Is the Day of the Lord exactly 1000 years as Premils claim?

sovereigngrace said:

You do not seem to grasp the spiritual truth of our union with Christ and our part in His life, death and resurrection.

Click to expand...

There is a harlot church. Do you grasp that from Revelation's historical symbolism?

Jesus points out that very fact in the parable of the ten virgins. There are foolish virgins in every generation picking the wrong side. Not just 5 foolish ones at the very end. The point is they once knew the truth, but rejected the truth. It is not like these virgins were wolves trying to sneak in and destroy God’s Word. They had the truth, but exchanged it for a lie.

2 Pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(NOTE: Is as (NOT EXACTLY) 1000 yrs)

Ps 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
(NOTE: In God view 1000 yrs : Are AS a nights watch/12 hrs to us)

I believe The DAY of the Lord isn't 24 hrs. But, is/as/like/not exactly 1000 years.

The following verses make reference to 1000 yrs as well:

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Rev 20:3 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.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison.

sovereigngrace said:

Why the silence???

I am starting to see a pattern here with you: when Scripture is presented to you that supports Amil and forbids Premil you simply ignore it. How convenient! To totally avoided all my versus, points and arguments speaks volumes about the veracity of Premil! This continued avoidance does not promote Premil, it exposes it.

Click to expand...

The following, from one of your response posts (282) by the way looks like something from one of my response posts. I know I didn't put that in your post. I can only add or delete content from my own posts. This is going to confuse you readers and followers about where you actually stand now regarding the nature of the binding of Satan unless you rectify the matter. But I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not purposely do that as long as you don't make a habit of it:

sovereigngrace said:

The Scripture is very specific about the nature of Satan's imprisonment and while the life, death, and resurrection of Christ has made way of escape from Satan's grasp those who have placed their faith in the Lord for salvation and has made the defeat of Satan certain, and while Satan has always been and still is limited in his power, attributes, and resources, none of this is the binding that Revelation 20 foretells. The scriptures clearly state that the nature of the prison in which Satan will be bound is not on the earth but inside the earth.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace said:

I don't think you get the Amil understanding. Revelation 20:6 primarily emphasizes the great deliverance over eternal punishment that comes when a sinner comes to Christ and has their part in His death, burial and resurrection. This happens through our mystical union with Christ. The reigning is purely secondary, and a direct consequence to the main promise.

Click to expand...

Revelation 20:6 says more than just that. We will also be ruling and reigning with Christ upon the earth which means there will be subjects to rule over.

sovereigngrace said:

“When Christ died, you died with him. When Christ arose, you arose with Him. When Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father, you sat down with Him. In other words, you were made to function in concert and cadence with Christ.”

Click to expand...

But all that has yet to manifest itself. At present, we still die, even though Christ is alive and has conquered death, hell, and the grave, He may be at the right hand of the Father, but we who have not died, are still on the earth and that will not change until these mortal bodies of ours are transformed. When that happens, then we will be free of death as Christ is free of death because sin will not be present in our transformed bodies. In that day, we then will be sitting with Christ, just as He sits with the Father.

sovereigngrace said:

Both relate to life and salvation not glorification.

Click to expand...

But glorification becomes the end result of our salvation.

sovereigngrace said:

This is all empty words. You have avoided so much Scripture already that the reader can see that you are advancing a non-corroborative extra-biblical theory.

Click to expand...

I have not avoided any scriptures, but you have failed to present any scripture that explicitly refutes a literal interpretation of Revelation 20. All you have been able to do is impose a symbolic interpretation on the text to which the text bears no witness.

sovereigngrace said:

The only conflict is between your understanding of Revelation 20 and what it really means, which in turn is in keeping with the rest of Scripture. Your MO is to dismiss anything that exposes your private interpretation of Rev 20. That is absurd. You are putting too much trust in your own understanding. In doing that, you refuse to address any other passage that forbids your opinion.

Now please address Luke 20:34-36, instead of ducking around it. Jesus basically compares the temporal imperfect state of this present age/world to the glory of the age/world to come. Jesus says: “The children of this world (or aion or age) marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (or aion or age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

This couldn’t be any clearer.

Those that are worthy to obtain the age to come are not mortals and not sinners; they are the glorified saints – who are said to never die. The Lord makes it clear “they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels.”

It is “the children of God” alone that are glorified and therefore past from life unto death. It is “they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (or aion or age).” This privileged group no longer engage in temporal earthly relationships “Neither can they die any more.” First, we see it is only the elect that are worthy of inheriting the age to come, secondly, according to Jesus, death is not possible in the next age (i.e., “that age”). This favoured group cannot die because they possess eternal glorified bodies. This totally negates the Premil paradigm.

Click to expand...

My interpretation of Revelation 20 is based solely upon the text thereof; nothing more or less and such is the same with the rest of scripture. There is nothing in the rest of scripture that challenges the Premil position, but what you refuse to accept is that more was revealed to the Apostle John about the last days than what was revealed in the Gospels, to the other Apostles, and the OT prophets and if we were to truly place together all that scripture has to say about all that is yet to come, that is the only logical and reasonable conclusion that can ever be reached within the confines of context presented by the scriptures.

sovereigngrace said:

But you have invented an additional age in-between this age and the new heaven and new earth that is saturated with death and marriage, in contradiction of what Jesus is actually instructing us. You call this age the millennial age. Multiple Scripture exposes your hypothesis.

Who are these billion of surviving mortal saints that somehow miss the catching away but are qualified to waltz into your imaginary future millennial age? Give us Scripture to support this. Why did they miss the catching away? What qualifies them to avoid the wrath of God?

Click to expand...

I did not invent that additional age between now and the new heaven and earth. It was revealed to the Apostle John who wrote it down. and the reason why the remaining mortal saints missed the catching away is because they had not come to Christ before the catching away, but that is an entirely different matter altogether, and they will not be numbered in the billions when Christ returns. As for the scripture to support this, read Matthew 25:31-46.

sovereigngrace said:

You invent a new age unknown and untaught by Moses, the prophets, Christ and the NT writers right up until 3 chapters before the end of Scripture, contradicts repeated climactic Scripture, and you expect me to believe this? I do not think so! You are obsessed with your faulty opinion of Revelation 20. Sad!

Click to expand...

There are a lot of things revealed to the prophets that were not revealed to Moses. There were things revealed to John that were not revealed to the other Apostles. There were things Christ instructed John to write that He did not instruct the other Apostles to. There were things revealed to Daniel that were not revealed to Isaiah or Jeremiah, there were things revealed to Ezekiel that were not revealed to Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Daniel, and there were things revealed to the minor prophets that were not revealed to the major prophets.

This is why there are things mentioned by John that are not mentioned by the other Apostles. This is why the OT prophets and the other Apostles do not mention the thousand year reign that John does. But if there was not to be a thousand year intermission between this age and the eternal age to come, Revelation 20, as we know it, would not exist.

They did not receive contrary visions and revelations, but not all received revelations pertaining to the same events that were as detailed as others and there are those who received details pertaining to things to come that were not received by others. That is why the Premil doctrine is able to stand upon a literal interpretation of Revelation 20, as the context thereof presents.

sovereigngrace said:

Once again, you totally ignored every point I made. Once again, you explain away the full gamut of Scripture by your literal interpretation of a highly-symbolic passage located in the most symbolic setting in Scripture. This is dangerous and spurious hermeneutics. This is totally unscriptural.

Click to expand...

I did not ignore every point you made but you have violated every point you have made by your insistent rendering of Revelation 20 in a manner the text thereof does not allow, and I am not the one explaining away anything, but you have been the one attempting to explain away Revelation 20 by claiming it to be symbolic when it does not present itself that way. There is nothing dangerous and spurious about simply accepting the text for what it says, word for word, nor is there anything unscriptural about it. There is a lot of danger in imposing interpretation upon the scriptures that the context thereof does not allow for.

sovereigngrace said:

We build Scripture upon Scripture in order to piece God’s truth together. We embrace the full gamut of Holy Writ. We do not limit our understanding of a future time-line to one chapter or one book. That would be insane.

Click to expand...

Yet that is not what you have been doing in this case. You have been insisting on rendering Revelation 20 in a manner that the context thereof does not allow for rather than just simply accepting that John was given further revelation than what was given to the other Apostles and that Christ revealed more to him about the things to come than what He revealed in the Gospels.

sovereigngrace said:

Interpreting a text to the exclusion of other relevant Scripture is censured here. Imposing your bias school of thought on a Scripture text is wrong. That is private interpretation. It should be supported by other clear and repeated Scriptures. After all, there is a harmony to all truth. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. If we employ this interpretive rule, I believe, one cannot but arrive at any other conclusion than the coming of Christ is climactic and ushers in eternity.

Click to expand...

I have NOT been interpreting the text at the exclusion of other scriptures, but you have been imposing an interpretation upon scriptures challenging your position that the context thereof does not support and deny that they say what they say. That is not building scripture upon scripture, nor is it interpreting scripture with scripture.

sovereigngrace said:

If ever there is a passage in the Word of God that needs to be examined and understood in the light of the plain, simple teaching found elsewhere within the canon of Scripture, it is the much-debated symbolic narrative of Revelation 20.

Click to expand...

And you are not asking the right questions which is why you are not being led to right conclusions.

sovereigngrace said:

All sensible theologians believe that Scripture must interpret Scripture. This is where Premillennialism falls apart. They have absolutely no scriptural corroborate for their interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the all-consummating Second Advent. Likewise, they have absolutely no corroboration for their notion of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct judgement days separated by 1000 years. Also, nothing to support their interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two physical resurrections (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years. I could go on and on.

Click to expand...

Interpreting scripture with scripture does not in anyway discredit Premillennialism, but not only do we interpret scripture with scripture, we also allow for scripture to interpret itself, which, in the case of Revelation 20, gives us the basis for adherence to the belief in a coming thousand year reign before this present earth is replaced with a new earth.

sovereigngrace said:

Scripture proves there is no mortality in the age no come. Why? We are looking at the eternal state. Your doctrine is in violation of Christ's teaching here. You are fighting the words of Christ, not just Amils. The reason is: the second coming is the end!

You have both death and marriage (and procreation) in your supposed future millennium. This cannot be. Jesus refutes such an imagination.

Can you show me anywhere in Scripture (including Revelation 20) where the glorified saints interact in any way with the mortal people after the second coming? This seems to be another invention of yours that contradicts repeated Scripture.

Click to expand...

If Christ denies that there will be a thousand years under which the earth will be under His rule, and in which there will still be mortals who will be marrying and producing offspring before it is destroyed and replaced with a new earth in which there will be no mortality, then why did He instruct John to tell everyone other wise?

And I am not the one who said that the glorified saints would be the ones producing offspring on the earth after the return of Christ, you said that:

"The glorified saints alone are worthy to populate the glorified new earth when Jesus comes." (Post 287)

sovereigngrace said:

I amended my last post, where I unintentionally didn't put one of your comments in quotes. My apology. I added a question.

Where does it say the abyss is inside the earth? I suspect, you are adding unto Scripture again.

Click to expand...

Where else would this abyss be but inside the earth? Revelation 9:1-2 gives us a very good indication that this is where the abyss or bottomless pit is located.

Apology accepted by the way.

sovereigngrace said:

Not so! Quite the opposite! You cannot even accept Christ's first resurrection in Revelation 20. You apply that to the believers at the second coming. This shows how far you are off on your theology. You cannot grasp the figurative import of apocalyptic language. You literalize what is symbolic and symbolize what is literal. You refuse to acknowledge the figurative use of "a thousand" throughout Scripture and history. You are always exalting the influence of Satan. You portray a small impotent Jesus, a powerless Church and a BIG devil. This is a defeated theology.

You deny corroboration and argue that your opinion of Rev 20 is suffice to explain, when Scripture warns against that, arguing for interpreting Scripture with Scripture.

Click to expand...

These charges are totally false and completely inaccurate, especially your charge of me not accepting Christ's resurrection in Revelation 20. It is because of a resurrected Christ that we have resurrected saints which John has declared to be the first resurrection. Even you already said that those who are in Christ will have part in the first resurrection:


"Through that we have salvation, union with Christ and "have part" positionally in that glorious resurrection. Through Christ's victory we experience dual resurrection - spiritual and physical." (Post 282)


'A clear application of the first resurrection to those who have died in Christ before the second coming and yet you claim that what you are applying to the first resurrection, as your own words show, is off-based theology when I apply the same to the first resurrection as well.

I do not literalize what is clearly symbolic nor do I symbolize what is clearly literal, but you have been the one symbolizing that which has been presented as literal and the reason why I have not acknowledged a so-called figurative use of a thousand years is because, a thousand years is a fixed number and fixed numbers are understood as literal unless scripture states otherwise. But as for the thousand year reign, scripture has not presented that forthcoming era as being anything but literal. If it were symbolic, scripture would give interpretation to it and we are not portraying a small impotent Jesus or a powerless Church, but at the same time, we will not underestimate the formidability of the adversary we face either but that in no way exalts his influence as you have inaccurately charged.

sovereigngrace said:

Not only do you deny the detail of Revelation 20 showing the curtailment of Satan during the intra-advent great commission, but you deny the import of apocalyptic language. What is more, Moses (Deuteronomy 1:10-11, 7:9, and 32:30), the prophets (Joshua 23:10, 1 Chronicles 16:13-17, Song of Solomon 4:4, Job 9:2-3, Job 33:23, Ecclesiastes 6:3, 6-7, 7:27-28, Psalm 50:10-11, Psalm 84:9-10, 90:3-5, 91:5-7, 105:4, 8-10, Isaiah 7:22-24, 30:17, 60:21-22, Amos 5:1-4 and Micah 6:7) and the NT writers (2 Peter 3:3-4, Rev 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) used the phrases "a thousand" or "a thousand years" figuratively. On top of that: society uses (and totally comprehends) the symbolic thrust of "a thousand" or "a thousand years."

Click to expand...

I don't deny the detail of Revelation 20 that shows the curtailment of Satan but it is more than just a curtailment; he is imprisoned. He will no longer be free to roam the earth as he presently does now. And I have already addressed all the passages you cited regarding the usage of "a thousand" years. Even if presented in a hypothetical scenario, a fixed number is understood, not as figurative, but as a literal number. The only time that it is not understood as being literal is when scripture presents that number as being figurative by telling us what that number represents; apart from that, we have no grounds to call symbolic that which scripture presents as literal.

sovereigngrace said:

Again, that is your opinion of the only passage you have to support your eschatology.

Click to expand...

I have already cited and quoted the passages which show that it is not my opinion, but that of John. The context thereof should make it very clear that the first resurrection includes the resurrection of the righteous dead by Christ when He returns. Need I remind you of your own words which contradict your adamant denial of this?


"Through that we have salvation, union with Christ and "have part" positionally in that glorious resurrection. Through Christ's victory we experience dual resurrection - spiritual and physical." (Post 282)

sovereigngrace said:

You just ignored a bunch of proof texts I submitted and simply answered with your opinion of Revelation 20. This is your MO. You have clearly nothing to bring to the table and much to avoid. You have to ignore so much clear New Testament Scripture in order for your doctrine to fit. Your fixation with Revelation 20 has hidden the rest of Scripture to you. Satan has been totally defeated through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. We don’t have to defeat the enemy, Jesus has already done that. All we need to do is use our God given authority and enforce that victory wherever we go.

Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. Colossians 2:15 tells us: “having spoiled (or divested or disarmed) principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.

Click to expand...

In order for Satan to be bound, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to not, undone, stripped, or imprisoned in any way shape or form, he would have to be rendered immobile and inoperative. But he cannot be as you claim and still have any degree of power, authority, or influence. And dogs on chains are not able to hunt prey. (1 Pet. 5:8) That day will not come until he has been bound literally to the abyss.

sovereigngrace said:

First, Satan has been banished from 2000 years ago. So your long leash argument is moot.
Second, you cannot deny that Christ bound the strongman 2000 years ago. The Scriptures state that.
Third, you have to invent a binding that is not really a binding in order to explain your position.
Fourth, a spirit is not held within a physical prison with metal chains. That is absurd. We are looking at at spiritual curtailment of his influence and

The only power that Satan possesses is that which man gives him. If every single human being on this earth ignored him, he would be totally impotent. But, there is a twisted tendency within man that prefers the voice of Satan to the voice of God.

Click to expand...

If he were banished, then why does Paul say that we continue to war against him and those powers and principalities who follow him (Eph. 6)? Why does Peter tell us to be on the look out for him? (1 Pet. 5:8) You've nothing to worry about from an enemy whose been banished.

The binding of the strongman was simply used as an illustration of Christ's power and authority over the adversary which has been clearly demonstrated over the casting out of demons and by other various signs, wonders, and miracles, but that does not make them imprisoned. You do not wage war against imprisoned foes because imprisoned foes cannot bring evil to the world outside of that prison.

And Satan's power does not come from man, but those who align themselves with Satan do receive power from him, but if every man on the earth ignored him, he would not be made impotent; it is just that the war between good and evil would enter an entirely different phase than now. But if Satan's power comes from men, then Satan might as well be an invention of man and not a being created by God.

And the literal binding of Satan which is to come is an invention of God revealed to John and not that of any man, but you continue to deny that Revelation 20 says what it actually says and persist in symbolizing that which is presented to be taken literally.

sovereigngrace said:

Revelation 12 places the defeat of Satan at the resurrection / ascension: "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."

Click to expand...

According to the cited text, Satan is only cast out of Heaven after the ascension of Christ and the woman who bare him has fled into the wilderness. But the woman has not fled into the wilderness yet which means, Satan is still accusing the brethren before God day and night, only his accusations are of no effect against them because of Christ. He has yet to be cut off from Heaven completely.

sovereigngrace said:

Here, in correlation with Revelation 20, we see the end of Satan unchallenged deceiving of the Gentiles. John declares: "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ." How?

Click to expand...

But that is not the end of it, the chapter has more to tell, but that is a subject best discussed and debated in another thread.

sovereigngrace said:

Previous to Satan's eviction, God was Israel's God, not the Gentiles God. Satan ruled the nations. But through this casting out of Satan, after man's penalty had been paid in full, he no longer had anything to accuse the elect over. It was indeed finished! The powerful spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles lifting the deception that kept them bound. Satan was now bound. The boot was on the other foot. With the global expanse of the great commission the Gentiles now are without excuse. The ignorance is gone. The veil is lifted. The means by which God lifts deception is the preaching of the Word of God. This has now been successfully ongoing throughout the nations for 2000 years.

Satan's defeat came after the resurrection. Here is when he got his eviction notice, and here is "when" salvation came to the "whole world" - not just one nation Israel. The deception enveloping the Gentiles was lifted - praise God. They are now without excuse, just like those in the OT that rejected salvation. Salvation has now come to the nations. But Satan had to first be cast down. He had to be defeated. Christ’s life, death and resurrection safely secured that. As a result the Church becomes a militant overcoming organism.

Click to expand...

But it does not appear that Satan is going quietly. The advance of the Gospel, up until recent history and technological advancement, has advanced slowly, and has been heavily resisted by persecutions, undermined by various false doctrines brought into the Church, the establishment of powers that do everything in their power to withhold from as many as possible any enlightenment that might lead souls to Christ, and by spreading lies and misconceptions about the faith by various means in order to turn hearts away from the Gospel, and challenging the authority of scripture in order to overthrow the faith of the saints.

sovereigngrace said:

Christ’s death, burial and resurrection was the decisive blow against Satan. His defeat has already been wrought. This passage plainly shows the powerful result of Calvary and the deep impact it had upon Satan. It shows us that Satan is now under Christ’s feet and is now subject to His Sovereign will. Satan and his minions are barred from heaven. They have been banished after they were defeated 2,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

Not entirely if he is still able to accuse the brethren day and night before God. But if he was banned from Heaven entirely at the ascension of Christ, then who were the brethren he accused if not the followers of Christ? Are not the brethren those of the faith? And Satan has always been subject to the sovereign will of Christ. Read the book of Job. And how are banished enemies supposed to be able to have any influence over the places from which they have been banished?

sovereigngrace said:

Firstly, repeated Scripture uses binding in a figurative sense.

Click to expand...

Binding is used in an illustrative sense in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but it is still presented in a literal sense in Revelation 20.

sovereigngrace said:

Also, repeated scripture shows the binding of Satan and his minions since the earthly ministry of Christ. So, when we get into the most symbolic book in the Bible, it is not difficult to get your head around the spiritual binding of Satan in order to enlighten the Gentiles since the resurrection – the first resurrection.
The strongman was bound 2000 years ago according to Jesus. He invaded the Devil’s house, chained him and took a spoil. We are part of that spoil. This is figurative language.

Click to expand...

While there are repeated accounts of the power and authority that Christ and the saints have over Satan and his demons, and while the binding of the strongman is no doubt used in an illustrative sense in the Gospels, this cannot be used to interpret the context of Revelation 20 which is not presented in an illustrative format, but is presented in the future tense, foretelling of things that have not come to pass yet and which also include the imprisonment of Satan in the bottomless pit.

sovereigngrace said:

I realize in your theology Satan is BIG and Christ is dethroned. The Bible portrays the opposite picture.

Click to expand...

Then that just goes to show just how misunderstood you are about Premil theology. Satan is no doubt BIG, but no one is claiming that he is strong enough to dethrone Christ. But if Satan, who is of limited power, be small in comparison to Christ who has limitless power, then that ought to make us think about just how much smaller we are.

sovereigngrace said:

I struggle to accept that you cannot see the colossal difference of the state of the Gentiles between before Christ and His first resurrection and after. Maybe your end-time theology is preventing you from admitting the obvious. The victory of the cross was the key to spoiling Satan's power and kingdom. It stripped him of his enormous unchallenged global influence, caused him to be dethroned in untold millions of heathen lives and ensured he was curtailed in countless Gentile villages, towns and cities throughout the world through the faithful preaching of the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Premil-theology in no sense denies that the ground Satan has held has been diminished by the death and resurrection of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel, but at the same time, it does not deny that Satan will not give up ground he has held easily which is why the war for the souls of men will continue until he is forever cast into the Lake of Fire.

sovereigngrace said:

Your obsession with literalism is blinding you to the spiritual import of the symbols. Sad!

Click to expand...

No it hasn't, but I do not apply a symbolic interpretation when the context of scripture does not allow for it.

sovereigngrace said:

Your doctrine is built upon your private interpretation of one highly-symbolic chapter.

Click to expand...

My doctrine is built is not built upon any private interpretation, but upon the context of the chapter itself which presents itself as literal instead of symbolic, yet you insist that it is symbolic but have been unable to prove from its words that it is.

sovereigngrace said:

From the First Advent, Satan and his minions have been placed in an invisible spiritual prison [the abyss] and are hampered by powerful invisible spiritual chains of restraint which curtails their movement throughout the globe and limits their influence over the nations. It is a spiritual condition of restraint that prevents them from curtailing the Gospel advance to the ethnos (Gentiles).

The dog can go as far as the chain takes him. So, it is with Satan. The restraint he is under restricts his movement, thus curtailing the injury he can inflict. If you get close to a dangerous dog on a leash you will normally experience the consequences. It will bite you. Stay away from it and you will be fine. The reality is, a prisoner in a prison can walk, move, roam even do vice and injury, but that does not negate the fact he is restricted behind bars. Satan is a spiritual being that resides within a spiritual prison since his defeat at the cross.

Click to expand...

The abyss is not portrayed by scripture as an invisible place, but a literal place whose entrances is in an undisclosed location and as the Apostle Peter has said, Satan is still able to hunt for prey to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). A dog on a leash is not able to do that.

sovereigngrace said:

But, you admit you have nothing else in Scripture. That is a damning indictment on Premil. That alone is grounds to reject it. But when you add your mistaken denial of the symbolic genre of the book of Revelation and the highly symbolic nature of the wording of Revelation it exposes the bankrupt hermeneutics that Premil employs. The doctrine is easily refuted.

Click to expand...

That Christ did not reveal as much about His return in the Gospels as He did to John is not an indictment on Premil, yet you refuse to accept that some prophets and Apostles were given more revelation about the events to come before the passing of this present earth than others were.

sovereigngrace said:

Your problem is: you cannot even accept and understand the very first introductory verse that tells us what the genre is. You seem to have no grasp of apocalyptic language. That is why your doctrine contradicts so much other Scripture and lacks any other biblical support.

Click to expand...

The book of Revelation is a prophetic book but not as symbolic as you claim it to be. Like all other scripture, whatever the book of Revelation presents as being symbolic, it is accepted as symbolic, and whatever it presents as literal is accepted as literal.

sovereigngrace said:

The order: God - Christ - Angel – (signified or symbolised) John

This Greek word semaino is found seven times in the New Testament and is interpreted as follows in the King James Version:

Signs (John 4:48)
Signify (Acts 25:27)
Signifying (John 12:33, 18:32, 21:19)
Signified (Acts 11:28; Revelation 1:1)

Click to expand...

Signifying has nothing to do with symbolizing, not even according to the Greek.

sovereigngrace said:

• Is Satan a literal snake (Revelation 12:9, 14, 15, 20:2)?
• Is Satan a literal dragon (Revelation 12:3,4, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 13:2, 4, 11, 16:13, 20:2)?

Of course not. We are looking at figurative language. This symbolism is presented to depict his vicious and subtle malevolence. It shows the danger of his presence and danger of his ability.

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, if Satan was able to take on the form of a serpent in the garden of Eden, who is to say he is not able to take on the form of a dragon if he so chooses and is permitted to?

sovereigngrace said:

For you to answer these questions directly and honestly would immediately expose your argument. Your avoidance reveals how untenable Premil is.

Click to expand...

I have already answered them directly and honestly. I will not do so a second time so you can keep regurgitating the same questions and the same arguments like a broken record.

sovereigngrace said:

You do not see the danger and error involved in your "private interpretation" theology. You invent an age unknown and forbidden by Christ and the other NT writers. Scripture only recognizes 2 ages. You invent 3 to support your error.

Click to expand...

It was not unknown to John and if Christ has forbidden the teaching of such, then why did He instruct John to write about it? It is where we get this "unknown" age that you keep calling the thousand year reign.

sovereigngrace said:

I think you are misunderstanding what the chain and pit are. A spiritual being cannot be held by metal chains or physical prison doors. That picture is meant to depict the curtailment of this spiritual entity called Satan. It is all symbolism representing spiritual realities. Satan's curtailment means enlightenment to the nations.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence whatsoever that the chain and pit are symbolic, no matter how much you insist on it. The chain is presented as a literal chain and the pit as a literal place where Satan will be imprisoned for a thousand years and furthermore, the chain and pit that will imprison Satan are not things made of man, but made by God for this very purpose.

sovereigngrace said:

• You have a big devil and a small God.

• You have a big devil and an impotent powerless church.

Click to expand...

When did we ever say that we have a big devil and a small God?
When did we ever say that the church was powerless and impotent apart from its own failings?

sovereigngrace said:

Your defeatist theology is an awful slight on Christ and what He achieved through His sinless life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection.

Click to expand...

How are we diminishing what He achieved? How is it defeatist to acknowledge the fact that there is still a war between the forces of good and evil which will continue until Satan is forever cast into the Lake of Fire?

sovereigngrace said:

God has entrusted power and authority to the Church in this age that the devil cannot in any way deal with or thwart.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean he doesn't try.

sovereigngrace said:

As Christians the highest authority existing on this earth has been delegated to us. Jesus Christ has commissioned us to enforce His will on this corrupt planet.

Click to expand...

I don't see that happening in many cases. If the Church was enforcing the will of Christ on the earth, we shouldn't have authoritarian dictatorships and governments in place who are at emnity with the Gospel. Our academic establishments would not be trying to undermine the faith of the saints or cast doubt upon the Gospel in the minds of students, our entertainment industry would not mock or misrepresent the Christian faith, the media would not be spreading lies about us, corruption within governing authorities would be immensely diminished, the private sector would not be driven by greed and profit, and we would not be witnessing so much demonic activity in the world, we would not be seeing so much false doctrine infiltrating the Church, and the members thereof would be held accountable for their conduct and what they bring into Church.

sovereigngrace said:

Darkness cannot handle the light. When light shines, darkness must go

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean the darkness goes willingly.

sovereigngrace said:

While Satan resists us, the Bible says we have power to resist him

Click to expand...

Finally you admit that Satan resists us.

sovereigngrace said:

This is incredible! You resist, he must flee. When the devil plants a temptation, a doubt or a fear, you simply have to resist it, whereupon Satan must get his boots on and run. This word “flee” in the original means to escape, flee away or vanish. Now think about it. When you resist, he must disappear. The conflict today for the Church is not an earthly battle to possess an earthly territory but a spiritual battle to possess spiritual territory.

Click to expand...

But that does not mean he flees without a fight first. He may flee, but that does not mean he does so willingly or quietly.

sovereigngrace said:

It is not just that he cannot stop us or hurt us as we operate in the Spirit but it is that we can actually hurt him. That is the good news of New Testament age we live in.

Click to expand...

Then why are so many Christians who love the Lord and faithfully follow and serve Him subject to poverty, poor health, injuries from which they never heal, and the loss of those things and people that they hold dear? Why are so many subject to intense persecution in many nations around the world which include loss of property, livelihoods, imprisonment, torture, and even death? Why are they being chased from city to city, from town to town, and village to village? Why do so many Christians live under the rulership of those who do everything they can to halt the advancement of the Gospel? Why aren't these oppressive rulerships overthrown and destroyed?

sovereigngrace said:

Again, always belittling the character, ability achievements of Christ, and always exulting the ability and the character, ability achievements of Satan. Not only is this grievous but it is deeply unbiblical.

Click to expand...

Whenever you cannot answer a legitimate challenge or question you resort to slander and false accusations.

sovereigngrace said:

Do you see how you will spiritualize the literal truth of Scripture in order bto sustain your views of Rev 20. Can you see the duplicity involved? There is no hermeneutics. You just make it up as you go. You can let the Bible speak for itself. It must say what is required to support your imaginary invented 3rd age.

So Jesus was playing games with the devils? What did this "binding" achieve? What did it illustrate? Nothing!!! This shows us the folly of Premil.

Click to expand...

You are the one who is literalizing that which was presented as being illustrative and spiritualizing away that which has been presented in a literal context in the name of the Amil doctrine you hold to and have shown yourself to be devoid of understanding what the illustrative binding of the strongman actually means which was used to explain that no one can bind the powers of darkness or have any power over them except by the Spirit of God in a rebuke Jesus had issued to the Pharisees who claimed that He was casting demons out by the power of Satan rather than by the power of God.

sovereigngrace said:

Everything you have wrote in this thread shows your determination to undermine the power and authority that Christ now holds in heaven over the nations and the power and authority that the Church now holds on earth as it saturates the nations with the truth of the Gospel.

You have to realize the Church is a conquering spiritual body overcoming Satan everywhere she faithful shines the truth. Premil always seems negative and defeatist - lauding the strength and power of Satan all the time. You will see this in discussions like this. Unfortunately, is it normally left to Amils to highlight the victorious nature of Christ's current reign over all His enemies and the delegated power that was given to the Church by Christ in this new covenant period.

Click to expand...

Everything I wrote is simply to acknowledge the reality that there is still a spiritual war going on and which will continue to go on until Satan and all other forces of evil are cast into the Lake of Fire. That in no way, as you have errantly claimed, diminishes or undermines the power and authority that Christ holds over the nations or the power and authority that the Church has been given, but until He brings His reign to the earth, He has allowed things to play out to a certain extent. It is when He brings His reign to the earth that we will see righteousness and the worship of Christ enforced in the world.

sovereigngrace said:

This is exactly what results from someone being in love with a doctrine rather than what the Scriptures say. It exposes the danger of someone who rejects biblical corroboration, who is fixated with one chapter in Scripture (ironically in the most figurative setting in Scripture), and who refuses to acknowledge the real nature of the text, context and co-text. You deny the obvious in rejecting the figurative nature of apocalyptic language, something even the most blinkered Premil would not do. This shows how much you have been indoctrinated. You admit you have zero support in Scripture for your private interpretation yet you stubbornly refuse to entertain any other text that exposes your error. It is impossible to properly engage with you as one would with a normal brother in a normal biblical discussion. You sidestep every argument shown that relates Rev 20 to the intra-Advent period. You deny Christ's first resurrection and apply that to the future.

It is pointless engaging with someone who blindly holds to their theory despite the clear text, context, co-text teaching the opposite to what you advocate.

The reader will note the danger and error of your position by reading through our discussion. You aid the Amil cause more than any Amil by your repeated admission that your theory enjoys no other biblical support. For that, this discussion has been useful. I will point others to this discussion in the future.

Thanks for the conversation.

Click to expand...

If it had not been for the book of Revelation which teaches a thousand year intermission between this present age and eternal age to come, Premillennialism would have no basis and therefore would not exist. It is not a doctrine that is without scriptural basis as you insist it has been, but rather than just accept that Revelation 20 says what it says you demand more corroboration when the context of the chapter has provided evidence sufficient enough to bear witness to a Premil doctrine, insisting on symbolizing that which is presented in a literal context.

As mentioned countless times, in order for something to be declared symbolic, interpretation must be given. If interpretation is not given, then it must be taken as literal, but you insist otherwise and my approach to scripture is no different than that of most other Premils.

You have falsely claimed that I said there was no support for Premillennialism in the scriptures, but I have shown all the support for scripture necessary which you have persisted in rejecting and in your rejection of the text, have attributed the words thereof made easily understood to a private interpretation and therefore have made them out to be more obscure than they really are, claiming that that I have ignored other texts that you claim expose the error of Premillennialism but the texts that you have brought forth have nothing to do with the events foretold in Revelation 20 but yet claim Revelation 20 is tied to the Church age when it suggests no such thing and worst of all, you have falsely and slanderously accused me of placing the resurrection of Christ in the future in when in truth, I have never done any such thing here or on any other platform where Contender's Edge is establish, and this is all despite the fact that according to your own words, which you have refused to acknowledge, that this first resurrection also includes the dead in Christ who will be raised from the dead when Christ returns:


"Through that we have salvation, union with Christ and "have part" positionally in that glorious resurrection. Through Christ's victory we experience dual resurrection - spiritual and physical." (Post 282)


Feel free to direct readers to this discussion if you wish; they can compare arguments from both sides and then come up with whatever conclusions they will.

sovereigngrace said:

This is all mere unsubstantiated and uncorroborative opinion.

• I have showed you the biblical requirement for corroboration and you have rejected that.
• I have showed you that Rev 1:1 confirms that the apocalypse is written in a symbolic genre and you have rejected that.
• I have showed you the undisputed detail throughout the book of Revelation that proves it is a largely figurative narrative and you have rejected that.
• I have showed you the undisputed detail throughout Rev 20 that is is a largely figurative chapter and you have rejected that.
• I have showed you that the detail attributed to Rev 20 correlates with multiple clear Scripture showing the binding of Satan and the first resurrection of Christ 2000 years ago running through to the the general resurrection/judgment of all the dead at the end after Satan's season. The chapter can only relate to the intra-advent period and you have rejected that.
• I have showed you much explicit Scripture that reveals the coming of Christ to be the end (including Rev 19) and you have rejected that.
• I have showed you that Jesus and the NT writers only recognized "this age" (time) and "the age to come" (eternity) and you have rejected that. You, in turn, unilaterally invent 3-age scenario (“this age, the age to come and another age to come after the age to come”) in order to fit your false teaching.

There is little more I can do. You have (sadly) swallowed all your teachers have taught you, without questioning the biblical veracity of it. This has left your doctrine exposed here as extra-biblical.

Click to expand...

You counted the case for Premillennialism presented in Revelation 20 to be insufficient and have insisted that the context thereof is figurative when it is presented as literal and have refused to accept the fact that the reason why the book of Revelation is the only portion of scripture that teaches a thousand year reign is because John was given much further revelation and prophecy than was given in the Gospels and to the other Apostles.
You have assumed the entire book of Revelation to be symbolic but it is only symbolic when the context implies symbolism or interpretation is given.
You claim to have shown indisputable proof that Revelation 20 is a figurative chapter and not literal but have been unable to prove from the context itself that this is so.
The scriptures you claim to relate to Revelation 20 do not relate to anything described in that chapter which is presented as yet to come, but instead have done what you have accused me of doing; imposing your own private Amillennialist interpretation.
You have denied the existence of two different resurrections despite the fact that the Apostle John reveals a resurrection and in spite of the fact that I have cited scripture from Revelation 20 that teaches such; one for the righteous and another for the wicked and unbelieving; the resurrection of the righteous he has called the first resurrection but which you have attributed only to Christ, and while there is no denying that the resurrection of Christ may be the beginning of that first resurrection since He is called the first fruits of the resurrection, the saints are also indisputably are made part of that first resurrection which, despite your denial of such, have already admitted to in contradiction to your denial:


"Through that we have salvation, union with Christ and "have part" positionally in that glorious resurrection. Through Christ's victory we experience dual resurrection - spiritual and physical." (Post 282)


Those are your words not mine.


You insist that Satan was bound 2,000 years ago and continues to be bound today as though, longer than the length of time described in Revelation 20, which says that he is to be bound to the abyss for a thousand years but have not been able to give interpretation from scripture as to what the means by which Satan is bound are supposed to represent, still insisting on calling figurative that to which no interpretation is given by scripture.
You insist that Revelation 20 can only relate to this intra-advent period, but have been unable to prove this claim from its own words.
You claim that Revelation 19 discredits Premil doctrine, but nothing that you have cited from that chapter does damage to Premillennialism.
You have falsely accused me of inventing a new age between this present age and the eternal age to come, when it is John, under the direction and authority of Christ who has written about this age you attribute to me. Your dispute is not just with me but the Apostle John.

sovereigngrace said:

You have imputed a literal meaning on an extremely figurative passage. What has resulted is unknown to the rest of Scripture. That is because it is in conflict with what the Bible teaches. It is wrong.
Through faith in Christ and His atoning work on the cross and victorious first resurrection, we have dual resurrection - spiritual resurrection, through salvation, and physical resurrection when Jesus comes.

Click to expand...

You have imputed symbolism to a passage that presents itself as literal, refusing to accept that the reason why it is unknown to the rest of scripture is because not all the prophets and Apostles were given the same degree of revelation, but each one was given a degree of revelation different from the rest. Even in cases in which more than one prophet or Apostle is given a revelation pertaining to the same event, one is given more details about that particular event than the other.

That is why John was given revelation that might not have been known to the other Apostles and why various prophets were given revelation not known to Moses. That a certain thing may be found in only one passage or part of scripture does not necessarily disqualify it from being that which the context presents it to be. But in spite of all this, you have ignored this undeniable fact, insisting that a literal rendering of Revelation 20 is in conflict with the rest of scripture, yet have failed to demonstrate this to be so. Your only basis for this claim is that Revelation 20 is the only section of scripture that mentions a thousand year reign.

sovereigngrace said:

Rev 20 is talking about the salvation that results from being "in Christ." It is our participation in the resurrection life, whether in life or death. Those in view are souls who have passed on "in Christ," but have defeated death and Hades because of the first resurrection of Christ. They now reign in Christ.

Click to expand...

It also says that they "lived and reigned", which implies that they were bodily raised from the dead.

sovereigngrace said:

In order for Satan to be bound, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to not, undone, stripped, or imprisoned in any way shape or form, he would have to be rendered immobile and inoperative. But he cannot be as you claim and still have any degree of power, authority, or influence. And dogs on chains are not able to hunt prey. (1 Pet. 5:8) That day will not come until he has been bound literally to the abyss.

If he were banished, then why does Paul say that we continue to war against him and those powers and principalities who follow him (Eph. 6)? Why does Peter tell us to be on the look out for him? (1 Pet. 5:8) You've nothing to worry about from an enemy whose been banished.

The binding of the strongman was simply used as an illustration of Christ's power and authority over the adversary which has been clearly demonstrated over the casting out of demons and by other various signs, wonders, and miracles, but that does not make them imprisoned. You do not wage war against imprisoned foes because imprisoned foes cannot bring evil to the world outside of that prison.

And Satan's power does not come from man, but those who align themselves with Satan do receive power from him, but if every man on the earth ignored him, he would not be made impotent; it is just that the war between good and evil would enter an entirely different phase than now. But if Satan's power comes from men, then Satan might as well be an invention of man and not a being created by God.

And the literal binding of Satan which is to come is an invention of God revealed to John and not that of any man, but you continue to deny that Revelation 20 says what it actually says and persist in symbolizing that which is presented to be taken literally.

Click to expand...

Keep this up and your readers and followers will not no longer know where you actually stand as the above appears to be content I wrote.

sovereigngrace said:

You really do not get it do you? I showed you Scripture to support this and you ducked around this. Your pick-and-choose hermeneutic may satisfy the Premil choir but they will not content the objective Bible observer. I think you think if you keep repeating this enough you will actually convince yourself.

• I showed you how Revelation 12:5 tells us that the woman's "child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." Once again, you rejected the explicit words of Scripture. This is your MO.
• I showed you how John 12:31-33 locates the fulfillment of Revelation 12 and you have rejected that.

Click to expand...

You are the one not getting it. No one is disputing that the child depicted was caught up to God and His throne and the passage you cited has nothing to do with the events of Revelation 12, which is presented as future except for the first five verses.