22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not true! There is nothing you or any other Premil can do with 2 Peter 3 apart from explain it away. It is Amils that take literal passages like this literal. This is a watertight passage. Peter could not have made it any more destructive or climactic. Your conclusion is nonsensical - propelling the destruction to 1000 years after the second coming. That is ridiculous! The whole thrust of Peter's teaching is on the wholesale destruction that catches the wicked unawares.

It is not in any way concentrated upon a supposed group of ‘millennial scoffers’ 1,000 years later.

Exactly. The context suggests that the fiery destruction that Peter described would be in response to the wickedness and unbelief of people like the scoffers that Peter described. And Peter indicated that they were scoffing at Christ's second coming. So, it only follows that the destruction would come down on scoffers on the day He returns since people will only scoff about His second coming until He returns. Obviously, no one will be scoffing at it after He returns.

What Peter described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the same as the "sudden destruction" that Paul said will come down at Christ's return from which unbelievers "will not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3). Do Premils deny that the "sudden destruction" described in 1 Thess 5:2-3 will occur on the day Christ returns and try to say it will happen 1,000+ years later instead? I don't think they do. So, why would they deny that 2 Peter 3:10-12 will occur on the day He returns since Peter was clearly writing about the same day of the Lord and same destruction occurring on the day of the Lord as Paul wrote about.

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.

Exactly. I don't believe Premils interpret 2nd Peter 3 in an honest and objective way at all. They have these scoffers who scoff at the second coming not being destroyed until long after His second coming even though there would not be anyone scoffing at His second coming 1,000+ years after it occurs. Do Premils even consider these things? This is the kind of thing that they need to address, but they don't do it.

 

[Philip James]

Jesus and us are reigning the earth now with a rod of iron.

You are demonstrating my point that the 1000 yrs is over. To be sure, Christindom ruled with an iron rod..

Pax et Bonum

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

Where are you seeing this in 2nd Peter 3? Where is there any indication that the fire Peter mentions does not affect the entire earth, but is only going to come down in some places for the purpose of announcing "the inauguration of a new era in which righteousness reigns"? Peter indicates that this new era would come in the form of the eternal new heavens and new earth (2 Peter 3:13). Are you somehow missing that? Your new era comes to an end when a number "as the sand of the sea" decides to rebel against Christ. That makes your "new era" a complete failure and makes it seem rather pointless. The Amil view has the return of Christ bringing in eternal righteousness rather than temporary righteousness as Premil believes. Tell me which scenario is more exciting to look forward to. The Premil view makes His second coming rather anti-climactic when you consider what would end up happening later, as described in Revelation 20:7-9.

 

[WPM]

Exactly. The context suggests that the fiery destruction that Peter described would be in response to the wickedness and unbelief of people like the scoffers that Peter described. And Peter indicated that they were scoffing at Christ's second coming. So, it only follows that the destruction would come down on scoffers on the day He returns since people will only scoff about His second coming until He returns. Obviously, no one will be scoffing at it after He returns.

What Peter described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the same as the "sudden destruction" that Paul said will come down at Christ's return from which unbelievers "will not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3). Do Premils deny that the "sudden destruction" described in 1 Thess 5:2-3 will occur on the day Christ returns and try to say it will happen 1,000+ years later instead? I don't think they do. So, why would they deny that 2 Peter 3:10-12 will occur on the day He returns since Peter was clearly writing about the same day of the Lord and same destruction occurring on the day of the Lord as Paul wrote about.

Exactly. I don't believe Premils interpret 2nd Peter 3 in an honest and objective way at all. They have these scoffers who scoff at the second coming not being destroyed until long after His second coming even though there would not be anyone scoffing at His second coming 1,000+ years after it occurs. Do Premils even consider these things? This is the kind of thing that they need to address, but they don't do it.

Well put. Excellent! I suspect they know they are winging it. They cannot even justify it in their own minds.

 

[WPM]

Where are you seeing this in 2nd Peter 3? Where is there any indication that the fire Peter mentions does not affect the entire earth, but is only going to come down in some places for the purpose of announcing "the inauguration of a new era in which righteousness reigns"? Peter indicates that this new era would come in the form of the eternal new heavens and new earth (2 Peter 3:13). Are you somehow missing that? Your new era comes to an end when a number "as the sand of the sea" decides to rebel against Christ. That makes your "new era" a complete failure and makes it seem rather pointless. The Amil view has the return of Christ bringing in eternal righteousness rather than temporary righteousness as Premil believes. Tell me which scenario is more exciting to look forward to. The Premil view makes His second coming rather anti-climactic when you consider what would end up happening later, as described in Revelation 20:7-9.

I take this lame excuse as a testimony to the success of Amil arguments over the years online. They know they are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and must explain the literal text away somehow. What they end up doing is exposing their hermeneutics as contradictory.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

Why do you have Him punishing His enemies some time after His return when scripture has Him doing it on the day He returns?

2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well put. Excellent! I suspect they know they are winging it. They cannot even justify it in their own minds.

I have yet to see a Premil attempt to interpret 2nd Peter 3 without embarrassing results. They absolutely butcher that passage and take it completely out of context.

They have people who are scoffing at the promise of His second coming not being punished for that until 1,000+ years after His second coming. It doesn't get any more nonsensical than that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I take this lame excuse as a testimony to the success of Amil arguments over the years online.

It's not possible to be objective and conclude that 2 Peter 3:10-12 does not affect the entire earth. Deep down they must know this.

They know they are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and must explain the literal text away somehow. What they end up doing is exposing their hermeneutics as contradictory.

I agree. But, somehow, we are the spiritualists and not them. Hmmm.

 

[WPM]

I have yet to see a Premil attempt to interpret 2nd Peter 3 without embarrassing results. They absolutely butcher that passage and take it completely out of context.

They have people who are scoffing at the promise of His second coming not being punished for that until 1,000+ years after His second coming. It doesn't get any more nonsensical than that.

Tis true!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Rather than warning his readers, I think Peter is exhorting his readers toward perseverance.

Why can't it be him both warning them and exhorting them?

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Notice how Peter asks them what kind of people they should be when taking into consideration that the heavens, elements and the earth will be burned up on the day of the Lord? And then he tells them that they ought to live holy and godly lives while they look forward to that day. Why would it matter how they live their lives if what Peter described couldn't potentially affect them if they weren't careful?

Paul wrote about the same thing in 1 Thess 5:1-6 and warned his readers about being careful to watch and be sober spiritually in light of the coming "sudden destruction" from which unbelievers "shall not escape". He encouraged them as well saying that they were in the light spiritually instead of the darkness, but he surely was also warning them to be careful about staying in the light in order to avoid God's wrath that he described.

Jesus did the same thing. He warned His followers to be careful about their behavior while they waited for the day He would come like a thief.

Matthew 24:42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

See how Jesus warned them to be ready in anticipation of His coming as a thief? It's not automatic that someone is ready for His return. We have to make the effort to be careful and make sure we're ready by keeping our eyes on Him and being aware of the deception going on out there. Peter and Paul gave the same warnings while at the same time encouraging their readers. They both indicated that their readers were doing the right thing up to that point and warned them that they need to continue doing so while they wait for that day to come. They knew that a warning is needed because they didn't want their readers to be among those who fall away from the faith.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No He does not whether you realize it or not. Nor has He been reigning for the last 1000 years with His saints.

Do you think Jesus was confused when He said this before He ascended to heaven:

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Do you think Paul was confused when he wrote this:

Colossians 1:12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You follow the theme of Spiritual Israelite in a 2,000+ year gap in what is called "Fulfilling Of The Gentiles" 70AD to a future consummation "Wrong"!

It's not called "Fulfilling of the Gentiles", it's called "the times of the Gentiles". If you can't even get this right, how can we trust anything you say?

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The claim is a fairy tale not found in scripture and you know it Jeff, lay down "Preterism" in 66-70AD fulfillment its a farce, just as Dispensationalism and Millennialism is is farce

Do you understand that people like Jeff, myself and WPM do not interpret all of the Olivet Discourse as being fulfilled the way preterists typically do? You don't need to lump us in with people who interpret the entirety of the Olivet Discourse as being fulfilled.

Those seen below will be eyewitnesses of Daniel's AOD, The Great Tribulation, And The Second Coming, future events unfulfilled.

.
One thing Dispensationalism, Millennialism, And Preterism, all have in common is, they are all false teachings

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

Fact is, History played no part in fulfillment of Jerusalems Desolation as you claim, The Desolation,, The Great Tribulation, and The Second Coming, are "Future" events unfulfilled

The desolation of Jerusalem and fulfilling of the gentiles is "Future" that will have eye witnesses of the "Future", Desolation, Great Tribulation, and Second Coming Of Jesus Christ In The Heavens

(Future Events Unfulfilled)

Luke 21:20-28KJV
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Do you deny that the city of Jerusalem and its temple buildings were made desolate in 70 AD? I see no reason to think that didn't happen. Clearly, the temple buildings are no longer there. What happened to them and when? I see no reason to doubt the accounts that they were destroyed in 70 AD. Jesus said they would be destroyed, so we should be celebrating the fact that it happened just as He said it would.

If you acknowledge that Jerusalem and its temple buildings were destroyed in 70 AD, then do you not think there would be any Bible prophecies about that event?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your claim is laughable in light of scriptural truth

Daniel's AOD and The Great Tribulation are "Future" events unfulfilled, as has been shown several times in this thread

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

Daniel's (Little Horn)

This "Future" figure will be present on earth to see the (Second Coming) of Jesus Christ and (Final Judgement), as this figure will be slain by Jesus Christ and cast into the lake of fire (Future) unfulfilled

"Future" (Second Coming, Final Judgement) Below

Daniel 7:8-11KJV
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

If his claim is laughable, then why did you not address it specifically? He pointed out that John said the beast "was" in Revelation 17:8. If the beast is a man, then how could he have existed before John wrote the book of Revelation? Instead of laughing, why don't you actually address this?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is really an excellent answer. However, I will point again to a lack of understanding.

This coming of Jesus does not occur at the end of the trumpets.s the same coming of Jesus at the end of the trumpets. This cannot be the case.

Paul indicated that Jesus will return at the last trumpet when the dead in Christ are raised (1 Cor 15:22-23 in conjunction with 1 Cor 15:50-54). If that isn't the end of the trumpets, then I don't know what is.

I know that you likely don't see the last trumpet and the seventh trumpet as being the same. But, in context, the last trumpet refers to the last prophetic trumpet that will sound. And that is the seventh trumpet.

But, you might say "Paul didn't know about the seven trumpets of Revelation when he wrote 1 Corinthians since the book of Revelation wasn't written yet". And to that I say...so what? The Holy Spirit inspired both 1 Corinthians and the book of Revelation. When the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write about the last trumpet I'm sure He already knew about the seven trumpets of Revelation at that time. It doesn't matter if Paul knew about that yet or not. The Holy Spirit did. The last trumpet is just that. The last one. No more trumpets will sound after the last trumpet. Otherwise, why is it called "the last trumpet"? No, it's the last trumpet that will sound (same trumpet as referenced in Matthew 24:31 and 1 Thess 4:16). That makes the seventh trumpet and the last trumpet the same.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The coming of Jesus at the 6th seal cannot be the coming of Jesus at the end of the trumpets. There are many reasons that cannot be the case.

Here's one

1 Thes 5
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

In context, Paul was referring to the wrath that he described a little bit earlier:

1 Thess 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 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.

Which Peter also described here:

2 Peter 3:10 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?

So, when do you believe the wrath Paul described in 1 Thess 5:2-3 and Peter described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 will occur? I believe it will occur on the day Christ returns. Instead of that wrath coming down on us, when He comes we will instead be changed to have immortal bodies and will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 4:14-17, 1 Cor 15:22-23, 1 Cor 15:50-54).

 

[dad]

You are demonstrating my point that the 1000 yrs is over. To be sure, Christindom ruled with an iron rod..

Pax et Bonum

The nations will be ruled not the 'churches'. Believers will be ruling with Him

 

[dad]

Do you think Jesus was confused when He said this before He ascended to heaven:

Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Do you think Paul was confused when he wrote this:

Colossians 1:12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Being forgiven does not make on ruler of the planet at the moment. In fact most of the rulers are against God more and more. Any confusion is on you.

 

[dad]

You are demonstrating my point that the 1000 yrs is over. To be sure, Christindom ruled with an iron rod..

Pax et Bonum

That truly is foolishness.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I basically ignored your previous post because it dealt with nothing I said. Even here, you make no attempt to understand what I said. Peter advances the idea of a thousand-year day. No me.

Peter did not teach the idea of a thousand year day at all. That is not at all the context of this passage:

2 Peter 3:
8 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. 9 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.

In order to understand the meaning of 2 Peter 3:8, verse 9 needs to be taken into account as well. Along with the context of "his promise" referenced in verse 9.

So, what was Peter saying here in 2 Peter 3:8-9? That one day equals one thousand years to the Lord? Not at all. Peter said that one day is AS a thousand years AND a thousand years is AS one day to the Lord. You are reading it as if it says one day is equal to a thousand years and a thousand years is equal to a day. No, that is not what it says. What Peter was saying is that, to the Lord, one day is no different than a thousand years and a thousand years is no different than one day. That's very different than saying one day equals a thousand years to the Lord.

So, what does it mean that one day is AS a thousand years and a thousand years is AS one day to the Lord? And why is Peter pointing this out? I'll answer the second question first. This is where verse 9 comes in. He's pointing this out in order to show that the Lord is NOT being slow to fulfill His promise as some think. What promise is that? The promise of His second coming that Peter referenced previously in verse 4 which is what he said scoffers in the last days scoff at.

How do we know that the Lord is not being slow to keep His promise? Because one day equals exactly one thousand years to Him as you think it's saying? No. It's because no amount of time makes any difference to the Lord, whether it's one day, a thousand years, five thousand years or any amount of time. Why is that? Because He created time. He exists outside of time. To say that one day is equal to a thousand years to Him would imply that He is confined within the realm of time, but just in a different way than we are. Not so! He is God and is eternal! He created time. So, no amount of time has any effect on Him. Therefore, it's not possible for Him to be too slow to fulfill His promise. He can take as much time as He wants since time is not an issue for Him at all. That is what 2 Peter 3:8-9 means. It has absolutely nothing to do with a thousand year day and has no relationship at all to Revelation 20.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Being forgiven does not make on ruler of the planet at the moment. In fact most of the rulers are against God more and more. Any confusion is on you.

I backed up my view with scripture that plainly indicates that He has been reigning for a long time already and that His followers have been in His kingdom a long time already. You backed up your view with...nothing.