22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Spiritual Israelite]

You’ve asked that so many times, like you think it proves something. All it proves to me is that the verses that allow for ANY death, even if greatly reduced, cannot be NHNE verses.

If you acknowledged that Isaiah 65 verse 20 relates directly to verse 19 then it would prove something, so it's no wonder that you don't want to acknowledge that verse 20 relates directly to verse 19. Even though it clearly does, as you've been shown.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The text says it. Hello! What citizenship does the text say we are part of? Please quote Scripture.

It's so clear that only doctrinal bias can keep someone from seeing it. First Paul said that in times past (before Christ's death and resurrection) Gentiles were not citizens of Israel and then a little later he said now we (Gentile believers) are fellow citizens. Let's see...fellow citizens of what? Can that be determined? I wonder how? Oh yeah, by just looking at what he said they were formerly not citizens of. Israel. And that clearly can't be talking about earthly Israel. Does scripture speak of another Israel? Yes, it does. In Galatians 6:15-16 it is called "the Israel of God". In Romans 9:6 it's just called "Israel". It's obviously not earthly in nature and is instead spiritual in nature. So, I'd say calling it "spiritual Israel" is quite appropriate.

 

[covenantee]

Having said all that, we must bear in mind that your comparison between Galatians and Romans is apples to oranges. Why? Because the subject matter in Romans 9 is much different than the subject matter in Galatians 3, where Paul argues against the Judaizers, who teach that one must put themselves under Moses in order to please God. In that epistle Paul asserts that "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, man or woman, slave or free." Ethnic distinction is removed in Christ. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, in Romans 9, Paul is dealing with God's promise to ethnic Israel. And remember, God is going to save ethnic Israel in order to restore his holy name. In this context, ethnicity is a given assumption. And the question is, how is God going to keep his promise to them as a people? How is that going to play out?

Genesis 17:12
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.


You repeatedly refer to "ethnic Israel", but Scripture is clear that from the birth of Israel and throughout its history, Israelites were comprised of both ethnic descendants and non-ethnic non-descendants of Abraham, later coming to be known as Jews and Gentiles.

Scripture is also clear that there was always an Israel within Israel, the former comprised of Israelites, both Jew and Gentile, who were in faithful obedient Covenant relationship with God. At one point they numbered only the 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal, but God was faithful.

Scripture also records the various occasions on which God slew Israelites, frequently by the thousands, who rebelled in unfaithfulness and disobedience. He did not spare ethnic Israelites. Their DNA did not save them.

If God's promises were only to ethnic Israel, then He must at some point have replaced His initial Covenant criteria of faith and obedience with non-covenant criteria of ethnicity and DNA, excluding non-ethnic Israelites.

Where and when in Scripture did God institute that replacement?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm sorry if I didn't communicate well. I've typing like crazy for the past week, attempting to answer all the objections and question and I must admit that I kept typing even while I was tired. My apologies.

I'll try to do better. It's a matter of context and focus. What is Paul's main topic in Romans 9 through 11? I take it you think Paul is talking about the church, the body of Christ. Am I right? In your view, Paul is talking about spiritual Israel, which includes both Jews and Gentiles who have circumcised hearts for instance. Okay, please correct me. I will now attempt to give a more complete answer.

I maintain that Paul acknowledges God's promises to ethnic Israel. He doesn't shy away from this idea and neither does he reject it. Paul admits that God made promises to ethnic Israel. He takes that as a given. He then sets out to explain why those promises haven't failed. But although God made promises to ethnic Israel, ethnicity is not the sole condition for salvation and forgiveness.

....(edit: trying to get this down to less than 10,000 characters)

But Paul faces a challenge from those who oppose his message. The fact that ethic Israel remains partially hardened is a problem for Paul's gospel. You see, God's promise was NOT made to "spiritual Israel" because this would imply that Israel was already spiritual. God made a promise to ethnic Israel to make the entire nation into a nation of believers. According to Paul, the New Covenant is in effect. But if the New Covenant is in effect, then why doesn't every citizen of ethnic Israel believe in God? Why hasn't God cleaned them up and put a new spirit in them all? Why does Israel remain partially hardened? Paul sets out to answer that question.

Follow me?

No, I don't follow you at all. Do you understand that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13 and it relates to the new covenant that was established by the blood of Christ long ago? If you don't understand that, what can you understand? I think maybe nothing.

Romans 9:6
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

In the first five verses Paul acknowledges that the promise belongs to ethic Israel. The adoption as sons belongs to his kinsmen, he says. Having acknowledged that fact, he proceeds to explain why ethnicity isn't the only criteria by which an ethnic Jew stands to inherit the promise.

No, he indicates that it isn't a criteria at all! What are you reading? Look at the following verses closely, which relate directly to Romans 9:6.

Romans 9:7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Paul couldn't possibly have made it more clear that one's ethnicity or nationality has absolutely nothing to do with being a child of God (child of the promise, Abraham's offspring/seed). This couldn't be more clear, but you still miss it. Unbelievable.

Romans 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

If a Jew has a hardened heart, God hardened it. If a Jew has a soft heart, God hardened it. This is true of everyone. If a man stubornly refuses to believe in God, then God is the one who hardened him. Why? It serves his purpose. If God decides to pour out his spirit on an entire nation, he can and will do that if it serves his purpose.

Remember, you're talking about Romans 9-11, overall, right? Read Romans 11:30-32. In verse 32 Paul wrote "For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.". God desires to have mercy on all people. You act as if He only desires to have mercy on all of ethnic Israel (or He will one day) and not the rest of the world.

I maintain that Israel #2 is a man.

That is utter nonsense of epic proportions. I doubt anyone else in the world interprets it that way. I can't even take this seriously.

Paul is saying that not all of those descended of Israel, the man, are going to be included in the Israel #1, i.e. the Israel of promise. God made a promise to ethnic Israel, but not each and every person who descended from the man Israel, will be included in the nation whom God will save.

LOL. That is not even close to what it is saying! My goodness, this is the worst case of doctrinal bias imaginable. What is this Israel of promise that you speak of? Please be specific.

That's right. I agree with that. So then, in Romans 9:6, Paul is saying not all of Abraham's natural children are children of promise. He illustrates this point with the story of Isaac and Ishmael.

Having said all that, we must bear in mind that your comparison between Galatians and Romans is apples to oranges.

Nonsense! Comparing one passage that speaks of the children of God, children of the promise and Abraham's seed to another that speaks of the children of God, children of the promise and Abraham's seed is comparing apples to oranges? How can we compare any two passages directly together then? It would be impossible.

Why? Because the subject matter in Romans 9 is much different than the subject matter in Galatians 3, where Paul argues against the Judaizers, who teach that one must put themselves under Moses in order to please God. In that epistle Paul asserts that "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, man or woman, slave or free." Ethnic distinction is removed in Christ. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, in Romans 9, Paul is dealing with God's promise to ethnic Israel. And remember, God is going to save ethnic Israel in order to restore his holy name. In this context, ethnicity is a given assumption. And the question is, how is God going to keep his promise to them as a people? How is that going to play out?

Don't read Romans 9 in isolation. Paul is making a point from Romans 9 to Romans 11. So, Romans 10 and 11 relate to what he was talking about in Romans 9. And in Romans 10 and 11 he clearly wrote about there being no difference between Jew and Gentile as well. In Romans 11 he wrote about how both Jew and Gentile believers are grafted into the cultivated olive tree because of faith. And he wrote this in Romans 10:

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

So, don't tell me that comparing Romans 9:6-8 to Galatians 3:26-29 is apples and orange. No, it absolutely is not. You are failing to recognize that Paul had an overarching point he was making in Romans 9-11. And that's why you fail to recognize that the Israel of which all are saved is the Israel he referenced in Romans 9:6 of which not all from the nation of Israel are part.

Yes, Peter is talking to believers and those of the faith. This is without controversy. At the same time, we know from clues in the text that he is talking to his own kinsmen specifically. What he says to them most likely applies to the rest of us except the fact that God never declared my family line to be "his people" or a kingdom of priests, etc. Peter is quoting Exodus 19:6, which designates the sons of Jacob and refers to THEM as a holy nation and a kingdom of priests. Peter refers to them as the "diaspora". The Greek term διασπορά (diaspora, “dispersion”) refers to Jews not living in Palestine but “dispersed” or scattered among the Gentiles.

Why are you trying to separate Jewish believers into their own group when scripture repeatedly says Jew and Gentile believers have been brought together as one by faith in Christ? What nonsense! The "holy nation" clearly includes both Jew and Gentile believers. To think otherwise shows an unbelievable lack of discernment.

You don't think Gentile believers are together with Jewish believers as God's people and a kingdom of priests? John would clearly disagree with you.

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Was John only talking about Jewish believers here? Of course not! So, your claim is clearly false. Your attempts to divide God's kingdom are shameful. We Jew and Gentile believers are together as one, as scripture teaches repeatedly! As Paul said, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him".

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Your inability to recognize that Isaiah was speaking figuratively when talking about a 100 year old child is amazing to me. A 100 year old child? Really?

I would imagine that before the flood, when men lived hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, that anyone at 100 was still considered a youth. So a hundred year old youth is not so amazing that it should floor you.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Here is another passage about the new heavens and new earth:

Isaiah 66:22 “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the Lord, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the Lord. 24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”

Do you think we will be literally going out and looking at dead bodies on the new earth or do you think Isaiah was speaking figuratively here?

Revelation 21 says there will be no need for sun and moon and it will never be night there (NHNE), so “from one new moon to another” doesn’t fit NHNE. I also don’t think there will be dead bodies to view on NHNE.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

So, you see it as talking about the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65:17-19 and then you think the subject changes in verse 20, right? But, you were shown how verse 20 refers back to verse 19, which means it's directly related to verse 19. Does that not matter to you?

I was shown how you think it relates back to NHNE. I disagree that it does and I’ve given my reasons.

 

[WPM]

Revelation 21 says there will be no need for sun and moon and it will never be night there (NHNE), so “from one new moon to another” doesn’t fit NHNE. I also don’t think there will be dead bodies to view on NHNE.

Isaiah 14:15-18, Isaiah 24:21-22 and Isaiah 66:22-24 all correlate. When Jesus comes the demonic realm is destroyed by being banished to the Lake of Fire. None of these passages make any mention of a future sin-cursed millennial period. That is because they relate to the new heavens and new earth. The wicked and the demons are placed as an eternal reminder to the righteous of the eternal justice of God.

Isaiah 14:15-18: “Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.”

This is talking about the lake of fire in eternity!!!

Isaiah 24:21-22: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.”

This is talking about the lake of fire in eternity!!!

Isaiah 66:22-24: “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”

This is talking about the lake of fire in eternity!!!

This is just hyperbole language describing the reality of eternity in terms that the OT listener/reader could easily grasp. That is nothing more than poetic verbiage used to impress eternity to we humans stuck in time.

Hyperbole, derived from a Greek word meaning “over-casting” is a figure of speech, which involves an exaggeration of ideas for the sake of emphasis. It is a device that we employ in our day-to-day speech.

This relates to the new earth, not some future millennium. I am at a loss to see where you think this teaches Premil. Where does it say that Satan will be released 1,000 years after Christ's coming? Where does it say that devils will be released 1,000 years after Christ's coming?

 

[WPM]

I was shown how you think it relates back to NHNE. I disagree that it does and I’ve given my reasons.

Your reasons are totally untenable, and show a bias Premil approach, adding unto Scripture.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Your reasons are totally untenable, and show a bias Premil approach, adding unto Scripture.

That’s odd. I’m adding to scripture yet you are the one who says death doesn’t mean death but instead means living forever…

 

[Timtofly]

How about you break Romans 9:6-8 down for me to show exactly how you interpret it instead of just posting this gibberish?

I did, you call it gibberish. If you cannot address my points, what am I supposed to do about it?

Just wait here until they sink in, is all I can do.

 

[Timtofly]

Don't ever tell me that I don't think scripture means what it says. I always believe it means what it says, but you and I don't always agree on what it means. I disagree with you, not scripture.

You've been following the discussion, right? I believe I have clearly explained why I interpret it the way I do. What are you confused about in regards to the explanations I've given? It says they (Gentiles) used to be excluded from citizenship in the "commonwealth of Israel" but now they (Gentile believers) are fellow citizens. That tells me they are now fellow citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. And we know they are not citizens of the earthly nation of Israel, so that means it has to be talking about them being fellow citizens of spiritual Israel.

I believe I'm being very clear here, but just let me know if you're still not understanding why I interpret Ephesians 2:11-13 the way I do.

Many Gentiles could have converted into Israel and did. Your ambiguous point is Paul's generalization. Just like Israel is not a literal olive tree, and neither is Jesus Christ. A branch as Israel in this allegorical chapter is not the tree. There were two branches any way that were cut off. Is Israel one tree and Judah another tree? When it comes to this natural branch and wild branch grafted in, the branch cannot define the tree.

And no, the Atonement does not automatically make us a law abiding citizen. Because the tree is the OT law if you reject the tree is Jesus. Paul said the root was Jesus, but the Tree is not Israel, because that was broken off. Either the tree is the Law or the Atonement. Paul did not get that far into the allegory.

But if Israel is the branch broken off, how can Israel also be the tree? Even if you say Israel is the tree, and the ten tribes was the branch it still is pointless. Israel literally stopped being a kingdom when Assyria dispersed them through the earth. There will be no Israel until it is joined with Judah, and form one nation, which literally happened in 1948. Unless you claim it has not happened yet.

Whatever Paul was talking about happened over 700 years before he was even writing about it. Unless you are going to convince people there was always this symbolic tree, but it had no basis in reality, but then all of a sudden it now has a reality to it, because of a group of Jews, who have now embraced the Atonement of the Cross.

But the being part of the tree, and being citizens is both the old economy and the new found Atonement. Because the Atonement was what was real even since the beginning of creation. That cannot be symbolized away. So is the tree the OT Law, or the Atonement? Was the branch Israel allowed access by faith to the Atonement all along?

Why is that not Paul's whole point in either application? All those in Hebrews 11 were not bound together in the term "Israel". They were bound together by faith, and they were citizens of Paradise that was lost to Adam and all humanity including Gentiles and the 2 nations of Abraham. Then the 2 nations of Isaac. Then the two branches of Israel. So the commonwealth of Israel was the place to be at one time, but not all even in Israel were covered by the Atonement in faith.

So even though the Atonement was now in the physical history books, it was always the only nationality that mattered, and it was out of reach out of this world's grasp, even though physical Israel had a connection through the tabernacle and the Holy of Holies. But even that connection was corrupted just like the church easily became apostate, faster than even Israel did.

The church was not the olive tree either, but certainly I would say the church with Christ as the root is a better fit since Enoch as being the tree, than this incessant attempt at calling Israel the olive tree.

It is an allegory. The tree literally does not have to represent anything. But a relationship with God is rooted in Jesus Christ.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That is ridiculous and butchers the inspired text. It exposed the bias and ad-hoc way Premils approach biblical terms. You explain away and reject anything that exposes Premil. The consistent harmonious meaning of the ekklesia is rejected yet you deny remnant theology, which shows a true trans-national Israel throughout the generations.

Go back and review your own posts. Based on your own source material, You will find two distinct definitions of the term ekklesia.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Even you know, you are explaining away the obvious. You are talking in riddles and walking in circles. Stop fighting the text and attempting to explain away the wording of the Bible. We are now integral to the citizenship of Israel. The wall is gone since the cross.

We have entered the NT temple. The old covenant temple is gone forever. Why would you even bring this into the discussion when it is an irrelevancy?

I was explicating Ephesians chapter 2.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The text says it. Hello! What citizenship does the text say we are part of? Please quote Scripture.

In the text Paul refers to "the household of God."

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well is is really any wonder? The only way to eternal life is to receive Gods Spirit, yet men are taught even those who don’t will have eternal life. An eternal life of torment, but nevertheless, eternal life. How can they not be confused?

It's good to see you in this thread, keeping it grounded. :)

 

[CadyandZoe]

That's a lie. I don't ignore any important verses and I also don't twist verses like Romans 9:6-8 and 1 Peter 2:9 to fit my doctrine.

With regard to 1 Peter, did you review Exodus 19:6?
Take another look at 1 Peter 1:1. The word translated "aliens" translates the Greek word "diaspora", which indicates Jewish people living abroad. Peter is writing Jewish people reminding them of what Moses said about them in Exodus 19. Don't take my word for it, research it our yourself.

Ethnic Israel is the holy nation.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do you believe that Isaiah 65:18-19 is about the new heavens and new earth?

Yes, I do.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Genesis 17:12
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.


You repeatedly refer to "ethnic Israel", but Scripture is clear that from the birth of Israel and throughout its history, Israelites were comprised of both ethnic descendants and non-ethnic non-descendants of Abraham, later coming to be known as Jews and Gentiles.

Scripture is also clear that there was always an Israel within Israel, the former comprised of Israelites, both Jew and Gentile, who were in faithful obedient Covenant relationship with God. At one point they numbered only the 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal, but God was faithful.

Scripture also records the various occasions on which God slew Israelites, frequently by the thousands, who rebelled in unfaithfulness and disobedience. He did not spare ethnic Israelites. Their DNA did not save them.

If God's promises were only to ethnic Israel, then He must at some point have replaced His initial Covenant criteria of faith and obedience with non-covenant criteria of ethnicity and DNA, excluding non-ethnic Israelites.

Where and when in Scripture did God institute that replacement?

You are thinking in terms of "either/or" but the Bible's word concerning the Israel of promise is "both/and"

 

[Taken]

22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine
OP^

TWO reasons to BECOME converted IN Christ.
MADE...Already DELIVERED FROM darkness and wrath.

Col 1:
[13] Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
1Thes.1
[10] And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.


If you ain’t Already DELIVERED... no need for you to worry about Premil Doctrine...Doesn’t apply to you.

Glory to God,
Taken