The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics - see the evidence

[WPM]

Israel has yet to become a Christian nation. But being that they have the DNA and the potential for national reconciliation with God we wouldn't call them "Saved" yet, but we can call them Israel--not yet "True Israel" in the sense of being faithful, but still "Israel."

This is theological double-speak. You make it up as you go with your invented theology. No biblical quotes, no biblical language, just made up private reasoning you have been misled with. Talk about eisegesis!

 

[Randy Kluth]

So within your one physical Israel, are there the saved, and the unsaved?

Yes, of course--just like every country.

 

[WPM]

The problem within your false beliefs is that the specific details surrounding how He would die were not known back then.

BTW

I showed you otherwise, and you have carefully ducked around it. You have to!

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I showed you otherwise, and you have carefully ducked around it. You have to!

There e no right answer to your wrong questions.

BTW

 

[WPM]

Readers:

I do not want anyone to be confused or misled by Randy K. He actually believes there are Christian nations today that have replaced natural Israel. This slur of Replacement Theology that he loves to hurl at Amils to incite them is therefore complete duplicity. He is the one who holds to Replacement Theology. Let me give you an insight into his views:

“The NT did supersede the OT, yes.”

"Yes, what Israel had, has now been passed on to many European and other nations.”

“So, the kingdom of priests given to Israel has been given to many nations."

"Many Christian nations have now entered into the promise God made to Israel that they would be a kingdom having a priesthood."

• Who are the European "Christian" nations that you speak about?
• Maybe you could name these "entire nations" that "have [supposedly] professed the Gospel, and ... can be considered to have been part of 'the Church'"?
• What is the criteria for becoming one of these?
• Where do you get this in the NT?

So assuming we both use the biblical definition of "Christian," we must ask ourselves, does Paul's use of "Christian" apply only to those who have received eternal life? I would say no, because Paul is always challenging Christians to *prove* who they are, to see if they've really received eternal life. Obviously, "Christians," biblically, are those who start out following Christ. But they have yet to prove they are really in the faith, and completely committed. Many fall away.

So are there Christian *nations* that allow for this definition? Of course. Christian nations include a majority of citizens who start out claiming Christianity. But many, obviously, do not work out in this religious commitment.

First, you are misrepresenting Paul the apostle. Not surprisingly, you present no Scripture to support your claims. This is (sadly) a common trait for you.

Secondly, you are building your argument upon that false misrepresentation.

Your argument is therefore built upon sand here.

The salvation of nations often refer to *political salvation.* A nation is delivered from its enemies when that nation obeys God, when the nation is under covenant with God.

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."

You are saying "Russia" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? You are saying the "USA" today is a Christian country 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 K is the real Replacement Theologian, not Amils. Amils and Postmils do NOT believe in Replacement Theology. We believe we have been grafted into true Israel (believing Israel). We believe in Inclusion Theology! In this position we stand with Christ, Paul and the NT writers, and also the ECFs. So, we are in good company. Natural Israel is still natural Israel. True Israel or the true spiritual Jews are the NT Church of all nations.

 

[WPM]

There e no right answer to your wrong questions.

BTW

You have nothing of historic or biblical weight to bring to the table. That is why you avoid simple questions. You are wasting our time.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You have nothing of historic or biblical weight to bring to the table. That is why you avoid simple questions. You are wasting our time.

No. Maybe your time due to the lack in your asking relevant questions.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You have nothing of historic or biblical weight to bring to the table. That is why you avoid simple questions. You are wasting our time.

What specifically do you want to know from me that is relevant?

BTW

 

[WPM]

What specifically do you want to know from me that is relevant?

BTW

You come out with wild claims, but are unable to substantiate them. When asked simple questions you cannot reply. When your views are refuted you are incapable of rebutting the counter-argument. Your MO is to simply voice your opinions (or what you have been taught). Arguing that the cross was not known or predicted in the OT even when I showed you what Scripture teaches, highlights how pointless it is engaging with you. It seems like, you are in love with what you have been taught, rather than biblical truth. This tells me you either have no rebuttal or are unable to support your claims.

Here are 2 simple questions you avoided. I wonder why?

• Do you believe in the importance hermeneutical principle of supporting Scripture with Scripture?
• Who do you think Amils think they have replaced?

What are you sacred of?

 

[PinSeeker]

Thus you believe in covenant theology.

Yes.

Me I am a 6 point Calvinist

To each his own. Not sure what a "6 point Calvinst" is... <chuckles> The acronym for Calvin's five points is "TULIP," so, if you're a six-pointer, might it then be... "TULIPS"... maybe...? <chuckles> If so, I would like to know what the 'S' is... <chuckles>

II'm a five-point Calvinist; is that what you meant?

...believe in many point of fundamentalism, dispensationalism. I read the Bible Literally, Historically and Grammatically to get to the truth.

Hmmm... well folks have different ideas regarding fundamentalism, so I'm not sure what you're ascribing to yourself there, but no matter. I too, though, read the Bible literally, historically, and grammatically. But on these things we are discussing, our understandings are obviously very different.

I hate to tell you Coventology does not teach the truth of Jesus Christ or of God's word...

Opinion noted, for sure. Although "coventology" is... not a word; 'covenant theology' is, so, I understand you... <smile> What we're talking about here is systematic theology. "Coventology" <chuckles> does teach the truth of Jesus Christ and God's Word ~ as does dispensationalism, actually ~ but is opposed to dispensationalism in its understanding of the proper theological framework for interpreting the Bible. Very basically speaking, history is not divided into multiple ages called dispensations in which God interacts with His chosen people in different ways. The God of the Bible is unchanging. God speaks to His people through the Old Testament covenants... the covenant of life with Adam (Adamic) and then remade with Noah (Noahic), the covenant of land and a people with Abraham (Abramic), the covenant of the Law with Moses (Mosaic), and the covenant of Kingship with David (Davidic). In the Old Testament they all foreshadow Christ Himself and are "lesser" in that sense... and come to fruition in the Person of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Regarding the New Covenant, it is not a brand new covenant, but the one everlasting Covenant having been revealed incrementally and finally blossoming in its fullness in Christ. This is the correct way to understand the true framework of the Bible. So, Scripture is covenantal, not dispensational... the Bible is really about Jesus from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22... all of it. Jesus Himself said so, as recorded by John in John 5:46.

I realize this response of yours was to someone else, but I thought it appropriate to respond to it myself.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Readers:

I do not want anyone to be confused or misled by Randy K. He actually believes there are Christian nations today that have replaced natural Israel.

Readers: WPM is misrepresenting me. If you have any questions about what I believe, ask me. I have stopped communicating with him because the conversations were not mutually edifying.

 

[WPM]

Readers: WPM is misrepresenting me. If you have any questions about what I believe, ask me. I have stopped communicating with him because the conversations were not mutually edifying.

Are these your quotes? Do these represent what you believe and have loudly taught or not? Yes or no? Stop smoke-screening this. Stop misleading people.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

False, You are replacing a single "Israel" with "2 Israels."

LOL. I don't replace the single Israel that you consider to be the nation of Israel. I see another Israel besides that Israel.

That is a replacement.

No, it is not. If it was, then why do I acknowledge the existence of the the Israel that you consider to be the only Israel? I don't replace it at all. I just recognize that there is also another Israel besides that one.

Not only that but you change the meaning of "Israel" being a single nation, native to Palestine, into a conglomeration of international remnants who are Christians.

No, I am not doing that. You are a liar. I don't change the meaning of that Israel at all. I just happen to believe there is also another Israel besides that one.

You are replacing being Jewish with being Christian. That is "replacement," pure and simple.

You are clueless about what I believe, pure and simple. You are badly misrepresenting what I believe and it seems to be on purpose.

Of course, you don't think so because you believe you're right to do this, at least retaining the natural meaning of "Israel" while at the same time asserting another "Israel."

The way you're talking makes it as if I deny the existence of natural Israel because I say it has been replaced, but I do not do that.

But the point is, to those of us who do not think you're right, from our pov what you're doing is replacing the normal definition of "Israel" for a foreign one.

I don't just have one definition of Israel, I have two! One of them matches your so-called "normal definition" and I don't have that Israel being replaced by anyone or anything.

Since *we believe* there is only one Israel we believe you're replacing what *should be* strictly the native view of "Israel" for a "spiritualized Israel." Instead of separating them into "2 Israels" you should be confining your definition to only one "Israel."

Don't tell me what I should be doing. Romans 9:6-8 makes it very clear that there are two distinct Israels. One of which is not based on nationality and ethnicity at all, and the other of which is based entirely on nationality and ethnicity.

So, I'm not misrepresenting Amills at all-

Yes, you are. When someone is ignorant about something that means they are not aware of it. You are ignorant about what Amills believe and that's why you misrepresent our view.

-I'm just disagreeing with them and characterizing them the way *I see them.* And I've done more than enough to explain that. A simple reference online to "Supersessionism" will explain the same thing I did.

You think by separating the one Israel into two you're not "spiritualizing Israel."

I'm not separating one Israel into two. I believe there has always been two Israels. Why do you act as if you know what I believe better than I do? That is foolish.

But since there can only be one Israel, the one you're spiritualizing is an illegitimate spiritualization of native Israel. There is no "Spiritual Israel."

Yes, there is, and you are doing less than nothing to show otherwise.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Readers: WPM is misrepresenting me. If you have any questions about what I believe, ask me.

How ironic for you to say this about someone.

I have stopped communicating with him because the conversations were not mutually edifying.

You are so ignorant about your own holier than thou attitude. Take the log out of your own eye before judging others. You blatantly misrepresent what we believe and claim that we replace Israel when that is absolutely not the case. I am sure you would not like it if we misrepresented your view the way you misrepresent ours.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If, as you insist, there is only one Israel, then is there any distinction between the saved and the unsaved within Israel?

Or do you believe that they're all saved, not by grace through faith, but by their DNA?

In another post he referred to "Natural Israel" and "True Israel" (or "Faithful Israel"). But, he still insists that he only believes in one Israel. Go figure.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Readers:

I do not want anyone to be confused or misled by Randy K. He actually believes there are Christian nations today that have replaced natural Israel. This slur of Replacement Theology that he loves to hurl at Amils to incite them is therefore complete duplicity. He is the one who holds to Replacement Theology. Let me give you an insight into his views:

• Who are the European "Christian" nations that you speak about?
• Maybe you could name these "entire nations" that "have [supposedly] professed the Gospel, and ... can be considered to have been part of 'the Church'"?
• What is the criteria for becoming one of these?
• Where do you get this in the NT?

First, you are misrepresenting Paul the apostle. Not surprisingly, you present no Scripture to support your claims. This is (sadly) a common trait for you.

Secondly, you are building your argument upon that false misrepresentation.

Your argument is therefore built upon sand here.







You are saying "Russia" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? You are saying the "USA" today is a Christian country 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 K is the real Replacement Theologian, not Amils. Amils and Postmils do NOT believe in Replacement Theology. We believe we have been grafted into true Israel (believing Israel). We believe in Inclusion Theology! In this position we stand with Christ, Paul and the NT writers, and also the ECFs. So, we are in good company. Natural Israel is still natural Israel. True Israel or the true spiritual Jews are the NT Church of all nations.

He makes things up. Never does scripture talk about "Christian nations" or "nonChristian nations". There are Christian individuals from all nations, but never does scripture speak in terms of entire nations being Christian or non-Christian. And, as you showed with his quotes, if anyone here is replacing natural Israel with something else (replacement theology), it's him.

 

[WPM]

He makes things up. Never does scripture talk about "Christian nations" or "nonChristian nations". There are Christian individuals from all nations, but never does scripture speak in terms of entire nations being Christian or non-Christian. And, as you showed with his quotes, if anyone here is replacing natural Israel with something else (replacement theology), it's him.

He just waffles and wings it. There's no biblical substance to his arguments. It is all in his head. The problem is: he keeps forgetting the nonsense he previously promoted. One post contradicts another.

I learned as a police officer for 15 years, it takes a good memory to be a liar. Ask a liar the same question 15 minutes later and you will get two different answers.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How ironic for you to say this about someone.


You are so ignorant about your own holier than thou attitude. Take the log out of your own eye before judging others. You blatantly misrepresent what we believe and claim that we replace Israel when that is absolutely not the case. I am sure you would not like it if we misrepresented your view the way you misrepresent ours.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. People are free to present *what they think* characterizes another position. But they are not free to be malicious or provocative about it.

I do not believe I'm holier than you, or than Amills. I don't know why you think this? I just want a respectful exchange of ideas, even if we strongly disagree. Is that too much to ask?

There are some people the Bible says simply will not comply, and the Bible says we are to have nothing to do with them. They are troublemakers and unless their heart changes they will continue in their malicious, provocative ways.

I see nothing wrong or "ironic" about the above? My positions are clear to this Amill group. But others may read and not know what I believe. WPM is blatantly misrepresenting not just the name of a "school," but the specific positions I hold.

When I refer to your school as "Replacement Theology," I define how I believe your positions represent a "replacement" to me. I know you don't think the shoe fits, but the point is, I do, and explain why. You may not agree, and that's okay, but there is no malice in using the name that many use in order to avoid excessive explanation.

If you want to be like WPM, then don't communicate with me anymore. I only wish to have respectful conversations. Referring to your belief as "Replacement Theology" is precisely how it is defined by everybody who holds to my position. It is not intended to be fought over, regardless of how you view things.

You may call my school the School of Millennial abuse. In fact, that is how I've been regularly treated, as if I "abuse" the biblical "Millennium." But I'm not going to throw a fit just because you wish to define my "school of thought" in this way. Neither should you throw a fit because I see your view as a "replacement" and refer to your school as "Replacement Theology."

To me, your belief is a "replacement" of a single "Israel" with "two Israels" or with a "metaphorical Israel," or with the International Church. Your belief that natural Israel exists in the Middle East is something everybody agrees on and has nothing to do with your denial that you are "replacing" our conventional belief in Natural Israel with something Metaphoricall, New Testament, Spiritual, and International.

It is a "replacement" to people like me, and I'm not doing it to insult, provoke, or belittle you. I'm using the term to avoid unnecessary explanation or repetition, explaining that my concern is that you're "replacing" something biblical with something unbiblical. What you're doing is simply trying to remove my complaint that you are "replacing" the definition of "nation" and "Israel" with something else.

If you wish to pursue the negativity like WPM, then I have zero interest in you anymore. Please do not speak lies about me behind my back, like WPM has just done. If you want to carry on a respectful conversation, I'm always read to do that, including WPM.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. People are free to present *what they think* characterizes another position. But they are not free to be malicious or provocative about it.

I do not believe I'm holier than you, or than Amills. I don't know why you think this? I just want a respectful exchange of ideas, even if we strongly disagree. Is that too much to ask?

It's not too much to ask at all, but you are not being respectful by misrepresenting my view over and over again. Why can't you understand such a simple thing as that? You act as if I say that national Israel no longer exists and has been replaced and that is not what I believe.

There are some people the Bible says simply will not comply, and the Bible says we are to have nothing to do with them. They are troublemakers and unless their heart changes they will continue in their malicious, provocative ways.

I see nothing wrong or "ironic" about the above? My positions are clear to this Amill group. But others may read and not know what I believe. WPM is blatantly misrepresenting not just the name of a "school," but the specific positions I hold.

You are blatantly misrepresenting Amil. That's why I say you are "holier than thou". You make different rules for yourself than you do for others. How about you focus on yourself and stop misrepresenting our view?

When I refer to your school as "Replacement Theology," I define how I believe your positions represent a "replacement" to me. I know you don't think the shoe fits, but the point is, I do, and explain why.

But, your logic makes no sense at all and does not properly represent what we believe. Shouldn't we decide what we believe instead of you trying to tell us what we believe?

You may not agree, and that's okay, but there is no malice in using the name that many use in order to avoid excessive explanation.

It does not appropriately reflect what we believe. Why do you not understand such a simple thing as this? We don't have anyone being replaced. The word "replace" or "replacement" has nothing to do with what we believe.

If you want to be like WPM, then don't communicate with me anymore.

If you want to continue misrepresenting my view even after I correct you, then don't communicate with me anymore.

I only wish to have respectful conversations.

You're doing a very poor job of it by disrespectfully misrepresenting my view over and over again.

Referring to your belief as "Replacement Theology" is precisely how it is defined by everybody who holds to my position. It is not intended to be fought over, regardless of how you view things.

It does not accurately describe what I believe. You should respect me enough to acknowledge that I know what I believe better than you do, so I would know if that term, even how you define it, describes what I believe or not. It does not.

You may call my school the School of Millennial abuse. In fact, that is how I've been regularly treated, as if I "abuse" the biblical "Millennium." But I'm not going to throw a fit just because you wish to define my "school of thought" in this way. Neither should you throw a fit because I see your view as a "replacement" and refer to your school as "Replacement Theology."

Grow up, Randy. You know darn well that you would "throw a fit" or whatever you want to call it if we were misrepresenting your view repeatedly, so get off your high horse already.

To me, your belief is a "replacement" of a single "Israel" with "two Israels" or with a "metaphorical Israel," or with the International Church. Your belief that natural Israel exists in the Middle East is something everybody agrees on and has nothing to do with your denial that you are "replacing" our conventional belief in Natural Israel with something Metaphoricall, New Testament, Spiritual, and International.

Ridiculous! It seems that you don't even know what the word "replacement" means. How exactly does my view replace the single Israel, which, in your view, is national Israel? I don't have it being replaced by anything. I don't have the other, second Israel, as replacing national Israel. It's a separate Israel. So, what are you even talking about? In my view they are distinct without one replacing the other.

It is a "replacement" to people like me, and I'm not doing it to insult, provoke, or belittle you. I'm using the term to avoid unnecessary explanation or repetition, explaining that my concern is that you're "replacing" something biblical with something unbiblical.

In what way? What are you even talking about? Be very specific here. What exactly do you think I'm replacing and what do you think I'm replacing it with? Be very explicit in your explanation.

What you're doing is simply trying to remove my complaint that you are "replacing" the definition of "nation" and "Israel" with something else.

Ridiculous nonsense! I'm not replacing the nation of Israel with anything. I see the nation of Israel as the nation of Israel and spiritual Israel as a separate Israel. Nothing is replaced.

If you wish to pursue the negativity like WPM, then I have zero interest in you anymore. Please do not speak lies about me behind my back, like WPM has just done.

What are you talking about? Behind your back? That would imply that you found out he was talking about you privately. But, I think you're talking about a post he made here publicly that wasn't specifically directed towards you, but is there for all to see, including you. That's not a case of talking about you behind your back.

If you want to carry on a respectful conversation, I'm always read to do that, including WPM.

That is what I prefer, but you are so naive that you don't realize that you are not doing that yourself by misrepresenting what we believe. We are not being any less respectful than you are. I'm not going to show respect when my view is being misrepresented repeatedly.

 

[WPM]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. People are free to present *what they think* characterizes another position. But they are not free to be malicious or provocative about it.

I do not believe I'm holier than you, or than Amills. I don't know why you think this? I just want a respectful exchange of ideas, even if we strongly disagree. Is that too much to ask?

There are some people the Bible says simply will not comply, and the Bible says we are to have nothing to do with them. They are troublemakers and unless their heart changes they will continue in their malicious, provocative ways.

I see nothing wrong or "ironic" about the above? My positions are clear to this Amill group. But others may read and not know what I believe. WPM is blatantly misrepresenting not just the name of a "school," but the specific positions I hold.

When I refer to your school as "Replacement Theology," I define how I believe your positions represent a "replacement" to me. I know you don't think the shoe fits, but the point is, I do, and explain why. You may not agree, and that's okay, but there is no malice in using the name that many use in order to avoid excessive explanation.

If you want to be like WPM, then don't communicate with me anymore. I only wish to have respectful conversations. Referring to your belief as "Replacement Theology" is precisely how it is defined by everybody who holds to my position. It is not intended to be fought over, regardless of how you view things.

You may call my school the School of Millennial abuse. In fact, that is how I've been regularly treated, as if I "abuse" the biblical "Millennium." But I'm not going to throw a fit just because you wish to define my "school of thought" in this way. Neither should you throw a fit because I see your view as a "replacement" and refer to your school as "Replacement Theology."

To me, your belief is a "replacement" of a single "Israel" with "two Israels" or with a "metaphorical Israel," or with the International Church. Your belief that natural Israel exists in the Middle East is something everybody agrees on and has nothing to do with your denial that you are "replacing" our conventional belief in Natural Israel with something Metaphoricall, New Testament, Spiritual, and International.

It is a "replacement" to people like me, and I'm not doing it to insult, provoke, or belittle you. I'm using the term to avoid unnecessary explanation or repetition, explaining that my concern is that you're "replacing" something biblical with something unbiblical. What you're doing is simply trying to remove my complaint that you are "replacing" the definition of "nation" and "Israel" with something else.

If you wish to pursue the negativity like WPM, then I have zero interest in you anymore. Please do not speak lies about me behind my back, like WPM has just done. If you want to carry on a respectful conversation, I'm always read to do that, including WPM.

Instead of your ad hominem, and lies, tell the reader, are these your quotes? Do these represent what you believe and have loudly taught or not? Yes or no? Stop smoke-screeni