed to do that.

No. Because God even makes a distinction between covenant breaking Jews and his remnant.

God doesn't have to uphold a thing to covenant breaking rebellious Jews. And those who say he does, believe in a God who literally forces people to believe in him! That's more extreme than even a Calvinist.

God's plan for covenant breaking Jews is the same as his plan for gentiles who reject Jesus.

God's plan for covenant keeping Jews, ie the remnant who believe in Jesus is the same as those Gentiles who believe in Jesus.

You don't end up with two separate plans.

You end up with a plan for the covenant keepers and a plan for the non covenant keepers. Yes two plans in a sense, but not like two positive plans.

 

[zone]

No. Because God even makes a distinction between covenant breaking Jews and his remnant.

God doesn't have to uphold a thing to covenant breaking rebellious Jews. And those who say he does, believe in a God who literally forces people to believe in him! That's more extreme than even a Calvinist.

God's plan for covenant breaking Jews is the same as his plan for gentiles who reject Jesus.

God's plan for covenant keeping Jews, ie the remnant who believe in Jesus is the same as those Gentiles who believe in Jesus.

You don't end up with two separate plans.

You end up with a plan for the covenant keepers and a plan for the non covenant keepers. Yes two plans in a sense, but not like two positive plans.

i know all that Still.

but what do we do with the word ISRAEL that keeps getting in the way when it shouldn't?
and what do we do with the word CHURCH?

i see your points. maybe its possible to change terminology, but is it going to help with theology?
dunno. its like two totally different Bibles.

 

[zone]

like...if we just take ONE issue at a time, the gaps disappear: i.e:


The First Resurrection

Another point that some detractors of the Amillennialist position condemn is that we say that the scripture teaches that "The First Resurrection" is the new birth. But again, either that is true, or our God is not telling the truth when He says it! One or the other, take your pick. God's Word teaches us that Christ is the first born from the dead that in all things he might have preeminence. That's the first resurrection from the dead. So the question is, "is Christ the first born from the dead or not?"

Because if that's not true, then the resurrection wherein God says "we were raised up in His death," is frankly all a monumental deception. If it is true, then as Christ is the first raised from the dead, and we who were raised up with Him have part in the first resurrection.

And if it's not true, then when Jesus told Martha (who thought that Lazarus would be first raised up in the last day) that, "HE was the Resurrection," it was all a lie, and all those raised in Him are not really raised up in His First Resurrection. We must then ask ourselves, "are believers raised up with Christ in a Pretend Resurrection, or was it with Christ as the first born from the dead?" Were we ever dead and raised up before Christ raised us up? The answer is no.

So then this must of necessity be the "first" resurrection, just as we are told Christ is the first raised from the dead. If we really believe that Christ was the "first" from the dead, then the answers are obvious. We were raised up with Christ in his "First Resurrection." Again, maybe not according to some theologians, but according to the Holy Scriptures we were. And interpretations do belong to God.


Colossians 2:13 "And you being Dead in your sins, and the un-circumcision of your flesh, hath he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespass."

Ephesians 2:5-6
"Even when we were Dead in sins, hath He made us Alive together with Christ (by Grace ye are saved).
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amillennial.shtml <<more First Resurrection

But because we had part in the first resurrection, we have no part in that judgment. There is no second death for those who have part in the first resurrection.

 

[zone]

Old Covenant promises to Israel, Fulfilled in New Covenant Israel

The Old Testament (as understood by Premillennialists) is Israel-centered rather than God centered.

But the New Testament reveals that the history, ordinances, and indeed the very nation of Israel itself were types and shadows of spiritual realities that would come in Christ (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:1-5; 10:1; 1 Cor. 10:18).

Not fully understanding this most basic of Biblical principles is at the root of most of the millennial errors of theologians. When God says something is fulfilled, then it is fulfilled.

The types of Old Testament Israel (Prophets, Jerusalem, Feasts, Priests, the Law, Kingdom, Land, Sacrificial System, Temple, Deliverance, etc.) were all fulfilled in Christ (Luke 24:27).

The problem is that many people, whether consciously or unconsciously, refuse to accept the fact that these types were actually fulfilled in Christ. They may give lip service to understanding it, but in practice they deny it.

In point of fact, the scriptures are devastating to such an unfulfilled approach to the Old Testament prophesy, for it would prolong what God has once and for all abolished by the cross. Namely, the institutions and shadows that were of the nation Israel. These "types" were fulfilled.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amillennial.shtml

 

[1still_waters]

i know all that Still.

but what do we do with the word ISRAEL that keeps getting in the way when it shouldn't?
and what do we do with the word CHURCH?

i see your points. maybe its possible to change terminology, but is it going to help with theology?
dunno. its like two totally different Bibles.

I think amills and dispys do a disservice to non-believing Jews of the flesh.

We know that a purpose of Gentiles believing Jesus is to make the Jews jealous.

I ask, then, have they stumbled so as to fall? Absolutely not! On the contrary, by their stumbling, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous.

Well if the amills always use the term 'church', how in the world will that make a Jew want to join on up? How does that make them jealous? They're JEWS not THE CHURCH.

And if dispys say that God is going to save ALL Israel regardless of faith in Jesus and if they're saying God is doing things for covenant breakers right now, how in the world will that provoke any jealousy out of the Jews? I mean if he's doing all this stuff regardless of their total rejection of Jesus, then that certainly won't provoke them in to being JEALOUS!

BUT IF!

We change the term of church to something like UNITED ISRAEL, then they'll be like, "Hey wait! We're Israel not you!" To which we'll reply with some message of how the true Israel is the one who believes in Jesus. Now if they perceive that there is a TRUE Israel, that might make them think they're in the untrue Israel, provoking some jealousy, and maybe making some of them come in to the UNITED ISRAEL!

So amills need to quit referencing 'church' so much, because it's a non-Jewish term that honestly won't provoke much jealousy. Dispys need to quit saying God is faithful to covenant breakers and rejecters of Jesus, because that won't make them jealous of a thing.

 

[zone]

I think amills and dispys do a disservice to non-believing Jews of the flesh.

We know that a purpose of Gentiles believing Jesus is to make the Jews jealous.

I ask, then, have they stumbled so as to fall? Absolutely not! On the contrary, by their stumbling, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous.

Well if the amills always use the term 'church', how in the world will that make a Jew want to join on up? How does that make them jealous? They're JEWS not THE CHURCH.

And if dispys say that God is going to save ALL Israel regardless of faith in Jesus and if they're saying God is doing things for covenant breakers right now, how in the world will that provoke any jealousy out of the Jews? I mean if he's doing all this stuff regardless of their total rejection of Jesus, then that certainly won't provoke them in to being JEALOUS!

BUT IF!

We change the term of church to something like UNITED ISRAEL, then they'll be like, "Hey wait! We're Israel not you!" To which we'll reply with some message of how the true Israel is the one who believes in Jesus. Now if they perceive that there is a TRUE Israel, that might make them think they're in the untrue Israel, provoking some jealousy, and maybe making some of them come in to the UNITED ISRAEL!

So amills need to quit referencing 'church' so much, because it's a non-Jewish term that honestly won't provoke much jealousy. Dispys need to quit saying God is faithful to covenant breakers and rejecters of Jesus, because that won't make them jealous of a thing.

or, gentile converts to Talmudic Judaism/Anglo-Saxons/everybody in the world/ could quit calling themselves israel.

then we'd have ekklesia making sense. church is just english for ekklesia, still.

i'm trying to picture talking to an unbelieving jew, or jews seeing christian buildings with signs that say United Israel and that making any difference whatsoever. maybe (?)

anyways....the reason for this OP title is not for unbelieving jews who don't believe the New Covenant is in Place and the King Reigns, its for christians who don't believe it!

 

[1still_waters]

I'll pose my question here that I posed in the other thread.

Will Jews that reject Jesus be saved?

Please don't act offended by the question folks. It's an honest question because many DO believe ALL Israel of the flesh will be saved. So the answer to this question sheds alotta light on their other theological positions.

 

[Abiding]

rivalry is the sense romans is refering to....(look up jealousy before you go to far with that thought.)
which has happened. Acts 13:44,45,50.....all along jews entering the church.

Dont think we need to concern ourselves in giftwrapping the gospel.

 

[AnandaHya]

or we could just say that all of God's children or chosen People believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord and if they do not they reject the Light and are of darkness.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

i don't really have an opinion on the millennium yet...

there is a millennium in revelation...but revelation is very complicated and it is much easier for me to understand the end time teaching of jesus...

i have a hard time fitting any millennium into jesus' teaching in matthew 24-25 or mark 13 or luke 21...

i will say that on the amillennialist side i see a lot of combativeness and condemnation and fear and paranoia and resentment and bitterness and arrogance and aspersion... i have a hard time imagining that the true gospel would produce those kinds of attitudes in a person... and i don't see any of that nearly as often in the dispensationalist or premillennialist or even the preterist camps...

if amillennialists do have the truth then they certainly aren't speaking it in love here...

i guess to get to the truth i am just going to have to ignore both sides and figure it all out for myself...