Premillennialism contradicts scripture (1 Corinthians 15:50-54) by having mortal flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom of God when Jesus returns.

[WPM]

I present both scripture and commentary. You want to disagree with my commentary but can't find a reason.

I did. I exposed your heresy. You just avoided it.

 

[WPM]

Easy to say; hard to demonstrate.

The burden of proof is with you. You are making the false claim, without any evidence. What you are claiming is an illusion. I do not have to prove that leprechauns do not exist. They simply do not.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Did you somehow miss post 68? That is my rational response to your earlier point.

Asked and answered.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Beginning in verse 24, Paul explains the order of resurrection. Christ has already been raised. Paul refers to him as the "firstfruits", symbolizing the idea that he is the first and best among those who are to follow. The next to be resurrected are those who belong to Christ at his coming. Then comes the end, when Christ hands over the Kingdom to the Father.

The order of resurrection:

1. Christ is already resurrected
2. Those who are Christ's
3. The rest of humanity. (Inferred)

In verse 25, Paul discusses the relationship between the end and the resurrection. He explains that Christ has been raised from the dead, and those who belong to Christ will also be raised. They will reign together until all forms of rule and authority are abolished. The final enemy to be defeated is death. Here, the Apostle suggests the second and final resurrection, during which the rest of humanity will be raised to face judgment. In other words, the Great White Throne Judgment is "the End" when the rest of humanity is resurrected. Then Death itself will be cast into the Lake of Fire.


The order of resurrection:

1. Christ is already resurrected
2. Those who are Christ's
3. The rest of humanity. (Inferred)

Now, let's read further down the chapter.

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.​

One can hardly claim that the Kingdom of God is currently present because it is something to be inherited, and those who are flesh and blood will not inherit it. We are currently mortal, but we will inherit the Kingdom when we are made immortal. Only when the mortal has put on immortality will it be said that death is defeated.

Now, as Paul said, Christ will hand the Kingdom over to the Father after he has defeated all of his enemies, which we know is the defeat of death when the mortal has put on immortality.

You completely missed the point. I mean, you missed it 100%.

What my main point was in that post was to show that the kingdom that Christ will deliver to the Father at the end, regardless of when you think the end will come, is the same kingdom once it is delivered to God the Father, which is the kingdom of God. You try to say that Christ's kingdom is a different kingdom from the kingdom of God, but that is not true. If that was the case then Jesus would not deliver His kingdom to God the Father at "the end" since God would already have His own kingdom in that case. It's not as if there are or will be two kingdoms of God. The fact that Jesus will deliver His kingdom to God the Father at the end shows that the kingdom He reigns over is the kingdom of God. The fact that He is God Himself proves that, also, but I would not expect someone who denies the deity of Christ to understand that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I did. I exposed your heresy. You just avoided it.

You did not expose my so-called heresy. You asserted it without proof. But don't bother because it will amount to nothing but a closure of the thread. Or is that your purpose? You can't make an argument so you force censure?

 

[CadyandZoe]

You completely missed the point. I mean, you missed it 100%.

What my main point was in that post was to show that the kingdom that Christ will deliver to the Father at the end, regardless of when you think the end will come, is the same kingdom once it is delivered to God the Father, which is the kingdom of God.

I don't disagree with you there.

You try to say that Christ's kingdom is a different kingdom from the kingdom of God, but that is not true.

So do you in so many words.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die."(Genesis 3:4).

Notice the similarity?

Not at all. One is true and one is not. It's true that the word "immortal" means that someone who is immortal can never die. It's not true that Eve would not die. There's no similarity at all between the truth of what the word "immortal" means and the lie that Satan told to Eve. Are you trying to say that you believe that Eve was immortal?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't disagree with you there.

Yet, earlier, you said Christ's kingdom and the kingdom of God are two completely different kingdoms. Is that not what you were intending to say?

So do you in so many words.

I do not. Don't try to speak for me. I think I've told you that before, but you keep trying to do it, anyway.

 

[WPM]

You did not expose my so-called heresy. You asserted it without proof. But don't bother because it will amount to nothing but a closure of the thread. Or is that your purpose? You can't make an argument so you force censure?

What? When did i force your censure?

 

[CadyandZoe]

If you read the original post, it should be clear that what I primarily wanted to discuss is that scripture teaches that mortals will not inherit the kingdom of God at the last trumpet when Jesus returns.

I already pointed out the absurdity of your claim. However, perhaps in your haste, you didn't think about it long enough to recognize your mistake. So let me make it more explicit to see if you get it.

You argue that Premillennialism is mistaken because it places mortals alongside immortals in the kingdom of God. But your argument fails on two points. First, Amillennialism believes that the Kingdom of God is currently present, and since Amillennialism logically implies that the Kingdom of God consists presently entirely of morals, then a mixture of mortals and immortals isn't a problem for the Premillennial view.

The critique of Premillennialism often revolves around the idea that a kingdom with both mortals and immortals seems problematic—especially in terms of governance, interaction, and the nature of Christ’s reign. However, if this critique is applied to Amillennialism, it raises an interesting counterpoint: Amillennialists believe that the kingdom of God is already present and consists entirely of mortals living under Christ’s spiritual rule.

Second, the idea that mortals are living among immortals during the Millennial Period is not a problem for the Premillennial position because Premillennials conceive of the Kingdom of God as being physical.

Whatever. Please stop wasting time making useless comments like that and discuss your thoughts on what I said in post 68 instead.

Don't tell me what to do. Try to discuss the topic at hand.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What? When did i force your censure?

Never. We have referred to him not believing in the deity of Christ many times without those threads being closed because of it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I already pointed out the absurdity of your claim.

You tried and failed.

However, perhaps in your haste, you didn't think about it long enough to recognize your mistake.

There was no mistake. If this is all you have to offer is useless comments like this that you can't back up, then you should just move along.

So let me make it more explicit to see if you get it.

You argue that Premillennialism is mistaken because it places mortals alongside immortals in the kingdom of God.

It seems that most Premills believe that, yes. But, you have said that you don't believe that.

But your argument fails on two points. First, Amillennialism believes that the Kingdom of God is currently present,

But, not in its fullness apart from the presence of sin and death. There are no scriptures that being in the kingdom of God in a spiritual sense by way of having the Holy Spirit dwelling in us requires for us to have immortal bodies.

and since Amillennialism logically implies that the Kingdom of God consists presently entirely of morals, then a mixture of mortals and immortals isn't a problem for the Premillennial view.

It is a problem when Paul explicitly says that mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50-54).

The critique of Premillennialism often revolves around the idea that a kingdom with both mortals and immortals seems problematic—especially in terms of governance, interaction, and the nature of Christ’s reign. However, if this critique is applied to Amillennialism, it raises an interesting counterpoint: Amillennialists believe that the kingdom of God is already present and consists entirely of mortals living under Christ’s spiritual rule.

We differentiate between the kingdom of God that is present spiritually now because of the Holy Spirit's presence within us and the future when the kingdom of God will appear in its fullness free of sin and death.

Second, the idea that mortals are living among immortals during the Millennial Period is not a problem for the Premillennial position because Premillennials conceive of the Kingdom of God as being physical.

But, anyone who claims that any mortals are in the kingdom of God at that point are contradicting what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54.

Don't tell me what to do. Try to discuss the topic at hand.

I will tell you what to do whenever I want to. I am discussing the topic at hand. Most of the time in this thread you have not discussed what the thread is supposed to be about.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yet, earlier, you said Christ's kingdom and the kingdom of God are two completely different kingdoms. Is that not what you were intending to say?

I agreed with your statement that Christ would hand over the kingdom to the Father. In your words, he would hand over the "fulfilled kingdom" to the Father. What you call the "fulfilled" kingdom is the Kingdom of God, which is the visible, physical, earthly reign of God. The Kingdom of his son, is what you call "the spiritual rule of Christ."

Now, you can argue that Christ will continue to rule from heaven until the full realization of God's kingdom, where all opposition is defeated, and God's sovereignty is fully established. However, it is essential to note that the passages you quote in your argument don't rule out the Premillennial view that Christ will rule on earth until He has established the full realization of God's kingdom.

It is one thing to claim that a specific passage supports a certain position; it is quite another to show that a passage contradicts an opposing viewpoint. Otherwise, we are simply saying that one perspective is incorrect simply because we disagree with it.

I do not. Don't try to speak for me. I think I've told you that before, but you keep trying to do it, anyway.

I'm not speaking for you. I said that your view is the same as mine, even though you phrase it differently. That is a judgment on my part, not a rephrasing of your perspective.

You spoke earlier about a "full realization" of the Kingdom of God. I took you to mean that the Kingdom of God is not yet fully realized. Many theologians share your view that the Kingdom of God is not yet fully realized. According to them, the kingdom of God has already been inaugurated through Christ's life, death, and resurrection, its full completion is still in the future. The world is still marked by sin, suffering, and opposition to God's rule. The full realization of his kingdom will come when Christ returns, evil is fully defeated, and creation is restored.

I agree with that overall perspective. Where we seem to disagree is over the timing of the full realization. In your view, the full realization of the kingdom takes place immediately upon Christ's return. In my view, there is a thousand-year period of defeating enemies.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Never. We have referred to him not believing in the deity of Christ many times without those threads being closed because of it.

The point is, if I defend myself, the thread is closed. When you and WPM raise the issue, you summarily dismiss my arguments about the Millennial period by bringing up an unrelated, emotional, and hot-button issue. In other words, you have no actual response.

 

[Zao is life]

Not at all. One is true and one is not. It's true that the word "immortal" means that someone who is immortal can never die. It's not true that Eve would not die. There's no similarity at all between the truth of what the word "immortal" means and the lie that Satan told to Eve. Are you trying to say that you believe that Eve was immortal?

You assert by your question that Adam and Eve were not immortal before they sinned and died. So can you therefore tell us how much longer they would have been able to eat from the tree of life and live forever had they NOT sinned and died as a result? (Because you say, "It's true that the word "immortal" means that someone who is immortal can never die.").

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agreed with your statement that Christ would hand over the kingdom to the Father.

Do you agree that the kingdom Christ hands over to the Father does not become some other kingdom after that?

In your words, he would hand over the "fulfilled kingdom" to the Father. What you call the "fulfilled" kingdom is the Kingdom of God, which is the visible, physical, earthly reign of God. The Kingdom of his son, is what you call "the spiritual rule of Christ."

As it is now, the kingdom of God shares space with the kingdom of Satan on the earth. When Jesus hands it over to God the Father, then it will no longer share space with the kingdom of Satan. It will be free of sin and death because it is eternal and only those with immortal bodies can dwell there.

Now, you can argue that Christ will continue to rule from heaven until the full realization of God's kingdom, where all opposition is defeated, and God's sovereignty is fully established. However, it is essential to note that the passages you quote in your argument don't rule out the Premillennial view that Christ will rule on earth until He has established the full realization of God's kingdom.

It doesn't necessarily rule that out as long as you don't try to claim that any mortals inherit the kingdom of God, which would contradict 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and Matthew 25:31-46.

It is one thing to claim that a specific passage supports a certain position; it is quite another to show that a passage contradicts an opposing viewpoint.

What I'm aiming to show in this thread is not to discuss all of the ways that Premill is false, but only to refute the argument that some (most?) Premills have that mortals will inherit the kingdom that Jesus references in Matthew 25:34, which I believe is obviously the kingdom of God.

Otherwise, we are simply saying that one perspective is incorrect simply because we disagree with it.

Sure.

I'm not speaking for you. I said that your view is the same as mine, even though you phrase it differently. That is a judgment on my part, not a rephrasing of your perspective.

You spoke earlier about a "full realization" of the Kingdom of God. I took you to mean that the Kingdom of God is not yet fully realized.

Not in the sense of the people in it having immortal bodies yet and not in the sense of it yet no longer existing together with the kingdom of Satan. The wheat (children of the kingdom) are growing together with the tares (children of the devil) for now.

Many theologians share your view that the Kingdom of God is not yet fully realized.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. That isn't why I believe what I do, but it's something interesting to consider.

According to them, the kingdom of God has already been inaugurated through Christ's life, death, and resurrection, its full completion is still in the future. The world is still marked by sin, suffering, and opposition to God's rule. The full realization of his kingdom will come when Christ returns, evil is fully defeated, and creation is restored.

Yes, that is how I understand it as well. It's all the same kingdom of God the whole time, though. Not two separate kingdoms with one being Christ's kingdom and one being God's kingdom.

I agree with that overall perspective. Where we seem to disagree is over the timing of the full realization.

You agree with me, after all? That is hilarious. Yes, that we disagree on the timing is already obvious, but that isn't really the main point of this particular thread.

In your view, the full realization of the kingdom takes place immediately upon Christ's return. In my view, there is a thousand-year period of defeating enemies.

Right. That explains the difference in our views, but many other Premills don't see it as you do. They have mortals inheriting the kingdom of God when Jesus returns, but you don't believe that. My main argument in this thread addresses what those Premills believe in particular.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You tried and failed.

Prove it or let it stand. Your choice.

There was no mistake. If this is all you have to offer is useless comments like this that you can't back up, then you should just move along.

Another non-answer.

It seems that most Premills believe that, yes. But, you have said that you don't believe that.

I'm uncertain you know what I have said or believe.

But, not in its fullness apart from the presence of sin and death.

I know. I got that. Let me finish my point before you comment.

There are no scriptures that being in the kingdom of God in a spiritual sense by way of having the Holy Spirit dwelling in us requires for us to have immortal bodies.

Of course. So why is it a problem for the Premillennial view to have mortals and immortals living at the same time? There are no immortals living today, and yet the children of God live side-by-side with the children of the devil.

It is a problem when Paul explicitly says that mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50-54).

And so we return to my original objection. If the Kingdom of God is something to be inherited, then it is not currently present.

We differentiate between the kingdom of God that is present spiritually now because of the Holy Spirit's presence within us and the future when the kingdom of God will appear in its fullness free of sin and death.

I understand the difference you think you see. Still, your point of view requires that those whom the Holy Spirit indwells have already received the Kingdom of God as moral human beings, rather than later, when they are to be transformed into immortal beings. You can't have it both ways.

But, anyone who claims that any mortals are in the kingdom of God at that point are contradicting what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54.

I don't think so. Paul is discussing the Kingdom of God as an inheritance. Those who survive into the Millennial period haven't inherited the kingdom of God; they were alive when the Kingdom of God was being established on earth. The survivors and those born during that time are still sinners in need of salvation, and as long as they live, they have the opportunity to repent and believe that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God. 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't defeat the Premillennial view. It works for both points of view.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The point is, if I defend myself, the thread is closed.

I don't think so. You have defended yourself about that before in multiple threads and they were not closed because of it. You are apparently not aware that this forum is not closely moderated.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Of course. So why is it a problem for the Premillennial view to have mortals and immortals living at the same time? There are no immortals living today, and yet the children of God live side-by-side with the children of the devil.

That, in and of itself, isn't a problem. Go and read my original post again if you want to know the problem I have with what some Premills believe. If you have any mortal flesh and blood people inheriting the kingdom of God at the last trumpet when Jesus returns, then that is a problem because that contradicts 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and Matthew 25:31-46.

And so we return to my original objection. If the Kingdom of God is something to be inherited, then it is not currently present.

It isn't something just to be inherited. But, this is all beside the point I'm intending to make in this thread, so I'm not going to comment any further on this. I've already said plenty about it.

I understand the difference you think you see. Still, your point of view requires that those whom the Holy Spirit indwells have already received the Kingdom of God as moral human beings, rather than later, when they are to be transformed into immortal beings. You can't have it both ways.

I can have it both ways if the context of inheriting the kingdom of God in the future is in the sense of inheriting it in its fullness which hasn't happened yet. That does not mean we can't currently be in the kingdom of God in a spiritual sense now.

I don't think so. Paul is discussing the Kingdom of God as an inheritance. Those who survive into the Millennial period haven't inherited the kingdom of God; they were alive when the Kingdom of God was being established on earth. The survivors and those born during that time are still sinners in need of salvation, and as long as they live, they have the opportunity to repent and believe that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God. 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't defeat the Premillennial view. It works for both points of view.

You are missing the point. So, let me just ask you this. Do you believe that any mortal flesh and blood human beings will inherit the kingdom of God when Jesus returns? Yes or no?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You assert by your question that Adam and Eve were not immortal before they sinned and died.

Yes, because the word "immortal" means that you can't die. Yet, they did die. So, they were not immortal. So, I guess you do not agree with the definition of the word "immortal" found in English dictionaries?

Webster's defines it as "exempt from death".

Oxford defines it as "living forever; never dying or decaying".

Cambridge defines it as "living or lasting for ever".

If Adam and Eve were immortal they would not have died, but they did. In order to have an immortal body it has to be changed to be immortal (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). No one has been made bodily immortal yet except for Jesus. Adam and Eve, together with all believers, will be changed to have immortal bodies at the last trumpet when Jesus returns.

So can you therefore tell us how much longer they would have been able to eat from the tree of life and live forever had they NOT sinned and died as a result? (Because you say, "It's true that the word "immortal" means that someone who is immortal can never die.").

They were made in such a way that they would inevitably sin, and therefore, inevitably die. I don't know how anyone can disagree with that. It wasn't even that hard for Satan to deceive them, so how can anyone argue that they might have been able to resist temptation forever had they just decided to do that.