Are the Jews still God's people?

Yes, Cliliasm refers to the thousand year reign. What is being misrepresented regarding Chafer is his beliefs on who Israel will be at this time. I will quote Chafer from vol 8, chpt 3 sub III titled The Seed of Abrham

So yes Chafer is a pre-millennialist but what they failed to point out and won't answer in this thread is who exactly Israel will be. I believe the Bible is clear it will not be everyone physically born from the seed of Abraham but instead it will be those who were physically born of the seed of Abraham and spiritually Born of Christ..

 

Actually Amy there is a huge distinction here.

The most Amils 'do not' believe that Christ is returning to set an 'earthly' Kingdom but that it is only a spiritual Kingdom, and of the Amils who do believe He is returning they are typically known as Postmils but in this catagory they hold that the world will get better and better and then when everything is right Christ will return. This is the portion where it is refered to as the conquering Church (though different groups have different ideas on this concept as well - such as taking it through mercy and love and the gospel or the flipside middle ages view of violence)

- What do you think the debate on this subject is about in the Baptist only section with OldRegular and (at times) Jim1999?
Israel is only part of that debate there the other is that Kingdom of Christ is a spiritual one and not to be an earthly one.

 

Those whom it states held these views are due to 'others' of that time or shortly thereafter who wrote or articulated these mens specific views. These are not their own writings like Pauls (who 'can' be set on the list but is not because we have no writings that specifically state he held this view - only his own) bot writtings of other men stating their specific teachings. Thus Paul is not on that list however if we were to take his own words we must by all accounts set him in the Pre-mil view as well along with all the other apostles since they they taught the same things concerning doctrines.

Also regarding 'my view of what pre-mill. Sorry but there is no my view. There is only what we know historically, and thus what I understand as the 'nutshell' is the same as those who have made Church History their study of choice. Men like Chafer, Peters, Gieseler, Bonar, Haldeman, ect... since they acquired such from the writing of those who believed it.
As seen also here:

I bolded those things which were common in the Pre-mil view of the early Church and it's believers.

1. The anti-christ (a person) would both arise and reign
2. Christ's return physically to earth and the overthrow of the anti-christ.
3. Christ establishing His physical Kingdom on the earth.
4. He would reign from Jerusalem both over and with His saints of all ages.
5. His reign would last a literal 1000 years.
6. There were distinct resurrections. That of the saints before the 1000 year reign and the general - those who would be raised up for Judgment.

and 7. Pre-mils did distinquish between Israel and Church.

 

Quite right. :thumbs:

 

It might help you alot to read up on church history and those church historians who write about it. You will find most of the writers and their books to be of the calabur and accuracy you will find most necessary in a great number of Christian Colleges or Seminaries.

That mere list of names isn't a concoction dreamed up but that which can be (and is) historically verified. I have listed and entire group of Historical scholars who attest to what I have shown and in their different books (depending on what they are specifically looking into) address to differing degrees not only that which I have ascerted but also those whom I have listed.

 

HP: Even cults has their list of scholars. What is it that ‘you’ have shown? I see your lists of purported scholars and see your lists of early Christian fathers that they try to line up with a particular line of thought, but how does that attest to what ‘you’ have shown? You have done nothing more than reason in a circle as far as I can tell. The views of Christian fathers is often subjective and can be misleading as to their mature sentiments and or their agreement with truth.

What you call historical facts are, more often than not, debatable, and may be nothing more than the accumulated error of many writers over a long period of time. Just because an author states one thing at one point in his or her life in no wise is proof that from a more mature point in their life, they felt the same way. Historical facts of men’s opinions are subject to many variables. You would do well to recognize that fact.

Any and all of us can also be guilty of allowing our bias to affect how we read the writings and ideas of others. What we claim are historical facts may in fact be nothing more than desires of our own making. What one often reads into what anther one has written often varies according to ones own beliefs or bias. I have often seen that as true. You will find it happening every day on this list.

This is a debate forum, not a forum to simply create lists. It is meaningless and impossible to debate early Christian fathers or a whole list of so- called authorities on the issue that never show, nor could many of them, their faces on this list to be reasonably questioned.

May I be so bold as to make a suggestion? If you desire to debate on the list, place your ideas as to how ‘you’ feel on paper with supporting evidence clearly laid out, preferably sound reason or logic, matters of fact, Scripture, etc. and then we can discuss it with you. If all you have for your opinions are the opinions of others you leave little to seriously debate.

The views of Early Christian fathers can be good source for information but one has to be careful not to place them on too high of a plane. Again, there can be many variables to their writings and they are not inspired writings as Scripture is. They were but fallible men as we are. They may be a secondary source of value at times, but never should be used as a primary source of any doctirine or belief. Scripture, God -instilled reason, matters of fact, and immutable truths of justice should serve as our primary sources for sound theological truth, not the varied and often aberrant writings of the early Christian fathers or anyone else for that matter.

I say this with all due repect to education, but education, yes even so-called Christian education, can be a detriment to truth.

 

It's all about salvation. Being saved is to be made part of Israel.

 

Being saved is to be made part of Christ, His death, burial and resurrection along with Israel.

 

The idea of replacement is not accurate, God did not replace Israel, He replaced the old covenant with a new covenant. Paul was a minister to people who never followed the law for salvation (Gentiles). They are told by Paul that they too can know God through Christ. The gospel was not exclusive to gentiles but also to those who followed the law (Jews). This is not to say that jews were Israelites solely, but for thousands of years, men of all nations were becoming religious jews as we see in Esther 8:17, hundreds of years before Christ. The northern ten tribes never returned to see Christ. Now, all men, jew or gentile, meaning those who followed the law and those who did not, can be made a member of the body of Christ, which IS future Israel. We, the church, will rule and reign with Christ. Do you believe that O.T. saints (Many of whom were Israelites in the flesh) are made members of this church through the gospel of Christ?

 

HP: I would certainly think so.:thumbs:
I say , we with them and they with us all and all in Christ. Ga 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.

 

There is no Scriptural basis for this statement.

 

Matthew 22:2-10 (King James Version)

2The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

3And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

4Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

5But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

6And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

7But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

8Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

9Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.


So all Israelites of the O.T. were added to the church through Christ, all Israelites born after Christ, including the apostles, were added to the church, why would it be any different for the 144,000?



Romans 9:3-5 (King James Version)

3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all,God blessed for ever. Amen.


John 10:15-16 (King James Version)

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16And 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.

 

HP: I would say there is. Ga 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.
Ro 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Ro 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 my questions would be, can you be a Jew and not part of Israel? Can one be a Christian without having Abraham as their father? Can one have Abraham as their father and not be part of Israel?

 

How about some scripture for this assumption?

 

I've already posted it. Israel is referred to as "my firstborn son" in Exodus. In Paul's letter to the Romans he states they are waiting for adoption as sons. Clear distinction between a firstoborn son and an adopted son.
...or do you need Scripture that salvation is in Christ and not in Israel

 

"Not all Israel is Israel"

Yes, I"m not part of Abraham's "seed" as a gentile. I'm not a "natural branch"...I've been "grafted in".

"Not all Israel is Israel"

 

Christianity is the continuation of the foundational faith of Abraham and Moses. I think that Jews having rejected Christ are outside the faith and that those who have accepted Christ are the continuation of the family of God. Modern Jews in my perspective are no better off then pagans. Remember what John the Baptist said to the Pharisees "God can take anyone of these stones and turn it into a child of Abraham". I see Christianity as the fulfillment of the writings and the hope of OT. Christians are Gods people Jews are the physical decendents of Abraham but unless they accept christ they are not partakers in the promise. Remember how Jacob placed his hand on the younger of Joseph's sons and gave him the older's blessing? Well I believe its a forshadowing of Christianity. Just like Jacob was chosen for the blessing rather than Esau.

 

Yes, No, Yes


Jew means one who follows O.T. law, it is no reference to one being an Israelite.

 

The Israelites were not added to the guest list at that time. Why take Scripture out of context. Who was Christ speaking to and when? He was speaking to the Pharisees of His day. He spoke to them in parables, that hearing they may not understand, seeing they may not perceive. It is plainly recorded in John 1:11
"He came to his own but his own received him not."
The Jews rejected Christ as their Messiah.
And that is what this parable shows.
The retribution, if it must be taken literally was fulfilled in 70 A.D. by the armies of Titus and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem.

The wedding was furnished with guests--the gentiles. We see even in the Book of Act, that Paul shook the dust off of his feet, and told the Jews "from henceforth I go to the Gentiles." The Jews had rejected Christ. It was the Gentiles that had embraced him (generally speaking). There were some exceptions of course. As a nation they rejected him and for that reason they have been blinded to the truth and have been set on a shelf. The have not been destroyed. They still exist.

Good evidence that the nation of the Jews still exist. Paul (having put away his Jewish heritage) and having become a Christian, prays for his Jewish "brethren" that they also might forsake the Jewish religion, and be saved. The Jews still existed. They needed to be saved. The Jews will continue to exist. There will come a day when they will, as a nation turn to Christ.

Romans 11:22: So then all Israel shall be saved.

The other sheep were those that would believe on him in the future. He was speaking to his disciples at that present time.

 

That answer made no sense whats so ever.