I am not an amill and amill is not a system it is a faulty interpretation.
Replacement theology? Yes or No.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I am not an amill and amill is not a system it is a faulty interpretation.
Ot shadows
“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
John 10:16 KJV
“Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”
Ephesians 2:11-16
The dividing of Israel’s tribes in the ot and promose to make them one again is a pattern for Jew and gentile in the nt e wing made one group.
“And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”
Revelation 6:1-2 KJV
They are probably seeing the progression through the book
and remembering prophecy about Christ in the ot as a rider with a bow and arrows judging the people with wrath or trampling the wine press of wrath having his clothes covered in blood or maybe just seeing this later in the book
“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; ( he rode out to conquer now he’s wearing many crowns ) and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND Lord OF LORDS.”
Revelation 19:11-16 KJV
anyone realizing who’s behind the chaos could possibly consider the white horse and rider being Jesus as the plan of victory began
Maybe this is where it starts
“ and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”
And when it’s coming to an end the progression is revealed
“behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; “
Just a thought though lol I don’t even know what a “ post millennialist “ is the labels have become exhaustive and overused
Maybe they can blame Jesus for marrying born again newly purified wife. Not adulterous who refuse to leave her idols.
Oops
There is no replacement covenant of God, in that the Jew is replaced by the Christian as the people of God. The Jew can also repent and be grafted in again to the holy Israel and nation of Jesus Christ.
Rom 11:23
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Romans 11 is all about the false accusation of new Christians, that the Jews are forever cut off without redemption, for having Jesus Christ crucified. That is false, even as Paul points out that he himself is also an Israelite after the flesh.
The Old covenant was made dead by Christ's crucifixion, and the wholly New covenant is now made alive through His resurrection. Likewise the OT law of Moses is done away, with the HT law of Christ now preached by His apostles.
Nor do the NT Christians replace the Jews as the people of God, but are added with the Jews, that repent of Jesus' death and live by His faith toward God.
Rom 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Acts{11:18}
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
And so, the covenant of God by the promised seed Christ is no longer to the natural Jew only, but also to the spiritual circumcision among all nations.
Rom 2:28
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.
However the promise of land to Abraham personally, and his natural seed, must still be fulfilled at the second coming of the LORD. That land division and royal priesthood to the inwardly and outwardly circumcised Jew, is prophesied in Ezek 40+.
The LORD promised the land to Abraham himself, not only His natural seed, which he did not recieve in his days on earth. Therefore, the LORD must raise Abraham from the dead to keep His promise of land at His return.
Gen 17:8
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.
Heb 11:13
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
You wont see me posting for a while because I have concussion from reading "and historicism" lol
It even pre-dates the reformation. When the Roman Church split between East and West - as in the Eastern Orthoodox and Roman Catholic West, the eastern pope would call the Western Pope the anti-Christ
In my understanding of the 144000 it makes sense, and in yours it does not.
But isn't interesting to look at
It is rather sad. I got all bent when I learned that early missionaries were allowing pagans to drag some of their pagan practices into the Christian church just to appease them in an effort to convert them. That's just not the way to convert people.
That's because you're not looking at where they are located. The 144,000 representing the 12 tribes of Israel are redeemed Israelites that work as witnesses for God/Jesus during the final Great Tribulation.
***THE*** (definite article singular) man of sin aka THE little horn is the anti-Christ of Revelation.
The biblical languages do not merely permit a singular personal Antichrist; several of the principal NT designations explicitly demand a definite singular referent: ὁ ἄνθρωπος (“THE man”), ὁ υἱός (“THE son”), ὁ ἄνομος (“THE lawless one”), ὁ ἀντίχριστος (“THE Antichrist”), and τὸ θηρίον (“THE Beast”). Daniel likewise progresses from “a little horn” to the determinate “THE horn.”
So no, the dynastic and historical Papacy is not THE SINGULAR lawless one of 2 Thes 2 and Revelation.
And FYI, this beast is a literal Satan-man counterfeit, who is the direct antithesis of the God-man.
And don't fail to recognize the TIMING. Satan enters into THE beast about mid-trib. Then and only then does the beast reach the zenith of his miraculous power. To the degree where the entire world says this about HIM:
Rev 13:4
And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
The world considers THE beast aka THE horn aka THE lawless one to be an UNKILLABLE supernaturally powered entity, and CONSEQUENTLY immediately aligns with him.
This son of perdition is the GREATER Judas, the GREATER Goliath among other historical "types".
In the final form, he is indwelt by Satan (who was cast down to earth in Chapter 12), and is a literal demonic HYBRID entity as was Goliath and the pre-flood giants. In other words a literal Satan-man!
The clearest text is Revelation 13:2:
The Dragon has already been identified explicitly as Satan:
So Revelation's chain is:
Satan/Dragon → Beast → satanic power, throne, authority.
Then Revelation 13:4 makes the relationship even stronger:
Thus worship of the Beast is simultaneously connected with worship of Satan.
However, that is still technically empowerment, not an explicit statement of indwelling.
The closest biblical precedent for literal satanic entrance is Judas Iscariot:
and even more explicitly:
That gives us an actual biblical category in which Satan personally enters and controls a human being.
This is why some dispensational/futurist interpreters see Judas as an important type or foreshadowing of Antichrist. Both Judas and the final opponent are called “the son of perdition.”
Judas:
Antichrist:
That verbal parallel is very striking.
Paul further describes the Antichrist's arrival as:
Greek:
meaning approximately:
“according to the activity/working of Satan.”
So Paul explicitly attributes his supernatural activity to Satanic operation.
There is also Revelation 13's apparent death-and-restoration event:
and:
and:
There is another suggestive parallel in Revelation 11 and 17. The Beast is repeatedly described as coming from the abyss:
Oh you are NOT going to like this doctrine my RT friend. Nor will @HeIsHere , @Beekeeper , @WayneNSO , @Pilgrimshope et alMaybe they can blame Jesus for marrying born again newly purified wife. Not adulterous who refuse to leave her idols.
Oops
But, it is true nevertheless. So get a grip and hold on tight, your quaint little ideology is about to collapse around you.
Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s dispensational position is straightforward: Israel is the ***covenantal possessor*** of the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31. The Church participates in its spiritual blessings, but the covenant itself was made with national Israel and Judah.
Jeremiah could hardly be more explicit:
The text does not say that God would make the covenant with a future entity called the Church. It names the covenant parties directly: the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
The same passage describes Israel’s future national restoration:
And Jeremiah immediately ties this promise to Israel’s continued national existence:
That statement is devastating to replacement theology. God deliberately anchors the covenant to the permanence of Israel as a nation.
The prophets say the same thing elsewhere. Ezekiel 36 promises Israel cleansing, a new heart, the indwelling Spirit, and restoration to “the land that I gave to your fathers” (Ezek. 36:24–28). Ezekiel 37 joins Israel and Judah, restores them to the land, places David over them, and promises an everlasting covenant. These are not descriptions of the Church replacing Israel. They are promises of Israel’s future national and spiritual restoration.
The New Testament does not cancel this.
At the Last Supper, Christ established the basis of the New Covenant through His blood:
But the fact that the Church presently receives New Covenant blessings does not mean the Church has become the covenant’s original covenant party.
Paul makes this distinction remarkably clear. In Romans 11, Gentile believers are depicted not as replacing Israel, but as wild olive branches grafted into blessings rooted in Israel’s covenantal promises. Paul explicitly warns Gentiles:
The Gentiles do not become the root. They benefit from the root.
Paul then states that Israel’s present hardening is temporary:
He immediately connects this future salvation of Israel with covenant fulfillment:
That is covenant language applied to Israel after the present Gentile ingathering.
Acts follows the same pattern. The earliest believers were Jewish. The great surprise was not that Israel had somehow ceased to exist as God’s covenant nation, but that Gentiles were also being granted salvation apart from becoming Jews.
Peter is astonished in Acts 10 when the Holy Spirit falls upon Gentiles. In Acts 11:18 the Jewish believers respond:
Acts 15 addresses the same issue. The controversy is whether Gentiles must undergo circumcision and enter Judaism in order to be saved. The apostolic answer is no: God is taking from the Gentiles “a people for his name” (Acts 15:14). Yet James immediately cites the prophets concerning the future restoration of David’s fallen tabernacle. Gentile salvation does not erase Israel’s promises.
Ephesians 2 is also frequently misunderstood. Gentiles had once been:
Through Christ they have now been “made nigh by the blood of Christ” (v. 13).
Notice the direction of movement. The Gentiles were originally strangers to Israel’s covenants. Through Messiah they now share spiritual blessings that previously lay outside their covenantal position.
This is exactly Fruchtenbaum’s distinction:
Israel is the possessor of the New Covenant.
The Church is a present beneficiary of its spiritual blessings.
The Church enjoys forgiveness, regeneration, justification, and the indwelling Spirit because Christ’s blood ratified the New Covenant. But that does not transfer the covenant from Israel to the Church or annul the national promises made to Israel.
The New Covenant was promised to Israel, ratified by Messiah, spiritually participated in by the Church, and will ultimately be fulfilled nationally in Israel when Israel turns to her Messiah.
That preserves the plain meaning of Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36–37, Romans 11, Acts 10–15, and the entire prophetic framework.
The Gentiles were not substituted for Israel.
They were graciously brought near to blessings flowing from Israel’s Messiah and Israel’s covenants.
“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.”Maybe they can blame Jesus for marrying born again newly purified wife. Not adulterous who refuse to leave her idols.
Oops
Romans 7:1-2 KJV
when a person is dead the law doesn’t speak anymore to them it’s authority ends at the persons death
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”
Romans 7:4-6
In the law itself marriage bonds ended at death. Meaning a persons spouse could die and they could remarry without consequence. Jesus death is what released people from the law and his resurrection is what gives us new life