22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Naomi25]

That's ridiculous! Assigning Replacement Theology to someone when that is *exactly what they're espousing* is entirely legitimate, and is not an expression of malice! It is just a form of abbreviating an argument so that one doesn't have to repeatedly explain what points are being rejected.

And this is exactly where we run into arguments of the kind that lead to unedifying exchanges.
However, I will attempt to explain what I mean. You say 'assigning RT to someone when that is *exactly what they're espousing* is entirely legitimate'

Ok. But...what am I espousing?

You say that to hold to RT I must claim the church is the 'new Israel'. But do I? No.
What does the bible say?

Galatians 3:7–9
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Galatians 3:27–29
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Romans 11:17
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,

These verses are very, very clear. There is no "new". There is Israel, there is Abraham and the promises given to him, and to all the believing, faithful Jews after him. And then, after Pentecost, there are believing Gentiles, also called the church, who are 'grafted in' to Israel...into Abraham's promises...into being heirs.

In this 'time of the Gentiles', we do see the use of 'the church' being used more. We see this playing out today. When a Jew becomes a Christian...when he comes to Christ, we do not say "wow, he has become true Israel!" No, he has joined the church, Christ's bride. But according to Romans 11, he has been grafted back onto his own olive tree. A tree that gentile Christians were grafted onto when they trusted in Christ.

Now...as to the future of ethnic Israel...I'm well aware that not all "RT" folks share the same beliefs. However, assuming that someone who holds 'RT' automatically believes there is no future for ethnic Israel is incorrect. I believe Romans 11 points heavily in the direction of a turning back to God and his Messiah.

So, as you can see, my point in objecting to the label is manifold. Too often the label is thrown about and used as a blanket expression against those they see as bordering on antisemitic. Certainly those they think have dismissed anything future significance for ethnic Jews. And, in my mind, worse...as a way to disregard honest debate about what is clearly laid out in the verses above. They surely must garner some conversation and understanding that Christians and Jews share a space and therefore do not have "separate programs".

When I label someone an RT, one should recognize that most of the Church for most of NT history were RT! So it is hardly an insulting label. The Church Fathers, the Catholics, the Reformers--all of these basically saw the international Church as the New Israel, unless I'm oversimplifying? Correct me if I'm wrong?

Well...I think I just did. And, I'm not sure I have listened to or read any Amil or partial preterist author or speaker who didn't find the RT category given to them lacking in the extreme. The point always being, if you are going to find objection to something we hold, at least tackle it honestly, rather than building a strawman of the thing.
What you call Replacement Theology is, by and large, an objection to what Dispensationalist claim as 'separate programs'. And, again, the verses above demand attention and deep conversation.

WPM is quite right in viewing the perspective that the International Church are the true eternal People of God, whereas many in Israel are not! RT simply makes an abbreviated distinction between those who think Israel as a nation will return to its theocracy and those who don't believe that. Many of those who are against Israel's return to theocracy are against *any* sense of a Christian theocracy as well. But these are largely separatists, whereas the high churches flat out think they have replaced Israel as the true Kingdom of God.

I'm here simply to state my views on things I know something about and to learn more about things I don't know enough about. For me, it's all done in a friendly way, until those few who are pit bulls won't let go of their insulting rhetoric. Then the kid gloves come off.

I think Romans 11 points to a possible future return of many ethnic Jews to Christ. A grafting back onto the tree of faith, if you will. I'm not sure exactly how this will look, but they will become believers in Christ, as he is the only way. And, as Gal 3 tells us, in Christ, we are all one.

 

[Keraz]

I think Romans 11 points to a possible future return of many ethnic Jews to Christ.

Unfortunately; this belief won't happen. Over 20 Prophesies in the OT tell of the virtual demise of the house of Judah, and only a remnant will survive. Romans 9:27
That remnant has to be those who have become Christian NOW. When the Lord sends His fiery wrath, it will be too late.
Exactly as Zechariah 13:8-9 puts it; 2/3rds will die on that Day, then the rest will be refined by fire, Isaiah 6:11-13, and only a remnant 'stump' of them will join with their Christian brethren. As Jeremiah 12:14-16 prophesies.

People who believe in a Jewish redemption and restoration, have simply not read what God has told us thru His Prophets, that He intends to do.

 

[WPM]

CHAPTER CXX. -- CHRISTIANS WERE PROMISED TO ISAAC, JACOB, AND JUDAH.

"Observe, too, how the same promises are made to Isaac and to Jacob. For thus He speaks to Isaac: 'And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' And to Jacob: 'And in thee and in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed.' He says that neither to Esau nor to Reuben, nor to any other; only to those of whom the Christ should arise, according to the dispensation, through the Virgin Mary. But if you would consider the blessing of Judah, you would perceive what I say. For the seed is divided from Jacob, and comes down through Judah, and Phares, and Jesse, and David. And this was a symbol of the fact that some of your nation would be found children of Abraham, and found, too, in the lot of Christ.

CHAPTER CXXXVI -- THE JEWS, IN REJECTING CHRIST, REJECTED GOD WHO SENT HIM.

"For you see how He now addresses the people, saying a little before: 'As the grape shall be found in the cluster, and they will say, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it; so will I do for My servant's sake: for His sake I will not destroy them all.' And thereafter He adds: 'And I shall bring forth the seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah.' It is plain then that if He thus be angry with them, and threaten to leave very few of them, He promises to bring forth certain others, who shall dwell in His mountain.

Here is an indication that Justin agrees with Paul that there remains at present a Jewish remnant chosen by grace. And he grants that they do have a place of inheritance in the land of Israel, or more specifically, in Jerusalem. However, the Jewish Prophets made a much bigger deal out of Israel's restoration, inasmuch as they were writing to Israel, and rendering them a model of grace for the world. Justin missed this, I believe.

No, it is not. I find it particularly troubling that you carefully cut this quote short to give the impression that Justin supported your position. He did not! He opposed it. Your whole thesis is skewed and misleading. It fits in with how you twist the facts to suit your paradigm. That is your ongoing pattern when dealing with Scripture and history.

Chapter 119 -- Christians Are the Holy People Promised To Abraham. They Have Been Called Like Abraham.

Then I said again, "Would you suppose, sirs, that we could ever have understood these matters in the Scriptures, if we had not received grace to discern by the will of Him whose pleasure it was? in order that the saying of Moses might come to pass, 'They provoked me with strange [gods], they provoked me to anger with their abominations. They sacrificed to demons whom they knew not; new gods that came newly up, whom their fathers knew not. Thou hast forsaken God that begat thee, and forgotten God that brought thee up. And the Lord saw, and was jealous, and was provoked to anger by reason of the rage of His sons and daughters: and He said, I will turn My face away from them, and I will show what shall come on them at the last; for it is a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God, they have provoked Me to anger with their idols; and I will move them to jealousy with that which is not a nation, I will provoke them to anger with a foolish people. For a fire is kindled from Mine anger, and it shall burn to Hades. It shall consume the earth and her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains; I will heap mischief on them.' And after that Righteous One was put to death, we flourished as another people, and shot forth as new and prosperous corn; as the prophets said, 'And many nations shall betake themselves to the Lord in that day for a people: and they shall dwell in the midst of all the earth.' But we are not only a people, but also a holy people, as we have shown already. 'And they shall call them the holy people, redeemed by the Lord.' Therefore we are not a people to be despised, nor a barbarous race, nor such as the Carian and Phrygian nations; but God has even chosen us and He has become manifest to those who asked not after Him. 'Behold, I am God,' He says, 'to the nation which called not on My name.' For this is that nation which God of old promised to Abraham, when He declared that He would make him a father of many nations; not meaning, however, the Arabians, or Egyptians, or Idumaeans, since Ishmael became the father of a mighty nation, and so did Esau; and there is now a great multitude of Ammonites. Noah, moreover, was the father of Abraham, and in fact of all men; and others were the progenitors of others. What larger measure of grace, then, did Christ bestow on Abraham? This, namely, that He called him with His voice by the like calling, telling him to quit the land wherein he dwelt. And He has called all of us by that voice, and we have left already the way of living in which we used to spend our days, passing our time in evil after the fashions of the other inhabitants of the earth; and along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land, when we shall receive the inheritance for an endless eternity, being children of Abraham through the like faith. For as he believed the voice of God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, in like manner we having believed God's voice spoken by the apostles of Christ, and promulgated to us by the prophets, have renounced even to death all the things of the world. Accordingly, He promises to him a nation of similar faith, God-fearing, righteous, and delighting the Father; but it is not you, 'in whom is no faith.'​

Chapter 120. -- Christians Were Promised To Isaac, Jacob, And Judah.

"Observe, too, how the same promises are made to Isaac and to Jacob. For thus He speaks to Isaac: 'And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' And to Jacob: 'And in thee and in thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed.' He says that neither to Esau nor to Reuben, nor to any other; only to those of whom the Christ should arise, according to the dispensation, through the Virgin Mary. But if you would consider the blessing of Judah, you would perceive what I say. For the seed is divided from Jacob, and comes down through Judah, and Phares, and Jesse, and David. And this was a symbol of the fact that some of your nation would be found children of Abraham, and found, too, in the lot of Christ; but that others, who are indeed children of Abraham, would be like the sand on the sea-shore, barren and fruitless, much in quantity, and without number indeed, but bearing no fruit whatever, and only drinking the water of the sea. And a vast multitude in your nation are convicted of being of this kind, imbibing doctrines of bitterness and godlessness, but spurning the word of God. He speaks therefore in the passage relating to Judah: 'A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a ruler from his thighs, till that which is laid up for him come; and He shall be the expectation of the nations.' And it is plain that this was spoken not of Judah, but of Christ. For all we out of all nations do expect not Judah, but Jesus, who led your fathers out of Egypt. For the prophecy referred even to the advent of Christ: 'Till He come for whom this is laid up, and He shall be the expectation of nations.' Jesus came, therefore, as we have shown at length, and is expected again to appear above the clouds; whose name you profane, and labour hard to get it profaned over all the earth.
​

Justin identifies God's chosen as those from all nations (including Israel) who have come to faith in Christ and have experience His imputed righteousness in salvation. He limits this blessing to the believing remnant of natural Israel, saying, "that some of your nation would be found children of Abraham, and found, too, in the lot of Christ." Only born again Jews are considered the people of God. The majority of Israelis are considered rebels to God, saying, "others, who are indeed children of Abraham, would be like the sand on the sea-shore, barren and fruitless, much in quantity, and without number indeed, but bearing no fruit whatever, and only drinking the water of the sea. And a vast multitude in your nation are convicted of being of this kind, imbibing doctrines of bitterness and godlessness, but spurning the word of God."

The inheritance for believers is spiritual and heavenly, not natural and earthly. Jesus is the possession. He is the holy land. He is the inheritance.

 

[Randy Kluth]

And this is exactly where we run into arguments of the kind that lead to unedifying exchanges.
However, I will attempt to explain what I mean. You say 'assigning RT to someone when that is *exactly what they're espousing* is entirely legitimate'

Ok. But...what am I espousing?

You say that to hold to RT I must claim the church is the 'new Israel'. But do I? No.

Did I say you hold to RT? No. I don't even know what you believe, except that you try to take a middle ground, and thus prevent any blowback against those who wish their position to not receive its proper trademark.

Again, you pretend to take a middle "peace" position, and then take sides in favor of those who wish not to be labeled. As I'm intimating, there is no middle ground. Either you're for the position or you're not. The rest is all cover up, playing the game of making your position palatable and euphemistic.

What does the bible say?

Galatians 3:7–9
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Galatians 3:27–29
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Romans 11:17
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,

These verses are very, very clear. There is no "new". There is Israel, there is Abraham and the promises given to him, and to all the believing, faithful Jews after him. And then, after Pentecost, there are believing Gentiles, also called the church, who are 'grafted in' to Israel...into Abraham's promises...into being heirs.

What you're not saying, and what you're not making clear is that you're referring to where Paul used a metaphor of a tree, in which Gentiles are grafted into it to become part of Israel. What you're not saying is that in reality Paul is drawing this from the OT period, where the tree belonged to Israel, and Gentiles who were grafted on did become part of Israel through conversion.

But this was an example derived from the OT period which in the NT became for Paul a mere metaphor for how Gentiles obtain equal status with Israel, but *do not join membership in Israel.* Never does Paul say that Gentile nations become a metaphorical "Israel!" So you're way off course saying this is easy peasy. Nonsense! You take hold of a most controversial, difficult passage to make your point. Bad idea!

Everybody agrees that race does not get one into heaven, that being Jew or Gentile has nothing to do with the qualifications for entry into heaven. But neither does it say that ethnicity or nationality is unimportant, nor that distinctions between them do not remain. You *completely ignore this!*

In this 'time of the Gentiles', we do see the use of 'the church' being used more. We see this playing out today. When a Jew becomes a Christian...when he comes to Christ, we do not say "wow, he has become true Israel!" No, he has joined the church, Christ's bride. But according to Romans 11, he has been grafted back onto his own olive tree. A tree that gentile Christians were grafted onto when they trusted in Christ.

That is entirely untrue. It depends on your theology. When I see a Messianic Jew, I say, "Wow! This may be the beginning movement towards Israel's Christianization!" You don't believe it? I sent one of my very few Jewish friends, who was a Christian, back to Israel, or rather, encouraged him to make aliyah, for that very purpose! Of course I would've welcomed him coming into the Church to start with. But the excitement came with the notion that a *nation* can be reached--not just see an individual saved!

Now...as to the future of ethnic Israel...I'm well aware that not all "RT" folks share the same beliefs. However, assuming that someone who holds 'RT' automatically believes there is no future for ethnic Israel is incorrect. I believe Romans 11 points heavily in the direction of a turning back to God and his Messiah.

So what is your problem? You try to make peace with Amils, and then support them hiding behind their camouflage? I want people to come out and express what they believe or don't believe in biblical terms. If they don't want to believe in the thousand years of Rev 20, I want them to admit it. I don't want them to pretend it's so obviously symbolic that only fools actually believe what is said!

I don't want them to pretend there is nothing behind the Millennium in the form of "corroboration." They want to look like those who support the Jewish race as much as any other while completely denying they are of a kind that will repent and bring their nation to Christianity. But being RT they are exposed as closet anti-Semites, to some extent, inasmuch as they don't believe those nasty antiChristian Jews are able to pull off a Christian revival!

So, as you can see, my point in objecting to the label is manifold. Too often the label is thrown about and used as a blanket expression against those they see as bordering on antisemitic. Certainly those they think have dismissed anything future significance for ethnic Jews. And, in my mind, worse...as a way to disregard honest debate about what is clearly laid out in the verses above. They surely must garner some conversation and understanding that Christians and Jews share a space and therefore do not have "separate programs".

What you call Replacement Theology is, by and large, an objection to what Dispensationalist claim as 'separate programs'. And, again, the verses above demand attention and deep conversation.

Another absurdity. I'm not even Dispensationalist, and was raised in an Amil environment from birth. I have absolutely zero hostility to RT adherents, and yet I emotionally reject the principle that Israel cannot be restored as a Christian nation, and will not be frightened into not calling it what it is.

Amil has zero to do with Dispensationalism, because it began many centuries before it. And RT was birthed in the early Church, including among Premillennialists, but taken to a new level by Amillennialists who wanted to associate Premillennialists with Cerinthus.

I think Romans 11 points to a possible future return of many ethnic Jews to Christ. A grafting back onto the tree of faith, if you will. I'm not sure exactly how this will look, but they will become believers in Christ, as he is the only way. And, as Gal 3 tells us, in Christ, we are all one.

Nice friendly talk. I hope you can handle my being frank about this? I really have no axe to grind except to not be persuaded to open the door to propagandists.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I would add this, that those who fight against the idea of nations coming to Christ is what Replacement Theology is all about *today.* Earlier in history, it was more anti-Semitic in the sense that only the *Jewish nation* was denied the possibility of becoming a Christian nation, because apparently it was thought that they had had their chance?

Those who initially fought against the idea of the Jews becoming a "nation of God" once again were the same ones who promoted the Roman Empire as a "Christian Empire." But today, the ones who continue to carry the RT flag are separatists who oppose the idea that any nation or empire can call itself "Christian." Does anybody see the irony in this?

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, it is not. I find it particularly troubling that you carefully cut this quote short to give the impression that Justin supported your position. He did not! He opposed it. Your whole thesis is skewed and misleading. It fits in with how you twist the facts to suit your paradigm. That is your ongoing pattern when dealing with Scripture and history.

You are so embedded in your Amil obsession that you cannot see that I am *not* using JM to bolster my own position!

​

Justin identifies God's chosen as those from all nations (including Israel) who have come to faith in Christ and have experience His imputed righteousness in salvation. He limits this blessing to the believing remnant of natural Israel, saying, "that some of your nation would be found children of Abraham, and found, too, in the lot of Christ." Only born again Jews are considered the people of God. The majority of Israelis are considered rebels to God, saying, "others, who are indeed children of Abraham, would be like the sand on the sea-shore, barren and fruitless, much in quantity, and without number indeed, but bearing no fruit whatever, and only drinking the water of the sea. And a vast multitude in your nation are convicted of being of this kind, imbibing doctrines of bitterness and godlessness, but spurning the word of God."

I agree, and I did not cut my quotes short to censor what JM was saying, but only to focus on the point that he did not deny Jews a place in their own land. They were a remnant chosen by grace, as taken from the very passage where Paul promised their ultimate national restoration. JM didn't see it in such glorious terms as a national revival, but the point was that he did see it in seminal form, as a remnant inheriting their land and country.

Otherwise, we agree. Your constant accusation and questioning my motives shows the hostile spirit in you, brother. And I strongly suggest you leave judgment of this kind to God. It is not characteristic of Christians to think the worst of their brothers. If you doubt my motives, why don't you ask first, and accuse when I prove to be obstinate?

 

[WPM]

I would add this, that those who fight against the idea of nations coming to Christ is what Replacement Theology is all about. Those who initially fought against the idea of the Jews becoming a "nation of God" once again were the same ones who promoted the Roman Empire as a "Christian Empire." But today, the ones who continue to carry the RT flag are separatists who oppose the idea that any nation or empire can call itself "Christian." Does anybody see the irony in this?

This debate has been already won. You admitted the source of your argument was secular sources. I asked you:

Are you saying that "Russia" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? Are you saying that "Germany" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? Are you saying that "the US" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? Are you saying "the British Commonwealth" today is a Christian empire ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will?

You replied:

I've identified them, and you pretend I haven't. Go look the term "Christian nation" up in an encyclopedia, dictionary, or on the internet. Have fun with words that don't mean anything!

That sums up where you get your info. Where is this in the Bible? Or, does that not matter anymore?

If I give you an answer from Webster's or from a standard Encyclopedia, you will just write it off as "non-Christian." Forget the fact that you use language that is religiously-neutral. We have to speak using words that mean the same thing, or we get all confused.

Who cares what your opinion is, or what a secular dictionary says. This is getting so old. Where does the NT use "Christian” nominally as meaning the citizens of a "Christian State" that can be Christian in name only or a genuine Christian?

Truth isn't a matter of two people quoting Scriptures verses back and forth to one another. Get real. You have to use non-Scripture to even explain Scriptures.

Thanks for admitting your beliefs are extra-biblical. You are only conceding what we have all known for years. You have been winging it!

 

[WPM]

Your constant accusation and questioning my motives shows the hostile spirit in you, brother. And I strongly suggest you leave judgment of this kind to God. It is not characteristic of Christians to think the worst of their brothers. If you doubt my motives, why don't you ask first, and accuse when I prove to be obstinate?

You're the last person that I'm going to take lectures from on this subject. You are the master of Ad Hominem.

your idol, Amillennialism.

Amil is his idol, put quite simply. Yes, that's my opinion

Why else would you make this an idol?

You can sometimes tell that someone is off track and not aligned with the word of God. Their rage is evidence of that fact. Their obsessive idolization of their doctrines indicate that somewhere along the way they've gotten off track, gotten lost, and now find themselves groping in the dark filled with anger and accusation. Such are those who rail against Premillennialists

you must be spiritually blind

I'm arguing with someone who has no sense of discernment!

you've proven yourself to be incorrigible, unteachable, and narcissistic. You seem to be looking for followers, for confirmation that you're right. Why else would you make this an idol?

I lose interest in reading the rest of your trash talk.

For you Eternal Life seems to be a concept, a doctrine, rather than a life experience

 

[Randy Kluth]

This debate has been already won.

I just editted and rewrote the post you responded to, to make the irony more clear. It was an *irony* I was expressing--not a debate!

You admitted the source of your argument was secular sources. I asked you:

Are you saying that "Russia" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? Are you saying that "Germany" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? Are you saying that "the US" today is a Christian country ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will? Are you saying "the British Commonwealth" today is a Christian empire ruled by a Christian leader who is hearing from God and implementing His will?

You replied:

That sums up where you get your info. Where is this in the Bible? Or, does that not matter anymore?

Who cares what your opinion is, or what a secular dictionary says. This is getting so old. Where does the NT use "Christian” nominally as meaning the citizens of a "Christian State" that can be Christian in name only or a genuine Christian?

Thanks for admitting your beliefs are extra-biblical. You are only conceding what we have all known for years. You have been winging it!

How much of what you just said is "extra-biblical," to show the insane nature of your accusation and deflection? Everything outside of quoting the Bible itself is, according to your definition, "extra-biblical!" On the other hand, everything can be defined as "biblical" in the sense that the Bible is the word of God and covers every facet of our existence, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the internet! What a joke!

I answered your questions. You must be from a Separatist tradition, denying that Christian nations have ever existed in a legitimate way. You are anti-State, which in itself is unbiblical. We are to honor and to acknowledge the governments that rule over us. But you slander Christian governments by delegitimizing them.

You completely deflect my claim that there have been historical Christian governments and states by asking how well they behave *today!* ;) This is incredibly poor debating. Sorry, I can accept that Separatists are for the separation of church and state, but arguing that no Christian State today is perfectly Christian is a complete failure to acknowledge what terms mean. Unless you want to create your own unique "biblical language" I suggest you use words that everybody uses. And they will be found in dictionaries, in encyclopedias, and on the internet. :)

 

[Randy Kluth]

You're the last person that I'm going to take lectures from on this subject. You are the master of Ad Hominem.

Yes, I play hardball with those who are obstinate, and will not meet me halfway, who are only looking for followers, but submit to nobody else. It's too bad because I love debate with genuine brothers who live out their Christianity. I can handle some emotional blowback, and I learn from those episodes. But to constantly be on the attack, as you are, indicates a serious problem exists in you. And it is important for you to recognize it.....if possible.

I don't know you, and I don't know your tradition. But I do run into brothers and sisters like you once in awhile, and I *know* there is something bothering them that they have not dealt with, and have allowed to grow up in them. The Bible calls it "the root of bitterness."

As a brother I'd love to see you change your ways. We could have much more friendly debates. I respect you and your studies, your intelligence, and even your determination--just not your character. And a friend would "wound you" to set you on a course that betters yourself.

 

[WPM]

I just editted and rewrote the post you responded to, to make the irony more clear. It was an *irony* I was expressing--not a debate!



How much of what you just said is "extra-biblical," to show the insane nature of your accusation and deflection? Everything outside of quoting the Bible itself is, according to your definition, "extra-biblical!" On the other hand, everything can be defined as "biblical" in the sense that the Bible is the word of God and covers every facet of our existence, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the internet! What a joke!

I answered your questions. You must be from a Separatist tradition, denying that Christian nations have ever existed in a legitimate way. You are anti-State, which in itself is unbiblical. We are to honor and to acknowledge the governments that rule over us. But you slander Christian governments by delegitimizing them.

You completely deflect my claim that there have been historical Christian governments and states by asking how well they behave *today!* ;) This is incredibly poor debating. Sorry, I can accept that Separatists are for the separation of church and state, but arguing that no Christian State today is perfectly Christian is a complete failure to acknowledge what terms mean. Unless you want to create your own unique "biblical language" I suggest you use words that everybody uses. And they will be found in dictionaries, in encyclopedias, and on the internet. :)

You have no biblical basis for your claim of Christian theocracies. You have nothing. It's a figment of your imagination. To achieve your theory, you must redefine what Christian actually means. However, biblically you do not have a foot to stand on. That is why you must depend on secular encyclopedias, dictionaries, and the internet for your arguments.

 

[WPM]

Yes, I play hardball with those who are obstinate, and will not meet me halfway, who are only looking for followers, but submit to nobody else. It's too bad because I love debate with genuine brothers who live out their Christianity. I can handle some emotional blowback, and I learn from those episodes. But to constantly be on the attack, as you are, indicates a serious problem exists in you. And it is important for you to recognize it.....if possible.

I don't know you, and I don't know your tradition. But I do run into brothers and sisters like you once in awhile, and I *know* there is something bothering them that they have not dealt with, and have allowed to grow up in them. The Bible calls it "the root of bitterness."

As a brother I'd love to see you change your ways. We could have much more friendly debates. I respect you and your studies, your intelligence, and even your determination--just not your character. And a friend would "wound you" to set you on a course that betters yourself.

Please do not accuse anyone on this board of having a root of bitterness when your venom is being poured out in such an extreme manner. You are clearly a very bitter and frustrated figure.

your idol, Amillennialism.

Amil is his idol, put quite simply. Yes, that's my opinion

Why else would you make this an idol?

You can sometimes tell that someone is off track and not aligned with the word of God. Their rage is evidence of that fact. Their obsessive idolization of their doctrines indicate that somewhere along the way they've gotten off track, gotten lost, and now find themselves groping in the dark filled with anger and accusation. Such are those who rail against Premillennialists

you must be spiritually blind

I'm arguing with someone who has no sense of discernment!

you've proven yourself to be incorrigible, unteachable, and narcissistic. You seem to be looking for followers, for confirmation that you're right. Why else would you make this an idol?

I lose interest in reading the rest of your trash talk.

For you Eternal Life seems to be a concept, a doctrine, rather than a life experience

 

[Truth7t7]

I would add this, that those who fight against the idea of nations coming to Christ is what Replacement Theology is all about *today.* Earlier in history, it was more anti-Semitic in the sense that only the *Jewish nation* was denied the possibility of becoming a Christian nation, because apparently it was thought that they had had their chance?

Those who initially fought against the idea of the Jews becoming a "nation of God" once again were the same ones who promoted the Roman Empire as a "Christian Empire." But today, the ones who continue to carry the RT flag are separatists who oppose the idea that any nation or empire can call itself "Christian." Does anybody see the irony in this?

Your claims on replacement theology and Israel becoming a Christian Nation are Randt's dreams and fantasy found no place in scripture

 

[Truth7t7]

Please do not accuse anyone on this board of having a root of bitterness when your venom is being poured out in such an extreme manner. You are clearly a very bitter and frustrated figure.

You have been presenting biblical truth for years to this poster, and his response is rejection

Of course your presentation on the ECF's is rock solid, he isn't going to agree, he has chosen his Idol called Zionism over biblical truth, haven't you figured this out yet?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Please do not accuse anyone on this board of having a root of bitterness when your venom is being poured out in such an extreme manner. You are clearly a very bitter and frustrated figure.

Nope. Not bitter. Willing to be friends and brothers today. Who is continuing the vitriol? You!

You can begin better relations *today!* A good beginning would be to withdraw your accusation that modern Premils get their material from ancient heretics.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You have been presenting biblical truth for years to this poster, and his response is rejection

Of course your presentation on the ECF's is rock solid, he isn't going to agree, he has chosen his Idol called Zionism over biblical truth, haven't you figured this out yet?

Haven't you figured out yet that WPM is a "man on a mission?" That mission is not the Gospel Mission. It is the Amil Mission. Why do I say that--because I'm bitter, angry, and frustrated? No, it's because he puts doctrine above brotherly love. And quite frankly, you do too.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You have no biblical basis for your claim of Christian theocracies. You have nothing.

"You have nothing" must be your favorite comeback? What it really means is, You think you are above all criticism. Anything that challenges your views are in effect "nothing!"

It's a figment of your imagination.

I clearly informed you that the one using the term "theocracy" is, in this context, referring to "Christian nations." And you deny "Christian nations" even exist, when the term is used everywhere for nations that have subscribed to Christian theology and morality. You are living on another planet when you do this. I'm turning the tables on your false claim that "Christian nations," or "theocracies" in this regard, are a "figment of my imagination." ;)

From Wikipedia:
A Christian state is a country that recognizes a form of Christianity as its official religion and often has a state church (also called an established church),[1] which is a Christian denomination that supports the government and is supported by the government. HERE

Theocracy is a form of government in which one or more deities of some type are recognized as supreme ruling authorities, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries who manage the day-to-day affairs of the government. HERE

 

[Keraz]

God’s Holy People in the Last Days:

Isaiah 62:1-12... ..They will be called the holy people; the Redeemed of the Lord.

Daniel 8:23-26 In the last days, when sin is most prevalent, a powerful leader will arise. He will succeed in whatever he does, and will take control of the mighty nations and of God’s holy people. By cunning and deceit, his plans will come about and cause great harm to many when they least expect it. He will challenge even the Prince of Princes, but then will be broken, but not by human hand.
This prophecy tells of events to happen in the distant future. [Distant to Daniel]


Daniel 7:23-25 The explanation given is: There will be a 4th kingdom, one that will encompass the whole earth. Initially ten rulers will govern it, but another leader will take over all this kingdom. He will defy the Most High God and will conquer the holy ones of God.

Revelation 13:7 The ‘beast’ is allowed to wage war on God’s people and to defeat them…. Zechariah 14:1-2

Daniel 11:32 By plausible promises he will win over those who will violate the Covenant, but some will resolutely keep their faith.

The Covenant here, is the one between God and His people, for their protection.

The treaty, will be the 7 year peace agreement of Daniel 9:27, between the Leader of the One World Govt, and the leaders of the Christian nation of Beulah. It will be broken by the leader of the OWG after the first 3 1/2 years. Daniel 11:31


These Bible prophesies are proof that God’s holy people, His chosen elect people; all those true born again Christian believers; the One people of God, Ephesians 4:4-6, are not removed from the earth, as some would like to think, but are present in the holy Land during the last few years of this age.

As we see in Daniel 11:32 and in Zechariah 14:2, they divide into two groups, one remaining in the holy Land and the other goes away. Revelation 12:6-17 again shows these two groups; the faithful ones who refused the peace treaty with the leader of the World Govt, taken to a place of safety and those who did agree; Isaiah 28:14-15, must remain. Revelation 12:17

The fact of all the righteous Christians living in all of the Holy Land, before the Return of Jesus, is well prophesied in all of the Bible. Many do not see it because of false teachings and not comprehending the truth of how Christians are now to be the recipient’s of the promises of God, given initially to ethnic Israel, but now available to all true believers. 2 Corinthians 1:20

We Christians look forward to being at last; the people God has always wanted in His holy Land.

That is our promise and our great privilege; to be alive to participate at this critical time of mankind’s history.

 

[WPM]

You are so embedded in your Amil obsession that you cannot see that I am *not* using JM to bolster my own position!

​

I agree, and I did not cut my quotes short to censor what JM was saying, but only to focus on the point that he did not deny Jews a place in their own land. They were a remnant chosen by grace, as taken from the very passage where Paul promised their ultimate national restoration. JM didn't see it in such glorious terms as a national revival, but the point was that he did see it in seminal form, as a remnant inheriting their land and country.

Otherwise, we agree. Your constant accusation and questioning my motives shows the hostile spirit in you, brother. And I strongly suggest you leave judgment of this kind to God. It is not characteristic of Christians to think the worst of their brothers. If you doubt my motives, why don't you ask first, and accuse when I prove to be obstinate?

Ok. I must give you the benefit of the doubt. I apologize if I misrepresented your motives.

 

[WPM]

"You have nothing" must be your favorite comeback? What it really means is, You think you are above all criticism. Anything that challenges your views are in effect "nothing!"



I clearly informed you that the one using the term "theocracy" is, in this context, referring to "Christian nations." And you deny "Christian nations" even exist, when the term is used everywhere for nations that have subscribed to Christian theology and morality. You are living on another planet when you do this. I'm turning the tables on your false claim that "Christian nations," or "theocracies" in this regard, are a "figment of my imagination." ;)

From Wikipedia:
A Christian state is a country that recognizes a form of Christianity as its official religion and often has a state church (also called an established church),[1] which is a Christian denomination that supports the government and is supported by the government. HERE

Theocracy is a form of government in which one or more deities of some type are recognized as supreme ruling authorities, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries who manage the day-to-day affairs of the government. HERE

I'm not exaggerating, I was actually going to joke, the next thing is, you are going to do is go to Wikipedia for justification for your theology. And guess what? You did!

It does not matter one iota what the world or Wikipedia believes "Christian" means. It is a sad indictment on your position that you have to go there in order to receive your justification. The fact is, our only argument on spiritual matters is Scripture. For that we need to go to the New Testament to establish what the word "Christian" actually means. Of course, this word only applies to the redeemed of Christ. The unregenerate are not Christians in God's eyes in any shape or form.