Replies

Time will tell, of course, but one would be negligence not to ponder the fact that racial Israel is again occupying their ancestral land.

In a way I believe you're correct but only so far as events go. However, there is a great danger in trying to read into the scriptures things based upon our surroundings. History is littered with people who donned white sheets and stood on hilltops waiting for Christ simply because they thought they had the eschatological answer.

I mean this in the best sort of way, really I do. But the idea of the Jews being "blessed" has no room in Christian theology either from a biblical or a historical perspective. The Bible teaches that Christians have been "grafted" into Judaism. Jews and Gentiles are merged into Christians. We don't exist as a dual group. For over 1900 years this was the teaching of the church.

I mean this kindly but it borders on blasphemy to suggest that Jews hold some esteem with God the Father. This is simply not the case. Paul's heart ached for the Jews just as our hearts should to see them come to know Christ.

God is not in the habit of blessing a group of people who reject His Son. And I bet He knew this when He issued the promises to Abraham 6,000 years ago. He never blessed the Jews in the Old Testament when they rebelled so why should we assume He'll do it now?

God is not in the habit of blessing a group of people who reject His Son.

Ding ding ding ding ding ding! And now you know why I'm a postmillennialist - because I expect that God will reward faithful behavior to a greater degree, in time space and history, than Satan can reward unfaithful behavior.

For premillennialism to come to pass, we must believe that God fails to bless the faithful, and fails to punish the wicked, meanwhile the wicked manage reap blessings - to progressively amass increasing power, assets, and responsibilities over time and throughout history - despite the curses prescribed in Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy for violating God's commandments. Only the Second Coming itself (or is it the Third Coming, since the Rapture is pretrib?) is powerful enough to intervene and stop humankind from doing what they first tried at the Tower of Babel. Christ's church, of which it's said "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it", was apparently sent to the wrong front to fight.

In short, premillennialism is the statistical flip-side of postmillennialism - Satan wins all the decisive skirmishes, while the church progressively loses ground until history itself ends.

History is littered with people who donned white sheets and stood on hilltops waiting for Christ simply because they thought they had the eschatological answer.

It's also littered with those who perished because they refused to realize the signs of the times.

With all respect, Harley, you're being a bit inconsistant there. You claim that it is wrong to "to read into the scriptures things based upon our surroundings," but you would claim that it is right to read into the Scriptures things based upon Josephus' record of his surroundings. Candidly, preterists and historicists engage in "newspaper exegesis" every bit as much as Hal Lindsey does.

For over 1900 years this was the teaching of the church.

"Tradition without truth is error grown old." --Tertullian

I mean this kindly but it borders on blasphemy to suggest that Jews hold some esteem with God the Father.

You accuse the Apostle Paul of blasphemy?

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, "There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is My covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
--Romans 11:25-29

It's amazing how fast you Reformists are to slander the Apostles in your haste to deny Israel's promises.

God is not in the habit of blessing a group of people who reject His Son.

But He's in the habit of blessing those who present a false image of His Son to said group of people so as to keep them from coming to faith? Anyway, you're still arguing with the Apostle here.

He never blessed the Jews in the Old Testament when they rebelled so why should we assume He'll do it now?

Not precisely true; He always blessed them by retaining a remnant of the faithful and by not destroying them utterly for their sins so that they could come to repentence afterwards.

Tell me, was Israel living righteously when Yeshua came? Or did God bless them with His Son despite a corrupt, non-Aaronic priesthood, blatant hypocrisy among the leadership, and sin? Or did He demand that they be righteous first before He sent the Messiah to redeem them?

I am correct. Israel is occupying its ancestral land. There is no denying that fact. If anyone has doubts, let them watch this evening's news about war between Hezbollah and Israel. That pretty well settles it.

The biblical issue is determining if: (1) All "Israel" references in prophecy refer to racial Israel, (2) All "Israel" references in prophecy refer to the Church, or (3) There is a split and some refer to racial Israel and some refer to the Church.

Those are your only choices, and how many understand the bible's old and new testament prophetic passages so well that they can say that their way is the only possibility?