20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you suggesting that you think water baptism was required for salvation at that time? If so, you are sadly mistaken. That would mean the thief on the cross wasn't saved.

Sufficient for what? Salvation? Being a physical Jew has never been sufficient in that sense and never will be because salvation has nothing to do with one's nationality since God is not a respecter of persons.

I already said present salvation was only available thru the gospel first given to the apostle Paul, so obviously the thief wasn't saved at the time of the cross.

He joined the rest of the OT believers in Paradise and waiting to receive their salvation only at the 2nd coming of Christ (Acts 3:19-21, 1 Peter 1:9).

I already agreed with you that being a physical Jew is not sufficient. Depending on which part of time past he was at, there were various requirements needed for him to show faith in God, to remain in the covenant God made with Israel.

But now, we are saved by faith apart from works (Romans 4:5)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When did I say that not everyone has a right to their opinion? Don't confuse the confidence I have in my opinions with me trying to say that I'm stating facts. I understand that we're all sharing opinions/interpretations here. You seem to have a problem with it when someone is highly confident in their opinions. Why? What is wrong with that?

Do you have a problem when you read someone claiming that their opinions are facts?
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I wonder why Covenant Theology is growing amongst Bible-believing Christians and Dispensationalism is in free-fall? I believe we are living in a day where Christians can think for themselves. There is more openness to find the truth by impartial study. Christians are also more exposed to the truth today due to the likes of the internet. They are also subjected to more error. But at least they can think for themselves.

I am glad you are finally willing to admit that you follow Covenant Theology. That is a start. =)
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am glad you are finally willing to admit that you follow Covenant Theology. That is a start. =)

Our God is a God of Covenants. The very appellatives identifying His Word, Old Testament (Covenant) and New Testament (Covenant), reflect that reality. Theology is the study of God. Thus, Covenant Theology is the Covenant Study of God. When you study God's Covenants, you study God Himself.

Whom do you study?

You haven't yet told us what appellative(s) you would use to identify God's Word. You must obviously object to the terms Old/New Testament (Covenant), since you disagree with Covenant Theology.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Our God is a God of Covenants. The very appellatives identifying His Word, Old Testament (Covenant) and New Testament (Covenant), reflect that reality. Theology is the study of God. Thus, Covenant Theology is the Covenant Study of God. When you study God's Covenants, you study God Himself.

Whom do you study?

You haven't yet told us what appellative(s) you would use to identify God's Word. You must obviously object to the terms Old/New Testament (Covenant), since you disagree with Covenant Theology.

Nice I am Glad you are also willing to admit covenant theology is your lens too
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nice I am Glad you are also willing to admit covenant theology is your lens too

Of course. Because it's a lens focused on God's Covenants and thus God Himself.

What is your lens?

Still awaiting your appellative(s) for God's Word.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course. Because it's a lens focused on God's Covenants and thus God Himself.

What is your lens?

Still awaiting your appellative(s) for God's Word.

We have already discussed this before earlier in this thread or other threads.

Recall the games you played with me earlier on whether the term sheep refers to people or actual sheep?
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We have already discussed this before earlier in this thread.

Recall the games you played with me earlier on whether the term sheep refers to people or actual sheep?

Simple requests.

Your lens?

Your appellative(s) for God's Word?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am saying you already know I used a literal lens to understand scripture, taking context and obvious metaphors into account.

The foremost consideration when studying Scripture must be to establish the grammatical contextual meaning of the text, whether it is literal or figurative, and who, what and when it relates to. Is it speaking of the past, present or future? Is it principally speaking to the people receiving it or is it speaking prophetically of an approaching event? We should always be sensitive to its setting, style of writing, and the respective subject under discussion.

The two biggest problems I see within Christian circles today is:

· Many have no understanding of the consistent teaching of the Word. They are not real students of Scripture. They just believe what they have been taught.
· Many have no safe, solid or consistent interpretive rules to help them understand the Scriptures. They just take a text out of context and make it a pretext.

The problem with many is that they try to understand figurative language with a modern Western mindset. They end up literalizing what was written to an eastern mindset that easily grasped metaphorical language.

Figurative language is communication that is outside of its normal everyday literal meaning and context. It is used by the writer for the sake of comparison or impressing a particular point. Authors and writers use similes, metaphors, allegories, parables, hyperbole, and personification to explain particular thoughts. Figurative language can actually elevate ordinary, everyday language. Figurative language can sometimes explain in a few words what is hitherto hard to rationalize by literal communication.

That is why Jesus used it a lot!
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think many others, including myself, have tried to explain to you, that the term "Israel" used by Paul, could not have referred to gentile believers.
Yes, you have tried and have failed to give a convincing argument for that. In Romans 9:6-8 Paul used that term to refer to those who are the children of God and children of the promise. Who does Paul say the children of God and children of the promise are in Galatians 3:26-29?

But since you call yourself a "spiritual Jew" in bible discussion forums, you are obviously not going to accept those alternative interpretations.
Obviously.

But you should be happy that you have supporters who agree with you and will like your posts. As I already said to Keras, covenant theology is probably the most popular grid in which protestants interpret scripture.
Where do you get that information from? As I told you before, that is not the case in the U.S. where many people get their end times doctrine from fictional books like the Left Behind series. Do most Protestants in Singapore adhere to covenant theology?
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I already said present salvation was only available thru the gospel first given to the apostle Paul, so obviously the thief wasn't saved at the time of the cross.

He joined the rest of the OT believers in Paradise and waiting to receive their salvation only at the 2nd coming of Christ (Acts 3:19-21, 1 Peter 1:9).
How can he be in paradise, which is the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2-4), but not be saved? That makes no sense.

I already agreed with you that being a physical Jew is not sufficient. Depending on which part of time past he was at, there were various requirements needed for him to show faith in God, to remain in the covenant God made with Israel.

But now, we are saved by faith apart from works (Romans 4:5)
No one has ever been saved by works and never will be. Jesus did all the work.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you have a problem when you read someone claiming that their opinions are facts?
Of course I do. Why do you ask? Are you accusing me of doing that? Or are you talking about someone else? I don't recall anyone saying that their opinions are facts.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am saying you already know I used a literal lens to understand scripture, taking context and obvious metaphors into account.
So, there can only be metaphors in scripture if they're obvious? You say you use a literal lens. Is that what Paul said we should use when he wrote this:

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Are you not just using man's wisdom when your default is to read scripture literally? If that is the approach we were supposed to take when studying scripture then why would spiritual discernment be necessary? Paul indicated that the things he spoke (much of which he wrote down and we can now read in the New Testament) were spiritual and need to be spiritually discerned. Are you "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" by reading scripture through your literal lens? I don't believe so. It's not a bad way to read a newspaper or magazine article, but it's the wrong approach to reading scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, there can only be metaphors in scripture if they're obvious? You say you use a literal lens. Is that what Paul said we should use when he wrote this:

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Are you not just using man's wisdom when your default is to read scripture literally? If that is the approach we were supposed to take when studying scripture then why would spiritual discernment be necessary? Paul indicated that the things he spoke (much of which he wrote down and we can now read in the New Testament) were spiritual and need to be spiritually discerned. Are you "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" by reading scripture through your literal lens? I don't believe so. It's not a bad way to read a newspaper or magazine article, but it's the wrong approach to reading scripture.

One key and well known distinction between dispensationalists and Covenant theologians is one uses literal and the other do not.

Dispensationalism is based upon the golden rule of interpretation: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

In contrast, Covenant Theology uses the allegorical approach to passages of scripture that they find difficult to fit into their theological box.

If a person holds to the plain, normal principle of interpretation then they are probably a dispensationalist.

Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism

You being CT would naturally think its the wrong approach. The good thing about using spiritual discernment instead of literal, is that you can make scripture mean anything you want it to mean.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course I do. Why do you ask? Are you accusing me of doing that? Or are you talking about someone else? I don't recall anyone saying that their opinions are facts.

Didn't you see one of the members of your echo chamber immediately replying to that post, talking about facts? =)
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where do you get that information from? As I told you before, that is not the case in the U.S. where many people get their end times doctrine from fictional books like the Left Behind series. Do most Protestants in Singapore adhere to covenant theology?

Its a rare protestant, anywhere in the world, that does not have a doctrine similar to "OT saints were saved by looking forward to the cross, and we are saved looking back at the cross".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One key and well known distinction between dispensationalists and Covenant theologians is one uses literal and the other do not.

Dispensationalism is based upon the golden rule of interpretation: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

In contrast, Covenant Theology uses the allegorical approach to passages of scripture that they find difficult to fit into their theological box.

If a person holds to the plain, normal principle of interpretation then they are probably a dispensationalist.

Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism

You being CT would naturally think its the wrong approach. The good thing about using spiritual discernment instead of literal, is that you can make scripture mean anything you want it to mean.

It would be better if you would not talk on behalf of those who hold to Covenant Theology and let them speak on behalf of themselves. You do not seem to understand what they believe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.