22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

What question? Also, I referenced 3 texts that forbid your hypothesis.

Never mind then.

 

[Keraz]

The appellation, "spiritual Israel" is simply short hand for "the universal Christian Church has succeeded ancient Israel as God's true Israel and that Christians have succeeded the ancient Israelites as the people of God."

Ancient Israel simply cannot be definitively identified today.
If you think they are the Jews today, that is only partially correct, as Judah only represents 2 of the 12 Tribes of ancient Israel.
The Bible maintains the separation between Judah and Israel in more than 160 Prophesies: they have different futures.

The truth as stated by Jesus, is that He came to save the House of Israel. Matthew 15:24 He said that whilst in Judah and we know His Ministry in Judah generally failed. The Jews still reject Jesus today.
But the Apostles went out to preach the Gospel and now it is mainly the descendants of the 10 Northern tribes of Israel, who have become Christians. WE Christian peoples ARE the Israelites of God, spiritually and literally; as the Overcomers for Him, which is what Israel means.

The usual Chruch teaching of the Jews being still a people that God will save and redeem, held mainly by the proponent's of the 'rapture to heaven' theory, is serious error and ignores many prophesies about their virtual demise and that only a remnant will survive.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No He won't. There is still the 7 Bowls to happen before the glorious Return.

Nope. You're failing to recognize the parallels in the book. In Revelation 11:15-18 it indicates that the seventh trumpet signals that "The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets". When are the dead judged? After the thousand years, as shown in Revelation 20. That means Jesus returns after the thousand years.

Paul taught what is confirmed by Revelation 20:11-15; that immortality is only conferred onto those found worthy at the GWT Judgment.

There are about 4 examples of a Resurrection from the dead, back to mortality. Lazarus is the prime example.

Lazaraus is completely irrelevant to this discussion. NOWHERE does scripture teach that anyone will be resurrected from the dead with a mortal body in the future.

The GT martyrs will have mortal bodies, I think that maybe most of them will actually live for the thousand years.

You think. Your beliefs about this are entirely based on speculation rather than scripture. Tell me why anyone would be resurrected with a mortal body in the future? What would be the point of that?

But ONLY at the final Judgment, when the Book of Life is opened, will they receive immortality.

Why would they be resurrected 1000+ years before that? How does your view line up with what Jesus taught here:

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Your unpleasant comments reflect upon yourself.

You are an expert on making unpleasant comments.

All Christians become the children of God. Romans 9:24-26
Therefore we are the inheritors of Promises of God to Abraham and to Jacob, who is the original Israel, thru Jesus who is the ultimate Israel.

Can you please not quote multiple people in the same post? I thought you were talking to me here at first (I see now that you weren't) and I had no idea why you would think you would need to tell me this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

RT is just an identifier--not a libel. It is offensive to you because it sounds unbiblical. And that is what it is.

That's correct and that's why I don't believe it. In my view no one gets replaced. So, using that label to describe my beliefs is inappropriate.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn't lie about you or Paul M. I told you an unpleasant truth, one that you didn't want to hear.

You lied repeatedly. I have no respect for you because you have no conscience about lying. Christians should hate lying and you do it habitually.

The unpleasant truth, which you did not want to hear is this. Amillennialism is built on the Amillennial eisegesis of the Old testament. Both you and Paul have approvingly repeated the following precept, or some variation of it: "The Old is in the New Revealed, the New is in the Old Concealed." So I know you both are victims of this obfuscation tactic.

Does the New Testament not shine light on the Old Testament? Of course it does. It's obvious. You have a problem with that concept?

The essential framework for proper Biblical study is Authorial intentionalism, the view that an author's intentions should constrain the ways in which a text is properly interpreted. There is no other reliable hermeneutic than that. Given this feature of proper Biblical study, one can perhaps immediately see the fatal flaw in the precept. When one expects to find the New Testament concealed in the Old Testament, one is no longer looking for the author's intended meaning.

This is complete gibberish. Can you show me where in the Old Testament that it clearly says the promises God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and to Christ (Gal 3:16) and apply to those who belong to Christ as well (Gal 3:29)? I'm sure you can't. So, how could we know about that except for reading what Paul taught in the New Testament?

This is why I say that you and Paul are not interested in what the Old Testament says.

We are very interested in what the Old Testament says, so that is a flat out lie. Just because we use the New Testament to help us understand the Old Testament doesn't mean we are not interested in the Old Testament. That's nonsense.

You both employ an error prone hermeneutic, whereby those who study and believe the Amillennial doctrine, wear "New Testament glasses" when reading the Old Testament.

Why in the world would you not want to allow the New Testament to shine light on the Old Testament for you? Do you think the Old Testament has its own doctrines and the New Testament has its own separate doctrines from that? When Paul wrote about God's promises to Abraham and his seed was he talking about some other promises that weren't written about in the Old Testament?

Both Paul M and you have asked me the question, "where is that found in the New Testament?", which is a symptom of one accustomed to the precept. In essence, there is nothing of any interest in the Old Testament. Why read concealed truth when revealed truth is better? Right?

Look at everything that is taught in the New Testament. Any doctrine you can think of is covered there. So, why would you think any doctrine taught in the Old Testament would be exclusive to the Old Testament without anything about it in the New Testament?

Yes, I think people can understand the Bible without the help of the Holy Spirit.

The entire Bible? Please tell me you're not saying that. Have you never read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16? Paul indicated that the deeper things, which would be doctrines that are beyond the basics in scripture, can only be spiritually discerned by way of the Holy Spirit.

Since God wants human beings to understand the truth about his will for mankind, he superintended the production of the Bible so that anyone who is able to read can gain access to the truth. Because the unbeliever is able to read and understand the Bible, he stands condemned and he is without excuse. If the Bible was near impossible to understand without the Holy Spirit, then the unbeliever is without guilt. But, on the contrary, the Bible is comprehensible and therefore it stands in judgment over all mankind.

The basics are, but an average joe on the street can't hope to comprehend some of the deeper things taught in scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This category distinction is not found in the Bible.

If you're going to make claims like this then back them up. You don't ever address any points that are made. You just say you disagree or that isn't found in the Bible. Well prove it then. Your claims alone prove nothing.

Please tell me how you interpret this passage:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't think you do. In fact, I know you don't. You already admitted to your use of a faulty and worthless hermeneutic with regard to the Old Testament. And all of those names for Jesus come from the Old Testament.

You don't appear to have any hermeneutic at all. You just interpret each passage of scripture in isolation without any care if your interpretation of one passage contradicts another passage or not.

The error of your statement is clearly seen once we consider the fact that Jesus, Paul, James, John and other New Testament author's quoted the Old Testament to PROVE their assertions.

Mostly to prove their assertions about Jesus and His life, death and resurrection. But, not so much about the future. They taught some things about the future that are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, such as what Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 4:14-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. The Old Testament says nothing about us being caught up to meet Christ at His second coming or about being changed to have immortal bodies and things like that.

These men would NOT have cited the OT, often times quoting it verbatim, if they believed what you believe about it.

That is a lie. I'm growing tired of your lying. What I believe about the Old Testament is different than what you're saying. You say I don't care about it, which is a lie.

But, what is even your point here? Are you suggesting that there isn't anything taught in the OT that is clarified for us in the NT? And/or that there isn't anything taught in the NT that isn't already taught in the OT?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Are you not seeing a pattern with Premil responses?

Yes, I have been saying that pattern for many years now.

They are like this because they have nothing of biblical weight to support their position.

That is very clear. Any unbiased observer can clearly see that. A vast majority of their posts are filled with only their words and no scriptural support whatsoever. In the rare times that they even attempt to add scriptural support to their words, it comes across as a jumbled mess of unrelated scriptures.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus was critical of their unbelief; not their ignorance. They understood the OT, they simply didn't believe it.

Did you even read the passage that was quoted in the post that you responded to here?

Here it is again:

Luke 24:25 Then Jesus said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to trust and believe in everything that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and [only then to] enter His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and [throughout] all the [writings of the] prophets, He explained and interpreted for them the things referring to Himself [found] in all the Scriptures.

You say "they understood the OT". Then why did Jesus have to explain the OT passages about Him to them?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As I said earlier, what you just said is the core tenet of Replacement theology. Why equate the church with anything other than Jesus Christ? Why not call it "spiritual Christians?" Or Spirit filled believers?" The answer is as obvious as the nose on your face. Equating Israel with the Church is to consider Israel to be the same as the church. The appellation, "spiritual Israel" is simply short hand for "the universal Christian Church has succeeded ancient Israel as God's true Israel and that Christians have succeeded the ancient Israelites as the people of God."

Don't tell me what I believe! I will tell you what I believe. And I don't believe what you're saying here. You are once again lying about what I believe. I don't believe the church replaced the nation of Israel, I believe the church is spiritual Israel and the nation of Israel is a separate entity. That is NOT replacement theology. You just try to distract from the fact that your own arguments are extremely weak by bringing up this replacement theology nonsense. In Romans 9:6-8 it indicates that the Israel of which not all of those from the nation of Israel are part consists of those who are considered to be Abraham's spiritual offspring/seed (it clearly indicates they are not his offspring because of natural descent), the children of God and the children of the promise. That describes the church because that matches what Paul described in Galatians 3:26-29 in relation to those who belong to Christ.

No, Paul is not contrasting two Israel's here. He answers his rhetorical question, which should be the basis for a proper interpretation of the passage.

I have no idea of what you're trying to say here. If what you believed was true, then why can't you communicate it clearly? The fact that you can't is very telling.

Before I give you my interpretation, first tell me which word of God do you think Paul has in mind? Until we answer THAT question, we won't understand anything he is trying to say from that point forward.

I don't understand your question, so you'll have to clarify it for me. But, I have no idea why I need to answer any of your questions in order for you to tell me how you interpret Romans 9:6-8. It seems like you're stalling here.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That's correct and that's why I don't believe it. In my view no one gets replaced. So, using that label to describe my beliefs is inappropriate.

That is an utterly naïve statement. Replacement Theology doesn't just "replace" things. It is a very specific kind of "replacement," which you seem unable to acknowledge.

I get that you don't like the term. But you don't even understand what it means. So I don't care what you don't like, and whether you don't like it being applied to you. You should understand what it means before denying that it applies to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Lazaraus is completely irrelevant to this discussion. NOWHERE does scripture teach that anyone will be resurrected from the dead with a mortal body in the future.

Lazarus was not raised to a mortal Adam dead flesh body either.

Lazarus has had a permanent incorruptible physical body since he came out of that grave. He went to Paradise with all the OT redeemed.

In Matthew 27, all those in Abraham's bosom came out of their grave with a permanent incorruptible physical body, just like those alive at the Second Coming will be changed into. Those currently in Paradise are waiting glorification, the joining of the spirit with the body and soul.

In my view no one gets replaced.

Just all those people living in a future 1,000 years, when you place them in the here and now.

In the rare times that they even attempt to add scriptural support to their words, it comes across as a jumbled mess of unrelated scriptures.

How does cattle on the thousand hills in the OT relate to 1,000 years in Revelation 20, a still future event? Talk about using the OT to interpret the NT.

 

[Keraz]

Hands up those who will join me in ostracizing the poster of #2763 to #2770.
I refuse to respond to anything further he/she says.
It lowers the tone of Biblical discussion to the gutter level.

As for the post #2772, your comments about Abrahams bosom, shows you are stuck in the 16th Century, and you make an allegory into a fact.

 

[Taken]

There Will Be No 1,000 Year Millennial Kingdom Upon This Earth, Jesus Christ Returns In Fire And Final Judgement, Dissolving This Existing Earth By Fire, Immediately After The Tribulation

This Existing Heaven And Earth Will Be (Replaced) By The New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, A New Creation, At The Return Of Jesus Christ

False.

True.
World without end.
Upon King David’s Everlasting earthly Throne shall sit Jesus the Christ.
Reigning with Christ Jesus in His Kingdom shall be His People.
Other People’s kingdoms shall be broken up and consumed.
World without end shall Glory be unto Christ Jesus forever.



Isa 17:
[17] But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

Pss 132:
[11] The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Dan 2:
[44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Rev 20:
[4] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Dan 2:
[44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Rev 21:
[5] And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Rev 4:
[8] And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Eph 3:
[21] Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Ancient Israel simply cannot be definitively identified today.
If you think they are the Jews today, that is only partially correct, as Judah only represents 2 of the 12 Tribes of ancient Israel.
The Bible maintains the separation between Judah and Israel in more than 160 Prophesies: they have different futures.

The truth as stated by Jesus, is that He came to save the House of Israel. Matthew 15:24 He said that whilst in Judah and we know His Ministry in Judah generally failed. The Jews still reject Jesus today.
But the Apostles went out to preach the Gospel and now it is mainly the descendants of the 10 Northern tribes of Israel, who have become Christians. WE Christian peoples ARE the Israelites of God, spiritually and literally; as the Overcomers for Him, which is what Israel means.

The usual Chruch teaching of the Jews being still a people that God will save and redeem, held mainly by the proponent's of the 'rapture to heaven' theory, is serious error and ignores many prophesies about their virtual demise and that only a remnant will survive.

My view doesn't depend on knowing who the modern Jews are today. My view depends on Authorial Intent, whereby the definition of "Israel" depends on the context and what the author intends to say. My view does not discount the possibility that the prophets might speak about Israel differently than Judah.

I simply take issue with the doctrine of replacement theology. In my view, the Bible does NOT teach that Christian peoples are the Israelites of God, spiritually or literally.

When God declares that he will move to restore his holy name, in Ezekiel 36, he isn't talking about the Christian people of the church.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You lied repeatedly. I have no respect for you because you have no conscience about lying. Christians should hate lying and you do it habitually.

I deny that I lied about you and I explained why. You do not deny the Amillennial eisegesis, therefore, you do NOT care about what the OT says.

Does the New Testament not shine light on the Old Testament? Of course it does. It's obvious. You have a problem with that concept?

I do not deny that the New Testament shines a light on the Old Testament. I take issue with the Amillennial hermeneutic that reads the NT into the OT.

This is complete gibberish.

Before I answer your question I need two things from you: 1) a detailed explanation for why you think my statement is gibberish. Claiming something negative requires a full explanation, or you simply don't want to face what I said. 2) I am not going to answer your question until you open your mind to consider my explanation. Until then, you aren't ready to hear the answer.

We are very interested in what the Old Testament says, so that is a flat out lie. Just because we use the New Testament to help us understand the Old Testament doesn't mean we are not interested in the Old Testament. That's nonsense.

What you claim and what you actually do are two different things. I explained why your hermeneutic was faulty. If you were genuinely interested in knowing what the OT says, you would NOT read the NT into it.

Look at everything that is taught in the New Testament. Any doctrine you can think of is covered there.

This is where you clearly admit that the OT is irrelevant. In your opinion, only essential doctrines are in the NT.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If you're going to make claims like this then back them up. You don't ever address any points that are made. You just say you disagree or that isn't found in the Bible. Well prove it then. Your claims alone prove nothing.

This generation seems to have lost the fundamentals of logic. One can not prove a negative. The onus is on those who make positive affirmations to prove their assertions.

Please tell me how you interpret this passage:

What is the Rhetorical question, and why was it asked?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You don't appear to have any hermeneutic at all. You just interpret each passage of scripture in isolation without any care if your interpretation of one passage contradicts another passage or not.

Give me an example.

[/quote]You say I don't care about it, which is a lie.[/quote]If you truly cared, you would reexamine your position concerning the fault approach to interpretation you employ. When you begin to seek authorial intent, then I will no longer say that you don't care about what the OT says.

But, what is even your point here? Are you suggesting that there isn't anything taught in the OT that is clarified for us in the NT? And/or that there isn't anything taught in the NT that isn't already taught in the OT?

No, but that isn't the point. Replacement theology depends heavily on motivated perception, i.e. Replacement Theologians see what they want to see in the OT.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Did you even read the passage that was quoted in the post that you responded to here?

Yes, I did. And I also thought about what I read. Jesus is critical of those who are slow of heart to trust and believe everything that the prophets have spoken. If these men were ignorant or didn't understand what they read, then Jesus' was being unfairly critical. This is common sense.

Hopefully, by this exercise you can begin to understand why it is important to seek what the author intended to say, rather than seeking verses to support doctrine that you all ready believe.

Yes, they understood the OT, which is why Jesus was not unfair to criticize them for being slow of heart etc. But it is one thing to read and understand the OT, it is another thing to apply what has been understood to real-life events. Jesus elucidated the passages, applying them to himself.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Don't tell me what I believe! I will tell you what I believe. And I don't believe what you're saying here. You are once again lying about what I believe. I don't believe the church replaced the nation of Israel, I believe the church is spiritual Israel and the nation of Israel is a separate entity.

Double speak.

That is NOT replacement theology.

That's exactly what it is. If you say you don't believe in RT but you act like you do. Am I expected to judge you by what you say or by what you do?
[/quote]
You just try to distract from the fact that your own arguments are extremely weak by bringing up this replacement theology nonsense.
[/quote]Listen, we are talking in a thread that is already over 2000 posts long. I didn't bring up the idea of RT until every relevant point had already been made, several times.

I think it is fair, in a thread structured as a polemic against what I believe, to point out a major flaw in what you believe. If you don't believe RT then fine. Don't act like you do. Stop fooling yourself with the appellation "spiritual Israel", which signals your belief in RT.

In Romans 9:6-8 it indicates that the Israel of which not all of those from the nation of Israel are part consists of those who are considered to be Abraham's spiritual offspring/seed (it clearly indicates they are not his offspring because of natural descent), the children of God and the children of the promise.

Your work is incomplete. You have yet to explain the rhetorical question and why Paul asked it.

It seems like you're stalling here.

It may seem that way, but once you answer my questions, then you will understand my interpretation.