22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

Wow! So, you do not just reject biblical corroboration - which allows you to promote your error, you are now denying the cross of Christ. That is heresy! That explains why you refuse to engage with Amils.

Where did I deny the Cross of Christ?

 

[CadyandZoe]

No, you are the only one that is that, not!

Each person is responsible for his or her own relationship with the Lord, who expects everyone to become his disciple. One aspect of being his student is Bible study. If I need help I will get it. But I have the freedom to disagree with those who help me. If you don't feel the freedom to think for yourself, I understand.

 

[covenantee]

First of all, bear in mind that the epistle is called "to the Hebrews." The subject matter pertains to issues unique to the Hebrew people. Some of the epistle has universal application, but not all of it. Hebrews 8:10, for instance, applies to Israel and hasn't been fulfilled yet.

You didn't answer the question.

Hebrews 8:6
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Did God have the right to change His Will and Testament?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not my beliefs.

Just so you know, things got heated on another forum with this guy, and someone reported me to get me banned on the subject. The mods asked me if I cared to lodge a complaint about his claim that heretics inspired Modern Premillennialism, and I said no. They apparently decided to shut down the thread anyway.

I've tried so hard not to get angry with this guy, but he's studied up on the Church Fathers for the express purpose of weaponizing it against Premillennialism. Further, he tries to divide ancient Chiliasts from Modern Premills.

He drums up about 25 or so points that argue pretty much the same thing. I answered the 1st couple of points by quoting Church Father Irenaeus who absolutely disproves his theory. He claimed Irenaeus and other Chiliasts believed Satan was bound, with respect to Rev 20, at the Cross, and not at the 2nd Coming. But I showed to the whole world that Irenaeus believed Satan is to be bound at the destruction of Antichrist and at the 2nd Coming.

So this guy is not serious, but is seriously committed to distorting the truth for the sake of his own beliefs. He doesn't even allow for the *possibility* he could be misinterpreting ancient Chiliasts!

So that thread is closed down now. Apparently it is recognized that attacks on Modern Premills by claiming they were inspired by heretics is not conducive to good Christian conversation and debate. I didn't ask for a ban for anybody, but apparently somebody did. FYI

 

[Keraz]

While we are not led by Church tradition or bound by historic views of a given truth, we should carefully consider what the great Bible scholars over the years have gleaned from their studious in-depth findings.

The Early Church Fathers do have much to teach us; on the subjects of salvation and how we should live. But they are clueless about Bible prophecy and what God has planned for the future. As is every expounder of Prophecy since the Apostles died and still is the case today.

This is proved by Jesus, who said: Father; You have hidden these truths [of Prophecy] from the wise and learned... Matthew 11:25

You; WPM, make some very nasty and critical comments. You deny much of what the Bible Prophets have told us. You seem fixated on telling God what He should do, that He isn't allowed to require sacrifices and offerings ever again.
However; scriptures that you fail to read and understand, do say there will be a new Temple and we Christians will honor God in it.
Under what category do people who refuse to do what God wants, come?

 

[WPM]

Where did I deny the Cross of Christ?

You deny the new covenant (Christ's death on the cross) has been made with Israel. It has. Hello!

 

[covenantee]

Why? I am a man of faith and you don't accept my word for anything. Why would you accept the word of someone living in the fifth century that you don't know? Makes no sense at all to me. There is no such thing as Early Church Fathers. These men were not special; they were like us.

Why would I accept the word of someone who denies 17 centuries of orthodox Christian Church history?

Or do you think that there was no such thing as orthodox Christian Church history?

If so, tell us what there was instead.

 

[WPM]

The Early Church Fathers do have much to teach us; on the subjects of salvation and how we should live. But they are clueless about Bible prophecy and what God has planned for the future. As is every expounder of Prophecy since the Apostles died and still is the case today.

This is proved by Jesus, who said: Father; You have hidden these truths [of Prophecy] from the wise and learned... Matthew 11:25

You; WPM, make some very nasty and critical comments. You deny much of what the Bible Prophets have told us. You seem fixated on telling God what He should do, that He isn't allowed to require sacrifices and offerings ever again.
However; scriptures that you fail to read and understand, do say there will be a new Temple and we Christians will honor God in it.
Under what category do people who refuse to do what God wants, come?

Christ is the only temple we will honor. Why would we need another pointless replacement temple? This is what Premils need, not Amils. Also, the cross was the final sacrifice for sin for us. It is enough! But not for you, and your fellow Premils. You require countless worthless blood sacrifices in the future as offerings to God for sin to satisfy you. That is ridiculous and heretical.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You deny the new covenant (Christ's death on the cross) has been made with Israel. It has. Hello!

Where did I deny this?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why would I accept the word of someone who denies 17 centuries of orthodox Christian Church history?

Orthodoxy is doctrine with an army.

Or do you think that there was no such thing as orthodox Christian Church history?

I don't even know what you mean by "orthodox Christian Church history."

If so, tell us what there was instead.

It should be obvious. Each generation of believers is challenged to discover the truth of the gospel, i.e. what Jesus, the apostles and the prophets taught, due to the fact that belief and practice is a long and lonely road, which we all travel together. Each traveler must carry his or her own burden. Faith is an existential reality, whereby each person is individually responsible for belief. No one can walk this walk for me. No one can take responsibility for my lack of unbelief, if such a thing should befall me. Each person must stand alone at the cross. If I don't believe the right stuff, I have only myself to blame.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[WPM]

Where did I deny this?

First of all, bear in mind that the epistle is called "to the Hebrews." The subject matter pertains to issues unique to the Hebrew people. Some of the epistle has universal application, but not all of it. Hebrews 8:10, for instance, applies to Israel and hasn't been fulfilled yet.

 

[Keraz]

Christ is the only temple we will honor. Why would we need another pointless replacement temple? This is what Premils need, not Amils. Also, the cross was the final sacrifice for sin for us. It is enough! But not for you, and your fellow Premils. You require countless worthless blood sacrifices in the future as offerings to God for sin to satisfy you. That is ridiculous and heretical.

So, basically you reject and erase from your Bible scriptures like: Isaiah 56:6-7, Jeremiah 33:14-18, Ezekiel 40 to 48, and in Daniel 9:27, an end times prophecy, it says that the sacrifices will be stopped by the leader of the ungodly peoples.

Yes; the sacrifice of Jesus IS enough for us now, we can be confident that our acceptance of His sacrifice does atone for our sins.
Also the scriptures which say God does not want sacrifices, apply to this Christian era, not forever.

We will soon see just who it is that is ridiculous and heretical.

 

[WPM]

So, basically you reject and erase from your Bible scriptures like: Isaiah 56:6-7, Jeremiah 33:14-18, Ezekiel 40 to 48, and in Daniel 9:27, an end times prophecy, it says that the sacrifices will be stopped by the leader of the ungodly peoples.

Yes; the sacrifice of Jesus IS enough for us now, we can be confident that our acceptance of His sacrifice does atone for our sins.
Also the scriptures which say God does not want sacrifices, apply to this Christian era, not forever.

We will soon see just who it is that is ridiculous and heretical.

This is a major difference between Amillennialism and Premillennialism. Premillennialists cannot seem to let go of the abolished old covenant and move in to the liberty and freedom of the new covenant arrangement. The conditional promises, to disobedient Old Testament Israel, that they failed to realize, through their rebellion, serves as a suitable shadow, type and figure of the perfect new covenant temple and the living water of the Spirit that flowed from Him. Christ is the new covenant temple. He is the final sacrifice for sin. The old covenant is abolished. It is wrong and nonsensical for Christians to promote its restoration.

For what purpose? Why would we need it? There was a reason why the curtain was ripped in two. There was a reason the temple was destroyed in AD70. The temple has been rendered redundant. It has been replaced by a better temple.

Many today imagine that the temple that once sat on the temple mount in Jerusalem will be rebuilt and that the Old Testament sacrifice system will be somehow reinstituted in full. They suggest that this temple will be brought back to its magnificent former state on the new earth oversaw by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Many Christians today look to modern Israel for signs of the rebuilding of then temple. They seek confirmation in the efforts of radical Jewish fundamentalists to restore the old abolished animal sacrifice system. What they forget is that the Jews they are looking to reject the Christ and His one final sacrifice for sin. They have no love for Jesus Christ. They have no understanding of His climactic sacrifice. All their hopes are built on sandy ground, for such efforts are meaningless and rebellious and are doomed to failure. The only sin offering that will ever be satisfactory to God the Father is the sacrifice of His Son on the cross. This is the one final eternal sacrifice for sin.

What would the purpose of this supposed future temple be and what ordinances do such believers anticipate will be performed there? What possible benefit going originate from them? Surely the temple of God in the New Testament relates exclusively to Christ and the people of God? Why would we need a literal physical temple? Moreover, we have entered the New Covenant, the Old has been removed.

Which is the greater tabernacle – the physical or spiritual? It is of course the spiritual. The physical temple is a spiritual picture of Christ and the water flowing from Him is spiritual living water.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Apparently, You have never read or understood that passage. If you did, you would know that Jeremiah 31:31-34 mentions TWO covenants, not one. The New Covenant -- Jeremiah 31:31 -- is in effect now. The subsequent covenant -- Jeremiah 31:33 -- Has not yet been fulfilled.

 

[WPM]

Apparently, You have never read or understood that passage. If you did, you would know that Jeremiah 31:31-34 mentions TWO covenants, not one. The New Covenant -- Jeremiah 31:31 -- is in effect now. The subsequent covenant -- Jeremiah 31:33 -- Has not yet been fulfilled.

There are 2 new covenants?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Of course not. You and WPM interpret silence as unwillingness or inability, which is a mistake and not my intent. WPM is looking for a "gotcha," which I am unwilling to provide.

No, my view is NOT based on Ezekiel 40-48.

In your previous post #5368 you said "Yes" that you believe Ezekiel 40-48 relates to the future temple and animal sacrifices you believe in. So, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. Honestly, you're making yourself look really bad and making it completely impossible for me to take you seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Apparently, You have never read or understood that passage. If you did, you would know that Jeremiah 31:31-34 mentions TWO covenants, not one. The New Covenant -- Jeremiah 31:31 -- is in effect now. The subsequent covenant -- Jeremiah 31:33 -- Has not yet been fulfilled.

Why is that not indicated in Hebrews 8:6-13 where that passage is quoted only in relation to the new covenant then? You continue to make things up that are not taught in scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There are 2 new covenants?

Some will literally go to any length to try to keep their doctrine afloat. It's shameful. They just make things up. They seemingly couldn't care less if their view can be supported by scripture or not. They apparently equate their imagination with scripture itself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

On what basis did you conclude that it came from my imagination. I'll tell you what I believe is more likely the case. From my perspective, you guys are unable or unwilling to provisionally suspend your own view, take the requisite time to understand our view in order to make a fair assessment.

Well, it didn't come from scripture. You make that clear by your obvious inability to support your view with scripture. So, where else does it come from?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

While Paul refers to the sacrifices as a shadow of good things to come, he does not argue that foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ was their purpose. But let me grant you this for the sake of discussion.

I believe we can both agree on the fact that God used the Romans to put an end to the offerings during the Jewish/Roman wars of 70AD. Both the Jewish rebels and the Roman armies destroyed the temple. And if history were to end at the Second Advent, then we would not witness animal sacrifices again. Bear in mind, though, there is nothing in the Bible that says this explicitly.

The future absence of animal sacrifices is a logical inference from Amillennial doctrine, not explicitly taught in scripture. Amillennialism teaches that history ends when Jesus returns, and if history ends when Jesus returns, then logically one can conclude that God will not re-institute the sacrifices. If history ended today, Amillennialism would be proven correct.

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.

But, you can't even tell me what that purpose is. How can I possibly take you seriously when you can't even tell me what the purpose of these supposed future animal sacrifices would be? You have speculated on it, but you can't show me anything in scripture to back up your speculations.

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.

So many words, but no scripture. Why are you not understanding that giving me your opinions without providing any scriptural support is meaningless to me?

What saddens me, a bit, is how much Amillennialism has clouded the vast amount of texts, which deal with this very subject. I hope you understand that no one, not even Jesus, can prove something to someone who doesn't want to be shown the truth. Just sayin'

If you want to show me truth, show me the scripture which teaches it. Instead, all I see are your words and no scripture.