22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[covenantee]

You may not understand that because there is so much false teaching and fabrication going on that you may think that the 70th week is over. But that's impossible according to the Word.

The Word says that 70 weeks are determined. That includes the 70th week.

Is your 70th week determined?

Speaking of false teaching and fabrication:

Or is your 70th week decapitated?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Your opinions do not or never will negate the inspired truth. You cherry pick Scripture to suit your beliefs and sheepishly duck around the obvious. You also do not keep your word. Sad!

Seems like you have given up. You see now much work I am doing to explain everything but this is all you can say? hmm.

Well, do I need to remind you that Lazarus was resurrected before Jesus?
Well, never mind about that.

Amillennialism teaches that the first resurrection mentioned by John in Revelation 20, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That view is erroneous on two counts: 1) it is contrary to the gospel, and 2) it relies on the inherent ambiguity of language. I want to deal with count 2 in this post.

Count 2: inherent ambiguity of language.
Because words have a range of meaning, sometimes we inadvertently employ a logical fallacy based on using the same term in difference senses. In this case, the mistake is centered on the meaning of "resurrection", which literally refers to someone being raised from the dead.

Not only is the term "resurrection" used in a general way, referring to anyone whom God brings back from the dead, It also refers to the resurrection of Jesus, which is uniquely significant in that his resurrection signifies God's declaration that Jesus was indeed the son of God. Paul points this out at the beginning of Romans 1 where he says, "[Jesus Christ] was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead." This was not true of Lazarus' resurrection for instance.

The meaning of Lazarus' resurrection signified that God had given Jesus the authority to command another person's resurrection. In other words, not all resurrections from the dead signify God's declaration "son of God;" this designation is unique to Jesus alone.

And so we have two meanings assigned to the term "resurrection" 1) the common resurrection of the dead, and 2) a specific, unique resurrection, in which all followers of Jesus participate in some way.

Now, all Christians can agree that the resurrection of Jesus is unique and has special significance. The question on the table is this. What did John mean to say in the context of Revelation 20:4-6? What is the first resurrection? Its a matter of whether or not John uses phrases like "raised from the dead" and the term "resurrection" in a consistent way, indicating common resurrection. Or did John equivocate on the term resurrection in order to say something about Jesus' special resurrection?

Revelation 20:4-6

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.​

John mentions two episodes when a common resurrection takes place. During the first episode, the beheaded come back to life, while the rest of the dead do not come back to life for a thousand years. After the thousand years are complete, he describes another episode of common resurrection when people are raised from Hades and the sea.

According to Premillennialism, John speaks of the first episode of common resurrection, when he says "This is the first resurrection." According to Amillennialism, John speaks of the special resurrection of Jesus Christ when he says, "This is the first resurrection." Which is right?

John says that the "souls" of the beheaded came back to life in order to reign with Christ for a thousand years. Then he says, "This is the first resurrection." And so we ask, What is the predicate of the pronoun "This." To answer we need only look back to previous mentions of resurrection. When did John mention coming back to life? He says that the souls of the beheaded came back to life. These are common resurrections. Did John ever mention the special resurrection of Jesus prior to saying "This is the first resurrection?" No, I don't see it anywhere. The only predicate available for the pronoun "this" is the common resurrection of the beheaded.

 

[CadyandZoe]

There are about 61 English translations in agreement, which is all of them.

Nevertheless, 61 English translations are leading Christians away from what Paul meant to say. What good is unanimity if they all say the wrong thing?

 

[Keraz]

My next step has to be looking into some variation of midtrib…I’ve never looked into midtrib at all.

Your next step should be to reject a 'rapture to heaven' altogether.
It simply isn't Prophesied to happen and Jesus said such a thing is impossible. John 3:13

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Your next step should be to reject a 'rapture to heaven' altogether.
It simply isn't Prophesied to happen and Jesus said such a thing is impossible. John 3:13

Was that supposed to help me…? Call it a gathering together in the air to meet the Lord instead of rapture if it helps. If the word rapture triggers you, call it that. This verse, some call “caught up,” “raptured,” “gathered together.”
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
So to say it doesn’t ever happen is odd when Paul said it WILL happen. And to say 3:13 means no human EVER will is even odder. He said no one had ever gone there except Himself, who came from there. How you then confidently say no one will EVER go there is pretty puzzling…

 

[rockytopva]

Mod hat on… Hey guys! I am pre-trib! But… We can’t allow personal attacks for those post-trib! Please remember to be nice! - Mod hat off

 

[rockytopva]

Now with the mod hat off… One great reason to remain pre-trib…

Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not. - Luke 12:40

 

[WPM]

Now with the mod hat off… One great reason to remain pre-trib…

Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not. - Luke 12:40

Just curious, why would this support Pretrib and not other views?

 

[rockytopva]

Just curious, why would this support Pretrib and not other views?

I did not say it did not support other views. You can be pre-trib and wrong.

 

[WPM]

I did not say it did not support other views. You can be pre-trib and wrong.

Why would this support Pretrib?

 

[rockytopva]

Why would this support Pretrib?

Because Christ comes in an hour we think not! And… How can we return with Christ to reign a thousand years if we are not raptured away before that?

 

[rockytopva]

But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. - Matthew 23:43-45

 

[WPM]

Because Christ comes in an hour we think not! And… How can we return with Christ to reign a thousand years if we are not raptured away before that?

Firstly, He's not coming to reign for 1000 years. He has been reigning since His glorious ascension. When He comes, He will reign forever. Secondly, I also believe that He will come at an hour we think not of. This does not prove Pretrib.

 

[covenantee]

Nevertheless, 61 English translations are leading Christians away from what Paul meant to say. What good is unanimity if they all say the wrong thing?

Uh, no. I'm confident that the translators' Greek is superior to yours.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Just curious, why would this support Pretrib and not other views?

I can tell you how I’ve seen that for 16 years.
Pretrib thinks it could happen at any time. They have no warning of it, it’s very sudden. They literally don’t know when.
Midtrib thinks it happens at the halfway point, so they could follow revelation and get a pretty close idea, once those things begin to happen, of almost exactly when He will come.
Post trib thinks it’s after all foretold in Revelation has occurred, so they too would have a good estimation of when He will appear.

Of the three views, it’s really only pretrib that it could be said of that Jesus comes when they least expect it.
The other two views could follow the events in Revelation and begin a countdown.

 

[WPM]

I can tell you how I’ve seen that for 16 years.
Pretrib thinks it could happen at any time. They have no warning of it, it’s very sudden. They literally don’t know when.
Midtrib thinks it happens at the halfway point, so they could follow revelation and get a pretty close idea, once those things begin to happen, of almost exactly when He will come.
Post trib thinks it’s after all foretold in Revelation has occurred, so they too would have a good estimation of when He will appear.

Of the three views, it’s really only pretrib that it could be said of that Jesus comes when they least expect it.
The other two views could follow the events in Revelation and begin a countdown.

What about Amil?

 

[Marty fox]

I can tell you how I’ve seen that for 16 years.
Pretrib thinks it could happen at any time. They have no warning of it, it’s very sudden. They literally don’t know when.
Midtrib thinks it happens at the halfway point, so they could follow revelation and get a pretty close idea, once those things begin to happen, of almost exactly when He will come.
Post trib thinks it’s after all foretold in Revelation has occurred, so they too would have a good estimation of when He will appear.

Of the three views, it’s really only pretrib that it could be said of that Jesus comes when they least expect it.
The other two views could follow the events in Revelation and begin a countdown.

In post trib (amil) Jesus can only come after satan is released and I believe that he is thus He can come at any time.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

What about Amil?

Uh…is that the one that says there is no thousand years and we’re now in the unspecified period of time that a thousand years is a symbol for? (Sorry, I haven’t looked at any of them very closely.)

 

[Christian Gedge]

The other two views could follow the events in Revelation and begin a countdown.

That is because Premillers of all stripes conflate the 'time, times and half a time' (mentioned in Revelation) with the last half of the 70th week. (mentioned Daniel 9) Then they say a countdown could recommence from when an abomination is set up in a rebuilt temple. This line of thinking has done modern eschatology a disservice.

What about Amil?

As I understand Amil, the 'time, times and half a time' mentioned in Revelation will indeed come in the future, but are symbolic figures representing a short time of trial. Although short, it should not be treated as an exactly literal count of 3.5 years.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

In post trib (amil) Jesus can only come after satan is released and I believe that he is thus He can come at any time.

Ah, okay…amil means post trib, didnt know that.
At a glance, I can only see it’s possibility if it was also at least midtrib or before.
So…I can’t figure out why it’s called post trib because I assumed post trib meant one believed all had to live through both satans wrath AND the wrath of God.