Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

[jeffweedaman]

No we don't. Only the wicked dead stand at the GWT. The other dead were judged 1000 years prior.

The book of life is opened to reveal those who are in it.

It is opened at the GWT and not before. They are revealed as Glorified on the same day the rest are eternally separated when the opening of books takes place.


12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

2thess 1 confirms this fact.

This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. 6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.

 

[sovereigngrace]

My main point had to do with Revelation 12:17, and since that appears to be spanning from the time of the ascension until the time of the 2nd coming, and that most of this 2000 years that this covers, Amil has that involving the thousand years, this adds up to that Amil has satan making war with the church when he is locked up in the pit.

Why would satan be waging war with anyone while he is depicted as shut up in a prison?

A lot of Premils, so not all Premils then, tend to think all of Revelation 12:12-17 is future still, not something that began 2000 years ago. I don't tend to agree with that myself. To me it makes better sense that satan is kicked out of heaven around the time of the ascension.

Obviously, before he is kicked out of heaven he is not bound yet. His binding can only be meaning a time after he has been kicked out of heaven.

Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

This is what he does first. None of this is depicting someone that is locked up in a prison, therefore, as of this verse satan is not in the pit yet. And if one looks at the final 3 verses in Revelation 12, none of those are depicting someone that is locked up in a prison either. Yet, satan has to be cast into the pit eventually, otherwise we were misled in Revelation 20:1-3. The following is when he is cast into the pit---and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ----not meaning during any of that though, but at the end of that, that is where the thousand year binding fits since it can't fit anywhere else in that chapter.

Imprisonment and chains are constantly used in Scripture to describe spiritual restraint. This is seen in how the Holy Spirit depicts the wicked. For example, Satan is presented in Scripture as imprisoning his followers and refusing to release them from his spiritual prison.

Isaiah 14:12-17 tells us, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer (helel or shining one), son of the morning (dawn)! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?”

Does Satan have all his devotees in a literal physical prison? Of course not!

Lamentations 3:33-34 says, “For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men. To crush under his feet all the prisoners of the earth.”

Psalms 68:6 prophesied of those in darkness in the Old Testament: “he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land.”

Were the Gentiles (before the cross) curtailed by literal chains? Of course not!

Psalms 79:10-11 declares, “Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is their God? let him be known among the heathen in our sight by the revenging of the blood of thy servants which is shed. Let the sighing of the prisoner come before thee; according to the greatness of thy power preserve thou those that are appointed to die.”

Were all the heathen literal prisoners? Of course not!

Psalms 102:19-20 says, “For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth; To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death.”

Is the Psalmist talking about literal prisoners? Of course not!

Psalms 107:8-16 describes, “Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! For he satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness. Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, being bound in affliction and iron; Because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High: Therefore he brought down their heart with labour; they fell down, and there was none to help. Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, and he saved them out of their distresses. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder. Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! For he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder.”

Were these chains literally iron? Of course not!

Psalms 146:7-8 declares, “The LORD looseth the prisoners: The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous.”

Are these literal prisoners or is it describing the wicked?

Isaiah 42:6-7 says, "I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house."

Were the Gentiles (before the cross) held in a literal prison house? Of course not!

Does that mean all Gentiles will be enlightened? Of course not. It is a general statement like Revelation 20.

Isaiah 49:8-9 says, “Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.”

Isaiah 58:6-12 asks, “Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward. Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity; And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday: And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.”

Isaiah 60:1-3 says, “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.”

Isaiah 61:1 says, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.”

Are those that Christ come to set free bound with physical chains? Of course not!

Isaiah 58:6-12 asks, “Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou sees tthe naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine ownflesh? Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward. Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity; And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday: And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not. And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.”

Are these bands that restrict the wicked literal chains? Of course not!

Premillennialists have little difficulty accepting the spiritual reality that the wicked today are bound by spiritual chains of sin and are imprisoned by their own lusts in Satan’s prison and yet are able to freely operate physically on this earth. One wonders why they should then struggle with the concept of the spiritual binding of spiritual beings. Why would they dismiss the fact that the kingdom of darkness has been placed in such chains since the first advent?

It is wrong to believe that Revelation 20 is a literal depiction describing the devil being physically chained, tossed into a physical abyss, and physically sealed so that he cannot deceive the nations anymore and yet still walk about this earth seeking whom he may devour. Amils don’t accept that this is physical language neither do they believe that spirits are physically chained and that they can be restrained by a literal prison. They believe that they are spiritually chained in a spiritual prison.

 

[DavidPT]

When you and I talk about Revelation 12, it may be a better idea not to include what Amils believe, because we could easily misrepresent the way they see it.

All I'm basically doing most of the time is coming to the logical conclusion if assuming their view. I'm not sure how that could somehow mean misrepresenting their view? If Revelation 12:12-17 spans at least 2000 years, and that Amils agree that it does, and the fact Amils also have this same 2000 years involving the thousand years, how could that not mean they have satan warring with the church while he is in the pit?

I don't see it making sense that while satan is depicted as locked up in the pit, that he is also waging war on the church or anyone for that matter. Therefore, Amils are wrong to place the thousand years in this age. And I do not see it misrepresenting their view by pointing out that Amils are wrong to place the thousand years during this age. That's an opinion, not a misrepresentation of anything.

 

[DavidPT]

The book of life is opened to reveal those who are in it.

It is opened at the GWT and not before. They are revealed as Glorified on the same day the rest are eternally separated when the opening of books takes place.

Revelation 20:15 And Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

This verse tells us why the book of life is there and then opened. What does it say? Does it not say---whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire? How does God find one's name not written it? By looking in it to see if their name is written in it.

Nowhere in Revelation 20:11-15 does it also say---And whosoever was found written in the book of life was not cast into the lake of fire. You know why it doesn't say that? Because anyone who's name is written in the book of life would already be among the living, thus bodily immortal as of the last trump, which precedes the GWTJ no matter how you look at it. They wouldn't even be at this judgment being judged. This judgment involves the resurrection of damnation. The first resurrection involves the resurrection of life. It takes place during the last trump.

 

[DavidPT]

Now, address the facts, if you can!

As to your childish false accusations against me, for both of our sakes I'm simply going to ignore that for now since you might not like what I think about that.

As to what you posted in regards to something Eric said to me---

Eric basically does the same thing to me involving Zechariah 14:16-19, for example. He tells me that if those verses are meaning post the 2nd coming, that means animal sacrificing resumes. But that is not my position though and never has been. I do not remotely believe that means animal sacrificing resumes. How is that any different than me taking this to mean what it literally says---that he should deceive the nations no more--therefore this proves that the thousand years can't be meaning now because nations are still being deceived?

 

[jeffweedaman]

Revelation 20:15 And Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

This verse tells us why the book of life is there and then opened. What does it say? Does it not say---whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire? How does God find one's name not written it? By looking in it to see if their name is written in it.

Exactly . It is opened at the GWT. Open the book AND REVEAL those who are his.

 

[Timtofly]

Obviously, 3.5 years is half of 7 years. So, to me, the 42 months/1260 days/"time, times and half a time" figuratively represents a certain part of history rather than all of history. I believe it represents the New Testament time period. I see the two witnesses as figuratively representing the church. How long has the church been witnessing? Obviously, for almost 2,000 years now. So, it wouldn't make sense for me to interpret the two witnesses that way and at the same time take the 42 months/1260 days literally.

So Satan is going to totally kill the church symbolically instead of a normal rapture where the church is just taken away as living instead of dead?

 

[DavidPT]

Exactly . It is opened at the GWT. Open the book AND REVEAL those who are his.

You got it backwards, in this case anyway. It is opened in order to reveal the names not written in it, not the names written in it---And whosoever was not found written in the book of life. How does one find out that someone is not written in the book of life? By looking to see if their name is written in it. How else would one do it?

1000 ppl show up for an invitation only event. But some of these ppl haven't been invited. How then can it be determined that they haven't been invited? By checking to see if their name is in the list of those invited.

 

[sovereigngrace]

As to your childish false accusations against me, for both of our sakes I'm simply going to ignore that for now since you might not like what I think about that.

As to what you posted in regards to something Eric said to me---

Eric basically does the same thing to me involving Zechariah 14:16-19, for example. He tells me that if those verses are meaning post the 2nd coming, that means animal sacrificing resumes. But that is not my position though and never has been. I do not remotely believe that means animal sacrificing resumes. How is that any different than me taking this to mean what it literally says---that he should deceive the nations no more--therefore this proves that the thousand years can't be meaning now because nations are still being deceived?

You are the last person to speak on behalf of Amil. So please stop trying. No one takes your false claims serious. You are obsessed with misrepresenting Amil. How about examining our beliefs in the light of what we believe? Avoidance is your MO when we do explain. You have to in order to keep your narrative going.

 

[Timtofly]

Exactly . It is opened at the GWT. Open the book AND REVEAL those who are his.

The book was already opened when the 7th Seal was opened. After the 7th Seal, names started being removed. The goats were all removed when they were eternally damned. The tares were removed from the Lamb's book of life. Last of all those who chose the mark were removed. Those who chopped their heads off, remained in the Lamb's book of life.

The only names yet to be removed are those who have been in sheol during the 6000 years the Lamb's book of life was sealed with 7 Seals. Names cannot be removed until after the 7th Seal. The whole 5th chapter of Revelation explains the book of Life and the Lamb was the only one who could open the book, as the Lamb was the Atonement on the Cross even before Genesis 1:1. That is what all the symbolism and the 7 Seals are about. The church is Sealed under the Atonement and judged at the Cross. No longer under condemnation, but have passed from death unto life.

But in Revelation 20:4 those who had their heads chopped off, had to be resurrected. Removing one's head demands physical death and a resurrection. Taking one's head off is the physical way to pass from death into life, but obviously needs a physical resurrection to have a body with a head.

It was still opened at the GWT to remove the names of those in sheol if they still reject the Atonement.

If one has to wait to see the GWT to see if their name is there, they don't seem that sure about having their name there. When did they decide to remove their name by rejecting the Cross? So far no name has ever been removed. One should know if they have accepted the Atonement, especially if they claim to be a Christian. Not that all Christians have accepted the Atonement, but unless they are wolves in sheep's clothing, they have not out right rejected the Atonement. Many Christians may think that is just a title and really know nothing about the Cross. They belong to a denomination not the NT church. They are like Paul claimed, "Not all of Israel are of Israel". We have past the point where now it could be said of the church the same. Not all of the church are of the church. All will figure that out at the Second Coming.

It may be too late at that point other than choosing to have one's head chopped off.

 

[Zao is life]

All I'm basically doing most of the time is coming to the logical conclusion if assuming their view. I'm not sure how that could somehow mean misrepresenting their view? If Revelation 12:12-17 spans at least 2000 years, and that Amils agree that it does, and the fact Amils also have this same 2000 years involving the thousand years, how could that not mean they have satan warring with the church while he is in the pit?

I don't see it making sense that while satan is depicted as locked up in the pit, that he is also waging war on the church or anyone for that matter. Therefore, Amils are wrong to place the thousand years in this age. And I do not see it misrepresenting their view by pointing out that Amils are wrong to place the thousand years during this age. That's an opinion, not a misrepresentation of anything.

In a sense it is misrepresenting their view because again, unlike you and me, Amils don't believe Satan's being "in the pit" means he is inactive.

I agree with you that if Satan is in the pit, the beast and FP are in the LOF and only saints are ruling with Christ, then we're looking at Christian utopia, or the NHNE, not the sin-infested, corrupt world of death through disease, war and natural disaster that we're looking at during this Age, i.e this "millennium" of the Amils.

But Amils don't see Satan's being "in the pit" as meaning he is unable to "roam around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour".

I appreciate your views, always, and you remind me of things I've forgotten about sometimes, but I think it's better we forget about trying to view things through Amil lenses when we're not debating in a post with Amils about Amillennialism. I also shake my head when I see Amils telling one another how "ridiculous" the "Premil notions" are. There's no point, and half the time in the process of telling one another what Premils believe they misrepresent what Premils believe, anyway.

 

[DavidPT]

I appreciate your views, always, and you remind me of things I've forgotten about sometimes, but I think it's better we forget about trying to view things through Amil lenses when we're not debating in a post with Amils about Amillennialism. I also shake my head when I see Amils telling one another how "ridiculous" the "Premil notions" are. There's no point, and half the time in the process of telling one another what Premils believe they misrepresent what Premils believe, anyway.

I don't know about your history with Amils, but my history with them has involved numerous years, more than 5, maybe even 10, maybe even more than 10. A lot of the way I go about things is something I learned from them over the years, the way they went about trying to disprove Premil.

Look at some of what SG said in an earlier post about me. That I'm deliberately misrepresenting their view, thus making me deceitful. They just don't understand my arguments and why I'm arguing in the manner I do, therefore the real truth is, they are misrepresenting what I'm posting by making it mean something that I wasn't even meaning to begin with. As if I am deliberately misrepresenting their view. I clearly understand that they don't see satan as totally inactive while he is bound, yet I do, and that it is my opinion that the NT agrees with that. Therefore, debunks what they are proposing.

Years ago on another board having zero to do with Premil vs Amil, I used to debate Shepherd Chapel students in regards to their serpent seed teaching. A woman on that board told me one time, that I'm good at debunking things, and that some ppl simply don't like that, the fact these students treated me the same way some of these Amils on this board do at times, because I'm simply proving their view is incorrect, and that they don't like that. Therefore, this means to them that I'm deliberately misrepresenting their view, when all I'm basically doing is attempting to see if it can be debunked or not.

Maybe the methods I use for attempting to debunk something is not the methods someone else might use to try and debunk something, such as the method SJ might use. I'm me, and SJ is SJ, therefore I'm not required to use the same methods he might, any more than he is required to use the same methods I might. The methods I use are the methods I use and are basically the same methods I used when I debunked the serpent seed teaching time and time again years ago. They, like these Amils in here, insisted I debunked zero of course.

I have also debated JWs involving Jesus being God. I also debunked their view of that as well. They of course think I debunked zero. I'm not saying any of this to brag, I'm simply using examples everyone can relate to, both Premils and Amils, since most agree that the serpent seed teaching can be debunked and that the JW teaching involving Jesus not being God, that it can be debunked too, and that some of them have probably done that as well, debunked those views themselves.

 

[DavidPT]

You are the last person to speak on behalf of Amil. So please stop trying. No one takes your false claims serious. You are obsessed with misrepresenting Amil. How about examining our beliefs in the light of what we believe? Avoidance is your MO when we do explain. You have to in order to keep your narrative going.

LOL. For example, I have heard Amils, you in particular, saying of Premils, that since Premils have unsaved survivors remaining after the 2nd coming, Premils therefore have the unsaved inheriting the kingdom of God. Anyone reading Revelation 20:9-11 though and then seeing that most, if not all of these unsaved survivors, that they are devoured by fire from God out of heaven in the end, that does not remotely add up to them inheriting anything other than being cast into the LOF. Being cast into the LOF is not remotely the same thing as inheriting the kingdom of God. Why is it ok for Amils to speak on behalf of Premils in that manner, but the manner in which I might argue something, it is meaning I'm deliberately misrepresenting Amil, thus I'm being deceitful by doing so? Some of you don't play fair, and I'm not the only person around here who has noticed that.

 

[sovereigngrace]

LOL. For example, I have heard Amils, you in particular, saying of Premils, that since Premils have unsaved survivors remaining after the 2nd coming, Premils therefore have the unsaved inheriting the kingdom of God. Anyone reading Revelation 20:9-11 though and then seeing that most, if not all of these unsaved survivors, that they are devoured by fire from God out of heaven in the end, that does not remotely add up to them inheriting anything other than being cast into the LOF. Being cast into the LOF is not remotely the same thing as inheriting the kingdom of God. Why is it ok for Amils to speak on behalf of Premils in that manner, but the manner in which I might argue something, it is meaning I'm deliberately misrepresenting Amil, thus I'm being deceitful by doing so? Some of you don't play fair, and I'm not the only person around here who has noticed that.

You do not speak for anybody but yourself. So stop trying. You do not talk on behalf of Amils or other Premils!

So, who are these billions of wicked who survive the coming of Christ and overrun your supposed future millennium as the sand of the sea? Are they aliens?

 

[Zao is life]

I don't know about your history with Amils, but my history with them has involved numerous years, more than 5, maybe even 10, maybe even more than 10. A lot of the way I go about things is something I learned from them over the years, the way they went about trying to disprove Premil.

Look at some of what SG said in an earlier post about me. That I'm deliberately misrepresenting their view, thus making me deceitful. They just don't understand my arguments and why I'm arguing in the manner I do, therefore the real truth is, they are misrepresenting what I'm posting by making it mean something that I wasn't even meaning to begin with. As if I am deliberately misrepresenting their view. I clearly understand that they don't see satan as totally inactive while he is bound, yet I do, and that it is my opinion that the NT agrees with that. Therefore, debunks what they are proposing.

Years ago on another board having zero to do with Premil vs Amil, I used to debate Shepherd Chapel students in regards to their serpent seed teaching. A woman on that board told me one time, that I'm good at debunking things, and that some ppl simply don't like that, the fact these students treated me the same way some of these Amils on this board do at times, because I'm simply proving their view is incorrect, and that they don't like that. Therefore, this means to them that I'm deliberately misrepresenting their view, when all I'm basically doing is attempting to see if it can be debunked or not.

Maybe the methods I use for attempting to debunk something is not the methods someone else might use to try and debunk something, such as the method SJ might use. I'm me, and SJ is SJ, therefore I'm not required to use the same methods he might, any more than he is required to use the same methods I might. The methods I use are the methods I use and are basically the same methods I used when I debunked the serpent seed teaching time and time again years ago. They, like these Amils in here, insisted I debunked zero of course.

I have also debated JWs involving Jesus being God. I also debunked their view of that as well. They of course think I debunked zero. I'm not saying any of this to brag, I'm simply using examples everyone can relate to, both Premils and Amils, since most agree that the serpent seed teaching can be debunked and that the JW teaching involving Jesus not being God, that it can be debunked too, and that some of them have probably done that as well, debunked those views themselves.

I don't have a right to tell you what method to use, which as you say is based on your experience, but the reason I said to you what I said to you is because I don't want to comment in public in front of the Romans about their Roman beliefs when I'm talking to a fellow Jew (so to speak - I'm not Jewish) about something me and my fellow Jew agrees on (but the Romans don't believe).

The Romans don't like us Jews talking in (what they regard as) our ignorance about their beliefs, especially if they think we are misrepresenting them. So if I'm going to disagree with a Roman, I'll pluck up the courage to argue with the Roman about it and face the consequences of the long-winded lengthy letters from the Church in Rome. Otherwise I prefer to stay out of it.

 

[jeffweedaman]

You got it backwards, in this case anyway. It is opened in order to reveal the names not written in it, not the names written in it---And whosoever was not found written in the book of life. How does one find out that someone is not written in the book of life? By looking to see if their name is written in it. How else would one do it?

How can we know who is written in it unless the book is opened.

Rom 8
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the eagerly awaiting creation waits for the revealing of the sons and daughters of God.


With the whole of creation standing before the GWT , what better time to reveal them.

 

[DavidPT]

How can we know who is written in it unless the book is opened.

Rom 8
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the eagerly awaiting creation waits for the revealing of the sons and daughters of God.


With the whole of creation standing before the GWT , what better time to reveal them.

Which comes first? The last trump or the GWTJ? What happens at the last trump? The saved are changed in the twinkling of an eye.

I'm pretty certain that change can't happen to anyone but the saved. I'm pretty certain that would mean their names are written in the book of life. I'm pretty certain they wouldn't need to find out at the GWTJ that their names are written in it since they will already be in glorified bodies before the GWTJ takes place, thus it would already be obvious to them that their names are written in it.

Until Revelation 19:21 is fulfilled first, where that is obviously meaning after the last trump has already sounded, the GWTJ can't take place in the meantime, even if the GWTJ takes place the same day Christ returns.

 

[jeffweedaman]

I'm pretty certain that change can't happen to anyone but the saved. I'm pretty certain that would mean their names are written in the book of life.

True.
How are they revealed to all creation ?



[ Quote David --- I'm pretty certain they wouldn't need to find out at the GWTJ that their names are written in it since they will already be in glorified bodies before the GWTJ takes place, thus it would already be obvious to them that their names are written in it. ]

Lol
Do not forget that we are glorified the same day and hour that the Lord appears in flaming fire to eternally separate the ungodly.

2Thess 1
6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.

FUTURE MILLENNIUM IS CLEARLY DEAD.

 

[DavidPT]

Eric has corrected you many times and you have refused to apologize for your continuous misrepresentations. He has exposed your underhand tactics. I will let him speak:

I'm seriously thinking about putting you on ignore permanently. I don't know yet. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. And if I do, it's not because of your Amil theology, but because of things you say to me at times like you do in this post. Some of the keywords are--deliberately, deceitful, underhand tactics---that that is supposed to be describing me. Wow.

So, I'm supposed to apologize for something I haven't even done, that being that I allegedly have deliberately been misrepresenting Amil, thus being deceitful? Guess what? I'm not too proud to apologize for something that I have actually done if it warrants an apology, but no way am I going to apologize for something I haven't done, because that would imply I'm admitting I did what I'm being falsely charged with. That would be like someone being accused of stealing money from someone even though they did no such thing whatsoever, then the accuser saying they will forget about the incident, as if it never happened, if they simply apologize for what they did. For what they did? What did they do? They did not steal the money. They are supposed to apologize for not stealing the money???

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm seriously thinking about putting you on ignore permanently. I don't know yet. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. And if I do, it's not because of your Amil theology, but because of things you say to me at times like you do in this post. Some of the keywords are--deliberately, deceitful, underhand tactics---that that is supposed to be describing me. Wow.

So, I'm supposed to apologize for something I haven't even done, that being that I allegedly have deliberately been misrepresenting Amil, thus being deceitful? Guess what? I'm not too proud to apologize for something that I have actually done if it warrants an apology, but no way am I going to apologize for something I haven't done, because that would imply I'm admitting I did what I'm being falsely charged with. That would be like someone being accused of stealing money from someone even though they did no such thing whatsoever, then the accuser saying they will forget about the incident, as if it never happened, if they simply apologize for what they did. For what they did? What did they do? They did not steal the money. They are supposed to apologize for not stealing the money???

I have never tried to misrepresent what you believe. I am fully aware of your position. God knows, I have observed it for long enough. But do what you want. The reality is, the Amil position has been explained to you in the finest detail and you still insist on misrepresenting what we hold. That is not right. You are not ignorant of our position.

What stops you actually addressing what we do believe? Because you would have to acknowledge it is solid and convincing. That seems to be a bridge to far. It would force you to abandon your 2-stringed guitar - "what is my opinion of Zech 14 and Rev 20?"