Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[Spiritual Israelite]

The People of Israel.

All of the people of Israel, including even Paul himself? If not, then please be more specific.

Paul contended that despite the fact that Israel was responsible for the death of the Messiah, it is essential to recognize that God has not turned away from His chosen people.

What did Paul give as evidence that God had not turned away from His people even in Paul's time?

 

[KUWN]

This is fake news. You didn't want to see what it says. You need to change your theological glasses. Election is individual, divine and irreversible.

So do you deny the testimonies of these following Bible writers?

Isaac and Jacob ​

​

Romans 9:6-14 says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” ​

Nothing here relating to Salvation. One was chosen to serve the other.​

Isaac was chosen as the seed of promise before he was even born.​

True, but again, nothing to do with salvation.

​

Jacob was also chosen as the seed of promise before he was even born.​

Yup, not salvation​

Samson ​

​

The angel of the LORD appeared unto Samson’s mother and promised, in Judges 13:5-7, “For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no rasor shall come on his head: the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name: But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.” ​

​

Not salvation here. You already believe that whenever you see election, you see salvation.

Judges 16:17 records, where Samson informs Delilah, “There hath not come a rasor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, a nd I shall become weak, and be like any other man.” ​

That's not salvation!!​

David ​

​

David testified in Psalm 22:9-10, “thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.” ​

​

No salvation.

Isaiah ​

​

Isaiah testified in Isaiah 49:5, “And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him,.” ​

YUP one serves the other, definitely no salvation. Being in a womb and destined to some plan does not have anything to do with salvation.​

Jeremiah ​

​

Jeremiah 1:4-5 proclaimed, “Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” ​

To be a prophet, not salvation

In the whole OT, you could not find one example of election referring to salvation.

Elisabeth

Luke 1:41: “when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.”

Already saved Elizabeth and Mary

Zacharias

Luke 1:67: “Zacharias was filled with the HolyGhost, and prophesied.”

Nothing to do with election

John the Baptist

Luke 1:13-17 says, “the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

This is a biography of John's life. God chose him because of the life he would lead. He didn't elect him to salvation. Before you look at the NT, exhaust studies in the OT to get a feel of the call to service.

Paul the Apostle

Paul said in Galatians 1:15-16, “It pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen.”

This is Paul's service to the Lord, God knows ahead of time those who will serve him and will promote them to serving him in a certain capacity. For Paul, God reserved a place for Paul as an Apostle. Remember, election is being called to service, not salvation. God places people in difference service positions as he seems fit.

 

[KUWN]

Judas though was elected to be the betrayer!

Good! That is my point, he was not elected to salvation.

 

[WPM]

True, but again, nothing to do with salvation.

Not salvation here. You already believe that whenever you see election, you see salvation.




No salvation.

In the whole OT, you could not find one example of election referring to salvation.



Already saved Elizabeth and Mary


Nothing to do with election


This is a biography of John's life. God chose him because of the life he would lead. He didn't elect him to salvation. Before you look at the NT, exhaust studies in the OT to get a feel of the call to service.


This is Paul's service to the Lord, God knows ahead of time those who will serve him and will promote them to serving him in a certain capacity. For Paul, God reserved a place for Paul as an Apostle. Remember, election is being called to service, not salvation. God places people in difference service positions as he seems fit.

It is the Book that exposes your error. You've no answer to the truth.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is fake news. You didn't want to see what it says. You need to change your theological glasses. Election is individual, divine and irreversible.

So do you deny the testimonies of these following Bible writers?

Isaac and Jacob ​

​

Romans 9:6-14 says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” ​

​

Isaac was chosen as the seed of promise before he was even born.​

​

Jacob was also chosen as the seed of promise before he was even born.​

Yes, election to salvation is an individual thing, but that particular passage is not about election to salvation. When it refers to "the children being not yet born...", the children being referred to there are Jacob and Esau, not Isaac and Jacob. What Paul is saying there is that before Jacob and Esau were even born it was determined that the elder shall serve the younger, which does not refer to Jacob and Esau as individuals, but rather refers to the nations that would descend from Jacob and Esau (Israel and Edom).

Genesis 25:21 And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

The passage above explains the context of what Paul was talking about in the passage you quoted. So, Romans 9:6-14 has nothing to do with individuals being chosen to salvation, but rather has to do with God choosing to bring salvation through the line of Jacob by way of the nation of Israel rather than through the line of Esau (the nation of Edom) and that was determined before they were even born.

 

[WPM]

Yes, election to salvation is an individual thing, but that particular passage is not about election to salvation. When it refers to "the children being not yet born...", the children being referred to there are Jacob and Esau, not Isaac and Jacob. What Paul is saying there is that before Jacob and Esau were even born it was determined that the elder shall serve the younger, which does not refer to Jacob and Esau as individuals, but rather refers to the nations that would descend from Jacob and Esau (Israel and Edom).

Genesis 25:21 And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

The passage above explains the context of what Paul was talking about in the passage you quoted. So, Romans 9:6-14 has nothing to do with individuals being chosen to salvation, but rather has to do with God choosing to bring salvation through the line of Jacob by way of the nation of Israel rather than through the line of Esau (the nation of Edom) and that was determined before they were even born.

You are trying to negate one truth with another truth. That's not the way Scripture works. God literally chose one son and rejected another. Fact! As a result, he also chose one nation over another. Fact! Both are true.

All the other texts above reinforce personal election, that we are predestinated unto salvation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are trying to negate one truth with another truth.

Absolutely not. What truth do you think I negated?

That's not the way Scripture works. God literally chose one son and rejected another. Fact! As a result, he also chose one nation over another. Fact! Both are true.

That's not what the text says. If you read Genesis 25:21-23, which Paul was referencing in Romans 9, you should see it only relates the elder serving the younger to the two nations and two manner of people in Rebecca's womb. It says nothing there about God choosing Jacob to salvation, but not Esau.

All the other texts above reinforce personal election, that we are predestinated unto salvation.

You know I'm not denying individual, personal election since I did say "Yes, election to salvation is an individual thing". So, don't think that I'm agreeing with KUWN here that scripture never talks about individual election to salvation.

I just don't believe that Romans 9 is about individual election because the context of Genesis 25:21-23 does not support that. I just have seen Romans 9 misinterpreted and taken out of context so many times (including verses 6-8, as you know), that I couldn't help but chime in on that one.

 

[WPM]

Absolutely not. What truth do you think I negated?


That's not what the text says. If you read Genesis 25:21-23, which Paul was referencing in Romans 9, you should see it only relates the elder serving the younger to the two nations and two manner of people in Rebecca's womb. It says nothing there about God choosing Jacob to salvation, but not Esau.


You know I'm not denying individual, personal election since I did say "Yes, election to salvation is an individual thing".

I just don't believe that Romans 9 is about individual election because the context of Genesis 25:21-23 does not support that. I just have seen Romans 9 misinterpreted and taken out of context so many times (including verses 6-8, as you know), that I couldn't help but chime in on that one.

I disagree. Romans 9 couldn't be clearer. It is demonstrating that salvation is indeed personal and divine and not racial and man-centered (as the Jews thought and as the Dispies think). God chooses who He wishes and hardens who He wishes. Ephesians 1 reinforces this great truth.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I disagree. Romans 9 couldn't be clearer.

That's fine if you disagree, but I think Genesis 25:21-23, which Paul referenced in that Romans 9 passage, couldn't be clearer that the context of what Paul was talking about was in relation to God choosing one nation (Israel) over another (Edom) to be the one through which salvation would come with the elder serving the younger in the sense of "the one people" being "stronger than the other people".

It is demonstrating that salvation is indeed personal and divine and not racial and man-centered (as the Jews thought and as the Dispies think).

While I disagree with your interpretation of that Romans 9 passage, I do, of course, agree with what you said here.

God chooses who He wishes and hardens who He wishes. Ephesians 1 reinforces this great truth.

Yes, He chooses who He wishes to have mercy on and hardens who He wishes, but that's not the whole story. It's also true that He wishes to have mercy upon all people (Romans 11:30-32). So, we have to be able to reconcile those two things together without making them contradict each other.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Op Note

After all this time, we do not have one single Premil rebuttal of the Op. That is because it is watertight. That is because it forbids Premil. Compare this to the non-evidential threads Premils start that refute nothing but their own reasoning.

this is the funniest post I think I have ever seen.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Goodness sakes. When did I say that I didn't believe that some OT prophecies have not yet been fulfilled? Never. You make it impossible to have a good discussion because you don't pay close enough attention to what I say and you end up misrepresenting what I believe and arguing with a straw man instead of me. I have to take so much time correcting your misrepresentations of my view instead of just discussing the scriptures like we should be doing.


So, you have finally decided to stop trying to tell me what I believe? LOL.


Yep. Just like the NT authors did. Key word there is "often". Not all the time, of course. For example, we certainly don't deny that Jesus literally fulfilled Zechariah 9:9, for example, by literally riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.


Of course, because that is what the NT authors teach. You may have seen the many times we have referenced passages like Galatians 3:16-29 and Ephesians 3:1-6 which prove this?


The answer is yes to all of those because of what is explicitly taught in the New Testament. Why you don't accept those NT scriptures is something I'll never understand.


That's what you might think without having the New Testament, but the New Testament says otherwise.


Okay.


Of course.


Right, because that is what the NT authors teach. Not all OT prophecies should be understood in that way, of course. I shouldn't have to say that, but since you like to make blanket statements about what Amils believe, it becomes necessary.


In my opinion that view requires ignoring what is taught in the New Testament.


Yes, and it explains that the way He delivered Israel is by way of sacrificing Himself and shedding His blood for their sins. To think that He needs to do anything beyond that to deliver them shows an unbelievable lack of understanding of New Testament teaching.


I, of course, disagree with all of that, as you already know. Instead of taking the time to address all of that as I have already done many times before, I'll just ask why you do not accept Jesus's understanding of Zechariah 12:10, as He gave here....

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Jesus related Zechariah 12:10 to His first coming, not His second coming. Why don't you?

It was like pulling teeth, but I finally got you to admit what you believe.

 

[CadyandZoe]

All of the people of Israel, including even Paul himself? If not, then please be more specific.

Do you not understand what it means to be a "people"? Do you not understand what it means to be a country?

What did Paul give as evidence that God had not turned away from His people even in Paul's time?

Do you not understand the distinction between Israel, the country, and a Jewish person?

 

[CadyandZoe]

this is the funniest post I think I have ever seen.

It's a game to them.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It's a game to them.

sadly,

sometimes I just let them ramble. I guess it makes them feel good about themselves..

I have to wonder if they do this kind of stuff in real life?

 

[CadyandZoe]

sadly,

sometimes I just let them ramble. I guess it makes them feel good about themselves..

I have to wonder if they do this kind of stuff in real life?

You've made some good observations about unfulfilled scriptures.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It was like pulling teeth, but I finally got you to admit what you believe.

Nonsense. I have nothing to hide, so it's not anything "to admit", as if there's anything wrong with it.

It's incredible that after everything I said, this is your only response. Lame.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you not understand what it means to be a "people"? Do you not understand what it means to be a country?

Are you unable to answer my question? Questions don't answer questions. Can you just answer my question?

Do you not understand the distinction between Israel, the country, and a Jewish person?

Of course. Everyone does. Any other dumb questions you want to ask? Was my question too hard to answer?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

this is the funniest post I think I have ever seen.

You've never read any of your own posts?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's a game to them.

Please. You guys are the game players here, as everyone can see. In one post I took the time to explain my view on several things and you only responded with saying that I finally admitted something without actually addressing anything I said. That's what people do when they're just playing games and not interested in serious discussion.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Nonsense. I have nothing to hide, so it's not anything "to admit", as if there's anything wrong with it.

There is obviously something wrong with it. Your view proposes to ignore all the OT verses that prove the Premillennial view.

It's incredible that after everything I said, this is your only response. Lame.

What's lame is your lack of response to the objection. You simply wave off OT passages instead of dealing with them.