23 major reasons to reject the Premil doctrine!

[WPM]

Don't get involved with this one. He said a doctrine is worldwide accepted and fundamental to Christian doctrine and cannot cite one source other than him saying so.

LOL. There are numerous theological affirmations and hermeneutical statements that I could present to support the Protestant fundamental of supporting Scripture with Scripture. If you took the time to research you would find that out. But I refuse to do so because you reject the clear Scriptures I presented that teach corroboration, preferring the word of your teachers. That is Pretrib in a nutshell. I am not going to assist your laziness in research and your theological ignorance.

In post 458 i responded to you and you carefully ducked around my response. I even quoted Luther to you. You argue against corroboration because Pretrib cannot be found in the Bible. Your teachers have deceived you. It is a Jesuit doctrine. Here was my post:

23 major reasons to reject the Premil doctrine!

Not so. I gave you biblical support for corroboration. That is normally enough for most born again Christians. But not for you. You need a website to support such biblical demands. Do you realize how silly your demands sound? Think about it: what did we do before the internet. This matter is a...

www.christianityboard.com

"Can I remind you that this is a Bible discussion forum? Arguments are based upon hard Scripture, not the opinions of men on outside internet websites (regardless of how godly they are). I have shown you clear Scripture that highlights the necessity of supporting Scripture with Scripture when it comes to theology. This has been a central element of evangelical Protestantism since the Reformation.

Speaking about scriptura sui ipsius interpres, Martin Luther said: “That is the true method of interpretation, which puts Scripture alongside of Scripture in a right and proper way.”

He added: “one passage must be explained by another."

He concluded: “a doubtful and obscure passage must be explained by a clear and certain passage.”

Sadly, you have dismissed that. This may explain why you have so readily embraced Pretrib and Premil. This is where Amils disagree strongly you."

 

[WPM]

Don't get involved with this one. He said a doctrine is worldwide accepted and fundamental to Christian doctrine and cannot cite one source other than him saying so.

Do you disagree with Luther on corroboration?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do you disagree with Luther on corroboration?

Well as you made a failed attempt to answer, I will reply.

Luther was not expoinding on some doctrine of corroboration but letting doctrines be established by Scripture and not church councils and popes.

Once again you have ripped a passage out of context and meaning to seek to redefine it.

 

[WPM]

Well as you made a failed attempt to answer, I will reply.

Luther was not expoinding on some doctrine of corroboration but letting doctrines be established by Scripture and not church councils and popes.

Once again you have ripped a passage out of context and meaning to seek to redefine it.

Corroboration is an enemy of your theology. That is why you repudiate it. Amils embrace this truth. It reinforces Amil truth.

2 Peter 1:20 that “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

The thrust of this text is: it doesn’t matter what your view of a text is, if it conflicts with repeated Scripture then your view should be abandoned.

Many take a text out of context and make it a pretext. Many add 2 + 2 and get 22. 2 + 2 = 4.

A knowledge and use of other Scripture eliminates the foolish inventions of man. It simply allows Scripture to speak for itself.

Personal interpretation of a Scripture alone is untrustworthy. That is private interpretation. It should be supported by other clear and repeated Scripture. After all, there is a harmony to all truth. Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

Deuteronomy 17:6: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.”

John 8:17-18: “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.”

We need to establish what is the consistent repeated testimony of the rest of Scripture on the said matter. We should always compare Scripture with Scripture and interpret it in the light of the full written counsel of God. The only sure way to interpret Scripture effectively is with other Scripture. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture, not the human mind. 2 Corinthians 13:1 highlights a divine evidential imperative, which if ignored will bring Bible students into all forms of strange teaching. It states, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” This important principle is outlined repeatedly both the OT and the NT.

This important principle was decreed of God throughout the Old Testament in order to corroborate evidence in the case of witnesses - to prove matters of evidence. It is also presented in the New Testament time as the criteria for establishing truth. 1 Corinthians 2:13 says, “the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

God expects us to compare Scripture with Scripture – the spiritual with the spiritual. Scripture is the supreme and absolute means for interpreting other Scripture.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Corroboration is an enemy of your theology. That is why you repudiate it. Amils embrace this truth. It reinforces Amil truth.

2 Peter 1:20 that “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

The thrust of this text is: it doesn’t matter what your view of a text is, if it conflicts with repeated Scripture then your view should be abandoned.

Many take a text out of context and make it a pretext. Many add 2 + 2 and get 22. 2 + 2 = 4.

A knowledge and use of other Scripture eliminates the foolish inventions of man. It simply allows Scripture to speak for itself.

Personal interpretation of a Scripture alone is untrustworthy. That is private interpretation. It should be supported by other clear and repeated Scripture. After all, there is a harmony to all truth. Scripture does not contradict Scripture.

Deuteronomy 17:6: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.”

John 8:17-18: “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.”

We need to establish what is the consistent repeated testimony of the rest of Scripture on the said matter. We should always compare Scripture with Scripture and interpret it in the light of the full written counsel of God. The only sure way to interpret Scripture effectively is with other Scripture. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture, not the human mind. 2 Corinthians 13:1 highlights a divine evidential imperative, which if ignored will bring Bible students into all forms of strange teaching. It states, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” This important principle is outlined repeatedly both the OT and the NT.

This important principle was decreed of God throughout the Old Testament in order to corroborate evidence in the case of witnesses - to prove matters of evidence. It is also presented in the New Testament time as the criteria for establishing truth. 1 Corinthians 2:13 says, “the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

God expects us to compare Scripture with Scripture – the spiritual with the spiritual. Scripture is the supreme and absolute means for interpreting other Scripture.

So according to your made up mythical "fundamental world wide accepted doctrine of corroboration", because there are not corroborated by other Scriptures, they cannot be held as truth or literal or whatever cock-a-mamey idea you will com up with.

The angels telling the disciples jesus was risen
Jesus walking on the water
Jesus healing a man born blind
Jesus raising Jairus daughter
Jesus raising the widow of Naims daughter
Jesus reigning on earth for 1,000 years.

Can't have it both ways! It either has to be corroborated or there arescads of passages that don't mmet you mde up concept which you can't produce evidence for.

And No dearl child Martin Luthers statement is not evidence for your doctrine of corroboration

 

[WPM]

So according to your made up mythical "fundamental world wide accepted doctrine of corroboration", because there are not corroborated by other Scriptures, they cannot be held as truth or literal or whatever cock-a-mamey idea you will com up with.

The angels telling the disciples jesus was risen
Jesus walking on the water
Jesus healing a man born blind
Jesus raising Jairus daughter
Jesus raising the widow of Naims daughter
Jesus reigning on earth for 1,000 years.

Can't have it both ways! It either has to be corroborated or there arescads of passages that don't mmet you mde up concept which you can't produce evidence for.

And No dearl child Martin Luthers statement is not evidence for your doctrine of corroboration

LOL. This is brazen coming from you. Think about this before you open your mouth: you are inventing an extra coming of Jesus, and you are inventing an extra age on top of this age and the age to come, and you are comparing this to a few one-off mentions of passing events in Scripture that are included alongside a lot of other similar general detail. No major doctrine is established by, or dependent upon, these isolated quotes. They are part of a collective accumulation of similar quotes which teach the exact same thing. This exposes your whole thesis. Where is your Pretrib proof-text that teaches a rapture of the Church, followed by seven-year tribulation, followed by a third coming of the Lord? Nowhere! Where is your corroboration for Premil? Noiwhere!

 

[covenantee]

LOL. Think about this before you open your mouth: you are inventing an extra coming of Jesus, and you are inventing an extra age on top of this age and the age to come, and you are comparing this to a few one-off mentions of passing events in Scripture that is including with a lot of other general detail. This exposes your whole thesis.

The guy is beyond obtuse, as he continually and convincingly demonstrates.

An astounding display of ignorance and arrogance.

 

[WPM]

The guy is beyond obtuse, as he continually and convincingly demonstrates.

An astounding display of ignorance and arrogance.

I agree.

Sadly, there are many like him. It goes with the badge.

 

[Truth7t7]

The angels telling the disciples jesus was risen
Jesus walking on the water
Jesus healing a man born blind
Jesus raising Jairus daughter
Jesus raising the widow of Naims daughter
Jesus reigning on earth for 1,000 years.

Yes your mixing the false leaven of a future Millennial Kingdom in with truthful biblical events that have taken place?

Deception!

Jesus returns in fire and final judgment (The End) as you deny this biblical fact that's before your eyes

There Will Be No 1,000 Year Millennial Kingdom Upon This Earth, Jesus Christ Returns In Fire And Final Judgement, Dissolving This Existing Earth By Fire, Immediately After The Tribulation

This Existing Heaven And Earth Will Be (Replaced) By The New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, A New Creation, At The Return Of Jesus Christ

(Behold, I Make All Things New)

2 Peter 3:10-13KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:1-5KJV
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Matthew 24:29-30KJV
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

1 Corinthians 3:13KJV
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Luke 17:29-30KJV
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9KJV
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Malachi 3:2KJV
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

Psalm 46:6KJV
6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.

Psalm 50:3KJV
3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.

Psalm 97:5KJV
5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.

Isaiah 66:15KJV
15 For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

Zechariah 14:12KJV
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Nahum 1:5-6KJV
5 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.
6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

Revelation 20:9KJV
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

 

[Truth7t7]

The angels telling the disciples jesus was risen
Jesus walking on the water
Jesus healing a man born blind
Jesus raising Jairus daughter
Jesus raising the widow of Naims daughter
Jesus reigning on earth for 1,000 years.

Many claim Jesus will literally return and rule "On This Earth" In A Millennium this being false in deception

Jesus warned his followers against this teaching, Jesus wont be found anywhere upon this earth as many claim

The Antichrist will be in Jerusalem, claiming to be Messiah Returned, "Beware"!

"Believe It Not" "Go Not Forth"

Matthew 24:23-27KJV
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Revelation 13:13-14KJV
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

Revelation 19:20KJV
20 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.

 

[WPM]

Well as you made a failed attempt to answer, I will reply.

Luther was not expoinding on some doctrine of corroboration but letting doctrines be established by Scripture and not church councils and popes.

Once again you have ripped a passage out of context and meaning to seek to redefine it.

I have shown you clear Scripture that highlights the necessity of supporting Scripture with Scripture when it comes to theology. This has been a central element of evangelical Protestantism since the Reformation.

Speaking about scriptura sui ipsius interpres, Martin Luther said: “That is the true method of interpretation, which puts Scripture alongside of Scripture in a right and proper way.”

This is a basic (but important) hermeneutical principle that most Protestant theologians accept. They hold that Scripture interprets itself (Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres). This tenet indicates that scriptural passages throughout the Bible should be used to explain each other.

Luther says of this: “one passage must be explained by another."

He concluded: “a doubtful and obscure passage must be explained by a clear and certain passage.”

Sadly, you have dismissed that. This may explain why you have so readily embraced Pretrib and Premil. This is where Amils disagree strongly you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I have shown you clear Scripture that highlights the necessity of supporting Scripture with Scripture when it comes to theology. This has been a central element of evangelical Protestantism since the Reformation.

Speaking about scriptura sui ipsius interpres, Martin Luther said: “That is the true method of interpretation, which puts Scripture alongside of Scripture in a right and proper way.”

This is a basic (but important) hermeneutical principle that most Protestant theologians accept. They hold that Scripture interprets itself (Scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres). This tenet indicates that scriptural passages throughout the Bible should be used to explain each other.

Luther added: “one passage must be explained by another."

He concluded: “a doubtful and obscure passage must be explained by a clear and certain passage.”

Sadly, you have dismissed that. This may explain why you have so readily embraced Pretrib and Premil. This is where Amils disagree strongly you.

I am tired of your straw men you create and you rlying about me. Welcome to the world of ignore.

 

[WPM]

I am tired of your straw men you create and you rlying about me. Welcome to the world of ignore.

When avoidance doesn't work and ad hominem fails, running is all you have.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Welcome to the world of ignore.

'Ignore ' is a useful tool when someone is adamant combined with ignorant. WPM may be adamant but he knows his subject well. So, even if you disagree with Amillennialism, you should not use 'ignore.' Listen up if you want a more broad understanding of eschatology.

 

[Keraz]

I have never 'ignored' anyone. I do quickly scroll over those who constantly repeat themselves and those promoting theories like Amill.

I have come to realize that people who have chosen to believe in a theory or doctrine, such as Amill, or the fantasy of the rapture to heaven, are locked into their beliefs and are actually incapable of changing.
It is understood that to change your beliefs, is an admission of failure and casts questions on all your other beliefs.

There is only one true and correct way to understand the Prophetic Word. That is the way it is Written in our Bibles.

Amill is a direct contradiction of Revelation 20 and a rejection of the truth of God's 7000 year Plan for mankind.

The 'rapture to heaven' is just sci-fi nonsense. Jesus said many times that such a thing was impossible.

Soon; the Lord will change the world, by instigating His terrible Day of vengeance and wrath. Then, the surviving Christian peoples will finally understand their future role, to prepare the world for the glorious Return of Jesus.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

'Ignore ' is a useful tool when someone is adamant combined with ignorant. WPM may be adamant but he knows his subject well. So, even if you disagree with Amillennialism, you should not use 'ignore.' Listen up if you want a more broad understanding of eschatology.

I have been walking with the Lord for 49 years now. I have studied in depth eschatology for over 40 of those years. I have looked at preterism, amill, post mill, pre mil. Reformed eschatology and dispensational eschatology all in depth. Not just little pamphlets or tracts. I have come to the conclusion that a dispensational hermeneutic along with a dispensational eschatology does the least harm of all views to Gods Word. All views are flawed and all have their problems,

WPM knows amillenialism well. That is not why I placed him on ignore. I have him on ignore because he keeps repeating lies I told I did not believe in and he insists I do! He is more involved in attacking than discussing. I am not one how shies away from an intense debate- on the contrary I enjoy them! but he is rude, offensive, lies and just downright everything one should not be in a Christian debate.

 

[Truth7t7]

I am not one how shies away from an intense debate- on the contrary I enjoy them!

Please provide (one scripture reference at a time) that supports dispensationalism's pre-trib rapture, waiting?

 

[Truth7t7]

It is understood that to change your beliefs, is an admission of failure and casts questions on all your other beliefs.

It appears you're looking into a mirror talking

 

[Christian Gedge]

I have studied in depth eschatology for over 40 of those years.

So you would have heard of George Ladd? If not I would recommend his book, 'The Blessed Hope.' Actually I am Amil like WPM, but Ladd is respected by all endtime theologians.

 

[WPM]

I have been walking with the Lord for 49 years now. I have studied in depth eschatology for over 40 of those years. I have looked at preterism, amill, post mill, pre mil. Reformed eschatology and dispensational eschatology all in depth. Not just little pamphlets or tracts. I have come to the conclusion that a dispensational hermeneutic along with a dispensational eschatology does the least harm of all views to Gods Word. All views are flawed and all have their problems,

WPM knows amillenialism well. That is not why I placed him on ignore. I have him on ignore because he keeps repeating lies I told I did not believe in and he insists I do! He is more involved in attacking than discussing. I am not one how shies away from an intense debate- on the contrary I enjoy them! but he is rude, offensive, lies and just downright everything one should not be in a Christian debate.

Not true. I highlighted your continuous avoidance and failure to provide one single proof text that teaches a rapture of the Church, followed by seven-year tribulation, followed by a third coming of the Lord, and you got frustrated and ran. That is the issue. If you cannot support your beliefs with hard Scripture then you can expect to be challenged. It has never my desire to offend you or insult you. I apologize if it come across that way. I am interested in what the Scripture teach.