22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[stunnedbygrace]

You say that you do not believe that these animal sacrifices that are made as sin offerings in your supposed future millennium will not reconcile or sanctify the house of Israel, but your proof texts says the opposite. Why will you not acknowledge your error?

He thinks that will happen during the thousand year reign…?
I found it. Odd.

 

[WPM]

That’s a silly question…if someone thinks a temple will be rebuilt and the Jews will begin to sacrifice animals again, it means they have to also believe your statements there? ANY Christian would answer no to those…even someone who thinks an attempt to begin sacrificing will happen in the future does not believe it will atone, reconcile or sanctify.

No it is not. I do not think you're understanding what I'm saying. The supposed supporting proof texts that are presented by Premillennialists to support this say the opposite to what Premillennialists promote. The reason is, they make no mention of a future of millennium. They have nothing to do with that. They're talking about old covenant promises. The old covenant is gone forever. Jesus Christ has introduced the new covenant. He is a final sacrifice for sin. He will definitely not be blessing the pointless worthless sacrifice of innocent animals to reconcile or sanctify anyone in the future. This whole portrayal is unbiblical. It does despite to Jesus Christ. Is undermines the cross-work.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I’ve really enjoyed talking with you guys and don’t want to leave but I gotta go, I’m being summoned!

 

[WPM]

Forum rules prevent me from responding in kind.

Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:2 confirms they “ceased to be offered.”

Can you not see this or grasp this? How can any of us serious take the Premil boast that they are literalists? They aren’t.

Ezekiel is talking about the full operation of the OT sacrifices. For the Premillennialist to insist on their return is both startling and highly objectionable. The Premillennial system re-introduces the full abolished old covenant sacrifices: meat offerings (Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20), sin offerings (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20), trespass offerings (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20), burnt offerings (Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15), peace offerings (Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12), drink offerings (Ezekiel 45:17).

Which one of these sacrifices did Calvary not remove forever?

The Premillennialist would try and take us back to the old covenant system and re-introduce an abolished system that is unpleasing to God. What they fail to grasp, the substitutionary atonement of Christ is simply prefigured in the Old Testament sacrifices.

The ceremonial law was simply a signpost to Christ. No more. The cross removed this imperfect system. The shadow and the temporal could only remain until the real and eternal arrived. Why would God restore animal sacrifices when He sent His Son to make one final all-sufficient sacrifice for sin? After Christ comes there is no need for the typical sacrifices on the new earth? The fulfilment, the reality, the substance, will be in the midst of God's people. The shadow has been long discarded.

Hebrews 10:5-6 tells us, “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.”

There is no room in the plan of God for the return of the imperfect Old Testament sacrifices. Once Christ (the final sacrifice) came and fulfilled His destiny by dying for man’s sin the former was done away. The old has been eternally abolished. God took upon human form. The Son of God being perfect could testify: “a body hast thou prepared me.” That body was perfect and His sacrifice was the sacrifice of sacrifices – the one that ended all the old covenant sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:8-10 confirms: “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. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

The old covenant was temporal and imperfect and could never satisfy God’s eternal plan for man. It has now been replaced by the new covenant with its focus upon the one individual all-sufficient perfect eternal sacrifice. The New Testament disallows the re-introduction of the abolished sacrifices and offerings. Christ is that final offering for sin.

Hebrews 10:14-20 then affirms, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”

Many Premils say there are more offerings for sin in the millennium, presenting the old covenant passages of Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20 as supposed evidence.

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

I can assure you: I will never accept this offensive doctrine. It is anti-biblical and antichrist. It is an attack upon the character of Christ, the truth of His Word and the eternal nature of His office, sacrifice and new covenant. You failed to prove your theory. You will never prove it.

It is both alarming and sad how many (that sincerely profess Christ) champion the re-starting of rival sin offerings in the future to compete with Calvary when Christ fulfilled and eternally removed them at the Cross. Most of this error has emanated from false teaching of men that should know better. The fact is, the New Testament totally forbids the resurrection of the old covenant including the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the restarting of the abolished animal sacrifices, and the resuming of earthly high priest’s office, as part of a God-ordained arrangement. Their expectation to return to the Old Testament type, shadow and figure is gravely misplaced.

It is as if Christ’s perfect life, atoning death and glorious resurrection are not enough for Premils; not perfect enough, not satisfactory enough, and not final enough.

Christ is man's only substitute for sin. Why would we need other substitutes for sin? Surely this is a serious assault upon the merits and value of the atonement. Premillennialism demeans the work Christ did on the cross . It anticipates countless competing substitutes on the new earth with Christ in the midst in all His glory practising rejected old covenant sin offerings.

There will be no need for animal sacrifices, human priests, and a physical temple – because Christ will be all in all on the new earth. Christ is the final covering for sin. He is the fulfilment of every sin offering. There is therefore absolutely no biblical warrant for resurrecting the old covenant Judaic sacrificial system outside of rebelling against the fact that Christ is the one eternal sacrifice for sin. This is a very serious matter. Christ has made that final satisfactory sacrifice for sin. The old ordinances were nailed to the tree with Christ. The old covenant was removed with the introduction of the new, yet Premils insist on the re-starting of these abolished sacrifices.

The shedding of His blood satisfied the Father and reconciled the sinner to God, securing eternal redemption (1 John 1:7). By attempting to reintroduce animal sacrifices, Premillennialism does great injury to the work of Christ on the Cross, undoes the once all-sufficient sacrifice that Christ made for sin, undermines the eternal nature of the atonement, and disregards numerous New Testament passages that conclusively prove that Christ’s blood sacrifice was final and eternal. The Old Testament system that employed animal sacrifices was nailed to the Cross and blotted out according to the New Testament.

 

[WPM]

He thinks that will happen during the thousand year reign…?
I found it. Odd.

Yes.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

No it is not. I do not think you're understanding what I'm saying. The supposed supporting proof texts that are presented by Premillennialists to support this say the opposite to what Premillennialists promote. The reason is, they make no mention of a future of millennium. They have nothing to do with that. They're talking about old covenant promises. The old covenant is gone forever. Jesus Christ has introduced the new covenant. He is a final sacrifice for sin. He will definitely not be blessing the pointless worthless sacrifice of innocent animals to reconcile or sanctify anyone in the future. This whole portrayal is unbiblical. It does despite to Jesus Christ. Is undermines the cross-work.

No, I found the post. He DOES think sacrifices will happen during the millennium. I find that odd. I find us all odd in places, lol.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have never deemed "people who believe in the millennium heretics," or do i believe that. Where do you get that?

He may get it from your many posts that declare Modern Premillennialists get their teaching from Cerinthus, Marcion, etc. It's difficult to tell whether you're using "Millennium" in the Amill sense or the Premil sense. Certainly you would believe in the Millennium in the Amill sense! ;)

You might think that those who believe in something originating from heretics are not themselves heretics? But the issue with you has been stated somewhat ambiguously in this regard. It's difficult to tell how heretical you think Premillennialism is?

 

[RLT63]

No, I found the post. He DOES think sacrifices will happen during the millennium. I find that odd. I find us all odd in places, lol.

To be honest I don't care about this. You can knock holes in Amillennialism just like you can Premillennialism. I have admitted that Amillennialism is a valid view. WPM thinks it is the only view. It has nothing to do with your salvation so I'm not going to argue about it. I have had this debate before and neither side changes their mind. I changed my mind from studying, not from arguing with someone.

 

[The Light]

If you were actually take the time to study the original text you would realize that the word "a" is not in the original Greek. Futurists use this verse as evidence that the beast is actually a human being. But what they overlook is that in contrast to what many people teach, 666 is the number of “man,” not the number of “a man.” There is no “a” in the original Greek. It was added by the translators, most of whom believed the Pope was thee antichrist. The Greek simply reads: gár (for) esti (it is) arithmós (number) anthrōpos (man) kai (and) hautou (his) arithmós (number) chi xi sigma (666).

Six is the number of man; it is the number of the flesh. 666 in some way illustrates the absolute hopelessness of those that have crossed over the line of reprobation. All those that have been reprobated have finally been given up to their own lusts, whereas those that are “in Christ Jesus … walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1). It is they that refuse the mark of the beast and have their names “written in the book of life from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 17:8).

Rev 13
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

You many have already covered this and I might have missed it, but HIS number.

What's up with that?

 

[No Pre-TB]

Rev 13
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

You many have already covered this and I might have missed it, but HIS number.

What's up with that?

Ooh, I can do that too. See:

Here is the wisdom. The one having understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is a man's number, and its number is six hundred sixty-six.

What’s up with that you say?

 

[RLT63]

Ooh, I can do that too. See:

Here is the wisdom. The one having understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is a man's number, and its number is six hundred sixty-six.

What’s up with that you say?

Which translation is that?

 

[WPM]

To be honest I don't care about this. You can knock holes in Amillennialism just like you can Premillennialism. I have admitted that Amillennialism is a valid view. WPM thinks it is the only view. It has nothing to do with your salvation so I'm not going to argue about it. I have had this debate before and neither side changes their mind. I changed my mind from studying, not from arguing with someone.

This is not a small subject. It is an attack upon Jesus Christ and His atoning work for us at Calvary. You're making a mockery of the new covenant. You are undermining Christ and what He has done for us.

 

[RLT63]

This is not a small subject. It is an attack upon Jesus Christ and His atoning work for us at Calvary. You're making a mockery of the new covenant. You are undermining Christ and what He has done for us.

Again forum rules prevent me from properly responding to this nonsense.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

To be honest I don't care about this. You can knock holes in Amillennialism just like you can Premillennialism. I have admitted that Amillennialism is a valid view. WPM thinks it is the only view. It has nothing to do with your salvation so I'm not going to argue about it. I have had this debate before and neither side changes their mind. I changed my mind from studying, not from arguing with someone.

I certainly don’t argue about it. You’re a weirdo, just embrace it! Just kidding.
Of all the men I’ve met in this thread, you hold prophecy more loosely, not in an iron grip of certainty, so…I think your lack of certainty puts you in a better place for God to show you things. Just my opinion.

 

[No Pre-TB]

Which translation is that?

Not the KJV. But let’s look at the Greek Textual Analysis of it shall we?

Revelation 13:18 Greek Text Analysis

Looks like “it” to me

Edit: also here’s the Literal Standard version

Here is the wisdom! He who is having the understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and its number: six hundred sixty-six.

 

[RLT63]

Not the KJV. But let’s look at the Greek Textual Analysis of it shall we?

Revelation 13:18 Greek Text Analysis

Looks like “it” to me

Edit: also here’s the Literal Standard version

Here is the wisdom! He who is having the understanding, let him count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and its number: six hundred sixty-six.

Still says it's the number of a man

 

[WPM]

I certainly don’t argue about it. You’re a weirdo, just embrace it! Just kidding.
Of all the men I’ve met in this thread, you hold prophecy more loosely, not in an iron grip of certainty, so…I think your lack of certainty puts you in a better place for God to show you things. Just my opinion.

Many of us have moved from Pretrib Premil to Posttrib Premil to Posttrib Amil.

 

[RLT63]

I certainly don’t argue about it. You’re a weirdo, just embrace it! Just kidding.
Of all the men I’ve met in this thread, you hold prophecy more loosely, not in an iron grip of certainty, so…I think your lack of certainty puts you in a better place for God to show you things. Just my opinion.

I had the same problem with animal sacrifices but the premillennial view is that chapters 40-48 are about a future temple during the millennium. If you don't believe that and you are amillennial I don't have a problem with that. There are more important things to be concerned with than trying to prove I'm right just to be right.

 

[WPM]

I had the same problem with animal sacrifices but the premillennial view is that chapters 40-48 are about a future temple during the millennium. If you don't believe that and you are amillennial I don't have a problem with that. There are more important things to be concerned with than trying to prove I'm right just to be right.

Is the cross not enough for you?

 

[RLT63]

Is the cross not enough for you?

Non sequitur

 

[No Pre-TB]

Still says it's the number of a man

Thats correct. But the word is the generic form for mankind. It can be both male and/or female. The beast of the sea isn’t a he or her, it’s an it. It’s not defined by masculine or feminine properties. Translator’s have added that and it distorts its idea.