Another Premillennial absurdity

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

Right. That applies to all nations, as you said. So, if (relatively) few are chosen in any given nation, how can it be considered a Christian nation? Wouldn't there need to at least be a majority of people in that nation that are Christians in order for it to be considered a Christian nation? I would think so. But, that is not the case for any nation in the world.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

So, you allow secular sources to define what a Christian is for you. Why do you treat secular encyclopedias as if they are scripture?

 

[WPM]

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


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?

Exactly! Who else would unite in a confederacy against Christ, truth and righteousness? Who else would unite in a confederacy to try to destroy "the camp of the saints"?

 

[Randy Kluth]

So, you allow secular sources to define what a Christian is for you. Why do you treat secular encyclopedias as if they are scripture?

I really don't care to speak with you all as a group, Amills. I've tried and tried to be friendly w/ WPM, and he's hardcore and unwilling to give credit to any opinion other than his own...at least with me.

Please stop entering into my conversation with WPM to defend his ridiculous assumptions. We all use encyclopedias. Do I really need to prove this?

His point, that I'm *displacing* biblical truth w/ info from the encyclopedia is his presumption. But it's inaccurate.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Exactly! Who else would unite in a confederacy against Christ, truth and righteousness? Who else would unite in a confederacy to try to destroy "the camp of the saints"?

I think he would agree with that part when it comes to what happens during Satan's little season, but the problem is that he apparently thinks they were all righteous for a thousand years before that, but then they suddenly all become wicked when Satan is loosed. We're talking probably billions of people here. He's giving Satan far too much credit if he thinks that Satan can, in a short time, change the minds of billions of people from what they had believed for the previous thousand years.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I really don't care to speak with you all as a group, Amills. I've tried and tried to be friendly w/ WPM, and he's hardcore and unwilling to give credit to any opinion other than his own...at least with me.

You have done nothing to show that you deserve any credit for your opinions since they are primarily based on secular sources.

Please stop entering into my conversation with WPM to defend his ridiculous assumptions.

This is a forum open to everyone. So, no, I won't stop adding my input here. And I disagree that he is making "ridiculous assumptions". I think you are the one being ridiculous in this thread.

We all use encyclopedias. Do I really need to prove this?

To support biblical doctrines? I think not.

His point, that I'm *displacing* biblical truth w/ info from the encyclopedia is his presumption. But it's inaccurate.

I agree with him on that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

And where is this taught in scripture?

What's the sense? I've given this over and over again. If it disagrees with Amill it's claimed my interpretation of the Scripture is invalid.

I don't do this unless it's really true. There are many positions that have validity that I do not agree with. We should allow for different opinions if there is a reasonable basis for them.

Don't piggy back on other Amill arguments from WPM. He's a hostile character, and is not willing to engage in a respectful way. Ask your own questions. Don't continually ask for Scripture proofs after I've already given them, only to claim I still haven't given them. Difference of opinion doesn't mean I haven't given them. Saying my proofs lack validity because they're taken too literally is not a valid reason for saying I've not provided them.

I've repeatedly shown where a plurality of nations is promised Abraham in the OT. Why can't you retain that?

 

[WPM]

I really don't care to speak with you all as a group, Amills. I've tried and tried to be friendly w/ WPM, and he's hardcore and unwilling to give credit to any opinion other than his own...at least with me.

Please stop entering into my conversation with WPM to defend his ridiculous assumptions. We all use encyclopedias. Do I really need to prove this?

His point, that I'm *displacing* biblical truth w/ info from the encyclopedia is his presumption. But it's inaccurate.

This is not your thread. You are also not a Mod here. So, stop trying to police everyone, and judge everyone, on it when your theology has been roundly (and repeatedly) exposed as extra-biblical and being derived from dictionaries, encyclopedias and Wikipedia. You are the last person Amils would take their direction from. Amils take their teaching from the Word of God. That is why you have no rebuttal to their arguments.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think he would agree with that part when it comes to what happens during Satan's little season, but the problem is that he apparently thinks they were all righteous for a thousand years before that, but then they suddenly all become wicked when Satan is loosed. We're talking probably billions of people here. He's giving Satan far too much credit if he thinks that Satan can, in a short time, change the minds of billions of people from what they had believed for the previous thousand years.

That is a reasonable argument, but I've answered it, not to your satisfaction, but to my own. It isn't a sudden conversion, but a latent condition that when a spark is set to it suddenly becomes ablaze and spreads like a wildfire across the world. I have no idea how long this takes, but it takes place *after* the Millennium.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is not your thread. You are also not a Mod here. So, stop trying to police everyone, and judge everyone, on it when your theology has been roundly (and repeatedly) exposed as extra-biblical and being derived from dictionaries, encyclopedias and Wikipedia. You are the last person Amils would take their direction from. Amils take their teaching from the Word of God. That is why you have no rebuttal to their arguments.

Ignored.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So, you allow secular sources to define what a Christian is for you. Why do you treat secular encyclopedias as if they are scripture?

I don't. Don't believe the propaganda.

 

[jeffweeder]

Right. That applies to all nations, as you said. So, if (relatively) few are chosen in any given nation, how can it be considered a Christian nation? Wouldn't there need to at least be a majority of people in that nation that are Christians in order for it to be considered a Christian nation? I would think so. But, that is not the case for any nation in the world.

Even if there was a so-called majority, there is always the opposition party at election time. 

 

[WPM]

Ignored.

How is this ignored if you are still replying to it? LOL.

Go somewhere else and try and act like a Christian there please.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You have done nothing to show that you deserve any credit for your opinions since they are primarily based on secular sources.

No, they are not based *exclusively* on secular sources. You base many things on both biblical and secular sources yourself. How else would you know the history of the OT beyond what is in the Bible? How would you know in detail how many biblical prophecies were actually fulfilled and have been fulfilled? Don't believe the propaganda--I do *not* strictly rely on encyclopedias for my theological positions. That is a lie.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How is this ignored if you are still replying to it? LOL.

Go somewhere else and try and act like a Christian there please.

Ignored. I always try to respond when someone directs information to me. You may not like the response, however. If the statement you make is hostile, I'm not interested. And I don't call the mods if I'm offended--rest assured. Others do that, but I don't. Who knows--maybe I deserve some of the hostile treatment. I need to be open to anything God sends my way, in particular from Christians--even Christians that I don't believe are good Christians.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Even if there was a so-called majority, there is always the opposition party at election time. 

irrelevant.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What's the sense? I've given this over and over again.

You have? No, I really don't think that's true.

If it disagrees with Amill it's claimed my interpretation of the Scripture is invalid.

I don't do this unless it's really true. There are many positions that have validity that I do not agree with. We should allow for different opinions if there is a reasonable basis for them.

Don't piggy back on other Amill arguments from WPM.

Don't tell me what to do, Randy.

. He's a hostile character, and is not willing to engage in a respectful way.

I disagree. I think you find him to be hostile just because you disagree with him. When you present nonsense that is based only on secular sources, such as your Christian nations doctrine, then that needs to be exposed for the ridiculous nonsense that it is.

Ask your own questions. Don't continually ask for Scripture proofs after I've already given them, only to claim I still haven't given them. Difference of opinion doesn't mean I haven't given them. Saying my proofs lack validity because they're taken too literally is not a valid reason for saying I've not provided them.

I've repeatedly shown where a plurality of nations is promised Abraham in the OT. Why can't you retain that?

Repeatedly? I'd say at least 99% of your posts contain no scripture references. Are you always given to exaggeration like this? Please just remind me one more time what scripture it is that you base your "Christian nations" beliefs on.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't. Don't believe the propaganda.

I've read your posts. It's clear that you do. It's not propaganda. You clearly do rely heavily on secular sources to support your doctrine.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Right. That applies to all nations, as you said. So, if (relatively) few are chosen in any given nation, how can it be considered a Christian nation? Wouldn't there need to at least be a majority of people in that nation that are Christians in order for it to be considered a Christian nation? I would think so. But, that is not the case for any nation in the world.

Relevant and reasonable point, even though Amills here act like a gang of thugs. That's disappointing, but this at least is reasonable, and not false propaganda.

I agree that many are called and few are chosen. But that doesn't mean many nations were not called to be Christian nations, and that many people in Christian nations were called to be Christians. Whether they are chosen or not is besides the point.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is a reasonable argument, but I've answered it, not to your satisfaction, but to my own. It isn't a sudden conversion, but a latent condition that when a spark is set to it suddenly becomes ablaze and spreads like a wildfire across the world. I have no idea how long this takes, but it takes place *after* the Millennium.

Why is it that this is satisfying to you? It defies all logic to think that billions of people will just suddenly change course and fight against what they have believed in and supported for the past thousand years. Do you really think that Satan is that powerful? You say you have no idea how long it takes, but we know that the entirety of that time is defined as "a little season", so it must be a pretty short amount of time.