Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
The Scriptures declare that God blessed Abraham by creating for him a *nation.* Your denial of that reality is not Scriptural.
22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine
- 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!
- Status
The Scriptures declare that God blessed Abraham by creating for him a *nation.* Your denial of that reality is not Scriptural.
You need to address the statement you previously made that you are yet to biblically justify:
I have rebutted this above, yet you are yet to address the Scriptures I presented that forbid your claims. You are going to have to stop fighting the NT Scriptures.
Romans 9:6-13 explains how God’s people and the seed of promise are not a natural but a spiritual seed. In his thesis on the promised seed, we find Jacob and us the believing Gentiles. He affirms: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, 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. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
God’s people are not a physical race but a spiritual race. Paul makes a clear contrast between those who are “the children of the flesh” and those who are “the children of promise.” He shows us that these are two different diverse peoples. In doing this he is attempting to illustrate the impotence of the natural and the potency of the spiritual. He shows that “the children of the flesh” are not “the children of God,” but “the children of the promise.”
Paul asks in Galatians 4:21-31: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”
The whole discourse here focuses in on identifying what is of God and what is not, especially in regard to Abraham’s descendants. The dividing factor comes down to: men are either “born after the flesh” or “born after the Spirit.” This has always been the case from the beginning. Race or physical birthright was never the determining feature when it came to blessing. It was instead spiritual vitality. After all, both of these boys were biological children of Abraham. But the difference between them was that Isaac was a child of promise and Ishmael was not. Those who are merely born naturally (regardless of their race), or who have only experienced one birth, are of the devil, those who have experienced a second birth – a spiritual conversion, belong to God. The writer demonstrates how natural ancestry means nothing, even if your blood father was Abraham himself.
Last edited:
There is no special favor for ethnic Christ-rejecting apostate Israel since the cross. Quite the opposite. They are under the wrath of God! The kingdom has been removed from them. God has cursed the natural Israeli fig tree and terminated the ancient old covenant Israeli theocracy. But true Israel (Christ-accepting Israel - God's true elect), the faithful remnant, have been expanded to embrace believers in all nations today. God now works through this spiritual Israeli organism to manifest His name throughout the earth. These are the true circumcision. These are the children if Abraham. These are they that reside in true Zion.
Salvation has never been based on nationality. Your whole claims on “Christians nations” has not been proved. You have not been able to identify one single Christian theocracy since the cross. You do not seem to know what a theocracy is. A theocracy is a nation submitted to God that is under the direct governance of God. The Roman Empire was never a theocracy. Under Constantine, it embraced a sympathy toward Christianity. But it was never a Christian theocracy.
The Church is, in fact, a spiritual nation that includes all nationalities that has its passport stamped in heaven that is under the direct governance of Christ (its head). This Church would never be based upon or restricted to one nationality, color or geographical location – it is international and trans-national, incorporating all the peoples of the world.
In His earthly ministry, and knowing what was coming, Christ asked the religious Jewish leaders, “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” (Matthew 21 42-44).
The kingdom has been taken from Israel as a nation and given to another nation. Who is that nation? It is the largely Gentile New Testament Church comprised of all believers (both Jew and Gentile).
On the day after His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, many of the citizens of Jerusalem heralded Him, saying, “Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest” (Mark 11:9-11).
But the text continues in Mark 11:13-14, “seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.”
When Christ cursed the fig tree He was demonstrating the removing of the exclusive theocratic favor of God from the physical nation of Israel, whereas, the olive tree will exist forever. Years of abusing God’s favor, years of successive misrule among the national judges and kings, and the spiritual leaders, especially among the priests, and ongoing idolatry and stubborn rebellion among the people, finally brought the theocratic reign to an end. Never again will God’s favor be restricted to a genetic temporal earthly nation, but rather to a spiritual eternal heavenly nation.
In Matthew 23, we see Christ condemning the Jews rejection of Himself (and His impending atonement). He thus pronounced eight ‘woes’ upon them, and declared, “ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
He continued, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (the consummation, as Daniel predicted).”
As we moved from the old covenant to the new covenant the whole ethnic bias towards Israel was removed, so was the unique theocratic system of government that existed within that land (Matthew 21:42-43, Luke 13:5-9, 28-29, 34-35). No longer would race be a special privilege in regard to election. All men would now approach God equally on the grounds of the blood of Jesus. Christ widened out the Gospel opportunity to all nations He removed the natural ethnic bias of the Gospel that strongly inclined towards natural Israelites and drew countless millions of Gentiles into that special chosen company.
Your NT support for a land promise was this:
This passage actually refutes your argument. It shows that the Lord Jesus Christ is actually the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. Under the new covenant, Christ is the promised land. He is our inheritance. He is our rest.
There is no land promise whatsoever in this passage. Anyway, the land promise was not part of the Law. I'm not sure where you got that. You are clearly pulling at straws here. The old covenant was only temporarily put in place until the seed of Abraham (Christ) would come and confirm the new covenant.
God gave Moses the Ten Commandments (the law of God) in Exodus 20:1–17, as a revelation of His holy expectation. It was a list of ‘dos and don’ts’ and is commonly known as the moral law. This moral law was a revelation of God’s holy mind in regard to righteousness and holy standards.
Galatians 3:19: "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."
The Bible mentions nowhere that the old covenant will ever be established again. When Jesus came, the old covenant had served its purpose and the new covenant replaced it.
Romans 10:4 says: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Jesus is “the end of the law.” He is the object, scope and final cause. He is the proposed and intended end. Romans 8:3-4 says: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
Last edited:
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Okay, I looked.
Listen Paul,
You laid out 22 reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine. I took the time to answer all 22 very early in this thread. Your reasons were/are not convincing because your arguments lack neutrality and fairness.
In addition, your "reasons" fail to address what the Premillennial doctrine actually teaches; instead, some of the arguments are Amillennial rebuttals disguised as Premillennial teaching, suggesting that Premillennialism teaches something that it actually doesn't teach. Other arguments distort the Premillennial doctrine to an extreme version of itself and then argue against the extreme version.
So let's cut the crap.
You have not addressed the issues. All you've done is skipped around them. Tell me which of those 22 reasons are wrong. Then tell me why.
Explain how the nation of 1 Peter 2:9, God's People of Faith and Obedience who follow Abraham's footsteps of faith and obedience and are heirs of his promises (Galatians 3:29); is not a nation.
Your denial of that reality is not Scriptural.
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I've answered every one of his points, as well. And I did this years ago on a previous forum. He's not interested in responses, because instead of thanking me for responding he usually says something like, "You have nothing." He's a man on a mission.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
The argument was not about whether Christ is our rest or not. It is about whether Christ, becoming our rest, enabled Israel and the nations to obtain promises God made to them.
Did Christ become our rest for nothing? Did he become our rest only so that we could live forever? No, there is much more to what God promised we could have. We just couldn't do it without Christ. He is our rest because he did the work. But he did the work so that we could have things--things that God specifically promised both Israel and the nations, including Israel's land inheritance.
You continually divert to an argument against a revival of OT practices. I've *never* advocated for a return of the Mosaic Law! So stop already! These are promises God made in the OT, but not conditioned on OT Law.
Gal 3. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
This argument is never recognized by you, and so you repeat ad infinitum. Once again, yes Abraham's children, both natural and spiritual, promised to Abraham, are those with faith. My argument is that these are called even before they came into existence, and even before many of them believed. Your argument that they are not "Abraham's promised children" because they are not yet Christians is bogus. You obviously do not believe in predestination. I do. I believe what God promised Abraham *before it was fulfilled* must come to pass!
I've already proven what theocracies are and that God promised them to Abraham. He promised Abraham *nations of faith,* which are what theocracies are. Israel was the initial model of this, and it was in fact a theocracy. Christian nations, whose laws reflect the laws of Christ, are in fact theocracies. You may disagree because you have your own chosen definition of "theocracy," but this is how I'm defining it, and it is legitimate.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
The collection of God's People across every nation, is a nation.
Not a geopolitical nation.
A holy nation.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
No, a "collection" of groups of nationalities are just a "collection"--not a nation. You are basing that idea on a single verse in the Bible that you are obviously misinterpreting. Peter referred to the Israeli nation, and not to a "collection" of national minorities.
Where doe it teach this in the NT? You seem to make your theology up as you go. Where do you get this from?
But that passage you mentioned refers to the Law.
You are still yet to give me any Scriptures in the New Testament, that relate to the new covenant period, which we are in, that teach land promises to ethnic Israel. The reason is, it is not there. The fact is, we have moved from the Old Testament period to the New Testament period. The Old Testament was looking forward to the coming Messiah. The New Testament reveals His arrival and precious work on man’s behalf. We see a significant move:
· From the shadow and type to the substance and reality
· From the imperfect to the perfect
· From the inadequate to the all-sufficient.
· From the physical to the spiritual
· From the external to the internal
· From the natural to the supernatural
· From the temporary to the eternal
· From the earthly to the heavenly
· From the national to the international
· From the conditional to the unconditional
These two economies couldn’t be more diverse. The improvement is obvious, substantial and indisputable. The repercussions are even greater for mankind. What was long-anticipated by the old covenant prophets has now wonderfully arrived. The appearance of Israel’s Messiah was the pivotal moment in history and the catalyst for a colossal transformative change.
There is not a hint that Peter is referring to the Israeli nation.
He is referring to the holy nation of the Church, as described in the antecedent verse of 1 Peter 2:5.
I didn't say it. Jesus said it. Paul the apostle said it. The New Testament writers said. Your conflict is with them not with Amillennialists. You cannot even address the scriptural passages that I present, because they expose your claims.
The first time we encounter the whole tension between the natural children of Abraham and true spiritual children of Abraham in the New Testament comes in Matthew 3. There, John the Baptist is approached by the religious Pharisees and Sadducees, looking to be baptized. As usual, the religious Jews came flaunting their racial and religious credentials.
Matthew 3:7–11 records: “when he (John) saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”
John the Baptist came on the scene after Israel had been in gross apostasy for many hundreds of years. Apostate Israel had become smug in their illustrious heritage and had put their trust in their racial status rather than God. This created a superiority spirit. The prophet of God was not ignorant of the arrogant mindset and destructive influence of the Jewish leaders of his day. John came with a strong message of rebuke to these religious pretenders – instructing them to turn from their wicked ways and turn back to God. In doing so, he immediately and directly challenged their ethnic and pious pride, showing them that favor with God only came through an intimate personal relationship with Him.
In his rebuke, John identified who and what constituted a true descendent of Abraham. He declared: “begin not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father.” Such was the demise of this formerly blessed people that he warned the religious leaders against claiming Abraham as their father – meaning, they were not automatically true sons of Abraham through natural birth. He explained that natural heritage means absolutely nothing to God. This would have strongly cut across these religious protagonists who wore their ethnic Abrahamic badge with particular pride and put their confidence in it for favor with God. This same affliction impairs them to this day.
Jesus similarly admonished these same religious imposters in Luke 13:3: “except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
Repentance is the constant theme of Scripture and the heart-beat of Gospel preaching when dealing with the unsaved. The fact that God’s messengers in the New Testament were constantly urging the religious Jews to repent shows us their impoverished spiritual state. Basically: they knew God in their head, but, alas, not in their heart. That is why Jesus said of these religious hypocrites in Matthew 15:8: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.”
They had religion, but no real relationship. They had a head-knowledge but no heart knowledge. They were all outward but no inward. They professed but did not possess.
Our Savior is also seen challenging the Jewish leaders of His day, in John 8:32, saying, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
To which they responded, “We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (v 33).
Jesus replied, “I know that ye are Abraham's seed (obviously speaking naturally); but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father” (vv 37-38).
The Jews then boasted, “Abraham is our father” (v39).
Christ responds to this misguided boast of these hypocrites, saying, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant [or slave] of sin. And the servant [or slave] abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father” (John 8:34-38).
There is such a battle going on here between the natural and the spiritual. The unbelieving religious Jews are pushing their genetic pedigree here as proof of their connection to Abraham, whereas Christ is trying to show them a spiritual truth – showing them that Israel’s inheritance is not secured by native heritage but rather by spiritual means What Jesus was basically saying is: ‘you might be a physical descendent of Abraham and yet not qualify to be a son or a child of God. What then would your ethnic DNA matter?’ He is showing them that faith matters!
Christ responded to the ignorance of the Jewish leaders: “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (vv 39-44).
Our Savior hits these religious imposters clean between the eyes with marksman’s accuracy and sobering truth. Firstly, He informed them that they had no right to consider themselves as “Abraham's children.” He advanced: “If ye were Abraham's children” speaking in a spiritual sense, and “If God were your Father” also speaking spiritually, “ye would love me.” What He was telling them was: if you truly were Abraham’s children then your life and conduct would be like him and his. He was telling them that behavior reveals identity. He goes even further, He informs them that the evidence of them being true children of Abraham is demonstrated by them loving Him. This is the litmus test of who is a true child of Abraham and what it is to be part of God’s chosen people.
Secondly, He identifies their true father as Satan. This would have been explosive and offensive to these proud religiously Jewish leaders. Jesus demonstrated that favor with Him didn’t come through natural pedigree but rather spiritual pedigree. Those Jews who rejected God’s offer of salvation were not under blessing but under a curse. They were not in any way considered as God’s chosen people. They were children of the devil and they were heading to hell.
No, you have not. Quite the opposite! The only thing you have proved is the absurdity of your claims. You are unable to identify one single Christian nation today. Your definition of Christian and the rest of ours are completely different. God's Word only recognizes as one type of Christian – a born-again Christian. All the rest are imposters.
Last edited:
National Israel has lost its favored status among the nations as God’s chosen people. She is no longer God’s ambassador in a heathen world. She is no longer God’s voice of righteousness to mankind. She is no longer the instrument that God uses to manifest His glory on planet earth. Through rejecting God’s Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, she moved from the blessing of God to the wrath of God. But out of natural Israel God brought a spiritual remnant who knew Him and had real intimacy with Him. He sent them out with a spiritual message of hope to the Gentile nations. These He considered as true Israel. They became His representatives and His mouthpiece to a fallen world. That favored position belongs exclusively to those within Judaism and the Gentile nations who embrace the Messiah Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Paul continually differentiates between the Israelite according to “the flesh” and Israelite according to “the Spirit.” He frequently qualifies his use of Israeli or Jewish labels, showing that there is both a natural and a spiritual understanding in these designations.
1 Corinthians 10:18 speaks of, “Israel after the flesh.” In Romans 9:3 he describes the natural Jew as “my kinsmen according to the flesh” and in Romans 9:4-5 describes them as “Israelites ... as concerning the flesh.”
Romans 4:1 also remarks: “Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh.” Ephesians 2:11: “that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands.” After talking throughout the chapter about physical Israel, Paul describes natural Israel as: “them which are my flesh” (Romans 11:14).
Acts 13:26 talks about “children of the stock (genos or genealogy) of Abraham” and Philippians 3:5 those “of the stock (genos) of Israel.” The Bible is here speaking in a natural sense. The Greek word genos basically means kindred or offspring.
Acts 14:2 speaks about “the unbelieving Jews” or in Acts 17:5 “the Jews which believed not.”
Romans 9:6-8 confirms this, saying, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, 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.”
God’s people are not a physical race but a spiritual race.
One of the most misinterpreted passages by Premils is Romans 11:7. It states, “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
No you have not. YOu just say it is the first resurrection of Jesus but fail to answer what is the rest of the passage describing?
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Stop being dishonest. I havve answered all or nearly all questions you have posed. But I still await your more than "Its just Jesus being spoken here" as to what is being described.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
