The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your mind is already made up and nobody can tell you anything... so why bother? View attachment 59631

As if your mind isn't made up? LOL. So hypocritical.

And what is wrong with having one's mind made up about something, anyway? Especially if that only occurs after much time spent studying these things? Nothing is wrong with that. What do you expect, that people aren't supposed to ever make their minds up about anything?

 

[WPM]

As if your mind isn't made up? LOL. So hypocritical.

And what is wrong with having one's mind made up about something, anyway? Especially if that only occurs after much time spent studying these things? Nothing is wrong with that. What do you expect, that people aren't supposed to ever make their minds up about anything?

Exactly bro. For years we have been sold deception on this subject. This is why i went into depth to study it for myself. There is no refutation of facts.

 

[Davy]

WARNING BRETHREN IN CHRIST:
The REAL heretics are those who REJECT the actual Bible Scripture as written.

Who were the FOUNDING FATHERS of the early 1st century Christian Church that were all believers per Scripture that Jesus at His return will begin His reign for a "thousand years" with His elect over the nations with His "rod of iron"??

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
KJV

Christ's 1st century Christian Church was built upon the FOUNDATION of His Apostles, God's Old Testament prophets, with Lord Jesus Christ Himself as its Chief Corner Stone.

So those who MOCK that FOUNDATION, what are they most likely following? Definitely not Christ Jesus and His early Church!

 

[WPM]

WARNING BRETHREN IN CHRIST:
The REAL heretics are those who REJECT the actual Bible Scripture as written.

Who were the FOUNDING FATHERS of the early 1st century Christian Church that were all believers per Scripture that Jesus at His return will begin His reign for a "thousand years" with His elect over the nations with His "rod of iron"??

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
KJV

Christ's 1st century Christian Church was built upon the FOUNDATION of His Apostles, God's Old Testament prophets, with Lord Jesus Christ Himself as its Chief Corner Stone.

So those who MOCK that FOUNDATION, what are they most likely following? Definitely not Christ Jesus and His early Church!

Your doctrine is built on the foundation of the heretics. It is built upon sand. You cannot refute any of the evidence on this thread. That's because it is irrefutable. It is factual. It shows you the roots of your doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Exactly bro. For years we have been sold deception on this subject. This is why i went into depth to study it for myself. There is no refutation of facts.

I'm glad you've done that. I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately, Premills just ignore the facts that you've presented. But any objective lurker will not.

 

[WPM]

I'm glad you've done that. I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately, Premills just ignore the facts that you've presented. But any objective lurker will not.

Thanks! If they had a rebuttal you can be 100% sure they would give it. But they don't. They have nothing! Facts are stubborn things.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your doctrine is built on the foundation of the heretics. It is built upon sand. You cannot refute any of the evidence on this thread. That's because it is irrefutable. It is factual. It shows you the roots of your doctrine.

Notice how he doesn't even attempt to refute anything you've said. He just makes a bunch of dumb, bold claims that he can't support with any facts.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks! If they had a rebuttal you can be 100% sure they would give it. But they don't. They have nothing! Facts are stubborn things.

Agree. I truly can't understand how people can just ignore facts and just believe what they want to believe instead like Davy does. I've never looked at things that way. I don't get it. I just believe what I see taught in scripture. I want to believe the truth whether it agrees with what I might want to be true or not.

Take, for example, Davidpt's view where he doesn't believe that God would destroy the animal kingdom. That isn't based on any facts or any scripture. It's just what he wants to believe. Let's say I also want it to be the case for the animal kingdom to not be destroyed. But, if I see that scripture teaches otherwise, which I do, then I readily accept it. Why would anyone not accept what scripture teaches and decide to just believe what they want to believe instead? I don't get it.

 

[marks]

Most of the writings we have from the early post-canonical days will affirm at times the city of Jerusalem in the last days but not the national restoration of Israel and the rebuilding of a temple, probably the two most important elements of a Jewish chiliasm … national Israel was no longer a player in God’s eschatological promises.

Yes, this was where the trouble started. They didn't believe that Israel could return. So they invented other ways to interpret the text.

They discarded Israel, while God has not. So they've ended up in error.

Much love!

 

[WPM]

Yes, this was where the trouble started. They didn't believe that Israel could return. So they invented other ways to interpret the text.

They discarded Israel, while God has not. So they've ended up in error.

Much love!

You and the heretics above are hand in hand then in your error.

 

[WPM]

Agree. I truly can't understand how people can just ignore facts and just believe what they want to believe instead like Davy does. I've never looked at hings that way. I don't get it. I just believe what I see taught in scripture. I want to believe the truth whether it agrees with what I might want to be true or not.

Take, for example, Davidpt's view where He doesn't believe that God would destroy the animal kingdom. That isn't based on any facts or any scripture. It's just what he wants to believe. Let's say I also want it to be the case for the animal kingdom to not be destroyed. But, if I see that scripture teaches otherwise, which I do, then I readily accept it. Why would anyone not accept what scripture teaches and decide to just believe what they want to believe instead? I don't get it.

Well said!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, this was where the trouble started. They didn't believe that Israel could return. So they invented other ways to interpret the text.

They discarded Israel, while God has not. So they've ended up in error.

Much love!

No, the trouble started with people like you not understanding what passages like the following mean:

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 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.

The Israel that God cares about is the one that includes the children of God and children of the promise, which does not include all who physically descend from Abraham, but just the ones who have faith like Abraham.

Also, no one is claiming that God discarded Israel because I don't know of anyone who disagrees with what Paul wrote here:

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

What you apparently don't understand is that someone, like me, not believing that God will one day save everyone in the nation of Israel is not a case of saying that God has discarded Israel. If you read what Paul wrote above, you can see that one can't say that God ever discarded Israel even when most of them reject Him. Even if there is just a remnant of Israelites who believe, as was the case in Paul's day and is still the case today, then that means God did not discard Israel. But, you think all Israelites need to be saved in order to prove that God didn't discard Israel, which contradicts what Paul indicated about that in the passage above.

 

[marks]

The real problem is unbelief in God's Word. Totally invested in an interpretation that leaves out Israel. God does not discard them, but He will keep every promise, just like He said.

Believe the Scriptures as written.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The real problem is unbelief in God's Word. Totally invested in an interpretation that leaves out Israel. God does not discard them, but He will keep every promise, just like He said.

Who are you talking to and about here exactly? Tell me who are the people on this forum who leave out Israel and say that God discards them? Which would mean they disagree with what Paul wrote here...

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

According to Paul, God never discarded Israel as evidenced by the "remnant according to the election of grace" of his time. But, it seems that in your view God has discarded Israel temporarily, but not permanently. Is that an accurate description of what you believe? If so, it doesn't line up with what Paul wrote above where he indicated that God didn't ever discard Israel and did not discard them in his time. He never will because He wants all of them to be saved just like He wants all other people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6).

Believe the Scriptures as written.

Who here doesn't try to do that? Tell me what this even means exactly to you.

 

[covenantee]

The real problem is unbelief in God's Word. Totally invested in an interpretation that leaves out Israel. God does not discard them, but He will keep every promise, just like He said.

Believe the Scriptures as written.

Much love!

Including these promises.

Galatians 3
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Including these promises.

Galatians 3
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Despite what Paul taught here, dispensationalists contradict him and insist that God made those promises to Abraham and his physical seeds/descendants instead of to one seed, which is Christ, as Paul taught. And they don't accept that those who belong to Christ are heirs of those promises, despite Paul clearly teaching that. They don't accept that Gentile believers are "fellow citizens" with Israelite believers (Eph 2:19-22) and "fellow heirs" of God's promises (Ephesians 3:1-6) with them.

 

[WPM]

The real problem is unbelief in God's Word. Totally invested in an interpretation that leaves out Israel. God does not discard them, but He will keep every promise, just like He said.

Believe the Scriptures as written.

Much love!

Who is arguing with that? They are coming in like every other nation today - by putting their trust in Jesus Christ.

 

[Davidpt]

Agree. I truly can't understand how people can just ignore facts and just believe what they want to believe instead like Davy does. I've never looked at things that way. I don't get it. I just believe what I see taught in scripture. I want to believe the truth whether it agrees with what I might want to be true or not.

Take, for example, Davidpt's view where he doesn't believe that God would destroy the animal kingdom. That isn't based on any facts or any scripture. It's just what he wants to believe. Let's say I also want it to be the case for the animal kingdom to not be destroyed. But, if I see that scripture teaches otherwise, which I do, then I readily accept it. Why would anyone not accept what scripture teaches and decide to just believe what they want to believe instead? I don't get it.

I only use the animal kingdom as an example. That if you are correct that the entire planet is engulfed in flames, why then did God bother creating animals to begin with, and why did He bother preserving them during the flood, if in the end He just gets rid of the animal kingdom altogether? If that's His intentions all along, why put it off for 4000 years? Why not just eleminate the animal kingdom during the flood and just be done with it? Yet for some reason He decided to preserve the animal kingdom. BTW, I'm not an animal lover or anything. Just like anyone else I have had pets and have one right now. But unlike some, I do not put animals(pets) above people. Some clearly do. So, meaning an animal lover in that sense, where one has more regard for animals than they do humans.

The point then being, it's nothing to do with what I think or don't think about animals in general, I just can't see God creating them in the beginning, then preserving them during the flood, then doing away with them altogether during the day of the Lord. That makes zero sense.

Imagine if man had not fallen? Is one to believe that He would have eventually wiped the animal kingdom out of existence? Maybe you too believe something silly, for all I know, like even some Premils believe, that the sea meant in Revelation 21:1 is meaning literal seas? But if it isn't and surely it isn't, which would then mean large bodies of water still exist in the NHNE, but whoever heard of seas and oceans having zero lifeforms, such as fish living in them? But if the entire planet goes up in flames, the heat and smoke alone would kill every lifeform in these bodies of water eventually. This alone should tell anyone that it is ludricrous that one should be taking 2 Peter 3:10-12 in the literal sense, meaning the way you are. Only doctrinal bias can explain why you need to do that. Because now you have to explain why there are still seas in the NHNE and how all these fish got there if God wiped them out of existence during the DOTL?

Apparently, you don't even seem to understand who it is that God has it out for during the DOTL. You apparently think He has it out for the animal kingdom as well. That He is also angry with animals, lol.

 

[Scott Downey]

I only use the animal kingdom as an example. That if you are correct that the entire planet is engulfed in flames, why then did God bother creating animals to begin with, and why did He bother preserving them during the flood, if in the end He just gets rid of the animal kingdom altogether? If that's His intentions all along, why put it off for 4000 years? Why not just eleminate the animal kingdom during the flood and just be done with it? Yet for some reason He decided to preserve the animal kingdom. BTW, I'm not an animal lover or anything. Just like anyone else I have had pets and have one right now. But unlike some, I do not put animals(pets) above people. Some clearly do. So, meaning an animal lover in that sense, where one has more regard for animals than they do humans.

The point then being, it's nothing to do with what I think or don't think about animals in general, I just can't see God creating them in the beginning, then preserving them during the flood, then doing away with them altogether during the day of the Lord. That makes zero sense.

Imagine if man had not fallen? Is one to believe that He would have eventually wiped the animal kingdom out of existence? Maybe you too believe something silly, for all I know, like even some Premils believe, that the sea meant in Revelation 21:1 is meaning literal seas? But if it isn't and surely it isn't, which would then mean large bodies of water still exist in the NHNE, but whoever heard of seas and oceans having zero lifeforms, such as fish living in them? But if the entire planet goes up in flames, the heat and smoke alone would kill every lifeform in these bodies of water eventually. This alone should tell anyone that it is ludricrous that one should be taking 2 Peter 3:10-12 in the literal sense, meaning the way you are. Only doctrinal bias can explain why you need to do that. Because now you have to explain why there are still seas in the NHNE and how all these fish got there if God wiped them out of existence during the DOTL?

Apparently, you don't even seem to understand who it is that God has it out for during the DOTL. You apparently think He has it out for the animal kingdom as well. That He is also angry with animals, lol.

Well He definitely has had enough of the green grasses! Which includes all the little bushes and flowers.

27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not [e]arrayed like one of these. 28 If then God so clothes the grass, which today is in the field and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith?

Thing is, If God throws the grasses into the oven, then everything else goes along with it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I only use the animal kingdom as an example. That if you are correct that the entire planet is engulfed in flames, why then did God bother creating animals to begin with, and why did He bother preserving them during the flood, if in the end He just gets rid of the animal kingdom altogether?

I'm not interested in having a big discussion that's based entirely on speculation. That's your thing. I tried to speculate on what Ezekiel 38 and 39 mean a little while back and you attacked my response as if I said what I was saying was a fact. I never like to speculate at all and that just confirmed to me again that it's a waste of time to speculate. What does scripture teach? That's what you should be thinking about instead of these questions you ask that we can only speculate about. What does scripture say? You know what I think it says is going to happen when Jesus returns already. Obviously, burning up the entire surface of the earth would result in all animals being killed. That's what I believe because of scripture. I don't base my beliefs on emotion or on how I want things to be or on the kind of questions you ask that no one can answer with any certainty.

Imagine if man had not fallen? Is one to believe that He would have eventually wiped the animal kingdom out of existence? Maybe you too believe something silly, for all I know, like even some Premils believe, that the sea meant in Revelation 21:1 is meaning literal seas? But if it isn't and surely it isn't, which would then mean large bodies of water still exist in the NHNE, but whoever heard of seas and oceans having zero lifeforms, such as fish living in them?

Why is it that you are constantly making claims, like the one you're making here, without providence any evidence to back them up? Seriously. Why do you do it? Do you think I'm just going to take your word for anything? Of course I'm not.

You know, it's actually pretty funny that you criticize Amils for not interpreting Revelation 20 and some other parts of Revelation literally, but now look at you. You're so inconsistent. Somehow, despite normally taking as much of the book of Revelation literally as you possibly can, you have decided that the reference to no more sea in Revelation 21:1 should not be taken literally. How do you decide that Satan's binding should be taken literally in the sense of Him being literally tied up and totally incapacitated, but then decide that a reference to no more sea should not be taken literally?

Don't tell me what it doesn't mean without telling me what it does mean. You do that all the time. It's hard to take you seriously when you say something can't be true while at at the same time not offering your opinion on what is true.

But if the entire planet goes up in flames, the heat and smoke alone would kill every lifeform in these bodies of water eventually.

Yep. That's what I believe.

This alone should tell anyone that it is ludricrous that one should be taking 2 Peter 3:10-12 in the literal sense, meaning the way you are.

How is it ludicrous to take that literally when I also take the reference to "no more sea" literally? Interpreting Revelation 21:1 that way is consistent with how I interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12, so how is that ludicrous? Clearly, it's not. This is just yet another false claim from you.

Only doctrinal bias can explain why you need to do that. Because now you have to explain why there are still seas in the NHNE and how all these fish got there if God wiped them out of existence during the DOTL?

When did I say I don't take the reference to "no more sea" literally? I didn't. So, once again, you are wasting your time making a straw man argument. Why didn't you ask me how I interpret Revelation 21:1 first before wasting your time making an argument that doesn't apply to what I believe? Why, oh why, do you do this? You can't get back all the time you waste making your many straw man arguments.

Apparently, you don't even seem to understand who it is that God has it out for during the DOTL. You apparently think He has it out for the animal kingdom as well. That He is also angry with animals, lol.

LOL. You're not even thinking here. At all. Do you understand that God killed MANY animals with the flood? Using your ridiculous logic, that means He was angry with those animals that He killed with the flood. Is that what you think? I know it isn't. So, try using logic that makes sense next time you try to make an argument like this.

You say that the reference to "no more sea" shouldn't be taken literally, so should the reference to no more death, crying, sorrow or pain not be taken literally as well? If the reference to "no more sea" in Revelation 21:1 is not literal, then why should we take anything written in that verse literally? Maybe the new heavens and new earth aren't meant to be taken literally, either? How far should we go with this? I think it's strange to think that it would say something literal in the first part of that verse and then change to saying something figurative at the end of it. I think it makes more sense to believe that either the entire verse is meant to be taken literally or the entire verse is meant to be taken figuratively. Also, Revelation 21:4 says "the former things are passed away" at that point, so wouldn't that include the sea? God could make a new sea if He wanted that was suited for the new earth, but if that was the case I'm not sure why would it say there was no more sea.