Did i call you foolish for being incorrect about how participles work? No. Did I call you foolish for being incorrect about how “rewards” are defined? No.
You'd stated at least 4 times that I'd said something that I didn't actually say and I kept telling you that I did not say that. You kept insisting that I did. So than I said that if you keep insisting that I was saying something that I wasn't saying, than at this point you are looking foolish.
You finally admitted: OK, it's now clear to (you - claninja) that I (Righterzpen) didn't say what you'd been accusing me of saying.
Let’s avoid personal attacks.
OK, are you going to apologize to me now for accusing me of saying something I didn't say?
Did i call you foolish for being incorrect about how participles work? No.
If verb participles modify other verbs, than what verb is "overcome" modifying in Revelation 3:21? (You never answered that question.) And you didn't address that "overcame" is still a verb that is in the present tense.
So if I concede that you are correct that "to grant" is the main verb; and "overcame" and "to sit" are participles that are still present tense. What verb is left for "overcame" and "to sit" to modify? How do you reconcile that grammatically?
Then comes this question. Despite the fact that "will grant" is future tense related to "to sit". When do believer "sit" and why?
(Assuming "to sit" has some connection to the work being finished; thus why Jesus, when his work was finished, "sat down at the right hand of the Father." It would not make sense that "to sit" would be connected to "reigning" because why would "to grant" be future tense when "to sit" is not? Why would Jesus (future tense) grant someone a position "to reign" that they already possess? But if Jesus is "to grant" them "to sit" (as completion of work - despite "to sit" is present tense) because in the context of "reigning" they are already "sitting". That would make sense to me.
Now can one "reign" and not be "sitting"?
If one assumes Jesus "sat" upon the ascension, because His work was completed; yes one could be "sitting" as in "reigning"; but not "sitting" as in "completed work". We do see this, because in Ephesians 1; it says Christ "reigns" at the resurrection; despite the fact that he was on earth and not literally "sitting" (completed work sitting) next to the Father. Yet, no question that Christ was "reigning".
So if Jesus could be "reigning" and not "sitting" (because His work wasn't done); could believers also be "reigning" and not "sitting" in the sense of work being completed? (Yes, they could; because their work is not complete.)
Did I call you foolish for being incorrect about how “rewards” are defined? No.
I still do not think you have "rewards" defined correctly. And therefore I have not been incorrect about how I've defined rewards; except only in your opinion.
And even at this point, you have not provided a cohesive and coherent explanation of what you think the "rewards" are actually. And seeing how rewards have more to do with either post death, or the new heavens and the new earth; I asked you why does it matter? Why are you so focused on what kind of reward do you think you are going to get?
1.) the op is about Verb tenses and how they disprove premil
2.) the op claims believers reign now, but does not provide one verse that states believers reign with a present tense verb.
3.) the timing of giving of rewards such as authority over nations and sitting on throne is detrimental to interpreting
revelation 20:4, since that is when the saints live again and reign with Christ. Since the OP is about verb tenses, using
revelation 2:25-26 and
revelation 3:21, we can see that the giving of authority over nations and giving of the right to sit on the throne is future tense.
OK; so at this point, I think your issue, as related to the OP, is now a little clearer. Your argument really has nothing to do with rewards; it has more to do with when do believers reign. If a reward is either upon death, or in the new heavens and new earth; that's not related to when the "reigning" is happening.
Now are believers still "ruling over cities" after death, seeing how the timeline of the current cosmos doesn't end until the recreation of the heavens and earth? I would conclude that the answer to that would be "yes" seeing how Christ hasn't stopped reigning since He rose from the dead.
So does "to grant" "to sit" in Revelation 3:21 have to do with death, or the recreation of the cosmos? I assumed that it had do do with death, because once a believer died it seemed logical that their "work" would be "done"; but reconsidering it now? Is a believer's work really done after death? The real answer to that would be when does Christ "sit"?
Does Christ "sit" more than once and in different contexts?
Revelation 3:21 talks about believers sitting with Christ on Christ's throne as Christ sat with the Father on the Father's throne.
Matthew 19:28, Matthew 25:31 talk about Jesus sitting on His own throne of His own glory. And Matthew 25:31 that context is clearly the 2nd coming. (And in other places we see that the 2nd coming clearly is Judgement Day and the next event to follow is the recreation of the cosmos.
So.... apparently, there is more than one context to sitting on a throne.
The op needs to overcome these obstacles in order to have a more effective argument against premil. (I’m not premil, I’m a preterist).
Interesting!
So how would you resolve these issues; because as a preterist; you have the same problem the amillennialist does. Unless you're a full preterist. (Which Scripture is pretty clear that the final resurrection hasn't happened yet.)
