22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[WPM]

Well, get over it. This is the nature of the medium. My presentation takes account of the limitations of a discussion board. All I can do, with limited time and space is to summarize my opinion. If you can't find my position within the hundreds of posts I have provided in this thread, then you weren't paying attention.

In addition, You don't seem to understand that in a polemic thread such as the one you created, I don't need to prove you wrong. All I need to do is offer an alternative interpretation of any given passage, and if my interpretation is plausible, then I have disproven your objection. My task is not to make a case for premillennialism. My task is to answer your objections to it.


Empty words.

You are wrong about Lot's wife and the reason why Jesus brought it up. Lot's wife did not long for the awful iniquity back in Sodom as you suppose. Her heart longed for her other daughters, the ones that stayed behind. Her hesitation was born of her love for her family.

Jesus said "Remember Lot's wife" because hesitation will mean the difference between life and death.

You have proved nothing apart from the fact you have no answer for the climactic detail of Luke 17, 2 Peter 3 and Rev 19. All these show the wholesale and inescapable destruction that accompanies Jesus return. You have (understandably) been unable to explain that away. Frankly, you are winging it! Your avoidance has only served to reinforce the Amill thesis.

 

[WPM]

Yes, of course. Remember, I am allowed to interpret the Old Testament the way the author's intended. Peter and Paul are giving you summary statements of a larger picture, one that you will not allow yourself to see.

The difficulty Amils have with Premil is that it places a meaning on the Old Testament passages that do not fit with the consistence teaching of Scripture and which conflict with the fuller and clearer revelation of the New Testament. It seems like Premils take advantage of the vaguer and more obscured view that the prophets had and place a meaning on their predictions that were never intended by God or the prophet. That is why Premils seem more comfortable under the old covenant arrangement and are fixated with bringing it back again in the future. Amils pitch their tent in the New Testament, and let the clear and explicit New Testament explain the type and the shadow. They see Christ as the fulfillment of every single Old Testament hope.

 

[WPM]

While this is true, it isn't what John is saying in Revelation 19. The soldiers of the armies die, not all those who live on the earth.

Not true. Your posts are getter shorter and shorter and more evasive because you have no viable explanation. General unqualified phrases like “all,” “all nations,” “the quick (or living) and the dead,” “every man,” “every eye,” “every one,” “men,” “man,” “all men everywhere,” “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great,” “all that dwell upon the earth … whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ,” “they that dwell on the earth … whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” “the world,” “the whole world” and “all the world,” that objective and impartial Bible students acknowledge embrace the whole human race (or the full amount of all the wicked) are redefined and explained away to let Premil fit. If one was to take a precise straightforward interpretation of these phrases, one could only come to conclusion that there are no exclusions here. This shows that the Premil boast that they are literalists is inaccurate.

 

[WPM]

Negative. Think about the logic and flow of the passage. In chapter one Paul tells them that Jesus' coming will be hard to miss, since it is accompanied by angels and fire. If the Day of the Lord was synonymous with the coming of Jesus, then his readers should have NO doubt as to when the Day of the Lord has started. Let me repeat that. If the Day of the Lord and the coming of Jesus are coterminous, happening at the same time, then his readers should have no doubt as to when the day of the Lord is here.

But the Day of the Lord is not coterminous with the coming of the Lord, which is why Paul provides his readers clues and signs to observe as to when the Day of the Lord is imminent.

Summary:
Coming of the Lord -- No signs. Comes as a thief in the night.
Day of the Lord -- Signs. Watch for the man of lawlessness and hatred for the truth.

In my view, the Day of the Lord has three parts: a beginning, a middle and an end. As Paul says, the Day of the Lord can't begin until we see the man of lawlessness and hatred for the truth. The Second Advent takes place in the middle portion of the DOL. Because of this, his readers can look for signs that the Day of the Lord is about to arrive, while knowing that the day and the hour of the Second Advent is unknowable.

You make it up as you go. As has been highlighted by others, when you have nothing in the inspired text, you think by inventing a thing and repeating a think it makes it compelling. No! That is not the way it works. It exposes before everyone that you have nothing. Your opinions are extra-biblical, and I suspect you know that. That is why you have no rebuttals.

Your writings reveal why so many Premils are turning to Amil. They want to embrace what the text is actually saying, not what they have been taught. Your theories have been exposed on this thread. It is time to let them go.

 

[WPM]

Afraid of "he".

Do you notice that he never actually addresses any rebuttals that posters present that forbid his Dispensationalism? All he can do is cut-and-paste the same 3 or 4 posts over and over again. We just need to keep on exposing that. If he actually addressed what others wrote he would be forced to change.

I agree with you about the infantile behavior. That is why I am for parents monitoring their kids better online.

 

[The Light]

Your claim of two raptures is laughable, there is one rapture at the second coming, and you push the false teaching in the 6th seal pre-wrath, "Really"!

Johnny new Come lately, a farce!

Oh nice. I've awakened the blind. Maybe you could explain where the great multitude comes from if there is no rapture at the 6th seal.

 

[Timtofly]

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. 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.

You explain away a literal 1,000 years into a very long time.

Pre-mill take that 1,000 years as literal, for the symbolic term Day of the Lord. No verse claims destruction lasts for 1,000 years. The destruction comes at the beginning with the Second Coming, not the Day of the Lord.

The fire is the destruction just like in Noah's day it was the water. The ark did not destroy the world. The day of the Lord is like the ark, a place of safety. Waiting to get into the ark was an unknown, but it was sudden when God finally said get in, and only those prepared got in. The rest missed the opportunity.

Revelation 19 is not even the Second Coming. Revelation 19 is 42 months after the 7th Trumpet began to sound. The Second Coming is the 5th and 6th Seal. The GT is the sounding of the first 6 Trumpets and the 7 Thunders. The AoD is the 42 months Satan sits on the throne in Jerusalem and is given 100% control of the earth and his Babylonian Kingdom Revelation 13. Of course those humans at Armageddon in Revelation 19 are all that is left behind after the Second Coming years prior. Everyone else has already been removed from Adam's dead corruptible flesh. The only humans left on earth are the ones mentioned prepared for battle against the Lamb in Revelation 17.

Revelation 19 is not sudden nor do the heavens and earth burn up during this event. This is just the clean up at the end of Satan's 42 months as defined in Revelation 13. This 42 months allowed many to choose the Atonement by refusing the mark and having their heads chopped off. Literally the only reason why God allowed Satan these miserable 42 months of total abomination and desolation. Those beheaded were then resurrected after Satan was bound. That is the literal reading of Revelation 20. Amil force their own bias into Scripture and change God's Word to symbolically refer to something else. Amil interpretation is purely human opinion.

 

[covenantee]

Grow Up, your 71 yrs old, tag your it!

Afraid of "he".

 

[covenantee]

Do you notice that he never actually addresses any rebuttals that posters present that forbid his Dispensationalism? All he can do is cut-and-paste the same 3 or 4 posts over and over again. We just need to keep on exposing that. If he actually addressed what others wrote he would be forced to change.

I agree with you about the infantile behavior. That is why I am for parents monitoring their kids better online.

I've been demonstrating that I can copy/paste just as well as he can. And if you've followed the thread back, you've seen his irrational incoherent responses. Most entertaining.

Good one about parents monitoring their kids.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You will closely note, your response is void of scripture and truth

What scripture would you like?

 

[CadyandZoe]

The day of the Lord has 3 parts and it's a different event than the coming of the Lord?

Youre eschatology is way out in left field, laughable!

Yes, The day of the Lord has a beginning, a middle, and an ending. And our Lord returns in the middle.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You live in a fairy tale dream of denial

This is your fourth post without a scripture reference. We can play this game all day long.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You have proved nothing apart from the fact you have no answer for the climactic detail of Luke 17, 2 Peter 3 and Rev 19. All these show the wholesale and inescapable destruction that accompanies Jesus return. You have (understandably) been unable to explain that away. Frankly, you are winging it! Your avoidance has only served to reinforce the Amill thesis.

I have given you plenty of answers. You simply have no response.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The difficulty Amils have with Premil is that it places a meaning on the Old Testament passages that do not fit with the consistence teaching of Scripture and which conflict with the fuller and clearer revelation of the New Testament. It seems like Premils take advantage of the vaguer and more obscured view that the prophets had and place a meaning on their predictions that were never intended by God or the prophet. That is why Premils seem more comfortable under the old covenant arrangement and are fixated with bringing it back again in the future. Amils pitch their tent in the New Testament, and let the clear and explicit New Testament explain the type and the shadow. They see Christ as the fulfillment of every single Old Testament hope.

Not really. We take advantage of the information provided by the Prophets, understanding the prophets according to the "authorial intent" hermeneutic. We avoid the Amillennial eisegesis.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Not true. Your posts are getter shorter and shorter and more evasive because you have no viable explanation. General unqualified phrases like “all,” “all nations,” “the quick (or living) and the dead,” “every man,” “every eye,” “every one,” “men,” “man,” “all men everywhere,” “the flesh of all men both free and bond, both small and great,” “all that dwell upon the earth … whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ,” “they that dwell on the earth … whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” “the world,” “the whole world” and “all the world,” that objective and impartial Bible students acknowledge embrace the whole human race (or the full amount of all the wicked) are redefined and explained away to let Premil fit. If one was to take a precise straightforward interpretation of these phrases, one could only come to conclusion that there are no exclusions here. This shows that the Premil boast that they are literalists is inaccurate.

I give short answers because that is all that is required. Your Bible students are wrong.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You make it up as you go. As has been highlighted by others, when you have nothing in the inspired text, you think by inventing a thing and repeating a think it makes it compelling. No! That is not the way it works. It exposes before everyone that you have nothing. Your opinions are extra-biblical, and I suspect you know that. That is why you have no rebuttals.

Your writings reveal why so many Premils are turning to Amil. They want to embrace what the text is actually saying, not what they have been taught. Your theories have been exposed on this thread. It is time to let them go.

It isn't up to me to present anything. All I need to do is answer your objections, which is all I have done so far.

 

[WPM]

Not really. We take advantage of the information provided by the Prophets, understanding the prophets according to the "authorial intent" hermeneutic. We avoid the Amillennial eisegesis.

The old covenant prophets anticipated the Messiah coming to introduce His spiritual kingdom. The New Testament writers applied the fulfilment of the kingdom prophecies to Christ’s first advent, and His rule to His resurrection. The ancient prophets received their revelation direct from the Spirit of God; the people then received it through the mouth of the prophet. These truths were then experientially confirmed through a personal walk with the Almighty and through of the obvious blessing that attended obedience to God and the judgment that came with disobedience. God was seen in His various appearances, in the ceremonial sacrificial system, in His provision to and protection of His people. These stirred their faith and developed their spiritual insight.

Because the Old Testament prophets were located under the shadow, symbol, and type they often described future events in familiar terms that they and the reader could properly understand or relate to. Significantly, the New Testament writers spiritualized various key Old Testament prophecies relating to Israel and applied them to the New Testament Church. Of course, Christ and the New Testament writers spiritualized the old covenant ceremonial system and apparatus and related them to our Lord and the new covenant Church. But multiple ancient prophecies were explained in a spiritual sense that in their Old Testament setting could easily have been interpreted in a literal wooden sense.

Peter reinforces this thought while speaking of Christ and His earthly kingdom in 1 Peter 1:10-12: “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 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. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”

 

[WPM]

It isn't up to me to present anything. All I need to do is answer your objections, which is all I have done so far.

When are you going to start?

 

[WPM]

This is your fourth post without a scripture reference. We can play this game all day long.

LOL. And that is exactly what you are doing, only worse. It is about 13 posts back since you gave us a scriptural reference. Even then, you refused to quote the inspired text. If you did your beliefs would be exposed as wrong.

 

[jeffweeder]

Let me summarize the two chapters this way.

Summary:
Coming of Jesus -- no signs; comes like a thief in the night.
Day of the Lord -- signs; preceded by a man of lawlessness and hatred for the truth.

For this reason, we understand that the coming of Jesus and our gathering to him is not synonymous [interchangeable] with The day of the Lord. In my view, the day of the Lord is a long era of time, which has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Paul is describing the conditions located just before the beginning of the DOL. The DOL can't come, he says unless certain conditions exist first. The coming of Jesus and our gathering to him takes place during the middle of the DOL, when Jesus returns to receive his everlasting dominion.

This doesn't seem to be an accurate summary...,
The DOTL comes like a thief also.

1. 1 Thessalonians 5:1
   The Day of the Lord
   Now as to the times and dates, brothers and sisters, you have no need for anything to be written to you.
   
   
2. 1 Thessalonians 5:2
   For you yourselves know perfectly well that the day of the [return of the] Lord is coming just as a thief [comes unexpectedly and suddenly] in the night.

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will vanish with a [mighty and thunderous] roar, and the [material] elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and the works that are on it will be burned up.


How does a coming of a thief have a beginning a middle and an end?

The Thessalonians had no need of anything to be written to them regarding the DOTL, yet you believe they were expecting a letter from an Apostle about it.

The whole idea of coming like a thief belonged to the Lords own word regarding his coming. So, there was no need for anything to be written to them for this reason.

Matt 24
Be Ready for His Coming
42 “So be alert [give strict attention, be cautious and active in faith], for you do not know which day [whether near or far] your Lord is coming. 43 But understand this: If the head of the house had known what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore, you [who follow Me] must also be ready; because the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not expect Him.