20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Jeffwhosoever · Jun 20, 2021

I don't know about how others come by their Eschatological views, but I'm doing my level best to get mine direct from Scripture, as literal as possible to the written words of Scripture. I know there is some symbolism in Revelation but that does not suggest the right approach IMHO is to treat the entire book as symbolic or to try to cherry pick only the parts that line up with a certain eschatological point of view then classify all that doesn't agree as symbolic. Better to be neutral and let the Scripture speak for itself, augmented by other books of Scripture, both old and new testment, that align with the Scripture being interpreted. For me, this path is leading to a rather convincing argument for Futurism, and Premillenialism, though I'm a long way from having an opinion or understanding of rapture timing, which might have to be one of the mysteries I learn about when I'm physically with the Lord, as thus far our stuides of Scripture have not made a compelling argument for rapture timing, other than obviously the church is with the Lord at the end, whether that is called a rapture or just the eternal state.

Jeffwhosoever · Jun 20, 2021

Timtofly said:
I am not one to use Scripture to prove human theology. I also do not need corroboration to support human theology.

Funny I was writing something similar and posted it just as you posted this more elegant and simplier explanation of what I was trying to state!

sovereigngrace · Jun 20, 2021

Jeffwhosoever said:
I don't know about how others come by their Eschatological views, but I'm doing my level best to get mine direct from Scripture, as literal as possible to the written words of Scripture. I know there is some symbolism in Revelation but that does not suggest the right approach IMHO is to treat the entire book as symbolic or to try to cherry pick only the parts that line up with a certain eschatological point of view then classify all that doesn't agree as symbolic. Better to be neutral and let the Scripture speak for itself, augmented by other books of Scripture, both old and new testment, that align with the Scripture being interpreted. For me, this path is leading to a rather convincing argument for Futurism, and Premillenialism, though I'm a long way from having an opinion or understanding of rapture timing, which might have to be one of the mysteries I learn about when I'm physically with the Lord, as thus far our stuides of Scripture have not made a compelling argument for rapture timing, other than obviously the church is with the Lord at the end, whether that is called a rapture or just the eternal state.

So why not tell us what Futurist view you hold to? Why all the secrecy? As for Premil, it has been ably refuted on this thread, without any response from yourself apart from sweeping unsubstantiated claims. If you want to get into detail of Premil we can do that. I would be happy to prove that Premil has zero corroboration for all of its main tenets. Until you address all the holes in your doctrine it is hard to take you wild claims serious.

For the record, and contrary to your repeated assertions, Idealists do not take Revelation as completely symbolic. Obviously you are getting faulty info from somewhere. It might be helpful if you let Idealists speak for themselves instead of always speaking on their behalf.

sovereigngrace · Jun 20, 2021

Jeffwhosoever said:
I don't know about how others come by their Eschatological views, but I'm doing my level best to get mine direct from Scripture, as literal as possible to the written words of Scripture. I know there is some symbolism in Revelation but that does not suggest the right approach IMHO is to treat the entire book as symbolic or to try to cherry pick only the parts that line up with a certain eschatological point of view then classify all that doesn't agree as symbolic. Better to be neutral and let the Scripture speak for itself, augmented by other books of Scripture, both old and new testment, that align with the Scripture being interpreted. For me, this path is leading to a rather convincing argument for Futurism, and Premillenialism, though I'm a long way from having an opinion or understanding of rapture timing, which might have to be one of the mysteries I learn about when I'm physically with the Lord, as thus far our stuides of Scripture have not made a compelling argument for rapture timing, other than obviously the church is with the Lord at the end, whether that is called a rapture or just the eternal state.

But you are not "neutral." Pretribbers impose a literalist approach on all Scripture, unless they deem it impossible. That leads to all types of absurd and crazy conclusions when it comes to Revelation.

The reality is: we need to let clear and explicit Scripture interpret obscure and symbolic Scripture, not the other way around. We must note the setting, genre and context of the truth/verse you are studying and establish what the Holy Spirit is actually saying in the overall passage. Context is crucial in biblical interpretation. We need to establish whether it is literal, symbolic or parabolic, 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?

ShineyDays2 · Jun 20, 2021

I repeat my post to Goujing in response to denials that dispensationalism has to do a "cut-insert-and insert" job on 1 Thess 4:13-18 to end up with "a rapture of the church" and a "1,000 year literal millennium. Below my repeated quote are several dispensational statements taken from BLB.com' FAQ's page concerning 1 Thess 4:13-18.

Moriah's Song said:
?? That is why I asked you about 1 Thess 4:13-18! If you read it and take it "literally" AS IT IS WRITTEN WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING TO THE TEXT then, if you honestly adhere to "rightly dividing the word of truth*" (according to Vine's definition below); those verses do not reveal a "raptured church, nor a 1,000 millennium" in them. Dispensationalism, via JND's method of teaching, inserts that theory that you seem to hold to in order make the false theology work.

You claimed that you "interpret scripture literally" now show me that you do in 1 Thess and then we can move on to Matthew.
-----------------------------------
*Strong's Number: g3718
Greek: orthotomeo
Divide, Divider, Dividing:

lit., "to cut straight" (orthos, "straight," temno, "to cut"), is found in 2Ti 2:15, AV, "rightly dividing," RV, "handling aright" (the word of truth); the meaning passed from the idea of cutting or "dividing," to the more general sense of "rightly dealing with a thing."
What is intended here is not "dividing" Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately.
(bold, italics and underlines are mine.)

Dispensational Premillennialism: Definition:

a) Dispensational premillennialists hold that Christ will come before a seven-year period of intense tribulation to take His church (living and dead) into heaven. After this period of fulfillment of divine wrath, He shall then return to rule from a holy city (i.e., the New Jerusalem) over the earthly nations for one thousand years. After these thousand years, Satan, who was bound up during Christ's earthly reign, will be loosed to deceive the nations, gather an army of the deceived, and take up to battle against the Lord.

b) Immediately previous to the time of great tribulation, all the dead saints will rise from their graves and all the living members of the church shall be caught up with them to meet Christ in the clouds (1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17); this is known as "the rapture."

Bibliography:

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978. (ISBN 0310308909)

Ryrie, Charles. The Basis for Premillennial Faith. New York: The Loizeaux Brothers, 1953. (ISBN 0872137414)

Walvoord, John. Every Prophecy of the Bible. Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1999. (ISBN 1-56476-758-2)

Walvoord, John. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966. (ISBN 0-8024-7310-5)

Blaising, Craig A. "Premillennialism." Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond. Ed. Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,1999. (ISBN 0-310-20143-8)

Historical Premillennialism: Synopsis:

Rather than the belief of an imminent return of Christ, it is held that a number of historical events (e.g., the rise of the Beast and the False Prophet) must take place before Christ's Second Coming. This Second Coming will be accompanied by the resurrection and rapture of the saints (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18); this will inaugurate the millennial reign of Christ.

Bibliography:

Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972. (ISBN:0802816843)
Ladd, George Eldon. The Last Things: An Eschatology for Laymen. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1982.
Ladd, George Eldon. The Gospel of the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959. (ISBN: 0802812805)
Culver, Robert Duncan. Histories &Prophecies of Daniel. Winona Lake, Indiana: BHM Books, 1980. (ISBN: 0-88469-131-4)
Campbell, Donald K. and Townsend, Jeffrey L. A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus. Chicago: The Moody Press, 1992.

Jeffwhosoever · Jun 20, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
But you are not "neutral." Pretribbers impose a literalist approach on all Scripture, unless they deem it impossible. That leads to all types of absurd and crazy conclusions when it comes to Revelation.

The reality is: we need to let clear and explicit Scripture interpret obscure and symbolic Scripture, not the other way around. We must note the setting, genre and context of the truth/verse you are studying and establish what the Holy Spirit is actually saying in the overall passage. Context is crucial in biblical interpretation. We need to establish whether it is literal, symbolic or parabolic, 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?

Imposing symbolism where it isn't necessary is less neutral than reading Scripture for what it says. I do let the Holy Spirit instruct me as I read. There is just huge disagreements once you are firmly into an eschatological position and you tend to defend your own thoughts and predispositions based on sometimes decades of study, where I am casting all that aside and trying to read Scripture for what it truly says, not from some school of thought or predisposition. In fact, we spend an equal time on Futurism, Idealism, Preterism, and Historicism weekly to ensure we do not become unbalanced or ingrained into any human school of theology but consider all points of view. But what we are finding is the more we study and examine Scripture, and lots of it beyond Revelation, the stronger the arguments seem to become for a Futurist interpretation. In fact, the strongest case seems to be for premillennialism, applying the principle of Occam's razor that the answer with the least number of assumptions tends to be the correct one.

sovereigngrace · Jun 20, 2021

Jeffwhosoever said:
Imposing symbolism where it isn't necessary is less neutral than reading Scripture for what it says. I do let the Holy Spirit instruct me as I read. There is just huge disagreements once you are firmly into an eschatological position and you tend to defend your own thoughts and predispositions based on sometimes decades of study, where I am casting all that aside and trying to read Scripture for what it truly says, not from some school of thought or predisposition. In fact, we spend an equal time on Futurism, Idealism, Preterism, and Historicism weekly to ensure we do not become unbalanced or ingrained into any human school of theology but consider all points of view. But what we are finding is the more we study and examine Scripture, and lots of it beyond Revelation, the stronger the arguments seem to become for a Futurist interpretation. In fact, the strongest case seems to be for premillennialism, applying the principle of Occam's razor that the answer with the least number of assumptions tends to be the correct one.

Many of us have come to a contrary view through taking an open-minded view and being willing to change. Scripture has forced many of us to abandon Pretrib Premil. The weakness of your position is shown in your continual attack on other positions yet refusing to show your own Futurist hand.

I believe Premil is non-corrobrative. It is built upon a faulty reading of 1 passage in the whole of Scripture located in the most symbolic setting in Scripture. Disprove that and it falls like a deck of cards.

As a Pastor, I have saw 98% of our church move from that position over 13 years. I have observed a massive move away online from Premil. Premil is in definite decline. I am from Northern Ireland. Dispensationalism is on the ropes there. I see the same happening here in the US.

jeffweedaman · Jun 20, 2021

Jeffwhosoever said:
Imposing symbolism where it isn't necessary is less neutral than reading Scripture for what it says. I do let the Holy Spirit instruct me as I read. There is just huge disagreements once you are firmly into an eschatological position and you tend to defend your own thoughts and predispositions based on sometimes decades of study, where I am casting all that aside and trying to read Scripture for what it truly says, not from some school of thought or predisposition. In fact, we spend an equal time on Futurism, Idealism, Preterism, and Historicism weekly to ensure we do not become unbalanced or ingrained into any human school of theology but consider all points of view. But what we are finding is the more we study and examine Scripture, and lots of it beyond Revelation, the stronger the arguments seem to become for a Futurist interpretation. In fact, the strongest case seems to be for premillennialism, applying the principle of Occam's razor that the answer with the least number of assumptions tends to be the correct one.

Hi Jeff.
Who is 'we " that you speak of?

I began reading the bible in the 70's long before I went to a Church , and came to a natural simple understanding of the end times.
When I did attend a Church and started reading other books I was left scratching my head regarding the idea of pre trib and pre mill. Never once did I get that notion and still do not after many years of consideration. I am still left shaking my head like I did all those years ago.

Guojing · Jun 20, 2021

Moriah's Song said:
?? That is why I asked you about 1 Thess 4:13-18! If you read it and take it "literally" AS IT IS WRITTEN WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING TO THE TEXT then, if you honestly adhere to "rightly dividing the word of truth*" (according to Vine's definition below); those verses do not reveal a "raptured church, nor a 1,000 millennium" in them. Dispensationalism, via JND's method of teaching, inserts that theory that you seem to hold to in order make the false theology work.

You claimed that you "interpret scripture literally" now show me that you do in 1 Thess and then we can move on to Matthew.
-----------------------------------
*Strong's Number: g3718
Greek: orthotomeo
Divide, Divider, Dividing:

lit., "to cut straight" (orthos, "straight," temno, "to cut"), is found in 2Ti 2:15, AV, "rightly dividing," RV, "handling aright" (the word of truth); the meaning passed from the idea of cutting or "dividing," to the more general sense of "rightly dealing with a thing."
What is intended here is not "dividing" Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately.

(bold, italics and underlines are mine.)

You should at least address my response to your question about Mark 9:43-47 first.

20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Do you agree with my point? If not, what is your objection to my argument?

sovereigngrace · Jun 20, 2021

Jeffwhosoever said:
In fact, the strongest case seems to be for premillennialism, applying the principle of Occam's razor that the answer with the least number of assumptions tends to be the correct one.

If you are so confident, why not address the multiple "assumptions" Premil imposes on the sacred Scriptures that I expose in the Op. No Premil has had an answer to these compelling points. Until you do, I can only take this as theological posturing.

sovereigngrace · Jun 20, 2021

jeffweedaman said:
Hi Jeff.
Who is 'we " that you speak of?

I began reading the bible in the 70's long before I went to a Church , and came to a natural simple understanding of the end times.
When I did attend a Church and started reading other books I was left scratching my head regarding the idea of pre trib and pre mill. Never once did I get that notion and still do not after many years of consideration. I am still left shaking my head like I did all those years ago.

I totally agree. Pretrib has to be taught to you. There is no way you could ever find it through independent impartial study.

Timtofly · Jun 21, 2021

sovereigngrace said:
I totally agree. Pretrib has to be taught to you. There is no way you could ever find it through independent impartial study.

No one even agrees on what a tribulation is. According to you, there is no tribulation as in Satan's 42 months. Is Satan's 42 months before or after the 7th Trumpet? If you claim after, John's view, because those 42 months are the third woe of the 7th Trumpet, then they do not happen in your blink of an eye climactic Second Coming at the 7th Trumpet.

If you claim the 7th Trumpet is after the 42 months, how is the 7th Trumpet the third woe? When does it sound in relation to the 7 vials?

sovereigngrace · Jun 21, 2021

Timtofly said:
No one even agrees on what a tribulation is. According to you, there is no tribulation as in Satan's 42 months. Is Satan's 42 months before or after the 7th Trumpet? If you claim after, John's view, because those 42 months are the third woe of the 7th Trumpet, then they do not happen in your blink of an eye climactic Second Coming at the 7th Trumpet.

If you claim the 7th Trumpet is after the 42 months, how is the 7th Trumpet the third woe? When does it sound in relation to the 7 vials?

Who said there is no tribulation as in Satan's 42 months? The only question is: is it a literal or a figurative period? Satan's 42 months are before the 7th Trumpet. Read the text. The third woe is the 7th Trumpet and the destruction that accompanies it at the climactic second coming.

ShineyDays2 · Jun 21, 2021

Guojing said:
You should at least address my response to your question about Mark 9:43-47 first.
Do you agree with my point? If not, what is your objection to my argument?

Mar 9:43...And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell,...
Mar 9:45...And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell...
Mar 9:47...And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,...

These verse clearly shows that Jesus is speaking symbolically: Cutting off our hands, and feet or cutting out even one eye would not keep anyone from sinning with the remaining eye. Jesus is not encouraging physical maiming. Instead, He is telling us that we should do whatever it takes to avoid sin.

Another verse that is comparable to the thought in Mark 9 is 1 John 2:16...

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world."

In Satan's temptation of Eve the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," is similar to the above verse. And yet again the very beginning of sin in the world began with....

"When she saw that the tree was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise," (Gen 3:6)

One manifestation of "the pride of life," in Eve was the desire to know above what God had revealed to her/and Adam.

Lastly, what do we see Jesus telling the woman caught in adultery in John 8:3-11?

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" And she said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again."

Now with the adulterous woman, did he tell her to cut off any parts of her body because she was a sinner or not? No! He told her to stop doing what she was doing is all Jesus did. This is at the very heart of what the Pharisees evil mind represents; they wanted her stoned but Jesus wanted her to change her ways.

All these things above are results of the way the mind works and how Satan uses us to tempt us to do things that God's moral laws forbid us to do and there are an abundant supply of verses in the Epistles that tell us just how to control our temptations to sin and it is not about mutilating our bodies to do so.

Now who do you represent? The Pharisees that took the law "literally?" Or would you prefer to have Jesus tell you not to cut your eyes out but to stop looking at inappropriate contentography? (not saying you do here.)

Spiritual Jew · Jun 21, 2021

Freedm said:
I'm not missing that part at all, but that verse has to be reconciled with John 8:51.

Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.

The way I reconcile this is to understand that we will die in this body, but are immediately resurrected so that we will never exist in the state of death. We move from this body, this life, straight into the next.

So yes, we will die, but we will never exist in a state of death. I believe this is what Jesus meant in John 8:51 when he said "you will never see death".

How do you reconcile the two?

Why do I need to reconcile them? My understanding of that verse is the same as my understanding of John 11:25-26, which I already explained previously. Why would my interpretation of John 8:51 be any different than how I interpret John 11:25-26 when they are basically saying the same thing?

Spiritual Jew · Jun 21, 2021

Timtofly said:
The physical is already death. Being born into a dead body is physical death. The soul is already dead just by being in this body. The soul of those in Christ will never die. But claiming this "never death" is end of physical life death or spiritual death is missing the point. The point is we are already dead.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you say things like this. No, we are not already dead or else we couldn't be having this discussion.

Spiritual Jew · Jun 21, 2021

Timtofly said:
They are not fallen angels. The fallen angels are physically bound in the pit. They are the locust like creatures found in the 5th Trumpet. The only spirit entity is our own spirit. We are separated from our spirit. Spirit in this sense is not exactly pnuema. It is a robe of white light. It is supposed to be wrapped around us. In some cases they can come to earth and poses people as in a prophetic form. A reprobate soul has forced a spirit to become a demon and flee God's presence. That is why they are on earth looking for an open mind to inhabit.

The text of 1 Kings 22:20-22 shows us these spirits.

20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.

22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

These are not fallen angels walking around in heaven. A spirit and a demon are the same type. According to these verses, they have input in what goes on on the earth. They are not angels. They are the part of humanity that was lost when Adam disobeyed God. Body, soul, and spirit. The soul cannot die. The spirit cannot die. It can become reprobate along with the soul, that is a demon. The body is what physically dies. The spirit is what spiritually dies. But the spirit does not return to dust. It becomes a demon.

So, it looks you are saying that you believe demons are the reprobate spirits of physically dead people. Wow. You never cease to amaze me with the things that you believe. You have many beliefs that I've never even heard of before. Do you come up with them yourself or were you taught these things?

Spiritual Jew · Jun 21, 2021

Jeffwhosoever said:
I don't know about how others come by their Eschatological views, but I'm doing my level best to get mine direct from Scripture, as literal as possible to the written words of Scripture. I know there is some symbolism in Revelation but that does not suggest the right approach IMHO is to treat the entire book as symbolic or to try to cherry pick only the parts that line up with a certain eschatological point of view then classify all that doesn't agree as symbolic.

Can you give me some names of posters who you think are doing what you described here? I don't believe anyone is.

You have chosen to take a very literal approach to interpreting scripture. Is that what scripture itself encourages us to do? If most of scripture is literal, as you seem to believe, then I wonder why Paul wrote this:

1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Paul taught that his words needed to be spiritually discerned via the Holy Spirit. How does this line up with your literal approach to interpreting scripture?

Better to be neutral and let the Scripture speak for itself, augmented by other books of Scripture, both old and new testment, that align with the Scripture being interpreted. For me, this path is leading to a rather convincing argument for Futurism, and Premillenialism, though I'm a long way from having an opinion or understanding of rapture timing, which might have to be one of the mysteries I learn about when I'm physically with the Lord, as thus far our stuides of Scripture have not made a compelling argument for rapture timing, other than obviously the church is with the Lord at the end, whether that is called a rapture or just the eternal state.

What does letting the scripture speak for itself even mean? Does that include Christ's parables? Does it include when hyperbole is used? Should we literally gouge out our eyes if they cause us to sin, as Jesus said to do? Would that be a case of letting Scripture speak for itself?

Revelation speaks of a dragon and a beast who each have seven heads and ten horns. How do we let that speak for itself? Do you think that we don't need any help from the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture? If so, then was Paul mistaken with what he said in 1 Corinthians 2:12-14?

Freedm · Jun 21, 2021

Spiritual Jew said:
Why do I need to reconcile them? My understanding of that verse is the same as my understanding of John 11:25-26, which I already explained previously. Why would my interpretation of John 8:51 be any different than how I interpret John 11:25-26 when they are basically saying the same thing?

One says you will die, the other says you will never see death. Those statements are literally contradicting each other. You need to explain how they can both be true at the same time. Especially considering you expect me to admit that "we will die", after I told you we would never see death.

Guojing · Jun 21, 2021

Moriah's Song said:
Now who do you represent? The Pharisees that took the law "literally?" Or would you prefer to have Jesus tell you not to cut your eyes out but to stop looking at inappropriate contentography? (not saying you do here.)

I simply have the belief that Jesus say what he meant and meant what he said. If he wanted us to interpret him symbolically, he would have said exactly that.

20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency