20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[Guojing]

What made you think I was patronizing?

Are you unable to accept a compliment?

Should I have simply informed you of your faulty English, and nothing more?

As I said, I ignored that compliment and focus on the discussion points itself. It doesn't matter what your intention was.

But I was amused you would use that compliment to justify yourself to Marilyn.

 

[jgr]

As I said, I ignored that compliment and focus on the discussion points itself. It doesn't matter what your intention was.

But I was amused you would use that compliment to justify yourself to Marilyn.

No justification, and no further compliments forthcoming. I'll simply draw attention to the errors.

Here are more:

"By the time acts 28 concluded Israel the nation has completely fallen. Even the disapora has rejected Jesus"

Should I identify the errors, or can you recognize them yourself?

 

[Marilyn C]

What made you think I was patronizing?

Are you unable to accept a compliment?

Should I have simply informed you of your faulty English, and nothing more?

Hi jgr,

This is exactly what you said and reveals your patronizing attitude.

`You're tripping over the English language again.`

If I made a mistake you would not say `I`m tripping over the English language.` But would say `I made a mistake.`

Marilyn.

 

[jgr]

Hi jgr,

This is exactly what you said and reveals your patronizing attitude.

`You're tripping over the English language again.`

If I made a mistake you would not say `I`m tripping over the English language.` But would say `I made a mistake.`

Marilyn.

Hi Marilyn,

You'll notice that there's been no response to post 3976.

Having been deliberately misquoted, I consider my response of "tripping over the English language" to be extraordinarily mild.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Is my argument that hard to follow?

You are definitely hard to follow at times. I'm sure I'm not the only one to think so. But, why did you not reply specifically to the points I made in my post? Instead, you just ask a question.

All women are human beings
But not all human beings are women.

That you are clear correct?

Women is boc
Human is church

This is a bad analogy because you can't say that women make up all human beings. There's obviously also men. But, you can say that all in the body of Christ are also in the church because the body of Christ and the church are the same thing. Two different labels for the same entity.

If the body of Christ and the church are not exactly the same entity, then the criteria for being part of each would be different. But, that is not the case.

As I already pointed out, scripture uses the terms "body of Christ" and "the church" synonymously rather than it being a case of all in the body of Christ being in the church, but not all in the church being in the body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.

Ephesians 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

If not all who are in the church are in the body of Christ (which is how I understand your argument based on your women-human beings analogy), then Paul saying "the church, which is His body" would not be an accurate statement.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hi SJ,

`they were all baptized unto Moses...` We are NOT baptized unto Moses but unto the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28: 19)

They were able to journey for 40 years because of Christ however MOST of them died because of sin. They DID NOT have the privilege of partaking of the Lord`s Divine nature, because it was NOT offered as He had not - lived, died and rose again and ascended and sent His Holy Spirit to make us like Himself.

If those in the wilderness had been made like Christ, then how come they died in their sin.

`But with most of them God was NOT well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.` (1 Cor. 10: 5)

Marilyn.

For one thing, that verse (1 Cor 10:5) says MOST of them, not all of them. Yet, you're talking as if it says all of them.

Also, you missed my point. I'm saying that the ones who had faith were saved by Christ, which is what 1 Cor 10:1-4 indicates. That most of them did not maintain their faith while they were in the wilderness is besides the point. I'm talking about the ones who kept their faith the whole time. Their spiritual Rock was Christ the same as He is for us. There is no other way by no other name to be saved (Acts 4:12, John 14:6) and never has been. So, all believers from all-time are in the same one body of Christ. That is what you're not understanding. You want to separate what the blood of Christ has brought together as one.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Would you refute and expose James in acts 21:18-25 as well? He made a distinction between Jews and gentile believers there.

But, he shouldn't have because that directly contradicts what Peter taught here:

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

If we didn't know any better, we could easily conclude that Acts 15:5-11 contradicts Acts 21:18-25. But, we know that no passage of scripture contradicts any other passage of scripture. So, we need to be able to reconcile these two passages together. How do you do that?

The way I do that is that I believe James had not yet understood the truth of the matter, like Peter did, that the blood of Christ brought Jew and Gentile believers together as one as part of the same one body and made it so that the way for salvation was exactly the same for both Jews and Gentiles, which is by grace through repentance and faith in Christ.

In Acts 15:5-11, Peter makes it very clear that the he was called to preach the same gospel to the Gentiles that he had taught to the Jews and that God made is so that there was no difference between Jews and Gentiles.

Peter said that the Gentiles and Jews both received the Holy Spirit as evidence of their salvation and both were saved "by faith" and "through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ". How does that line up with your understanding of Acts 21:18-25? It doesn't appear that your interpretation of Acts 21:18-25 agrees with what Peter taught in Acts 15:5-11, so how do you reconcile those two passages together so that they don't contradict each other?

 

[Guojing]

But, he shouldn't have because that directly contradicts what Peter taught here:

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

If we didn't know any better, we could easily conclude that Acts 15:5-11 contradicts Acts 21:18-25. But, we know that no passage of scripture contradicts any other passage of scripture. So, we need to be able to reconcile these two passages together. How do you do that?

The way I do that is that I believe James had not yet understood the truth of the matter, like Peter did, that the blood of Christ brought Jew and Gentile believers together as one as part of the same one body and made it so that the way for salvation was exactly the same for both Jews and Gentiles, which is by grace through repentance and faith in Christ.

In Acts 15:5-11, Peter makes it very clear that the he was called to preach the same gospel to the Gentiles that he had taught to the Jews and that God made is so that there was no difference between Jews and Gentiles.

Peter said that the Gentiles and Jews both received the Holy Spirit as evidence of their salvation and both were saved "by faith" and "through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ". How does that line up with your understanding of Acts 21:18-25? It doesn't appear that your interpretation of Acts 21:18-25 agrees with what Peter taught in Acts 15:5-11, so how do you reconcile those two passages together so that they don't contradict each other?

By the time acts 15 arrived, peter was no longer in charge of the Jerusalem church.

Peter wanted Jews to be exempted from the law too, as you stated in acts 15:11 but James would have none of that, as the incident in acts 21:18-25 showed.

James was the one making the final decision, and at the end of acts 15, he concluded that only gentile believers are to be excused from the law (Acts 15:19, Acts 21:25)

If peter was really in charge, if what he said in Acts 15:11 was also what James concluded, then he would not have been afraid of the “men from James” in the second half of Galatians 2, which took place after acts 15

That is not a contradiction in scripture, acts is not a doctrinal letter, Luke is writing the history of the early church for us to learn from

By the time acts 21 came, peter had faded away from the picture, and James took prominence even when he was not among the 12

 

[Marilyn C]

For one thing, that verse (1 Cor 10:5) says MOST of them, not all of them. Yet, you're talking as if it says all of them.

Also, you missed my point. I'm saying that the ones who had faith were saved by Christ, which is what 1 Cor 10:1-4 indicates. That most of them did not maintain their faith while they were in the wilderness is besides the point. I'm talking about the ones who kept their faith the whole time. Their spiritual Rock was Christ the same as He is for us. There is no other way by no other name to be saved (Acts 4:12, John 14:6) and never has been. So, all believers from all-time are in the same one body of Christ. That is what you're not understanding. You want to separate what the blood of Christ has brought together as one.

Hi SJ,

I realise you are talking about the ones who did keep their faith. Yes they are `saved,` but to what?

They DID NOT have the privilege of partaking of the Lord`s Divine nature, because it was NOT offered as He had not - lived, died and rose again and ascended and sent His Holy Spirit to make us like Himself.

Marilyn.

 

[ShineyDays2]

They DID NOT have the privilege of partaking of the Lord`s Divine nature, because it was NOT offered as He had not - lived, died and rose again and ascended and sent His Holy Spirit to make us like Himself.

The OT believers looked forward to the cross; we look back at the cross. Both lived by faith in the promise of salvation to all who believe.
Are you not forgetting Luke 23:39-43 and the OT thief on the cross? All he had to say was "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And [Jesus] said to him "Truly, I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise."

 

[Marilyn C]

The OT believers looked forward to the cross; we look back at the cross. Both lived by faith in the promise of salvation to all who believe.
Are you not forgetting Luke 23:39-43 where the OT thief on the cross and all he said was "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him "Truly, I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise."

Hi MS,

I totally agree that all are saved because of the Lord. However....it is their different promised inheritances that I am referring to.

Marilyn.

 

[ShineyDays2]

it is their different promised inheritances that I am referring to.

That is not what you posted.

 

[Marilyn C]

That is not what you posted.

Hi MS,

Can you please be a bit more specific? Quote what I said?

Marilyn.

 

[ShineyDays2]

Post #3989

 

[Marilyn C]

Post #3989

Hi MS,

That`s right in that particular post I was not referring to the different inheritances.

Marilyn.

 

[Guojing]

The OT believers looked forward to the cross; we look back at the cross. Both lived by faith in the promise of salvation to all who believe.
Are you not forgetting Luke 23:39-43 and the OT thief on the cross? All he had to say was "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And [Jesus] said to him "Truly, I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise."

Peter was certainly not looking forward to the cross

1. He rebuked Jesus for telling them he had to die.
2. He disowned Jesus 3 times at the cross.
3. None of them were camping outside the tomb on the 3rd day, counting down to his resurrection.
4. They didn't believe when the first witnesses of his resurrection, which were women, report to them that Christ had risen.

 

[ShineyDays2]

They DID NOT have the privilege of partaking of the Lord`s Divine nature, because it was NOT offered as He had not - lived, died and rose again and ascended and sent His Holy Spirit to make us like Himself.

Prior to the cross, Mary, the mother of Jesus believed in the Savior of the OT who would come to save her from her sins....

Luk 1:46,47 - And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,​

Of the OT writers believed that they needed a savior and looked forward to a day when that would become a reality.

Both the OT and the NT remnant lived by faith in the promise of salvation to all who believe.

SAMUEL:
2Sa 22:3 - "...my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge, my savior; thou savest me from violence.

PSALMS: (David, Moses et al)
Psa 106:21 - They forgot God, their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt,

ISAIAH:
Isa 19:20 - It will be a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; when they cry to the LORD because of oppressors he will send them a savior, and will defend and deliver them.
Isa 43:3 - For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as your ransom, .
Isa 43:11 - I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.
Isa 45:15 - Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior.
Isa 45:21 - ...And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 49:26 - "...Then all flesh shall know that I am the LORD your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."
Isa 60:16 - "...and you shall know that I, the LORD, am your Savior and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.
Isa 63:8 - For he said, Surely they are my people, sons who will not deal falsely; and he became their Savior.

JEREMIAH:
Jer 14:8 - O thou hope of Israel, its savior in time of trouble, why shouldst thou be like a stranger in the land,...

HOSEA:
Hosea 13:4 - I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.

Even before Adam and Eve had children, God promised salvation to all believing mankind in Genesis 3:15..."I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;..." When they did have children, we see the first written instance of sacrifices being presented to God which would indicate future forgiveness for all who believe in that promised "seed" which would be called "the Messiah/Emmanuel."

Now when Cain and Abel were old enough to bring sacrifices to the Lord, we see this account in Genesis 4:2-4... "Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the [cursed]ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering,"

LONG before Noah, and before Abraham was called out of a GENTILE nation, at the very beginning of history as we know it, God always provided a way for man to receive forgiveness!

 

[jgr]

Peter was certainly not looking forward to the cross

1. He rebuked Jesus for telling them he had to die.
2. He disowned Jesus 3 times at the cross.
3. None of them were camping outside the tomb on the 3rd day, counting down to his resurrection.
4. They didn't believe when the first witnesses of his resurrection, which were women, report to them that Christ had risen.

Moriah's Song in post 3990: "The OT believers looked forward to the cross..."

I checked the OT.

Peter isn't in it.
Those "camping outside the tomb on the 3rd day" are not in it.
"The first witnesses of his resurrection, which were women" are not in it.

Your post is irrelevant.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

By the time acts 15 arrived, peter was no longer in charge of the Jerusalem church.

What difference does that make? That doesn't change the fact that what he said in Acts 15 is true. He taught the same thing there that Paul taught several times in his letters as well.

If peter was really in charge, if what he said in Acts 15:11 was also what James concluded, then he would not have been afraid of the “men from James” in the second half of Galatians 2, which took place after acts 15

That is not a contradiction in scripture, acts is not a doctrinal letter, Luke is writing the history of the early church for us to learn from

If Acts is not a doctrinal letter, then why do you try to use Acts 21:18-25 to support your doctrine?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Hi SJ,

I realise you are talking about the ones who did keep their faith. Yes they are `saved,` but to what?

They DID NOT have the privilege of partaking of the Lord`s Divine nature, because it was NOT offered as He had not - lived, died and rose again and ascended and sent His Holy Spirit to make us like Himself.

Marilyn.

They are saved to the same entity as we are, which is the church/body of Christ. Christ's blood covered their sins retroactively. Their souls are with the souls of dead NT saints in heaven.

That they didn't have the same experience as us in terms of receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is irrelevant. That doesn't make them part of a separate group from us.