Never Reformed

422 posts

Never Reformed

Never Reformed

@NeverReformed

Solas 👍 TULIP 👍 Reformed Theology 👎 I’m here to talk pre-mil, pre-trib eschatology and how the modern reformed movement has become Catholicism-lite

Nashville, TN Katılım Mayıs 2026
81 Takip Edilen29 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
I wonder how much of the Amil viewpoint throughout church history was actually influenced by the fact that Israel was not a nation any longer. So they looked at all those kingdom promises and said well there’s no way that’s gonna happen because Israel’s been dispersed. So it must apply to us, the church. For all the jokes, dispensationalists were calling for Israel to return as a nation, some 100 years prior to it actually happening. In science, more credence would be given to the hypothesis that then had evidence to back it up.
English
1
0
2
27
Mark
Mark@Mark_Wilson_25·
Hebrews does not say God stopped caring about Israel. It says Messiah fulfilled the old covenant system. In fact, Hebrews reinforces Israel’s identity: “God… spoke to our fathers by the prophets” (Heb. 1:1) And Hebrews 8 quotes Jeremiah 31 directly: “A new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” That is not God abandoning the Jewish people. That is God fulfilling His promises to them through Messiah.
English
5
9
37
340
Marcus Sanford
Marcus Sanford@MarcusSanford·
Based on Hebrews, I'd never say God was much attached to the race-nation.
Mark@Mark_Wilson_25

You Might Be a Supersessionist Scripture is clear: “I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid!” (Romans 11:11). God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Yet some theologies openly teach that the Church has fully replaced Israel in God’s plan and promises. If that sounds familiar, these might hit close to home. 1. If you read “apple of His eye” in Zechariah 2:8 and immediately apply it to the Church instead of Israel, you might be a Supersessionist. 2. If you call God’s treasured possession in Exodus 19:5 a “temporary title” that’s now been transferred to your denomination, you might be a Supersessionist. 3. If you prefer the rotten fruit of Augustinian allegory over the plain promises God made to the descendants of Jacob, you might be a Supersessionist. 4. If you believe the specific land promises in Ezekiel 36 are really just poetic language about heaven, you might be a Supersessionist. 5. If Justin Martyr is your hero for declaring the Church the “true Israel,” you might be a Supersessionist. 6. If you think the word “Israel” in the New Testament always secretly means “the Church” except when it’s a rebuke, you might be a Supersessionist. 7. If you claim the Church is now God’s treasured possession while smirking and calling modern Jews “Christ-rejectors,” you might be a Supersessionist. 8. If Augustine’s City of God convinced you that the millennial kingdom is simply this present Church age, you might be a Supersessionist. 9. If “one new man” in Ephesians 2 means ethnic Jews disappear into the Church like salt dissolving in soup, you might be a Supersessionist. 10. If you celebrate Replacement Theology but rebrand it as “fulfillment theology” so it sounds less heretical, you might be a Supersessionist. Bonus Time: 
11. If you read “all Israel will be saved” in Romans 11:26 and immediately start explaining why it doesn’t actually mean what it says, you might be a Supersessionist. 
We are not to boast against the natural branches. As Paul warns in Romans 11, the root supports us — we do not support the root. Our calling is not to replace or dismiss Israel, but to walk in such joyful obedience and genuine love that we provoke the Jewish people to jealousy, stirring them to recognize their Messiah through the beauty of a grafted-in people who honor God’s irrevocable gifts and calling. Charles Spurgeon declared it powerfully: “I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration of the Jews. We do not think enough about it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible it is this.” May we heed the Word, reject boasting, and live as a blessing that draws God’s ancient people back to their Messiah. Drop your own “You Might Be a Supersessionist” lines in the comments, let’s keep the sharpening going!

English
6
0
2
453
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
I actually understand and agree with a lot of it. But I don’t think that means the physical aspect of it isn’t real. First off, humans being the pinnacle of creation, made in the image of God were given physical bodies. So obviously the physical fulfillment of these things would not be bad in that sense. And secondly, God told Jewish people through a Jewish profit all of these things. I would think if He meant these just to be spiritual only, he would have said as much. Why would you describe the cubits of a table if you just mean something spiritual? So again, I don’t deny that there are typological fulfillments going on. I just think the full consummation is going to be God doing what He said physically, literally with the Jews as a nation at some point in the future. That doesn’t negate that he is also applying all of those things spiritually to us now.
English
2
0
0
26
Ζαχαρίας 🦡 ✝️📖🥖🍷 🌊 🙏
Ζαχαρίας 🦡 ✝️📖🥖🍷 🌊 🙏@zacharydparks·
The temple in Ezekiel is a type. There are sacrifices for sin and water flows from it that gives life. What’s weird is to take that literally. What were temples for? For God to dwell among us. The New Testament says that Christ is the temple. We are said to be temples of the Holy Spirit now and he’s going to dwell with us in the new creation. The garden of Eden was like a temple. The tabernacle was reminiscent of that. The new creation will be like that once again. Once you see how beautifully Christ and the new creation fulfills all you can’t unsee it and a literal Ezekiel temple no longer makes sense. It’s no different than saying David or his son will rule on the throne forever to mean Christ.
English
1
0
0
26
Paramount Church
Paramount Church@ParamountChurch·
This reply completely misses @RScottClark point. No serious covenant theologian argues that “genre” gives interpreters license to allegorize texts into arbitrary theological systems. That is a caricature. Clark’s point is much more basic and historically grounded: genre is essential to authorial intent and therefore essential to grammatical-historical interpretation itself. In other words, grammar never exists in a vacuum. Words, syntax, imagery, symbolism, metaphor, poetry, apocalyptic language, typology, narrative structure, covenantal context, and literary form all contribute to meaning. That is precisely why genre matters. Ironically, this post's own examples prove Clark’s point: hyperbole, simile, idiom, metaphor. Those cannot even be recognized properly apart from literary context and genre. Apocalyptic literature is not read identically to historical narrative. Poetry is not read identically to legal prose. Parables are not interpreted identically to epistles. That is not allegorization. That is basic hermeneutics. Even more importantly, the New Testament itself repeatedly interprets the Old Testament typologically and redemptive-historically: Adam as a type of Christ, the Passover lamb fulfilled in Christ, the temple fulfilled in Christ, the sacrificial system fulfilled in Christ, Sarah and Hagar typologically interpreted by Paul, Israel’s wilderness experience applied typologically to the church. So the real issue is not whether typology exists. The Apostles themselves use it constantly. The issue is whether one’s hermeneutic is broad enough to account for the Apostolic interpretation of Scripture itself.
Stephen Angliss 📖@Stephen_Angliss

No, genre is not a part of grammar. At least not to the extent you're suggesting. Idioms, hyperbole, simile--like all features of grammar, remain the same whether they appear in a poem, parable, or epistle. Genre is not a license to allegorize a text into a theological system.

English
2
1
15
2.2K
Mark
Mark@Mark_Wilson_25·
Hebrews literally quotes Jeremiah 31 to argue that YHWH is fulfilling His own promises through the New Covenant. And Paul constantly argued from the Tanakh: Genesis, Isaiah, Habakkuk, Joel, Deuteronomy, and more. The apostles were not teaching “Paul vs. YHWH.” They believed Yeshua fulfilled what YHWH had already spoken through the prophets. So the real question is not “Jeremiah or Hebrews?” but whether the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 was truly fulfilled in Messiah.
Mark tweet media
English
4
6
18
262
Abi
Abi@abi4560·
If I have to choose between YHWH's word and Paul's I'm going to choose YHWH. If I have to choose between Jeremiah and the book of Hebrews, I'm choosing Jeremiah. One day we will have to stand before the Almighty and all that matters is, what is His opinion on this.
English
4
0
2
235
Josiah Geoffrey ✡️
Josiah Geoffrey ✡️@JosiahForYeshua·
Occasionally, someone will drop this Bible verse in my replies, basically to just say, “SEE? JEWISH BAD!” (Usually, they’ll just post the bolded section.) Titus 1:10-14 (MJLT) For there are many who are both out-of-control, empty-talkers, and mind-deceivers (especially those of the Circumcision) whose mouth must stop—who overturn whole households by teaching what things they ought not, for dishonest gain’s sake. A certain one of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans! always liars, evil beasts, lazy bellies!” This testimony is true, for which reason you must refute them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commands of men, turning themselves away from the truth. The obvious thing for me to point out here is that “Jewish myths” does not equal “anything and everything Jewish.” On the contrary, Paul says elsewhere that being a circumcised Jew comes with much benefit and advantage in every way (Rom. 3:1-2). Paul’s condemnation here is about a specific group—many of whom were Jews (“of the Circumcision”)—who professed belief in Yeshua (Jesus), but were spreading bad teaching and false myths from Jewish folklore or what have you, and it was overthrowing people’s faith. This passage is clearly not an indictment of all Jews or of all things Jewish, because Paul himself was a Jew who continued to self-identify as a Jew, and he maintained a Jewish lifestyle according to the laws in the Torah of Moses (Acts 21:20-26 & 39). The kinds of “Jewish myths” that Paul is talking about are things that go beyond Scripture into territories that could lead people astray—things like the books of Enoch or Jubilees, or (to use examples which were created after Paul) Zohar and Kabbalah—which, if taken as authoritative, can lead into whacky places that distort the sound teaching of the faith. There are some things that Jews have come up with which are seriously flawed, but some Gentile believers can become so enamored with anything that’s Jewish that they get led astray. There were Jewish believers who were taking advantage of people in this way in Paul’s day, and this even remains a problem today in some Hebrew Roots (and adjacent) circles. But just as it’s dangerous to think that everything Jewish is good, it’s also dangerous to say that everything Jewish is bad—ESPECIALLY if you’re labeling biblical things as bad Jewish things. (And for the record, I’ve seen some antisemites cite this passage and use “Cretan” as a derogatory term against Jews; but frankly, that is completely idiotic. “Cretan” just means “inhabitant of the island of Crete.” This is a completely unrelated word to “cretin,” which can mean “a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person.” Titus was living in Crete, see v. 1:5, and so the people he was interacting with were Cretans—inhabitants of Crete.)
English
6
5
37
558
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
@jrc99us Ok. So why do people only hate that idea if we’re talking about Israel?
English
1
0
1
4
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
I obviously disagree with this. To be honest, I don’t even have a concrete definition of what Zionism is. I hear different things from different people. The one consistent thing seems to be aggravations with the current political regime in Israel. But I don’t know of any true Christian, dispensational or not, whose main concern is the politics of any nation state. The concern is the gospel and reaching everyone with it. And related to that, how God is working out his plan in human history specifically when it comes to the end times, as we are told to comfort one another with that doctrine.
5 Solas@5Solas2

It's not just Baptists falling for this.

English
1
0
0
39
On the Mount
On the Mount@OntheMountInc·
God hasn’t given us a spirit of fear. May we never be afraid to engage in respectful, thoughtful, and Bible-centered discussions about our faith on social media.
English
1
3
16
612
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
The Old Testament never made sense to me until I read it in context and understood that God was making these promises to actual Jews from 1800 BC to roughly 500 BC. For instance, the new covenant was made with the house of Israel and Judah. Somehow, I had never noticed that before. But as soon as I realized it, that made Romans 9-11 completely open up to my eyes in ways it never had before. And other New Testament passages as well. But most importantly, this newfound way of reading the Old Testament (for me) gave me a greater, deeper appreciation for the faithfulness of God. That His love for us depends not on our performance, but simply because He chose to love us. Which I “knew” that beforehand, but somehow the Holy Spirit opened that up in a way that has just absolutely floored me in the past year. And so, because of that, I expect He’ll keep his word to the Jews. Just as I know He will keep his word to me. Because their salvation one day, and my salvation today, does not depend on us being perfectly faithful. It depends on His word, which is truth. His word which is unchangeable. And as He says many times in Ezekiel because He has said it, He will do it.
English
0
0
1
31
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
The funny thing is I actually agree with a lot of this. I don’t want to impose a system on the Bible (my big issue with Covenant Theology and redemptive-historical interpretation). I want the Bible to teach me what it’s saying (I know the response will be that the Bible itself interprets redemptive-historically and I just don’t see it). I also agree that the New Testament should interpret the Old Testament where it explicitly does so. You can’t get a more authoritative interpretation than that. Though I will admit I’m dispensational leaning, I don’t see the story of the Bible as about Israel. But can I say something possibly controversial? I don’t see redemption as the story of the Bible either. I see the story of the Bible as being about the glory of God which is increasingly revealed to us through human history with the centerpiece of that glory being Jesus. And each of the successive covenants is God revealing more of Himself and His glory to us. And finally, I pretty much ignored the Old Testament for most of my Christian life until the past year. The only parts I interacted with were the ones that are quoted in the New Testament. And the reason why was because when I would read the Old Testament, I tried to see the church everywhere, looking for that spiritual meaning, and a lot of it just made zero sense to me. It honestly wasn’t until I started reading the Prophets in context (Jewish prophet taking to real Jewish people) that 1 Thessalonians, 2 Peter, Olivet Discourse, and Revelation really started opening up to my eyes. And I discovered that God‘s glory really is shown throughout human history, and will be shown at an apex at the end of human history, by His faithfulness to His promises. Obviously, the promises were to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. So when He completes them, we will all be able to say that God is truly faithful. (Direct application to the church: He saves those whom He says He will).
English
1
1
0
43
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
I can’t say that I see this. I do see a lot of over the top criticism of him, though. So that may be what triggers it. And I think a lot of that over the top criticism is because you can’t really pin him down. He was Calvinistic, but not reformed. Pre-trib and pre-mil, but not actually dispensational. And unapologetically preached the hard truths of scripture that our culture dislikes, like women submitting their husbands, homosexuality is sin, etc.
English
0
0
0
80
Rev. Nick Quient
Rev. Nick Quient@NickQuient·
The amount of “touch not the Lords anointed” energy when someone critiques JMac is effervescent.
English
5
1
21
1.2K
R. Scott Clark
R. Scott Clark@RScottClark·
I started off my Evangelical Christian life as a typical pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensationalist. Becoming Reformed and amil was a wonderful liberation. It allowed me to follow the scriptures rather than imposing a system on the Scriptures. When we allow the New Testament to interpret the Old and when we allow the New Testament to teach us how to read the Bible rather than appropriating a 19th-century German critical approach, it turns out that the Bible's own interpretation is rather different from what I was taught as a young evangelical. It turns out the Bible was about Christ and not about national Israel. That's not sad. That's wonderful!
English
1
0
1
46
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
Yeah, I get it. The “millennium” is just this church age, all spiritual, no literal kingdom coming. But I can’t see that in Scripture. The NT uses types & shadows from the OT, sure, but those point to a REAL future fulfillment: Christ reigning physically on earth, Israel regathered, promises kept. This broken world ain’t it. Come Lord Jesus.
English
1
0
0
21
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
I mean some parts of the Gospel imply that Christ did not know things. He voluntarily gave up usage of His full range of Divine attributes. Ultimately, this is a mystery and one we shouldn’t stumble on. SOMEHOW infinite God became a finite man without compromising His traits of either.
English
0
0
0
102
Duff
Duff@dgh5391·
I'm becoming more and more convinced that I think most run-of-the-mill evangelical Christians, and many pastors, hold to some form of kenotic christology (albeit, they may not have ever heard of the term itself).
English
7
0
17
3.3K
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
Imagine how large New Earth will be to accommodate such a large city and still have more planet to explore! It will be amazing!
Open Minded Approach@OMApproach

The size of New Jerusalem, which descends from Heaven after the Apocalypse, is 12,000 stadia on each side. That equals roughly 1,380–1,500 miles (2,220–2,400 km) in length, width, and height. It would stretch roughly from New York to Texas or across much of Europe. New Jerusalem is the dwelling place of God, the Lamb (Christ), angels, and the redeemed, transformed, and transfigured people of God. The New Jerusalem is not a black cube like the current fallen state of the world, where the blackness represents the veil. It will be golden because it signifies the alchemical process of purifying the soul and turning ore into gold. It is the dwelling place of God, where Enoch also walks. Here is a comparison of the size of New Jerusalem with North America, Europe, and Africa. Did you know that there is currently a project developed by humans to create a massive golden cube with the Tower of Babel inside?

English
0
0
0
61
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
@sola_chad The term for them is “grifters”. As politics has replaced religion, these are the new prosperity gospel preachers.
English
0
0
0
163
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
@Shh94888302 This is taking it too far. I think that such a person is wrong, but the reality is a good majority of Protestantism is amil - some of them don’t even think antichrist is a singular person.
English
1
0
1
34
Shawn
Shawn@Shh94888302·
If you believe the Antichrist came in the first century then you're not a Protestant.
English
8
4
14
542
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
@candle84640 I have assumed for a while that would be your own native language. So you could be speaking to a Jew and an Italian, and everybody would hear their own language and everybody would speak their own language. Essentially it be “auto translated” if you will.
English
0
0
1
56
Tom Candle
Tom Candle@candle84640·
Which language do you think will be spoken in the millenial kingdom? Could it be the original language of Adam, the Hebrew of Moses, or the Aramaic Jesus spoke 2000 years ago? Zephaniah 3:9 “For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.”
Tom Candle tweet media
English
110
5
48
5.2K
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
Yeah yeah, that’s the normal accusation. I can say I’ve never done any kind of formal education in theology nor have I read Left Behind. I became a Christian at 13. And I’ve just read scripture as well as various pastors and authors. I’m aware of the different views, but the one that makes most sense to me is the plain sense reading of the text.
English
1
0
0
28
Poo bear
Poo bear@Poobearthebold·
@NeverReformed @ParamountChurch @RScottClark Your misinterpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 is so inexcusable and extreme in light of the rest of the scripture that it cannot be an intellectual issue. I’ve asked people who came out of the system and they had emotional attachments, sometimes from Left Behind.
English
1
0
0
31
Never Reformed
Never Reformed@NeverReformed·
Few things are more disheartening than the Amil approach to eschatology. This world we’re in right now is the “kingdom”? With homosexuals and trannies, abortion, murder, mass false religion, and more. How depressing!
A Cloistered Hermeneutic@Exodus15_11

The coming literal theocratic-Davidic Kingdom will be beyond anything we have known. The Lord returns to incarcerate the Devil and to begin His reign on earth at Zion. It's past time for preachers to get their eschatology correct and flush the nonsense of the Amillennial slop.

English
0
0
1
94

Keşfet

@Mark_Wilson_25 @MarcusSanford @RScottClark @abi4560 @JosiahForYeshua @jrc99us @OntheMountInc @TrevorSheatz