22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

Paul Malcomson said:

Why did you not explain this earlier? This is obviously not a typical view. Notwithstanding, it does not add up. The earth in Revelation 20 is full of billions of wicked inhabitants as the sand of the sea who surround the camp of the saints near the end. You totally ignore that. Where is this happening in your theory - heaven or hell? Or is in an illusion?

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it - it was omitted for clarity.

After the 1,000 years, New Jerusalem comes down and at the same time the wicked of all ages are resurrected.

Satan is "loosed from his prison" which is symbolic for "chains of circumstance" not literal chains which can never hold him - he's been unable to tempt anyone for a thousand years, and now is back in business doing what he does best.

He goes forth to "deceive the nations" succeeding in convincing them to fight against and take the City. Having marshalled his forces, they prepare to fight, but are stopped in their tracks.

The White Throne Judgment takes place, where all have flashed in their minds the truth and conviction that they've despised salvation and deserve what they're about to get. They bow down and acknowledge Jesus is Lord, even Satan. However, reality sinks in and they rise from their knees in a last desperate attempt to avoid their fate. They go up and surround it the City, but fire from God falls down and devours them, turning the Earth into a seething Lake of Fire, after which the Earth is made new by Jesus.

Can you see how this scenario incorporates that period of desolation and destruction and darkness and no life or activity which takes place between the two resurrections, while yours ignores what is so plainly taught in Scripture? Not trying to be arrogant, but wanting you to think.

Phoneman777 said:

He goes forth to "deceive the nations"

Click to expand...

What nations? If the earth has been, as you propose, in a state of no life or activity for a thousand years, where are these nations at the end of the thousand years?

Eternally Grateful said:

Mind if I ask where you got this from? I have never heard of this

Click to expand...

The natural progression of humanity since the Flood. Since it has not happened yet, who can say? I doubt we have to wait a hundred years to have offspring in the Millennium. If there is a new generation every 20 to 30 years, that is 5 to 3 generations every 100 years. 900 years gives us 9x5 or 9x3 that is 45 to 27 generations in 900 years. 20 to 30 generations is very conservative out of 27 to 45 generations. I think the Millennium will start out with close to a million. 144k is a percentage of the total. Is that from 5% to 20%? Who knows? If there is no death and dying, people will multiply fast. Even with wars and death, in the last few hundred years even with modern population control we have gone from 1 billion to 8 billion. Take all the population prohibitors away over 900 years, you are going to have 10's of billions.

Population Milestone Year Reached
1 Billion 1804
2 Billion 1927
3 Billion 1960
4 Billion 1974
5 Billion 1987
6 Billion 1998
7 Billion 2010
8 Billion 2022
9 Billion 2037

Does any one have an explanation why human population was steady until around 1300AD?

"Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth."

"And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. 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."

This certainly does not cover the Second Coming, but the kingdom was set up when the power of the 10 toes was broken. When is the acceptable history of that kingdom set up and who makes up that kingdom? When did the population shift start and the population started to cover the whole earth?

Think about it. If God allows a greater population who were more receptive of God's Word, then more humans are allowed to live on the earth. Even when people complain of over population, it is God's blessing, not a curse. God will always provide up until a point, but when people start using that blessing for wickedness, be prepared for judgment.

Back to why population can skyrocket. If Satan and evil was highly curtailed in the first century why was the church unable to be that kingdom in the first century? Also I think some get parts of Daniel wrong, because they deal with the 1300 hundred years after the Cross. That over looked period called the dark ages when the church is alleged to have the least issue with Satan and the demonic realm. Why was the church dark? Was the "church" the 10 toes that had to be destroyed by the kingdom that would prevail? Who or what else can be blamed? Technically God already stated that His kingdom would not start in the first century even if that is the implied point of the NT. What do those verses declare:

"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."

Since we can be assured this is not talking about the Second Coming. We should see that at the Second Coming, Jesus will choose sheep and wheat from this kingdom, and continue this kingdom throughout the Millennium. It will never end, but keep going into the NHNE.

I really can't see how people reject an earthly kingdom that is not even associated with the church, nor with Israel (Jacob). But yet even in Noah's day we have 3 kingdoms defined.

"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

Now we can see:

"God shall enlarge this new kingdom, and it shall dwell in the tents of Israel, and the church shall be his servant."

Not because the church is cursed, but because the church is Christ's body on earth. Jesus promised that the church, as a servant to others, would in the end, be the greatest of all.

Many argue over two different groups and ask about a third group. God revealed that third group to King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2. I think the apostate church had to be woken up by that third group. Yes there has always been a remnant of the church since Noah got off the ark. But that church is not Israel, since it existed before Israel. It is not the kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar's dream as that kingdom came at the Reformation, and is just a large population. The church consists of those called out by God, and who in faith answer that call, who all will be glorified back into the full image of God at the Second Coming. Paradise the home originally given to Adam is the home of the church.

There is also an earthly kingdom, a population explosion to fill the whole earth that will continue to fill the earth again after the Second Coming. And Israel will still be the seat and power of Jesus as King from the house of Judah and David, and the 144k are the firstfruits at the Second Coming to establish Israel in the Millennium, along with the sheep of Matthew 25:31. The kingdom will be of the wheat harvested out of the tares that will also populate the newly created, restored earth representing all the nations of the earth.

Paul Malcomson said:

Thanks for sharing this. But, no, i don't see this. I honestly think your portrayal is fanciful. I suspect most Premils would agree with me.

Click to expand...

So, what do you propose to do with this coming period of desolation?

stunnedbygrace said:

What nations? If the earth has been, as you propose, in a state of no life or activity for a thousand years, where are these nations at the end of the thousand years?

Click to expand...

"But the rest of the dead (the wicked) lived not again until the thousand years were finished".

The Resurrection of the Damned takes place 1,000 years after the Resurrection of the Just which come forth from the grave at the Second Coming.

Phoneman777 said:

"But the rest of the dead (the wicked) lived not again until the thousand years were finished".

The Resurrection of the Damned takes place 1,000 years after the Resurrection of the Just which come forth from the grave at the Second Coming.

Click to expand...

hmm…I have absolutely no reply and am not even inclined to try.

stunnedbygrace said:

hmm…I have absolutely no reply and am not even inclined to try.

Click to expand...

Very wise lol.

The resurrection of the wise and the damned, happen at the Lords appearing to take eternal vengeance and glorify his own.

2thes 1
6 For it is right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to you who are being afflicted to give rest together with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. 8 With flaming fire he will mete out punishment on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will undergo the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 when he comes to be glorified among his saints and admired on that day among all who have believed—and you did in fact believe our testimony.

Here’s a question for all, what binds satan the great chain or the power of God?

Paul Malcomson said:

Simple! The old earth is regenerated and a new earth takes its place.

Click to expand...

Like I said: your unBiblical scenario has constant life and activity on Earth from Adam to eternity:

- no room for the coming period of an "utterly emptied" Earth
- empty, because there is "no man"
- "no man" because the wicked were all burned up and the righteous were caught up
- and "all the birds of heaven were fled" with the rest of the animal kingdom
- no room for an Earth where there is "no light" but only Egyptian darkness
- an impossibility if the brightness of the Sun is suddenly outshined with the "brightness of His coming"

I choose not to ignore these passages, which one must do in order to be an Amillennialist.

stunnedbygrace said:

hmm…I have absolutely no reply and am not even inclined to try.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's best to simply accept what is plainly written in Scripture:

In Revelation 20, when verse 5 says "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" right after verse 4 speaks of the Resurrection of the Just...we immediately know verse 5 is referring to the Resurrection of the Damned 1,000 years later when the wicked come forth from death to stand in Judgment. "This is the First Resurrection" is a parenthetical statement referring not to the wicked verse 5, but of the saints in verse 4.

During this 1,000 years, the Earth lies totally desolate, empty, darkened, dead, uninhabited in which the wicked sleep right on through, while the resurrected saints spend it living and reigning with Christ above. Amillennialism cannot account for this period of a desolated, emptied, uninhabited Earth.

Paul Malcomson said:

Not so! That is obviously what you have been taught.

Click to expand...

Why are you insulting me? Why do you suppose that I am someone's parrot? Get off your high horse and start giving me good reasoning. I expected better than this.

Zionists are so besotted with natural Israel and earthly Christ-rejecting Jerusalem that they miss the new covenant change that occurred and how the old is gone forever.

Click to expand...

We went over this. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'll tell you this. If you insult me one more time I am going to accuse you of antisemitism, which is the birthplace of Amillennalism. Your objection to my interpretation of Revelation 20 is typical of those who refuse to see a place for Israel, having not forgiven the Jews for killing the Messiah. You are not offering us anything new, just more hatred of Israel.

When we get into the New Testament, and as we get to the end of our Lord’s earthly life, we see a marked turning away of the focus of God from natural earthly Jerusalem to spiritual heavenly Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

You are wrong about that. You are reading your view that "God rejected Israel" into the scriptures. If you see it there you brought it with you. What you fail to see, being blinded by your self-righteousness, is the fact that the focus of God was ALWAYS spiritual Israel. Since you don't see that it's no wonder you ate the bate hook, line and sinker.

Refer to Romans 11:1-6, in that passage Paul argues that God has not rejected his people and in that context he repeats what God said to the prophet, "I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” From this we know the road to salvation has never changed and that the criteria never changed. Your bogus narrative is proven wrong also by Paul's next argument, where he answers the question, "but Paul, we understand that God has not rejected Jewish believers, but what about the nation of Israel? Has God rejected that nation?" He writes, "I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be!"

There was no turning away from natural Israel, as you suppose. Rather, as Paul writes, "For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" By this we understand that the Apostle anticipated God's acceptance of natural Israel, and the initial marker of that effort will be Israel's "rise from the dead."

As you get into the New Testament you quickly realize that physical Jerusalem is no longer considered true Zion (or Sion).

Click to expand...

Jerusalem and Zion are physical places. Only Amillennial teaching and cultists change the meaning of words to suit. The passage in Galatians does not support your idea of two Jerusalems. Rather, Paul is speaking of one Jerusalem at two different points in history. He is comparing a Jerusalem that now is . . . with a Jerusalem which is above. The locus of the comparison is "time"; Paul is comparing the current Jerusalem with the future Jerusalem. Currently Jerusalem is in bondage, but in the future, Jerusalem will be free. Both of the Jerusalems are physical.

The offspring of the bondwoman relates to the natural progeny of Abraham “after the flesh.”

Click to expand...

Wrong again. As we have seen in Romans 11:4 God has always had natural progeny of Abraham. You unwittingly have adopted the division inherent in the antisemitic Amillennial point of view, constantly attempting to do away with Abraham's natural progeny at every turn. You make race a significant division and according to your misconstrued interpretation of Paul's analogy, you focus on the flesh. But Paul's focus is NOT on the flesh. His focus is on "justification by rule keeping" otherwise known as justification by works of the law.

I do not accept your premise that the Bible recognizes a "spiritual Zion", especially because when you say "spiritual" you actually mean, "allegorical". You seem to have a fatal attraction to allegory.

stunnedbygrace said:

I agree. It’s not how prophecy works.

Click to expand...

Yes. Thanks. I have heard this argument before, which goes like this.

Biblical concepts are repeated over and over
Premillenial interpretation rests on the misconstrued interpretation of a single chapter.
Therefore it can't be true, otherwise other passages would have spoken about a thousand year reign.

Eternally Grateful said:

More to rev 21. Not 20

Click to expand...

Okay. I don't know yet what to do with 2 Peter 3. The translation sounds like the total destruction of the planet. And if that is what Peter meant to say, I will accept that. However, in my studies of the "Day of the Lord" I have learned that Malachi and Joel both anticipated the incineration of the countryside of Israel, which is local to the Palestine region, not worldwide. And I wonder if this event is what Peter had in mind rather than a worldwide devistation? I don't know. I haven't decided yet.

Paul Malcomson said:

Not so. Revelation 20:11-15 says, “I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God … And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.”

Here is Christ returning enthroned,

Click to expand...

Look again. John pictures Jesus already seated on the throne. He has not pictured any sort of "Parousia."

It is very difficult to engage with you with all your man-made teaching, theories and terminologies. Where in Scripture does it teach "a special resurrection of the martyrs"? Nowhere! Your teachers have taught you wrong.

Click to expand...

I think you find pushback difficult.

I do not know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Obviously. But I don't hold it against you. On the other hand, I think if you spent the time to understand ME and MY words, you might find the process a bit more interesting.

But aren't you the one who claims that Jesus is currently on his throne, ruling from heaven? How can you not see that the Seventh Trumpet prophecy defeats your view? You were the one who brought it up. I am always amazed when people defeat their own point of view.

Amils believe at this juncture we are now into eternity. So, time will be terminated. Time shall be no more. You are trying to examine Amillennialism with your peculiar form of eisegesis.

Click to expand...

The idea that time ceases to exist is a philosophical perspective that needs to be proven. I don't accept your premise that "time shall be no more."

CadyandZoe said:

Okay. I don't know yet what to do with 2 Peter 3. The translation sounds like the total destruction of the planet. And if that is what Peter meant to say, I will accept that. However, in my studies of the "Day of the Lord" I have learned that Malachi and Joel both anticipated the incineration of the countryside of Israel, which is local to the Palestine region, not worldwide. And I wonder if this event is what Peter had in mind rather than a worldwide devistation? I don't know. I haven't decided yet.

Click to expand...

We should always be studying I have passages like that also

Paul Malcomson said:

Hello! The first resurrection is Christ. You cannot even recognize that. Jesus is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5). Amils believe in corroboration. Multiple Scripture proves that the first resurrection of Jesus occurred 2000 years ago.

Click to expand...

Jesus was not even the first to be resurrected from teh dead.

He is the firstfuits of the resurrection. Meaning the first to physically rise glorified never to die!

But REv. 20 is the first resurrection of people en masse at the onset of the millenial kingdom.

If Jesus was the first resurrection then who are th epeople resurrected in teh first resurrection as it says in Rev. 20 who were beheaded fdor not taking th emark? Unless of course you do not accept what god wrote there as well and have dcided to redefine those words.


Revelation 20:4-5
King James Version

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.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


Please enlighten us as to where Jesus' resurrection is mentioned here.

Anyone who believes the bible to be the word of God believes jesus rose 2000 years ago.

So please- tell us who are those mentioned in verse 4 as you say Jesus is th efirst resurrection. So this passage according to amils occurred 2,000 years ago.

As God is consistent in defining symbols and you demand the 1,000 years of revelation is symbolic as well as all other mentions of 1,000, you believe the thousand years is at least 2,000 years now? A thousand generations is at least 2,000 generations? and so on?