22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Timtofly]

But as the bible says revelation 16 is the destruction of Babylon the great by the beast and revelation 19 is the defeat of the beast by Jesus. Two completely different battles with two completely different outcomes. Revelation 19 doesn’t even mention Armageddon and revelation 16 doesn’t mention Jesus.

Do you really think that there would be a battle won by Jesus in the bible and the bible wouldn’t mention Jesus winning it?

Revelation 16:16

"And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."

This is God gathering all the rest of humanity to the Valley of Megiddo. That is what the word Armageddon means.

God gathered them to fight Christ coming down from Heaven. Chapters 17 and 18 are parenthetical describing the end of Satan's 42 month Babylonian kingdom over the earth. God is gathering what is left of that kingdom to Armageddon. The beast, the FP, and Satan show up at that battle as well. That is when the beast and the FP are cast into the LOF. Satan is bound in the pit for 1,000 years.

Not the same battle as in Revelation 20, because Satan is the one gathering that army against the camp of the saints. At Armageddon God is gathering all of humanity to end Adam's dead corruptible flesh, once, and for all time.

None of Adam's flesh and blood is on earth any where in Revelation 20. The dead stand outside of time and creation at the GWT. There is no heaven and earth for them any more.

 

[Timtofly]

Once again, no Kingdom or Mortal Humans are seen in Revelation 20:1-6, where the word (Thousand Years) is used

Same place as verse 8 and 9.

 

[Timtofly]

?

I have no idea what you mean. Babylon defeats Babylon?

Only Satan's kingdom is on earth for 42 months. By the end, the 2 witnesses are dead, and all humanity to get saved were all beheaded. Only Satan's followers are gathered by God in the 6th vial to face Christ coming from heaven on a white horse.

 

[Truth7t7]

Same place as verse 8 and 9.

False!

Revelation 20:7-8 Satan who is a spiritual being is loosed into the earthly realm, to gather the nations to the final battle

No place in Revelation 20:1-6 do you see a Kingdom or Mortal Humans on earth

Revelation 20:1-6 Angel, Heaven, Satan, Devil, The Souls, The Dead, God, Christ, 100% spiritual realm, no literal earthly time, no kingdom, or mortal humans are seen "None"!

 

[Marty fox]

Only Satan's kingdom is on earth for 42 months. By the end, the 2 witnesses are dead, and all humanity to get saved were all beheaded. Only Satan's followers are gathered by God in the 6th vial to face Christ coming from heaven on a white horse.

That didn’t answer my question how do I have Babylon defeating Babylon? I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[WPM]

That didn’t answer my question how do I have Babylon defeating Babylon? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Amen!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You misread me. The implication is that he is misapplying the temporal Kingdom of God and the eschatological Kingdom of God in the Scriptures that he is applying to prove Amil. Go back and look at how he's applying his Scriptures (#2491). They are improperly applying current application of God's Kingdom in our world today by confusing it with the eschatological Kingdom of the future.

Did you forget who you were talking to here? I agree with everything he said in post #2491. My beliefs are very similar to his, which I would think you would already know. I believe you are the one who is misapplying the scriptures about the kingdom. It's as if you don't want to even acknowledge that His kingdom exists in any way, shape or form right now.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's a big mistake to reject the Jewish Scriptures simply because spiritually-bankrupt Jewish leaders claimed they believed in them. Jesus said, even in his own time, that his disciples should do what they say, but not what they do. In other words, their beliefs may be right, even though they themselves are corrupt and devious.

Wait a minute here. Which "Jewish Scriptures" are you referring to? If you're talking about Old Testament scriptures, then of course I don't reject that! Are you kidding? But, if you're talking about some other "Jewish Scriptures", then what reason do I have to believe in them?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I abandoned Amil because I thought it *not* the truth!

LOL. Obviously. But, you thought wrong.

Revelation 20 teaches a literal Millennium--not a symbolic one. Shame on you for telling me to twist the very book that warns us not to do that!

I'm sorry, where did I tell you to twist the book? Now you're resorting to lying? I'm starting to lose a lot of respect for you, Randy.

I've answered this before, and I can do it again. The world does not *end* at the 2nd Coming. The Bible specifically forbids that.

What are you talking about? The world as we know it will end at the second coming. But, I'm not saying the earth will be completely annihilated, if that's what you're thinking. It will be renewed by fire at the second coming, as Peter taught in 2 Peter 3:3-13.

So you now have to prove that everybody dies at the 2nd Coming.

LOL. How can anyone survive fire coming down on the entire earth, as Peter taught in 2 Peter 3:10-13? Paul taught that all who don't know God and don't obey the gospel will be destroyed at Christ's second coming (2 Thess 1:7-10). And, you and I both agree that all believers will be changed to have immortal bodies at that point. So, what mortals does that leave to populate the earth? None. You don't accept what Peter and Paul taught. And Jesus taught the same thing. He said that just as all unbelievers (all but Noah and his family) were killed by the flood, so it will be at His second coming that all unbelievers will be killed (Matt 24:35-39). So, how does that leave any mortals to populate the earth?

And that runs up against the OT Prophets who taught that Israel would be restored, nationally, one last time, "never to be defeated again." That hasn't happened, and it will happen, I believe, in the Kingdom of God.

Which scripture are you referring to? I can't take you seriously if you don't ever give the scripture that you think backs up what you're saying. Your words alone will never convince me of anything.

At that time we are told that the glorious Church will reign together with Christ and subdue the mortal nations, which implies that they still have a sin nature and pagan tendencies. They will have to be "subdued."

Where does scripture teach this?

Now if you want to know where Jews get their beliefs that the Prophets taught this final restoration you can go to them. Or we can discuss it ourselves?

I'm talking to you. They are not here. So, you tell me.

But not just Israel was promised fulfillment as a nation of God. There also has to be "many" nations of God, in accordance with God's promise to Abraham. Christian nations are presently failing, and so, we should expect this to be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, as well. All of these nations, called to serve God, must be restored. And it will happen when Satan's rule comes to an end, and his own Kingdom, invested in Antichrist, is completely destroyed.

It isn't nations that God promised to Abraham, it's spiritual offspring, as Paul wrote about in Galatians 3:16-29. This illustrates the problem. You don't accept the NT explanations for the OT prophecies. Paul said that the promises made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and to Jesus Christ Himself. And Paul taught that those who belong to Christ are counted as the seed of Abraham as well. Why not just make it easy on yourself and accept what Paul taught about this instead of trying to figure it out yourself from the OT text alone? The NT shines light on the OT prophecies, but you're not allowing it to do that for you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Isn't your challenge predicated on my choice of verses? :) hehe.
You aren't one of those people who believe that the Bible is allowed to contradict itself are you?

This is the most ridiculous question that anyone has ever asked me.

I don't think you are.

You only don't think so? My goodness, am I wasting my time on here? Times like this make me wonder.

So, how do we proceed? I explain away your verses so that you can, in turn, explain away my verses? Are we tired yet?

When did I explain away your verses?

Summary:
From my perspective, the Bible clearly teaches a time when Jesus Christ will rule from the current geolocation we call Jerusalem. He and his followers will rule for a thousand years. This time serves a narrative purpose, according to Yahweh, which involves the vindication of his holy name. Christians know this time as the Millennial kingdom (or the Millennial period as I call it in sensitivity to those who maintain that the kingdom is now.)

In my video concerning Malachi 4, I liken the coming Day of the Lord to a story plot, which typically begins first with exposition; then followed by moment of conflict; then action rising to a climax; the climax of the story; and finally falling action ending in a final resolution. In other words, the Day of the Lord is an extended period of time, which begins with a moment of conflict and ends with conflict resolution. The return of Jesus Christ comes at the climax of the story; the millennial period constitutes "the falling action", which is the time after the climax when the story is brought to a close.

I can't make sense of anything you're saying here. Are you not able to communicate more clearly than this?

Luke 20:34
This passage is one among many that speak of "this age and the age to come." The question is whether this dichotomy indicates a discrete, punctiliar, and significant change in history or a story-like change in history, involving continuous action over time marked by a beginning, a middle and an end. It is impossible to answer this question from this single verse.

I disagree. It very clearly distinguishes between a time period during which people get married and they die ("this age" and a time when people won't get married or die ("the age to come"). The age to come begins when this age ends. Very simple. It seems to me that you turn simple things into something convoluted that only you can understand.

In filmmaking, a "jump cut" is an edit to a single, sequential shot that makes the action appear to leap forward in time. Our Amillennial brothers and sisters liken the Second Advent to a "jump cut", when the future appears to leap forward in time. In this view, the coming of Jesus isn't so much a "climax", as it is an abrupt change the time line, without any predicate action leading up to that point.

That's not really true. We believe certain things happen before Christ returns.

In my view, history is the culmination of millions of moments, one moment following logically from the previous moment, which is punctuated by significant moments predicated on the telos:goal God assigned to it. The coming of Jesus will not happen as a "jump cut" in time, it will come as the climax to a larger story.

2 Peter 3:10
Here again, we allow ourselves to ask whether Peter is giving a complete description of the Day of the Lord. Does he believe that history is cleaved into two distinct, discrete parts by a sudden, singular event, or does he believe that the destruction of the heavens and the earth come at the end of an extended period of time? And once again, it is impossible to answer this question from Peter's exhortation. We must bear in mind that Peter's exhortation to live righteously is his central and critical point. Given that his central point is an exhortation to live a righteous life, we would not expect a complete account of the "Day of the Lord" in this context. He gives only enough detail to make his point.

Why do you suppose that he gives an exhortation to live righteously in relation to the day of the Lord? Doesn't that imply that the day of the Lord can potentially affect each of us? That seems clear to me. Is that your understanding of the day of the Lord? I can't tell what your understanding is by what you're saying here.

Those who see a punctiliar aspect to his statements, bring that interpretation with them to the text, I think.

Wrong.

[I explain the narrative structure of the DAY of the Lord in this video.]
Title: DOL 02 Day of the Lord Malachi 4

[I explain the day that the son of man is revealed in this video.]
Title: Days of the Son of Man

Sorry, but I have no interest in watching your videos. I come here to talk to people directly on this forum, not to click on links to external sites. So, how exactly do you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-13? How exactly do you think the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night? When do you think it will come like a thief in the night? I believe the context is clear that it comes when Jesus returns. What Peter was writing about in 2 Peter 3:3-13 all relates to the promise of His second coming, as established in verses 3 and 4.

Do you understand 2 Peter 3:10-12 to be talking about the literal burning up of the heavens, elements and the earth? If so, when exactly do you think that will occur in relation to the return of Christ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Disagree.



Never asked you WHAT Satan IS.
You made a long post and answered NOT one question I asked.
A LONG POST AGAIN, without answering AGAIN.

A star falls from Heaven to Earth...(face of the Earth)
That fallen star is given the KEY to the BOTTOMLESS PIT.
That fallen star Opens the Bottomless Pit.
Smoke rises UP from the Pit.
The Smoke is so great it Blocks the Sun light and Air.
OUT of the PIT comes LOCUST.
The Locust come UPON the face of the Earth.

Not rocket science to comprehend the Bottomless Pit, the abyss, Hell, whatever term fancy’s you.................... IS a geographical place.......
IN the Earth.

Do you believe it's talking about literal locusts?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sure he did. I guess you didn't listen or perhaps you missed it. He didn't mention it very often; because why? Everyone involved already shared a common understanding of the prophets who prophesied concerning a coming messiah who would rule from the literal, physical Jerusalem. One does not need to argue against those with whom one already agrees.

When did Jesus ever mention that He "would rule from the literal, physical Jerusalem"?

 

[WPM]

LOL. Obviously. But, you thought wrong.

I have heard him say this before but he still doesn't grasp the basics of what Amils believe, so I take that with a pinch of salt. Because one was born in a stable doesn't make them a horse.

 

[Taken]

Do you believe it's talking about literal locusts?

Yes.
Swarming Locusts are a plague, the lends to resulting in Famines...
from ancient days, through history, and are increasing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes.
Swarming Locusts are a plague, the lends to resulting in Famines...
from ancient days, through history, and are increasing.

How can literal locusts have the angel of the abyss/bottomless pit as their king?

Revelation 9:11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

The fact that their king is "the angel of the Abyss" is is a major hint that it's referring to fallen angels figuratively as locusts. The king of literal locusts would be a locust, not "the angel of the Abyss". And the angel of the Abyss would be king over angels, not locusts.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Wait a minute here. Which "Jewish Scriptures" are you referring to? If you're talking about Old Testament scriptures, then of course I don't reject that! Are you kidding? But, if you're talking about some other "Jewish Scriptures", then what reason do I have to believe in them?

I'm talking about their Scriptures. In their Prophets we read of Israel's restoration. The Jews saw that as a literal promise for the future.

Replacement Theologians apply what was given to Israel to the Church. The problem is, Christians know that the Jewish People messed up and are under punishment. I'm saying that should not keep us from accepting the things they understand from their Scriptures are the promise of their final restoration.

 

[Taken]

How can literal locusts have the angel of the abyss/bottomless pit as their king?

Revelation 9:11 They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).

The fact that their king is "the angel of the Abyss" is is a major hint that it's referring to fallen angels figuratively as locusts. The king of literal locusts would be a locust, not "the angel of the Abyss". And the angel of the Abyss would be king over angels, not locusts.

i can’t say, but what they are called.

Rev 9:
[4] And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
(For 5 months)...

Sounds like God is calling the shots.

 

[WPM]

I'm talking about their Scriptures. In their Prophets we read of Israel's restoration. The Jews saw that as a literal promise for the future.

Replacement Theologians apply what was given to Israel to the Church. The problem is, Christians know that the Jewish People messed up and are under punishment. I'm saying that should not keep us from accepting the things they understand from their Scriptures are the promise of their final restoration.

Amils oppose Replacement Theology. They believe in Expansion Theology. It you that is the No. 1 promoter of it on these boards: You have previously admitted:

“The NT did supersede the OT, yes.”

"Yes, what Israel had, has now been passed on to many European and other nations."

"So, the kingdom of priests given to Israel has been given to many nations."

"Many Christian nations have now entered into the promise God made to Israel that they would be a kingdom having a priesthood."

 

[Enoch111]

Yes, what Israel had, has now been passed on to many European and other nations.

This is what false teacher Herbert W. Armstrong promoted. So you are simply another false teacher.

 

[CadyandZoe]

When did I explain away your verses?

You didn't. You are asking me to explain them away. I don't do that. In my view, the entire Bible is true and without error. In my view, the Bible speaks with one voice. In my view, single verses taken out of context meaning nothing at all. You asked me to explain away two verses. I didn't explain them at all. Did I? No.

I can't make sense of anything you're saying here.

I can't explain why. I am speaking clearly enough. I have found that sometimes, what appears to be cryptic language, is plain enough when more of the relevant facts are apprehended.

It very clearly distinguishes between a time period during which people get married and they die ("this age" and a time when people won't get married or die ("the age to come"). The age to come begins when this age ends.

True, but incomplete. Contrary to your supposition that Jesus is comparing two ages, he is actually comparing two peoples. He contrasts "the sons of this age." with "those who are worthy to attain to that age". In his view, those who are worthy to attain to that age will experience resurrection. But when does the resurrection event take place, this age or the next age? Logically speaking the resurrection event takes place in this age, because "this age" doesn't become "the age to come" UNTIL AFTER the resurrection takes place.

The changing of the ages requires a short transformation period in which the defining characteristics of one age briefly coexists with the defining characteristics of the next age. The transformation from one age to another not only takes time, the emergence of the new circumstances, which will define the next age, actually happen in the current age.

Take another look at the Luke passage. Notice our Lord's word choice, identifying "that age" and "resurrection from the dead" as two distinct concepts. Resurrection from the dead must be considered along with the next age because resurrection from the dead takes place during the short transition period between ages. It isn't the next age until AFTER the resurrection takes place.

Luke 20:34-35
Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;

Although resurrection from the dead marks a distinct and unique condition found in the coming age, resurrection from the dead must be considered along with the next age, because resurrection from the dead takes place in this age. For this reason, we should expect to find other indications that the resurrection takes place in this age. And I believe the New Testament supports this fact. Resurrection of the saints uniquely marks the coming age, but the resurrection event happens in this one.

I can't tell what your understanding is by what you're saying here.

Of course not. Why do you suppose I make videos? In a video I can cover a lot of ground in a very short amount of time. Unlike the posts I make here, the video script is written carefully, edited and reedited until it speaks clearly and concisely. I'm trying to save time and avoid filling up posts.
Too bad. I've been quite discouraged lately.

Sorry, but I have no interest in watching your videos.

You don't need to watch; you can listen to them like a pod-cast, except in this case I included an infographic, depicting the overall concept. I try to keep them short -- 15 to 20 minutes. You can listen to them while you do other things.

Do you understand 2 Peter 3:10-12 to be talking about the literal burning up of the heavens, elements and the earth?

Peter compares the deluge with the coming fires. It seems reasonable to me that if God saved Noah and his family from the deluge so that he might live on the earth after the flood, God will save his people from the coming fires so that they might live on the earth after the fires.

Revelation 20:11 talks about a time when the heavens and earth "will pass away." I don't think Peter is talking about that. Joel and Malachi speak about a time when God will send fires on the land of Israel, when those who "fear God" will flee to Jerusalem. Those who remain behind will be incinerated. I believe Peter has that event in mind.