Another Premillennial absurdity

[Randy Kluth]

You are obsessed with the wrong Israel. Your carnal expectation is exposed by Christ and all the NT writers.

My "carnal expectation?" Are you judging me yet again, or are you merely saying I believe in a carnal Israel?

As is your MO, your rebuttals consist of you building your case upon your opinions. In doing that, you skip around multiple Scriptures I presented that . You step around all the arguments also. That is because Scripture and the arguments expose the error of your Zionism.

Are you judging me again? I just finished addressed a post of yours that dealt with some of your arguments. You're so quick to judge that you give no time for responses!

I really do think your purpose is to destroy all arguments against you, rather than to edify the saints. If someone doesn't agree with you, are you calling that "carnal" or what?

The principal element that joins the old and the new, Jew and Gentile, together is shown to be Jesus Christ.

We both agree Christ is the basis of unity. I just argued that a *single nation* is not our basis of unity, but rather, the *single individual* Jesus!

I don't know why you go on arguing that Israel was rejected for her sins? I don't know why you go on saying Jesus is the way? We both know that!

You really are unable to confront the issues. Instead of distilling arguments down to their essential elements, you digress into long-winded expressions of Christian theology we both agree with. It's good material for the right time and place, but that time and place is not here and now!

 

[WPM]

My "carnal expectation?" Are you judging me yet again, or are you merely saying I believe in a carnal Israel?


Are you judging me again? I just finished addressed a post of yours that dealt with some of your arguments. You're so quick to judge that you give no time for responses!

I really do think your purpose is to destroy all arguments against you, rather than to edify the saints. If someone doesn't agree with you, are you calling that "carnal" or what?

We both agree Christ is the basis of unity. I just argued that a *single nation* is not our basis of unity, but rather, the *single individual* Jesus!

I don't know why you go on arguing that Israel was rejected for her sins? I don't know why you go on saying Jesus is the way? We both know that!

You really are unable to confront the issues. Instead of distilling arguments down to their essential elements, you digress into long-winded expressions of Christian theology we both agree with. It's good material for the right time and place, but that time and place is not here and now!

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 are 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.

Peter takes this teaching, which was describing the Israel of God in the Old Testament, directly from Exodus 19, and applies it to the people of God in the New Testament. In doing so, he explains the continuity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament.

Far from restricting the “chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” description to the nation of Israel, Peter expands it out to embrace the many Gentile believers in this new covenant period. To support his reasoning, he employs Hosea 1:10 which predicted that enlightening of the Gentiles, and their integration into the people of God. This is demonstrated in verse 10, where he testifies that the mainly Gentile Church who were once “not a people, but are now the people of God” had now been integrated into the Israel of God. He reinforces this point, telling us that they “which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Hosea 1:10 reads: “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.”

Peter describes the Church as “a chosen generation” (or a chosen race), “a royal priesthood” and “an holy nation.” He related this to all believers, irrespective of natural race. This shows us the spiritual nature of the Israeli designation in the New Testament.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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).

As I've said before, the 1st "nation" who received the "Kingdom of God," a theocratic system, was the Christianized Roman Empire under Theodosius. It was not a conglomeration of nations who were unchristian states. The Kingdom of God, a Christian theocratic system, was made available to *any* nation willing to receive it. And many nations, particularly European-style nations, did.

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 are no such thing as Christian nations today in the NT. That is your own invention.

No, any Encyclopedia will tell you there have been many Christian nations. I did not make it up. If I did, my influence must be enormous because you can read about "Christian nations" in any encyclopedia.

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.”

As I already told you, this passage spoke to Jewish Christians who looked to the original calling of the nation Israel to be a People of God. As usual, you ignore the argument, and use the opportunity to repeat yourself endlessly. No exchange of ideas--just more, monotonous repetition of the same.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no such thing in the New Testament as Christian nations.

That's all I'm willing to hear in this post. It's ludicrous. You can read about Christian nations in any encyclopedia.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You have admitted the source of your beliefs on national theocracies cannot be found in the NT, and are derived in secular dictionaries and Wikipedia. That is why you cannot bring Scripture to the table. What you promote is extra-biblical.

That is yet one more lie. What kind of "Christian" are you, anyway?

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are obsessed with the wrong Israel. Your carnal expectation is exposed by Christ and all the NT writers. As is your MO, your rebuttals consist of you building your case upon your opinions. In doing that, you skip around multiple Scriptures I presented that . You step around all the arguments also. That is because Scripture and the arguments expose the error of your Zionism.

The principal element that joins the old and the new, Jew and Gentile, together is shown to be Jesus Christ. He overlaps both covenants, He brings a continuity in salvation and is at the core of meeting man’s greatest need in any day. Paul, in Romans 9:30-33, shows how one’s response to Christ will ultimately determine one’s eternal destiny. Accept Him, and experience eternal life. Reject Him, and experience eternal damnation. Participation in God’s elect remnant therefore is determined by our relationship with Jesus – man’s redeemer and Israel’s only Messiah. Paul presents Christ as the epicenter of man’s favor with God. He supports his teaching with the analogy of a figurative stone which the elect embrace but the religious balk at. He refers back to the Old Testament to Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14 to support his thesis.

Romans 9:30-33 records: “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.”

Paul shows how national religious Israel missed the boat because they rejected Christ (“they stumbled at that stumblingstone”). Also, they were bound to a religious aberration that revolved around keeping the law. The fact is: none of them could keep it. They were totally deceived if they thought they could. They were not a believing people which is why they were cut out of the good Israeli olive tree. On the other hand, Paul shows natural Gentiles (heathens) embracing that stone, experiencing salvation, and entering into the favor of God. Albert Barnes explains: “This rock, designed as a corner stone to the church, became, by the wickedness of the Jews, the block over which they fall into ruin.”

Through Calvary, the Gentiles have been brought into a new realm, a new spiritual status, and therefore enjoy a new citizenship, with new sanctified benefits. Gentile believers united with Jewish believers on an equal basis, inhabiting God’s Zion. Christ taught this same truth (that Paul shares in Romans 9:30-33) in Matthew 21:42-44 – relating various Messianic prophecies to Himself (only adding Isaiah 28:16 to the mix). By doing this, Christ reveals the literal fulfilment of these figurative Old Testament prophecies in our day. In Matthew 21:44, Jesus laid it out as straight and simple as it could honestly be said: “whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Nothing has changed today!

I'm beginning to think you're a fake Christian, a backslidden Christian, or some kind of egotistical Christian. I've run into so-called "Christians" like this before, who do not know the meaning of "Christian love." I really do hope you get it right someday, but you've been doing this a long time!

No matter what I say, no matter how many arguments I give you, no matter how many times I answer you, you say I don't answer your arguments--I give you nothing--one of your favorite things to say. Really, I've lost interest in such a poor representation of a Christian. I'm going to try my best to answer your obnoxious posts without addressing you personally, because I find you toxic in your rhetoric.

The guy who thinks he's theologically adept at speaking about what Christian unity consists of is utterly unable to display it himself. Kind of like what the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law did in Jesus' time?

Really, I think you're always going to say to others who disagree with your quotes that they don't read them, dance around them, etc. simply because they *do not agree with you.* I couldn't sell that kind of rhetoric for 5 cents. It's not remotely respectful for a Christian to debate like that. It's no different than the pagan world.

 

[Timtofly]

What do you mean "gathering a horde to oppose Christ"? Satan mobilizes billions to turn on Christ after this so-called thousand years glorious righteous reign of Jesus and the glorified saint in your mistaken theory.

How can they "turn on Jesus", if they are all already against Jesus in your here and now?

The very point they rebel, means all of them followed Jesus in 100% loyalty. You can not have it both ways. Either they don't rebel at all in your here and now. Or they rebelled after a future 1,000 year reign.

 

[Timtofly]

I knew you would avoid. You either admit the reality of your beliefs or lie.

Are the glorified saints returning to your millennial earth?
Will there be countless mortal sinners on your millennial earth?

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate this. You made it up. If, not quote your sources.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No it isn't. This goes a ways back, so you just haven't followed this from the beginning. I have bothered to make the point clear--you just weren't here.

So I guess your statement that it "goes without saying" isn't really true then? Since you did explain it before.

WPM said that Premills believe the Millennium is characterized by wicked people, by goats, by atrocity, etc. You've heard him say it?

Of course I have. And I agree with him. What other kind of people would unite to try to destroy "the camp of the saints"? Is it your contention that those people who number "as the sand of the sea" were all righteous people during the thousand years, but then they just suddenly rebel by the millions (or billions) once Satan is loosed?

And I have agreed only in the sense that Premills believe people will be mortal in the Millennium, having a Sin Nature, and will therefore die. Having a Sin Nature, people will certainly sin, and some people will be better, while others will be worse.

But Premills do *not* believe in characterizing the Millennium in such a horrific state with wicked men running wild, committing atrocities everywhere. Premills believe that mortal men will behave differently in the Millennium since Satan will be bound at that time. Christian nations will prosper and be blessed. Israel will convert to Christianity, and be blessed. Non-Christian nations will not be so blessed, but there will be peace on earth--no international warfare.

And, yet, all of a sudden that will all change in a very short amount of time. Is Satan really that powerful that he can basically reverse what had been done the past 1,000 years in just a short amount of time? I don't believe so.

I have granted WPM his right to characterize things the way he wishes. He may say that logically, if Premills believe there are mortals in the Millennium, logically that means there must be apocalyptic warfare, hideous crimes, lewd behaviors on a massive scale, etc. He may argue that billions of people who rebel after the Millennium must certainly have been going bad for centuries to reach that level of corruption.

It seems that way to me as well.

But if he wishes to say that this is what Premills believe, he should quote them, saying the very words he puts into their mouths. He has utterly failed to do that. You may want to defend your brother, and scrape up any defense you can. But good luck!

He doesn't need me to defend him.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, Paul did not talk about the unification of Jews and Gentiles into *one nation.* He spoke about their unification with respect to a unified membership in the Body of Christ. Christ is one, and those who become members in him are unified in him, and not in their differences.

Yes, he did. That one nation is called the Israel of God. Or Spiritual Israel as many of us call it.

Galatians 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

In this passage Paul indicates that "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything". Which goes along with what he said elsewhere multiple times, which is that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the church/body of Christ. Then he said "what counts is the new creation". He's talking about us being created new in Christ there. That goes for both Jew and Gentile believers. All are new creations in Christ. And then he said "peace and mercy" to all who fall under what he had just spoken about (being made a new creation) and he called them collectively "the Israel of God". So, don't tell me that he didn't talk about the unification of Jews and Gentiles into one nation. He most certainly did. You are just not recognizing that another team, among many, for the collective group of Christians is called "the Israel of God".

 

[WPM]

As I've said before, the 1st "nation" who received the "Kingdom of God," a theocratic system, was the Christianized Roman Empire under Theodosius. It was not a conglomeration of nations who were unchristian states. The Kingdom of God, a Christian theocratic system, was made available to *any* nation willing to receive it. And many nations, particularly European-style nations, did.

No, any Encyclopedia will tell you there have been many Christian nations. I did not make it up. If I did, my influence must be enormous because you can read about "Christian nations" in any encyclopedia.

As I already told you, this passage spoke to Jewish Christians who looked to the original calling of the nation Israel to be a People of God. As usual, you ignore the argument, and use the opportunity to repeat yourself endlessly. No exchange of ideas--just more, monotonous repetition of the same.

Who cares what secular dictionaries, encyclopedias and Wikipedia say. That is the basis of your theology. Christians base their theology on the Word of God alone! To say the Roman Empire was a Christian nation is absolute nonsense! This highlights how indoctrinated you are with theological error.

 

[WPM]

That is yet one more lie. What kind of "Christian" are you, anyway?

Can you define what a Christian really is, because you seem to use it so loosely and so liberally? What is a Christian in God's eyes? I want a biblical definition not more Randy opinion or what a dictionary, encyclopedia or Wikipedia says . Can you define what a Christian really is, because you seem to use it so loosely and so liberally? What is a Christian in God's eyes? I want a biblical definition not more Randy opinion.

 

[WPM]

I'm beginning to think you're a fake Christian, a backslidden Christian, or some kind of egotistical Christian. I've run into so-called "Christians" like this before, who do not know the meaning of "Christian love." I really do hope you get it right someday, but you've been doing this a long time!

No matter what I say, no matter how many arguments I give you, no matter how many times I answer you, you say I don't answer your arguments--I give you nothing--one of your favorite things to say. Really, I've lost interest in such a poor representation of a Christian. I'm going to try my best to answer your obnoxious posts without addressing you personally, because I find you toxic in your rhetoric.

Here is your usual default when you have no answers to the theological arguments of Amillennialists. Your vicious ad hominem is where you like to wallow. You play God and think you can judge other peoples salvation, and then wonder why Amils do not take you serious and think you are full of religious pride.

If that is how you're going to proceed please keep away from this thread. You're not welcome.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are so incredibly warped by your hostility and pride! Do you have no secular education? You don't read encyclopedias or dictionaries? You don't read history?

Do you actually think we can derive biblical and spiritual truth from those secular sources? You have to be kidding. Where is the holy scripture that backs up your claims?

How can you not understand that we get frustrated when you resort to referring to secular sources like Wikipedia and dictionaries instead of scripture? It has nothing to do with hostility and pride, it has to do with you not presenting your case from scripture. If someone can't back up their doctrines with scripture, then their doctrines are weak, can't be taken seriously and should be disregarded.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You seem to think that just quoting a Scripture lends legitimacy to your conclusions? It doesn't. The Scripture you quoted can fit into your scenario and it can fit into my scenario.

But, he didn't just quote the scripture. He also added commentary explaining his understanding of it. Why don't you do the same? You never do that, though. You never take scripture and break it down and show how it supports your view. It's very difficult to take you seriously because of that.

 

[jeffweeder]

Of course I have. And I agree with him. What other kind of people would unite to try to destroy "the camp of the saints"? Is it your contention that those people who number "as the sand of the sea" were all righteous people during the thousand years, but then they just suddenly rebel by the millions (or billions) once Satan is loosed?

If they were righteous, they would be part of the camp of the saints.
It is clearly speaking about the love of the great body of people that will grow cold at the end of this age not the next.
How many times does Jesus, and the Apostles have to say there will be no survivors after he comes?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Can you define what a Christian really is, because you seem to use it so loosely and so liberally? What is a Christian in God's eyes? I want a biblical definition not more Randy opinion or what a dictionary, encyclopedia or Wikipedia says . Can you define what a Christian really is, because you seem to use it so loosely and so liberally? What is a Christian in God's eyes? I want a biblical definition not more Randy opinion.

When the term Christian is correctly defined then it should be clear that the concept of Christian nations is utterly ludicrous. Only by using a loose (and inaccurate) definition of the term could anyone conclude that there has ever been such a thing as a Christian nation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If they were righteous, they would be part of the camp of the saints.
It is clearly speaking about the love of the great body of people that will grow cold at the end of this age not the next.

Agree.

How many times does Jesus, and the Apostles have to say there will be no survivors after he comes?

Apparently, no matter how many times they said it, some would still not believe it.

 

[jeffweeder]

When the term Christian is correctly defined then it should be clear that the concept of Christian nations is utterly ludicrous. Only by using a loose (and inaccurate) definition of the term could anyone conclude that there has ever been such a thing as a Christian nation.

Yes.
When it comes to all nations and tribes many are called but few are chosen.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The purpose is, as I've long said, that God complete his blueprint for humanity, to fix Christian nations on earth to represent His eternal glory

And where is this taught in scripture?

. Humanity has always been divided between those who choose to return to following God and those who wish to go their own way. God simply disposes of the rebels when He is done collecting His prize diorama.

What He accomplishes in a thousand years of Christian history, replete with many Christian nations, is proof to the world of how good His eternal plan looks, in particular after final judgment.

Why does that matter? Why would God need to prove anything to anyone? I don't believe God feels like He has to prove anything to anyone. And where does scripture teach this?

The losses He suffers with a massive rebellion is no different than in the present age, when we've had many Christian nations who now are turning away from the faith to apostasy.

There are no Christian nations and never have been.

God has not lost any of the saints He has enabled to be born, grow, and develop into families. You get a lot of chaff in order to produce the wheat.

I suppose the big difference between the present age and the Millennium is that due to Satan's interference and opposition our Christian nations are not allowed to fully develop. In the Millennial Age, Christian nations will display the peace and prosperity that has been elusive since the Fall, its collapse not withstanding.

Where does scripture teach this?

It seems that in the end God's People are reduced to a city. But I'm not clear on that. It appears from the dimensions of New Jerusalem that it will envelop the entire Middle East and stretch up as far as outer space.

Why do you assume that the description of the New Jerusalem is supposed to be taken literally? It is described as "the bride, the wife of the Lamb". How could a literal, physical city be "the bride, the wife of the Lamb" (Rev 21:9)? You're not recognizing that it is describing the church figuratively. The main problem that Premils have is their inability to differentiate between literal and symbolic text and this is another example of that.