One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[Spiritual Jew]

That this idea is wrong, is easily seen.
Because everything is as it always has been, since Jesus first Advent.

However, Satan will be thrown out of heaven 1260 days before Jesus Returns. Revelation 12:7-9
He will then gain world control; Daniel 7:23-25, Revelation 13:5-8

Revelation 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

Would you agree that this text implies that Satan being cast out of heaven means he can't accuse believers before God anymore?

If so, what is your answer to Paul's question in Romans 8:33?

Romans 8:33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

 

[Jamdoc]

You were including the 1000 years and Satan's little season in His second coming as well. I don't know of anyone else who does that. When people think of His second coming they might think of a brief time that occurs before that and of the day He returns and things that will happen on that day but they don't extend it out to 1000+ years afterwards or to eternity.

No every pre wrath, and while Joel Richardson still leans kind of Post Trib, he likes the Pre Wrath idea that the second coming of Christ is a more complex series of events rather than instant nuke. I mean his idea goes into that whole "second exodus" thing where the Jews are taken captive into other nations during the Great Tribulation and Jesus comes back and leads them back to Jerusalem. I don't know if I subscribe to that idea, I haven't read his book on it.

You say that the fire that Peter mentions comes down 1000+ years after Jesus returns because you see the day of the Lord as being 1000 years. How can that be in light of what Peter wrote about the day of the Lord?

I actually kind of smirked, because it's also Peter that quotes the psalms in saying that for the Lord a day is 1000 years or 1000 years a day.
so the day of the Lord lasting 1000 years doesn't at all seem off.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

and he wrote that over 1900 years ago, but the statement still holds true. It's still temporary, it's still going to be destroyed eventually. The timing of it doesn't really matter in that light.

Notice that Peter says the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. You have yet to explain how your understanding of this passage lines up with that. Can you please do that? How will the day of the Lord come as a thief in the night in your view?

We don't know how many days Jesus cuts the 1260 days short for the sake of the elect.
However 1 Thessalonians 5 Paul talks that if we're watching and preparing ourselves it won't overtake us as a thief.
It'll overtake the world as a thief, but we'll anticipate it because we watch.
What I can tell you is that Armageddon doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. Satan's down there waiting at the right place and right time for that.
He counted 1260 days after the Abomination of Desolation, which since he set that up, he knows the exact day of that.
Meanwhile I get that you think Satan has no power anymore, but did you think he doesn't even know how to count to 1260 anymore?
Why's there an army just waiting for Jesus at Armageddon?
Do you know the logistics of feeding an army just sitting there waiting for months? An army just camped in a desert?
They know what day it happens they don't wait around for months or years until it happens unexpectedly.

Also, in regards to the fiery destruction that he describes, Peter tells his readers that in response to that, they "ought to live holy and godly lives" as they look forward to that day. Why would he tell them that if the destruction he described couldn't possibly affect them (since it wouldn't happen until 1000+ years after Jesus returns)? That makes no sense. Instead, it only makes sense that he would tell them that if it was possible for that destruction to come in their lifetimes. Please address this.

I did earlier, ultimately it's all still temporary.
1 day
1000 years
what's the difference in the light of eternity?

So do Amils. But, you have the day of the Lord starting 1000+ years before that. Peter does not. As I indicated above, Peter warned his readers that the destruction he described could occur in their lifetimes which completely contradicts your claim that it would not occur until 1000+ years after Christ returns.

Except you put world devouring fire in scripture that does not contain it. You consider those other scriptures to be allegory and think that's world devouring fire too.
That's the difference.
You by default twist scripture to mean what you want it to rather than what it says.
You latch onto ONE IDEA that you take literally at the expense of all other scripture.

 

[keras]

Would you agree that this text implies that Satan being cast out of heaven means he can't accuse believers before God anymore?

He doesn't just accuse Christians; he kills them. Revelation 12:17
Satan is not bound until Jesus Returns.

If so, what is your answer to Paul's question in Romans 8:33?

Paul was referring to human accusers, not to Satan.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No every pre wrath, and while Joel Richardson still leans kind of Post Trib, he likes the Pre Wrath idea that the second coming of Christ is a more complex series of events rather than instant nuke. I mean his idea goes into that whole "second exodus" thing where the Jews are taken captive into other nations during the Great Tribulation and Jesus comes back and leads them back to Jerusalem. I don't know if I subscribe to that idea, I haven't read his book on it.

Does he or anyone else you know of see the thousand years and Satan's little season as being part of the second coming like you do?

I actually kind of smirked, because it's also Peter that quotes the psalms in saying that for the Lord a day is 1000 years or 1000 years a day.
so the day of the Lord lasting 1000 years doesn't at all seem off.

2 Peter 3:8 has absolutely nothing to do with the duration of the day of the Lord. None. Instead, it relates to 2 Peter 3:9. Peter was making the point that even if it seems like it's been a long time for the Lord to return, it hasn't been long to Him (since time has no effect on Him - a 24 hour day and 1000 years are no different to Him), so He is not being slack regarding the promise of His second coming as some people like the scoffers he mentioned earlier might think.

and he wrote that over 1900 years ago, but the statement still holds true. It's still temporary, it's still going to be destroyed eventually. The timing of it doesn't really matter in that light.

You completely missed the point. He talked about the earth being burned up, right? And he is telling his readers how they should be careful to live godly and holy lives as they wait for that day to arrive. Why would he tell them that if that day and the destruction he said was coming on that day couldn't directly affect them? That would make no sense.

We don't know how many days Jesus cuts the 1260 days short for the sake of the elect.
However 1 Thessalonians 5 Paul talks that if we're watching and preparing ourselves it won't overtake us as a thief.
It'll overtake the world as a thief, but we'll anticipate it because we watch.
What I can tell you is that Armageddon doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. Satan's down there waiting at the right place and right time for that.
He counted 1260 days after the Abomination of Desolation, which since he set that up, he knows the exact day of that.

This is your explanation for the day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night? Really? This is all you have?

Meanwhile I get that you think Satan has no power anymore

That isn't what I believe. Why is it that Premils don't make more of an effort to understand Amil? When did I or any other Amil say that Satan has no power anymore? Never. It's not about him not having any power, it's about him not having the power to keep the world in nearly complete spiritual darkness to the extent that he was able to do in Old Testament times. Premils are very ignorant about how things were in Old Testament times and how that all changed dramatically in the world after Christ came.

but did you think he doesn't even know how to count to 1260 anymore?

You're the one who takes all the time periods given in Revelation literally, not me. Don't try to force me to take on your hyper-literal approach to interpreting a highly symbolic book.

Why's there an army just waiting for Jesus at Armageddon?
Do you know the logistics of feeding an army just sitting there waiting for months? An army just camped in a desert?
They know what day it happens they don't wait around for months or years until it happens unexpectedly.

How did any of what you said here answer the question about how you explain the day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night? Did you forget the question or something?

I did earlier, ultimately it's all still temporary.
1 day
1000 years
what's the difference in the light of eternity?

Again, you completely missed the point. I'm asking you why Peter would tell his readers to pay attention to how they were living their lives because of the destruction that was coming on the earth. Why would he tell them to be careful about living godly lives if the destruction he was telling them about couldn't possibly affect them?

Except you put world devouring fire in scripture that does not contain it. You consider those other scriptures to be allegory and think that's world devouring fire too.
That's the difference.

Wait a minute here. Are you saying you don't believe the fire Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3 is literal? I thought you indicated that you believe it's literal but it doesn't come down until the end of a thousand year day of the Lord as recorded in Revelation 20:9? Have you changed your mind?

If you have changed your mind to think that the fire is figurative then does that mean the "sudden destruction" that Paul said will occur on the day of the Lord (1 Thess 5:2-3) is figurative, too?

You by default twist scripture to mean what you want it to rather than what it says.
You latch onto ONE IDEA that you take literally at the expense of all other scripture.

That is utter nonsense. You have no idea of what you're talking about. What scripture says is that the heavens and the earth will be burned up when Christ returns (2 Peter 3:3-13). You twist scripture to say something else.

What scripture says is that people need to be on guard regarding that day and make sure they are in right standing with God so that that day doesn't catch them unaware (2 Peter 3:10-12, 1 Thess 5:1-6). Which means the destruction those scriptures talk about will occur when Christ returns, not 1000+ years later. You twist scripture to make the global destruction happen 1000+ years after Christ's return instead of on the day Christ returns as scripture teaches. Otherwise, Paul and Peter were warning their readers that this future day of destruction could potentially happen in their lifetimes for no reason. Or maybe now you're twisting scripture to refer to figurative fire in 2 Peter 3 even though it's very obviously referring to literal fire burning up the earth.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

He doesn't just accuse Christians; he kills them.Revelation 12:17

So what? Does the fact that he can kill Christians somehow mean he can accuse people whose sins are forgiven?

Satan is not bound until Jesus Returns.

Oh, really? I had no idea that you believed that. Thanks for telling me.

Paul was referring to human accusers, not to Satan.

Show me where he said that. He simply asked in Romans 8:33 "who can make any charge/accusation against God's chosen/elect?". He didn't say he was only referring to human accusers there. The answer is no one, including Satan.

Tell me, what can Satan accuse us of, keeping in mind that our sins are forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ?

 

[Jamdoc]

Does he or anyone else you know of see the thousand years and Satan's little season as being part of the second coming like you do?

Not sure if they put it at any length of time. but we understand that the Second Coming us an enduring parousia, not just arrival, but presence.
after the second coming starts, we will always be with the Lord, that's His enduring parousia and we'll never be separated again.
The second coming never ends. Because it is an eternal, persisting, presence of Jesus with us.
That should be cause for praise when you realize it, not a source of division.

2 Peter 3:8 has absolutely nothing to do with the duration of the day of the Lord. None. Instead, it relates to 2 Peter 3:9. Peter was making the point that even if it seems like it's been a long time for the Lord to return, it hasn't been long to Him (since time has no effect on Him - a 24 hour day and 1000 years are no different to Him), so He is not being slack regarding the promise of His second coming as some people like the scoffers he mentioned earlier might think.

The same applies to "the day of the Lord"
Remember, Isaiah 34:8, Isaiah 63:4.
day and year are used interchangably.
"The day" is figurative language that you take literally,

You completely missed the point. He talked about the earth being burned up, right? And he is telling his readers how they should be careful to live godly and holy lives as they wait for that day to arrive. Why would he tell them that if that day and the destruction he said was coming on that day couldn't directly affect them? That would make no sense.

Does anything temporary matter whether you live 40 years or 100 years? It still goes away and you don't take it with you.

This is your explanation for the day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night? Really? This is all you have?

What do you mean?
Armageddon doesn't surprise Satan in its timing, he's already waiting for it.
Jesus wasn't talking about Armageddon, that's a knowable date from a specific time marker.
It's the appearance in the clouds that nobody knows the date, because it's cutting the 1260 days short.
Then all the trumpets and vials happen, which have times given as well.

But of course you handwave those all away.

That isn't what I believe. Why is it that Premils don't make more of an effort to understand Amil? When did I or any other Amil say that Satan has no power anymore?

Yeah I can see you probably don't read sovereigngrace's walls of text either but that's his whole slant is that Satan is completely defeated and powerless right now.

Never. It's not about him not having any power, it's about him not having the power to keep the world in nearly complete spiritual darkness to the extent that he was able to do in Old Testament times. Premils are very ignorant about how things were in Old Testament times and how that all changed dramatically in the world after Christ came.

We watched the Assyrian capital put on sackcloth and ashes, and we watched Nebuchadnezzar, turn to worship the true and living God. It might seem crazy but you might meet Nebuchadnezzar in heaven or on the new earth.
So your characterization of the Old Testament times is off
and you also have it off since the New Testament has begun, the preaching of the Gospel has been very bloody, many brothers and sisters made martyrs along the way. Many imprisoned and suppressed. The idea that Satan no longer is able to deceive right now.. totally false.

You're the one who takes all the time periods given in Revelation literally, not me. Don't try to force me to take on your hyper-literal approach to interpreting a highly symbolic book.

How did any of what you said here answer the question about how you explain the day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night? Did you forget the question or something?

It's because you have a different understanding of the second coming as I do.
You make it all 1 fiery instant nuke
I don't
because the book describes different things taking place over time.
You see the appearance in the clouds as the same thing as Armageddon and see both as unpredictable.
I see the appearance in the clouds as being unpredictable, just within a 3.5 year window, and see Armageddon as predictable because Satan did in fact, amass an army to show up for it on time.
You can't do that with an army if you don't know when your enemy is arriving.

Again, you completely missed the point. I'm asking you why Peter would tell his readers to pay attention to how they were living their lives because of the destruction that was coming on the earth. Why would he tell them to be careful about living godly lives if the destruction he was telling them about couldn't possibly affect them?

Because it's all temporary and compared to eternity is inconsequential compared to the service you do for the kingdom.

Wait a minute here. Are you saying you don't believe the fire Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3 is literal? I thought you indicated that you believe it's literal but it doesn't come down until the end of a thousand year day of the Lord as recorded in Revelation 20:9? Have you changed your mind?

No, there's literal fire, and we see literal fire at Revelation 20:9
we don't see fire in Revelation 19, Revelation 14, Revelation 6, Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, Zechariah 12 or Zechariah 14.
You have put fire in these other passages with your own imagination.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Not sure if they put it at any length of time. but we understand that the Second Coming us an enduring parousia, not just arrival, but presence.
after the second coming starts, we will always be with the Lord, that's His enduring parousia and we'll never be separated again.
The second coming never ends. Because it is an eternal, persisting, presence of Jesus with us.
That should be cause for praise when you realize it, not a source of division.


The same applies to "the day of the Lord"
Remember, Isaiah 34:8, Isaiah 63:4.
day and year are used interchangably.
"The day" is figurative language that you take literally,


Does anything temporary matter whether you live 40 years or 100 years? It still goes away and you don't take it with you.


What do you mean?
Armageddon doesn't surprise Satan in its timing, he's already waiting for it.
Jesus wasn't talking about Armageddon, that's a knowable date from a specific time marker.
It's the appearance in the clouds that nobody knows the date, because it's cutting the 1260 days short.
Then all the trumpets and vials happen, which have times given as well.

But of course you handwave those all away.


Yeah I can see you probably don't read sovereigngrace's walls of text either but that's his whole slant is that Satan is completely defeated and powerless right now.

We watched the Assyrian capital put on sackcloth and ashes, and we watched Nebuchadnezzar, turn to worship the true and living God. It might seem crazy but you might meet Nebuchadnezzar in heaven or on the new earth.
So your characterization of the Old Testament times is off
and you also have it off since the New Testament has begun, the preaching of the Gospel has been very bloody, many brothers and sisters made martyrs along the way. Many imprisoned and suppressed. The idea that Satan no longer is able to deceive right now.. totally false.


It's because you have a different understanding of the second coming as I do.
You make it all 1 fiery instant nuke
I don't
because the book describes different things taking place over time.
You see the appearance in the clouds as the same thing as Armageddon and see both as unpredictable.
I see the appearance in the clouds as being unpredictable, just within a 3.5 year window, and see Armageddon as predictable because Satan did in fact, amass an army to show up for it on time.
You can't do that with an army if you don't know when your enemy is arriving.


Because it's all temporary and compared to eternity is inconsequential compared to the service you do for the kingdom.


No, there's literal fire, and we see literal fire at Revelation 20:9
we don't see fire in Revelation 19, Revelation 14, Revelation 6, Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, Zechariah 12 or Zechariah 14.
You have put fire in these other passages with your own imagination.

This does not make sense in the light of Premil teaching, only in the light of Amil. Amil believes, and Scripture shows, the regeneration and perfection of this current corrupt earth (and creation) when Jesus comes. Amils believe this is an eternal day. Time shall be no more. Premil disagrees. Time continues in their paradigm. It has another 1000+ years of time. Sin and sickness continues. Lying and crying continues. The wicked and all wickedness continues. Satan and his demons continue. Premil has more of the same old same old. They end up with a half-delivered and undelivered new earth. The Premil age to come is a contradictory mishmash of justice and injustice, deliverance and bondage, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness, perfection and sin, glorification and corruption, sin and sinlessness, immortality and mortality, peace and harmony and war and terror. It does not add up.

The reality is: we have in Revelation 20 since the first resurrection and will be there until the GWT general judgment of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

Amils believe the enemy is already defeated. Satan is a defeated foe. The devil is spiritual bound. His power and influence are curtailed. He is like a dog on a chain. Satan is powerless to do certain things today.

• Satan is powerless to do what he wants to do.
• He is powerless to stop the Church of Jesus Christ spreading the good news of Gospel throughout the nations.
• He is powerless to stop someone coming to Christ.
• He is powerless to stop a man or woman of God walking in the will of God.
• He is powerless to harm a believer without God’s permission.
• He is powerless to resist a Spirit-filled believer implementing delegated authority from on high against the devil and his demons.
• He is powerless to affect the final outcome of this great battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Not sure if they put it at any length of time. but we understand that the Second Coming us an enduring parousia, not just arrival, but presence.
after the second coming starts, we will always be with the Lord, that's His enduring parousia and we'll never be separated again.
The second coming never ends. Because it is an eternal, persisting, presence of Jesus with us.
That should be cause for praise when you realize it, not a source of division.

But, premil doesn't see the day that Jesus returns as finally bringing an end to sin, death, sorrow, crying and pain like Amil does. Our view has a lot more cause for celebration on the actual day He returns than the Premil view does. The day of His return is climactic in the Amil view. In the Amil view the day of His return puts an end to evil once and for all and ushers in the new heavens and new earth where only righteousness dwells.

The same applies to "the day of the Lord"
Remember, Isaiah 34:8, Isaiah 63:4.
day and year are used interchangably.
"The day" is figurative language that you take literally,

It's so rich for you, the one who takes most scripture very literally, to criticize me for taking a passage literally instead of figuratively. It's kind of hilarious, actually. Peter and Paul said that global destruction will take place upon the arrival of the day of the Lord and it will be unexpected like a thief in the night. How long should we expect the destruction to last? More than a day? I think it's quite reasonable to interpret that as a literal day.

Does anything temporary matter whether you live 40 years or 100 years? It still goes away and you don't take it with you.

What are you talking about here? You're not addressing my point. Are you purposely avoiding it? I'm talking about the fact that Peter warned his readers to be careful about their standing with God and to be careful about that in light of the destruction that was coming on the day of the Lord. Why would he have done that if the destruction that will come on the day of the Lord was not something that could happen in their lifetimes? That makes no sense. Please address this.

What do you mean?
Armageddon doesn't surprise Satan in its timing, he's already waiting for it.
Jesus wasn't talking about Armageddon, that's a knowable date from a specific time marker.
It's the appearance in the clouds that nobody knows the date, because it's cutting the 1260 days short.
Then all the trumpets and vials happen, which have times given as well.

But of course you handwave those all away.

Don't ever tell me I'm handwaving anything away. I do not do that. I take as much time to read what people are saying and give their comments consideration as anyone here. You're avoiding my point. I'm asking you how your view lines up with Peter and Paul both saying that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night bringing global destruction. How does your view line up with that if the global destruction they're talking about does not even come until 1000+ years after Christ's return? That doesn't seem like coming like a thief in the night to me.

Yeah I can see you probably don't read sovereigngrace's walls of text either but that's his whole slant is that Satan is completely defeated and powerless right now.

Actually, I do read his posts in entirety because I don't have a short attention span like many people here. I view Satan's binding the same way he does and he does not say that Satan is completely powerless. Satan is powerless against us IF we stand firm and resist him. If we resist him he has to flee (James 4:7). He has been powerless to stop the spread of the gospel throughout the world. He is powerless in ways like those. But, that doesn't mean we're saying he's completely powerless in every way. If that's what you thought he was saying then you're just not paying close enough attention.

We watched the Assyrian capital put on sackcloth and ashes, and we watched Nebuchadnezzar, turn to worship the true and living God. It might seem crazy but you might meet Nebuchadnezzar in heaven or on the new earth.
So your characterization of the Old Testament times is off

Is it really? Wow, your sample size is really big there. How can I argue with that? Do you think 8 people being saved in Noah's day was a lot of people, too?

So, I guess you would say that Paul's characterization of Old Testament times is off, too?

Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Is there something you don't understand about the Gentiles formerly being "without hope and without God in the world" until "the blood of Christ" brought them near? Do you find Paul's characterization of the Gentiles of those times (Old Testament times) to be off? I surely don't. You should have more respect for Paul than this because I'm simply agreeing with his take on the status of how things were in Old Testament times.

and you also have it off since the New Testament has begun, the preaching of the Gospel has been very bloody, many brothers and sisters made martyrs along the way. Many imprisoned and suppressed. The idea that Satan no longer is able to deceive right now.. totally false.

What are you talking about here? What does Christians being martyred have to do with deception? Come on, man. Think first before you make comments. You're making yourself look bad here.

No, there's literal fire, and we see literal fire at Revelation 20:9
we don't see fire in Revelation 19, Revelation 14, Revelation 6, Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, Zechariah 12 or Zechariah 14.
You have put fire in these other passages with your own imagination.

Oh, right. Because that's a different event than Jesus killing people with a literal sword that comes out of His mouth, right? Revelation 14 and 6 are clearly symbolic, also, unless you think those are referring to literal stars falling to earth and God using a literal winepress to kill people.

As for Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 those don't mention the method Christ will use to destroy His enemies, so you can't use those to support your view that it won't be with fire. If they specifiically said He was using some other means to destroy His enemies at His second coming then you'd have a point in referencing those, but they don't. Trying to use those is an argument from silence. Not all passages regarding the day of His return contain all the details regarding that day.

 

[Jamdoc]

But, premil doesn't see the day that Jesus returns as finally bringing an end to sin, death, sorrow, crying and pain like Amil does. Our view has a lot more cause for celebration on the actual day He returns than the Premil view does. The day of His return is climactic in the Amil view. In the Amil view the day of His return puts an end to evil once and for all and ushers in the new heavens and new earth where only righteousness dwells.

It's so rich for you, the one who takes most scripture very literally, to criticize me for taking a passage literally instead of figuratively. It's kind of hilarious, actually. Peter and Paul said that global destruction will take place upon the arrival of the day of the Lord and it will be unexpected like a thief in the night. How long should we expect the destruction to last? More than a day? I think it's quite reasonable to interpret that as a literal day.

What are you talking about here? You're not addressing my point. Are you purposely avoiding it? I'm talking about the fact that Peter warned his readers to be careful about their standing with God and to be careful about that in light of the destruction that was coming on the day of the Lord. Why would he have done that if the destruction that will come on the day of the Lord was not something that could happen in their lifetimes? That makes no sense. Please address this.

Don't ever tell me I'm handwaving anything away. I do not do that. I take as much time to read what people are saying and give their comments consideration as anyone here. You're avoiding my point. I'm asking you how your view lines up with Peter and Paul both saying that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night bringing global destruction. How does your view line up with that if the global destruction they're talking about does not even come until 1000+ years after Christ's return? That doesn't seem like coming like a thief in the night to me.

Actually, I do read his posts in entirety because I don't have a short attention span like many people here. I view Satan's binding the same way he does and he does not say that Satan is completely powerless. Satan is powerless against us IF we stand firm and resist him. If we resist him he has to flee (James 4:7). He has been powerless to stop the spread of the gospel throughout the world. He is powerless in ways like those. But, that doesn't mean we're saying he's completely powerless in every way. If that's what you thought he was saying then you're just not paying close enough attention.

Is it really? Wow, your sample size is really big there. How can I argue with that? Do you think 8 people being saved in Noah's day was a lot of people, too?

So, I guess you would say that Paul's characterization of Old Testament times is off, too?

Ephesians 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Is there something you don't understand about the Gentiles formerly being "without hope and without God in the world" until "the blood of Christ" brought them near? Do you find Paul's characterization of the Gentiles of those times (Old Testament times) to be off? I surely don't. You should have more respect for Paul than this because I'm simply agreeing with his take on the status of how things were in Old Testament times.

What are you talking about here? What does Christians being martyred have to do with deception? Come on, man. Think first before you make comments. You're making yourself look bad here.

Oh, right. Because that's a different event than Jesus killing people with a literal sword that comes out of His mouth, right? Revelation 14 and 6 are clearly symbolic, also, unless you think those are referring to literal stars falling to earth and God using a literal winepress to kill people.

As for Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 those don't mention the method Christ will use to destroy His enemies, so you can't use those to support your view that it won't be with fire. If they specifiically said He was using some other means to destroy His enemies at His second coming then you'd have a point in referencing those, but they don't. Trying to use those is an argument from silence. Not all passages regarding the day of His return contain all the details regarding that day.

Only thing worth addressing here, is that Jesus doesn't talk about what will be used to destroy His enemies in Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 because the purpose of that appearance isn't destruction, it's gathering the elect (the Rapture).
It doesn't have the details because it is not the same event.

 

[keras]

Tell me, what can Satan accuse us of, keeping in mind that our sins are forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ?

I suppose you are a Once Saved, Always Saved believer?
Is a Pastor who rapes the organist, still saved? Does Christians who backslide and turn to crime, remain saved?
No: Our names can be blotted out of the Book of Life, Psalms 69:28

 

[sovereigngrace]

No every pre wrath, and while Joel Richardson still leans kind of Post Trib, he likes the Pre Wrath idea that the second coming of Christ is a more complex series of events rather than instant nuke. I mean his idea goes into that whole "second exodus" thing where the Jews are taken captive into other nations during the Great Tribulation and Jesus comes back and leads them back to Jerusalem. I don't know if I subscribe to that idea, I haven't read his book on it.



I actually kind of smirked, because it's also Peter that quotes the psalms in saying that for the Lord a day is 1000 years or 1000 years a day.
so the day of the Lord lasting 1000 years doesn't at all seem off.


and he wrote that over 1900 years ago, but the statement still holds true. It's still temporary, it's still going to be destroyed eventually. The timing of it doesn't really matter in that light.



We don't know how many days Jesus cuts the 1260 days short for the sake of the elect.
However 1 Thessalonians 5 Paul talks that if we're watching and preparing ourselves it won't overtake us as a thief.
It'll overtake the world as a thief, but we'll anticipate it because we watch.
What I can tell you is that Armageddon doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. Satan's down there waiting at the right place and right time for that.
He counted 1260 days after the Abomination of Desolation, which since he set that up, he knows the exact day of that.
Meanwhile I get that you think Satan has no power anymore, but did you think he doesn't even know how to count to 1260 anymore?
Why's there an army just waiting for Jesus at Armageddon?
Do you know the logistics of feeding an army just sitting there waiting for months? An army just camped in a desert?
They know what day it happens they don't wait around for months or years until it happens unexpectedly.


I did earlier, ultimately it's all still temporary.
1 day
1000 years
what's the difference in the light of eternity?


Except you put world devouring fire in scripture that does not contain it. You consider those other scriptures to be allegory and think that's world devouring fire too.
That's the difference.
You by default twist scripture to mean what you want it to rather than what it says.
You latch onto ONE IDEA that you take literally at the expense of all other scripture.

If the day of the Lord = a literal 1,000 years then your doctrine is destroyed, allowing no possibility for Satan's "little season." Remember, in your paradigm, the destruction of the world must occur within that 1,000 year day of the Lord!!! Moreover, if the day of the Lord includes both the 1,000 literal years and Satan's "little season, then your 1 day = 1,000 literal years is also destroyed, the day of the Lord = 1,000 years + Satan's "little season, which represents and unspecific period. Bang goes your corrobration for a future millennium.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I suppose you are a Once Saved, Always Saved believer?
Is a Pastor who rapes the organist, still saved? Does Christians who backslide and turn to crime, remain saved?
No: Our names can be blotted out of the Book of Life, Psalms 69:28

That was the book of the living, a record of living righteous Israelites. It is completely different from the book of life.

 

[keras]

That was the book of the living, a record of living righteous Israelites. It is completely different from the book of life.

The Book of Life is the same as the Book of the Living. Malachi 3:16-17
Revelation 3:5 He that Overcomes will be clothed in white robes and I will not blot his name out of the Book of Life. Revelation 17:8 and 20:12

 

[Jamdoc]

If the day of the Lord = a literal 1,000 years then your doctrine is destroyed, allowing no possibility for Satan's "little season." Remember, in your paradigm, the destruction of the world must occur within that 1,000 year day of the Lord!!! Moreover, if the day of the Lord includes both the 1,000 literal years and Satan's "little season, then your 1 day = 1,000 literal years is also destroyed, the day of the Lord = 1,000 years + Satan's "little season, which represents and unspecific period. Bang goes your corrobration for a future millennium.

no you don't get it
I'm not saying the day of the Lord is exactly 1000 years.
The Psalmist, Peter, and I are all trying to convey, that our reckoning of time is not how the Lord reckons time.
"the day of the Lord" is not literal, it is one thing that SHOULD be taken figuratively yet you allegorize everything BUT that. You take literally one thing that is figurative, and square peg into round hole all other scripture to fit it. Jesus uses day and year interchangably in Isaiah 34:8 and Isaiah 63:4
and yet you still cling to a hyper literal 24 hour day of the Lord.

For me.. the Day of the Lord begins with Jesus appearing in the clouds, and it NEVER ENDS.
All time after Jesus' second coming is "the Day of the Lord" because it is His enduring parousia.

 

[DavidPT]

For me.. the Day of the Lord begins with Jesus appearing in the clouds, and it NEVER ENDS.
All time after Jesus' second coming is "the Day of the Lord" because it is His enduring parousia.

To me it seems rather ludicrous that the DOTL never ends. Imagine some of the following pertaining to all of eternity. Especially Amos 5:18 & Amos 5:20.

Isaiah 2:12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

Isaiah 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.

Amos 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Only thing worth addressing here,

You mean the only thing you can even attempt to refute?

is that Jesus doesn't talk about what will be used to destroy His enemies in Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 because the purpose of that appearance isn't destruction, it's gathering the elect (the Rapture).
It doesn't have the details because it is not the same event.

Yes, it most certainly is the same event as 2 Peter 3:3-13. You say Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 only speaks of the gathering of the elect at His coming? How did you miss this:

Matthew 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

This passage clearly refers to the fact that Jesus will destroy unbelievers at His return just like they were destroyed by the flood in Noah's day, but it doesn't specify how He will do it. That was my point. But 2nd Peter 3 does specify how He will do it and it will be with fire. Other passages like Revelation 19:11-21 describe it figuratively (slaying everyone with a sword that comes out of His mouth and such).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I suppose you are a Once Saved, Always Saved believer?

No, I'm not. You're clearly not getting the point. I'm saying that Satan cannot accuse anyone who is currently saved because anyone who is currently saved has their sins forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ. If they fall away, that's another story, but it only talks about Satan having formerly accused believers in heaven, not unbelievers. He cannot accuse anyone who is currently saved of anything because we who are saved do not have our sins counted against us.

Is a Pastor who rapes the organist, still saved? Does Christians who backslide and turn to crime, remain saved?

Of course not. And I never said otherwise. You are badly misinterpreting my point and making yourself look bad in the process.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

no you don't get it
I'm not saying the day of the Lord is exactly 1000 years.
The Psalmist, Peter, and I are all trying to convey, that our reckoning of time is not how the Lord reckons time.
"the day of the Lord" is not literal, it is one thing that SHOULD be taken figuratively yet you allegorize everything BUT that. You take literally one thing that is figurative, and square peg into round hole all other scripture to fit it. Jesus uses day and year interchangably in Isaiah 34:8 and Isaiah 63:4
and yet you still cling to a hyper literal 24 hour day of the Lord.

Peter indicates clearly that the day of the Lord brings about the burning up of the heavens and the earth unexpectedly (for unbelievers). How you see that as an eternal thing? Your view makes no sense. It is the day of the Lord that brings about the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth and it ends at that point.

For me.. the Day of the Lord begins with Jesus appearing in the clouds, and it NEVER ENDS.
All time after Jesus' second coming is "the Day of the Lord" because it is His enduring parousia.

For you. But that isn't something taught anywhere in scripture.

 

[sovereigngrace]

no you don't get it
I'm not saying the day of the Lord is exactly 1000 years.
The Psalmist, Peter, and I are all trying to convey, that our reckoning of time is not how the Lord reckons time.
"the day of the Lord" is not literal, it is one thing that SHOULD be taken figuratively yet you allegorize everything BUT that. You take literally one thing that is figurative, and square peg into round hole all other scripture to fit it. Jesus uses day and year interchangably in Isaiah 34:8 and Isaiah 63:4
and yet you still cling to a hyper literal 24 hour day of the Lord.

For me.. the Day of the Lord begins with Jesus appearing in the clouds, and it NEVER ENDS.
All time after Jesus' second coming is "the Day of the Lord" because it is His enduring parousia.

Wow! You have just done a 180 degree turn here when your reasoning was shown as non-sensical. I wish Premils would think through the fragility of their position before posting.

for the Lord a day is 1000 years or 1000 years a day.
so the day of the Lord lasting 1000 years doesn't at all seem off.

Premils never admit the contradiction of their position. They just paper over the cracks. That will work with the choir but not objective Bible-believing Christians.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Wow! You have just done a 180 degree turn here when your reasoning was shown as erroneous.

Premils never admit the contradiction of their position. They just paper over the cracks. That will work with the choir but not objective Bible-believing Christians.

I agree. It's sad that he couldn't just admit that his view that the day of the Lord would last 1000 years was wrong. He realized that was not possible because he said the destruction that Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3 would occur at the end of the supposed thousand year day of the Lord and he indicated before that it was the same as what is described in Revelation 20:9. But, he failed to take Satan's little season, which obviously occurs after the thousand years, into account.

Instead of admitting his view couldn't possibly fit with what Peter taught in 2 Peter 3:10-12 and with what is taught in Revelation 20, he changed it to the day of the Lord lasting for eternity instead. If it's proven to him that the day of the Lord can't possibly last for eternity, then it seems that he'll just change his view again.