Futurist Only The Gospel to Every People Group by 2031? (Matt. 24:14)

[RandyPNW]

I personally think all the tribes of the Earth / ethnic groups have heard have or have had the opportunity to hear and refuse. According to statistics there is a hundred or so tribes uncontacted - which is misleading. They have been contacted, they just don't want to have anything to do with the so called civilized world - it's like they want outsiders to leave them alone, they want no part of this chaos out here.
My personal opinion: every nation, tribe, people, has had the opportunity hear the gospel _ some refused to know the full knowledge of Christ. It has been preached. And the end is day is closer than any one thinks.
When you see all these things begin to happen as written in Matthew 24 concerning prophecies and almost all of them are happening, with the exception of two or three the days of Noah and the revealing of that man of sin - the son of perdition.

If that is your only argument for an *imminent* Return of Christ, ie one that can take place at any instant, then you're basing your argument on a misinterpreted passage, or at best, a controversial passage. In my view, and in the view of many others throughout history, Jesus was speaking of the "birth pains" of the Fall of Jerusalem in his own generation.

While it's true that Jesus was also asked not just about the Fall of Jerusalem but his Return, he indicated that his Coming was not something to be prognosticated about, predicted, or speculated about. Our concern is warning our own generation with the word of God. Future times will take care of themselves.

As to whether these "birth pains" were predicting the Return of Christ, or the imminent Fall of Jerusalem, just read Jesus' statement to the effect...

Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen...

Although Jesus was also asked about his Coming, clearly his focus was on the time of Jerusalem's Fall, indicating that his Coming would come too late for unbelievers to do anything about it.

Matt 24.27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man... 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn..

 

[RandyPNW]

It does not say directly that the 144,000 are evangelist. The Bible does not have to say that directly, just like The Bible never out rights proclaims the Trinity.

Very, very poor comparison. The Bible does proclaim the Trinity by proclaiming the existence of all 3 Persons of the Godhead. Using the precise word "Trinity" is not the absence of the theology underlying it. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. That does not mean it was not written in English or French!

The book of Revelation specifically warned against adding to the book things that aren't there. So when you draw the conclusion that 144,000 are "evangelists," you should ensure your evidence is strong, and not a stretch.

The group in Revelation 7 are a product of the 144,000

That is not said--it is an argument from silence. Using the term "Israel" alone suggests that world evangelism is *not* in the cards. Ancient Israel was anything but outgoing to the pagan Gentiles.

On the other hand, using the term "Israel" is likely to suggest that principles that applied to ancient Israel are now having a NT impact. Evangelism would not be one of them.

Fidelity to God's Law, however, would be. And of course, I'm talking about the NT equivalent of the OT Law, which would be the laws of God's holiness through Christ.

Jesus gave His commission to disciples for the church age, End times are tribulation times, The Church will be gone, and the focus will be back again on Israel.

That is Dispensationalism, which I think is false. "Back to Israel" is never said in God's word. A Return to Israel from backsliding or from punishment is, however, suggested. But a Return to Israel from Gentile Evangelism is *never* mentioned in the Scriptures. If so, where?

The purpose of the Abrahamic Promise was to produce Israel as first of many nations of faith. Israel fell into punishment in the time of Christ, and since that time a remnant has been preserved to protect Israel's inclusion among the many promised nations.

But when all nations have been reached by the Gospel, then Israel along with many nations will be restored. And this will not prefer Israel ahead of all the nations that God has already called to be His own. I believe the Christian nations that have fallen will be restored together with Israel, who has also fallen.

 

[Timtofly]

That is obviously untrue, since Paul made it necessary for the Man of Sin to appear first, before Christ comes for his Church, so that when Christ comes he will actually destroy the Man of Sin.

Pretribbers twist the following Scriptures:
2 Thes 2.1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him...3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Satan has deceived the world. Does no one accept this point?

 

[RandyPNW]

Satan has deceived the world. Does no one accept this point?

Of course Christians generally accept--myself included--that Satan has deceived the world and is deceiving the world.

1 John 5.19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

 

[Timtofly]

Of course Christians generally accept--myself included--that Satan has deceived the world and is deceiving the world.

1 John 5.19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

Well Amils think Satan is still bound. I guess it is up to them to point out when Satan is loosed, no?

Seriously, very few will understand exactly what has already been revealed. Paul's point is already covered.

 

[RandyPNW]

Well Amils think Satan is still bound. I guess it is up to them to point out when Satan is loosed, no?

Seriously, very few will understand exactly what has already been revealed. Paul's point is already covered.

I accept your point personally. Yet I know that over the last 2 millennia, Christians have generally interpreted the "binding of Satan" to refer to the death blow that Satan received at the Cross.

Even Amils understand that Satan is still rampaging and ravaging people's lives. They just wish to use their own peculiar language to fit in with their chosen theology.

No sense in getting too worked up over it. We're all Christians. But again, personally I think you're spot on!

 

[d taylor]

Very, very poor comparison. The Bible does proclaim the Trinity by proclaiming the existence of all 3 Persons of the Godhead. Using the precise word "Trinity" is not the absence of the theology underlying it. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. That does not mean it was not written in English or French!

The book of Revelation specifically warned against adding to the book things that aren't there. So when you draw the conclusion that 144,000 are "evangelists," you should ensure your evidence is strong, and not a stretch.



That is not said--it is an argument from silence. Using the term "Israel" alone suggests that world evangelism is *not* in the cards. Ancient Israel was anything but outgoing to the pagan Gentiles.

On the other hand, using the term "Israel" is likely to suggest that principles that applied to ancient Israel are now having a NT impact. Evangelism would not be one of them.

Fidelity to God's Law, however, would be. And of course, I'm talking about the NT equivalent of the OT Law, which would be the laws of God's holiness through Christ.



That is Dispensationalism, which I think is false. "Back to Israel" is never said in God's word. A Return to Israel from backsliding or from punishment is, however, suggested. But a Return to Israel from Gentile Evangelism is *never* mentioned in the Scriptures. If so, where?

The purpose of the Abrahamic Promise was to produce Israel as first of many nations of faith. Israel fell into punishment in the time of Christ, and since that time a remnant has been preserved to protect Israel's inclusion among the many promised nations.

But when all nations have been reached by the Gospel, then Israel along with many nations will be restored. And this will not prefer Israel ahead of all the nations that God has already called to be His own. I believe the Christian nations that have fallen will be restored together with Israel, who has also fallen.

About all i have to add is we do not agree and that is all i have to add to this back and forth.

 

[RandyPNW]

Well Amils think Satan is still bound. I guess it is up to them to point out when Satan is loosed, no?

Seriously, very few will understand exactly what has already been revealed. Paul's point is already covered.

I think they say Satan is loosed towards the end of the age, with the rise of Antichrist? Regardless, this view, which has carried the day in Church history, is obviously having a tough time now. Israel has returned to the fore, and it was their absence that led to the creation of Amil to begin with.

It's so much easier to just take the Millennium literally, as a future age Jesus referred to as "the Kingdom of God." In my view, there is no longer any reason *not* to take the Millennium literally!

 

[Sheila Davis]

If that is your only argument for an *imminent* Return of Christ, ie one that can take place at any instant, then you're basing your argument on a misinterpreted passage, or at best, a controversial passage. In my view, and in the view of many others throughout history, Jesus was speaking of the "birth pains" of the Fall of Jerusalem in his own generation.

While it's true that Jesus was also asked not just about the Fall of Jerusalem but his Return, he indicated that his Coming was not something to be prognosticated about, predicted, or speculated about. Our concern is warning our own generation with the word of God. Future times will take care of themselves.

As to whether these "birth pains" were predicting the Return of Christ, or the imminent Fall of Jerusalem, just read Jesus' statement to the effect...

Matt 24.1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen...

Although Jesus was also asked about his Coming, clearly his focus was on the time of Jerusalem's Fall, indicating that his Coming would come too late for unbelievers to do anything about it.

Matt 24.27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man... 30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn..

Why did you leave out Matthew 24:14 which is what my comment is based on thank you for yours goodbye.
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

 

[RandyPNW]

Why did you leave out Matthew 24:14 which is what my comment is based on thank you for yours goodbye.
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Yes, thanks for asking. I may have left out vs 14 because it is a sign in Jesus' generation that only began at that time. It actually continues until the 2nd Coming. So it is only one of a set of signs that indicate the Fall of Jerusalem is near.

The Gospel was essential at that time because it was a warning to the Jews to repent of their sins so that this coming judgment would not be for them. The signs included rumblings from the Roman armies, indicating they were on the move. And signs like famines and earthquakes were an indication that God was unhappy with Israel and soon to judge them.

But it is clear to me that the signs anticipating the Fall of Jerusalem and the sign of the 2nd Coming were different. The Fall of Jerusalem had signs in advance to warn those Jews who followed Jesus to remain vigilant and holy, to avoid God's anger soon to be poured out upon Israel.

On the other hand, the 2nd Coming was something Jesus indicated would be anticipated only in its own time. This indicated, at least to me, that Jesus knew the punishment to fall upon Jerusalem would last a very long time.

They were not to speculate about a time far beyond their own generation. The "times and seasons" were in the hands of God. The last generation would have their own signs, namely the rise and reign of Antichrist.

The Olivet Discourse was therefore focused largely on the fall of Jerusalem in Jesus' time. But the last generation is addressed in the book of Revelation. One had to do with Israel. And the other has to do with the whole world.