One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

Jamdoc said:

I'm not a dispensationalist.
I don't know what my stance is on that in a theological term, but it is neither replacement theology, nor dispensationalism.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess now we have both misrepresented each other's views. Let's both make an effort to stop doing that, shall we?

Dispensationalism teaches that in the past Jews really were justified by animal sacrifices.. and I say no, it was a sign pointing to Jesus in place of not actually having the Messiah there to atone for them but it was an act of faith and obedience that was credited to Christ in the future. Dispensationalists also believe that after the "Church age" (one of their favorite terms, one of my least favorite terms along with "seven year tribulation") that Jews will once again be saved by the law. Miss me with that malarkey please.
Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 clearly teach that it has always been grace that saves. There are no different dispensations.
That said, God does have a place for direct descendants of Abraham, having made covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David, and in Jeremiah 31:35-37 reiterating this promise. I don't believe He means that only a single descendant of Abraham (Jesus) along with a bunch of gentiles is the fulfillment of that promise.
But rather there will always exist direct descendants of Abraham as a multitude.
Now those Jews that are the remnant, will have to accept Jesus.
Like I have said, Matthew 23:39, I believe that's what is being referred to, that when the remnant of National Israel accepts the Messiah, that's when all Israel will be saved and He'll return.

Click to expand...

I know what dispensationalism teaches, but thanks for the lesson, anyway. I didn't know everything you believe, so that's why I thought you were a dispensationalist. You certainly agree with them on a fair number of things.

But, anyway, do you have any thoughts on what I said in my post regarding amillennialism NOT promoting replacement theology? Does what I described about what amillennialists actually believe seem like replacement theology to you? It definitely does not, and I would appreciate you not making that false accusation again just as I'm sure you would appreciate me not calling you a dispensationalist again.

Spiritual Jew said:

So, you are including yourself among the heathen. That is unbelievable.

Psalm 2 specifically refers to unbelievers, not believers. How can you not discern that? Continue reading after verse 5 and see what it says Christ will do to the heathen:

Psalm 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Do you think this passage applies to you?

Click to expand...

No that wasn't where I was going with quoting that passage, the idea was that you asked what is basically a rhetorical question that who'd disagree with God, or rebel against God after seeing Him in His glory, and it reminded me of Psalm 2 which asks the same Rhetorical question.
But the general principal is that all beings with free will can disagree with God, or rebel against Him.
That is kind of the point of free will. The ability to choose to hate God is given, so that the choice to love God, actually means something.
I include myself as a being with free will, and knowing I'm capable of disagreeing with God, and rebelling against God. I am disputing the claim that "seeing glory" is all it takes to stamp out all Rebellion, because I myself had to choose to love Jesus for entirely different reasons than "glory".
I got taught glory glory glory all as a child and I rejected over and over and over.
It took learning about who Jesus was as a person to where I actually wanted to seek Him.
apparently for you, glory glory glory is enough.
and that's fine.
but I have to ask, if you'd been born and raised under different circumstances, would you have been Muslim? because they teach glory glory glory as well?
What for you makes Jesus important vs all other religions that teach an all powerful and glorious god?
I would love Jesus even if He was powerless and had no glory.
But that is what I needed to save me.
to love Jesus for being Jesus, before I ever loved Jesus for being God.

Spiritual Jew said:

Well, I guess now we have both misrepresented each other's views. Let's both make an effort to stop doing that, shall we?

I know what dispensationalism teaches, but thanks for the lesson, anyway. I didn't know everything you believe, so that's why I thought you were a dispensationalist. You certainly agree with them on a fair number of things.

But, anyway, do you have any thoughts on what I said in my post regarding amillennialism NOT promoting replacement theology? Does what I described about what amillennialists actually believe seem like replacement theology to you? It definitely does not, and I would appreciate you not making that false accusation again just as I'm sure you would appreciate me not calling you a dispensationalist again.

Click to expand...

I wasn't accusing you of replacement theology, but just that Amillennialism can sometimes get dangerously close to it. That was why the comment was "as an aside"
If you believe that God is still going to use a remnant of the tribes of Israel and that they will become Jewish Christians then we'd be in some agreement.

Jamdoc said:

No that wasn't where I was going with quoting that passage, the idea was that you asked what is basically a rhetorical question that who'd disagree with God, or rebel against God after seeing Him in His glory, and it reminded me of Psalm 2 which asks the same Rhetorical question.
But the general principal is that all beings with free will can disagree with God, or rebel against Him.
That is kind of the point of free will. The ability to choose to hate God is given, so that the choice to love God, actually means something.
I include myself as a being with free will, and knowing I'm capable of disagreeing with God, and rebelling against God. I am disputing the claim that "seeing glory" is all it takes to stamp out all Rebellion, because I myself had to choose to love Jesus for entirely different reasons than "glory".
I got taught glory glory glory all as a child and I rejected over and over and over.
It took learning about who Jesus was as a person to where I actually wanted to seek Him.
apparently for you, glory glory glory is enough.
and that's fine.
but I have to ask, if you'd been born and raised under different circumstances, would you have been Muslim? because they teach glory glory glory as well?

Click to expand...

Slow down, man. You're all over the place. Have I seen Jesus in all His glory? No, I haven't. But, I still believe in Him. Clearly, I don't need to see Him in all His glory in order to believe in Him and want to serve Him, right? So, what you're saying here doesn't even apply to me.

What for you makes Jesus important vs all other religions that teach an all powerful and glorious god?
I would love Jesus even if He was powerless and had no glory.

Click to expand...

I never said otherwise about myself. Stop putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about what I believe. I love His humility. I love His willingness to serve despite being all powerful. I love that He cares for those that no one else cares about. I could go on and on. I never said it's all about His glory. You read so much into things and you should stop doing that. Just read what I actually say instead of what you imagine I'm saying.

I do have to wonder, though. Does the prospect of seeing Him in all His glory not excite you?

Do you read the following passages and just react by saying "Meh. Whatever.".

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Jamdoc said:

I wasn't accusing you of replacement theology, but just that Amillennialism can sometimes get dangerously close to it. That was why the comment was "as an aside"

Click to expand...

Come on. Who are you trying to fool here? You said this:

Jamdoc said:

as an aside, I cannot stomach Replacement Theology and it is one of the poisons I see in Amillennialism.

Click to expand...

How can this be interpreted in any other way than you accusing the Amillennialist view (and therefore those who hold that view) of promoting Replacement Theology?

If you believe that God is still going to use a remnant of the tribes of Israel and that they will become Jewish Christians then we'd be in some agreement.

Click to expand...

Of course I believe that. A remnant of Israelites have been getting saved (becoming Jewish Christians) for almost the past 2,000 years or so. Why would that change? I don't believe it will. I believe that God wants all people to be saved and to serve Him. Don't you?

Spiritual Jew said:

Slow down, man. You're all over the place. Have I seen Jesus in all His glory? No, I haven't. But, I still believe in Him. Clearly, I don't need to see Him in all His glory in order to believe in Him and want to serve Him, right? So, what you're saying here doesn't even apply to me.

I never said otherwise about myself. Stop putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about what I believe. I love His humility. I love His willingness to serve despite being all powerful. I love that He cares for those that no one else cares about. I could go on and on. I never said it's all about His glory. You read so much into things and you should stop doing that. Just read what I actually say instead of what you imagine I'm saying.

I do have to wonder, though. Does the prospect of seeing Him in all His glory not excite you?

Do you read the following passages and just react by saying "Meh. Whatever.".

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Click to expand...

Not entirely, but probably to a lesser degree than it will excite others. Namely my excitement at seeing "glory" is more in the context of when He appears to me rather than the idea of being glorious in of itself. It was enough for Jesus to be who He already was in His Earthly ministry, the pomp and parade that accompanies Him and any glowing or symbols of wealth and power.. don't really add to it to me.
What means something to me is when I believe He arrives and WHY He appears and what He came to do. That means something where crowns gold, any kind of radiance doesn't really... add anything.

In my view, there will be Christians literally sitting in prison, waiting to be executed, or others running and hiding off the grid, barely getting enough food and water to survive, and then Jesus delivers them out of that. That to me has more meaning than any symbols of wealth and power and authority.

Spiritual Jew said:

Come on. Who are you trying to fool here? You said this:

How can this be interpreted in any other way than you accusing the Amillennialist view (and therefore those who hold that view) of promoting Replacement Theology?

Click to expand...

In a similar way that gnosticism poisons some Christian views without them actually being gnostic. They don't know that the gnostic view is poisoning their theology, and they're not spouting nonsense like "demiurge" or anything but they still deny things like physical resurrection and believe in just living in "spiritual" heaven for all eternity after dying. They don't realize what they're saying aligns with Plato more than it does the Bible.

I said that Replacement theology poisons Amillennialism, not that Amillenialists are replacement theologists, but I think that that theology does try to worm its way in.

Of course I believe that. A remnant of Israelites have been getting saved (becoming Jewish Christians) for almost the past 2,000 years or so. Why would that change? I don't believe it will. I believe that God wants all people to be saved and to serve Him. Don't you?

Click to expand...

Okay then so you believe that Israel has been, and continues to be separated as a distinct people group, for the purpose of them still identifying as Jews and as Israel, for them to come to faith in Jesus?
because that's where I'm at. Obviously they have been to this day, kept separate as a people group, where most other (if not all other) peoples that have been displaced out of their ancestral home for thousands of years have ended up blending in and becoming indistinct. Jews have kept a national identity and I believe that is God acting out a purpose for them specifically, but that they will become Jewish Christians.

Spiritual Jew said:

Do you really think Satan is that powerful that he could mostly undo the effects Jesus and His 1000 year kingdom of peace would have on the earth in a short amount of time? If so, you are giving him too much credit and not giving Jesus enough. Remember, we're talking about Jesus in all His glory here. Why would a number "as the sand of the sea" suddenly decide that being with the King of kings and Lord of lords and having complete peace would not appeal to them anymore? I think it's crazy to think that could happen. A small number of people doing that, maybe. But it says it's a number "as the sand of the sea" who are rebellious and get killed (Rev 20:7-9) at the end of Satan's little season.

Click to expand...

This is begging the question. Do you think that millions during that time have not rebelled and have been instantly sent to Death, waiting for the GWT?

If you do not think that people can not turn on a dime, look at the Israelites just out of Egypt, who wanted to return to Egypt and worship their gods right in front of God's presence on Mt. Sinai.

Rebellion has nothing to do with God's presence nor God's ability to force obedience. 33% percent of the angels rebelled on a dime. So accusing people that their thoughts are in error, about the Millennium, because of instant Rebellion, is nonsense. It is not even an argument worthy of discussion. Amil really have to make all this stuff up, because they have no better arguments.

sovereigngrace said:

It is frustrating engaging in serious debate with most Premils on Bible discussion forums because their posts are normally devoid of Scripture and consist of just private opinion.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to the 17 opinions why Revelation 20 belongs to the pre-mill conclusion?

No one has yet discussed Genesis 2 or Exodus 20.

Jamdoc said:

In a similar way that gnosticism poisons some Christian views without them actually being gnostic. They don't know that the gnostic view is poisoning their theology, and they're not spouting nonsense like "demiurge" or anything but they still deny things like physical resurrection and believe in just living in "spiritual" heaven for all eternity after dying. They don't realize what they're saying aligns with Plato more than it does the Bible.

I said that Replacement theology poisons Amillennialism, not that Amillenialists are replacement theologists, but I think that that theology does try to worm its way in.

Click to expand...

What you said did not come across that way at all. And it's not even true that it poisons Amillennialism, either, since that belief has nothing to do with Amillennialism.

Okay then so you believe that Israel has been, and continues to be separated as a distinct people group, for the purpose of them still identifying as Jews and as Israel, for them to come to faith in Jesus?

Click to expand...

No, because scripture doesn't teach that. Read passages like Galatians 3:16-29 and Ephesians 2:11-3:6. I could go on and on giving you scripture references that don't support that perspective. Premils (at least those with an Israel-centric focus like you have) are incredibly ignorant about what the New Testament teaches. In my opinion.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Acts 15:7 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.

Scripture says there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. You say there is. I'm going to side with scripture.

because that's where I'm at. Obviously they have been to this day, kept separate as a people group, where most other (if not all other) peoples that have been displaced out of their ancestral home for thousands of years have ended up blending in and becoming indistinct. Jews have kept a national identity and I believe that is God acting out a purpose for them specifically, but that they will become Jewish Christians.

Click to expand...

Is there some difference between being a Jewish Christian and a Gentile Christian? Is that what scripture teaches?

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Timtofly said:

This is begging the question. Do you think that millions during that time have not rebelled and have been instantly sent to Death, waiting for the GWT?

If you do not think that people can not turn on a dime, look at the Israelites just out of Egypt, who wanted to return to Egypt and worship their gods right in front of God's presence on Mt. Sinai.

Rebellion has nothing to do with God's presence nor God's ability to force obedience. 33% percent of the angels rebelled on a dime. So accusing people that their thoughts are in error, about the Millennium, because of instant Rebellion, is nonsense. It is not even an argument worthy of discussion. Amil really have to make all this stuff up, because they have no better arguments.

Click to expand...

wow, for once you said something that I agree with

Spiritual Jew said:

What you said did not come across that way at all. And it's not even true that it poisons Amillennialism, either, since that belief has nothing to do with Amillennialism.

No, because scripture doesn't teach that. Read passages like Galatians 3:16-29 and Ephesians 2:11-3:6. I could go on and on giving you scripture references that don't support that perspective. Premils (at least those with an Israel-centric focus like you have) are incredibly ignorant about what the New Testament teaches. In my opinion.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Acts 15:7 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.

Scripture says there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. You say there is. I'm going to side with scripture.

Is there some difference between being a Jewish Christian and a Gentile Christian? Is that what scripture teaches?

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Click to expand...

Messianics still keep strict Torah, including kosher diets.
Not because they believe that it's required for Salvation, but rather that it's part of their identity as Jewish people.
do you keep a kosher diet? Peter and Paul never taught gentile converts to adhere to it, and in fact Paul expressed that all animals created by God are clean (1 Timothy 4:4)
so it is no longer sin to eat pork, but for Messianics, they'll continue to abstain from pork because of cultural identity.
so to some degree, there is difference, but it is cultural differences rather than spiritual differences.

as for the poison, sorry it didn't come across the way I meant.
but I see the idea of Replacement Theology worming its way into beliefs such as Amillennialism and Calvanism, even though they are not primarily teaching replacement theology.

Timtofly said:

This is begging the question. Do you think that millions during that time have not rebelled and have been instantly sent to Death, waiting for the GWT?

Click to expand...

I don't know what you're asking. Can you try again and be more specific and more clear?

If you do not think that people can not turn on a dime, look at the Israelites just out of Egypt, who wanted to return to Egypt and worship their gods right in front of God's presence on Mt. Sinai.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that people can't turn on a dime. But, after experiencing complete bliss for 1000 years in the presence of the King of kings and Lord of lords, that scenario seems rather unlikely. At least in terms of a number of people as the sand of the sea doing that.

Rebellion has nothing to do with God's presence nor God's ability to force obedience. 33% percent of the angels rebelled on a dime.

Click to expand...

Did they try to destroy God? I don't believe so. They decided to do their own thing, but I don't believe they tried to destroy Him. So, that's a different context than Revelation 20:7-9 which, based on your literal premil view, is talking about people all coming together and thinking that they can literally destroy Christ and His people. Which means these people who have been with Christ for 1000 years and would know very well that He is immortal and invincible would still try to destroy Him anyway? Please explain how that makes any sense.

So accusing people that their thoughts are in error, about the Millennium, because of instant Rebellion, is nonsense. It is not even an argument worthy of discussion. Amil really have to make all this stuff up, because they have no better arguments.

Click to expand...

You're saying this as if you've ever even come close to making a convincing argument. Try to make your first ever convincing argument and then you can talk.

Jamdoc said:

wow, for once you said something that I agree with

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for him to say something that I agree with. Lucky you.

sovereigngrace said:

There is no such thing as corporate salvation – not in the Old Testament, nor in the New Testament. This is a modern theological innovation. Whilst no one could surely deny that an all-powerful God would have any difficulty in performing that, Scripture does not present salvation as a wholesale ethnic national experience. It is very much an individual thing and is open to both Jews and Gentiles equally. One just has to look at Hebrews 11 to see that. There, the Old Testament saints are seen to be justified in the same way we are today. Time after time it states: “By faith Abel” (Hebrews 11:4), “By faith Enoch” (Hebrews 11:5), “By faith Noah” (Hebrews 11:7), “By faith Abraham” (Hebrews 11:8), “By faith Isaac” (Hebrews 11:20), “By faith Jacob” (Hebrews 11:21), etc, etc. Here we see the personal aspect of salvation. It was like that before the cross. It is life that after the cross. Salvation was always by grace through faith.

Click to expand...

Leviticus 16 describe the day of atonement, where the sins of Israel will be corporately forgiven. Leviticus 16:34

So think of the 2nd coming of Christ as serving the same purpose for the nation of Israel. The day where the entire nation acknowledge that Christ is the Son of God.

Jamdoc said:

Messianics still keep strict Torah, including kosher diets.
Not because they believe that it's required for Salvation, but rather that it's part of their identity as Jewish people.

Click to expand...

Good for them. What is your point exactly?

do you keep a kosher diet? Peter and Paul never taught gentile converts to adhere to it, and in fact Paul expressed that all animals created by God are clean (1 Timothy 4:4)
so it is no longer sin to eat pork, but for Messianics, they'll continue to abstain from pork because of cultural identity.

Click to expand...

But they are not required to, so I'm not seeing your point here.

so to some degree, there is difference, but it is cultural differences rather than spiritual differences.

Click to expand...

Of course, we're talking about spiritual things here, aren't we? I know I am.

as for the poison, sorry it didn't come across the way I meant.
but I see the idea of Replacement Theology worming its way into beliefs such as Amillennialism and Calvanism, even though they are not primarily teaching replacement theology.

Click to expand...

I don't see that happening in regards to Amillennialism. Certainly not in regards to my particular beliefs. Obviously, not all Amils believe everything the same just as not all premils believe everything the same.

I'm not sure how it's affecting Calvinism, but that's beyond the scope of this thread, so we don't need to talk about that here.

Guojing said:

Leviticus 16 describe the day of atonement, where the sins of Israel will be corporately forgiven. Leviticus 16:34

So think of the 2nd coming of Christ as serving the same purpose for the nation of Israel. The day where the entire nation acknowledge that Christ is the Son of God.

Click to expand...

Where is this under the new covenant? Nowhere. It is gone. It is dead and buried. It will never be raised again. Premils are fixated with the old covenant apparatus and promises and fail to see they are fulfilled in Christ. You need to move into the NT. There you will see that Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin.

Jamdoc said:

Messianics still keep strict Torah, including kosher diets.
Not because they believe that it's required for Salvation, but rather that it's part of their identity as Jewish people.
do you keep a kosher diet? Peter and Paul never taught gentile converts to adhere to it, and in fact Paul expressed that all animals created by God are clean (1 Timothy 4:4)
so it is no longer sin to eat pork, but for Messianics, they'll continue to abstain from pork because of cultural identity.
so to some degree, there is difference, but it is cultural differences rather than spiritual differences.

as for the poison, sorry it didn't come across the way I meant.
but I see the idea of Replacement Theology worming its way into beliefs such as Amillennialism and Calvanism, even though they are not primarily teaching replacement theology.

Click to expand...

Many of these Torah-observant groups are more focused on Torah-observance than accepting what Christ achieved in their stead at Calvary, and in turn serving Him out of an attitude of gratitude and love. While they boast of being more obedient to God and possessing a deeper spirituality than other followers of Jesus, they don’t seem to get the whole relational nature of Christianity. They are more concerned with preserving an old impotent abolished covenant and their own futile religious efforts rather than Christ’s glorious achievement on the cross. This artificially manufactured quasi-Judaic religious system does not engender humility and dependence on its adherents but instead pride and self-sufficiency. They wrongly feel they have the spiritual authority to create division, schisms and racial apartheid within the body of Christ, when New Testament Scripture strongly prohibits such.

Let us be under no illusion: the new covenant brought an end to Jewish particularity. It makes no distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish believers. There is no divergence in religious protocol today within the body of Christ. Jew and Gentile participate on an equal standing and are subject to the same commands and demands as the other. There is no separation, schism or distinction in practice or requirement.

No longer does ethnic Jewishness carry special favor, no longer is Hebrew race a means of separation from other races, no longer is physical circumcision a sign of covenant allegiance, no longer are Jews bound to temple worship in Jerusalem, ceremonial ritual and demanding religious calendars, no longer is Torah-observance required. In Christ, they take on a heavenly identity and are liberated from the yoke of the Law through the freedom that is found in Jesus Christ.

There is a big difference between being racially of Jewish stock, and that of actively wanting to live within the bondage of old covenant ceremonial Judaism – a system that has long been superseded by the new covenant arrangement.

Just The Facts said:

Hi Jeff



That was not aimed at you Jeff it was aimed at who I quoted. I stand by it. Sovereigngrace was accusing Premills of twisting scripture

"Premils need to start letting Scripture speak for itself instead of twisting it to fit their doctrine."

This is beyond laughable since the whole debate is whether scripture is literal (premill) or figurative (amill) So to suggest premills need let scripture speak for itself is a lot of blablablablabla.

It is not Premills that change the meaning of verses out of the literal or use various teachers to spiritualize away the plain words of scripture.

If someone is respectful with me then I will be respectful in return. I will stick to the issues and keep it about belief systems and not personal, in this case amill doctrine vs Premill doctrine. However that is not what I get from many amills in here. I do not say that any individual amill is lost or question their spiritual salvation. Whish the same could be said for many amills in here.

Usually after a few posts back and forth I say something like well we can agree to disagree

However when people say stuff like this





Well you can see what I mean.

I stick by my original post. Amill was not taught by Jesus, The Apostles the saints or Early Church Fathers.

Click to expand...

Until you start presenting actual biblical evidence then there is nothing to rebut here but personal opinion.

Jamdoc said:

Dispensationalism teaches that in the past Jews really were justified by animal sacrifices.. and I say no, it was a sign pointing to Jesus in place of not actually having the Messiah there to atone for them but it was an act of faith and obedience that was credited to Christ in the future. Dispensationalists also believe that after the "Church age" (one of their favorite terms, one of my least favorite terms along with "seven year tribulation") that Jews will once again be saved by the law. Miss me with that malarkey please.
Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 clearly teach that it has always been grace that saves. There are no different dispensations.

Click to expand...

No dispensationalist I know will teach that anyone is saved by the Law, or works of any kind.

Its always faith that saves, but in time past, and in the age to come, you need to show your faith in God, by doing a work. But it is still ultimately that faith that saves you.

Think of Hebrews 11, since you picked that example

If Abel said "I believe in God", but did not offer an animal sacrifice, his faith would not save him.

Incidentally, Cain was offered a second chance by God to show he has faith in God, by simply offering the same animal sacrifice (Genesis 4:7) but he refused to. Notice that God did not ask him to "believe well" but rather to "do well"?