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

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What we don't like is being presented with the same old content and arguments that we have already answered before and what is worse, you have deceptively cut and pasted old content amongst new content to make it appear as though you are presenting new rebuttals when upon examination, you are presenting the same already answered rebuttals in a repackaged form and expecting a different answer. You are not going to get a different answer.

You don't have answers. All you are doing is avoiding Scripture after Scripture that forbids your theory. All you can do now is rant and hurl ad hominem.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I`ve posted substantial scripture that hasn`t been accounted for. I thought maybe if I answered his questions then he might try to deal with my challenge to his views. It was fun at first but tedious by the end, especially if he doesn`t take the time to reveal the traps he thinks my answers put me into :doh:

No you have not. The opposite is the truth. Your pattern is: when you have no answers you just avoid and complain. The last two subjects on this thread you have run from them with no answers. Please stick to the truth. Answer these, if you can.

First subject

No, more like this,

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;

13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;

14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

You do not seem to want to interpret Scripture with Scripture. You seem to want to explain away NT truth by your faulty Premil opinion of OT truth. The unfortunate thing for you is: you have no mention of a thousand years age in the OT.

Zechariah 12:10 says, And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”

This relates to when Messiah appeared nearly 2,000 years ago. As predicted, salvation flowed out from the Cross – firstly to Israel, then to the nations. Many, many Jews have accepted Christ and His sacrifice for sin since then. Many came to a personal faith in Christ after the resurrection. Since then, countless Gentiles have entered into the joy of sins forgiven. The cross is man’s only hope; it is the only means by which sinful man (Jew or Gentile, pre-Calvary or post) can enter into union with God. It is the only way that man can be reconciled onto sinful creatures and experience the wonderful quickening “spirit of grace.” The Holy Spirit came like rivers of living water to all who would believe in Christ. Jews by the thousands, as well as new Gentile converts were the welcome recipients of this following Calvary.

John 19:30-37 says, “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken (speaking of Psalms 34:20). And again another scripture (speaking of Zechariah 12:10) saith, they shall look on him whom they pierced.”

This is absolute evidence that Christ Israel's Messiah and that He is God!

Second subject


Romans 11
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Paul uses the image of “the olive tree” in Romans 11 to show that Gentiles have become part of true Israel. His olive tree analogy is deliberate. He takes this imagery from the prophets who likened Israel to an olive tree in Isaiah 5:7, Hosea 9:10 and 14:6-7.

No one could surely dispute we are looking at an Israeli tree here. Paul carefully describes the Jews who have been cut off as “natural branches” and being of “their own olive tree.” This shows us that this is an Israeli tree that held Israeli citizens. If the “natural branches” represent natural Israelis, and faith in Christ is the criterion for partaking in “the olive tree,” we can only be looking at the faithful genetic seed of Abraham who embraced Christ. This is the elect remnant of Israel. It was this holy remnant that remained attached to the Israeli olive tree that the Gentiles who believed now join in this new covenant era. This fulfils various Old Testament predictions that through Abraham’s seed all the families of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3, 17:3-8, 17:15-16, 18:18 and 22:16-18).

Dispensationalist John McArthur even acknowledges: “And so the new life which enables us Gentiles to produce fruit unto God is the covenant stock of Israel that we’ve been grafted into” (Is God finished with Israel? Part 2).

This olive tree, which currently consists of both believing Jews and Gentiles, is therefore the continuation of spiritual Israel, only operating now under the broader new covenant arrangement. Consequently, it contains the full number of new covenant believers regardless of race or natural DNA. This metaphor describes the incorporation of Gentile believers into a decidedly Hebraic tree. But this is no natural tree. We are clearly looking here at a spiritual tree, because partaking in its blessing and sustenance comes through the exercise of “faith.” After all, if it were simply natural there would be absolutely no reason to cut out natural Israelites simply on the grounds of their race. The reason for Christ-rejecting Israel’s banishment from the tree’s blessings was “unbelief.” The reason for Gentile acceptance was because “they” stood “by faith.”

If God had two distinct chosen peoples, then He would not have integrated the believing Gentiles into a believing Jewish tree. The phrase “wert graffed in” is taken from the lone Greek word egkentrizo meaning ‘to ingraft’. It comes up 6 times in the New Testament – all between Romans 11:17-24.

We should not miss: this is a conditional wording of Paul’s comments. The writer here qualifies this important statement by saying “if.” This begs the question: “if” what? He then goes on to explain: “if they do not continue in unbelief.” Now, this is not a unique promise! It is a conditional promise that lies before every single nation throughout the world since the cross. Israel is not prohibited from being integrated into the global body of Christ. They can be grafted into the good olive tree. The Gospel can once again be heard throughout the breath of the much-diminished country, but they must bow the knee to Jesus Christ in repentance when God speaks. No one can say with any credence that God is finished with Israel.

Time to stop avoiding.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But we are supposedly talking about the greatest age in history outside of the NHNE and you have nothing to support your private interpretation of that chapter. That is why many of us abandoned Premil. It is contradicts numerous Scripture. Your avoidance is testimony to that.


The text of Revelation 20 is all we need to establish that there will be a thousand year reign of Christ upon this earth before the creation of the New Heaven and the New Earth and yet you have the audacity to demand corroboration from the rest of scripture to support a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 despite the fact that Revelation 20 is clearly presented as a time yet to come, when you would demand no such thing from other things mentioned only once in scripture. Need I list examples of things mentioned only one time in scripture for which no further corroboration is required in order for them to be accepted as contextually presented?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RickReads
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You don't have answers. All you are doing is avoiding Scripture after Scripture that forbids your theory. All you can do now is rant and hurl ad hominem.


I am not the one who is deceptively cutting and pasting old content amongst new content to make their response posts appear to present arguments and rebuttals that have not yet been presented which means you have run out of arguments and the arguments that you have presented have already been answered and will only continue to receive the same answer as before. They have not been avoided as you have falsely claimed.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RickReads
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The text of Revelation 20 is all we need to establish that there will be a thousand year reign of Christ upon this earth before the creation of the New Heaven and the New Earth and yet you have the audacity to demand corroboration from the rest of scripture to support a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 despite the fact that Revelation 20 is clearly presented as a time yet to come, when you would demand no such thing from other things mentioned only once in scripture. Need I list examples of things mentioned only one time in scripture for which no further corroboration is required in order for them to be accepted as contextually presented?
  • Your conclusions are based upon inventing a 3rd age that Jesus and none of the NT writer knew or taught. They only knew and taught of 2 ages - this age and the age to come.
  • Your conclusions are based upon an unhealthy obsession with one single highly-debated chapter, located in the most obscure setting in Scripture.
  • Your conclusions are based upon ignoring the explicit climactic detail of repeated Scripture.
  • Your conclusions are based upon a refusal to interpret Scripture with Scripture.
  • Your conclusions are based upon explaining away the clear and explicit with the symbolic and the obscure.
  • Your conclusions are based upon a faulty hyper-literal approach to Revelation.
  • Your conclusions are based upon a faulty chronological approach to Revelation.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am not the one who is deceptively cutting and pasting old content amongst new content to make their response posts appear to present arguments and rebuttals that have not yet been presented which means you have run out of arguments and the arguments that you have presented have already been answered and will only continue to receive the same answer as before. They have not been avoided as you have falsely claimed.

I am not doing anything deceptive. I am presenting the truth and you have no answer. Everyone can see it. Because you have no rebuttals all you can do now is avoid, rant and hurl ad hominem.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You keep stating this but you refuse to deal with the reality of the text. That is why questions have to be repeated with Premils. They refuse to address the obvious.
  1. Do you believe Satan and his minions are physical beings?
  2. Is the dragon in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical dragon?
  3. Is the serpent in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical serpent?
  4. Is the key mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal door key?
  5. Is the chain mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal chain?
  6. Is the prison mentioned in Revelation 20:7 a literal brick prison?
  7. Do you believe demons need to be detained in a literal physical prison with literal metal chains in order to be restrained?
  8. Does imprisonment mean immobility?
  9. Does it mean a prisoner cannot do harm?
  10. Can a dog on a chain walk or roam about?
  11. Can a prisoner in a prison walk or roam about?
  12. Does a prisoner have the ability to kill, steal, destroy, rape and embezzle in prison?


More cut and paste from previous posts (posts 173 and 274) I already answered (posts 186 and 275) and my answer will be the same and I am not the only one who has already answered this.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RickReads
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am not doing anything deceptive. I am presenting the truth and you have no answer. Everyone can see it. Because you have no rebuttals all you can do now is avoid, rant and hurl ad hominem.


You are trying to get me to answer the same tired arguments you have already presented and that I have already answered and when you cut and paste old content and then try to present it as new content in a new response post, then yes, you are resorting to a deceptive bait and switch to fuel this merry-go-round in hopes that we will give you answers different than what we have already given because you have no new arguments to present.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RickReads
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
More cut and paste from previous posts (posts 173 and 274) I already answered (posts 186 and 275) and my answer will be the same and I am not the only one who has already answered this.

No. You have no answers. You avoided every point with "what saith Rev 20." That is the Premil mantra. Premil has only got one string in their guitar. That is why every Bible student should reject it.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are trying to get me to answer the same tired arguments you have already presented and that I have already answered and when you cut and paste old content and then try to present it as new content in a new response post, then yes, you are resorting to a deceptive bait and switch to fuel this merry-go-round in hopes that we will give you answers different than what we have already given because you have no new arguments to present.

I will take your continued avoidance as you have no answer for the truth. Thanks for the conversation. I am not wasting my time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
  • Your conclusions are based upon inventing a 3rd age that Jesus and none of the NT writer knew or taught. They only knew and taught of 2 ages - this age and the age to come.
  • Your conclusions are based upon an unhealthy obsession with one single highly-debated chapter, located in the most obscure setting in Scripture.
  • Your conclusions are based upon ignoring the explicit climactic detail of repeated Scripture.
  • Your conclusions are based upon a refusal to interpret Scripture with Scripture.
  • Your conclusions are based upon explaining away the clear and explicit with the symbolic and the obscure.
  • Your conclusions are based upon a faulty hyper-literal approach to Revelation.
  • Your conclusions are based upon a faulty chronological approach to Revelation.


What third group of people have we invented? Everyone, be they born before the millennial reign or during the millennial reign is eventually going to either side with Christ or with Satan.

Our basis for concluding that the thousand year reign is a literal thousand year reign is based upon the context of the chapter alone and it is the same basis that we apply to all of scripture.

We are not ignoring any climatic details of repeated scripture but a symbolic interpretation of Revelation 20 is not going to resolve what would otherwise appear to be contradicting revelations between the Apostle John and the rest of the Apostles because the text does not support a symbolic interpretation and because the text does not indicate that the events described therein are symbolic, there is no reasonable basis for concluding that the chapter is symbolic in nature. The only reasonable basis is that Christ revealed more to John about the end-times than He did to the rest of the Apostles.

Our conclusions are NOT based on a refusal to interpret scripture with scripture but rather within the context of all scripture and when it comes to interpreting scripture with scripture, we must examine all that scripture has to say on that particular subject and within the given context of all scripture of that particular subject examined and whenever there appears to be a contradiction in scripture, we then have placed on us the burden to resolve that seeming contradiction by searching for textual harmony between the scripture passages that appear to be in conflict with each other. End times prophecy is certainly no exception.

We have explained away nothing, but it is you who has resorted to explaining away the literal presentation of the text of Revelation 20 and have imposed an unsupported symbolic interpretation.

You have not been able to textually demonstrate that Revelation is not in chronological order when there clearly is a chronology of events; in fact all of scripture possesses a chronology to it in most cases.

And we are no more or less literal than what the text of scripture allows us to be.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RickReads
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I will take your continued avoidance as you have no answer for the truth. Thanks for the conversation. I am not wasting my time.


So be it then. But I have not avoided anything you have presented. I have answered everything. I'll even list every post that answers your arguments if I must.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
I am not doing anything deceptive. I am presenting the truth and you have no answer. Everyone can see it. Because you have no rebuttals all you can do now is avoid, rant and hurl ad hominem.
We all know what you are saying: that you don't believe Rev. 20 because you cannot find anything to agree with it in the OT.

One scripture says "Jesus wept," concerning Lazarus who had died.
Should we DENY that Jesus wept because it is found only in one place?

In 2 Cor. Paul tells us he was caught up into the third heaven. It is an isolated scripture. Do we then deny it because it is found only once?

Rev. 20 makes and simple and plain picture of a thousand year reign of Christ. I am convinced, if we had beginning readers read it, they would agree. I takes special people who can read it and not believe it.

Why then do you attack those who believe simply because you don't? Is that right?
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No. You have no answers. You avoided every point with "what saith Rev 20." That is the Premil mantra. Premil has only got one string in their guitar. That is why every Bible student should reject it.


Until Christ's revelation to the Apostle John, all scripture appears to teach that the end of time comes when Jesus Christ returns.

But then Christ reveals to John that the end does not immediately come after His return.

The revelations given to John and the other Apostles might appear to be in conflict with one another, but if that were the case, then this would put scripture's claim to divine authority and inspiration in question.

We cannot resolve this conflict by assuming that Revelation chapter 20 is symbolic because the text thereof does not support such an interpretation which is why the Amil doctrine cannot be accepted as a reasonable or solid resolution.

The only reasonable conclusion is that more was revealed to John, which includes the thousand year reign, than what was revealed to the other Apostles but this is not necessarily unique to John. There were things revealed to some prophets that were not revealed to others, but we accept the revelation given to all the prophets as being equally true, equally valid, and equally authoritative without demanding corroboration from one or the other on every single point, but yet for some reason, you insist on applying a different standard to the thousand year reign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RickReads
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One scripture says "Jesus wept," concerning Lazarus who had died.
Should we DENY that Jesus wept because it is found only in one place?


I have repeatedly confronted Sovereign Grace with this charge, but he has refused to answer it. That is because he can't but yet insists on applying a standard to Revelation 20 that he likely would not apply to other scriptures that mention events and details not mentioned elsewhere in scripture.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RickReads
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
  • Your conclusions are based upon inventing a 3rd age that Jesus and none of the NT writer knew or taught. They only knew and taught of 2 ages - this age and the age to come.

Mat. 19:28 Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Where do we see this happening? Rev. 20.

Mark 10:30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

The point is, there IS an "age to come." It will be "an age," but not forever.

And you thought Jesus knew nothing about it!
 
  • Winner
Reactions: RickReads
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We all know what you are saying: that you don't believe Rev. 20 because you cannot find anything to agree with it in the OT.

One scripture says "Jesus wept," concerning Lazarus who had died.
Should we DENY that Jesus wept because it is found only in one place?

In 2 Cor. Paul tells us he was caught up into the third heaven. It is an isolated scripture. Do we then deny it because it is found only once?

Rev. 20 makes and simple and plain picture of a thousand year reign of Christ. I am convinced, if we had beginning readers read it, they would agree. I takes special people who can read it and not believe it.

Why then do you attack those who believe simply because you don't? Is that right?

You are not getting what I am saying. You are inventing an age that does not exist. It is unknown to the Old Testament, Jesus and the rest of the New Testament writers.

Think about it: we are looking at the supposed second greatest age in history. If this is supposed to be what you say it to be - namely the greatest age outside of the new heavens and new earth - then why did none of the other writers allude to it? If there is no corroboration to support your supposed "second greatest age" in history then we have the right to reject it. Premil has nothing. That is why Premils dump every passage imaginable into it - from "last days" passages to "the new heavens and new earth" passages. This is because it has no corroboration for all its fundamental beliefs.

There are countless references to the first Advent of Jesus Christ but nothing to support the Premil take on Revelation 20 re a future age following the second coming. There are countless references to the new heavens and new earth but nothing to support the Premil take on Revelation 20 re a future age following the second coming. This is why Amils believe such a concept is imaginary.

Premillennialism speak long and loud about an intermediary age in-between the last days and the new heavens and new earth. They relate passage after passage in the Old Testament to this supposed future age. The only problem is: Christ or none of the New Testament writers ever speak of this age or locate any of these Old Testament passages to the same.

Where my main concern with the Premil doctrine arises is with their creating a belief which is unknown to the other writers in Scripture and your building of such a mammoth school of thought upon one lone passage in the most complex and symbolic book in Scripture. A doctrine that is unknown to every single writer up until John in Revelation. If it were true, this would be the 2nd greatest age in history squashed in between "this age" (in time) and the "age to come" (the eternal state) yet this 1,000 yrs is mentioned nowhere in the sacred pages. Anyway, Scripture only knows of two ages – which I have just mentioned. None of the Old Testament prophets or New Testament writers mention a literal 1,000 yrs in which Satan is bound and where the glorified saints inherit a new earth along with billions of mortal sinners. None mention a sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future earthly millennial kingdom.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
(2) The Premillennialial paradigm again collapses on the flawed notions that “the day of the Lord” lasts a literal 1,000 years, and that the destruction predicted in the narrative only occurs at the very end of this day, 1,000 years after the second coming of Christ. Notwithstanding, this undoubted forced interpretation of “the day of the Lord” is totally demolished when one realises that the world must therefore be completely destroyed before Satan has his opportunity to “deceive the nations” for “a little season” at the end, after the millennium. There will manifestly be no world or wicked left for Satan to gather Gog and Magog “as the sand of the sea” against “the camp of the saints.” This again only serves to support the belief that this passage can only be fully and completely realised at the second coming of the Lord, and in the Amillennial position. For them to take 2 Peter 3 as it reads (and means) would totally destroy their beloved doctrine.
Just so you know, The "Day of the Lord" starts before the 70th week (at the 6th seal, Rev. 6). So if indeed the 1000 year reign of Christ does include the DAY, then it would be 1000 years PLUS a little over 7 years.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,980
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,064.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just so you know, The "Day of the Lord" starts before the 70th week (at the 6th seal, Rev. 6). So if indeed the 1000 year reign of Christ does include the DAY, then it would be 1000 years PLUS a little over 7 years.

According to what you have been taught. Not according to Holy Writ. You have been unable to provide one Scripture that teaches (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further coming of Christ. That alone ends the discussion. That is proof you hold to an extra-biblical man-made theory. It doesn't matter what way you look at Pretrib it doesn't add up. It is a man-made doctrine! Your failure to provide one single text exposes its error.

1. Where is a tribulation mentioned in Daniel 9?
2. Where is a 7-year tribulation mentioned in Daniel 9?
3. Where is the rapture mentioned in Daniel 9?
4. Where is a 3rd coming mentioned in Daniel 9?
5. Where in Daniel 9 does it tell us to sever the last 7 years off from this harmonious prophecy relating to Christ’s 1st Coming and propel it 2,000 years into the unknown?
6. Where is antichrist mentioned in Daniel 9?
7. Where does it say that antichrist will make a peace covenant with Israel for 7 years in Daniel 9?
8. Where does it say that antichrist will break a peace covenant with Israel in Daniel 9?
9. Where are the tribulation saints mentioned in Daniel 9?
10. Where does it mention the rebuilding of a third temple?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Satan is most certainly NOT accusing any of the brothers any more. His ministry as the O.T. accuser of the saints came to an end when Christ stripped him of all authority and granted righteousness by faith to all the saints. Revelation 12:10-11 tells how the blood of the Lamb has granted this victory, and is tied to Paul's teaching in Romans:

Rom 8:30-31,33
Whom he foreordained, them he also called. Whom he called, them he also justified. Whom he justified, them he also glorified. What then will we say about these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?... Who could bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, yes rather, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.


Satan's accusations may have no affect against us because of the blood of Christ, but there is nothing in scripture to suggest that his accusations have yet been silenced or that he has been banned from approaching the throne of God. His expulsion from Heaven is not contextually in the past tense but in the future tense and the scriptures you cite only address our redemption, but they in no way suggest that Satan has yet been prevented from presenting himself before the throne of God to accuse us, but as I have said, because we have placed our trust in Christ, his accusations are powerless.


Satan is defeated to Christ and his Church. In fact, this was the very purpose of Christ's ministry (see 1 John 3:8; Hebrews 2:14-15; John 12:31; Col 2:15; Matthew 16:18-19; Matthew 28:18-19, etc), yet many today seem to deny that Christ was successful.

It certainly is true that those outside the Kingdom of God are bound in chains of sin and darkness and are the "sons of satan" (as was Cain and as were the rulers of Israel Jesus spoke against in John 8:44) -- but look at how bound and powerless satan is to all the Sons of God (Acts 26:17-18; Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 10:19; Mark 16:17, etc). Jesus said the time for the satan to have been cast out was back in HIS time (John 12:31).

So we must not UNDO the work of Christ in this matter by a retroactive faith that places us back in time as if we are a people living PRIOR to Christ's victory over satan. What a travesty it is, IMHO, to see how the eschatological doctrine of futurism is always robbing Christ of his power and completed work.


Just because the prince of this world has been cast out does not mean that he is leaving this world quietly as confirmed by a number of different passages that make clear that a war for the souls of men is still raging (2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 6, 1 Peter 5:8) and there is nothing in futurism that is robbing Christ of His power and completed work. We glory in His victory and our redemption but at the same time, we dare not deny that the age-long war between God and Satan continues to rage and that Satan is still a formidable foe. The day that Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire will be the day that the war ends and all evil will be forever eliminated.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: iamlamad
Upvote 0