When was Satan bound?

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not fudging the issue, I'm saying it's pointless when you take any verse given and twist it so hard that I'm surprised juice isn't coming out of it.
Your position is entirely built on private interpretation and trying to twist scripture to say what you want it to say.

I threw Isaiah 2:4 at you, you twisted it to mean what you want it to mean.

Those verses were apt and on topic and rebutted your claims. To address them would have caused you to acknowledge the error of your position. You obviously have no answer for them.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The last days could be, in my view, pertaining to both the last days in this age and also be involving the millennium in the next age. IOW, the last days involve the past 2000 years through the 2nd coming and then the days concerning the millennium. Or if not that, the last days are only involving what you are taking them to involve, but that some of the verses in question in Isaiah 2, some of it is meaning post the last day of this age, the fact two advents of Christ are involved. If there is no millennium after the 2nd coming though, it would simply mean that----nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more---is being applied to eternity. It certainly doesn't make sense to apply that between the first advent and the 2nd advent since that contradicts what Jesus plainly said in Matthew 24:6-8, for one.



I'm certain some of what is recorded in Isaiah 2 applies to this same time period. It is clear that the time period involving these verses you submitted, that this is meaning between the first and 2nd advent and not after the 2nd advent instead. It is not clear, in Isaiah 2:1-4, that every single bit of it only involves the time period between His first and 2nd advent. It's possible that some of it can be meaning after His 2nd advent.





Just because I don't take Acts 2:17, which quotes Joel 2:28, in the literal sense like you described, yet I interpret some of Isaiah 2 a bit differently, I don't see how that's making me inconsistent here? I'm factoring in other things as well, such as what I submitted above. Plus, to me, the fact the text in Isaiah 2:4 clearly does not say only some nations shall not lift up sword against only some nations, neither shall only some nations learn war any more---it does not say that----it says nation shall not lift sword against nation, therefore, there is zero reason to think it's not meaning every single nation.

According to Jesus, what occurs on the last or final day?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello



I do nothing of the sort. You do not get to say what I believe and then say that is wrong.

I say there is The Kingdom of God and the 1,000 years Which has not yet begun and the Eternity after Judgement of the Wicked

The difference is I say the imperfect 1,000 years is with the Kingdom on Earth.

You say the 1,000 years is now.... in heaven........... with an Earth that is marked by justice and injustice, righteousness and unrighteousness, sin and perfection, glorification and corruption, in order to support your beliefs.



Please you position is ridiculous. I noticed when I pointed out your hypocrisy on this you just avoided it all together. So lets try again and see if you can actually address Scripture put to you instead of dancing all around and changing the subject.

[20] He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

This is written in 96 AD Jesus says he is "Coming Soon" Here we are 2,000 years later Jesus still has not returned. So what does Soon mean? Maybe it means Jesus returns in THE LAST DAYS ie:SOON.

To me the last days include the last days of this age. We are still in the same age Since Jesus left. The New age begins at his return. Despite what you believe the Promise is not split into two parts

What happens in the age to come?
  1. Is there sin?
  2. Is there sinners?
  3. Is there a disease?
  4. Is there funerals?
  5. Is there physical corruption?
  6. Is there a moral corruption?
  7. Is there a betrayal?
  8. Is the rape?
  9. Is there crying?
  10. Is there salvation?
  11. Is there rebellion?
  12. Is there war?
  13. Are there soldiers?
  14. Is there the devil?
  15. Are there animal sacrifices?
  16. Is there a Jewish priesthood?
  17. Is there a rebuilt temple?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The last days could be, in my view, pertaining to both the last days in this age and also be involving the millennium in the next age. IOW, the last days involve the past 2000 years through the 2nd coming and then the days concerning the millennium. Or if not that, the last days are only involving what you are taking them to involve, but that some of the verses in question in Isaiah 2, some of it is meaning post the last day of this age, the fact two advents of Christ are involved. If there is no millennium after the 2nd coming though, it would simply mean that----nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more---is being applied to eternity. It certainly doesn't make sense to apply that between the first advent and the 2nd advent since that contradicts what Jesus plainly said in Matthew 24:6-8, for one.



I'm certain some of what is recorded in Isaiah 2 applies to this same time period. It is clear that the time period involving these verses you submitted, that this is meaning between the first and 2nd advent and not after the 2nd advent instead. It is not clear, in Isaiah 2:1-4, that every single bit of it only involves the time period between His first and 2nd advent. It's possible that some of it can be meaning after His 2nd advent.





Just because I don't take Acts 2:17, which quotes Joel 2:28, in the literal sense like you described, yet I interpret some of Isaiah 2 a bit differently, I don't see how that's making me inconsistent here? I'm factoring in other things as well, such as what I submitted above. Plus, to me, the fact the text in Isaiah 2:4 clearly does not say only some nations shall not lift up sword against only some nations, neither shall only some nations learn war any more---it does not say that----it says nation shall not lift sword against nation, therefore, there is zero reason to think it's not meaning every single nation.

Over this past few years you have argued for 2 bindings of Satan, 2 last days', 2 individual last days, 2 ends, 2 new heavens and new earth, 2 future glorifications and raptures. What is next? Is anything safe from this faulty mode of interpretation?
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Everything. You can't just make blanket statements like you did about Premil and Amil. What you said is simply not true.

You said "One of the biggest differences between Premil and Amil is that Premil attempts to interpret and apply passages according to reality while Amils at times do not.".

You just said this as a blanket statement, so that means you're not allowing for any exceptions to this. That's wrong. You're acting as if Amils never take scripture literally and that is not true.

Did you not see this part---at times--or are you purposely making this to mean more than I was making it to mean? If I said 'at times', what do you take that to mean in general? Doesn't that allow for other times when you might not be doing that? I never once said---while Amils do not. Instead, I said this---while Amils at times do not. And you often blame this on me for not being clear enough, when maybe the real problem is reading comprehension on your part involving some of my posts. Yet, it wouldn't surprise me if you think only someone else can exhibit reading comprehension at times, just not you, ever.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Over this past few years you have argued for 2 bindings of Satan, 2 last days', 2 individual last days, 2 ends, 2 new heavens and new earth, 2 future glorifications and raptures. What is next? Is anything safe from this faulty mode of interpretation?

You are clearly mistaking me for someone else then. Show me the posts where I argued all of that.
 
Upvote 0

jeffweedaman

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2020
778
558
60
PROSPECT
✟82,293.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Everything. You can't just make blanket statements like you did about Premil and Amil. What you said is simply not true.

You said "One of the biggest differences between Premil and Amil is that Premil attempts to interpret and apply passages according to reality while Amils at times do not.".

You just said this as a blanket statement, so that means you're not allowing for any exceptions to this. That's wrong. You're acting as if Amils never take scripture literally and that is not true.

A major example is how we interpret 2 Peter 3 to be saying that the heavens and earth will be literally burned up when Christ returns. You take that figuratively, which is not actually the norm for premils. Regardless, the point remains that you don't take it literally like Amils do. And Amils take a passage like 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 very literally to be speaking of Jesus taking vengeance on literally all people who don't know God and don't obey the gospel of Christ when He returns and Premils do not. And there are plenty of other examples like this that I can point to where Amils take scripture more literally than Premils do.

Your use of the term "reality" here is inappropriate and offensive. You interpret the passage to be literally referring to deception in general while Amils see it as referring to Satan no longer having the ability to keep the nations in spiritual darkness like he was able to do in Old Testament times.

Amils believe Revelation 20 speaks of reality, but in a figurative or symbolic way. The symbolism symbolizes reality. It's not as if we see it all as being fictional instead of real. That's why I don't like your use of the term "reality" here. Revelation 20 speaks of spiritual reality using figurative language.

No, premils tend to take things literally rather than figuratively. Both views base things on reality. You seem to have this false perception that figurative language equates to fictional language, which is not the case.

That is how you interpret his binding. You can't force us to understand the nature of his binding the way you do. In the way we interpret his binding he is bound in reality. He really was bound in reality from preventing the light of the gospel to spread to the Gentile nations.

There's already a problem with what you're saying here. It's not nations that are deceived. It's unfortunate that our English Bible translated the Greek word "ethnos" as nations in Revelation 20. Remember, it says they number "as the sand of the sea" (Revelation 20:8). So, it's referring to people. Ethnos can also be translated as "people" or "heathen" and that makes much more sense in this case since obviously the number of nations would not be "as the sand of the sea". Maybe this is a bit besides the point that we're talking about here, but I felt like this was worth pointing out, anyway.

See, you're looking at this from the standpoint of his ability to deceive at all and that is not how Amil looks at this. You're always trying to get Amils to explain our view according to how YOU see things. That makes no sense! Of course our view isn't going to make any sense according to how YOU look at things. Why don't you try to look at things the way we do so you can actually understand how we understand things for once?

You're asking the wrong question here that doesn't apply to Amils. The way YOU look at things, what Satan does when he is loosed is go out and deceive people who are not yet deceived. But, that is not how Amils look at it. What we believe he was bound from doing is not deceiving people in general, but from keeping the light of God's word, of the gospel, from spreading throughout the world. If you don't grasp what I just said, then nothing I say will make any sense to you. Let me say it one more time. Amils do not believe Satan is bound from deceiving people in general the way YOU understand his binding. We believe he was bound from keeping the light of God's word and the gospel from spreading throughout the world like he was able to in Old Testament times. Do you understand that? Please let that sink in and try to look at this from the Amil perspective if you truly want to understand what we believe and why.

So, from the Amil perspective, when he is loosed it doesn't mean he goes from not being able to deceive people to then being able to deceive people the way Premil looks at it. It means that he will be allowed again to largely silence the preaching of the gospel and keep people from understanding it and what is expected of them. I see Satan's little season as being equivalent to the time Paul wrote about in 2 Thess 2 when wickedness is no longer restrained and a mass falling away from the faith occurs.

Neither. You're only looking at this from your own Premil perspective and not from the Amil perspective. Until you try to look at things from the Amil perspective, you will continue to not even understand what we believe whether you agree with it or not. It's amazing to me that after all these years, you still really don't even understand what we believe.

I think I know now why the person didn't respond to your question. This took a lot of effort on my part to try to answer your question. And you probably still won't get it, so I suppose I've wasted my time trying to explain it to you.

Not a waste of time Brother. Really wonderfully explained post. You are blessed. Thankyou.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Spiritual Jew
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,729
12,120
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟650,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Really? Most of us where taught that but found through study that not to be true. Can you show me one Scripture that teaches (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a 3rd coming?

Does it have to be just one scripture? It's based on several passages of scripture that could be cited, along with God's very nature.

First, after the messages to the 7 churches at the beginning of Revelation, the church is no longer seen in the rest of Revelation.

Then there's this from 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
According to Jesus, what occurs on the last or final day?


The end of this age for one. No one is disputing that since the end of this age has to happen eventually. What all happens following the end of this age, that is mainly what is debatable. If this happens after the last day of this age---and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more---what exactly is it in conflict with? Do you think in the next age that nations would be lifting up sword against nations, thus instead of learning war no more, they are still learning war?

Is there any such thing as an Amil who interprets that the way you do, that they are in the military at the time? IOW, there is not one single Amil in the military since that contradicts learning war no more, right? Is that what we are to believe, that there are no Amils in the military?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are clearly mistaking me for someone else then. Show me the posts where I argued all of that.

Some of the evidence is above. The rest we can talk out: What occurs to the earth when Satan's season finishes?
 
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

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The end of this age for one. No one is disputing that since the end of this age has to happen eventually. What all happens following the end of this age, that is mainly what is debatable. If this happens after the last day of this age---and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more---what exactly is it in conflict with? Do you think in the next age that nations would be lifting up sword against nation, thus instead of learning war no more, they are still learning war?

Is there any such thing as an Amil who interprets that the way you do, that they are in the military at the time? IOW, there is not one single Amil in the military since that contradicts learning war no more, right? Is that what we are to believe, that there are no Amils in the military?

Whoa! Slow down!
  1. What does "last" mean in your understanding?
  2. What does "the end" mean in your understanding?
  3. If the word “last” carries any actual literal meaning, if "the end" carries any actual literal meaning, how can there be time, a temporal age or days after the “last day”/“the end”?
  4. Do you believe "the last (eschatos) days" are "the last (eschatos) days"?
  5. Do you believe "the last (eschatos) day" is "the last (eschatos) day"?
  6. Do you believe "the end" (telos) is "the end" (telos)?
  7. Do you believe "the last (eschatos) trump" is "the last (eschatos) trump"?
  8. Can you show me of one single passage where Christ, Paul or any of the Apostles identified the last days with anything other than the intra-Advent period?
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does it have to be just one scripture? It's based on several passages of scripture that could be cited, along with God's very nature.

First, after the messages to the 7 churches at the beginning of Revelation, the church is no longer seen in the rest of Revelation.

Have you even objectively studied this for yourself? I will give you 15 solid reason why this reasoning is ridiculous and should be swiftly rejected.

(1) The word “Church,” as in the elect redeemed (born again) Church, is not mentioned anywhere in Revelation. There are only references to the local churches (which includes saved and unsaved) in Asia Minor in the last book in the Bible.
(2) The whole book of Revelation was written to local churches in Asia Minor 2,000 years ago for the expressed purpose of encouraging them in their hour of trial.
(3) Words, terms, titles and descriptions that are repeatedly used elsewhere in the New Testament to describe the Church of Jesus Christ are used regularly in Revelation 4 to 19 to describe the true Church of Jesus Christ.
(4) The apostate “churches” and their phony believers miss the rapture and enter this supposed 7 year tribulation, according to Pretrib – but the non-mention of the apostate “churches” must prove they are not on earth either. Where have they gone to?
(5) The word “Church” is not found in Revelation 4 in the Pretrib rapture
(6) The word “Church” is not found in the heavenly passages between Revelation 4 and 19. Using Pretrib logic, then they must not be in heaven either.
(7) The word “Church” is not found in Revelation 19 for the Pretrib 3rd Coming. So, they cannot be part of that supposed event.
(8) The word “Church” not found in Revelation 20 in the millennium. They cannot therefore be part of that period of time.
(9) The word ‘“Church” not found in Revelation 21 in the eternal state. They cannot therefore be part of the eternal state.
(10) The word ‘“Church” not found in many places throughout the New Testament.
(11) The word ‘“Church” is not found in all the popular Pretrib proof texts.
(12) What about the absence of the word “Jew” and “Hebrew” from Revelation 4-19, and the absence of the word “Israel” after Revelation 7.
(13) What about the non-mention of the popular Pretrib term ‘tribulation saints’ in Revelation 4-19?
(14) Whilst “the Church” has been caught up at the Coming of Christ, even Pretrib teaches that local churches continue to exist after the rapture! Why are these churches not mentioned?
(15) Does the strange silence of the word “Christian” in Revelation 1-3 not prove Christians are not present or in view?

Then there's this from 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17

Really? 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:9 is probably the most commonly presented reading in the Bible forwarded to support a Pretrib rapture. However, it is a text that is so often misunderstood and therefore misinterpreted. In fact, there is a lot imputed into it that is frankly not there. There is a lot that is overlooked that should be carefully noted. We should therefore start our study by considering this important text.

There is one thing that every true Bible student will be in agreement on and that is that this passage is a vivid record of Christ’s coming and what accompanies it. The text declares: “if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain ‘shall be caught up’ [Gr. harpazō] together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.”

One thing we should acknowledge as we dissect this text is that “the coming of the Lord” is synonymous here with “the day of the Lord.” Moreover, this passage is exhorting the Church to remain watchful as this final day approaches. Man should prepare himself for this great and terrible day because it will spell the end of time, the end of the wicked and the end of all rebellion.

After comforting the Church, Paul then warns it: Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.”

After outlining the awfulness of that day for those left behind, the suddenness of its arrival, and the fact that none left behind will escape, Paul makes clear that we are not ignorant of this day and will therefore not be caught unprepared. Christ is going to rescue us – by being caught up – from this awful sudden and total destruction that is going to destroy the wicked. Clearly, we are here when the coming of Christ arrives as a thief in the night, but are prepared and, as a consequence, rescued to escape the awful destruction.

Therefore, there are not two separate comings or parousias of the Lord separated by a notional 7-year period – one for His Church and another with His Church. In fact, nowhere in this reading does it even vaguely intimate such. The second coming (parousia) of the Lord will see the immediate and complete rescue of the saved and the immediate and complete destruction of the damned (ruling out any notion that the tribulation comes after the second advent).

The wrath of God that arrives on this climactic day is described as “sudden destruction.” This whole narrative is a record of Christ’s one and only future coming. Contrary to what Pretribs impute into this text (namely that that Christ is only coming “for” His saints), this reading describes how Christ comes both “with” and “for” His people the next time. Verse 14 of our reading explicitly states, “them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” Those living will be “caught up” to meet Jesus when He appears. This is the ultimate uniting of the elect on earth (the live in Christ) and those in heaven (the dead in Christ).
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,472
2,327
43
Helena
✟206,490.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Those verses were apt and on topic and rebutted your claims. To address them would have caused you to acknowledge the error of your position. You obviously have no answer for them.

No they weren't. The verse is about nation not going to war with other nations
and you twisted it into "that's the peace those in Christ experience when receiving the gospel"

the Isaiah 2 is talking about a state of the world, not a state of mind.

The folly of doing this is as Peter describes it.. to your own destruction.
the OP of this thread twisted the going forth of the Antichrist.. into Jesus Christ.
that's how bad you guys can get with this.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: JulieB67
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but I'm not Amil and I also believe He will meet us in the air. That's the rapture, which takes place before the Great Tribulation.
No, it doesn't take place before the "Great Tribulation", but at least you understand what I was saying. But, arguing pre-trib vs. post-trib is not really the point of this thread, so I won't say any more about that here.
 
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

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not a waste of time Brother. Really wonderfully explained post. You are blessed. Thankyou.
I appreciate that, Jeff. Thank you. It's such a chore just to get some people to even understand what we Amils believe since they don't seem to want to make the effort to try to look at things from our perspective in order to understand it. So, because of that, they end up wasting a lot of time making straw man arguments that don't relate to what we actually believe. Which can be a bit frustrating at times.
.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No they weren't. The verse is about nation not going to war with other nations
and you twisted it into "that's the peace those in Christ experience when receiving the gospel"

the Isaiah 2 is talking about a state of the world, not a state of mind.

The folly of doing this is as Peter describes it.. to your own destruction.
the OP of this thread twisted the going forth of the Antichrist.. into Jesus Christ.
that's how bad you guys can get with this.

Premils want to literalize that which is spiritual and spiritualize that which is literal. The kingdom of God that Christ introduced was of a spiritual nature. This absolutely confounded the Pharisees and their misguided earthly carnal concept of the Messianic kingdom.

The Jewish expectation was a literal visible territorial kingdom of which the Messiah – the King – would rule over. They believed He would immediately destroy every enemy that withstood the house of Israel. Their mistaken thinking was guided by a hyper-literalist attitude to Old Testament Messianic prophecies. These Christ confronted and exposed in His teaching. This expectation of a literal visible territorial kingdom was wrong, and revealed the ignorance which controlled the Jews at that time. They had a defective perception of the nature of God’s kingdom and the manner in which it would appear.

The Messianic kingdom is here now. Can I remind you that the Messiah came as king with His kingdom a long time ago? Just because you reject that does not in any way negate it. Your theology causes you to dismiss it. Like the Pharisees, you fail to see the eschatological nature of His First Advent and the kingdom of God. That is the very reason why the Pharisees nailed Him to a tree. When Christ appeared at His first advent, the Jews imagined He would reinstate the now defunct earthly throne of Israel and reign victorious over the physical nation, restoring their ancient borders. The Jewish expectation was a literal visible territorial kingdom of which the Messiah the King would rule over. They believed He would immediately destroy every enemy that withstood the house of Israel and usher in a period of physical and spiritual bliss for Israel.

When someone gets saved they enter into the kingdom of God, which is a spiritual kingdom and incorporates the whole domain over-which the Lord Jesus Christ exercises spiritual control. This kingship refers to the whole realm in which the rule of man becomes the rule of God; it is the area where the law of God and of righteousness are pre-eminent.

In John 3:3 Jesus declared: Except a man be born again (or born from above), he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

We experience the kingdom of God through supernatural birth from above whereby we are supernaturally changed from a child of darkness to a child of God. Be assured, we cannot change ourselves. It must be a new birth.

Jesus continues in John 3:5, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

One can only “see” and “enter” the kingdom of God by grace through faith. None of us can earn it. None of us deserve it. Before you pat yourself on the back, remember even faith is a gift from God.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
9,042
3,450
USA
Visit site
✟202,084.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate that, Jeff. Thank you. It's such a chore just to get some people to even understand what we Amils believe since they don't seem to want to make the effort to try to look at things from our perspective in order to understand it. So, because of that, they end up wasting a lot of time making straw man arguments that don't relate to what we actually believe. Which can be a bit frustrating at times.
.

Your writing on this matter is not in vain. It is very powerful and compelling. That is why it is being ducked around on every thread. Premil has no answer for it.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not fudging the issue, I'm saying it's pointless when you take any verse given and twist it so hard that I'm surprised juice isn't coming out of it.
Your position is entirely built on private interpretation and trying to twist scripture to say what you want it to say.

I threw Isaiah 2:4 at you, you twisted it to mean what you want it to mean.
Actually, it looks like you are the one twisting scripture to mean what you want it to mean. Other scripture speaks of "the last days" as being the days BEFORE Christ's return. But, you turn "the last days" into days that occur AFTER His return.

For example, look at this passage:

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

Clearly, the last days here refer to days that are prior to Jesus's second coming since it's talking about people scoffing at the idea of His second coming. So, why do you change the last days to be after His second coming instead? Is that not a case of twisting scripture to mean what you want it to mean? It seems so to me.
 
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

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Site Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The last days could be, in my view, pertaining to both the last days in this age and also be involving the millennium in the next age. IOW, the last days involve the past 2000 years through the 2nd coming and then the days concerning the millennium. Or if not that, the last days are only involving what you are taking them to involve, but that some of the verses in question in Isaiah 2, some of it is meaning post the last day of this age, the fact two advents of Christ are involved. If there is no millennium after the 2nd coming though, it would simply mean that----nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more---is being applied to eternity. It certainly doesn't make sense to apply that between the first advent and the 2nd advent since that contradicts what Jesus plainly said in Matthew 24:6-8, for one.
I think it's rather convenient for you to see it that way when none of the other references to "the last days" can be understood in that way. Instead, it's only talking about days that occur BEFORE the return of Christ. But, don't take my word for it. Let's look at those passages and see.

Acts 2:16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people
. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

Is the passage above talking about days before or after the return of Christ?

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

Is the passage above talking about days before or after the return of Christ?

2 Timothy 3:1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,

Is the passage above talking about days before or after the return of Christ?

James 5:1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.

Is the passage above talking about days before or after the return of Christ?

2 Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

Is the passage above talking about days before or after the return of Christ?

I'm certain some of what is recorded in Isaiah 2 applies to this same time period. It is clear that the time period involving these verses you submitted, that this is meaning between the first and 2nd advent and not after the 2nd advent instead. It is not clear, in Isaiah 2:1-4, that every single bit of it only involves the time period between His first and 2nd advent. It's possible that some of it can be meaning after His 2nd advent.
I disagree. I think we should interpret "the last days" consistently in each passage that refers to "the last days" or else we're doing what someone just accused us Amils of doing (twisting scripture to say what we want it to mean).

Just because I don't take Acts 2:17, which quotes Joel 2:28, in the literal sense like you described, yet I interpret some of Isaiah 2 a bit differently, I don't see how that's making me inconsistent here?
Because you're taking one passage very literally in relation to the last days, but not the other one. How is that not inconsistent? How are you determining that Acts 2:17 is not meant to be talking literally in terms of speaking of literally all people but Isaiah 2 is speaking literally of all people and nations?

I'm factoring in other things as well, such as what I submitted above. Plus, to me, the fact the text in Isaiah 2:4 clearly does not say only some nations shall not lift up sword against only some nations, neither shall only some nations learn war any more---it does not say that----it says nation shall not lift sword against nation, therefore, there is zero reason to think it's not meaning every single nation.
If you interpret that in a literal sense like you're doing, that's true. But, why do you not interpret Acts 2:17 similarly when it says in the last days God would pour out His Spirit on "all people"?
 
Upvote 0