Question for Amillennialists

claninja · Jun 29, 2023

DavidPT said:
Even per the book of Revelelation it apparently can't be shown prior to ch 20, anything having to do with satan being locked up a real long time. Everything prior to ch 20, in regards to satan, appears to involve warring with saints. Something you would think he wouldn't be doing if he is supposed to be in the pit at the time.

If Revelation 20 is undeniably showing that satan is not battling any saints until the thousand years have expired, why then are some of these Amils around here having satan in constant battle with the saints throughout the thousand years? Clearly, these past 2000 years, satan has been battling saints, and that some of these Amils around here insist these same 2000 years are meaning the same era of time satan is in the pit.

Maybe some of you can say there is no logic to Premil and feel that's a reasonable conclusion to come to, but how can some of you say, meaning Amils in this case, that there is any logic to Amil if Amil has satan battling with saints throughout the thousand years when Revlation 20 doesn't have him battling with saints again until the thousand years have expired? The keyword being 'again'.

Meaning he was initially doing this, then he stops doing this during the thousand years, then he resumes doing this after the thousand years have expired. The way some Amils interpret Revelation 20 though, there appears to be no difference between when he is bound and when he is loosed. When he is bound he can still deceive. When he is bound he can still make war with the church, the exact same things he can do when he is not bound.

How could the apostles claim “the end of all things had drawn near (1 Peter 4:7), or “the coming of the Lord had drawn near (James 5:8-9)”, or “he will come in a little while without delay (Hebrews 10:37)”, or “it is the last hour (1 John 2:18-19), or “the end of the ages had come upon them (1 Corinthians 10:11) or “the appointed time has grown very short (1 Corinthians 7:29)” if they understood the millennium , or 1,000 years, as period symbolically longer than 1,000 years?

If the apostles did believe that the coming of Christ would in their lifetime or that his return was imminent, the idea that they would have understood this “millennium” as a multi thousand year period PRIOR to the coming of christ really no longer makes sense.

Spiritual Jew · Jun 29, 2023

claninja said:
Last time I checked, no.

so can can you provide any passages from the gospels, epistles, or book of acts, that are necessarily not word for word, but at least related to the apostles teaching that Satan is bound for a time and then Released to war against the saints?

I have done that when talking to you about this several times and you're still asking for that? That shows that you either don't really read what I say carefully or you forget everything I say. What is my motive for answering that question yet again? There isn't any.

claninja said:
I mean, I know you don’t always use scripture to interpret scripture when it goes against your eschatological view. revelation 18:24 with Matthew 23:35 is a prime example.

Using scripture to interpret scripture is a wise approach, but not every time that similar wording is used in two scripture passages does it mean that those scriptures relate directly to each other. For example, there are similarities in the wording of Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 24:30-31, yet the Daniel 7 passage is about His ascension to heaven while the Matthew 24:30-31 passage is about His second coming from heaven.

claninja said:
So i guess i shouldn’t be so surprised that you can use scripture from the gospels and epistles that is pretty much almost “word for word similar” to interpret passages like revelation 20s “first resurrection”, “kingdom of priests”, “never face the 2nd death” when it fits your position, but then all of the sudden don’t for Satan being locked away for a long time then released to war against the saints.

LOL. Show me the rule in scripture itself which says two scriptures can't be related to each other unless they have the same wording and then I will take this seriously. Good luck.

Spiritual Jew · Jun 29, 2023

claninja said:
I don’t believe the binding is with a literal chain.

I wasn't saying that. You obviously missed the point. What I'm saying is that your view of his binding and loosing is similar to Premils, not in that you see him as being literally bound with a literal chain like they do, but in that you think that him being active at all means that he is loosed and not bound.

claninja said:
I believe the 1,000 years is symbolic for the work of Christ, his fulfillment of the Davidic monarchy, and the realized promises to the saints through his ministry, death, resurrection.

If that was the case then why would it talk about the 1,000 years ending and being followed by a short time during which Satan is loosed? I don't expect you to even answer this question, but I believe you almost certainly can't give a reasonable answer to this question and that reflects a weakness in your view.

claninja said:
Satan being then bound = removed from his heavenly position to accuse the saints, and his works and power over death thus annulled.

Why does it talk about him being bound for a thousand years? That gives the impression of him being bound at some point and then that lasts for a thousand years, whatever the thousand years represents. But, it indicates that it has a beginning and an ending. Seeing it all as only being symbolic does not make any sense of it talking about the thousand years in terms of having a beginning and an end and being followed by a short time during which Satan is loosed. But, it seems that you'd rather not even try to figure out how you can make sense of that with your view.

claninja said:
Upon the fulfillment of the first resurrection or Christs resurrection, Satan then wars against the saints, as described in the epistles: hindering the gospel, deceiving, killing, throwing saints in prison, blinding, working through the sons of disobedience, and leading many astray.

While being unable to prevent an unprecedented large number of people in the world from being set free from their sin and fear of death while being saved and establishing personal relationships with God/Jesus Christ. You seem to always forget that part. Just like Premils, you focus on what Satan was still able to do (to some extent) in NT times compared to OT times and don't think at all about what he was not still able to do to the same extent that he used to before that.

claninja said:
BUT ultimately the coming of the Lord was at hand, and would be in a little while without delay, and Satan would be. Quickly crushed.

Except that Jesus hasn't come yet. That's a pretty big flaw in your view that you can't reconcile.

claninja said:
The purpose of calling it Satan’s “little season” when juxtaposed to the 1,000 years was for the purpose of hope, as is common in Jewish/Christian apocalyptic literature.

What does this even mean? Honestly, it comes across as gibberish. What is the reason that it specifically indicates that his little season occurs after the 1,000 years ends? Do you have any explanation for that at all or would you rather just not even deal with that?

claninja said:
“At this time, the time of the incarnation of the Lord, the devil was bound and was not able to resist the marks of the Savior's deity. And, therefore, when they sensed that they were spiritually bound, the wicked demons cried out, 'What have you to do with us, O Son of the living God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?' And the Lord also made clear their bondage when he said, 'Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.' Since, therefore, as it was indicated, we understand the incarnation of the Lord and his sojourn upon earth to be called 'one day' and a 'thousand years' without distinction in the holy Scriptures, such a number is used figuratively.” - Oecumenius

Is there some reason why I should care what this guy thought?

DavidPT · Jun 29, 2023

claninja said:
If the apostles did believe that the coming of Christ would in their lifetime or that his return was imminent, the idea that they would have understood this “millennium” as a multi thousand year period PRIOR to the coming of christ really no longer makes sense.

Paul was an apostle and that I don't get the impression via any of the following below that he perhaps thought Christ could return in his lifetime. He makes it clear that certain events have to be fulfilled before Christ can return. Clearly, for example, the day he wrote that letter, he did not think that Christ could return that very same day since that would contradict pretty much everything he said in that letter, that certain events have to be fulfilled first before Christ can return.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

claninja · Jun 29, 2023

Spiritual Jew said:
at, so that isn't even a valid question to ask me. I claimed that 1 Peter 5:9 relates to his binding, not his loosing. And I claimed that because it speaks of the authority NT believers have had over Satan that OT believers did not have because NT believers have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. I believe he must flee from us when we resist him because he knows he is no match for the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us.

Ok, so then you don’t believe the saints, to whom Satan will war against and attempt to deceive when he is released from the pit in this future of yours, need to listen to Peter’s words in 1 Peter 5:9 : “flee from the devil and pray for your brothers and sisters suffering around the world” as it has no possible application to them? Good to know……..

Spiritual Jew said:
I believe I did.

You Sure didn’t provide any gospel or epistolic passage that mentions Satan bound in the abyss only to be released after a long tin to war against the church.

Spiritual Jew said:
I have done that, but not to your satisfaction. Oh well. So be it. You require text that matches Revelation 20 explicitly word for word as if nothing can ever be implied and as if no scriptures can ever be related unless they match each other word for word. I don't understand that kind of perspective, but I know I can't force you to change your approach to interpreting scripture.

you have provided zero passages from the epistles and gospels and book of acts that state Satan is bound in the abyss and will be released to war against the saint after aong period of time. If you could, you would have done so by now.

Spiritual Jew said:
If I held a view as nonsensical as yours, I would try to avoid "picking apart the entire text" as well. You won't acknowledge it, but your view makes no sense of the references to the thousand years coming to an end and being followed by "a little season" of time. Why would it refer to the thousand years as ending if it's not referring to an actual period of time with a beginning and ending? Are you able to answer that question in any way, shape or form? So far, I don't believe you have.

My view on revelation 20 is That it refers to: Christ’s ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension bound Satan and cast him out of his heavenly position to no longer accuse the saints and annul his works and power over death. Thus Satan was cast out and would then make war against the church, who had been raised up and seated with Christ to be a kingdom of priests and would never face the 2nd death, but God would ultimately vindicate them. Good to know that makes no sense to you…….

Spiritual Jew · Jun 29, 2023

claninja said:
How could the apostles claim “the end of all things had drawn near (1 Peter 4:7), or “the coming of the Lord had drawn near (James 5:8-9)”, or “he will come in a little while without delay (Hebrews 10:37)”, or “it is the last hour (1 John 2:18-19), or “the end of the ages had come upon them (1 Corinthians 10:11) or “the appointed time has grown very short (1 Corinthians 7:29)” if they understood the millennium , or 1,000 years, as period symbolically longer than 1,000 years?

If the apostles did believe that the coming of Christ would in their lifetime or that his return was imminent, the idea that they would have understood this “millennium” as a multi thousand year period PRIOR to the coming of christ really no longer makes sense.

So, you obviously are very rigid in your understanding of the English words you read in your English Bible translation. If something is said to be near, then it must mean it was literally near regardless of whether the Greek words they were translated from had multiple definitions or not. It can't mean that it was continually approaching and certain to happen without knowing when it would happen. No, it has to mean it was literally near in your mind. Okay. So, are you consistent with this approach? Let's find out.

Matthew 25:1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6 “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ 7 “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’ 9 “‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’ 10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’ 12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

So, I would hope that you understand that this parable is about Jesus and has to do with His second coming. Jesus Himself indicated that He would be "a long time in coming". So, do you take that as literally as you take the verses that say His coming was near or not? Was it the intention of the NT authors to say that they knew for certain that His coming was literally near? If so, doesn't that contradict what Jesus Himself believed about how long it would be until His second coming? It certainly seems so. So, what else could they have meant when they said it was near and such? I believe they simply meant that it was continually approaching at all times and was certain to happen rather than saying that it was literally near.

The reality, in my opinion, is that no one knew back then (they still don't know for sure) how long it would be until His second coming. They may have thought it was literally near, but the fact is that no one knew the day or hour, as Jesus Himself said (Matt 24:36, Matt 25:13). No one really knew how long it would be. That's why Peter wrote this:

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Why else did Peter write this except to refute anyone ever trying to say that Jesus was taking too long to return as promised? It seems to me that he understood that it could be a long time until Jesus returned, so he wanted to make it clear that no matter how long it took, it could not be considered too long because the Lord is not confined to the realm of time like us mortals are. So, it hasn't been a long time from His perspective even if it has been a long time from our perspective.

sovereigngrace · Jun 29, 2023

claninja said:
Nah, you really didn’t though. You provided every other proof text from the gospels and epistles, except one that claims Satan is bound for a long period of time then released to war against the saints.

And now since you can’t provide it, you deflect and resort to false claims of me being full preterist. Lol classic SG.

My posts are directly related to the OP, which is about the activities of Satan. I suggest you back and reread the OP.

Not so. The thread is an Premil challenging Amil. You are neither. You are just derailing.

Spiritual Jew · Jun 29, 2023

claninja said:
Ok, so then you don’t believe the saints, to whom Satan will war against and attempt to deceive when he is released from the pit in this future of yours, need to listen to Peter’s words in 1 Peter 5:9 : “flee from the devil and pray for your brothers and sisters suffering around the world” as it has no possible application to them? Good to know……..

I wasn't intending to say that exactly. I would never say that a time is coming at which point people should stop praying. Obviously, that would be ludicrous. But, since Satan will be unrestrained during that time it will be much more difficult for people to resist him and that relates to the mass falling away that Jesus talked about (Matthew 24:10-12) and Paul wrote about (2 Thess 2:3, 1 Timothy 4:1-2).

claninja said:
You Sure didn’t provide any gospel or epistolic passage that mentions Satan bound in the abyss only to be released after a long tin to war against the church.

Yeah, that's just not going to happen as I have already told you several times before when we have discussed this. I believe there are passages that relate to his binding and I have shared those, but you have decided that no two passages can relate to each other unless they have the same wording. Oh well. I can't force you to change your rigid approach to interpreting scripture.

claninja said:
you have provided zero passages from the epistles and gospels and book of acts that state Satan is bound in the abyss and will be released to war against the saint after aong period of time. If you could, you would have done so by now.

Here you are repeating yourself. Let me just make something clear here (as I have done with you in the past - your memory seems to be not so good). I will never provide a passage that has the same wording as we see in Revelation 20 regarding Satan being bound in the abyss because there are none. Does that mean there aren't any passages related to his binding that don't refer to it with the exact words you're looking for? No.

claninja said:
My view on revelation 20 is That it refers to: Christ’s ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension bound Satan and cast him out of his heavenly position to no longer accuse the saints and annul his works and power over death.

But it indicates that things like his loss of power over death and the destruction of his works would be true for "a thousand years" which is said to have a beginning and an ending. You turn the thousand years into nothing. I can't take that seriously.

claninja said:
Thus Satan was cast out and would then make war against the church, who had been raised up and seated with Christ to be a kingdom of priests and would never face the 2nd death, but God would ultimately vindicate them. Good to know that makes no sense to you…….

You know darn well that I do not deny anything you said there and you know darn well that what you said makes sense to me. But, we're talking about Satan's binding here. Where does it say he would be bound from making war against the church? Nowhere.

He has always persecuted the church, but the difference between what he has already been doing for a long time and what he will be able to do during a future time (if it hasn't already begun) is that he will be able to do those things unrestrained. Because of the increase in wickedness and the mass falling away from the faith, there will not be much resistance to his efforts to unite his followers against the church around the world. That is not like what has been the case for the past almost 2,000 years when he has faced much resistance. He has had plenty of resistance during that time because of the preaching of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit. But, with many falling away and the gospel message being largely silenced during his "little season", he would be able to wreak havoc similar to how he was able to do in Old Testament times.

Spiritual Jew · Jun 29, 2023

DavidPT said:
Paul was an apostle and that I don't get the impression via any of the following below that he perhaps thought Christ could return in his lifetime. He makes it clear that certain events have to be fulfilled before Christ can return. Clearly, for example, the day he wrote that letter, he did not think that Christ could return that very same day since that would contradict pretty much everything he said in that letter, that certain events have to be fulfilled first before Christ can return.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Here's the problem we're dealing with when trying to debate this guy. He doesn't even acknowledge that passages like that are talking about the future second coming of Christ.

claninja · Jun 29, 2023

DavidPT said:
Paul was an apostle and that I don't get the impression via any of the following below that he perhaps thought Christ could return in his lifetime. He makes it clear that certain events have to be fulfilled before Christ can return. Clearly, for example, the day he wrote that letter, he did not think that Christ could return that very same day since that would contradict pretty much everything he said in that letter, that certain events have to be fulfilled first before Christ can return.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Based on the actual Verb and its tense, Paul was correcting the belief that the day of the Lord had already occurred or was presently occurring. This is NOT evidence that Paul was correcting the idea that Christ could come in their lifetime.

“And the verb means more than is at hand,—rather, is now present (R. V.), is upon us; under the same verb (in its participle) “things present” are contrasted with “things to come” in Romans 8:38, and 1 Corinthians 3:22.”
-Cambridge bible for schools and colleges

“Probably the form which the false doctrine at Thessalonica was beginning to take was that the day of the Lord had already set in, thus confusing the whole idea of a personal, visible Advent, just as, at a later period, Hymenæus and Philetus confused the true doctrine of resurrection by affirming that it was already past (2Timothy 2:18). St. Paul not only denies vigorously that the day is come, but proceeds in the next verse to show that the signs of its approach are not yet exhibited” - ellicots commentary

“as that the day of Christ is at hand; or is at this instant just now coming on; as if it would be within that year, in some certain month, and on some certain day in it;” - John gill

“This word signifies to be exceedingly near; for ἐνεστὼςmeans present.” - bengals gnomes

“to the effect that - the day of Christ; or, as the best manuscripts read, of the Lord. Is at hand; literally, is present,” - pulpit

claninja · Jun 29, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
Not so. The thread is an Premil challenging Amil. You are neither. You are just derailing.

Hmm…….I don’t see the OP labeled as amil or premil only……

Again, I suggest re reading the OP, which is about the activities of Satan. Discussing Satan’s activities of persecuting the church is not irrelevant to the OP. Grasping at straws again SG……

sovereigngrace · Jun 29, 2023

claninja said:
Hmm…….I don’t see the OP labeled as amil or premil only……

Again, I suggest re reading the OP, which is about the activities of Satan. Discussing Satan’s activities of persecuting the church is not irrelevant to the OP. Grasping at straws again SG……

I refer you back to my last post. I have no interest in your fictional millennium theory. It is ludicrous, just like the Jesuit theology of Scott Hahn you promote.

claninja · Jun 29, 2023

Spiritual Jew said:
So, you obviously are very rigid in your understanding of the English words you read in your English Bible translation. If something is said to be near, then it must mean it was literally near regardless of whether the Greek words they were translated from had multiple definitions or not. It can't mean that it was continually approaching and certain to happen without knowing when it would happen. No, it has to mean it was literally near in your mind. Okay. So, are you consistent with this approach? Let's find out.

Matthew 25:1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6 “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ 7 “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’ 9 “‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’ 10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’ 12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

So, I would hope that you understand that this parable is about Jesus and has to do with His second coming. Jesus Himself indicated that He would be "a long time in coming". So, do you take that as literally as you take the verses that say His coming was near or not? Was it the intention of the NT authors to say that they knew for certain that His coming was literally near? If so, doesn't that contradict what Jesus Himself believed about how long it would be until His second coming? It certainly seems so. So, what else could they have meant when they said it was near and such? I believe they simply meant that it was continually approaching at all times and was certain to happen rather than saying that it was literally near.

The reality, in my opinion, is that no one knew back then (they still don't know for sure) how long it would be until His second coming. They may have thought it was literally near, but the fact is that no one knew the day or hour, as Jesus Himself said (Matt 24:36, Matt 25:13). No one really knew how long it would be. That's why Peter wrote this:

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Why else did Peter write this except to refute anyone ever trying to say that Jesus was taking too long to return as promised? It seems to me that he understood that it could be a long time until Jesus returned, so he wanted to make it clear that no matter how long it took, it could not be considered too long because the Lord is not confined to the realm of time like us mortals are. So, it hasn't been a long time from His perspective even if it has been a long time from our perspective.

I’ll stick with the Greek, which i know from previous experience, you only accept scholarly definitions when they agree with your position but reject when they contradict your position.

“1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence”

As to the parable of the 12 virgins- in Galilean wedding traditions, not knowing the day nor hour did NOT mean not knowing the general time frame. The son, bride, and guests all knew the general time frame, just not the day nor hour. Only the father of the groom knew that.

And to the “long time”. Yes, as a partial preterist, I agree 40 years between the ascension of Christ and the coming of jesus in judgement on Jerusalem was a long time. Most of the passages I have provided about “at hand” were written literally near to the destruction of Jerusalem.

As to Peter, as even you have said before, this just means God is outside of time.

Of course there would be skeptics scoffing “where is his coming?!?!?” if the apostles believed Christ would come in their lifetime and it was getting closer to the end of their lives. LOL It would make zero sense for skeptics to scoff “where is His coming?!?!” if the apostles taught Christ wasn’t coming for a 1,000 years (or symbolic for multi thousand years).

claninja · Jun 29, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
I refer you back to my last post. I have no interest in your fictional millennium theory. It is ludicrous, just like the Jesuit theology of Scott Hahn you promote.

And I’ll refer you to the OP:

1Tonne said:
I have a question that I have not been able to figure out.
Amillenialist believe that we are in the 1000-year reign right now.
If this is correct, why is there so much evil in the world? Why are their false religions deceiving people, murder, rape, theft and many other things.
In the 1000 reign of Christ, satan was not only bound but he was also put into a pit and sealed so that he was unable to deceive people until the 1000 years were up. But many are being deceived right now.
In Rev 20:1-3 "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he took hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time."
So, how does the Amilleniall viewpoint reconcile this?

sovereigngrace · Jun 29, 2023

claninja said:
I’ll stick with the Greek, which i know from previous experience, you only accept scholarly definitions when they agree with your position but reject when they contradict your position.

“1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence”

The major problem we have with understanding what God says is that we try to comprehend His great eternal promises from a limited earthly perspective. In doing this, we misconstrue God, show an ignorance of His eternal viewpoint and put Him into a box. The fact is, God’s vantage point is a lot superior and better informed than ours. He lives outside of time. He sees things from an eternal perspective.

God is also more than able to be His own interpreter and give His own opinion in regard to the fulfilment of prophetic events. Text, context and co-text all come into play to explain the meaning of His own prophecies, who they relate to, how they will be fulfilled and when they occur.

Preterists make much of phrases like "soon," “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near.” They use these to support their belief that Jesus has already come, the last day has already occurred and that we are now living in the new heavens and new earth.

The mistake they make is that they always interpret these from man’s standpoint and thus get confused as to their meaning. Of course, from man’s outlook these terms would normally suggest that something is just around the corner. But such terms are totally relative. We should always remember, the Bible speaks in God’s time. God’s near, quickly or shortly are completely different from man’s perspective. God’s soon is not always our soon. Our knowledge of biblical truth, our awareness of the context in question, a study of the meaning and usage of the original Greek words, and our ascertaining whether something is being explained from man’s finite viewpoint or God’s eternal perspective, aid us in understanding the time and event in view.

On this matter, a basic understanding of “time” and “eternity” will explain what we are looking at in Scripture. The phrase “at hand” or “near” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It is not time-specific. It can mean immediate or distant future, like our English word. In fact, it carries the exact same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like "soon," “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.

sovereigngrace · Jun 29, 2023

claninja said:
As to the parable of the 12 virgins- in Galilean wedding traditions, not knowing the day nor hour did NOT mean not knowing the general time frame. The son, bride, and guests all knew the general time frame, just not the day nor hour. Only the father of the groom knew that.

And to the “long time”. Yes, as a partial preterist, I agree 40 years between the ascension of Christ and the coming of jesus in judgement on Jerusalem was a long time. Most of the passages I have provided about “at hand” were written literally near to the destruction of Jerusalem.

As to Peter, as even you have said before, this just means God is outside of time.

Of course there would be skeptics scoffing “where is his coming?!?!?” if the apostles believed Christ would come in their lifetime and it was getting closer to the end of their lives. LOL It would make zero sense for skeptics to scoff “where is His coming?!?!” if the apostles taught Christ wasn’t coming for a 1,000 years (or symbolic for multi thousand years).

This argument is duplicity and self-defeating. From Jesus words re ‘the redemption of His people’ to AD70 was clearly a long while, as you admit. 40 years is a long time. But this negates your whole imminent argument and 'short while' mantra. It was either a 'short while' or a 'long while'. You cannot have it both ways. You have been insisting for years that eggizō must be interpreted as near, close, imminent, and now you are recognizing that it can mean a long time in human terms (40 years).

claninja · Jun 30, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
The major problem we have with understanding what God says is that we try to comprehend His great eternal promises from a limited earthly perspective. In doing this, we misconstrue God, show an ignorance of His eternal viewpoint and put Him into a box. The fact is, God’s vantage point is a lot superior and better informed than ours. He lives outside of time. He sees things from an eternal perspective.

God is also more than able to be His own interpreter and give His own opinion in regard to the fulfilment of prophetic events. Text, context and co-text all come into play to explain the meaning of His own prophecies, who they relate to, how they will be fulfilled and when they occur.

Preterists make much of phrases like "soon," “at hand,” “quickly,” “shortly” or “near.” They use these to support their belief that Jesus has already come, the last day has already occurred and that we are now living in the new heavens and new earth.

The mistake they make is that they always interpret these from man’s standpoint and thus get confused as to their meaning. Of course, from man’s outlook these terms would normally suggest that something is just around the corner. But such terms are totally relative. We should always remember, the Bible speaks in God’s time. God’s near, quickly or shortly are completely different from man’s perspective. God’s soon is not always our soon. Our knowledge of biblical truth, our awareness of the context in question, a study of the meaning and usage of the original Greek words, and our ascertaining whether something is being explained from man’s finite viewpoint or God’s eternal perspective, aid us in understanding the time and event in view.

On this matter, a basic understanding of “time” and “eternity” will explain what we are looking at in Scripture. The phrase “at hand” or “near” is taken from the single Greek word eggizō, and simply means “approaches.” It is not time-specific. It can mean immediate or distant future, like our English word. In fact, it carries the exact same sense as our English word. It carries a broad meaning and does not in any way demand an imminent fulfilment. Other words like "soon," “quickly,” “shortly” and “near,” express time from God’s eternal standpoint, not man’s natural position. It is therefore wrong to force our dim earthly sense of time upon God. It is definitely foolish to build a whole theology upon that.

And I think it’s foolish to build a theology off of interpreting symbolic passages in revelation without gospel and epistolic evidence, but to each their own…..

Your whole post is an opinion piece which provides zero scholarly evidence that the perfect indicative active of eggizo means the polar opposite of near. Then you have to throw in the whole “God’s time argument”, which is not a serious argument. There are so many better options for your position, such as the prophetic perfect idiom….not sure why you never use that……..

So Is it your position that the apostles did NOT believe the coming of the Lord was imminent, but instead believed it was at least a minimum of 1,000 (or symbolic for a long time)?

Do the early church fathers teach that Christs coming was at least a thousand years away?

claninja · Jun 30, 2023

sovereigngrace said:
This argument is duplicity and self-defeating. From Jesus words re ‘the redemption of His people’ to AD70 was clearly a long while, as you admit. 40 years is a long time. But this negates your whole imminent argument and 'short while' mantra. It was either a 'short while' or a 'long while'. You cannot have it both ways. You have been insisting for years that eggizō must be interpreted as near, close, imminent, and now you are recognizing that it can mean a long time in human terms (40 years).

“God’s time”, right?

But seriously, this clearly shows you didn’t read the whole post. Where did I post any passages, that were written 40 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, that claim the coming of Christ was “at hand (eggizo)”?

sovereigngrace · Jun 30, 2023

claninja said:
And I think it’s foolish to build a theology off of interpreting symbolic passages in revelation without gospel and epistolic evidence, but to each their own…..

Your whole post is an opinion piece which provides zero scholarly evidence that the perfect indicative active of eggizo means the polar opposite of near. Then you have to throw in the whole “God’s time argument”, which is not a serious argument. There are so many better options for your position, such as the prophetic perfect idiom….not sure why you never use that……..

So Is it your position that the apostles did NOT believe the coming of the Lord was imminent, but instead believed it was at least a minimum of 1,000 (or symbolic for a long time)?

Do the early church fathers teach that Christs coming was at least a thousand years away?

The word eggizō means “impending” or “approaching" not imminent.

sovereigngrace · Jun 30, 2023

claninja said:
“God’s time”, right?

But seriously, this clearly shows you didn’t read the whole post. Where did I post any passages, that were written 40 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, that claim the coming of Christ was “at hand (eggizo)”?

The teaching of the gospels were at least 40 years before AD 70.

Question for Amillennialists

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency