OK, I'm Now Post-Trib (you convinced me)

Um.... what?

 

I'm with Brian on this one.

 

1st you just proved your political position is based on your Escatology.

2nd Try this from the full-preterist point of view:
There is No Salvation in the Land!
by Don K. Preston

On Wednesday night, 4-10-02, in our Bible class, we were discussing the tragic events transpiring in Israel. The suffering on both sides is so sad, and there seems to be no solution in sight.

I stated that the problem in Israel is a theological issue. You can talk about politics all you want, but until you realize that the issue is religion, you are ignoring the fundamental issues. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe the Land is theirs by Divine right. As we have noted before, American politics is heavily influenced by the dispensational movement that supports Israel's claims. As I noted in last week's article, one of our own Senators gave a speech recently stating his convictions that the land belongs to Israel by Divine right.

The fact is that the Land no longer belongs to either the Arabs or the Israeli's by Divine right. God is no longer concerned with geography. "There is no salvation in real estate, salvation is in Christ," as one of the members of our congregation succinctly stated.

Most people do not seem to realize that Israel's right to the land was conditioned upon their obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Deuteronomy 28-30 we find the Law of Blessings and Cursings. Simply stated, that Law said that if Israel obeyed the Mosaic Covenant they would remain in the land in peace. However, if they violated the Covenant, Jehovah would remove them. He even said that in the last days, they would become utterly corrupt, and that He would destroy them (Deuteronomy 31:29; 32:20-24).

Here is a point of tremendous significance. The promises of Israel's return and restoration to the Land, are grounded in the Mosaic Covenant. For Israel to return to the Land, as God's chosen people, they had to obey the Law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 30:1-10, one of the favorite texts utilized by those who believe that 1948 was a fulfillment of Divine prophecy, Moses emphatically gave as the condition for return, obedience to the Mosaic Covenant (see vss. 2,6,8,10). There are two points to ponder here.

First, would anyone seriously argue that Israel had repented and returned to an humble observance of the Mosaic Covenant, and that that obedience led to their "restoration" in 1948? I know of not one dispensational scholar that argues that Israel was in a state of obedience to the Mosaic Law in 1948! As a matter of fact, Thomas Ice and Tim LaHaye argue just the opposite! In their book Charting the End Times, they maintain that the restoration of Israel in 1948 was the "super sign" that we are in the end of the Christian Age, and that event "began an actual fulfillment of specific Bible prophecies about an international regathering of the Jews in unbelief." (My emphasis) Let that sink in for a moment. In spite of the emphatic declaration of Deuteronomy 30, that the condition for restoration to the Land was obedience to the Mosaic Law, LaHaye and Ice deny this, and insist that in reality, the condition for Israel's "first" restoration to the land was to be disobedience!! This concept of two regatherings, one in unbelief and the other in belief is a total fabrication of the dispensational world. I expose this fallacious theory in my upcoming book, Jesus' Coming: In the Glory of the Father.

Second, God has forever removed the Mosaic Covenant. That Covenant was in the process of passing away when Hebrews was written (Hebrews 8:13), and passed with the fulfillment of Israel's cultic system (Hebrews 9:10). Even dispensationalist Thomas Ice, with whom I have had two debates,[ii] agrees that the Mosaic Law, "has forever been fulfilled and discontinued through Christ." Well, if the Mosaic Covenant, that was the ground of the restoration promises has been removed, then the promises of restoration have been forever removed.

The land of Israel was given to that nation by Jehovah (Genesis 15:16f; (Joshua 21:43-45). However, her retention of that land was conditioned on her obedience to the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 28-32). Further, as we have seen, Jehovah has now forever removed that Covenant. This means that the land promises are no longer valid.

The main argument that the land will always belong to Israel, no matter what, is based on the fact that Jehovah gave them the land "forever" (Psalms 105). The problem is that the word forever, (Hebrew, Olam), does not automatically denote "without end." For instance, Jehovah not only promised to give the land to Israel "forever," He also promised to make them "a perpetual shame," and to make Jerusalem a "desolation forever" (See Jeremiah 23:40; 25:9). He said this concerning the fall of Jerusalem in B. C. 586. Was Israel restored after God made their land a "perpetual desolation"? Yes! The point is that the word "forever" does not mean unending. Thus, the fact that Jehovah promised the land to Abraham "forever" does not mean that Israel could not forfeit the land.

The covenant sign of Israel's right to the land was circumcision ( Genesis 17:10f).[iii] Stated simply, no circumcision, no land! Consider then the doctrine of circumcision. No one knew the importance of circumcision more than Paul. Yet, Paul said that if a person practiced circumcision for religious reasons then Christ would profit them nothing (Galatians 5:1-4)! He said circumcision avails nothing. It must be understood that the religious reasons of circumcision had always been two fold. First, to identify Israel as the chosen people, i.e. as Abraham's seed. And, as the covenant sign of Israel's right to the Land.

The only way that Paul could say that circumcision avails nothing is for him to realize that God had completely fulfilled the promises to Abraham and therefore, the purpose of that covenant--to bring in the Messiah- had been fulfilled. There was therefore, no longer any purpose for that distinctive covenant sign, because that covenant was on the point of passing away (see Hebrews 8:13).

Our premillennial friends say that in the millennium, Israel's Old System, including circumcision will be restored. According to this theory, any man not circumcised will not be able to worship God in Jerusalem, and yet, those who do not worship there are condemned, according to the millennial interpretation of Zechariah 14.

However, if Jehovah restores circumcision, then Paul's gospel--the gospel that Jesus died to establish — must be set aside. Paul emphatically repudiated the religious significance of circumcision. He totally rejected physical circumcision as any longer the identifying mark of the seed of Abraham, insisting instead that the children of Abraham are now only those of faith (Galatians 3:6f). In fact, he went so far as to say that those who practice circumcision to maintain their tradition identity as Abraham's seed forfeit the blessings of Jesus. They fall from grace (Galatians 5:4)! Salvation is not in the land of Israel. It is in Jesus Christ.

The New Testament doctrine of circumcision is extremely relevant in light of the current conflict in Israel. The Jews maintain that the land is their's by Divine Right. However, to claim that Israel still has a Divine Right to the land based on the Abrahamic Covenant fails to consider that God fulfilled those promises, and then, due to Israel's continuing recalcitrance, terminated that Covenant. The New Testament doctrine of circumcision proves conclusively that Israel no longer has title deed to the land. In reality, to argue that she does is a repudiation of the circumcision free gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I don't see the connection, SheEagle9/11. Actually, I don't see why one's eschatology should have anything to do with how one views the Israeli/Palestinian problem. As followers of the Prince of Peace, we should be either helping toward a peaceful resolution or else just leave the situation alone. We should not be siding with Israel just because of the Jews that live there.

 

I don't get the question. I'm pre-wrath, which is essentially post-trib, and I'm VERY MUCH against giving away Jerusalem or any other part of Israel.

 

You may be waiting for a while, it appears the post-tribbers (myself included) don't even understand the question, let alone the relevance of it. Perhaps someone can explain the purpose of the question, and give us a hint as to what you think we (as posttribbers) are supposed to be for or against, and why the posttrib doctrine has something to do with it? Seriously, this is going right over my head...

 

Well, you got one from me. I understand the question, but don't understand where it comes from because I don't fit the pattern the question presupposes.

 

Ok, I am post-trib and I am against the road map, which seems to have been shredded by Hamas.

I disagree with those who say that the Church has replaced Israel because of disobedience on the part of the the Jews. Abraham was put to sleep through the part of the agreement between him and God. God said that He was giving the land to Abraham and his seed.

I myself do not see any subclauses as there are in my apartment lease, for example. Also, I have eternal security because God knew that I could not keep my part of the bargin (not to sin ever again). So I think that Abraham has something like eternal security so to speak.

So I am expecting the worse. Israel belongs to the Jews and the USA needs to let the Jews settle the problems with the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. Contrary to Arab propaganda, this is not a pivotal issue in the illiterate Arab League. Remember these people are oriental and think differently.

As for post-trip, we just think that God can save us from Anti-Christ right in front of Anti-Christ's ugly eyes. I mean Martin Luther had to face the Pope, and Luther was convinced that the murdering Pope was the Anti-Christ. So I do not see that whether or not the Church goes through the Tribulation has anything to do with the road map. Israel has to be in the land before there can be a Third Temple for the Anti-Christ to defile.

The question that I ask myself is, am I worthy to die for Jesus?

 

Church mouse guy, congrats on coming out of pre-trib theology. Now read Galatians 2,3 and 4 and find out who the seed of Abraham is brother.
Its a painfull journey when you discover you've been decieved with johnny come lately theology.

 

Farley, that is where I part company with you. I believe that the promise was to the physical seed of Abraham. I recognize that the Christian is the spiritual heir, but the physical heir is still there. Romans, as you know, says that the wild olive branches better mind their Ps and Qs or they will be cut off and the original olive brances will be grafted back in. There is no Salvation in Judaism but the Jews are still the apple of God's eye--not me, I am just adopted but I am very happy about it! I will be glad when the prodigal Jewish son comes home someday!

My cup runneth over.

 

Church mouse guy, congrats on coming out of pre-trib theology. Now read Galatians 2,3 and 4 and find out who the seed of Abraham is brother.

Free at Last, Free at Last! It took me 40 years but I'm Free at Last!

 

I agree 100% (also with part 2 -- I do not believe that the church has replaced Israel -- IMO replacement theology is a hideous lie, most likely promoted first by Chrysostom).

So that makes at least two here who are both post-trib (well, I'm pre-wrath) and are against the road map. Obviously, two data points are not statistically significant, but I have yet to see the majority of post-tribbers being for the road map.

 

On a personal note, I came from mainline denominations, Grasshopper, so I never was anything but confused by the pre-trib doctrine, which I finally disagreed with.

But I call "pre-wrath" mid-trib, I think.

I just wonder how many pre-trib people consider post-trib as heresy even though a good case can be made that post-trib is the historic belief of the Christian Church worldwide all denominations?

 

IMO that would be grossly incorrect. Mid-tribbers can correct me if I have this wrong, but my understanding of mid-trib is that the rapture occurs right when (or immediately before) the man of sin is revealed, which most people place at the middle of Daniel's 70th week (at least those who see the 70th week as a future event). Since these people consider the 70th week the "tribulation period" that makes it mid-trib.

But there is no such thing as the tribulation period, there is only the great tribulation. The great tribulation begins when the man of sin is revealed. And when that time is cut short and the signs of the Day of the Lord appear (sun dark, moon blood, etc.), that's when pre-wrath says the rapture occurs. So even if you believe Daniel's 70th week is a future event, the pre-wrath position would put the rapture well after the middle of that week. How long after the middle of the week is unknown, since we do not know when God will decide to cut the great tribulation short (hence the fact that we cannot know the day or hour), but those who see the 70th week as the time frame would have to say it probably can't be more than 3 1/2 years after the great tribulation begins, or that would put it outside of the framework.

 

What you are saying is logical, and I do not want to confront your ideas in any sense.

My understanding of the Great Tribulation is that there will be a period of peace and safety. Since we are not in that period yet, we must not be in the Great Tribulation yet, right?