The Second Death Destroys Man's False Amill Theory

[Davidpt]

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?

Why should I take Commentators and Josephus, which is who I mentioned, being who God gave as my teachers, or anyone's teachers for that matter?

I have had teachers before. I grew up as a Baptist and attended Baptist churches at the time. But Eschatology was not anything they were teaching. Or if they did, I must not have been present during those sermons since I don't recall sermons like that. Then I had teachers in the 80s, but not Baptists, Charismatic teachers. I was naive big time in those days. If they said it, I believed I. I didn't even question it at the time. Eventually I wised up and figured out that I had a brain of my own and that I'm capable of thinking for myself rather than relying on someone else to do my thinking for me. Especially when, in the 80s, all these teachers I was listening to were false teachers, though at the time I didn't realize it.

Per that other post, in context then., I was meaning in regards to Eschatology, that I'm thankful that I never allowed past Commentators to influence my thinking, thus brainwash me before I even have a chance on my own to decide for myself how to maybe interpret this text, or that text, etc.

 

[WPM]

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

I agree.

 

[WPM]

Why should I take Commentators and Josephus, which is who I mentioned, being who God gave as my teachers, or anyone's teachers for that matter?

I have had teachers before. I grew up as a Baptist and attended Baptist churches at the time. But Eschatology was not anything they were teaching. Or if they did, I must not have been present during those sermons since I don't recall sermons like that. Then I had teachers in the 80s, but not Baptists, Charismatic teachers. I was naive big time in those days. If they said it, I believed I. I didn't even question it at the time. Eventually I wised up and figured out that I had a brain of my own and that I'm capable of thinking for myself rather than relying on someone else to do my thinking for me. Especially when, in the 80s, all these teachers I was listening to were false teachers, though at the time I didn't realize it.

Per that other post, in context then., I was meaning in regards to Eschatology, that I'm thankful that I never allowed past Commentators to influence my thinking, thus brainwash me before I even have a chance on my own to decide for myself how to maybe interpret this text, or that text, etc.

You are in rebellion against God's authority, refusing to submit yourself to church leadership and be in fellowship with fellow believers. You're totally unaccountable to any one. What is more, it is pride to think that you irate and everyone else is wrong. It is pride to think that you do not need the body and the body does not need you. Christ has ordained the local church as his entity for fellowship, witness and accountability. Doubtless, you're not tithing either. So you are also robbing from God.

This explains your attitude on these forums. No one can talk to you. No one can reason with you.

 

[WPM]

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?

He also doesn't need pastors, prophets, evangelists and apostles. He needs no one. He knows it all. He is right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[covenantee]

Why should I take Commentators and Josephus, which is who I mentioned, being who God gave as my teachers, or anyone's teachers for that matter?

I have had teachers before. I grew up as a Baptist and attended Baptist churches at the time. But Eschatology was not anything they were teaching. Or if they did, I must not have been present during those sermons since I don't recall sermons like that. Then I had teachers in the 80s, but not Baptists, Charismatic teachers. I was naive big time in those days. If they said it, I believed I. I didn't even question it at the time. Eventually I wised up and figured out that I had a brain of my own and that I'm capable of thinking for myself rather than relying on someone else to do my thinking for me. Especially when, in the 80s, all these teachers I was listening to were false teachers, though at the time I didn't realize it.

Per that other post, in context then., I was meaning in regards to Eschatology, that I'm thankful that I never allowed past Commentators to influence my thinking, thus brainwash me before I even have a chance on my own to decide for myself how to maybe interpret this text, or that text, etc.

No mortal is infallible and the spirits must be tested. But validated truth should always influence our thinking.

The messages of both the Commentators and Josephus include both historical and spiritual validated truth.

 

[WPM]

Such as? You keep saying that without even explaining how I am supposedly doing that?



This is truly hilarious for someone to say this to me when I'm used to Premils telling me I over-spiritualize scripture. Wow, I guess I just can't win. LOL. This is unbelievably hilarious stuff. You can't get entertainment quite like this anywhere else.


Half of your responses to me are that I'm misunderstanding you. What are we doing here? If we can't understand each other, what is the point of this? Oh yeah, I remember. Laughs and entertainment. And I'm okay with that. Carry on. <wink> <wink> <laugh> <goofy face>


Why would I think you're saying that? You said in another post that I'm a very intelligent person. You'd never contradict yourself, right? Or...hmmm...anyway...


You say it will clearly take place on earth despite earth fleeing from His presence and not being found (Revelation 20:11)? Okay then.... <baffled look on face>


The new (renewed) earth, sure.

His opinion is thee authority - apparently. He has zero arguments. That is why, when you question him he reacts (mocks). He has nothing of evidential worth to bring to the table!

 

[WPM]

Or...

Okay. <smile>

That's a really good question.

You do you.

Okay.

Okay. Non sequitur, but okay.

Grace and peace to you, SI.

When people bring this nonsense to the table you normally know they've lost the debate.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

He's not saying that no Premils are literalists (almost all Premils are literalists, in my opinion), he's saying that they are not consistent with their literalism and he's saying that Amils are the ones who are consistent with taking scripture literally when it is meant to be taken literally and figuratively when it's meant to be taken figuratively.

Many Premils like to think themselves as being literalists because they say that they accept scripture as written. But, saying that in the way they mean it makes no sense since even they know not all scripture is literal. So, what interpreting scripture as written really means is to interpret it according to the type of text being used in any given verse or passage. The point really being made here is that Premills do not do that consistently because they sometimes interpret figurative text literally and literal text figuratively.

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.

My interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 is not based on what anyone else claims, either. Yet, I disagree with your interpretation. So, clearly, not being influenced by past commentators and Joseph, etc. does not automatically mean that someone will interpret Matthew 24:15-21 the way you do.

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.

Who says that He avoided the subject altogether? Not me. In my understanding of 2 Thess 2:4, I believe what Jesus said in Matthew 24:10-13 lines up with what he said in 2 Thess 2:1-12, which obviously includes verse 4.

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.

Tell us how 2 Peter 3:10-12 should be interpreted.

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.

What is written in 2 Peter 3:10-12 that is comparable to referring to stars falling to the earth? Nothing. So, that's a bad comparison.

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.

Again, what is written in 2 Peter 3:10-12 which compares to that? Nothing. What is written in 2 Peter 3:10-12 is entirely possible to occur literally, whether you think it will or not. But, stars falling to earth cannot happen literally because that would result in the complete annihilation of the earth which would not allow for the meek to inherit the earth as scripture teaches will happen (Matthew 5:5).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

So, will you now apologize for acting like it was supposed to be obvious as to why you were accusing me of having some dispensationalistic beliefs while trying to mock me for not recognizing that when, in reality, it's not so obvious as to why you were accusing me of having some dispensationalistic beliefs? I still don't know why after reading what you said here because what you said here makes no sense to me in terms of being an explanation for why I supposedly believe something that could be considered dispensationalist. But, don't bother trying to clarify what you're saying because, most likely, your attempt to do so wouldn't make any sense, either.

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.

It's not a good point at all. Your made up conversation to illustrate your point is stupid and embarrassing. It's not as if God said what He did in Genesis 8:21 and then a little later changed His mind and decided that He would destroy the earth again, but just not with a flood this time. No, what He said in Genesis 8:21 relates directly to what is written in Genesis 9:11-14, but you lack the discernment to understand that.

Whatever, man. You do you.

I will, man.

Yeah, see? I mean there it is. "Burned up and renewed." You're understanding of that is... well... bad. <smile>

Yet, you can't offer a better explanation for how the new heavens and new earth will come about. So, there's no reason for me to take you seriously about this.

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.

I didn't say He was making new things. What do you think the word renew means? It means existing things will be made new (renewed), which is what I've said several times. So, what you said here is not what we're disagreeing about. I have to always spell everything out to you. What we're disagreeing about is not that, but rather how He will go about making all things new. Never have I said that He is not going to make all things new. Why would I say that when it would contradict Revelation 21:5? He is going to do that and I believe those things will not only be made new, but far better than ever before. Misrepresenting what I believe does nothing to help your case.

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.

I have never said otherwise, so you're wasting time making a straw man argument here.

You do you.

You don't have to keep telling me that. You know that I will.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

I have one more thought on what you said here that I didn't mention before. If you think that some people's interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 is a result of being brainwashed by commentators and Josephus and so on then how did you come to interpret Luke 21:20-24 the way you do? I know you interpret that passage as being fulfilled in 70 AD. How would you come to that conclusion without reading what Bible commentators or Josephus wrote about what happened in 70 AD?

What Josephus wrote about what happened in 70 AD lines up with what is described in Luke 21:20-24, right? So, without having any written documentation about what happened around 70 AD, do you think you would interpret Luke 21:20-24 the way you do? Highly doubtful, right? So, there's nothing wrong with learning some things from Bible commentators and even from non-Christian historians like Josephus. It doesn't mean that you are brainwashed. We should, of course, always study these things for ourselves to confirm what has been taught, like the Bereans did (Acts 17:10-11). But, that doesn't mean we should think we can't ever learn anything from anyone else. Are there few trustworthy Bible teachers these days? I'd say so. But, it doesn't mean there aren't any out there at all.

 

[PinSeeker]

When people bring this nonsense to the table you normally know they've lost the debate.

LOL! I'm pretty sure he's talking about you, @Spiritual Israelite .

Hoo boy.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL! I'm pretty sure he's talking about you, @Spiritual Israelite .

Hoo boy.

Grace and peace to all.

No, he was clearly talking directly to and about you, buddy. As evidenced by the fact that he quoted you. But, I wouldn't expect you to understand something that simple.

 

[Davy]

Why should I take Commentators and Josephus, which is who I mentioned, being who God gave as my teachers, or anyone's teachers for that matter?

I have had teachers before. I grew up as a Baptist and attended Baptist churches at the time. But Eschatology was not anything they were teaching. Or if they did, I must not have been present during those sermons since I don't recall sermons like that. Then I had teachers in the 80s, but not Baptists, Charismatic teachers. I was naive big time in those days. If they said it, I believed I. I didn't even question it at the time. Eventually I wised up and figured out that I had a brain of my own and that I'm capable of thinking for myself rather than relying on someone else to do my thinking for me. Especially when, in the 80s, all these teachers I was listening to were false teachers, though at the time I didn't realize it.

Per that other post, in context then., I was meaning in regards to Eschatology, that I'm thankful that I never allowed past Commentators to influence my thinking, thus brainwash me before I even have a chance on my own to decide for myself how to maybe interpret this text, or that text, etc.

That's all well and good, but when it comes to history, we may not trust everything historians say, but we can trust that at least some of them were honest. Josephus was pretty honest, and even his Jewish brethren hated him because of the histories about the Jews that he revealed. Though we should take what he said with a grain of salt, that doesn't mean to throw everything he said away.

 

[Davy]

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.

So what is... a literalist? You don't really know, you're just running off at the mouth.

God's written Word contains the same kind of language features that all languages have, and that includes analogy, allegory, symbols, parable, etc., just as much as any other language. But those things do not mean they are not pointing to something that is literal. So anyone trying to use those ideas of someone accepting that usage of allegory, metaphor, symbology in God's Word as NOT recognizing God's Word as being literal, shows they don't have much clue about the idea of language, and need to go back to school.

 

[WPM]

So what is... a literalist? You don't really know, you're just running off at the mouth.

God's written Word contains the same kind of language features that all languages have, and that includes analogy, allegory, symbols, parable, etc., just as much as any other language. But those things do not mean they are not pointing to something that is literal. So anyone trying to use those ideas of someone accepting that usage of allegory, metaphor, symbology in God's Word as NOT recognizing God's Word as being literal, shows they don't have much clue about the idea of language, and need to go back to school.

Let us put your claims to the test:

1. Do you believe that Christ is literally coming suddenly and unexpectedly "as a thief in the night" as the Bible says (1 Thessalonians 5:2 and 2 Peter 3:10)?
2. Do you believe that the wicked will literally experience "sudden destruction" from His appearance as the Bible says (1 Thessalonians 5:3)?
3. Do you believe that the wicked literally "shall not escape" as the Bible says (1 Thessalonians 5:3)?
4. Do you believe that "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise" literally when He returns as a thief as the Bible says (2 Peter 3:10)?
5. Do you believe that "the elements shall melt with fervent heat" literally when He returns as a thief as the Bible says (2 Peter 3:10 & 12)?
6. Do you believe that "the earth also ... shall be burned up" literally when He returns as a thief as the Bible says (2 Peter 3:10)?
7. Do you believe that "the works that are therein [the earth] shall be burned up" literally when He returns as a thief as the Bible says (2 Peter 3:10)?
8. Do you believe that the righteous are actually looking "for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” literally when He returns as a thief as the Bible says (2 Peter 3:13)?

 

[Davy]

Exactly. When we take things literally to support our view they suddenly aren't so literal anymore.

And yet another one who has no clue as to the meaning of the word 'literal'.

If someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," is that referring to something literal?? YES! of course! They are only using a symbolic expression to show they are HUNGRY, REAL HUNGRY!

When Lord Jesus gave a parable using natural symbols in nature, was He pointing to something LITERAL? YES! of course! And He explained how... He was using those symbols, like in His parable of the sower for one example.

Men's silly seminary theories are where the idea of one being a Literalist originates. And it was only designed to ATTACK certain interpretations by some within God's written Word. Now who... would want to do that attacking, because it is obviously a design to CONFUSE the Scriptures??

That usage of the Literalist attack is from the DEVIL himself, because if God's written Word is not about a 'literal' Message, then what is the default instead? The default is THEIR, i.e., the devil's, PHILOSOPHICAL AND SOCIALIST interpretation of God's Word!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And yet another one who has no clue as to the meaning of the word 'literal'.

LOL. You are the clueless one, as you prove repeatedly.

If someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," is that referring to something literal?? YES! of course! They are only using a symbolic expression to show they are HUNGRY, REAL HUNGRY!

LOL! Have you literally lost your mind? No, that is not literal. It it's a symbolic expression, as you said yourself, then it's symbolic and not literal! You couldn't come up with something more ridiculous if you tried. A person cannot literally eat a horse. My goodness, who do you think you're fooling with this nonsense? You constantly embarrass yourself any time you try to argue against Amill. I would think you would grow tired of making yourself look bad, but I guess not. Just stick to arguing against pre-trib. You're out of your league in the Amill vs. Premill debates.

When Lord Jesus gave a parable using natural symbols in nature, was He pointing to something LITERAL? YES! of course!

Who said otherwise? No one. So, why are you wasting time making this straw man argument?

And He explained how... He was using those symbols, like in His parable of the sower for one example. Men's silly seminary theories are where the idea of one being a Literalist originates. And it was only designed to ATTACK certain interpretations by some within God's written Word. Now who... would want to do that attacking, because it is obviously a design to CONFUSE the Scriptures??

That usage of the Literalist attack is from the DEVIL himself, because if God's written Word is not about a 'literal' Message, then what is the default instead? The default is THEIR, i.e., the devil's, PHILOSOPHICAL AND SOCIALIST interpretation of God's Word!

Blah blah blah. You are all talk and no substance. You will be judged for judging us the way you do.

You are so unhinged, it's unbelievable. You need help.

The fact of the matter is that we all interpret some prophecies literally and some figuratively. No one claims that they are all literal. So, all this nonsense you're talking about is meaningless. All we Amills are doing is defending ourselves against the false claims that we don't take anything literally. Do you think we don't take anything literally? Clealry, we do take plenty of prophecies literally, so there is no basis for those accusations to be made against us. That's all we're saying, which has nothing to do with all this nonsense you're going on about.

 

[Davy]

LOL! Have you literally lost your mind? No, that is not literal. It it's a symbolic expression, as you said yourself, then it's symbolic and not literal! You couldn't come up with something more ridiculous if you tried.

You are only showing your serious lack of education, because use of a symbolic expression is NOT the point, what that symbolic expression IS DIRECTED TO is... the POINT! And what would that expression I used point to?? Duh... HUNGER! One who says they are SO HUNGRY they could eat a horse' is merely using an expression for their HUNGER!!

So is HUNGER a LITERAL MATTER??? YES! of course! And you can't understand that??? Are you a Martian alien or something? Is English even your first language?? How is it you cannot understand that??

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are only showing your serious lack of education, because use of a symbolic expression is NOT the point, what that symbolic expression IS DIRECTED TO is... the POINT! And what would that expression I used point to?? Duh... HUNGER! One who says they are SO HUNGRY they could eat a horse' is merely using an expression for their HUNGER!!

So is HUNGER a LITERAL MATTER??? YES! of course! And you can't understand that??? Are you a Martian alien or something? Is English even your first language?? How is it you cannot understand that??

LOL. Blah blah blah. Are you as angry and unhinged as you come across here? If so, I hope you take blood pressure medication. Unbelievable.

Of course the hunger is literal, but the eating a horse reference is not literal. Hello? No kidding. Who would say otherwise? Not me and not anyone else here that I know of. Only an idiot would. You're talking to your imaginary straw man here because, in reality, I'm not disagreeing with you. You just are trying to make it as if I do, which is a dishonest practice on your part.

 

[Davy]

BRETHREN IN CHRIST:
Do you know what is an even nastier doctrine of men than abuse of the idea of one being a LITERALIST? It is one who treats God's written Word like man's literature, like POETRY or PHILOSOPHY.

How serious are the majority of people about man's POETRY? Well, those who love the usage of language to make the words 'sound' beautiful, they love it. But are they really paying attention to POETRY as being a source of TRUTH that they can rely upon? Some think so, but that can hardly be reality.

What about man's PHILOSOPHY, some treat The Word of God as just being a Book of Philosophy. Do you recall those at Mars hill in old Greece which Apostle Paul encountered, as those Epicureans and Stoick Greek philosophers spent their time to tell of, or hear of some new thing? (Acts 17). Those are just another... lot who's minds run in circles, never coming to the actual Truth of God's Word.

Did you know brethren, there's a prophecy in the Book of Israel pointing to how things would be in the end of this world, using the idea of one having nice clothing assumed to be smart and capable...

Isa 3:5-6
5 And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.

6 When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, saying, "Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thy hand:"
KJV

What would you rather have brethren, one with working man's clothing on to rule over you, or someone who is just a 'suit'? (expression of the day, if you get it).

It's the 'suits' that prefer man's philosophy and poetry in place of God's written Word as Truth. I know many that rambled for years looking for the Truth about their life, their purpose, and this world, trying to find it through man's works, and all they did was run theirself in circles. I know this because I was one of them at one time, until I came to Christ Jesus and prayer to The Father through His Son to show me the Truth.