22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

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.

Yes, I agree that Paul quotes Jeremiah 31 and Paul teaches us that the New Covenant is in effect now. But there is more to Jeremiah 31 than the New Covenant. Apparently you didn't know that.

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.

Let's investigate this idea before we talk about the text of Romans 9. For our investigation, let's go back and review Galatians 3:15-18. In that context Paul argues that salvation is based on a promise Yahweh made to Abraham, which is a promise that he made to Abraham 430 years prior to the Mt. Sinai covenant. What this means is that everyone whom God is saving owes their salvation to a promise God made to Abraham. Where does Paul get this idea? Paul is exegeting Genesis 12:3 where God tells Abraham "in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." Not only is God going to bless Abraham's direct descendants, he is going to bless any one who is "in Abraham." And how does one enter into Abraham? Paul explains, in Romans 4, that God is justifying all those who share the same faith as Abraham. (Meditate on Romans 4)

So then salvation is predicated on a promise God made to Abraham 430 years before the Mt. Sinai covenant, and according to Paul, Jesus Christ was the focal point of that promise. Jesus Christ is the means whereby God is going to save all those who share the faith of Abraham. Galatians 3:16. (I realize that I am telling you things you already know. But I am building up to something here.)

In his epistle to the Galatians, we come to understand that God considers other people, those outside of Abraham's direct lineage, to be Abraham's descendants by virtue of the fact that they share the faith of Abraham. Even in the epistle to the Romans Paul makes that same point in Romans 4, where he argues that God accredited "righteousness" to Abraham BEFORE he was circumcised. In conclusion he says that Abraham is the father of our faith; he is "the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised."

I highlighted that last part because, in my view, Romans chapters 9 through 11 is narrowly focused on the circumcised. In Romans 4 Paul is talking about two groups whom God considers to be Abraham's descendants: 1) those who believe without being circumcised, and 2) those who believe while being circumcised. After the cross, both the uncircumcised individuals and those of the circumcision, sharing in the faith of Abraham are united in Christ.

Now, God not only made a promise to Abraham, he made a promise to the nation of the circumcised. Down through history that nation consisted of individuals who followed in the steps of the faith of Father Abraham, while others did not. It was a mix and it always has been a mix. So the question arises, Did God promise to save an entire nation by virtue of the fact that they belong to a circumcised people? The answer is emphatically no. God did promise to save them as a nation, which seems to contradict Paul's argument that salvation is predicated on following in the steps of the faith of father Abraham. In the context of THAT circumstance, Paul sets out to explain what God actually promised to the circumcised nation. In this context, lineage is in the forefront of the objection that Paul is answering.

So then, when Paul says "nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants" he is speaking into the question of the circumcised nation. Consider the birth story of Isaac. There we read about how God, through a miracle, gave Sarah a son from Abraham's body. Why the miracle if physical descent wasn't significant? Of course physical descent was important and significant to God's promise, which is why Paul cited this as an example. Both Isaac and Ishmael were physically related to Abraham. The situation that made the difference was God's choice. Paul wants his readers to know that even in the case where physical descent was at issue, even in that case, the child of promise was Isaac and not Ishmael because being a child of promise is God's choice. Neither of the boys made that choice. God made that choice.

Paul isn't saying that biological lineage isn't important or significant; his claim is that even in cases where biological lineage IS important, the child that stands to inherit the blessing is the one whom God chose.

So then, did God make a promise to the nation of the circumcised? Yes. But even here, where circumcision is important and significant, those who stand to inherit the promise are those whom God will personally choose.

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.

No. If that is what you heard me say then I misspoke. What I am saying is that Paul's treatise in Romans 9-11 is narrowly focused on the circumscribed nation and the promise God made to that nation. He already argued that God is justifying those who follow in the steps of faith of father Abraham, which includes both Jews and Gentiles. I wanted to remind you that this promise comes 430 years earlier than the Mt. Sinai covenant. God's promise to a nation of circumcised people comes much later and Paul has set out to explain why, though it appears that it failed, it has not failed.

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.

I agree, the two passages are saying the same thing about Abraham's seed. But, the question that the passage sets out to explain is different, which is why I say they are apples and oranges. Romans 9:6 is an entirely different subject than Galatians 3:5. The Galatians passage is the basis of the promise God made to Abraham 430 years prior to the Mt. Sinia Covenant. The Romans passage is dealing with an entirely different promise.

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.

Yes, I agree with all of that. But in Romans 9-11 Paul is no longer talking about Jews and Gentiles as individuals. He is talking nations rather than individuals. Do me a favor; go back through Romans chapters 9 - 11 and review every statement Paul made about the nation of Israel. I think you will find statements like the following, "but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone . . ." Later, Paul will claim that he personally arrived and so we understand that whenever Paul uses the term "Israel" he is speaking about his people as a whole. What the nation itself didn't receive from God, individual Jews received. In other words, when Paul is making a point about individual people, he uses terms like "Jew" and "Greek" and "Gentile", but when he wants to make a point about his entire nation, he uses the term "Israel". Isaiah cries out about Israel saying that only a remnant will be saved; Paul says that Israel pursued a law of righteous but did not arrive at that law. There are others.

Paul is attempting to inform us about God's promise to Israel, not a promise he made to Abraham.

This post is getting long and I'm afraid it won't post so forgive me for not addressing the rest of your objections here.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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".

While John clearly identifies the company of believers as a kingdom of priests, which we are, Peter is quoting Exodus where Moses announces that the people who came out of Egypt were a holy people and a kingdom of priests.
What gives?

 

[WPM]

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

What is this citizenship? It is plainly and unambiguously identified in the reading as “the citizenship of Israel.” God did not create a new Israel; the Gentiles were grafted into an existing organism.

Ephesians 2:19 shows that faithful Gentiles are “no more strangers and foreigners” (as in literal outsiders), but rather have become real active participating “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Through Christ, they enjoy a common “citizenship of Israel.” They are no longer alienated. There is no distinction between them in Christ. This is indeed "the household of God."

We should carefully note: to belong to “the citizenship of Israel” requires saving faith. This proves that we are looking at a spiritual organism. What is more, natural birthright means absolutely nothing in regards to participating in this spiritual entity. Significantly, the people of God of all races have been integrated into true Israel – spiritual Israel, not natural Christ-rejecting Israel. Those Jews that made up the membership of the early Church – faithful Israel, have been joined by faithful Gentiles throughout the nations under the select designation of “the citizenship of Israel.”

 

[CadyandZoe]

What is this citizenship? It is plainly and unambiguously identified in the reading as “the citizenship of Israel.” God did not create a new Israel; the Gentiles were grafted into an existing organism.

Ephesians 2:19 shows that faithful Gentiles are “no more strangers and foreigners” (as in literal outsiders), but rather have become real active participating “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” Through Christ, they enjoy a common “citizenship of Israel.” They are no longer alienated. There is no distinction between them in Christ. This is indeed "the household of God."

We should carefully note: to belong to “the citizenship of Israel” requires saving faith. This proves that we are looking at a spiritual organism. What is more, natural birthright means absolutely nothing in regards to participating in this spiritual entity. Significantly, the people of God of all races have been integrated into true Israel – spiritual Israel, not natural Christ-rejecting Israel. Those Jews that made up the membership of the early Church – faithful Israel, have been joined by faithful Gentiles throughout the nations under the select designation of “the citizenship of Israel.”

You don't seem to grasp what Paul said. Paul is making an analogy between the actual commonwealth of Israel, which is the legal government that existed in Palestine at the time, with another "commonwealth" that arises from the unification of the saints under Christ.

 

[WPM]

You don't seem to grasp what Paul said. Paul is making an analogy between the actual commonwealth of Israel, which is the legal government that existed in Palestine at the time, with another "commonwealth" that arises from the unification of the saints under Christ.

That is not true. The context of the passage in view is basically comparing the dark hopeless condition the Gentiles found themselves in before the cross to the liberated enlightened position those Gentiles who embraced Christ were after the cross. The believing Gentile has been given favor with God and has now fully entered into:

· Christ
· The citizenship of Israel
· The covenants of promise
· Spiritual hope
· Union with God in this present world

This passage is speaking of five distinct, yet inextricably linked, states of alienation that the Gentile believer once suffered before they received the glorious Gospel of Christ. Paul the Apostle makes it clear that all five have been graciously opened up to the Gentiles since Christ’s first advent. The Gentile believer can now experience God in the same way the Jew could prior to the cross through their surrender to Christ and their trust in “the blood of Christ.” Gentiles Christians under the new covenant now enjoy the same undeserved favor and blessing that Israeli Jewish believers did under the old covenant. We essentially see the incorporation of the once darkened Gentiles into true Israel. They now share with Israel its Messiah, Israeli citizenship, spiritual covenants, promises, hope and God.”

 

[covenantee]

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

Who is the Israel of promise? How is it defined? Does it include Gentiles as it did in the OT?

 

[CadyandZoe]

That is not true. The context of the passage in view is basically comparing the dark hopeless condition the Gentiles found themselves in before the cross to the liberated enlightened position those Gentiles who embraced Christ were after the cross. The believing Gentile has been given favor with God and has now fully entered into:

· Christ
· The citizenship of Israel
· The covenants of promise
· Spiritual hope
· Union with God in this present world

This passage is speaking of five distinct, yet inextricably linked, states of alienation that the Gentile believer once suffered before they received the glorious Gospel of Christ. Paul the Apostle makes it clear that all five have been graciously opened up to the Gentiles since Christ’s first advent. The Gentile believer can now experience God in the same way the Jew could prior to the cross through their surrender to Christ and their trust in “the blood of Christ.” Gentiles Christians under the new covenant now enjoy the same undeserved favor and blessing that Israeli Jewish believers did under the old covenant. We essentially see the incorporation of the once darkened Gentiles into true Israel. They now share with Israel its Messiah, Israeli citizenship, spiritual covenants, promises, hope and God.”

Paul you are repeating yourself. So let's think about this logically. You say that "the commonwealth of Israel" indicates what? A spiritual state? Why would Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, ever suggest that anyone was excluded from salvation? When has anyone ever been excluded from belief in God? When has anyone ever been excluded from access into the company of believers?

You see, when we push your view to its logical conclusion we find an absurdity. No genuine person wanting to be saved is ever excluded from being saved. Never. Gentiles are NEVER alienated from the gospel.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Who is the Israel of promise? How is it defined? Does it include Gentiles as it did in the OT?

Paul spends three chapters in Romans explaining who they are. But anyone familiar with the OT already knows who they are. Isaiah calls them "survivors" What did these believers survive?

 

[covenantee]

Paul spends three chapters in Romans explaining who they are. But anyone familiar with the OT already knows who they are. Isaiah calls them "survivors" What did these believers survive?

I know what Paul said. I described "all Israel" and "of Israel" in a recent post.

The Israel of promise is "all Israel":

Not of Israel
Not the children of the flesh
The children of God
The children of the promise
Counted for the seed

Would you agree?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I know what Paul said. I described "all Israel" and "of Israel" in a recent post.

The Israel of promise is "all Israel":

Not of Israel
Not the children of the flesh
The children of God
The children of the promise
Counted for the seed

Would you agree?

The ALL Isreal in Romans 11 is as follows

1. Not gentile
2. Blinded in part
3. Hated for the gospel. but believed because of the promise.

It is not spiritual Israel..

 

[Timtofly]

Hello! The building of the Church has been ongoing since the Garden. The ekklesia can be found in the OT and the NT. There is nothing you can do with that apart from reject the biblical evidence. That is what you do with each conclusive passage presented to you which exposes your theology.

The saved saints under the Mosaic covenant were simply the assembly of God of that day. Also, the kingdom which was repeatedly promised to the remnant of Israel developed into the New Testament gathering. Elect Israel and the elect Church were/are the same entity. The word ekklesia conveys the idea of a common assembly in both eras. The New Testament ekklesia is simply an extension of the Old Testament ekklesia (qâhâl or ‛êdâh), albeit it has taken on a different form under the new covenant.

Mirroring the process that a caterpillar undergoes developing into the maturity and beauty of a colorful butterfly, the Old Testament Church underwent a significant metamorphic change in the New Testament, progressing into the current Spirit-filled international New Testament Church. The ekklesia essentially took on wings! That is not to say that we can separate the elect of God in either dispensation or view them as two different entities. Rather, we must view both as the same organic entity. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod report gives a similar illustration: “The relationship between the two Testaments is similar to that of a bud and its full blossom” (The End Times - A Study on Eschatology and Millennialism).

Just because Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church carry different names and possess a different outward appearance and scope of movement does not negate the fact they are the same overall entity. Ray Porter highlights a notable difference with the New Testament ekklesia compared to its old covenant counterpart. He shows that it is found in the fact that it is “united not on the basis of a shared culture, language, or previous religious loyalties, but … [is] united around the Messiah” (The Church Local, Wider, and Universal).

Dispensational theologians do their best to put a wedge between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament. They try to divide them into two unrelated entities. They advocate an apartheid between both and teach a separation theology. They suggest that there is a total disconnect and a radical discontinuity between the Old Testament ekklesia and the New Testament ekklesia. They argue that they are two completely distinct and separate entities. However, repeated New Testament Scripture demonstrates that the believing element (or righteous remnant) of the Old Testament congregation and that of the New Testament congregation are spiritually joined through Christ, and His atoning work on the cross.

The butterfly allegory is just rebranding dispensational thought into a different private interpretation. So now, you as a butterfly are a spiritual caterpillar?

The whole point of being a spiritual x, is pointing back at what used to be in the OT, and that is the point you all fail to see. You can not go back and be something from the OT. You can not replace yourself with what was in the OT.

Israel was called out of Egypt and given the OT Law. You cannot be that even spiritually, under the OT Law. Yes there are dispensations, and no one can symbolize or just dismiss that out of hand with feel good allegories.

The Gentiles today who are covered by the Atonement are in Christ, both physically and spiritually. Spiritual as in birthed from above with the second birth. Physical once seated in Paradise, after one sheds Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Spiritual by birth, physical by death. After the Second Coming, there will no longer be a church on earth. Because humans will no longer have Adam's dead corruptible flesh when living on the earth.

 

[Truth7t7]

The ALL Isreal in Romans 11 is as follows

1. Not gentile
2. Blinded in part
3. Hated for the gospel. but believed because of the promise.

It is not spiritual Israel..

Gods words clearly show (Two Israel's) below

1.) Israel of the flesh (Jews)

2.) Israel of the promised seed (Church)

Scripture clearly teaches Israel of the flesh, they aren't the children of God, it's that simple

Romans 9:6-8KJV

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Yes the Kingdom of God has been taken from National Ethnic Israel, And Given To The Church, a "Holy Nation" as clearly seen below

Matthew 21:43KJV

3 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

1 Peter 2:9KJV

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

 

[Truth7t7]

The ALL Isreal in Romans 11 is as follows

1. Not gentile
2. Blinded in part
3. Hated for the gospel. but believed because of the promise.

It is not spiritual Israel..

"All Israel Will Be Saved"?

When the last name is added to the book of life, and the door of the shepherd is closed "All Israel Will Be Saved"

Roman's chapter 11 describes the "remnant elect Jew", that will be saved and "added" to the Church who is the Israel of God, it's that simple

 

[Timtofly]

The Bible says we part of the citizenship of Israel. You admit that. Which one - ethnic or spiritual?

It is time to cough up or shut up. You choose!

No, we are citizens of Christ and of Paradise, eventually the New Jerusalem.

You can be citizens of earthly Israel or even spiritual OT economy Israel. But that was the dispensation before the Cross. Why would you want to go back there?

 

[Timtofly]

I have showed you there is no death in the text in Isaiah 65 but you are determined to ignore that. I will keep reposting until you address. It is you that is adding unto the inspired text and inserting a supposed future millennium where it is not mentioned or belongs in order to sustain your opinion.

Isaiah 65:17-21 declares, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

The one thing we know for sure is that Scripture does not contradict itself in any way. The way you explain this passage would lead us to believe that this passage is the one exception to this rule in Scripture. Of course, we know it isn’t (or can’t be). This much-debated passage before us must therefore beautifully correlates with other similar Scripture, which informs us that the Coming of Christ is climactic and that the new earth is totally free of the curse. It is essential that we always interpret difficult passages like this with other clearer and simpler passages.

The first thing we see in this reading is the time period in view; the Old Testament prophet explains that he is specifically speaking of the “new heavens and a new earth.” This is indisputable and cannot be a matter for theological debate. Whilst there are challenging parts to this passage, we can be sure of the fact that the detail described will be fulfilled in the “new heavens and a new earth.” In fact, the wording is so explicit in relation to the time-period that it removes any ambiguity or uncertainty for the reader on that front. This is the first absolute we can establish with this reading.

Isaiah 65 is speaking about the NHNE, not some imaginary millennium in the future, which none of the OT prophets, Christ or any of the NT writers recognized. What is more: it doesn't say that people die there. Read the original Hebrew.


It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.

You can repost this in Paradise for the next 1,000 years on earth, and you would be wrong the whole 1,000 years.

On earth it will be a new heaven and earth for 1,000 years. This current state of affairs will no longer be remembered during the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. There will be no more sin and death, that is a new creation, different from the old one.

Peter pointed out:

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

There was a new heaven and earth when Noah stepped out of the ark. The old one, that was, was gone. No more a perfect earth, but one with danger and infected by sin. We have been living in the current one, until the Second Coming, which will change earth back. This current one will be gone after the fire of God's cleansing, and destruction of Satan's 42 months, wrapped up at Armageddon.

Then we see Isaiah's new heaven and earth, which will last for 1,000 years. Not until after Satan weeds out the rebels, and after Jesus hands back all of creation, will we have Revelation 21.

"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

The creation Jesus hands back is after 1,000 years of Isaiah's new heaven and earth, not the current corruption, that has been in place since the Flood. The whole point of those scoffers is that nothing has changed. But Peter said there was a change at the Flood, and Isaiah says another change at the Second Coming. The Second Coming will change earth back into the original way it was intended since creation week. Peter points out that even after the fire we wait until Christ as King is done reigning.

Pre-mill don't deny the current reign of Christ. It is Amill who deny that reign of 1,000 years after the cleansing fire of the Second Coming. Some even to the point of scoffing, and claiming the reign of Christ on earth a fairy tale. Some just making up nonsense that God is not able to remove all sin and death, stating God's attempt a bust.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I know what Paul said. I described "all Israel" and "of Israel" in a recent post.

The Israel of promise is "all Israel":

Not of Israel
Not the children of the flesh
The children of God
The children of the promise
Counted for the seed

Would you agree?

The Israel of the promise is "all Israel" (a small group) but not all the children of God counted for Seed (a much larger group) In my view, the Israel of promise doesn't exist yet.

Let me summarize the time line. If my interpretation of prophecy is correct, God will bring a famine on Israel for three years running. At the beginning of year four, the ministers of God living in Israel will call the faithful to Jerusalem to meet there. They must move quickly because soon after that, God is going to bring fires on Israel to burn up everything. Only those who came to Jerusalem will survive the fire. Joel says, "those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved." Isaiah calls them survivors. During that same time, all of the Jesus followers will be resurrected and meet Jesus in the clouds.

When Jesus returns, he will meet with these faithful Jews, located in Jerusalem, and survivors of the fire. These are the Israel of promise.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Gods words clearly show (Two Israel's) below

1.) Israel of the flesh (Jews)

2.) Israel of the promised seed (Church)

Scripture clearly teaches Israel of the flesh, they aren't the children of God, it's that simple

Romans 9:6-8KJV

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Yes the Kingdom of God has been taken from National Ethnic Israel, And Given To The Church, a "Holy Nation" as clearly seen below

Matthew 21:43KJV

3 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

1 Peter 2:9KJV

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

I see two Israels:
1) Israel of today
2) Israel of tomorrow.

The Israel of today is comprised of believing Jews and unbelieving Jews.
The Israel of tomorrow will be comprised only of believing Jews and all survivors. The unbelieving Jews are incinerated.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

That is not true at all. They would not have been considered children at 100 years old even back then. Come on. They became adults at the same age back then as they do now. They just lived a lot longer as adults back then.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

Did you somehow miss the other part of Colossians 1:13? Not only have we already been delivered from the power of darkness, but we also have already been translated into the kingdom of Christ. That supports Amil doctrine, not Premil.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

You are a stubborn one. This is utter foolishness. In no way, shape or form can a nation that includes many people who reject Christ be considered holy. You're not even thinking here. To include Christ rejecters in His "holy nation" is utterly ridiculous and shows a complete lack of discernment.