22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[WPM]

A Christian is one who has embraced Christ as his Lord. Many have done so without fully paying the price, and later they fall away, or become so compromised that they lose their experience. At any rate, knowing which Christians are "fully saved" is a matter of God's knowledge. Sometimes God lets us know, and sometimes not.

OK. So, what nations throughout the world today do you consider have "embraced Christ as his Lord"?

 

[WPM]

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.

Who are these "Christian nations" that are supposed to be theocracies that you speak so much about today?

There is no doubt that the Jews were the main focus of Christ’s earthly ministry. That situation continued on for a while throughout the book of Acts. But redemption didn’t stop there. His sheep were not limited to the house of Israel. His heart for Israel did not in any way diminish His intention to reach the Gentile nations with salvation. Jesus said prior to the cross, speaking to His Jewish converts, in John 10:14-16, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

The continuation of the believing Israeli flock, and its morphing into the New Testament congregation, confirmed the expansion of faithful Israel in the new covenant period. It also explains the Israeli identify of the new covenant people of God and demonstrates the sense of continuity that existed between both covenant eras. Gentiles were now to be corralled into faithful Israel in extraordinary numbers. They trusted in Israel’s Messiah, they joined the old covenant flock, and became the New Testament people of God. This was a radical overhaul for even the most open-minded of Christ’s disciples. We saw that in their parochial response to Christ’s kingdom teaching in Acts 1:6 and with their struggle in the book of Acts to come to terms with accommodating Gentiles joining the congregation (ekklesia) on an equal basis to that of Jews.

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.

It is highly unlikely that these early Jewish disciples immediately, or fully, grasped the enormity of these words from Jesus back in the day. This is seen in their huge struggle to integrate Gentile converts into faithful Israel on an equal footing though a large part of Acts, and their desire to have the Gentile converts circumcised. Of course, today, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see the magnitude of what our Lord was saying, and grasp how much of a game-changer this statement was. Undoubtedly, it was a pivotal moment in time, and it was a turning point for the plan of God in history. It revealed a seismic change of direction. It disclosed a monumental alteration of focus.

Christ was informing these Jewish believers that grace was going to be widened outside of Israel’s borders. The Gentiles were about to be brought into the same harmonious fold of grace as the Jewish believers. The mentioning of two groupings within the body didn’t indicate “two folds” any more than references to male and female, rich and poor, free and bond in the New Testament represented multiple folds amongst the people of God. Rather it simply showed the variety of members within the one godly flock. Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus become one in the Messiah to an extent not seen under the Mosaic Covenant. While Christians may retain their natural identity when they come to Christ (whether that is racial, social standing or gender), these groupings carry no spiritual distinction, special favor or difference religious under the new covenant.

Personal relationship is written all over the New Testament imagery between the good shepherd (Jesus) and His sheep (the New Testament congregation – the Church). Jesus asserts in relation to His sheep, in John 10:14, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” He said in John 10:27, speaking about those who love Him, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” He also says in John 10:4-5, “the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.” This reminds us that the sheep are a faithful people. They follow the Messiah Jesus.

 

[WPM]

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.



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

The only reason I reject the label Replacement Theology is because it does not describe what I believe. That does not matter to you so it is pointless explaining. Most Amils oppose Replacement Theology. They believe in Expansion Theology.

 

[Marty fox]

The only reason I reject the label Replacement Theology is because it does not describe what I believe. That does not matter to you so it is pointless explaining. Most Amils oppose Replacement Theology. They believe in Expansion Theology.

How about the new covenant theology?

 

[Randy Kluth]

OK. So, what nations throughout the world today do you consider have "embraced Christ as his Lord"?

How many times must I answer this? It's not just you who deny there have been "Christian nations."

There seems to be a disconnect between those who identify nations as "Christian nations" simply because the political system adopts Christianity and those who believe that true Christianity must be measured individually by being 1) born again, 2) walking with the Lord in obedience, and 3) enduring in faith to the end.

I don't use as criteria the notion that every individual citizen must be a true Christian in order to assign to the nation the designation "Christian nation." They are a Christian nation if by their political system they adopt a Christian constitution. Period.

 

[WPM]

How many times must I answer this? It's not just you who deny there have been "Christian nations."

There seems to be a disconnect between those who identify nations as "Christian nations" simply because the political system adopts Christianity and those who believe that true Christianity must be measured individually by being 1) born again, 2) walking with the Lord in obedience, and 3) enduring in faith to the end.

I don't use as criteria the notion that every individual citizen must be a true Christian in order to assign to the nation the designation "Christian nation." They are a Christian nation if by their political system they adopt a Christian constitution. Period.

More avoidance! This is how you function here!

The reason why you refuse to identify these so-called "Christian nations" is because they do not exist. It's a figment of your imagination. To achieve your theory, you must redefine what Christian actually means. Biblically you do not have a foot to stand on.

 

[WPM]

How about the new covenant theology?

That would do. Other terms describe the same position like ‘Continuity Theology’, ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Remnant Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Another lesser-used expression is ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Who are these "Christian nations" that are supposed to be theocracies that you speak so much about today?

If I give you an answer from Webster's or from a standard Encyclopedia, you will just write it off as "non-Christian." Forget the fact that you use language that is religiously-neutral. We have to speak using words that mean the same thing, or we get all confused.

I believe Christianity is used, biblically, in two different senses--both valid. In one sense, a "Christian" is distinguished as a *genuine* Christian by being born again, obedient to the Lord, and enduring in his or her faith. On the other hand, "Christian" is used nominally, which means that the citizens of a "Christian State" can be Christian in name only or a genuine Christian.

A "Christian nation" is one that subscribes to the Christian religion, whether or not the citizens fully practice it or even believe it. You can start with the Roman Empire, which under Theodosius became a Christian Empire. You can go with the Franks, the Germans, in both Western and Eastern Europe. You can include Russia, and the U.S., and all of the British Commonwealth. These have been or are still "Christian nations."

Israel was determined to be a "nation of God" in precisely the same way, even when they were in a state of apostasy. It was their system that established that they were a "nation of God." Even when they became idolatrous and worshiped other gods, God viewed them as called to be a "nation of God."

Those who regularly oppose my ideas on this are usually of the Baptist or Pentecostal type, whose traditions originate with Separatism. They don't like a large organized authority over them, and thus oppose both the State and a national Church. Though national Churches and States do go corrupt, we shouldn't ignore what they were originally called to be. And sometimes, through revivals or reformations, these nations return to the God of their origins. Israel will do this very thing, I believe. They will ultimately return to their origins as the People of God, along with the many other nations who have already done so as Christian nations.

While Christians may retain their natural identity when they come to Christ (whether that is racial, social standing or gender), these groupings carry no spiritual distinction, special favor or difference religious under the new covenant.

I agree and disagree. As far as salvation goes, as far as our inheritance in Christ, distinctions in gender, race, and nationality are unimportant. But is it of no spiritual value? It depends on what you mean by that? If you mean God is completely disinterested in these distinctions, you're obviously wrong. He created them for some purpose--it isn't a matter of salvation or superiority, but there is a purpose with regard to diversity and complementary interrelationships.

I think the change from Judaism to Christianity was somewhat traumatic for the Jewish People, but not when we look back at the plan of God. From Abraham on, it was clear that there would be many nations, as even Paul says. And from the very beginning, Adam was given a *world* task, and not just a job in little Eden. The Law for the Jews was always meant to be temporary and preparatory for a Gospel of grace, benefiting both Israel in their failures and the whole world in their paganism.

 

[covenantee]

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.

He was speaking to the people of Israel, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

The New Covenant Church, also comprised of Jews and Gentiles, was some 40 years old at the destruction of Jerusalem.

They were, and are, the elect.

 

[Randy Kluth]

He was speaking to the people of Israel, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

The New Covenant Church, also comprised of Jews and Gentiles, was some 40 years old at the destruction of Jerusalem.

They were, and are, the elect.

Not true, sorry! Israel was never comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. Once Gentiles converted, they were no longer "Gentiles"--they became Jews, or "Israel."

 

[WPM]

If I give you an answer from Webster's or from a standard Encyclopedia, you will just write it off as "non-Christian." Forget the fact that you use language that is religiously-neutral. We have to speak using words that mean the same thing, or we get all confused.

I believe Christianity is used, biblically, in two different senses--both valid. In one sense, a "Christian" is distinguished as a *genuine* Christian by being born again, obedient to the Lord, and enduring in his or her faith. On the other hand, "Christian" is used nominally, which means that the citizens of a "Christian State" can be Christian in name only or a genuine Christian.

A "Christian nation" is one that subscribes to the Christian religion, whether or not the citizens fully practice it or even believe it. You can start with the Roman Empire, which under Theodosius became a Christian Empire. You can go with the Franks, the Germans, in both Western and Eastern Europe. You can include Russia, and the U.S., and all of the British Commonwealth. These have been or are still "Christian nations."

Who cares what your opinion is, or what a secular dictionary says. This is getting so old. Where does the NT use "Christian" nominally as meaning the citizens of a "Christian State" that can be Christian in name only or a genuine Christian?

 

[covenantee]

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.

What tradition does qualify for gathering?

If an individual decides to adopt the Jewish tradition of a kosher diet, will that individual be gathered?

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.

There is no such thing as "antiSemitic". The term refers to race, and mathematics and ancestral ubiquity confirm that the entirety of humanity is "Semitic".

But I'll certainly admit to "antitalmudism". Don't you?

Did the Jews understand the oracles of God that had been committed to them?

Quite the opposite.

Acts 13:27
For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

 

[WPM]

How many times must I answer this? It's not just you who deny there have been "Christian nations."

There seems to be a disconnect between those who identify nations as "Christian nations" simply because the political system adopts Christianity and those who believe that true Christianity must be measured individually by being 1) born again, 2) walking with the Lord in obedience, and 3) enduring in faith to the end.

I don't use as criteria the notion that every individual citizen must be a true Christian in order to assign to the nation the designation "Christian nation." They are a Christian nation if by their political system they adopt a Christian constitution. Period.

Do you even know how a theocracy works? The leader is God's representative to speak on His behalf and implement the order of God in the nation. There are no theocracies under the new covenant. God's people (Jew and Gentile) are viewed as an harmonious whole. They are a singular nation.

In His earthly ministry, and knowing what was coming, Christ asked the religious Jewish leaders, “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” (Matthew 21 42-44).

The kingdom has been taken from Israel as a nation and given to another nation. Who is that nation? It is the largely Gentile New Testament Church comprised of all believers (both Jew and Gentile).

The Church without any division is a distinct unitary nation. It is a holy nation. Natural ethnicity means nothing within it. Christians have their spiritual citizenship in heaven. There is no such thing as Christian nations today in the NT. That is your own invention. The problem with your theory is that you have a misconception of what the word "Christian" actually means. What you define as a "Christian" nation is far from it. Nations like the United States of America and United Kingdom possess governments, people and laws that are hostile to the truth of God.

1 Peter 2:9-10 , “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.”

· A chosen generation
· A royal priesthood
· An holy nation
· A peculiar people
· Who have been called out of darkness into his marvelous light.

The word rendered generation in the King James Version here is the Greek word genos meaning kin (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective). It comes up 21 times in the NT and this is the only occasion it is interpreted generation. It simply means kindred, kind, stock or offspring.

This reading refers in notable detail to the spiritual edifice – the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church being here described as a nation – “an holy nation” – which is under intimate divine control. This nation is not a physical nation, which can be observed with the natural eye but rather invisible and can only be seen through the spiritual eye. It is thus a spiritual nation that extends over every land boundary, ethnic group, colour and creed.

Paul in agreement with Peter addresses the same OT reference and applies it to Gentile conversion. He states in Romans 9:22-26, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee (Hosea 2:23), I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.”

In perfect fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, the Gentiles have been brought into full union and communion with God, and have become a part of the spiritual seed of the righteous, through Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The spiritual blessings and promises that were therefore nearly exclusively restricted to natural Israelites have now been imparted to the Gentiles by faith. The Church is:

1. The “children of the living God.”
2. His “beloved” possession.
3. And are intimately known by God as “my people.”

The Israel of God is not therefore restricted to the physical earthly nation of Israel or any other physical nation, as of the flesh, but rather to the spiritual seed of Abraham – the spiritual Israel that is born from above.

This people that Paul is referring to here, who are divinely called, which God said, “were not my people” and which are now loved “which was not beloved” are the elect Gentiles. Paul, referring to Deuteronomy 32:21, in Romans 10:19-21, supports this gracious fulfilment, saying, “Moses saith, I will provoke you (natural Israel) to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation (the mainly Gentile New Testament Church) I will anger you.” He continues, supporting his line of reasoning, this time referring to Isaiah 65:1, saying, “Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me (the Gentiles). But to [natural] Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.”

This “foolish” nation that has been graciously found of God, without first seeking him, is the largely Gentile New Testament congregation. They are those of all kindred’s, tongues and tribes, who have come to God through Christ in true repentance. That elect people are NOT a physical earthly nation but an invisible spiritual Kingdom.

 

[covenantee]

Not true, sorry! Israel was never comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. Once Gentiles converted, they were no longer "Gentiles"--they became Jews, or "Israel."

Their ethnicity never changed.

They remained genetic Gentiles.

 

[WPM]

A "Christian nation" is one that subscribes to the Christian religion, whether or not the citizens fully practice it or even believe it. You can start with the Roman Empire, which under Theodosius became a Christian Empire. You can go with the Franks, the Germans, in both Western and Eastern Europe. You can include Russia, and the U.S., and all of the British Commonwealth. These have been or are still "Christian nations."

Are you saying that "Russia" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? Are you saying that "Germany" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? Are you saying that "the US" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? Are you saying "the British Commonwealth" today is a Christian empire ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will?

I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life. It sounds like you are pulling at straws.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Who cares what your opinion is, or what a secular dictionary says. This is getting so old. Where does the NT use "Christian" nominally as meaning the citizens of a "Christian State" that can be Christian in name only or a genuine Christian?

You don't care about my opinion? Then don't ask me for them. If all you want are Scriptures, you already have a Bible. Make yourself happy.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The reason why you refuse to identify these so-called "Christian nations" is because they do not exist.

I've identified them, and you pretend I haven't. Go look the term "Christian nation" up in an encyclopedia, dictionary, or on the internet. Have fun with words that don't mean anything!

 

[WPM]

You don't care about my opinion? Then don't ask me for them. If all you want are Scriptures, you already have a Bible. Make yourself happy.

Stop avoiding: where does the NT use "Christian" nominally as meaning the citizens of a "Christian State" that can be Christian in name only or a genuine Christian?

 

[WPM]

I've identified them, and you pretend I haven't. Go look the term "Christian nation" up in an encyclopedia, dictionary, or on the internet. Have fun with words that don't mean anything!

That sums up where you get your info. Where is this in the Bible? Or, does that not matter anymore?

 

[Randy Kluth]

What tradition does qualify for gathering?

If an individual decides to adopt the Jewish tradition of a kosher diet, will that individual be gathered?

At the revelation of Christ, many Jews in Israel will repent. Those who repent in other nations will return from exile. Those who died in faith will be resurrected.

There is no such thing as "antiSemitic".

That's silly. Like WPM, you guys don't believe words mean anything. Words you don't like you just cancel.

But I'll certainly admit to "antitalmudism". Don't you?

Sure, I'm against the Talmud as a choice for my own faith. But that isn't what you were saying. When someone dismissing anything one does as "evil" simply because they don't share your religion, then you're judging them and discriminating against them. I don't agree with Judaism, but I don't think they are all "evil" because they are Jews. If they are all "evil," in your view, you must surely want them all locked up like criminals?

Did the Jews understand the oracles of God that had been committed to them?

Some of them yes, and some of them no. I wouldn't reject everything they know and believe simply because they are Jews.