Another Premillennial absurdity

[WPM]

I don't find it ridiculous at all! But it's your prerogative to believe whatever you choose to believe. Some of this is semantics. In the language I use, which I hope is biblical, the unregenerate person can indeed operate in the power of Christ. Judas Iscariot is one example. The author of Hebrews also indicate that people sometimes leave the faith after having known God and after having experienced His power.

I've personally known people who embraced Christ as Lord on a temporary basis. It truly looked like a life decision, and to some degree it was. But it devolved into an "appearance" game, with application to God's power when it suited the person, and not only when God led.

I believe we must call people in church "the Church," even though we know many there are only "half way there," in terms of Salvation. It is only honorable to give them a chance to start, to grow, and to endure.

We must call Christian nations "Christian nations," if that is the intention of the people to as a majority adopt the Christian faith and Christian morality for the people of that nation. But it certainly doesn't mean every citizen of a Christian State will be sincere or will last.

Heb 6.4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance.

What this appears to be saying is that when people come to a full knowledge of Christ as Savior and Lord they don't always confirm that decision by making a complete transition to Christianity. They accept the blessings, the power, and the love of Christ, but they don't completely submit to the lordship of Christ.

And so, when they turn away from that, from all that they know about Christ, what on earth can bring them back? They've already rejected all that Christ is--his love, and his offer of eternal fellowship with him. If they don't like that, then they never will!

And so, yes, I believe the Bible teaches that unregenerate people can know God and Christ, and experience His power. God is impartial, and when people meet certain conditions He blesses them with His presence and prosperity.

But it is the choice of people to make a complete transition or not. Until they've completed their decision, we should allow them the dignity of being called a "Christian," in my opinion. Otherwise, we will be driving them away.

I think the problem here is that some Christians--perhaps many, equate "regeneration" with experiencing the power of God, or verbal acknowledgment that Christ is Savior and Lord. I don't believe that to be the case personally.

We can experience God's power *before* regeneration. Regeneration happens only when there is a *complete* commitment to Christ as Savior and Lord. Only God knows when that commitment rises to the level of a "regeneration" experience.

This is not what Peter is talking about. He is talking about salvation. He is talking about the redeemed Church of Jesus Christ. He is talking about those who were once in darkness being translated into the light. They become "holy." This relates exclusively to the redeemed. How dare you attribute godly attributed to ungodly Christ-rejecters.

The Bible warns people like you in Isa 5:20: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Your position on any subject is governed by: what facilitates Premil. It is not objective, biblical or right. It does not make sense. You do not seem to understand that it is only those who are saved that are capable of walking in the light. It is one thing for your understanding to be enlightened, it is another thing again for your spirit to be alive and enlightened.

The Lord Himself declared in John 8:12, “I am the light of the world, he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

1Jn 1:7 if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Spiritual ignorance is a terrible affliction. The only thing worse is spiritual enlightenment and a refusal to act upon that. That is ultimate rebellion. Once the Word of God is allowed to shine the darkness is exposed. People gain revelation. Ignorance is removed. Direction is given. Decisions then have to be made. It is a very blessed thing to have the Word of God faithfully preach to you. But it is also a very sobering thing, because with it comes responsibility.

• Ignorance in Scripture is symbolized by imprisonment, blindness and darkness.
• Enlightenment on the other hand is symbolized by liberty, sight and openness.

Listen to what Colossians 1:13 says: God “hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.”

Ephesians 5:8: "ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light."

1 Peter 2:9: "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."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks for your comment.

But given the grammar and metaphors, how could these Scriptures not be referring to the Church?

I don't think there's any question that they refer to the Church. Given my definition of "Christian nations," I probably view the "Church" somewhat differently than you do?

I just tried to give that explanation to WPM above in post #499. God calls certain nations to be "Christian Nations," knowing that they are in transitory states, transitioning in and out of true Christianity.

God's objective appeared to be to call nations to Christianity 1st in order to provide opportunities, not just for social justice, but more, for individuals to be regenerated, receiving eternal fellowship with Himself. 1st the *call,* and then when individuals and nations are designated as "chosen," or become nominal Christians, they may either endure to the end or fall away.

They become "chosen Christians" when they experience the power of God. But they do not become *regenerated* until their commitment to Christ is complete. I'm still studying the vocabulary of "called" and "chosen," so keep that in mind.

 

[WPM]

I don't think there's any question that they refer to the Church. Given my definition of "Christian nations," I probably view the "Church" somewhat differently than you do?

I just tried to give that explanation to WPM above in post #499. God calls certain nations to be "Christian Nations," knowing that they are in transitory states, transitioning in and out of true Christianity.

God's objective appeared to be to call nations to Christianity 1st in order to provide opportunities, not just for social justice, but more, for individuals to be regenerated, receiving eternal fellowship with Himself. 1st the *call,* and then when individuals and nations are designated as "chosen," or become nominal Christians, they may either endure to the end or fall away.

They become "chosen Christians" when they experience the power of God. But they do not become *regenerated* until their commitment to Christ is complete. I'm still studying the vocabulary of "called" and "chosen," so keep that in mind.

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.

 

[covenantee]

I don't think there's any question that they refer to the Church. Given my definition of "Christian nations," I probably view the "Church" somewhat differently than you do?

Thanks. What Scripture supports your definition?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Can you define what a Christian really is...

A faithful Christian is as it is defined in 1 John, as one who not only confesses Christ, but also lives it. The confusion comes when I use the term "Christian" as applied to *nominal Christians.*

I believe it is context that determines which particular "Christian" is being referred to, faithful Christian or nominal Christian. And nominal Christians include both faithful Christians and Christians who haven't fully made up their minds yet.

Some Christians have truly been regenerated, or saved. Others haven't fully committed themselves yet, except to embrace the *experience* of Christianity. They haven't made a full commitment to Christ's lordship over their lives yet.

The following is an indication that "Christians" can be in a transitory state, not yet regenerated and yet confessing the name of "Christian."

2 Cor 13.5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

In the book of Revelation, Christ examines 7 churches in Asia and refers to them all as "churches." So they are all being viewed as Christians in a nominal sense.

I suppose it is debatable whether these Christians are being tested to whether they are really Christians, or merely tested to see if they will be faithful as regenerate Christians? Regardless, Paul appears to have looked at Christians in this state of transition, still calling them Christians and addressing them all as a part of the church in a particular city.

We know that in eternity, who a "Christian" is will be decided by eternal judgment. This will separate the Sheep from the Goats.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks. What Scripture supports your definition?

See the next post #505

 

[WPM]

A faithful Christian is as it is defined in 1 John, as one who not only confesses Christ, but also lives it. The confusion comes when I use the term "Christian" as applied to *nominal Christians.*

I believe it is context that determines which particular "Christian" is being referred to, faithful Christian or nominal Christian. And nominal Christians include both faithful Christians and Christians who haven't fully made up their minds yet.

Some Christians have truly been regenerated, or saved. Others haven't fully committed themselves yet, except to embrace the *experience* of Christianity. They haven't made a full commitment to Christ's lordship over their lives yet.

The following is an indication that "Christians" can be in a transitory state, not yet regenerated and yet confessing the name of "Christian."

2 Cor 13.5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

In the book of Revelation, Christ examines 7 churches in Asia and refers to them all as "churches." So they are all being viewed as Christians in a nominal sense.

I suppose it is debatable whether these Christians are being tested to whether they are really Christians, or merely tested to see if they will be faithful as regenerate Christians? Regardless, Paul appears to have looked at Christians in this state of transition, still calling them Christians and addressing them all as a part of the church in a particular city.

We know that in eternity, who a "Christian" is will be decided by eternal judgment. This will separate the Sheep from the Goats.

You are presenting another extra-biblical term to support your error. Contrary to what you teach, professors are not Christians. Only those who possess the Holy Spirit are Christians. There is no such thing in the Bible as "nominal Christian." A "Christian" in the Bible is a forgiven believer who is washed in the blood of Jesus.

 

[WPM]

See the next post #505

You are admitting you have nothing - again.

 

[covenantee]

See the next post #505

Sorry, which Scripture in that post refers to "Christian nations"?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry, which Scripture in that post refers to "Christian nations"?

Yes, sorry, I wasn't sure if you were asking for my definition of "Church" or "Christian nations?" I was explaining in that post (505) that I believe the Bible uses 2 different definitions of "Church," and consequently, "Christian nations" would be impacted by which definition of "Church" is being used.

1) The Nominal Church includes both confirmed, regenerated Christians who have received Eternal Life and Christians who call themselves that, have experienced the power of Christ, but have not yet fully committed themselves to him as Lord.
2) The Eternal Church includes only those who have been regenerated, have accepted Christ as Lord, live it, and have received Eternal Life.

In the passages I quoted above, Paul in 2 Corinthians admits that some "Christians" have not yet become regenerate, and therefore, have not yet received Eternal Life. They are in transition, still determining whether they will fully embrace Christ as Lord, or not.

And so, these Nominal Christians are in evidence in the "churches" mentioned in Rev 2 and 3, where Christians are in all of various stages, transitioning to full obedience, partial obedience, or perhaps no obedience at all--just words. And if applied, in this sense, to "Christian Nations," it can be seen that there are these 2 kinds of "Christians" involved, both those securing Eternal Life and those still in transition, not having yet determined their eternal future.

The same, then, would apply to "Christian Nations," who have citizens confessing loyalty to a Christian political system, and yet not always committed, within, to the Lordship of Christ. They are "Christian in Name," but not a nation consisting only of genuine born-again Christians.

The Gospel has come to earth to give men an opportunity to hear, receive, and live the Gospel of Christ. All are treated impartially, and all are given opportunity. Some have already made their choice, and many still have yet to make that choice.

God has also given to mankind the opportunity to have godly societies, because God cares about social justice, about the needs and wants of people. He would hardly recommend pagan systems of government, which oppress and do harm to people. And so, He has offered, throughout history, an example of a legitimate theocracy, though certainly not failed examples of the same!

I'm quite willing to hear your own view on this, with no intention to argue the point? Please feel free!

 

[WPM]

Yes, sorry, I wasn't sure if you were asking for my definition of "Church" or "Christian nations?" I was explaining in that post (505) that I believe the Bible uses 2 different definitions of "Church," and consequently, "Christian nations" would be impacted by which definition of "Church" is being used.

1) The Nominal Church includes both confirmed, regenerated Christians who have received Eternal Life and Christians who call themselves that, have experienced the power of Christ, but have not yet fully committed themselves to him as Lord.
2) The Eternal Church includes only those who have been regenerated, have accepted Christ as Lord, live it, and have received Eternal Life.

In the passages I quoted above, Paul in 2 Corinthians admits that some "Christians" have not yet become regenerate, and therefore, have not yet received Eternal Life. They are in transition, still determining whether they will fully embrace Christ as Lord, or not.

And so, these Nominal Christians are in evidence in the "churches" mentioned in Rev 2 and 3, where Christians are in all of various stages, transitioning to full obedience, partial obedience, or perhaps no obedience at all--just words. And if applied, in this sense, to "Christian Nations," it can be seen that there are these 2 kinds of "Christians" involved, both those securing Eternal Life and those still in transition, not having yet determined their eternal future.

The Gospel has come to earth to give men an opportunity to hear, receive, and life the Gospel of Christ. All are treated impartially, and all are given opportunity. Some have already made their choice, and many still have yet to make that choice. I'm quite willing to hear your own view on this, with no intention to argue the point?

Is Putin a nominal Christian? Is Russia a nominal Christian nation?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is not a privilege to talk with you. By all means, go away.

Okay then. Bye now. You will not be missed.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Is Putin a nominal Christian? Is Russia a nominal Christian nation?

Sorry, I was still in the process of editing that particular post. But to answer your question, I would only be able to judge him if I knew what he really claimed for himself. The Russian Orthodox Church is still alive there, and I know he supports that. But he obviously has a twisted view of what Christianity is.

For example, I would not call a Mormon a "Christian" in the classic sense of one who holds to doctrinally orthodox beliefs. He is a "kind" of "Christian," but not a "Christian" in the sense of someone who holds to the traditional creeds of the Christian Church.

Putin may have a skewered view of what Christianity is, and may only support the Orthodox Church as head of State over a country that used to be traditionally Christian, before the Communist Revolution. Now, since that Revolution, Christianity still exists there, and Putin seems to embrace it. But he certainly doesn't live Christianity. He is not a "faithful Christian," even if he identifies, falsely, with traditional Christianity.

Personally, I think his identification with Christianity is a deception, and is only embracing that for the sake of popular support. A lie does not make him a "Christian."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Okay then. Bye now. You will not be missed.

Nor will you be missed. I have no animosity--just a desire to engage with honest people who want to live a "faithful" form of Christianity, ie one that embraces Christ's love in all things. If you embrace that, you're always welcome.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, sorry, I wasn't sure if you were asking for my definition of "Church" or "Christian nations?" I was explaining in that post (505) that I believe the Bible uses 2 different definitions of "Church," and consequently, "Christian nations" would be impacted by which definition of "Church" is being used.

1) The Nominal Church includes both confirmed, regenerated Christians who have received Eternal Life and Christians who call themselves that, have experienced the power of Christ, but have not yet fully committed themselves to him as Lord.
2) The Eternal Church includes only those who have been regenerated, have accepted Christ as Lord, live it, and have received Eternal Life.

In the passages I quoted above, Paul in 2 Corinthians admits that some "Christians" have not yet become regenerate, and therefore, have not yet received Eternal Life. They are in transition, still determining whether they will fully embrace Christ as Lord, or not.

And so, these Nominal Christians are in evidence in the "churches" mentioned in Rev 2 and 3, where Christians are in all of various stages, transitioning to full obedience, partial obedience, or perhaps no obedience at all--just words. And if applied, in this sense, to "Christian Nations," it can be seen that there are these 2 kinds of "Christians" involved, both those securing Eternal Life and those still in transition, not having yet determined their eternal future.

The same, then, would apply to "Christian Nations," who have citizens confessing loyalty to a Christian political system, and yet not always committed, within, to the Lordship of Christ. They are "Christian in Name," but not a nation consisting only of genuine born-again Christians.

The Gospel has come to earth to give men an opportunity to hear, receive, and live the Gospel of Christ. All are treated impartially, and all are given opportunity. Some have already made their choice, and many still have yet to make that choice.

God has also given to mankind the opportunity to have godly societies, because God cares about social justice, about the needs and wants of people. He would hardly recommend pagan systems of government, which oppress and do harm to people. And so, He has offered, throughout history, an example of a legitimate theocracy, though certainly not failed examples of the same!

I'm quite willing to hear your own view on this, with no intention to argue the point? Please feel free!

Thanks.

Jesus said that He would build His Church (Matthew 16:18), and Paul, Peter, and the NT writers affirmed that His Church was fully extant and operative in their day.

Peter described the Christian Church as a nation of nations. (Acts 10:34,35; 1 Peter 2:5,9). The Christian Church was never stronger than in the NT apostolic period.

Yet there were no "Christian nations" during that period, as you would define them.

In fact, the attempts to "Christianize" nations which characterized historical Romanism, resulted in more than 1,000 years of inexorable spiritual decline, degeneration, and darkness, leading up to the Reformation.

Given the deplorable historical record regarding "Christian nations", why would you argue in favor of them?

 

[WPM]

Nor will you be missed. I have no animosity--just a desire to engage with honest people who want to live a "faithful" form of Christianity, ie one that embraces Christ's love in all things. If you embrace that, you're always welcome.

You are so full of pride and nonsense. You are not worth it. We have given you a credibility you do not deserve. Bye bye.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are so full of pride and nonsense. You are not worth it. We have given you a credibility you do not deserve. Bye bye.

I have a clear conscience. You should make sure you do too.

Acts 20.30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard!

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is not what Peter is talking about. He is talking about salvation. He is talking about the redeemed Church of Jesus Christ. He is talking about those who were once in darkness being translated into the light. They become "holy." This relates exclusively to the redeemed. How dare you attribute godly attributed to ungodly Christ-rejecters.

How dare I?? Do you think you're the hand of God? How dare you pretend you're God's voice to me! You apparently don't even know what I'm saying. So instead of trying to confirm what I'm saying, you judge! I'm not interested in this type of conversation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks.

Jesus said that He would build His Church (Matthew 16:18), and Paul, Peter, and the NT writers affirmed that His Church was fully extant and operative in their day.

Peter described the Christian Church as a nation of nations. (Acts 10:34,35; 1 Peter 2:5,9). The Christian Church was never stronger than in the NT apostolic period.

Yet there were no "Christian nations" during that period, as you would define them.

In fact, the attempts to "Christianize" nations which characterized historical Romanism, resulted in more than 1,000 years of inexorable spiritual decline, degeneration, and darkness, leading up to the Reformation.

Given the deplorable historical record regarding "Christian nations", why would you argue in favor of them?

First, thanks for sharing your position. I do recognize it as a respectable, Christian position, even though I don't fully agree with it.

I don't have as negative a view of "Christian nations" as you do. I've read the history of Christianity, and when you read it from a *Christian author* you are much more likely to get the positives of Christian nations than you would in a typical liberal education.

As faulty as Man is, and as faulty, therefore, as nations are, Christianity still has had a positive effect on nations, from the Roman Empire to the many European nations who were somewhat "tamed" by it. I don't think you could say that the European nations would've been better off as Pagan Nations?

 

[Timtofly]

Every person on the planet possesses some quantity of Jewish DNA.

Will 8 billion souls experience national salvation?

How will 8 billion souls fit into Jerusalem?

No, most of them will be goats.