Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This does not make sense. Incorruptible means incorruptible. It is free from death and decay. Sin, death and decay are married together.
You have your millennial inhabitants needing new Mark2 incorruptible bodies at the end of the Premil millennium.
With your reasoning, then,, man has the ability to fall again in the NHNE in his incorruptible body?
What's the determining thing here? Is it our bodies or is it Satan who has influence on man? In Genesis, they had "perfect" bodies, yet they still sinned. Isn't that what the NHNE is doing? Creating a whole world like the garden of Eden?
In my view, in the NHNE we can sin, we just will not want to.
No. Adam did not have a glorified body like Christ. We will. What is more, there will be no more Satan when Jesus comes. Every enemy of righteousness will finally be destroyed. Read what Rev 21-22 says about the eternal state. There will be no more curse. It will not be like Adam's day therefore. Peter represents it by righteousness.
What's the determining thing here? Is it our bodies or is it Satan who has influence on man? In Genesis, they had "perfect" bodies, yet they still sinned. Isn't that what the NHNE is doing? Creating a whole world like the garden of Eden?
In my view, in the NHNE we can sin, we just will not want to.
So you do not see the NHNE as the same as before Adam sinned. Interesting.
No. Christ fulfilled a plan that would ensure that would be eternally overcome.
Not so. I am saying the opposite. Natural Israel could never fulfill the demands of God because of sin. That is why Jesus came. He is true Israel. He did what man could never do. We are not waiting for some alleged age for Israel to get their act together. We are watching men of all nations now enter into faithful Israel - the only Israel acceptable unto God.
The old covenant was based upon the faithfulness of man and consequently failed.
The new covenant was based upon the faithfulness of Christ and consequently gloriously succeeded.
Sadly, Dispys are fixated with the wrong Israel and the wrong covenant. That is why the have to invent some future age to fulfill the fulfilled promises that have already been realized in Christ.
They want to rebuild a redundant temple, restart the pointless slaughter of countless of innocent animals and resurrect the long abolished Aaronic priesthood. This is an offense to the ministry and achievements of Christ, NT Christianity and the finished work of the cross.
The millennium is here. Christ is reigning over His enemies. True Israel is prospering through the joy of sins forgiven and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
This is a unitary event. The rescue of the elect sees the simultaneous destruction of the wicked. The resurrection of the wicked immediately follows the resurrection of the righteous.
The ultimate fulfillment of Israel is found in Matthew 1:1, as confirmed by Paul in Galatians 3:16.
He is the one seed to whom the Abrahamic promise was made.
His ultimate promise was fulfilled at Calvary in John 19:30.
"It is finished."
.
Then you must view when God said his entire creation was "very good" didn't mean it was "perfect." Fair enough.
Amils are speculating big time here, because of what 1 Corinthians 15:52 indicates, apparently. And based on what this indicates, Amils then speculate, rather than actually prove with Scripture, that all of these other events, such as destroying of the wicked, the great white throne judgment, etc, that these also happen in this same moment of time, or if not within that same moment of time, in like manner then, that these other events also are fulfilled from start to finish in a moment's time, even though Amils can't produce a single verse where it tells us, for example, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, the great white throne judgment begins and finishes up entirely.
Salvation now, bodily resurrection coming. The promise is now, the delivering is coming.Actually, I stress both. I made the text bigger for that part to show the part that I believe you are disregarding. The text suggests an ongoing event that occurs every day and had already begun back then rather than just a one time future event. I believe you are not being honest with the text and are allowing doctrinal bias to dictate how you interpret the passage.
Please tell me what you think Jesus meant when he said the time is coming, and has now come...". What does the "and has now come" (KJV: "and now is") part mean to you?
Because interpreting it as you do means sucking the meaning out of it and making glorious things in scripture to just be hyperbole/exaggeration of very mundane things. If God truly meant that by Satan "deceiving the nations no more" means that oh, People can evangelize and preach the gospel?That is the problem I have with premil's approach to interpreting scripture. Its foundation is on highly debatable, difficult to interpret passages, much of which are written in symbolic language. The amillennial doctrine's foundation, in contrast, is on much more clear, straightforward passages like John 5:28-29 (the previous verses do not talk about the bodily resurrection). Jesus's message in John 5:28-29 is very clear and can only be misunderstood because of doctrinal bias, in my opinion.
In other words, if Rev 20 didn't exist, I strongly believe there is no way you would interpret it the way you do. But, why not interpret Rev 20 according to what the more clear passage of John 5:24-29 says instead of the other way around?
I'm fully aware of the amillennial interpretation, but, I don't like to treat the bible as hyperbole as I explained above. If I was resurrected before I was even born? If I'm now "ruling and reigning"? If THIS is a glorified body? I'm unimpressed.Here is something you have probably not considered before. In my view, the text implies that the only way one can avoid the second death is by having part in the first resurrection. I believe Christ's resurrection is the first resurrection unto a glorified, immortal body (1 Cor 15:20-23, Acts 26:23) and that all believers from all-time spiritually have part in His resurrection.
So, again going back to the idea that having part in the first resurrection is the only way to avoid the second death, how would that work in your view when only some believers are part of the first resurrection and not all of them? What about the rest of the dead believers who you think would be resurrected at other times? How do they avoid the second death, which occurs upon being cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15)?
I mean two mass bodily resurrections, two waves of resurrection. John 5:25 is those who are DEAD that hear His voice.I am, too, but just not in the way you are. Christ's was first long ago and then those who are His at His coming, which is what Paul taught in 1 Cor 15:20-23. But the difference is how you and I understand what it means to have part in the first bodily resurrection (which I believe was Christ's resurrection).
Correct, I believe there will be new believers made after the rapture, and those new believers will still get saved in the 2nd resurrection, shown to be in the book of life, the book of all their sins probably doesn't even get opened, and they go to eternal life.Of course believers will not be condemned and will instead be rewarded, but as I said earlier, the book of life implies that believers are present there and other scripture indicates that as well (Rom 14:10-12, Matt 25:31-46, etc.).
All 3 of those references from the Pauline Epistles use the words bemati and bematos. A bema seat, an awards ceremony. Note that death isn't connected with any of these 3 passages. Remember that all of these are written to believers. People that as far as Paul knew, were saved, and would be getting rewarded, not put on trial for their sins.Dunno how you can see believers getting their rewards 1000+ years before unbelievers do. The rewards are different for believers and unbelievers at the time, but all are present there. And, yes, the punishment that unbelievers receive at that time will be their "reward". The word "reward" isn't always necessarily positive.
Matthew 6: Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Again, there is no basis for thinking that 2 Cor 5:10 is speaking of some other judgment besides the GWT judgment.
2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
This speaks of being judged based on the things we have done. Which is no different than this:
Romans 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written: As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’” 12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
When do you believe what is described here will happen and who exact do you believe will be part of the judgment described here? Paul indicates that it is a judgment at which he himself would be present ("each of us" includes Paul himself), so it would have to be the same judgment as 2 Cor 5:10, right? I say that because Paul indicated in 2 Cor 5:10 that he would be included ("each of us") in what is described in 2 Cor 5:10 as well.
So, with the understanding that 2 Cor 5:10 and Romans 14:10-12 are speaking of the same judgment, what can we deduce from that (besides that Paul himself will be there)? Does this judgment, which you call the bema seat judgment, only include unbelievers as you believe is the case?
You missed the part where yes God can make a judgement instantly, but humans cannot HEAR their rap sheet and convictions instantly. God is just, and not unfair, and we will have to hear everyone's convictions to show that not a single person was thrown into the lake of fire unjustly, that every single one of them deserves it. The limitation is not on God. The limitation is on us.We're talking about God here. Why are you talking about what He will do as if He was merely human? Time does not affect Him like it does us (2 Peter 3:8). To think that it would take Him the same amount of time to judge everyone as it would a human is just silly nonsense (sorry if that comes across as too harsh, but that's just how I see it).
Not really because death and hell were not shown as possibilities in the 3 references to the bema seat that Paul made, in fact, the only one showing the negative outcome of the bema seat is 1 Corinthians 3:15 where they lose rewards, but still have eternal life.I showed above how everyone will be appearing before the bema seat (not just believers) and how it is no different than the Great White Throne. Just 2 different ways of referring to the same throne/seat of judgment.
I think you need to look at the passage more closely.I'm not saying there is no bodily resurrection of the dead recorded in that passage. Of course there is. But in context it is only involving the saved dead and not also the unsaved dead as well, therefore this doesn't even involve the great white throne judgment recorded in Revelation 20. It involves a judgment though, and is recorded in both Daniel 7:22 and Revelation 20:4, and is meaning when the time has come that the saints have possessed the kingdom. After all, does not Revelation 11:15 indicate--The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever?
I don't think Daniel 7:22 should be directly related to Rev 20:4. I see you referenced the KJV translation of the verse, but I believe the NKJV, NIV and NASB translations are more accurate in this case.Doesn't Daniel 7:22 say this---Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High?
And that Revelation 20:4 says this---And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them?
And does not Daniel 7:22 mean chronologically after Daniel 7:21 has been fulfilled first---I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them
And are not the martyrs recorded in Revelation 20:4, who are martyred for refusing to worship the beast, martyred during the period of time specified in Daniel 7:21? And is not the period of time specified in Daniel 7:21 meaning the 42 month reign of the beast, Revelation 13?
Because scripture doesn't teach that and your argument here makes no sense. Do you realize that you're trying to argue that we should not see any difference between seconds and 1000+ years? And this is supposed to be a convincing argument?And the fact there has to be a gap between when the just rise and when the unjust rise, well, a gap is a gap, right? If it can be a gap of seconds, or minutes, or even hours, why can't it also be a gap involving years?
I'm not sure if I understand this question. Are you asking if any believers are included among "the rest of the dead" that John mentions in Rev 20:5? If so, the answer is no. It's clear to me that "rest of the dead" are contrasted with the dead souls of saved saints that John saw.Let me ask Amils this then. Who is it that Amils don't think will rise first, yet are still saved saints, but will instead rise when the rest of the dead do after Revelation 19:21 has at least been fulfilled first? Can Amils think of anyone?
Absolutely.Do Amils think the dead in Christ would also include OT saints, such as Adam, Abel, Job, Daniel, so on and so on?
That is correct.If Amils perhaps do, what saints would still need to rise, but not during when the dead in Christ rise first, but when the rest of the rest of the dead rise last? None, right?
Again, I'm not sure if I understand your question. Certainly, there are two types of destinations that people go to after being resurrected (believers unto eternal life in God's kingdom on the new earth and unbelievers to the lake of fire). If that's what you mean, then we all believe that.Based on this alone, assuming Amils agree that Adam and all other OT saints are included with those in Christ that rise first, how could it possibly be incorrect to conclude that there are two types of resurrections, and that there is a gap between these, therefore none of the unjust rise when the just do, nor do any of the just rise when the unjust do?
Creation was made perfect.
No, that is not what John 5:24-25 means. Jesus did not refer to bodily resurrection there at all. Jesus doesn't get around to talking about the bodily resurrection of the dead until verse 28. So, He was only speaking about spiritual salvation in John 5:24-25.Salvation now, bodily resurrection coming. The promise is now, the delivering is coming.
Then I am not sure how it works for you. For me, I see that either Eden was not "perfect" or it was. How can something be better than perfect?
I would say the reason Adam sinned is because Satan influenced things. In the NHNE, it will be only those who believed the message of Christ and no Satan. Hence, Satan cannot influence things. Hence, there will be no sin.
That's how I see it at least. Not sure how things can get better than "perfect".
....The Isaiah verses I quoted were about the end times where God dealing out His wrath to the world, at the end of the world... similar imagery of Jesus having His clothes soaked in blood after having tread the winepress of the wrath of God... same imagery given in Revelation 14 and 19. It's the same "day of the Lord" your referring to, the second coming, the heavens rolling up like a scroll, etc etc...That phrase can be figurative, but it can also be used to describe the day Christ returns as Paul did in 1 Thess 5 and Peter did in 2 Peter 3. The phrase does not always refer to the same thing, which is what you miss. The phrase even can refer to what began on the day of Pentecost (compare Acts 2:16-21 to Joel 2:28-32).
That's correct. You are making a straw man argument here which is a complete waste of time. The only thing I have contended is that the way Paul and Peter used the phrase "the day of the Lord" in 1 Thess 5 and 2 Peter 3 had to do with the day (24 hour day) that Christ will return. It is you that is trying to say that the phrase "the day of the Lord" has to always refer to the same thing. If that's the case then explain why Peter indicates that Joel 2:28-32 was being fulfilled (or least starting to be) on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21)?
2 points.Is there not already a great multitude of believer's souls in heaven? It seems like you are only able to think of people with bodies for some reason. The timing of what John saw in Revelation 7 is not indicated.
To assume that it is a scene before any of the trumpets and vials is nothing more than speculation. Revelation 7 is just a parenthetical section of the book like Revelation 12. Also, there are a number of parallel sections within the book, so it should not be read in such a way as if it was one, long chronological book. For example, what is described in Rev 12 clearly does not follow what is described in Rev 11 chronologically.
Only when you interpret "day of the Lord" literally.That's the problem. It only sounds like that. It's all figurative language, unlike 2 Peter 3:3-13. Trust me, if i believed it was all literal I would believe like you do. But, the problem with interpreting it like you do is that it contradicts other scripture.
When I believe there are 2 end time's resurrections, because I believe that the wrath of God happens after the rapture, I have no reason whatsoever, to see the 1000 years as anything other than literal, Because I know that there's a resurrection before the wrath, and another resurrection after the wrath before the final judgement, that gives time between resurrections, not to mention those resurrections have different characteristics. one is blessed and not under judgement where the second death is a possible outcome, the other is judgement and death is on the line.Sure, it says that to me, too. But, that doesn't have anything to do with whether it's literal or figurative. Again, I give "the beast" as an example. The beast is mentioned 35 times. Seems like "the beast" must be something important to understand. But, it's not a literal beast with seven literal heads and seven literal horns.
and for the fullness of the gentiles.Yeah, he's waiting to deliver His kingdom to the Father when He comes at the end of the age as 1 Cor 15:20-24 and Matt 13:40-43 indicate.
Perhaps that's why angels end up finishing the job for us.I don't believe that people can't be saved during Satan's little season (which I equate to the time when iniquity will no longer be restrained), so in my view that time period could potentially have already started.
2 Peter 3:9 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.
This verse is in regards to the Lord's desire for more people to repent and be saved. But, to me, it indicates that people can be saved right up until the day His keeps the promise of Christ's coming. But, during Satan's little season it seems that it will be more difficult to reach people with the truth because of the increase in deception and wickedness.
The bible also doesn't say that we'll be on the earth yet protected from the wrath of God (aside from the 144k) yet you seem to believe that.But, you have Jesus descending from heaven and then going back to heaven for a period of time and then descending from heaven again. The problem with that is scripture never teaches that He would be descending form heaven twice in the future.
What's your proof texts that He is only allowed to come down once? Again all events after He comes in the cloud are the second coming just like all events after His birth are the first coming.As far as there being a series of events connected to Jesus returning, have I not said that several things happen on the day He comes back? You make so many straw man arguments and I can only assume that is because this is the first time in your life that you've debated an amillennialist. The difference between us isn't that you see several events happening in relation to His second coming and I don't. No. Instead, the difference is that you see those things happening over a prolonged period of time, but I don't. And, as I pointed out above, you see Him descending from heaven twice while I believe scripture clearly teaches that He will descend from heaven only once.
Sin and transgression haven't ended yet.Yet another straw man argument. Where did I say that some event involving an individual antichrist during the 70th week already happened? I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't interpret the 70th week the way you do, so I have no obligation to see the fulfillment of it the way you do in terms of it having anything to do with an individual antichrist confirming some future covenant for a week and all that.
Messiah was cut off in the 69th week, leaving 1 week remaining.I could write 10 more pages about why I interpret the 70 week prophecy the way I do, but I don't have the desire to do that right now. For now, I will just say that I believe Jesus is the prince/ruler who confirmed the new covenant long ago. It has nothing to do with an antichrist confirming some 7 year peace treaty. To insert a huge time gap into a prophecy that never gives any indication that the 70 weeks would not be consecutive just boggles my mind.
If this is "deceive the nations no more" then color me unimpressed.That is how you interpret it, but I disagree. I see no reason to assume that it's speaking of his ability to deceive in general. You interpret it that way because you are what they call a hyper-literalist.
And here is your next straw man argument. I never said that no Gentiles at all believed the truth in OT times. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that very few did. In Noah's day, only 8 people did and they were not Jews. The people of Nineveh in Jonah's day were Gentiles and they repented and believed. Did you somehow think I wasn't aware of that as well?
But, what I'm saying is that a far lower percentage believed in those times than in NT times and that is a fact.
You just aren't understanding my point. Please tell me how you interpret theses passages:
Heb 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
Eph 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.
What do you think passages like these say about the impact Christ had on Satan and on the ability of the Gentiles to be set free from spiritual darkness?
Because the 5th trumpet lasts 5 months by itself.Where does scripture itself indicate to us that since the first coming involved events over more than 30 years then we should understand the events related to the second coming as happening over a significant period of time as well? If scripture itself does not make that comparison, then I won't, either.
Because if it takes time, then people can come to repentence, I know you're going to quote that people DIDN'T come to repentence, but as we both agree, just like Gentiles could fear God in the OT despite most of the OT treating gentiles like they're totally in darkness and none know the Lord, most people won't repent, but some will repent, if you drag things out for some time, some of those people, those prepper types or people living in isolation types that are self sufficient who didn't take the mark out of necessity might just say as they see fire raining down from the sky "I have a bible here somewhere, maybe it's all real afterall". It is worth it to the Lord to drag things out if even 1 more sheep gets saved.Why would it take that long? If Jesus is coming back to take vengeance on "them that don't know God and don't obey the gospel of Christ" (2 Thess 1:7-10) then what would be the point of Him taking His time doing so? And how exactly would it take that much time when this time it will be by fire instead of water?
Please clarify something. You said, in relation to Noah and the flood, that the destruction lasted over a year. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, so the earth was certainly already destroyed by the floodwaters by the time the 40th day came. So, I have to assume that you're not trying to say it took over a year to destroy the earth and all the wicked living on the earth.
So, I assume you're talking about how long it took the floodwaters to recede and all that? Does this mean you think God will just let the earth burn for over a year when He sends fire down upon it? Why would that be and what difference does that really even make?
As far as the length of time of the fire actually coming down upon the earth and killing all the unbelievers on the earth, I see no basis for thinking that would take very long at all (certainly not longer than it took for the flood to do so).
So, when it talks about those who have fallen asleep being with Jesus when He comes in 1 Thess 4:14, who do you think that refers to?The word soul is not mentioned once. In fact Paul seems to think both have bodies. Bodies come with Christ, bodies rise to meet Christ. Dead and alive in Christ both with bodies. Unless your body stays on the ground and just your soul rises into the air?
There are no accusations left for Satan to make against us because our sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ.How can there be a Mediator without a lawyer bringing accusations? He is our Mediator because Satan is constantly accusing the church on earth of wrong doing.
How many would get saved? As many as the sand on the seashore, which must be a huge number? Because that's how many unsaved it says there will be at the end of the thousand years.On the "unmitigated disaster"
what's a disaster about 1000 years where more people will get saved?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?