22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[covenantee]

The remnant are saved by the new covenant of belief in Jesus which moots your points something fierce.


Prophesies work like this -- they come true. Promises also. You seem to interpret promises and prophesies of the saving of Israel as something that does not involve Jesus. That is not good.

And the remnant believe in Christ...so?

Regarding salvation, maybe. Not regarding specific promise prophesy to Israel. That is alive and well, thank you very much.

No promise to Israel in the end was or will be reviked any more than our salvation promise will be.
Again, why spam verses that have nothing to do with it? The Jews of all Israel in the end get saved by belief in Jesus. That does not take away from the fact He also will destroy their enemies after that, restore them to the land etc etc.

That testament is salvation through Christ. Not revoking past promises or prophesies!

Try to debate on point. Your strawman verses are not addressing the issue.

You still fail to get the point.

Yes, taking away the first promises and replacing them with the second, better, promises. (Hebrews 10:9; Hebrews 8:6)
Because that's how wills and testaments work.
You have yet to show a single verse from the New Will and Testament promising land to Israel.
Nor can you, because such does not exist.

You persist in attempting to exhume a decayed old cadaver. It "vanished away" long ago.

A question you haven't yet answered: Does a Jew who is in Christ when He returns, go to Israel, or to heaven?

With Scripture, of course.

 

[dad]

You still fail to get the point.

Yes, taking away the first promises and replacing them with the second, better, promises. (Hebrews 10:9; Hebrews 8:6)
Because that's how wills and testaments work.
You have yet to show a single verse from the New Will and Testament promising land to Israel.
Nor can you, because such does not exist.

God telling us in advance what will happen is not taking away some covenant. Not in any way. Prophesy is God telling us what will happen. All Israel will be saved. Nothing to do with alternate covenants. It has to do with Jesus.

A question you haven't yet answered: Does a Jew who is in Christ when He returns, go to Israel, or to heaven?

The Jews who were saved I assume were raptured long before the remnant gets saved! A lot of the Jews who get saved in the tribulation period I assume many will be martyrs and killed also. So the focus for the question is on the time when all Israel gets saved. The remnant are saved right near or at the end of that time of tribulation. So, if there are some saved Jews that were saved before this, why would we expect any different fate for them, than for that remnant in the end? God promised them the land and the land they will get. I see no reason why they also would not visit New Jerusalem, which, who knows, might also be their home after the 1000 years? Ha

 

[Marty fox]

God telling us in advance what will happen is not taking away some covenant. Not in any way. Prophesy is God telling us what will happen. All Israel will be saved. Nothing to do with alternate covenants. It has to do with Jesus.




The Jews who were saved I assume were raptured long before the remnant gets saved! A lot of the Jews who get saved in the tribulation period I assume many will be martyrs and killed also. So the focus for the question is on the time when all Israel gets saved. The remnant are saved right near or at the end of that time of tribulation. So, if there are some saved Jews that were saved before this, why would we expect any different fate for them, than for that remnant in the end? God promised them the land and the land they will get. I see no reason why they also would not visit New Jerusalem, which, who knows, might also be their home after the 1000 years? Ha

Well who is “all Israel”?

Why does Paul quote at the same time?

As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

Why is Israel described differently as Zion and Jacob?

Maybe because they are different

“The deliverer (Jesus)will come from Zion; (ethnic Israel)
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob (true Israel)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He will rule earth with a rod of iron. The nations today are not ruled by Jesus. No possible debating that one.

Your understanding of His reign is flawed. Do you not accept what He said Himself?

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It's not necessary for someone to be obeying Him for Him to be reigning over them. He reigns over everyone whether they acknowledge it or not. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords right now.

Simple. What age could it possibly refer to? The age before He returns. Not after.

Let me remind you of what we were discussing in relation to what you said here.

I had said this: When He returns at the end of the age He will deliver His kingdom to the Father (1 Cor 15:22-28) at which point believers "will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:40-43).

Then you said in response: "That seems to be after the 1000 years.".

So, were you not saying that the end of the age, which is what is referred to in Matthew 13:40-43, will come "after the 1000 years"? Yet, here you are saying the age being referred to is "the age before He returns". That is exactly what I believe as an Amillennialist. The end of the age will come when He returns after the thousand years. So, with that in mind, why do you believe in some 1000 year age after His return? That doesn't line up with what scripture passages like 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 and Matthew 13:40-43 teach.

That did not mean He accepted Satan's offer to rule the kingdoms of this world at the time. Of course God has authority! That does not mean
He now rules governments and kingdoms and has returned yet!

Where does scripture teach that Jesus would one day rule governments and kingdoms on the earth?

Not at all, because John knew what he was saying unlike you apparently.

Your one liners do nothing but make me think I can't take you seriously. You don't seem to be capable of making a coherent argument to support your view from scripture. So, you just respond with these useless one liners instead.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The one saved is the one where most people in it were killed, and the remnant get saved. That one.

You obviously didn't understand the question. In which of the Israels referenced in the following passage are all saved?

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.

Can you tell me how you interpret this passage? Let me give you a hint. Verse 8 tells us how to identify what makes someone a part of each of the two Israels mentioned in verse 6.

 

[dad]

Well who is “all Israel”?

I am going to guess all of Israel.

Why does Paul quote at the same time?

As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

Because when they all get saved He leads them in the right way and they turn from ungodliness.

Why is Israel described differently as Zion and Jacob?

Why not? At times a different aspect of things is being focused on one would assume. Why would we call your vehicle a ford focus, and another time a car?

“The deliverer (Jesus)will come from Zion; (ethnic Israel)

That may even have a deeper implication if Zion were New Jerusalem He comes from there to deliver.

he will turn godlessness away from Jacob (true Israel)

Jacob is often another way to talk about Jewish people.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, and always been God. He created the earth.

My understanding of what Mormons typically believe is described here:

Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate gods. They also believe the Father and Son each have a “body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” but that the Holy Ghost “has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” According to Joseph Smith, when Adam was formed in the image of God, it was a physical image. God the Father was once a mortal who lived on an earth. He died, was resurrected, glorified, and grew into his deified status. (According to Joseph Smith, there is a “God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”) God the Father is the literal father of all spirit-children, including Jesus and the Holy Ghost, whose divinity is derived from the parent-child relationship.

Do you agree with everything that is written there?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There is a true Israel. That is the believers of which all will be when all Israel is saved!

So, you believe a requirement to be part of true Israel is to be a natural descendant of Israel? Can you show me where that is taught in Romans 9:6-8?

Who cares what state they are in now? They will get saved one day. Some already are.

Why are you waiting for "one day" when some have been getting saved every day for the past 2,000 years or so? If you read Romans 11:14, Paul indicated that he hoped some of them would be saved. Some were in his time and some have been ever since. How would he go from hoping some would be saved to saying all of them would be saved?

Chapter and verse that says salvation is by works? When Israel finally says uncle and accepts Jesus is when they get saved. That is overcoming!

What? Since when is this how salvation works? Do you think the people of Israel have not had the opportunity to be saved for the past 2,000 years or so? Why do you act as if God has withheld salvation from them all this time? That is not taught in scripture.

 

[covenantee]

God telling us in advance what will happen is not taking away some covenant. Not in any way. Prophesy is God telling us what will happen. All Israel will be saved. Nothing to do with alternate covenants. It has to do with Jesus.

Does the New Covenant, which is not an alternate covenant, but which is the only Covenant in force and effect for all true believers, have anything to do with Jesus?

Does Jesus' New Covenant promise land for Israel?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm "dishonest" for telling people just what Amils believe?

Obviously not. You were being dishonest by misrepresenting what we believe.

I never said Amils believe God's promises failed. I said they believe God's promises were fulfilled in the international Church of the *present age.*

Read your post again. You seem to be in denial about what you said.

For me, that means God's promises failed with regard to "all Israel being saved."

But, Amils don't teach that. So, you are misrepresenting our view. Just because our understanding of all Israel being saved is different than yours doesn't mean we are denying that all Israel will be saved or that we're indicating that God's promises will fail.

That, of course, does not mean that all Israel will be spiritually regenerated, but that the entire country will be liberated from foreign aggression. It is a political salvation made possible by the repentance of the majority.

Yeah, that's your understanding, but I and other Amils disagree with that. I don't see that concept taught anywhere in scripture. That doesn't mean you can imply that I believe God's promises will fail.

Please note that Jesus is explicitly referring to people who satisfy 2, and not just 1, criteria. They are found worthy of taking part in the age to come, and they are considered worthy to take part in the resurrection from the dead. This means the non-Christians of the present age will not partake in the resurrection to take place at Christ's Coming. So what is your point?

I believe I made my point clear already. If you recall what I said then you can see that I do not interpret it the way you do. Why would you ask what my point is when I already explained it? Just read what I said again and then you will see my point. He was not implying that being resurrected was required in order to be worthy to take part in the age to come. Think about this! That would mean those who are alive when He returns wouldn't be worthy to take part in the age to come because they are not dead and will not be resurrected! Are you sure you want to insist that Jesus was only talking about people who will be resurrected as being worthy to take part in the age to come?

No, He was indicating that the age to come will arrive when this age ends which will be when the dead are resurrected. At that point there will no longer be any marriage or death.

 

[Marty fox]

I am going to guess all of Israel.


Because when they all get saved He leads them in the right way and they turn from ungodliness.
Why not? At times a different aspect of things is being focused on one would assume. Why would we call your vehicle a ford focus, and another time a car?



That may even have a deeper implication if Zion were New Jerusalem He comes from there to deliver.
Jacob is often another way to talk about Jewish people.

But two different terms for Israel in one sentence? That was for the reason remember not all Israel is Israel.

 

[dad]

Your understanding of His reign is flawed. Do you not accept what He said Himself?

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

He does not exercise that power until He comes for the most part. Not in the way of ruling the planet.

It's not necessary for someone to be obeying Him for Him to be reigning over them. He reigns over everyone whether they acknowledge it or not. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords right now.

He will rule the world when He returns, likey or lumpy.

Let me remind you of what we were discussing in relation to what you said here.

I had said this: When He returns at the end of the age He will deliver His kingdom to the Father (1 Cor 15:22-28) at which point believers "will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:40-43).

Then you said in response: "That seems to be after the 1000 years.".

Correct, is that not obvious?

So, were you not saying that the end of the age, which is what is referred to in Matthew 13:40-43, will come "after the 1000 years"?

Yes

Yet, here you are saying the age being referred to is "the age before He returns".

That depends on what part of that day or time we are talking about. It covers a lot.

That is exactly what I believe as an Amillennialist. The end of the age will come when He returns after the thousand years.

In that case you must believe the abomination placed by the beast will happen three and a half years before that 1000 years is over. Because that is how long from that abomination till Jesus returns. That is of course ridiculous.

So, with that in mind, why do you believe in some 1000 year age after His return?

If you were God and going to rule with your saints for 1000 years, would you come to earth to do it or not?

That doesn't line up with what scripture passages like 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 and Matthew 13:40-43 teach.

Yes it does. Not sure what strange ideas lurk in your head.

Where does scripture teach that Jesus would one day rule governments and kingdoms on the earth?

He will rule the nations with a rod of iron. He also judges nations, and destroys the wicked. That is done in Person.

Your one liners do nothing but make me think I can't take you seriously. You don't seem to be capable of making a coherent argument to support your view from scripture. So, you just respond with these useless one liners instead.

Don't mistake your inability to comprehend the concise replies of others with some lack on their part.
Besides, looking at the strength and consistency of your arguments I would think a one liner is overkill for a reply!

 

[dad]

But two different terms for Israel in one sentence? That was for the reason remember not all Israel is Israel.

You do realize that hill (zion) is in Israel? So if it talks about Zion and also Jerusalem, you think that means two different continents?

 

[dad]

You obviously didn't understand the question. In which of the Israels referenced in the following passage are all saved?

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.

Can you tell me how you interpret this passage? Let me give you a hint. Verse 8 tells us how to identify what makes someone a part of each of the two Israels mentioned in verse 6.

Simple. Only the people of Israel, regardless of ancestry, who accept Messiah are Israel in any lasting or true sense of the word. The remnant will accept and truly be Israel. In other words the physical descendants of Jacob and Abraham (along with any who joined Israel according to God's criteria) will all be saved in the end in that land, and be saved.

 

[dad]

So, you believe a requirement to be part of true Israel is to be a natural descendant of Israel? Can you show me where that is taught in Romans 9:6-8?

When we are talking about that nation, such as in prophesy, then of course it is talking about Jewish people. So, to be part of true Israel it is not enough to be a descendant. They also need Jesus. Then they are Israel in every sense of the word. That happens when all Israel gets saved in the end.

Why are you waiting for "one day" when some have been getting saved every day for the past 2,000 years or so?

Because the prophesy is for one day.
Prophesies such as God restoring them. He is not going to restore the few who got saved to the land today. I would think those Jews who got saved are part of the Bride of Christ. That is not the remnant that get saved later. As I said earlier I would be surprised if many of those saved Jews in heaven who return with Jesus would not want to spend a lot of time down here. Personally I much prefer New Jerusalem! But the Jewish remnant of that end time who all get saved I believe are protected by God and restored to that land.

If you read Romans 11:14, Paul indicated that he hoped some of them would be saved.

Of course. Why would he not hope for his people?

Some were in his time and some have been ever since. How would he go from hoping some would be saved to saying all of them would be saved?

Since the bible does say all Israel will be saved I guess there was a way! All Israel will not be saved in this world of the kingdoms of man. It gets saved by Jesus in the end. Why would anyone claim it would be saved other than that?

What? Since when is this how salvation works? Do you think the people of Israel have not had the opportunity to be saved for the past 2,000 years or so?

Some people seem to require more than others to get the point. Israel is known for stubbornness. But God knows and set aside a special time for the history of Israel (which was basically paused after they rejected Jesus) so that a remnant could be saved. Such is the mercy of God. Individuals Jewish people have been saved for thousands of years. The nation will all get saved in the end.

Why do you act as if God has withheld salvation from them all this time? That is not taught in scripture.

No idea where you pulled that one out of. Most early Christians were Jews. Many have been saved. How would you think God withheld salvation from them? Most have simply refused it!

 

[dad]

Does the New Covenant, which is not an alternate covenant, but which is the only Covenant in force and effect for all true believers, have anything to do with Jesus?

Does Jesus' New Covenant promise land for Israel?

It does not negate the promises for that to happen!

 

[Marty fox]

You do realize that hill (zion) is in Israel? So if it talks about Zion and also Jerusalem, you think that means two different continents?

No it’s true Israel the church

Hebrews 12:22
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly,

 

[jeffweeder]

You obviously didn't understand the question. In which of the Israels referenced in the following passage are all saved?

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.

Can you tell me how you interpret this passage? Let me give you a hint. Verse 8 tells us how to identify what makes someone a part of each of the two Israels mentioned in verse 6.

Amen. That should settle it....but I have a feeling it will be ignored.
Lets see where Paul got his teaching...,
Matt 3
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 10 The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

 

[covenantee]

It does not negate the promises for that to happen!

The promises of the old will and testament are "taken away" by the promises of the New Will and Testament.

Because that's how wills and testaments work.

 

[Truther]

Not so. There have always been gentile Israelites.
They are the majority of God's faithful peoples now.

The Lord will come unexpectedly; as a thief; on His forthcoming, terrible Day of fiery wrath. On the glorious Day of His Return, at least 10 years later, God's Trumpet will announce it, 1 Thess 4:16 and everyone will see Him arrive. Revelation 1:7

Answered above.
In the 3 main Prophesies which describe the Return of Jesus, Zechariah 14:4, Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:11-21, there is no mention of 'fiery destruction' at all.
ALL the vividly described Prophesies which do tell of a punishment by fire; refer to the Day of the Lord's vengeance and wrath, the Sixth Seal worldwide disaster. The event that sets the scene for all the rest of the end time prophesies to take place.

The Bible does not mention a general redemption of the Jews. Zechariah 13 refers to just a few families.
During the GTrib, it seems that no one repents and gets saved. Revelation 16:11

Your avoidance of the scriptural proofs that I present, is an indictment against you. Is what Jeremiah 50:4-5 says, meaningless to you?
Look at Jeremiah 50:6 My people have been lost sheep..... Jesus says who those 'lost sheep' are; Christians. John 10:1-29

Here is what you don't get about the Bible....

The OT was written about national Israel and God promising them(via the fathers) to have a future kingdom via the Prophets and that Jesus would reign over them for 1000 years.

Jesus told the disciples that they would reign over the 12 tribes with him.

They asked Jesus if this was going to occur right away per Acts 1.

He said, not yet....

Now, you bust up that line of communication between God and the Prophets, Jesus and his disciples, with your replacement theology ideas.

That is exactly what you have done.

Fake news.