Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[covenantee]

That isn't true. Paul speaks about a remnant of the Jewish people.

Reread Romans 9:27 until you understand the difference between the nation and the remnant.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That special favor finished with the termination of the old covenant.

This is not true. Romans 11:11

 

[covenantee]

This is not true. Israelites are born from a single family.

They're not. Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22

 

[CadyandZoe]

They're not. Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22

What is your point?

 

[WPM]

I agree that the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant. But it isn't true that God has abandoned his people Israel.

I agree.

I disagree for the reasons I have already given. God chose a family to be his people. Deuteronomy 7:6

God chose Israel before Christ and according to the Apostle Paul, God has not rejected them.

This is not true.

Paul says the Gentiles have been grafted to the root of the Olive Tree. Contrary to your assertion, he does not specify that Israel is the Olive Tree. What does the Olive Tree represent?

Romans 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;​

The Holy Olive Tree represents the fathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the promise God made to these men. The basis on which the Gentiles are grafted to them is God's promise to Abraham, "n you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

We are not grafted onto Israel. We are grafted onto God's promise to bless Abraham.


God is faithful. Therefore race does matter.

This isn't true. Paul asserts that Salvation BELONGS to his kinsmen of the flesh. Romans 9:4.

I agree with Paul's assertion that "In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile." He eliminates the distinction regarding individual election, but he does not suggest that God has removed the national distinction. He spends 3 whole chapters arguing that God has not abandoned natural Israel.

There has always been 2 Israels - believing and unbelieving, elect and unelected (Romans 9:6). Jacob represented the elect; Esau represented the rejected Israel (Romans 9:9-13). Both had the same Hebrew blood, both were of a privileged natural lineage - but one was true Israel, the other not.

Romans 11:7: "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

There you have it. Being of ethnic Israel was not enough. One had to be part of the elect to possess the covenant promises.

Jacob was of the "election." Esau was of the "blinded." It has been the same in every generation. It is the same today. It will be the same at the end.

 

[CadyandZoe]

There has always been 2 Israels - believing and unbelieving, elect and unelected (Romans 9:6).

I disagree. Paul says that there is a partial hardening to a singular Israel. (Romans 11:25)

Jacob represented the elect; Esau represented the rejected Israel (Romans 9:9-13).

I disagree. Esau was Jacob's twin brother. In other words, he was never Israel in any form.

 

[WPM]

I disagree. Paul says that there is a partial hardening to a singular Israel. (Romans 11:25)

I disagree. Esau was Jacob's twin brother. In other words, he was never Israel in any form.

This is why you do not seem to understand this subject. You do not grasp the new covenant arrangement or the teaching of Paul on this matter. You constantly force your theology upon the sacred text.

To the enlightened (and unblinkered) this is clear.

 

[covenantee]

What is your point?

Since you don't understand, just leave it for those who do.

 

[Timtofly]

Agree! And, there's one other thing about Revelation 20:6 well worth pointing out as well.

Revelation 20:6 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.

Those who have part in the first resurrection are "priests of God and of Christ" and reign with Christ. How do premils miss that John already taught earlier in the book that we are NOW priests of God and of Christ? That means Revelation 20:6 is a current reality for that reason as well as the fact that the second death already has no power over those who belong to Christ.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

This says that Jesus is "the first begotten of the dead" which means He is the first to rise from the dead, as other scriptures like Acts 26:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:20 teach. His resurrection is the first resurrection, according to scripture. And it says He IS "the prince of the kings of the earth". And it says "to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever". That means NOW and for eternity! He reigns NOW! How can premils not take that into account when looking at a passage talking about Him reigning like Revelation 20?!

And then look at what it says. It says Jesus "hath MADE us kings and priests unto God and his Father". So, being priests of God and of Christ is a current reality for all those who belong to Christ, including the souls of the dead in Christ that John saw. They live and reign with Christ in heaven as priests of God and of Christ.


Exactly. There is no consistency in the approach that premils take to interpreting the book of Revelation compared to how they interpret the rest of scripture. They change the tense of verses in Revelation to make them fit their doctrine.

Those who have had a physical body in Paradise since the first century are ruling as Kings and Priests in heaven. Those of us on earth have not had the first physical resurrection, or we would already be in Paradise.

That is the redemption of the body. You all deny that is a reality.

You all seem to think that only applies while you are in Adam's dead corruptible flesh, then you have to put the next physical resurrection thousands of years into the future. Why does the individual who started this thread think that those who were physically resurrected at the Cross, just simply died again, and are not currently physically ruling and reigning with Jesus in Paradise? Why state they are still in death, physically? Is not eternal life both a physical and spiritual life? Why do you all ignore 2 Corinthians 5:1?

The first resurrection is physical, and millions if not billions already have a physical permanent body in Paradise. That is how they serve God day and night in that heavenly temple which is as physical as Jesus Christ and the rest of creation, both heaven and earth. Why is your eschatology not in line with the Scripture that does not contradict a pretrib Second Coming/rapture and the millennial kingdom of Jesus on the earth?

Why do you base your point on the need for something when that need was real at the Cross, just as it is today? People don't just need a physical body to be made alive. That is the whole point of being made alive. The soul leaves the body of death for the body of life. Both are physical bodies. One of punishment unto death. The other of restoration unto life. The hour came when Lazarus walked out of his tomb, and would no longer face the second death, because he experienced the first resurrection, and has never physically died again, nor ever will.

Unfortunately many will be left in their graves until the GWT Judgment. I don't think if you have the second birth, that would apply to you, but obviously you don't mind waiting in death until the GWT Judgment. You claim you don't need a physical body, and then deny the first resurrection is physical. The first resurrection is physical because the second birth is spiritual and they are not the same thing. And you have to twist Revelation 20 into a pretzel to get your eschatology to work.

Those beheaded received the first resurrection after they were dead, not before. Revelation 20 does not read that they were blessed having the first resurrection prior to being beheaded. John saw thrones. John saw Judgment (the authority to judge) given to those on the thrones. Then he saw physically dead people who received that judgment and were made alive. They lived and reigned after they were dead, and after they were judged, and that living again was called the first resurrection. They were blessed with the first resurrection. A thousand years later many more would be judged and live again, physically, and that is again the first resurrection, and they will be blessed as well, and not tossed into the LOF, the second death. So all in Christ, starting with Lazarus who were brought out of their graves, receive the first resurrection. The second birth is spiritual and happens while one is alive. The first resurrection, is physical and happens when a soul leaves Adam's dead corruptible flesh, or the grave, and enters God's permanent incorruptible physical body.

I call that being blessed. Evidently you see that as "necessary" in your argument, unless it contradicts your claim it is not necessary for those currently in Paradise, because you deny those in Paradise currently have a physical body. Explain how a person with the first birth needs the first resurrection, before the first death? Don't they need to physically die first to receive the first resurrection? Why do you have the first resurrection as something different than the first birth and first death?

The only people who don't die, are those changed before the point of death, but even the rapture could be the first resurrection, without a physical death. Enoch was translated that he should not see death.

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."

The writer of Hebrews did not say because he had the first resurrection before that point, but because he had a testimony that he pleased God. Enoch had the first resurrection, so he could physically enter physical Paradise, which was banned from those in Adam's dead corruptible flesh. He was not found on earth, but was found in Paradise. Being translated meant he would no longer face the second death as well, so that would define the first resurrection experience. He was not a soul without a body, because that would still be physical death, and Enoch never saw death, and was never physically dead. Just like at the rapture, Paul said we would be instantly changed, or translated never seeing death.

This is also what Jesus explained the second birth would do. One would never taste death, as a soul waiting in Abraham's bosom. Lazarus left Abraham's bosom, receiving the first resurrection, thus he would have ascended into Paradise when the rest of the OT redeemed did, who also were in Christ and physically with Christ when presented to GOD in Paradise.

So at the rapture, we don't need the first death, but being translated, the first resurrection, the soul still changes bodies from Adam's dead corruptible flesh to God's permanent incorruptible physical body.

Seems Enoch was a type of the raptured church, and was taken out prior to the point of wickedness and judgment of the Flood. Those beheaded are represented by Noah and those 7 humans who never entered Paradise, but repopulated the earth. The difference was unfortunately, Noah and family just propagated Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Those beheaded have the first resurrection out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, and will never die again, thus propagating eternal life on earth.

 

[Timtofly]

Are you trying to change the text to make it so that those who are alive when Christ comes have part in the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ? That is what it seems like you're doing as a way to get around the fact that only the dead in Christ will be resurrected at that time, not those who are alive. When reading Revelation 20:6, you need to ask yourself what has to happen in order for the second death to not have power over someone. It's not being bodily resurrected from the dead.

A birth is not a resurrection either. So why hijack the meaning of the first resurrection by calling it the second birth?

A birth is a brand new experience. The only reason why this spiritual experience is likened to a resurrection is that it is the change of death to life. But the first resurrection is not a brand new experience by definition. A resurrection is post a physical death, wich is post a physical birth. The second birth is not a literal resurrection, it is symbolic of a spiritual change. But the second birth is not something you had previously. That would change the definition of birth, and it would be a reincarnation and not a birth.

The second birth does not change your spirit as your spirit is not dead. You are just spiritually dead separated from your spirit. Being born into God's family is still symbolic. It is a literal birth by definition, not by practice. Instead of having a connection with your spirit, you are under the submission and authority of the Holy Spirit working inside your heart and mind. The second birth is a lot more practical than the OT practice of circumcision which was not effective physically if nothing happened spiritually at the same time. The second birth is more relatable as spiritual than being physically circumcised. Those with the second birth also avoid the second death. Those without the second birth will enter the second death, without a birth.


The same is not true with the first birth, first death, and first resurrection. They are all physical and the only thing practically relatable while stuck in death. But they also cannot be arranged out of order. As all are means to restoration as a son of God. Thus going against nature and calling the first resurrection a birth is defeating one's own reasoning. So, you would not tell a lost person, they needed the first resurrection prior to physically dying, yet you think it makes for a strong argument with a redeemed person. That seems double minded, no? Is it ok for one line of reasoning, but not for another?

You would tell them they needed the second birth, then try to change their mind later about the first resurrection, and call both terms symbolic, and then you literally have no defined term for an actual physical resurrection. Not that you really needed one, as not many refer to the first resurrection as physical even though the first birth and first death are physical. All would assume the first resurrection is physical unless taught otherwise that it meant something else, to make an eschatological point.

But the first resurrection as physical is the only option to make sense of all Scripture. Because it is the change out of death when it comes to the physical body. And then the old body is not resurrected. The first resurrection is into God's permanent incorruptible physical body per 2 Corinthians 5:1. But the soul is not said to be born into God's permanent incorruptible physical body, any more than joining God's family via the second birth should be referred to as a resurrection. The soul belonging to God's family does not change one's own spirit, as the spirit was taken away when Adam disobeyed God, it was not killed. God's permanent incorruptible physical body was taken away the instant Adam disobeyed, it was not killed. Adam was given a corruptible physical body, and no longer had a connection to the spirit or spiritual part of his existence as a son of God.

Adam and his descendants were to have no dealings in the spiritual realm, outside of God and the Holy Spirit. We know that after the Flood that was not maintained. Many humans followed after false devils, and attempted to enter the forbidden spiritual realm, interacting with demons.

But the point is the spiritual was defined by Jesus as the second birth. It was allowed and after the Cross practiced as communication with God, and the Holy Spirit. Without the second birth such communication in the family of God is dead.

That death is symbolic and parabolic to a resurrection, spiritually, but a birth by definition is not a resurrection, and never can be. By definition a first resurrection is only physical in relation to the first birth and first death. Now most were taught that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 was chronological to an assumed second resurrection later in the chapter. Instead of reasoning out what the first resurrection actually should be, Amil made it worse by calling what John wrote the second birth, and that the first resurrection is the second birth in direct contradiction to the actual text of Revelation 20, which they have to change drastically to get it to say something they want it to say. But they have their mind so set, that they cannot even see the truth, and they want others to adopt their mindset just so others can "decode" what is written in direct contradiction to what John actually wrote.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is why you do not seem to understand this subject. You do not grasp the new covenant arrangement or the teaching of Paul on this matter. You constantly force your theology upon the sacred text.

To the enlightened (and unblinkered) this is clear.

I understand Paul perfectly. I derive my theology from the text and I present it to you. And when you have no response, I get posts like yours.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Since you don't understand, just leave it for those who do.

Most people who speak or write want to be understood. I don't know why you don't want to be understood.

 

[WPM]

I understand Paul perfectly. I derive my theology from the text and I present it to you. And when you have no response, I get posts like yours.

I am content, the reader can see who is addressing the text and representing it correct.

 

[covenantee]

Most people who speak or write want to be understood. I don't know why you don't want to be understood.

I'm certain that @WPM, @Spiritual Israelite, @rwb, @jeffweeder, et al understand.

Why don't you?

 

[WPM]

I'm certain that @WPM, @Spiritual Israelite, @rwb, @jeffweeder, et al understand.

Why don't you?

It is Cady that does not make sense.

 

[Timtofly]

He was first to conquer the grave.

Jesus was the only one to conquer death. No human resurrects themselves.

You imply that many will figure out how to resurrect themselves, which is your erroneous implication. Then you say your argument is water tight.

Lazarus did not conquer the grave, so your argument does not relate to reality. Lazarus experienced the first resurrection, because Jesus called Lazarus out of Abraham's bosom after being there 4 days. You can say Jesus is the first resurrection, because that is what Jesus claimed: "I am the Resurrection and the Life". That is in the context of Lazarus obtaining the first resurrection. Lazarus physically came out of that tomb, and that is the first resurrection, never to face the second death, nor ever die again physically, as that is eternal life, not just a resurrection and temporary life. Jesus is not the Resurrection and Temporary Life.

That is what I cannot understand is that you use the same argument that Premil do, that there is only one future physical resurrection. So this thread is pointless, because it is not proof you have any thing new to offer that Premils do not have. You claim no one can receive the first resurrection until the Second Coming. Premil claim no one can receive the first resurrection until the Second Coming. How is that not the same thing?

Why is it hard for Amil to claim that many received the first resurrection at the Cross and have lived and reigned physically with Christ in Paradise during your alleged millennium? That is what Premil argue, and that must be the only reason you deny and contradict Scripture. You cannot have any one physically alive in Paradise during your millennium or it would contradict your entire position.

You don't even rule and reign over the threads you start. How can you rule over the spiritual realm? Paul said we "wrestle against", not "rule over". Last I checked, Presidents don't wrestle with those they govern over to get them to obey the law of the land.

How about looking at your argument:

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved; And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

Being quickened is the second birth, but another point Paul referred to was the first/physical resurrection. This is not a temporary phenomenon. Because of the second birth, at physical death the first resurrection happens at physical death. Being "raised up" is a physical resurrection.

Seated in heavenly places can only happen after the soul leaves this earth.

Paul consistently used the term those in Christ. No one outside of Christ will experience either the Second Birth nor the first resurrection. No one can save themselves nor resurrect themselves on their own power. You seem to take this verse as symbolic instead of literal. Your only literal resurrection is your imagined single resurrection. You obviously reject any literal resurrection, ie that of Lazarus, and those OT redeemed, that they were not in Christ, but had to physically die again to then be in Christ. You make up an alleged extra biblical story/lie to prove your point.

All those in Abraham's bosom were already in Christ when they experienced the first resurrection, which was physical. It is not unusual to apply terms found later in Scripture and time to former events. Else they would not be defined terms at all. The only difference is that your interpretation calls the first resurrection symbolic in Christ. My interpretation calls the first resurrection physical for those in Christ.

The second birth makes one in Christ and is spiritual. Now those in Abraham's bosom were not waiting for a spiritual birth, or they would be in sheol in torment and not in Abraham's bosom in faith. They were in Christ just by waiting in Abraham's bosom. That term applied to them, even though it was never used in the OT economy. Just because the term was never used, does not mean the term cannot be applied.

You apply the term a thousand years to the intra advent period. No one in Scripture ever did that. Why is it ok for you to do so, if that is not found any where in Scripture? You are applying a term in Scripture to something that happened 2 millennia ago, correct?

You say that no one is literally seated in heavenly places, so why were those in Abraham's bosom literally removed and taken to heaven? Were they symbolically seated in heavenly places prior to the Cross? If not, then how can you be symbolically seated in heavenly places after the Cross?

Are you now saying the OT redeemed were only symbolically removed from Abraham's bosom, and not literally? And that when you physically die, you will be literally in Abraham's bosom, but only symbolically seated in heavenly places while you were physically alive but no more after physical death?

What does not make sense in your Amil argument is that the physical resurrection of the OT in Christ at the Cross was not permanent, but only temporary. The resurrection of Christ was permanent, but then you say those in Christ could not experience a permanent physical resurrection themselves. Is that meaning one is only partially in Christ, spiritually, but not physically?

There is a simple reason that the OT were waiting in Abraham's bosom prior to the Cross, and no longer have to wait there after the Cross. And the reason directly relates to the physical appearance of God on earth. Now that there is a physical body that humans have been a witness to, the physical resurrection of the body for humans has been made available. That was one of Paul's arguments. The problem is that Amil deny this first resurrection which is physical was made possible by the Cross. But then again, most Premil do as well, and that is why they have problems in arguments against Amil. Neither side can use Scripture to prove their point, because neither side wants to get rid of tradition and human theology that is anti Scripture.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I'm certain that @WPM, @Spiritual Israelite, @rwb, @jeffweeder, et al understand.

And TribulationSigns.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I am content, the reader can see who is addressing the text and representing it correct.

I'm not suggesting that you need to address the text. However, I have noticed that your interpretation of it is clouded by your presuppositions, which you should defend instead of assuming them as given.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I'm certain that @WPM, @Spiritual Israelite, @rwb, @jeffweeder, et al understand.

Why don't you?

Why ask me? If I say I don't understand, and we assume you want to be understood, then why not clarify your view?

 

[covenantee]

Why ask me? If I say I don't understand, and we assume you want to be understood, then why not clarify your view?

Oh sorry; I won't make the mistake again of asking you why you don't understand.

The Scriptural view is clear to no less than five individuals.

Why not work a little harder at understanding instead of whining and complaining?