22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

Well, since the mystery was secret at the time James referred to, it can't be talking about the Christian church. However, while the church was a secret, it was no secret that the Gentiles would one day flock to Jerusalem. That's all in the future though.

Rev 21:24,

And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
​

That's talking about the new heavens and new earth (Rev 21:1), not the present time of the church of the body of Christ. You can find the same truth throughout the OT. What you can't find in the OT is the mystery. As per Peter, the OT prophets looked for something about the time between the suffering and glory, but they couldn't find it. God's dealing with Gentiles in the OT and Revelation is not at all the same way He deals with them now, in this age of grace.

I'm not sure I follow you, though I agree with your conclusions.

 

[Rich R]

Paul argues, from the text of Genesis, that God not only justified Abraham in view of his faith, but would justify those "in Abraham" by virtue of the fact that they also share the faith of our Father Abraham. By this we learn that God intended to save Gentiles by faith from the earliest days of Genesis. Refer to Galatians 3.

That is one the one hand. On the other hand, the OT doesn't include an explicit passage, detailing the basis on which he will grant the inheritance of salvation. Genesis gives us the means by which we are saved, i.e. justification by faith, but the underlying foundation of his mercy i.e. the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the messiah remained a secret. Gentile salvation is implied in Genesis 12, but salvation by grace through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ remained a secret until Jesus came and obeyed the father unto death.

In Romans 16:25 Paul makes this explicit. The gospel of Jesus Christ was hidden. He also refers to the gospel as "the mystery of Christ" in his epistle to the Colossians.

God does in fact "save" Gentiles in Revelation. As you say, that was never a secret.

I guess it comes down to what did Paul mean by the secret that was hidden in God from ages and from generations. I maintain it is something other than the aforementioned promises God made about the Gentiles in the OT.

There is plenty in the OT about Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. It's all over the place. It starts in Genesis 3 where God told the devil that Jesus' heel would be bruised. As Peter said, they knew all about that. The only thing they didn't know was what was to take place between the ascension and Jesus' second coming.

 

[Rich R]

I'm not sure I follow you, though I agree with your conclusions.

Well, you just don't think as convoluted as I think!

 

[Rich R]

I'm not sure I follow you, though I agree with your conclusions.

I don't think either one of us is far from the truth, but, "we'll know all about farther along..."

I think you're a good man. I'm blessed to call you my brother!

 

[CadyandZoe]

Technically, the word "type" is not in the scriptures, so you are absolutely right in saying there are not "types" of Jesus in the OT.

However what we can say, is that the OT is all about Jesus, at least if we are to believe Jesus' words, which I'm sure you do.

Here's what Jesus said,

"...they (the scriptures) are they which testify of me.

But you want to say, "...one can learn about eternal life through ordinary exegesis."

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I just don't see the similarity between the two statements. John seems pretty straight forward, but I don't see how that simple statement morphed into what you say.

No, I don't think you are being difficult. I think you are right on and you express yourself well. The larger question at hand, with which I take issue, is a type of hermeneutic that interprets prophetic passages in symbolic terms other than what the original author intended.

I'll give you an example. Rahab tied a scarlet cord in her window to signal Israel's soldiers to by pass her house. Joshua 2:21. Typologists teach that the scarlet cord represents the blood of Christ. This doctrine is no where to be found in the pages of the New Testament. Jesus doesn't mention the cord and neither do the apostles. One may see the cord as symbolic, but one can not argue that the Bible understands the cord to have that meaning.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I don't think either one of us is far from the truth, but, "we'll know all about farther along..."

I think you're a good man. I'm blessed to call you my brother!

Thanks. You too.

 

[covenantee]

I didn't bring it up, you did.

You were the first to mention typology.

 

[covenantee]

I'm rejecting the idea that the Serpent is a "type" of Satan. I maintain that the Serpent is Satan himself because of Revelation 12:9

Luke 22:3
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

How did the serpent enter Judas? Did he bore some kind of hole in him? Of use one of Judas's orfices? Which one?

 

[Rich R]

No, I don't think you are being difficult. I think you are right on and you express yourself well. The larger question at hand, with which I take issue, is a type of hermeneutic that interprets prophetic passages in symbolic terms other than what the original author intended.

I'll give you an example. Rahab tied a scarlet cord in her window to signal Israel's soldiers to by pass her house. Joshua 2:21. Typologists teach that the scarlet cord represents the blood of Christ. This doctrine is no where to be found in the pages of the New Testament. Jesus doesn't mention the cord and neither do the apostles. One may see the cord as symbolic, but one can not argue that the Bible understands the cord to have that meaning.

I suppose the whole "type" thing can be taken to an extreme. I think Rahab is probably a good example of that. As you said, all the book says is that Rahab tied a scarlet cord in her window. It kind of reminds me of the sprinkling of blood on the first Passover. It seems like there could be some connection there, but we shouldn't read too much into rather simple declarations.

I'll check out some of your videos real soon. I know they are not all that easy to produce, so thanks for your efforts. I'm sure they haven't gone un-noticed by God, the one who is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You were the first to mention typology.

You attempted to argue that Moses was speaking about the church when he called Israel "a holy nation and a kingdom of priests"

 

[CadyandZoe]

Luke 22:3
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

How did the serpent enter Judas? Did he bore some kind of hole in him? Of use one of Judas's orfices? Which one?

Again, Luke is not suggesting that Satan is a type of anything.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I suppose the whole "type" thing can be taken to an extreme. I think Rahab is probably a good example of that. As you said, all the book says is that Rahab tied a scarlet cord in her window. It kind of reminds me of the sprinkling of blood on the first Passover. It seems like there could be some connection there, but we shouldn't read too much into rather simple declarations.

I'll check out some of your videos real soon. I know they are not all that easy to produce, so thanks for your efforts. I'm sure they haven't gone un-noticed by God, the one who is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

The blood on the door post is compelling. I agree with you. Another example, I think, comes from the story of Abraham and the king of Salem, who eat bread and wine together. It's a real stretch, but one might think this is a "type" of communion. Genesis 14:18. It's easy to see a resemblance.

But the important to remember is this. I think it is okay to see resemblances, but we must be cautious about deriving doctrine from them or claiming that God intended that such resemblances act as proof of anything. I saw a website that made an audacious claim, suggesting that the OT contained over 500 fulfillments of OT predictions concerning Jesus Christ. And although the OT DOES predict the coming of the messiah and a few other things (riding on a donkey for instance) many of the passages cited by the website were NOT predictions or promises.

I bring this up because claims like these, which are not fair to the OT or the NT more than likely cause unbelievers to doubt the authenticity of Christian doctrine.

 

[Rich R]

The blood on the door post is compelling. I agree with you. Another example, I think, comes from the story of Abraham and the king of Salem, who eat bread and wine together. It's a real stretch, but one might think this is a "type" of communion. Genesis 14:18. It's easy to see a resemblance.

But the important to remember is this. I think it is okay to see resemblances, but we must be cautious about deriving doctrine from them or claiming that God intended that such resemblances act as proof of anything. I saw a website that made an audacious claim, suggesting that the OT contained over 500 fulfillments of OT predictions concerning Jesus Christ. And although the OT DOES predict the coming of the messiah and a few other things (riding on a donkey for instance) many of the passages cited by the website were NOT predictions or promises.

I bring this up because claims like these, which are not fair to the OT or the NT more than likely cause unbelievers to doubt the authenticity of Christian doctrine.

That last sentence is key! Very good.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If we begin to spiritualize scripture, it is dangerously close to treading on Gnostic ground. Not saying you're a Gnostic, but that is what they did.

What does this even mean? Clearly, the book of Revelation is not all literal. So, I don't see that you have much of a point here. So, I ask you again. Where does Revelation 19 show Jesus on earth? This is a simple, straightforward question.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When Jesus ascended into heaven 10 days before Pentecost, an angel told the disciples that Jesus would return. I would think it odd to take this to mean he'd return anywhere but from whence he was, i.e., the earth.

I don't really care what you think is odd, I care what scripture teaches.

Rev 19:19,

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
​

We see the beast and the kings of the earth fighting Jesus and his armies. I don't think they fought on a battleground that was anywhere but the earth.

No need to spiritualize any of this. The literal events of Revelation are in perfect accord with God's promise to Israel of a kingdom in a land that Abraham could see with his eyes, i.e., a physical kingdom.

So, you think Jesus will be on earth slaying people with a literal sword coming out of His mouth then?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Way out of context. It's never good to build an entire doctrine on one isolated verse while ignoring the context as well as the overall message of scripture.

If we're going to spiritualize the scriptures, the sky is the limit as to what doctrines we can conjure up. It's Gnosticism at it's finest to do so.

Same is true when you literalize scriptures that are meant to be spiritual or figurative. The fact is that some scripture is spiritual, so your advice is useless. It would only be useful if all scripture was literal, but that clearly is not the case. We need to discern whether any given verse or passage is literal or not. To just assume everything is literal unless explicitly stated otherwise the way you do is not wise.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's got nothing to do with "convenience" and everything to do with "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little." I incorporate all those texts which speak of a coming period of total emptiness on this planet, while you stubbornly ignore them.
You mean the 1,000 years separating the resurrection of the Just from the Damned is no indication? Didn't Jesus say He would separate the "sheep from the goats" and in the hearing of every ear would pronounce His Judgment? That can only take place at the end of the 1,000 years when all who have ever lived will be alive at that time, from Adam to the last one born on Earth.
It's to show that even after 1,000 years, Satan and the wicked will refuse to change. When Satan is loosed from his "chains" of circumstance which rendered him unemployed 1,000 years before, he will go right back to doing what's he does best, as will the wicked when they are raised.

QUESTION: HOW CAN THE PROPHECY "EVERY KNEE BOW AND EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS" COME TO PASS AT THE SECOND COMING WHEN PEOPLE ARE FLEEING IN TERROR TO THE ROCKS AND MOUNTAINS, CALLING FOR THEM TO FALL DOWN ON THEM AND HIDE THEM AWAY FROM HIS FACE?

It happens just after that. Jesus will physically destroy all His enemies when He returns and the judgment occurs after that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Whatever it should or should not say, does not change the problem of building an entire doctrine on one verse. Al verses need to be considered. Plus it wouldn't change the fact that all bets are off as to the message when we decide to spiritualize the scriptures instead of taking them for what they plainly say.

LOL. Taking them for what they plainly say? No wonder you want to just ignore 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. It doesn't support your approach to interpreting scripture. Your approach doesn't require any spiritual discernment which means the Holy Spirit doesn't have to teach or reveal anything to anyone using your approach.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm taking it that you don't believe in different dispensations. I know a lot of folks don't. Well, there is this;

Matt 15:24,

But he (Jesus) answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
​

Matt 10:5,

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:​

Paul talks about dispensations 4 times in his Epistles; 1 Cor 9:17, Eph 1:10, Eph 3:2, and Col 1:25.

If nothing else, surely you must see a radical change in God's dealing with people after Jesus was raised than it was before that. If not, why did he bother to die at all. It wouldn't not have been an easy thing to do for nothing.

I know you wrote much more, and I did read it. However if Jesus was right in Matt 15:24 and 10:5 about coming only for Israel, much of the rest you wrote would be irrelevant. What do you think about those 2 verses?

All that means is that it was His intention for the gospel to first be preached in Israel before going to the Gentiles, as He indicated in verses like Acts 1:8. You seem to read a lot more into it than that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That would be during the Millennium.

The new heavens and new earth is introduced during the millennium? How do you figure? How does that line up with what John taught about the new heavens and new earth? He said this regarding what the new heavens and new earth will be like:

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

When the new heaven and new earth are ushered in, the first heaven and first earth will have passed away. Do you think this current heaven and earth will pass away during the millennium? Also, John said "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" at that point. Do you think that describes the millennium?