20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

sovereigngrace said:

Really?

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

You say the opposite. You say there will be countless more offerings for sin.

You fail to see: Calvary completely finished the Old Testament shadow and type. That is why there is no more sacrifice for sin. I find your belief extraordinary. Honestly! This belief should not be allowed on an evangelical site. It is a direct assault upon the cross. It undermines the finished work of Christ. It abrogates the new covenant.

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

Who are the consistent literalists? Amils! We take Scripture at its word.

It is both alarming and sad how many (that sincerely profess Christ) champion the re-starting of rival sin offerings in the future to compete with Calvary when Christ fulfilled and eternally removed them at the Cross. Most of this error has emanated from false teaching of men that should know better. The fact is, the New Testament totally forbids the resurrection of the old covenant including the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the restarting of the abolished animal sacrifices, and the resuming of earthly high priest’s office, as part of a God-ordained arrangement. Their expectation to return to the Old Testament type, shadow and figure is gravely misplaced.

It is as if Christ’s perfect life, atoning death and glorious resurrection are not enough for Premils; not perfect enough, not satisfactory enough, and not final enough.

Colossians 2:14 plainly and unambiguously declares, that Christ's atonement resulted in the “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

The Greek word for “Blotting out” here is exaleiphō (eks-ä-lā'-fō) meaning: ‘to wipe off, wipe away, to obliterate, erase, wipe out, blot out’

These old covenant ordinances (rites and rituals) pertaining to the ceremonial law were obliterated at the cross.

For those that still anticipate the renaissance of the old abolished ordinances we need to ask: When did (or will) the “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances” occur? From this passage it is clear, Christ “took it out of the way” by “nailing it to his cross.” These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:2 confirms they “ceased to be offered?

Click to expand...

jgr said:

Seems you missed these.

Hebrews 10:6
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Hebrews 10:8
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

Where in Revelation 20 does it teach the reintroduction of slaughtering countless innocent animals as sin offerings? If in your supposed future Millennial Kingdom "they are already under the New Covenant" why would God instigate more pointless blood offerings? Is the blood of Jesus not enough for you?

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

That is not true. It doesn't even make sense. This is inspired NT Scripture. This is telling us what repeated Scripture tells us: the old covenant is gone. I notice you avoided the other clear Scripture forbidding Premil. When Jesus cried it is finished, the old covenant sacrifice system was finished. This was reinforced by the ripping of the temple curtain in two. Christ was the final sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews 7:27 says of Christ and His final atonement, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Hebrews 9:28 explains that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

Hebrews 10:10 says, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 10:12 says, “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

There it is! Clear and irrefutable! This is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices forever!!! "Forever" actually means "forever."

Romans 6:10 says, “he died unto sin once.”

1 Peter 3:18 says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”

Hebrews 9:12 explains, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

Christ put and end of sin by this final transaction for sin, thus making an end of sin forever for those who would believe. There will never again be a sacrifice for sin. Christ’s atonement satisfied heaven’s holy demands and ensured that there would never again be another sacrifice/offering for sin carrying God’s blessing.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

That has been long-fulfilled. The old covenant has gone forever. You are attempting to revive a redundant abolished system and override the new covenant with it. You are dismissing the NT revelation and replacing it with the old covenant type and shadow. You are undermining the cross-work.

What is the purpose of this pointless bloodbath? Why slaughter the innocent lambs who are enjoying perfect peace with the lion and wolf?

Any way, Hebrews 8:6 forbids your position: “now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”

What tense is "now"?
What tense is "hath"?
What tense is "obtained"?
What tense is "is"?
What tense is "was"?
What tense is "established"?

Hebrews 8:13 agrees: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

What tense is "saith"?
What tense is "hath"?
What tense is "made"?

All present tense. This is so easy to grasp, if one doesn't have a theological agenda to justify. And, well put!

The Hebrew writer is constantly pointing the Jews away from the now worthless abolished old arrangement and towards Christ who is the fulfilment. Once the reality and substance came the type and shadow were rendered useless. Christ is the substance, the true and the real. Colossians 2:16-17 confirms: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

Hebrews makes it clear that the Old Testament sacrifices were a shadow of “good things to come” not ‘a millennial memorial of things that have already been’ as Premil requires.

By their very nature they looked forward to the cross in the old covenant.

To bring back the old covenant is to undermine the new covenant reality. I am suggesting that your location and interpretation of Ezekiel is in error and cannot be located after the cross that abolished sin offerings.

Christ has removed the whole purpose of animal sacrifices. They were simply a signpost to the cross. Hebrews 10:1-2 makes it perfectly clear, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.”

Calvary completely finished the Old Testament shadow and type. That is why there is no more sacrifice for sin. I find your belief extraordinary. Honestly! This belief should not be allowed on an evangelical site. It is a direct assault upon the cross. It undermines the finished work of Christ. It abrogates the new covenant.

Notably, there are no so-called ‘millennial memorial sacrifices’ mentioned or inferred anywhere in the New Testament. There are none mentioned in Revelation 20 – the supposed foundational proof text for the Premillennial paradigm. This eschatological hope that they will be restored as memorials is therefore misplaced.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

What are you talking about? Where do you get the stuff from? There is no "new new covenant." The new covenant is already made. I showed you that there is just one single sacrifice for sin. It is finished. Ethnic Israelites can embrace the cross but it has already been made. We are in the new covenant period. It was made by Jesus blood. You have zero Scripture to support your "new new covenant" innovation.

Hebrews 8:13: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete). Now that which decayeth (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete) and waxeth old (gerasko) is ready to vanish away.”

After Christ’s death and the ripping of the curtain in two, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was rendered wholly redundant. Its usefulness was over. It was obsolete. It remaining standing up until AD70 did not mean it had any further earthly purpose, or that the old covenant remained in effect. It was just like a human corpse awaiting burial. It had no vitality, no relevance and no purpose. Once Christ died, the old covenant died. Degeneration immediately set in, just like the decay that kicks in when a human gives up the ghost.

Paul shows us that the old covenant was decaying and ready to vanish away after the cross. Of course, anything that is decaying is already dead. From then on it is just rotting and in urgent need of a decent burial.

A corpse does not normally vanish from sight immediately upon death until it is put into the grave and buried. But corruption, decay, degeneration has already kicked in. It is lifeless. It is powerless. It has no function. That is how the old covenant was between AD30 and AD70. A corpse can still be visible but it is lifeless and has no ability to function. That is what happened to the old covenant between AD30-70.

Even though a corpse may look asleep, it is lifeless. All you have is rotting flesh. Decomposition has set in immediately. It is gradually decaying, and will ultimately vanish away. But that entity has no further earthly use. Its time is up.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

If they come under the new covenant they must accept the cross of Calvary as the only atonement for sin. They must see Christ alone as their substitute not some imaginary innocent lamb in some supposed future age after the second coming. If they want to resurrect the old covenant as you do then they are missing the finality of the cross-work.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

There is no future new covenant. It is current and ongoing. There are no additional sacrifices allowed under this eternal covenant (the cross finished any possibility of further pointless and useless blood sacrifices). There is no new future temple needed (Christ is man's only spiritual temple). There are no further ceremonial priests needed (Jesus is heaven's final high priest).

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

It did come to pass. Check the NT. Are you denying that the new covenant has arrived?

Click to expand...

Guojing said:

So as I stated, they rejected Christ as the Messiah, so the current nation of Israel cannot be under the New Covenant.

Click to expand...