The Apostle Paul vs Popular Eschatalogical Doctrines/Positions

[fixn_junk]

It's not a separate event according to Paul.
Paul links the two events in both letters to the Thessalonians.
Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 is also not to "unbelieving Jews/Israel" as many pretribulationists teach.
It is a private discourse to His disciples, Mark 13 specifies 4 of them. It says that it was private. No Pharisees present. The last thing He addressed to the pharisees is that they wouldn't see Him come to the temple again until they said blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Matthew 23:39.
These 4 were BELIEVERS in Jesus, they were saved, and went on to plant Churches. They were Church fathers, and Jesus included them in statements like Matthew 24:15 when YE therefore shall see the Abomination of Desolation...

So who's the elect Jesus is gathering?
The saved
when does it happen? After the Abomination of Desolation.
Paul agrees with the Olivet Discourse.
does believing it happens after the Abomination of Desolation violate knowing a day or hour? No. both Jesus and Paul taught that nobody would know, and it'd be like a thief in the night. Which to reconcile this means it takes place at an unknown time after the abomination of desolation, but not any particular day... but it has a 3.5 year window, to reconcile with Daniel and Revelation.

Funnily enough, one of the biggest claims from pretribulationists is that only Paul taught the doctrine of the rapture and it was an unknown mystery prior to 1 Corinthians. Oh they'll use John 14 in their proofs but then immediately turn around and say that it was exclusive to Paul if you actually use the other Gospels to show them wrong.
Here I'm using Paul specifically because people put extra weight on Paul's writings for some of these doctrines to show that Paul does not agree with their position.

I'll throw in a Bonus. Titus 2


A lot of pretribulationists will claim the blessed hope is a pretribulation rapture.
But here Paul ties it to the second coming of Christ... again.
Nowhere does Paul ever teach it as separate.
Neither did Jesus
and Neither does John in Revelation. Revelation 14 is the closest match to 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24, but Revelation 6:12-17 also matches but without the harvesting details of Revelation 14, and it's not as explicit that Jesus is in the clouds then. I still interpet them as the same event, because of other details such as the sun and moon going dark and the tribes of the earth wailing in Revelation 6.
But Revelation 14, features Jesus on the clouds, the shouting archangels, the first reaping is not put through the wrath of God (which is importantly, done by Jesus), and the second reaping done by the angel is put through the wrath of God. Revelation 15 which follows, has saints in heaven singing, having overcome the mark of the beast. Just as Revelation 7 following Revelation 6, has saints in heaven holding objects in their hands (like they have a body), praising God having overcome great tribulation.

In both cases.. Jesus came first, then the saints were in heaven. Meaning the rapture was connected with the second coming, not a separate event.

In any case, none of them taught a SEPARATE rapture that was different from the second coming.

We will have to agree to disagree. We will likely not come to agreement in any of this discussion as we have diffent methods of studying the Bible which generally produce different understanding. I take one Scripture at at time, within its immediate context, and study to understand that group of context alone before moving on. You're more of a shotgun approach throwing a whole bunch of Scripture out all at once to try to deal with. You keep using scripture to prove points. I want to study scripture to learn more and understand better where I lack understanding. We are just too far apart to continue this discussion.

 

[Zao is life]

What's in question, is the regeneration involving a finite time or is it something that is endless? If the former rather the latter, how can anything other than the thousand years possibly explain the finite time meant? But if the latter is meant, this thousand years is irrelevant in that case.

Then we have to ask ourselves, what does all of this mean once the following has been fulfilled?---he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power(1 Corinthians 15:24)---then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all(1 Corinthians 15:28).

Yeah, I've always understood "when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power" as "when He makes to cease all (human) rule and all authority and power. For it is right for Him to reign until He has put all the enemies under His feet." (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).

Jesus is not only The Son of God, but He is also the Son of man, the last Adam:

Psalm 2:7-9
"I will declare the decree of the LORD. He has said to Me, You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I shall give the nations for Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession. You shall break [râ‛a‛] them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Revelation 2:26-28 "And he who overcomes and keeps My works to the end, to him I will give power over the nations. And he will shepherd [ποιμαίνω poimaínō] them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of a potter they will be broken to pieces, even as I received from My Father. And I will give him the Morning Star."

Have you ever noticed the difference in meaning between the Hebrew word used in Psalm 2 and the word used in Revelation 2:27?

Same thing here:

Revelation 12:5 "And she bore a son, a male, who is going to shepherd [ποιμαίνω poimaínō] all nations with a rod of iron. And her child was caught up to God and to His throne.

Revelation 19;5 "And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, so that with it He should strike the nations. And He will shepherd [ποιμαίνω poimaínō] them with a rod of iron. And He treads the winepress of the wine of the anger and of the wrath of Almighty God.

@DavidPT That's not the word chosen by the English translators, but it is used in the MKJV, which is why I checked it out the first time I noticed it: It's definitely the Greek word meaning "shepherd" and not "rule" being used in each case in the Revelation.

So Premil specs had me believing He will break the rebellion of the nations at His return, then He will shepherd the nations with a rod of iron (with strict and real and Godly discipline). But He is also the shepherd of those who believe in Him and submit to His authority now (but we don't see Him ruling over the nations now):

Hebrews 2:8-9 "You have subjected all things under his feet." For in order that He put all things under him, He did not leave anything not subjected.

But now (Greek: nŷn, "of this present time") we do not see all things having been put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every son."

John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews.

But now (Greek: nŷn, "of this present time") My kingdom is not from here.

Revelation 11:15 "And the seventh angel sounded. And there were great voices in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ. And He will reign forever and ever."

"For He must [deî] reign" (it is right, fitting for Him to reign) until He has put all the enemies under His feet." (1 Corinthians 15:25).

And if the last Adam, the Son of man, is reigning with his resurrected human saints reigning with Him for a thousand years, then after that He will put and end to all (human) authority and power, and God will be all in all.

So it's easy from a Premil perspective.

But there are also problems with Premil that aren't easy to explain, or should I say cannot be explained away.

As to this agnosmillennialist, now that I fully grasp what you are meaning by that, I don't see that being a bad place to be at all. Now if only some of the rest of us, and not just Premils, but Amils as well, could also be in that place.

@DavidPT This was God's purpose for creating man:

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

When Adam sinned, God's purpose did not change:

Psalm 8:3-8 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

For thou hast made him a little lower than elohiym (God), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.”

Hebrews 2:8b-9 But now (Greek: nŷn, "of this present time") we do not see all things having been put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every son."

Jesus is the Son of man, the last Adam. So once all His enemies have been placed under His feet, He will put an end to all (human) authority and power.

 

[Zao is life]

@DavidPT We broke the rules:

Well I guess my "rule" was that I wanted to tie any references to other scripture, to something Paul taught, since truly the theme is regarding the Eschatology of Paul.

 

[Jamdoc]

What's in question, is the regeneration involving a finite time or is it something that is endless? If the former rather the latter, how can anything other than the thousand years possibly explain the finite time meant? But if the latter is meant, this thousand years is irrelevant in that case.

Then we have to ask ourselves, what does all of this mean once the following has been fulfilled?---he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power(1 Corinthians 15:24)---then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all(1 Corinthians 15:28).


As to this agnosmillennialist, now that I fully grasp what you are meaning by that, I don't see that being a bad place to be at all. Now if only some of the rest of us, and not just Premils, but Amils as well, could also be in that place.

Though I myself am premill, I have to admit, I am not the most comfortable that you can only explicitly use Revelation 20 to support the position. Other parts of the bible like Isaiah 2 you can kind of imply it because the new heavens and new earth will have never had war so you wouldn't be breaking down weapons into peaceful tools because the weapons would have been destroyed when God remakes creation anew, so what you kinda have to go with is a period of time where we live on this old earth but with Jesus ruling it, where people are cleaning stuff up breaking down weapons etc. Other old testament prophecy books talk about a temple and sacrifice system, while Messiah the prince is ruling. But the new heavens and new earth won't have a temple.

So it can be implied, but it is not explicit to be 1000 years long.

Paul himself does not teach such a system returning at all, instead teaching that Jesus was the one pasover lamb for all and the one sacrifice for all (if we could confirm authorship of Hebrews). Which is part of the reason why I can't firmly place Paul in a millennial position. Just I don't see him fitting post mill because that position teaches the world getting more righteous and righteous until Jesus comes at the end of it.
Amill is tricky because one of its principal teachings is that Satan currently is bound.

 

[sovereigngrace]

C: Paul vs preterism, at least those who claimed that the resurrection (of all the saints) happened at the Cross, a position also held by many amillennials.

That is simply not true. It is only Extreme Preterists that believe that error.

D:

Paul vs amillennialism in general, in particular the idea that Satan was bound for the thousand years starting at the cross, or that Satan and his angels being thrown down in Revelation 12, was something that happened at the cross.
Ephesians 6

If an enemy is bound so that he can deceive the nations no more, why do we have to stand guard against him?

In other translations this is "in heavenly places". If Satan's angels have already been cast out by Paul's time writing this, who then are these rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness and powers and principalities in heavenly places?

Next up.. 2 Corinthians 4

If Satan is bound and unable to deceive the nations at the time that Paul is writing this.. how is Satan blinding the lost, why is he considered the god of this world? How is Satan preventing the gospel from reaching these people, which by amillennial doctrine, Satan being bound means that Satan can't prevent the spread of the gospel. Yet clearly Paul is teaching that he can blind people and make them unreceptive to the gospel, still, after Jesus resurrected.

John 12:31-33 and Revelation 12:5-11 prove that Satan was cast out of heaven - forever - through and after the triumphant life, death and resurrection of Christ. Revelation 20 corroborates Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4 and Revelation 9 that the demonic realm are currently shackled in the abyss prior to the second coming. Everything today is subject to Christ and He reigns victorious over His enemies (1 Corinthians 15:22-28, Ephesians 1:20-23, Hebrews 1:2, 3, 2:9 1 Peter 3:22 and Philippians 2:9-11).

Genesis 3:15, Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 16:11, Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11 and Revelation 20:2 depict Satan as bound, injured, defeated, incapacitated, immobilized, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped, judged and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. As a result of this, John 12:31-33 and Revelation 12:9-13 records Satan being eternally banished from heaven, along with his demonic angels.

Your fight is with multiple Scripture.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Though I myself am premill, I have to admit, I am not the most comfortable that you can only explicitly use Revelation 20 to support the position. Other parts of the bible like Isaiah 2 you can kind of imply it because the new heavens and new earth will have never had war so you wouldn't be breaking down weapons into peaceful tools because the weapons would have been destroyed when God remakes creation anew, so what you kinda have to go with is a period of time where we live on this old earth but with Jesus ruling it, where people are cleaning stuff up breaking down weapons etc. Other old testament prophecy books talk about a temple and sacrifice system, while Messiah the prince is ruling. But the new heavens and new earth won't have a temple.

So it can be implied, but it is not explicit to be 1000 years long.

Paul himself does not teach such a system returning at all, instead teaching that Jesus was the one pasover lamb for all and the one sacrifice for all (if we could confirm authorship of Hebrews). Which is part of the reason why I can't firmly place Paul in a millennial position. Just I don't see him fitting post mill because that position teaches the world getting more righteous and righteous until Jesus comes at the end of it.
Amill is tricky because one of its principal teachings is that Satan currently is bound.

Isaiah 2:2-4 says, speaking of the Lord’s first Advent, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Isaiah 2 clearly referring to "the last days." When do you believe "the last days" began, when do you believe that they are going to finish? When is the last day and what happens there?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

@fixn_junk said what I would reply to you. You cannot interpret what only Paul said using only what Paul said. Scripture interprets scripture.

I agree. While Paul certainly covers a lot of ground in his writing, it's quite helpful to see what Paul was talking about in 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 by also reading 2 Peter 3:3-13. Paul indicated that the day of the Lord will bring "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape". Peter sheds more light on that by indicating that the destruction will be of the entire earth (which Paul did not specify). That sheds a lot of light on why Paul said "they shall not escape". So, it doesn't make sense to only look at Paul's writings without also looking at other scripture.

 

[Jamdoc]

That is simply not true. It is only Extreme Preterists that believe that error.



John 12:31-33 and Revelation 12:5-11 prove that Satan was cast out of heaven - forever - through and after the triumphant life, death and resurrection of Christ. Revelation 20 corroborates Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4 and Revelation 9 that the demonic realm are currently shackled in the abyss prior to the second coming. Everything today is subject to Christ and He reigns victorious over His enemies (1 Corinthians 15:22-28, Ephesians 1:20-23, Hebrews 1:2, 3, 2:9 1 Peter 3:22 and Philippians 2:9-11).

Genesis 3:15, Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 16:11, Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11 and Revelation 20:2 depict Satan as bound, injured, defeated, incapacitated, immobilized, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped, judged and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. As a result of this, John 12:31-33 and Revelation 12:9-13 records Satan being eternally banished from heaven, along with his demonic angels.

Your fight is with multiple Scripture.

Doxology does not answer the question.
and Paul teaches an active and dangerous Satan. Not a bound one.

 

[Jamdoc]

Isaiah 2:2-4 says, speaking of the Lord’s first Advent, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Isaiah 2 clearly referring to "the last days." When do you believe "the last days" began, when do you believe that they are going to finish? When is the last day and what happens there?

Nations still go to war with other Nations, we might even right now be staring at the beginning of World War 3, between Ukraine, and Taiwan, and Israel/Nuclear Iran.
To claim we are currently living Isaiah 2 is extraordinarily inaccurate.

to claim we are currently living Isaiah 2, is kind of looking like a Post Mill, a world that continually gets better and better and more righteous, but Paul taught that it gets worse and worse, like a Premill.
Normally Amill would also agree that the world gets worse and worse until the second coming.
But if you're arguing we're currently living Isaiah 2?
That's a post mill mindset.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

A: Paul vs the doctrine of imminence and pretribulationism
2 Thessalonians 2

These events are tied together, which will also be backed up on another popular doctrine next

That is don't believe people who try to tell you that the rapture and second coming are imminent, refuting the doctrine of imminence.

Here he gives the conditions that prevent the rapture and second coming from being immient. It does however BECOME imminent once these events have happened.
Now I know people will #1. Try to claim that apostasia means physical departure but that is a total non starter unless you want to declare that God does not preserve His word and lets mankind corrupt it making every modern English translation false. If we can't put faith in the Word of God? What can we base our faith on. Extremely dangerous position to take. #2, people will say that the restrainer mentioned in verses 6 and 7 is the Church/Holy Spirit, so the rapture has to take place first.
But that makes no sense because Paul just gave 2 conditions that have to happen before the rapture and second coming happen.

B: Paul vs the doctrine of a separate Rapture and second coming.
I've already shown it in 2 Thessalonians 2 but I'll also back it up with 1 Thessalonians 4, the most commonly cited rapture passage.

The first event in the rapture, is the second coming of Christ. You do not have a resurrection, or rapture, before Jesus descends from heaven. No pretribulation poof like you see in the movies.

I agree with what you said up until this point, but then it was almost all downhill from here. You should have quit while you were ahead.

C: Paul vs preterism, at least those who claimed that the resurrection (of all the saints) happened at the Cross, a position also held by many amillennials.
2 Timothy 2

You lose all credibility with these kinds of ignorant statements. As has already been pointed out to you, there are no amillennialists who believe that the resurrection of all the saints happened at the cross.

D: Paul vs amillennialism in general, in particular the idea that Satan was bound for the thousand years starting at the cross, or that Satan and his angels being thrown down in Revelation 12, was something that happened at the cross.
Ephesians 6

If an enemy is bound so that he can deceive the nations no more, why do we have to stand guard against him?

In other translations this is "in heavenly places". If Satan's angels have already been cast out by Paul's time writing this, who then are these rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness and powers and principalities in heavenly places?

Can you tell me how you interpret the following passage:

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

This passage is talking about how we go from being spiritually dead in sins to being spiritually saved and alive with Christ. Notice that Paul says in reference to our spiritual salvation that we are made to "sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus". It's not talking about us literally being in heaven. It's talking about our status in Christ. Similarly, it's talking about the status of our spiritual enemies in Ephesians 6 and is not talking about them literally being in heaven.

You understand that one result of Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven is that Satan can no longer accuse us before God in heaven, right (see Rev 12:10). With that in mind, how do you interpret this passage:

Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

What is the answer to Paul's question in verse 33? It's the same answer to his other questions in verses 34 and 35. No one. Including Satan. Do you think Satan can charge/accuse you of anything, keeping in mind that your sins are forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ?

Next up.. 2 Corinthians 4

If Satan is bound and unable to deceive the nations at the time that Paul is writing this.. how is Satan blinding the lost, why is he considered the god of this world? How is Satan preventing the gospel from reaching these people, which by amillennial doctrine, Satan being bound means that Satan can't prevent the spread of the gospel. Yet clearly Paul is teaching that he can blind people and make them unreceptive to the gospel, still, after Jesus resurrected.

You are acting as if it says that Satan can overtake someone's will and force them to not accept the gospel. That is not at all what it's saying. Do you think the ones he blinded never have a choice to accept or reject the gospel? If so, you're wrong. It says that he blinds those who believe not. They already don't believe when he blinds them. He's simply taking advantage of the state of rebellion that they're already in and helps bring them even further apart from Christ. But, that doesn't mean the choice to reject Him in the first place wasn't theirs. Look at this passage from Paul:

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

This talks about people being deceived by "signs and lying wonders", but notice that they already rejected the truth before that or else they could have been saved. Their own choice to reject the gospel is what made them vulnerable to falling for the "signs and lying wonders" that are "after the working of Satan".

So, what you're saying here could only be true if Satan was able to keep people from ever having the opportunity to believe the gospel, but that is not the case and is not the context of what Paul was saying in 2 Cor 4.

On the flip side, there's not a lot you can say where Paul might be teaching against premillennialism, and either pre-wrath or post-trib, and Paul was certainly futurist from his day, so you can at least not claim that it all happened at the cross. People who profess AD70 can't be refuted by Paul alone, at least, since Paul died before AD70, so it would still be future for Paul.

Paul clearly taught amillennialism in passages like this (see 2 Thess 1:7-10, also):

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

In this passage Paul indicates that all believers, including the dead in Christ and those who are still alive when He returns, will be caught up to meet Christ in the air at that time. In contrast to what will happen to believers on that day, Paul indicated that "sudden destruction" will come upon unbelievers from which "they shall not escape". Does he give any indication there that any unbelievers will escape the wrath of the Lord on that day? No. And by reading 2 Peter 3:3-13 we can confirm that literally none of them will escape His second coming because the whole earth will be burned up on that day.

We know all believers will be changed and put on immortality when He returns (1 Cor 15:50-54) and Paul indicated that all unbelievers will be physically destroyed when He returns as well. That does not leave any mortals to populate the earth for a thousand years. This obviously supports amillennialism.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

4. Satan is not currently bound and prevented from deceiving the nations (admittedly you have to go to Revelation to get into that topic because it's the only place where it's outright said that Satan will exist, and be bound, then later released, but ultimately, Paul taught an active and dangerous Satan rather than a powerless and wholly defeated foe that you didn't have to worry about).

Amillennialism does not teach that Satan is a "powerless and wholly defeated foe that you didn't have to worry about". It doesn't help your case when you make straw man arguments like this. It just makes you look ignorant.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Nations still go to war with other Nations, we might even right now be staring at the beginning of World War 3, between Ukraine, and Taiwan, and Israel/Nuclear Iran.
To claim we are currently living Isaiah 2 is extraordinarily inaccurate.

to claim we are currently living Isaiah 2, is kind of looking like a Post Mill, a world that continually gets better and better and more righteous, but Paul taught that it gets worse and worse, like a Premill.
Normally Amill would also agree that the world gets worse and worse until the second coming.
But if you're arguing we're currently living Isaiah 2?
That's a post mill mindset.

Answer these simple questions and then the debate is over. When do you believe "the last days" began, when do you believe that they are going to finish? When is the last day and what happens there?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Doxology does not answer the question.
and Paul teaches an active and dangerous Satan. Not a bound one.

You obviously have no answer for the inspired text. It is Scripture that forbids your claims. The Bible makes general sweeping statements regarding the darkened Gentiles as a whole before Christ came. They "were without Christ ... aliens from the commonwealth of Israel ... strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" before the First Advent, "but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”

Is this is telling us that every single Gentile had “no hope,” and were "without Christ" and “without God” in the Old Testament? Of course not! When it said the Gentiles were in darkness – did that mean every one of them where? Of course not. There were many Gentiles saved in the Old Testament. It is a generality. Scripture commonly speaks in general terms. Everybody knows that.

Does this passage teach that “by the blood of Christ” all Gentiles “are made nigh” or brought into a relationship with Christ? Of course not. This is telling us that the Gospel opportunity is now open to the Gentiles since the cross. They are no longer ignorant or without hope, as before. Through the sinless life, atoning death, and glorious first resurrection, the light shone upon the darkened Gentiles. They are now without excuse! Gentiles have the same ability to embrace Christ today as Israelis did before the First Advent. This is not a difficult biblical truth to grasp - if you do not have a theological agenda.

In Matthew 12 we see the religious Jews rejecting Christ. Matthew 12:14-22 records, “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; And charged them that they should not make him known: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”

Is this is telling us that every single Gentile will trust in the Lord? Of course not! It is a generality. Everybody knows that.

The enlightenment of the Gentiles saw the blinding of Israel. 2 Corinthians 3:13-18 says, "And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ."

Does this mean every single Israeli during this new covenant ear is blinded? Of course not. It is a generalization. If you want to go down the road you do with your uncorroborative opinion of Revelation 20 then you need to take the rest hyper-literalists. Everybody knows that.

What about Acts 2:16-18? It says: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.”

Is this teaching that the Holy Spirit will literally be poured out on every single human being in the last days? Of course not. Everybody knows that. These are biblical generalities, just like Revelation 20.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It's not harder to figure out if he was Premil or not. The following appears to easily prove he is Premil, in light of parables, such as the parable of the talents. In light of Jesus sitting upon His throne of glory, when they which have followed Him, in the regeneration also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. All of which are meaning post the 2nd coming. All of which have to be fulfilled before the end meant in verse 24 below can come to pass. None of these things above can be fulfilled within a 24 hour day or less.

Obviously, He doesn't put down all rule and all authority and power, before the regeneration when He shall sit in the throne of his glory, when those that have followed Him shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. IMO, this is involving the reigning with, not being reigned over, that the thousand years recorded in Revelation 20 is referring to. One is reigned over in this age, that's assuming one permits Him to. The reward for that is 'reigning with Him' in the next age.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Since I also brought up the parable of talents(Luke 19:11-27), that parable shows that Jesus rewards His servants that proved to be faithful while He was away, with that of authority over cities, whatever that might actually look like. Regardless what it might look like, it is ludicrous that the same day He rewards them with this authority, the end meant in 1 Corinthians 15:24 comes, thus He putting down all rule and all authority and power, but that His faithful servants don't also put down the authority He gives them when He returns. There is obviously a gap after the coming recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and that of the end meant in verse 24. Not a gap of hours, but a gap of a thousand years and a little season followed by a great white throne judgment.

You are completely misinterpreting 1 Corinthians 15:24. You're acting as if it's talking about Christ Himself putting down His own authority, but that isn't what it says. Here is a translation which more clearly indicates what the verse is saying:

1 Corinthians 15:24 (NIV): Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

This is talking about Christ destroying all dominion, authority and power on the earth. That's talking about all the dominion, authority and power on earth that oppose Him. He will destroy all who oppose Him when He returns (2 Thess 1:7-10). They will no longer have any dominion, authority or power because Christ will destroy it. That verse (1 Cor 15:24) does not at all indicate that He can't give authority to His followers at that point. You're completely missing the context of that verse.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Nations still go to war with other Nations, we might even right now be staring at the beginning of World War 3, between Ukraine, and Taiwan, and Israel/Nuclear Iran.
To claim we are currently living Isaiah 2 is extraordinarily inaccurate.

to claim we are currently living Isaiah 2, is kind of looking like a Post Mill, a world that continually gets better and better and more righteous, but Paul taught that it gets worse and worse, like a Premill.
Normally Amill would also agree that the world gets worse and worse until the second coming.
But if you're arguing we're currently living Isaiah 2?
That's a post mill mindset.

You didn't address the point made in the post you responded to. Why not? It was pointed out that Isaiah 2:2-4 relates to the last days. When do you believe the last days occur? In scripture, don't the last days (regardless of when you think they begin) lead up to the second coming of Christ? Such as in 2 Peter 3:3-4? What does that tell you about Isaiah 2:2-4 then? Why would the last days refer to a different time period in Isaiah 2:2-4 than they refer to in passages like 2 Peter 3:3-4 and Acts 2:16-21 (Joel 2:28-32)?

 

[Jamdoc]

I agree with what you said up until this point, but then it was all downhill from here. You should have quitewhile you were ahead.

You lose all credibility with these kinds of ignorant statements. As has already been pointed out to you, there are no amillennialists who believe that the resurrection of all the saints happened at the cross.

Core teaching of Amillennialism is that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 took place at the cross, that we have all been resurrected already if we're in Christ.

Can you tell me how you interpret the following passage:

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

This passage is talking about how we go from being spiritually dead in sins to being spiritually saved and alive with Christ. Notice that Paul says in reference to our spiritual salvation that we are made to "sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus". It's not talking about us literally being in heaven. It's talking about our status in Christ. Similarly, it's talking about the status of our spiritual enemies in Ephesians 6 and is not talking about them literally being in heaven.

It's an eschatalogical tension.. a "now but not yet" statement, see 1 Corinthians 15

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

The tension there.. saying that Christ has to rule till He has destroyed all His enemies, but He has already won. The victory was guaranteed at the cross, but it has not actually played out just yet. Satan's defeat was guaranteed at the cross, but it has not played out just yet.
The triumph over death has been guaranteed at the cross.. but people do still die today, even those in Christ, because that victory has not played out just yet.

It's checkmate, but the enemy has not tipped over their King and forfeited just yet. They're still considering useless vain moves that won't change the outcome of the game.

You understand that one result of Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven is that Satan can no longer accuse us before God in heaven, right (see Rev 12:10). With that in mind, how do you interpret this passage:

Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

What is the answer to Paul's question in verse 33? It's the same answer to his other questions in verses 34 and 35. No one. Including Satan. Do you think Satan can charge/accuse you of anything, keeping in mind that your sins are forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ?

he can accuse, but Christ is our advocate that trumps the accusations, in Romans 8:34 He is actively making intercession for us. Of what point is that intercession if we're not being accused? I interpret it as the accusations are pointless. Think of it like a courtroom, where Satan is the prosecutor and Jesus is the defense, with God the Father being the judge. The prosecution lays a case, Jesus objects that the sin has already been punished in Him so Satan is violating double jeopardy, which God the Father sustains.

You are acting as if it says that Satan can overtake someone's will and force them to not accept the gospel. That is not at all what it's saying. Do you think the ones he blinded never have a choice to accept or reject the gospel? If so, you're wrong. It says that he blinds those who believe not. They already don't believe when he blinds them. He's simply taking advantage of the state of rebellion that they're already in and helps bring them even further apart from Christ. But, that doesn't mean the choice to reject Him in the first place wasn't theirs. Look at this passage from Paul:

2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

This talks about people being deceived by "signs and lying wonders", but notice that they already rejected the truth before that or else they could have been saved. Their own choice to reject the gospel is what made them vulnerable to falling for the "signs and lying wonders" that are "after the working of Satan".

So, what you're saying here could only be true if Satan was able to keep people from ever having the opportunity to believe the gospel, but that is not the case and is not the context of what Paul was saying 2 Cor 4.

It's like you've never heard of Islam or other religions. The people are pre-hardened and pre-disposed to rejecting the Gospel because they've already believed a deception. That is the blinding of Satan that I, and I'd argue Paul, refer to. In Paul's day it was Greek/Roman Paganism rather than Islam, but the same applies. Now some Muslims do convert. But it is a very overwhelming minority. The overwhelming majority of them are already pre-blinded by a deception that Satan concocted in the 600's AD, it's what they are born into and taught, before the Gospel can reach them, they are already conditioned to reject it.
What is that but Satan deceiving the nations?

Paul clearly taught amillennialism in passages like these:

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

In this passage Paul indicates that all believers, including the dead in Christ and those who are still alive when He returns, will be caught up to meet Christ in the air at that time. In contrast to what will happen to believers on that day, Paul indicated that "sudden destruction" will come upon unbelievers from which "they shall not escape". Does he give any indication there that any unbelievers will escape the wrath of the Lord on that day? No. And by reading 2 Peter 3:3-13 we can confirm that literally none of them will escape His second coming.

We know all believers will be changed and put on immortality when He returns (1 Cor 15:50-54) and Paul indicated that all unbelievers will be physically destroyed when He returns as well. That does not leave any mortals to populate the earth for a thousand years. This obviously supports amillennialism.

None of that is amillennial, and the fact that Paul teaches an active deceiving Satan works against the core doctrine of Amillennialism, that Satan is currently unable to deceive the nations.
Amillennialism adopts a partial preterism view, instead of having the eschatalogical tension of "now but not yet" in some places, such as the binding of Satan, victory over death, and ruling of Christ it is firmly in the "now" category of preterism.
The best you can do is "now, but not here"
because Paul taught that Satan is actively the ruler of this world still.
which soundly disagrees with Amillennialism.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Doxology does not answer the question.
and Paul teaches an active and dangerous Satan. Not a bound one.

You're making a straw man argument here. What you're saying does not contradict the Amil understanding of Satan's binding. All you're doing is arguing against an understanding of his binding which says it renders him completely incapacitated and unable to do anything. That is how Premils understand his binding, not Amils. Try making arguments against what Amils actually believe instead of trying to force Amils to agree with the Premil understanding of Satan's binding.

 

[Jamdoc]

You didn't address the point made in the post you responded to. Why not? It was pointed out that Isaiah 2:2-4 relates to the last days. When do you believe the last days occur? In scripture, don't the last days (regardless of when you think they begin) lead up to the second coming of Christ? Such as in 2 Peter 3:3-4? What does that tell you about Isaiah 2:2-4 then? Why would the last days refer to a different time period in Isaiah 2:2-4 than they refer to in passages like 2 Peter 3:3-4 and Acts 2:16-21 (Joel 2:28-32)?

The latter days is a vague term that refers to a lot of things, yes they start with Jesus' first coming, but not everything that is said to happen started happening then.
We do not have a world where we have swords being beaten into plowshares or the entire world going to worship God in Israel.
That certainly did not start at the cross, because we currently have a world that is more and more NON Christian and in a world where nations still practice war and still make weapons.
That means.. that those things are still yet to come.
They didn't happen in the past
and they aren't currently happening that's for sure.
So they are as of yet, future

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Core teaching of Amillennialism is that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 took place at the cross, that we have all been resurrected already if we're in Christ.

Come on. You need to stop this ignorance and pay attention to what Amils actually believe. Do you think it helps your cause to misrepresent what we believe? It definitely does not. You said this:

C: Paul vs preterism, at least those who claimed that the resurrection (of all the saints) happened at the Cross, a position also held by many amillennials.

We believe that the resurrection of Christ happened 3 days after the cross and that we all spiritually have part in His resurrection. But, this happens over time. I didn't spiritually have part in His resurrection at the cross. We spiritually have part in His resurrection when we become spiritually saved. To say that many amils believe that the resurrection of all the saints happened at the cross is simply not true.

It's an eschatalogical tension.. a "now but not yet" statement, see 1 Corinthians 15

No, in Eph 2:4-6 Paul is talking about something that is true now. We have been made spiritually alive in Christ after previously being spiritually dead in sins. We are spiritually saved now. We have been spiritually raised up together and have been made to spiritually sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus now. He was talking about a current reality throughout that passage.

The tension there.. saying that Christ has to rule till He has destroyed all His enemies, but He has already won. The victory was guaranteed at the cross, but it has not actually played out just yet. Satan's defeat was guaranteed at the cross, but it has not played out just yet.
The triumph over death has been guaranteed at the cross.. but people do still die today, even those in Christ, because that victory has not played out just yet.

It's checkmate, but the enemy has not tipped over their King and forfeited just yet. They're still considering useless vain moves that won't change the outcome of the game.

Did someone say that Satan's defeat has already been played out (as if Rev 20:10 already happened or something)? I truly have no idea of why you're saying this to me as if I didn't know this. It's quite clear to me that you don't have a good understanding of what Amils believe and that's why you're constantly misrepresenting what we believe.

he can accuse, but Christ is our advocate that trumps the accusations, in Romans 8:34 He is actively making intercession for us. Of what point is that intercession if we're not being accused? I interpret it as the accusations are pointless. Think of it like a courtroom, where Satan is the prosecutor and Jesus is the defense, with God the Father being the judge. The prosecution lays a case, Jesus objects that the sin has already been punished in Him so Satan is violating double jeopardy, which God the Father sustains.

You're not getting it. Your Premil bias is getting in the way of the reality of what Christ did to Satan long ago. Because Christ is there at the right hand of the Father in heaven, there is no place there for Satan anymore. You say he can accuse but his accusations are pointless? No, he can't accuse us of anything because our sins are forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ. Why would God even allow him to accuse us, knowing that it would be pointless? That makes no sense. No, he has no access to heaven anymore because he can't accuse us and there can't be a place for both Him and Christ there. It is because Christ defeated him that he can't be in heaven any longer.

It's like you've never heard of Islam or other religions. The people are pre-hardened and pre-disposed to rejecting the Gospel because they've already believed a deception. That is the blinding of Satan that I, and I'd argue Paul, refer to. In Paul's day it was Greek/Roman Paganism rather than Islam, but the same applies. Now some Muslims do convert. But it is a very overwhelming minority. The overwhelming majority of them are already pre-blinded by a deception that Satan concocted in the 600's AD, it's what they are born into and taught, before the Gospel can reach them, they are already conditioned to reject it.
What is that but Satan deceiving the nations?

Are you a Calvinist? Do you think these people never have any choice in the matter of what they believe? If so, then how do any Muslims or people in other religions ever convert to Christianity? With the way you're looking at it, it would be impossible for any of them to ever convert to Christianity.

Do you think these people who you think can't help but reject the gospel will have an excuse on judgment day? Will they be able to tell Jesus: "Well, we were pre-hardened and pre-disposed to believing in Islam, so we couldn't believe in You. I'm sure You understand and will grant us entrance to the new heavens and new earth rather than cast us into the lake of fire.". Is this a scenario that you would see as viable on judgment day?

Why does God command all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) if (supposedly) not all people everywhere can repent?

None of that is amillennial, and the fact that Paul teaches an active deceiving Satan works against the core doctrine of Amillennialism, that Satan is currently unable to deceive the nations.
Amillennialism adopts a partial preterism view, instead of having the eschatalogical tension of "now but not yet" in some places, such as the binding of Satan, victory over death, and ruling of Christ it is firmly in the "now" category of preterism.
The best you can do is "now, but not here"
because Paul taught that Satan is actively the ruler of this world still.
which soundly disagrees with Amillennialism.

I brought up 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:6 which doesn't say anything about Satan. Why don't you actually address that passage and what I said about it instead of going on a tangent? You're coming across here that you don't want to deal with the points I made there. Is that true? If not, then please address that passage and what I said about it. How do you interpret it?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The latter days is a vague term that refers to a lot of things, yes they start with Jesus' first coming, but not everything that is said to happen started happening then.
We do not have a world where we have swords being beaten into plowshares or the entire world going to worship God in Israel.
That certainly did not start at the cross, because we currently have a world that is more and more NON Christian and in a war where nations still practice war and still make weapons.
That means.. that those things are still yet to come.
They didn't happen in the past
and they aren't currently happening that's for sure.
So they are as of yet, future

You seem to have a habit of avoiding answering straightforward questions with straightforward answers. Why is that?

Isn't it rather convenient for you to say that the last days refers to a lot of things? Way to take a stand there on your beliefs. Do you expect to be taken seriously with answers like this? Do you not see that you can make scripture say anything you want it to with this kind of approach?

Never mind for now what time period the last days represents. When does it end? When is the last of the last days as it relates to the second coming of Christ? Can you answer that? I can.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Peter makes it clear that in the last days scoffers would come and scoff at the idea of the second coming of Christ and ask mockingly "Where is the promise of His coming?". This shows that the last days are the days that lead up to the second coming of Christ. So, the last day then would be the day Christ returns. With this in mind, should that not tell us something about Isaiah 2:2-4, which speaks of the last days? Of course it should! But, you don't want to acknowledge that. Hmmm...I wonder why.