22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[CadyandZoe]

You should answer objections by using scripture and telling us how you interpret the scripture. Instead, in most of your posts, you make all kinds of claims left and right without explaining how you come to your conclusions.

Take your post #2829, for example. You said "Look again. Peter is talking about "The Day of the Lord", which is NOT a day when the world ends.". How is that helpful? Why didn't you do anything to back up what you said? What is the point of making the claim that you did without backing it up at all?

I didn't mean for my statement to be helpful. As I said, we are in a thread, which is structured as a polemic against my view. Why would you expect me to give you scriptures to support MY view, when the purpose of this thread is for me to answer objections. If YOU or someone else claims that the Day of the Lord is the end of the world, it is up to YOU and others to PROVE your case.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No, I'm not.

Why does it indicate that? When you consider a passage like Romans 9:6-8, you should understand that that are two Israels rather than one, with one replacing the other. So, the term "spiritual Israel" does not imply a replacement. That would be the case only if I claimed that there was only one Israel. But, I don't claim that.

Replacement theology doesn't claim that one Israel replaces another; it claims that the Church has replaced Israel. By definition, a definition YOU hold, spiritual Israelites comprise the church. Simple logic shall suffice. Spiritual Israel replaces Ethnic Israel, and the church is Spiritual Israel; therefore, the church replaced Israel.

Why do you care what term I use when there are many terms we can use for the church/body of Christ/bride of Christ/etc.?

You can use whatever term you want if you don't care to distance yourself from RT.

LOL. I have studied the passage. It's ridiculous for you to think otherwise.

Well, in my judgment your interpretation needs work.

You don't have to hope. I have studied all the things that we talk about on this forum in great depth.

No, it doesn't ignore those five verses at all. Unfortunately, your apparent belief in Calvinist doctrine is leading you astray in your understanding of Romans 9-11.

Paul thought of it before Calvin did.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You're not understanding the point. The true or spiritual children of Abraham includes both ethnic Israelite believers and Gentiles. One's nationality has nothing to do with being a spiritual child of Abraham, as Paul indicated in Galatians 3:26-29. So, no one was saying that there aren't some among the true children of God who are of ethnic Israel.

You did, even if you didn't intend to do so. And for some reason, you can't seem to tell the difference between a child of Abraham, and a child of Jacob. You do know the difference don't you?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Day of the Lord marks a new era in human history when God will begin to "have his day." That new era will serve God's desire to prove himself among the nations, and restore his holy name. For this reason, in anticipation of that new era, Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

hallowed be thy name:
This phrase, in the King James English, should be read as a request such as "make your name holy." This petition looks ahead to the day when God will vindicate himself among human beings.

Thy kingdom come:
This petition presupposes that the kingdom has not yet come. But the kingdom of light has come in a sense, since Jesus rules over his followers now. So in some sense, the kingdom is now and the kingdom has yet to come.

thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven:
Here Jesus qualifies the earlier petition. In what sense has the kingdom yet to come? The kingdom will be fully realized when God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven. God's will is not being done now. But in the day of the Lord, this aspect of the kingdom will come to fruition.

The Day of the Lord begins with warnings and judgments, which climax at the Second Advent, when Jesus gathers his people to himself and begins to rule from Jerusalem. The run up to the Second advent is filled with darkness, smoke, fire, doom, devastation and such things. During the run-up to the return of Jesus, God sends his "armies" on Israel, which are fires that burn every thing.

The Day comes like a thief in the night in that it surprises those that are asleep. Paul says that it won't surprise those that are awake.

The Day of the Lord is longer than a day. The day lasts for at least a thousand years, maybe longer. At the end of that era, the heavens and earth pass away as it says in Revelation 20.

Where is any of this indicated in passages like 2 Peter 3:10-13 or 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3?

I think it means what it literally says. This aspect of the Day of the Lord takes place at the end of that day.

In those passages they strongly give the impression that there will be complete destruction of the heavens and the earth when the day of the Lord arrives. The destruction will be so complete to the point where Paul said that "they will not escape" it. There will be no way to escape it because the entire earth will be burned up, as 2 Peter 3:10-13 indicates.

How in the world could any mortal survive what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-13? There is no indication whatsoever that the burning up of the heavens and the earth occurs 1000+ years after the return of Christ. Peter talked about how we should be careful about how we're living our lives in anticipation of the day of the Lord. Why would that matter if the destruction he described didn't even occur until 1000+ years after Christ returned?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Replacement theology doesn't claim that one Israel replaces another; it claims that the Church has replaced Israel.

I don't make that claim. I don't believe that the church has replaced Israel. I believe they are two separate entities.

By definition, a definition YOU hold, spiritual Israelites comprise the church.

Yeah, so? Some spiritual Israelites are ethnic Israelites and some are ethnic Gentiles.

Simple logic shall suffice.

There's nothing logical about accusing me of believing in replacement theology.

Spiritual Israel replaces Ethnic Israel, and the church is Spiritual Israel; therefore, the church replaced Israel.

You are the one saying spiritual Israel replaces ethnic Israel, not me. Don't tell me what I believe! You don't decide that for me. I will tell you what I believe.

Paul thought of it before Calvin did.

But, you are interpreting Paul wrongly. You think that the decision on who is saved is entirely up to God, yet Paul himself said that God wants to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:32). Yet, He doesn't have mercy on all people. Why is that? Think about it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You did, even if you didn't intend to do so.

I did what?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I do understand what it means. Who are you to tell me if I understand something or not? I know that I do understand it and I know that what I believe and it's not replacement theology. You should just accept that, but instead you want to tell me what I believe instead of me telling you what I believe, which is utterly ridiculous.

As I said, I personally apply RT to what you believe because *that is my belief.* You may not like that I believe that, but that's what it is until you prove me wrong.

Every so often, I get labeled a Preterist because I believe the Olivet Discourse spoke primarily of Jesus' generation, without failing to speak of the NT Jewish Diaspora, as well. So I get very annoyed when people call me a Preterist because unlike them I believe the book of Revelation is to be fulfilled in the latter days, towards the end of the age, and not just in the Early Church.

So when I explain this and people continue to label me a Preterist I get irate because I've satisfactorily explained to them what Preterism really is, including Partial Preterism. If they continue to call me that name, then they are just being immature and trying to provoke me with insults.

But I'm not doing that with you. I see you fit exactly what I see as RT. And yet you don't even explain how your beliefs are different from RT beliefs. And if you've even tried thus far, it apparently did not properly distinguish your beliefs from RT beliefs. So this is your opportunity to show how your beliefs are any different from RT beliefs?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I believe that no one would interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 in such a way that it's not referring to the end of the world if it wasn't for doctrinal bias. It's interesting how Premils throw their literal rules of interpretation out the window when it comes to passages like that one.

That cuts both ways. You throw out the principle of interpreting passages literally when you don't want to view it as such. We all have to make choices. I do find the 2 Peter 3 passage something to deal with, and though I may acknowledge the difficulty I have to choose what I think is the stronger argument.

I simply think the stronger argument is that we should believe the literal version of Rev 20 and accept the outline in the Jewish Prophets concerning the hope of the Messianic Kingdom. The Jewish Hope combined with literal interpretation of Rev 20 overrules, for me, 2 Peter 3.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As I said, I personally apply RT to what you believe because *that is my belief.* You may not like that I believe that, but that's what it is until you prove me wrong.

I already have proved you wrong.

Every so often, I get labeled a Preterist because I believe the Olivet Discourse spoke primarily of Jesus' generation, without failing to speak of the NT Jewish Diaspora, as well. So I get very annoyed when people call me a Preterist because unlike them I believe the book of Revelation is to be fulfilled in the latter days, towards the end of the age, and not just in the Early Church.

So when I explain this and people continue to label me a Preterist I get irate because I've satisfactorily explained to them what Preterism really is, including Partial Preterism. If they continue to call me that name, then they are just being immature and trying to provoke me with insults.

Why can't you understand why applying the term "replacement theology" annoys me then? You should be able to understand that.

But I'm not doing that with you.

How are you not doing that with me? You are doing exactly that.

I see you fit exactly what I see as RT. And yet you don't even explain how your beliefs are different from RT beliefs.

Are you kidding? I have explained that MANY times.

And if you've even tried thus far, it apparently did not properly distinguish your beliefs from RT beliefs. So this is your opportunity to show how your beliefs are any different from RT beliefs?

This is my opportunity even though I've already explained it MANY times? Why should I think you will pay attention to what I say now when it's obvious you didn't accept it the last 20 times I've explained it? What a waste of time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That cuts both ways. You throw out the principle of interpreting passages literally when you don't want to view it as such.

I don't use the same literal methods of interpretation that you do, so that doesn't apply to me. Almost all Premils will say that if it doesn't clearly indicate that it's symbolic then it should be interpreted literally. But, when it comes to a passage like 2 Peter 3:10-12 that interpretive rule that is used elsewhere is ignored.

We all have to make choices. I do find the 2 Peter 3 passage something to deal with, and though I may acknowledge the difficulty I have to choose what I think is the stronger argument.

How do you deal with it? Can you tell me how you interpret 2 Peter 3:10-13?

I simply think the stronger argument is that we should believe the literal version of Rev 20 and accept the outline in the Jewish Prophets concerning the hope of the Messianic Kingdom. The Jewish Hope combined with literal interpretation of Rev 20 overrules, for me, 2 Peter 3.

This is a serious problem. You can't just pick one scripture over another as if one scripture trumps another. That is unacceptable. We need to reconcile our beliefs with ALL scripture. How you're coming across to me is as if you believe 2 Peter 3 isn't legitimate scripture and should be ignored, but Revelation 20 is legitimate and should be accepted.

 

[WPM]

I simply think the stronger argument is that we should believe the literal version of Rev 20 and accept the outline in the Jewish Prophets concerning the hope of the Messianic Kingdom. The Jewish Hope combined with literal interpretation of Rev 20 overrules, for me, 2 Peter 3.

Nowhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament supports your interpretation of Revelation 20. It is a totally non-corroborative theory. Neither the Law, the prophets, Christ or the New Testament writers, taught a future age in between this age and the age to come, between time and eternity. That is a Premil invention. They all actually thought the opposite. They taught about a d ay coming when Jesus would appear in all his final matchless power and glory to terminate time and the bondage of corruption, sin and sinners, Satan and his devils.

To best understand the Old Testament prophets and their prophecies, it is both wise and smart to start with the fuller revelation and see how they were viewed and interpreted by Christ and the New Testament writers. We can then work back the way and let clear, explicit and fulfilment interpret the vague, shadow and symbolic, not the other way around. Most Bible students do the opposite. They start by speculating what they think the Old Testament prophet meant. False doctrine is often what results.

Whilst the Old Testament mentions end-times and the second coming, it is often written in veiled and incomplete detail, mixed and interspersed with ancient events and other historical detail. It is also presented in types and shadows.

A lot of Christians today overlook this reality and therefore have a bias and faulty perspective of natural Israel. They make the mistake of viewing physical Israel today through Old Testament glasses. They fail to see that the Old Testament dispensation has gone forever and the New Testament era has fully and wholly superseded it. The old system has been totally dismantled and abolished because it was only ever intended to be a temporary covenant with an expiration date. Its conclusion occurred when Christ died on the cross. We see that with the ripping of the curtain in the temple at the very moment Jesus breathed His last breath (Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46). It therefore has no further purpose for time and eternity.

Ignorance of New Testament truth leads many to a distorted and erroneous understanding of Old Testament truth. Ironically, and paradoxically, especially allowing for how they describe themselves, many Futurists choose to live in the past. They understand ethnic Israel today in an old covenant sense, rather than a new covenant context. It is as if the old covenant is still active and valid and the new covenant has yet to arrive. Futurists seem unable (or unwilling) to recognize the seismic shift that occurred through the introduction of the new covenant. When pressed, they continually run back to the Old Testament for some type of support for a favored place for national Israel, a return of the Jews to their ancient land boundaries, the reintroduction of the old covenant apparatus, including a rebuilt physical temple, animal blood sacrifices, and a restored Old Testament priesthood. They have to pitch their tent in the Hebrew Scriptures because they have absolutely no endorsement in the New Testament for their theological model.

Sensible and enlightened Bible scholars place greater emphasis on the New Testament because it is the fuller revelation and it is where we now reside. God’s truth has been a gradual progressive unfolding and unveiling of truth to mankind from the beginning. The change and advancement that came with the New Testament era did not jettison the old Hebrew promises but rather fulfilled them. The doctrinal light became a lot clearer with Christ’s appearance and vivid illumination of the whole dynamic between the Old and the New Testament and the first and second advents. Our Lord removed the existing vail, dispelled the religious mist and has shed much-needed light on God’s redemptive plan.

That is why theologians insist: “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” Steve Lehrer wisely advises: “read the old covenant Scriptures through the lens of the New Covenant Scriptures” (New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered). The New Testament is latent in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is patent in the New Testament.

As Reformed Theologian Vern Poythress explains: “The significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment … In other words, one must compare later Scripture to earlier Scripture to understand everything” (Understanding Dispensationalists).

If the Bible student fails to grasp the whole inter-relationship between the Old and New Testament then surely, they are going be all over the place when it comes to quite a number of subjects in the Bible. But equally, it would be very difficult to comprehend the whole interconnection between the Old and New Testaments without understanding the actual relationship between Israel and the Church.

 

[jeffweeder]

I simply think the stronger argument is that we should believe the literal version of Rev 20 and accept the outline in the Jewish Prophets concerning the hope of the Messianic Kingdom. The Jewish Hope combined with literal interpretation of Rev 20 overrules, for me, 2 Peter 3.

Peter had his mind opened by Lord, was taught by the Lord and his rock-solid confession was a means for building the Church.
Surely, he wouldn't fall short concerning the Jewish hope when he himself is looking forward to his promise.

You have the Apostle John and Jesus contradicting himself in Rev 20 taking the literal approach.

Jn 5
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life

25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Without being bodily resurrected we have confidence that we will not come under the judgment. Those who hear and believe are covered and cleansed forever by his own blood, and have passed from death to life. The second death hath no power at all over us.

REV 20
6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years

 

[Randy Kluth]

I already have proved you wrong.

No, all you're doing is *saying* that you've proven you're not an RT without actually showing where your beliefs differ from those of RT. You apparently think RT believes something different from you. What do you think that is? And if you're wrong, and RT does *not* believe what you claim it does, then you've proven nothing.

So quit saying you've proved something, and actually prove it! What is your proof? If you've provided that proof so many times, it should be very easy for you to reiterate?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Peter had his mind opened by Lord, was taught by the Lord and his rock-solid confession was a means for building the Church.
Surely, he wouldn't fall short concerning the Jewish hope when he himself is looking forward to his promise.

You have the Apostle John and Jesus contradicting himself in Rev 20 taking the literal approach.

Jn 5
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life

25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Without being bodily resurrected we have confidence that we will not come under the judgment. Those who hear and believe are covered and cleansed forever by his own blood, and have passed from death to life. The second death hath no power at all over us.

REV 20
6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years

I see absolutely no contradiction in any of this?? All Christians, when they hear and receive the words of Jesus have a legal contract voiding death, so that even though we die, death cannot hold us. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Millennium.

 

[jeffweeder]

I see absolutely no contradiction in any of this?? All Christians, when they hear and receive the words of Jesus have a legal contract voiding death, so that even though we die, death cannot hold us. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Millennium.

I was pointing out that the first resurrection is not a physical one according to Jn 5

 

[Randy Kluth]

Nowhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament supports your interpretation of Revelation 20. It is a totally non-corroborative theory.

You keep saying this, but I'll keep denying it. The corroboration are the Jewish Prophets who foretold of Israel ultimate success as a national theocracy. This doesn't prevent many other nations from entering the fray, as well. Abraham was promised not just Israel, but many nations, who will subscribe to a Christian theocracy. The Kingdom of God is coming to bring this kind of fulffillment to many nations.

Jesus did not speak much of it because Israel was reaching a place of apostasy and great national judgment. The NT authors did not speak much of it because it was a time of Jewish decline, which set the stage for a great outreach to the nations.

But John was informed by Jesus to write a book indicating that the Kingdom of God will come, with all of the promised fulfillments. That's why the 144,000 of Israel are mentioned in the Revelation. It is definitely a corroboration of the Millennial Kingdom, which the Jewish Prophets said would bring about Israel's final deliverance from the pagan nations.

They fail to see that the Old Testament dispensation has gone forever and the New Testament era has fully and wholly superseded it.

I believe the Law as a system was superseded by the system we call "Christian Grace." But it did not revoke promises that God made specifically to Israel, even before adding on many other nations called to have faith in God.

That is why theologians insist: “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”

Cute little phrase I've heard forever, but it doesn't mean God's promises have been nullified. The Scriptures say that God's promises are always good.

As Reformed Theologian Vern Poythress explains: “The significance of a type is not fully discernible until the time of fulfillment

I don't believe Israel was merely a "type." It was a nation God promised Abraham *forever.*

If the Bible student fails to grasp the whole inter-relationship between the Old and New Testament then surely, they are going be all over the place when it comes to quite a number of subjects in the Bible. But equally, it would be very difficult to comprehend the whole interconnection between the Old and New Testaments without understanding the actual relationship between Israel and the Church.

I do understand both Old and New Testaments, and they do not contradict one another. God is the same, yesterday, and forever. Anything He has done in the past is progressing towards its fulfillment. But being fulfilled does not mean what was being fulfilled has ceased to exist--only its shadows.

 

[Keraz]

I don't believe Israel was merely a "type." It was a nation God promised Abraham *forever.*

What is so incredible about this assertion, is how you and many others assign that nation to the present Jewish State of Israel.
Surely common sense is sufficient to realize that the apostate Jewish people have alienated themselves from God? They cursed themselves, Matthew 27:25 and have refused to accept Jesus as Messiah for nearly 2000 years. Over 20 Prophesies say how the Lord intends to destroy them.

The real Israelites are the believers in Jesus, His faithful people, the ones who bear the proper fruit. Matthew 21:43
WE Christians are a 'nation', as yet still scattered around the world. but Prophesied to be gathered and to live in all of the holy Land.

Regarding the ethnic aspect of the OT promises, they will be kept, by the provable fact of the Western nations origins from the 10 Northern tribes.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What is so incredible about this assertion, is how you and many others assign that nation to the present Jewish State of Israel.
Surely common sense is sufficient to realize that the apostate Jewish people have alienated themselves from God? They cursed themselves, Matthew 27:25 and have refused to accept Jesus as Messiah for nearly 2000 years. Over 20 Prophesies say how the Lord intends to destroy them.

If it was God's intention to destroy Israel, it would've been completed in the 1st century. But it wasn't.

Jesus said that when he returns he will regather his people among the Jews. Just before he ascended into heaven Jesus was asked when this restoration of Israel would take place.

He simply said that we shouldn't be concerned about the time it will happen, or about the times and seasons generally. He inferred that it will happen in "God's own time."

WE Christians are a 'nation', as yet still scattered around the world. but Prophesied to be gathered and to live in all of the holy Land.

No, the international Church is not a single nation! Nor is anybody but the nation Israel designed to inherit the Holy Land.

Regarding the ethnic aspect of the OT promises, they will be kept, by the provable fact of the Western nations origins from the 10 Northern tribes.

Once Jewish peoples are immersed within another nation until they are no longer recognizable as distinct, they cease to be "Jewish." The Western nations, no matter how much blood is mingled in with them, are not Israel ethnically at all.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I was pointing out that the first resurrection is not a physical one according to Jn 5

The "first" resurrection as in the first one that happens chronologically, or the "first resurrection," as in the event mentioned in Rev 20? Jesus was the first resurrection to happen with respect to the New Covenant. But the "first resurrection" mentioned in Rev 20 is a general resurrection, quite distinct from Jesus' own resurrection. Obviously, they are related, but they don't take place at the same time.

 

[jeffweeder]

The "first" resurrection as in the first one that happens chronologically, or the "first resurrection," as in the event mentioned in Rev 20?

I was taking about Rev 20 and Jn 5
see post 2872

The first resurrection of Rev 20 cannot be physical as Jn 5 states the time for not coming into judgment was already a fact without the necessity for a physical resurrection.
Do you understand what I am saying now?
So, in order for John not to contradict himself the first resurrection of Rev 20 is in accord with his teaching in Jn 5