22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[WPM]

You corroborate 17 of your faulty reasons with your own faulty opinion.

Not so. That is why you avoid every single point.

 

[Timtofly]

Where does 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 say anything about "the Millennium"? I'm not asking where those words are used, but where the concept of it is referenced there. That passage is talking about the end when Jesus destroys all of His enemies and delivers the kingdom over to the Father. I see nothing about the thousand years there whatsoever.

No it says the end will come after everything is made subject unto Him, death being the last enemy. Those consumed by fire after the end of the 1,000 years are the last humans to face Death. Then Death will be made subject to Jesus. Then Jesus will hand back all of creation to God. Jesus does not stop ruling at the Second Coming. Jesus stops ruling after handing back creation.

I don't know if I will be alive when He comes or not. We will see. But, what does this have to do with what we're discussing?

Some people don't view the Second Coming as always soon. They are either Preterist or theistic evolutionists. Or some Amil think this age is a really long time, and only see Revelation 20 as indefinite but a long way off. Who knows what people think when they don't see 1,000 years as literal?

 

[Keraz]

You're not able to support your interpretation of Revelation 20 with other scripture. You've made that very clear. So, what do you do? Change the rest of scripture to fit your interpretation of Revelation 20.

There are many scriptures that support the physical Millennium:

Amos 9:13-15 The time is surely coming, says the Lord, when the one who plows shall overtake the one who reaps, and the treader of grapes, the one who sows the seed; the mountains shall drip sweet wine, all the hills shall flow with it. I will restore the fortunes of My people, Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant them upon their Land and they shall never again be plucked up out of the Land I have given them.

That scripture promises restoration for a devastated land and a scattered people and it does so in a beautiful description of overflowing fertility in field and vineyard along with an unqualified pledge of “never again” for His faithful people, from every tribe, race nation and language, Revelation 5:9-10, Isaiah 66:18b-21, to be dispossessed.

Bible prophecy refers to a divinely established Utopia (Greek- good place) in which, God puts an end to this world of injustice and unrighteousness on earth and replaces it with a world of justice and righteousness on earth.
This end times Kingdom is the covenantal kingdom, brought to its ultimate perfection and ideal consummation, here on earth. Hebrews 8:8-12 It will last for 1000 years, as Revelation 20 clearly informs us.

Daniel 7:27 The Kingly power, sovereignty and greatness of all the Kingdoms under heaven will be given to the Holy people of the Most High. Their Kingly power will last for ever and every realm will serve and obey them.


So, how will the God of justice and righteousness treat the Gentiles in establishing this utopian Kingdom on earth?

Micah 4:1-2 In days to come, the Lords House will tower above the hills. The nations will stream toward it, saying; Let us go to the House of Jacob’s God, that He may teach us His ways, for instruction comes from Zion. [and in Isaiah 2:2-4]

Zechariah 8:20 Nations and dwellers in many cities will come to Jerusalem to entreat the favour of the Lord. Zechariah 14:16-21

Those warlike and idol worshipping peoples will be converted to godly worship, under a God of justice and peace. They will not become Israelites, but all will live together under God. This will be the situation after Jesus Returns, during His Millennium rule.

The AMill belief, that we are in the Millennium now, is wrong, proved by the fact of there just being 6000 years since Adam and the final thousand years will be the Sabbath for the earth and mankind.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm just highlighting the duplicity of the Premillennial interpretation. There is no consistency with it. It is all over the place. You are selective when you want to spiritualize something. The fact is, Revelation 20 is oozing in symbolism. For you to insist on a literal wooden thousand years makes no sense. After all, there is no previous teaching on this anywhere else in the sacred pages.

But going after heretics will not change Revelation 20, and the literal future kingdom on earth. It is avoiding the points in the OP. Can we not just place the points that are merely your opinion in the trash bin, as opinions around here are frowned upon?

 

[Timtofly]

Revelation 20:1-6 is very simple and easy to explain, those seen are in the spiritual realm, no kingdom or mortal humans on earth are seen and you know this

Angel, Heaven, Satan, Devil, The Souls, The Dead, God, Christ, that doesn't equate to a literal Kingdom on this Earth, with mortal humans running about as you believe and teach

Those seen are 100% in the spiritual realm of the Lord's one day is a thousand years, "No Literal Earthly Time" it's that simple

Jesus Is The Lord

2 Peter 3:8KJV
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So you are saying Satan was not on earth ruling with the FP and beast, but was in a heavenly spiritual kingdom?

Those people do not march across the breadth of earth, but march across a spiritual cloud and consumed by spiritual hazing fire?

You are part of the dead, you have had no resurrection, you must just be a spiritual bot, then?

 

[Timtofly]

Finally, Premillennialist realize that we are the true literalists. They explain away so much in order to let their doctrine fit.

Of course you all are hyper literal in your symbolism, not really any literal aspect of life. Hyper literal in your spiritual application, but little application in the here and now. Pre-mill explain away all Amil hyper literal spiritualism. None of it is Scripture.

 

[Truth7t7]

So you are saying Satan was not on earth ruling with the FP and beast, but was in a heavenly spiritual kingdom?

Those people do not march across the breadth of earth, but march across a spiritual cloud and consumed by spiritual hazing fire?

You are part of the dead, you have had no resurrection, you must just be a spiritual bot, then?

Your response is confusion and non-sense

 

[Timtofly]

I believe that is strong evidence against the concept of a temporal physical earthly kingdom being established when He returns.

Who says it is established at the Second Coming? Do you mean of the earth kingdom or of a separate time kingdom? The temporal was established with sin.

But yet this current reality or creation was only meant to be a fixed temporal reality when solely based on time. The Lord's reign over earth was fixed by time, as indicated in the thought the Lord is the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega. Revelation 20 is not the establishment of a temporal kingdom. Revelation 20 is the final segment of God's created temporal reign.

If you mean merely wordly as opposed to spiritual, when was God ever allowed to enjoy creation as it was intended? Certainly you don't think 6,000 years of sin was all God had in mind for current reality? Do you mean that God only planned for sin to reign the whole creation along side of His Sovereignty? Can you prove that with Scripture?

 

[Truth7t7]

But going after heretics will not change Revelation 20, and the literal future kingdom on earth. It is avoiding the points in the OP. Can we not just place the points that are merely your opinion in the trash bin, as opinions around here are frowned upon?

A Literal Kingdom on this earth isn't seen in Revelation 20:1-6, it's 100% spiritual realm

Angel, Heaven, Satan, Devil, The Souls, The Dead, God, Christ, 100% spiritual, minus your claimed Kingdom on this earth

 

[Timtofly]

It's always funny when Premils talk like this. Do you accept "the ordinary and plain saying" from this text:

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

Jesus very clearly indicated that a singular time (singular event - not two, but one) is coming during which all of the dead will be resurrected. Is that how you interpret this passage? Do you use your "ordinary and plain" text approach to this passage so that you interpret it for "just what it says"?

The resurrection is a singular event starting with Lazarus that is still ongoing.

However the word singular is not used. The hour is coming and already is includes the time from that point to the very end of people being resurrected. It is non stop, not two concurrent time frames of death running in parallel with life. Life is the point death is left behind. Some at the GWT get to leave death behind, no? Most at that point, though, will remain in a state of death in the LOF.

Not sure how you can miss Paul's state of death that reigned from Adam to Moses, and is still reigning today?

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

That hour did not stop death from reigning, because Death is the last enemy to be defeated. Nor did that hour start the reign of Christ. The reign of Christ is wrapped up in the Lord's reign, ie the whole of creation.

When Lazarus heard the voice of Jesus, that hour started.

Ironic that you split the two references of Jesus as being spiritual and physical, yet you cannot grasp that Paul was also being physical and spiritual in this verse:

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption (physical), and this mortal must put on immortality (spiritual). So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."

Jesus never separates them from each other. Jesus views them as the same, because the dead never put on the spirit. Their spirit is now what most call demonized. It no longer carries God's image, but the image of a devil. Nor will the dead ever be raised to walk in the second birth, but face the second death. Paul's victory is only given to those who accepted God's redemption. And some directly chosen by God. God can change whomsoever He pleases even if it is not their choice, because they won't remember having a will at enmity against God once sealed by God for God's direct plan.

So the plain reading is that this life is death, and even those physically dead will pass from this death to life when directly called by Jesus both as Christ and as King. So Jesus is the first born, but all in Abraham's bosom are the firstfruits, including Lazarus which was literally the first one called out of his grave. The rest in Abraham's bosom had to wait for the words, "It is finished" on the Cross. No where is it meant the wicked would come out at the same time. No one comes out of death into life, until they are called. The plain reading is that the hour is coming and now is. A very long hour.

Jesus also said that no one would taste death after a certain point, that point being the Cross. Lazarus was the last person to taste death. The first person to receive life out of death. The thief on the cross did not taste death, but was immediately taken from death into life. Life that is eternal, even after current creation ends, that life will still keep on going. Just like the reign of Jesus is eternal and not just about a 1,000 year period after the Second Coming.

 

[Truth7t7]

The resurrection is a singular event starting with Lazarus that is still ongoing.

Lazarus was "Raised From The Dead" he wasn't "Resurrected" as you claim

John 12:17KJV
17 The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record.

 

[Timtofly]

Oh, it will last exactly 60 minutes? Not 57 minutes and 27 seconds or 63 minutes and 39 seconds? Exactly 60 minutes? Wow, that's amazing.

God's Word is amazing:

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

Make war happens in Revelation 19.

Revelation 17 and 18 is a parenthetical of Satan's 42 month Babylonian kingdom that is defeated at Armageddon.

You know that battle where Satan is bound and placed in a pit for 1,000 years?

You really cannot see Satan, the FP, and the beast leading the charge at Armageddon?

"And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

You really don't think Satan is bound at that time?

"And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."

You seem to just cherry pick that point where all humanity is killed, not one sinner left alive. And you avoid all the points about their 3 leaders at that same battle. It is almost as if Satan is ashamed to be part of that group at Armageddon even though he benefits from the 42 months.

Still not seeing Satan there:

"And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

(Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. )

And he (God Almighty) gathered them (all of them: Satan, the FP, the beast, and all that is left of humanity on the earth) together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."

This is the winepress of God's wrath, the battle of Armageddon. Satan is bound for a 1,000 years at this battle.

I guess you will just have to be there to finally get it; a proper understanding of God's amazing Word.

Several times in chapter 18 it declares the 1 hour destruction of this kingdom. So what other 1 hour appearing other than at Armageddon does the Lamb appear? The only reason they come together in that one hour is to defeat the Lamb, at least that is their motive. It is God who gathers them for the slaughter of the winepress. It was the 6th vial poured out that sets it all in motion, and they think they are doing it all, because evil spirits are sent out.

 

[marks]

According to scripture the coming kingdom (the kingdom in its fullness) will be such that there will be no mortal flesh and blood there (1 Corinthians 15:50)

Is that what it says? I don't think that is correct.

Show that statement please. I think you'll find that's not what it actually says. No mortals in the 1000 year kingdom? No, it doesn't say that.

Much love!

 

[Timtofly]

Another useless and pointless post from Timtofly. There's too many of those to count at this point.

Not any more useless than the OP stating personal opinion. Are we ruling out personal opinion on the topic. Seems hypocritical to favor one set of opinions, but not another.

 

[Timtofly]

So, do you think the literal beast has seven literal heads and ten literal horns as well?

That is not the beast. The FP is introduced as coming out of the sea, but at the point of a newly formed governmental arrangement. Context is key, so which of the 30 times is a specific beast?

You're not able to support your interpretation of Revelation 20 with other scripture. You've made that very clear. So, what do you do? Change the rest of scripture to fit your interpretation of Revelation 20.

Revelation 20 is about time, not what happens beyond ruling with Christ. John did not give us the details, but only the time. And according to you the NT is the clear point. So John clears up how long this Millennium rule is. I don't have to change any Scripture. I now have a time frame and how long the other Scriptures are describing, as promised in both the OT and NT.

 

[Timtofly]

Not so. That is why you avoid every single point.

I am not avoiding. It is your opinion. You are avoiding that fact. Other posters have pointed out that most of the points are not mainstream. So your opinion and these fringe groups do not belong in a discussion about pre-mill. Both your opinion and theirs is wrong. But certainly pre-mill is not wrong.

Even in this thread Amil don't agree on all points. Does that mean Amil is also wrong and unbiblical?

From a biblical perspective this thread should be: "Why I forsook Scripture teaching the pre-mill view because of human opinion and theology."

 

[Timtofly]

A Literal Kingdom on this earth isn't seen in Revelation 20:1-6, it's 100% spiritual realm

Angel, Heaven, Satan, Devil, The Souls, The Dead, God, Christ, 100% spiritual, minus your claimed Kingdom on this earth

This does not make sense. Your spiritual is not God's spiritual. You are just saying that Satan is a righteous spiritual being with no carnality. The same with the dead. You are still in a state of death yourself thus literally only spiritual. You have removed all physical attributes from even yourself as you are in Adam's dead corruptible flesh. You are a soul, thus only spiritual in your logic. My merely putting these words about you in this post makes it so.

Yet you avoid all the words that make Revelation 20 about the physical earth. Are you saying Satan cannot physically appear on earth? Angels cannot physically appear on earth? Your soul is not here in a physical body currently on earth? Adam's dead flesh is not currently physically on earth, almost 8 billion souls?

You highlight certain words as if other words in the text just simply don't exist. You are taking the Millennium out of the text and making it spiritual. That is your opinion, not Scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

Lazarus was "Raised From The Dead" he wasn't "Resurrected" as you claim

John 12:17KJV
17 The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record.

Jesus said the hour is coming and now is when all shall hear His voice. Lazarus heard the voice and came out of Abraham's bosom. Lazarus had been in Abraham's bosom for 4 days. At what point is one in Abraham's bosom, but still considered not dead yet?

Jesus gave the example of Jonah. Did Jonah actually die, and go to Abraham's bosom? Did Jesus die and go to Abraham's bosom? Did Lazarus die and spend 4 days in Abraham's bosom? Obviously you don't see that as physically dying. Do you then say that Jesus did not physically die, enter Abraham's bosom, and was resurrected? Because that is exactly what Lazarus did and all the OT redeemed. Lazarus just did not spend almost 2,000 years there like Abraham did. Is being 4 days dead not enough to be considered literally dead? Is hearing Jesus calling him out of the grave not enough to be Jesus literally calling him out of the grave?

So you don't want to be raised out of death, because raised up is not the same as being resurrected. 2 Corinthians 4:14

"Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you."

Paul must not have thought Jesus was resurrected, only raised up? You do know that raised up is a resurrection?

 

[Timtofly]

Is that what it says? I don't think that is correct.

Show that statement please. I think you'll find that's not what it actually says. No mortals in the 1000 year kingdom? No, it doesn't say that.

Much love!

The word mortal by definition means they are not in the Millennium. The 1,000 years is not an evolutionary process like the here and now. The Second birth is ongoing changing the soul/mind but not the body.

Mortal meaning death in Paul's writing is a spiritual point, not a physical point as in Greek mythology. Paul is literally saying death puts on non death. These are spiritual points, as in we are no longer dead, but glorified by the spirit joining the incorruptible physical body.

So no death (mortal) can exist in the Millennium. All those in the Millennium do not know of death as we currently live out death in the physical. Mortal is an appropriate word to define the flesh, but more like Greek slang than actual Greek terminology. The church never really distinguished the usage of breath from spirit. The same word pneuma is used for both. To stop breathing, giving up the breath is not the same as giving up our spirit. Our spirit has been separated from us since Adam sinned. While in Adam's dead corruptible flesh, we are only body and soul. None of the redeemed currently in Paradise have their spirit. That is the point at the Second Coming, when the church is glorified. Death putting on non death, mortal putting on immortality is the putting on of the spirit, because Paul was referring to the spiritual aspect of the image of God, as sons of God. John in Revelation 6, the 5th Seal, is describing the same event of putting on white robes, symbolic of putting on our spirit over the physical body.

Saying mortals exist or do not exist in the Millennium is not the same interpretation Paul used as mortal in 1 Corinthians 15. There is literally no verse in Scripture declaring mortals become immortals. That would be the corruptible flesh putting on incorruptible physical bodies. Because Paul was using mortal as the spiritual state of death, not a physical being. We are mortals because we are in Adam's dead corruptible flesh. We are mortal, spiritual death, because we are separated from our spirit. Adam physically and spiritually died that day. He went from an incorruptible physical body to a corruptible physical body. The reverse of what happens when a redeemed soul leaves this corruptible flesh. Since the death of Stephen, Jesus has been calling all those redeemed out of death, mortality that is physical into life at the moment one's last breath is taken. The soul no longer resides in Abraham's bosom, but is given a permanent incorruptible physical body in Paradise, waiting for the Second Coming when both soul and body put on the spirit. The point of glorification, the point of mortal, death, putting on the spirit, immortality, being in the divine image of God. Paul keeps it grounded by forming it as putting on both the body and the spirit, not actually "becoming". The soul puts on a body and puts on a spirit. That is the clear NT teaching to describe both Paradise and the Millennium Kingdom.

Those firstfruits of the final harvest after the Second Coming, make up the Millennium Kingdom. But the souls of the symbolic sheep and wheat put on a permanent incorruptible physical body, but no where is it said they are glorified and put on the spirit. That is a point of silence. There is a verse in Matthew 25 that may imply it, but no one in this forum has ever mentioned it as a major point.

Why is the church separated from the GT and Satan's 42 months? Why are "post" people wrong in assuming Revelation 19 is the Second Coming? Because the glorified church remains in Paradise until it comes down as the New Jerusalem. This should not be hard to grasp as since the Cross, the church has been gathering in Paradise sitting, ruling and reigning with the Lord. They certainly don't rule on earth in permanent incorruptible physical bodies. The Second Coming does not change that dynamic. If Amil accept that rule now, they don't need Revelation 20 to prove that point. In fact they have to take Revelation 20 out of context to place it into their thought process. No one needs to do that, but merely a private opinion even if held by millions. The church has not replaced this earthly kingdom, because the church was never a kingdom on earth to begin with. It was without physical observation, and in Paradise since the Cross. Yet Israel is still promised 6 things and a kingdom on earth in Daniel 9. A promise that is fulfilled in Revelation 20, despite the objection Revelation is to symbolic. The book of Revelation is in the NT and explains hundreds of obscure OT texts. Yet Amil want to imply that Revelation surely cannot perform as anything definitive, according to their opinionated objections.

Revelation was given to 7 churches but directed at Israel and their more symbolic OT prophecies. It only mentions the church at the beginning prior to the Second Coming. After chapter 7 it is about post Second Coming events, and not about the church until the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven.

 

[WPM]

I am not avoiding. It is your opinion. You are avoiding that fact. Other posters have pointed out that most of the points are not mainstream. So your opinion and these fringe groups do not belong in a discussion about pre-mill. Both your opinion and theirs is wrong. But certainly pre-mill is not wrong.

Even in this thread Amil don't agree on all points. Does that mean Amil is also wrong and unbiblical?

From a biblical perspective this thread should be: "Why I forsook Scripture teaching the pre-mill view because of human opinion and theology."

I find that rich coming from a Premil, when Premils disagree on everything. What points are Amils (plural) disagreeing on here?