22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[marks]

I find your complaint diengenious, selective and unfair, as you totally ignore the slights and slanders of your Premil colleagues in this same thread, taunting Amils:

Do you realize I've been reading and replying almost exclusively to yours a @Spiritual Israelite 's posts?

It seems that when I point to what I'm not interesting in, the response is, "Hey, wait am minute . . . he's doing it too!!"

And this post, "but it's not so bad!"

Got it.

It is hard to take your complaints serious.

Take them however you want or not at all, that's all on you. You can read your own words just the same as me.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Premils here obviously cannot deal with the issues so they have to attack the messenger.

Obviously!!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

None of the seals are opened. The first seal is the rider on the white horse who has a bow and is given the stephanos crown. This is a false Chirst which Jesus warns about in Matthew 24.

Im curious. Does any person in here think the white horse is the Holy Spirit?
I know you don’t. I’m just curious if anyone does.

 

[marks]

What i said was mild and inoffensive.

Accusations of intellectual dishonesty is calling someone a liar.

I'm not going into the full list. That's sufficient.

Anyway, all the more so am I disinterested. Both of you are doubling down on your right to talk in just whatever way you want, be it polite or not, accurate or not, fair or not. And I'm not interested.

Call me selective, disenguous, whatever you want, it's not like I care. Anyone here can see what really is.

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Since abandoning Premillennialism I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premillennialism doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.

It does not matter what Scripture one looks at, or what topic under discussion, Premils have no plausible explanation for what they believe and no clear corroboration for their opinions. Their doctrine is bereft of any reasonable, logical, theological, or textual acceptance.

I want to list some of the issues that forced me to eventually abandon Premillennialism and embrace Amillennialism. My main reason for abandoning Premil was the severe lack of corroboration. I had a major issue with that! What is more: I had multiple problem-texts as a Premil that showed the Coming of Christ to be climactic and all-consummating. I have presented a lot of these questions in discussions over the years (since 2000) on boards like this and have failed to get any satisfactory corroboration for these questions. What I normally get is either blatant avoidance of the issues or "Revelation 20 says." This is so frustrating because Revelation 20 does not corroborate Revelation 20. Amils on the other hand tend to use the biblical premise "what saith the Scripture." The only conclusion I could arrive at is that the Premil interpretation of Revelation 20 is in error, it conflicts with numerous Scripture, and enjoys NO other serious scriptural support.

(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine. Take this passage out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing in the inspired pages to support their main tenets. Amils have a problem with, and very much disagree with this form of hermeneutics and exegesis of many Scriptures.

(2) Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.

(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.

For example:

· For years, it has been the Premil mantra that Jesus will be ruling in majesty and glory with a rod of iron for 1000 years on planet earth after the second coming. But this can be found nowhere in Revelation 20 or any other passage in Scripture?
· Premillennialists argue that salvation will continue on after the second coming. But where does it say that? The second coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Scripture makes clear: now is the day of salvation. It also shows the completion of the great commission ushers in the end of the world (Matthew 28:19-20). Scriptures tells us that “the longsuffering of our Lord” that marks the period before Jesus comes as a thief in the night “is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). There is no more salvation after that.
· They argue that the old covenant arrangement will be fully restarted in a future millennium, even though Revelation 20 makes no mention of such teaching.
· Premillennialists speak about the restoration of an elevated position for ethnic Israel on their future millennial earth. But a careful study of Revelation 20 teaches no such thing.
· They insist that glorified saints and mortal sinners will interact in a future millennium, even though Revelation 20 makes no mention of such a belief.
· They present their future millennium to be perfect pristine paradise of peace and harmony when in fact it ends up the biggest religious bust in history, as billions of wicked as the sand of the sea overrun the Premil millennium. Their age is just 'more of the same'. There is more sin and sinners, more death and disease, more war and terror, more of the devil and his demons. The idyllic setting of the lamb enjoying sweet communion with the wolf, the bullock eating straw with the lion, the little kid-goat lying peaceably beside the leopard, the cow and the bear grazing happily together is quickly broken as the slaughter truck roar up from the temple. The Zadok priests quickly jump out and drag the unsuspecting animals aboard who had been lulled into a false-sense of security by Christ’s rod of iron rule. As the truck speeds off the millennial peace and harmony is broken forever by the bloody intent of the Zadok priests. When they arrive in Jerusalem they pointlessly slit the throats of the lambs, goats and bullocks because they are somehow needed as sin offerings, even though Jesus had made the final sacrifice for sin thousands of years previous.

(4) Premillennialists interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scriptures. Premillennialists have to insert “a thousand years” in passage after passage where it does not exist. This is called adding unto Scripture, something forbidden in the Word of God (Deuteronomy 12:32 and Revelation 22:18).

(5) Premil is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament. It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise. We Christians have the benefit of the New Testament to explain what is difficult or obscure in the Old Testament. Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted. The New Testament is the greater revelation. The interpretation placed on the Old Testament by Christ and the New Testament writers override all other opinions and interpretations of man. As Augustine wrote: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.”

(6) Many testify that they are Premillennial because they take the Word of God literal, yet, when you put their theology to the test an opposite picture unfolds. Premillennialism spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point. Their own hermeneutics actually forbids their beliefs. As Kim Riddlebarger says: “Their own hermeneutics will not bear the weight that is assigned to it … they cannot make good on their own stated hermeneutics”

Okay, I had the nerve to pop into your thread a moment ago and ask a question of posters, so I’ll be polite and read this that I can tell you put a lot of work into.
I don’t know if you care for editing critiques but if you do, I think you should strike the whole second paragraph of your intro. You’ve just lost a good portion of your listeners with it. You want the people who don’t agree with you to give you their ear for a sec too, right? I actually think it might also make some of those who would agree with you skip or only skim the rest of your post.
Trust me, strike second paragraph. It will strengthen what you’ve written, not harm it.

Okay, I’m off to read your op!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The more you deflect to him . . . the more I'll focus on you.

I'm not interested in talking about him any further. I'm interested in talking about what this thread is supposed to be about. Do you have any thoughts at all on what was said in the original post? Let's just take one of the points, such as this one:

(5) Premil is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament. It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise. We Christians have the benefit of the New Testament to explain what is difficult or obscure in the Old Testament. Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted. The New Testament is the greater revelation. The interpretation placed on the Old Testament by Christ and the New Testament writers override all other opinions and interpretations of man. As Augustine wrote: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.”

What do you think about what is stated here? Do you agree with it? If not, what do you disagree with specifically?

 

[Truth7t7]

Yes it does if you can’t repent from it it would contradict all of the scriptures below.

Romans 10:13
for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

1John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Every scripture you present is true from the biblical perspective of "Predestination"

God knows who will be saved, all believers have been predestined to be called and chosen, possibly something you disagree with?

Romans 8:28-31KJV
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

Romans 9:20-21KJV
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In this instance I was being selective in what I responded concerning.

Your assertion that I'm selective in what I find objectionable is along the lines of "intellectual dishonesty". Do you understand how that is so? That I'd "find someone objectionable" except I supress that because I support their POV otherwise?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you just answer one question. Why is it that you are singling out Paul M. and myself about the way we're talking while having nothing at all to say about how other posters like Davy are talking in this thread? He basically accused Paul M. of not being a true Christian in post #77. Do you have any thoughts on that? I would never accuse anyone else here of not being a true Christian just because I disagree with their end times view.

 

[Truth7t7]

Can we please talk about this topic in a separate thread and keep this thread about why Premil doctrine is false?

Your not the Opinion starter, and God knows how many times you have deviated from a threads topic

Pot, Kettle, Black

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[marks]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you just answer one question. Why is it that you are singling out Paul M. and myself about the way we're talking while having nothing at all to say about how other posters like Davy are talking in this thread? He basically accused Paul M. of not being a true Christian in post #77. Do you have any thoughts on that? I would never accuse anyone else here of not being a true Christian just because I disagree with their end times view.

I've been primarily reading yours and Paul's posts. And even so, what of it? Does it make my comments about the other posts false? You seem to act as though that were so.

The two of you are the ones I was engaging.

Any thoughts on why your only response to my comments are, "but look at them!"?

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your not the Opinion starter, and God knows how many times you have deviated from a threads topic

Pot, Kettle, Black

What in the world kind of response is this? I asked nicely. You could have just said "No, thanks". You're acting like I was demanding that you stay on topic. If you don't want to, that's up to you. Just thought I'd try to at least get some response to the original topic before going off topic. The original topic has barely been addressed so far.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hogwash -- all of it!
Within a year you will retract all your words and flush them.
We are likely IN the Great Tribulation Period. The pestilence, wars and famine soon to overtake billions of people will have you scratching your empty heads.
This is where the rubber meets the road ... the death toll.
If you read Rev. 6, describing the Riders of the FOUR HORSES, the accumulative death from these alone account for about 2 billion people. Nothing in history has ever caused 25% loss of life in a few years time. The Black Plague came close to killing 20% of the planet in the 14th century (estimates are uncertain). Even all the wars in the 20th century account for maybe
2 % death.
That is the GT just getting started. Then you have the events in the rest of the Seals, the Seven Trumpets and the the wrath of God in the Seven Bowls before it is complete. The world will experience a worldwide earthquake, 1/3 of the planet literally on fire (likely the Middle East), super-volcanic eruptions causing massives tsunamis, nuclear war, etc. So after all that you can add another couple billion deaths.
60 million people die on average on earth annually. So when you see billions die - then you will know that this is not normal. Capisce?
Then if that is not enough to convince you, when "every eye sees Him" coming in the clouds, you will be ashamed of yourself for not only being in denial of His Second Coming, but that you spent years trying to lead others down the wrong path.

Calm down. Where did he deny Christ's second coming? Nowhere.

 

[marks]

(5) Premil is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture

Loaded language. Am I supposed to defend how I'm not "explaining away"?

explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament.

Which part of the OT do you consider vague? There is a lot of very explicit prophecy, including gathering Israel back to their land for their Kingdom.

It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise.

Teaches otherwise? Do you think there are contradictions between OT and NT? I do not, myself.

Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted.

Are you thinking this means God will not keep His OT promises? I do not think that way myself.

The New Testament is the greater revelation.

Both are God's Word. Both are true. The NT is not "more true" than the OT. Nor does the NT negate the OT.

The interpretation placed on the Old Testament by Christ and the New Testament writers override all other opinions and interpretations of man.

All Scripture must be spiritually discerned.

As Augustine wrote: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.”

Fun turn of the phrase, but doesn't support one view over the other.

What exactly is there to be responded to? I find it hard to find anything of substance.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I've been primarily reading yours and Paul's posts. And even so, what of it? Does it make my comments about the other posts false? You seem to act as though that were so.

The two of you are the ones I was engaging.

Any thoughts on why your only response to my comments are, "but look at them!"?

Much love!

So, you're telling me that you didn't read any of Davy's posts in this thread?

 

[WPM]

Accusations of intellectual dishonesty is calling someone a liar.

I'm not going into the full list. That's sufficient.

Anyway, all the more so am I disinterested. Both of you are doubling down on your right to talk in just whatever way you want, be it polite or not, accurate or not, fair or not. And I'm not interested.

Call me selective, disenguous, whatever you want, it's not like I care. Anyone here can see what really is.

Much love!

Yes, you are being selective, disingenuous and unfair. But what does that matter when it comes to eschatology? As long as it makes my side look good. Avoid the vicious attacks on Premils and deflect the guilt upon Amils.

Until Premils address the many contradictions in their position it is hard to take that position serious.

 

[WPM]

So, you're telling me that you didn't read any of Davy's posts in this thread?

Exactly!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Which part of the OT do you consider vague?

One example would be the part that talks about how the promises God made to Abraham and his seed applied specifically to Christ and His people who have faith like Abraham, as Galatians 3:16-29 talks about. Do you see that clearly taught in the OT anywhere?

There is a lot of very explicit prophecy, including gathering Israel back to their land for their Kingdom.

Premils often misapply OT passages that speak of the Israelites returning from the Babylonian exile to their land to a future event instead even though that already happened long ago.

Teaches otherwise? Do you think there are contradictions between OT and NT? I do not, myself.

Is this a serious question? Of course I don't think that and neither does anyone else here. He was saying there is clear NT teaching that teaches otherwise from how premils interpret OT scripture.

Are you thinking this means God will not keep His OT promises? I do not think that way myself.

You mean like the ones He made to Abraham and his seed? What did Paul say about that in Galatians 3:16-29?

Both are God's Word. Both are true. The NT is not "more true" than the OT. Nor does the NT negate the OT.

You are completely missing the point. No one is saying that the NT is more true than the OT. What is being said, that I agree with, is that the NT shines light on (clarifies) things that are not made clear in the OT. I gave one prime example of that already above.

All Scripture must be spiritually discerned.

No one said otherwise. But, having the NT scripture makes it much easier to discern the OT scripture.

Fun turn of the phrase, but doesn't support one view over the other.

What exactly is there to be responded to? I find it hard to find anything of substance.

Yet, you were able to respond, anyway. Go figure. Do you want me to find a different point that has more to respond to that we could talk about?

 

[WPM]

Your not the Opinion starter, and God knows how many times you have deviated from a threads topic

Pot, Kettle, Black

Jesus Is The Lord

That is not true. He is highlighting the ongoing avoidance and the unfair personal attacks. It is Premils that are ducking around the Op. They obviously have no rebuttal.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is not true. He is highlighting the ongoing avoidance and the unfair personal attacks. It is Premils that are ducking around the Op. They obviously have no rebuttal.

We've seen this before on other forums. They try to find any way they can to avoid having to address arguments that they have no answer to. The few responses you've gotten so far are just personal rants without any substance or convincing arguments in them. This is in stark contrast to the thread regarding supposed Amil contradictions where we (amils) have addressed every argument made against Amil in that thread.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

It is actually premillennialists like you who oppose plain scripture. I will give just a few examples where they do this even though I could give many.

Example 1:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Peter relates the events that will occur on the day of the Lord here as being "in keeping with his promise", which is a reference to His promise to come again (see 2 Peter 3:4). So, when looking at the context of 2 Peter 3, overall, it's very clear that the day of the Lord is a reference to the day Christ returns. And Peter plainly indicated that on that day the heavens and the earth will be burned up. And Peter said that this will be in fulfillment of the Lord keeping His promise to come again. So, this plainly indicates that everything will be burned up on the day He returns which would obviously make it impossible for any mortals to populate the earth after this event occurs. Other scripture like Matthew 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-10 and Rev 19:17-18 confirm that all unbelievers will be destroyed on the day Christ returns. We know from other scripture like 1 Cor 15:50-54 that believers will all be changed and have immortal bodies at that point.

Example 2:

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

In this passage Jesus plainly stated that a singular time or event is coming during which all of the dead will be resurrected. Premillennialism contradicts this by claiming two (or more) times or events are coming when the dead will be resurrected. How can you even think to criticize Amillennialists for supposedly opposing plain scripture when Premills blatantly contradict plain scripture like this? Paul also referenced one resurrection event rather than two in Acts 24:15 and he indicated that it involves both the just and the unjust. Daniel 12:2 also indicates that the saved and unsaved will be resurrected at generally the same time (not necessarily the same exact moment, but certainly not 1000+ years apart as Premils falsely believe).

Example 3:

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Paul indicated that God has set a singular day in the future at which point when that day arrives He will judge "the world". And the context of "the world" can be seen in this passage to be referring to "all people everywhere"/"everyone". This lines up with passages like Matthew 13:40-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46 which portray all people being judged at the same time rather than the saved being judged 1000+ years before the unsaved, as Premils falsely believe.

Example 4:

2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

This passage indicates that on the day Jesus returns He will take vengeance on and punish "those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus". That is obviously a description of unsaved people. And no unsaved person doesn't fit that description. So, this means Paul was saying that Christ will be destroying all of the unsaved on the day He returns. Meanwhile, we know that the saved will have immortal bodies at that point. So, Paul, like Peter, plainly taught that there will be no mortal survivors of Christ's return.

Do you think the following is referring to a literal one thousand generations?

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

Do you think the following is referring to a literal one thousand hills?

Psalm 50:9 I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, 10 for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

It's common knowledge that the term "a thousand" is often used figuratively. Not only in scripture, but in every day life. Such as when people say things like "If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times...." or "a picture is worth a thousand words". How in the world can you not be aware of this?

Why don't you stop wasting time with your rhetoric and actually take one or two of the points made in the original post and try to refute them? As of now, it appears that you are just all talk and no substance.

From the op up to your post here, yours is the first post in three pages that I at least understood what you were saying. I’m not exactly a dumb person and yours was the only one I understood what you were trying to say.