Rev. 20:4, No Mention of Physical Earthly Reign

[jerry kelso]

If you get what Paul is saying, you would understand that as referring to his salvation. It is through Christ that we die to sin once, because the life of Christ, who never sinned, is in place of our life. This doesn't mean we don't commit sin as believers. God sees us through the sinless life of Christ Jerry. You and I sin everyday. Paul understands "dying to sin once" as his salvation. Romans 6:6 makes the point:

6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

To take it a step further, John makes this very point in 1 John 3:9
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

That is how Paul can say he died to sin once Jerry, he doesn't mean he himself doesn't sin. He does mean because Christ life is in his account, he died to sin.

Galatians 2:20 is making that very point, and you’re just not acknowledging what Paul means…but he says it at this point where Paul says:
"and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me."
Paul here, is saying he lives by allowing the Spirit of Jesus to live through him!!! That is how he dies daily...he crucifies the flesh to not letting the desires of the flesh dominate him, but he allows living through faith in Christ to rule his life. Paul never denies that he sins.


You can sing that until the cows come home Jerry, that doesn’t mean you’re right. No on denies 1 Corinthians 15 is overall about resurrection…BUT…every bit of it is not. Other points are being made in the passage. As I asked you before if Paul is not talking about dying to sin, as well as living for Christ, why does verses 34 and 35 direct the Corinthians to watch the company they keep, and to stop sinning? Can you answer that?


Verse 12, no doubt, brings up the subject of resurrection Jerry. No one doubts that. The point is…is that all Paul speaks about? The answer is no...because the subject of resurrection leads to other subjects. Paul isn’t singing just one song (so to speak).



We’re simply going to agree we disagree. Paul means more than resurrection when he speaks of “dying daily” Jerry…and you just don get it so you want to “play one song”, which is resurrection…but context determines.

You’re trying to side step the passage in saying “Verse 33-34 is an exhortation to righteousness in view of the resurrection.” But how does one become righteous without dying to sin in their life Jerry? It’s not and exhortation...it is a command! Paul said STOP SINNING, so why would he say "stop sinning" if people in the church are not sinning?

*Sometimes when Paul says “he dies daily” he means to himself or his desires, to live for Christ…like Galatians 2:20

*Other times he says it he means putting off of the life of sin to live for Christ…like Romans 6:8-11

The fact is that resurrection, for the believer is both physical and spiritual. The entirety of Romans 6 makes this very point.

There’s no need to keep on with this topic brother. You keep your view, and I’ll keep mine. I’m done on this point.

ebedlemech,

1. A text without a context is just a pretext. This is your first mistake.

2. You have to exegete the immediate context first before going to another scripture to prove the real point. This is your mistake.

3. We both believe Paul’s account of dying to sin once as Christ did Romans 6:6.
Paul did this when he got saved. So dying daily could not be his point in this context.
This is also not proper hermeneutics because you are trying to use an outside text to prove another text that you have not learned the immediate context of.

4. The whole chapter is about the physical resurrection which is about the body. This is the main theme.

5. The spiritual resurrection is salvation which deals with the new covenant which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
The spiritual and physical resurrections are two separate things.

6. The physical resurrection of immortality of a Christian is conditioned by receiving the spiritual resurrection of salvation.

7. Technically, we could live sinless because of God’s power is so strong. It is a possibility but not a probability because of our weaknesses.
Sinning everyday I don’t believe is scriptural. Peter said in 1 Peter 4:1-2: Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise likewise with the same mind: for he that has suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.
That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.
If a Christian can’t live sinless for one day then I question their discipline in believing in the overcoming power of God.

8. Crucifying the flesh is realizing who we are in Christ and abstaining from the appearance of evil.
Paul was allowing the Spirit to live through him and he was a witness to the Corinthians.

9. Vs. 6-8; are the witnesses of Christ physical resurrection.
Vs. 12-22 is specific to the physical resurrection and everything spiritual is vain if there is no physical resurrection.
Vs 23 is specific to the order of the physical resurrection.
Vs. 29 is specific to physical resurrection
of common sense in relation to if those who baptize for the dead what good is it if they don’t rise.
Vs. 30 why they stood in jeopardy ever hour had to do with physical persecution.
Vs. 31, his protesting by their rejoicing means that he had every expectation of seeing the Corinthians saved at any cost including dying physically.
Paul gloried in the cross and was committed to put his life on the line for Christ and for his church.
Vs. 32 if Paul was victorious over men of Ephesus what good was it if there was no physical resurrection. Eating and drinking for tomorrow we die is physical.

10. These 18 of 32 verses of the 15th chapter are direct proof of physical danger connected to physical resurrection being the main point in this context. There is nothing about spiritual dying to sin everyday because he believed in dying to sin once as Christ did.

11. Vs. 1-4 is about the spiritual resurrection of salvation which is for us the death, burial and resurrection of Christ which is physical. If they didn’t maintain their salvation they would have believed in vain.
Paul wasn’t preaching specifically about dying to self even though he did live through the power of he Spirit.
Vs. 9-11 Paul recognizes the grace that God saved him though undeserving because of his persecuting the church of God. God gave him grace and it was not in vain. It didn’t matter if it was him or not the gospel was preached and the Corinthians believed.
There is no point of dying to self even though he would have done this concerning living to the Spirit.
Vs. 24-28; is about the physical KoH reign to destroying God’s enemies, and sin and death where the Son will subdue all things and turn the kingdom back to the Father so he can be all in all.
There is no point of crucifying the flesh even though Paul would have allowed the Spirit to live through him. All Christians are called to live ready to be die for the cause of Christ.
So it is plain to see Vs. 1-32 which is the beginning to the end of the context is not about dying to sin or crucifying the flesh in the context of the phrase “I die daily”!!!!!!!!!!!!

12. Vs. 33-34; Be not deceived ; evil communications corrupt good manners.
Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
Some of the Corinthians were carnal 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.
Paul preached the gospel to them and they should have known better live clean for God, so he was rebuking them. This was in view of the physical resurrection.
Vs. 35 follows with the question, but some men will say How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come? And the rest of the chapter is about the physical resurrection.

13. In conclusion, yes Paul believed in dying to sin but it is not in this passage because he believed in doing that when he got saved once and for all.
Paul also believed in dying to self as in the fact of abstaining from sin but it is not in this passage directly and is definitely not the theme or purpose of the context.
You have to go outside the immediate context first to try and prove it and make a whole doctrine which is coercing your opinion to that passage and that is why it is your opinion and cannot be right. Jerry Kelso

 

[ebedmelech]

ebedlemech,

1. A text without a context is just a pretext. This is your first mistake.

2. You have to exegete the immediate context first before going to another scripture to prove the real point. This is your mistake.

3. We both believe Paul’s account of dying to sin once as Christ did Romans 6:6.
Paul did this when he got saved. So dying daily could not be his point in this context.
This is also not proper hermeneutics because you are trying to use an outside text to prove another text that you have not learned the immediate context of.

4. The whole chapter is about the physical resurrection which is about the body. This is the main theme.

5. The spiritual resurrection is salvation which deals with the new covenant which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
The spiritual and physical resurrections are two separate things.

6. The physical resurrection of immortality of a Christian is conditioned by receiving the spiritual resurrection of salvation.

7. Technically, we could live sinless because of God’s power is so strong. It is a possibility but not a probability because of our weaknesses.
Sinning everyday I don’t believe is scriptural. Peter said in 1 Peter 4:1-2: Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise likewise with the same mind: for he that has suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.
That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.
If a Christian can’t live sinless for one day then I question their discipline in believing in the overcoming power of God.

8. Crucifying the flesh is realizing who we are in Christ and abstaining from the appearance of evil.
Paul was allowing the Spirit to live through him and he was a witness to the Corinthians.

9. Vs. 6-8; are the witnesses of Christ physical resurrection.
Vs. 12-22 is specific to the physical resurrection and everything spiritual is vain if there is no physical resurrection.
Vs 23 is specific to the order of the physical resurrection.
Vs. 29 is specific to physical resurrection
of common sense in relation to if those who baptize for the dead what good is it if they don’t rise.
Vs. 30 why they stood in jeopardy ever hour had to do with physical persecution.
Vs. 31, his protesting by their rejoicing means that he had every expectation of seeing the Corinthians saved at any cost including dying physically.
Paul gloried in the cross and was committed to put his life on the line for Christ and for his church.
Vs. 32 if Paul was victorious over men of Ephesus what good was it if there was no physical resurrection. Eating and drinking for tomorrow we die is physical.

10. These 18 of 32 verses of the 15th chapter are direct proof of physical danger connected to physical resurrection being the main point in this context. There is nothing about spiritual dying to sin everyday because he believed in dying to sin once as Christ did.

11. Vs. 1-4 is about the spiritual resurrection of salvation which is for us the death, burial and resurrection of Christ which is physical. If they didn’t maintain their salvation they would have believed in vain.
Paul wasn’t preaching specifically about dying to self even though he did live through the power of he Spirit.
Vs. 9-11 Paul recognizes the grace that God saved him though undeserving because of his persecuting the church of God. God gave him grace and it was not in vain. It didn’t matter if it was him or not the gospel was preached and the Corinthians believed.
There is no point of dying to self even though he would have done this concerning living to the Spirit.
Vs. 24-28; is about the physical KoH reign to destroying God’s enemies, and sin and death where the Son will subdue all things and turn the kingdom back to the Father so he can be all in all.
There is no point of crucifying the flesh even though Paul would have allowed the Spirit to live through him. All Christians are called to live ready to be die for the cause of Christ.
So it is plain to see Vs. 1-32 which is the beginning to the end of the context is not about dying to sin or crucifying the flesh in the context of the phrase “I die daily”!!!!!!!!!!!!

12. Vs. 33-34; Be not deceived ; evil communications corrupt good manners.
Awake to righteousness and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
Some of the Corinthians were carnal 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.
Paul preached the gospel to them and they should have known better live clean for God, so he was rebuking them. This was in view of the physical resurrection.
Vs. 35 follows with the question, but some men will say How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come? And the rest of the chapter is about the physical resurrection.

13. In conclusion, yes Paul believed in dying to sin but it is not in this passage because he believed in doing that when he got saved once and for all.
Paul also believed in dying to self as in the fact of abstaining from sin but it is not in this passage directly and is definitely not the theme or purpose of the context.
You have to go outside the immediate context first to try and prove it and make a whole doctrine which is coercing your opinion to that passage and that is why it is your opinion and cannot be right. Jerry Kelso

As I said, I'm done with this Jerry. It's gone as far as it can go, and we disagree. I'm as firm in my position, as you are in yours.

 

[eleos1954]

The point here is you couldn't refute my response. Now you want to spin my answers. I'm done with this.

well ... no not really ... you made many many "points" and I responded to a couple of them ... and we were getting off topic ... but ok, I understand, I was going to suggest we open a thread or thread(s) on some of our differences, but I guess you are not open to that

God Bless.

 

[jerry kelso]

As I said, I'm done with this Jerry. It's gone as far as it can go, and we disagree. I'm as firm in my position, as you are in yours.

ebedlemech,

You are done and that is your prerogative.
A few last comments; your whole thinking can be equated with allegorical interpretation and that is why you can make it say or apply to most whatever you like.
It is also your mindset such as believing the KoH and the KoG message by Jesus was taught to the gentile nations.
Just because Jesus had a few interactions with gentile people and saved them doesn’t mean that he preached the message of the KoH and the KoG message. You do not understand the historical context or the dispensational context.
The gospels were written directly to the Jewish nation not the gentiles or the church. This context must be understood before one really understands what it means correctly to the New Covenant Believer.
Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

As I said, I'm done with this Jerry. It's gone as far as it can go, and we disagree. I'm as firm in my position, as you are in yours.

ebedlemech,

1. Well, we can agree to disagree. We believe the same things in essence. We just disagree with what is the actual point of the context. Blessings. Jerry Kelso

 

[Adamina]

Revelation 20:4 says,

"...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

This passage says nothing about Jesus coming to this earth and establishing a worldly Kingdom at Jerusalem. Those that teach this are duty-bound to prove their doctrine with scripture.

Did you know that the phrase "thousand year reign of Christ" does not appear anywhere in scripture? Neither does the term "millenium." Yet, the doctrine is prevalent among so many denominations.

Where does this passage mention Christ's second coming?

Where does it mention a reign on earth?

Where does it mention Christ on earth?

Those who believe in a future earthly reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years make the same mistake that the Jews who crucified Christ made -- they were not satisfied with a spiritual Kingdom; they had to have a literal, worldly, physical Kingdom.

The truth of the matter is not that Christ will reign for a thousand years some time in the future, but that Christ is reigning now, and will continue to reign for eternity. We do not have to wait for His Kingdom to come sometime in the future before He starts reigning over our lives, for Christ's Kingdom is here now, and He desires that we reign with Him now, whether we choose to recognize it or not.

From what I understand is the Dispensationalism is where that doctrine originally formed. I thank God I did not get sucked into that doctrine.

Everything one wanted to know about the dispensationalist premill rapture/1000yr physical reign doctrine, but was afraid to ask. And for good reason!
Some links for those that may be interested:

Dispensationalism – Grace Online Library
.........Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking. So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place.

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture. This feature is its…
==============================================
Four Views on the Millennium - Study Resources

Four Views on the Millennium
Eschatology :: Four Views on the Millennium

• What Is the Millennium in Question?
• Why Is This Millennium in Question?
• The Views
• Dispensational Premillennialism
• Historical Premillennialism
• Postmillennialism
• Amillennialism
• Conclusion

What Is the Millennium in Question?

When Christians discuss their millennial views, they are speaking of their interpretation of the much debated passage in Revelation 20:1-10 — NASB.

"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid 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.

"Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

"When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever." (NASB)

Why Is This Millennium in Question?
Some see this as a future earthly theocracy by which Christ will rule over the nations for a thousand years. Others see it as a time during which Christ will rule earth from heaven through the life-changing power of the Gospel. Still others look at it in another way. And the multitude of others holds a multitude of other interpretations.

One's final interpretation of the thousand years from Revelation 20 depends more upon certain factors related to a Christian's hermeneutic than the strict text of the ten much debated verses. There are several ways in which orthodox Christians choose to come to Scripture and depending on which of these methods is used, one's understanding of eschatological issues — and a host of others as well — will experience changes both significant and trivial. And since one interprets Scripture primarily through the filter of his understanding of other passages in the Word, one's millennial view does have an effect (whether great or small) on the way in which he lives his life.

The Views
Since space is limited, we are unable to treat all the current millennial views, but we do hope to give a brief, but accurate account of the main tenets of the four main existing viewpoints as well as some of the reasons — both Scriptural and interpretive — behind each view. These four main eschatological systems that we shall treat are as follows: dispensational premillennialism, historic premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Please realize that though these views differ significantly on the topic at hand, the Christians who disagree on these matters agree with each other on probably ninety percent of the rest of the Christian life.

Also, in coming to one's own view, there are certain poor arguments from which one should shy away. A couple of these are arguments from history and arguments from the deeds of those who are proponents of a given view. Arguments from history, while having some use, should generally be avoided for the simple fact that not only were the eschatological views of the early church largely undefined, but most of the Second and Third Century church fathers held to some beliefs that would today be considered odd or even unorthodox. Arguments against an idea from the "bad fruit" of that idea's proponents, while a popular form of argumentation, should be left behind; as it happens, every view has had its embarrassing supporters who claim to act from their beliefs but represent something altogether outside of Christianity. Amillennialists are accused because Nazis misapplied some of their beliefs. Postmillennialists are judged because some over-zealous rebels in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries misused their principles. Premillennialists come under attack because both a) the majority of Christian cults take up their ideas of end-times cataclysm and b) some of those who profess premillenialism get caught up in setting dates for Christ's return. With those cautions noted, we shall examine each of these four views individually.

Dispensational Premillennialism
Definition:

Dispensational premillennialists hold that Christ will come before a seven-year period of intense tribulation to take His church (living and dead) into heaven. After this period of fulfillment of divine wrath, He shall then return to rule from a holy city (i.e., the New Jerusalem) over the earthly nations for one thousand years. After these thousand years, Satan, who was bound up during Christ's earthly reign, will be loosed to deceive the nations, gather an army of the deceived, and take up to battle against the Lord. This battle will end in both the judgment of the wicked and Satan and the entrance into the eternal state of glory by the righteous. This view is called premillenialism because it places the return of Christ before the millennium and it is called dispensational because it is founded in the doctrines of dispensationalism.
==========================================

 

[n2thelight]

Zechariah 14:4 ►
Parallel Verses
King James Version
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

 

[iamlamad]

Revelation 20:4 says,

"...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

This passage says nothing about Jesus coming to this earth and establishing a worldly Kingdom at Jerusalem. Those that teach this are duty-bound to prove their doctrine with scripture.

Did you know that the phrase "thousand year reign of Christ" does not appear anywhere in scripture? Neither does the term "millenium." Yet, the doctrine is prevalent among so many denominations.

Where does this passage mention Christ's second coming?

Where does it mention a reign on earth?

Where does it mention Christ on earth?

Those who believe in a future earthly reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years make the same mistake that the Jews who crucified Christ made -- they were not satisfied with a spiritual Kingdom; they had to have a literal, worldly, physical Kingdom.

The truth of the matter is not that Christ will reign for a thousand years some time in the future, but that Christ is reigning now, and will continue to reign for eternity. We do not have to wait for His Kingdom to come sometime in the future before He starts reigning over our lives, for Christ's Kingdom is here now, and He desires that we reign with Him now, whether we choose to recognize it or not.

Katie, wise people do not form doctrines from one isolated scripture. We form end time doctrine from ALL end times scripture. Therefore, to say "Where does this passage mention Christ's second coming?" is just not a wise question to ask. Jesus second coming DOES NOT NEED to be "in this passage." It might just be in another passage. OF COURSE Jesus millennial reign can be proven with scripture. However, I can ask a question: where is there a verse showing Jesus returning back to heaven after His descent in Rev. 19? Can you find one? You do know of a scripture where Jesus touches down on the mount of Olives?

 

[iamlamad]

From what I understand is the Dispensationalism is where that doctrine originally formed. I thank God I did not get sucked into that doctrine.

Everything one wanted to know about the dispensationalist premill rapture/1000yr physical reign doctrine, but was afraid to ask. And for good reason!
Some links for those that may be interested:

Dispensationalism – Grace Online Library
.........Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking. So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place.

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture. This feature is its…
==============================================
Four Views on the Millennium - Study Resources

Four Views on the Millennium
Eschatology :: Four Views on the Millennium

• What Is the Millennium in Question?
• Why Is This Millennium in Question?
• The Views
• Dispensational Premillennialism
• Historical Premillennialism
• Postmillennialism
• Amillennialism
• Conclusion

What Is the Millennium in Question?


Dispensational Premillennialism
Definition:

Dispensational premillennialists hold that Christ will come before a seven-year period of intense tribulation to take His church (living and dead) into heaven. After this period of fulfillment of divine wrath, He shall then return to rule from a holy city (i.e., the New Jerusalem) over the earthly nations for one thousand years. After these thousand years, Satan, who was bound up during Christ's earthly reign, will be loosed to deceive the nations, gather an army of the deceived, and take up to battle against the Lord. This battle will end in both the judgment of the wicked and Satan and the entrance into the eternal state of glory by the righteous. This view is called premillenialism because it places the return of Christ before the millennium and it is called dispensational because it is founded in the doctrines of dispensationalism.
==========================================

I thank God I did not get sucked into that doctrine. Do you believe we are still under Moses Law?

it is founded in the doctrines of dispensationalism. I think rather it is founded in the scripture.

 

[iamlamad]

The promise to Abraham concerning the land had been fulfilled long before Jesus gave His sermon on the mount. You continue to ignore Joshua 21:43-45.

43 So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors, and they took possession of it and settled there. 44 The Lord gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their ancestors. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one of all the Lord’s good promises to Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.

Jesus was not saying the meek would literally inherit the earth (also translated land). Keep in mind that the land of Canaan was and is regarded as a type of heaven (Hebrews 3:16-4:10). Jesus is saying the meek would be received into the heavenly kingdom and receive blessings there.


Jesus, King of Kings, Lord of Lords is reigning now and forever. His kingdom is here. Christians are His subjects. Jesus rules and reigns in the hearts of men.


Jesus has been seated on the throne of David, the throne of God, in heaven since the resurrection where he was given all rule and authority on heaven and earth. Mt 28:18-29


Twice above, you used the phrase "Israel's earthly calling."

For the sake of clarification, could you explain in two or three sentences what you believe "Israel's earthly calling" is. I am not asking you to give supporting Scripture or lengthy details. I only want to understand what your position is.

Thanks, and may your day be blessed.

Katie

Jesus was not saying the meek would literally inherit the earth Wow! I thought SURE that is what Jesus said!

Jesus, King of Kings, Lord of Lords is reigning now and forever. His kingdom is here. Christians are His subjects. Jesus rules and reigns in the hearts of men.
Please explain what happens then at the 7th trumpet in Revelation.

 

[iamlamad]

Jerry,

It is impossible for me to discuss/debate all of the points you try to make. I don't have time. Please limit your responses to one point at a time..

In my last post to you, I focused on one point only, and that was to show that God has already fulfilled His land promise to Israel. You ignored my point. You didn't refute it, so I will take that to mean you agree with me. That is great!

You said it is not Biblical to call the church "spiritual Israel" It's true that the actual term is not found in the Bible, but then, as my OP states, "Nowhere in Revelation 20:4 does it say that Jesus is coming to this earth to establish a worldly Kingdom at Jerusalem." The phrase "thousand year reign of Christ" does not appear anywhere in scripture. Neither does the term "millenium." Yet, you use these terms. How is my use of the term "spiritual Israel" different than your use of the terms I mentioned above?

I believe the Bible when it says Christians are the true Jews today.

Romans 2:28-29
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

"for we [Christians] are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,... " (Phil. 3:3)

"For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:15-16)

Surely you don't think the "Israel of God," in the above passage, is physical Israel? So then, who is the Israel of God if it is not christians, the church of the living God?

The peace in Phil. 3:3 is for those who walk according to Christ so it CANNOT refer to fleshly/physical Israel that rejects Christ.


The church is true Israel and Christians are God's true "Jews" today.

Blessings,

Katie

that was to show that God has already fulfilled His land promise to Israel.

Sorry, Katie, but God's land promise was to last forever. Israel today has only a tiny portion of what God promises as a forever promise. That is why many believe that one day Israel will be MUCH larger than it is today.

Gen. 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

"For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:15-16)
katie, it is in the realm of the SPIRIT (the spiritual dimension) that we are a new creation and that everything becomes new. A bald sinner is still bald when born again - but his spirit man is new. A Gentile before salvation is still, IN THE FLESH a Gentile after salvation. The Jew and the Greek are made one IN THE SPIRIT. That is why God could say that the fullness of the Gentiles is not yet in. The church of today is mostly a Gentile church.

Christians are God's true "Jews" today. Whether a Jew or a Gentile is born again, BOTH are grafted into a JEWISH tree, for Jesus was a Jew. Nevertheless, God made promises to the PHYSICAL descendants of Jacob that have not yet been fulfilled. Do you think Ezekiel 37 was written to the church? The Jerusalem that the bible speaks of is still in the nation of Israel in the Middle East, and will be the stumbling block for many nations in the near future. God is certainly not done with physical Israel.

Of course it is OK to use the term, spiritual Israel, but don't forget PHYSICAL Israel still has many promises yet to be fulfilled.

 

[jerry kelso]

From what I understand is the Dispensationalism is where that doctrine originally formed. I thank God I did not get sucked into that doctrine.

Everything one wanted to know about the dispensationalist premill rapture/1000yr physical reign doctrine, but was afraid to ask. And for good reason!
Some links for those that may be interested:

Dispensationalism – Grace Online Library
.........Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking. So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place.

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture. This feature is its…
==============================================
Four Views on the Millennium - Study Resources

Four Views on the Millennium
Eschatology :: Four Views on the Millennium

• What Is the Millennium in Question?
• Why Is This Millennium in Question?
• The Views
• Dispensational Premillennialism
• Historical Premillennialism
• Postmillennialism
• Amillennialism
• Conclusion

What Is the Millennium in Question?


Dispensational Premillennialism
Definition:

Dispensational premillennialists hold that Christ will come before a seven-year period of intense tribulation to take His church (living and dead) into heaven. After this period of fulfillment of divine wrath, He shall then return to rule from a holy city (i.e., the New Jerusalem) over the earthly nations for one thousand years. After these thousand years, Satan, who was bound up during Christ's earthly reign, will be loosed to deceive the nations, gather an army of the deceived, and take up to battle against the Lord. This battle will end in both the judgment of the wicked and Satan and the entrance into the eternal state of glory by the righteous. This view is called premillenialism because it places the return of Christ before the millennium and it is called dispensational because it is founded in the doctrines of dispensationalism.
==========================================

adamina,

1. Whatever your hermeneutics are in Revelation that results in the different positions reveal what teachings as a system are embraced effect the theological stance.
It is nothing reserved to dispensationalism only.

2. Presuppositions are not in Dispensationalism as much as proper hermeneutics such as precept upon precept and proper context and reconciling scriptural context in all the word of God together to harmonize.

3. There is not a two phased return of Christ except in your terminology and false claim.
They are two entirely different comings with specific reasons.

4. Your position of Christ reigning now has some merit but is a different context than the millennial reign in Revelation 20.

5. There are basic arguments that can be made why one position might be wrong but, at the same time there are different streams of thought that can enter in according to one’s hermeneutics.
So if you’re convinced of your position being right and not pervasive and full of error then feel free to state your position according to scripture and why you believe that. Thank you Jerry kelso