22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Timtofly]

The sacrificial system looked forward to the coming Messiah and His atoning sacrifice to end all sacrifices. It rendered the old sacrifice system redundant.

This is your opinion.

Obviously you reject the point that God does not have to re-invent the wheel, just to satisfy your personal opinion.

Can you explain why there is a temple and alter in Heaven? Perhaps you should explain to God that is no longer necessary?

The point of sacrifices in the Millennium is really not your concern to begin with. Yet you still seem to make a big deal about it. There is no sin in heaven. There will be no sin in the Millennium. Yet both heaven and the Millennium have a temple and an alter. God has pointed out that is His MO, as you put it. Can you explain why you are so antagonistic against God's MO?

 

[Timtofly]

You are so blinded by what you have been taught that you fail to see this simple truth. Sadly, you deny the Christ was the final or sufficient sacrifice for sin. Jesus is indeed the final sacrifice for sin. Hello! Do you get that? Or are you so married to the old covenant that you cannot let it go?

Romans 6:10 says, “he died unto sin once.”

Hebrews 7:27 says of Christ and His final atonement, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Hebrews 9:12 explains, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

Hebrews 9:26 confirms: “now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Hebrews 9:28 explains that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

Hebrews 10:10 says, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 10:12 says, “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

There it is! Clear and irrefutable! This is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices forever!!! "Forever" actually means "forever."

1 Peter 3:18 says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”

Christ put an end of sin by this final transaction for sin, thus making an end of sin forever for those who would believe. There will never again be a sacrifice for sin. Christ’s atonement satisfied heaven’s holy demands and ensured that there would never again be another sacrifice/offering for sin carrying God’s blessing.

Your counter evidence

Ok, show us any mention animal sacrifices or a millennium mentioned in your supposed proof-texts. Highlight the descriptions.

Deu 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Deu 14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

Deu 28:9 The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways.

Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Deu 30:7 And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.
Deu 30:8 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.

None of Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, 28:9, 30:6-8 mention animal sacrifices. Consequently, none of these teach that ceremonial rituals make one holy. What is more, none of these describes a future millennium. You force that upon each text to support your error. This is called adding onto Scripture. It is not advisable. Scripture warns against it.

None of these verses prevent God from having a temple and yearly worship during a future millennium.

 

[Timtofly]

Just read the verse. This isn't hard.

Luke 21:24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

The times of the Gentiles refers to the times when the Gentiles (the armies who surround Jerusalem - verse 20) would kill many Jews and take others as prisoners (captive) to all nations and would continue on while Gentiles trample on Jerusalem.

In 70 AD the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem and then proceeded to destroy most of the city while killing many Jews and taking others captive to all nations. What happened then fits with what is described in Luke 21:20-24. I believe "the times of the Gentiles" has been ongoing since then up until today.

We should be celebrating this because it shows how Jesus knew exactly what was going to happen and it came true just as He prophesied. Instead, you apply this to some future time. Jesus described both past and future events in the Olivet Discourse. I don't know why so many people assume that it's either all in the past or all in the future.

Were they taken to China and Australia? What about the Americas?

 

[Timtofly]

They describe 70AD perfectly. Jesus was right and his discourse / prophecy is partially fulfilled.

So those people are still looking for their redemption to draw nigh? Or was their redemption physical death?

 

[Timtofly]

So the thread, as is inevitable with any eschatological topic, has evolved and wandered far away from us original premise... Amil/premil. The initial argument based on the belief that there is only one resurrection.
Jesus taught that there will be two general resurrections: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John 5:28, 29.

Before giving further specific proof on this point, we must note that Christ referred to the resurrection of life and the resurrection of damnation. This seems to indicate that the saved and lost do not arise at the same time. Two separate resurrections are described. The book of Revelation confirms this fact. John wrote, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” Revelation 20:6.

The use of the term “first resurrection” is proof that there must be more than one. If I say, “This is the first house I built,” you know that I had to build at least one other.

Two points are established in this text. First, only the good people , the redeemed of Christ, from all of history, will have any part in the first resurrection. It plainly says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection.” Second, we learn that the resurrection of those saints is the beginning point of the millennium, because after being raised they “shall reign with him a thousand years.”
According to this verse, none of the wicked will have any part in the first resurrection. This is also established by verses 4 and 5 which describe the resurrection of those “which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived (came to live) and reigned with Christ a thousand years. … This is the first resurrection.” This leaves no doubt about the class who will be included in the first resurrection. It is only for those who remained faithful to Christ. But in the midst of that text we find a very significant, parenthetical sentence: “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” Verse 5.

Obviously, the “rest of the dead” can only be in reference to the wicked. They will come forth from their graves at the end of the millennium—when “the thousand years were finished.”

Now we have a clear picture before us of two resurrections separated by a thousand years. The good people are raised at the beginning of the millennium, and the wicked are resurrected at the end.

Certainly two Amil are not going to argue over the Millennium. They just argue in a thread to up the post count I guess?

 

[Timtofly]

Greetings Brakelite
An HOUR is coming when ALL IN THE GRAVE will hear one voice, - his voice and come forth.
Say no more.:)

That happened for Lazarus when he heard the voice of Jesus. Your opinion seems to vary, and not accept that the hour already came and now is, for over 1992 years and counting.

I guess some here don't expect to be called up to glory when their soul no longer has a working physical body.

 

[Truth7t7]

That's not a straightforward answer to my question, though! I asked you if you believe that the wrath referenced in Luke 21:23 is God's wrath. Yes or no? Is it too much to ask for you to answer yes or no to that question?

"You have been clearly answered", and you don't dictate my response in forums, just as the Pharisees didn't dictate the response of Jesus Christ

 

[CadyandZoe]

Can you tell me where you answered the question of whether or not you believe that Ezekiel 40-48 relates to a future Millennium with the newly built temple and animal sacrifices that you believe in? Otherwise, you can just answer it again here with a simple yes or no.

No, I can't. I don't know how to search for posts. Yes.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yet, despite being asked about Ezekiel 40-48 several times, you wouldn't answer the question.

Of course not. You and WPM interpret silence as unwillingness or inability, which is a mistake and not my intent. WPM is looking for a "gotcha," which I am unwilling to provide.

Is your view not based at all on Ezekiel 40-48? I believe it likely is, but if it's not then we could just let that go.

No, my view is NOT based on Ezekiel 40-48. I already gave you and WPM a two page explanation. Not once did I quote Ezekiel 40-48.

It couldn't be more clear that the sacrifices and offerings referenced in the Ezekiel prophecy were "to make atonement for the Israelites". So, if you think this is talking about the future, then that would contradict you having said the sacrifices and offerings would not be made for atonement.

I already argued that Ezekiel 40-48 is a problem for YOUR view not my view. You cannot argue that Ezekiel 40-48 already took place since, as I already pointed out, Ezekiel is predicting that the prince, not the priest will offer the sacrifices. This is a problem for your view, unless as I already said, you believe Ezekiel is a false prophet.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do you just forget everything you ever say? Why do I have to search for it? You can't repeat what you said? You don't need to go into great detail or anything. I don't want to spend a bunch of time searching for your posts. It can be done and there is a search feature on here, but I don't know why you can't just tell me what you were talking about instead of just telling me to look it up. Does that mean you don't even remember what you were talking about?

Have you been reading WPM's posts?

 

[CadyandZoe]

What in the world is this? It's not possible for anyone but Jesus Christ to perfectly "obey all of God's commandments, ordinances, and statutes". If someone was able to do that then what would they need Jesus for? Are you claiming a time period is coming when people won't need Jesus anymore? That is what you're saying here implies. You are very sadly mistaken.

Who said they needed to be obeyed perfectly? Where is that in scripture? I think you may have been taught the false doctrine that Israel was supposed to keep the law perfectly. This is a mistaken notion. God never once told Israel she had to have perfect obedience. In fact, the system accounts for imperfect obedience.

The locus of the difference isn't perfection/non-perfection. The locus of the difference is proper inwardness.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You said this in response to a post that included these 2 passages:

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.

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

You're saying you believe that "the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels" after the Millennial Period? I agree.

No. I didn't say that. You are missing the fact that there is more than one occasion of fire and destruction. Prior to the Millennial kingdom, only Palestine will experience total destruction by fire.

So, is it your view then that Peter was not addressing anyone reading his words before the return of Christ or even anyone alive during the thousand years, but instead was only addressing those who are alive during Satan's little season after the thousand years? Because, from your perspective, they are the only ones who could possibly be alive when what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 occurs.

In my view, there exists a thousand year interval between the first half of verse 10 and the last half of verse 10.

but the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;

1000 year interval . . .

in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,

 

[WPM]

Have you been reading WPM's posts?

Why can you not as a Christian and as a pastor not answer a simple question that you promised to answer? How can we take your word serious after this?

Is Ezekiel 40-48 historic or future in your millennium?

 

[WPM]

Of course not. You and WPM interpret silence as unwillingness or inability, which is a mistake and not my intent. WPM is looking for a "gotcha," which I am unwilling to provide.

No, my view is NOT based on Ezekiel 40-48. I already gave you and WPM a two page explanation. Not once did I quote Ezekiel 40-48.


I already argued that Ezekiel 40-48 is a problem for YOUR view not my view. You cannot argue that Ezekiel 40-48 already took place since, as I already pointed out, Ezekiel is predicting that the prince, not the priest will offer the sacrifices. This is a problem for your view, unless as I already said, you believe Ezekiel is a false prophet.

LOL. Gotcha!!! Thanks for this. This proves that you know that Ezekiel 40-48 totally contradicts everything you believe and teach. Thanks for the admission. We knew that all the time. We were just waiting for your confession.

And, I, for one, will never take your word as Gospel again. You lied to me and you refuse to correct that or apologize. You told me you would answer that if I answered your question. I did, but you did not. You are obviously not a man of your word. Sad!

 

[WPM]

The animal sacrifices are among the commandments of God; During the millennial period, Israel will be keeping the commandments of God. Therefore, there will be animal sacrifices in the millennial kingdom.

What ridiculous and shameful logic. How about furnishing us with hard Scripture to support your Zionist speculations. Where do you get this nonsense in Revelation 20 or anywhere else in the New Testament? Nowhere! You are making it up as you go. Your teachers have forced you to defend heresy.

In my view, during the Millennial kingdom they will make atonement sacrifices as commanded by Moses. You argue that atonement sacrifices are not necessary anymore, which is a problem for my view, in your opinion.

To that, I made two arguments. First, as Paul said (and we both agreed) it was never possible for atonement sacrifices to take away sins. It wasn't possible then, and so it won't be possible in the future. Therefore, any future atonement sacrifices will not be insulting to the cross or Jesus Christ.

What? Just because you said that? Yeah, right! What a joke. What an offence to Christ. God can speak for Himself. He does not need you misrepresenting His heart and plan. Jesus is God’s blueprint for mankind. The cross was His final sacrifice for sin. The new covenant removed the old covenant. It is gone forever.

You should be ashamed, as a supposed Christian minister, promoting this nonsense. You do great injury to the cross-work.

Second, while the original purpose of the atonement sacrifices was reconciliation with God, the atonement sacrifices will serve a different purpose in the millennial kingdom.

Says who? You? I don’t think so! You are totally unqualified to speak on behalf of God. You clearly do not know His heart and plan.

Upon reflection over the past week, I have changed my mind about my second point. I do believe that the atonement sacrifices will be offered for atonement. In order to understand this, we need to abandon our erroneous view of the sacrifices. Christians tend to think of the sacrifices in economic terms, which is foreign to Moses. According to the penal-substitution theory of the atonement, if one commits a sin, which is understood as a debt to divine justice, one owes God a lamb, a goat, or a bull until the debt is paid. This model, this interpretation of the sacrifices is not Biblical.

What is the actual purpose of the atonement sacrifice? If one were to offer God a lamb as payment for sins, then it would no longer be called "a sacrifice." When we pay our electric bill, for instance, we are not making an offering to the power company; we are providing money to the power company in exchange for the delivery of electricity. The sacrifice of a lamb is an offering to God to signify contrition and to appeal for reconciliation, not a financial compensation. The Lord, through Moses, gave those living under the original covenant the means whereby the penitent might give expression to righteous sentiments.

Who writes your script? Where do you get this in the Bible? You are imposing your faulty opinions upon the sacred tax. That is inexcusable.

The atonement sacrifice was offered to give outward expression to a (supposed) inward attitude toward the situation. The atonement sacrifice speaks to the issue of sin, in a visible way, agreeing with God's opinion of the situation. If a man wants to seek reconciliation with God, he must act as if he agrees with God's opinion on the matter. God doesn't need sacrifices, sometimes he doesn't want then, and he says he hates them. But he is willing to offer reconciliation to a man (or woman) who make an offering in genuine and sincere contrition.

The Lord didn't institute the sacrifices for his own sake, he instituted them for the sake of his people. His people need and want a means to give expression to righteous sentiment.

You might need to do that because of the weaknesses of your faith or your misunderstanding of God’s truth and what it is like to have peace with God through the blood of Jesus. I do not need to do it. Amillennialists do not need to do it. They have Jesus Christ. They have the cross of Jesus Christ. That is all they need for time and eternity “to give expression to righteous sentiment” they possess for Him. Your theology is messed up. You need to repent and turn away from this nonsense.

You are preaching “another gospel” here. You’re preaching heresy.

A man doesn't need to offer a lamb to find reconciliation with God; but the man offers the lamb in order to give heart-felt expression to his opinion concerning his sin. He tells God, "I agree with you Lord. What I did was wrong, evil, and deserves your wrath. Please accept my apology and restore me to your favor."

Even Christians, who already know that reconciliation with God came through the blood of Christ, get on their knees and pray for forgiveness when they sin. Some Christians seek a tangible way to give expression to their heart-felt contrition, perhaps confessing sins to a priest, or perhaps giving to charity, or what-have-you. The point is, those who are weak in faith both need and want ritualistic forms of heart-felt attitudes toward God. Mankind invented religion for that purpose. The Lord, through Moses, gave his people certain religious forms, done properly, so that his people might have a tangible way to express righteous sentiments.

See the next post.

Who cares what the apostates do! They are blind to God’s truth. They are children of the devil. Why do you build your argument upon their carnal needs? Why do you use them as an excuse to advance your heresy? Why do you hide behind these fools? Christians simply need Jesus Christ. The cross is enough for them. Sadly, it does not seem to be enough for you. You’re deceiving people on this board and you need to desist right away.

Do the members of your congregation know that you’re promoting this heresy online?

 

[WPM]

The Temple will not be built until after the Second Coming. How the Temple is used comes directly from Christ who is the Word of God. You seem dogmatic and your mind is made up. Revelation 11 declares a temple. Unless it is in heaven, and lost people are allowed in heaven to visit it, your point at proving a temple cannot be built falls flat.

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."

Now if you can prove the temple is in heaven, but the courtyard is in Jerusalem, you have a point. Normally the temple and courtyard are together in the same place. Most would even say that the 42 months is when Satan sets up the AoD in the temple, and all have to flee Judaea.

"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."

How many 42 month periods is God allowing here? 1? 2? Is this 7 years in total, or only 42 months period?

Why do you keep insisting that comparing one's interpretation comparing interpretation of Scripture with another interpretation of Scripture is the way to go?

You compare Revelation 19 with 20 and insist that your interpretation drives the point instead of Scripture itself. Then you complain when Scripture is pointed out that it is not saying the same thing. Adding personal opinion to the text to make it work is not correctly comparing Scripture with Scripture. Pre-mill compare chapter 19 with 20 to say it is not the same event. You compare chapter 19 and 20 because you have to add in all the details yourself. So which way is correct? Your interpretation with added points to Scripture itself, or the simple text? If Pre-mill did that you would call that error. But since Amil do that, it is called inspiration.

Christ is the new covenant temple. He is the final sacrifice for sin. The old covenant is abolished. I am not sure why you are promoting its restoration.

For what purpose? Why would we need it? There was a reason why the curtain was ripped in two. There was a reason the temple was destroyed in AD70. The temple has been rendered redundant. It has been replaced by a better temple.

Daniel 9:26 says: “the people of the prince that shall come (speaking of the Roman soldiers) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

In Daniel 9:27 after predicting that the old covenant would be removed, the angel predicted that God would destroy the temple (the centre-point of the sacrifices) forever. We learn: “for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

The consummation is the one final future Coming of Christ.

We see the fulfilment of this in Christ’s words in Matthew 23:34-35: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (the consummation, as Daniel predicted).”

Christ continues (to remove any ambiguity as to what He was referring to) in Matthew 24:1-2, “And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

This couldn’t be clearer.

What was going to replace the old physical Jewish building in Jerusalem was not something that was restricted to one race but a global spiritual temple that embraced all nations equally.

In John 4:19-20 we see Christ addressing this subject, in response to a statement made by the woman at the well. The woman said to Christ, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”

Christ responded in vv 21-24, “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

What Christ was teaching here was that a new economy was being introduced through His earthly ministry that would forever replace the old. No longer would the worship of the living God be restricted to a natural geographical land-mass or be centred upon a physical temporal brick building built with hands in earthly Jerusalem, rather, it would now be concentrated in a spiritual eternal temple (the redeemed Church) which is spiritual located within the heavenly New Jerusalem. That temple would not be restricted to one physical nation but would be situated throughout all the nations of the world.

Since Christ, the worship of God was no longer restricted to a physical earthly building but rather relocated to an invisible spiritual temple called the Church.

The Jews at the time of Christ, being ignorant and earthly minded, interpreted this statement to mean: He would destroy and rebuild the physical Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The reading records, “Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”

However, the next verse exposed their blindness, saying, “But he spake of the temple of his body” (v 21).

Christ spiritualizes the temple here. None could surely dispute this. There were 2 different mindsets in this picture. Christ’s heavenly mind-set presenting the introduction of the new covenant in the form of Himself and the Jews carnal earthly mind-set hankering towards an old inadequate system.

Christ also declared during His ministry, whilst standing in the actual temple, “I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6). However, the Jews in the main had No comprehension of that glorious statement. To this spiritual Temple would the nations finally find mercy, thus, fulfilling perfectly what the old temple couldn’t. And thus, through Himself (the living Temple), fulfilling Isaiah 2:2 that “all nations shall flow unto it.”

Granted, the temple was central to the Jewish faith. For anyone to intimate in any way that it would be destroyed was viewed as nothing short of blasphemy. However, Christ was redirecting their eyes from the old temporal building – which was an imperfect shadow and type of Himself – and pointing them towards the new all-sufficient eternal temple – in the form of His person. Through His impending death, the temporal temple and its ceremonies would be done away with.

Hebrews 9:11 directly rebukes those who look to an earthly carnal building in modern Israel. It explicitly states, “Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.”

This is God’s perfect temple today – and it is eternal. This building will never fall, be replaced or share a central place with another.

 

[WPM]

Zechariah 14 clearly and unambiguously describes the Lord ruling over his enemies, who must come to Jerusalem, once each year, to celebrate the feast of booths.

So, what does it mean "to celebrate the feast of booths" in "Jerusalem" in your supposed future millennium in Zechariah 14?

 

[Timtofly]

Why do you waste your time promoting something that will never happen?

Jeremiah first prophesied the coming and character of the new covenant, in Jeremiah 31:31-33, saying, “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: 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: 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.”

Jeremiah continues in the next verse, saying, “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” (Jeremiah 31:34).

The writer of the Hebrews addresses this passage directly, quoting it and applying it to Christ and His atoning work at Calvary. The animal sacrifices were done away forever. Hebrews 10:4-12 explains, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

Paul outlines an important New Testament principle in 1 Corinthians 15:46, which is evident in every aspect of God’s plan and purpose with mankind, “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”

Hebrews 7:19-22 declares, “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”

Hebrews 8:6-8 says, of Christ and His vicarious atonement, “now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry (than those exercised by the Old Testament priests with their imperfect sacrifices), by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant.”

The writer of the Hebrews then quotes Jeremiah 31, thus demonstrating its actual fulfilment.

Hebrews 8:13 continues, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away”


Romans 3:24-25: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation (hilasmos or atonement) through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”

1 John 2:1-2: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation (hilasterion or atonement) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

1 John 4:9-10: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (hilasterion or atonement) for our sins.”

The word propitiation here in 1 John 2:1-2 and 1 John 4:9-10 is the Greek word hilasmos (Strong’s 2434) meaning atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator. In Romans 3:24-25 (Strong’s 2434) it is hilasterion, which refers to an expiatory (place or thing), i.e. (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specially) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple) – the mercy seat.

The New Testament forbids your desire for rival and pointless blood atonements for sin for anyone - past, present or future. By what you espouse you fight New Testament Scripture, you trample over the blood of Christ, you supersede the new covenant with a failed abolished system, you undo the eternal victory of the cross. This is strong grounds to reject your error.

Why do you keep calling God's Word a wrong desire? You are attacking God's Word not an interpretation. Your interpretation is the faulty interpretation, because you go against Scripture. Even though God has set aside Israel, neither Paul nor any OT prophet declared that final and unchangeable.

No one is denying the fulness of the Gentiles. But Amil deny God working in the hearts directly. Even in your own verses, you deny that it is God that changes people, and not people who change God. You are declaring Scripture in your own human understanding, instead of God's plan. Satan is bound for 1,000 years. Your response is, "No way!" Satan was bound when we declare it and for as long as we see fit. That is an Amil declaration disregarding God's own Word on the matter. Then you provide verses and declare your own interpretation is correct, instead of the context of Scripture. No one is denying your Scriptures that you provide. It is your interpretation that is in error.

It has been pointed out that while Christ is on earth the activity of Satan is greatly curtailed, indicated by the parable of the strongman. When we point out Jesus on earth destroying the wicked, and literally having Satan bound, you cry fowl, and change your mind that when Christ is on earth Satan is curtailed. Why is that? If you accept there is a Second Coming to the earth, then there is a second and even more permanent binding of Satan. It seems you don't even allow a Second Coming where Jesus is physically on the earth. That would destroy your paradigm. So please, explain how that is not interpreting Scripture with Amil bias, that denies a physical return of Jesus to the earth.

Jesus is just as much capable of ruling physically on the earth, as He is currently ruling from heaven. Even though you seem like doubting Thomas, and have to see it to believe it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

But, the old covenant sacrifices did have a purpose. They foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice, as Hebrews 10 indicates. So, they already served their purpose. What purpose would future animal sacrifices serve and what evidence do you have to support your answer?

While Paul refers to the sacrifices as a shadow of good things to come, he does not argue that foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ was their purpose. But let me grant you this for the sake of discussion.

I believe we can both agree on the fact that God used the Romans to put an end to the offerings during the Jewish/Roman wars of 70AD. Both the Jewish rebels and the Roman armies destroyed the temple. And if history were to end at the Second Advent, then we would not witness animal sacrifices again. Bear in mind, though, there is nothing in the Bible that says this explicitly.

The future absence of animal sacrifices is a logical inference from Amillennial doctrine, not explicitly taught in scripture. Amillennialism teaches that history ends when Jesus returns, and if history ends when Jesus returns, then logically one can conclude that God will not re-institute the sacrifices. If history ended today, Amillennialism would be proven correct.

But history hasn't ended, and the Bible doesn't explicitly say that God is done with animal sacrifices. Granting your premise, then, the original purpose of the sacrifices has passed and they are no longer needed. Bear in mind, apart from the God instituted legal system, which were the terms of the original covenant, sacrificing an animal is not a moral imperative as such. Offering an animal sacrifice is a moral imperative only in so far as they were commanded by God as part of the original covenant. While sacrificing an animal is not morally obligatory, obedience to God IS morally obligatory. So if God commands it, one must obey it.

The original covenant is no longer in effect, and as the Lord, through Jeremiah says, "a covenant which they broke." For this reason, I would never suggest that animal sacrifices will be offered on the basis of the original purpose. The atonement of the cross is better and more permanent than the Levitical atonement offering. Therefore, if animal sacrifices are re-instituted, they will not serve the original purpose. They will serve an entirely new purpose.

Any new purpose can only be understood from within the context of God's wish to vindicate his holy name. Accordingly, we understand how God intends to prove himself among the nations from within the broader context of his relationship with his people. Yahweh took a people for himself from among the descendants of Jacob, and brough them out of Egypt. Jeremiah 31:32 They were to be a people for Yahweh and he was to be a God to them. As I explained at great length here and here, his people failed to be a people to him.

In order to vindicate his name, God intends to bring his people back to the land of their fathers, cause them to keep his commandments, circumcise their hearts, protect them from their enemies, bless them materially and etc. Where his people were disobedient, they will now obey; where their hearts were stubborn, their hearts will be honest and contrite; where they attempted to please him with the wrong attitude, they will have the right attitude; where they relied on works alone, they will add faith to works. Bottom line, in the way God intended for them to be a people for him; they will be a people for him. And in the precise way that he intended to be a God for them, he will be a God for them. And all of this takes place during a time in history when the Gentile nations can watch. History won't end until God sanctifies his name.

Where is this taught in scripture, though? It seems like you're just making this up, which means it can just be easily discounted and not taken seriously.

Well, frankly, it is taught all throughout scripture. Begin with the Lord's prayer, "Our father in heaven, make your name holy . . ." and search for texts which indicate when and how God intends to answer our prayer.

None of what you're saying is coming from scripture as far as the idea of future animal sacrifices being offered is concerned. You're making things up to support your doctrine. Do you really think anyone should take this seriously when your view of future animal sacrifices and the purpose for them is clearly coming from your own imagination rather than from scripture?

What saddens me, a bit, is how much Amillennialism has clouded the vast amount of texts, which deal with this very subject. I hope you understand that no one, not even Jesus, can prove something to someone who doesn't want to be shown the truth. Just sayin'

 

[CadyandZoe]

Let's make something very clear here. People like WPM, jeffweeder and myself are not going to consider something that clearly only came from your imagination rather than from scripture. You gave a theory as to why there would be animal sacrifices in the future and didn't offer any scripture in support of your theory. We will never take that seriously.

On what basis did you conclude that it came from my imagination. I'll tell you what I believe is more likely the case. From my perspective, you guys are unable or unwilling to provisionally suspend your own view, take the requisite time to understand our view in order to make a fair assessment.