Another Premillennial absurdity

[Spiritual Israelite]

It depends on how one defines "deity". Typically when Christians talk about the Deity of Christ, they speak in terms of his quiddity, the "what-ness" of Jesus. This idea is exemplified and defined in many of the creedal statements.

The following comes from the Athanasian Creed, which I believe is unbiblical.

The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

This doctrine doesn't come from the Bible itself, it actually comes from early Christians who were steeped in Aristotle's metaphysics. They attempted to define the oneness of God in scientific terms asking "what is the nature of God, The Trinity, and Jesus specifically?

I believe in the Trinity and I believe that Jesus is God. But I believe that the Bible defines the relationship between Father and Son, not in terms of their quiddity, but in terms of their identity. The Biblical claim is that Jesus is the son of God; he is the image of God; he is the exegesis of God.

John says that no one has seen God at anytime. In this he speaks about the Transcendent Creator. The best analogy I have heard with regard to transcendence is an author's standpoint with respect to his novel. Putting aside the fact that the characters in a novel are fictional, the author/novel analogy helps me understand the concept of transcendence. No one has seen God in the same way that a character in a novel can never see the author. The characters exist on a lower level of existence than the author and they can never rise to his or her level of existence. If the Author wants to place himself in the novel and interact with the characters, he need to write himself into the story. In a sense, I believe God the transcendent one, has written himself into his creation, so to speak, in the man Jesus.

The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all one, but it does not follow, therefore that each of them are of the same essence. Jesus is not deity in the same way that God is deity. Jesus has a divine nature in that he represents all of the qualities of God's character: righteous, good, truthful, loving, just, merciful, patient, kind, self-control and all of these attributes. But even as Jesus has a divine nature, he has his own will. And as a freewill agent, he is our hero because as a freewill agent, he lived a perfectly obedient life. Jesus is God in every way that a human being can witness. Jesus is the perfect representation of God's glory and grace.

So, I would disagree with the reformed view, set in stone 1700 years ago, which is based in Greek philosophy and enforced by excommunication, torture, and death. I affirm that Jesus is a true man.

Why are you not being honest with him about this?

You do not believe Jesus existed in any way, shape or form before He was born to the virgin Mary. That is what you have said before. Why did you not inform him of this?

You deny that the Word in this passage is referring to Jesus:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

You deny that Jesus is eternal and that He created all things. Why did you not inform him of this? Jesus can't be God without being the Creator and without being eternal. You show that you don't even know who God is by claiming that someone who you think has only existed for around 2,000 years could be God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, we do. And you're doing a terrible job of that. He contrasts two groups within the corporate body (nation) of Israel. One is the remnant saved by grace (Romans 11:5). And then there is "the others" who were not saved and their hearts were hardened (Romans 11:7).

So, when he said in Romans 11:7 that Israel did not obtain it (salvation), he was not referring to corporate Israel as a whole, he was referring specifically to "the others" who were hardened and not to the "remnant chosen by grace".

I know that. I didn't deny that.

But he is talking specifically about those who were not saved there and not all of Israel. You keep talking as if he was referring to the entire nation of Israel in verses like those when he was actually referring to the individuals of Israel who were not saved.

He is talking about Israel the body corporate. Don't make the mistake of reading 11:1-6 back into the rest of his argument. Try to follow his lead, which is found in his rhetorical questions. His question in 11:1 is an entirely different question than in 11:11. Two different issues.

The olive tree represents salvation. Anyone who is grafted in is saved and anyone who is not is not saved. That's why it talks about being cut off because of unbelief and grafted in because of faith. That's how salvation works.

Pay close attention to how he sets up his metaphor. He tells you the concept he is attempting to illustrate. In that section, Romans 11:11-16 he is still talking about Israel in the corporate sense. In that context, the people whom Paul is attempting to reach are those who rejected Jesus. He says that their rejection (of Jesus) became the cause of reconciliation of the world. He also exclaims that if their rejection of the messiah brought blessings to the Gentiles then what will it mean if these same people accepted Jesus?

In support of this assertion, Paul offers an analogy to holy dough. If the first piece of dough his holy, the lump is also. This is an argument from "the whole to the part" (argumentum a fortiori) if the whole portion of dough is holy it is more certain that a fraction of that same portion is holy because the fraction is held to be implicit in the whole. For some reason, Paul is bringing up the subject of holiness.

This idea is related to God's election with regard to his wish to gather together a holy people for himself. For this reason, I believe the Olive Tree represents the Holy people of God. Paul's contemporaries are holy by birth, which is why they are "natural branches." And one would expect Paul to suggest that in order to remain holy, they must come to saving faith. But that is not what he believes. In his view, the branches that God cut off remain holy, just as a lump removed from a holy piece of dough remains holy. Just because the lump is removed from the whole it doesn't mean that the lump ceases to be holy. These branches remain holy even though they don't have access to the root. Paul warns his readers to avoid being arrogant against the holy branches that were cut off because God can graft them back on again.

If you read Romans 11 in light of a passage like this it shouldn't be hard to recognize that Paul was talking in Romans 11 about spiritual salvation and how God put "no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved". A wild branch being grafted into the cultivated olive tree represents a Gentile believer calling on the name of the Lord and putting his or her faith in Christ and being saved.

I agree with the first part but I just don't agree that the tree represents salvation. It represents a relationship to God.

What promise is that exactly? What do you think God will do for them that He hasn't already done? Was sending His Son to die for all of their sins somehow not enough?

Good question. If one is not properly oriented to the promise of 9:6 then the rest of the argument makes no sense. Where did God make a promise to Israel, taken as a whole? Christians should study the books of Isaiah and Deuteronomy.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Don't act like you have a better understanding of Hosea than Paul. He included Gentiles as being the ones who God would call His people who were not formerly His people. You are trying to force Paul to say something different than what he actually said just because of how you read Hosea. Let Paul tell you how Hosea should be understood instead of the other way around.

If Paul included Gentiles into Hosea 2, then he was in error. Because I don't think the Bible contains errors, then I don't think Paul was including Gentiles into Hosea. Hosea would not spend all of chapter 2 talking about unfaithful Israel, pictured as an unfaithful wife and a prostitute who went after other gods, only to spend the last two verses talking about Gentiles completely out of the blue.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, it is. You will continue to misinterpret the Old Testament as long as you insist on trying to interpret it in isolation without the aid of the New Testament. That's the bottom line. You are not allowing the New Testament authors to give you enlightenment in regards to what the Old Testament scriptures actually mean.

You can say "yes it is" all day long and it isn't going to change anything.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You ignore every Scripture that is presented, you ignore every argument that is presented, all you have is your fly-by denials. Obviously, you have nothing to report the truth being presented. This is a one-way discussion.

I ignore every scripture passage you present because you take them out of context and misconstrue them. They aren't saying what you say they say.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He is talking about Israel the body corporate. Don't make the mistake of reading 11:1-6 back into the rest of his argument. Try to follow his lead, which is found in his rhetorical questions. His question in 11:1 is an entirely different question than in 11:11. Two different issues.

Pay close attention to how he sets up his metaphor. He tells you the concept he is attempting to illustrate. In that section, Romans 11:11-16 he is still talking about Israel in the corporate sense.

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Notice what Paul says in verse 14. What you're saying completely contradicts that. You're talking as if this is all about corporate Israel, yet Paul talks about hoping to "save some of them". Some of who? Individual Israelites. He's not talking corporately there. He's talking about the salvation of individuals. The whole idea was for the salvation of the Gentiles to make Israelites envious so that they too would want to be saved and that resulted in the salvation of some Israelites just as Paul had hoped. And some have been saved ever since as well.

In that context, the people whom Paul is attempting to reach are those who rejected Jesus. He says that their rejection (of Jesus) became the cause of reconciliation of the world. He also exclaims that if their rejection of the messiah brought blessings to the Gentiles then what will it mean if these same people accepted Jesus?

In support of this assertion, Paul offers an analogy to holy dough. If the first piece of dough his holy, the lump is also. This is an argument from "the whole to the part" (argumentum a fortiori) if the whole portion of dough is holy it is more certain that a fraction of that same portion is holy because the fraction is held to be implicit in the whole. For some reason, Paul is bringing up the subject of holiness.

This idea is related to God's election with regard to his wish to gather together a holy people for himself. For this reason, I believe the Olive Tree represents the Holy people of God.

Yes, of course it does. All Christians are considered holy because the blood of Christ washes our sins away and makes us holy. Paul is clearly talking about Jew and Gentiles believers being grafted into the olive tree while unbelievers are cut off.

Paul's contemporaries are holy by birth, which is why they are "natural branches." And one would expect Paul to suggest that in order to remain holy,

they must come to saving faith. But that is not what he believes. In his view, the branches that God cut off remain holy, just as a lump removed from a holy piece of dough remains holy.

This is the biggest piece of nonsense I've ever seen. They remain holy even after being cut off? You have to be kidding me here. Please tell me you're joking. Do you understand that it was people like the Pharisees and scribes that Jesus called hypocrites and snakes that were cut off? You are trying to tell me they were holy even after being cut off? Get out of here with that nonsense!

Just because the lump is removed from the whole it doesn't mean that the lump ceases to be holy. These branches remain holy even though they don't have access to the root. Paul warns his readers to avoid being arrogant against the holy branches that were cut off because God can graft them back on again.

Nowhere did Paul indicate that they were still holy after being cut off. You continually make things up that are not taught in scripture. You are a false teacher and you have been thoroughly exposed as such on this forum. You really should give it up because you're not fooling anyone anymore.

I agree with the first part but I just don't agree that the tree represents salvation. It represents a relationship to God.

Say what now? That's what salvation means. It means you've been saved from the wages of sin and have entered into a personal relationship with God.

Good question. If one is not properly oriented to the promise of 9:6 then the rest of the argument makes no sense. Where did God make a promise to Israel, taken as a whole? Christians should study the books of Isaiah and Deuteronomy.

Christians should allow the New Testament authors to tell them how to properly understand the Old Testament. You fail to do that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why are you not being honest with him about this?

You do not believe Jesus existed in any way, shape or form before He was born to the virgin Mary. That is what you have said before. Why did you not inform him of this?

How was I not honest. I think I was pretty clear when I claimed to disagree with the creed. Did you not understand, I quoted the creed and then denied it. I believe Jesus was born to the virgin Mary just like all other Christians do. The Bible doesn't support the creed at all.

You deny that the Word in this passage is referring to Jesus:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

I deny the false interpretation of the passage, which erroneously reads Greek metaphysics into the passage, especially with regard to the logos. Capitalizations are not inspired, and they aren't necessary. When John speaks of the "logos" he isn't speaking about a person. He is speaking about "a plan, a script, an account, or a promise." which is what the term "logos" means. I'm not changing the meaning of the text, the Trinitarians are.

You deny that Jesus is eternal and that He created all things. Why did you not inform him of this?

I did.

Jesus can't be God without being the Creator and without being eternal.

The Bible doesn't claim that Jesus is God in his essence as Trinitarians believe. The Bible says that Jesus is the image of God, representing God to us. Jesus is God by identity, not by being made of God stuff.

You show that you don't even know who God is by claiming that someone who you think has only existed for around 2,000 years could be God.

John warned us about the antichrists who claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh. He did not warn anyone to accept that Jesus and God are of the same essence.
While Trinitarians ostensibly agree that Jesus came in the flesh, many of them deny the humanity of Jesus.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How was I not honest. I think I was pretty clear when I claimed to disagree with the creed. Did you not understand, I quoted the creed and then denied it. I believe Jesus was born to the virgin Mary just like all other Christians do. The Bible doesn't support the creed at all.

Yeah, I guess I did miss that it was something coming from a creed rather than from you.

You still didn't make it clear anywhere in your post that you don't believe that Jesus is eternal, you dont believe that He created all things and you don't believe that He existed in any way, shape or form until He was born of the virgin Mary, though. Why not?

I deny the false interpretation of the passage, which erroneously reads Greek metaphysics into the passage, especially with regard to the logos. Capitalizations are not inspired, and they aren't necessary. When John speaks of the "logos" he isn't speaking about a person. He is speaking about "a plan, a script, an account, or a promise." which is what the term "logos" means. I'm not changing the meaning of the text, the Trinitarians are.

You already told me this before and I told you it was nonsense. Do you really think I wanted to read this nonsense again?

I did.

The Bible doesn't claim that Jesus is God in his essence as Trinitarians believe.

Yes, it does. Repeatedly. You've been shown the passage and you twist all of them to fit your false beliefs.

The Bible says that Jesus is the image of God, representing God to us. Jesus is God by identity, not by being made of God stuff.

You speak complete nonsense. God by identity but not really God is what you seem to be saying. Just complete gibberish that can't be taken seriously.

John warned us about the antichrists who claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh. He did not warn anyone to accept that Jesus and God are of the same essence.
While Trinitarians ostensibly agree that Jesus came in the flesh, many of them deny the humanity of Jesus.

Anyone who denies His humanity is obviously a moron, so why even bring them up? The issue here is you denying His deity. That is a major problem.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You can say "yes it is" all day long and it isn't going to change anything.

Yes, it is.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If Paul included Gentiles into Hosea 2, then he was in error.

Well, he obviously did if you actually read what he said, so you are then saying he is in error. That's a bad idea.

Because I don't think the Bible contains errors, then I don't think Paul was including Gentiles into Hosea.

Yet, he very clearly did. You once again, are denying the obvious. I get the feeling that the New Testament isn't very important to you since you don't seem to accept anything taught in it.

Hosea would not spend all of chapter 2 talking about unfaithful Israel, pictured as an unfaithful wife and a prostitute who went after other gods, only to spend the last two verses talking about Gentiles completely out of the blue.

What you don't seem to understand is that the Old Testament was not always explicit about things. There are times when it can seem to only be talking about Israel or the Jews, such as when it talks about God's promises to Abraham and his seed.

But, then we have Paul telling us that God's promises to Abraham and his seed were to Abraham and to Christ (Galatians 3:16) and are expanded to include those who belong to Christ as well (Galatians 3:29). Is that something that is made clear in the Old Testament? No. Yet, that is what is taught in the NT. You need to start accepting what the NT teaches about the OT instead of just disregarding the NT every time it teaches something different than what you see in the OT.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It depends on how one defines "deity". Typically when Christians talk about the Deity of Christ, they speak in terms of his quiddity, the "what-ness" of Jesus. This idea is exemplified and defined in many of the creedal statements.

The following comes from the Athanasian Creed, which I believe is unbiblical.

The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

This doctrine doesn't come from the Bible itself, it actually comes from early Christians who were steeped in Aristotle's metaphysics. They attempted to define the oneness of God in scientific terms asking "what is the nature of God, The Trinity, and Jesus specifically?

I believe in the Trinity and I believe that Jesus is God. But I believe that the Bible defines the relationship between Father and Son, not in terms of their quiddity, but in terms of their identity. The Biblical claim is that Jesus is the son of God; he is the image of God; he is the exegesis of God.

John says that no one has seen God at anytime. In this he speaks about the Transcendent Creator. The best analogy I have heard with regard to transcendence is an author's standpoint with respect to his novel. Putting aside the fact that the characters in a novel are fictional, the author/novel analogy helps me understand the concept of transcendence. No one has seen God in the same way that a character in a novel can never see the author. The characters exist on a lower level of existence than the author and they can never rise to his or her level of existence. If the Author wants to place himself in the novel and interact with the characters, he need to write himself into the story. In a sense, I believe God the transcendent one, has written himself into his creation, so to speak, in the man Jesus.

The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all one, but it does not follow, therefore that each of them are of the same essence. Jesus is not deity in the same way that God is deity. Jesus has a divine nature in that he represents all of the qualities of God's character: righteous, good, truthful, loving, just, merciful, patient, kind, self-control and all of these attributes. But even as Jesus has a divine nature, he has his own will. And as a freewill agent, he is our hero because as a freewill agent, he lived a perfectly obedient life. Jesus is God in every way that a human being can witness. Jesus is the perfect representation of God's glory and grace.

So, I would disagree with the reformed view, set in stone 1700 years ago, which is based in Greek philosophy and enforced by excommunication, torture, and death. I affirm that Jesus is a true man.

I don't agree, but I do understand the problems. I don't find you heterodox inasmuch as you declare Jesus to be one with God, and in fact, God. But it is somewhat confusing to then say he is not "of the same essence," and "not deity in the way that God is deity." But it's a difficult subject.

It is concerning, though, that you reject the standard creeds. They separated conventional Christians from heretics like the Arians and the modalists. (Since writing this post, I've learned more about your claim that Jesus did not pre-exist. That is definitely in heresy territory, although I would agree that Jesus did not exist in the form of *Man* before his incarnation.)

Like you, I had to come to grips with Trinitarianism and Christology as well. Much of the problem is language, because there were several languages involved in the discussion, and also because expressing items that involve the infinite is difficult.

The Creeds came up with a formula that seemed to work for all languages concerned, even though it left some feeling a bit short of the goal. "3 Persons and 1 Substance." I might say there is 1 Deity and 3 Divine Persons. There does have to be a litmus test for doctrinal orthodoxy, however, and the creeds, I believe, have served well, even if they don't always convey the entire set of problems.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

FYI

Yes, he sort of explained that, but the way you put it, it's more concerning... Thanks!

He did say he believed that Jesus was God. I don't understand how he then says that Jesus is not divine, or "divinity?" It's rather confusing.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yeah, I guess I did miss that it was something coming from a creed rather than from you.

You still didn't make it clear anywhere in your post that you don't believe that Jesus is eternal, you dont believe that He created all things and you don't believe that He existed in any way, shape or form until He was born of the virgin Mary, though. Why not?


You already told me this before and I told you it was nonsense. Do you really think I wanted to read this nonsense again?


Yes, it does. Repeatedly. You've been shown the passage and you twist all of them to fit your false beliefs.


You speak complete nonsense. God by identity but not really God is what you seem to be saying. Just complete gibberish that can't be taken seriously.


Anyone who denies His humanity is obviously a moron, so why even bring them up? The issue here is you denying His deity. That is a major problem.

I don't think it's necessary to call names, but I do appreciate you pointing out our mutual Trinitarian concerns here. The Word became flesh is the biblical formula. We don't need the word "Trinity" to understand that Jesus preexisted his fleshly incarnation as Deity. That's why he is called the "Divine Son" because he fully expresses Deity in human form.

 

[WPM]

Most of them will die at 100 years old and most of them will openly be unbelievers so yeah.

And where exactly do you get that in Revelation 20?

 

[friend of]

And where exactly do you get that in Revelation 20?

We get it from Isaiah 65:20


Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

 

[WPM]

We get it from Isaiah 65:20


Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

That is expressly speaking about the new heavens the new earth not some imaginary millennium in the future after the second coming full of sin and sinners, dying and crying, and corrupted by the devil.

 

[friend of]

That is expressly speaking about the new heavens the new earth not some imaginary millennium in the future after the second coming full of sin and sinners, dying and crying, and corrupted by the devil.

Uhm. Nobody dies in the new heavens and new earth. There is no death there at all. It's talking about the Millenial Kingdom which transpires before the new heavens and new earth.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, he sort of explained that, but the way you put it, it's more concerning... Thanks!

He did say he believed that Jesus was God. I don't understand how he then says that Jesus is not divine, or "divinity?" It's rather confusing.

Thanks. I think he has said that Jesus was/is God, but not fully God.

So I think that he would not agree that "Jesus is fully God".

 

[WPM]

Uhm. Nobody dies in the new heavens and new earth. There is no death there at all. It's talking about the Millenial Kingdom which transpires before the new heavens and new earth.

You are obviously desperate for texts to dump into your imaginary age. This is typical Premil. They are constantly adding to Scripture. It is expressly talking about the NHNE that comes when Jesus appears.

After talking about the righteous and their eternal bliss the prophet then turns to the awful fate of the wicked. Isaiah 65:20 says: “the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.”

The Hebrew literally reads:

וְהַ֣חֹוטֶ֔א בֶּן־מֵאָ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה יְקֻלָּֽל׃
wªhachowTe ben- mee'aah shaanaah yªqulaa
the sinner an hundred years old [shall be] accursed

The Hebrew literally reads:

וְהַ֣חֹוטֶ֔א בֶּן־מֵאָ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה יְקֻלָּֽל׃
wªhachowTe ben- mee'aah šā-nāh yªqulaa
the sinner an hundred years old [shall be] accursed

וְהַ֣חוֹטֶ֔א
wªhachowTe
the sinner

בֶּן־
ben-
Old

מֵאָ֥ה
mee'aah
an hundred

שָׁנָ֖ה
šā-nāh
years

יְקֻלָּֽל׃
yªqulaa
Cursed

The Hebrew word yªqulaa simply means “is accursed.”
The Hebrew word wªhachowTe simply means "sinner."

There is no mention here of the word “death” or “die” in the Hebrew!

The inclusion of the phrase “Accursed an hundred years old sinner” is simply a solemn reminder to the reader that the fate of the unbeliever is starkly different to that being depicted for the believer on the new earth. In the midst of his joy at the revelation of the new earth the Old Testament prophet compares the bliss, blessing and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in hell. The solemn thought is: the eternal horror and hopelessness that will be the lot of the wicked is not just for a short time, it is forever. There is no sense that the wicked are on the new earth here. Isaiah is not describing more of the same as Premil teaches. The new earth is not a repeat or rehash of this corruptible age. This must be forced into the text.

The writer is simply making a comparison (in the midst of his joy at the thought of the new earth) between the bliss and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in the lake of fire. There is no sense that the wicked are on the earth here.

The sinner will indeed be accursed in eternity. Throughout Scripture God concentrates on the elect, and often attaches a postscript in regard to the wicked. That is all we are looking at in the phrase: “sinner old hundred years is cursed.” Their condition is eternally sealed and irreversible - it is hopeless.

There is no record of death on the new earth for the elect in the original Hebrew; only for the wicked who are experiencing eternal wrath in the Lake of Fire. Here is a notable difference between Amil and Premil, Amils believe the wicked are all judged when Jesus comes and banished into a lost eternity, Premil on the other hand (amazingly) rewards the wicked at the end (especially those who fight against Jerusalem at the end) by allowing them to inherit the new earth. The gorge between these two views couldn't be further.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks. I think he has said that Jesus was/is God, but not fully God.

So I think that he would not agree that "Jesus is fully God".

Yea, I hate to put words in his mouth. But I appreciate you bringing this out more fully. I recall some years back Cady and I were on a different forum, and he held some different, maybe unusual beliefs. But I've grown more appreciative of him as I've watched many of his videos. We agree on some things, and obviously, none of us will agree on everything.