When was Satan bound?

Douggg said:

The wicked destroyed at Jesus's Second Coming are them who will have been persecuting the saints during the great tribulation.

Click to expand...

Please tell me where you see that in the following passages which refer to those who will be destroyed at His second coming:

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

None of these passages support what you're saying. Instead, they all speak of all of the wicked, without exception, being destroyed at His second coming.

Spiritual Jew said:

Are you talking about Revelation 20 or 2 Peter 3:8? Because I thought we were talking about 2 Peter 3:8 here. And I don't believe 2 Peter 3:8 has anything to do with Revelation 20. In 2 Peter 3:8, I believe a literal 24 hour day is compared to a literal one thousand years and it's saying there's no difference between them to the Lord.

Click to expand...

I never realized that I guess, that you take both one day and a thousand years in a literal sense in that verse. So how is it then that a thousand years can be literal in 2 Peter 3:8 but not be literal in Revelation 20? It's still a thousand years no matter what. It is still the same type of thousand years that 2 Peter 3:8 is referring to. Why wouldn't it be?

I have been doing some rethinking yet again and am now entertaining the possibility that 24 hours might be meant by one day after all. But not because of anything you or anyone else has said in this thread, but because math is a subject I like, not complicated math like Einstein's, but basic math instead, and that while Googling this verse(2 Peter 3:8) yesterday I ran across some articles that I found rather interesting but that you likely would not, unless of course math formulas are something that interests you. They were using mathematical formulas involving 24 hours and a thousand years and coming up with some very interesting stuff. Some of it seems to perhaps explain what is meant by one hour in Revelation, as an example, as to how much time that might involve since it isn't meaning a literal hour.

Douggg said:

The 1000 year millennium period is God's day of rest for humanity.


Isaiah 2:1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Click to expand...

Doug, scripture consistently speaks of "the last days" in terms of being a time period that occurs BEFORE the return of Christ and leading up to the return of Christ, not to a time period that occurs after the return of Christ. There's no reason to think that Isaiah 2 is any different. The only reason you could come to that conclusion is due to a lack of discernment in determining what is figurative and what is literal.

This is what Peter said in regards to what was happening on the day of Pentecost:

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.

The passage above shows that the last days began already a long time ago.

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.”

The passage above shows that the last days lead up to the second coming of Christ.

DavidPT said:

Why don't you provide us with the answers to all of those questions by using the following to do it with?

Ezekiel 38:16 And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter('achariyth) days(yowm), and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.

In Isaiah 2 last days are the same Hebrew words 'achariyth yowm. So prove your point using Ezekiel 38:16 in order to do so. But if you can't or won't one then has to wonder why not? Keeping in mind that there are those reading this thread who are not participating in it. I'm sure most of those are interested to see whether you are treating the last days in Ezekiel 38:16 in the same manner as Isaiah 2 so that they can judge whether or not you might be correct here.
Because any reasonable person could not possibly think there is more that one last days. If there is, how is it that we are still here since last days obviously have to have a last day eventually, otherwise they are not the last days after all?

Click to expand...

Please see what I said above to Doug. Scripture is quite clear that the last days refers to the time period between the first and second coming of Christ, so why would you try to deny that? Actually, I thought I saw you comment in a different post that you agreed with that? Did you change your mind again already?

As for the last day, what do the following passages indicate about that?

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

John 12:48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

Here we have scripture which indicates that both the resurrection of believers and the condemnation of unbelievers will happen on the last day. We know that believers will be resurrected on the day Christ returns. Scripture says that will be the last day. The last day of the last days, in other words. The judgment will occur that day as well and it is portrayed in Matthew 25:31-46. This clearly all supports Amil.

Douggg said:

Have the nations beaten their swords into plowshares and no longer make war against one another, yes or no?

Click to expand...

Has the Holy Spirit been poured out on all people? Yes or no?

Acts 2:14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 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.

DavidPT said:

I never realized that I guess, that you take both one day and a thousand years in a literal sense in that verse.

Click to expand...

That is because you sometimes don't pay close enough attention to what I'm actually saying and you make assumptions about what I'm saying.

So how is it then that a thousand years can be literal in 2 Peter 3:8 but not be literal in Revelation 20?

Click to expand...

Because there is no direct relationship between the two passages. They have completely different contexts. 2 Peter 3:8 has absolutely nothing to do with what is written in Revelation 20 as it relates to the thousand years.

It's still a thousand years no matter what. It is still the same type of thousand years that 2 Peter 3:8 is referring to. Why wouldn't it be?

Click to expand...

Because it isn't. In 2 Peter 3:8, Peter is simply reminding his readers that God is eternal and time has no effect on Him. Even though he used a thousand years to compare to one 24 hour day, he could have compared a 24 hour day to any long period of time to make his point. Most likely he used the phrase "a thousand years" because he had Psalm 90:4 in mind. What he said in 2 Peter 3:8 had nothing to do with what Revelation 20 is about, so there's no basis for saying that "a thousand years" has to mean the same thing in both passages. If the two passages had the same context then you might have a point. But, they don't, so your point is invalid.

I have been doing some rethinking yet again and am now entertaining the possibility that 24 hours might be meant by one day after all. But not because of anything you or anyone else has said in this thread, but because math is a subject I like, not complicated math like Einstein's, but basic math instead, and that while Googling this verse(2 Peter 3:8) yesterday I ran across some articles that I found rather interesting but that you likely would not, unless of course math formulas are something that interests you. They were using mathematical formulas involving 24 hours and a thousand years and coming up with some very interesting stuff. Some of it seems to perhaps explain what is meant by one hour in Revelation, as an example, as to how much time that might involve since it isn't meaning a literal hour.

Click to expand...

Okay, so what is your point here then? Can you tell me now how you currently interpret 2 Peter 3:8? What do you think was Peter's point in 2 Peter 3:8?

Spiritual Jew said:

Please tell me where you see that in the following passages which refer to those who will be destroyed at His second coming:

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

None of these passages support what you're saying. Instead, they all speak of all of the wicked, without exception, being destroyed at His second coming.

Click to expand...

But the problem is this, none of that is factoring in any of the following, thus neglecting to take it into consideration as well. Amils seem to only be interested in one sided arguments a lot of the time, that being what only the NT has to say and not what both the OT and the NT together have to say.

Zechariah 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


The question then is, in light of these verses what do those verses you brought up in the NT ultimately mean?

JulieB67 said:

I agree with this. But I think it's because the world at that point will be ensnared by Satan and co and that point. They will be fooled by this disguised angel of light and it will be God that sends that strong delusion because many (and many Christians) would rather believe the lie (falling for Satan instead of waiting on the true Christ at the 7th) than accept the love of the truth. I also think that's why Christ often warned he comes an hour most do not expect. What would be an hour most do not expect? When they think Christ has already returned. That's the great shame and the deception and why Paul says the armour is needed. To stand in that "evil day".

I think yes, it's about spiritual status but again, I do believe most of the world will be in that spiritual darkness including many Christians (foolish virgins who did not have enough oil) but they feel that sense of false peace and safety.

Click to expand...

While I don't completely agree with everything you said here, I'm glad you at least recognize that it's talking about people feeling a false sense of peace and safety in a spiritual sense instead of thinking it has anything to do with the world itself being peaceful and safe.

Spiritual Jew said:

While I don't completely agree with everything you said here, I'm glad you at least recognize that it's talking about people feeling a false sense of peace and safety in a spiritual sense instead of thinking it has anything to do with the world itself being peaceful and safe.

Click to expand...

What I tend to think it might relate to is this.

Revelation 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

It would be during the time of verse 10 that they are saying peace and safety. And what soon follows after this period of time when they are rejoicing like that? The 7th trumpet soon follows, where I take that to involve the DOTL. This doesn't mean I'm taking any of the above in a literal sense then. It just means to me that verse 10 seems to fit with a time involving peace and safety, meaning from their perspective since the 2Ws tormenting them at times, the beast has finally killed them. Then soon after, sudden destruction comes upon them, meaning the 7th trumpet.

DavidPT said:

But the problem is this, none of that is factoring in any of the following, thus neglecting to take it into consideration as well. Amils seem to only be interested in one sided arguments a lot of the time, that being what only the NT has to say and not what both the OT and the NT together have to say.

Click to expand...

The NT interprets the OT for us. That is what Premils like yourself don't get.

Zechariah 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


The question then is, in light of these verses what do those verses you brought up in the NT ultimately mean?

Click to expand...

This passage doesn't change what those passages clearly say. Is there something unclear about the passages I quoted? Is there some way that unbelievers will survive the burning up of the earth? Did Paul make any exceptions to who would be destroyed when Christ returns when he indicated that it would be those who don't know God and don't obey the gospel of Christ? Was Jesus trying to confuse people when He pointed out that just as all unbelievers were killed in the flood in Noah's day, "so shall also the coming of the Son of man be"?

This is the problem with Premil. Its foundation is highly debatable and very difficult to interpret scripture such as Zechariah 14 while Amil has its foundation on much more clear scripture passages. If you interpret Zechariah 14 to apply to a time period after the return of Christ, that contradicts other scripture as I've told you many times before. Other scripture, such as Hebrews 8-10, makes it quite clear that Christ made the "once for all" final sacrifice for sins and that God takes no pleasure in and has no desire for animal sacrifices and offerings like those offered under the old covenant.

If Zechariah 14 were to have a literal fulfillment after the return of Christ then that would mean animal sacrifices would be reinstated, which cannot happen because it would be a complete insult to Christ's once for all sacrifice. A literal keeping of the feast of tabernacles in the future would require animal sacrifices because animal sacrifices are required for observing the feast of tabernacles.

So, what do you do about this? You deny that it indicates that animal sacrifices would be reinstated. Which shows complete ignorance and a denial of what observing the feast of tabernacles involves.

Can you remind me again, David, of how you interpret 2 Peter 3? Can you tell me how unbelievers will survive what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12?

DavidPT said:

What I tend to think it might relate to is this.

Revelation 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

It would be during the time of verse 10 that they are saying peace and safety. And what soon follows after this period of time when they are rejoicing like that? The 7th trumpet soon follows, where I take that to involve the DOTL. This doesn't mean I'm taking any of the above in a literal sense then. It just means to me that verse 10 seems to fit with a time involving peace and safety, meaning from their perspective since the 2Ws tormenting them at times, the beast has finally killed them. Then soon after, sudden destruction comes upon them, meaning the 7th trumpet.

Click to expand...

So, coming back to 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, who exactly is it that you think will be saying "peace and safety" on which will come "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape" then?

Wouldn't it be the same ones "who don't know God and don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" that Paul said Christ will take vengeance on when He returns (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)? The ones that Paul says will refuse "to love the truth and so be saved" and "who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)?

Spiritual Jew said:

So, coming back to 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, who exactly is it that you think will be saying "peace and safety" on which will come "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape" then?

Wouldn't it be the same ones "who don't know God and don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" that Paul said Christ will take vengeance on when He returns (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)? The ones that Paul says will refuse "to love the truth and so be saved" and "who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)?

Click to expand...

I would think it involves everything you brought up, therefore, what I submitted from Revelation 11 needs to be interpreted in light of those verses as well. And not, that those verses are pertaining to something Revelation 11 isn't.

One of the verses you brought up says this---and don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. How can that be applicable to someone unless they are a professed Christian first? Take atheists, for example. How would that be applicable to them when they don't even believe in a God to begin with, let alone a gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Notice that it says our rather than the Lord Jesus Christ. What could pertain to atheists might be this part--who don't know God. The point I'm trying to get at then, it seems a lot of Christians, maybe not you though, automatically assume this part---and don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ--is meaning all of the lost in general and is not meaning professed Christians instead, or that it can't include them, because to them, once saved always saved.

sovereigngrace said:

The foolish virgins are not Christians

Click to expand...

Well, I liken these foolish virgins to the "falling away" Paul talks about. All of the virgins are planning to meet the bridegroom. So that points to me they are believers at some point. Just as the" falling away indicates" people departing from the truth.

While the bridegroom tarried that they fell asleep symbolic of the fact that we need to stay awake and be sober and wait on the true Christ at the 7th instead of falling away to the fake.

JulieB67 said:

Well, I liken these foolish virgins to the "falling away" Paul talks about. All of the virgins are planning to meet the bridegroom. So that points to me they are believers at some point. Just as the" falling away indicates" people departing from the truth.

While the bridegroom tarried that they fell asleep symbolic of the fact that we need to stay awake and be sober and wait on the true Christ at the 7th instead of falling away to the fake.

Click to expand...

The falling away relates to apostates. Those who outwardltly profess Christ but do not possess Him.

DavidPT said:

I would think it involves everything you brought up, therefore, what I submitted from Revelation 11 needs to be interpreted in light of those verses as well. And not, that those verses are pertaining to something Revelation 11 isn't.

One of the verses you brought up says this---and don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. How can that be applicable to someone unless they are a professed Christian first? Take atheists, for example. How would that be applicable to them when they don't even believe in a God to begin with, let alone a gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Notice that it says our rather than the Lord Jesus Christ. What could pertain to atheists might be this part--who don't know God.

Click to expand...

David, I think you will try to do anything to get around the obvious in order to keep your Premil doctrine afloat. That is what I see you doing here. That verse is simply referring to those who don't accept the gospel and reject it instead. That would include atheists who reject the gospel. This is such a simple passage to interpret, but because you are so bent on looking at everything through Premil glasses, you can't even discern what straightforward passages like this are saying.

The point I'm trying to get at then, it seems a lot of Christians, maybe not you though, automatically assume this part---and don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ--is meaning all of the lost in general and is not meaning professed Christians instead, or that it can't include them, because to them, once saved always saved.

Click to expand...

Why are you making something simple so convoluted? It's simply talking about those who don't have a relationship with God which are those who reject the gospel and are not Christians. That describes all unbelievers. Jesus said that anyone who is not with Him is against Him (Matthew 12:30). In 2 Thess 1:7-9 Paul is describing those who are not with Him and are instead against Him because those who are not with Him are those who do not accept the gospel and don't have a personal relationship with God.

My interpretations of passages like 2 Thess 1:7-10, Matthew 24:37-39 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:9 line up perfectly with what Peter taught in 2 Peter 3:3-13. It makes complete sense to me that on the day Christ returns all unbelievers, which are those who don't know God and reject the gospel, will have "sudden destruction" come upon them from which "they shall not escape" by way of fire that comes down upon the entire earth. This interpretation makes all these passages agree with each other and all teach the same thing.

You didn't answer my question from the other post, so I'm going to ask it again. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, who exactly is it that you think will be saying "peace and safety" on which will come "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape"?

DavidPT said:

There is not one thing in this post that is convincing. And not because I'm Premil. Some of it even seems a bit contradictory. It's next to impossible to try and address a post like this when you are all over the place in regards to your conclusions.

Click to expand...

To you. But what is ever going to change you on this?

DavidPT said:

But the problem is this, none of that is factoring in any of the following, thus neglecting to take it into consideration as well. Amils seem to only be interested in one sided arguments a lot of the time, that being what only the NT has to say and not what both the OT and the NT together have to say.

Zechariah 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.


The question then is, in light of these verses what do those verses you brought up in the NT ultimately mean?

Click to expand...

Totally untrue. Premil has one (out-of-tune) string to their guitar - what saith Revelation 20. Amils (on the other hand) employ the full gamut of Scripture to explain Revelation 20. This is why we cannot agree. Premil hermeneutics are totally flawed. Plus: Premils literalize that which is spiritual and spiritualize that which is literal.

Spiritual Jew said:

You didn't answer my question from the other post, so I'm going to ask it again. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, who exactly is it that you think will be saying "peace and safety" on which will come "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape"?

Click to expand...

It would be the ones worshiping the beast, would it not?. Would any of those in your passages you provided be worshiping the beast at the time? I would think so, based on the following for one.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


As to what we were discussing about---and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, obey does not mean reject. There are some ppl who have never even heard of Jesus Christ. How are they then supposed to be held accountable for neglecting to obey the gospel of someone they are not even aware of?

obey
hupakouo
hoop-ak-oo'-o
from upo - hupo 5259 and akouw - akouo 191; to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by implication, to heed or conform to a command or authority:--hearken, be obedient to, obey.

In the NT the Greek word for reject is typically atheteo.

Premil vs Amil aside, the fact you are of the NONAS camp, for the life of me I can't figure out why you have an issue with---and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ---involving professed Christians? Something has to explain the falling away in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Why not that? When you read Matthew 24, for instance, such as verses Matthew 48-51, don't you even discern who that is involving? When you read the sheep and goats judgment in Matthew 25, and in light of Matthew 24:48-51 plus all of Matthew 25 up until the sheep and goats judgment, aren't you even discerning whom the goats are meaning in that context? Aren't you the one that sometimes make a big deal about discernment, where you oftentimes point out that another person lacks discernment if that is what they are concluding from the text being discussed at the time?

sovereigngrace said:

To you. But what is ever going to change you on this?

Click to expand...

It was his explanation of things I found unconvincing. The same might not be true of all Amils then, that I find their explanations unconvincing as well, though thus far that does seem to be the case. But it doesn't have to remain to be the case since an Amil might eventually say something that could make me want to change my mind about some of these things.

DavidPT said:

It was his explanation of things I found unconvincing. The same might not be true of all Amils then, that I find their explanations unconvincing as well, though thus far that does seem to be the case. But it doesn't have to remain to be the case since an Amil might eventually say something that could make me want to change my mind about some of these things.

Click to expand...

Forgive my skepticism. I don't accept that. You are probably the most entrenched Premil on here. That is your prerogative, and i would never deny you that right. But you are far from a pragmatist or open-minded. At least most Amils here have changed from Premil through the weight of the biblical text. That shows a willingness to change. For info, and for the record, most of us probably do not engage here to change you, but to speak to the open-minded observers.