Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
Replacement theology has become dispensationalism's latest prophetic boogeyman. If you want to end a debate over eschatology, just charge your opponent with holding to replacement theology. What is “replacement theology,” sometimes called “supersessionism,” and why do dispensationalists accuse non-dispensationalists of holding it? Here’s a typical dispensational definition:
Replacement Theology: a theological perspective that teaches that the Jews have been rejected by God and are no longer God’s Chosen People. Those who hold to this view disavow any ethnic future for the Jewish people in connection with the biblical covenants, believing that their spiritual destiny is either to perish or become a part of the new religion that superseded Judaism (whether Christianity or Islam).1
“Replacement theology” is dispensationalism’s trump card in any debate over eschatology because it implies anti-semitism. Hal Lindsey attempted to use this card in his poorly researched and argued The Road to Holocaust.2 He wove an innovative tale implying that anyone who is not a dispensationalist carries the seeds of anti-semitism within his or her prophetic system. This would mean that every Christian prior to 1830 would have been theologically anti-semitic although not personally anti-semtic.
As Peter Leithart and I point out in The Legacy of Hatred Continues,3 it’s dispensationalists who hold to a form of replacement theology since they believe that Israel does not have any prophetic significance this side of the rapture! Prior to the rapture, in terms of dispensational logic, the Church has replaced Israel. This is unquestionably true since God’s prophetic plan for Israel has been postponed until the prophetic time clock starts ticking again at the beginning of Daniel’s 70th week which starts only after the Church is taken to heaven in the so-called rapture. Until then, God is dealing redemptively with the Church. Am I making this up? Consider the following by dispensationalist E. Schuyler English:
An intercalary4 period of history, after Christ’s death and resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, has intervened. This is the present age, the Church age. . . . During this time God has not been dealing with Israel nationally, for they have been blinded concerning God’s mercy in Christ. . . . However, God will again deal with Israel as a nation. This will be in Daniel’s seventieth week, a seven-year period yet to come.5
According to English and every other dispensationalist, the Church has replaced Israel until the rapture. The unfulfilled promises made to Israel are not fulfilled until after the Church is taken off the earth. Thomas Ice, one of dispensationalism’s rising stars, admits that the Church replaces Israel this side of the rapture: “We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ‘as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.’”6
Dispensationalists claim that their particular brand of eschatology is the only prophetic system that gives Israel her proper place in redemptive history. This is an odd thing to argue since two-thirds of the Jews will be slaughtered during the post-rapture tribulation, and the world will be nearly destroyed. Charles Ryrie writes in his book The Best is Yet to Come that during this post-rapture period Israel will undergo “the worst bloodbath in Jewish history.”7 The book’s title doesn’t seem to very appropriate considering that during this period of time most of the Jews will die! John Walvoord follows a similar line of argument: “Israel is destined to have a particular time of suffering which will eclipse any thing that it has known in the past. . . . [T]he people of Israel . . . are placing themselves within the vortex of this future whirlwind which will destroy the majority of those living in the land of Palestine.”8 Arnold Fruchtenbaum states that during the Great Tribulation “Israel will suffer tremendous persecution (Matthew 24:15–28; Revelation 12:1–17). As a result of this persecution of the Jewish people, two-thirds are going to be killed.”9
During the time when Israel seems to be at peace with the world, she is really under the domination of the antichrist who will turn on her at the mid-point in the seven-year period. Israel waits more than 2000 years for the promises finally to be fulfilled, and before it happens, two-thirds of them are wiped out. Those who are charged with holding a “replacement theology viewpoint” believe in no inevitable future Jewish bloodbath. In fact, we believe that the Jews will inevitably embrace Jesus as the Messiah this side of the Second Coming. The fulfillment of Zechariah 13:8 is a past event. It may have had its fulfillment in the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Contrary to dispensationalism’s interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus' disciples warned the Jewish nation for nearly forty years about the impending judgment (Matt. 3:7; 21:42–46; 22:1–14; 24:15–22). Those who believed Jesus’ words of warning were delivered “from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10). Those who continued to reject Jesus as the promised Messiah, even though they had been warned for a generation (Matt. 24:34), “wrath has come upon them to the utmost” (1 Thess. 2:16; cf. 1 Thess. 5:1–11; 2 Pet. 3:10–13).
Before critics of replacement theology throw stones, they need to take a look at their own prophetic system and see its many lapses in theology and logic.
Read Part Two of this article...
2. Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam Books, 1989). The address for Bantam Books is 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.
3. Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart, The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey’s The Road to Holocaust (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1989).
4. Inserted into the calendar.
5. E. Schuyler English, A Companion to the New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 135.
6. Thomas Ice, “The Israel of God,” The Thomas Ice Collection: www.raptureready.com/featured/TheIsraelOfGod.html#_edn3
7. Charles C. Ryrie, The Best is Yet to Come (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981), 86.
8. John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 107, 113. Emphasis added.
9. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “The Little Apocalypse of Zechariah,” The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack, eds. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003), 262.
Yes it is!
Thanks for the kind words. I will check the links. I am planning on reading "Days of Vengeance" after I finish Millers Church History.
"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." -- Galatians 3:28(Sorry to keep repeating that verse, but the clarity of it seems to enlighten all the other questions.)
I can just about predict what our esteemed opponents will say. "You're still male (or female), and I don't see that changing. So (after some misdirection and a few skipped steps in the proof) the Jews still get the land, etc. etc." Missing the point, I know, but that's what they'll say. I've heard it.
"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." -- Galatians 3:28 (Sorry to keep repeating that verse, but the clarity of it seems to enlighten all the other questions.)
And the next verse ("If you are Christ's you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.") is another that one would think would end the argument, but doesn't. [sigh].
Indeed. If it were not for the apparent attraction of gaps and divisions there would be no reasons to subscribe to the theory.
Two kingdoms, two people of God, two covenants, two second comings, two judgments, two temples, the Daniel 9 gap, the 1 Corinthians 15 gap.
It’s no wonder that the chart business does so well among dispensationalists.
Read further Rom. 3:29-30 “by faith.....through faith”.
Every on is napping so I found a computer.
Yeh but this sovereign move of God in Hebrews 8:10-12 on behalf of the House of Israel will be accomplished without the preaching or teaching of the His word.
You don’t even know how to read my posts. I have not assumed a gap between kingdoms. Christ reign’s today. When he has caused to cease all power of his enemies, including DEATH, he will turn over the kingdom to his Father.
And that is exactly what I said, that you are assuming that there is no Millennial reign.
Which is the Kingdom that Christ turns over to the Father before the eternal state begins. (2Pe.3)
That is the Pre-millennial view, not your Amillennial one.
So, I am reading your posts correctly, it is you that is not reading mine so
But, let’s see what you said about Christ’s kingdom:
[ Clearly, the Kingdom that Christ turns over to the Father is the Millennial Kingdom,(Rev.20:7-10) not this present corrupt one, which the Lord takes in Rev. 19. ~ ftd ]
Now, since you assert that the kingdom Christ turns over to the Father is not this present corrupt one you have a problem with verse 25. It CLEARY states that Christ must reign UNTIL he has put and end to all rule and power from his enemies. Christ must reign over enemies. That verse, which you have asserted is a reference to Christ’s kingdom, is a reference to reigning over an enemy filled kingdom. IOW, you are wrong. Verse 25 is referring to Christ’s reign today. He rules in the midst of his enemies. He will continue to do so until enemies are under his feet.
Christ will have enemies during His Millennial reign, and that is why there are punishments meted out to those who do not come up to Jerusalem and worship Him (Psa 2,Zach.14:17-18)
And those enemies are exposed after Satan is released from the abyess and is allowed to launch one more rebellion (Rev.20:7-9)
And those enemies are killed by God the Father, who has placed all of Christ's enemies under His feet (Rev.20:9)
The eternal state begins after the Millennial reign, and that is when death is removed as well as sin (Rev.21:4), and a New Heavens and Earth are created.
Indeed. If it were not for the apparent attraction of gaps and divisions there would be no reasons to subscribe to the theory.
It is clear that reading English is not one of your strong points.
Two kingdoms, two people of God, two covenants, two second comings, two judgments, two temples, the Daniel 9 gap, the 1 Corinthians 15 gap. It’s no wonder that the chart business does so well among dispensationalists.
It is called comparing scripture with scripture, not ignoring or wresting those scriptures that don't fit into a false theological system.
You forgot to mention the different Gospels as well.
So how were the Apostles saved if they didn't believe in the Cross as we do today?
Christ didn't come preaching the Gospel of the Cross, He came preaching the Gospels of the Kingdoms of God and Heaven.
It’s no wonder that the chart business does so well among dispensationalists.
Amazon on "end times chart", at least 3 pages worth.
Google product search on "end times chart" -- 2057 hits.
Nope, that was not the quetion AT ALL. The question was if the tense in the verse was future. Dispensationalists argued for a future tense. I simply corrected them that neither the English translations nor the Greek rendered it as a future tense. IOW, I had to correct the Dispensationalists about both the Greek and the English. And, you don’t even have a clue about what was going on. Oh, and the verb in the phrase is not “shall have” but “shall have delivered.” You don’t even know what the verb is. And, you are completely missing the tense of the verb in verse 25, which is present tense. The Lord is currenting reigning. /P>
First, the Aorist Subjunctive can be translated as a future indicative (Jn.6:35)
Second, A.T.Robertson states that the verse is future,
First aorist active subjunctive with otan, indefinite future time. Simply, "whenever he shall abolish,
So, an aorist subjunctive can refer to a future time, as it does in the case of 'shall have delivered'.
Third, the actual verb was irrelevant, thus, I did not think it necessary to repeat the actual verb, since we were dealing with the tense issue 'shall have'.
Since, both verbs in the sentence are in the Aorist Active Subjunctive, both can be translated as future events. So, your appeals to 'parsing' has been shown to be totally bogus.
Now the fact is that the event is future for either system, both Pre-Millennial or Amillennial, the only difference is that we add an additional thousand years to that 'indefinite future'.
So, the appeal to Greek parsings is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with correctly interpreting the verse.
The verse stands correct in the King James as written, shall have delivered up (that better?)
Moreover, Vs 25 is no problem for Dispensationists at all (showing your own ignorance on what we actually teach).
Vs. 25 is referring to the reign of Christ in the Millennium when He will have enemies and resistance to His rule and death doesn't end until after the final rebellion against Him.
So, the key issue isn't some appeal to 'tenses' it is the correct reading of the context and comparing scripture with other scripture (Rev.20) to harmonize it.
So, once again, you have made assumptions that do not fit what the scriptures actually teach-in any language.
[ “What does that passage have to do with anything?” ]
In a word, everything. The transfiguration happened only 6 days later. So why did Christ say “some” would still be alive? Besides that, in the following verses re the transfiguration, is there any mention of His Kingdom? No, not one word.
Because some were still alive when they saw Christ in his transfiguration glory, which is Kingdom glory.
And He was speaking to two Old Testament prophets, Elijah and Moses who will be coming back alive to be killed again in the Tribulation (Rev.11)
Now look at the following in John: John 21:21-23: When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
Yes, and Christ was telling Peter to mind his own business regarding the future of other saints.
As it turned out, John was still alive in 70 AD; Peter was not.
And Christ did not return in 70AD, but John was alive in 90 AD when He was shown the vision of Revelation and Christ in His Glory returning to set up His Millennial Kingdom (Rev.20).
When Christ returns to deliver Israel, He will be seen.
First, He removes the Church in the Rapture and then when He returns to save Jerusalem (which He didn't do in 70AD-see Zach), He is seen by the entire world.(Matt.24:30)
And when did that happen?
Don't you amillennial guys make us some nosense about a cloud appearing over Jerusalem and that was suppose to be Christ coming back?
Again, Matthew 16:27-28 cannot be separated from the Olivet Discourse. They both refer to the same thing, and it happened in that generation.
No, Matthew 16 doesn't refer to any return of Christ in 70AD.
But how about that Gospel question, why was Peter telling Christ not to go to the Cross if Peter knew that he needed the Cross to be saved?
I think it would serve dispensationalists well to get rid of Scofield’s notes and allow the Bible to interpret itself.
And it would be nice to see some Amillennalist actually deal with the verses that that show a visible return of Christ, a Millennial reign, a different Gospel belief by the Apostles.
If anyone it is the Amillennialist/postmillennialist who needs to actually read what all of the Bible says, not just little proof-text verses that are wrenched out of context.
Amen.
Oh, wait a minute, there are no demons on earth, they are all bound and we are in the Millennial reign of Christ-or should that be the second millennial reign of Christ since we are in year 2,000.
Thanks for making my point. Only in the dispensational world are they different.
"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me." (Matt. 10:38)
"Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.’" (Matt. 16:24)
How is that not preaching the gospel of the cross?
Are you making this up on the fly?
BTW, the kingdom of God and kingdom off heaven are the same thing. So there is one kingdom not two.
***First, the Aorist Subjunctive can be translated as a future indicative (Jn.6:35)***
Again, you are completely in left field and not even addressing the POINT. It was asserted that the verb in 1 Cr 15. was translated as a FUTURE tense in the translation. It was asserted by Dispensationalists.
THE DISPENSATIONALISTS WERE WRONG!!!!
Period. End of story.
But, that still doesn’t change the fact that the actual verb in question is Aorist. It has always been Aorist and it will always be Aorist. And it will NEVER be future tense.
Now, you Dispensationalists can rewrite the Greek if you want. You can rewrite the English if you want.
I’ll continutue to point out that you have to rewrite the Bible to make it fit the Dispensational reading of the verse.
***Second, A.T.Robertson states that the verse is future, ....***
Well, I’m glad that Robertson is the infallible Dispy Pope on the subject, but that that has nothing to do with me. I do note that Robertson agrees with me that the verb is Aorist. I’ll also note that even we Partial Preterists read that the shall have delivered is referring to a future time.
Why, exactly did you cite Robertson? Is he suppose to disagree with me on the tense or something?
***So, the appeal to Greek parsings is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with correctly interpreting the verse.***
It was necessary because the Dispensationalists don’t know how to read verb tenses and made claims about the tenses which simply aren’t true. Aparently, you STILL have no idea what the discussion was about, but felt it necessary to reveal your ignorance of the matter anyway.
***The verse stands correct in the King James as written, shall have delivered up (that better?)***
Well, thank you for stating that which isn’t even being debated in the first place. I do note that the verb is still not translated as a future tense as the Dispensationalists stated.
***Moreover, Vs 25 is no problem for Dispensationists at all (showing your own ignorance on what we actually teach).***
Yes, after you filter the verses through the Dispensational chart of tenseology to make Aorist refer to the future and the present refer to the future and the imperfect refer to the future. Suddenly, everything reads future. Amazing.
“First, He removes the Church in the Rapture and then when He returns to save Jerusalem (which He didn’t do in 70AD-see Zach), He is seen by the entire world.(Matt.24:30)”
Again, you may find that in Scofield’s notes, but not in the Bible. There is no so-called pre-trib rapture and Revelation is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which happened in 70 AD.
Look up “clouds” in your concordance and see what comes up. Unfortunately, dispensationalists don’t interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, which is the only way to find the truth and understand it.
***So how were the Apostles saved if they didn’t believe in the Cross as we do today?
Christ didn’t come preaching the Gospel of the Cross, He came preaching the Gospels of the Kingdoms of God and Heaven.
***
Would you care to cite for me where it is stated that one must believe in some wood to be saved?
But, to answer your question: by grace through faith, which has been the method the LORD has saved the Elect since the foundation of the world.
Well that answers that question, but not very well. I take it you have no direction from God’s word, only Scofield’s Notes
The Scofield notes make scriptural references.
Now, if you want to start a thread on the churches of Revelation, we can deal with them and why they are considered types of church periods as well as actual churches that existed.
[ As for Christ, I am waiting for you to give me an example from the Gospels where He ever used hyperbolic language besides where you claim He used it in Matthew 24? ]
Why does it need to be from the gospels? Didn’t Jesus speak the OT through the prophets? But, to answer your question, Jesus used hyperbolic language all over, e.g., "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell." (Matt. 5:29) "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matt. 7:3-5) "Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’" (Matt. 19:23,24) Anything else?
Actually, I am not sure that those verses would be considered hyperbolic, but in checking Bullinger's Figures of Speech, he does consider Christ to be using hyperbolic language in several Gospel passages.
And no, Matthew 24:21 isn't one of them.
*** Would you care to cite for me where it is stated that one must believe in some wood to be saved? But, to answer your question: by grace through faith, which has been the method the LORD has saved the Elect since the foundation of the world.
We are saved in believing what Christ did on the Cross, none of the Apostles were-now where they?
The Gospel of the Church is found in 1Cor.15:3-5, we have to believe in the death, burial and Resurrection of Christ to be saved-they didn't.
So the content of the Gospel was different for them then it was for us-wasn't it!
So stop trying to pretend that everyone was saved by the same Gospel, they weren't.
They were saved by the same way by faith, but they had to believe in different things.
Again, you may find that in Scofield’s notes, but not in the Bible. There is no so-called pre-trib rapture and Revelation is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which happened in 70 AD. Look up “clouds” in your concordance and see what comes up. Unfortunately, dispensationalists don’t interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, which is the only way to find the truth and understand it.
And look up what scripture says about Christ's appearing.
All of the tribes of the world didn't mourn on that day and didn't see him coming with power and great glory.
The entire world did not see him on 70AD, that is simply amillennial fantasy and double-talk.
As for the Rapture it is in 1Thess.4 and it is given to be a comfort for the believer.
Again, you are completely in left field and not even addressing the POINT. It was asserted that the verb in 1 Cr 15. was translated as a FUTURE tense in the translation. It was asserted by Dispensationalists. THE DISPENSATIONALISTS WERE WRONG!!!!
No, I am correct.
You brought up some nonsense about the Aorist, which is irrelevant on how the verse is translated, as a future event.
Period. End of story.
No, it is you who are wrong, but you are just to proud to admit it.
[ But, that still doesn’t change the fact that the actual verb in question is Aorist. It has always been Aorist and it will always be Aorist. And it will NEVER be future tense. ]
Ofcourse it is, and that is made clear in any Greek Grammer.
The aorist subjunctive and future indicative are used interchangeably[Greek Enchiridion, Concise Handbook of Grammer for Translation and Exegesis, William G. MacDonald, ( Jn.6:35- he that cometh to me shall never hunger ), shall never hunger is the Aorist Subjunctive.
Now he points out that other moods are not bound to show the past aspect of the aorist indicative (pg.9)
Now, you Dispensationalists can rewrite the Greek if you want. You can rewrite the English if you want. I’ll continutue to point out that you have to rewrite the Bible to make it fit the Dispensational reading of the verse.
We have rewritten anything, 1Cor.15:24-25 are referring to future events, and there is a Millennial reign that happens before Christ gives up his kingdom.
[ ***Second, A.T.Robertson states that the verse is future, ....*** ]
Well, I’m glad that Robertson is the infallible Dispy Pope on the subject, but that that has nothing to do with me. I do note that Robertson agrees with me that the verb is Aorist. I’ll also note that even we Partial Preterists read that the shall have delivered is referring to a future time.
And now one argued that the verbs were not aorist,only that the aorist can be translated as a future, which it can based on what mood the verb is in.
What changes the time aspect is the mood which is Subjunctive, not indicative.
And as you well know, the Greek tense has very little to do with time anyway, it deals with aspect, continual action, completed action etc.
Moreover, I believe that A.T. Robertson was Amillennial, I know he was a Calvinist.
Why, exactly did you cite Robertson? Is he suppose to disagree with me on the tense or something?
I cited Robertson to show you that the verse was dealing a future event as the verb shows
[ ***So, the appeal to Greek parsings is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with correctly interpreting the verse.*** ]
It was necessary because the Dispensationalists don’t know how to read verb tenses and made claims about the tenses which simply aren’t true. Aparently, you STILL have no idea what the discussion was about, but felt it necessary to reveal your ignorance of the matter anyway.
Well, it is clear that it is you that is ignorant on the subject.
The mood of the verb changes the Aorist from a past connotation to a future one.
I gave you a Greek scholar that states exactly that.
Now, it being future doesn't prove or disprove either system, but the reading that the King James having a future connotation is the correct one.
[ ***The verse stands correct in the King James as written, shall have delivered up (that better?)*** ]
Well, thank you for stating that which isn’t even being debated in the first place. I do note that the verb is still not translated as a future tense as the Dispensationalists stated.
It was being debated since Uncle Chip questioned (rightfully so) which translation Topcat used, since it gave a false impression on the turning over of the Kingdom.
The 'shall have delivered' makes it a future perfect, an event that will be completed somtime in the future(New Websters Grammer Guide, pg.115)
[ ***Moreover, Vs 25 is no problem for Dispensationists at all (showing your own ignorance on what we actually teach).*** ]
Yes, after you filter the verses through the Dispensational chart of tenseology to make Aorist refer to the future and the present refer to the future and the imperfect refer to the future. Suddenly, everything reads future. Amazing.
The Aorist with the Subjunctive can be future and that verse in 1Cor.15:24-25 is referring to a future event in either system.
We don't filter anything, we compare scripture with scripture and there is no problem with 1Cor.15:24-24 fitting nicely into the pre-millennial system.
Thanks for making my point. Only in the dispensational world are they different.
Actually, they are different in function, one is physical, the other is spiritual (Rom.14:17), but Christ preached both, since as the Jewish Messiah, he was offering both to them.
"And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me." (Matt. 10:38) "Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.’" (Matt. 16:24) How is that not preaching the gospel of the cross?
And did the disciples believe him?
That Gospel came after the rejection by the Jews (Jn.6, Matthew 12).
So, did the Apostles believe in the Death, burial, and Resurection of Christ as we do, or were they saved by believing in another Gospel?
Peter did not believe that Christ had to go the Cross, nor did the other disciples, yet they were all saved Jews.
Are you making this up on the fly?
You have never read Matthew 16:22, where Peter tried to stop Christ from going to the Cross?
BTW, the kingdom of God and kingdom off heaven are the same thing. So there is one kingdom not two.
No, the Kingdoms are two different ones, one is physical, with eating and drinking in it and the other is spiritual, with the joy of the Holy Ghost (Rom.14:17)
No unsaved men can enter the Kingdom of God,but they can be in the Kingdom of Heaven as shown by the parables of the wheat and tares and fishes in Matthew 13.
There can be no tares or bad fish in God's spiritual kingdom.
That is why you only can enter it by being born again (Jn.3)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.