22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine
- Thread starter WPM
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Bro, I am trying to understand where you are coming from. It is that simple. No need to be defensive.
I do not see animal sacrifices in any of your proof-texts, thus the question. I am trying to ascertain where you are getting that.
Why are you avoiding such a simple question? It is a yes or no question. Are you scared of something? Remember, you give me your word you would answer that question if i answered your question. I did. The ball is now in your court: whether you will keep your word of not.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Why do you keep negatively attacking posters? When you can seriously address the points, instead of steamrolling the narrative, you may notice the actual words of Scripture instead of your own private bias.
Your rejection of Zechariah 14 as the Second Coming is what will be the damnation of Amil.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I explained it to you before. Perhaps you forgot. The animal sacrifices are among the commandments of God; During the millennial period, Israel will be keeping the commandments of God. Therefore, there will be animal sacrifices in the millennial kingdom.
In my view, during the Millennial kingdom they will make atonement sacrifices as commanded by Moses. You argue that atonement sacrifices are not necessary anymore, which is a problem for my view, in your opinion.
To that, I made two arguments. First, as Paul said (and we both agreed) it was never possible for atonement sacrifices to take away sins. It wasn't possible then, and so it won't be possible in the future. Therefore, any future atonement sacrifices will not be insulting to the cross or Jesus Christ. Second, while the original purpose of the atonement sacrifices was reconciliation with God, the atonement sacrifices will serve a different purpose in the millennial kingdom.
Upon reflection over the past week, I have changed my mind about my second point. I do believe that the atonement sacrifices will be offered for atonement. In order to understand this, we need to abandon our erroneous view of the sacrifices. Christians tend to think of the sacrifices in economic terms, which is foreign to Moses. According to the penal-substitution theory of the atonement, if one commits a sin, which is understood as a debt to divine justice, one owes God a lamb, a goat, or a bull until the debt is paid. This model, this interpretation of the sacrifices is not Biblical.
What is the actual purpose of the atonement sacrifice? If one were to offer God a lamb as payment for sins, then it would no longer be called "a sacrifice." When we pay our electric bill, for instance, we are not making an offering to the power company; we are providing money to the power company in exchange for the delivery of electricity. The sacrifice of a lamb is an offering to God to signify contrition and to appeal for reconciliation, not a financial compensation. The Lord, through Moses, gave those living under the original covenant the means whereby the penitent might give expression to righteous sentiments.
The atonement sacrifice was offered to give outward expression to a (supposed) inward attitude toward the situation. The atonement sacrifice speaks to the issue of sin, in a visible way, agreeing with God's opinion of the situation. If a man wants to seek reconciliation with God, he must act as if he agrees with God's opinion on the matter. God doesn't need sacrifices, sometimes he doesn't want then, and he says he hates them. But he is willing to offer reconciliation to a man (or woman) who make an offering in genuine and sincere contrition.
The Lord didn't institute the sacrifices for his own sake, he instituted them for the sake of his people. His people need and want a means to give expression to righteous sentiment. A man doesn't need to offer a lamb to find reconciliation with God; but the man offers the lamb in order to give heart-felt expression to his opinion concerning his sin. He tells God, "I agree with you Lord. What I did was wrong, evil, and deserves your wrath. Please accept my apology and restore me to your favor."
Even Christians, who already know that reconciliation with God came through the blood of Christ, get on their knees and pray for forgiveness when they sin. Some Christians seek a tangible way to give expression to their heart-felt contrition, perhaps confessing sins to a priest, or perhaps giving to charity, or what-have-you. The point is, those who are weak in faith both need and want ritualistic forms of heart-felt attitudes toward God. Mankind invented religion for that purpose. The Lord, through Moses, gave his people certain religious forms, done properly, so that his people might have a tangible way to express righteous sentiments.
See the next post.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
The essential and highest purpose of the Millennial kingdom is to bring about the sanctification of God's name on earth. In order to understand the form of that period, we must first understand the problem.
To begin, let's review Paul's argument in Romans chapter 2, where he brings the Jews under condemnation of sin. In chapter one, he brings the entire world under sin, but Paul knows the opinion of his fellow Jews, especially those who teach the people. Such men wrongly believe that teaching the Bible is impressive to God and worthy of his favor. Paul will argue against that perspective, that teaching the Bible does not give anyone special favor with God.
But, without explaining the entire chapter I want to focus on this section, particularly the last verse.
Romans 2:17-24
But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God, and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.
How was God's name blasphemed among the Gentiles? Paul asserts that one can find this doctrine in the prophets somewhere. Here are two examples. I want to focus on Ezekiel.
Isaiah 52:5
Ezekiel 36:20-38
Ezekiel briefly recounts Israel's history and why her exile is the basis for Gentile blaspheme. And to this end, I want to focus on the first half of that argument here.
Ezekiel 36:16-21
Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, when the house of Israel was living in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds; their way before Me was like the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity. Therefore I poured out My wrath on them for the blood which they had shed on the land, because they had defiled it with their idols. Also I scattered them among the nations and they were dispersed throughout the lands. According to their ways and their deeds I judged them. When they came to the nations where they went, they profaned My holy name, because it was said of them, ‘These are the people of the Lord; yet they have come out of His land.’ But I had concern for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations where they went.
From the Lord's point of view, he exiled his people for the cause of disobedience and especially for idolatry. He scattered his people among the nations on purpose. But from the Gentile's point of view, God was weak and ineffective as a leader and unable to keep a people for himself. Other Gods conquered Yahweh, defeated him and took his people away from him. As they say, "These are the people of the Lord; yet they have come out of His land."
The ancient peoples did not believe in a monotheistic, single God. They were polytheists, believing that many gods exist and that the gods fight with each other for supremacy. The victor was known as "god almighty." According to the ancients, the god who ruled supreme was "god almighty," the god who ruled over all the others.
But no one god ruled the entire world. Each god had his own area of influence; each god had his own land. The first god may fight with a second god and take the people of the second god has spoil. From this perspective, the ancient peoples concluded that Yahweh, who had control over "his land", defeated the gods of Egypt and took a people for himself and brought them to his land. But later, another god defeated Yahweh and took them away from his land to other lands. In the mind of the Gentiles, this was proof that Yahweh was not god almighty. He can be defeated.
The Lord tells Ezekiel that he allowed his people to be taken. It wasn't that another, stronger god defeated Yahweh and took his people away. He allowed the other nations to take his people away because they defiled his land. He sent them into exile because of disobedience and idolatry.
But the nations where they went understood history quite differently. They believed that another, stronger god defeated Yahweh, who was not able to keep a people, not able to protect a people, not able to teach a people, not able to provide a place where people can live peacefully in service to Yahweh.
While this was NOT true, this blaspheme was always left unchallenged. This lie persists because God has not yet proven otherwise. And this lie will remain unchallenged until God proves himself. It isn't enough to destroy the earth with a big whoosh and bring about the NHNE, because the lie must be proved in history while this world still exists.
Jesus taught his disciples to pray "Our father, make your name holy . . ." As Christians, We await the day when Yahweh proves himself among the nations. And he will offer proof while history is running its course.
The Lord tells Ezekiel that he intends to prove himself among the nations, demonstrating the truth and giving evidence, by experience, that Yahweh is truly God Almighty. In order to prove himself among the nations, he will bring his people back from exile, circumcise their hearts, have them keep and obey his commandments, and protect them from their enemies. And that last part is very important. In order to sanctify his name, vindicate himself from the charge that he is weak and ineffective against the other gods, he will bring the chief of all the so-called gods, Satan, against his people one last time, and this time Yahweh will defeat him.
Since disobedience of his commandments was one of two reasons why God allowed his people to be taken, then obedience of his commandments will mark the time when God is proving himself among the nations. Not only will his people keep all of his commandments, they will do so willingly because he has circumcised their hearts.
Last edited:
Stop ducking my question: is Ezekiel 40-48 historic or future in your millennium?
Why do you waste your time promoting something that will never happen? This is all fanciful. It is of your own imagination. The fact that you are changing your mind on the meaning of these animal sacrifices in this last few days shows that you do not even know what you believe about them. The whole thing is a fallacy. Not only will there not be a future millennium saturated with sin and sinners, deception and being deceived, crying and dying, corruption and decay, as your theology teaches, there will never be a restarting of the abolished old covenant ceremonial system. The fact is: the New Testament forbids your desire for rival and pointless blood atonements for sin for anyone - past, present or future. By what you espouse you fight New Testament Scripture, you trample over the blood of Christ, you supersede the new covenant with a failed abolished system, you undo the eternal victory of the cross. This is strong grounds to reject your error.
Christ ushered in an everlasting covenant through His sinless life, His atoning death, His victorious resurrection and His glorious heavenly mediatory work in glory. Scripture shows that the old temporal covenant was not only removed but was replaced with a new eternal covenant. We are not living in a spiritual void now, having to bear our own guilt and shame, as you would suggest. Christ paid the cost in full and applied the benefits of the same to us through the regenerating power of His Spirit.
Jeremiah first prophesied the coming and character of the new covenant, in Jeremiah 31:31-33, saying, “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
Jeremiah continues in the next verse, saying, “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).
The writer of the Hebrews addresses this passage directly, quoting it and applying it to Christ and His atoning work at Calvary. The animal sacrifices were done away forever. Hebrews 10:4-12 explains, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”
The old covenant with its unsatisfactory imperfect animal sacrifices have now been replaced by the new covenant with its one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. Paul outlines an important New Testament principle in 1 Corinthians 15:46, which is evident in every aspect of God’s plan and purpose with mankind, “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”
Hebrews 7:19-22 declares, “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”
Hebrews 8:6-8 says, of Christ and His vicarious atonement, “now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry (than those exercised by the Old Testament priests with their imperfect sacrifices), by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant.”
The writer of the Hebrews then quotes Jeremiah 31, thus demonstrating its actual fulfilment.
Hebrews 8:13 continues, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away”
Not long after this epistle was written, the temple with its inbuilt sacrifices was finally destroyed. With the destruction of the temple of few years later in AD 70, the temple sacrifices vanished forever.
The atonement is current, active and efficacious!
The problem for you is: the cross is not enough for you. The blood of Christ is not sufficient enough for you. You need to invent worthless pointless blood-letting to satisfy your ritualistic paradigm.
Romans 3:24-25: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation (hilasmos or atonement) through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”
1 John 2:1-2: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation (hilasterion or atonement) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
1 John 4:9-10: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (hilasterion or atonement) for our sins.”
The word propitiation here in 1 John 2:1-2 and 1 John 4:9-10 is the Greek word hilasmos (Strong’s 2434) meaning atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator. In Romans 3:24-25 (Strong’s 2434) it is hilasterion, which refers to an expiatory (place or thing), i.e. (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specially) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple) – the mercy seat.
The New Testament forbids your desire for rival and pointless blood atonements for sin for anyone - past, present or future. By what you espouse you fight New Testament Scripture, you trample over the blood of Christ, you supersede the new covenant with a failed abolished system, you undo the eternal victory of the cross. This is strong grounds to reject your error.
Last edited:
GEN2REV
Well-Known Member
I haven't read through all of your 22 points, but I agree with your premise entirely.
I believe Rev. 20 is a highly symbolic re-telling of 1 Corinthians 15:21-27.
When viewed from that lens, all the other eschatological (end-times) passages coincide with it perfectly. When all those well-known passages are compared to the Pre-Mil interpretation of Rev. 20, they don't align at all.
And, as you alluded to, you cannot create an entire doctrine around just one verse, passage or chapter in Scripture. It simply must coincide with the Bible as a whole. The Pre-Mil doctrine does not at all. I believe it is intended as a desperately needed, and fiercely defended, supporting structure for other false doctrines.
The Light
Well-Known Member
Yeah. I agree about the false doctrines. And it seems to be getting worse the closer we get to the pretribulation rapture. Thankfully we can escape all these things that will come to pass and stand before the Lord at His throne in heaven.
GEN2REV
Well-Known Member
I don't find any evidence to support a Pre-Trib rapture in Scripture and I don't believe Christians escape the Tribulation(s) that will come prior to Jesus' return on the Last Day.
Matthew 24:29-31
John 6:39-40
John 6:44
John 6:54
John 11:24
John 12:48
ETA: I'm also not convinced the Tribulations haven't already begun.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Not all people will be separated as sheep and goats. In fact that would contradict your own Amil position that all are consumed by fire at the Second Coming. You have 2 distinct "all" points, that are contradicting each other.
The separation of sheep and goats happens way before the 7th Trumpet. Jesus still destroys all of humanity at the 7th Trumpet. After separating out both sheep and goats first. Even the goats are gone prior to the 7th Trumpet, and the winepress. Jesus is handed the kingdoms of the world at the 7th Trumpet. But has already gathered people out of all nations prior to that point.
"And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:"
Nothing in this chapter indicates all of humanity is chosen. If all where chosen, there would not be a 42 month period for Satan to set up his own Babylonian kingdom.
How can you equate this event with one where every last human was killed and none spared in Revelation 19?
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
This makes nonsense. If you claim it is full of sin when Christ is reigning, then you demand that a sacrificial system is necessary yourself, in this made up nonsensical argument you have with yourself. As you are the only one making all the nonsensical points.
Where is all this nonsense of yours found in Revelation 20 that you foist upon the text?
The only point found is that when a rebellion happens after the 1,000 years it is instigated by Satan, not by the lack of or inspite of a temple. Rebellion is the result of Satan, not because some are claimed to be sinners. Still waiting for proof, those in the Millennium are identified as sinners.
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?
jeffweeder
Well-Known Member
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.
The Light
Well-Known Member
Luke 21
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
The tribulation is the 6 seals. The seals are not opened yet and will not be open until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in.
Romans 11
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
The Temple will not be built until after the Second Coming. How the Temple is used comes directly from Christ who is the Word of God. You seem dogmatic and your mind is made up. Revelation 11 declares a temple. Unless it is in heaven, and lost people are allowed in heaven to visit it, your point at proving a temple cannot be built falls flat.
"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
Now if you can prove the temple is in heaven, but the courtyard is in Jerusalem, you have a point. Normally the temple and courtyard are together in the same place. Most would even say that the 42 months is when Satan sets up the AoD in the temple, and all have to flee Judaea.
"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."
How many 42 month periods is God allowing here? 1? 2? Is this 7 years in total, or only 42 months period?
Why do you keep insisting that comparing one's interpretation comparing interpretation of Scripture with another interpretation of Scripture is the way to go?
You compare Revelation 19 with 20 and insist that your interpretation drives the point instead of Scripture itself. Then you complain when Scripture is pointed out that it is not saying the same thing. Adding personal opinion to the text to make it work is not correctly comparing Scripture with Scripture. Pre-mill compare chapter 19 with 20 to say it is not the same event. You compare chapter 19 and 20 because you have to add in all the details yourself. So which way is correct? Your interpretation with added points to Scripture itself, or the simple text? If Pre-mill did that you would call that error. But since Amil do that, it is called inspiration.
The same goes with Zechariah 14. Amil claim it was fulfilled in the first century. That is a private added self inspired interpretation. Only at the Second Coming will that attack on Jerusalem be averted and Jerusalem spared. In fact Jesus Himself changes the whole geographical topography which is what the text states. All preterist and some Amil give their own personal interpretation declaring an ongoing salvation experience that would literally never end, because they do not allow a physical result as stated. Then they are duplicitous and then say there will probably be a Second Coming eventually. Obviously they cannot declare both a Second Coming and ongoing spiritual phenomenon for the same text. That would not make sense.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Yet we have an OP with 22 personal opinions about God's Word. The majority of them twisting Scripture and coming from a personal bias.
- Status
Similar threads
