22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[WPM]

Do you just forget everything you ever say? Why do I have to search for it? You can't repeat what you said? You don't need to go into great detail or anything. I don't want to spend a bunch of time searching for your posts. It can be done and there is a search feature on here, but I don't know why you can't just tell me what you were talking about instead of just telling me to look it up. Does that mean you don't even remember what you were talking about?

He is on the ropes bro. He knows if he admits that then he would be challenged further and deeper. He is all over the place.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So the thread, as is inevitable with any eschatological topic, has evolved and wandered far away from us original premise... Amil/premil. The initial argument based on the belief that there is only one resurrection.
Jesus taught that there will be two general resurrections: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John 5:28, 29.

Before giving further specific proof on this point, we must note that Christ referred to the resurrection of life and the resurrection of damnation. This seems to indicate that the saved and lost do not arise at the same time. Two separate resurrections are described.

Yes, but only one time/hour is referenced. So, there is no basis whatsoever for separating the resurrections by a long period of time. Jesus said a singular time/hour is coming when all of the dead would be resurrected.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

If your Premil understanding was accurate, then Jesus would have said two times are coming when all who are in the graves will be resurrected. But, that is not what He said. He indicated that a time is coming in the future at which point "those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned".

According to Amil beliefs, the saved and lost won't be resurrected at the same exact moment, but their resurrections will be close enough together to where it will be part of the same event, which is the second coming of Christ.

If the resurrection of the saved and the lost was going to be 1,000+ years apart then how would Jesus describing it as "a time" that "is coming" when all the dead are raised make any sense?

The book of Revelation confirms this fact. John wrote, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” Revelation 20:6.

The use of the term “first resurrection” is proof that there must be more than one. If I say, “This is the first house I built,” you know that I had to build at least one other.

According to scripture, the "first resurrection", which in Greek is "protos anastasis", was Christ's resurrection. The only other verse where the Greek words "protos" and "anastasis" are used together is this one:

Acts 26:23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise (protos anastasis) from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

Lazarus and a few others had been resurrected from the dead before Jesus, so what does it mean for Jesus to be "the first to rise from the dead"? He was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality.

Paul wrote about that here:

1 Corinthians 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Here, Paul gives the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality. We know that's the context of what he was talking about here because later in the same chapter he again referenced the resurrection of the dead in Christ and said it would occur "at the last trumpet" at which point we all will be changed to have immortal bodies. Christ Himself was "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep". So, His resurrection was the first unto bodily immortality. Who is next in order, according to Paul? It is "those who belong to" Christ. So, according to scripture, the mass resurrection of believers at His second coming is not the first resurrection, since that was Christ's resurrection. A first implies a second, so that resurrection of "those who belong to him" will be a second resurrection unto bodily immortality.

So, what is the following verse referring to then?

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Since Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection, this must be talking about people sharing (having part) in Christ's resurrection. The second death has no power over those who share in the first resurrection and they are "priests of God and of Christ" and reign with Him.

Is the idea of the second death not having power over people and the idea of people being "priests of God and of Christ" a future expectation or a current reality? Read the following to see for yourself:

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

There are a few important things to note about this passage and how it relates to Revelation 20:6.

First, it indicates that Jesus Christ is "the firstborn from the dead". That is another reference to the fact that He was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality. His resurrection was the first resurrection.

Second, it describes Jesus as "the ruler of the kings of the earth" in present tense. He was already reigning back then when John wrote the book.

Third, it says Jesus "has freed us from our sins by his blood". In Revelation 20:6 it says the second death has no power over those who share in the first resurrection. At what point does the second death no longer have any power over someone? At the same point that someone has been freed from their sins by Christ's blood. When someone becomes saved they are set free from their sins by Christ's blood and they have the hope of eternal life instead of being destined for the second death, which is to be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15). So, the second death currently has no power over believers. Not just those who are physically dead and in heaven now, but also those who are alive and are saved.

Fourth, it says Jesus had already back then "made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father". That means the reference to those who share in the first resurrection as being "priests of God and of Christ" who reign with Christ for a thousand years is a current reality.

Two points are established in this text. First, only the good people , the redeemed of Christ, from all of history, will have any part in the first resurrection. It plainly says, “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection.” Second, we learn that the resurrection of those saints is the beginning point of the millennium, because after being raised they “shall reign with him a thousand years.”
According to this verse, none of the wicked will have any part in the first resurrection. This is also established by verses 4 and 5 which describe the resurrection of those “which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived (came to live) and reigned with Christ a thousand years. … This is the first resurrection.” This leaves no doubt about the class who will be included in the first resurrection. It is only for those who remained faithful to Christ. But in the midst of that text we find a very significant, parenthetical sentence: “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” Verse 5.

No one was claiming that any of the wicked have part in the first resurrection, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out.

Obviously, the “rest of the dead” can only be in reference to the wicked.

Amils believe this as well.

They will come forth from their graves at the end of the millennium—when “the thousand years were finished.”

As will the righteous or else what Jesus said in John 5:28-29 would not make any sense since He said a singular time (event) is coming when all of the dead would be raised, not two times.

Now we have a clear picture before us of two resurrections separated by a thousand years. The good people are raised at the beginning of the millennium, and the wicked are resurrected at the end.

No, I don't find your explanation to be clear at all. It doesn't line up with the rest of scripture, including John 5:28-29. Premil simply contradicts John 5:28-29 since there is no indication there whatsoever that Jesus talking about two separate resurrections separated by a long period of time. Him saying that a time (not times) is coming when all the dead will be raised does not give an indication of two resurrections separated by a long period of time at all.

Another thing to consider here is that scripture teaches that all people will be judged at the same time (Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50, Matt 25:31-46, Acts 17:31). Obviously, John 5:28-29 talks about people being resurrected and then judged. So, that all people will be judged at the same time implies that all of the dead will be resurrected at generally the same time as well.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, of course I don't think you believe God lies! I'm just trying to underscore how obvious it appears to me that God has promised something.

Say it some other way than "unless you think God lies" then. Why say it that way when you know I would never think that He lies? I know you strongly THINK that God promised certain things, but that's just your opinion. To disagree with you is not a case of thinking that God lied.

I've shared these things for years, and yet those who hear me don't seem to actually hear me! It's as if they believe their doctrine so strongly that they don't actually consider what is being argued.

I "hear" what you're arguing and disagree with it. Is that hard to understand that not everyone is going to agree with you? I'm sure you understand that, so I don't get why you're thinking that someone disagreeing with you is just not hearing you. Hearing you isn't the issue here.

I've not once said I disagree with Gal 3.16-29. Abraham's promises are of course fulfilled by Christ and on behalf of people of faith, whatever nation they belong to. But the point is, these things were promised to *nations,* and not just *individuals.* The fact you skate by this is why I emphasize *what God has promised.* Either He did so, or He didn't. If He did, then He would be a liar if He didn't complete the task.

But, you're wrong about this. So, I'm not calling God a liar by disagreeing with this since I disagree that He promised anything to nations. Is Galatians 3:16-29 not clear enough that the promises made to Abraham and his seed apply to Christ and those who belong to Christ? Why try to change that as if Paul left something out about who the promises apply to?

Please get this in your understanding. As I've been saying, to be "in his Kingdom" is a matter of *membership*--not a matter of his Kingdom having already come!

Please get this in your understanding. He said that His kingdom does not come with observation (Luke 17:20). So, what you're talking about is the kingdom as it will be in the future when we can observe it. But, His kingdom that does not come with observation has more certainly already come! We are in it now as scripture very clearly teaches.

Yes, we are members of Jesus' Kingdom now.

Thank you for acknowledging this. Was that so hard?

But we are not yet *in that Kingdom* in terms of its having already come, and our already being in that era.

This is completely nonsensical. We're members of His kingdom but not in His kingdom? What are you talking about? We can't be members of His kingdom now if His kingdom hasn't come yet.

Do you understand that Christ has His kingdom for a time and then eventually hands it over to the Father? What is your understanding of Christ's kingdom while He reigns over it compared to when it is handed over to the Father?

The future manifestation of the kingdom of God is not Christ's kingdom because His kingdom does not come with observation. The kingdom that we will inherit in its fullness in the future will be "the kingdom of their Father" (Matt 13:43) at Christ's second coming at the end of the age when Jesus hands over (delivers) the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor 15:22-24).

Why you can't grasp this confuses me??

I am fully grasping what you're saying and I disagree with it. I know you believe strongly and I believe what I do strongly as well. But, neither of us should think that everyone is going to agree if they grasp what we believe. My disagreement has nothing to do with not grasping what you're saying. I fully do. I just disagree with your understanding of the kingdom as it exists now.

I keep going around saying the same things, and you keep bringing the same points out as if I haven't already explained it.

No one is forcing you to repeat yourself. If you've already covered something, just say so and move on.

You know what? Until you actually show you grasp the points I'm making it makes no sense in going on.

This is ridiculous. Apparently, in your mind, me grasping what you're saying equates to me agreeing with what you're saying. That is ludicrous. I do grasp what you're saying and I disagree with it. Just accept that no matter how strongly you believe what you do about this, it doesn't mean that everyone will agree with you if only they can grasp what you're saying.

Either show you understand, or I'm done. I'm not going to keep repeating myself for you. Others surely understand by now, even if you don't. I'm not saying they have to agree--just understand the argument.

Of course I understand it. Again, you are equating understanding your argument with agreeing with it. That is silly. There is no basis at all for you to say that I'm not understanding your argument. I'm simply disagreeing with it while explaining my own understanding.

That's not me. That's Scripture.

Such arrogance. Equating your BELIEFS, OPINIONS and INTERPRETATIONS with scripture itself.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are wrong about this because the Bible clearly teaches that if and when the Hebrews obey all of God's commandments, ordinances, and statues, this will mark them as his holy people as I demonstrated from the book of Deuteronomy. I can multiply other verses but this one should suffice.

Deuteronomy 29:8

The Lord will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in His ways.​

What in the world is this? It's not possible for anyone but Jesus Christ to perfectly "obey all of God's commandments, ordinances, and statutes". If someone was able to do that then what would they need Jesus for? Are you claiming a time period is coming when people won't need Jesus anymore? That is what you're saying here implies. You are very sadly mistaken.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

These verses are speaking of a time after the Millennial Period.

You said this in response to a post that included these 2 passages:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

You're saying you believe that "the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels" after the Millennial Period? I agree. Why aren't you an Amil then? He will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels at His return.

As for 2 Peter 3:10, look at what Peter said right after that.

2 Peter 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Peter was telling his readers, which now include you and me, that they should be careful about what kind of people they are and try to be godly people while "looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God". You are saying this is "speaking of a time after the Millennial period". I agree, but you unfortunately have that time period occurring 1,000+ years after the return of Christ.

So, is it your view then that Peter was not addressing anyone reading his words before the return of Christ or even anyone alive during the thousand years, but instead was only addressing those who are alive during Satan's little season after the thousand years? Because, from your perspective, they are the only ones who could possibly be alive when what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 occurs.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Will you continue to mock God's holy words of truth below, beware!

John 5:28-29KJV
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

What is wrong with you? Did you read the whole discussion to see the context of his post? He was not mocking God's word, he was mocking the way Premils interpret that passage.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yet we have an OP with 22 personal opinions about God's Word. The majority of them twisting Scripture and coming from a personal bias.

Your accusations mean nothing when you can't back them up. Which you most certainly are incapable of doing. So, these are empty words coming from you. The next coherent argument you make defending your doctrine will be the first one.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I explained it to you before. Perhaps you forgot. The animal sacrifices are among the commandments of God; During the millennial period, Israel will be keeping the commandments of God. Therefore, there will be animal sacrifices in the millennial kingdom.

In my view, during the Millennial kingdom they will make atonement sacrifices as commanded by Moses. You argue that atonement sacrifices are not necessary anymore, which is a problem for my view, in your opinion.

To that, I made two arguments. First, as Paul said (and we both agreed) it was never possible for atonement sacrifices to take away sins. It wasn't possible then, and so it won't be possible in the future. Therefore, any future atonement sacrifices will not be insulting to the cross or Jesus Christ.

But, the old covenant sacrifices did have a purpose. They foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice, as Hebrews 10 indicates. So, they already served their purpose. What purpose would future animal sacrifices serve and what evidence do you have to support your answer?

Second, while the original purpose of the atonement sacrifices was reconciliation with God, the atonement sacrifices will serve a different purpose in the millennial kingdom.

Which is? If you can't answer this then you can't be taken seriously about this.

Upon reflection over the past week, I have changed my mind about my second point. I do believe that the atonement sacrifices will be offered for atonement. In order to understand this, we need to abandon our erroneous view of the sacrifices. Christians tend to think of the sacrifices in economic terms, which is foreign to Moses. According to the penal-substitution theory of the atonement, if one commits a sin, which is understood as a debt to divine justice, one owes God a lamb, a goat, or a bull until the debt is paid. This model, this interpretation of the sacrifices is not Biblical.

What is the actual purpose of the atonement sacrifice? If one were to offer God a lamb as payment for sins, then it would no longer be called "a sacrifice." When we pay our electric bill, for instance, we are not making an offering to the power company; we are providing money to the power company in exchange for the delivery of electricity. The sacrifice of a lamb is an offering to God to signify contrition and to appeal for reconciliation, not a financial compensation. The Lord, through Moses, gave those living under the original covenant the means whereby the penitent might give expression to righteous sentiments.

The atonement sacrifice was offered to give outward expression to a (supposed) inward attitude toward the situation. The atonement sacrifice speaks to the issue of sin, in a visible way, agreeing with God's opinion of the situation. If a man wants to seek reconciliation with God, he must act as if he agrees with God's opinion on the matter. God doesn't need sacrifices, sometimes he doesn't want then, and he says he hates them. But he is willing to offer reconciliation to a man (or woman) who make an offering in genuine and sincere contrition.

Where is this taught in scripture, though? It seems like you're just making this up, which means it can just be easily discounted and not taken seriously.

The Lord didn't institute the sacrifices for his own sake, he instituted them for the sake of his people. His people need and want a means to give expression to righteous sentiment. A man doesn't need to offer a lamb to find reconciliation with God; but the man offers the lamb in order to give heart-felt expression to his opinion concerning his sin. He tells God, "I agree with you Lord. What I did was wrong, evil, and deserves your wrath. Please accept my apology and restore me to your favor."

Even Christians, who already know that reconciliation with God came through the blood of Christ, get on their knees and pray for forgiveness when they sin. Some Christians seek a tangible way to give expression to their heart-felt contrition, perhaps confessing sins to a priest, or perhaps giving to charity, or what-have-you. The point is, those who are weak in faith both need and want ritualistic forms of heart-felt attitudes toward God. Mankind invented religion for that purpose. The Lord, through Moses, gave his people certain religious forms, done properly, so that his people might have a tangible way to express righteous sentiments.

See the next post.

None of what you're saying is coming from scripture as far as the idea of future animal sacrifices being offered is concerned. You're making things up to support your doctrine. Do you really think anyone should take this seriously when your view of future animal sacrifices and the purpose for them is clearly coming from your own imagination rather than from scripture?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yeah. I agree about the false doctrines. And it seems to be getting worse the closer we get to the pretribulation rapture. Thankfully we can escape all these things that will come to pass and stand before the Lord at His throne in heaven.

The things from which we will escape are the things that will occur on the day Christ returns.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Notice here that Jesus talked about heaven and earth passing away and then talked about something of which would come "on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" on "that day". So, Jesus was talking about escaping things that will happen on "that day", not during some future tribulation period. What day was He talking about? The day that heaven and earth pass away. The day that God's wrath comes down "on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth".

Jesus was talking about the same day as the day of the Lord Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 5:2-3 and that Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:10-12. Paul indicated that we are not appointed to the earth he wrote about in 1 Thess 5:2-3. What wrath is that? Wrath that occurs during a tribulation period as you believe? No. It's the wrath that will come down on the day Christ returns. It will be global and it will be impossible to escape it without God's intervention. It will be fire that comes down on the entire earth on that day (2 Peter 3:10-12) which will result in "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3). We will escape that by being changed to have immortal bodies and being caught up to meet Christ in the air.

There is no need to escape anything before that. God can surely protect us from anything else that happens which doesn't literally affect the entire earth like what will happen on the day Christ returns.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Second Coming has not happened yet. Why claim the Second Coming is an ongoing spiritual birth process?

No one is claiming that. Why are you wasting your time arguing with a straw man?

Why don't you have holy pots in church every Sunday where people have convinced themselves they have not been a sinner all week?

John says if we claim we have no sin, we are a liar. All those holy pots in church each Sunday you bring, are pots of deception and liars.

There is something seriously wrong with you. You talk complete, utter nonsense. Please seek help.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There is a general sequence of events in Revelation. We are warned to not mess with that,

We are? Where?

Saying that Revelation is full of symbols and signs, is totally useless and just a cop-out.

No one is saying that literally all of Revelation is symbols, but it certainly contains a lot of symbolism. That is undeniable.

It is totally obvious that none of Revelation from Rev 6:12 to the end, have happened.

Hmmm. Really?

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

You're saying this has not yet happened even though it's clearly referring to the the first coming of Christ and His ascension?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I took a chance that you might listen and consider it. Live and learn.

Let's make something very clear here. People like WPM, jeffweeder and myself are not going to consider something that clearly only came from your imagination rather than from scripture. You gave a theory as to why there would be animal sacrifices in the future and didn't offer any scripture in support of your theory. We will never take that seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't know how to search for specific posts. I have spent hours looking for stuff.

While you are in a thread like this one, look in the upper right of your screen after scrolling to the top. There is a search feature there. Click in the field where it says "Search..." and then a window like this will pop up:



You can type in any keywords you want there and then you can also check the box to choose the option to search titles only. And you can search for posts made only be a certain member. And you can search for posts more recent than a certain date. And then you can also either search in the thread you are in or in the entire forum.

 

[Brakelite]

Yes, but only one time/hour is referenced. So, there is no basis whatsoever for separating the resurrections by a long period of time. Jesus said a singular time/hour is coming when all of the dead would be resurrected.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

If your Premil understanding was accurate, then Jesus would have said two times are coming when all who are in the graves will be resurrected. But, that is not what He said. He indicated that a time is coming in the future at which point "those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned".

According to Amil beliefs, the saved and lost won't be resurrected at the same exact moment, but their resurrections will be close enough together to where it will be part of the same event, which is the second coming of Christ.

If the resurrection of the saved and the lost was going to be 1,000+ years apart then how would Jesus describing it as "a time" that "is coming" when all the dead are raised make any sense?

According to scripture, the "first resurrection", which in Greek is "protos anastasis", was Christ's resurrection. The only other verse where the Greek words "protos" and "anastasis" are used together is this one:

Acts 26:23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise (protos anastasis) from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

Lazarus and a few others had been resurrected from the dead before Jesus, so what does it mean for Jesus to be "the first to rise from the dead"? He was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality.

Paul wrote about that here:

1 Corinthians 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Here, Paul gives the order of resurrections unto bodily immortality. We know that's the context of what he was talking about here because later in the same chapter he again referenced the resurrection of the dead in Christ and said it would occur "at the last trumpet" at which point we all will be changed to have immortal bodies. Christ Himself was "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep". So, His resurrection was the first unto bodily immortality. Who is next in order, according to Paul? It is "those who belong to" Christ. So, according to scripture, the mass resurrection of believers at His second coming is not the first resurrection, since that was Christ's resurrection. A first implies a second, so that resurrection of "those who belong to him" will be a second resurrection unto bodily immortality.

So, what is the following verse referring to then?

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Since Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection, this must be talking about people sharing (having part) in Christ's resurrection. The second death has no power over those who share in the first resurrection and they are "priests of God and of Christ" and reign with Him.

Is the idea of the second death not having power over people and the idea of people being "priests of God and of Christ" a future expectation or a current reality? Read the following to see for yourself:

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

There are a few important things to note about this passage and how it relates to Revelation 20:6.

First, it indicates that Jesus Christ is "the firstborn from the dead". That is another reference to the fact that He was the first to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality. His resurrection was the first resurrection.

Second, it describes Jesus as "the ruler of the kings of the earth" in present tense. He was already reigning back then when John wrote the book.

Third, it says Jesus "has freed us from our sins by his blood". In Revelation 20:6 it says the second death has no power over those who share in the first resurrection. At what point does the second death no longer have any power over someone? At the same point that someone has been freed from their sins by Christ's blood. When someone becomes saved they are set free from their sins by Christ's blood and they have the hope of eternal life instead of being destined for the second death, which is to be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15). So, the second death currently has no power over believers. Not just those who are physically dead and in heaven now, but also those who are alive and are saved.

Fourth, it says Jesus had already back then "made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father". That means the reference to those who share in the first resurrection as being "priests of God and of Christ" who reign with Christ for a thousand years is a current reality.

No one was claiming that any of the wicked have part in the first resurrection, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out.

Amils believe this as well.

As will the righteous or else what Jesus said in John 5:28-29 would not make any sense since He said a singular time (event) is coming when all of the dead would be raised, not two times.

No, I don't find your explanation to be clear at all. It doesn't line up with the rest of scripture, including John 5:28-29. Premil simply contradicts John 5:28-29 since there is no indication there whatsoever that Jesus talking about two separate resurrections separated by a long period of time. Him saying that a time (not times) is coming when all the dead will be raised does not give an indication of two resurrections separated by a long period of time at all.

Another thing to consider here is that scripture teaches that all people will be judged at the same time (Matt 13:36-43, Matt 13:47-50, Matt 25:31-46, Acts 17:31). Obviously, John 5:28-29 talks about people being resurrected and then judged. So, that all people will be judged at the same time implies that all of the dead will be resurrected at generally the same time as well.

There isa great deal I could respond to, but will reduce it all to just 2 points. First, there is clearly 2 resurrections, with 2 very different results. Second, it is likened to a harvest, which means the fruits of our works are ripe... Whether for good or for evil... And the resurrection we come up in indicates what fruit we produced, therefore the judgement had to be completed before the resurrection and the second coming. Just offering food for thought.

 

[The Light]

The things from which we will escape are the things that will occur on the day Christ returns.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Notice here that Jesus talked about heaven and earth passing away and then talked about something of which would come "on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" on "that day". So, Jesus was talking about escaping things that will happen on "that day", not during some future tribulation period. What day was He talking about? The day that heaven and earth pass away. The day that God's wrath comes down "on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth".

And yet, "that day" has nothing to do with escaping "All these things that will come to pass". What things can we escape?

Luke 21
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

We can escape the time of the great tribulation when the abomination of desolation is set up in the new Temple that will be destroyed. We can escape nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom, famines and pestilences. All the beginning of sorrows which are the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse.

As scripture continues:

Luke 21
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;

30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.

31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

The people that can escape "all these things" that will come to pass will be the Church. When the fulness of the Gentiles comes in the 70th week of Daniel will commence with the confirming of a 7 year covenant. The Jews will be here for the great tribulation, the signs of the sun, moon and stars and the shaking of the heavens. When these things begin to come to pass their redemption draws nigh. The Jews will be here to SEE THESE THING. The Church can escape all these things.

Jesus was talking about the same day as the day of the Lord Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 5:2-3 and that Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:10-12. Paul indicated that we are not appointed to the earth he wrote about in 1 Thess 5:2-3. What wrath is that? Wrath that occurs during a tribulation period as you believe? No.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't believe that the tribulation and the wrath of God occur in the same timeframe. Jesus returns at the 6th seal for the second rapture and then the wrath of God begins. Gods people are not appointed to wrath.

It's the wrath that will come down on the day Christ returns. It will be global and it will be impossible to escape it without God's intervention. It will be fire that comes down on the entire earth on that day (2 Peter 3:10-12) which will result in "sudden destruction" from which "they shall not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3). We will escape that by being changed to have immortal bodies and being caught up to meet Christ in the air.
There is no need to escape anything before that. God can surely protect us from anything else that happens which doesn't literally affect the entire earth like what will happen on the day Christ returns.

The Church will already be in heaven before the 70th week of Daniel commences. See Revelation 4 and 5. It is the 12 tribes across that will be raptured at the 6th seal. See the 144,000 first fruits of this rapture. Then the wrath of God will begin with only the unbelievers and the nation of Israel, those that flee to a place of protection on the earth.

 

[Timtofly]

They do not care what the New Testament says on the subject. They ignore it. They reject it. They rubbish it.

Sorta like Amil on their opinion of the Day of the Lord. One big trash incinerator.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And yet, "that day" has nothing to do with escaping "All these things that will come to pass". What things can we escape?

Luke 21
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Not every reference to "these things" refer to the same things in the Olivet Discourse. In verse 6 "these things" refer to the temple buildings standing at that time. Jesus said they would be destroyed and they were in 70 AD. So, clearly, Jesus was not talking about being worthy to escape that. He was talking about escaping the things that would occur on the entire earth as I showed and as you apparently ignored.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There isa great deal I could respond to, but will reduce it all to just 2 points. First, there is clearly 2 resurrections, with 2 very different results.

Did you notice that I did not deny that? So, pointing this out is kind of...pointless since I'm not even disagreeing with that. What I'm disagreeing with is that a future time that is coming can be referring to 2 resurrections separated by 1,000+ years.

And I showed how scripture itself defines the first resurrection (Acts 26:23), so I would appreciate if you address that when you have time.

Second, it is likened to a harvest, which means the fruits of our works are ripe... Whether for good or for evil... And the resurrection we come up in indicates what fruit we produced, therefore the judgement had to be completed before the resurrection and the second coming. Just offering food for thought.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you were trying to say here. Can you elaborate on this?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And yet, "that day" has nothing to do with escaping "All these things that will come to pass". What things can we escape?

Luke 21
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

We can escape the time of the great tribulation when the abomination of desolation is set up in the new Temple that will be destroyed. We can escape nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom, famines and pestilences. All the beginning of sorrows which are the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse.

As scripture continues:

Luke 21
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;

30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.

31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

The people that can escape "all these things" that will come to pass will be the Church. When the fulness of the Gentiles comes in the 70th week of Daniel will commence with the confirming of a 7 year covenant. The Jews will be here for the great tribulation, the signs of the sun, moon and stars and the shaking of the heavens. When these things begin to come to pass their redemption draws nigh. The Jews will be here to SEE THESE THING. The Church can escape all these things.

There is something here which you may not have thought about. Jesus said "when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand". He was talking about seeing these things come to pass, not escaping from them. So, those can't be the things from which he said we can be worthy to escape since He's talking about seeing them and then realizing that the kingdom of God is near at that point. And, like I pointed out in another post already, "these things" refer to the temple buildings in Jerusalem early on in the discourse and He certainly wasn't talking about escaping their destruction since they were destroyed long ago. He was talking about escaping something that would affect the entire earth, such as the fire that will come down on the entire earth when Christ returns (2 Peter 3:10-13), so you need to differentiate between which "things" Jesus is talking about at any given time during the discourse.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't believe that the tribulation and the wrath of God occur in the same timeframe. Jesus returns at the 6th seal for the second rapture and then the wrath of God begins. Gods people are not appointed to wrath.

Second rapture? Scripture teaches no such thing. Your doctrine is very convoluted, which raises a red flag. Who can even understand it let alone agree with it?

The Church will already be in heaven before the 70th week of Daniel commences.

That's impossible since the 70th week ended long ago in the time when Jesus confirmed the new covenant.

See Revelation 4 and 5. It is the 12 tribes across that will be raptured at the 6th seal.

I see no description of a rapture of the 12 tribes there.

See the 144,000 first fruits of this rapture. Then the wrath of God will begin with only the unbelievers and the nation of Israel, those that flee to a place of protection on the earth.

So, these unbelievers will have a place to go on earth where they can be protected but for some reason believers will be taken off of the earth as if God couldn't protect them on the earth? That makes no sense.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Say it some other way than "unless you think God lies" then. Why say it that way when you know I would never think that He lies? I know you strongly THINK that God promised certain things, but that's just your opinion. To disagree with you is not a case of thinking that God lied.

It was a rhetorical statement, and I explained it. Moving on...

I "hear" what you're arguing and disagree with it. Is that hard to understand that not everyone is going to agree with you? I'm sure you understand that, so I don't get why you're thinking that someone disagreeing with you is just not hearing you. Hearing you isn't the issue here.

You know as well as I do that none of us "hear well" when someone is opposing our own position. It takes a special act of grace to listen carefully to what the other person is saying. No, I don't really believe everything I've argued has been really heard and understood--I find I have to repeat many times before the argument is actually recognized.

But, you're wrong about this. So, I'm not calling God a liar by disagreeing with this since I disagree that He promised anything to nations. Is Galatians 3:16-29 not clear enough that the promises made to Abraham and his seed apply to Christ and those who belong to Christ? Why try to change that as if Paul left something out about who the promises apply to?

My goodness! Part of my argument has to do with God's integrity. So of course I'm going to argue that we must believe that God is truthful when He plainly promises something! That's what I believe, brother!

I believe the word used is "nations" and not just "Christ." Christ was the means by which these promises would be fulfilled, and he was also the recipient of the same promises, because the One promising these things was resident in His own Son, Jesus.

But there is no question in my mind that God promised Abraham *nations.* And that is borne out in Gal 3.8..
"Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

The following verse confuses a lot of Christians....
Gal 3.16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

What Paul is saying here is that the descendants of Abraham form a collective of faith. They are plurality of individuals, but a unity of faith. That is how the promise was delivered, to be fulfilled in nations of faith and in an Israel that has faith. Those things have not yet be fulfilled, except in part.

He said that His kingdom does not come with observation (Luke 17:20). So, what you're talking about is the kingdom as it will be in the future when we can observe it. But, His kingdom that does not come with observation has more certainly already come! We are in it now as scripture very clearly teaches.

When you remove a statement from its context it loses its meaning. Jesus was saying that at the then-present time the Pharisees and Jewish leaders without faith expected the Kingdom to appear in the form of an insurrection against the Romans. But Jesus indicated that before the Kingdom is actually realized there are things that are only discernible by faith. Signing up to be members of this Kingdom is an act of faith, and not like joining the Jewish military.

Put another way, witnessing Christ dying on the cross did not indicate the Kingdom was coming in an observable way. On the contrary, it was not coming immediately at all, which is precisely what Jesus indicated.

The process leading to the coming of the Kingdom did not look like the Kingdom was coming at all, because it wasn't coming. But the operation of the heavenly Kingdom did impact the world, and only eyes of faith could discern it. Only the moral eyes of faith could determine what God's word was saying.

This is completely nonsensical. We're members of His kingdom but not in His kingdom? What are you talking about? We can't be members of His kingdom now if His kingdom hasn't come yet.

We become members now. Today is the day of Salvation. But Christ hasn't returned yet with his Kingdom. The question is: What are *you* talking about ?

Do you understand that Christ has His kingdom for a time and then eventually hands it over to the Father? What is your understanding of Christ's kingdom while He reigns over it compared to when it is handed over to the Father?

I've studied this subject of the Kingdom for many years now, and you may not be aware of the arguments? I think George E. Ladd comes closest to the position I hold.

He was a Premill who believed that the Kingdom of God did have a present impact, although the eschatological Kingdom was still future. This also is my position. Present impact. Future actualization.

The future manifestation of the kingdom of God is not Christ's kingdom because His kingdom does not come with observation.

This is the crux of the matter for me. I do believe the Kingdom is coming with observation--just not in the sense that Jesus meant it when he applied this to people of unbelief. It is coming for those with eyes of faith so that when it comes, they will participate in it. But those who look to an earthly Kingdom that is not really God's Kingdom, they will not be prepared for it when it comes.