The good thing about these discussions is that this nails the lie that Premillennialist are literalists. That is why the doctrine is crumbling on forums like this.
The Second Death Destroys Man's False Amill Theory
- Thread starter Davy
- 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!
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Yes, explaining why you say something is quite ridiculous. Right.
Yep.
I use 2 Peter 3:6-7 and 2 Peter 3:10-13 to back up my view on that, also. So, all of those aren't enough for you? That's too bad. I guess since you believe what you want to believe, nothing can convince you of the truth of the matter.
Okay. That is your opinion.
No, I'm not. I'm using it to explain what Genesis 8:21 means.
That's total nonsense.
It absolutely is not what I'm doing. Your arguments are so incredibly weak, it's almost unbelievable.
You say something like this without explaining why. What do you mean here exactly? Please clarify because I don't see how I'm doing anything like what dispensationalists do. You're claiming that, but not specifying why. Maybe there is no reason and you're just trying to annoy me since you know I very much dislike dispensationlism.
Obviously. Please, for your own benefit, stop wasting time explaining obvious things.
Okay. Not that I need your permission, of course. But, I will keep doing it.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Why would that be? Perhaps you can show me where it says that Matthew 25:31-46 takes place on the earth? I would allow that it could take place on the new (renewed) earth, but you believe it will take place right on this earth as we know it without it first being burned up an renewed. So, show me where it says that. Meanwhile, I will be the one laughing at you trying to make scripture say what you want it to say.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Tell me how you interpret these passages:
1 Thessalonians 5:2 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. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
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. 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.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
What is wrong with you Premills, anyway? Who is even saying this? No one. Do you not care that you waste so much time making straw man arguments?
You have a serious problem with missing the context of verses. Tell me how He can rule over people that He has just smited and tread in the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. You like to talk about using common sense. How are you using any common sense here? Have you not looked at the original prophecy that verse is based on?
Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Can you see here that ruling with a rod of iron has to do with Jesus breaking/destroying the heathen with a rod of iron? That lines up with what we see described in Revelation 19:15 where it describes Him a smiting the nations (it should say heathen instead like Psalm 2:8) and treading them in the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
You are the one not thinking this through. Do you not know that we will judge the world?
1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
I don't know exactly how, but we will be taking part in the judgment. But, that has nothing to do with ruling over people for a thousand years as you imagine.
Last edited:
Bro, he is deliberately twisting what we believe. It is a waste of time trying trying to reason with him.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Can you expand on that some? I'm not grasping what you are meaning here? The text indicates one has to overcome first, then they are rewarded with having power over the nations. This likely is a stupid question to be asking you since you don't believe NOSAS is Biblical, but how can one be said to have overcome unless they have died or that Christ has returned before they died? IOW, it's not over until you are dead or Christ has returned, since there is such a thing as falling away in the meantime. Anyone that falls away obviously don't overcome.
Then when Christ returns they are rewarded with power over the nations. Which I can't make sense of if we factor Amil in here. Amil has no days remaining once Christ returns, therefore, impossible to fulfill the reward of having power over the nations. I'm not certain how Amil views this reward of having power over the nations. All I know is, I can't see it working with a view such as Amil, for the reasons I mentioned, that if I am correct that being rewarded with having power over the nations occur when Christ returns. But, since I asked you to expand some more, maybe you will say something that gets my attention, something I had never considered before? Keeping in mind though, per my understanding I can only see overcoming meaning one has to do that all the way up unto their death or all the way up until Christ returns, whichever might happen first. Because there is such a thing as falling away in the meantime.
Premils can't be reasoned with but Amils can? If you say so. I can't think of one thing, even things having zero to do with Premil, that you have ever agreed with me about. Meaning where I managed to change your mind about something. Maybe the reason I couldn't change your mind is because it is impossible to reason with you, thus a waste of time on my part? Couldn't be that, though. Things like that only apply to Premils not Amils. Sorry, I almost forgot. Must be nice to be among the super elite that are always correct about everything, rather than someone like me who is correct about very little.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
That is what I believe for the most part, yes. I know I made it seem like Premils can't ever be reasoned with, but I don't really mean that, so I guess I shouldn't have just made that blanket statement like that. I believe some Premills can't ever be reasoned with and a few can be sometimes. At least as it relates to the Premils on this forum.
Do you find Davy to be reasonable, for example? LOL. How about CadyandZoe? How about Dan Clarkston? How about Rebuilder454? How about Taken? How about MA2444? I could go on, but I hope you see the point. You can be reasoned with sometimes and sometimes not. That is true of Randy sometimes and The Light occasionally (rarely?) as well. It's hard to think of any other Premil here offhand that I think can be reasoned with.
I do say so, but it's my opinion. I didn't say it was a fact. You always think I'm claiming something is a fact when I share an opinion.
That's ridiculous and shows a poor memory on your part. We agree about the post-trib rapture and have agreed on a number of occasions in threads related to that topic. We agree that Jesus reigns now spiritually even though we disagree that He will reign on the earth when He returns. We agree that no future physical temple could be sondiered the temple of God and is not prophesied about in scripture and we agree that animal sacrifices will not be reinstated in the future. I know there are other things we have agreed on as well. So, tell me why I can remember these things, but you can't?
Man, I have to train myself to stop replying to you before reading your whole post first. What I said above was not based on the understanding that you were talking about things where you changed my mind, but on the idea that we've never agreed on anything at all. I'll keep it there just to remind you of some of the things that we do agree on.
But, in case you didn't notice, we generally think quite differently. I believe that you think too carnally a lot of the time instead of spiritually like Paul said we should (1 Corinthians 2:9-16). So, because of that, it makes it unlikely that you will ever say anything to change my mind. It's not impossible. I'm not nearly as closed minded as you think I am.
Yes, I've made up my mind on some things. So what? Am I supposed to never make up my mind on anything? That's ridiculous. Both of our minds are made up that Jesus is the only way to salvation, right? Should we be open minded about that? No, of course not. We know it's true and that's the end of the story. Case closed. It just so happens that I see some things related to end times prophecy that way as well. I have become fully convinced that certain things are true. Why does that offend you? It's only the case after much time of studying scripture. It's not like I made up my mind randomly because of just believing what I want to believe instead of checking to see what scripture teaches.
Have you not seen where I've said that I'm not sure what difficult passages like Ezekiel 38-39 and Zechariah 14 mean exactly? I'm open to what people have to say about passages like those as long as it doesn't contradict what other more clear passages teach. That's why I show how some people's interpretation of Zechariah 14 contradicts other scripture. But, at the same time, I'm not sure what exactly some of it means. I speculated on some of it once and you then highly criticized what I said evnen though I was making it clear that I was just speculating and not saying that what I was saying was an opinion I had that was set in stone.
Nope. Absolutely untrue.
That's right. It can't be that because it's not. It's not up to you to decide why I disagree with you. I will tell you why and I did above.
Last edited:
Right. Erroneously.
When you back up what you say with a passage from Scripture that actually does back up what you say, then that will be enough. But don't bother, because you won't find one.
Well, you can't convince me of your "truth of the matter," because it's very much not the truth of the matter.
Erroneously.
It's not what you mean to do, no; that's the point. But that is the effect.
Nah, you just want to believe that. Or... that's just another defense mechanism kicking in.
Hm. Well I didn't explain why because, based on all the conversations that have gone on even recently concerning Romans 9:16, I thought it was obvious. Okay. So, Romans 9:16... you know what it says, I think, regarding God's elect and who they are, that "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." So the larger act of God precipitates the smaller, personal working of that salvation in man. And this is the loose similarity to Genesis 8 and 9... God promises, even to Himself ~ decides in his heart to "never again curse the ground because of man" or "ever again strike down every living creature." But then on a personal level with Noah, God, because Noah has just been through the flood on a big boat ~ not even seeing the ground for several months ~ and knowing that he and his family and the animals who were with him on the ark are the only living things on earth ~ promises Noah that He will never again destroy the earth by a flood. In both cases, there is the larger, all-encompassing thought/way of God (in the sense of Isaiah 55:8-9... "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"... and then there is the smaller, personal relating of that thing to man.
Okay, maybe not so obvious. <smile> But there you go. I'm sure you'll reject that too. So be it.
David brought up a very good point. I don't remember his exact words, but surely, after that conversation, God didn't go back to heaven and sit down with Jesus and the Holy Spirit and go, "But by golly I will destroy the earth by fire! Ohhh, what Noah doesn't know! I fooled him, didn't I?!"... and then have a good maniacal laugh between the three of Them... That's a good point put in kind of a silly way, but the way you explain it makes God out to be deceptive and a lot of other really bad things that He's very surely not.
No, I wouldn't do that.
I mean, telling me what would be to my own benefit is quite ridiculous. You're saying that because it bothers you in some way. I don't think of it as wasting time; I like it, really. It's good spiritual exercise... it's a great thing to dwell on Scripture and the things of God. If they're obvious to you, well, okay, that's good, but don't let it bother you. I mean that's another you thing.
Whatever, man. You do you.
That's the immediate problem, SI, you're take on what it means for the earth to be renewed.
Yeah, see? I mean there it is. "Burned up and renewed." You're understanding of that is... well... bad. <smile> I'll just repeat a couple of things I've said many times even in this conversation with you: Our God Himself is "a consuming fire" (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29), and God says, "Behold, I am making all things new" (Revelation 21:5). He's not making new things, SI. Regarding the world, He created it once, long long ago, and there is no need to do so again. But it will most certainly be made new.
You do you.
Grace and peace to you.
This is... so close... but not quite right, WPM. You would classify yourself as amillennial, right? Or not?
Anyway, I say that, well, what I think you're referring to in Revelation 2, 12, and 19 are pictures of the same time period as Revelation 20:1-6, and though it is not called the "thousand years" or the "millennium" in those passages, they are all referring to the same time period, which we are in right now. We may or may may not be very near to the end of it, even in our own terms (it's always near to God). But yes, the wicked will be resurrected to judgment, for sure, and the righteous to eternal life.
Grace and peace to you.
The righteous help judge the wicked on judgment day. At this stage we are into the eternal day. There is no minutes, hours, and as them. We are into eternity.
I was talking particularly about the shepherding that happens at the end. The word "rule" relates to "shepherding" in the original Greek. It is not talking about the thousand year reign.
Actually though, some Premils are literalists. I don't know how you can deny that if some Premils insist a literal 3rd temple will be built and what all that involves, not to mention, Ezekiel's temple during the millennium where animal sacrificing has resumed. The point being, you can't possibly speak for all Premils. Just because I don't take 2 Peter 3:10-12 literally, that hardly proves Premils are not literalists. I'm pretty sure there are some Premils that do take 2 Peter 3:10-12 literally, the same way you do, except they don't apply it at the beginning of Christ's return.
Whatever point you think you are making here, you are doing no such thing unless what you said applies to every single Premil, past, present, and future. Which it doesn't.
At least some of you have something in common with Pretribbers. You, like them, also take Matthew 24:15-21 to be involving a literal temple and Jews. Except you think it is meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed, and they think it means a rebuilt one in the future. Neither of those views are valid because once Christ died and rose, no man built temple was the holy place any longer, period. Your interpretation would have us believe that the 2nd temple continued to remain the holy place until it was destroyed some 40 years later. That Christ's death and resurrection wasn't sufficent to make it no longer the holy place. It had to be destroyed before it can no longer be the holy place. Not to mention, it really makes a whole lot of sense, that in a temple that became obsolete once Christ died and rose, that some 40 years later there would be an abomination involving it. For what reason? To accomplish exactly what?
I am so thankful that I never allowed anyone to influence my thinking and to brainwash me about some of these things, such as past Commentators, Josephus, etc. That I'm able to reason things for myself, and that I am able to discern that Jesus never had a literal temple in mind per Matthew 24:15-21. Let's just ignore 2 Thessalonians 2:4 while we are at it. Let's just pretend that Jesus had zero insight into that, therefore, He avoided the subject altogether. As if it makes sense, the fact the Discourse involves events that began 2000 years ago and is also involving events that take place 2000 years later, which logically has to include 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, except Jesus avoided that subject altogether. Only if you are a literalist throughout the Discourse did He avoid that subject.
You would think, for example, Matthew 24:29, that this alone proves that Jesus wasn't meaning everything in the literal sense throughout. Maybe I better remember who I'm talking to here though, the fact you believe 2 Peter 3:10-12 should be taken literally. Maybe you also believe, for all I know, so should Matthew 24:29 be taken literally, that literal stars are going to literally fall from the sky to the earth. Ummm..if stars are literally falling out of the sky, why isn't the earth also literally falling out of the sky? The point that verse is making is simple. If those things were to happen in a literal sense, what would happen? Everything would turn into darkness obviously, exactly what the day of the Lord is a described as per Amos 5:20, for instance---Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it? That doesn't mean we have to take these things literally, though.
This is merely confirming everything that I alleged. It is Amillennialists that are the consistent literalists in these discussions. If something is in a symbolic setting and is blatantly figurative then we interpret it so. Premillennialism is saturated in numerous contradictions and much duplicity. They do not Implement what they claim. The description on the box does not reflect the contents of the box.
Ephesians 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
So God gave some teachers, but not for you?
Well, I like your connection of "rule" and "shepherding." But is Jesus not our Good Shepherd even 2000 years ago... and still right now? As He said in John 10? I mean, He is... And He is reigning... in this present "thousand years," the millennium of Revelation 20, the same period referred to in Revelation 2, 12, and 19 (although not called "thousand years" or "millennium," of course... from heaven. He will always be our Good Shepherd, but when He returns, His eternal reign will begin, and of course have no end. Right? Or do you disagree?
Grace and peace to you
Similar threads
