22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

I have no idea of what you're talking about. Please explain. If you have death, mourning, crying and pain still occurring after the new heavens and new earth are ushered in, then you are blatantly contradicting Revelation 21:4. And that seems like what you are doing.

Yes, this does seem like a problem for my view. I need to study further. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You misunderstood. You have made it quite clear that you are not capable of expanding my thinking with the nonsense that you keep posting. Sorry if that's harsh, but your response here made it clear to me that you're not getting the point. I have learned things from others here, but I have not learned one single thing from you except that I think you may be wrong about everything.

Also, to answer your question further, I am here to teach others the truth about end times doctrine. Which requires me to refute false doctrine like yours.

What would you say if you didn't find my posts to be nonsense? In other words, in order for one to expand his or her thinking, one needs to provisionally suspend one's own beliefs in order to sympathetically examine another point of view. But it's possible you have been doing that, and the fault is mine. Perhaps it is.

Now, let's consider your point that I may be wrong about everything. And let me say that I accept your premise. It is true, I may be wrong about everything. And by "everything" I mean this. If I am wrong about everything, it means that my entire systematic theology is flawed and worthless. To say that I am wrong about everything is to say that I am wrong about the core gospel. And if you are suggesting that my eschatology is based on a faulty core gospel, then this is a much larger issue.

But I commend you for the connection you make between one's understanding of the core gospel and one's eschatology. I have been making this point for years. And you might be right about me. I think my understanding of the core gospel would permit me to admit, at least, the possibility that I am wrong.

But for now, I hope that you might also accept the possibility that I am not gifted as a teacher and I don't always communicate well. The fact is, this form of communication does not lend itself to the kind of systematic presentation necessary to convey complex ideas.

I apologize for my lack of clarity.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Romans 11 is not talking about nations having faith and being grafted in to the cultivated olive tree and nations being in unbelief and being cut off from the olive tree. No, that would be nonsense. The branches of the cultivated olive tree represent individuals who are saved. It is individuals branches that are grafted in or cut off because of faith or the lack thereof. So, you are reading Romans 11 in the wrong context.

Why is that nonsense? To me it makes perfect sense as a generalization. I think, if we followed Paul's argument from chapter 9 to chapter 11 together, we might notice that he has been making general statements about Israel for these three chapters. As we know, any time someone makes a general statement about a group of people, one always allows for exceptions to the general rule. Paul is no different. He makes general statements about Israel, taken as a whole, knowing that what he said about Israel is not true of every individual Israelite.

Consider Romans 9:30 and following.

What shall we say then? That [in general] Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but [in general] 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.​

In general, Gentiles attained righteousness by faith. Did each and every Gentile attain to righteousness? No. That would be taking Paul's statement too far. Not every Gentile individual attained righteousness; only those Gentiles who believed the gospel attained it.

Did the entire nation of Israel pursue righteousness as though it were by works? No. That would be taking Paul's statement too far. In fact, there were several people living in Israel who pursued righteousness by faith. But as a general rule, Paul says, Israel did not attain it.

The Olive tree analogy is an abstraction, dealing with general concepts concerning God's holy people. The olive tree analogy is the final argument in a series of arguments, most of which, are making general points about Israel taken as a whole. The branches represent the whole, not the parts. In fact, one could say that the branches represent generations of Israel. One could argue that the Olive tree represents a time-line, depicting the state of Israel down through history. And (speaking in general terms) every subsequent generation is rejected because it didn't believe.

From where does this idea come? We find it in Deuteronomy 29:14 where the Lord tells Israel that he is making a covenant with a future generation of people. In verse 22 he predicts a time when a future generation will review history and come to the right conclusion. In the next chapter, God describes a righteous nation, a nation of people whom he circumcised the heart.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yet, I do that all the time, so you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I back up my views with scripture as much as anyone here and you still say this to me? Unbelievable.

I was reflecting back what I saw. Not that you care, but I respect you and commend you for backing up your views with scripture.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Because it's unbiblical. Of course, no one would have a problem with it if that actually happened, but it's not going to happen. Paul indicated that he hoped some of them would be saved (Romans 11:14). And then he turned around just a little later and said they will all be saved? That's nonsense. It's all spiritual Israel that is saved and continues to be saved. He referenced an OT prophecy regarding all Israel being saved (Isaiah 59:20-21) and that prophecy has had an ongoing fulfillment for almost 2,000 years now. The covenant that it talks about which provides the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the new covenant which has been in effect for a long time already. You are acting as if Paul was giving a new prophecy in Romans 11:25-26, but the reality is that he was explaining how the Old Testament prophecy from Isaiah 59:20-21 was being fulfilled and would continue to be fulfilled.

Doesn't Isaiah specifically mention Jacob? Yes, I think he does. This leads me to believe that Isaiah is NOT speaking to the issue of a universal church comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. He is focused on the disposition of Jacob and his family line.

That having been said, I would like to make a point about the "ekklesia". Paul coined a term to represent the whole body of believers who ever existed down through time; he refers to the whole body of believers as the "pleroma". (Refer to Ephesians 1:10). Instead of referring to this group as "spiritual Israel", which confuses the issue. We should use the term Paul used, pleroma.

We both agree that God has been saving individuals, Jew and Gentile alike, down through history. The whole body of believers collectively is the pleroma. I maintain that God is going to bring a group of Hebrews back to Palestine, circumcise their hearts, and pour out his spirit on them. When that takes place, these Hebrews enter into the pleroma.

Not only this, however, God intends use these select individuals to sanctify his holy name among the rest of the nations. This prophecy concerning a future gathering of Hebrews, whom God intends to sanctify, located in the land of Israel during the time we know as "the day of the Lord" is not incompatible with a word about the whole body of believers collectively -- the pleroma. Not everyone in the pleroma will be present in Israel when God brings the nations against her and he proves himself among them.

Paul tells us that once all the Gentiles enter the pleroma, then the final amount of Hebrews will enter.

In other words, the doctrine of the pleroma does not contradict the doctrine concerning the Hebrew survivors that will play a role in God's plan to make his name holy.

The Fullness

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why would you quote 1 Peter 5:8 but not 1 Peter 5:9?

1 Peter 5:8 Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.

What happens if you resist the devil while "standing firm in the faith"?

Why would anyone need to stand firm against the devil if he was bound?

 

[CadyandZoe]

No one is saying that the Gentiles have replaced Israel. What scripture teaches is that the Gentiles have joined with Israelite believers in one body as fellow heirs of God's promises. Why don't you understand this? It's explicitly taught in the New Testament repeatedly.

I do understand this and I wholeheartedly agree. My argument is with the idea that all of God's promises were fulfilled and that they all pertain to the church.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You desire to see the earth remaining,so you can have a Millennial Kingdom that will never take place

Scripture below teaches the earth is "dissolved" to its very "elements"

2 Peter 3:10-13KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Yes, but we must remember that Peter was not a physicist. He says that the fire will liquify the elements, the στοιχεῖα. What did this mean to his readers? How would they have understood his words? During that time, according to Empedocles, there were four basic elements: fire, earth, air and water.

Joel speaks about God's army of fire that marches through the land of Palestine, burning up everything. A fire that hot would surely consume all the air and water and burn up every living thing that exists. Since Peter is teaching on the Day of the Lord, I believe he is making reference to Joel's prophecy. Joel is not predicting a destruction of the planet, he is predicting a purification of the land by fire.

Yes? No?

 

[Truth7t7]

During that time, according to Empedocles, there were four basic elements: fire, earth, air and water.

Joel speaks about God's army of fire that marches through the land of Palestine, burning up everything. A fire that hot would surely consume all the air and water and burn up every living thing that exists. Since Peter is teaching on the Day of the Lord, I believe he is making reference to Joel's prophecy. Joel is not predicting a destruction of the planet, he is predicting a purification of the land by fire.

Yes? No?

"According To Empedocies"

Like I said, "Fairy Tales"!

Your now quoting a Greek philosopher Empedocies, just one reason why you can't be take seriously

Colossians 2:8KJV
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[Rich R]

I am talking about your 2 future comings.

One in Thessalonians where Jesus doesn't actually come all the way down to the earth. He comes in the air and gathers Christians together with him in the air (1 Thes 4:16-17).

The other is in Revelation when Jesus comes as King of Kings and Lord of Lord and defeats the devil at Armageddon (Rev 19:11-21).

 

[Rich R]

Every single post I have read from you is in error. I notice you do not directly address rebuttals. That is because they expose your error.

Really? I think it is actually the other way around. I mean you just gave yet another example of telling me every single post is in error without any explanation whatsoever. Your present reply is your answer to me asking you for something specific about what you said was wrong. In other words, you're avoided giving substance on top of avoiding substance.

To be realistic, I suppose I don't address every verse people show me, but have you noticed the volume of responses I'm getting? There is just not enough time. Nonetheless, I do directly address many, if not most, of them.

 

[covenantee]

He is not talking about each and every child of promise. Only those children of promise whom God will put in Palestine so that he might sanctify his name.

Galatians 4:26,28 includes everyone who is in Christ. It excludes no one who is in Christ.

Galatians 4
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.


Jesus has been sanctifying Himself and His Church for 2,000 years. (John 17:17,19; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 13:12;

 

[CadyandZoe]

"According To Empedocies"

Like I said, "Fairy Tales"!

Your now quoting a Greek philosopher Empedocies, just one reason why you can't be take seriously

Colossians 2:8KJV
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Where did I go wrong. Is it wrong to investigate how Peter's contemporaries might have understood Peter? Where did you get your idea that Peter was talking about atoms?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Galatians 4:26,28 includes everyone who is in Christ. It excludes no one who is in Christ.

Galatians 4
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.


Jesus has been sanctifying Himself and His Church for 2,000 years. (John 17:17,19; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 13:12;

So what. As I said, Romans 9 is not concerned with each and every child of promise.

 

[Keraz]

There isn't going to be a future millennial kingdom on this earth "After" the return of Jesus Christ, it's a fabricated fairy tale of man

I find this statement quite offensive. It directly denies plain scripture; Revelation 20 and other proofs of the future Millennium reign of Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
You can believe whatever you like, but to try and convince others to deny the Prophesies, in the manner you do it, is rude and unacceptable.

Only those children of promise whom God will put in Palestine so that he might sanctify his name.

Every faithful Christian person is a child of God's Promise.
Many Prophesies say how we Christians; Jew and gentile; will gather and live in peace and prosperity in all of the holy Land. Isaiah 35:1-10, Ezekiel 34:11-16, Romans 9:24-26.....in the same place as the ancient Israelites were rejected, Christian peoples will be called: Children of the Living God.

 

[Rich R]

Every single post I have read from you is in error. I notice you do not directly address rebuttals. That is because they expose your error.

I quoted 1 Cor 2:1-2,

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.​

I said that Paul could not teach the Corinthians anything beyond the crucifixion. You say that is in error. Are you suggesting Paul meant he could go beyond the crucifixion?

I quoted 1 Cor 2:6-7,

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:​

I said Paul does speak about the mystery to those who were perfect, or more mature. You say that is in error. What does is say then?

I also quoted 1 Cor 3:3,

"For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"
​

I said that Paul said the Corinthians were carnal. You say that is in error. Are you suggesting that Paul did not say they were carnal?

I quoted 1 Peter 1:11,

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
​

I said that the prophets understood that Jesus would suffer and die, followed by glory. You say that is in error. Correct me if you will.

I think I also said that every culture has idioms and that those in that culture understand the meaning of that idiom. Do you take exception with that? If so, why?

In the same post in which you accused me of dodging questions, you totally ignored all of the above, saying instead that I dodge questions and that every thing I've said is in error. Do you see the irony there?

 

[covenantee]

So what. As I said, Romans 9 is not concerned with each and every child of promise.

Sure it is, because it points to Galatians 4:28. And Galatians 4:26,28 includes every child of promise.

 

[Rich R]

No, it absolutely is not a stretch. That is exactly what Revelation 1:5-6 indictaes. John was clearly writing to both Jew and Gentile believers in the book of Revelation. The book was addressed to churches that had Jew and Gentile believers in them and the book was address to all of them.

There is one thing much more sure than that. You are completely wrong. Who else but the Christian church are those "who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus" (Rev 12:17) and are "the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus" (Rev 14:12)?

Please elaborate on this. What leads you to this conclusion?

Such as?

Rev 2:4,

Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.​

Jer 2:2-5,

2 Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land [that was] not sown.

3 Israel [was] holiness unto the LORD, [and] the firstfruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the LORD.

4 Hear ye the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel:

5 Thus saith the LORD, What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain?​

There is much in the OT about Israel abandoning God. Nothing in Paul's letters to the churches would indicate the church has, "left thy first love."

Rev 2:14,

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.​

Revelation says that the church of Pergamos went the way of Balaam. Balaam is found in Numbers (a book written to Israel). Israel fell for Balaam's lies, but there is nothing in Paul's letters about the church going after Balaam though.

To Thyatira John said they tolerate Jezebel and her lies. Of course we can read about Jezebel in the Hebrew scriptures (the OT), but Paul never said the church fell for her lies. He never said anything about her.

John told the church that Jesus would come upon them as a thief (Rev 3:3) whereas Paul says the church will not be surprised by a thief in the night (1 Thes 5:4).

Revelation talks about priests, kings, candlesticks, the temple, the tabernacle and other things that are uniquely identified with Israel and not with the Christian church.

There is a lot more that links Revelation especially with Israel and not the church. If you look for them, you will find them. Or just forget about and say, "that old Rich R doesn't know anything about the Bible." That be much easier! :)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He is not talking about each and every child of promise. Only those children of promise whom God will put in Palestine so that he might sanctify his name.

Remember the Lord's prayer, "Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name . . ." The Lord taught us to pray that God would sanctify his name. The father will sanctify his name as specified in Ezekiel 36. Mediate on that passage.

How convenient for you to conclude that it's not talking about all of the children of promise. You interpret scripture with a great deal of doctrinal bias.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Rev 2:4,

Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.​

Jer 2:2-5,

2 Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land [that was] not sown.

3 Israel [was] holiness unto the LORD, [and] the firstfruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the LORD.

4 Hear ye the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel:

5 Thus saith the LORD, What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain?​

There is much in the OT about Israel abandoning God. Nothing in Paul's letters to the churches would indicate the church has, "left thy first love."

Rev 2:14,

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.​

Revelation says that the church of Pergamos went the way of Balaam. Balaam is found in Numbers (a book written to Israel). Israel fell for Balaam's lies, but there is nothing in Paul's letters about the church going after Balaam though.

To Thyatira John said they tolerate Jezebel and her lies. Of course we can read about Jezebel in the Hebrew scriptures (the OT), but Paul never said the church fell for her lies. He never said anything about her.

John told the church that Jesus would come upon them as a thief (Rev 3:3) whereas Paul says the church will not be surprised by a thief in the night (1 Thes 5:4).

Revelation talks about priests, kings, candlesticks, the temple, the tabernacle and other things that are uniquely identified with Israel and not with the Christian church.

There is a lot more that links Revelation especially with Israel and not the church. If you look for them, you will find them. Or just forget about and say, "that old Rich R doesn't know anything about the Bible." That be much easier! :)

Well, it's abundantly clear that you have no understanding of the New Testament. Memo to Rich R. Christians, made up of Jew and Gentile believers, are God's people and nationality has nothing to do with it. God is not a respecter of persons, but you make Him out to be one.