20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

sovereigngrace · Apr 21, 2021

keras said:
It doesn't need to be. Revelation 20 say six times; there will be a millennium reign of King Jesus.

Sheer conjecture, an accusation of belief that I and anyone I know; reject outright.
The Millennium will be a glorious time of peace and right living. Satan is chained up and cannot deceive people. Only at the end, is Satan released and those who buy his idea of attacking Jerusalem, will all die.

Remember; the ancient Israelites did do that, when Moses was up on the mountain. They experienced the Exodus and saw the power of God, yet it only took 40 days and they started worshipping a golden calf.

OK, OK - Isaiah 65:19 is for the NH, NE time.

But how can Isaiah 65:20-25 be for Eternity?
That prophetic passage says there will be death and they will have children, build and plant, lions and snakes will exist, etc. That time cannot be Eternity, it will be during the Millennium.

About the most incredible statement yet made, so obviously wrong that it put everything else you have posted here into question.

Isaiah 65:17 says: "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 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. 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."

If we compare this with Revelation 20 we see an indisputable correlation and agreement. These both refer in the same time and reality.

Revelation 21:1-4 says, “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. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband … 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.”

There is no doubt these passages parallel each other and describe the same glorious occasion. As David said: both accounts speak of the new heaven and the new earth. They vividly show the corrupt former things being finally and eternally removed. They describe a new perfect arrangement. They portray of new improved Jerusalem. They depict no more crying or dying occurring on the new earth.

The only thing is: the newer and fuller revelation expands upon the old and gives greater illumination. The new puts meat on the bones of the old.

There is only one new heavens and new earth!

It is wrong therefore to insist that Isaiah 65:19 is describing a future millennium while Revelation 21:4 is only speaking of a time after the millennium.

Timtofly · Apr 21, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
I have repeatedly showed you that the original text in Isaiah 65 proves there is no dying and crying in the new heavens and new earth. But you reject that. Premils have to do that in order to sustain their faulty position. You continued avoidance of the issues is testimony to the error of the Premil position.

Revelation 20 refers to the here-and-now, and correlates with multiple climactic passages in the rest of the scared text. There is no mention of some sin-cursed re-run of our age in Isaiah 65. You know that! You have zero grounds to claim anything in Isaiah 65 to support Premil.

The only way your position can be sustained is continually avoiding the rebuttals and queries that forbid your position.

Please address the evidence:

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

Still death. Amil have to change to totally different Hebrew words to remove death. They have to remove death or their theology falls apart.

Timtofly · Apr 22, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
Isaiah 65:17 says: "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 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. 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."

If we compare this with Revelation 20 we see an indisputable correlation and agreement. These both refer in the same time and reality.

Revelation 21:1-4 says, “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. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband … 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.”

There is no doubt these passages parallel each other and describe the same glorious occasion. As David said: both accounts speak of the new heaven and the new earth. They vividly show the corrupt former things being finally and eternally removed. They describe a new perfect arrangement. They portray of new improved Jerusalem. They depict no more crying or dying occurring on the new earth.

The only thing is: the newer and fuller revelation expands upon the old and gives greater illumination. The new puts meat on the bones of the old.

There is only one new heavens and new earth!

It is wrong therefore to insist that Isaiah 65:19 is describing a future millennium while Revelation 21:4 is only speaking of a time after the millennium.

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

"And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;"

World destroyed and new one happened with water. Nothing new about new heavens and earth after God on the throne cleanses the earth with fire at the Second Coming.

Revelation 21 is a totally different reality. No death period. For one, size is going to change drastically. The New Jerusalem is going to look like a sky scraper in downtown NYC. It is a 1200 mile cube. That is just 1 "mansion" that holds billions.

sovereigngrace · Apr 22, 2021

Timtofly said:
Still death. Amil have to change to totally different Hebrew words to remove death. They have to remove death or their theology falls apart.

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.

This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.

The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.

Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.

No (Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.

The original Hebrew does not give us any reason to attribute death to the “child” in this second line. In fact, it does not fit the whole context which is evidently speaking of the removal of ageing and death on the new earth. Interpreting it as we have, seems to (1) match the original, (2) make sense to its context, and (3) taps into the thrust of what the prophet was trying to relay. We need to remind ourselves that the whole idea here is describing the incredible eternal deliverance from the curse of corruption and the joy that “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind” on the “new earth.”

sovereigngrace · Apr 22, 2021

Timtofly said:
"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

"And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;"

World destroyed and new one happened with water. Nothing new about new heavens and earth after God on the throne cleanses the earth with fire at the Second Coming.

Revelation 21 is a totally different reality. No death period. For one, size is going to change drastically. The New Jerusalem is going to look like a sky scraper in downtown NYC. It is a 1200 mile cube. That is just 1 "mansion" that holds billions.

I think you are getting the Greek words confused. The world (kosmos) was destroyed in Noah's day but the earth (gē) was not. Big difference! The kosmos can refer to the physical earth but can also refer to the people or orderly arrangement on earth. Anyway, there is a major difference between the world being enveloped by water and being purged by fire. What is more, when the heavens and earth are coupled together (as they are here) they always mean exactly that. Significantly, the word gē is employed to describe the physical globe. Anyway:

· Water may clean a metal but fire purifies and cleanses it.
· Water may drown someone (as in the flood) but fire burns up and melts.

2 Peter 2:4-9: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world (kosmos), but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world (kosmos) of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked. (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds). The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.”

This passage highlights the great faithfulness of God toward His elect and the justice of God against the rebellious. It is a solemn reminder to mankind of the awful consequences of rejecting God or His gracious plan of salvation. Peter points us back in time to God’s treatment of the rebellious angels at the beginning and his dealing with Noah’s world and also the iniquitous cities of Sodom and Gomorrha in Lot’s day. The two mentions of “world” in v 5 (referring to Noah’s day) are not talking about the physical earth (gē) but rather “the old world … the world of the ungodly” – talking about the wicked. The Greek word for “world” here is kosmos describing the human world that rejected God in Noah’s day.

Most commentators accept that Peter is speaking of actual people in in v 5 and not the physical world.

The whole context and wording here is clear and unequivocal. It is showing us God’s ultimate grace when dealing with those who humble themselves and His ultimate justice when dealing with rebellious angels and humans. We see that in Peter’s conclusion of his thought in v 9: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.”

Timtofly · Apr 22, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after

לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die

This is called synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.

This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.

The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means “no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.

Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.

No (Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.

The original Hebrew does not give us any reason to attribute death to the “child” in this second line. In fact, it does not fit the whole context which is evidently speaking of the removal of ageing and death on the new earth. Interpreting it as we have, seems to (1) match the original, (2) make sense to its context, and (3) taps into the thrust of what the prophet was trying to relay. We need to remind ourselves that the whole idea here is describing the incredible eternal deliverance from the curse of corruption and the joy that “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind” on the “new earth.”

No one is saying people get old and die in the Millennium.

Are you saying people are born already a certain age, ie 100? That is the gist of your argument, if a child cannot even mature from infancy to 100. You are literally saying all humans are procreated as 100 year old beings.

Timtofly · Apr 22, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
I think you are getting the Greek words confused. The world (kosmos) was destroyed in Noah's day but the earth (gē) was not. Big different! The kosmos can refer to the physical earth but can also refer to the people or orderly arrangement on earth. Anyway, there is a major difference between the world being enveloped by water and being purged by fire. What is more, when the heavens and earth are coupled together (as they are here) they always mean exactly that. Significantly, the word gē is employed to describe the physical globe. Anyway:

· Water may clean a metal but fire purifies and cleanses it.
· Water may drown someone (as in the flood) but fire burns up and melts.

2 Peter 2:4-9: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world (kosmos), but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world (kosmos) of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked. (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds). The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.”

This passage highlights the great faithfulness of God toward His elect and the justice of God against the rebellious. It is a solemn reminder to mankind of the awful consequences of rejecting God or His gracious plan of salvation. Peter points us back in time to God’s treatment of the rebellious angels at the beginning and his dealing with Noah’s world and also the iniquitous cities of Sodom and Gomorrha in Lot’s day. The two mentions of “world” in v 5 (referring to Noah’s day) are not talking about the physical earth (gē) but rather “the old world … the world of the ungodly” – talking about the wicked. The Greek word for “world” here is kosmos describing the human world that rejected God in Noah’s day.

Most commentators accept that Peter is speaking of actual people in in v 5 and not the physical world.

The whole context and wording here is clear and unequivocal. It is showing us God’s ultimate grace when dealing with those who humble themselves and His ultimate justice when dealing with rebellious angels and humans. We see that in Peter’s conclusion of his thought in v 9: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.”

I am not mixed up on how fire and water leads to a new heaven and earth.

You claim fire and water should lead to a different reality.

Why would fire be different than water? If fire consumes all the water, that would be a new earth now without water, no?

It is not a new reality where fire and water no longer exist. God brought fire back after the water destroyed the earth. God can bring back water after fire destroys the earth. The Second Coming starts out in destruction, but still the same earth.

There is no fire nor water mentioned in Revelation 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."

Only the face of God changed reality. No fire nor water necessary. You fire destruction was at the Second Coming prior to the 1000 year reign.

keras · Apr 22, 2021

Timtofly said:
No one is saying people get old and die in the Millennium.

Yes; I am.
There will be death in the Millennium. And births, and injuries from accidents. In fact life will be quite similar to what we have now, but I believe the conditions will be how it was in the time of the Patriarchs, who lived considerably longer lives.
It is ONLY AFTER the Millennium that anyone becomes immortal.

Timtofly said:
Only the face of God changed reality. No fire nor water necessary. You fire destruction was at the Second Coming prior to the 1000 year reign.

People who can't see how the Lord intends to reset our civilization to a similar degree as He did in Noah's time, have failed to read and understand the over 100 prophesies that vividly describe that forthcoming Day of the Lord's fiery wrath.
None of the prophesies about the Return mention fire, that worldwide disaster comes years before the Return.

sovereigngrace · Apr 22, 2021

Timtofly said:
No one is saying people get old and die in the Millennium.

Are you saying people are born already a certain age, ie 100? That is the gist of your argument, if a child cannot even mature from infancy to 100. You are literally saying all humans are procreated as 100 year old beings.

This is OT verbiage that describes eternity to the OT listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! Please read my posts. This relates to the NHNE not some supposed future millennium - that will never happen.

sovereigngrace · Apr 22, 2021

Timtofly said:
I am not mixed up on how fire and water leads to a new heaven and earth.

You claim fire and water should lead to a different reality.

Why would fire be different than water? If fire consumes all the water, that would be a new earth now without water, no?

It is not a new reality where fire and water no longer exist. God brought fire back after the water destroyed the earth. God can bring back water after fire destroys the earth. The Second Coming starts out in destruction, but still the same earth.

There is no fire nor water mentioned in Revelation 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."

Only the face of God changed reality. No fire nor water necessary. You fire destruction was at the Second Coming prior to the 1000 year reign.

You totally missed (or avoided) my points re the Greek words. Please address.

sovereigngrace · Apr 22, 2021

Timtofly said:
No one is saying people get old and die in the Millennium.

Are you saying people are born already a certain age, ie 100? That is the gist of your argument, if a child cannot even mature from infancy to 100. You are literally saying all humans are procreated as 100 year old beings.

Yes they do. Most Premils believe the bondage of corruption continues in their future millennium. It is a recap of our day, albeit a supposed upgrade.

It is Amils that see a perfect glorified new earth when Jesus comes devoid of sin and death, crying and dying, Satan and demons.

Spiritual Jew · Apr 22, 2021

keras said:
Careful study of Isaiah 65:17-25 shows it is all prophecy for what will happen after Jesus Returns.
Verses 19-25 are for the Millennium and 17-18 are for after the Millennium, in Eternity.
Also in Isaiah 2:1-5 tells the same story: verses 1-3 - the Millennium, verses 4-5 - the GWT Judgment , then Eternity.

Isaiah 65:19 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.

That seems quite similar to this:

Revelation 21:2 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.

I don't know how you can try to say that Isaiah 65:19 doesn't relate to the new heavens and new earth. Do you think that no one will die during the thousand years? If not, then I guess you think no one will mourn over anyone's death during that time?

Note: I posted this before reading David's post #2978 where he basically made the same point. There is just no basis for trying to say that Isaiah 65:19 relates to a future Millennium on the earth rather than the new heavens and new earth. And it's clear that Isaiah 65:20-25 all relates to the new heavens and new earth as well.

Spiritual Jew · Apr 22, 2021

Timtofly said:
It is called symbolic. 1000 is literal, yet you claim it is symbolic. You claim a soul without a body is literal, yet the number 1000 is not?

Why would you have a problem with me interpreting one thing literally and another symbolically when you are doing the same thing?

John literally does not say they do not have bodies. That is why it is symbolism.

He also doesn't say they did. Why would he say that he saw their souls, even in a symbolic sense (whatever that means) if they had bodies?

Can you see your soul with or without a body? It is called a figure of speech.

I can't, but if I was given a vision of heaven then I probably could see people's souls like John did. We're talking about someone being given a vision of heaven here. Why would you try to act as if you know what can or can't be seen in heaven? Can you see angels? No. But John saw them in heaven in his vision. Was that just symbolic or did he actually see angels?

Those souls had a corruptible body that died in a certain way. The subject was the way they died, why would John see their dead corruptible bodies? Why would John have to declare in every verse they had a permanent incorruptible body? Paul already covered that in both letters of Corinthians.

Thank you for illustrating that the difference in our overall views is not that I spiritualize or symbolize everything while you take everything literally. No. We both recognize that there is both literal and symbolic or figurative language in the book of Revelation. The difference is that you often symbolize things that are literal and takes things literal that are symbolic.

As far as John seeing souls being symbolic. How so? What do the souls he saw symbolize exactly if he wasn't actually seeing their souls? If they had bodies then why didn't he just say "I saw those who had been slain". Why even mention seeing their souls at all if they had bodies?

keras · Apr 22, 2021

Spiritual Jew said:
And it's clear that Isaiah 65:20-25 all relates to the new heavens and new earth as well.

Really?
Isaiah 65:22 says they will have children.
Jesus said: those of the resurrection do not marry, for they are no longer subject to Death.... Luke 20:34-36
Seems like you speak without knowing what you are talking about.

sovereigngrace · Apr 22, 2021

keras said:
Really?
Isaiah 65:22 says they will have children.
Jesus said: those of the resurrection do not marry, for they are no longer subject to Death.... Luke 20:34-36
Seems like you speak without knowing what you are talking about.

No it does not. The fact you refuse to quote Scripture reinforces the fact the text doesn't say what you are saying. The NHNE involves only glorified believers. There is no marrying or procreation in the age to come.

Luke 20:27-33 records: “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.”

Christ replies in Luke 20:34-36: “The children of this world (or aion or age) marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (or aion or age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

Luke 20:27-36 clearly demonstrates that the defining moment of change between this age and the age to come is the time of the Lord’s return and the physical resurrection.

Luke adds more meat on the bones compared to what Matthew shares in his parallel account. Luke shows Christ rebuking the cunningness of the Sadducees and their attempt to deny a future physical resurrection at His return.

It is impossible to miss the constant comparison between “this world” and “that world” or “this age” and “that age.” Those who live in this current evil age are described as “the children of this age” but those who are depicted as being “worthy to obtain that age” to come are described exclusively as “the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” and as being “equal unto the angels.” One must be suitably qualified in order inherit the new world to come. Those that are worthy to obtain that age are not mortals and not sinners; they are rather glorified saints – who incidentally never marry or die.

Let us pause for a moment and consider what is being said here: people marry right up until the second coming, but in the age to come they don’t marry because the saints of God will be adorned with their new glorified eternal bodies. What is more: Christ shows that people die right up until the second coming but in the age to come they don’t die. Why? Because sin, sinners and the wicked are not welcome on the new glorified perfected earth that Christ introduces at the second coming.

The contrast here moves from: ‘marriage’ to ‘no marriage’, ‘death’ to ‘no death’. Marriage disappears! Death disappears! The turning point is the glorious coming of Christ and the resurrection that accompanies it. If words carry any meaning in Scripture then the whole Premillennial scheme falls apart with such a passage. After all, in their paradigm, sin, corruption, death and rebellion continues on unabated in the supposed Premillennial ‘ages to come’.

keras · Apr 22, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
No it does not. The fact you refuse to quote Scripture reinforces the fact the text doesn't say what you are saying.

What?
More that half of my post IS scripture. They prove the difference between the Millennium period, when people will marry and procreate and the NH,NE of Eternity, when there will be no more new people and those worthy to receive immortality will live with God forever.

Your confusion results from the wrong belief of Amill; that is we are in the Millennium now, a very confused and more than slightly; ridiculous idea.

sovereigngrace · Apr 22, 2021

keras said:
What?
More that half of my post IS scripture. They prove the difference between the Millennium period, when people will marry and procreate and the NH,NE of Eternity, when there will be no more new people and those worthy to receive immortality will live with God forever.

Your confusion results from the wrong belief of Amill; that is we are in the Millennium now, a very confused and more than slightly; ridiculous idea.

All I see is words. You refuse to quote the inspired text. It is notable that you totally avoid Scripture after Scripture that forbids Premil. You have no response to the biblical arguments before you.

keras · Apr 22, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
All I see is words. You refuse to quote the inspired text. It is notable that you totally avoid Scripture after Scripture that forbids Premil. You have no response to the biblical arguments before you.

What is notable is how you must avoid and reject Revelation 20 or Amill doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Do you actually believe that Isaiah 65:20-25 will be how it is in Eternity?

sovereigngrace · Apr 22, 2021

keras said:
What is notable is how you must avoid and reject Revelation 20 or Amill doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You are really going to start submitting more than mere opinion. That proves nothing!

Do you actually believe that Isaiah 65:20-25 will be how it is in Eternity?

Absolutely!

keras · Apr 23, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
Absolutely!

I don't need to repeat Revelation 21 and 22, they are in everyone's Bible.
Those Bible chapters tell us about Eternity. There will be no Death, no lions or snakes and as for the cowardly, the faithless, the obscene, the murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters and all liars, their fate is the Sulphurous Lake of fire, their second and final death. Revelation 21:8

20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Similar threads