20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

[Guojing]

Did Paul obey?

The Body of Christ is not Israel, so no (1 Timothy 5:8).

 

[Guojing]

So, where the disciples “in Christ” or not? Did they experience the new birth? Basically, were they a new creature in Christ? Did they experience salvation like we have? Were they part of “the body of Christ”? Or, did they belong to a different spiritual entity?

The little flock is in Christ (John 15:4-6), but they are not in the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Because they are not in the Body of Christ, they have to wait to receive their salvation at the 2nd coming (Acts 3:19-21, 1 Peter 1:9, Romans 11:25-27)

 

[keras]

The little flock is in Christ (John 15:4-6), but they are not in the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Because they are not in the Body of Christ, they have to wait to receive their salvation at the 2nd coming (Acts 3:19-21, 1 Peter 1:9, Romans 11:25-27)

Your insistence that there is two peoples of God is not as taught in the Bible, it does in fact oppose the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
Jesus was perfectly clear on this: John 17:20-23 and Paul; Colossians 3:11

I know that some Jews, a few actual descendants of Judah, will finally accept Jesus; the one they pierced. But we must carefully read Zechariah 12 and 13 in this matter.
Only a few families will survive to do this, as Zechariah 13:7-9 says. Two thirds will die outright and the remaining third will pass thru fire and only a holy seed of them will remain. Isaiah 6:11-13, Romans 9:27, +

Any ideas of a general redemption of the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel, is wrong and actually unbelievable given their continued rejection of Jesus for the last nearly 2000 years.

 

[Guojing]

Your insistence that there is two peoples of God is not as taught in the Bible, it does in fact oppose the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
Jesus was perfectly clear on this: John 17:20-23

I know that some Jews, a few actual descendants of Judah, will finally accept Jesus; the one they pierced. But we must carefully read Zechariah 12 and 13 in this matter.
Only a few families will survive to do this, as Zechariah 13:7-9 says. Two thirds will die outright and the remaining third will pass thru fire and only a holy seed of them will remain. Isaiah 6:11-13, Romans 9:27, +

Any ideas of a general redemption of the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel, is wrong and actually unbelievable given their continued rejection of Jesus for the last nearly 2000 years.

When Jesus was stating John 17, there was no Body of Christ. The only way to be saved then was thru Israel (John 4:22).

The Body of Christ was a mystery that the ascended Christ first revealed to Paul (Galatians 1:12, Ephesians 3:9), after the nation of Israel fell (Romans 11:11)

 

[ShineyDays2]

But the Body of Christ is not the same as the little flock. They are 2 separate groups of believers.

Luke's version of "the little flock."

Luke 12:22a, 32-34 - And he said to his disciples,... "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Jhn 10:16 - And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Act 20:28 - Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

1Pe 5:2 - Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,​

Why did you avoid Luke 12:22a and the other verses that clearly show that Jesus is referring to "other sheep/Gentiles" the flock of God, "church of God," and that Jesus is ultimately referring to the "kingdom of heaven" and that they are to be the first in charge of building his church. In other verses in scripture Jesus, on the night he is to be betrayed, is telling Peter "to feed my sheep." He is giving Peter the keys to his kingdom in his absence. But in no way is "the little flock" ever to mean "a separate group of believers" as your dispensational doctrine says. That is dispensational heresy at its worst! Jesus in NOT referring to any future literal earthly temple that is supposedly going to be built in Jerusalem as "his kingdom on earth."

Lastly, Isaiah in the OT prophesied this...

"Isa 56:8 - Thus says the Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered." ​

Even Isaiah believed that the future Messiah would gather others (Gentiles) to Himself. Here is your "one body" as foretold.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You should understand Galatians 6:16 using the KJV instead of paraphrasing from another translation.

Now, the "and" is explicitly in the KJV so you don't have to sneak that in, unlike what you did for the previous debate about Acts 2:5.

But of course, I see you instead, quietly use a version that now drops the critical word and

I can certainly understand your motivation for doing the opposite for Galatians 6:16

First of all, the New Testament was not written in KJV English. It was written in Greek. So, please stop acting as if the KJV is the final authority on scripture. It's not. It's an English translation. One of several good ones.

The word "and" being in Galatians 6:16 where it says "and upon the Israel of God" doesn't imply that it's talking about a different group than those who "walk according to this rule".

Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Let's use the logic that you use to interpret Galatians 6:16 to interpret this verse:

Revelation 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

Using the same kind of logic you use to interpret Galatians 6:16, we would conclude that "his servants" and "ye that fear him" are two separate groups of people. But, that is clearly not the case. Clearly, God's servants are those who fear him. Being a servant of God and fearing God go hand in hand. So, despite the fact that it says "and ye that fear him" it doesn't mean that "ye that fear him" are a different group than "ye his servants".

Similarly, just because it says in Galatians 6:16 "and upon the Israel of God" it doesn't mean the Israel of God is a different group than those who "walk according to this rule" of being a new creature in Christ. Why would you conclude that being a natural descendant of the nation of Israel is a requirement for being part of "the Israel of God" after Paul had just previously said "neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision"? That would make no sense. He would have contradicted himself.

So, what Paul was saying is that those who walk according to the rule of being a new creature in Christ are those who make up "the Israel of God". One's nationality has nothing to do with whether someone is in the Israel of God or not. Which is the same thing Paul taught in Romans 9:6-8 as well.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The little flock is in Christ (John 15:4-6), but they are not in the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Because they are not in the Body of Christ, they have to wait to receive their salvation at the 2nd coming (Acts 3:19-21, 1 Peter 1:9, Romans 11:25-27)

I can't fathom how there can be a difference between being in Christ and being in the body of Christ. That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Please answer the following 2 questions.

What are the requirements for someone to be in Christ?

What are the requirements for someone to be in the body of Christ?

 

[Timtofly]

Jesus is here acknowledging that salvation would not be limited to the Jewish race. He was predicting that the Gospel would expand out and embrace the nations.

Sorry, but God's Atonement is not limited. It has always been to all humanity. Your form of Dispensationalism is worse than the one you deny, you claim as existing some where out there.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Sorry, but God's Atonement is not limited. It has always been to all humanity. Your form of Dispensationalism is worse than the one you deny, you claim as existing some where out there.

Who, apart from you, has said God's Atonement is limited? I totally reject your Dispensationalism in any form.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Who, apart from you, has said God's Atonement is limited? I totally reject your Dispensationalism in any form.

Yeah, that was a strange way for him to interpret your statement saying that "the Gospel would expand out and embrace the nations". That's the opposite of saying God's atonement is limited (to Israel).

It's almost as if he made up his mind to disagree with you no matter what you said.

 

[jgr]

The Body of Christ is not Israel, so no (1 Timothy 5:8).

Paul was an Israelite of Israel who was in Christ and in the Body of Christ.

Which flock do you think he was in?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Yeah, that was a strange way for him to interpret your statement saying that "the Gospel would expand out and embrace the nations". That's the opposite of saying God's atonement is limited (to Israel).

It's almost as if he made up his mind to disagree with you not matter what you said.

Agreed. That is because Dispensationalism has no answer to what the Book says.

 

[jgr]

The little flock is in Christ (John 15:4-6), but they are not in the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Because they are not in the Body of Christ, they have to wait to receive their salvation at the 2nd coming (Acts 3:19-21, 1 Peter 1:9, Romans 11:25-27)

Do you still believe that if they die and go to hell while they're waiting, that's better than receiving Christ and going to heaven?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Paul was an Israelite of Israel who was in Christ and in the Body of Christ.

Which flock do you think he was in?

... and so were the disciples.

 

[Timtofly]

The destruction of the temple removed the last vestige of old covenant thinking that had attached itself to the Jewish Church. They were now finally separated from the old.

Classic dispensational thought here. What is the dispensational thinking being refuted?

 

[Timtofly]

Not so! You, or no Premiller, has had any rebuttal so far to any of the points in the Op. That alone is telling. That is a sufficient testimony that they are all compelling and water tight. Facts are stubborn things!

Your private opinion is not a fact. That is your own claim. 16 points are your own ideas, thoughts on why the chapter cannot say what is actually written in the chapter.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Your private opinion is not a fact. That is your own claim. 16 points are your own ideas, thoughts on why the chapter cannot say what is actually written in the chapter.

Your ongoing avoidance just reinforces my thesis. It shows the reader how bereft Premil is of biblical validity.

 

[Timtofly]

Who, apart from you, has said God's Atonement is limited? I totally reject your Dispensationalism in any form.

Your claim was the Atonement was limited to Israel and only after the first century went to other nations. That is dispensational thought.

 

[Timtofly]

Yeah, that was a strange way for him to interpret your statement saying that "the Gospel would expand out and embrace the nations". That's the opposite of saying God's atonement is limited (to Israel).

It's almost as if he made up his mind to disagree with you no matter what you said.

I am just trying to figure out from his interpretation what is this dispensational thought he is refuting.

 

[Timtofly]

Your ongoing avoidance just reinforces my thesis. It shows the reader how bereft Premil is of biblical validity.

I am not avoiding your opinion. I am pointing them out as your opinions.