20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[ShineyDays2]

you are also free to assume that there were gentiles among those 3000.

During that first gathering of souls in Acts 2, verse 39 says....

"For the promise is to you [Jews] and to your children and to all that are far off,[Gentiles] every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
​

That "promise to every one" [Jew and Gentile] was made on the Day of Pentecost which basically said to the world "all are welcome to join the one Body of Christ [the church] which began that day and was never intended to be divided or else Peter could never have uttered that "the promise" was intended to include both Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Guojing]

During that first gathering of souls in Acts 2, verse 39 says....

"For the promise is to you [Jews] and to your children and to all that are far off,[Gentiles] every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
​

That "promise to every one" [Jew and Gentile] was made on the Day of Pentecost which basically said to the world "all are welcome to join the one Body of Christ [the church] which began that day and was never intended to be divided or else Peter could never have uttered that "the promise" was intended to include both Jews and Gentiles.

There are Jews scattered abroad from Jerusalem since post Solomon.

Peter was not revealing the Body of Christ in Acts 2, he could not have since that was a mystery revealed first to the Apostle Paul.

You are trying to insert gentiles into Acts 2:39. Peter could not be referring to gentiles there, otherwise his statement in Acts 10:28 would have him contradicting himself. I am not even counting what Jesus commanded them in Matthew 10:5, which he never abolished, even after he resurrected. (Matthew 28:20)

 

[ShineyDays2]

You are trying to insert gentiles into Acts 2:39. Peter could not be referring to gentiles there,

Does the text say "excluding those who are far off" or not?

Scripture uses the term "far off" and "near" often; "far off" means Gentiles, "near" means Jews. But the terms "both" or "and" means that the two phrases are connected which makes them "one body." You can deny that, and it is your choice, but that is clearly the way God intended it to be.

• Act 2:39..."For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
• Isa 57:19...Peace, peace, to the far and to the near, says the LORD; and I will heal him.
• Joel 2:32 ..."And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered..."
• Eph 2:13-14..."But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility,
• Eph 2:17..."And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;

 

[sovereigngrace]

you don’t agree that you are Offering your interpretation of scripture?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. The Word of God dictates that.

 

[Guojing]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. The Word of God dictates that.

Yes, all of us are offering our opinion of scripture here.

 

[Guojing]

Does the text say "excluding those who are far off" or not?

Scripture uses the term "far off" and "near" often; "far off" means Gentiles, "near" means Jews. But the terms "both" or "and" means that the two phrases are connected which makes them "one body." You can deny that, and it is your choice, but that is clearly the way God intended it to be.

• Act 2:39..."For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
• Isa 57:19...Peace, peace, to the far and to the near, says the LORD; and I will heal him.
• Joel 2:32 ..."And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered..."
• Eph 2:13-14..."But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility,
• Eph 2:17..."And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;

As I said, if you insist that Peter was also welcoming gentiles in Acts 2, despite what he said to Cornelius in Acts 10:28 and what Jesus commanded them in Matthew 10:5, that is your choice too.

But please don't claim that is "clearly the way God intended it to be". It is your opinion and while I respect your opinion, it is not a fact, as sg stated in the post above this.

 

[sovereigngrace]

As I said, if you insist that Peter was also welcoming gentiles in Acts 2, despite what he said to Cornelius in Acts 10:28 and what Jesus commanded them in Matthew 10:5, that is your choice too.

But please don't claim that is "clearly the way God intended it to be". It is your opinion and while I respect your opinion, it is not a fact, as sg stated in the post above this.

Yes, all of us are offering our opinion of scripture here.

I see a pattern when engaging with Dispies: they refuse to address the texts that expose their reasoning. They have to do that or else abandon their beliefs.

 

[Guojing]

I see a pattern when engaging with Dispies: they refuse to address the texts that expose their reasoning. They have to do that or else abandon their beliefs.

Why do you think your "particular opinion about scripture" exposes anyone's reasoning?

You think it exposes my reasoning, but again, that is not a fact, and as you said so yourself, you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Why do you think your "particular opinion about scripture" exposes anyone's reasoning?

You think it exposes my reasoning, but again, that is not a fact, and as you said yourself, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Biblical facts are stubborn things. It is time you addressed the multiple avoided Scriptures that forbid Pretrib Premil.

 

[Guojing]

Biblical facts are stubborn things. It is time you addressed the multiple avoided Scriptures that forbid Pretrib Premil.

So you don't take your own advice in that post 20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Alright then.

 

[ShineyDays2]

You are trying to insert gentiles into Acts 2:39. Peter could not be referring to gentiles there,

You misquoted me because that is not what my post below said. My post clearly said that "the promise was to BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES due to the term "and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord calls to him" and also due to the fact that "the Court of the Gentiles in the temple area" certainly indicates that Gentiles could have been at the festivals. Therefore you seem to believe that it was impossible for any Gentiles to be anywhere in Jerusalem at the time of the festivals whereas I believed there certainly was indications they could very well have been.

During that first gathering of souls in Acts 2, verse 39 says....

"For the promise is to you [Jews] and to your children and to all that are far off,[Gentiles] every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
That "promise to every one" [Jew and Gentile] was made on the Day of Pentecost which basically said to the world "all are welcome to join the one Body of Christ [the church] which began that day and was never intended to be divided or else Peter could never have uttered that "the promise" was intended to include both Jews and Gentiles.

So, do you deny that the "promise" is for both Jews and Gentiles and that they, both together, make up the true Body of Christ --- the church universal that actually had its origin in the Garden of Eden after the fall although it was in raw form? I say this because of the first family started bringing offerings to the Lord.

 

[Guojing]

You misquoted me because that is not what my post below said. My post clearly said that "the promise was to BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES due to the term "and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord calls to him" and also due to the fact that "the Court of the Gentiles in the temple area" certainly indicates that Gentiles could have been at the festivals. Therefore you seem to believe that it was impossible for any Gentiles to be anywhere in Jerusalem at the time of the festivals whereas I believed there certainly was indications they could very well have been.

So, do you deny that the "promise" is for both Jews and Gentiles and that they, both together, make up the true Body of Christ --- the church universal that actually had its origin in the Garden of Eden after the fall although it was in raw form. I say this because of the first family started bringing offerings to the Lord.

I pointed to you Acts 10:28 and Matthew 10:5/Matthew 28:20 to show that Peter could not be addressing gentiles in Acts 2.

I am not saying there are no gentiles in Jerusalem.

 

[Timtofly]

You misquoted me because that is not what my post below said. My post clearly said that "the promise was to BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES due to the term "and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord calls to him" and also due to the fact that "the Court of the Gentiles in the temple area" certainly indicates that Gentiles could have been at the festivals. Therefore you seem to believe that it was impossible for any Gentiles to be anywhere in Jerusalem at the time of the festivals whereas I believed there certainly was indications they could very well have been.

So, do you deny that the "promise" is for both Jews and Gentiles and that they, both together, make up the true Body of Christ --- the church universal that actually had its origin in the Garden of Eden after the fall although it was in raw form? I say this because of the first family started bringing offerings to the Lord.

They would not be there as Gentiles. They would have come as converts to Judaism. Like the Ethiopian reading Isaiah. He may have been an ethnic Jew, or a Gentile convert to Judaism. He was still not a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

[sovereigngrace]

So you don't take your own advice in that post 20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Alright then.

Premils have no answer to the 20 reasons in the Op. No Premil has refuted them on this thread. I can only conclude that is because they are factual and water-tight.

 

[ShineyDays2]

You are trying to insert gentiles into Acts 2:39.

I stick with everything in my above posts about the potential that Gentiles could very well have been at the festivals. In fact I am adding opening statement of verse 14 to the above list of references concerning what Peter said on the Day of Pentecost....

"Peter,...lifted up his voice and addressed them "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem."​

Then he proceeds to quote Joel:

verse 17 - "And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh..."
verse 21 - "And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
​

Now in regards to the Court of the Gentiles, my research revealed this...

"Court of the Gentiles was the outermost courtyard and the only area of the temple where non-Jews were allowed. [Non-Jews were allowed to enter the Court of the Gentiles, but they were forbidden to go any farther than the outer court.] As its name implies, the Court of the Gentiles was accessible to Gentiles, foreigners, and those who were considered impure. There, worshippers could mill about, exchange money, and even buy animals for sacrifices. It was from the Court of the Gentiles that Jesus, on two occasions (John 2:11–12; Matthew 21:17–23), drove out the money changers, declaring, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers” (Matthew 21:13).
What was the Court of the Gentiles in the Jewish temple? | GotQuestions.org​

Further, in Rev 11:1,2 - Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months."

That court is outside the temple in Revelations 11:2...(where the Court of the Gentiles was located in Herod's temple.)

Vine's Expository Dictionary - NATIONS: in the plural, of nations other than Israel, (Gentiles)

​

 

[Guojing]

I stick with everything in my above posts about the potential that Gentiles could very well have been at the festivals. In fact I am adding opening statement of verse 14 to the above list of references concerning what Peter said on the Day of Pentecost....

"Peter,...lifted up his voice and addressed them "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem."​

Then he proceeds to quote Joel:

verse 17 - "And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh..."
verse 21 - "And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
​

Now in regards to the Court of the Gentiles, my research revealed this...

"Court of the Gentiles was the outermost courtyard and the only area of the temple where non-Jews were allowed. [Non-Jews were allowed to enter the Court of the Gentiles, but they were forbidden to go any farther than the outer court.] As its name implies, the Court of the Gentiles was accessible to Gentiles, foreigners, and those who were considered impure. There, worshippers could mill about, exchange money, and even buy animals for sacrifices. It was from the Court of the Gentiles that Jesus, on two occasions (John 2:11–12; Matthew 21:17–23), drove out the money changers, declaring, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers” (Matthew 21:13).
What was the Court of the Gentiles in the Jewish temple? | GotQuestions.org​

Further, in Rev 11:1,2 - Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months."

That court is outside the temple in Revelations 11:2...(where the Court of the Gentiles was located in Herod's temple.)

Vine's Expository Dictionary - NATIONS: in the plural, of nations other than Israel, (Gentiles)

​

Again, the point we are debating about is NOT whether there are gentiles that may have been present in the outer courts, but whether Peter was addressing them in Acts 2

You avoided scripture that contradicted your stand, like Acts 10:28, and Matthew 10:5/Matthew 28:20.

But if you want to believe that Peter was also addressing gentiles in Acts 2, despite the above scriptures that contradicted your belief, that is your choice

After all, you want the GC in Matthew 28:19-20 to also apply to us today, so naturally, you would have formed that belief over many years. It is understandable to me why you did that.

 

[Guojing]

Premils have no answer to the 20 reasons in the Op. No Premil can refute them on this thread obviously because they are factual and water-tight.

Is that your opinion?

 

[Guojing]

They would not be there as Gentiles. They would have come as converts to Judaism. Like the Ethiopian reading Isaiah. He may have been an ethnic Jew, or a Gentile convert to Judaism. He was still not a follower of Jesus Christ.

Interesting counter view you have there. Any scriptural backing for this point?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Is that your opinion?

No. That is a fact. You or no Premiller has been able to rebut my findings on this thread. That is because they are an accurate reflection upon an unbiblical position.

How about you actually addressing them instead of just posting non-related opinions and derailing this thread?

 

[Guojing]

No. That is a fact. Who has been able to rebut my findings on this thread? No one. That is because they are an accurate reflection upon an unbiblical position.

How about you actually addressing them instead of just posting non-related opinions and derailing this thread?

I see, as I said, you don't follow your own advice that you gave here 20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine