The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics - see the evidence
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
My point was that I use Scripture to back my position. I don't have to repeat it regularly to prove my position rests on Scripture. You are here arguing whether I have the right meaning of this Scripture. But my point was that I use Scripture, regardless of whether you think I use it right or not.
I believe God's promise to Abraham, concerrning nations of fatih, involves nations of people who are mixed--some of whom have faith and some of whom do not. So, no, I don't think the nations promised to Abraham were exclusively those of faith. I could be wrong, but again--that wasn't the point. The point was that I use Scripture.
We say negative things about one another--both of us. I'll let God judge whose spirit is poisoned, and whose spirit is not.
Yes, so when I and others use the expression "two Israels", that's what we mean.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Repeat it regularly? When have you ever done it? Is it too much trouble for you to do it one more time if you've done it before, epecially when I'm telling you that I don't know what scripture you are basing your view on? Is it too much trouble for you to actually quote the scripture and highlight which part of it backs up what you're saying?
Take this comment, for example. I am not familiar with any scripture "concerning nations of faith". Can you tell me exactly what scripture you are basing the concept of "nations of faith" on?
I'm not talking about nations of faith, I'm talking about individuals from all nations who have faith. You say you use scripture, but why does your view not line up with scripture like Galatians 3:7-9 which applies those promises that you think are intended for entire nations to individuals from all nations who have faith instead?
Good. That's much better than you trying to judge the way you do sometimes.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I'm a bit confused about what you're saying, also. When it comes to Romans 9:6-8, the two Israels Paul referenced are the physical nation of Israel that is dependent only on one's DNA and spiritual Israel which is dependent only on one's spiritual status of being a child of God. There's only one spiritual Israel consisting of all of the children of God and of the promise who are counted as Abraham's spiritual seed. I don't see anywhere in scripture that talks about two different spiritual Israels. The contrast between the two Israels is that one consists of both saved and unsaved people (physical Israel) and one consists only of saved people (spiritual Israel).
I'm not attempting to reassert Paul's definitions. Rather, my objective is to demonstrate to Randy that the distinctions which result in two Israels are purely spiritual in nature. Otherwise, he could or would continue to maintain that we are still "calling" two physical Israels.
I hope that I've achieved that objective.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
What does that mean? You are not basing what you're saying on Romans 9:6-8 at all? I don't know of any other Israels besides the two Paul referenced there (unless you count Jacob).
Based on Romans 9:6-8, I think the distinction is that one Israel is spiritual in nature and one is not, so I'm not really understanding your line of reasoning. But, at the same time, it doesn't matter. I know we do agree on what Romans 9:6-8 means, regardless, because I've seen how you interpret it.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
You've gone from "you don't use Scripture" to "you don't use Scriptures often enough" to "I don't agree with your sense of what nations are." I never said the nations promised to Abraham had to be 100% born again believers.
He was promised nations that entered into covenant with God generally, regardless of whether some fail or backslide. The promise was for nations that like Israel signed off on making the Lord their God and chose, as a people, to live by His standards. Israel did this. Christian nations have done that.
This is my interpretation of what the Scriptures said, and what the promise was. I'm *not* saying you have to agree with it, or even think it is a reasonable interpretation.
Gal 3.7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith."
This is the principle by which people within those nations are justified by faith. The promise of nations that adhere to that covenant and thus produce genuine believers remains the way I see what is promised--entire nations devoted to Christianity. Some individuals within those nations will fail, but some will indeed abide by the principle of faith.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I specifically said you rarely use scripture and that is true. You rarely quote it in your posts. I did not say "you don't use Scripture", so please do not quote things that I didn't actually say.
Where does it say that? Why do I have to keep asking you over and over again to show me which scripture you are basing your opinions on? I honestly don't know where you're getting this from, so please show me.
What scripture is this opinion based on?
Which scriptures? I can't read your mind.
I'll never agree with you on this, so that isn't the point. I'm just trying to get you to show me which scriptures exactly you are basing your opinions on. I don't think I'm asking too much, but you continue to not show me that for whatever reason.
Where does that passage say anything about "entire nations devoted to Christianity"? Nowhere. It's talking about individuals from all nations who have faith like the individual "Abraham, the man of faith".
Not only does he rarely use Scripture, but he is hyper-sensitive. He takes offence where there is no offence.
I agree with Spiritual Israelite:
- For an individual to qualify for ethnic Israeli citizenship, they must be born to a Jewish mother, a person who has officially converted to Judaism (and is not a member of another religion), a child of a Jew or grandchild of a Jewish grandparents.
- To be part of spiritual Israel (true New Testament Israel) you must be a child of God, a child of promise, who is of Abraham's spiritual seed. This is found in Christ alone.
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
As a bloodline Israeli, I agree with the Lord who inspired John to write that there are those who call themselves Jews but are not:
Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, but thou art rich and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
My ancestry goes back to a VERY wealthy family overseas, and they are as Godless and lost as anyone could ever be. They love talking about being Jewish, thinking that they are in God's good graces by bloodline descent, and yet are no more Jew than the tree outside my window because of their rejection of Christ Jesus.
As to any identifying with some political nation, such as modern-day Israel, given that many of them reject Christ, they too are not Jews in that state. Jews in name only, but not of heart, and they are far removed from the blessings and promises of Abraham. The Lord is going to allow 2/3 of all Jews to be wiped out in Daniel's seventieth week before He appears to deliver the remnant who believe at the point they will look upon He whom we had pierced.
It's beholden, then, that all come to saving faith in Christ Jesus now before this dispensation of grace ends at the rapture, because what's soon coming upon this earth is a series of horrors this world has never seen.
BTW
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
It's like saying "You disqualify as a human being" when someone commits an inhuman, cruel act. It isn't that they've ceased to be a human but that they have ceased acting like a human. Hosea says the same thing, that for a time Israel would cease to be viewed by God as "Israel" because they would no longer act like Israel. But they are never considered not Israel in terms of nationality and ethnicity--just in terms of their lack of fidelity.
Being "Jewish" to Paul is to act like Abraham, and being consistent with what his children should look like. Paul recognized that God had extended the name "children of God" to the nations, and as such, he was arguing that those among Jews who had stopped acting like Jews were no longer "true Jews" in God's eyes, and that Gentiles, who acted with the faith of Abraham were true children of God.
This involves a literary convention in which what is attributed to someone is not to be taken literally, but to reflect the lack of a component that disqualifies someone from what ordinarily would be their inheritance. Unfaithful Jews do not really stop being Jews--they just stop acting like Jews when they lack faith and obedience to God's Law. Ethnic identification never really goes away, nor does God's promise go away that the nation will eventually be restored.
Yes, some Jews will be cast away from God's presence forever, and will cease to be His favored people forever. But God has always preserved a remnant of believing Jews to maintain Israel in limited form until the time comes to restore the nation to their proper standing.
Where does it say He will restore the whole nation? Nowhere. He simply says that the Israel of Israel will come through as an elect remnant as God has ordained. You have to avoid this.
Hello! We have entered the new covenant. The old is gone forever. Race means nothing today. It is all about grace. The Gospel is open equally to Jews and Gentiles alike. There is no racial favoritism any more. Thank God!
- We have moved from the old to the new covenant. The rules have therefore changed.
- We are not going back to racial favor.
- People who reject Christ are not God's chosen or His children, they are children of the devil.
There has only ever been one people of God. We have been grafted into faithful Israel. You are trying to make 2 out of 1, when Scriptures clearly make 1 out of 2. I prefer Scripture to your theories.
Romans 2:25 tells us: “if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.”
Romans 2:28-29 plainly states, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh.”
Paul explains in Romans 9:8: “they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
Romans 10:12 states: “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.”
I Corinthians 7:17 declares, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing"
Colossians 3:11 declares, “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."
Galatians 3:28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 5:2 declares, “if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
Galatians 5:5 declares, "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."
Galatians 6:15 reinforces that, saying, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.”
Race means nothing any more – forever, it is all of grace. Being natural means nothing when it comes to salvation. That is a myth that conflicts with New Testament teaching.
The fact is, there is (and only has been) one people of God from the beginning. Whilst they were largely found within the nation of Israel before the cross, that was broadened out after the cross to embrace all nations. Race means nothing under the new covenant. The New Testament outlines clearly and repeatedly that "there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles.
Last edited:
In fact, race never did mean anything, because from its inception, Israel was comprised of both descendants of Abraham, and non-descendants of Abraham (eventually called Gentiles). Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22
It has been, from the beginning, grace forever, as you say.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
It is the suggestion that I don't use Scripture adequately that bothers me. Over the last 26+ years I've been on these forums and quoted countless Scriptures to support every single one of my views.
Some views only require a few Scripture passages. Some require many. The current subject has been discussed with WPM for years, and I don't need to keep repeating because obviously there is a group here that follows both his arguments and his aggressive style, which I think is carnal. This is just my judgment and my discernment, but I'll let God be the judge.
Nevertheless, when things remain civil I'm willing to engage. On the subject of Scriptural backing for my positions, I've been accused of ignoring, side-stepping--you know, the typical WPM style of arguing. I've never dodged--the passages I base my positions on are simple.
1) The Abrahamic Covenant provides for the *eternal* hope of the Israeli nation, the current age not withstanding.
2) My belief in a literal Millennium is not based on Rev 20 alone, although the number of years is. Rather, it is based on the eternal hope of the Israeli nation, contained in the Prophets.
3) Regardless of whether I should call your view "Replacement Theology"--let say it is illegitimate, though it is a common reference point for many. The idea that Israel remains associated only with born again Christians today, and not any ethnicity or nationality before a conversion takes place, is shown false by the many references to Israel as a theocracy in the OT age, when Israel contained both believers and unbelievers, and yet were one nation bound by a single covenant with God.
I need not say anymore. It will just be more years of endless back and forths...
This is what I meant by your having a "closed mind." "I'll never agree with you on this" is what I meant by your unwillingness to consider the possibility you could be wrong. That's okay--you absolutely and exhaustively believe you're right. You have to live by your consicence. But to me, who think things are not so cut and dried, it suggest *to me* that you have a "closed mind." This is not an insult--this is just how I honestly view your attitude.
Your constant claim I don't base my beliefs on any particular Scriptures is an endless loop. We're getting nowhere...
Israel has never been anything but a mixed faith/unbelieving nation. Christian nations have never been anything but a mixed faith/unbelieving nation. And yet, both Israel and Christian nations entered into covenant with God *as nations,* and not purely as individuals or citizens of nation-states. The entire nation generally committed to the religion of God, whether pre-Christian under the Law or Christian in the New Testament.
These are the literal *nations* I believe God promised Abraham in Gen 12-17. Again, I've provided the Scriptures I base my belief on. I don't need to prove that they were nations in covenant with God--the NT Scriptures were closed before there were Christian nations, but the Roman nation was inferred when Jesus said the Kingdom of God would be taken from Israel and given to a "nation."
So can a mixed nation be one that is promised to Abraham? That seems to be your whole beef? But even if we disagree you should stop saying I don't provide Scriptures. I don't need but a very few Scriptures to prove my point, whether you agree or not, whether you think the interpretation is legitimate or not.
So if we're done, let it lie. You're not open to any changes. You won't consider my views as legitimate or even credible. But my hope is that others will read and consider with an open mind. And if I'm wrong, I hope they gently correct me with a Christian and kind spirit.
LOL. That is it in a nutshell! You don't like being challenged. You don't like being questioned. You don't like being exposed for your constant ad hominem, avoidance and lack of Scripture. You are so thin-skinned. You are always looking offense. It is impossible to engage with you.
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
I can't say that I have any idea what you're talking about. The start of your reply seems to have been a comment on some other post.
BTW
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Oh well. I thought it was amazingly clear. Perhaps you're thinking in the opposite direction of what I was saying?
Similar threads
