Olivet Discourse historicist or preterist?

RandyPNW said:

How can you, with a straight face, say that the Scriptures do not mention *national salvation?*

Click to expand...

Very easily. I will say again that salvation is, and always has been, based on personal, individual faith. How can you try to say otherwise? Scripture repeatedly says that God is not a respecter of persons, which means that when it comes to salvation He does not favor anyone because of their ethnicity or nationality. Your doctrine makes Him out to be a respecter of persons.

The whole story of Israel in the OT is about *national salvation!* I mean, I do understand it, because Amillennial belief has ruled the Church for many centuries, and people lost faith, in part, in God's willingness to save nations.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by this? I'm talking about spiritual salvation here. No one has ever been spiritually saved because of being an Israelite. It has always been about personal faith whether someone is Jew or Gentile.

But can you imagine your country fighting in WW1 or WW2 without any hope that God would defeat the Nazis? As if God doesn't care if your nation is saved or not?

Click to expand...

You're talking about physical preservation here, which is not at all what I'm talking about. And I can't even believe that you wouldn't realize that I'm talking about spiritual salvatoin. Really? You didn't know that?

This isn't all about spiritual salvation, but also about national salvation. And in God's economy, spiritual salvation should connect with national salvation.

Click to expand...

There's just one problem with what you're saying here and it's a major one. Scripture never teaches this. The New Testament illuminates the Old Testament for us, so show me just one verse in all of the New Testament which teaches what you're saying here. I'll wait. I think I'll be waiting a long time, though.

I would disagree. It is inferred in many places in biblical prophecy, and especially in the book of Revelation. It is also a critical element in God's promise to Abraham, to make him "father of many nations." However, I know what you mean, that the words are not very explicit in the NT about Christian nations doing this or that. And that's because Christian nations had not yet developed when the NT was written!

Click to expand...

No offense, but this is one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen. That's just how I see it. What difference does it make when the Christians nations would develop? If that was something that was true then we'd see it talked about explicitly in the NT, but it's not there and you know it.

But much is spoken of with respect to Israel. And Israel was designed, by God, to be a model for Christian nations. Or do you think Christian nations is not a real concept, like others here who seem to deny history?

Click to expand...

I believe I already said there is no such thing as Christian nations and I'll say it again now. Scripture never teaches the concept of earthly Christian nations. All Christians together make up the collective "holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9) that we call the church or body of Christ.

Jeffwhosoever said:

We are the children of God but I'm not a child of Israel and would never claim to be. I have not studied Christology so I cannot really refute your point of view, but seems to me that the real question is who is the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation?

I'm not sure what qualifies either as a Christian nation. Can you name one and how you know its a Christian nation?

Click to expand...

The Church and the 144,000

Revelation 7:3-4 describe the 144,000 as “sealed.” That description is reserved in the NT for believers in Christ – His Body and Bride – the Church:

2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

Ephesians 1:13
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 4:30
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.


The Revelation 7 passage is therefore conveying the insight that the OT Israelitish faithful saints of God are included under the NT banner of the Church. This is further confirmed by the meanings of the names of the listed tribes and substitutes (Levi and Joseph replacing Dan and Ephraim), describing spiritual qualities and experiences of those who comprise the Church:

• Judah means “praise” (Gen 29:35)
• Reuben means “see, a Son” (Gen 29:32)
• Gad means “fortunate” (Gen 30:11)
• Asher means “happy” (Gen 30:13)
• Naphtali means “wrestling” (Gen 30:8)
• Manasseh means “forgetting” (Gen 41:51)
• Simeon means “heard” (Gen 29:33)
• Levi means “attached” (Gen 29:34)
• Issachar means “wages” (Gen 30:18)
• Zebulon means “dwelling” (Gen 30:20)
• Joseph means “He will add” (Gen 30:24)
• Benjamin means “Son of the right hand” (Gen 35:17–18)

Similarly, the meanings of the names of Dan and Ephraim convey the reasons for their exclusion:

• Dan means “a serpent by the way”(Genesis 49:17)

Satan in the guise of the serpent was responsible for the fall of mankind in Genesis 3, and for the bruising of Messiah's heel in Scripture's first recorded prophecy of Genesis 3:15. It was the same serpent Satan whose head Messiah bruised at Calvary.

• Ephraim means “fruitful in the land of mine affliction” (Genesis 41:52)

The reference to “the land of mine affliction” in Ephraim's name's meaning is to that of Egypt, which in Scripture is both a literal and spiritual reality and symbol of bondage. But the Church, God's Chosen People, do not inhabit a land of spiritual affliction and bondage. Rather, they inhabit the Heavenly Jerusalem on Mount Sion (Hebrews 12:22,23), located in the Heavenly Country that God has prepared for the faithful (Hebrews 11:16).

Of additional significance is the order in which the names are presented, differing from the usual presentation by order of birth. In particular, Judah appears first, in recognition of its role as the tribal progenitor of Christ, the Lion of Judah.

While rebellion and apostasy were repetitive afflictions of the OT Israelites, there were still thousands who remained faithful (1 Kings 19:18). Their number is depicted as 12, a scriptural value representing faithfulness; multiplied by 12, representing the faithful from each of the twelve tribes; multiplied by 1,000 representing the indeterminate but large number (Psalms 50:10; Psalms 91:7; Revelation 5:11) of the total faithful in Israel; thus, 144,000.

Revelation 14 continues the descriptions further reflecting the qualities and experiences of the redeemed – the Church. Absent here is any mention of tribal, ethnic, or other distinctions, thus conveying the reality of the inclusivity and unity of the NT Church which now embraces both Israelite and Gentile. Its number can also be depicted as 12, representing faithfulness; multipled by 12 representing the 12 faithful apostles, who with the prophets comprise the foundation of the NT church, with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20); multiplied by 1,000 representing the indeterminate but large number of the total faithful in the NT Church; thus, also 144,000.

The NT Church's inclusivity and unity are declared in the following:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:14
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall…

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.


The 144,00 are described as celibate, meaning that as the Bride of Christ, they are not defiled by adultery with the world (James 4:4). They sing a new song of deliverance and victory. They follow Christ wherever He goes. Their residence is heavenly Jerusalem on Mount Zion. (Hebrews 12:22)

No doubt about it…the Church is written all over the 144,000.

RandyPNW said:

For sure!

Click to expand...

Was that difficult to admit? Lol

RandyPNW said:

For sure!

Click to expand...

For sure that you are RandyK? Or for sure that you remember WPM? Or for sure to both? If you are RandyK, the manner in which you posted at BF is vastly different than the manner you are posting here.

RandyPNW said:

Hi David: Yes, I'm the same RandyK from BP. It shut down, and I've moved on, not just to one forum--I'm on several now, to ensure I have enough to talk about. WPM, as I remember, was heavily into proving Amill from the Church Fathers, right? And he's doing that now, as well. He also remembered me, but didn't explain that he was WPM. (If I'm not mistaken, he is/was a pastor.)

I'm hoping my style has changed for the better? The Lord changes us slowly, not because He's slow, of course, but because we're slow to change. Let me know if my present style is better or not?

Click to expand...

If you check: 99.9% of my arguments here and BF were/are based on Scripture. I was simply refuting false claims re the ECFs being Premil. That is a lie. I have studied them in depth because of all the fake news presented on this subject re them by Premils who have not taken time to study the matter for themselves. I believe truth matters.

RandyPNW said:

National Judgment took place when Israel did *not* repent of their sins and rebellion against God. So I rest my case--national Salvation is indeed biblical, as *I* define it. You are obviously defining National Salvation differently, as something that doesn't exist. Nations are saved from destruction. It is both historical existing and biblically existing!

If Israel, in the OT, was saved by their righteousness from hostile nations, then this is a model for Christian nations, which did not yet exist when the Bible was written. When Christian nations, ie nations that adopt a Christian Constitution, live in righteousness, God will save those nations from hostile enemies, from plagues, from natural disasters.

Click to expand...

national salvation/blessings and national judgement/punishment were defined under the old covenant (Deuteronomy 28).

does the new covenant define national blessings and/or judgements?

RandyPNW said:

Maybe I didn't articulate well enough, or perhaps you didn't read what I said well enough? My claim is that there is a *difference* between individual salvation and national salvation. National Salvation happens when a country is liberated or victorious in times of war. National Salvation happens when a country avoids a catastrophic plague. National Salvation is different from Evangelical Salvation!

Click to expand...

But there is no scripture which teaches that this is the case for any nation in New Testament times. Yes, God did that for Israel in OT times and there was a reason for that (He was bringing salvation through that nation via His Son who would be a descendant of David).

The confusion arises, I think, when we recognize that the Bible ties evangelical Salvation together with National Salvation. When Israel lived by the Law in righteousness, the nation was saved from their enemies--please don't say this isn't biblical!

Click to expand...

Of course it is, but where does scripture teach that this applies to any other nation? It doesn't Which is why the vast majority of the content in your posts on this particular topic are your opinions with very little scriptural support being offered for your claims.

National Judgment took place when Israel did *not* repent of their sins and rebellion against God. So I rest my case--national Salvation is indeed biblical, as *I* define it. You are obviously defining National Salvation differently, as something that doesn't exist. Nations are saved from destruction. It is both historical existing and biblically existing!

Click to expand...

In the case of Israel that was true, but you have no evidence to show this for any current or future nation.

If Israel, in the OT, was saved by their righteousness from hostile nations, then this is a model for Christian nations, which did not yet exist when the Bible was written. When Christian nations, ie nations that adopt a Christian Constitution, live in righteousness, God will save those nations from hostile enemies, from plagues, from natural disasters.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not speak about Christian nations. That is a problem for you. It's a concept that you made up.

I won't go on saying this forever--Christian nations were not mentioned in the Bible because *they didn't exist yet!*

Click to expand...

This is an incredibly weak argument. There are plenty of things written in the Bible that don't exist or haven't happened yet. So, if Christian nations were to ever exist there's no reason to think it wouldn't be mentioned in the Bible.

However, they were clearly alluded to when God promised Abraham he would be father of many nations. You have yet to explain that?

Click to expand...

While the Hebrew word Gôy is translated as "nations" in the verses like Genesis 17:5 where it says God would make Abraham the father of many nations, a better translation is "people". That word can mean "nations" or "people". We can see from the following verse that Abraham is indeed the spiritual father of many people:

Galatians 3:29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Scripture refers to Abraham's seed as being Christ (Gal 3:16) and INDIVIDUALS who belong to Christ (Gal 3:29). Why can't you just accept the NT explanations for OT scriptures?

We had better sort out what *I* mean by National Salvation before you argue against it. It seems you're arguing against something that I'm *not* saying?

Click to expand...

Nope, I am definitely arguing against what you are saying which is that there is such a thing as Christian nations. No, there are not and you have no scriptural support for your view and that's a major problem for you.

RandyPNW said:

Hi David: Yes, I'm the same RandyK from BP. It shut down, and I've moved on, not just to one forum--I'm on several now, to ensure I have enough to talk about. WPM, as I remember, was heavily into proving Amill from the Church Fathers, right? And he's doing that now, as well. He also remembered me, but didn't explain that he was WPM. (If I'm not mistaken, he is/was a pastor.)

I'm hoping my style has changed for the better? The Lord changes us slowly, not because He's slow, of course, but because we're slow to change. Let me know if my present style is better or not?

Click to expand...

So, they shut that site down now? I was on it last a couple months ago or so. By the way, I was John146 on there. I had several discussions with you on there as recently as this year. I even defended you when a couple dispensational posters whose names I won't mention were being very rude to you.

I came back to it last year after being away from it for several years, but I was having a lot of trouble with that site. It was often very slow and sometimes it wouldn't come up for me at all. I found out about this site from a post DavidPT (divaD) made on BF when he mentioned that wpm (sovereigngrace) was posting over here now.

RandyPNW said:

Yes, you're still hardcore Amill, and to some extent that's okay. I don't believe it's a "lie" that the Early Church Fathers were Chiliasts, or Premill. I do recall your position, that certain elements of their eschatology would place them in the Amill camp.

But I feel that one can have some Amill elements, and still be Premill. The belief that Israel was in effect "replaced" by the Church is a standard Amill belief, and to some degree I would agree with that. Israel stopped being God's "chosen nation," and the walls between Jews and Gentiles came down, rendering "God's People" being defined by their faith in Christ, and not by their national identity.

There are undoubtedly other elements that make the ECFs appear to be Amill. But that would be your standard and not mine. I feel they were Premill if they expressed elements that pushed the 1000 year period forward into the future. That's what makes them Premill, in my view.

And they did, in fact, express these beliefs. I've already given you a couple of links with their quotes, I believe? CLICK

Click to expand...

You put the pole far too low to define the ECFs as modern Premil. They are definitely not. They would be strongly opposed in Premil circles today and widely embraced in Amil circles. They believed the second coming was climactic. It introduced the end of sin and sinners, dying and crying, Satan and his demons, war and terror. It saw the introduction of perfection for the elect alone.

RandyPNW said:

I would agree with most of that. But I would still call the ECFs in the earliest times Premill, simply because they believed in a literal future Millennium. I would agree with you that the majority of Premill today is Dispensational, which I also disagree with. Some of my friends are Dispensational, so I don't want to be too hard on them.

Click to expand...

• If there are about 20 things that mark out modern-day Premil (Dispy or Historic), Chiliasm might ticked 1 or 2 boxes.
• If there are about 20 things that mark out modern-day Amil (Dispy or Historic), Chiliasm might ticked 18 or 19 boxes.

The early writers who espoused all the modern-day Premil fundamentals were arch-heretics.

You have had to strip Premil down to one tenet and ignore every single fundamental advanced by the theory in order to get your round Premil peg to fit into the Chiliast square hole.

RandyPNW said:

Yes, I'm predicating NT truth on those OT truths! If Israel is God's model for all the nations, then what was true for them is true for all nations. God doesn't change.

The legal dispensations changed, for sure. You apparently think the character of the promises changed. I do not. The same nations outlined in the OT as promised to Abraham remain the same nations in the NT--only they fall under the category of "NT People," or "the Church."

The Church consists not just of individuals, but also of nations, when those nations adopt a Christian Constitution. I do understand that you, and many others, have a problem with this concept. I do not, since there have indeed been many nations defined, by encyclopedias, as "Christian nations."

Click to expand...

It looks to me that you are getting your doctrine from encyclopedias rather than scripture.

On the contrary, there is lots of support. The NT says God doesn't change, and that His promises are still being kept. The nature of those promises involve *nations,* and not just *individuals.* That is NT, brother!

Click to expand...

Show me where that is taught in the NT then. Less opinions and more scripture, please.

I'm repeatedly informing you and others that the concept of "Christian nations" is built at a time when Christian nations did not yet exist. But they existed previously in the form of the Abrahamic Covenant that promised there would be Gentile nations with the faith of Abraham--not just individuals.

Click to expand...

And, yet, that concept is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. That's a major weakness of your doctrine.

I don't accept what you're saying because you're not proving any point. Abraham and Christ both were promised things, and it required the nation Israel and many nations with the faith of Abraham. That is plain for all to see, whether they want to believe it or not.

The promise was made to Abraham because it was his faith that was modelled for future nations, and it was to him that was promised a biological posterity. The promise was also made to Christ because he became the *means* of fulfilling these promises. The *NT Scriptures* affirm that these promises *are still good!!*

"Peoples" refers to the same thing as "nations." They aren't just "people," but *groups* of people.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that you don't accept what Galatians 3:16-29 is saying. I'm only saying that I agree with what that passage says which is that the promises made to Abraham apply to Christ and those who belong to Christ. You expand that out to something that isn't even mentioned anywhere in scripture ("Christian nations").

You are unable to prove that "peoples" or "nations" are not indicated in the Abrahamic Covenant. So no--you've proven nothing.

Click to expand...

I believe Galatians 3:16-29 proves that. There's one big difference between us on this issue. I have New Testament scripture to back up my view and you don't.