22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm the guy suggesting we believe all the Scriptures, including where God made some very solid promises to His chosen nation Israel.

Which promises are you referring to exactly?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You may want to study this a little more, and check out the meaning of cheirographon, handwriting.

Philemon 1:18-19 KJV
18) If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
19) I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

Colossian 2:14 NASB
14 having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

At the Egyptian city Oxyrhyncus, in the landfill, they've been collection old parchments from early church times, where the "cheirographon" referred to the hand-written promisory notes used in that day. You would write in your own handwriting that you acknowledge the debt and your promise to pay. This was what was blotted clean. Sins forgiven.

Much love!

Colossians 2:14 says nothing about sins. How would sins be equated with certificates of debt? That's not what Paul was doing there.

No, you are the one who needs to study this more. Christ's death put an end to the need for the Jews to follow the ordinances of the old covenant law. Those ordinances, of which there were many, were a heavy burden for the Jews to follow. Christ removed the need to follow those ordinances any longer with His death on the cross. He put an end to the old covenant and ushered in the new covenant with His death on the cross. The veil of the temple being torn in two signified that. That is what Colossians 2:14 is about. What you're saying doesn't fit the context of Colossians 2:14 at all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nowhere in the Old Testament did it say that cutting the throats of innocent animals in the age to come renders these Christ-rejecting religious actors "holy people." The verses you present do not say that. You are winging it again. You are manipulating Scripture to support your beliefs.

So you have nothing in the OT to support this and nothing in Revelation to say this. Do have anything elsewhere in the NT?

What is the purpose of these animal sacrifices in your supposed future millennium? Why will you not tell us?

Some people here just blatantly twist scripture to fit their doctrine. Do these people not have a conscience? Do they think that God can't see what they're doing? It's unbelievable.

 

[WPM]

Have you considered that the Law is a single unit? There isn't a "ceremonial law" that is somehow separate from a "moral law" that is somehow separate from a "civil law". They are the commandments of God. You have no authority to subdivide God's Law. James wrote that if you break one law you are a lawbreaker, that's that.

Jesus spoke of "the least of these commandments", and He did not come to abolish the Law, not one jot or tittle, not the smallest marking in teh text is to be abolished until . . . Curiously . . . all be fulfilled.

Much love!

Your conclusion is totally wrong. It is unbiblical. Stop avoiding multiple Scripture above that forbid your position. This is what Premils do. This is the only way their position is sustained. The Scriptures expose your beliefs. Please address!

 

[WPM]

Some people here just blatantly twist scripture to fit their doctrine. Do these people not have a conscience? Do they think that God can't see what they're doing? It's unbelievable.

Exactly bro! They know in their hearts if they are saved and if the have the Holy Ghost that what they teach is a reproach to Christ and the cross. It is reprehensible. Imagine the religious trying to perform this nonsense on the new earth in front of the risen Christ and the glorified saints. It is ridiculous. It is a joke. It is a religious circus. It is a spiritual sham.

 

[WPM]

Jeremiah 31:31-37 KJV
31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

How much more specific could God be about who He was speaking concerning?

Much love!

Romans 9:6-13: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

What this is saying is, those who are not saved have no right to consider themselves as true Israel. The apostle here identifies two Israels; one elect and believing, the other lost and unbelieving. One is true spiritual Israel (“the children of God”/“the children of the promise”), the other is unbelieving and merely “children of the flesh.” Basically: national theocratic Israel was a political entity in which a believing spiritual remnant – true Israel – abode. It is only those Jews who belong to the remnant that are true Israelis in God’s eyes.

Jesus also exposed those who boast that they are Jews but who are not. He exposed them as those “which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). This demonstrates that biology alone is insufficient to class one as a real Jew. Natural Jews must be followers of Jesus Christ to be legitimate and acceptable spiritual Jews in God’s eyes. It is important that believers recognize the difference between national Israel and true Israel in both testaments or they may become confused with the unfolding of God’s plan in the New Testament.

 

[WPM]

I'm the guy suggesting we believe all the Scriptures, including where God made some very solid promises to His chosen nation Israel.

Much love!

No, you're not. You are totally misrepresenting Scripture. You're trying to promote a ceremonial system that has been long-abolished. You're fighting with Jesus and the New Testament.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus was a Jew, and he didn't seem at all insulted by animal sacrifices.

That was before He made His "once for all" sacrifice. Do you think He was insulted by them after His death? You better believe He was. If you don't think so, then that would mean you have no discernment whatsoever.

I mean, I think it's great and all that you want to protect the honor of the Lord, but if Jesus was not insulted by them when he was here the first time, why do you suppose he will be insulted by them when he returns the second time?

Because He already made the "once for all" sacrifice Himself that ended the need for animal sacrifices. For them to be performed again would suggest that His sacrifice wasn't sufficient. Why can you not understand this?

If you want to talk about false doctrine, let's focus on what is actually false.

So, let's focus on your doctrine then.

I am not teaching that God will institute another way to get saved, based on animal sacrifices. The sin offering was the prescribed ritual associated with atonement under the original covenant, which became a model for the permanent instantiation of atonement. Jesus Christ's blood on the cross is the permanent and perfect ritual of atonement by which all can be saved, both Jew and Gentile. The Lord commanded his disciples and Paul also commanded the Gentiles to drink the wine in remembrance of that milestone event. The Lord said, "This is the New Covenant in my blood."

So, what would be the purpose of these supposed future animal sacrifices then? Use scripture to support your answer.

Okay, now ask yourself why Paul felt free to practice his Judaism and why he felt free at other times to abstain. He tells us:

1 Corinthians 9:19-21

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.​

Here we understand Paul's position and standpoint with regard to Judaism. He felt free to behave like a Jew when it served the cause of Christ, and he felt free to behave as one without the law among the Gentiles when it served the cause of Christ. From this we can legitimately conclude that Judaism, as such, is not antithetical to the cause of Christ. If Paul felt free to practice his Judaism, then he would not object to other Christians that also feel free to practice Judaism. Messianic Jews come to mind.

This doesn't mean that there wasn't anything wrong with them practicing Judaism. Of course they were wrong. It's a false religion. But, rather than get on them about their false religion, Paul went along with their nonsense in order to win them over to Christ. It certainly wasn't because he approved of it.

All of that having been said, why do I think that the sacrificial system will be reinstituted during the Millennial kingdom? Although I believe that the sin offerings are no longer necessary for the cause of atonement and reconciliation, they might have another purpose. Namely, just as Paul practiced his Judaism for the statement it made, i.e. solidarity with his kinsmen, the sacrifices will be performed by the Levites for the statement they make during a time when God's purpose is to sanctify his holy name.

Where does scripture teach this? It looks to me that your view is based entirely on speculation and not on scripture at all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Have you considered that the Law is a single unit? There isn't a "ceremonial law" that is somehow separate from a "moral law" that is somehow separate from a "civil law". They are the commandments of God. You have no authority to subdivide God's Law. James wrote that if you break one law you are a lawbreaker, that's that.

Jesus spoke of "the least of these commandments", and He did not come to abolish the Law, not one jot or tittle, not the smallest marking in teh text is to be abolished until . . . Curiously . . . all be fulfilled.

What are you trying to say here, that we should still be following all 613 commandments of the old covenant law? Do you think the old covenant law is still in effect?

 

[marks]

Which promises are you referring to exactly?

Jeremiah 31:31-37 KJV
31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

For instance.

Much love!

 

[marks]

What are you trying to say here, that we should still be following all 613 commandments of the old covenant law? Do you think the old covenant law is still in effect?

I'm saying what James said, that if you break one law you are a lawbreaker. And what Jesus said, that not the smallest letter or stroke of pen would pass away from the Law until all be fulfilled.

To answer your question, In Christ, we are dead to the Law.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No, you're not. You are totally misrepresenting Scripture. You're trying to promote a ceremonial system that has been long-abolished. You're fighting with Jesus and the New Testament.

Don't be ridiculous, of course I'm not.

Much love!

 

[WPM]

This would be a logical fallacy. Sacrifices are named in Scripture after Jesus returns to the earth. Whether or not anyone on earth understand why God would do this is beside the point. The point is, the Bible says this will be so, though I know you reject the idea. Nonetheless, it's what the Bible says. Zechariah 14 is one place.

Will you acknowledge that someone does not need to explain why God would or would not do something, or have us do something, for that something to be valid?

That no one has to expain why there would be animal sacrifices offered in the kingdom, as some requirement of showing Biblically that these sacrifices will in fact be offered? Can you acknowedge that? I'm not trying trap you in a corner, I'm trying to free you from an invalid argument.

Much love!

If you're so besotted by these millennial animal sacrifices, why not start them up every Sunday in church?

 

[marks]

Stop avoiding

Try to stay on topic. I'm not the topic. Your accusatory tone aside.

Much love!

 

[WPM]

Don't be ridiculous, of course I'm not.

Much love!

Yes you are, and you know it.

 

[marks]

Romans 9:6-13: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

What this is saying is, those who are not saved have no right to consider themselves as true Israel. The apostle here identifies two Israels; one elect and believing, the other lost and unbelieving. One is true spiritual Israel (“the children of God”/“the children of the promise”), the other is unbelieving and merely “children of the flesh.” Basically: national theocratic Israel was a political entity in which a believing spiritual remnant – true Israel – abode. It is only those Jews who belong to the remnant that are true Israelis in God’s eyes.

Jesus also exposed those who boast that they are Jews but who are not. He exposed them as those “which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). This demonstrates that biology alone is insufficient to class one as a real Jew. Natural Jews must be followers of Jesus Christ to be legitimate and acceptable spiritual Jews in God’s eyes. It is important that believers recognize the difference between national Israel and true Israel in both testaments or they may become confused with the unfolding of God’s plan in the New Testament.

The House of Israel. The House of Judah. The Seed of Israel. How much more specific can God be?

Much love!

 

[WPM]

Try to stay on topic. I'm not the topic. Your accusatory tone aside.

Much love!

Show us hard Scripture that proves animal sacrifices are resurrected in your future millennium and show us what purpose they meet according to Scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We are discussing a proof text you offered Randy, asking him to explain his view in light of the text you cited. Since the text is offered as a challenge to his position, all he needs to do is explain why the verse does not deny his position. The same is true of all proof texts offered as rebuttals. The central question is whether or not the proof text, properly understood, contradicts the doctrine under examination. If I am promoting a particular viewpoint, does the text deny or explicitly stand in opposition to my view? If so, I must change my view; if not, then I don't.

The question is whether or not 1 Corinthians 15:50 explicitly contradicts the doctrine of a Millennial Kingdom. I don't think it does.

Well, there you go. If you don't THINK it contradicts Premil then it doesn't and that's that. You have really low standards for what is necessary to defend your doctrine. You just have to think it's true and that's enough. Who cares if you can back it up with scripture or not, right? Wow.

The context is Paul's argument for a physical resurrection.

It isn't just the resurrection of the dead he's talking about there. He's talking about those who are alive being changed to have immortal bodies as well at that time.

He concludes his argument with a reason why physical resurrection is necessary. He says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but since flesh and blood has inherited the kingdom of God in some sense,* then his comment requires further explanation.

He argues that physical resurrection and transformation into a permanent, imperishable, incorruptible form is an essential aspect of our inheritance. Imperishable physical form is required for life in the age of ages. Without it, no one can live forever. Only those who have this form can live forever.

Having established has his central point, we ask, "Has Paul denied or contradicted the doctrine which teaches that after those in Christ are risen and resurrected to be with him, he will not also establish a kingdom of mortal Hebrews, the 144K, to live with him in Jerusalem?" I don't think it does.

Where does scripture teach that more than one kingdom of God will be inherited in the future? Read Matthew 25:31-46 which talks about the judgment that will occur when Christ returns. How many kingdoms are being inherited at that time? Only one. So, this idea of more than one kingdom being inherited at that time is not taught in scripture.

1 Corinthians 15 is an argument for physical resurrection from the perishable to the imperishable. That text does not deal with timing, situations or occasions.

It deals with inheriting the kingdom of God which Randy seemed to be equating with what he called "the Millennial kingdom". He has mortals inheriting that kingdom which is why I referenced 1 Cor 15:50. This idea of multiple kingdoms of God being inherited in the future is juts another thing that you have made up that isn't taught anywhere in scripture.

_______________
*In what sense has flesh and blood inherited the kingdom of God? In his epistle to the Ephesians Paul argues that the kingdom of God is our inheritance.

Ephesians 1:11-13

[A]lso we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.​

Although we are flesh and blood, we stand to inherit the kingdom of God because God has poured out his spirit into our hearts. (Romans 5:5) Having listened to the message of truth, and having believed the gospel, Paul's readers were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance. So then, in some sense we have inherited the kingdom of God, though we have not yet received our inheritance. According to Paul, "we have obtained an inheritance."

But, we're talking about a kingdom that will be inherited when Christ returns, so what you're saying here is completely beside the point. The kingdom that will be inherited when Christ returns will not consist of anyone with mortal flesh and blood. How do you get around that? By talking about some other kingdom that will be inherited at that time even though scripture never teaches such a thing.

 

[marks]

If you're so besotted by these millennial animal sacrifices, why not start them up every Sunday in church?

What kind of remark is that??

Besotted . . . cute!

But again, back to topic. And I'm not it. Your ridicule aside.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Yes you are, and you know it.

Ad hominem is logical fallacy, revealing the lack of true argument, and good manners.

Much love!