22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

While you are in a thread like this one, look in the upper right of your screen after scrolling to the top. There is a search feature there. Click in the field where it says "Search..." and then a window like this will pop up:

View attachment 26782

You can type in any keywords you want there and then you can also check the box to choose the option to search titles only. And you can search for posts made only be a certain member. And you can search for posts more recent than a certain date. And then you can also either search in the thread you are in or in the entire forum.

Thank you very much for your help.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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?

It isn't a matter of integrity. It would be unloving of me to encourage your behavior.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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!

Not only am I a man of my word, I am a man who has enough wisdom to avoid being a source of temptation for you. Someday you might understand.

 

[WPM]

It isn't a matter of integrity. It would be unloving of me to encourage your behavior.

Yes, it is an issue of integrity. Christian keep their word. Jesus said in Matthew 5:37: "let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay." You have proven that you do not keep your word. That is enough! Why would any Amil take anything you say serious now? I don't think so. I will keep reminding you of this in the future.

What is more, what you present here is blatantly heretical and devoid of any scriptural support. It does despite to Jesus and the cross.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What ridiculous and shameful logic.

You realize, don't you, that logic is amoral. Either the logic is sound or it isn't. If it wasn't you would be able to point out the mistake in the rational process.

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.

Empty statements are not a defense.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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

Do your own homework.

 

[WPM]

Not only am I a man of my word, I am a man who has enough wisdom to avoid being a source of temptation for you. Someday you might understand.

No. You promote blood sacrifices that Jesus did away with at the cross. Amils have showed you multiple Scripture that proves this. But you reject this. That is sad!

Why not start them up in your church now if they are so advantageous to make you and your people holy?

 

[WPM]

Do your own homework.

You are clearly playing defence, and are on the ropes. If you had truth you would share it.

 

[Timtofly]

Do billions of people who feign worship to Jesus and then instantly en-masse switch allegiance to Satan at the drop of a hat not constitute being sinners in your eyes?

And you have proof they are feign worshippers? Because your opinion is not Scripture.

Was Eve a sinner and closet Satan worshipper? You do realize that people who listen to Satan can change their minds, not that they had their mind made up before Satan approached them.

Your opinion is misleading, and speculative.

A dead sinner is always a sinner. A living human is declared a sinner by God. Adam and Eve were not sinners because they listened to Satan. They were sinners because they disobeyed God and died. Then God declared them and their offspring sinners by birth. Do you have a verse that declares Adam and Eve were created sinners? Who feigned to be friends with God, but were not? Do you have a verse that declares those people after the Millennium were sinners prior to listening to Satan? Or is that a false presupposition, and a biased prejudice against then for listening to Satan. It is not like this is the first time this has happened. We have Scripture and an example in Genesis 3 to compare, without jumping to conclusions and forming an opinion in a vacuum. So you cannot declare something with just one or two verses, and think your opinion is a strong argument. The moment they were consumed with fire settled their eternal condition. They no longer had a choice if they were a sinner or not at that point. They certainly could no longer act in sin, as they were removed from the face of the earth. That they were a sinner in the moments leading up to their being consumed by fire is mere speculation. You seem smart enough not to speculate or make something up. Listening to Satan is not what makes one a sinner. Living in death and sin is what made Adam and Eve sinners. Being born a sinner makes one a sinner. Facts that you have to make up and allege against these people, that are not clearly stated in Scripture. All I know is they are consumed by fire, a means of death.

Paul clearly stated it was by Adam that sin entered the world. If that is the case, then Adam and Eve were not sinners when Eve listened to Satan and ate the fruit. There is no indication in Revelation 20 that sin entered the world at all. So those consumed by fire were dead, and sinners in death, not prior to being consumed by fire. Just like Adam was not a sinner until he literally died. Adam was a sinner in his new temporal corruptible physical body. The body that gave birth to Seth. Genesis 5:1-3

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"

Adam was created in God's image. But now we see Seth was no longer in that image, but now in Adam's image. There is no indication that sin was in the world when Adam was created. Yet Seth was born a sinner, and mankind were now sinners by birth. So your opinion is that when these humans are destroyed by fire, death being the last enemy, but now sin would be allowed back into the world at this moment, to be defeated all over again? Now who is making the defeat of sin on the Cross of none effect? While sin was defeated, people being born into sin will not change until the Second Coming. Those who deny a Millennium after the Second Coming, deny Christ ruling until all enemies are defeated. They are denying the time on earth where sin is no more dictating how humans live. Many pre-mill get that wrong, but denying a future millennium does not right that wrong, it turns a wrong into a lie that is then promoted as truth.

 

[Timtofly]

Its not a nonsensical argument it's a commonsense argument.
They populate your imaginary future millennium as God rejecting, Gospel hating, unrepentant, unforgiven, unwashed sinners.

Your opinion. You have no Scripture to prove your opinion.

How have I in my imagination inserted Revelation 20 into the book of Revelation? How is that common sense?

 

[Timtofly]

So, why do you keep ducking around these 22 strong truths? Because you have no answer to them. Be honest! Stop avoiding the obvious!

According to you, personal opinion is a weak argument, not a strong one.

Now you claim your opinion is stronger than God's Word? Which of those 22 points are not your opinion? Why are you posting other people's opinions, if these are not your opinions? Certainly the very point they are your opinions, is enough to reason out they are not from Scripture. Holding to Revelation 20 as written is my argument against your 22 opinions.

 

[Timtofly]

We escape through tribulations, not from them entirely. Just as Noah escaped through the flood, his family wasn't taken out of the world prior to it. God is always testing our faith - not just to give us a hard time, but to also strengthen our faith and create endurance and perseverance. To show us how to trust Him through the difficult times.I don't agree with those interpretations of Revelation. It is a book that is full of signs and symbols and is very non-literal. There are many parts of that book that do not run chronologically, or in a linear fashion.

Many who claim the Trib cannot have begun yet because of these specific prophecies in Revelation, etc., are making excuses for the sentiment that the Pre-Trib could not have possibly passed yet, but those claims have no basis in reality. There is nothing in any of those prophecies that prove any specific dates or times. It is highly likely many of them have already happened.

The Pre-Trib Rapture functions only to cause professed Christians to be lax in their walk and in their commitment to God. If they believe that the end simply cannot be near because a specific easily identifiable event, like billions of people disappearing all at once, they are far more likely to live loosely and assume they will have a second chance if they miss the first bus. It is a ploy of the devil to draw the masses to their doom; and it is completely unbiblical.

It is also a ploy of Satan to make excuses about God's Word: Genesis 3:1-5

It is a book that is full of signs and symbols and is very non-literal. There are many parts of that book that do not run chronologically, or in a linear fashion.

How is this not an excuse to just dismiss Revelation as not relative to us today? The tribulation started in the first century. Yet the Second Coming will bring about a time of even greater tribulation than has ever happened in history. It is the world that is not prepared, and Christians have given into the notion, Revelation is too symbolic, and thus we will bury our heads in the sand, and wait until it is all over to figure things out. Obviously Christians will win either way, no?

 

[Timtofly]

Your accusations mean nothing when you can't back them up. Which you most certainly are incapable of doing. So, these are empty words coming from you. The next coherent argument you make defending your doctrine will be the first one.

Can you state this doctrine I am defending?

Which of these 22 reasons is not his opinion? If you name one then we can discuss his point and not his opinion.

 

[Timtofly]

No one is claiming that. Why are you wasting your time arguing with a straw man?

There is something seriously wrong with you. You talk complete, utter nonsense. Please seek help.

I was responding to his opinion. If he stops posting nonsense then he will stop getting an answer from Scripture addressing his nonsense.

"Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts."

WPM is the one who started the topic of returning this to a Sunday event.

 

[GEN2REV]

It is also a ploy of Satan to make excuses about God's Word: Genesis 3:1-5



How is this not an excuse to just dismiss Revelation as not relative to us today? The tribulation started in the first century. Yet the Second Coming will bring about a time of even greater tribulation than has ever happened in history. It is the world that is not prepared, and Christians have given into the notion, Revelation is too symbolic, and thus we will bury our heads in the sand, and wait until it is all over to figure things out. Obviously Christians will win either way, no?

We don't need to dismiss any part of the Bible when we place it properly in alignment with the rest of Scripture.

Rev. 20, for instance, aligns perfectly with Scripture when seen as a re-telling of 1 Corinthians 21-27. When seen as the foundation of the Pre-Mil doctrine, it is a red-headed stepchild. It has no congruence with Scripture in the least and confuses people almost as much as the trinity.

 

[The Light]

There is something here which you may not have thought about. Jesus said "when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand". He was talking about seeing these things come to pass, not escaping from them. So, those can't be the things from which he said we can be worthy to escape since He's talking about seeing them and then realizing that the kingdom of God is near at that point.

I tried to explain this but probably did a poor job. The Church can escape all these things that will come to pass. The Church will not be here when the 70th week of Daniel commences. The Church will already be in heaven before the seals are opened. See Rev 4 and 5. After the fulness of the Gentiles comes in part of Israel will have its blindness removed. The twelve tribes across the earth the seed of the woman will be here during the seals which includes the beginning of sorrows (The four horsemen of the Apocalypse), the great tribulation and the coming of Jesus at the 6th seal. THEY will see "all these things" that will come to pass.

And, like I pointed out in another post already, "these things" refer to the temple buildings in Jerusalem early on in the discourse and He certainly wasn't talking about escaping their destruction since they were destroyed long ago.

He certainly WAS talking the destruction of the Temple buildings in the future. The Temple that will be destroyed is the future Temple that Antichrist will declare himself God. The Jews just recently received 5 flawless red heifers that are used for purification. As to most people thinking that the Temple in question has already been destroyed, what sign was there when these things shall be? And then why in Matthew is the sign of His coming and the end of the age merged into when will these things be?

Luke 21
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Matthew 24

2 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.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

He was talking about escaping something that would affect the entire earth, such as the fire that will come down on the entire earth when Christ returns (2 Peter 3:10-13), so you need to differentiate between which "things" Jesus is talking about at any given time during the discourse..

No. There was no mention of the thing in 2 Peter 3. Jesus gives a list of the things that we can escape. That includes the destruction of the new Temple, the beginning of sorrows, which are the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse, and the great tribulation.

Second rapture? Scripture teaches no such thing. Your doctrine is very convoluted, which raises a red flag. Who can even understand it let alone agree with it?

The fact that there are few that understand that there are two raptures does not change the fact that there is. Most don't understand the order of Revelation, so how could they possibly understand that there are two raptures. One rapture is before the 70th week of Daniel and the other occurs at the 6th seal.

That's impossible since the 70th week ended long ago in the time when Jesus confirmed the new covenant.

You seem like a smart guy. How is possible that you would believe this? You have to be wiser than that. Who do you think the Christians without oil in their lamps are? Do you think it is those that are watching and waiting for the bridegroom to come as instructed or those that think that they know when He will come and think He will come at the 7th trumpet only?

I see no description of a rapture of the 12 tribes there.

And few do. You would need to understand the order of Revelation to understand it. You would need to know that the coming of Jesus for the harvest in Revelation 14 is the coming of Jesus at the sixth seal.

Revelation 14
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

So, these unbelievers will have a place to go on earth where they can be protected but for some reason believers will be taken off of the earth as if God couldn't protect them on the earth? That makes no sense.

Those unbelievers are that go to a place of protection are the WOMAN, the Jews in Israel, that flee to a place of protection.

Matthew 24
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Revelation 12
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

The bottom line. The Church can escape "all these things" and will be in heaven before the 70th week of Daniel. After the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, part of Israel, of the 12 tribes across the earth, will have its eyes opened. They will "see all these things" that will come to pass and when Jesus comes for the harvest at the 6th seal they will join the Church for the marriage supper of the lamb in heaven. Jacob had two brides. Leah was first but he had to work 7 more years for His beloved Rachel.

You really need to think about this. Of the ten virgins, there are five with oil and 5 without. Who do you think has oil. Those watching and waiting as instructed for the return of the bridegroom, or those that think they know when He will come at the 7th trumpet?

 

[Timtofly]

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!

The poster did answer, even Keras posted a response. Now you are just jumping up and down enjoying your own admission to his reply? A response you obviously never read nor acknowledged.

Your posts #5306/7, are excellent. They are a reasoned and correct exposition of what has happened and what will happen.
I have copied them for reference, thanks.

Please do not let personal attacks affect you, those who present the truths of God' plans for mankind, must expect opposition.

People who deny that there will be future sacrifices and offerings in a new Temple, simply have not read or comprehended what ALL of the Bible teaches on this matter.
It is sad that so many Christians just cannot see the tremendous changes to come. The world as we know it now, will soon be gone, never to be the same again and we who keep firm in our faith thru it all, will receive the Blessings of God.

 

[Keraz]

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.

Another excellent post!
The Prophetic Word is clear. There will be a new Temple and we will make offerings to God in it.

 

[covenantee]

Do your own homework.

This has been visited before, but revisitation is in order.

Who in orthodox Christian Church history between 100 AD and 1800 AD espoused the restoration of animal sacrifices?

 

[WPM]

Another excellent post!
The Prophetic Word is clear. There will be a new Temple and we will make offerings to God in it.

#5376 refutes your claims. Not surprisingly, you avoided it. It forbids your theology.