22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Eternally Grateful]

I was just looking for a yes or no answer. So, it looks like your answer to my question is yes, you do believe that Zechariah 14 has to do with a reign of Christ in Jerusalem.

The reason I asked that question was not to get your interpretation of Zechariah 14 or debate with you about that passage, as you seem to have thought, but rather to show you why there would be sin during that time if you believed Zechariah 14 referred to that time. And the reason there would be sin during that time is because it talks about the punishment for anyone who didn't "come up to Jerusalem to worship the King". That implies that there would be those who would refuse to do that. And for them to fail to do that would be a sin, which is why they would be punished for it. So, with this in mind, I'm not sure why you would deny that there would be sin during that time.

ok I see. I asked truth this question because he believes it in the future.. not on this present earth. He still has not answered

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It a waring, it never has take place asyou suggest

"IF" the family of Egypt?

A Real Big "IF" it hasn't taken place itsthat simple

Now what are you going to do with the "Eternal" river of life flowing out of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14:8?

Zechariah 14:17-18KJV
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Still a non answer

There is sin, and it is punished.

Good day sir..

 

[Truth7t7]

Still a non answer

There is sin, and it is punished.

Good day sir..

Now what are you going to do with the "Eternal" river of life flowing out of Jerusalem in Zechariah 14:8?

Zechariah 14:8KJV
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And as he sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (I prefer the translations that say the end of the age but either is okay with me.)

He gave an answer of things that would occur (but it’s not exhaustive, as with all prophetic passages, and more details can be found in other passages) and then He says, but it’s not the end yet, then He answers more things that will happen and says, it’s still not the end yet. He ends by saying, and then the gospel will be preached to the whole world and THEN the end (of the age) comes.
So I think the end of the age comes after the two witnesses preach the gospel to the entire world, are killed, caught up, then Gods wrath is poured out on the world.

And do you believe Jesus returns at that point? I would assume so. But, you indicated before that you didn't think His coming and the end of the age would occur at the same time, so I'm a bit confused here. Did you change your mind, did you misspeak earlier, or did I misunderstand what you said earlier about this?

Please clarify this for me. Do you believe that Jesus will return at the end of the age referenced in Matthew 24:3? Based on what you said here, that appears to be the case.

This begins another age of a thousand years.
But as for the end of this world, I think that happens when satan is released to deceive again, gathers an army, the army is destroyed, the elements burn, and the new heaven and earth come down from heaven. I think Mathew 13: 36-43 is the second reaping/resurrection, which places it about here.

So, you don't believe that the end of the age referenced in Matthew 24:3 is the same end of the age referenced in Matthew 13:40. So, if those are speaking of different ages then why does neither passage make it clear as to which age is being talked about?

One thing that you may not be aware of is how Jesus contrasted "this age" and "the age to come". In your view, "this age" would be the age that we're in now that will end after the gospel has been preached to the whole world and I agree with that. But, your view of "the age to come" is quite different than how Jesus described it here:

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

So, according to Jesus, this age that we're in now is the age during which people get married and die and during which no one has yet been bodily resurrected (besides Jesus, of course). In contrast to that, Jesus indicated that the age to come would begin after the resurrection of the dead and it would be marked by there being no more marriage and no more death at that time. I don't know if you believe that people will get married during a future millennium after the return of Christ, but you do believe people will die after that. But, Jesus said "they can no longer die" in the age to come. So, this age is temporal and the age to come is eternal so it must relate to the time when we will dwell on the eternal new earth.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

It’s SIX times in revelation 20 that “thousand years” is said. I don’t know why I was remembering three.

 

[Truth7t7]

ok I see. I asked truth this question because he believes it in the future.. not on this present earth. He still has not answered

Of course you were answered in post #518, truth that you don't want to hear "IF"

 

[stunnedbygrace]

And do you believe Jesus returns at that point?

I actually think He’s already on earth during the millennium, so at the end of the millenium, when the army gathers, He’s here. That’s my current understanding.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No sin was performed, its simply a "warning" as post #518 above clearly shows "IF"

And why would you think that literally everyone would heed that warning? I don't find that to be a reasonable conclusion.

I don't even find a literal interpretation of Zechariah 14 to be reasonable, but I certainly don't think it makes sense to deny what verses 17-19 imply if it's meant to be taken literally.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Still a non answer

There is sin, and it is punished.

Good day sir..

I thought you said you believe there wouldn't be any sin during the thousand years? Did I misunderstand you? That is what you seem to have implied in post #496.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I actually think He’s already on earth during the millennium, so at the end of the millenium, when the army gathers, He’s here. That’s my current understanding.

I didn't say that I thought you believed otherwise. You must not be understanding me. What I'm asking you is do you believe Jesus returns at the end of the age referenced in Matthew 24:3? Yes or no? You indicated that age will end when the gospel has been preached throughout the world. Do you not think the gospel will have been preached throughout the world by the time Jesus returns?

Can you please clarify if you think the end of the age in Matthew 24:3 is the same end of the age referenced in Matthew 13:36-43 and Matthew 13:47-50 or not? I am putting in a ton of effort here just to try to figure out what you believe, so I'm hoping you can finally clarify this for me.

 

[Truth7t7]

I didn't say that I thought you believed otherwise. You must not be understanding me. What I'm asking you is do you believe Jesus returns at the end of the age referenced in Matthew 24:3? Yes or no? You indicated that age will end when the gospel has been preached throughout the world. Do you not think the gospel will have been preached throughout the world by the time Jesus returns?

Can you please clarify if you think the end of the age in Matthew 24:3 is the same end of the age referenced in Matthew 13:36-43 and Matthew 13:47-50 or not? I am putting in a ton of effort here just to try to figure out what you believe, so I'm hoping you can finally clarify this for me.

In post #527 she tells you she believes Jesus will be on this earth during a millennium, then a battle will take place?

This is the standard teaching within Millennialism and Dispensationalism

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I didn't say that I thought you believed otherwise. You must not be understanding me. What I'm asking you is do you believe Jesus returns at the end of the age referenced in Matthew 24:3? Yes or no? You indicated that age will end when the gospel has been preached throughout the world. Do you not think the gospel will have been preached throughout the world by the time Jesus returns?

Can you please clarify if you think the end of the age in Matthew 24:3 is the same end of the age referenced in Matthew 13:36-43 and Matthew 13:47-50 or not? I am putting in a ton of effort here just to try to figure out what you believe, so I'm hoping you can finally clarify this for me.

wow, yeah, it’s getting frustrating! I keep thinking I’m clarifying but whatever confusion you have is still there.

I will try again. Are you sure you didn’t miss the post where (I think anyway ) that I answered that?

Or maybe a better way to try to clear it up would be to repost my rough timeline…here it is:

Maybe the disconnect is in this - I believe an order of:
1. The gathering together in the air - We meet Jesus in the air. This is the first resurrection (and the gathering of those alive who are found worthy to escape.)
2. Tribulation - at the end of which Jesus comes in wrath.
3. Satan bound - new age of a thousand years begins
4. The thousand years
5. Satan released and gathers an army, army destroyed, elements burned, sky rolled up.
6. Judgement at second resurrection.
7. New heavens and earth

I place verses within that framework. So…if you’re trying to understand me, you have to keep that in mind.

Does that help at all? If you are asking me where on that timeline Mathew 24:3 falls, I can’t answer you because this is 24:3 : As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives,the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

But I can takes pieces and parts and tell you where I think they fall on the timeline. I’ve already said I think Mathew 13:36-43 occurs on my timeline around #5. I think 13:47-50 also falls there. As for Mathew 24:4-14, it is also a timeline. I don’t know what else I can say. I mean…I’ve placed the two witnesses (gospel being preached to whole world) at #2.
Does any of that help?

And revelation 14:14-16 is at #1 in my timeline. And verses 17-20 fall at #5

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I know I’ve missed a ton of posts. It got too confusing trying to answer everyone and everything at once. But I do know, SI, that you didn’t answer some of my questions either in the mess, most notably this one:

okay then, how do you interpret this, I’ll listen:
They all came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
5 This is the first resurrection. (The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years had ended.)

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I did just recall a question I didn’t answer that asked something like…was I premil or was i dispensation premil? I didn’t know what dispensation premil was so I couldn’t answer.

 

[Randy Kluth]

For info: Christ brought His kingdom 2000 years ago. See my posts above.

No, Christ did *not* bring his Kingdom. He was the King of the Kingdom, and dwelled in the midst of Israel for a time. But he declared the Kingdom "near"--not *here!*

Everything we read about the Kingdom indicates it is still future. For example, it comes to bring the saints resurrection, immortality, and reward. This has not happened yet. Satan isn't bound. Sin has not been judged yet at Jesus' 2nd Coming.

Premil takes all the attention that Christ now enjoys reigning in heaven as the true tabernacle of God and redirects that to some alleged rebuilt brick temple in natural Jerusalem in the age to come. They bring the attention away from the substance, fulfilment and the eternal and put it on a long-demolished, long-abolished, long-rejected and long superseded building

Then you didn't read my statement fully. I said that I disagree with Dispensationalism in its emphasis on a return to temple imagery. This is symbolic of Christ's work, which indeed is finished.

Instead of Christ being the inheritance of the redeemed, natural Israel steals that hallowed place.

Don't know why you're harping against Dispensationalism? I'm *not* a Dispensationalist, and not all Premills are Dispies.

This whole carnal expectation takes away from the reason why the second coming is so splendid

Christ is coming back to a flawed world, just as he did the 1st time. He did not see it as hopelessly carnal, as you seem to think Premills see it. He saw it as salvageable. And I see it as salvageable in the Millennium, just as it is today.

The only difference is that prophecy will be fulfilled, and Satan will be bound so that it can happen.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So we are now in the millennium? It is now 2022!

No, I'm talking about a precedent for belief that a Millennium has a basis in Scripture.

I believe Revelation is full of 7 recaps. In my opinion, Revelation 17-19 is the 6th of 7 parallels. It is a record of God's dealing with Babylon. It culminates with the climatic coming of Christ. The wicked are all destroyed in that recapitulation, this agrees with every other Second coming passage. It is the end...

A plain reading of the passage before us reveals that Christ is coming back with wrath to execute judgment and destroy all those left behind. He is not going to reward men for their rebellion by leading them unto the glorified new earth.

Whoever said that? What Premill has ever said that Christ comes back to reward men for their rebellion and leads them to a glorified new earth?

I don't believe the earth will be any different than it is today when Christ comes back. The major difference is a matter of controlling international relations--Satan is removed from the equation, leaving sinful men with less compulsion to fight irrational international wars.

The reason for this seems simple--when nations stop threatening other nations, Christian nations have less pressure to succumb to paganism. But I think overall there will be less paranoia and more ability to recognize the value of Christian living among those who are no longer inundated with evil propaganda.

Neither is Christ coming to engage in some ill-fated war against evil for a thousand years – that is not remotely in the text.

Who is saying that Christ is coming to fight a war against evil for a thousand years? I don't know any Premill who says that?

The King of kings and Lord of lords will not have to fight for victory. He already won that decisively at the cross.

Last I saw wars are still being fought, even though the cross was 2000 years ago? He established a legal basis for salvation, and won that legal war. But he isn't finished fighting until every foe is defeated and removed from the new earth.

Let us be clear: Heis coming to smite down the nations, not corral them into some sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted millennial age.

Whoever said the Millennial Age is "sin-cursed" and "goat-infested?" The current age is like this, and yet God's purposes are still being fulfilled. The Millennial Age is a step beyond this, even though sinful Man continues to live. It is an age in which biblical prophecies and divine promises are fulfilled.

Please see that the wicked are destroyed by the sword of His voice. This is complete wholesale total destruction - for those left behind. There are no survivors!

This is typical apocalyptic-type language, which expresses God's overwhelming victory over His enemies. The problem is, He used the same language of past battles, and there was no end to sin on earth. It's simply a language type, indicating overwhelming destruction takes place against God's enemies. It is decisive--that's all it means.

These two former days being (1) the day that Noah entered into the ark and (2) the day that Lot was rescued out of Sodom.

Noah's Flood did not end the earth, nor did the destruction of Sodom. They were devastated within the local context, and in the context of the particular rebellion being put down. It wasn't the end of the universe, though poetic language may seem to suggest that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Whilst modern Premil try to present their millennium as free of the curse, sin and sinners, dying and crying, war and terror. But Revelation makes clear that the curse is not lifted until after the millennium. The new earth ushers in incorruption. It is only then that sin, death and weeping are terminated. In the Premil millennium sin, death and weeping; in the new heavens and new earth they finish.

I think you're speaking of only one group within Premill. Not all Premills believe this. I for one do not believe that sin and sinners, dying and crying, are removed in the Millennium. I do think Satan's influence is removed, allowing for biblical prophecies to be fulfilled, including the promise to Abraham that there would be a multitude of godly nations, which would include Israel.

The second coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Repeated Scripture shows that now is the only day of salvation.

Obviously that isn't true since at the end of the Millennium Gog leads an uprising against the saints. This requires salvation from enemies. And if there is still unbelief on earth, there is still opportunity for salvation through Christ.

The urgency the NT gives to the "day of salvation" is due to the fact we are experiencing the trials of the present age. But where are we told there are no trials for the coming age?

After showing us the destruction of this earth, the works that are in it, the heavens, the elements when Jesus comes, and after describing the longsuffering of God in the days of Noah before the destruction of all the wicked, Peter responds to the mockers scoffing at the apparent delay in Christ's return: “the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). See also Romans 2:4. He was reaffirming that salvation is limited to this side of the second coming.

I don't agree. Longsuffering means God endures opposition to His ways until His plan can be completed. Part of His plan is to save people in the midst of this opposition.

God's enduring of this opposition brings salvation to some. Nothing prohibits salvation from continuing after this opposition goes away. It only explains why God is presently enduring opposition at all, namely to save those who live at the present time and in the current ordeal.

A sign of the end is that the Gospel must “be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew 24:14). The second coming brings the curtain down on the great commission. Once the ark door closes it is too late (Matthew 25:10-13, 28:19-20 and Act 3:19-21).

Again, this "salvation" is speaking of the present time frame in which opposition to God's ways prevails. Salvation must take place in the midst of this war against God and His word.

The Gospel is warning people about their need to avoid joining in this opposition to God and His word. When the enemy has been defeated, there is no longer a need to warn about that particular conspiracy of the present age. The Gospel is a warning sounding off for those in the present age who join this conspiracy because they are soon to be judged by God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This coming is not only sudden but noisy.

Yes, that's true but it's irrelevant in our discussion. We both agree that Christ's 2nd Coming is noisy and decisive. I just believe his Coming is a conclusion to the present age, and not prohibitive of a coming Millennial Age.

The fact his Coming is decisive and comprehensive speaks to the battles of the current age against Christianity. It does not prohibit the continuation of human history along different lines, allowing for the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, which could not be fulfilled in the current age of rebellion.

It is the rebellion of the present age which is to be decisively settled--not the issue of human sin...yet. That will be concluded at the 2nd resurrection.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The whole thrust of this reading surrounds a climactic end to the world. Like the rest of Scripture, it records the complete rescue of the saints in the “marriage of the lamb” and the complete destruction of the wicked when the fowls consume the entire wicked left behind. The passage makes no allowance for goats-survivors in this great destruction passage or mortals squeezing into a supposed future millennium. This reading seems to fit in with the scriptural pattern of an all-consummating Coming - all the wicked being consumed.

The current age is characterized by God calling nations and individuals in the midst of opposition to God's word. This is called Redemption, saving people in the midst of human sin.

At the end of this age, human rebellion against God's word will be comprehensively dealt with, allowing Christian nations, and the final deliverance of Israel. Even though rebellion is dealt with at Christ's Coming it does not mean human history ceases to continue, replete with sin and a future rebellion.

This is just allowing for the fulfillment of God's plan of redemption, fulfilling the promises He made to Abraham. They have not yet been completely fulfilled, though you apparently think they were?

Israel is still in rebellion, and Christian nations are now in large-scale rebellion. These are not the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham!

 

[Timtofly]

So how are people dying in your future millennium? There must be mortals in it.

Says an Amil that completely disregards the Day of the Lord and invents an indefinite period of time instead of the Lord's Day a Sabbath Day of rest for all creation. Genesis 2:4.

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,"

Day is singular. This is a Day of the Lord just like the Coming Day of the Lord.

Amil claim that Day is an indefinite period of time, they can just insert any where in history that suits them.

The reign of Christ is the return to the earth as it was originally created. Without the bondage of sin. Yet Amil claim this earth is burned to a crisp and not restored. The passing away of the earth is not an earth restored. Romans 8:14-22

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now."

Creation was not restored in the first century. There was no Millennium Kingdom on a restored earth, between the Cross and now. That happens after the Second Coming when humans are restored as sons of God. Only sons of God are the type of humans living on earth with Christ for 1,000 years. The Sabbath Day of the Lord. Besides earthly Jerusalem is restored. In the NHNE, there is no earthly Jerusalem. The former things have passed away. The New Jerusalem which is 1200 miles square replaces the old earthly Jerusalem. The river of life replaces the two rivers that will soon flow out of earthly Jerusalem. There is currently not two rivers that have restored the Dead Sea, and the former Mediterranean.

The sons of God created on day 6 were not mortals. They were not in a dead physical state which mortal infers. Paul called the physical body corruption and corruptible. You call it mortal.