23 major reasons to reject the Premil doctrine!

[WPM]

Maybe I won't and allow God to teach you to suffer invalids with a little more patience. I use spell checker, and sometime I just miss it. but I would rather stand before God and answer for spelling the wrong , than in reinterpreting His Word like you are guilty of.


As I never said there was- this is just a red herring and false argument on your part.

Then stop promoting something extra-biblical.

 

[Timtofly]

The recap system and synonymous parallelism is seen throughout Scripture. You deny it because it exposes your teaching.

No I deny your version, because it contradicts clear Scripture that exposes your erroneous eschatology. You are just blind to clear Scripture. You obviously are not blind to your interpretation of Scripture. Your view is the wrong interpretation, that is contrived, even if plausible, obviously.

Obviously I accept all natural parallel and Hebrew structure that is valid, not just to prove a person's false eschatology.

 

[WPM]

No I deny your version, because it contradicts clear Scripture that exposes your erroneous eschatology. You are just blind to clear Scripture. You obviously are not blind to your interpretation of Scripture. Your view is the wrong interpretation, that is contrived, even if plausible, obviously.

Obviously I accept all natural parallel and Hebrew structure that is valid, not just to prove a person's false eschatology.

Instead of making these wild unsubstantiated sweeping statements, can you quote the Scriptures that are contradicted by the recapitulation position?

 

[Timtofly]

There is no indication whatsoever that each of the seven churches represents an age. None! That comes completely from your imagination. They were actual churches that existed in the first century in the ancient Roman province of Asia and there's no basis whatsoever for seeing them as anything besides that.

Why not? Does that not fit with your recap theory? If Revelation 20 is an age, then the part about the seven churches, represents the age of the church divided into different periods. You don't even accept a sensible recap, but to deny a future 1,000 year reign of Christ. You certainly don't allow it in a logical sense.

The messages to the churches would be one angle. The seals another, the Trumpets another, and the vials another, but then you have to make up 3 more angles. The Thunders is assumed. Leaving 2 more, so you just force Revelation 20 as one angle? You then twist Revelation 20 to fit, when it is not possible to do so.

Recap is not natural, and you don't even accept the messages to the seven churches as a recap, when that would make way more sense than Revelation 20 as one.

 

[Timtofly]

Amils and Postmils stand with the ancient Amils and Chiliast on this issue. Modern Premil takes its beliefs from the ancient heretics.

Justin Martyr Asia Minor (now Turkey) (AD 100-166)

Justin is very clear:

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies (The First Apology of Justin, Chapter 39).​

Justin Martyr applied the fulfilment of Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 to this current time period. He understands these passages to be telling us that Messiah would come and bring peace to His subjects through the widespread preaching of the Gospel. According to this early Chiliast, Messiah would come and bring peace to the nations. This would be performed through the Word of God going out of Zion to all nations in these last days. Christ did this through His disciples. The Gentiles would come to Christ and be eternally changed through embracing the truth of God. The peace that would come with the kingdom was spiritual peace not physical peace marked by the cessation of violence. The learning war no more refers to what happens when one enters the kingdom.

The Gentiles would repent of the evil in which they led erring lives, when they heard the doctrine preached by His apostles from Jerusalem, and which they learned through them, suffer me to show you by quoting a short statement from the prophecy of Micah, one of the twelve [minor prophets] … (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 109).​

Justin then supports his statement by quoting Micah 4:1-5. This vision of Micah is interpreted by this writer to be a pictorial vision of the new covenant order, and the last days. It is understood to be a metaphorical description of the incredible peace and reconciliation that comes through the success of the Gospel.

Elsewhere, he argues similar:

There is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion. Jesus Christ circumcises all who will—as was declared above—with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace. Come then with me, all who fear God, who wish to see the good of Jerusalem. Come, let us go to the light of the Lord; for He has liberated His people, the house of Jacob. Come, all nations; let us gather ourselves together at Jerusalem, no longer plagued by war for the sins of her people (The First Apology of Justin, Chapter 24).​

This is applied to the Gospel light going out to the Gentiles (ethnos). Before the cross they were in darkness; now they are enlightened. The answer to darkness every time is shown to be light. The people of God are marked by the fact that they have experienced “peace.”

The word which went forth from Jerusalem by means of the apostles of Jesus, have fled for safety to the God of Jacob and God of Israel; and we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,— our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage, —and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified; and sitting each under his vine, i.e., each man possessing his own married wife (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 110).​

Those of all nations that enter into salvation are seen here by the ancient writer to exchange the weapons of war for the tools of peace. Peace is said to be the tangible fruit of encountering Christ. This is what the kingdom of God embodies. Justin Martyr argues that Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 are not speaking of physical conflict and external persecution emanating from outside the kingdom upon the saints, but the internal peaceful conditions that eternally exist within the kingdom of God. The true believer that has been united to Christ and truly resides within this kingdom ceases from fighting with the arm of flesh any more. Ancient foes unite in love. The weapons of war – the swords and spears – are metaphorically converted into the tools of peacetime – the plowshares and pruninghooks – (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3).

Of course, many trip up with passages like Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 with their literalist mind-set. They fail to see that peace with God is not some purely abstract earthly thing. It would be wrong to understand or interpret the prophetic words in both of these texts in a natural literal carnal sense. It is not referring to the cessation of physical violence. The termination of war or military conflict does not constitute true peace in God’s eyes.

The verse was describing the nation of Israel, and so was Justin Martyr. He was not defining the church, but Israel.

You then associate Paul, but You need to now quote this association of Justin Martyr with his view on Paul. You left out a step, either on purpose are just grasping at points.

Besides this is a spiritual only application. You are totally sidestepping the literal prophecy. All prophecy is not purely spiritual. Prophecy deals with the restored physical and spiritual aspect of Israel.

You are literally divorcing the physical from the spiritual. That is the only way you can make your point.

Many Premill accept the spiritual application of the gospel. It is just not the total fulfillment of the prophecy. Justin Martyr is not arguing Amil. He is only pointing out a truth. Amil is not a truth. It is the pure denial of a future time on earth, where Israel is completely restored. In fact the whole earth is restored. Many Premill are wrong that sin endures, but they will not have as much crow to eat as Amil, that deny the future altogether.

 

[WPM]

The verse was describing the nation of Israel, and so was Justin Martyr. He was not defining the church, but Israel.

You then associate Paul, but You need to now quote this association of Justin Martyr with his view on Paul. You left out a step, either on purpose are just grasping at points.

Besides this is a spiritual only application. You are totally sidestepping the literal prophecy. All prophecy is not purely spiritual. Prophecy deals with the restored physical and spiritual aspect of Israel.

You are literally divorcing the physical from the spiritual. That is the only way you can make your point.

Many Premill accept the spiritual application of the gospel. It is just not the total fulfillment of the prophecy. Justin Martyr is not arguing Amil. He is only pointing out a truth. Amil is not a truth. It is the pure denial of a future time on earth, where Israel is completely restored. In fact the whole earth is restored. Many Premill are wrong that sin endures, but they will not have as much crow to eat as Amil, that deny the future altogether.

I am glad you are coming around to Amil truth. Ptl

 

[Timtofly]

Then stop promoting something extra-biblical.

It is extra-biblical to say 7 years happened in the first century. No one in the early church declared a specific 7 years accomplished. No consensus that the 70 weeks are finished. The person of Jesus is the 7 years. We only have half of that time as Messiah accomplished. There was never a physical Prince in the body of Jesus on earth to finish Daniel 9 and confirm the Covenant. Jesus will confirm the Covenant at the Second Coming. All of Adam's dead corruptible flesh will be ended at that Confirmation.

No Covenant has been stopped and cut short in the midst of a week for an Abomination of Desolation. You cannot prove that point at all. The Covenant has not been on hold and replaced by Abomination and desolation for 1992 years.

If you claim 7 years, you are as wrong as anyone claiming 7 years. The 7 years was split in half for the AoD. Claiming there was not, nor will be an Abomination ever, needs proof from Scripture that Daniel 9 was completely fulfilled. Which is pointless because even Paul claimed Israel was cut off, and spiritually blinded, not made into an Abomination for any length of time.

Paul's point was that now the Gospel could go out to the Gentiles, not that Daniel 9 had been fulfilled. So any early church fathers are just stating opinions like modern Amil do.

 

[WPM]

It is extra-biblical to say 7 years happened in the first century. No one in the early church declared a specific 7 years accomplished. No consensus that the 70 weeks are finished. The person of Jesus is the 7 years. We only have half of that time as Messiah accomplished. There was never a physical Prince in the body of Jesus on earth to finish Daniel 9 and confirm the Covenant. Jesus will confirm the Covenant at the Second Coming. All of Adam's dead corruptible flesh will be ended at that Confirmation.

No Covenant has been stopped and cut short in the midst of a week for an Abomination of Desolation. You cannot prove that point at all. The Covenant has not been on hold and replaced by Abomination and desolation for 1992 years.

If you claim 7 years, you are as wrong as anyone claiming 7 years. The 7 years was split in half for the AoD. Claiming there was not, nor will be an Abomination ever, needs proof from Scripture that Daniel 9 was completely fulfilled. Which is pointless because even Paul claimed Israel was cut off, and spiritually blinded, not made into an Abomination for any length of time.

Paul's point was that now the Gospel could go out to the Gentiles, not that Daniel 9 had been fulfilled. So any early church fathers are just stating opinions like modern Amil do.

Jesus has already confirmed the covenant. How dare you attribute that to antichrist. Daniel 9:27 says, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

“for”

Before advancing into this matter further let us first note: the word “for” is not in the original text. It was an English translation addition. The verse simply tells us that Messiah the prince would confirm the covenant with many one seven.

The original Hebrew for Daniel 9:27 reads:

gabar Shall Confirm
bariyth Covenant
rab with many
echad one
shabuwa week

The confirmation was simply to occur within the 7 year period, rather than ‘for’ 7 years duration. This whole passage is clearly focused upon Calvary and the irreversible affect it had on Israel’s religious sacrifices and the oblations. We learn that in God’s economy it caused them to cease. In the economy of the religious Jews at the time of Calvary they stubbornly and sinfully continued to practice their sacrifices. The whole focus of Jewish religious worship was centered on the temple. It was here that the Jews came to make their typical atoning sacrifices.

Secondly, it doesn't say that a covenant is made, as our Dispensational brethren propose. Unfortunately they enter into all types of wild speculations on this passage through the writings of the Dispensational school of thought. Rather it tells us that a covenant would be confirmed. The covenant in view that was to be confirmed was none other than the new covenant. It was a covenant that originated in eternity; it was anticipated and predicted in time, and was finally and perfectly realised when God ordained it.

“confirm”

The word translated “confirm” here is the Hebrew word gabar meaning to be strong, strengthen, prevail.

Paul speaking of Christ’s eternal covenant at Calvary, says, “the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ” (Galatians 3:17).

 

[Timtofly]

Instead of making these wild unsubstantiated sweeping statements, can you quote the Scriptures that are contradicted by the recapitulation position?

Revelation 20 refutes your recap theory. Revelation 6 refutes your recap theory. Neither chapter concludes a need for recap.

Your recap is a theory not based on Scripture. But a way to manipulate Scripture into saying what you want it to say.

The Seals cannot be opened at certain ages of church time. You offer no proof to that end.

 

[WPM]

Revelation 20 refutes your recap theory. Revelation 6 refutes your recap theory. Neither chapter concludes a need for recap.

Your recap is a theory not based on Scripture. But a way to manipulate Scripture into saying what you want it to say.

The Seals cannot be opened at certain ages of church time. You offer no proof to that end.

LOL. Here you go again: presenting your opinion of this one text as evidence for the invention of an extra age in-between this age and the age to come. Nothing could be so absurd and nonsensical.

 

[Timtofly]

I am glad you are coming around to Amil truth. Ptl

As long as Amil hold to a denial of the Day of the Lord, the only truth they have is in the past. Obviously Amil are wrong about the future.

 

[WPM]

As long as Amil hold to a denial of the Day of the Lord, the only truth they have is in the past. Obviously Amil are wrong about the future.

The facts that Premils are now forced to tell lies about Amil to rebut that truth is testimony to how watertight the Amil position is. The fact is you know: Amils believe the Day of the Lord is future, final and climactic. You have simply no answer to that. So, you have to invent your own misrepresentations to attack Amil.

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus has already confirmed the covenant. How dare you attribute that to antichrist. Daniel 9:27 says, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

“for”

Before advancing into this matter further let us first note: the word “for” is not in the original text. It was an English translation addition. The verse simply tells us that Messiah the prince would confirm the covenant with many one seven.

The original Hebrew for Daniel 9:27 reads:

gabar Shall Confirm
bariyth Covenant
rab with many
echad one
shabuwa week

The confirmation was simply to occur within the 7 year period, rather than ‘for’ 7 years duration. This whole passage is clearly focused upon Calvary and the irreversible affect it had on Israel’s religious sacrifices and the oblations. We learn that in God’s economy it caused them to cease. In the economy of the religious Jews at the time of Calvary they stubbornly and sinfully continued to practice their sacrifices. The whole focus of Jewish religious worship was centered on the temple. It was here that the Jews came to make their typical atoning sacrifices.

Secondly, it doesn't say that a covenant is made, as our Dispensational brethren propose. Unfortunately they enter into all types of wild speculations on this passage through the writings of the Dispensational school of thought. Rather it tells us that a covenant would be confirmed. The covenant in view that was to be confirmed was none other than the new covenant. It was a covenant that originated in eternity; it was anticipated and predicted in time, and was finally and perfectly realised when God ordained it.

“confirm”

The word translated “confirm” here is the Hebrew word gabar meaning to be strong, strengthen, prevail.

Paul speaking of Christ’s eternal covenant at Calvary, says, “the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ” (Galatians 3:17).

The confirmation is the part where every last offspring of Adam has been accounted for. That cannot happen until the Second Coming.

The AoD does not end the week. The AoD is in the midst of the Confirmation.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:15 the AoD had not happened yet. If the Cross was the Confirmation, then that was the same week the AoD happened. That did not happen, because the Atonement is still opened for billions to accept. It has not been confirmed, nor closed. The AoD cannot happen until closed.

You claim the work of the Cross was the confirmation. That was the beginning, not the end of the Atonement. You are also misinterpreting Revelation 13, which deals with the time the Atonement is confirmed. John points out:

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Do you think the Confirmation was completed prior to Genesis 1:1? Because it cannot be confirmed until the Second Coming. It is not a 7 year Confirmation either. It is a week long event called the Days of the 7th Trumpet.

Revelation 10:6-7

"And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

The mystery is the confirmation. The Atonement Covenant is confirmed the week of the 7th Trumpet after the Second Coming.

Your objection about the word "for" and that confirmed means to establish are pointless arguments. If you don't accept confirmed as made, then that applies to the Cross as well. My point is not about establishing nor making a Covenant. Your point about the Cross making the Atonement strong or prevailing is moot. The Cross was the Atonement Covenant. The Second Coming is when it is, as you put it, strengthened. It is literally complete at that point. The Second Coming is the strongest point of the Atonement Covenant, period. The Atonement Covenant that from God's perspective, existed before the foundation of the world, as that is when the Lamb's book of life was established as fact. Every single soul ever conceived was placed there by God as if the Cross had already happened.

Daniel 9:27 is not talking about in the midst of a 7 year period. It is talking about in the midst of the week of the 7th Trumpet. The 7th Trumpet is the herald of the confirmation. That is when the Atonement is complete, finished, and will no longer be necessary. Not even in the 1,000 year reign. There is no sin nor Atonement for sin in Revelation 20. You cannot find it nor prove it exists in that Chapter period.

Daniel 9:27 is not the missing 7 year period of Israel's 70 weeks. It is not about a seven year period at all. The AoD is for 42 months. There is no length given for the GT. It keeps getting shorter every second.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. Here you go again: presenting your opinion of this one text as evidence for the invention of an extra age in-between this age and the age to come. Nothing could be so absurd and nonsensical.

Here you go missing the point these chapters refute your recap theory. I never made a point. I was providing the verses you already know refute your theory.

You don't have an age between the Cross and the Second Coming either in that Chapter. You only have one age from Adam to the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

The facts that Premils are now forced to tell lies about Amil to rebut that truth is testimony to how watertight the Amil position is. The fact is you know: Amils believe the Day of the Lord is future, final and climactic. You have simply no answer to that. So, you have to invent your own misrepresentations to attack Amil.

You claimed I was becoming Amil. I guess that was short lived.

Was that a lie or a false accusation?

 

[WPM]

The confirmation is the part where every last offspring of Adam has been accounted for. That cannot happen until the Second Coming.

The AoD does not end the week. The AoD is in the midst of the Confirmation.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:15 the AoD had not happened yet. If the Cross was the Confirmation, then that was the same week the AoD happened. That did not happen, because the Atonement is still opened for billions to accept. It has not been confirmed, nor closed. The AoD cannot happen until closed.

You claim the work of the Cross was the confirmation. That was the beginning, not the end of the Atonement. You are also misinterpreting Revelation 13, which deals with the time the Atonement is confirmed. John points out:

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Do you think the Confirmation was completed prior to Genesis 1:1? Because it cannot be confirmed until the Second Coming. It is not a 7 year Confirmation either. It is a week long event called the Days of the 7th Trumpet.

Revelation 10:6-7

"And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

The mystery is the confirmation. The Atonement Covenant is confirmed the week of the 7th Trumpet after the Second Coming.

Your objection about the word "for" and that confirmed means to establish are pointless arguments. If you don't accept confirmed as made, then that applies to the Cross as well. My point is not about establishing nor making a Covenant. Your point about the Cross making the Atonement strong or prevailing is moot. The Cross was the Atonement Covenant. The Second Coming is when it is, as you put it, strengthened. It is literally complete at that point. The Second Coming is the strongest point of the Atonement Covenant, period. The Atonement Covenant that from God's perspective, existed before the foundation of the world, as that is when the Lamb's book of life was established as fact. Every single soul ever conceived was placed there by God as if the Cross had already happened.

Daniel 9:27 is not talking about in the midst of a 7 year period. It is talking about in the midst of the week of the 7th Trumpet. The 7th Trumpet is the herald of the confirmation. That is when the Atonement is complete, finished, and will no longer be necessary. Not even in the 1,000 year reign. There is no sin nor Atonement for sin in Revelation 20. You cannot find it nor prove it exists in that Chapter period.

Daniel 9:27 is not the missing 7 year period of Israel's 70 weeks. It is not about a seven year period at all. The AoD is for 42 months. There is no length given for the GT. It keeps getting shorter every second.

I showed you the evidence. Fight with it if you wish.

 

[WPM]

I am premil from the top of the head to the bottom of my foot. Every hair on my head is premil... If it wasn't I would pull it out!

Not only because the Lord comes at an hour in which we think not... But...

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. - 1 John 3:2-3

The premil bunch is a pure and holy bunch, and the hope also makes for a hopeful and joyous Pentecostal!

This post explains your hyper-sensitivity when you are challenged about Premil. A lot of Christians are like that. This is all unobjective bias theological party-politicking.

 

[WPM]

You claimed I was becoming Amil. I guess that was short lived.

Was that a lie or a false accusation?

Answer my point. Stop your avoidance.

 

[WPM]

Here you go missing the point these chapters refute your recap theory. I never made a point. I was providing the verses you already know refute your theory.

You don't have an age between the Cross and the Second Coming either in that Chapter. You only have one age from Adam to the Second Coming.

More avoidance. That is what you must do to sustain your position.

 

[WPM]

Here you go missing the point these chapters refute your recap theory. I never made a point. I was providing the verses you already know refute your theory.

You don't have an age between the Cross and the Second Coming either in that Chapter. You only have one age from Adam to the Second Coming.

Who said different? This evil age began at the Fall. The age to come does not have any carnality or corruption. You are avoiding my points.