- Oct 22, 2019
- 7,474
- 2,327
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
Come on. You need to stop this ignorance and pay attention to what Amils actually believe. Do you think it helps your cause to misrepresent what we believe? It definitely does not. You said this:
We believe that the resurrection of Christ happened 3 days after the cross and that we all spiritually have part in His resurrection. But, this happens over time. I didn't spiritually have part in His resurrection at the cross. We spiritually have part in His resurrection when we become spiritually saved. To say that many amils believe that the resurrection of all the saints happened at the cross is simply not true.
No, in Eph 2:4-6 Paul is talking about something that is true now. We have been made spiritually alive in Christ after previously being spiritually dead in sins. We are spiritually saved now. We have been spiritually raised up together and have been made to spiritually sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus now. He was talking about a current reality throughout that passage.
Did someone say that Satan's defeat has already been played out (as if Rev 20:10 already happened or something)? I truly have no idea of why you're saying this to me as if I didn't know this. It's quite clear to me that you don't have a good understanding of what Amils believe and that's why you're constantly misrepresenting what we believe.
You're not getting it. Your Premil bias is getting in the way of the reality of what Christ did to Satan long ago. Because Christ is there at the right hand of the Father in heaven, there is no place there for Satan anymore. You say he can accuse but his accusations are pointless? No, he can't accuse us of anything because our sins are forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ. Why would God even allow him to accuse us, knowing that it would be pointless? That makes no sense. No, he has no access to heaven anymore because he can't accuse us and there can't be a place for both Him and Christ there. It is because Christ defeated him that he can't be in heaven any longer.
Romans 8:34 has Christ actively interceding for us.
Interceding against WHAT then if no accusations are taking place?
Are you a Calvinist? Do you think these people never have any choice in the matter of what they believe? If so, then how do any Muslims or people in other religions ever convert to Christianity? With the way you're looking at it, it would be impossible for any of them to ever convert to Christianity.
Do you think these people who you think can't help but reject the gospel will have an excuse on judgment day? Will they be able to tell Jesus: "Well, we were pre-hardened and pre-disposed to believing in Islam, so we couldn't believe in You. I'm sure You understand and will grant us entrance to the new heavens and new earth rather than cast us into the lake of fire.". Is this a scenario that you would see as viable on judgment day?
Why does God command all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) if (supposedly) not all people everywhere can repent?
That is also a tension, and I can't firmly place myself within a Calvinist or Arminian camp. To be honest, I'm not sure Paul could either. Paul wrote Romans 9, which is one of the strongest arguments for Calvinism, but Paul also wrote Romans 10, which is one of the strongest arguments for Free Will and agency in our salvation.
But what Paul taught in 2 Corinthians 4:4 was that the god of this world, so.. active, currently deceiving Satan, has blinded (that is, past tense, it already happened) them.
This is not some neutral stance where they get introduced to the Gospel, reject it, and then Satan blinds them, because that also doesn't work, I rejected the Gospel the first time I heard it (although to be fair, I don't think it was really the Gospel but more of a Catholic works based salvation "gospel"), and many others reject it multiple times and some eventually come to faith, some do not, Paul persecuted Christians, oh he knew their beliefs, so he'd heard the Gospel, but he actively persecuted against it, so he rejected it, until the encounter on the road to Damascus. So rejecting the gospel does not lead to being blinded by Satan.. you were already blinded before you believed.
That's where the idea of Satan currently being bound falls flat in Paul's teachings. That Satan has already blinded people to the Gospel, and here that tension comes in, where is it a choice of the person to believe when they hear, or God granting repentance to them to be able to believe. Again I can't place myself firmly in either camp, and it's the writings of Paul that actually make it hardest to decide one way or the other.
I brought up 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:6 which doesn't say anything about Satan. Why don't you actually address that passage and what I said about it instead of going on a tangent? You're coming across here that you don't want to deal with the points I made there. Is that true? If not, then please address that passage and what I said about it. How do you interpret it?
Because the Amillennial doctrine that I'm arguing that Paul is against, is Satan being bound and not deceiving the nations. Paul teaches a dangerous Satan, Amillennialism teaches a toothless Satan (just watch sg whenever he goes into his doxology as defense posture).
1 Thessalonians 4 is irrelevant to that doctrine.
Upvote
0