Premills do nothing but make straw man arguments. They never address what we actually believe. It's pathetic.
Why do Premillennialists not believe that 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-13 refer to the same event?
- Thread starter Spiritual Israelite
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So, it's okay for you to make accusations against us without any explanation behind it? You don't think that is evil to make false accusations without backing them up? You are the one who needs help. Everyone here can see that.
Except you are clearly wrong about that. My fellow Amills on here take me seriously as do the few open-minded Premills here. Whereas no one here takes you seriously at all. Not one single person. You're a lone wolf here ranting at the wind.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
You need a serious break from the board.
All you are doing is just running believers down.
Do yourself a favor and get some Jesus time before you and your followers blow a gasket.
SMH.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
You and your Pretrib assailants can never attack anyone about this. You are masters at it. Spiritual Israelite has been trying in vain to get you to address the multiple holes in your theology, without success.
It is time to cough up or shut up.
Says the guy who has no idea how to debate and has never made a coherent argument even once in his life.
Ok, so it seems that you are saying that the destruction of the heavens and elements at the coming of Christ, as stated in Peter, Is the same sudden destruction at the coming of Christ, as stated by Paul. While the actual removal of the literal heaven/earth happen post the millennium.
I guess I would have to ask, then, was Peter unaware of the millennial reign? In other words, Peter doesn’t mention anything of looking forward millennial reign. He states they look forward to a new heavens and earth in vs 13. Why would he skip the millennium? Would this be because Peter was unaware of millennium in between the coming of Christ and the NHNE?
Were the apostles unaware of a literal 1,000 year reign until it was revealed to John in Patmos?
The destruction would not be sudden in that case because both Peter and Paul indicate that the destruction occurs, or at least begins to occur, upon the arrival of Christ as a thief in the night and neither of them gave any indication at all that the destruction would not occur until a long time after the arrival of Christ.
I think the purpose of your question is to find out if he thinks the apostles were aware of an earthly kingdom being established when Christ returns. Is that correct? If so, there's obviously no reference to a 1,000 year reign anywhere else in scripture besides Revelation 20, so I think a better question to ask him is if the apostles were unaware of a literal earthly kingdom being established after the return of Christ until it was revealed to John in Patmos? It seems that the duration of the reign is irrelevant in terms of finding out whether he thinks the apostles had any awareness at all of a literal earthly kingdom being established after Christ's return and before the ushering in of the NHNE or not.
I'm saying this because it's possible that he thinks they were aware of an earthly reign of some duration after Christ's return, but just didn't know how long it would last until it was revealed to John in Patmos. So, he could say yes to your question in the sense that they were not aware that the reign would be 1,000 years in duration without really answering the question that you are meaning to ask.
Some really Good points. I don’t think the epistles explicitly and clearly teach a future earthly reign prior to the NHNE , at least not that I can find but maybe our premil friends here can demonstrate otherwise?
Though , Peter said he was looking forward to a NHNE in vs 13. If Peter was aware that he would reign with Christ on earth for an unknown period of time prior to the NHNE, it sure seems odd that he skipped right past that part, no?
Obviously, I strongly believe that they do not, but Premills are welcome to share any scripture from the epistles that they think teach that.
Yes, I make that same point often. Look at the OP in this thread and you will see that I touched on that there at the end of that post. Usually, I get no response from Premills when I ask them about that. I take that as an admission from them that it doesn't make a lot of sense that he would say we look for a new heavens and new earth in fulfillment of the promise of Christ's coming without mentioning what Premills think comes before that instead.
So, it seems that Premills must either think that Peter somehow wasn't aware of an earthly kingdom being established when Christ returns despite them believing it is taught in the OT in passages like Zechariah 14 (was Peter not aware of those passages somehow?), or that he didn't find it to be significant enough to mention, which would obviously be very strange. Either way, it makes Peter seem ignorant.
Last edited:
Davy
Well-Known Member
No, that's not really what I am saying. What I'm saying goes quite a bit deeper.
The idea of the heavens and the earth passing away is actually a 'metaphor' of a changing event that is to happen on that "day of the Lord" when Jesus returns. Zechariah 14 reveals Jesus' feet touching down upon the Mount of Olives east of Jerusalem, ON EARTH, where He ascended to Heaven from per Acts 1. Thus we can be certain... any idea of the earth passing away on that day is only a metaphor for a 'certain level' of Paul's "sudden destruction" on that day, and it will be like what Peter said, a destruction that will wipe man's works off the surface of this earth.
The following Hebrews 12 example of God's "consuming fire" on that "day of the Lord" I also referred to in my post...
Heb 12:25-29
25 See that ye refuse not Him That speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him That spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him That speaketh from heaven:
26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now He hath promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven."
That above verse is declaring that God once before... "shook the earth". And then declared that He "Yet once more" is going to shake not just this earth only, but also heaven.
In other words, that is declared that sometime back in the earth's history of old, God first shook this earth. In my opinion, that is probably why today's earth's true geographic north is off about 90 miles from true magnetic north. It suggests the earth has been tilted off its axis.
But that above verse is also... declaring God is going to do another shaking of this earth in the future, but not only a shaking of the earth the next time, but also to include heaven.
27 And this word, "Yet once more", signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
Paul then explains above just what kind of shaking, and what level of shaking, that Old Testament prophecy is referring to with God's future shaking of this earth, and heaven.
It will be a level that will literally remove those things that are shaken, so what's that? Man's works on this earth, like Apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10. And only those things, so that those things which CANNOT BE SHAKEN may remain, meaning the things of God's creation, like this earth. (Psalms 104 says the earth is forever.)
28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
29 For our God is a consuming fire.
KJV
And God's future consuming fire is what is going to also do that future dissolving of man's works off the surface of this earth.
Peter actually did... HINT... about Christ's future "thousand years" reign of Revelation 20, when he said the following within description about the end of this world. Most just bypass it as just a tidbit of new info, and do not consider why Peter changed the subject there abruptly...
2 Peter 3:7-10
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
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.
KJV
Right there in those two verses of 2 Peter 3:8-9 he changes the subject to one about God's Patience is wanting to save all peoples. And he even brings up the point of how a literal period of a "thousand years" relates to God's timing.
Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 Apostle Paul was referring to Christ's future "thousand years" reign over His enemies. That's what that subject that Christ must reign is about, until all His enemies are made His footstool. How can that happen if all of His enemies are destroyed on the day of His future return like man's false Amil theory says?
Even per Revelation 3:9 with Jesus giving His Message to the Church of Philadelphia, a Church that represents His elect, He told them He will make those of the "synagogue of Satan" to come and worship at their feet. That certainly has not happened during this world for His 1st coming, because they instead had Him crucified. That event is for His future Millennial reign over His enemies.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Why do Premillennialists not believe that 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-13 refer to the same event?
You MAKE a Claim for a (supposed)“premillennialist” Belief….BUT, BUT, FAIL to “Actually QUOTE” a premillennialist” MAKING that Claim.
Gaslighting!
1 Thes 5: 2-3
[2] For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
[3] For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
2 Pet 3: 10-13
[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.
[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?
[13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
If you want to Debate an others Beliefs, let the other MAKE his OWN Claims of what he Believes!
So…. Who exactly has Claimed “the DAY of the Lord” is two separate Events… besides from Your own words?
I don’t disagree that the heaven and earth passing way is metaphorical. I can get onboard with that. But i’m having a bit of a difficult time understanding your chronology.
If heaven and earth metaphorically pass away at the parousia of Christ prior to the millennium, how is this reconciled with heaven and earth fleeing post the millennium?
Revelation 20:11 11Then I saw a great white throne and the One seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them.
The 1000 years as a day and a day is as 1000 years is about God not being slow to fulfill his promises as some count slow. This use of language would be similar to psalm 90:4. It simply demonstrates that time is relative. I don’t see any indication that this must “hint” at a thousand year reign, unless one reads 2 peter 3 through the lens of revelation 20?
As to Corinthians 15:24-28, the Greek for “reign” is present active infinite, which indicates a present ongoing process. Based on the grammar that Paul chose to use, the evidence indicates he believed Christ to be already in the process of reigning at the time 1 Corinthians 15 was authored. So I’m not sure where you are getting that it must be future, especially when Hebrews 1:13 is considered. Both of the verses below indicate a present reality based on the grammar. How can he sit at the right hand in heaven while also being physically and bodily on earth until his enemies are made a footstool?
- “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet”
- “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.”
- If this is about the millennial reign, does the synagogue of Satan exist during the millennium, when Satan is locked away so he can’t deceive the nations?
- If this is about the millennial reign, are those who were a part of the synagogue of Satan resurrected at the same time the saints of Philadelphia are resurrected, in order for them to bow down at the feet of the saints of Philadelphia during the millennium? Obviously they died a long time ago, no?
The test for premil should be if Revelation was rejected from canon, like the “apocalypse of Peter” or “apocalypse of Abraham” or “apocalypse of Mary” or the “apocalypse of Thomas”, etc…… are there clear and explicit teachings of a literal millennium in the gospels, epistles, and book of acts? Not “hints”, but solid evidence the that the apostles were fully aware of a literal 1000 year reign post the day of the Lord. If not, then Revelation, is the main source for this “revealing”, and you are filling in the gaps of the apostles incomplete knowledge of the chronology of the eschaton with revelation. In other words, how would you know Peter and Paul were “hinting” at the millennium, if the book of revelation either didn’t exist or was declared spurious?
Completely agree. If Peter knew about an earthly literal millennial reign, why would he only “hint” at it as @Davy said, through mentioning how God is outside of time, not being slow as some count slow to fulfill his promises? Doesn’t really make sense. I Have no idea how God being outside of time (1000 years as a day), and not wanting any to perish = earthly millennial reign.
It seems more likely the apostles were completely unaware until revelation “revealed” it. Thus premils are filling in the gaps of the epistles/gospels eschaton teachings with knowledge from revelation after the fact.
rebuilder 454
Well-Known Member
So it's replacement theology, but they haven't.
Brilliant.
You ever read for content????
Yes
The church has Not replaced israel.
That is truth.
Laugh your head off.
Mock it real good.
God forbid you enter into anything thoughtful.
Did you not read the original post? I did not say that all premills believe that and specifically pointed that out. I specifically pointed out that this thread was directed only at the premills who do believe that. And, there are plenty who do because I've seen that. I don't need to quote them. I have seen premills claim that the destruction described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 occurs at the end of the thousand years (or end of Satan's little season), but they don't say that about the "sudden destruction" that Paul referenced even though they are describing the same destruction.
Several Premills have done so. I don't need to name them. If you believe those two passages are about the same event, then you can just ignore this thread instead of acting like a fool and trying to derail it. Or you can tell us how you reconcile those two passages together.
Last edited:
That's right.
It hasn't replaced Israel's physical DNA.
It hasn't replaced Israel's opportunity to receive Christ.
We agree.
Similar threads
- Locked
