23 major reasons to reject the Premil doctrine!

[WPM]

But if you want to know the rational hermeneutic I use:

1. The third rule of interpretation is as follows: WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC AND FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.​
2. ​
   1. Seek the plain, literal meaning of the Scriptures.​
      1. The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its face value, if possible.​
      2. The following is an analysis of the adjectives "primary," "ordinary," and "usual."​
      3. "Primary" emphasizes the original, inherent idea in the term.​
      4. "Ordinary" and "usual" are practically synonyms, especially in this definition, "usual" being employed for the sake of emphasis.​
      5. "Literal" is used to emphasize the thought that every word must first be taken literally as expressing the exact thought of the author at the time when it was used; and one is not to go beyond the literal meaning of the Scriptures unless the facts of the context indicate a deeper, hidden or symbolic meaning.​
   2. Seek the figurative meaning only when the facts demand such an interpretation.​
      1. Modernism and rationalism are the logical outgrowth of forcing a figurative meaning upon a passage that is clearly literal, or vice versa.​
   3. Study every statement of the Scriptures in context. ("A TEXT APART FROM ITS CONTEXT IS A PRETEXT.") Then study the facts of the context in the light of related passages and axiomatic fundamental truths. "... No prophecy of scripture is of private (special) interpretation" (II Peter 1:20); "The sum of thy word is truth" (Psalm 119:160).​

IOW: this is how all of us read every other piece of written material (including spiritual books and commentaries). Why people have to seek and rewrite teh bible like God wrote like Nostradamus is a mystery.​

This is plagiarism. You did not acknowledge where you got this from. Why?

 

[Keraz]

WOW! Teh Scriptures are Scriptures and your Nostradamus like interpreting an d rewriting of Gods Word are just your ego run amock!

I did word my post#383, badly. I meant; what I present is the scriptures.
I personally, do not write the scriptures, of course.

You MO, R.N., is to accuse anyone who posts anything contrary to your beliefs. You avoid proper rebuttal, as you have none.

[MO = Modus Operandi, in this case; that means your method of counter argument.]

5. Present your owrks for the scrutiny of the leadership.

I have done that, with about 12 Pastors,
Then I tried a small group study on the Prophetic Word. Nobody believed a word of what I presented.
They all simply flat out reject anything to do with Prophecy. Even on a Christian Prophecy Forum, rejection is the normal response.

But I know from the Bible, that it is how God wants it. The forthcoming Sixth Seal event will sort out the faithful from the lukewarm.
Wait for the Day!

 

[WPM]

I have done that, with about 12 Pastors,
Then I tried a small group study on the Prophetic Word. Nobody believed a word of what I presented.

Praise the Lord! They obviously had eyes to see through your error. That is encouraging.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I hope you did not teach them to spell "the" as "teh." LOL.

From what I see, your hermeneutics are up the left. You scoff at the importance of corroboration. You spiritualize the literal passages and literalize the spiritual passages. Your hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point. Your own hermeneutics actually forbids your beliefs.

You still have yet to show me any rule of hermeneutics demanding corroboration for a verse to be taken literally- we shall grind to a pause until you show me this supposed vaunted rule of yours.

And you ruse of "highly figurative (which is true) is just a crutch to take and reinterpret anything you wish whether it fits sound hermenutical principles of taking a passage figuratively.

but then again it may be in that "corrorboration principle" you have yet to show.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I did word my post#383, badly. I meant; what I present is the scriptures.
I personally, do not write the scriptures, of course.

Yes you post scriptures and I agree with them 100%. It is your highly reinterpreted opinions that I vehemently challenge.

You MO, R.N., is to accuse anyone who posts anything contrary to your beliefs. You avoid proper rebuttal, as you have none.

That is a lie and you know that. I have presented counter arguments. I will not repeat them time and time again to satisfy you however.

I have challenged you to repeatedly prove you r assertions and you only do so by your reinterpretations. Israel is now the church is a classic example. My rebuttal has been the Bible calls Israel, Israel, and the church, the church. I need no other rebuttal.

I have relied on Scripture and the NORMAL use of understanding language (written) as my defense. You have to slather all sorts of Watchtower like reasonings to defend your retranslation of Scripture

I have done that, with about 12 Pastors,
Then I tried a small group study on the Prophetic Word. Nobody believed a word of what I presented.
They all simply flat out reject anything to do with Prophecy. Even on a Christian Prophecy Forum, rejection is the normal response.

But I know from the Bible, that it is how God wants it. The forthcoming Sixth Seal event will sort out the faithful from the lukewarm.
Wait for the Day!

So you are right and everyone is wrong then? WOw that is an arrogant position! And what about you r own local assembly and the pastor you submit to for leadership and your maturation? Have you presented it to Him?
.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is all fizz-and-bubble! You do not believe this. You can copy and paste anything from the internet and claim that is what you hold. Context is what you do not get. You promote a belief that doesn't even have 1 single proof text - Pretrib. You promote another false belief - Premil - that enjoys zero corroboration in the inspired text. What type of hermeneutics are these? You are obviously winging it. Why would anyone who has engaged with you take these words serious? Your hermeneutics allow you to use Scripture as a lotto ticket manipulating it to suit your error.

Wow. I guess this is where we end then. You simply wish to take license to rewrite any position of Scripture you wish. and you constantly saying the bible doesn't when I have shown you it has is childish. Have the last word here. I am sure we will tangle again in another thread where you seek to rewrite the plain simple words of Scripture and make them mean something other than written.

BTW I do believe this rule and practice it. I was an amillenialist for years (as a Catholic then a charismatic) then when I took a covenant text on eschatology and a dispy text on eschatology, I was converted to the more sound biblical view.

Both views have many flaws in them as they are man made ways to seek to understand Scripture- but the view I cut and pasted by far does the least harm to Scripture as your reinterpretations have proven over and over again.

Have the last word.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What you call "manure" is actually solid biblical hermeneutics. The reason you dismiss it is because your invented doctrine carries no corroboration. In fact, it does not even have one single proof text. It is an invented Jesuit doctrine.

Corroborating evidence is evidence that strengthens or confirms already existing evidence. Corroboration is an essential doctrine for proving any major doctrine. Ignoring it and building your belief on obscure language and private interpretation is a false conclusion fallacy. The mode of hermeneutics of any school of thought must perfectly correlate with the consistent and explicit teaching of Scripture. The only sure way to interpret Scripture is with other Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 says, “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

When you show me this as a quote from any accepted text by any view on hermeneutics I wll believe it is out there. Until then it is just you blowing verbal methane.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is plagiarism. You did not acknowledge where you go this from. Why?

Well then to remove your ad-hominems (because you cannot refute this, for you use this rule to read everything else except Gods Word)

Biblical Research Studies Group

Read Biblical commentary and exposition by Dr. David L. Cooper founder of the Biblical Research Society and Bible teacher Burl Haynie. Study from charts, articles, and full text books.

www.biblicalresearch.info

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I hope you did not teach them to spell "the" as "teh." LOL.

Yes when you have no honest answer- go strain at the gnats and hurl ad-hominems. You must be so proud.

 

[WPM]

You still have yet to show me any rule of hermeneutics demanding corroboration for a verse to be taken literally- we shall grind to a pause until you show me this supposed vaunted rule of yours.

And you ruse of "highly figurative (which is true) is just a crutch to take and reinterpret anything you wish whether it fits sound hermenutical principles of taking a passage figuratively.

but then again it may be in that "corrorboration principle" you have yet to show.

I did. You just refuse to embrace it. You are yet to show me one single proof text for Pretrib. Hello!

 

[WPM]

Yes when you have no honest answer- go strain at the gnats and hurl ad-hominems. You must be so proud.

Use your spell-checker and it will eliminate this bad habit.

 

[WPM]

Well then to remove your ad-hominems (because you cannot refute this, for you use this rule to read everything else except Gods Word)

Biblical Research Studies Group

Read Biblical commentary and exposition by Dr. David L. Cooper founder of the Biblical Research Society and Bible teacher Burl Haynie. Study from charts, articles, and full text books.

www.biblicalresearch.info

Why not apologize for your plagiarism? Why does it take me to prompt you?

 

[WPM]

When you show me this as a quote from any accepted text by any view on hermeneutics I wll believe it is out there. Until then it is just you blowing verbal methane.

Lol. Your issue is with the sacred text, not just Amils. Your rejection of the Word is very sad.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Lol. Your issue is with the sacred text, not just Amils. Your rejection of the Word is very sad.

thus endeth this useless conversation.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I have done that, with about 12 Pastors,
Then I tried a small group study on the Prophetic Word. Nobody believed a word of what I presented.
They all simply flat out reject anything to do with Prophecy. Even on a Christian Prophecy Forum, rejection is the normal response.

God does not break the order He established for the church to glorify Him while we are on earth. He has no lone rangers who operate outside of the covering of a local assembly.

Even Pastors who are the under shepherds of Jesus have Pastors they go to and submit to their counsel and wisdom. It is just how God ordained things to be done.

Example: Many decades ago, I was given a major prophetic warning for the assembly I was a part of! It was not aq nice word of knowledge and I was not anxious to deliver the message. I submitted it to my spiritual elders who read it. they believed it was from God but decided to place one last test to insure it was a real message from God. We had elders who rotated as the leaders of the meeting. I had to submit what I wrote to have me read it on a meeting where this particular elder who did not have a "positive outlook" of me was teh elder in charge. I did as asked and god moved HIs heart and I read a scathing letter. Teh congregation did not pay heed and an 1100 member assembly ended up folding in sight of 3 years as was told by god to me. thy epoint being, even though I was given a prophecy, I submitted it to my spiritual elders who are in charge of the church.

Even my writing on this forum is approved by my pastors.

 

[WPM]

thus endeth this useless conversation.

Of course. This is the end of every single conversation with Pretribbers. No proof-text; only a bunch of avoidance and ad hominem. That is all we can ever expect from them because their Jesuit invented doctrine in the 1800s has no basis in God's Book.

I refer you back to multiple posts that you have ducked around. I refer you to the biblical support for corroboration. You avoid this because it exposes your beliefs.

 

[WPM]

Even my writing on this forum is approved by my pastors.

Do they proof every post?

 

[WPM]

Well then to remove your ad-hominems (because you cannot refute this, for you use this rule to read everything else except Gods Word)

Biblical Research Studies Group

Read Biblical commentary and exposition by Dr. David L. Cooper founder of the Biblical Research Society and Bible teacher Burl Haynie. Study from charts, articles, and full text books.

www.biblicalresearch.info

Your rejection of biblical corroboration exposes the impotence of your position.

 

[Keraz]

God does not break the order He established for the church to glorify Him while we are on earth. He has no lone rangers who operate outside of the covering of a local assembly.

All the ancient Prophets and the Apostles were vilified and rejected. Jesus Himself was a 'lone ranger' and look what happened to Him!

I promote what the Bible Prophets wrote, I expect opposition, as most people; those who have any beliefs about our future, already have fixed opinions and beliefs. Just like you.
As I have already said, my pastors simply refuse to discuss prophecy. Its too contentious and anyway their job is to evangelize.

 

[WPM]

Yes when you have no honest answer- go strain at the gnats and hurl ad-hominems. You must be so proud.

Outlining your persistent mis-spelling of the word "the" as "teh” was not intended as ad hominem. I am sorry if it came across like that.