20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

BABerean2 · Jun 3, 2020

DavidPT said:
Regardless whether one is Premil or Amil, it is impossible that Isaiah 2:4 cannot be meaning during the thousand years. Even you obviously agree it's during the thousand years since the same period of time you equate with Isaiah 2:4, is the same period of time you equate with the thousand years. Yet you illogically argue there is nowhere else in the Bible except for Revelation 20, that speaks about a thousand year period.

Yet, it doesn't matter whether that thousand year period is literal or not, that is beside the point. The point is, whether a literal thousand years or not, it would be impossible that OT prophets never spoke of this time. What they wouldn't have known at the time is that it involves a thousand years, where that might mean a literal thousand years, or that it might not mean a literal thousand years, as Amil argues..

Did you miss the fact that earthly Jerusalem is the wicked "great city" that is destroyed in the Book of Revelation.

What is the wicked "great city" in the Book of Revelation? Is it identified below?

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

Rom 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jn 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (See Romans 2:28-29)

Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

(See Romans 11:1-5 for two different groups of Israelites during the time of Elijah. There was a faithful “remnant” of Israelites, and the rest of the Israelites worshipped Baal.)

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Where was our Lord crucified?)

Rev_14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Rev_16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

Rev_17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Rev_18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. (Is the wicked “great city ”Mystery Babylon”?)

Rev_18:16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

Rev_18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

Rev_18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

Rev_18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

What city replaces the wicked "great city"?

Rev_21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

.

DavidPT · Jun 3, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
Obviously, you did not read my post. Once again you failed to address one single Scripture or point. This is becoming a habit. I wonder why? Your reasoning does not stand up to scriptural scrutiny. If it did you would have no difficulty addressing the many avoided rebuttals.

The reality is, one needs eyes to see in order to grasp the spiritual, heavenly and eternal nature of the kingdom. Jesus told us that. Unfortunately, the hyper-literalist Judaizing Pharisees did not see this with their misguided hyper-literal racist physical carnal earthly kingdom. Premil make the same mistake. The Pharisaic expectation was completely different from God’s plan. Christ brought a spiritual heavenly kingdom to this earth not a physical natural kingdom as some imagined from their understanding of Old Testament readings.

The reader can see for themselves on forums like this the impotence and non-corroborative nature of the Premil position.

Let's not forget, I know you from another board and that I know how you argue Isaiah 2:4 for the most part. Usually when you paste things, these are from your arsenal of notes you have stored away wherever. So generally, instead of engaging with a person in real time, you typically look through your arsenal of notes you have stored, then paste into the thread what you feel addresses the others' arguments, instead of going through what the other person is specifically arguing, then showing why and how that is incorrect, then providing what you feel is the correct way to understand it instead.

For example, if I was arguing that 2 + 2 = 4, I want to specifically know why that is not correct, assuming the other person disagrees, but not meaning you in this example, just meaning in general, since it's obvious you wouldn't be arguing against 2 + 2 = 4, but if someone were---then specifically address what I'm arguing and then show how and why I am wrong, and then provide the correct way to understand it instead.

My posts for example. About the only thing I ever paste into posts are Bible verses, or sometimes links to other articles. Everything else I'm coming up with is in real time as I post and as I try and address posts.

sovereigngrace · Jun 3, 2020

DavidPT said:
Let's not forget, I know you from another board and that I know how you argue Isaiah 2:4 for the most part. Usually when you paste things, these are from your arsenal of notes you have stored away wherever. So generally, instead of engaging with a person in real time, you typically look through your arsenal of notes you have stored, then paste into the thread what you feel addresses the others' arguments, instead of going through what the other person is specifically arguing, then showing why and how that is incorrect, then providing what you feel is the correct way to understand it instead.

For example, if I was arguing that 2 + 2 = 4, I want to specifically know why that is not correct, assuming the other person disagrees, but not meaning you in this example, just meaning in general, since it's obvious you wouldn't be arguing against 2 + 2 = 4, but if someone were---then specifically address what I'm arguing and then show how and why I am wrong, and then provide the correct way to understand it instead.

My posts for example. About the only thing I ever paste into posts are Bible verses, or sometimes links to other articles. Everything else I'm coming up with is in real time as I post and as I try and address posts.

I believe I have addressed every single question and point you have presented. Tell me where I have not? What issue do I need to address?

The issue here is: you are not addressing my core points or answering my questions. When Scripture is presented, you divert to other Scripture, when we address your other Scripture, you move on to other Scripture. That is extremely frustrating.

sovereigngrace · Jun 4, 2020

DavidPT said:
Let's not forget, I know you from another board and that I know how you argue Isaiah 2:4 for the most part. Usually when you paste things, these are from your arsenal of notes you have stored away wherever. So generally, instead of engaging with a person in real time, you typically look through your arsenal of notes you have stored, then paste into the thread what you feel addresses the others' arguments, instead of going through what the other person is specifically arguing, then showing why and how that is incorrect, then providing what you feel is the correct way to understand it instead.

For example, if I was arguing that 2 + 2 = 4, I want to specifically know why that is not correct, assuming the other person disagrees, but not meaning you in this example, just meaning in general, since it's obvious you wouldn't be arguing against 2 + 2 = 4, but if someone were---then specifically address what I'm arguing and then show how and why I am wrong, and then provide the correct way to understand it instead.

My posts for example. About the only thing I ever paste into posts are Bible verses, or sometimes links to other articles. Everything else I'm coming up with is in real time as I post and as I try and address posts.

The strength or weakness of any position is revealed in how it stands up to biblical scrutiny. Discussions like show that Premil cannot conform to the normal rules of hermeneutics. It lacks clear corroborative support. It also reintroduces an old covenant system that is long redundant. It’s conflict is therefore with the sacred text.

claninja · Jun 4, 2020

DavidPT said:
None of that matters. The first mistake you are making, the imagery depicts satan locked up in a prison in solitary confinement, not locked up in a prison and free to roam and mingle with other prisoners inside of this same prison. What matters is, the imagery and what it is depicting, and that the imagery has to make logical sense.

In a real world example, if we compare the following, it is not making logical sense. Someone is thrown into prison into solitary confinement. And while this person is in prison in solitary confinement, this same person then casts others into another prison. Total nonsense. Nothing like that could happen in the real world.

Let's now compare that to the imagery involving satan.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him(this imagery depicting being cast into a prison then being in solitary confinement while in there).

behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison(assuming Amil, this imagery depicting this same devil that is in solitary confinement, doing this while he himself is also in a prison at the time).

Amil appears to involve one contradiction after another. If Amil is the correct position, why can't it simply work without all of these contradictions plaguing it?

Revelation 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

The word for bound in revelation 20:2 is the same greek word for bind in Mark 3 and Matthew 12. The amil position uses scripture to interpret scripture, in that it is at the 1st coming of Christ that satan is bound. Jesus provides evidence that satan is being bound by casting out demons.

Do you disagree that Jesus bound satan at the 1st advent? Do you believe that Jesus has not yet bound the strong man and plundered his house?

Mark 3:26-27 And if Satan is divided and rises against himself, he cannot stand; his end has come. Indeed, no one can enter a strong man’s house to steal his possessions unless he first binds the strong man. Then he can plunder his house.

Matthew 12:29 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and steal his possessions, unless he first binds the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

Luke 11:21-22 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are secure. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted, and then he divides up his plunder.

Where I can acknowledge that you have some fair points is with the loosing of satan.

The NT clearly has satan actively present:

1 peter 5:8 sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil

1 Timothy 5:15 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan.

2 Corinthians 2:11 so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

revelation 2:13 I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is

This lines up with satan being cast out at Christ's ascension

Revelation 12:12 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”

John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming.

Romans 16:30 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

DavidPT · Jun 4, 2020

claninja said:
Do you disagree that Jesus bound satan at the 1st advent? Do you believe that Jesus has not yet bound the strong man and plundered his house?

I clearly disagree if that's supposed to be meaning the thousand year binding we see in Revelation 20. But if it's not meaning that, then I don't necessarily disagree. Let's then compare that with the binding in Revelation 20 by looking at both passages side by side, so to speak.

Matthew 12:22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

What I have underlined in Revelation 20:3, can you point out in Matthew 12:22-37 everything that you see that supports that, and then maybe briefly explain why you feel it supports that?

In Revelation 20 satan is not being cast out of something, he is being cast into something. In Matthew 12:22-37 satan is not being cast into something, he's being cast out of something. Based on that alone, I can't even begin to understand why some of you feel that anything in Matthew 12:22-37 supports anything in Revelation 20:1-3, thus why I'm affording you the opportunity to show what it is in Matthew 12:22-37 that you feel supports anything in Revelation 20:1-3, in the event that maybe I'm just looking at some of this in the wrong way, though currently I can't imagine how I could be.

sovereigngrace · Jun 4, 2020

DavidPT said:
I clearly disagree if that's supposed to be meaning the thousand year binding we see in Revelation 20. But if it's not meaning that, then I don't necessarily disagree. Let's then compare that with the binding in Revelation 20 by looking at both passages side by side, so to speak.

Matthew 12:22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

What I have underlined in Revelation 20:3, can you point out in Matthew 12:22-37 everything that you see that supports that, and then maybe briefly explain why you feel it supports that?

In Revelation 20 satan is not being cast out of something, he is being cast into something. In Matthew 12:22-37 satan is not being cast into something, he's being cast out of something. Based on that alone, I can't even begin to understand why some of you feel that anything in Matthew 12:22-37 supports anything in Revelation 20:1-3, thus why I'm affording you the opportunity to show what it is in Matthew 12:22-37 that you feel supports anything in Revelation 20:1-3, in the event that maybe I'm just looking at some of this in the wrong way, though currently I can't imagine how I could be.

When are you going to answer the basic questions that I have directed toward you?

sovereigngrace · Jun 5, 2020

Op Note

I want to add an 18th major reason why Christians should reject Premillennialism. Here it is:

(18) The cross does not seem satisfactory, efficacious and final enough for Premillennialists. They wrongly and strongly promote the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 44:27, 29, 45:17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 46:20, Zechariah 14:16-21). They also advocate the restarting of the “meat offering” (Ezekiel 42:13, 44:29, 45:15, 17, 24, 25, 46:5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “trespass offering” (Ezekiel 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “burnt offerings” (Ezekiel 40:38, 39, 42, 43:18, 24, 27, 44:11, 45:15, 17, 23, 25, 46:2, 4, 12, 13, 15, Zechariah 14:16-21), the “peace offerings” (Ezekiel 43:27, 45:15, 17, 46:2, 12, Zechariah 14:16-21) and the “drink offerings” (Ezekiel 45:17, Zechariah 14:16-21).

This is despite the fact that the New Testament Scripture makes clear that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 28, 10:10, 12, 14 and 1 Peter 3:18) and that there are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 9:26, 10:18, 26 and 1 John 3:5). The reality is, one can search the New Testament pages, and can search Revelation 20 from start to finish, and there is not the slightest instruction or allowance for such a religious sham in the presence of Jesus in the age to come. This will never happen, neither for atonement or memorial. This is a Premil invention! Scripture describes the old covenant sacrificial system as “that which is done away” (2 Corinthians 3:11) and “that which is abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:13). It makes clear: “the old testament … vail is done away in Christ" (2 Corinthians 3:14). Hebrews 10:9 confirms: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:2 confirms they “ceased to be offered.”

sovereigngrace · Jun 6, 2020

Op Note

I want to add an 19th major reason why Christians should reject Premillennialism. Here it is:

(19) Premils invent an unscriptural three-age-theology in order to justify their flawed belief system. This consist of “this age, the age to come and another age to come after the age to come.” The only problem is: this paradigm enjoys no scriptural support. Repeated Scripture, including the teaching of Christ, only recognizes two overriding ages – “this world/age” and “the world/age to come.” These terminologies are crucial when trying to understanding biblical eschatology. The dividing point between these two ages is continually shown in the sacred text to be the glorious final future coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What is described as “this age” is current, corrupt and temporal and “the age to come” is impending, perfect and eternal. This age is depicted as an “evil age” that is blighted with sin, sinners, death, decay and Satan. The age to come is depicted as a “righteous” age that is marked by perfection, eternal rest, total bliss, a renewed creation, a glorified existence and the restoration of all things. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that there is no intervening time-period or temporal age in between “this age” and “the age to come.”

Christian Gedge · Jun 6, 2020

DavidPT said:
Usually when you paste things, these are from your arsenal of notes you have stored away wherever. So generally, instead of engaging with a person in real time, you typically look through your arsenal of notes you have stored, then paste into the thread what you feel addresses the others' arguments,

You get those who just shoot from the hip; there are others who paste screeds from websites. I think SG's use of his own research, mixed with real time discussion, is useful when it comes to difficult doctrinal subjects like these.

keras · Jun 6, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
I want to add an 18th major reason why Christians should reject Premillennialism.

I added the 18th reason: Posted in # 422
Here is a question for those who believe in a pre-trib rapture to heaven of the Church; they need to carefully consider:
If the Church is taken to heaven while Jewish Israel remain on earth, to go through the Great Tribulation, how is it that God’s holy people are seen in the holy Land before the GT?

No one has addressed this question, as the implications and the truth of it destroy their precious beliefs.

sovereigngrace · Jun 6, 2020

Christian Gedge said:
You get those who just shoot from them hip; there are others who paste screeds from websites. I think SG's use of his own research, mixed with real time discussion, is useful when it comes to difficult doctrinal subjects like these.

Thanks for your kind comments!

sovereigngrace · Jun 8, 2020

keras said:
I added the 18th reason: Posted in # 422
Here is a question for those who believe in a pre-trib rapture to heaven of the Church; they need to carefully consider:
If the Church is taken to heaven while Jewish Israel remain on earth, to go through the Great Tribulation, how is it that God’s holy people are seen in the holy Land before the GT?

No one has addressed this question, as the implications and the truth of it destroy their precious beliefs.

I am not sure what you mean here.

claninja · Jun 8, 2020

DavidPT said:
What I have underlined in Revelation 20:3, can you point out in Matthew 12:22-37 everything that you see that supports that, and then maybe briefly explain why you feel it supports that?

My post was about revelation 20:2, which is about the "binding". Your shifting to revelation 20:3 veers away from this. We can address the "pit", but let's 1st address the "binding of satan".

In Revelation, Satan is seized by an angel and "bound" for 1,000 years

Revelation 20:2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

My argument is that this parabolic language of satan's binding is most likely referring to the work of Christ's 1st advent, which is evidenced by the words of Jesus.

Mark 3:27 Indeed, no one can enter a strong man’s house to steal his possessions unless he first binds the strong man. Then he can plunder his house.

Mathew 12:29 Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and steal his possessions, unless he binds the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

Luke 11:21-22 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are secure. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted, and then he divides up his plunder.

1 John 3:8 This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil.

Hebrews 2:14 Now since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil

Revelation should be interpreted through the lens of the gospels and epistles, so if I am incorrect about the meaning of the binding, can you point to any other scripture that talks about satans binding to show that the premil understanding of revelation 20 is the correct one?

If you are only going to use revelation 20 to prove your side, we will never agree, as we don't agree on how it should be interpreted based on the eschatological biases that we each have.

DavidPT said:
In Revelation 20 satan is not being cast out of something, he is being cast into something.

First we have to address what the "pit" actually is.

Demons don't want to go there
Luke 8:31 And the demons kept begging Jesus not to order them to go into the Abyss.

It is the abode of the dead.
Romans 10:7 or, ‘Who will descend into the Abyss?’c (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”

What does casting a demon into the abyss accomplish?

Where do the gospels and epistles mention satan being cast into the abyss, and then released for a short while in order for the premil understanding to make sense?

DavidPT said:
In Matthew 12:22-37 satan is not being cast into something, he's being cast out of something.

So then would agree that Matthew 12:22-27 parallels Revelation 12:7-13 in which satan is "cast out"?

DavidPT said:
thus why I'm affording you the opportunity to show what it is in Matthew 12:22-37 that you feel supports anything in Revelation 20:1-3, in the event that maybe I'm just looking at some of this in the wrong way, though currently I can't imagine how I could be.

Matthew 12:22-27 talks about the "binding" of the strong man. Jesus bound satan at his 1st advent.

sovereigngrace · Jun 8, 2020

claninja said:
My post was about revelation 20:2, which is about the "binding". Your shifting to revelation 20:3 veers away from. We can address the "pit", but let's 1st address the "binding of satan".

In Revelation, Satan is seized by an angel and "bound" for 1,000 years

Revelation 20:2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

My argument is that this parabolic language of satan's binding is most likely referring to the work of Christ's 1st advent, which is evidenced by the words of Jesus.

Mark 3:27 Indeed, no one can enter a strong man’s house to steal his possessions unless he first binds the strong man. Then he can plunder his house.

Mathew 12:29 Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and steal his possessions, unless he binds the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

Luke 11:21-22 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are secure. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted, and then he divides up his plunder.

1 John 3:8 This is why the Son of God was revealed, to destroy the works of the devil.

Hebrews 2:14 Now since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil

Revelation should be interpreted through the lens of the gospels and epistles, so if I am incorrect about the meaning of the binding, can you point to any other scripture that talks about satans binding to show that the premil understanding of revelation 20 is the correct one?

If you are only going to use revelation 20 to prove your side, we will never agree, as we don't agree on how it should be interpreted based on eschatological biases that we each have.

First we have to address what the "pit" actually is.

Demons don't want to go their.
Luke 8:31 And the demons kept begging Jesus not to order them to go into the Abyss.

It is the abode of the dead.
Romans 10:7 or, ‘Who will descend into the Abyss?’c (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”

What does casting a demon into the abyss accomplish?

Where do the gospels and epistles mention satan being cast into the abyss, and then released for a short while in order for the premil understanding to make sense?

So then would agree that Matthew 12:22-27 parallels Revelation 12:7-13 in which satan is "cast out"?

Matthew 12:22-27 talks about the "binding" of the strong man. Jesus bound satan at his 1st advent.

What was Satan bound from in practical terms in your theology?
When, how and why was Satan released?
What is the wholesale physical resurrection described in Rev 20 and what is the great white judgment and when did/does that happen?

keras · Jun 8, 2020

sovereigngrace said:
I am not sure what you mean here.

The holy people of God, the one and only faithful people chosen by Him, John 15:14-16, 1 Peter 2:9, are present in all of the holy Land, BEFORE Jesus Returns.
This means the present Jewish State of Israel will be gone, as well as the evil neighbors, exactly as Jeremiah 12:14 tells us. Matthew 8:12

This truth is difficult to understand for those who have decided from their own minds, what they want the Lord to do for them.

BABerean2 · Jun 8, 2020

keras said:
The holy people of God, the one and only faithful people chosen by Him, John 15:14-16, 1 Peter 2:9, are present in all of the holy Land, BEFORE Jesus Returns.
This means the present Jewish State of Israel will be gone, as well as the evil neighbors, exactly as Jeremiah 12:14 tells us. Matthew 8:12

This truth is difficult to understand for those who have decided from their own minds, what they want the Lord to do for them.

Joh 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
Joh 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

.

keras · Jun 8, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Joh 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
Joh 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. .

Typical knee jerk, cut and past reaction from BaB.

What Jesus said in John 4:20-24, has been the case for the last 1990 or so years.
This fact does not mean the situation can't change. As the Bible does say it will.

BABerean2 · Jun 8, 2020

keras said:
Typical knee jerk, cut and past reaction from BaB.

What Jesus said in John 4:20-24, has been the case for the last 1990 or so years.
This fact does not mean the situation can't change. As the Bible does say it will.

Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

.

keras · Jun 8, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. .

This is paralleled and fulfilled by Revelation 21:1-7.
Why should I have to point this out to you?

20 major reasons to reject the Premillennial doctrine

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Newbie

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Newbie

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Similar threads