22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

LOL. This is 100% gibberish. If you only knew how incoherent you come across. It's impossible to make any sense out of what you're saying. I had to stop reading here because your words were turning my brain into mush. You just talk completely incomprehensible nonsense.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

Do you think we will literally see dead bodies all over at some other time? If so, when?

Isaiah clearly indicates that he's talking about the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 66:22-24, yet here you are once again denying that a passage is talking about the new heavens and new earth even when it obviously is.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I do.

So, yes, you do consider Isaiah 65:18-19 to be about the new heavens and new earth. Why do you not also see verse 20 as being about the new heavens and new earth then?

Isaiah 65:18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy. 19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. 20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reacha]">[a] a hundred will be considered accursed.

Notice that verses 18 and 19 are talking about Jerusalem and how "the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in IT no more". Then in verse 20 it says "Never again will there be in IT an infant who lives but a few days...". Never again...in IT. Never again...in what? Jerusalem. Which you already acknowledge is related to the new heavens and new earth. So, it's clear that verse 20 is still talking about the new heavens and new earth. Why would you deny that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

Paul said in Romans 9:6 "For not all who ARE descended from Israel ARE Israel". He was clearly speaking of two Israels that existed at that time. He was speaking in present tense. You're acting as if he said "Not all who are descended from Israel will be Israel". You are clearly twisting the text to fit your doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

What had they formerly not been citizens of? Israel. Why would the mention of them now being fellow citizens not relate directly to what Paul said they were formerly not citizens of? What rational reason do you have to not make the connection that he was saying that they formerly were not citizens of Israel but now are fellow citizens of Israel? You have none.

 

[Timtofly]

Let us look again at the eternal perfect picture that is portrayed by the prophet in Isaiah 65:17-19: “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."

If there is death there will be "weeping" and "crying." Right? Or are these myriads of millennial phonies so stiff-necked that they lose the ability to cry?

This is pretty water-tight. Crying is terminated. Tears are over. This correlates with Revelation 21:1-4. The wording of this passage also totally negates the possibility of the reintroduction of death, disease and funerals to the new earth as these would obviously reintroduce “the voice of weeping” and “the voice of crying.” From our reading we know that cannot be. Up until here this description closely correlates with the depiction of the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21-22.

When a parent hands over a rebellious child to be stoned to death, is that being obedient to God, or stiff necked that they cannot shed a tear? Do you interpret that as having no emotions at all?

If you had to curse a person, are you crying at that same time? You are placing the wrong emotion onto what takes place.

You currently cry because of sin. If there was no sin, what are you crying over? We don't stone our children because it would be too emotional to do so. Do you think it made them in the OT sociopaths for constantly stoning their offspring to death, or did they just disobey God, and never stoned them to death, period?

God removes the rebel child, in the Millennium. When a child comes up missing, they knew that child was cursed by God, to not live. But if you deny the literal words and make up your own invention to get past this unpleasant view of removing a disobedient person, it does not change the point, people never naturally die. We don't need everlasting life explained. That is clear. Why is death the last enemy, unless people can still willfully disobey? Disobedience is not the last enemy. Being cursed is not the last enemy. Death is the last enemy.

At what age are humans most likely to question authority by experimentation to set bad habits for the rest of one's life? The only reason why humans are killed or die in the Millennium is if they go against the status quo. This is evident at the end, when Satan is loosed and allowed to deceive many people. They gather together against the camp of the saints, symbolic of going against the status quo. So a child who is constantly questioning authority is considered cursed. God deals with the situation. Are the parents and friends sociopathic if they show no response when a cursed child is dealt with? Are they relieved when God removes a menace from society? There are no funerals, no graves, no death. Such contrivance is totally foreign to them, so weeping over death would be as foreign to them, as you stoning your child to death, for being born with Adam's sin nature. No one would have offspring if they had to kill all of them because of a sin nature. Both now and in the reign of Christ.

We do remove sociopaths from society, but normally we don't cry over such removal. When God removes them, will they cry, or be thankful?

 

[Truth7t7]

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.

Your correct, the unbelieving Jews will be incinerated, however those believing Jews will be called "Church"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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?

What gives is your complete lack of spiritual discernment. Jew and Gentile believers are now together as one and you're trying to keep them separate. Terrible. No "holy nation" would include unbelievers, as you think is the case. That's complete nonsense.

 

[Truth7t7]

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.

I Agree 100%, it's called rejection of scriptural truth, and replacing this with dispensationalism's "Zionism" in "Dual Covenant Theology"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

You specifically referenced Jeremiah 31:34, which is part of what was quoted in Hebrews 8:8-13 in relation to the new covenant, which you acknowledge is already in effect. So, what do you want from me here? You were acting as if Jeremiah 31:34 supported your doctrine, but it doesn't. That was my point.

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.

No, it is not. Do you somehow miss how Paul refers to Gentiles within Romans 9-11 as well? You said all that only to come to a clearly false conclusion like this?

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.

What?!!! You must be reading a different Bible than I am. You think the following is about nations?

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. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 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.”

And you think the following passage is talking about nations as well?

Romans 11:17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Both passage are about salvation. Since when is salvation a national thing instead of an individual thing?

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.

That's not a problem. I don't think I could take reading any more of it, anyway.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

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.

Ah…this strikes me as a silly thing I don’t want to get into, honestly. When I was 15, five seemed young. When I was 30, I looked on 15 as a young person. I’m near 60 now and a 30 year old seems like a youth to me. If I lived as long as a tree, hundreds of years, and I reached 600, a person of 100 would be considered a mere youth to me. But if that seems ridiculous to you, I’m okay with that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ah…this strikes me as a silly thing I don’t want to get into, honestly. When I was 15, five seemed young. When I was 30, I looked on 15 as a young person. I’m near 60 now and a 30 year old seems like a youth to me. If I lived as long as a tree, hundreds of years, and I reached 600, a person of 100 would be considered a mere youth to me. But if that seems ridiculous to you, I’m okay with that.

Suddenly, you're not taking the verse literally anymore and it's only about how things seem (a child/youth only in comparison to someone older rather than literally being a child/youth) instead of how they actually are. Interesting. You shouldn't have a problem with me not taking the verse literally either then.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Suddenly, you're not taking the verse literally anymore and it's only about how things seem (a child/youth only in comparison to someone older rather than literally being a child/youth) instead of how they actually are. Interesting. You shouldn't have a problem with me not taking the verse literally either then.

I do take it literally. He says His people will live as long as trees during that time and that one of a hundred years will be considered young.

 

[Timtofly]

That's quite a convenient way for you to interpret that passage. It's quite clear that all people will be gathered before Christ on His throne just after He comes with His angels and then all people will be judged. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that there will be any kind of significant time gap between His second coming and the judgment of all people.

Why do you think it would take long for Him to create the new heavens and new earth? I don't see that as something that will take much time for Him to do.

What do you mean by all people?

All of humanity from day 6?

All humanity alive on earth?

Or all those actually standing before the throne, and not those never brought before the throne?

The verse does not say "all people".

"And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:"

You claim this is the dead. What Nation on earth currently contains dead people as living citizens? They are not dead, until removed from Adam's dead flesh. They are corruptible dead flesh, but have not yet physically died the first time.

The process of choice turns them into living sheep or dead goats. They are neither sheep nor goats, until judgment is passed. They are Nations of all of Adam's living offspring. And not all people are brought before Jesus either.

For one, if this was post Armageddon, there would be no Nations, nor living humans. They would all be dead. This is at least 42 months before Armageddon, because Satan rules over the Nations after this judgment for 42 months. So not all people are judged and given the designation of being a sheep or goat. Many are still left who are the tares and the wheat. The sheep are not the wheat. The wheat are not the sheep. The tares are not the goats, because when the tares are gathered, they are gathered first and then the wheat. Two different gatherings for two different groups. The only groups recognized are Israel and Gentiles. At the Second Coming Jesus takes care of Israel, by calling them out of all the nations, and then later deals with the Gentiles separately.

Since the church is neither Israel nor the Gentiles, the church was removed at the Second Coming, and not on earth during this judgment in Matthew 25. Since Matthew 25 is not about the dead, nor about God on the GWT, it is not the GWT throne judgment either. Matthew 25 is part of the final harvest by Jesus and His angels. It is literal and on the earth. The sheep and goats are symbolic of calling Israel out of all the Nations. Since most of them are still in all the Nations, and have not moved to the Nation of Israel.

 

[WPM]

I do take it literally. He says His people will live as long as trees during that time and that one of a hundred years will be considered young.

Where does it say this in Rev 20 - your only text that mentions the millennium?

 

[Timtofly]

She thinks Isaiah 65:17-19 is about the new heavens and new earth, but then the subject is changed and it starts talking about the supposed earthly millennium after that. Yet, it's very clear that verse 20 refers directly to what was just talked about in the previous verses (17-19).

Isaiah 65:18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy. 19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. 20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reacha]">[a] a hundred will be considered accursed.

This is what she's reading. Notice that verse 19 says regarding (the new) Jerusalem, the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. Then verse 20 says "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days...". Never again will be there be in what an infant who lives but a few days? Or, in other words, what is "IT" referring to in verse 20 when it says "Never again will there be in IT an infant who lives but a few days..."? Obviously, "it" is Jerusalem. It's clearly still talking about the same subject in verse 20 as in verses 17-19, but she stubbornly does not acknowledge this.

You should hold to your comment about changing Scripture and not call it the new Jerusalem. None of Isaiah 65 is about the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21. All have understood that it was Isaiah's Jerusalem that will be made new. The New Jerusalem will be created in a new reality and has never existed prior to that time. You cannot change something that never existed prior to the moment of it's existence. Isaiah is talking about his current Jerusalem that is changed. All are wrong to apply any of Isaiah 65 to something that will be created after the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth.

Why are you pretending there is a Millennium to make your point? The New Jerusalem never had an infant in it, nor may never have one after being created. We do not know much about the next reality because no one was ever been shown that reality, until John was allowed to see it.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Where does it say this in Rev 20 - your only text that mentions the millennium?

It’s just perplexing and weird to me to try to remove a passage from the whole of scripture. I don’t even know how to respond to that tactic…

 

[Truth7t7]

It’s just perplexing and weird to me to try to remove a passage from the whole of scripture. I don’t even know how to respond to that tactic…

You remove scripture and pretend it's non-existant as seen in Isaiah 65:17 below

You disregard that a New Heaven and Earth is seen, and you try to create a Millennial Kingdom on this earth, using the explanation of this that follows, it's that simple

Isaiah 65:17KJV
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

 

[covenantee]

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" in Romans 11 is the same "All Israel" as in Romans 9". Paul's doctrine is consistent.

1. Includes grafted-in Gentiles.
2. Comprised of the unblinded elect, who are the Church saved by grace.
3. "All Israel" are the beloved elect. "Of Israel" are the enemies of the Gospel. Under no conditions or circumstances are enemies of the Gospel ever numbered with the beloved elect.

"All Israel" is spiritual Israel:

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

"All Israel" is saved. "Of Israel" is lost.

 

[covenantee]

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.

The diaspora was Israelites, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, living abroad.

1 Peter 1:1 Greek

3927 [e]
parepidēmois
παρεπιδήμοις
sojourners
Adj-DMP

"in the N. T. metaphorically, in reference to heaven as the native country, one who sojourns on earth: so of Christians, 1 Peter 1:1;"

Peter's letter was addressed to the listed Churches, comprised of both Jew and Gentile Christians.

The Christian Church is the Holy Nation, comprised of multitudes of ethnicities.

God is not a racist. Acts 10:34-35