Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
FWIW, I actually *do* think that xzins is quoting me fairly and accurately on this point. I claim absolutely no date-setting foreknowledge as to how long the "Millenium of God's Patience" (II Peter 3) is going to last in terms of Earthly Years.
Neither should the Pre-Millennialist, of course. There is a delightful PreMillennial exposition of Revelation from AD 1850 which I could cite which, on par with Hal Lindsey, claimed "Mathematical Proof" that that Armageddon was right-around-the-corner (given that 200 million represented the whole Military Levy of the Earth at that time, AD 1850 -- i.e., Armageddon).
A hundred years later, Hal Lindsey modified the Argument somewhat, claiming that 200 million represented the whole Military Levy of China at that time (AD 1969).
Another Century, another century of PreMillenial date-setting.
The honest PreMillennial, like the honest Amillennial, admits that Christ's Return could theoretically be a Million years away. Unlike the snake-oil, date-setting Pop-Culture PreMillennialist, he admits that he honestly doesn't know.
I wasn't accusing you of being a "date-setter". I don't think that you are.
"I agree that there is no telling how long before Christ returns.... No one knows the day or hour." That's what I am saying. Both PreMillennialists and Amillennialists should be honest about this Fact.
Without ANY prejudice intended, that's all that I'm tryin' to say.
Ephesians chapter 2 is, of necessity, preceded and informed by the Testimony of the Patriarch Job.
That old devil Satan was under a particular Binding then.
And that old devil Satan is under a particular Binding NOW.
Is the Strong Man Satan PRESENTLY under the particular Binding of Matthew 12, and is the House of the Strong Man Satan currently being plundered, RIGHT NOW, of the Vessels therein??
Matthew chapter 12.
Revelation Chapter 20.
Scripture interprets Scripture.
he doesn't yet rule the physical, worldy government
Does the Risen Messiah presently Rule the absolute and total Physical Government of the Terrestrial World TODAY? Yes, or No?
Does the Risen Messiah presently Rule the absolute and total Physical Government of the Terrestrial World TODAY? Yes, or No?
Does the Risen Messiah presently Rule the absolute and total Physical Government of the Terrestrial World TODAY? Yes, or No?
Does the Risen Messiah presently Rule the absolute and total Physical Government of the Terrestrial World TODAY??
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
VICTORY IS OURS!!
You'se gotta a problem wit' dat?? (grin)
THANK YOU!! That is without question the nicest compliment I've had in weeks!!
May it be, O Lord, even so unto me; May it be, O Lord, even so unto me.
May it be, O Lord, even so unto me.
........'light-on'.....?
...."So then FAITH cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
(Romans 10:17)
........'light-on'......?
Delphi-Technique?
Matthew 7:6
........'light-on'......!
Maranatha!
Couple that with this previous gem
And I happen to be a saint. Already. It is quite literally the greatest thing in the world. On the other hand, you are--to put it bluntly--Satanically screwed.
So lemme think this through - you are a "saint" that "drives" people "from" God, all the while be a "Christian"
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.
Thank you Jesus for finally making clear what we suspected all along
Merry Christmas all
Aside on a personal note, I am contending with a father in the family business who abuses similarly (and chronically). Without boring everyone with details - I ask you pray for him.....hard
No.
2 Corinthians 4 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
If I'm misunderstanding your question, the please tell me more.
The premill must explain to others, however, the biblical doctrine of "already/not yet."
Since amillennialists assign the "millennium" to the time between Christ's 1st COMING and Christ's 2nd COMING, then you are simply attempting to point out that amillennialists believe that there could be 10,000,000 years between Christ's 1st COMING and Christ's 2nd COMING
I, then, asked you what in Premillennial theology would ~necessarily~ require one to reject the possiblity that there might be 10,000,000 years between Christ's 1st COMING and Christ's 2nd COMING?
You responded by saying: "Now I understand you to be asking me a different question. You are asking me how long premills think the gap between the 1st and 2nd resurrections will be. "
I didn't ask you how long premill's think the gap between the 1st and 2nd resurrections will be.
My question was not concerning the "gap" between the 1st and 2nd resurrections (I thought the 1st and 2nd resurrections in Premillennial theology were allegedly 1000 years apart. Goodness, how many resurrections do you guys have?).
My question was not concerning a hypothetical "gap" between the 1st and 2nd resurrections. I question was not even pertaining to "What premil's think" the length of ~ANY~ gap would be.
I specifically asked you a question in response to your point that amil's believe there could be 10,000,000 years between Christ's 1st COMING and Christ's 2nd COMING.
The question was: "Is there something in Premillennial theology which would ~necessarily~ require one to reject the possiblity that there might be 10,000,000 years between Christ's 1st COMING and Christ's 2nd COMING?
I'm concerned with the gap between Christ's 1st COMING and Christ's 2nd COMING.
I'm not concered, at all, with the gap between the 1st and 2nd resurrections.
~AND~...I'm not concerned with "how long premil's think the gap" between Christ's 1st COMING and Christ's 2nd COMING will be.
I specifically asked you if anything in Premillennail theology would ~necessarily~ require one to reject the possiblity that there might be 10,000,000 years between Christ's 1st COMING and Christ's 2nd COMING will be?
If there is no objection, I want to know what your point was.
(And you wonder why we recommend reading comprehension classes to you! LOL)
Jean
Absolutely. Eph. 1 also makes clear the significance of Christ's resurrection which is the beginning of his reign (Acts 2 makes clear this is when he sat down on David's throne)as it points out his absolute power in this age and the next. Vs 22 "and he put all things in subjection under his feet."
The premil defines satan's binding in Rev. 20 only in reference to the chain, key and pit which then are interpreted on the basis of their human speculation. A prisoner in jail is in a sense bound by the bars of his cell, but in essense he is bound by the law of the land under which he was convicted.
I challenged on premil on this thread to show the causal connection between the binding and loosing of satan and verses 4-6 and the reply I received is that there is no causal connection, there is only a conincidental relationship.
The premil presents satan as having absolute power, a loose canon that Christ can't do anything about.
Fact of the matter, satan is bound in reference to Christ. He alone with the absolute authority and power that can control satan.
One of the means Christ uses is the gospel. In Acts 26:18 Paul is sent to the gentiles "to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me (Christ)."
Rev 10:7 "...then is finished the mysery of God, according to the good tidings which he declared to his servants the prophets." (The word "finished" is from the same greek word [telew] the is used in Rev 20 in connection with the 1000 years.) God will accomplish his glorious purpose in Christ, which is what Rev. 20 sums up so powerfully.
Matter of fact - Rev. 20:4-6 define what the binding is about. There is a causal relationship between vs 3 and 4. Vs 1-3 see all the nations as spiritually dead as deceived by satan. His binding prevents him from deceiving the nations. The result is that some of the spiritually dead are seen sitting on thrones, living and reigning with Christ, the first and foremost resurrection. The rest of the dead (vs5) remain under satan's deception and have no spiritual life and are finally cast into the lake of fire to experience the second death. Those participating in the First Resurrection live and reign with Christ forever. This is God's final judgment about those who believe in Christ.
So vss 4-6 IMO, in defining satan's binding, make clear that not all are moved from under his binding. Some remain deceived and spiritually dead. His binding is not absolute.
I would point out that in the premil millennium, satan is not completely bound either, for unbelief, sin and death still exist and according to their view many at the end of the millennium are rebellious unbeievers who end up in the armies of satan in vss.7-8.
Premillennialism is a gross insult to the all powerful risen and reigning Christ for its central tenents are - the promise of land to national israel - and the power of satan in control of all things in this age. This is obviously a false gospel as scripture makes exceedingly clear that by the resurrection the man who hung on the cross has been given absolute power over all things. Romans 1:1-4
God is certainly real. Angels are real. Satan is real. God's ability to imprison Satan is real.
What part do you think is not real?
KEY WORDS
You select a chapter from a symbolic book and choose to make THAT ONE a literal truth..
I ask again ..does not the wird of God indicate that a thousand years ~to the Lord~ as a day?
(Aside to editor-surveyor: You just need to start admitting that. But that means you need to start believing that you have a problem. And that's what repentance is.)
If editor-surveyor can't face what John 5:25-29 is explicitly saying--in explicitly ruling out the premillennial position--then nothing you say about the present glory of King Jesus will impress him. He won't even find it interesting. (See 2 Cor 3 and compare it with what Jonathan Edwards said about that passage.)
(Aside to editor-surveyor: Please go back to #2196. Trace that post back to my arguments concerning John 5:25-29. My arguments against the premill position are utterly rigorous.)
I'll be back later today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.