Where do people come up with Gog not being Antichrist?

[DavidPT]

@DavidPT to be honest I don't mind and I don't mind admitting I don't have all the answers. I admit I have some atypical beliefs from most premillennialists, the fact that I believe pre-wrath rather than pre-trib or "post trib" is a minority position in itself.
But sometimes scripture challenges what I've been taught and I will believe scripture over what men teach even if it somehow seems to contradict, both passages have to be true, trying to reconcile seemingly conflicting truths is how a lot of eschatological positions form.

I clearly don't have all the answers, either. And I don't mind admitting it, either. But I will tell you who apparently does have all of the answers. That being some of these Amils I have encountered on this board. Because, some of them I have encountered can't even admit there are any problems whatsoever with their position. As if everything lines up perfectly. But not meaning any Amils posting in this thread, though. Or if it does include some of them, I haven't realized it yet since I haven't had enough encounters with them at this point in order to make that determination.

 

[Jamdoc]

I clearly don't have all the answers, either. And I don't mind admitting it, either. But I will tell you who apparently does have all of the answers. That being some of these Amils I have encountered on this board. Because, some of them I have encountered can't even admit there are any problems whatsoever with their position. As if everything lines up perfectly. But not meaning any Amils posting in this thread, though. Or if it does include some of them, I haven't realized it yet since I haven't had enough encounters with them at this point in order to make that determination.

It's easy to have all the answers when you allegorize all scripture and make it mean whatever you want and call yourself "spiritual" to deflect any disagreement.

 

[Andrewn]

the second resurrection, which also includes the wicked, is not for "another chance to be saved" it's for judgement, and the second resurrection is after the apparent destruction of the current Earth. The first resurrection is of the righteous in Christ only.

Heb 9:27 And just as human beings are destined to die but once, and after that to face judgment,

Cambridge Commentary explains this as follows:

"the judgment] Rather, “a judgment.” By this apparently is not meant “a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness” (Acts 17:31), but a judgment which follows immediately after death."

The Orthodox Christian belief is that there is a judgment immediately after death and another judgment after the resurrection. This commonly-quoted verse talks about the first judgment.

Act 24:15 and I have the same hope in God that they themselves cherish, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

The Apostle Paul in this verse presents the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked as "hope" rather than a torment or destruction.

I admit I have some atypical beliefs from most premillennialists, the fact that I believe pre-wrath rather than pre-trib or "post trib" is a minority position in itself.

Your beliefs are quite consistent w/ Dispensational Premillennialism. Sure there is variability within any group but your beliefs are not atypical enough to put you outside the group. As for your belief in pre-wrath, even though I don't agree with it, it makes more sense because the tribulation itself occurs for 3 1/2 years. Even though the Antichrist may reign for 7 years, the first half is supposed to be more or less peaceful. Anyway, Dispensationalists can be pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib. None of these positions puts you outside the group. And whether the resurrected people beget children or not is a speculation that does not exclude you from the family. But believing in Historic Premillennialism does. Here is an overview of this:

What is Historic Premillennialism? - Read the Hard Parts

What is historic premillennial eschatology and how it is different than dispensational premillennialism?

readthehardparts.com

 

[Andrewn]

For example. Even though there might be Premils that insist a 3rd temple is built and that animal sacrificing resumes post the 2nd coming, not all Premils conclude that, thus some Premils disagree with it. I know I do.

You represent the Historic Premil family. This is perhaps closer to orthodoxy as it does not attempt to divide the Church into Jews and Gentiles.

So why do some Amils apparently try and disprove Premil by using a 3rd temple to disprove it when not all Premils agree a 3rd temple is involved during the millennium? It might be different if all Premils agreed that 3rd temple(the Ezekiel temple) involves the millennium, except some Premils don't believe that.

I guess it is because Dispensational Premillennialism is the more common variety at this time.

Then there is the 42 month reign of the beast and false prophet, where Scripture tends to show is meaning before the thousand years rather than after the thousand years, thus making Amil impossible since Amil needs the 42 month reign of the beast and false prophet to be after the thousand years in order for their view to work.

This can be interpreted to coincide w/ Satan's release at the end of the Millennium.

Except Revelation 20:4 already proves the 42 month reign of the beast and false prophet can't be meaning after the thousand years since the following saints have already been martyred during this same 42 months before satan is ever loosed from the pit--- which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

There have been many beastly empires that killed the saints throughout human history.

 

[Jamdoc]

Heb 9:27 And just as human beings are destined to die but once, and after that to face judgment,

Cambridge Commentary explains this as follows:

"the judgment] Rather, “a judgment.” By this apparently is not meant “a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness” (Acts 17:31), but a judgment which follows immediately after death."

The Orthodox Christian belief is that there is a judgment immediately after death and another judgment after the resurrection. This commonly-quoted verse talks about the first judgment.

Act 24:15 and I have the same hope in God that they themselves cherish, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

The Apostle Paul in this verse presents the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked as "hope" rather than a torment or destruction.


Your beliefs are quite consistent w/ Dispensational Premillennialism. Sure there is variability within any group but your beliefs are not atypical enough to put you outside the group. As for your belief in pre-wrath, even though I don't agree with it, it makes more sense because the tribulation itself occurs for 3 1/2 years. Even though the Antichrist may reign for 7 years, the first half is supposed to be more or less peaceful. Anyway, Dispensationalists can be pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib. None of these positions puts you outside the group. And whether the resurrected people beget children or not is a speculation that does not exclude you from the family. But believing in Historic Premillennialism does. Here is an overview of this:

What is Historic Premillennialism? - Read the Hard Parts

What is historic premillennial eschatology and how it is different than dispensational premillennialism?

readthehardparts.com

Well, dispensationalism's core is not just that there is a difference between Israel and gentile believers, but that God had different ways of dealing with mankind over time, that there were different dispensations, like the dispensation of law, the dispensation of grace, and they believe that future "tribulation saints" will both have to obey the law perfectly and have faith in Jesus.
Basically they believe salvation was by works, then by grace, and then in the future by grace + works even though that conflicts with Paul's teachings that you can't have grace+works, the moment you add works to the system it's no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

I'm non dispensational in that I believe it always was grace and always will be grace. Paul showed that in Romans 4 and Hebrews 11 also showed it, regardless of who the author of Hebrews was.

I believe there's a difference because Romans 11 has us grafted in, NOT REPLACING Israel, and because John has a separation between the tribes of Israel, and the vast multitude in Revelation 7. Okay so we're not exactly the same.
We're both saved the same way, and are both coheirs to promises of God. I suppose the main thing I agree with dispensationalists on, is that not every single redeemed person is being crammed into Israel geographically.

also dispensationalists believe God can only deal with 1 group of people at a time, which is absurd, they think that God has to have a pretribulation rapture so that He can stop dealing with "the church" and deal with Israel again.
I don't believe that at all. God deals with all people at all times.

 

[Andrewn]

Basically they believe salvation was by works, then by grace, and then in the future by grace + works even though that conflicts with Paul's teachings that you can't have grace+works, the moment you add works to the system it's no longer grace (Romans 11:6). I'm non dispensational in that I believe it always was grace and always will be grace.

Justification has always been by grace. The Jews did not believe in salvation by works, either.

"According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit."

The quotation is from the following article:

Justification and the New Perspective on Paul - The Gospel Coalition

The New Perspective on Paul argues that the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification is mistaken. Robert Cara summarizes and responds.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

 

[Jamdoc]

Justification has always been by grace. The Jews did not believe in salvation by works, either.

"According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit."

The quotation is from the following article:

Justification and the New Perspective on Paul - The Gospel Coalition

The New Perspective on Paul argues that the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification is mistaken. Robert Cara summarizes and responds.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Correct, but Dispensationalists believe that at one time, during the "dispensation of the law" salvation was by obeying the law.