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

[covenantee]

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

See above.

I see "nations" where you only see individuals.

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

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!

Still awaiting an answer to this questionn:

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

 

[Randy Kluth]

Still awaiting an answer to this questionn:

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

I did answer that question, brother. The answer depends on what you mean by this? We all agree that there is a part of Israel that is saved, eg Messianic Jews, and part that is unsaved. But these groups are part of the same nation, and not two separate nations.

 

[PinSeeker]

Hmmm... This question was not asked of me, I know, but I'm going to speak to it here...

Still awaiting an answer to this questionn:

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

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the question. Maybe if I rephrase it, you can comment on whether you agree or disagree with that rephrasing... if it makes it clearer. I would ask it this way:

"Do you, or do you not... Randy... agree that the Israel of the Bible, God's household, consisted, consists, and always will consist of the Jews of God, those who, in Paul's words in Romans 2, are Jews inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit?"

This is the whole issue here in this thread: Who ~ who, not "what" ~ is Israel, and why? Yes, there is a geographic, boundary-enclosed piece of land, a political nation-state, on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea called Israel, established in 1948. But this is not the Israel of the Bible, not God's Israel. Now, this nation-state contains in its citizenry many ethnic Jews ~ Israelis ~ who are circumcised of the heart by the Spirit and therefore of God's true Israel ~ but not because they are citizens of that nation-state ~ and many who are not yet but will be. God will bring His Israel... consisting of people from every tongue, tribe, and nation... to completion; all Israel will be saved, just as Paul says in Romans 11:26.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[PinSeeker]

I did answer that question, brother. The answer depends on what you mean by this? We all agree that there is a part of Israel that is saved, eg Messianic Jews, and part that is unsaved. But these groups are part of the same nation, and not two separate nations.

Hmmm, well that depends on the perspective in which we are talking about the nation of Israel... <smile> ...whose, or Whose? <smile> I agree that they are not "two separate nations," but the whole issue here is conflating man's and God's "nation." <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

 

[covenantee]

I did answer that question, brother. The answer depends on what you mean by this? We all agree that there is a part of Israel that is saved, eg Messianic Jews, and part that is unsaved. But these groups are part of the same nation, and not two separate nations.

You can see that I repeatedly reference physical Israel, which is the one worldwide Israel comprised of all Israelites identified as such by their DNA.

But you refuse to believe that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You can see that I repeatedly reference physical Israel, which is the one worldwide Israel comprised of all Israelites identified as such by their DNA.

But you refuse to believe that.

I refuse to believe what? I've said again and again that I recognize those who advocate for Replacement Theology accept the physical Israel. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hmmm, well that depends on the perspective in which we are talking about the nation of Israel... <smile> ...whose, or Whose? <smile> I agree that they are not "two separate nations," but the whole issue here is conflating man's and God's "nation." <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

Exactly. I don't disagree with you. I call that Replacement Theology. Some here reject that term simply because they do believe in Physical Israel.

 

[WPM]

I refuse to believe what? I've said again and again that I recognize those who advocate for Replacement Theology accept the physical Israel. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of?

So, why do you insist on spreading the lie that ‘we believe that we have replaced physical Israel’? We do not! We believe we have become one new man in true believing Israel. You have no answer to this. That is why you keep avoiding.

 

[PinSeeker]

Exactly. I don't disagree with you.

Good.

I call that Replacement Theology.

And in the context of the discussion that's being had here, that's a total misnomer. a total misattribution of the term.

Some here reject that term simply because they do believe in Physical Israel.

Dude. Everyone here believes in physical Israel, the nation-state on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, whose current Prime Minister is Benjamin Netanyahu. <smile>

And they don't "reject the term" in and of itself, because it actually does apply to some (misguided) folks, What they (and I) reject, Randy, is the attributing of the term to those to whom you are attributing it in this thread.

Come on, man. You're obviously much smarter than this.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

And in the context of the discussion that's being had here, that's a total misnomer. a total misattribution of the term.

If I haven't said it to you, I'll do that now. I'm saying you hold to RT not because you believe it is representative of your position, but because I and a whole host of people believe it adquately represents how *we view* your position.

Everyone here believes in physical Israel, the nation-state on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, whose current Prime Minister is Benjamin Netanyahu.

I've never said otherwise. This seems to be the standard defense against my using the term RT. You think your belief in physical Israel excuses you from that term, but it doesn't.

You are replacing what many Futurists believe is the biblical Israel with something that transitions the name "Israel" to the International Church. We all believe that physical Israel progressed from one nation to the International Church. But RT dismisses national Israel from her destiny *as a nation* in the Church. Though Israel is not there yet, many Futurists believe they will in the Millennium.

And they don't "reject the term" in and of itself, because it actually does apply to some (misguided) folks, What they (and I) reject, Randy, is the attributing of the term to those to whom you are attributing it in this thread.

I've explained what RT means in the Dictionary, and I need not prove the term applies to you and to your little group here. It applies to much of Amillennialism down through the ages, if not all.

 

[PinSeeker]

If I haven't said it to you, I'll do that now.

Don't do it. DON'T DO IT! <smile> Ohhhh... you did it... <smile>

I'm saying you hold to RT...

Right. But I don't. Only in your opinion. Which you will acknowledge, I guess, but... <smile>

not because you believe it is representative of your position, but because I and a whole host of people believe it adquately represents how *we view* your position.

Right. And that view is wrong. It's totally misapplied. For the reasons I have been crystal clear about.

You think your belief in physical Israel excuses you from that term, but it doesn't.

So my belief in... can one even be conscious and at least somewhat aware of geopolitical reality and not "believe" in physical Israel?... But anyway, my believe in physical Israel means I don't believe in physical Israel? Ah, okay, got it. Wow.

You are replacing what many Futurists believe is the biblical Israel with something that transitions the name "Israel" to the International Church.

And again, what's really going on here is you are defining ~ redefining, actually ~ God's Israel as physical Israel. God's Israel was never ~ never ~ a nation-state, never mind the reality that that nation-state would not become a reality until 1948. Would you posit that no one between Abraham and all those who died before 1948 were of Israel? Surely not, but that's the unavoidable implication of what you're so doggedly holding to.

We all believe that physical Israel progressed from one nation to the International Church. But RT dismisses national Israel from her destiny *as a nation* in the Church. Though Israel is not there yet, many Futurists believe they will in the Millennium.

I've explained what RT means in the Dictionary...

Right... non sequitur...

...and I need not prove the term applies to you and to your little group here.

You cannot. Surely you can ~ and may, of course ~ hold to your opinion, wrong as you may be; more power to you on that.

My "little group"... <eye roll>

It applies to much of Amillennialism down through the ages, if not all.

Such obstinance. Goodness gracious.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[WPM]

Don't do it. DON'T DO IT! <smile> Ohhhh... you did it... <smile>


Right. But I don't. Only in your opinion. Which you will acknowledge, I guess, but... <smile>


Right. And that view is wrong. It's totally misapplied. For the reasons I have been crystal clear about.


So my belief in... can one even be conscious and at least somewhat aware of geopolitical reality and not "believe" in physical Israel?... But anyway, my believe in physical Israel means I don't believe in physical Israel? Ah, okay, got it. Wow.


And again, what's really going on here is you are defining ~ redefining, actually ~ God's Israel as physical Israel. God's Israel was never ~ never ~ a nation-state, never mind the reality that that nation-state would not become a reality until 1948. Would you posit that no one between Abraham and all those who died before 1948 were of Israel? Surely not, but that's the unavoidable implication of what you're so doggedly holding to.


Right... non sequitur...


You cannot. Surely you can ~ and may, of course ~ hold to your opinion, wrong as you may be; more power to you on that.

My "little group"... <eye roll>

Such obstinance. Goodness gracious.

Grace and peace to you.

Hey bro, it is Randy who actually really advocates RT. But he ducks around it now it has been exposed.

“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.

 

[WPM]

If I haven't said it to you, I'll do that now. I'm saying you hold to RT not because you believe it is representative of your position, but because I and a whole host of people believe it adquately represents how *we view* your position.

I've never said otherwise. This seems to be the standard defense against my using the term RT. You think your belief in physical Israel excuses you from that term, but it doesn't.

You are replacing what many Futurists believe is the biblical Israel with something that transitions the name "Israel" to the International Church. We all believe that physical Israel progressed from one nation to the International Church. But RT dismisses national Israel from her destiny *as a nation* in the Church. Though Israel is not there yet, many Futurists believe they will in the Millennium.

I've explained what RT means in the Dictionary, and I need not prove the term applies to you and to your little group here. It applies to much of Amillennialism down through the ages, if not all.

You promote the same end-time theology as Cerinthus, Marcion, Porphyry and Apollinarius above. What they taught was not held by any of the early orthodox Chiliasts. So, you find yourself in the same camp of as the ancient heretics.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

I ignore nothing and I see that you want to continue claiming that I am. I'm losing more and more respect for you with every post you make.

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.

I reject your understanding of what is written. You make it personal if you say I'm rejecting what is written as if I knowingly reject the truth.

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.

Your insults never end. You have no self awareness. Now you're calling my spirituality to question? You need to examine yourself, Randy, and find out why you judge others all the time without taking the log out of your own eye.

And the insults now raining down on me are similar to what WPM and his followers do--accuse others of being ignorant, etc.

You are such a hypocrite. You are insulting me left and right. Just because your insults might be more subtle doesn't change the fact that you continue to insult me.

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.

My mind isn't closed. All you seem to have to offer anymore is false accusations like saying I supposedly ignore things and have a closed mind. This is a colossal waste of time.

What haven't I backed up with Scripture?

Everything. Look at your own posts and see how they are filled with your own words and almost no scripture. Your lack of self awareness is unbelievable.

I honestly don't know where I failed you in that regard?

You rarely quote scripture in support of your opinions. Half the time I can't even guess as to where you get your ideas from.

I can back it up with Scripture, and have numerous times already.

You have not! Are you being serious here? You rarely even quote scripture. Please tell me this is all a put on and you're not being serious.

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).

The NT tells us that the promises made to Abraham in relation to nations apply to those who have faith. I've quoted the following passage multiple times to you and you clearly don't understand what it means. But, I'll quote it again. Maybe if you actually read it carefully you might understand.

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.

You don't seem to want to accept what Paul taught about how the OT scriptures should be understood. It's all about those who have faith and not about nationality. He made that clear over and over again. Yet, you want to make it primarily about one's nationality.

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!

LOL. I truly cannot believe you are for real. I mean that 100% sincerely. How can you not know that you rarely use scripture to support your opinions? Everyone can see that. Why do you deny it?

Sorry, but I've been told repeatedly by people with your theology that there are no such thing as "Christian nations!"

Because that's true. You cannot find such a concept taught anywhere in scripture and you know it. That's why you don't even attempt to show that in scripture. You know you can't do it.

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

I don't care what you think about that. You act as if being angry is a sin. No, it depends on the context. It's quite acceptable to be angry if you are being blatantly misrepresented the way you have done to me and my beliefs.

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!

Why you seem to have no self awareness whatsoever stuns me!

 

[covenantee]

I refuse to believe what? I've said again and again that I recognize those who advocate for Replacement Theology accept the physical Israel. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of?

No accusation. Just confirming that you agree that there is one physical Israel, and that within it are two spiritual Israels i.e. the saved and the unsaved.

 

[PinSeeker]

...there is one physical Israel, and that within it are two spiritual Israels i.e. the saved and the unsaved.

I would disagree with this... There is a physical Israel, for sure, the nation-state in the middle east, of course. But within the world ~ the world as a whole, physical Israel included ~ there is only one true Israel, the household of God. And these are the saved. I... think you agree, but I'm not sure...

Oh well. Grace and peace to you.

 

[covenantee]

I would disagree with this... There is a physical Israel, for sure, the nation-state in the middle east, of course. But within the world ~ the world as a whole, physical Israel included ~ there is only one true Israel, the household of God. And these are the saved. I... think you agree, but I'm not sure...

Oh well. Grace and peace to you.

Physical Israel encompasses the whole world and is accurately identified via DNA. Attempting to identify it via "nation" only confounds and confuses.

The spiritual condition of each individual within physical Israel is either "saved" or "unsaved".

Hence there are two (spiritual) Israels.

Blessings to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Physical Israel encompasses the whole world and is accurately identified via DNA. Attempting to identify it via "nation" only confounds and confuses.

The spiritual condition of each individual within physical Israel is either "saved" or "unsaved".

Hence there are two (spiritual) Israels.

Okay yeah disagree. <smile> I'll just say that originally... and you know this, I think... Israel was a person (Genesis 33:28).

Blessings to you.

Thank you; grace and peace to you!

 

[covenantee]

Israel was a person (Genesis 33:28).

Who begot many persons. Hosea 1:10

Thanks; Blessings to you!

 

[PinSeeker]

Who begot many persons. Hosea 1:10

Yes, and you and I are two of them... even though we are Gentiles. Or, well, I don't know about you, actually, but I'm guessing you are; I certainly am. But yes, the number of the children of Israel ~ children of the promise ~ are like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered... these are the children of the living God. Absolutely.

Even in Hosea's day, there was no physical Israel yet; that was still over two thousand years from happening... <smile>

Perhaps you're talking about all the physical beings who are of God's Israel... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.