22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Truth7t7]

I'm a blind Zionist, a heretic, and a Judaizer? And this from a guy who complains that I'm mean and identify you as a Replacement Theologian.

The term "Replacement Theology" is Zionist propaganda

Your claims a remnant will lead the charge into a revived National Israel is laughable, deception in my opinion

It's 100% the cross of Calvary and the Church, Israel rejected the Chief corner stone as a Nation, the Kingdom was removed and given to the Church Matthew 21:42-43

 

[Truth7t7]

It's unfortunate that others cannot be as gracious towards Premils as you are! At least one here who is not Premil feels that I'm not a heretic.

I wouldn't call you a heretic, just engulfed in man's pride in total disregard of biblical truth presented

The fact is, all will be held accountable for their knowledge and rejection, "All"

 

[WPM]

Again, belief that Christ superseded the Law, and that heavenly reality is the substance and temporal earth realities merely shadows, we all agree on. We all believe we should "set our minds on things above, and not on the earth." Our hope, Christ, is in heaven with God the Father. And it is from him we receive both our righteousness and our justification. And it is from him that we shall obtain our resurrection and immortality.

None of this means that God's Kingdom will not be applied to the earth in the eschatological Kingdom of Christ. Man was called from the beginning to subdue the earth. And the man from heaven will subdue the earth right here, where we live.

The attack on modern Premillennialism is rooted in a dualism that cuts off earthly Israel form the heavenly Church. No such dichotomy exists with either Jesus or Paul. The Kingdom of heaven will be established on the earth, remaking Israel into a Christian nation, and forcing the world to accept Christian nations.

Amils and early Chiliasts reject the apartheid/dualism you promote under the new covenant and share with the heretics. They reject your Zionism. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

Jesus brought a radical revolutionary message to the early Jewish disciples. He told them that there are others that are not of this flock (namely not of the Jewish race) that belong to Him, who will be integrated into His sheepfold. He was talking here of the Gentiles. What is more, He describes how these two peoples (both Jews and Gentiles) would be united together in Him and become one flock! Jesus is here acknowledging that salvation would not be limited to the Jewish race. He was predicting that the Gospel would expand out and embrace the nations. He explains that there would then be a fusion of the believing element of both ethnic groups into one cohesive believing sheepfold – with Him as a Shepherd. This indeed happened 2000 years ago.

Jesus frequently encountered the hostility of the Christ-rejecting apostate Jews many times during His earthly ministry. Many times, He presented them with the simple Gospel, and many times they rejected it. They refused to receive their own Messiah. Jesus declared to “the Jews” in John 10:26-27, after they questioned His deity, “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

These religious zealots were not part of God’s old covenant flock. They were not true Israel. They belonged to the natural seed of Abraham, not the spiritual seed. The belief that God has one plan of salvation for the ethnic relatives of Abraham and another for the Gentile people of the world is both mistaken and in conflict with clear and repeated Scripture. There is only one life-changing Gospel, containing one set of standards and requirements – it is open equally to both Jew and Gentile.

The Lord confirms this in Matthew 22:1-14 with the parable of the wedding feast. Through the imaginary of a king and his subjects, He spoke of the invitation He extended to the Jewish people – His intended guests. He showed how “they would not come” and how they made many pitiful excuses. In fact, “they made light” of the invitation and “took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.”

The prideful rebellion of unbelieving Israel is highlighted in Christ’s lament in Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Israel’s Messiah reached out to natural Israel, but they largely rejected Him. He spoke the truth to them and they heard but couldn’t hear. Jesus said elsewhere “thou knewest not the time of thy visitation” (Luke 19:44). What a damming indictment upon this blessed nation.

Natural Israel’s stubborn rejection of Jesus is ably summed up in John 1:11: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” In fact, not only did they reject Him, they cruelly nailed Him to a tree.

Since the cross natural Israel has overwhelmingly continued to rebel against God’s gracious provision for sin, Jesus Christ. The king being angry at this “sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city” (Matthew 22:7). The Lord was here speaking of AD70 and the destruction of the Israeli nation. Having rejected his offer, the king’s servants were instructed to go “into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage” (Matthew 22:9). This was a picture of the Gospel going out to the nations – those that had previously been aliens to the favor of God and salvation. Through the Jews willful rejection of Christ, the Gentiles entered into God’s wonderful grace in their millions.

The Gospel of God would no longer be restricted to one individual earthly nation but rather to a broad spiritual nation that was birthed from above. John 1:12 goes on to declare, “But as many as received him (both Jew and Gentile), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”

 

[Randy Kluth]

I did not say you were a Pharisee. Your future expectation is a Pharisaical invention.

A distinction without a difference?

You make the same mistake they do. Christ did not teach a literal temporal territorial physical kingdom based in physical Jerusalem. He spiritualized it and showed it was a heavenly eternal kingdom that was coming. Jesus

Jesus did not forsake the hope of a restored physical Jerusalem and a restored physical Israel in the physical land of Israel. He did not "spiritualize" this! Focusing on spiritual qualities that are necessary in his Kingdom is not the same thing as "spiritualizing" his Kingdom! If you don't know the difference, you have a big problem.

Christ replied, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within (entos) you.”

Again, we all agree that when Jesus came to Israel he brought the power of the heavenly Kingdom with him. He just didn't implement the full eschatological Kingdom. As God did in the OT, Jesus did in the NT. He instituted a form of the Kingdom that was purely temporal and not eschatological. His message remains, "It is near, but not yet here."

We all benefit from the truths given to Israel that were intended to be extended to the Church. But Jesus and Paul never taught that Israel would go away forever.

 

[WPM]

A distinction without a difference?



Jesus did not forsake the hope of a restored physical Jerusalem and a restored physical Israel in the physical land of Israel. He did not "spiritualize" this! Focusing on spiritual qualities that are necessary in his Kingdom is not the same thing as "spiritualizing" his Kingdom! If you don't know the difference, you have a big problem.



Again, we all agree that when Jesus came to Israel he brought the power of the heavenly Kingdom with him. He just didn't implement the full eschatological Kingdom. As God did in the OT, Jesus did in the NT. He instituted a form of the Kingdom that was purely temporal and not eschatological. His message remains, "It is near, but not yet here."

We all benefit from the truths given to Israel that were intended to be extended to the Church. But Jesus and Paul never taught that Israel would go away forever.

Unfortunately, we not agree on anything to do with this subject.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus said in Matthew 6:33: “seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

Then start seeking love and brotherhood with fellow Christians who disagree with you, and stop focusing all of your attention on Amil vs Premil and on casting Premils as controlled by heretical impulses.

Scripture shows us the proof that you have entered the kingdom of God.

· If you have experienced the righteousness of Christ you can consequently manifest the righteousness of Christ.
· If you have experienced the peace of Christ you can consequently manifest the peace of Christ.
· If you have experienced the joy of the Lord you can consequently manifest the joy of the Lord.

There should be a major difference between the character of those that are under divine authority and those that are not under divine authority. Don’t tell me that it is difficult to differentiate between the two. I don’t believe it.

All I can say is you have a long ways to go brother! You don't display the character of Christ when you infer that Premills knowingly adhere to Pharisaical, heretical beliefs. But I'm remaining eternally hopeful.....................

 

[Truth7t7]

Jesus did not forsake the hope of a restored physical Jerusalem and a restored physical Israel in the physical land of Israel. He did not "spiritualize" this! Focusing on spiritual qualities that are necessary in his Kingdom is not the same thing as "spiritualizing" his Kingdom! If you don't know the difference, you have a big problem.
.

Your living a Zionist fairy tale dream, full of Randy's imagination

It's the Church on earth, a National Israel is long gone, buried in the shed blood upon the cross of Calvary

Your claims in a National Salvation for Israel, leading the world's Nations, land inheritance upon this earth?

Your Zionist dream is a man made fairy tale, found no place in scripture

 

[covenantee]

Jesus said this when the Law was still in effect, ie under the Old Covenant. So the "elect" had to refer to believers in Israel.

Jesus was prophesying of the destruction of Jerusalem.

The gathering of the elect would take place no earlier than that, at least 40 years later, well into the New Covenant era.

Referring exclusively to the Church.

 

[covenantee]

You may be waiting a very long time because I don't think you're serious. Virtually the entire Bible identifies who Israel is and who the Jewish People are. And you're still waiting for a biblical answer as to who they are?

I'm waiting for Scriptural evidence that who they are constitute criteria for their gathering.

You've previously cited Jewish tradition as a criterion, but Jesus specifically condemns it in Mark 7:13.

The Jewish religion of Babylonian talmudism which rejects and vilifies Christ is certainly not a criterion.

The old covenant advantages that they enjoyed did not include New Covenant salvation, and Romans 9:27 confirms that only a remnant would and will experience it.

So there is nothing Jewish that qualifies as criteria for God's gathering.

Only faith and obedience in and to God and His Son do that.

The criteria of those who are in Christ.

And no other.

 

[CadyandZoe]

They absolutely are valid arguments against premil.

Let me be clear here. I maintain that WPM's arguments are not valid. I say this not because I disagree with him; I say this because his arguments fail due to error's in logic. I already pointed out a couple and there are a few more logical fallacies we could discuss.

Now, do all premils believe everything the same? No. So, maybe a few of his arguments don't apply to what you personally believe.

I'll grant you that not all premils believe the same way. Bear in mind that WPS's arguments are critical of what HE conceives is a universal belief system. In other words, his arguments assume that all premils share a common set of tenets.

Are you saying that you disagree that this is an argument against your particular view? Do you think Paul or any of the other NT writers taught a 1,000 year temporal visible earthly kingdom after the second coming before the ushering in of the new heaven and new earth? If so, where? I know you might say Revelation 20, but that passage says nothing about an earthly kingdom. So, where else?

Yes, I disagree with him on this point because I disagree with his implied premise that one must find evidence in the New Testament for a temporal visible kingdom.

Why should one expect to find a commentary from Jesus or the apostles on subjects with which he and his audience agree? If he and his audience both agree that the Father will establish a righteous kingdom on earth, then one would not expect to find any commentary on the subject.

But we have hints about a coming kingdom of righteousness all through the gospel. I already mentioned the Lord's prayer, which Jesus taught to his disciples. This prayer is intended as a model prayer, helping us focus on the most important things. And first on the list is the "temporal visible earthly kingdom", which you claim will never exist.

Jesus commented on his culture whenever it deviated from the true teachings found in the revealed scriptures, and he often argued from the scriptures, knowing that he and his audience shared "Biblical inerrancy" in common.

Consider this passage from John's gospel.

John 10:34-36

Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?​

According to Jesus, the scripture cannot be broken, meaning, the entire Bible speaks truly and remains a valid source of God's revealed will. Jesus argued FROM the Old Testament. And neither did he come to put a new spin on them as he claims in the following passage.

Matthew 5:17-18
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

The Lord makes it clear to his audience that his commentary on the Law is not a repudiation of the law. His disagreement is not with the law, but rather, his disagreement is with the incorrect interpretation promoted by the scribes and the Pharisees. In other words, our Lord has not adopted a new, "spiritual" interpretation of the law based on his unique eisegesis.

 

[Naomi25]

You obviously didn't read the Op well enough. I didn't call Premillennialists outright heretics. I do not believe that. I spoke of the roots of Premil.

No...quite right, it wasn't this OP that you made that claim, I'm sorry. But another thread you started claimed Pre-mil fathers as heretics. And...forgive me, seeing you focus on the church fathers, I reached a conclusion on your topic.
However...while this particular thread doesn't make the outright claim, aren't you quibbling just a little? Wouldn't we all find some heretical beliefs tossed into those who came before us, sprinkled here and there? Goodness...the Amillennial belief (which I also share, more or less) is held by the Catholic Church. Which holds some 'doctrinal truths' that make me wince.
My point was...calling out 'heresy' about heresy is fine and well. So we should. But casting that label wide and sharing it among many and over centuries, when at worst it seems their secondary doctrines should be categorized as 'mistaken', rather than 'heretical', felt...well...a tad overboard. All I was keen to do was urge less focus on what the church fathers held as important, and to just point back to the scriptures. Which, I know, still leads to plenty of disagreements. But I'd think we'd all be better served in discussing what the word of God means, rather than what a particular man might have meant.

 

[Naomi25]

It's unfortunate that others cannot be as gracious towards Premils as you are! At least one here who is not Premil feels that I'm not a heretic.

Ha! Well...I think, Randy...the more I read and learn about eschatology...the more I think none of us know exactly how it's going to go down. I think, when it does happen, we'll all go, "Huh...didn't see that coming."
God likes to keep us humble.
And while I think...I see one way taught more readily in scripture...I have...questions...that are not simply answered. I can, if I try, see and understand the other points of view as well. And they answer some of my questions...but leave other, new questions. Nothing really fits perfectly. Which is why I am where I am. I have to stand somewhere, I guess, but I think the days are gone when I'm confident enough to laugh and point and announce someone else a heretic. Only God knows. And that way is best.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Not so. Not only are you besotted with the wrong Israel, the wrong temple, the wrong covenant, but also the wrong Zion.

Romans 9:30-33 states: “the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

Here Paul compares the Gentiles, who attained to righteousness by faith, with Israel who didn't attain to righteousness because they didn't seek it by faith. He doesn't mention a temple, a covenant, or Zion. His point is focused on faith, which he proves is an Old Testament concept.

“The stone which the builders rejected” (Psalm 118:22), “a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence” (Isaiah 8:14) or the “stumblingstone” (Romans 9:32-33) within Zion (Sion) is Jesus Christ. Scripture shows us that the rejection of that figurative stone was the rejection of our Savior. Paul, in Romans 9:30-33, shows natural Gentiles (heathens) accepting that stone, experiencing salvation, and entering into the favor of God. Natural Israel, on the other hand, is shown in Romans 9:31–32 to have stumbled at Christ the rock.

I agree, Paul argues that Israel did not attain that which see sought. But it does not follow, therefore, that she won't attain it by faith, at some time in the future. So this passage does not defeat Premillennialism.

Romans 9:33 broadens Zion out to “whosoever believes in him shall not be ashamed.”

This is an example of the kinds of logical fallacies you present. You are arguing from your assumptions, not from the text itself. Paul does not mention Zion in that passage.

Many Dispensationalists will highlight the last part of Romans 11:26, which promises unbroken favor upon ethnic Israelites, but seem to miss, ignore or conveniently overlook the actual company in view. It is not all natural Israelites.

So we both agree that his statement is not an unqualified statement. But we disagree on the qualification Paul gave it. Paul says that Israel, whom he claims is an enemy of the gospel, is favored because of the fathers. His qualification is NOT based on an "ethnic/spiritual" distinction. Such a distinction is absent from this passage.


1 Peter 2:3-11 adds further evidence to our enquiry: “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Peter does not relate Sion (Zion) to the natural realm and to ethnicity.
[/quote]He doesn't discount it either. Peter speaks truly concerning his own kinsmen, whom God chose for himself to be his holy people. It does not follow, therefore, that all of those whom God chose should be labeled "Israel" and it does not follow, therefore, that Peter was NOT talking about the physical place known as Zion. Jesus came to the actual, literal, physical place known as Zion. And it was in that place that the builders rejected him. I find no justification for idealizing the term, especially when the New Testament authors never did.

The elect of God enter Zion upon salvation, as they embrace Christ.

Scripture. I find no explicit statement in the scriptures to support your assertion.

Hebrews 12:18 supports this contention, saying, “For ye are not come [plural perfect active indicative] unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest.”

Hebrews 12:22 says, “But ye are come [plural perfect active indicative] unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.”

Physical Jerusalem is no longer considered true Sion (Zion). Under the new covenant, Sion (Zion) is heavenly and eternal, not earthly and temporal.

Paul is not making your point. He is making another point. He isn't comparing a real Zion with an idealized Zion. He is comparing Zion as it existed in the past with Zion as it will exist in the future. Same place : different conditions.

 

[WPM]

No...quite right, it wasn't this OP that you made that claim, I'm sorry. But another thread you started claimed Pre-mil fathers as heretics. And...forgive me, seeing you focus on the church fathers, I reached a conclusion on your topic.
However...while this particular thread doesn't make the outright claim, aren't you quibbling just a little? Wouldn't we all find some heretical beliefs tossed into those who came before us, sprinkled here and there? Goodness...the Amillennial belief (which I also share, more or less) is held by the Catholic Church. Which holds some 'doctrinal truths' that make me wince.
My point was...calling out 'heresy' about heresy is fine and well. So we should. But casting that label wide and sharing it among many and over centuries, when at worst it seems their secondary doctrines should be categorized as 'mistaken', rather than 'heretical', felt...well...a tad overboard. All I was keen to do was urge less focus on what the church fathers held as important, and to just point back to the scriptures. Which, I know, still leads to plenty of disagreements. But I'd think we'd all be better served in discussing what the word of God means, rather than what a particular man might have meant.

It wasn't this Op or any other Op. You are reading it wrong. My overwhelming focus over the years on these public boards has been Scripture. That is the only basis of our faith. I agree. My interest in the ECFs comes from me deeply researching them to ascertain their eschatological position to write on them. I am not in any way leaning on them to establish right or wrong. I am just trying to establish a true and accurate history.

The continual boast over the years of many Premils publicly and in books has been: "the overwhelming amount of ECFs were Premil." They say such without ever taking the time to study this. Deep research has found the opposite. I am simply sharing my conclusions.

Thanks for your input.

 

[WPM]

Then start seeking love and brotherhood with fellow Christians who disagree with you, and stop focusing all of your attention on Amil vs Premil and on casting Premils as controlled by heretical impulses.



All I can say is you have a long ways to go brother! You don't display the character of Christ when you infer that Premills knowingly adhere to Pharisaical, heretical beliefs. But I'm remaining eternally hopeful.....................

Thank God you are not my judge. I could say the same about you, but i cannot read your heart, and it is not for me to do so, so i don't.

You are so obsessed with personal attacks and insults. That seems to be the basis of your rebuttals more and more. Amils here focus in on the doctrine and hermeneutics. When we call out your avoidance or faulty interpretation you call that personal attacks. You then attack our characters and question our salvation. Your attacks are often personal and vicious. This post is a classic example. The other thing is, you never apologize. You just change tactic.

I have never said Premil is heretical or have suggested Premils are "controlled by heretical impulses." That is not how I see it. This is part of your campaign of misinformation and misrepresentation. I have simply shown that the historic founders of what we have today as Premil beliefs was inaugurated by heretics up until Victorinus, who taught it around AD 270 years (that is 240 years after the cross). But he (notably) did not teach the rebuilding of temple and the restoration of blood sacrifice for sin as Premils do today.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus was prophesying of the destruction of Jerusalem.

The gathering of the elect would take place no earlier than that, at least 40 years later, well into the New Covenant era.

Referring exclusively to the Church.

Yes, I know. But he was *speaking to the Jewish people* at the time of this Discourse, and prophesying about their future in regard to the coming 70 AD event. The International Church was not at all associated with that event--the Jewish People were. And some of them would be Christians, since Jesus' own disciples and apostles were Jews.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm waiting for Scriptural evidence that who they are constitute criteria for their gathering.

You've previously cited Jewish tradition as a criterion, but Jesus specifically condemns it in Mark 7:13.

You are applying this way too loosely. Jesus was specifically condemning Jewish tradition that contradicted the word of God--not *all* Jewish tradition. At times he told his followers to do what the Pharisees told them to do. At other times he told them to not do what they said to do.

Paul himself was not opposed to Jewish tradition. He became "like the Jews to win the Jews." Paul said that observing certain days really is up to the individual.

So there is nothing Jewish that qualifies as criteria for God's gathering.

That is simply an antiSemitic statement. It's like saying none of your public school teachers ever taught you anything right if they weren't Christians. Obviously, that's untrue.

Paul said that the Jews had been entrusted with the word of God. You just have to separate what was opposed to Christ and what was opposed to the word of God. Their Jewish Hope originated well before the Pharisees and their traditions.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ha! Well...I think, Randy...the more I read and learn about eschatology...the more I think none of us know exactly how it's going to go down. I think, when it does happen, we'll all go, "Huh...didn't see that coming."
God likes to keep us humble.
And while I think...I see one way taught more readily in scripture...I have...questions...that are not simply answered. I can, if I try, see and understand the other points of view as well. And they answer some of my questions...but leave other, new questions. Nothing really fits perfectly. Which is why I am where I am. I have to stand somewhere, I guess, but I think the days are gone when I'm confident enough to laugh and point and announce someone else a heretic. Only God knows. And that way is best.

God puts different burdens in us as individuals, and we have different roles to play, hopefully complementary roles. I've had a bug in me for decades, wanting to understand where Paul got his theology from, including his eschatology. I know he got it from God, but nobody gets things strictly in a vacuum. Paul had a lot of Jewish background.

My interest isn't so much in studying Judaism as in just wanting to know the source of NT theology, and I'm pretty satisfied with how things have come out in my latter years. I feel that things are pretty consistent and fit together well, though as with all of us, questions remain.

I had a dream a few years back in which God told me He could explain everything to me. I woke up excited and asked my wife to ask me anything--anything at all! It seemed my mind was filled with answers.

But all that has faded now.
Thanks for your friendly and honest remarks. Enjoy the Lord.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Amils and early Chiliasts reject the apartheid/dualism you promote under the new covenant and share with the heretics. They reject your Zionism. The New Testament makes clear; there is only one elect people. There is only one good olive tree, not two; one body, not two; one bride, not two; one spiritual temple, not two; one people of God, not two; one household of faith, not two; one fold, not two; one man, not “twain,” and one elect of God throughout time.

This just shows your lack of understanding about how Premils might phrase these things. In effect you are attacking a different animal.

Premils like myself do not make Israel and the Church into "two entities." All nations in the Church can be distinguished as separate entities. Israel, as a nation, is not yet in the Church. Premils like myself promote the idea that the nation as a whole will repent, adopt a Christian constitution, and in effect become one more Christian nation like many nations have become in history.

So all of your arguments about there being no distinctions like nations in the Church, making the international Church into a kind of non-national people group, is simply a statement against statism or against the whole idea of nations. It actually goes farther and states, incredibly, that the international Church is now a different kind of "nation" and "state." It is a kind of metaphorical "nation."

Until you are able to state things like Premils actually believe, you are just whistling Dixie.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is not true! You constantly want to rewrite history to suit your crumbling doctrine. You have no historic quotes because you cannot be bothered studying history, and are therefore ignorant of the subject you claim to speak authoritatively on. Tertullian did not believe what you believe. History proves, the Pharisees and the heretics were the one's who advocated what you believe.

I've studied history and have read some of the Church Fathers. What I don't do is catalogue a lot of quotes from my studies in order to copy and paste them repeatedly in the hope that bolsters my pet theology.

Your beliefs are sourced with the early heretics and the Pharisees.

And you get upset with me when I view your beliefs as Replacement Theology.