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

[covenantee]

I'm afraid not. Is that even clear to you? When I refer to "Israel" I refer to a "nation," which you seem to ignore or downplay. This in itself is questionable.

But then you talk about 2 Israels in 1 physical Israel. Sorry, you speak a different language than I do. But thanks for trying...

When you refer to "Israel" you refer to a geopolitical location on the map.

But I refer to "physical Israel" which encompasses all ethnic Israelites throughout the entire world.

Your definition is deficient.

When I refer to two Israels, it is qualified as two spiritual Israels. You've ignored that.

Do you, or do you not, agree that there is a spiritual saved Israel, and a spiritual unsaved Israel?

 

[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.

The reason why Randy steers around those is because his beliefs are aligned with these ancient heretics.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's never a waste of time if there are misunderstandings that both parties are willing to persevere in working out.

I agree, but we've gone over this repeatedly at this point and have gotten nowhere and I don't see any signs of that changing. So, it's time to move on from this topic.

You don't understand how I'm using "replacement." I've struggled to explain that and can see you either can't see how I see it, or just want to argue about whether my position is correct?

You say you believe in 2 Israels, but don't "create a 2nd Israel." My position, obviously, is that you do, in fact, create a 2nd Israel. I'm not misrepresenting your position. Rather, I'm presenting my position and how I see your position.

You begin with a national Israel that has only temporary promises given to it, and then produce an "Israel" that has eternal promises given to it. You say you believe they are the same. But clearly, they are not. Sorry, your position doesn't work for me.

I don't say that national Israel and spiritual Israel are the same. This is very clearly hopeless to have a reasonable discussion about this since neither of us seemingly understands the other's position. At least, that's what each of us thinks about the other. So, why bother continuing this? It's clearly a futile endeavor.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In that case, you aren't taking God's promises literally. God told Abraham He was created for him "nations." You are simply rejecting what God said.

You are such a fake. You act like you want to be respectful and then you tell me I'm rejecting what God said? What nonsense. My having a different understanding of God's promises to Abraham than you do doesn't mean I'm rejecting what God said. You reject what Paul said about God's promises to Abraham and his seed.

Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham......16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ....29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul made it clear that God's promises to Abraham that "in thee shall all nations be blessed" related to those "which are of faith" who are considered "the children of Abraham". And Paul made it clear that "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.". So, Paul related God's promises to Abraham in relation to nations as referring, not to entire nations as you imagine, but to those who belong to Jesus Christ, whether they are Jew or Gentile.

Furthermore, you are replacing the nation Israel with an Israel that you now say it simply a company of individuals and not a nation.

Again, you continue with your lies. You can't seem to make up how you want to lie about what I believe. One time you say I replace the nation Israel with a combination of the nation Israel and spiritual Israel, which makes no sense. Now, you're trying to tell me I replace the nation Israel with "a company of individuals and not a nation" which I am not doing at all.

Any way you look at it, you're replacing conventional Israel with something else.

In no way that any unbiased, objective person looks at this am I replacing "conventional Israel" with anything or anyone.

You may retain belief in national Israel, but you then strip it of its meaning as a nation.

No, I do not. Spiritual Israel is an entirely different entity than national Israel and neither replaces the other. You continue to misrepresent what I believe.

Yes, you remove the eternal promises God gave to the nation Israel and apply it not strictly to national Israel but to the entire international Church.

Hello? What is your excuse for your ignorance? Have you never read the New Testament? Why is it still a mystery to you that God's eternal promises made to Israel (those who believe in national Israel) were extended to Gentile believers as well. This was a mystery in Old Testament times but was revealed long ago already. Read this...

Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Paul made it clear that God's promises that originally were made to Israelite believers now apply also to Gentile believers. Gentile believers are fellow heirs of God's promises with Israelite believers. Why do you not understand that and try to insist that God has different plans for national Israelites and for Gentiles? No, He does not. We are all one in Christ Jesus and if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham's seed and an heir according to the promise (Galatians 3:28-29). Why do you not understand something that is taught so clearly in scripture?

Biblically, Abraham had two promises--not one. One was strictly to the Israeli nation. The other was to the international Church.

How are you coming up with this? You are constantly just making things up. You noticeably rarely try to use scripture to back up your opinions. That is very telling.

They should not be confused or you will rob today's Israel from its prophesied place in the international Church. Again, that is replacement, as well as displacement.

Nonsense. Start using scripture to back up your wild opinions if you want to be taken seriously.

Two Israels is *to me* robbing Israel of its exclusive disctinction as only one nation. You are replacing the one Israel with two Israels.

If it's a waste of time, I'm not interested either.

Spend your time reading the New Testament. You are clearly very ignorant about what it teaches.

 

[PinSeeker]

We all, as Christians, take God's word literally in a general sense--but not in the specific sense I speak of.

Either one takes it literally or he (or she) doesn't; there is no general versus specific. But I do understand the "specific sense" that you speak of, and that's the problem.

I'm speaking of taking God's promise to Abraham concerning the nation Israel literally.

Well me, too, but the issue is who Israel is. Literally. <smile>

And Replacement Theology rejects that and displaces that with God's promise to Abraham concerning the International Church....

Maybe so, but there is no replacement. Of anything. That may somehow be how you and others see it and how you and others characterize it, but it is a misplaced allegation; there is no replacement. What's really going on here is you and like-minded folks re-separating what God has made one... a maintaining of the dividing wall of hostility, in Paul's words of Ephesians 2, that Christ has broken down, making us both one, creating in Himself one new man in place of the two, and reconciling us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And in doing so, Randy, you create... or recreate, really... a limitation ~ in several different ways ~ on God's promise to Abraham when there is none.

You pretend this is just my personal view that WPM and followers are "Replacement Theology" advocates.

It is what it is. See above.

...this is the common term for the belief system in which Israel is robbed of its eternal promises and displaced by the International Church...

There is no "robbing of Israel"... can one rob oneself? Yet again, the issue here, concerning you and like-minded folks, is who God's Israel really is, who true Jews of God are. And, yet again, Paul tells us... "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God" (Romans 2:28-29).

I did not invent the term.

No matter. <smile> It's quite irrelevant. <smile>

The concern has been that they are being misrepresented as those who deny Israel's existence. That has never been what "Replacement Theology" refers to. It is the displacement of Israel as a nation in terms of their eternal promises and their replacement with something else. Can you be so naive not to understand that?

I do understand that. And, it's irrelevant, as there is absolutely no replacement of anything.

The effort to ignore Dictionary definitions...

No one does, but the Dictionary definitions are not the Biblical definition.

And you need to teach me this why?

I'm not trying to teach you anything, but rather reason with you.

Do you want to show me that "Israel" is not a nation with literal promises made to it by God?

No. <smile> Yet again, the issue is who God's Israel really is... always has been, is, and always will be.

And you need to teach me this why?

Again, I'm not trying to teach you anything, but rather reason with you. It is what it is.

Are you trying to dismiss Abraham's biological posterity in the nation Israel, which was the entire reason why God made this promise to Abraham, to secure hope 1st of all for his own family and future?

No, but your insertion of the word "biological" in there is the very problem. Unless, Randy, you mean "biological" in the sense of Paul's "children of the promise" in Romans 9:8, but you obviously don't, and that is the very problem.

Your words betray the very spirit and letter of God's promise to Abraham to preserve Israel forever.

And I say yours do. Although I wouldn't used the word 'betray,' but rather inadvertently make it out to be far smaller than it is.

That means Israel must be restored as a nation in covenant with God. Jer 31.31.

Ohhhh... it has been, but that took place long, long, long before 1948. And continues to this day. It's Designer and Builder is God Himself, and He will bring it to completion at the day of Christ. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are such a fake. You act like you want to be respectful and then you tell me I'm rejecting what God said?

Actually, friends can challenge and not have contempt. I think you sincerely ignore the literal meaning of God's promise to Abraham. Or, you interpret it differently, as temporary or as a moving target.

Without becoming too direct in my accusation I'd like to say that from my perspective you're rejecting my interpretation of what God promised Abraham. I'll leave it at that.

What nonsense. My having a different understanding of God's promises to Abraham than you do doesn't mean I'm rejecting what God said. You reject what Paul said about God's promises to Abraham and his seed.

Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham......16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ....29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul made it clear that God's promises to Abraham that "in thee shall all nations be blessed" related to those "which are of faith" who are considered "the children of Abraham". And Paul made it clear that "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.". So, Paul related God's promises to Abraham in relation to nations as referring, not to entire nations as you imagine, but to those who belong to Jesus Christ, whether they are Jew or Gentile.

That's a reasonable argument. As I said, from my perspective you've rejected in this "Seed" argument a literal application to Abraham's posterity in the nation Israel. I don't have contempt for you in saying this--I just think you ignore what many others see as an obvious promise to Abraham concerning the nation Israel.

Again, you continue with your lies. You can't seem to make up how you want to lie about what I believe. One time you say I replace the nation Israel with a combination of the nation Israel and spiritual Israel, which makes no sense. Now, you're trying to tell me I replace the nation Israel with "a company of individuals and not a nation" which I am not doing at all.

I'm not lying at all. I take the promise God made to Abraham concerning the nation Israel literally. I have a difficult time knowing what you believe because you navigate around my view of this.

Why are you now resorting to calling me "fake" and "lying?" We can strongly agree without calling each other names, right? You may think I reject something just like I think you reject something, but that has to be debated--not met with a hail of insults!

Hello? What is your excuse for your ignorance? Have you never read the New Testament? Why is it still a mystery to you that God's eternal promises made to Israel (those who believe in national Israel) were extended to Gentile believers as well. This was a mystery in Old Testament times but was revealed long ago already.

Now, I'm ignorant? I know the Church includes both Jews and Gentiles. But I think there are distinct nations in the Church called to be godly nations. Israel was called to that, but failed. They will eventually succeed, in my view.

Also, within the Church there have been many nations called to be "Christian nations." Though this is my belief, and what I think God promised Abraham, I'm regularly met with the denial that there has ever been a Christian nation!

Paul made it clear that God's promises that originally were made to Israelite believers now apply also to Gentile believers.

True and false. What was promised Israel with respect to the Messiah has now come to apply to other nations. But what God promised should happen to Israel as a nation is for Israel. What God promises other nations is for those other nations. Each nation has its own distinct application.

Presently, Israel has failed to become a Christian nation. But God's promise to Abraham concerning Israel makes it plain to me that Israel will eventually catch up to nations that became Christian nations. And so, what happens in Israel is currently different from what has happened in the UK or the US.

Spend your time reading the New Testament. You are clearly very ignorant about what it teaches.

I've memorized lots of NT passages. Calling me ignorant is not the way to discuss differences, unless of course it's true. And it's not.

I have bad days, and don't always come across very well on those days. Yesterday was one such day. I hope you have a better day than you seem to be having today?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Actually, friends can challenge and not have contempt.

Friends don't accuse each other of ignoring what God said. They can accuse of misunderstanding what God said, but not ignoring. You are not my friend if you insist on saying that I ignore what God said.

I think you sincerely ignore the literal meaning of God's promise to Abraham. Or, you interpret it differently, as temporary or as a moving target.

I'm not ignoring anything, Randy. Grow up. Interpret it differently than you? Sure. Ignore? Absolutely not.

I believe you misinterpret what Paul wrote in passages like Galatians 3. Should I just accuse you of ignoring the true meaning of God's promises to Abraham and his seed because I disagree with how you interpret those verses?

Without becoming too direct in my accusation I'd like to say that from my perspective you're rejecting my interpretation of what God promised Abraham. I'll leave it at that.

I have no problem with you saying that since that is obviously true. In my view, I rely greatly on what Paul said about God's promises to Abraham for understanding because I know that Paul had a much better understanding of the Old Testament than any of us do. And I believe that your understanding of God's promises to Abraham do not line up with what Paul taught about that.

That's a reasonable argument. As I said, from my perspective you've rejected in this "Seed" argument a literal application to Abraham's posterity in the nation Israel. I don't have contempt for you in saying this--I just think you ignore what many others see as an obvious promise to Abraham concerning the nation Israel.

Why don't you accuse Paul of the same thing then since I'm simply going by what he straightforwardly wrote in Galatians 3 in relation to God's promises to Abraham.

I'm not lying at all.

When you misrepresent my view as many times as you have even after I have corrected you so many times, I can only assume that you're doing it on purpose.

I take the promise God made to Abraham concerning the nation Israel literally. I have a difficult time knowing what you believe because you navigate around my view of this.

I believe I am being very straightforward about what I believe. What is it that you don't know about what I believe?

Why are you now resorting to calling me "fake" and "lying?"

Because I believe you are blatantly and purposely misrepresenting what I believe at this point. It's hard for me to believe that, after all the times I've explained what I believe to you, that you would still be misrepresenting what I believe unless you're doing it on purpose.

We can strongly agree without calling each other names, right?

Of course we can, and we can do so without blatantly misrepresenting what the other believes, so how about you try that?

You may think I reject something just like I think you reject something, but that has to be debated--not met with a hail of insults!

You are very naive, Randy. If you think I'm just going to accept you blatantly misrepresenting my view, you need to think again. What you call insults are just a case of me calling you out for your blatant misrepresentations of my view.

Now, I'm ignorant?

In relation to the topic at hand, yes, I believe so. For example, how can you read a passage like Ephesians 3:1-6 and conclude that God has two different plans for His people? That makes no sense. His one plan was to bring all believers, including all Jew and Gentile believers, together as one body and as fellow citizens in His household (Ephesians 2:19-22) and as fellow heirs of His promises. And He brought that plan to fruition by sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2) so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). That's God's one plan. There is no other plan.

I know the Church includes both Jews and Gentiles. But I think there are distinct nations in the Church called to be godly nations. Israel was called to that, but failed. They will eventually succeed, in my view.

Where is this taught in scripture? Go back and read some of your own posts. You might notice it's almost all just your own words and no scripture. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start backing up your opinions with scripture.

Also, within the Church there have been many nations called to be "Christian nations."

What? Where are you getting this from? Please stop just sharing your opinions without providing any scriptural support for them.

Though this is my belief, and what I think God promised Abraham, I'm regularly met with the denial that there has ever been a Christian nation!

Of course there hasn't. Scripture never speaks of such a thing. There are Christian individuals from every nation, but scripture never speaks of such a thing as a Christian nation. That is a fact. I guarantee you can't back up that notion with scripture.

True and false. What was promised Israel with respect to the Messiah has now come to apply to other nations. But what God promised should happen to Israel as a nation is for Israel. What God promises other nations is for those other nations. Each nation has its own distinct application.

What are you talking about here? Give me some scripture, man. Otherwise, I have to assume you are just making all this up.

Presently, Israel has failed to become a Christian nation.

What exactly makes a nation "a Christian nation". Give me an explicit definition of "a Christian nation".

But God's promise to Abraham concerning Israel makes it plain to me that Israel will eventually catch up to nations that became Christian nations. And so, what happens in Israel is currently different from what has happened in the UK or the US.

What promise are you talking about exactly?

I've memorized lots of NT passages. Calling me ignorant is not the way to discuss differences, unless of course it's true. And it's not.

You seem to have no understanding at all of passages like Ephesians 2:11-3:6 and Galatians 3:7-29, so it makes me wonder how carefully you've read the New Testament.

I have bad days, and don't always come across very well on those days. Yesterday was one such day. I hope you have a better day than you seem to be having today?

I'm having a great day. I'm just being honest with you here and I guess you don't like that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Friends don't accuse each other of ignoring what God said. They can accuse of misunderstanding what God said, but not ignoring. You are not my friend if you insist on saying that I ignore what God said.

Jesus even considered Judas his friend. We are brothers in Christ. We should be friends regardless of how we view these positions, regardless of whether we think the other one is missing something, ignoring something, or even rejecting something.

When you misrepresent my view as many times as you have even after I have corrected you so many times, I can only assume that you're doing it on purpose.

I do not have any malice in our conversations.

For example, how can you read a passage like Ephesians 3:1-6 and conclude that God has two different plans for His people?

As I told you, each nation has its own relationship with God and its own history. Israel is late to the party in the current age. Other nations have adopted Christian constitutions and have embraced a Christian society. Each nation has its own time sequence.

Of course there hasn't. Scripture never speaks of such a thing. There are Christian individuals from every nation, but scripture never speaks of such a thing as a Christian nation. That is a fact. I guarantee you can't back up that notion with scripture.

Sounds like you have a closed mind? As I told you, when I mention the fact that God promised Abraham a biological posterity in the form of a "nation," I'm told there is no such thing as "Christian nations." I'm told virtually that in God's eyes "nations" don't really exist, or some such thing.

Israel was a nation. The bible describes them as a nation. They were a theocracy--a nation of faith, though they failed to maintain it. Christian nations also have failed to maintain their Christianity over the long run. It doesn't mean that God didn't promise it. And the Bible I read said that God did promise Abraham "nations." I know that because ultimately Israel became a political unit, as well--a kingdom. Jesus then described Israel as having had the "Kingdom of God" in a temporal way.

I'm having a great day. I'm just being honest with you here and I guess you don't like that.

To be honest with you, everybody who has agreed with and followed WPM (except maybe covenantee) has become very carnal in their approach to debate. I mean, it's okay to say you think I've missed something, or am rejecting something. But the name-calling, the insults--this is carnality as I understand it. You've cloaked carnality in Christian language.

Time for the lot of you to get back to serving and edifying, and correcting yourselves when you get out of line. You will learn little if you can't manage your own spirituality. You'll be sharing the word of God in vain.

 

[Wish-it]

I want to say at the outset that I do not believe Premillennialism is heresy. I also do not believe that Premillennialists are heretics for holding to that school of thought. That does not mean there are not many heretics that hold that view. There are. But there are many heretics that also hold to Amillennialists and Postmillennialists. I am simply looking at the historic origin and development of modern Premillennialism after the completion of Scripture in this thesis.

Premillennialists are quick to throw the Gnostic slur at Amillennialists. But, it may shock a lot of them to know that many of the views they hold, cherish and promote today were sourced and spread in antiquity – chiefly among the heretics. When we look for the originators and formulators of modern-day Premillennialism we actually arrive at four shadowy early figures. The first two operated at the very infancy of early Church history – Cerinthus of Asia Minor (AD 50-100) and Marcion of Sinope, Asia Minor (Born: AD 85, Died: AD 160). Both of these were viewed as arch-heretics and were strongly resisted by the early Church fathers for their corrupt perversion of Christianity.

They invented a dual-covenant concept of two parallel yet coexisting peoples of God, under two different agreements, serving two different deities (God and Jesus), with two different time-tables and two different ultimate outcomes. This was seasoned throughout with Gnostic elements.

The later advocates of ancient Premillennialism who ran with it, and widely promoted it, were Porphyry [or Porphyrius] of Tyre (AD 232- 305) and Apollinarius of Laodicea, Asia Minor (died AD 382). They took up the baton were Cerinthus and Marcion left off. Not surprisingly, these two dubious characters were condemned by the ancient orthodox fathers as heretics and blasphemers. While they held to the main trust of what the other two taught, they watered down some of the more extreme elements from Cerinthus and Marcion in regard to dividing the Godhood.

Notwithstanding, all 4 of these men believed that God has two distinct peoples, with distinct purposes for each. They believed that the Church operates under new covenant promises and natural ethnic Israel operates under old covenant promises. They held that the Mosaic covenant remains valid for the Jews, while the new covenant only applies to the New Testament Church. They considered Israel to be God’s earthly people, and the New Testament Church to be God’s heavenly people. They all viewed the Jewish race as “God’s chosen people” (saved and unsaved).

Like the Pharisees, the early Premillennialist heretics had a hyper-literal earthly expectation of a future physical earthly kingdom, believing that the Old Testament kingdom promises would be fulfilled by ethnic Israel coming to prominence there. They taught that there would be a golden age in the future after the second coming and before the new heaven and new earth that would be centered in earthly Jerusalem for 1000 years. From here Christ and Israel would reign over the subjugated Gentiles. They believed Israel’s old covenant theocracy would be fully reestablished and that she would be restored to her ancient land boundaries in a temporal earthly kingdom.

They took many of the spiritual old covenant predictions pertaining to the First Advent of Christ, the last days and the kingdom of God, and applied them to their supposed future temporal age (and Judaized looking kingdom), after the return of Jesus, which would resemble the old covenant arrangement and character. They repudiating a spiritual interpretation of many of the Old Testament prophetic passages or their current fulfilment in this new covenant period. They opposed the early Chiliast and early Amillennialism method of relating Old Testament typology to Christ and His kingdom. They also rejected a heavenly hope for the Jews.

They promoted the restoration of the old abolished covenant infrastructure, including the rebuilding of the physical temple in Jerusalem, recommencement of the old covenant priests, customs, rituals and blood sacrifices. They advocated the renewal of all the old covenant feasts and festivals, a return of blood sin offerings in a future temple and the restarting of the old covenant priesthood on a future millennial earth.

The ancient Chiliasts strongly opposed this type of teaching. There was none of them that supported the idea of Israel rising again to a place of racial superiority in a future millennial kingdom. They all looked upon the New Testament Church as true Israel today. They held that the many promises made to Israel, in the Old Testament saw their fulfilment in Christ and His Church during this present age. They rejected any idea of God re-starting or blessing any aspect of the Jewish ceremonial arrangement. They strongly opposed any validity for, or efficacy in, any coexisting dual covenant theory.

They believed that the fulfillment of Israel's promises are found in Christ alone. They held that believers (both Jews and Gentiles) possess all the spiritual territory they need in Christ today. He is the Promised Land. He is our rest. He is our only inheritance. He is our exclusive hope. Because of all this, they believed that all the Old Testament promises have been (or are being) fulfilled in this kingdom age. They saw no requirement for their fulfillment in some future age after the second coming. Most of them were looking, like Abraham, for the glorious, heavenly and eternal Jerusalem, coming down to earth, not carnal, earthly and temporal Jerusalem being re-established to a place of prominence, like the early Premillennial heretics expected.

They resisted any advancement of the fanciful idea of any type of reintroduction of the old abolished covenant system, including the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the performing of multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man for a thousand years in the future. Such a thought was anathema to them. For the 1st 240 years after the cross we cannot find the traditional Dispensational or “Historic” Premillennial teaching in the early Church. These resided exclusively amongst the heretics.

Like their modern-day counterparts, these ancient Premil heretics also differed with the ancient orthodox Chiliasts in their expectation of the continuation of the curse. The heretics saw sin and sinners, decay and disease, crying and dying, war and terror, continuing unabated after Christ’s coming. They saw the full reintroduction of all the bondage of corruption on a future earth. They had a carnal hope of continued procreation, carnal pleasures and excessive feasting in their future millennium.

Once again, the ancient orthodox Chiliasts rejected such an eventuality. The new earth they envisioned was more akin to the Amillennial new earth – it was glorified, perfect and pristine. It was sin-free, sinners-free, Satan-free, corruption-free and death-free. The early heretical apostates found the natural carnal sensual expectations of the Jewish millennial teaching attractive to their thinking.

However, there was no mention of people joining in marriage and enjoying sexual relations, and producing offspring amongst the early Orthodox writers until Commodianus an African writer who wrote between AD 251 and 258. There is no mention of the ungodly or wickedness blighting a future millennium until Victorinus in 270 AD. There are no previous orthodox Christian writings advocating the continuation of earthly carnal pleasures (including excessive feasting, continued marriage, ongoing sexual passion and procreation) and materialistic prosperity after the resurrection. This thinking was thought to belong to the Gnostic camp.

Premillennialist Chris Gousmett even concedes: “This emphasis on material and fleshly delights was seen to be typical of ‘Jewish’ understandings of the prophetic promises, and thus a close connection between Gnosticism and Judaism was postulated” (Shall the Body Strive and not be Crowned? Unitary and Instrumentalist Anthropological Models as keys to Interpreting the Structure of Patristic Eschatology).

Notably, many of these early heretical Premillennialism views have become popular in Premillennialist circles after 1830, with the rise of Dispensationalism.

I dont understand why believers bother with forefathers. We have the Holy Spirit to teach us and guide us. We have the Scripture to read and obey.
Why listen to some believer from hundreds of years ago, who hopefully had the Holy Spirit, but was probably wrong a lot of the time, just like us.
The Word and His Spirit, everything else not so much.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus even considered Judas his friend. We are brothers in Christ. We should be friends regardless of how we view these positions, regardless of whether we think the other one is missing something, ignoring something, or even rejecting something.

I don't purposely ignore anything. Why can't you have more respect for me than thinking I would do something like that? You can't come to know the truth by ignoring things, so I ignore nothing.

I do not have any malice in our conversations.

As I told you, each nation has its own relationship with God and its own history. Israel is late to the party in the current age. Other nations have adopted Christian constitutions and have embraced a Christian society. Each nation has its own time sequence.

Your view is not based on scripture. You continue to just share your opinions with no scriptural support. That makes it very hard for me to take you seriously in relation to this topic.

Sounds like you have a closed mind?

Are you just completely naive, Randy? Are you just completely oblivious to what might come across as offensive? You want to accuse me of ignoring things and now you're implying that you think I have a closed mind. No, I don't have a closed mind. I believe what I do because of having an open mind to the truth. I'm asking you to use scripture to back up your opinions and you still don't do it. You think I have a closed mind just because I don't see any evidence in scripture to back up your opinions? That's ridiculous.

As I told you, when I mention the fact that God promised Abraham a biological posterity in the form of a "nation," I'm told there is no such thing as "Christian nations." I'm told virtually that in God's eyes "nations" don't really exist, or some such thing.

Nonsense. Where does scripture itself speak of Christian nations? How can you not understand that I'm not going to believe anything you say about this if you can't back it up with scripture?

Israel was a nation. The bible describes them as a nation.

Of course. Good grief, who are you even talking to here? I'm not saying Israel was not a nation or that there's no such thing as nations. But, what does God care about? Nations or individuals? Is salvation a national thing or an individual thing? Individual, obviously. Yes, we are collectively one body, but that's it. One body. You seem to want there to be multiple bodies of Christ or multiple nations of God's people or whatever the case may be. But, scripture repeatedly talks about God's people being together as one. Your view seems to divide what God has brought together.

They were a theocracy--a nation of faith, though they failed to maintain it. Christian nations also have failed to maintain their Christianity over the long run.

What Christian nations are you talking about and what exactly made them Christian nations? And where is this topic talked about in scripture? Why do I have to keep asking you the same questions over and over again? Why do you not answer most of my questions?

It doesn't mean that God didn't promise it. And the Bible I read said that God did promise Abraham "nations."

Yes, but what does that mean? Obviously not. Did you read how Paul interpreted that, as I already showed you earlier? Does it matter to you how Paul interpreted that?

Galatians 3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

So, what Paul clarified here is that what God saying to Abraham "in you all the nations shall be blessed" he was talking about individuals in all the nations who have faith like Abraham. Individuals who have faith like Abraham from all nations are blessed. It's not about the blessing of entire nations, as you seem to think. It's all about those who have faith. Those who do not have faith are not blessed.

To be honest with you, everybody who has agreed with and followed WPM (except maybe covenantee) has become very carnal in their approach to debate. I mean, it's okay to say you think I've missed something, or am rejecting something. But the name-calling, the insults--this is carnality as I understand it. You've cloaked carnality in Christian language.

You need to take the log out of your own eye before judging me. You telling me I'm ignoring things and have a closed mind is insulting. You ignore your own insults, which is what I'm reacting to. So, I don't need this lecture from you. Maybe stop being hypocritical and then you can talk to me about this.

Time for the lot of you to get back to serving and edifying, and correcting yourselves when you get out of line. You will learn little if you can't manage your own spirituality. You'll be sharing the word of God in vain.

You are so full of yourself, Randy. You are holier than thou. You need to step back and look at your own self and realize that all you do is criticize others for doing the things you do yourself. Get off of your high horse.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I dont understand why believers bother with forefathers. We have the Holy Spirit to teach us and guide us. We have the Scripture to read and obey.
Why listen to some believer from hundreds of years ago, who hopefully had the Holy Spirit, but was probably wrong a lot of the time, just like us.
The Word and His Spirit, everything else not so much.

I agree with this, but the problem is that some Premils try to support Premil by saying that the forefathers (early church fathers) all or mostly believed in Premil and that is simply not the case. They didn't believe in modern day Premil as we know it. So, their misinformation campaign needs to be refuted.

 

[Wish-it]

I agree with this, but the problem is that some Premils try to support Premil by saying that the forefathers (early church fathers) all or mostly believed in Premil and that is simply not the case. They didn't believe in modern day Premil as we know it. So, their misinformation campaign needs to be refuted.

Yes, its a pointless way to argue about it, we need to keep with scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, its a pointless way to argue about it, we need to keep with scripture.

Again, I agree, but if people are going to make false claims about what the ECFs believed, then that needs to be refuted or else some people will believe those false claims. But, I definitely would much prefer to just stick with discussing scripture.

 

[Wish-it]

Again, I agree, but if people are going to make false claims about what the ECFs believed, then that needs to be refuted or else some people will believe those false claims. But, I definitely would much prefer to just stick with discussing scripture.

Where do you stand ( or sit) on Daniel prophecies 2,7,8,11, current or history?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Where do you stand ( or sit) on Daniel prophecies 2,7,8,11, current or history?

History, but I don't use scriptures like those as part of the foundation of my doctrine. I use clear, straightforward scriptures for that. Daniel is a difficult book to interpret in some places and I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would use those passages as part of the main support for their doctrine. I prefer to use more clear scriptures to help try to understand those more difficult scriptures.

 

[Wish-it]

History, but I don't use scriptures like those as part of the foundation of my doctrine. I use clear, straightforward scriptures for that. Daniel is a difficult book to interpret in some places and I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would use those passages as part of the main support for their doctrine. I prefer to use more clear scriptures to help try to understand those more difficult scriptures.

I love the OT prophets, there seems to be so much in there. I consider they're Gods message for each generation, and especially probably our generation if its the time we think it is.
Even looking at the statue of Daniel 2.
Iraq, Iran, Javan, 4th empire, (iron and clay) Nebuchadnezzars time, Alexanders time, and our time. The same nations at play now. Iraq - defeated for now, but reviving, Iran, power waning, but not forever, Javan (Turkey) - rising power with prominent leader, 4th beast - Islamic Caliphate (iron) verses Israel (clay).
Daniel 2 even suggests the treaty between them, as you saw the iron mixed with the clay (united) so the people will not remain united, any more than islam (iron) mixes with Israel (clay).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I love the OT prophets, there seems to be so much in there. I consider they're Gods message for each generation, and especially probably our generation if its the time we think it is.
Even looking at the statue of Daniel 2.
Iraq, Iran, Javan, 4th empire, (iron and clay) Nebuchadnezzars time, Alexanders time, and our time. The same nations at play now. Iraq - defeated for now, but reviving, Iran, power waning, but not forever, Javan (Turkey) - rising power with prominent leader, 4th beast - Islamic Caliphate (iron) verses Israel (clay).
Daniel 2 even suggests the treaty between them, as you saw the iron mixed with the clay (united) so the people will not remain united, any more than islam (iron) mixes with Israel (clay).

We think very differently. Not sure what this has do to with the topic of this thread, though.

 

[Wish-it]

We think very differently. Not sure what this has do to with the topic of this thread, though.

Its good seeing how others treat scripture, I easy to see why there's so many views, and can be confusing, but hopefully soon, we will either drop our baggage, as they day draws near or apostasy as scripture says. Hopefully we can learn from each other. With your views it helps me to look deeper at my own views as well. Excuse the bold not sure what happened.

 

[Wish-it]

We think very differently. Not sure what this has do to with the topic of this thread, though.

Was an example of how I find answers to NT questions in the OT, ie Matt 24.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't purposely ignore anything. Why can't you have more respect for me than thinking I would do something like that? You can't come to know the truth by ignoring things, so I ignore nothing.

If someone misses their train I will tell them that they ignored their watch. That isn't an insult--it's just a reminder to keep watch so that next time they don't miss the train.

If you are shown that Abraham was promised a nation, and you say that no, he was not promised a nation, or that nations don't exist, then I will say that you reject what is written. That is not an insult. That is just an encouragement to go back and look at exactly what was promised Abraham, to see if you really did miss or reject what was written.

We've all missed and rejected things that we were irresponsible about or simply didn't want to believe. None of us are perfect. The idea that this constitutes a crisis in our relationship as brothers calls your spirituality to question. And the insults now raining down on me are similar to what WPM and his followers do--accuse others of being ignorant, etc.

Your view is not based on scripture. You continue to just share your opinions with no scriptural support. That makes it very hard for me to take you seriously in relation to this topic.

Maybe my argument isn't good enough?--I never said you have to believe it.

Are you just completely naive, Randy? Are you just completely oblivious to what might come across as offensive? You want to accuse me of ignoring things and now you're implying that you think I have a closed mind.

When someone is absolutely positive about something that is being actively debated, that has been actively debated for a long time, they express confidence. But when there is resistance to any discussion at all, then that's a closed mind.

No, I don't have a closed mind. I believe what I do because of having an open mind to the truth. I'm asking you to use scripture to back up your opinions and you still don't do it. You think I have a closed mind just because I don't see any evidence in scripture to back up your opinions? That's ridiculous.

What haven't I backed up with Scripture? I honestly don't know where I failed you in that regard?

Nonsense. Where does scripture itself speak of Christian nations? How can you not understand that I'm not going to believe anything you say about this if you can't back it up with scripture?

I can back it up with Scripture, and have numerous times already. Abraham was promised "nations" in Gen 17. In the NT Scriptures that promise is reaffirmed, although obviously Christian nations had not yet evolved. What we do see is Jesus saying that the Kingdom of God (in its temporal form) would be taken from the nation Israel and given to another "nation" (the Roman Empire).

Now, you may not agree and think I reference these passages improperly. But you can't say anymore that I haven't provided Scriptural evidence. Don't confuse your disagreement with my supposed failure to reference Scriptures on this subject!

Of course. Good grief, who are you even talking to here? I'm not saying Israel was not a nation or that there's no such thing as nations.

Sorry, but I've been told repeatedly by people with your theology that there are no such thing as "Christian nations!" I'm told over and over again that God doesn't care about politics or about ethnic distinctions, that the Church is blind to such distinctions.

But you will read about "nations" several times in the book of Revelation, which was written even before there were Christian nations. Just because there were not yet Christian nations does not mean they weren't going to happen!

Rev 5.9 And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation."

Rev 7.9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.

But, what does God care about? Nations or individuals? Is salvation a national thing or an individual thing? Individual, obviously.

It is both. God cares about the individual, and He cares about having a group, including a society. If God only cares about individuals, then He would not have planned for mankind to "fill the earth." Salvation is not just saving an individual soul, but more, saving a society of redeemed people who can then enjoy fellowship and God's abundant blessings.

God cares about things like crimes and justice, and is concerned to provide political leadership, trades, and workers to achieve the tasks that give glory to His Son. So, God saves not just individuals, but also nations, even if there has to be a process of straining out the bad ones.

Yes, we are collectively one body, but that's it. One body. You seem to want there to be multiple bodies of Christ or multiple nations of God's people or whatever the case may be. But, scripture repeatedly talks about God's people being together as one. Your view seems to divide what God has brought together.

I think "nations" is what God said He wanted in the present age.

What Christian nations are you talking about and what exactly made them Christian nations? And where is this topic talked about in scripture? Why do I have to keep asking you the same questions over and over again? Why do you not answer most of my questions?

See above.

Yes, but what does that mean? Obviously not. Did you read how Paul interpreted that, as I already showed you earlier? Does it matter to you how Paul interpreted that?

Galatians 3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

So, what Paul clarified here is that what God saying to Abraham "in you all the nations shall be blessed" he was talking about individuals in all the nations who have faith like Abraham. Individuals who have faith like Abraham from all nations are blessed. It's not about the blessing of entire nations, as you seem to think. It's all about those who have faith. Those who do not have faith are not blessed.

I see "nations" where you only see individuals.

You need to take the log out of your own eye before judging me. You telling me I'm ignoring things and have a closed mind is insulting. You ignore your own insults, which is what I'm reacting to. So, I don't need this lecture from you. Maybe stop being hypocritical and then you can talk to me about this.

I'm not angry, but you most definitely exhibit all kinds of hostility.

You are so full of yourself, Randy. You are holier than thou. You need to step back and look at your own self and realize that all you do is criticize others for doing the things you do yourself. Get off of your high horse.

It may not be that I'm on a high horse as much as you are sinking low with your insulting rhetoric. Why you can't see that absolutely stuns me!