20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[Spiritual Jew]

How is it possible for anyone to discuss issues with you, when you make such blatant misrepresentations of the beliefs of others?
The NH,NE is AFTER the Millennium. Just because Isaiah 65:17 mentions the NH,NE before he mentions the Millennium period, that doesn't mean it must come before. We need to use our common sense.

You're not using common sense if you think no one would weep or cry during a Millennial period of time after Christ's second coming.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. 19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

This correlates with what John said about the new heavens and new earth:

Revelation 21:1 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.

Clearly, the passage from Isaiah is speaking of the same thing as the passage from Revelation 21.

 

[keras]

How can what is described in Rev 20:11-15 take place on earth in light of what it says here:

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Not hard to figure this one out!
The GWT Judgment is after the Millennium, on the New Earth, in the new Jerusalem. Revelation 21:1-7

Clearly, the passage from Isaiah is speaking of the same thing as the passage from Revelation 21.

I fully agree. Isaiah 65:17-18 and Revelation 21:1-7 are parallel prophesies.

It is obvious you are doing your best to avoid the obvious. For the umpteenth time, where in Revelation 20 does it show Jesus on earth? All I see is your personal opinion. That has been shown over the years to be in error.

That my posts contradict your beliefs does not make them 'in error'.
I have yet to see a valid and scripturally correct rebuttal from you.

My belief that all of Rev 20 is earthly scenes, is proved:
1/ By how Satan, is consigned to the earth, Revelation 12:9 and is there when Jesus Returns, to chain him up. Rev 20:2
2/ By how the Trib martyrs are brought back to life and they reign with Christ, having Returned to the earth; for the next 1000 years.
3/ By how Satan, on his release, Rev 20:7-9, gathers a huge army from the four quarters of the earth, to attack God's people and the holy City.
4/ By how the all dead are brought out of their earthly graves and out of the seas.

 

[Timtofly]

Tears, sorrow, mourning, depression, terror, fear, death and sin continue unabated in the Premil millennium, negating the location of Isaiah 65:17-21 before the Second Coming. Again, the passage does not need situated anywhere apart from where the Holy Spirit located it: the “new heavens and a new earth” – which Revelation shows comes after the millennium. It is wonderful when the Bible student stops fighting with Scripture, and lets the Bible speak for itself.

Where is your Scriptural proof of all these tears, sorrow, morning, depression, terror, fear, death, and sin after your own climactic Second Coming? You cannot refute my claim none of this exists in the next Millennium. I have proof it is after the Second Coming. You do not.

 

[Timtofly]

No, i am challenging your faulty interpretation of God's Word.

With your own faulty interpretation?

 

[Timtofly]

If the way you interpret that was correct then it would not make any sense for Paul to say that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord as he does in 2 Cor 5:6-8. You're acting as if you can't be present with the Lord without a body, which contradicts what Paul wrote in 2 Cor 5:6-8.

Also, Paul wrote that our bodies won't be incorruptible and immortal until the last trumpet, which has not yet sounded (1 Cor 15:50-54). Your doctrine contradicts those passages. You need to interpret the beginning of 2 Cor 5 in such a way that doesn't contradict these other passages. What Paul was saying there at the beginning of 2 Cor 5 was that heaven itself is the building that houses the souls of the dead in Christ now.

Paul was talking about the dead as those with corruptible bodies. Yes, corruptible bodies need to be resurrected with an incorruptible body. That happens at the Second Coming. Immortality is not a body, it is the spirit rejoining the body as becoming a son of God. You are a son of God because you let the Holy Spirit work in you as credit, not on your own corruptible body's merit. Immortality is the glorification of our spirit wrapped around us like a robe of white.

You don't take your corruptible body to Paradise. There is a permanent incorruptible body there for your soul when you arrive.

 

[Timtofly]

That is a lame comparison. Adam was the first man in the world. Of course he would be naive about a lot of things. He wasn't on the earth for 1000 years of peace before he sinned, either.

What reason would these people who have just experienced 1000 years of perfect peace on the earth have for suddenly deciding that they don't want that anymore?

Yes there were sons of God on earth for 1000 years on the Day of the Lord's ceasing from His creation. Genesis 1:27 claims there were multiple sons of God, male and female.

Adam did not sin 20 hours after creation. Adam was not naive. Adam named all the animals. God planted a Garden. Put Adam in it. Had Adam name all the animals before Eve was even taken from Adam. The reason why humans rebel is because they listen to Satan.

Some deny the first Lord's Day just as much as many deny the coming Lord's Day.

 

[Timtofly]

2 Peter 3:13 or Revelation 21:1. No, there will only be one new heavens and new earth.

Peter points out that after Noah's Flood it was a new heavens and earth. It was not always the same since creation. Those people of Peter's day were already scoffing that God cannot destroy and create as pointed out in God's Word.

 

[jgr]

Yes, corruptible bodies need to be resurrected with an incorruptible body. That happens at the Second Coming.

But...but...you said that Lazarus received an incorruptible body.

So that was the Second Coming.

A reminder that full preterism is not permitted on this forum.

 

[DavidPT]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]

To be fair to Premils where in Revelation 20 does it show Jesus in heaven? Can you point that out, or do you, like Premils, have to try and logically deduce where Jesus might be at the time? If it's ok for you to have to try and logically deduce that, why isn't ok for Premils to do the same? Why can't you admit that nowhere in Revelation 20 does it come right out and say where Jesus is at the time? But if I am wrong about that, why not post the passage in Revelation 20 where it clearly and undeniably says where He is at the time?

 

[sovereigngrace]

To be fair to Premils where in Revelation 20 does it show Jesus in heaven? Can you point that out, or do you, like Premils, have to try and logically deduce where Jesus might be at the time? If it's ok for you to have to try and logically deduce that, why isn't ok for Premils to do the same? Why can't you admit that nowhere in Revelation 20 does it come right out and say where Jesus is at the time? But if I am wrong about that, why not post the passage in Revelation 20 where it clearly and undeniably says where He is at the time?

This is major!

For years, it has been the Premil mantra that Jesus is ruling in majesty and glory for 1000 years. It is repeatedly advanced as a core fundamental of that theory, and this is their only text they have to support their doctrine, and yet it is not in Revelation. In fact, no where in Scripture teaches Christ ruling in majesty and glory for 1000 years. This is clearly an extra-biblical Premil innovation. This is testimony to how bereft this doctrine is of biblical support.

Revelation 20 is only one of a 1000 passages (I am using that figuratively) that very clearly teaches the Amil doctrine. We do not depend upon it. It too reinforces our beliefs. We have multiple Scripture that shows Christ reign now in heaven. Premils have nothing.

 

[Timtofly]

Here we see “the earth and the heaven” flee away from the very presence of Christ coming upon His throne; it is clearly His appearing that ushers in the end. The arrival of the king of glory also sees the resurrection of the dead (righteous and wicked). Elsewhere in Scripture these things are located at His Coming. In fact, it is difficult to see how Premils can locate this event at anything other time than the second coming when we allow for the many plain climactic passages in Scripture.

Where is the word "Christ" in Revelation 20? It is not at the GWT. And I am accused of foisting? Besides it says earth disappears, totally different than Christ coming to earth. It is the Lord God on the throne. The throne seen since the 6th Seal. It has been there for 1000 years. And then heaven and earth dissappear leaving only the throne.

"Next I saw a great white throne and the One sitting on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them."

This is the scene when it appeared:

"Then the earth’s kings, the rulers, the generals, the rich and the mighty — indeed, everyone, slave and free — hid himself in caves and among the rocks in the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us, and hide us from the face of the One sitting on the throne and from the fury of the Lamb! For the Great Day of their fury has come, and who can stand?”

Heaven and earth did not disappear on that dreadful day when fire destroys all the works of mankind. They still hid themselves in the mountains and caves. This is not even Armageddon yet. They still have to go through the Trumpets and Thunders. Satan still may get 42 months. When Christ shows up at Armageddon, Christ defeats Satan, the FP, and the beast on the earth. Armageddon is not in heaven, it is on earth. Revelation 20 is still dealing with the victory and rule of Christ on earth after Satan is bound and the FP and beast are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is not foisting any private interpretation onto the text. It is just simple reading comprehension.

Private interpretation foists Recapitulation onto the text. This resurrection is not the Resurrection of Christ in 30AD. That is private interpretation foisted on the text. Show me were in any Scripture, Christ leaves the earth after the battle of Armageddon. That Scripture would refute Christ being on the earth during the 1000 year reign with Christ.

You all reject there are bodies in heaven now. Of course you would reject bodies alive on earth for 1000 years. Private interpretation fails to see that the first resurrection is physical. Do you have any proof that the first resurrection of Christ was not physical? Do you have proof Jesus Christ has not had a physical body since His first resurrection? The point of a first resurrection is a physical body, not that one gains a position in heaven.

 

[DavidPT]

Do you have any proof that the first resurrection of Christ was not physical? Do you have proof Jesus Christ has not had a physical body since His first resurrection? The point of a first resurrection is a physical body, not that one gains a position in heaven.

I'm not certain about the rest of your post, what I did not quote here, but as to this portion, these are excellent points. For Amils to then argue that the first resurrection is meaning Christ's, and then in the next breath deny that the first resurrection even involves 'bodily', but only involves 'spiritually', comes across as very confusing and inconsistent to a lot of us.

 

[Timtofly]

But...but...you said that Lazarus received an incorruptible body.

So that was the Second Coming.

A reminder that full preterism is not permitted on this forum.

Those who are on earth at the Second Coming. Lazarus is in Paradise. The majority of the church does not have to wait for their incorruptible bodies. That is my point. That is Paul's point. Your point is no one is physically resurrected in Christ. Paul refutes that notion in 2 Corinthians 5:1.

Only those in corruptible bodies at the Second Coming will be changed at the Second Coming.

No corruptible body can enter Paradise.

A reminder that falsely accusing a poster is also not permitted on this forum.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Not hard to figure this one out!
The GWT Judgment is after the Millennium, on the New Earth, in the new Jerusalem. Revelation 21:1-7

You said "No it isn't. It is the final Judgment of God of all mankind. Obviously, it takes place on earth.". You didn't specify that it would be on the new earth when you said that.

I fully agree. Isaiah 65:17-18 and Revelation 21:1-7 are parallel prophesies.

I also quoted verse 19, which is clearly parallel to Rev 21:1-7 as well. Have you suddenly changed your view? Before, you have said that only Isaiah 65:17 relates to the new heavens and new earth and verses 18-25 relate to a future Millennium.

 

[DavidPT]

Those who are on earth at the Second Coming. Lazarus is in Paradise. The majority of the church does not have to wait for their incorruptible bodies. That is my point. That is Paul's point. Your point is no one is physically resurrected in Christ. Paul refutes that notion in 2 Corinthians 5:1.

Only those in corruptible bodies at the Second Coming will be changed at the Second Coming.

No corruptible body can enter Paradise.

A reminder that falsely accusing a poster is also not permitted on this forum.

Though I do agree no corruptible body can enter heaven, a soul and a body are not the same. For a soul to enter heaven is not the same as a body entering heaven. The only one with an incorruptible body in heaven is Christ. Meaning anyone that is human. Every other human in heaven are depicted as souls, such as what is recorded in Revelation 6 and the 5th seal. The text indicates their souls are seen under the altar in heaven, not their incorruptible bodies instead. Do you deny that there will be a bodily resurrection of those that sleep in Christ, in our future? A bodily resurrection like that where one puts on an incorruptible body at the time doesn't happen to someone twice, right?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm not certain about the rest of your post, what I did not quote here, but as to this portion, these are excellent points. For Amils to then argue that the first resurrection is meaning Christ's, and then in the next breath deny that the first resurrection even involves 'bodily', but only involves 'spiritually', comes across as very confusing and inconsistent to a lot of us.

Let me clear it up then. There is a distinction between the first resurrection itself and having part in the first resurrection. The first resurrection itself was Christ's (Acts 26:23, Col 1:18, 1 Cor 15:20, Rev 1:5) and it was obviously a bodily resurrection. The way that believers have part in the first resurrection (Christ's bodily resurrection) is spiritually as many passages in scripture illustrate. Such as this one:

Romans 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Before we're saved we're considered to be dead in our sins (Eph 2:1-6), but once we become saved we then become dead to sin and spiritually "alive to God in Christ Jesus". So, that is how we spiritually have part in His resurrection, which is the first resurrection.

 

[Timtofly]

To be fair to Premils where in Revelation 20 does it show Jesus in heaven? Can you point that out, or do you, like Premils, have to try and logically deduce where Jesus might be at the time? If it's ok for you to have to try and logically deduce that, why isn't ok for Premils to do the same? Why can't you admit that nowhere in Revelation 20 does it come right out and say where Jesus is at the time? But if I am wrong about that, why not post the passage in Revelation 20 where it clearly and undeniably says where He is at the time?

The Resurrection of Jesus in 30AD was on earth and physical. They fail to point that out. That is why Recapitulation is in error. No where in Revelation 19 and 20 does it move off of the earth. They are foisting the whole of the first century onto the text of Revelation 20. The earth leaves the scene at the end of the chapter. No where does Christ come down at all. Fire comes down from heaven, not Christ.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Paul was talking about the dead as those with corruptible bodies. Yes, corruptible bodies need to be resurrected with an incorruptible body. That happens at the Second Coming. Immortality is not a body, it is the spirit rejoining the body as becoming a son of God. You are a son of God because you let the Holy Spirit work in you as credit, not on your own corruptible body's merit. Immortality is the glorification of our spirit wrapped around us like a robe of white.

You don't take your corruptible body to Paradise. There is a permanent incorruptible body there for your soul when you arrive.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't bother trying to explain how your view lines up with what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 or 2 Corinthians 5:6-8. Again, your view contradicts those passages and you are clearly unable to show otherwise.

 

[jgr]

Those who are on earth at the Second Coming. Lazarus is in Paradise. The majority of the church does not have to wait for their incorruptible bodies. That is my point. That is Paul's point. Your point is no one is physically resurrected in Christ. Paul refutes that notion in 2 Corinthians 5:1.

Only those in corruptible bodies at the Second Coming will be changed at the Second Coming.

No corruptible body can enter Paradise.

A reminder that falsely accusing a poster is also not permitted on this forum.

Lazarus wasn't in Paradise after he was raised.

He emerged in corruptible graveclothes, and resumed a corruptible conventional life thereafter.

 

[Timtofly]

This is major!

For years, it has been the Premil mantra that Jesus is ruling in majesty and glory for 1000 years. It is repeatedly advanced as a core fundamental of that theory, and this is their only text they have to support their doctrine, and yet it is not in Revelation. In fact, no where in Scripture teaches Christ ruling in majesty and glory for 1000 years. This is clearly an extra-biblical Premil innovation. This is testimony to how bereft this doctrine is of biblical support.

Revelation 20 is only one of a 1000 passages (I am using that figuratively) that very clearly teach the Amil doctrine. We do not depend upon it. It too reinforces our beliefs. We have multiple Scripture that shows Christ reign now in heaven. Premils have nothing.

So you just declare 1000 years does not exist and you do depend on it. It is in the name: a - millennium. If there is a millennium the definition is a fail and only leaves millennium. If you can prove there is no millennium period, you have made your point.