Since Adam's choice was rebellion against God, and Christ's choice was obedience to God, would it be more of the contrasting parallel between the first Adam and the second Adam of 1Co 15:45; Ro 5:14-19?
I defiantly agree with you here and I think your statement is probably the most straight forward way of looking at this. What happen in Eden was the fall of man and what happened at the cross was the rise of man. So there is a polar opposite effect that takes place.Since Adam's choice was rebellion against God, and Christ's choice was obedience to God, would it be more of the contrasting parallel between the first Adam and the second Adam of 1Co 15:45; Ro 5:14-19?
Why can sin only be eradicated spiritually?? And what has this to do with the OP?
Why can sin only be eradicated spiritually?
The OP insinuates sin has to exist physically, thus no possibility of a future millennium on earth without it.
Since Adam brought sin in, sin could not exist physically before that point. Since Christ in a future fulfillment of the Covenant (the 7th Trumpet) removes sin from the earth, it will not be in the 1000 years following the battle of Armageddon.
The argument is sin is physically eradicated now, no longer exist, and thus we are in the millennium now.
What are you doing with Zechariah 14:16-19? Here we have people who willfully don’t go up to Jerusalem to worship the King and they are punished. This is sedition and in Galatians 5:19-21 it is listed as one of the sins that prevents people from inheriting the kingdom of God. Doesn’t this qualify as sin in the millennium?Since Christ in a future fulfillment of the Covenant (the 7th Trumpet) removes sin from the earth, it will not be in the 1000 years following the battle of Armageddon.
Adam did decide to give Eve the physical consequences of the unknown. But since they were unknown it could not be for carnal flesh, nor perfect spiritual bliss. They already had everything even if they did not know it. It was always doubt of some unknown "being kept from them". That is how Satan presented it.I don’t necessarily agree with these ideas so the conclusion I’ve come to is that both the first Adam and last Adam committed their actions out of love for their wife; although the actions taken created a polar opposite effect.
I don't do anything. That is your argument, not mine.You populate your millennium full of billions of fallen Satan-followers and you deny they are sinners. That is ridiculous.
Premil clearly doesn't add up. You reinforced the Op.
I don't do anything. That is your argument, not mine.
No one will answer my point about rebellion and disobedience prior to sin.What are you doing with Zechariah 14:16-19? Here we have people who willfully don’t go up to Jerusalem to worship the King and they are punished. This is sedition and in Galatians 5:19-21 it is listed as one of the sins that prevents people from inheriting the kingdom of God. Doesn’t this qualify as sin in the millennium?
I defiantly agree with you here and I think your statement is probably the most straight forward way of looking at this. What happen in Eden was the fall of man and what happened at the cross was the rise of man. So there is a polar opposite effect that takes place.
I had a conversation about this subject on the General Theology board a while ago and this topic can get quite convoluted. For instance using 2 Corinthians 5:21 an argument can be put forth that Christ actually became sin and not just the propitiation for sin; which leads to the idea that Adam became sin when he ate the fruit. Also there’s the thought that the Lamb was slain before the foundations of the earth so when man was made in the image of God it included both the initial sin and the payment for that sin.
Because they came from a polar opposite disposition, rebellion vs. obedience.I don’t necessarily agree with these ideas so the conclusion I’ve come to is that both the first Adam and last Adam committed their actions out of love for their wife; although the actions taken created a polar opposite effect.
Well, that was an "interesting" argument leading to the right conclusion.Why can sin only be eradicated spiritually?
The OP insinuates sin has to exist physically, thus no possibility of a future millennium on earth without it.
Since Adam brought sin in, sin could not exist physically before that point. Since Christ in a future fulfillment of the Covenant (the 7th Trumpet) removes sin from the earth, it will not be in the 1000 years following the battle of Armageddon.
The argument is sin is physically eradicated now, no longer exist, and thus we are in the millennium now.
So God does not use literal meanings?Well, that was an "interesting" argument leading to the right conclusion.
The 1000 is one of those numbers indicating fullness, completeness, like 7, 12, 144.
The 1000 years symbolically represents the Church Age, which in NT teaching is followed by the end of time.
Ok, I read through some of the previous posts, and want to make sure I understand you correctly. Do people enter the millennium not knowing good from evil? Satan is bound during the millennium so he can’t be the one who deceives correct? So your point about rebellion and disobedience happening without sin is what will occur during the millennium; something similar to what happened in Eden?No one will answer my point about rebellion and disobedience prior to sin.
The only answer seems to be, I do not know what I am posting. Obviously no one can answer the question, so they avoid it.
If sin was not in the world, what was sin before it existed? Even Paul claims sins is even if there is no Law. While sin and the Law address similar ideas, they are not the same thing.
A law can exist even if sin does not.
The point is Death is still the punishment for breaking a Law, to God. Trying to apply a condition where sin is present to where sin is not present is the sticking point. Some here seem to demand sin be present or God's millennium would fall apart without it.
I don't know what you are asking.Was the last 1990 years figurative as well?
Don't you think soteriology is full of literal meanings--faith, atonement, sacrifice, salvation, sanctification, justification, etc.?So God does not use literal meanings?
It's not what can happen, it's what God has declared shall happen.Some here think the Second Coming is just figurative and will never be a future literal event, as time can go on for billions of years.
Probably when trees literally clap their hands and mountains literally sing for joy.Do humans really get to dictate God's Word just arbitrarily to make things feel better? At what point will it take for humans to accept God is not just some figurative being with a set of figurative Words called the Bible?
Rebellion and sin began with angels, who were cast out, for sin cannot dwell in God's presence.No one will answer my point about rebellion and disobedience prior to sin.
In context, Paul's meaning of sin there is: there was no Mosaic law, so there was no sin, because there was no law to sin against--yet all from Adam to Moses died.The only answer seems to be, I do not know what I am posting. Obviously no one can answer the question, so they avoid it.
If sin was not in the world, what was sin before it existed?
The "millennium" represents the Church Age, which is not sinless.A law can exist even if sin does not.
The point is Death is still the punishment for breaking a Law, to God. Trying to apply a condition where sin is present to where sin is not present is the sticking point. Some here seem to demand sin be present or God's millennium would fall apart without it.
Yes, that is the point of the sounding of the 7th Trumpet.Ok, I read through some of the previous posts, and want to make sure I understand you correctly. Do people enter the millennium not knowing good from evil? Satan is bound during the millennium so he can’t be the one who deceives correct? So your point about rebellion and disobedience happening without sin is what will occur during the millennium; something similar to what happened in Eden?
So God does not use literal meanings?
Was the last 1990 years figurative as well?
Some here think the Second Coming is just figurative and will never be a future literal event, as time can go on for billions of years.
Do humans really get to dictate God's Word just arbitrarily to make things feel better? At what point will it take for humans to accept God is not just some figurative being with a set of figurative Words called the Bible?
Thanks for that response, I personally am not premill but I do try to examine how others see things.Yes, that is the point of the sounding of the 7th Trumpet.
Now adding the knowledge of good and evil is an added assumption. That is getting into the line of reasoning coming from Satan, the deceiver. The Bible never states what humans know in the next age, the 1000 year physical reign of Christ. What does the soul in Paradise know? The soul leaves one body for another. Are memories in the soul?
What about the example Jesus gave about a conversation between Abraham, a rich man, and Lazarus, after they died? Do you accept the points of the story, or only apply them figuratively as seems fit to biblical interpretation?
It is hard enough pointing out the length of this time in the proper historical chronology. Denying there is a millennium based on the way people interpret the Bible, should equally apply to now in their explanation.
The new point is that all are dead at the end of the 7th Trumpet. None of Adam's flesh and blood exist. A Resurrection of the same old same old does not make sense. Yet that is the claim to make false assumptions to prove a point, that is only interpretation any way.
If all has been destroyed as preached, then the practice of that point should apply to those resurrected. Those resurrected do not carry sin back into reality. Those resurrected are given a new experience to reign with Christ. They populate the world for 1000 years. That would see the birth of billions way more than under current conditions.
Like today, people will disagree with each other and interpret life in their own eyes. Let Satan loose on these people just like when Satan was allowed access to Adam and Eve, do we need to make up unnecessary jumps to improper conclusions? The proof would be a verse where something happens to let sin back into the world. The alternative would be that God still let's those after 1000 years reject God like every other son of God or descendant of Adam who ever lived on earth. Both are valid assumptions.
Wouldn’t the knowledge of good and evil have to be present in a future millennium for people to populate the world? Adam and Eve didn’t even know they were naked until they had the knowledge of good and evil.If all has been destroyed as preached, then the practice of that point should apply to those resurrected. Those resurrected do not carry sin back into reality. Those resurrected are given a new experience to reign with Christ. They populate the world for 1000 years. That would see the birth of billions way more than under current conditions.
Yes, that is the point of the sounding of the 7th Trumpet.
Now adding the knowledge of good and evil is an added assumption. That is getting into the line of reasoning coming from Satan, the deceiver. The Bible never states what humans know in the next age, the 1000 year physical reign of Christ. What does the soul in Paradise know? The soul leaves one body for another. Are memories in the soul?
What about the example Jesus gave about a conversation between Abraham, a rich man, and Lazarus, after they died? Do you accept the points of the story, or only apply them figuratively as seems fit to biblical interpretation?
It is hard enough pointing out the length of this time in the proper historical chronology. Denying there is a millennium based on the way people interpret the Bible, should equally apply to now in their explanation.
The new point is that all are dead at the end of the 7th Trumpet. None of Adam's flesh and blood exist. A Resurrection of the same old same old does not make sense. Yet that is the claim to make false assumptions to prove a point, that is only interpretation any way.
If all has been destroyed as preached, then the practice of that point should apply to those resurrected. Those resurrected do not carry sin back into reality. Those resurrected are given a new experience to reign with Christ. They populate the world for 1000 years. That would see the birth of billions way more than under current conditions.
Like today, people will disagree with each other and interpret life in their own eyes. Let Satan loose on these people just like when Satan was allowed access to Adam and Eve, do we need to make up unnecessary jumps to improper conclusions? The proof would be a verse where something happens to let sin back into the world. The alternative would be that God still let's those after 1000 years reject God like every other son of God or descendant of Adam who ever lived on earth. Both are valid assumptions.
Then you are saying Armageddon happened in the first century? What year?I don't know what you are asking.
The fullness of time for the Church Age is represented as 1,000 years.
The actual time could be any number.
Don't you think soteriology is full of literal meanings--faith, atonement, sacrifice, salvation, sanctification, justification, etc.?It's not what can happen, it's what God has declared shall happen.Probably when trees literally clap their hands and mountains literally sing for joy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?