One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[Guojing]

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.

As I said, the New covenant could not have begun for the nation of Israel, presently, they rejected the Messiah as the Son of God.

 

[sovereigngrace]

As I said, the New covenant could not have begun for the nation of Israel, presently, they rejected the Messiah as the Son of God.

The instigation of the new covenant kicked in when God ordained it. It happened on time and totally obliterated the old covenant. Israelis can enter into it if they bow the knee before Jesus comes and plulls the plug on this scene of time.

 

[Timtofly]

Barnabas could hardly have made this clearer: “the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years.” He then reinforces this thought by saying: “in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished.” There is no way of wriggling out of this. Premillenialists cannot change the decisive language of this ancient father. It is climatic! It is all-consummating! This is unambiguously classic Amillennialism.

Actually there is a finish. Daniel 9. Now if you think that the 70th week was over in the first century, you have Barnabas' finish. Except Barnabas was right that it will not finish until the Second Coming. That is when Daniel's 70th week will finish at the 7th Trumpet.

But then comes the Day of the Lord. The Day set apart as Holy. Those 6 things will be brought to a finish, but then the earth will have 1000 years where those things will be reality.

Barnabas was still looking for that Millennium. He never claimed to be living in it, like Amil do.

 

[Guojing]

The instigation of the new covenant kicked in when God ordained it. It happened on time and totally obliterated the old covenant. Israelis can enter into it if they bow the knee before Jesus comes and plulls the plug on this scene of time.

The Old Covenant only began for Israel at Exodus 24, after all the people said this

3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.

6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.

8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

Until the nation of Israel accepted Jesus as their promised Messiah and Son of God, in a likewise fashion, the New Covenant could not have begun for them.

In Matthew 23:39, Jesus promised that will be happen in the future

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

 

[jeffweedaman]

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.

I disagree strongly. I am on board with Sov Grace and SJ.
It is premill that cannot deal with Matt 25 :31 - ,2Thess 1 and 2 , 2 pet 3 etc and there plain meaning.
Jesus alluded to an Amill interpretation ,as did Peter and Paul and Jude etc..

Today is the day of salvation and it does not extend into your proposed future millennium with Jesus and the saints ruling over Gospel rejecters in the next age after his glorious appearing.
Jesus said that heaven and earth would pass away before his coming. Jesus said the Heaven and earth will depart after the millennium in Rev 20.
If you wish to rightly divide his word then you must align yourself with this.

 

[Jamdoc]

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.

Ones that I have listened to, place their Salvation in Jesus, but adhere to Torah because the Old Covenant is not about Salvation, the Old Covenant is about living in the land that God promised to give the Jews and prospering in an earthly way on that land (the blessings from Deuteronomy 28)
Which I find no problem with. The Old Covenant was not about salvation, but it did carry promises about living in the land of Israel and prospering in that land. Just on earth, and it carried with it a bunch of laws and ceremonies in order to uphold their end of that covenant. The new covenant is a better covenant, but that doesn't make it a bad thing if ethnically Jewish people wish to also live in the land of Israel and prosper and honor God through obeying His laws. I think God still honors that. Israel is a surprisingly productive land compared to all of its neighbors, after spending over a thousand years as a desolation.
I'm talking about for the sake of the Messianics that do believe in Yeshua, not those still in unbelief.
Though I do think there will be a miraculous revival among those in unbelief and many will turn to Jesus.
again, Matthew 23:39.

 

[Jamdoc]

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"?

I have encountered some Dispensationists that have talked about before Christ (the "dispensation of grace") that the Jews were justified by the law, citing people like Job (to which I refute using Job 19:25-27, showing that it was belief in a future Messiah (that already lived, showing Job's understanding that the Messiah would be divine not just a man) that was the source of his right standing with God), and that before the law was given, they didn't even need to obey the law, citing Lot (which again, I see Lot as a backslidden Christian, someone who was saved by grace by faith in God being his redeember), and they'll turn around and say after the dispensation of grace, people will be saved by the law again in the MK...

and I just.. can't disagree with that. I guess those would be Hyperdispensationalists?

 

[Guojing]

I have encountered some Dispensationists that have talked about before Christ (the "dispensation of grace") that the Jews were justified by the law, citing people like Job (to which I refute using Job 19:25-27, showing that it was belief in a future Messiah (that already lived, showing Job's understanding that the Messiah would be divine not just a man) that was the source of his right standing with God), and that before the law was given, they didn't even need to obey the law, citing Lot (which again, I see Lot as a backslidden Christian, someone who was saved by grace by faith in God being his redeember), and they'll turn around and say after the dispensation of grace, people will be saved by the law again in the MK...

and I just.. can't disagree with that. I guess those would be Hyperdispensationalists?

Well, I guess they may have understood Cornelius R Stam wrongly, but do they still say it now?

Let me quote from CR Stam "Things that differ"

One of the first lessons the Bible student should learn is the difference between the principles and the dispensations of God.

The opponents of dispensationalism have often charged us with teaching, for example, that under the Old Testament men were saved by the works of the law,
whereas today they are saved by grace through faith.

This charge is at least misleading, for no thinking
dispensationalist would teach that the works of the law in themselves could ever save, or even help save, anyone.

We have no illusions as to man's utter inability to please God by works as such in any age. Man has always been saved essentially by the grace of God, through faith. There could be no other way to be saved.

This is a fixed principle to which Hebrews 11 bears abundant testimony and it should be self-evident to those who accept as facts the utter depravity of man and the infinite holiness of God.

But this does not alter the fact that God's dealings with men and the stated terms of acceptance with Him have changed again and again down through the ages and that faith in Him would therefore be expressed in different ways.

Hebrews 11 also bears consistent testimony to this fact.
Faith would most assuredly approach God in God's way at any time, and to seek to gain acceptance with Him in any other way would, of course, be unbelief and self-will. Thus, while works never did or could save as such, they did once save as expressions of faith.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The Old Covenant only began for Israel at Exodus 24, after all the people said this

3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.

6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.

8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.

Until the nation of Israel accepted Jesus as their promised Messiah and Son of God, in a likewise fashion, the New Covenant could not have begun for them.

In Matthew 23:39, Jesus promised that will be happen in the future

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

It begun at and through the cross.

 

[Guojing]

It begun at and through the cross.

The Old Covenant was not a unilateral covenant, so the New Covenant similarly won't be.

There is a reason why the promises in Hebrews 8:10-11 are not seen anywhere in the world. People, even believers, are still sinning, and we still need people to teach us to know the Lord.

 

[keras]

Today is the day of salvation and it does not extend into your proposed future millennium with Jesus and the saints ruling over Gospel rejecters in the next age after his glorious appearing.

There will be no unbelievers who will going into the Millennium. Armageddon will be their end of all the wicked unbelievers.
Only near the end of the 1000 years, will Satan be allowed to again deceive people; for a short time.

Though I do think there will be a miraculous revival among those in unbelief and many will turn to Jesus.

This idea is pure dipsy teaching. It is not found in the Bible.
Zechariah 12 does say some Jewish families will finally acknowledge Jesus at His Return, as per Jeremiah 50:4-5
But the present Jewish State of Israel is prophesied to be removed and only a remnant will survive. Jeremiah 12:14, Isaiah 22:1-14, Romans 9:27

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi David

If what you are saying is so, this means the Strong's that I'm using has a typo in verse 7 since it indicates that it is the same Greek word 'teleo' that is used in both verse 3 and verse 5. My Strong's records those verses like such.

Well Strong is a concordance it is not a dictionary it list how translators translated a word not what that word meant to begin with in the original language. So if the translation you are using.......... say the King James.......... translates the word in error strong's will just list that as one of the ways that word was translated.

Weymouth New Testament
20:3 He closed the entrance and put a seal upon him in order that he might be unable to lead the nations astray any more until the thousand years were at an end. Afterwards he is to be set at liberty for a short time.

Young's Literal Translation
20:3 and he cast him to the abyss, and did shut him up, and put a seal upon him, that he may not lead astray the nations any more, till the thousand years may be finished; and after these it behoveth him to be loosed a little time.

ακρι ετελέσθη verse 3 This literally means exactly done or at the exact moment of completion
ακρι ετελέσθη verse 5
akri etelésthi
exactly done

όταν τηλεσκη verse 7
otan telesqh

As You can see verse 7 is different. That difference is because of a change of tense

The first part of the verse is
kai otan telesqh ta cilia eth lythisetai
and when completing the thousand years solved

That would be considered a word for word translation well I believe that is what it would say but I must admit I am no expert in Ancient Greek Grammar.

I do see your point though the next piece in verse 3 suggest a new /different amount of time ie a season.

However I believe the over ridding narrative and grammar of the text is that these three things Satan loosed, Souls not saved raised/judged and gog magog all happen in the last season of the Day of the Lord. ie at the time of completion. There are other Greek words that mean "over" but they were not used instead a word that implies the ending of or at the last moment of is used.

Having said that I have a friend who has a degree in Linguistics and did her paper on Indo European Languages. I think I will take this to her and see if I am getting this right. I will let you know what she says,

 

[Jamdoc]

There will be no unbelievers who will going into the Millennium. Armageddon will be their end of all the wicked unbelievers.
Only near the end of the 1000 years, will Satan be allowed to again deceive people; for a short time.

This idea is pure dipsy teaching. It is not found in the Bible.
Zechariah 12 does say some Jewish families will finally acknowledge Jesus at His Return, as per Jeremiah 50:4-5
But the present Jewish State of Israel is prophesied to be removed and only a remnant will survive. Jeremiah 12:14, Isaiah 22:1-14, Romans 9:27

Yeah, a miraculous revival of a remnant. Zechariah 13 gives it as 1/3.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Armageddon will be their end of all the wicked unbelievers.

This takes place at his second coming right?? If so I agree.


[Only near the end of the 1000 years, will Satan be allowed to again deceive people; for a short time.]


Who is he going out to deceive ??... if all the wicked are put to an end at his coming??

All who have believed are assured of being with him forever and ever when the Lord comes again...so it cannot be those who rebel and are deceived in your proposed future millennium after Jesus comes...right?

 

[Timtofly]

I see that you are still in the business of asking ridiculous and irrelevant questions. Why do you do it?

I'm not sure exactly what you were intending to say here, but it's definitely true that He is longsuffering towards your sin and my sin and everyone's sin. And He doesn't want anyone to perish and wants everyone to repent of their sins, as Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:9. It is because of that fact that it has taken as long as it has for Jesus to return.

Because you brought up the Second Coming as just like the days of Noah. If the Second Coming is post God's Judgment, then Noah entered the ark, post the Flood.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

No one is saying those who lived 1000 years have to rebel. It would be the billions born after 900 years. Those who are only 100 years old. Each generation is getting larger. That is how living without dying works.

 

[Timtofly]

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.

Then why do they leave earth after the 5th Trumpet and try to attack those in heaven, where they have to be kicked out again by Michael? So you do not ever see Satan trying to take God's throne, ever with a group of angels?

 

[jeffweedaman]

Because you brought up the Second Coming as just like the days of Noah. If the Second Coming is post God's Judgment, then Noah entered the ark, post the Flood.

Silly.

Whoever believes does not come into judgment , just like those on the ark were unaffected by the flood judgment

 

[Timtofly]

Today is the day of salvation and it does not extend into your proposed future millennium with Jesus and the saints ruling over Gospel rejecters in the next age after his glorious appearing.

No one proposed this Millennium. John wrote what he was a witness to. John the beloved disciple is the only one "proposing" this Millennium. Posters here should stop spouting such nonsense that humans propose a future millennium. It is about as true as those in 1995 proposed that the year 2000 will happen, like it would not have, if they had not proposed it.

Jesus said that heaven and earth would pass away before his coming.

Where did Jesus says this?

Jesus said the Heaven and earth will depart after the millennium in Rev 20.
If you wish to rightly divide his word then you must align yourself with this.

John claims at the end of the Millennium heaven and earth pass away. This Millennium starts at the Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

Well, I guess they may have understood Cornelius R Stam wrongly, but do they still say it now?

Let me quote from CR Stam "Things that differ"

I would say living by the Law is the same thought process of persevering through the Tribulation where allegedly to save the flesh, one must.

Judgment came to Israel, and hard, many times, because they did not keep the Law. Their flesh was destroyed many times, by the heathen nations around them.

All flesh will be destroyed at the Second Coming sooner or later. It is really not about running a marathon, when it comes to "running" until the end of the Tribulation.

Running as Paul equates it, is just every day normal life. The flesh is crucified daily.