Another Premillennial absurdity

[Spiritual Israelite]

Amills here are poor examples of how Christians should discuss differences. They band together to justify ungodly attacks on those who don't agree with them. If you want to have "Christian" discussions, try to keep things less "personal?" That is what I'm "uninterested" in--a constant barrage of negativity, insult, and carnality.

I hasten to say I'm not speaking of *all* Amills, who may be here. I only refer to a certain number who "have each other's backs," who piggyback off of each others' statements, and regularly "cheerlead" for the "home team." This shows no originality--just party spirit, which is, in my view, carnal.

Randy, do me a favor. Look at yourself in the mirror and then read post #371. Thanks.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not interested in the "personal commentary." These 3 groups have always existed. I don't require a Bible verse to prove the sun will go down at night and will come up in the morning. Neither do I need a Bible verse to prove that right now in the world these 3 classes of people presently exist, those who have accepted the Gospel, those who have rejected the Gospel, and those to whom we're commissioned to preach the Gospel.

I assume these conditions exist all the way until the end of the age, until the very last day of the age. Jesus said :

Matt 10.23 Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Now, I don't believe this actually refers to the 2nd Coming, but regardless, there is a principle that not everyone will be adequately prepared for Christ's judgment against society.

I don't need to prove that there are Christians up until the end of the age, when they will be glorified and rewarded. And I don't need to prove that the wicked will reject Christ all the way up until the last day of the age, since that is when Antichrist is judged.

So, when Jesus said "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30), He obviously was referring to two groups there with one being those who are with Him and the other being those who are against Him. Who exactly are those who are neither with Him nor against Him? How is that even possible? He indicated that not being with Him automatically made someone against Him, so I'm not seeing any room for a third group here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Boy oh boy. This is getting wearisome. You are obviously lost for Scripture. None of these passages mention a supposed future millennium. Nowhere! Neither of these passages describe any detail pertaining to Revelation 20. There is zero correlation. It is in your imagination. You force that into these Old Testament passages. No scripture is safe with your form of hermeneutics.

Where in Revelation 1:7, Isaiah 54:1-8, Jeremiah 3:16, 31:31-34 and Zechariah 12:10 does it teach: when Jesus comes “those who have not yet made up their minds" will enter into the new age, and have opportunity after Christ returns to accept the dictates of his Kingdom?

I would like to answer your question. NOWHERE.

John related Zechariah 12:10 directly to the time when Christ's side was pierced by a spear (John 19:34-37) and Revelation 1:7 has to do with people wailing in fear at the sight of Jesus because of His wrath (see Revelation 6:12-17). Nowhere does it say anything about anyone being given a chance to repent after Jesus arrives in our atmosphere from heaven. That is a horrible doctrine that discourages evangelism.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So, when Jesus said "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30), He obviously was referring to two groups there with one being those who are with Him and the other being those who are against Him. Who exactly are those who are neither for Him nor against Him? How is that even possible? He indicated that not being with Him automatically made someone against Him, so I'm not seeing any room for a third group here.

Those to whom Jesus sent his Apostles were not yet saved. They were somewhere between the lost Wicked and the saved Christians. They had yet to receive the testimony of the Gospel. This condition, I aver, will continue to exist until the end of the age. The fact that in the end there will only be the Saved and the Unsaved does not address this.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy, do me a favor. Look at yourself in the mirror and then read post #371. Thanks.

Not interested. As Christians we are to obey Christ--not make excuses for failing to do that. If we fail to obey Christ, we can pursue our Advocate and Lawyer, Jesus, who is willing to cleanse those who humble themselves and pray and seek his face and turn from their wicked ways. We are all in this category--not just me.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus was talking about their knowledge of the law of Moses there, not their understanding of Bible prophecy and the future. They clearly had no understanding of Bible prophecy as it related to their time and the future or else they would have recognized that Jesus was the Messiah.

I felt more needed to be said, and so I updated a few minutes ago. Refresh and re-read, if you wish?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Those to whom Jesus sent his Apostles were not yet saved.

Then they were against Him until they became saved since they were not with Him yet before being saved.

They were somewhere between the lost Wicked and the saved Christians.

No, they were lost right up until they became saved. You are making things up that are not taught in scripture. Jesus puts all people into two groups, but you won't accept that. You contradict Him by saying some of those who are not with Him are not against Him even though He very specifically said those who are not with Him are against Him.

They had yet to receive the testimony of the Gospel. This condition, I aver, will continue to exist until the end of the age. The fact that in the end there will only be the Saved and the Unsaved does not address this.

At all times all people are either saved or unsaved. You are trying to invent a third group to support your doctrine.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yep. He is rather hypocritical, isn't he? No self awareness whatsoever.

If a doctrine becomes a "party spirit," it isn't of God.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I felt more needed to be said, and so I updated a few minutes ago. Refresh and re-read, if you wish?

What you added doesn't change anything and my response would be the same.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If a doctrine becomes a "party spirit," it isn't of God.

What does this even mean? You seem to be rather jealous when others agree with each other while no one agrees with you.

Did you read post #371, Randy? You've said some nasty things. You're not willing to acknowledge it? You're perfect, I guess?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Then they were against Him until they became saved since they were not with Him yet before being saved.


No, they were lost right up until they became saved. You are making things up that are not taught in scripture. Jesus puts all people into two groups, but you won't accept that. You contradict Him by saying some of those who are not with Him are not against Him even though He very specifically said those who are not with Him are against Him.


At all times all people are either saved or unsaved. You are trying to invent a third group to support your doctrine.

The Amill group here apparently doesn't believe in "love one another?" Instead, you have a "party spirit" advocating for Amillennialism.

How is it that I'm "making things up" when I say Jesus commissioned his Apostles to preach to people who hadn't yet heard the Gospel? I didn't say they weren't Lost! I said they were not yet condemned to Hell! So the Gospel is preached to them to assure them that if they accept the Gospel they will *not* go to Hell!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not interested.

You're not interested in seeing how hypocritical you are? I don't get the sense that you've ever read this:

Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

As Christians we are to obey Christ--not make excuses for failing to do that. If we fail to obey Christ, we can pursue our Advocate and Lawyer, Jesus, who is willing to cleanse those who humble themselves and pray and seek his face and turn from their wicked ways. We are all in this category--not just me.

Of course we are all flawed and need to humble ourselves and confess our sins every day. But you say things about Amils that you do yourself. That's the point. Don't act like you don't do the very things you accuse some Amils of doing. You do. So, work on yourself first before trying to be our judge.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Amill group here apparently doesn't believe in "love one another?"

Says who? You? This is a debate forum, Randy. We're not in this forum to tell each other how much we love each other. Even though I do love you and everyone else. But, that isn't the purpose of a forum like this. You seem to have thin skin. You need to have thick skin if you want to debate.

Instead, you have a "party spirit" advocating for Amillennialism.

What does that mean?

How is it that I'm "making things up" when I say Jesus commissioned his Apostles to preach to people who hadn't yet heard the Gospel? I didn't say they weren't Lost! I said they were not yet condemned to Hell!

That's the case for all of the lost, Randy. But, until they are saved they are not with Jesus and are rather against Him. That is true of all unsaved people.

So the Gospel is preached to them to assure them that if they accept the Gospel they will *not* go to Hell!

The gospel is preached to ALL PEOPLE for that purpose, Randy.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What does this even mean? You seem to be rather jealous when others agree with each other while no one agrees with you.

Did you read post #371, Randy? You've said some nasty things. You're not willing to acknowledge it? You're perfect, I guess?

What on earth has happened to your Christianity? I think WPM is the "ring leader," and all the Amills here follow him as if his manner is godly. It isn't.

If I say some nasty things, I admit that it isn't always kind. I wish to return to the Lord and His kindness, because it's there that I'm most comfortable.

But the provocations here and on another group are continuous, unforgiving, and relentless. On another forum, debate has been completely abandoned because of this kind of thing. And WPM was in the center of it!

I don't know why he has so much influence over you guys? You're smart enough in your own right. But he's no genius--he just immerses himself in obscure Church Father quotes so that nobody can challenge him. Who wants to spend years of their lives studying things just for the sake of argument? Well, he apparently did!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Says who? You? This is a debate forum, Randy. We're not in this forum to tell each other how much we love each other. Even though I do love you and everyone else. But, that isn't the purpose of a forum like this. You seem to have thin skin. You need to have thick skin if you want to debate.

No, you can't and should not separate your love for one another from your debates. I enjoy debates, and have endured the worst insults, including the endless attacks from your Amill group. It's discouraging, but has it phased me otherwise? No.

But our calling is to proclaim the word of God. And just as important as making points to defend the word of God is that we ensure the spirit of our conversations remain aligned with the Holy Spirit Himself. We don't cut Him off in the midst of debate! And it is my job to remind ourselves of that. Otherwise, we will soon walk away and immerse ourselves in carnality, hostility, and party spirit.

That's the case for all of the lost, Randy. But, until they are saved they are not with Jesus and are rather against Him. That is true of all unsaved people.
The gospel is preached to ALL PEOPLE for that purpose, Randy.

I think you're just arguing to "take sides." You don't even seem to understand the argument I was making!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course we are all flawed and need to humble ourselves and confess our sins every day. But you say things about Amils that you do yourself. That's the point. Don't act like you don't do the very things you accuse some Amils of doing. You do. So, work on yourself first before trying to be our judge.

This is what I told WPM before--I'll let *God judge* motives. But we do have to analyze our motives--not compare what we do with what we think others do to justify our ways.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What does this even mean? You seem to be rather jealous when others agree with each other while no one agrees with you.

I'm not jealous in the least. It's always been my aim to please God, and not Man--not even brothers and sisters in the Lord. For 50 years I've taken this approach, sacrificing friendships, if necessary, to declare what I believe to be God's word.

It's amazing how groups band together over belief in certain theological systems! I'm a follower of Watchman Nee, who hated this kind of "party spirit," and refused to only fellowship within the circle of his own denomination. I wholeheartedly agree with him!

 

[Randy Kluth]

What you added doesn't change anything and my response would be the same.

Then you shouldn't say this: "This has always been the case with him. He has no interest in understanding what others believe. He's only interested in misrepresenting what others believe. He is incapable of making coherent arguments to refute what others believe, so he resorts to that instead."

I'm "incapable of making coherent arguments?"

The answer I gave you was entirely coherent! The Jews understood the Law of Moses, along with the Prophets, and were to be followed as it pertained to the truth that they were declaring from Scripture. This did not mean they were wrong in all points. On the contrary, it proved they could be right on many points of biblical truth.

So to say the Jewish leaders in Jesus' time were corrupt does not argue against their ability to understand the "Jewish Hope." They properly interpreted the promise of God that Israel would be saved, nationally. Your complaint that their sins disqualified them to believe Scriptures in this way is invalid, unless you can prove they were wrong in accepting the promise of Israel's national salvation in their own Scriptures!

Jesus never corrected the Jews in their belief in their national salvation. On the contrary, he corrected it to expose how their sin would delay it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What on earth has happened to your Christianity?

Nothing. What has happened to yours? Did you read post #371 yet? You said some rather un-Christian things that are quoted in that post. Did you read Matthew 7:1-5 yet? It seems that you still think you are holier than thou and can judge others. You have a lot to learn, Randy. I truly don't get the sense that you even fully understand what Christianity is.

I think WPM is the "ring leader," and all the Amills here follow him as if his manner is godly. It isn't.

And yours is? He tells the truth and backs it up with scripture. Which you don't address specifically. Instead, you give a bunch of opinions and sometimes reference secular sources, of all things. I completely understand his frustration with you.

If I say some nasty things, I admit that it isn't always kind.

So, why is your focus always on trying to correct others? Work on yourself first.

I wish to return to the Lord and His kindness, because it's there that I'm most comfortable.

Then do that.

But the provocations here and on another group are continuous, unforgiving, and relentless.

I disagree. I think you are thin skinned and I think you take every disagreement as some kind of personal attack.

On another forum, debate has been completely abandoned because of this kind of thing. And WPM was in the center of it!

I know what forum you're talking about and it looks like that forum is still there. I know they made changes to the site just like they did here, so that's probably all it was.

I don't know why he has so much influence over you guys?

He knows what he's talking about, but I have a mind of my own. I just happen to agree with a lot of what he believes. Why is that a problem for you? I truly find you to be hypocritical on these forums, Randy. I don't need him to show me that.

You're smart enough in your own right. But he's no genius--he just immerses himself in obscure Church Father quotes so that nobody can challenge him. Who wants to spend years of their lives studying things just for the sake of argument? Well, he apparently did!

He did it because some Premils misquote those early church fathers and deceptively influence others to think that Premil was by far the predominant belief in the early church, but that is a lie.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Nothing. What has happened to yours? Did you read post #371 yet? You said some rather un-Christian things that are quoted in that post. Did you read Matthew 7:1-5 yet? It seems that you still think you are holier than thou and can judge others. You have a lot to learn, Randy. I truly don't get the sense that you even fully understand what Christianity is.


And yours is? He tells the truth and backs it up with scripture. Which you don't address specifically. Instead, you give a bunch of opinions and sometimes reference secular sources, of all things. I completely understand his frustration with you.


So, why is your focus always on trying to correct others? Work on yourself first.


Then do that.


I disagree. I think you are thin skinned and I think you take every disagreement as some kind of personal attack.


I know what forum you're talking about and it looks like that forum is still there. I know they made changes to the site just like they did here, so that's probably all it was.


He knows what he's talking about, but I have a mind of my own. I just happen to agree with a lot of what he believes. Why is that a problem for you? I truly find you to be hypocritical on these forums, Randy. I don't need him to show me that.


He did it because some Premils misquote those early church father and deceptively influence others to think that Premil was by far the predominant belief in the early church, but that is a lie.

Not interested in the hostility. When I quoted Irenaeus properly, WPM failed to deliver. Irenaeus rendered the "binding of Satan" at the 2nd Coming, when Antichrist is defeated. You can call things your way, and I'll call them mine. Let others decide.

To call the belief that Premill was the early, dominant eschatology in the Church is not a "lie." This reflects hostility, even though Amill scholars, like Philip Schaff, have said precisely that from an authoritative, studied vantage point. Calling him a "liar" is not appropriate, in my opinion.