20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Clare73 said:

Since Adam's choice was rebellion against God, and Christ's choice was obedience to God, would it be more of the contrasting parallel between the first Adam and the second Adam of 1Co 15:45; Ro 5:14-19?

Click to expand...

I defiantly agree with you here and I think your statement is probably the most straight forward way of looking at this. What happen in Eden was the fall of man and what happened at the cross was the rise of man. So there is a polar opposite effect that takes place.

I had a conversation about this subject on the General Theology board a while ago and this topic can get quite convoluted. For instance using 2 Corinthians 5:21 an argument can be put forth that Christ actually became sin and not just the propitiation for sin; which leads to the idea that Adam became sin when he ate the fruit. Also there’s the thought that the Lamb was slain before the foundations of the earth so when man was made in the image of God it included both the initial sin and the payment for that sin.

I don’t necessarily agree with these ideas so the conclusion I’ve come to is that both the first Adam and last Adam committed their actions out of love for their wife; although the actions taken created a polar opposite effect.

Moriah's Song said:

? And what has this to do with the OP?

Click to expand...

Why can sin only be eradicated spiritually?

The OP insinuates sin has to exist physically, thus no possibility of a future millennium on earth without it.

Since Adam brought sin in, sin could not exist physically before that point. Since Christ in a future fulfillment of the Covenant (the 7th Trumpet) removes sin from the earth, it will not be in the 1000 years following the battle of Armageddon.

The argument is sin is physically eradicated now, no longer exist, and thus we are in the millennium now.

Timtofly said:

Since Christ in a future fulfillment of the Covenant (the 7th Trumpet) removes sin from the earth, it will not be in the 1000 years following the battle of Armageddon.

Click to expand...

What are you doing with Zechariah 14:16-19? Here we have people who willfully don’t go up to Jerusalem to worship the King and they are punished. This is sedition and in Galatians 5:19-21 it is listed as one of the sins that prevents people from inheriting the kingdom of God. Doesn’t this qualify as sin in the millennium?

grafted branch said:

I don’t necessarily agree with these ideas so the conclusion I’ve come to is that both the first Adam and last Adam committed their actions out of love for their wife; although the actions taken created a polar opposite effect.

Click to expand...

Adam did decide to give Eve the physical consequences of the unknown. But since they were unknown it could not be for carnal flesh, nor perfect spiritual bliss. They already had everything even if they did not know it. It was always doubt of some unknown "being kept from them". That is how Satan presented it.

God on the other hand knew the consequences of all actions of His creation. God even planned His own response before Creation began. Not only thought it all out, but God physically performed it before Creation. I guess that would be the difference of coming to the same conclusion of each looking out for their wife. God had the advantage of omniscience. Adam had the disadvantage, which BTW still drives science (knowledge) today; we do not know everything, but have the God given desire to want to. Just ask God, a better alternative than listening to Satan and gain knowledge by disobedience to God.

sovereigngrace said:

You populate your millennium full of billions of fallen Satan-followers and you deny they are sinners. That is ridiculous.

Premil clearly doesn't add up. You reinforced the Op.

Click to expand...

I don't do anything. That is your argument, not mine.

grafted branch said:

What are you doing with Zechariah 14:16-19? Here we have people who willfully don’t go up to Jerusalem to worship the King and they are punished. This is sedition and in Galatians 5:19-21 it is listed as one of the sins that prevents people from inheriting the kingdom of God. Doesn’t this qualify as sin in the millennium?

Click to expand...

No one will answer my point about rebellion and disobedience prior to sin.

The only answer seems to be, I do not know what I am posting. Obviously no one can answer the question, so they avoid it.

If sin was not in the world, what was sin before it existed? Even Paul claims sins is even if there is no Law. While sin and the Law address similar ideas, they are not the same thing.

A law can exist even if sin does not.

The point is Death is still the punishment for breaking a Law, to God. Trying to apply a condition where sin is present to where sin is not present is the sticking point. Some here seem to demand sin be present or God's millennium would fall apart without it.

grafted branch said:

I defiantly agree with you here and I think your statement is probably the most straight forward way of looking at this. What happen in Eden was the fall of man and what happened at the cross was the rise of man. So there is a polar opposite effect that takes place.

I had a conversation about this subject on the General Theology board a while ago and this topic can get quite convoluted. For instance using 2 Corinthians 5:21 an argument can be put forth that Christ actually became sin and not just the propitiation for sin; which leads to the idea that Adam became sin when he ate the fruit. Also there’s the thought that the Lamb was slain before the foundations of the earth so when man was made in the image of God it included both the initial sin and the payment for that sin.

Click to expand...

I don’t necessarily agree with these ideas so the conclusion I’ve come to is that both the first Adam and last Adam committed their actions out of love for their wife; although the actions taken created a polar opposite effect.

Click to expand...

Because they came from a polar opposite disposition, rebellion vs. obedience.

Timtofly said:

Why can sin only be eradicated spiritually?
The OP insinuates sin has to exist physically, thus no possibility of a future millennium on earth without it.
Since Adam brought sin in, sin could not exist physically before that point. Since Christ in a future fulfillment of the Covenant (the 7th Trumpet) removes sin from the earth, it will not be in the 1000 years following the battle of Armageddon.
The argument is sin is physically eradicated now, no longer exist, and thus we are in the millennium now.

Click to expand...

Well, that was an "interesting" argument leading to the right conclusion.

The 1000 is one of those numbers indicating fullness, completeness, like 7, 12, 144.

The 1000 years symbolically represents the Church Age, which in NT teaching is followed by the end of time.

Clare73 said:

Well, that was an "interesting" argument leading to the right conclusion.

The 1000 is one of those numbers indicating fullness, completeness, like 7, 12, 144.

The 1000 years symbolically represents the Church Age, which in NT teaching is followed by the end of time.

Click to expand...

So God does not use literal meanings?

Was the last 1990 years figurative as well?

Some here think the Second Coming is just figurative and will never be a future literal event, as time can go on for billions of years.

Do humans really get to dictate God's Word just arbitrarily to make things feel better? At what point will it take for humans to accept God is not just some figurative being with a set of figurative Words called the Bible?

Timtofly said:

No one will answer my point about rebellion and disobedience prior to sin.

The only answer seems to be, I do not know what I am posting. Obviously no one can answer the question, so they avoid it.

If sin was not in the world, what was sin before it existed? Even Paul claims sins is even if there is no Law. While sin and the Law address similar ideas, they are not the same thing.

A law can exist even if sin does not.

The point is Death is still the punishment for breaking a Law, to God. Trying to apply a condition where sin is present to where sin is not present is the sticking point. Some here seem to demand sin be present or God's millennium would fall apart without it.

Click to expand...

Ok, I read through some of the previous posts, and want to make sure I understand you correctly. Do people enter the millennium not knowing good from evil? Satan is bound during the millennium so he can’t be the one who deceives correct? So your point about rebellion and disobedience happening without sin is what will occur during the millennium; something similar to what happened in Eden?

Timtofly said:

Was the last 1990 years figurative as well?

Click to expand...

I don't know what you are asking.

The fullness of time for the Church Age is represented as 1,000 years.
The actual time could be any number.

So God does not use literal meanings?

Click to expand...

Don't you think soteriology is full of literal meanings--faith, atonement, sacrifice, salvation, sanctification, justification, etc.?

Some here think the Second Coming is just figurative and will never be a future literal event, as time can go on for billions of years.

Click to expand...

It's not what can happen, it's what God has declared shall happen.

Do humans really get to dictate God's Word just arbitrarily to make things feel better? At what point will it take for humans to accept God is not just some figurative being with a set of figurative Words called the Bible?

Click to expand...

Probably when trees literally clap their hands and mountains literally sing for joy.

Timtofly said:

No one will answer my point about rebellion and disobedience prior to sin.

Click to expand...

Rebellion and sin began with angels, who were cast out, for sin cannot dwell in God's presence.

Adam likewise rebelled and disobeyed, for which he was cast out of the Garden.

Did you miss post #2597:

"Thou shalt not eat of it" was a command, the law of the Garden,

just as, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" was a command, the law of Israel.

Adam rebelled against God's law of the Garden.

He loved the creature more than the Creator.

The only answer seems to be, I do not know what I am posting. Obviously no one can answer the question, so they avoid it.
If sin was not in the world, what was sin before it existed?

Click to expand...

In context, Paul's meaning of sin there is: there was no Mosaic law, so there was no sin, because there was no law to sin against--yet all from Adam to Moses died.
The sin that caused the death of all those before the Mosaic law was Adam's sin against the law of the Garden, "Thou shalt not eat of it."

A law can exist even if sin does not.

The point is Death is still the punishment for breaking a Law, to God. Trying to apply a condition where sin is present to where sin is not present is the sticking point. Some here seem to demand sin be present or God's millennium would fall apart without it.

Click to expand...

The "millennium" represents the Church Age, which is not sinless.

There seems to be some serious misunderstanding of Ro 5:12-4 here.
Paul is demonstrating that Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind (Ro 5:18) with the following argument:

1) breaking the law is sin; where there is no law, there is no sin,
2) the wages of sin is death (Ro 6:23),
3) there was no law prior to Moses for mankind to break,
4) yet all mankind died anyway,
5) therefore, because physical death is caused by sin, all mankind prior to Moses were involved in sin,
6) the only sin in the world was the sin of Adam, so it was Adam's sin in which they were involved, and which caused their deaths,
7) Adam's sin is imputed (accounted, reckoned) to all those of Adam, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to all those of Christ (1Co 15:22;
Ro 5:18-19).

grafted branch said:

Ok, I read through some of the previous posts, and want to make sure I understand you correctly. Do people enter the millennium not knowing good from evil? Satan is bound during the millennium so he can’t be the one who deceives correct? So your point about rebellion and disobedience happening without sin is what will occur during the millennium; something similar to what happened in Eden?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the point of the sounding of the 7th Trumpet.

Now adding the knowledge of good and evil is an added assumption. That is getting into the line of reasoning coming from Satan, the deceiver. The Bible never states what humans know in the next age, the 1000 year physical reign of Christ. What does the soul in Paradise know? The soul leaves one body for another. Are memories in the soul?

What about the example Jesus gave about a conversation between Abraham, a rich man, and Lazarus, after they died? Do you accept the points of the story, or only apply them figuratively as seems fit to biblical interpretation?

It is hard enough pointing out the length of this time in the proper historical chronology. Denying there is a millennium based on the way people interpret the Bible, should equally apply to now in their explanation.

The new point is that all are dead at the end of the 7th Trumpet. None of Adam's flesh and blood exist. A Resurrection of the same old same old does not make sense. Yet that is the claim to make false assumptions to prove a point, that is only interpretation any way.

If all has been destroyed as preached, then the practice of that point should apply to those resurrected. Those resurrected do not carry sin back into reality. Those resurrected are given a new experience to reign with Christ. They populate the world for 1000 years. That would see the birth of billions way more than under current conditions.

Like today, people will disagree with each other and interpret life in their own eyes. Let Satan loose on these people just like when Satan was allowed access to Adam and Eve, do we need to make up unnecessary jumps to improper conclusions? The proof would be a verse where something happens to let sin back into the world. The alternative would be that God still let's those after 1000 years reject God like every other son of God or descendant of Adam who ever lived on earth. Both are valid assumptions.

Timtofly said:

Yes, that is the point of the sounding of the 7th Trumpet.

Now adding the knowledge of good and evil is an added assumption. That is getting into the line of reasoning coming from Satan, the deceiver. The Bible never states what humans know in the next age, the 1000 year physical reign of Christ. What does the soul in Paradise know? The soul leaves one body for another. Are memories in the soul?

What about the example Jesus gave about a conversation between Abraham, a rich man, and Lazarus, after they died? Do you accept the points of the story, or only apply them figuratively as seems fit to biblical interpretation?

It is hard enough pointing out the length of this time in the proper historical chronology. Denying there is a millennium based on the way people interpret the Bible, should equally apply to now in their explanation.

The new point is that all are dead at the end of the 7th Trumpet. None of Adam's flesh and blood exist. A Resurrection of the same old same old does not make sense. Yet that is the claim to make false assumptions to prove a point, that is only interpretation any way.

If all has been destroyed as preached, then the practice of that point should apply to those resurrected. Those resurrected do not carry sin back into reality. Those resurrected are given a new experience to reign with Christ. They populate the world for 1000 years. That would see the birth of billions way more than under current conditions.

Like today, people will disagree with each other and interpret life in their own eyes. Let Satan loose on these people just like when Satan was allowed access to Adam and Eve, do we need to make up unnecessary jumps to improper conclusions? The proof would be a verse where something happens to let sin back into the world. The alternative would be that God still let's those after 1000 years reject God like every other son of God or descendant of Adam who ever lived on earth. Both are valid assumptions.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that response, I personally am not premill but I do try to examine how others see things.

Timtofly said:

If all has been destroyed as preached, then the practice of that point should apply to those resurrected. Those resurrected do not carry sin back into reality. Those resurrected are given a new experience to reign with Christ. They populate the world for 1000 years. That would see the birth of billions way more than under current conditions.

Click to expand...

Wouldn’t the knowledge of good and evil have to be present in a future millennium for people to populate the world? Adam and Eve didn’t even know they were naked until they had the knowledge of good and evil.

Clare73 said:

I don't know what you are asking.

The fullness of time for the Church Age is represented as 1,000 years.
The actual time could be any number.
Don't you think soteriology is full of literal meanings--faith, atonement, sacrifice, salvation, sanctification, justification, etc.?It's not what can happen, it's what God has declared shall happen.Probably when trees literally clap their hands and mountains literally sing for joy.

Click to expand...

Then you are saying Armageddon happened in the first century? What year?

1000 represents a completion. That is why Christ reigns 1000 years physically on earth, while Satan is bound.