22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

In 2 Peter 3:10-12, Peter described the fire that will come upon the arrival of Christ. Does 2 Peter 3:10-12 seem like a description of regional fires to you? It absolutely does not come across that way at all. Was Peter trying to confuse people?

What is it that Peter said we are looking forward to as a result of what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12? An earthly millennial kingdom? Or something else, like, say, the new heavens and new earth? In 2 Peter 3:13, Peter indicated that we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth in fulfilling the promise of Christ's second coming. If the new heavens and new earth aren't ushered in until 1000+ years after His second coming, then please explain how 2 Peter 3:13 could make any sense in that case?

You are missing the point entirely. Peter isn't focused on either one of those things. He is focused on the DAY OF THE LORD, which is the time when God reigns on earth. The day of the Lord begins with fire, doom, smoke, earthquakes and etc. but only in so far as it announces the inauguration of a new era in which righteousness reigns. Peter is focused on the righteousness of that era. What kind of people ought we be if we are looking forward to an era in which righteousness reigns? We, ourselves, ought to live in righteousness. THAT is Peter's point.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You have obviously no answer to the truth presented here. Telling!

I answered you already.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Not true! There is nothing you or any other Premil can do with 2 Peter 3 apart from explain it away.

How have I explained it away? I gave you a perfectly rational explanation of the text. Are you simply going to parrot the party line, or are you going to deal with my response directly?

It is Amils that take literal passages like this literal.

I take Peter literally also. Peter isn't talking about the Millennial period as such. He is talking about the Day of the Lord, which includes the Millennial period. The earth doesn't pass away until AFTER the Day of the Lord is realized in it's fulness and eternity begins. I didn't take anything figurative or nonliteral. And I didn't explain anything away.

Peter could not have made it any more destructive or climactic.

So what? As I said the earth doesn't pass away until after the Day of the Lord is fully realized. 2 Peter 3 is no problem for my view.

 

[atpollard]

22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

Perhaps, but I have only 1 reason to let them keep the Premil doctrine … what harm does it do?

If a person is saved (trusting in Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of his sins in this life and eternal life when the time comes to “cross that bridge” … then where is the evil or harm if they live that life believing expectantly that Jesus could return at any moment, without warning, and call His faithful (living and dead) to meet Him in the air before dealing with the world as God sees fit? Why is it essential that you steal from them the hope and expectation of an imminent return being possible at any moment?

Leave them be. God will do whatever God will do. Let them live their days in hopeful expectation that the “twinkling of an eye” could come at any moment.

My 1 reason (and 2 cents).

 

[WPM]

I answered you already.

No you did not, and you know it.

(1) Anyone who contends that 2 Peter 3 supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of the destructive nature of the passage. This vivid account of complete devastation and utter destruction that occurs in this final day totally destroys any credence for the advancement of the Premillennial supposition. If this day lasts 1,000 years, as the Premillennialist passionately argues, then it is unquestionably a thousand years of awful and continuous judgment, which is in stark contradiction to the peaceful (albeit goat-infested) millennium that Premillennialists try to portray in their literature.

(2) The Premillennialial paradigm again collapses on the flawed notions that “the day of the Lord” lasts a literal 1,000 years, and that the destruction predicted in the narrative only occurs at the very end of this day, 1,000 years after the second coming of Christ. Notwithstanding, this undoubted forced interpretation of “the day of the Lord” is totally demolished when one realises that the world must therefore be completely destroyed before Satan has his opportunity to “deceive the nations” for “a little season” at the end, after the millennium. There will manifestly be no world or wicked left for Satan to gather Gog and Magog “as the sand of the sea” against “the camp of the saints.” This again only serves to support the belief that this passage can only be fully and completely realised at the second coming of the Lord, and in the Amillennial position. For them to take 2 Peter 3 as it reads (and means) would totally destroy their beloved doctrine.

(3) Placing the destruction of the world 1,000 years after the second coming of Christ, totally nullifies the whole import of this reading, ignoring the plain warning of the text, the undoubted unexpected all-consummating earth-destroying nature of this judgment and its unquestionable focus upon them that are caught unprepared. 2 Peter 3:10 succinctly says, “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.”

(4) The Premillennialist totally ignores the fact that the solemn message embodied within this reading is solely directed towards the “scoffers” in “the last days” that foolishly question the reality of the impending return of Christ. It is not in any way concentrated upon a supposed group of ‘millennial scoffers’ 1,000 years later. If this is supposed to be a collection of ‘millennial scoffers’ 1,000 years after the second coming, why would they be saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”? Such a notion is a complete absurdity as Christ’s coming (or parousia) is long past.

(5) To take the day of the Lord as a literal 1000 years and to apply the destructive detail outlined in 2 Peter 3 to that same 1000-years-day-of-the-Lord would logically prevent Satan’s little season from occurring after the 1000 years, as the wholesale destruction described in 2 Peter 3 must occur on the day of the Lord, which means there are no wicked to be deceived and no corrupt earth for Satan to operate on. After all, the destruction occurred at the end of their thousand years and before Satan's little season.

 

[WPM]

22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

Perhaps, but I have only 1 reason to let them keep the Premil doctrine … what harm does it do?

If a person is saved (trusting in Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of his sins in this life and eternal life when the time comes to “cross that bridge” … then where is the evil or harm if they live that life believing expectantly that Jesus could return at any moment, without warning, and call His faithful (living and dead) to meet Him in the air before dealing with the world as God sees fit? Why is it essential that you steal from them the hope and expectation of an imminent return being possible at any moment?

Leave them be. God will do whatever God will do. Let them live their days in hopeful expectation that the “twinkling of an eye” could come at any moment.

My 1 reason (and 2 cents).

There is nothing in the Op that questions the impending return of Jesus Christ. It is actually addressed toward the error of inventing a period of time in between "this age" and "the age to come," which the Bible does not recognize.

 

[WPM]

2 Peter 3 is no problem for my view.

Yes it is! The earth does doesn't pass away until after Satan's little season, not at the end of the millennium. That is more than 1000 years after the second coming in your theology. There are so many contractions in your view that it is self-defeating. The 1000 years DOTL doesn't add up.

 

[atpollard]

There is nothing in the Op that questions the impending return of Jesus Christ. It is actually addressed toward the error of inventing a period of time in between "this age" and "the age to come," which the Bible does not recognize.

So if I claim a rapture, followed by a great tribulation, followed by a Millennial Kingdom, followed by a great revolt (Armageddon) and then the new “Heaven and Earth” … you would only object if I attempted to call an end to “this Age” before the “new heaven and earth” (the age to come)?

You seem to have split your semantic hairs rather fine.
Whatever.

 

[WPM]

So if I claim a rapture, followed by a great tribulation, followed by a Millennial Kingdom, followed by a great revolt (Armageddon) and then the new “Heaven and Earth” … you would only object if I attempted to call an end to “this Age” before the “new heaven and earth” (the age to come)?

You seem to have split your semantic hairs rather fine.
Whatever.

Not so. Please read what I wrote before making these claims. The Pretrib theory has not one single proof-text. It must be taught to you. Many of us have abandoned it because it is not in the Bible.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No you did not, and you know it.

Just going from memory, I answered this point several times in this thread; three or four times I spoke to you directly.

Anyone who contends that 2 Peter 3 supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of the destructive nature of the passage.

It is only absurd under your interpretation. I don't share your interpretation. And frankly I don't think Peter is talking about the end of the world or the end of human history.

Peter likens the Day of the Lord to Noah's flood, which applied to the entire world but did not destroy the entire world, since Noah and his family were able to plant crops and live a normal life. The same will be true of the fires etc.

 

[WPM]

Just going from memory, I answered this point several times in this thread; three or four times I spoke to you directly.

Anyone who contends that 2 Peter 3 supports the Premillennial theory that the day of the Lord lasts a literal 1,000 years after the second coming must surely see the absolute absurdity of their notion in the light of the destructive nature of the passage.
The Day of the Lord lasts forever. It has no end. In case you have never studied the subject, The Day of the Lord is the era of history when God vindicates his holy name. He will rule over Israel and be God for them, blessing them materially, causing them to keep his law and protecting them from their enemies. It begins with fire, smoke and etc. but the destruction is limited.

Peter likens the Day of the Lord to Noah's flood, which applied to the entire world but did not destroy the entire world, since Noah and his family were able to plant crops and live a normal life. The same will be true of the fires etc.

Why do you keep avoiding my main point?

2 Peter 3:3-15 tells us: “there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming (parousia)? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 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. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 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. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 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? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation.”

• Unquestionably, the focus of this message is directed to the end-time-cynics who question God.
• These fools question God keeping His “promise.” What promise? It is “the promise of his coming.”
• The scorn and derision of these foolish last days scoffers and mockers are directed specifically towards the reality and occurrence of Christ’s coming.
• It is not in any way concentrated upon a supposed group of ‘millennial scoffers’ 1,000 years later. If this is supposed to be a collection of ‘millennial scoffers’ 1,000 years after the second coming, why would they be saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”? Such a notion is a complete absurdity as Christ’s coming (or parousia) is long past.
• This text shows us that today is the only day of salvation. Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: “the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). Romans 2:4 reaffirms that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming.
• The actual wrath described by the Holy Spirit comes suddenly and unexpectedly upon these foolish last days scoffers and mockers. There is no escape. They are the recipients of total destruction.
• We also see in this reading that “the day of the Lord will arrive (or heko) as a thief in the night; in the which (en heé)” or literally translated “in which” (the word “the” being absent from the original). The detail described arrives with Jesus.
• What happens to creation when Jesus arrives? 1. The heavens shall pass away / perish with a great noise. 2. The elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’, 3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly. 4. The works that are within the earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly. The Premillennialist claims to be a literalist, so there is no spiritualization that can explain this away. It is water-tight.
• The description of the destruction could not be more comprehensive. It is undoubtedly the end. It involves wholesale and unavoidable annihilation for the wicked. It embraces the full gamut of fallen creation.
• What is this replaced with? A future millennium filled with sin and sinners, crying and dying? No. The Holy Spirit tells us that it the “new heavens and a new earth” that follows Christ’s return.
• The arrival of the “new heavens and a new earth” are here significantly connected to “his promise.”
• The Holy Spirit then assures the last days elect that their lot is not wrath or destruction. They experience the new heavens and new earth at His appearing.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes it is! The earth does doesn't pass away until after Satan's little season, not at the end of the millennium. That is more than 1000 years after the second coming in your theology. There are so many contractions in your view that it is self-defeating. The 1000 years DOTL doesn't add up.

So what? Satan's little season comes after the Millennial period.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why do you keep avoiding my main point.

II haven't avoided your point. I simply disagree with it.

In your mind, the coming of Jesus and the end of the world are coincident. You ignore tons of Biblical evidence to the contrary.

Peter is not talking about the end of the world. He is not talking about total destruction of the planet. He is talking about the devastation of Palestine. Your English translation is misleading you.

 

[WPM]

II haven't avoided your point. I simply disagree with it.

In your mind, the coming of Jesus and the end of the world are coincident. You ignore tons of Biblical evidence to the contrary.

Peter is not talking about the end of the world. He is not talking about total destruction of the planet. He is talking about the devastation of Palestine. Your English translation is misleading you.

You are definitely and carefully ducking around this major contradiction in your position. That is why you are not addressing one single point that I am presenting in regard to this. That is your MO. You constantly avoid the multiple contradictions in your position. You have to! To acknowledge them would force you to abandoned Premillennialism.

You have to see that everything that is written here in 2 Peter 3 is written in response to the foolish mockings of these end-times cynics. The Holy Spirit is showing that there is a day coming (the second coming) when they are going to be caught on rather than caught up. They are going to be destroyed in their own foolishness when Jesus comes.

We see in this reading that “the day of the Lord will arrive (heko) as a thief in the night; in the which (en heé)” or literally translated “in which” (the word “the” being absent from the original). The word en is used 2,831 times in Scripture and is overwhelmingly interpreted “in” or “within” throughout. Significantly, it is not translated as ‘near,’ ‘close to’ or ‘close by’ in any of these references. Support for the complete demolition attending the actual appearance of Christ in all His glory is also found in the same chapter in 2 Peter 3:12, which explains, “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.”

1. The heavens shall pass away / perish with a great noise.
2. The elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’,
3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.
4. The works that are within the earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.

I Thessalonians 5:2-7, which closely parallels 2 Peter 3, corroborate the idea of the immediate and total destruction of the world/wicked, saying, “the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.”

The coming of Christ is here (as 2 Peter 3) likened to the appearance of “a thief in the night,” thus reinforcing the swift and unexpected nature of this climactic event and the attending judgment. Moreover, the narrative demonstrates that the devastation that accompanies this climactic event is instantaneous and that it involves “sudden destruction.” Its focus is directed fully and entirely upon the sum-total of the wicked, not merely a percentage of them. This group that is referred to as “they” who “shall not escape” relates to the aggregate Christ-rejecting community alive at His return. It is they alone that experience immediate and “sudden destruction” which “cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child”; and “they shall [assuredly] not escape.” This climactic event pulls down the curtain on time and concludes the affairs of this life.

 

[The Light]

Not so. Please read what I wrote before making these claims. The Pretrib theory has not one single proof-text. It must be taught to you. Many of us have abandoned it because it is not in the Bible.

Most have abandoned it because of lack of understanding.

Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

 

[WPM]

Most have abandoned it because of lack of understanding.

Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Not so. It is a totally non-corroborative doctrine.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You are definitely and carefully ducking around this major contradiction in your position. That is why you are not addressing one single point that I am presenting in regard to this. That is your MO. You constantly avoid the multiple contradictions in your position. You have to! To acknowledge them would force you to abandoned Premillennialism.

I did address your points.

I am not convinced that your interpretation is correct because it contradicts every other scriptural passage on the matter.

 

[WPM]

I did address your points.

I am not convinced that your interpretation is correct because it contradicts every other scriptural passage on the matter.

Who is Peter warning in this chapter?
And, what is he warning them about?

 

[Keraz]

Have you actually read Psalm 2:6-9? It describes Jesus destroying His enemies, not ruling over them.

Psalm 2:Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

Zechariah 14:16-21 refutes you.
Psalms 2:9 is how the Lord will punish those who disobey Him.

Who is Peter warning in this chapter?
And, what is he warning them about?

2 Peter 1:7 is a warning about the forthcoming Day of the Lord's fiery wrath, the literal day in which the Lord will destroy His enemies and change the world. The Sixth Seal event, that will set the scene for all the Prophesied things to happen before Jesus Returns.

Your belief of the world being totally destroyed when Jesus Returns, is wrong and not what scripture tells us.

 

[The Light]

Not so. It is a totally non-corroborative doctrine.

You don't believe what is written?