Archive

Archive for the ‘Eschatology’ Category

The Wednesday Word: The Day is at Hand. Part 2

September 11, 2019 Leave a comment

We, as God’s people, are deeply interested in the day when the Lord returns. It will be the day of our full redemption.

I´m looking forward to that.

It will be the day of complete deliverance from sin and all its awful consequences.

I´m looking forward to that.

When Jesus comes back, He will unveil our perfection in Him, and we will never sin again.

I´m looking forward to that.

That day will be the day of resurrection. Our Lord spoke of it when He said, “This is the Father´s will who has sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 6:39-40, 44, 54).

Martha knew of this day. She said of her brother, ” I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (John 11:24).

All those who love the Lord’s appearing shall, at that day, receive a crown of righteousness. BTW, what a delightful description of the Lord´s people .. we are those who love His appearing (2 Timothy 4:8).

May the Holy Spirit continually witness to our hearts of what a glorious day it will be for the people of God!

George Muller said it like this, “He is coming again, and in the meantime our business is to wait for Him, to glorify Him, and to be occupied in His service ´til He does come again, so that when at last that day shall arrive, we may be as delighted to receive Christ as He will be delighted to receive us to Himself, in order that where He is we may be also.”

On that day, the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God. All who have died in the Lord will rise from their graves. Living believers will be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and they will be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air. Death shall be swallowed up in victory. The redeemed will be delivered forever from sin and sorrow, and where the Redeemer is, there they will be also, “forever with the Lord.”

There is, however, a dark side to that day. The same day which will bring full and eternal blessedness to believers will bring judgment and woe on the unsaved. The day when the Lord comes to be glorified in His saints will be the day on which He will take vengeance on them that know not God, and who obey not the Gospel.

We read of “the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”(Romans 2:5).

“the day when GOD shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ,”(Romans 2:16).

“the day of judgment,” (2 Peter 2:9).

“the day… of perdition (2 Peter 3:7).

“He has appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man Whom He has ordained” (Acts 17: 31).

Now here´s the good news, since through infinite mercy we are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” we need have no fear.

He is coming soon. May we continually look for and expect Him.

The powerful Scottish preacher, Horatius Bonar, lived his life expecting Christ´s return.

At night, as he retired to bed, his last action before he laid down was to draw aside the curtain and looking up into the starry heavens, say: “Perhaps tonight, Lord?” Then, in the morning, when he got up, his first thing he did was to open the ¨curtain, and looking out upon the gray dawn, remark: “Perhaps today Lord?”

Yes indeed, perhaps today!

And that´s the Gospel Truth!

Miles Mckee

www.milesmckee.com  

Advertisements

The Wednesday Word: The Day is at Hand Part 1

September 4, 2019 Leave a comment

“The day is at hand” Romans 13:12.

To the family of God who were living in Rome Paul announces,“The day is at hand.”

More than 2000 years have passed since the inspired apostle wrote these words, nevertheless ´the day´ has not arrived… but it will. That day has been appointed and fixed by Divine purpose. We are closer than ever to the Return of Christ!

As believers, we eagerly look forward to this coming day. Right now, we are living in the night (Romans 13:12). Indeed, the whole period from our Lord’s ascension into heaven until His return can be characterized as night. It is a period of moral and spiritual darkness. It is a period during which the god of this world is blinding and leading men captive at his will (see Ephesians 4:4, 2 Timothy 2:26).

It is true that the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ has been and is shining. And yes, it is true that multitudes have been turned from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, but the great majority still live in spiritual darkness. It is high time to awake out of sleep (Romans 13:11).

The day is at hand!

Think of the millions upon millions who are still in Hindu and Islamic darkness. Think of the darkness of sin, superstition and idolatry. Think of the many in America and Europe who profess to follow the Lord´s Lamb yet who turn their backs on the clear teaching of His Word.

The world which God created is a beautiful masterpiece, but sin has marred it, and along with sin, suffering and sorrow flourish and prosper. It is a time of night, but be encouraged, “the Day is at hand.”

So, what did the apostle mean by “the Day?” It was evidently a day well known to the believers in Rome. That´s why Paul doesn´t explain the expression to them. However, we can gather its meaning from his use of the word in other Epistles. For example, “He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Timothy 1:12).

“Being confident of this very thing, that he which has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6).

“A crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day” (2 Timothy 4:8).

Peter uses the expression” until the day dawn” (2 Peter 1:19), and in the Epistle to the Hebrews we read “exhorting one another; and so much the more, as you see the day approaching ” (Hebrews 10:25).

What then is this day?

It is the day when the Bridegroom will come for His bride,

It is the day when the Redeemer will come for His purchased ones.

It is the day when the Shepherd will come for His sheep.

It is the day when Christ will come to fetch His ransomed people Home.

That day is Christ´s day. He is coming back.

This is our hope. He is coming back.

Writing to the Corinthians the apostle says, “You come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:8).

We look for that day because it will be the day of our full redemption.

It will be the day of complete deliverance from all the awful consequences of sin in respect to the redeemed people of God.

We are “waiting for the adoption, that is the redemption of our body.” This corruptible body will put on incorruption, and this mortal will put on immortality, when that day dawns

(1 Corinthians 15:52-54).

And that´s the Gospel Truth!

Miles Mckee

www.milesmckee.com  

The Wednesday Word: Coming Back in the Clouds

In Revelation 1:7 we read; “Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.”

Did you know that when the Bible talks about Christ coming back in the clouds, it is a reference to His Deity?

Yes indeed, Jesus Christ is coming back! We don’t know when that future event will take place, but one day Christ is going to physically, visibly and personally return to Earth. However, interesting as it may be, the subject we want to consider today is neither the timing nor even the fact of this monumental event. What we want to briefly discuss is the mention of the word ‘clouds.’

In the Bible, clouds are often a signal of divine activity. They frequently announce the presence of God.
Consider this, Exodus 13:21; “And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way;”

Exodus 16:10, “And it came to pass, as Aaron spoke unto the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud. “

Exodus 34:5 declares, “And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

Numbers 10:34 “And the cloud of the LORD was upon them by day, when they went out of the camp.”

In Psalm 104:3 we read, “The Lord makes the clouds his chariot.”

Speaking of coming judgment, Jeremiah warned, Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: Jeremiah 4:13 (see also Zephaniah 1:15).

Let’s fast forward to the New Testament to Matthew 26:64. Here Jesus is on trial for His life. Before Him stands Old Joe Caiaphas bedecked in the regalia of the High Priest. Old Joe is a jealous man, jealous of the adulation being given to the Young Prince of Glory. Old Joe is a threatened man.

Threatened because the Lord Jesus has exposed the hypocrisy of the religious leaders with His ‘woe unto you’ speeches (see Matthew 23: 29-33). Old Joe Caiaphas, has been made to squirm. He is, after all, the Chief among the professional ecclesiastics who were, as Jesus had pointed out, merely white-washed tombs. As he seethes with hatred, Old Joe is determined to execute the Lord Jesus. He has brought in false witnesses to testify against the Master. Jesus, of course, could have backed down and diffused the situation. He could have changed His story…but he didn’t. He boldly looked his satanic rival in the eyes saying, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.” COMING IN THE CLOUDS! It’s no wonder Caiaphas tore his clothes. It’s no wonder he cried out, “He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.”

In this dreadful scene, the High Priest of Israel rejected the Christ of Israel and consigned Him to death. Caiaphas knew that Christ, by claiming He was coming back in the clouds had put Himself on the same footing as God. No wonder they executed Him.

And, by the way, when Jesus departed Terra Firma at the ascension, how did he leave? He left in a cloud (Acts1:9). And how will He return? He’ll return with the clouds (Acts 1:11). He is our God and we are steadfastly looking for Him.

And that’s the Gospel Truth!

Miles Mckee

www.milesmckee.com 

Paul’s Theology of Israel’s Future: A Nonmillennial Interpretation of Romans 11

by Lee Irons

The interpretation of Romans 11 is, of course, a highly controversial subject. Two of the major millennial positions — premillennialism and postmillennialism — go to this text, among others, to find biblical justification for their respective eschatologies. Although they differ as to the timing and character of the glorious, external, earthly phase of Christ’s kingdom, both the premillennial and postmillennial form of chiliasm agree that Romans 11 holds out the hope of a mass conversion of Jews and Gentiles during a long era of righteousness and peace upon the earth. Amillennialists, however, neither expect such a hope nor find it in Romans 11. They — and I include myself among them — take the view that this text does not promise such a massive eschatological harvest of Jews and Gentiles. O Palmer Robertson, in his important paper “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?”, says,

The eye of man cannot tell whether this number is few or many. But the eye of faith is confident that the “full number” is being realized. For this reason, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to posit some future date in which the “remnant” principle will be superseded by a newly-introduced “fulness” principle.1

This is what I am calling the nonmillennial interpretation of Romans 11. I call it nonmillennial rather than amillennial (though it is certainly that) in order to accent the fact that this interpretation sees neither pre- nor postmillennialism in this passage. Paul does not address the millennial question. The question is not even remotely in the background of his thought (though the passage may contain teaching that would logically imply an answer to that question). thus, I have called my paper a nonmillennial interpretation of Romans 11.

 

 

 

Read entire article here.

Replacement Theology 2

It is easy to bring an accusation against others, claiming that they have taught something or do teach something which is contrary to scripture. Misrepresenting someones position concerning what they believe and teach seems quite common in our society today. This is nothing new however, and will continue till Christ comes. Nevertheless, it is one thing to accuse someone of something, but is quite another thing to prove that accusation. In this article I want to show that the charge brought against what I have written is a false charge and lacks any proof backing it up.

Therefore, I am writing this response against the charge of ‘Replacement Theology’ brought against me by a blogger who blogs over at ‘The Return of Benjamin.’ The blogger uses the term ‘Supersessionism’ against me and then turns around and equates everything under that term to what I have written.

First, let us begin by stating that the Bible is the only infallible, inerrant, authoritative source of divine revelation. In other words, all questions concerning doctrine should be drawn out of scripture alone. Therefore, I stand upon the hermeneutical principle of ‘sola Scriptura’. I also stand upon the hermeneutical principle known as analogia fide or the analogy of faith. This hermeneutical principle simply stated means that scripture interprets scripture. Also when I stated that all questions concerning doctrine should be drawn out of scripture, I mean that we are to exegete the text. Exegesis means to draw out of the text of scripture what it states. The opposite of this is eisegesis or the reading into the text what is not there. Finally, no doctrine should be developed on any one single scripture, but our doctrines are to be developed while considering the entire scope of Divine revelation. (1)

Secondly, let us also begin by defining the term Supersessionism. Seeing that the word is not defined in many older theological dictionaries, shows that the term must be of recent origin. So I turned to Theopedia.com to define it.

“1.Supersessionism is the traditional Christian belief that Christianity is the fulfillment of Biblical Judaism and therefore Jews who deny that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah fall short of their calling as God’s Chosen people.

2.Supersessionism, in its more radical form, maintains that the Jews are no longer considered to be God’s Chosen people in any sense. This understanding is generally termed ‘replacement theology.’”

If the first definition is correct, then certainly the Bible itself teaches this view. Jesus himself taught this view, Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Also Paul stated that the things written in the Old Testament were for us, Rom 4:23-24 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead… Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.1 Co 9:9-10 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: 1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

And Peter proclaims that the things that the Old Testament Israelites ministered, they ministered unto us 1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

These things were types and shadows, until Christ should come, of whom is the realty of what the entire Old Testament pointed. I shall later show that the modern day Rabbis use the same hermeneutical principle that I use.

One of the errors that the writer at ‘The Return of Benjamin’ made was to accuse me of the more radical form of the word, as defined above, even though I wrote against that radical definition. The radical form of Supersessionism is the term ‘Replacement Theology.’

Before I begin showing what the scriptures teach concerning ‘Who is Israel’, I will deal with a couple of ‘The Return of Benjamin’s’ statements:

Okay, this got my interest. I’ve debated subjects with those of a Covenant Theology persuasion before, but this is the first time that I’ve heard someone claim that Supersessionism (their preferred term) isn’t what they believe in. So what does the author believe?

As I have shown above, the author at ‘The Return of Benjamin’ uses the radical definition of the term Supersessionism to read my article. He takes everything under that term and equates it with everything that I have had to say on this subject. He also uses the term Dispensationalism, over and against Supersessionism and equates everything under that heading with a single term. This is erroneous. He acts as if he can use either term, in the singular, and grasp every concept under that single term. This shows that he hasn’t understood either position. Just as the term Supersessionism has been modified and many branches have come off it, even so the term Dispensationalism has been modified and many branches have come off of it. If he would do his research, then he would find that the term Dispensationalism has undergone radical changes, so that today we have what is called the Progressive Dispensationalists. These ‘Progressives’ have moved toward covenant theology.

Secondly, he states that Supersessionism is (their preferred term). By stating “their preferred term,” he means that it is our or my preferred term. However, you would think that someone who is writing a book would have at least given a few names of scholars and theologians who prefer this term. I have within my own library over 20,000 books, essays, and articles from a Covenantal Reformed perspective and none of these books, essays, or articles contain that word. I also have within my own personal library over 20,000 mp3’s from Covenantal Reformed Seminaries, Churches, and Conferences around the world. I carry four mp3 players with me everyday and listen to these mp3’s all day long and none of these speakers use this term.

So whose preferred term is it anyway? I would say that it is the preferred term of the author at ‘The Return of Benjamin’ who understands neither Supersessionism, nor Dispensationalism.

Finally, the author at the blog ‘The Return of Benjamin’ stated: this is the first time that I’ve heard someone claim that Supersessionism (their preferred term) isn’t what they believe in. Yet I didn’t even use that word in my entire original post that he was writing against. I was writing against the radical form of the word Supersessionism. So his accusation falls short because he can’t prove his accusation, seeing that the term Supersessionism was never used in my article.

At first I found this interesting, since it bore some resemblance to my own Adoption Theology. Since part of my purpose in developing Adoption Theology was the hope of providing some middle ground between the extremes of Supersessionism and Dispensationalism, finding a similar theological thread in the Reform tradition would be exciting.

The author of the post at ‘The Return of Benjamin’ hopes to find some middle ground between Supersessionism and Dispensationalism and this is why I state that the author doesn’t know either position. Little unbeknownst to him Dispensationalism has created that middle ground already. Today’s dispensationalists have moved towards the Reformed covenantal approach to scripture. The progressive dispensationalists have left some of what classical dispensationalism taught.

Secondly, the author at ‘The Return of Benjamin’ states plainly that he has developed a new theological system known as Adoption Theology. He has searched, hoping to find a similar theological thread in the Reform tradition. I will correct this error by quoting from R. C. Sproul:

“Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it. If upon reading a particular passage you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two-thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation.”

In other words, if the author of ‘The Return of Benjamin’ has developed a new theology and can’t find anyone throughout church history who has touched on it, then maybe it is because that theological interpretation of scripture, doesn’t exist in scripture. This is one reason why Dispensationalism is erroneous. No one until Darby ever came to the conclusion, by reading scripture, that God had a separate plan for Israel and the Church. Of course, I can disprove Dispensationalism without ever appealing to this argument.

Finally, I want to touch on the subject of the fact that the author of ‘The Return of Benjamin’ is trying to develop a middle position between Supersessionism and Dispensationalism. (2)

It is possible that both Supersessionism (the first definition given) and Dispensationalism are both false. Yet it is impossible or against logic for them both to be true. So if Supersessionism is true (the first definition given), then Dispensationalism is false. If Dispensationalism is true, then Supersessionism is false. So if one is true and the other is false, then to develop a middle ground position would be an amalgamation of the two and it would also be false. Augustine and Pelagius debated concerning God’s grace and man’s ability. Augustine was right and Pelagius was wrong. However, a few years later Cassian tried to develop a middle position between the two. If Augustine was right, then both Pelagius and Cassian were wrong. Semi-Pelagianism is also erroneous. During the Reformation the Protestants held to Augustine’s position and the Roman Catholics held to Cassian’s position (some would argue that Rome held to Pelagius’ position) and so Arminius’ students sought middle ground. If Rome was wrong, then Arminianism is also wrong.

Look at that key phrase: “God has cut off natural Israel.” All of it, apparently. Not a single thought given to the Messianic Jews who still identify with national Israel, as Paul did (Rom. 11:1). And to fulfill the promise, God has replaced, superseded, or, as the author puts it “engrafted Gentiles into Israel.” Now, we have no problem with the concept of “engrafting,” but there is a difference between grafting new branches onto a tree and replacing every single branch in the tree! One will enrich the tree, giving it a longer life, while the other will certainly kill it!

The author at ‘The Return of Benjamin’ has missed the point. According to him he believes that natural Israel is going to be saved. If my opponent would use the hermeneutical principle known as analogia fide or the analogy of faith, then he would not fall into this error. Simply stated the analogy of faith means that scripture interprets scripture. If I can show several scriptures that plainly state that natural Jews, those who are non-elect will not be saved, then I have proven my point. Is there any scriptures that state this? Absolutely! Only those who have been converted are part of True Israel and those only have been and will be saved.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man receives not the things of God, neither can he know them.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Non-elect Israelites were blinded and have been cut off. Just as non-elect Gentiles will not inherit the kingdom.

The author of ‘The Return of Benjamin’ is more dispensational in his thinking over and against his new system of ‘Adoption Theology.’ He believes that genetic birth gives someone a right to God’s eternal kingdom. This is erroneous. The new birth is given only to those of whom God has chosen in Christ.

Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Notice that Christ came to his own and they all did not receive him. Nevertheless, those who did receive him, he gave power to become the sons of God. John tells us plainly that there were some Israelites who received Christ. But notice verse 13. They did not receive him or were not born again by the Holy Spirit based upon blood (natural DNA or genetics), nor because they willed it, nor because man willed it, but because God did.

My post never stated that God would replace every branch on the tree. This is why I stated that you argue as a dispensationalists. You only quote what you want to based upon your dispensational system. I know you claim to have developed some middle ground, but that claim is spurious to say the least. Had you not held to dispensational tendencies then you would have also quoted what I said here.

A quote from my article: So Hosea is told that natural, unbelieving Israel is cut off, nevertheless the faithful in Israel will still be part of Israel according to Paul in Romans 9.

Why did you miss this? It is because your dispensational views only allowed you to see what you thought was against your system. You stated and I quote:

Not a single thought given to the Messianic Jews who still identify with national Israel, as Paul did (Rom. 11:1).

So my article, that you were writing against, did not contain one single thought that was given to the Messianic Jews who still identify with national Israel. Humbug! Poppycock! Your dispensational views only blinded you to what you wanted to see.

Those messianic Jews that have come to faith would be willing to forsake their identification with today’s Israel if they were reading their Bibles. As I shall later show, the Judaism in existence today within the nation Israel, is nothing more than Babylonian occultism. Did any Messianic Jews stand around and identify themselves with the Israel of their day when it was leveled to the ground? No! All the Christians, both Jews and Gentiles fled when Rome seized the city of Jerusalem. They all remembered the prophecy given by Christ, wherein he told them: Mt 24: 15-16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains…..Not a Christian one was killed in this event.

At no time does Paul say that the Gentiles become Israel, meaning the Jewish people, but rather that they are “citizens” of Israel the same way that he himself was a citizen of Rome. They are children of Abraham by adoption through Yeshua, yes, but Ishmael, Esau, and the children of Keturah were all children of Abraham–and yet none of them were Israel.

Again, my friend, you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God. If I can show one single verse that states that anyone who is circumcised in the heart is a Jew and show that those who have faith in Christ are Abraham’s seed, then your argument collapses. But remember, I stated that no doctrine should be developed upon any one single scripture. So I will use several.

A true Jew is not one who is circumcised in the flesh. This circumcision profits nothing. Remember Paul stated that fleshly circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God 1 Cor 7:19. (Which if one is circumcised in the heart, then they will strive to keep these commandments of God)

Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 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.

So if a Gentile is regenerated by the Holy Spirit and keeps the righteousness of the law, then his circumcision in the heart is counted as circumcision, even though he isn’t circumcised in the flesh. He is also a True Jew. A true Jew has been brought into the kingdom by the Holy Spirit and the circumcision of the heart. This includes Israelites and Gentiles.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul told the Gentiles at Galatia that they were Abraham’s seed and they were heirs according to the promise. Natural lineage does not make someone an heir to the Abrahamic promises, but fulfilling the conditions of the covenant did.

Jesus is the True Israelite and the only heir to all the Abrahamic promises. Can I prove this? Yes I can.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The promises were not made to ‘seeds’ plural, but to one ‘seed’, singular. The promises were made to Jesus Christ, the greatest of all Abraham’s descendants and the only one worthy to inherit the promises because he fulfilled all the conditional aspects of the covenant.

Therefore anyone in Christ is a co-heir of those promises.

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Secondly, I want to point out that your arguments are weak. You state: At no time does Paul say that the Gentiles become Israel, meaning the Jewish people, but rather that they are “citizens” of Israel the same way that he himself was a citizen of Rome.

I would like to state that your dispensationalism is showing again because this is a weak argument in the fact that, even though Paul was not a natural Roman by Genetics, nevertheless he was a Roman. I have a neighbor who married a woman from the Philippines. She had to obtain citizenship to come to this country. She got her green card and now she can be called an American. She didn’t have to be born here to be an American.

Thirdly, you state: They are children of Abraham by adoption through Yeshua, yes, but Ishmael, Esau, and the children of Keturah were all children of Abraham–and yet none of them were Israel.

You are correct. The promise wasn’t through any of those such as Esau, the children of Keturah or Ishmael. But the promise was through Isaac. Follow Romans 9 out where Paul is arguing that there is an Israel within Israel or a True spiritual Israel inside natural Israel and he brings his arguments to a conclusion by stating:

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Paul even quotes Hosea, the same passage of scripture on which my original article was based.
Finally, here are several scriptures showing that redeemed Gentiles are, not only citizens, but Israelites.

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Then Paul closes his letter to the Gentiles at Galatia by saying:

Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Paul can’t be referring to unbelieving Israel when he states that peace and mercy will be on as many as walk according to this rule and then calls them the Israel of God. Unbelieving Israel wouldn’t walking according to that rule during his life. This scripture ties back to Romans 9:

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

True Israel is contrasted with natural Israel. They are not all Israel (fleshly), which are of Israel (spiritual). Neither are they Abraham’s children just because they were of his natural seed.

You see in my article I stated that God cut off natural Israel and you accuse me of ‘Replacement Theology’. Yet Paul states that those which are the children of the flesh (natural Israel) ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD. I guess Paul held to Supersessionism also.

 

Stay tuned for my next article: Replacement Theology 3: Who is not Israel according to Christ and the Apostles?

 

 

Notes:

(1) Of course, we interpret within the context of the paragraph, chapter, and book the scripture we are examining is found. But also the entire scope of special revelation has to be kept in mind while forming doctrines.

(2) I would contend that the author at “The Return of Benjamin’ doesn’t hold to some new system of theology that he has developed. But instead, holds to dispensationalism. It is prevalent within his own thinking.

Amillennialism and The “Future” Kingdom of God

February 16, 2015 6 comments

Compiled by Aaron Orendorff

A common misunderstanding about amillennialism is that “covenant theologians regard the kingdom of God as a wholly invisible and wholly present reality with no future, earthly fulfillment.” It is argued that because amillennialists have no place in their eschatological scheme for Jesus reigning upon a earthly throne in Jerusalem, they therefore by necessity have no place for an earthly, consummated kingdom. Far to the contrary, the amillennial position on the nature of God’s kingdom is that it is both a present and future reality – i.e., that it is both already-and-not-yet, inaugurated but not consummated – and that both these present and future elements of the kingdom include spiritual as well as earthly dimensions. This fulfillment, however, will not take place during a future millennial period but rather at the end of the age when Christ returns and heaven and earth are renewed. To say that because amillennialists do not affirm Christ’s earthly reign “from a throne in Jerusalem” then they cannot affirm an earthly future for God’s kingdom is to confuse a particular (premillennial) understanding of what Christ’s reign will look like with the broader category of God’s kingdom. Such an assertion would be similar to an amillennialist saying that because premillennialists do not affirm that Satan is currently bound so they cannot affirm the current, spiritual presence of God’s kingdom.

The follow excepts conclusively show that the above position is the amillennial position.

 

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Dispensationalism’s Eschatological Dilemma

December 23, 2014 3 comments

by Jack Kettler

In recent times, there have been a number of accusations leveled against respected Christian leaders who hold to postmillennial (a traditional Protestant eschatology) and covenant (historic Protestant) theology of being anti-Semitic.1……

The following survey of dispensational eschatology will demonstrate that the dispensationalist position can be made to appear anti-Semitic or even worse. One purpose of this survey of dispensational eschatology is for illustrating a particular point. The point is that the tables can easily be turned upon adherents of dispensational eschatology who have attacked Christian believers of other persuasions. This article is not intended to be a refutation of dispensationalism in general or to seriously suggest that dispensationalists or their theology would be in accord with certain statements I make hypothesizing about the potential tendencies of anti-Semitism within dispensationalism itself. Hopefully, dispensationalists in the future will be more circumspect on how they treat their Christian brethren whom they have falsely accused……

There will be a period of seven years known as the “great tribulation.” This alleged “seven years” and all the dispensational theories about the coming of Christ, the rapture, the anti-Christ surrounding it are all based on an erroneous interpretation of Daniel 9:24- 27. The dispensational “great tribulation” is supposed to be worldwide, yet is described with localized terminology as having to do with Jerusalem, Israel, her trading partners, the temple, its destruction, etc. Repeated false dispensational predictions surrounding these events have brought reproach upon the gospel.

…….Surely it follows that dispensationalism must be intrinsically anti-Semitic if it says that the world’s most evil future ruler will be a Jew who will slaughter millions of the Jewish people while the Gentiles escape. The Bible does not teach that this ruler will be a Jew or even exist in the future. These are inferences and deductions, the products of a flawed dispensational hermeneutical system.

 

 

Download the Pdf file (56.2 Kb) to this article here.

 

 

1.To be specific, Dr. Resnick falsely labeled Rev. R. J. Rushdoony and Howard Phillips as anti-Semitic, among other things, on his radio show the day before the election. Candidates for the American Constitution Party (Colorado Affiliate of the U.S. Taxpayers Party) were accused of being deceived by Howard Phillips and therefore guilty by association (a fallacy) of anti-Semitism themselves……

Dr. Resnick is a Jewish man who prides himself as being a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. His malicious accusations against Rushdoony and Phillips are rooted partially in the godless libertarian publication Reason Magazine that he has demonstrated dependence upon. Reason Magazine supposedly champions individual rights. At times this translates into homosexual, abortion, and pornography rights. It is doubtful if Dr. Resnick sees that his stated theological beliefs are in direct conflict with the freedom-destroying degenerate philosophy of modern libertarianism.

Libertarian philosophy is a cancer that feeds off of the Christian worldview……..

In fact, Calvinism is known as the mortal enemy of monarchies or totalitarian government. In our country we are now embracing a form of government that can be described as democratic majoritarian tyranny or the law of the majority. In the above mentioned work Eidsmoe shows that Calvinism gave rise to our republican form of government. A republic is a nation based upon law. Dr. Resnick knows this and he also knows what the law structure was that formed our republic. Why is he now repudiating that law structure?………

A forerunner to Calvin and Knox was William Wallace. The theology of dispensationalism has made its adherents for the most part run from the cultural battle like the unprincipled morally bankrupt noble men of Wallace’s day. Dispensationalism’s distorted emphasis on the last days has paralyzed many from fighting in the cultural war. Why fight if the end of the world is just around the corner? More seriously, dispensational theology rejects law in the present. This is why dispensationalism has nothing to offer in the fight against the humanistic state. The humanistic state rules with the force of law. Our present law structure in the hands of the humanistic state is becoming increasingly anti-Christian.

 

 

 

*My personal note: Though I agree with Jack Kettler in his critique of dispensationalism, nevertheless he states that “John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Dabney, Thornwell, Shedd, Patrick Fairbairn, and B.B. Warfield” all held the convictions of being covenantal and postmillennial. I agree that these men were covenantal theologians, but whether they held to a postmillennial view instead of an optimistic amillennial view of scripture is a matter of one’s interpretation of these theologian’s writings. Kettler also holds to Rushdooney’s reconstructionism. I reject both of these theological convictions, namely postmillenialism and Christian reconstructionism.