PDA

View Full Version : Am I right? Amils and Premil seem to differ in their expectancy of the new earth?



Pages : [1] 2

wpm
Apr 25th 2008, 04:34 AM
Amils and Premils seem to be in agreement that the kingdom of God is eternal. They also seem to be in agreement that there is a dynamic continuity between the spiritual kingdom inaugurated before the cross and the final physical reality of the kingdom that is established at Christ’s coming. Both also see the progressive growth of the kingdom throughout the nations in this intra-Advent period.

Where Amils and Premils go their separate ways (major) is in their expectation of the new earth and the physical manifestation of the kingdom that Christ introduces at His Coming. The two hopes are miles apart. The Amillennialist believes that Christ destroys every vestige of corruption and consequence of the fall at His return. Romans 8:19-23 confirms,“For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be (future tense) delivered from the bondage of corruption (death, sin and decay) into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.”

Creation and the creature will see a final and complete deliverance from the current bondage of corruption. Paul locates this liberation for creation at the time when the saints experience "the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body." This conclusively proves that the glorification of the earth occurs simultaneously with the glorification of our bodies.

I Corinthians 15:50 - makes it explicitly clear,“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”This passage is speaking of the period immediately following the Coming of Christ. The whole context is man's ultimate deliverance from the corruptible state. It is talking of glorification and the eternal state on the new earth. This reading confirms that the new earth that is to be inherited is totally free of corruption. It is a perfect state. Man must therefore be changed to be worthy to inhabit it. Every vestige of the old must be removed. The fact is, “when that which is perfectis come” then “that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Currently, our state is corrupt, as we are blighted by the ongoing existence of innate sin within us, but when we shall see Jesus we shall be like Him, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12).


At Christ’s return “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge (or full discernment) of the Son of God, unto andra teleion (or) a man perfect, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” This will be a day when every last evidence and remembrance of sin, rebellion and pride will be eliminated.

The change to the earth will come by way of the fiery conflagration. Obviously, "flesh and blood" or mortal believers cannot inherit a glorified earth that has been purified by fire of every last trace of the curse. Man in his sinful corruptible state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth. Nothing could be plainer. Amils see the Lord's return as climactic and all-consummating. They believe Jesus is Coming to destroy the wicked and all wickedness and introduce a new pristine order of righteousness on the new earth for ever. Peter confirms,"we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."(2 Peter 3:13).


The Premillennial millennium seems to be a re-run of this current age with all the bondage of corruption (including sin, death, decay, wickedness, rebellion) not only continuing but prospering in the Premillennial paradigm. They aspire to an evolving millennium that gradually and increasingly becomes glorious with the supposed continued progressive increase and growth through the government of Jesus. However, when we analysis their millennium it is seen to be the opposite. Rather than it being a progressively glorious age, it regressively degenerates into sin, death, rebellion and war. Rather than the wicked and wickedness being subjugated, the opposite occurs – they prosper and increase. The Premillennial millennium culminates in the greatest global uprising in history from the four corners of the earth as the sand of the sea against the camp of the saints. Scripture knows nothing of such a process. Scripture make no mention of, or allowance for, any imperfect semi-glorious/semi-corrupt transitional age in-between “this present time” or age and the eternal “age to come.” This seems to be in contradiction to many Scriptures.

Paul

Firstfruits
Apr 25th 2008, 10:42 AM
Amils and Premils seem to be in agreement that the kingdom of God is eternal. They also seem to be in agreement that there is a dynamic continuity between the spiritual kingdom inaugurated before the cross and the final physical reality of the kingdom that is established at Christ’s coming. Both also see the progressive growth of the kingdom throughout the nations in this intra-Advent period.

Where Amils and Premils go their separate ways (major) is in their expectation of the new earth and the physical manifestation of the kingdom that Christ introduces at His Coming. The two hopes are miles apart. The Amillennialist believes that Christ destroys every vestige of corruption and consequence of the fall at His return. Romans 8:19-23 confirms,“For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be (future tense) delivered from the bondage of corruption (death, sin and decay) into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.”

Creation and the creature will see a final and complete deliverance from the current bondage of corruption. Paul locates this liberation for creation at the time when the saints experience "the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body." This conclusively proves that the glorification of the earth occurs simultaneously with the glorification of our bodies.

I Corinthians 15:50 - makes it explicitly clear,“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”This passage is speaking of the period immediately following the Coming of Christ. The whole context is man's ultimate deliverance from the corruptible state. It is talking of glorification and the eternal state on the new earth. This reading confirms that the new earth that is to be inherited is totally free of corruption. It is a perfect state. Man must therefore be changed to be worthy to inhabit it. Every vestige of the old must be removed. The fact is, “when that which is perfectis come” then “that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Currently, our state is corrupt, as we are blighted by the ongoing existence of innate sin within us, but when we shall see Jesus we shall be like Him, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12).


At Christ’s return “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge (or full discernment) of the Son of God, unto andra teleion (or) a man perfect, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” This will be a day when every last evidence and remembrance of sin, rebellion and pride will be eliminated.

The change to the earth will come by way of the fiery conflagration. Obviously, "flesh and blood" or mortal believers cannot inherit a glorified earth that has been purified by fire of every last trace of the curse. Man in his sinful corruptible state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth. Nothing could be plainer. Amils see the Lord's return as climactic and all-consummating. They believe Jesus is Coming to destroy the wicked and all wickedness and introduce a new pristine order of righteousness on the new earth for ever. Peter confirms,"we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."(2 Peter 3:13).


The Premillennial millennium seems to be a re-run of this current age with all the bondage of corruption (including sin, death, decay, wickedness, rebellion) not only continuing but prospering in the Premillennial paradigm. They aspire to an evolving millennium that gradually and increasingly becomes glorious with the supposed continued progressive increase and growth through the government of Jesus. However, when we analysis their millennium it is seen to be the opposite. Rather than it being a progressively glorious age, it regressively degenerates into sin, death, rebellion and war. Rather than the wicked and wickedness being subjugated, the opposite occurs – they prosper and increase. The Premillennial millennium culminates in the greatest global uprising in history from the four corners of the earth as the sand of the sea against the camp of the saints. Scripture knows nothing of such a process. Scripture make no mention of, or allowance for, any imperfect semi-glorious/semi-corrupt transitional age in-between “this present time” or age and the eternal “age to come.” This seems to be in contradiction to many Scriptures.

Paul

With the understanding that Jesus said he will return after the tribulation, which group does he fit into?

Mt 24:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mt 24:30 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mt 24:30 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

With what he has declared he cannot fit in all, can he?

ShirleyFord
Apr 25th 2008, 11:44 AM
FF, do you believe that the new earth is at the Coming of Christ the second time or 1000 + years later?

Firstfruits
Apr 25th 2008, 12:00 PM
FF, do you believe that the new earth is at the Coming of Christ the second time or 1000 + years later?

Since he only comes back once then that is when the new earth will come.

Rev 21:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

So with that in mind, in which group does that place Jesus, if they happen after the tribulation as Jesus has said?

ShirleyFord
Apr 25th 2008, 12:14 PM
Since he only comes back once then that is when the new earth will come.

Rev 21:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

So with that in mind, in which group does that place Jesus, if they happen after the tribulation as Jesus has said?

I'm not following you, FF. You seem to be wanting to discuss pre-trib v post-trib. Am I correct?

When discussing which earth Jesus comes back to, both pretrib/premil and post-trib/premil believe the same thing I would think.

Firstfruits
Apr 25th 2008, 12:24 PM
I'm not following you, FF. You seem to be wanting to discuss pre-trib v post-trib. Am I correct?

When discussing which earth Jesus comes back to, both pretrib/premil and post-trib/premil believe the same thing I would think.

We are all associated with different groups depending on what we believe, if we therefore believe, as Jesus has said, that his return and gathering of the saints is after the tribulation, in which group does that put Jesus and those that believe as he has said?

The new earth would have to be at his return, and that is when this present heaven and earth are destroyed.

Rev 21:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

wpm
Apr 25th 2008, 06:04 PM
With the understanding that Jesus said he will return after the tribulation, which group does he fit into?

Mt 24:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mt 24:30 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mt 24:30 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

With what he has declared he cannot fit in all, can he?

I am not sure where you are going with this. My query was: Am I right? Amils and Premil seem to differ in their expectancy of the new earth?

What are your thoughts?

Paul

the rookie
Apr 25th 2008, 07:51 PM
My query was: Am I right? Amils and Premil seem to differ in their expectancy of the new earth?

What are your thoughts?

Paul

No - I actually think that Amils and Premils have the a similar expectancy related to the new earth, where they differ is related to timing (2000 years v. 3000 years), process (finished at the Second Coming after centuries of Jesus' indirect leadership over the nations v. finished after the Second Coming and 1000 years of Jesus' direct leadership over the nations), and the involvement of Israel in that process.

I would think that, if we all actually stopped going 'round and 'round, we would find that our expectation of the new earth itself at the completion or the fullness of the plans of God would be the same.

wpm
Apr 25th 2008, 08:06 PM
No - I actually think that Amils and Premils have the a similar expectancy related to the new earth, where they differ is related to timing (2000 years v. 3000 years), process (finished at the Second Coming after centuries of Jesus' indirect leadership over the nations v. finished after the Second Coming and 1000 years of Jesus' direct leadership over the nations), and the involvement of Israel in that process.

I would think that, if we all actually stopped going 'round and 'round, we would find that our expectation of the new earth itself at the completion or the fullness of the plans of God would be the same.

When does the new earth arrive in your opinion?

Paul

the rookie
Apr 26th 2008, 04:45 AM
When does the new earth arrive in your opinion?

Paul

It begins at the Second Coming and ends at the end of the 1000 years, IMO. It's a 1000 yr. process to renovate the earth and "make all things new" (Rev. 21:5).

ScottJohnson
Apr 26th 2008, 04:50 AM
Amils and Premils seem to be in agreement that the kingdom of God is eternal. They also seem to be in agreement that there is a dynamic continuity between the spiritual kingdom inaugurated before the cross and the final physical reality of the kingdom that is established at Christ’s coming. Both also see the progressive growth of the kingdom throughout the nations in this intra-Advent period.

Where Amils and Premils go their separate ways (major) is in their expectation of the new earth and the physical manifestation of the kingdom that Christ introduces at His Coming. The two hopes are miles apart. The Amillennialist believes that Christ destroys every vestige of corruption and consequence of the fall at His return. Romans 8:19-23 confirms,“For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be (future tense) delivered from the bondage of corruption (death, sin and decay) into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.”

Creation and the creature will see a final and complete deliverance from the current bondage of corruption. Paul locates this liberation for creation at the time when the saints experience "the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body." This conclusively proves that the glorification of the earth occurs simultaneously with the glorification of our bodies.

I Corinthians 15:50 - makes it explicitly clear,“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”This passage is speaking of the period immediately following the Coming of Christ. The whole context is man's ultimate deliverance from the corruptible state. It is talking of glorification and the eternal state on the new earth. This reading confirms that the new earth that is to be inherited is totally free of corruption. It is a perfect state. Man must therefore be changed to be worthy to inhabit it. Every vestige of the old must be removed. The fact is, “when that which is perfectis come” then “that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Currently, our state is corrupt, as we are blighted by the ongoing existence of innate sin within us, but when we shall see Jesus we shall be like Him, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12).


At Christ’s return “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge (or full discernment) of the Son of God, unto andra teleion (or) a man perfect, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” This will be a day when every last evidence and remembrance of sin, rebellion and pride will be eliminated.

The change to the earth will come by way of the fiery conflagration. Obviously, "flesh and blood" or mortal believers cannot inherit a glorified earth that has been purified by fire of every last trace of the curse. Man in his sinful corruptible state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth. Nothing could be plainer. Amils see the Lord's return as climactic and all-consummating. They believe Jesus is Coming to destroy the wicked and all wickedness and introduce a new pristine order of righteousness on the new earth for ever. Peter confirms,"we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."(2 Peter 3:13).


The Premillennial millennium seems to be a re-run of this current age with all the bondage of corruption (including sin, death, decay, wickedness, rebellion) not only continuing but prospering in the Premillennial paradigm. They aspire to an evolving millennium that gradually and increasingly becomes glorious with the supposed continued progressive increase and growth through the government of Jesus. However, when we analysis their millennium it is seen to be the opposite. Rather than it being a progressively glorious age, it regressively degenerates into sin, death, rebellion and war. Rather than the wicked and wickedness being subjugated, the opposite occurs – they prosper and increase. The Premillennial millennium culminates in the greatest global uprising in history from the four corners of the earth as the sand of the sea against the camp of the saints. Scripture knows nothing of such a process. Scripture make no mention of, or allowance for, any imperfect semi-glorious/semi-corrupt transitional age in-between “this present time” or age and the eternal “age to come.” This seems to be in contradiction to many Scriptures.

Paul

I agree with you whole heartedly Paul. In addition to 2 Peter 3 which you cited, let me add

1Co 15:22-24 for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (23) But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruit; afterward those of Christ at His coming. (24) Then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.

2 Peter 3 demonstrates the refining or the purification of the Earth at Christ's return. 1 Cor 15 demonstrate the complete and final end of all rule, authority and power upon the Lord's return. Neither passage allows for an event that is as colossal as a thousand year reign of Christ on Earth. In spite of this, the pre-millennial belief is that sin, corruption and lawlessness will continue on for another 1,000 years after the 2nd coming, on an earth where the spiritual will co-exist with the natural and all will be subject to a glorified and all mighty Christ. Somehow I can't help but feel that pre-millennialism downplays the authority of a Christ who will rule with a rod of iron.

wpm
Apr 26th 2008, 05:25 AM
It begins at the Second Coming and ends at the end of the 1000 years, IMO. It's a 1000 yr. process to renovate the earth and "make all things new" (Rev. 21:5).

Without the book of Revelation the Premil paradigm falls apart, yet this prophecy makes no reference to a new earth appearing at the commencement of a millennial kingdom. It seems, Revelation is selectively used by Premils as the cornerstone of their belief when it is convenient, when it isn't then other Scripture is used (and often misused) to allow it. Frankly, I struggle with your mode of interpretation.

The first John encounters the new earth is after the millennium. It is only then that he testifies: "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." You have the old arrangement passing away 1,000 yrs+ before John states so. This is wrong. Moreover, you introduce the "new heaven and a new earth" at the beginning of your millennium, when John expressly makes no reference to it until after Satan's little season. I feel your reasoning and John's vision don't correlate.

Paul

wpm
Apr 26th 2008, 05:27 AM
I agree with you whole heartedly Paul. In addition to 2 Peter 3 which you cited, let me add

1Co 15:22-24 for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (23) But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruit; afterward those of Christ at His coming. (24) Then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.

2 Peter 3 demonstrates the refining or the purification of the Earth at Christ's return. 1 Cor 15 demonstrate the complete and final end of all rule, authority and power upon the Lord's return. Neither passage allows for an event that is as colossal as a thousand year reign of Christ on Earth. In spite of this, the pre-millennial belief is that sin, corruption and lawlessness will continue on for another 1,000 years after the 2nd coming, on an earth where the spiritual will co-exist with the natural and all will be subject to a glorified and all mighty Christ. Somehow I can't help but feel that pre-millennialism downplays the authority of a Christ who will rule with a rod of iron.

Scott

Good to see you around. :pp

I couldn't agree with you more. ;)

Paul

Firstfruits
Apr 26th 2008, 09:35 AM
I am not sure where you are going with this. My query was: Am I right? Amils and Premil seem to differ in their expectancy of the new earth?

What are your thoughts?

Paul

What I am trying to find out is if there is a difference regading the expectancy of the new earth, do both groups not beleive in the one return of Jesus at the end of the world, which is when we expect the new earth? Also how does what we believe differ from that which is written?

1 Cor 4:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

2 Cor 4:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

ScottJohnson
Apr 26th 2008, 09:46 AM
What I am trying to find out is if there is a difference regading the expectancy of the new earth, do both groups not beleive in the one return of Jesus at the end of the world, which is when we expect the new earth? Also how does what we believe differ from that which is written?

1 Cor 4:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

2 Cor 4:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
I believe that the difference would be that one group expects to see the new earth upon Christ's return while the other group feels that it will take another 1,000 years after Jesus returns to realize the new earth.

Firstfruits
Apr 27th 2008, 10:53 AM
I believe that the difference would be that one group expects to see the new earth upon Christ's return while the other group feels that it will take another 1,000 years after Jesus returns to realize the new earth.

If according to the following the earth is destroyed at Christs return why then would it take another 1000 years for the new heaven and earth?
Where/how, would that apply to what is written?

2 Pet 3:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 Pet 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2 Pet 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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?

Rev 21:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

ShirleyFord
Apr 27th 2008, 12:05 PM
If according to the following the earth is destroyed at Christs return why then would it take another 1000 years for the new heaven and earth?
Where/how, would that apply to what is written?

2 Pet 3:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 Pet 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2 Pet 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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?

Rev 21:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Nowhere in the 4 Scripture references mentioning new heavens and new earth, there is not even a hint that it will take 1000 years for God to create them.

Is 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Is 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

2 Pet 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven And a new earth: for the first heaven And the first earth were passed away; And there was no more sea.


God created this present earth and everything in it in 6 days. Why would we think that it would now take God at least 1000 years to do the same.


Shirley

ScottJohnson
Apr 27th 2008, 12:31 PM
If according to the following the earth is destroyed at Christs return why then would it take another 1000 years for the new heaven and earth?
Where/how, would that apply to what is written?

2 Pet 3:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 Pet 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2 Pet 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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?

Rev 21:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

I'm one of those that believes that the new earth happens at Christ's return. I believe that When Jesus does return that He will return the earth to it's pre-fallen state (2 Pet 3:12,13). He will execute the judgment of all mankind and will at that time separate the wheat from the tares, each going to their perspective eternal destiny. (Matt 13:37-43). Then the righteous will descend upon the new earth and and the eternal state will commence where sin and suffering will no longer plague man. (Rev 21:1-6; 9,10) I cannot possibly accept the idea that sin and suffering will continue on for a thousand years after the return of Christ while in his holy and glorified presence.

third hero
Apr 28th 2008, 04:19 AM
Without the book of Revelation the Premil paradigm falls apart, yet this prophecy makes no reference to a new earth appearing at the commencement of a millennial kingdom. It seems, Revelation is selectively used by Premils as the cornerstone of their belief when it is convenient, when it isn't then other Scripture is used (and often misused) to allow it. Frankly, I struggle with your mode of interpretation.

The first John encounters the new earth is after the millennium. It is only then that he testifies: "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." You have the old arrangement passing away 1,000 yrs+ before John states so. This is wrong. Moreover, you introduce the "new heaven and a new earth" at the beginning of your millennium, when John expressly makes no reference to it until after Satan's little season. I feel your reasoning and John's vision don't correlate.

Paul

Now you do realize that this statement that I have highlighted in red is about as irrelevant as any that I have ever heard of. The fact remains that Revelation IS a part of the Bible and it DOES prove the premil paradigm. One can not just write off Revelation and still say that they accept God at His Word.

Personally, I use Matthew as the base of my believing in the Messiah, and a Pharisaic Jew may say, "well, if it weren't for Matthew, you wouldn't have a base for saying what you are saying". The fact still remains that Matthew, like Revelation, is there, in print, and readable for all.

Now, to your point about a thousand-year period between the Return and Judgment Day, to your credit, is not plainly explained in scripture. There are subtle references, like Daniel 7, but nothing substantial, other than Zechariah 14, where the earth goes on after the Lord returns. In Zechariah 14, however, there is not a specified period of time. What Revelation does is combine Daniel 7, 9, Zechariah 12, 14, and Matthew ch 20 and ch 24 into a sequence that truly makes sense for most of us post-trib premillers.

Now, concerning your last paragraph, I think that you have to realize that there are differing thoughts concerning the millennium and the purpose behind it. Rookie and some others believe that the 1000 years is a purging period, where God is cleansing the earth while allowing people to continue to live on it. My approach is slightly different. My approach to the Millennium is tied to a question that all mankind up to this point can ask God.

On judgment day, if Jesus never rules the earth from Jerusalem, mankind can collectively ask God, "Why do you judge us so harshly? We would not be as evil if only you had have gotten rid of Satan's influence over us". This is what I believe is the purpose of Christ ruling the earth, with the Tribulation saints with Him. This is God's way of tiding up every loophole that mankind can present against God when He judges us. The Tribulation saints are representatives of us who have fought and defeated sin, even while Satan was influencing mankind. For 1000 years, mankind will not be influenced by Satan for that entire time. Unfortunately, I believe that the end results will be the same as it was while Satan wasn't bound. I believe that by the end of the 1000 trial period, humanity will prove themselves to be just as, if not more evil than the father of lies. This will lead Christ to release Satan and begin the last phase of life on this planet, the road to Eternity.

I believe that there is not suppose to be much prophecy on this topic because God will not have a need for prophets, since He will personally be on earth, giving us prophecies without any aids, unless those aids would be the Tribulation Saints. This POV includes 2 Peter 3 as the end of Revelation 20, where heaven and earth are destroyed at the same time that Jesus is judging mankind. There will be no loopholes, no arguments that can stand, and nothing that the guilty can do to get exonerrated. I do not know if I am on the majority or minority side of the millennium, but this is what I believe.

third hero
Apr 28th 2008, 04:31 AM
I'm one of those that believes that the new earth happens at Christ's return. I believe that When Jesus does return that He will return the earth to it's pre-fallen state (2 Pet 3:12,13). He will execute the judgment of all mankind and will at that time separate the wheat from the tares, each going to their perspective eternal destiny. (Matt 13:37-43). Then the righteous will descend upon the new earth and and the eternal state will commence where sin and suffering will no longer plague man. (Rev 21:1-6; 9,10) I cannot possibly accept the idea that sin and suffering will continue on for a thousand years after the return of Christ while in his holy and glorified presence.

I think that this is why I can not agree totally with these statements. I agree that Jesus will cause the world to be returned to it's pre-fallen state. this I agree with you. However, I believe that instead of every person in the world being judged by him, every nation is judged. I believe that those with the MOTB will suffer an extremely horrible, debilitating disease before dying. I believe that those who were held in hiding the Mountain Valley since the "First Day" (That is the first day of the Great Tribulation), will be the only people not affected by the judging of the nations that happens after the overthrowing of the world at the Valley of Megiddo.

I do not believe that the Church, meaning those who are in heaven awaiting New Heaven and Earth, will descend on this pre-fallen earth. What I believe is basically explained in my last post, which is that God is looking at Judgment Day from this point on, and is showing mankind why no one in flesh can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

You see, we all have, at one point, been, in a sense, victims of Satan's rule over us. We were pushed to do evil, some might say, and accuse God of being unjust by judging us based solely on what we did while under the influence of Satan. It is my belief that God is making sure that when this question is raised, God has an answer, an irrefutable one. Having a small portion of mankind live on past the return, freed of the influence of Satan is irrefutable. When mankind shows his hand, God will use that against them at Judgment Day.

Hence there is a major reason for the Millennium, an important one.

This is why the New Heaven and Earth are not even mentioned until after the 1000 year period and AFTER Judgment Day. It also satisfies, at least for me, the necessity of a period after the Return.

jeffweeder
Apr 28th 2008, 08:42 AM
Peter not only looked for a new heaven and earth, but he expected that the old heaven and earth would pass away at Jesus coming again.
He then taught his congregation to look to these things, keeping in mind what kind of people they were meant to be, as the heavens and the earth were coming to end in this fashion.

Jesus is not slow in keeping that promise to come again, but he is patient now, in this gospel preaching dispensation, for all to come to repentance, until the gospel is preached to every tribe and people.......and then the end will come.

Jesus summed it up well when he said....heaven and earth will pass away, by my word will never pass away...of that day of his coming, no one knows, but as in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the day the son of man comes......just like it says in 2 pet 3.


I thaught i might add that now is the time to protect yourself from the second death, as he who overcomes shall not be hurt by it...Rev 3

third hero
Apr 28th 2008, 12:20 PM
Dispensation.....
That word always bothered me ever since I first heard it. I think this code word, I can never truly shake, mainly because of everything it implies.

I do not believe that God wqorks in dispensations, no matter which POV it is being applied to. I do believe that Peter expected the world to be destroyed, right along with heaven. However, I do not believe that he thought it would happen when Lord Jesus returned. I can go into detail with you on how I come to that conclusion, or you can find the thread in which wpm, john146, and myself jousted over that exact same topic.

ShirleyFord
Apr 28th 2008, 12:58 PM
I do believe that Peter expected the world to be destroyed, right along with heaven. However, I do not believe that he thought it would happen when Lord Jesus returned.

Peter spends the entire Chapter of 2 Peter 3 answering this question of scoffers, "Where is the promise of his coming?" (vs. 3-4)

Even the sinful scoffers, walking in their own lust, knew that it had been prophecied that the earth would suffer a mighty change at the Coming again of Christ, "for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

This is why they are now scoffing at the idea of a Second Coming of Christ. They contend that the earth has remained the same therefore proving that Jesus will not be Coming back.


Shirley

wpm
Apr 28th 2008, 03:25 PM
3H

You are circumventing round the thread topic re the Ammil/Premil expectation for the new earth. I was emphasising that there seems to be a mega difference. You didn't address that.


Now you do realize that this statement that I have highlighted in red is about as irrelevant as any that I have ever heard of. The fact remains that Revelation IS a part of the Bible and it DOES prove the premil paradigm. One can not just write off Revelation and still say that they accept God at His Word.


You totally overlooked my point. I stated: Nowhere does Revelation makes any reference to a new earth appearing at the commencement of a millennial kingdom. It seems, Revelation is selectively used by Premils as the cornerstone of their belief when it is convenient, when it isn't then other Scripture is used (and often misused) to allow it. Frankly, I struggle with your mode of interpretation.

The first John encounters the new earth is after the millennium. It is only then that he testifies: "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." You have the old arrangement passing away 1,000 yrs+ before John states so. This is wrong. Moreover, you introduce the "new heaven and a new earth" at the beginning of your millennium, when John expressly makes no reference to it until after Satan's little season. I feel your reasoning and John's vision don't correlate.

I would appreciate if you addressed this. Unfortunately, you totally diverted round this on a non-existent issue.


nothing substantial, other than Zechariah 14, where the earth goes on after the Lord returns. In Zechariah 14, however, there is not a specified period of time.

Now we have covered this many times. Whilst you are right there is no allusion to a millennial kingdom, there is also no allusion to the Second Coming. Zechariah 14:1 declares, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.”

This passage and especially its rendering in the King James Version has caused confusion to many Bible students over the years. However, a closer examination of the original dispels a lot of ambiguity surrounding the passage. Firstly, the Hebrew does not actually say “the day of the Lord” as the King James Version renders it but ‘a day is coming for the Lord’. There is no definite article in the Hebrew in the text, so “a day” would be a better translation than “the day.” There is no doubt, the phrase “the day of the Lord” normally relates to the Second Coming in Scripture, but Zechariah 14:1 does not state that in the original. Therefore, we cannot insist that it is referring to the day of the Lord. This places a completely different slant on the meaning of the whole chapter. Other versions translate the reading more accurate.

The NASB says:"Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you."

The YLT states: "Lo, a day hath come to Jehovah, And divided hath been thy spoil in thy midst."


We must add to this the Greek LXX Septuagint, which supports this interpretation, saying,

idou Behold
hmerai day
erxontai cometh
tou the
kuriou Lord
kai even (or indeed)
diamerisqhsetai divides
ta the
skula spoils
sou you
en with
soi you

When we look at the usage of the Greek throughout the Old Testament (in the Greek LXX Septuagint) and our New Testament we find a definite pattern in relation to the wording and identification of the day of the Lord in the original. Even Tertullian the Early Church Father who was Chiliast recognised Zechariah 14 as an historic passage fulfilled at the first advent, saying, “But ‘at night He went out to the Mount of Olives.' For thus had Zechariah pointed out: 'And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives' [Zech. xiv. 4]." ("Tertullian Against Marcion," Book 4, chapter XL

The Chiliasts like Amils believed there would be no wicked on the new earth.


On judgment day, if Jesus never rules the earth from Jerusalem, mankind can collectively ask God, "Why do you judge us so harshly? We would not be as evil if only you had have gotten rid of Satan's influence over us". This is what I believe is the purpose of Christ ruling the earth, with the Tribulation saints with Him. This is God's way of tiding up every loophole that mankind can present against God when He judges us.

To be quite frank, I don't buy this. Where in Scripture would you imagine states (or insinuates) this?

Paul

Firstfruits
Apr 28th 2008, 03:34 PM
I'm one of those that believes that the new earth happens at Christ's return. I believe that When Jesus does return that He will return the earth to it's pre-fallen state (2 Pet 3:12,13). He will execute the judgment of all mankind and will at that time separate the wheat from the tares, each going to their perspective eternal destiny. (Matt 13:37-43). Then the righteous will descend upon the new earth and and the eternal state will commence where sin and suffering will no longer plague man. (Rev 21:1-6; 9,10) I cannot possibly accept the idea that sin and suffering will continue on for a thousand years after the return of Christ while in his holy and glorified presence.

I agree, for if Jesus destroys the earth and it takes 1000 years before the new heaven and earth where will we Jesus nad the saints be until then?

Firstfruits
Apr 28th 2008, 03:38 PM
[quote=ShirleyFord;1618825]Nowhere in the 4 Scripture references mentioning new heavens and new earth, there is not even a hint that it will take 1000 years for God to create them.

Is 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Is 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

2 Pet 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven And a new earth: for the first heaven And the first earth were passed away; And there was no more sea.


God created this present earth and everything in it in 6 days. Why would we think that it would now take God at least 1000 years to do the same.


Shirley[/quote

If Jesus destroys the earth at his return and takes a 1000 years before the new, he would have no kingdom until then so I agree with you.

ShirleyFord
Apr 28th 2008, 03:47 PM
Nowhere in the 4 Scripture references mentioning new heavens and new earth, there is not even a hint that it will take 1000 years for God to create them.

Is 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Is 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

2 Pet 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven And a new earth: for the first heaven And the first earth were passed away; And there was no more sea.


God created this present earth and everything in it in 6 days. Why would we think that it would now take God at least 1000 years to do the same.


Shirley

If Jesus destroys the earth at his return and takes a 1000 years before the new, he would have no kingdom until then so I agree with you.

My conclusions exactly FF based on what those 4 Scriptures says.

wpm
Apr 28th 2008, 04:07 PM
I think that this is why I can not agree totally with these statements. I agree that Jesus will cause the world to be returned to it's pre-fallen state. this I agree with you.

But your millennial earth is little different from ours. It is full of death and decay. Sickness and suffering. Wars and wickedness. This is not the pre-fallen state. I feel only Amil is consistent on this point. They are of the view that the bondage of corruption and the wicked are removed from the new earth. They indeed believe the new earth is pristine.


I believe that instead of every person in the world being judged by him, every nation is judged. I believe that those with the MOTB will suffer an extremely horrible, debilitating disease before dying. I believe that those who were held in hiding the Mountain Valley since the "First Day" (That is the first day of the Great Tribulation), will be the only people not affected by the judging of the nations that happens after the overthrowing of the world at the Valley of Megiddo.

Revelation 14:9-12 describes the awful destiny for all those who receive Satan’s mark, saying, “if any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: And they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

The beast’s adherents are the full amount of those among the wicked that refuse to bow their knee to Christ in this current life and therefore end up in a lost eternity.They include the sum-total of all those “whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world” – all those that are therefore precluded from heaven.

In my estimation, there should be on one left to inherit your Premil millennium.

Paul

John146
Apr 28th 2008, 07:32 PM
Without the book of Revelation the Premil paradigm falls apart, yet this prophecy makes no reference to a new earth appearing at the commencement of a millennial kingdom. It seems, Revelation is selectively used by Premils as the cornerstone of their belief when it is convenient, when it isn't then other Scripture is used (and often misused) to allow it. Frankly, I struggle with your mode of interpretation.

The first John encounters the new earth is after the millennium. It is only then that he testifies: "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." You have the old arrangement passing away 1,000 yrs+ before John states so. This is wrong. Moreover, you introduce the "new heaven and a new earth" at the beginning of your millennium, when John expressly makes no reference to it until after Satan's little season. I feel your reasoning and John's vision don't correlate.

Paul

Absolutely, Paul. I don't see how anyone can conclude anything except that the new heavens and new earth don't appear in any way, shape or form until the time that John sees them, which occurs after the thousand years and after Satan's little season and immediately after the judgment. As you said, the new heavens and new earth do not appear until the first heaven and first earth are passed away". According to Peter in 2 Peter 3, the new heavens and new earth appear after the first heaven and earth are burned up and this occurs at the second coming of Christ. Peter says that the new earth is a place "wherein dwelleth righteousness". I believe he was also implying that it is a place wherein dwelleth not unrighteousness.

Eric

John146
Apr 28th 2008, 07:36 PM
If according to the following the earth is destroyed at Christs return why then would it take another 1000 years for the new heaven and earth?
Where/how, would that apply to what is written?

2 Pet 3:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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 Pet 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2 Pet 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=61&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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?

Rev 21:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=66&CHAP=21&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

Have you ever heard of the terms amillennialist and premillennialist? You are an amillennialist. An amillennialist believes Jesus is reigning now on His throne in heaven and that there will be no earthly millennial (thousand year) kingdom. He will come and all believers will be gathered to Him while all unbelievers will be destroyed. Even the earth itself will be burned up (2 Peter 3:10-12). A premillennialist believes Christ is coming to set up an earthly kingdom which will last for a thousand years before Satan is loosed and deceives the nations.

There's one other thing I wanted to point out about 2 Peter 3:10-12 that doesn't make sense in the premillennial paradigm. For some reason that I can't figure out, some have decided that the day of the Lord is a thousand years in duration. If that's the case, how can it come like a thief in the night? Jesus also comes like a thief. Does His coming last a thousand years or is there an actual day that He is coming? Also, shouldn't we get our understanding of the day of the Lord from other passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2? In that passage, the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him (2 Thess 2:1) is equated with the day of the Lord (2 Thess 2:2). So, how can anyone conclude that the day of the Lord lasts 1,000 years?

third hero
Apr 28th 2008, 07:42 PM
wpm,
One thing that I have never struggled with is consistency. So, let's not go there. Since your prose is a little lengthy, I am deciding to forego the usual quote and response. INstead, I'll just respond.

First, you seem to absolutely misunderstand what I was saying. I, like Revelation 21 maintains, believe that the millennium period is not the New heaven and earth. It is a period where, as Daniel 7 maintains, "the saints will take posession of the earth", and John puts it in chapter 20, they will "rule with Christ for 1000 years". No where am I saying that it is a period in time where God is destroying and renewing the earth.

Also, Peter is talking about a coming, but like I have shown before, I believe it is the coming of the Father's destruction of heaven and earth, which is exactly what Peter was talking about in chapter 3. You see the word "Coming" and make the leap from there. Again, a classic case of reading into scripture, which leads to so many misunderstandings.

As far as the meaning and purpose of the Millennium, I have nothing scriptural other than a promise that God gave to Daniel, Isaiah, and Zechariah. IN Daniel 7, God tells Daniel plainly that after a Coming, and after the little horn is judged, that the saints are given the earth as a posession. IN Isaiah, this period of time is marked by the utter LACK of war due to the fact that God would be ruling the world, and that death would be seriously limited. IN Zechariah, the survivors of the onslaught that happens after His coming are charged to goto Jerusalem every year to worship the King of Kings. These are facts.

What I gave during my last posts was conjecture, things which I believe based on questions that have arisen from the Premil POV which Revelation 20 is. I kept asking myself, why would God need to have His Son ruling this world from Jerusalem? The idea of Judgment Day and the many arguments that hold no bearing in the eyes of God kept swirling through my mind, except one. The one question that I believe mankind could say to God is this, HOw can you judge us when we were slaves to a force that we could not see? We were given over to demons and Satan, who held us in bondage, how can we show that we would not be sinful unless that influence is taken away from us? This question made sense to me as the reason why not only is Satan imprisoned and not terminated upon the Lord's return, and that the Tribulation saints are charged to rule the earth with Christ for that period of time. I thought I had given the details to this in my last post, but oh well.

Now, concerning Zechariah 14, you are aware that there are more than 1 verse to that chapter, right? You take so much time to focus on verse 1, where verse 5 has the writer saying that "The Lord my God willl come, and all of His saints with thee". The next few verses include the sign of the Day of the Lord, the fact that God is ruling the world from Jerusalem, and the fate of the wicked at that time. Again, you did not address that.

It seems to me that you are still using more code-wording when readin my posts than actually reading them, because I denounced the idea of a regeneration of the first earth during the Millennium period. I strictly believe as Revelation 20 states. There is a period of Satan being imprisoned in the Abyss, the Lord rules the world with the Tribulation Saints without satan being around for 1000 years. Afterwards, Satan is released and he causes the final rebellion between man and God, a rebellion that causes God to destroy both heaven and earth. The Judgement happens afterward, and New Heaven and earth is brought forth, with the old earth, the old heaven, and in my opinion, the old universe is completely destroyed.

What I expect when the Lord returns is that if I am alive at that point, I will be with Him forever. I expect Him to rid the world of most of the nations that are on this planet. I fully expect Him to rule this earth until the time Father God determines it to be time for the absolute destruction of the universe. If I am wrong on whether or not the earth is destroyed at the Lord's return does not matter, and this colors my view on the purpose on the Millennium. Honestly, as long as I am with the Lord forever, it does not matter whether the earth lives on after His return or not, because it will not affect me. My salvation will be secure, with absolutely no way of losing it at that point. SO, premil or amil, from the return of the Lord onward.. who cares? I sure don't. If you want to argue what is written versus what is not, I'm game for that. However, I really find this thread to be rather a waste of time, since it wil not matter what we believe will happen after the Lord comes. When He comes, that's it. We are either with Him, or we are done for. The Millennium really does not matter. But again, this is my opinion, and I know that it is not a shared one, but that's okay by me.

John146
Apr 28th 2008, 08:05 PM
wpm,

Also, Peter is talking about a coming, but like I have shown before, I believe it is the coming of the Father's destruction of heaven and earth, which is exactly what Peter was talking about in chapter 3. You see the word "Coming" and make the leap from there. Again, a classic case of reading into scripture, which leads to so many misunderstandings.

Do you know of anyone else besides you who thinks that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ? I'm not just talking about verses 10 through 12. This includes verse 4 where the scoffers ask, "where is the promise of His coming?" and verse 9, which says "the Lord is not slack concerning His promise". Does anyone else, besides third hero, understand this to be speaking of the coming of the Father rather than the Son?


My salvation will be secure, with absolutely no way of losing it at that point. SO, premil or amil, from the return of the Lord onward.. who cares? I sure don't. If you want to argue what is written versus what is not, I'm game for that. However, I really find this thread to be rather a waste of time, since it wil not matter what we believe will happen after the Lord comes.

You have spent a fair amount of time posting in a thread that you find to be a waste of time. ;)

It's not a salvation issue or anything, but I wouldn't exactly say it's a waste of time. Personally, if I felt the amil vs. premil debate was a waste of time, I'd stop posting about it.

the rookie
Apr 28th 2008, 10:56 PM
Do you know of anyone else besides you who thinks that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ? I'm not just talking about verses 10 through 12. This includes verse 4 where the scoffers ask, "where is the promise of His coming?" and verse 9, which says "the Lord is not slack concerning His promise". Does anyone else, besides third hero, understand this to be speaking of the coming of the Father rather than the Son?

Sure. Me. And lots of my friends. (I have lots of them) :D

wpm
Apr 28th 2008, 11:56 PM
Sure. Me. And lots of my friends. (I have lots of them) :D

You are starting to confuse me. I though you visualised the new earth to arrive at the Coming of Christ and introduce a fiery purging process that lasts 1,000 yrs? Anyway, the warnings of Peter are directed towards scoffers living at the end of the "last days" just prior to the Coming of the Lord, not millennial scoffers at the end of Satan's little season.

Paul

wpm
Apr 29th 2008, 12:06 AM
Peter is talking about a coming, but like I have shown before, I believe it is the coming of the Father's destruction of heaven and earth, which is exactly what Peter was talking about in chapter 3. You see the word "Coming" and make the leap from there. Again, a classic case of reading into scripture, which leads to so many misunderstandings.


The solemn message embodied within this reading is specifically directed to “the last days scoffers” and their foolish mocking, questioning the possibility of the impending return of Christ. It is not in any way concentrated upon a supposed group of millennial scoffers 1,000 years later or a period following the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ as some Premils imagine. If this is supposed to be a collection of millennial inhabitants 1,000 years after the Second Coming, why would they be ridiculing “Where is the promise of his coming?” Such a notion is completely foolish because Christ’s Coming (or parousia) would then be long past.Unquestionably, the focus of this message is directed to the end-time-cynics who deny Christ, despise His Word and scorn the likelihood of His return. The near 2,000 years that has already elapsed since our Lord’s first Advent is used as a basis for their mocking. They use this supposed delay as an opportunity to propagate their foolishness. 2 Peter 3 makes clear, those that would consider this as an opportunity for scorn will be swiftly and assuredly caught in their own folly at His Coming. Like the wicked locked outside the ark and the iniquitous left behind in Sodom, the end-time scoffers will be punished for their scoffing. These evildoers will be exposed when Christ returns and pours out His wrath upon them. That is the whole thrust of the passage – the sudden and unanticipated destruction of the wicked at Christ’s return.

Peter warns these “last days” mockers that such a day will (1) catch them unexpected, and, (2) involve the immediate, complete and final judgment. He cites the total destruction of the unrighteous in Noah’s day as an picture and evidence of what will occur. The wicked scoffers will be caught unexpected when the day of the Lord overtakes him as a “thief in the night.” The fiery indignation described in this reading destroys the unrighteous and their distain at Christ’s appearing. In fact, in order for the folly of the wicked (in regard to their delusion on Christ’s Coming) to be exposed and eliminated the Lord must return in fiery judgment and expose their ignorance.

Paul

the rookie
Apr 29th 2008, 12:14 AM
You are starting to confuse me. I though you visualised the new earth to arrive at the Coming of Christ and introduce a fiery purging process that lasts 1,000 yrs? Anyway, the warnings of Peter are directed towards scoffers living at the end of the "last days" just prior to the Coming of the Lord, not millennial scoffers at the end of Satan's little season.

Paul

I noticed in your earlier post that you were confused about what I have been asserting and what I haven't. What I have been saying has been fairly consistent and consistently misinterpreted. :D

Which is understandable, by the way.

The new earth "arrives" at the end of the thousand years. Jesus "arrives" at the beginning of it. In between is a process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration according to the promise that Peter spoke of. In other words, when He comes He will begin "creating" new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered or not come to mind when He is finished.

wpm
Apr 29th 2008, 02:58 AM
Rookie

In your last post you said:


The new earth "arrives" at the end of the thousand years. Jesus "arrives" at the beginning of it. In between is a process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration according to the promise that Peter spoke of. In other words, when He comes He will begin "creating" new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered or not come to mind when He is finished.

However, you previously said on this very thread, when I asked, When does the new earth arrive in your opinion?

You replied:


It begins at the Second Coming and ends at the end of the 1000 years, IMO. It's a 1000 yr. process to renovate the earth and "make all things new" (Rev. 21:5).

Ok, which is it? It is no wonder I am confused. You don't to be sure when it arrives yourself. :rolleyes:


You are honestly baffling me here. Surely I am not the only one. :hmm:


Paul

the rookie
Apr 29th 2008, 03:16 AM
Rookie

In your last post you said:



However, you previously said on this very thread, when I asked, When does the new earth arrive in your opinion?

You replied:



Ok, which is it? It is no wonder I am confused. You don't to be sure when it arrives yourself. :rolleyes:


You are honestly baffling me here. Surely I am not the only one. :hmm:


Paul

I'm quite sure, and seeing my two statements juxtaposed does nothing to change that. Though I understand why you would be baffled, it's clear and consistent to me - and consistent with what I have said time and again.

What begins at the Second Coming culminates at the end with the "arrival" of the new earth / new heavens. "Ending" and "arrival" are the same concept related to what I have been asserting. "Behold I create" in Isa. 65 speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. "the times of the restoration of all things" speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. I can't restate the same concept again much plainer.

Again, the two statements above are saying the same thing. What is unclear?

wpm
Apr 29th 2008, 04:29 AM
I'm quite sure, and seeing my two statements juxtaposed does nothing to change that. Though I understand why you would be baffled, it's clear and consistent to me - and consistent with what I have said time and again.

What begins at the Second Coming culminates at the end with the "arrival" of the new earth / new heavens. "Ending" and "arrival" are the same concept related to what I have been asserting. "Behold I create" in Isa. 65 speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. "the times of the restoration of all things" speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. I can't restate the same concept again much plainer.

Again, the two statements above are saying the same thing. What is unclear?

I must admit, this is as clear as mud to me.

I previously asked: "When does the new earth arrive in your opinion?" (please note the word "arrive" in my question).

You replied in direct response: "at the Second Coming."

In your last post, you have done a complete 180 degree turn, saying, "The new earth 'arrives' at the end of the thousand years."

Rookie, which is it? These are totally contradictory statements. I feel this exposes the weakness of Premil. In my opinion, this school of thought has no secure foundation. It also has no corroboration. When all the so-called millennial passages are added together they contradict each other.

Premils actually argue with each other on this. They take one another out in their respective arguments. The only astounding thing about your argument is that one minute you believe the new earth arrives at the Second Coming, the next breath 1,000 yrs+ later. What ever way one looks at it, you are actually arguing with yourself.

In my opinion, Amils and Postmils are the only ones that are consistent on the subject of the new earth. We believe the earth will be ushered in at the Coming of Christ and it will be pristine and devoid of all unrighteousness. It will be perfected, and the saints that inherit it will be perfect. Those that inhabit it will therefore be the glorified saints alone.


In between is a process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration according to the promise that Peter spoke of. In other words, when He comes He will begin "creating" new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered or not come to mind when He is finished.

Where does it show this gradual ongoing "process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration" in Rev 20, Isa 65 or anywhere else in Scripture? Please show me where the conflagration is 1,000 yrs+ long? Please answer this. Premil requires a lot of adding on to the scriptural narrative to let it fit.

Your suggestion that earth will experience a gradual progressive change is negated by Revelation 20. Sin, death, wickedness, rebellion, and war all grow during the millennial reign – to such a stage that the wicked are as the sand of the sea. This is undoubtedly regressive. This is the complete opposite to sanctification which is progressive. To liken the Premil millennium to sanctification – a gradual becoming more like Christ - is therefore absurd and nonsensical.

Show me where the Bible proves that God's wrath is a gradual ongoing 1,000 yrs "process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration"?

From my perspective Premil doesn't fit. You seem to be trying to force square pegs into round holes.

Paul

the rookie
Apr 29th 2008, 05:06 AM
I must admit, this is as clear as mud to me.

I previously asked: "When does the new earth arrive in your opinion?" (please note the word "arrive" in my question).

You replied in direct response: "at the Second Coming."

Forgive me for my lack of clarity. I should have responded with more precision. I hope that my last two posts have been more clear - it seems like they have, but I guess you beg to differ, which is fine. But if bad or unclear communication is your "trump card" in the ongoing debate, then you are clearly grasping at straws, IMO. We have different paradigms of thought and understanding. Bridging that gap is often not an easy task. To turn that into an "aha!" seems like a bit of showmanship or gamesmanship vs. an actual productive point, IMHO.



Premils actually argue with each other on this. They take one another out in their respective arguments. The only astounding thing about your argument is that one minute you believe the new earth arrives at the Second Coming, the next breath 1,000 yrs+ later. You are actually arguing with yourself. Then you taunt me on this thread for being confused??? Uuuuuh????

I did no such thing - in fact, I stated clearly that I understood why you would be confused. Empathy is a bit different than taunting on this side of the ocean, friend.

Secondly, there are many things that amills argue amongst themselves about - again, your seeming exasperation is leading you to draw some less than stellar conclusions.


In my opinion, Amils and Postmils are the only ones that are consistent on the subject of the new earth.

"Consistency" does not equal "sound exegesis". One can be consistently wrong withing a system. Pre-trib folks are pretty consistent on some points we both disagree with.

While you may feel that consistency earns you something in this discussion, there are many glaring consistent inconsistencies related to exegesis of OT & NT prophecy that continue the debate.



Where does it show this gradual ongoing "process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration" in Rev 20, Isa 65 or anywhere else in Scripture? Please show me where the conflagration is 1,000 yrs+ long? Please answer this.

I have - we've had many discussions on this point.


Premil requires a lot of adding on to the scriptural narrative to let it fit.

And, of course, one could say the same about the Amil system.


Your suggestion that earth will experience a gradual progressive change is negated by Revelation 20. Sin, death, wickedness, rebellion, and war all grow during the millennial reign – to such a stage that the wicked are as the sand of the sea. This is undoubtedly regressive. This is the complete opposite to sanctification which is progressive. To liken the Premil millennium to sanctification – a gradual becoming more like Christ - is therefore absurd and nonsensical.

Sure, according to your characature or straw man. I could paint the same absurdities related to your viewpoint - but I happen to find that practice an unproductive use of our time.

wpm
Apr 29th 2008, 05:30 AM
Forgive me for my lack of clarity. I should have responded with more precision. I hope that my last two posts have been more clear - it seems like they have, but I guess you beg to differ, which is fine. But if bad or unclear communication is your "trump card" in the ongoing debate, then you are clearly grasping at straws, IMO. We have different paradigms of thought and understanding. Bridging that gap is often not an easy task. To turn that into an "aha!" seems like a bit of showmanship or gamesmanship vs. an actual productive point, IMHO.




I did no such thing - in fact, I stated clearly that I understood why you would be confused. Empathy is a bit different than taunting on this side of the ocean, friend.

Secondly, there are many things that amills argue amongst themselves about - again, your seeming exasperation is leading you to draw some less than stellar conclusions.



"Consistency" does not equal "sound exegesis". One can be consistently wrong withing a system. Pre-trib folks are pretty consistent on some points we both disagree with.

While you may feel that consistency earns you something in this discussion, there are many glaring consistent inconsistencies related to exegesis of OT & NT prophecy that continue the debate.




I have - we've had many discussions on this point.



And, of course, one could say the same about the Amil system.



Sure, according to your characature or straw man. I could paint the same absurdities related to your viewpoint - but I happen to find that practice an unproductive use of our time.



I am sorry that you took 'aha' out of my post. That was not remotely part of my thinking. Quite the opposite. I was genuinely bewidlered by your position. It was simply one of several posts trying to pin down your position. After all, you had not responded to my original reasonable objection. When you returned a number of days later (1) you failed to address it, and (2) rather started to advocate a completely converse position to that which you had originally stated and which I had challenged.

I don't see why you find it strange that I should press you for clarity, especially when you circumvented my first request and changed to outline an argument that was the complete anthesis to that you previously held.

Finally, you have yet to properly explain how an ongoing fiery millennium would be anything other than a living hell. How would any believer look forward to being present as God progressively dissolves this earth for 1,000 yrs. Your description of the new earth that follows the Coming of Christ reinforces my intial supposition that the Premil new fiery earth is in stark contrast to the bliss of the Amil/Postmil new earth that is perfect, incorrupt and populated alone by the righteous. It is eternal free of death, wickedness, sin, rebellion, war, funerals, suffering, tears, torment, murder, hatred, punishment, decay and every vestige of the fall. Premillenialism foists all this unto its millenial earth.

Your ammended position would seem to require you to move corruption unto the new earth after Satan's little season - that is if you still use this as proof of death on the new earth. Of course I don't share your understanding of this. Isaiah 65:17-21 states, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

Corruption must therefore continue into eternity.

Paul

the rookie
Apr 29th 2008, 03:03 PM
I am sorry that you took 'aha' out of my post. That was not remotely part of my thinking. Quite the opposite. I was genuinely bewidlered by your position. It was simply one of several posts trying to pin down your position. After all, you had not responded to my original reasonable objection. When you returned a number of days later (1) you failed to address it, and (2) rather started to advocate a completely converse position to that which you had originally stated and which I had challenged.

I did no such thing. You simply (1) quoted me selectively (2) changing the context of what I said to (3) give the impression that I have stated two different positions.

Going back and reading my original statements, I have not done this. I have said the same thing consistently from the beginning - and the same thing that I have been saying for two years here, as a matter of fact:


No - I actually think that Amils and Premils have the a similar expectancy related to the new earth, where they differ is related to timing (2000 years v. 3000 years), process (finished at the Second Coming after centuries of Jesus' indirect leadership over the nations v. finished after the Second Coming and 1000 years of Jesus' direct leadership over the nations), and the involvement of Israel in that process.


It begins at the Second Coming and ends at the end of the 1000 years, IMO. It's a 1000 yr. process to renovate the earth and "make all things new" (Rev. 21:5).

I would think that, if we all actually stopped going 'round and 'round, we would find that our expectation of the new earth itself at the completion or the fullness of the plans of God would be the same.

Later on:


The new earth "arrives" at the end of the thousand years. Jesus "arrives" at the beginning of it. In between is a process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration according to the promise that Peter spoke of. In other words, when He comes He will begin "creating" new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered or not come to mind when He is finished.


What begins at the Second Coming culminates at the end with the "arrival" of the new earth / new heavens. "Ending" and "arrival" are the same concept related to what I have been asserting. "Behold I create" in Isa. 65 speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. "the times of the restoration of all things" speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. I can't restate the same concept again much plainer.


This was your response:


I don't see why you find it strange that I should press you for clarity, especially when you circumvented my first request and changed to outline an argument that was the complete anthesis to that you previously held.


Finally, you have yet to properly explain how an ongoing fiery millennium would be anything other than a living hell. How would any believer look forward to being present as God progressively dissolves this earth for 1,000 yrs.

How did we get on this subject? A living hell? Really Paul? Progressive dissolution? Remind me when I said that...



Your description of the new earth that follows the Coming of Christ reinforces my intial supposition that the Premil new fiery earth

What description was that? Again, you are not really rebutting my assertion that you are creating a charicature of my viewpoint and then arguing against it. Like so:


...is in stark contrast to the bliss of the Amil/Postmil new earth that is perfect, incorrupt and populated alone by the righteous. It is eternal free of death, wickedness, sin, rebellion, war, funerals, suffering, tears, torment, murder, hatred, punishment, decay and every vestige of the fall. Premillenialism foists all this unto its millenial earth.


Your ammended position

Let's change that to "consistent". Please.


...would seem to require you to move corruption unto the new earth after Satan's little season - that is if you still use this as proof of death on the new earth. Of course I don't share your understanding of this. Isaiah 65:17-21 states, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

Corruption must therefore continue into eternity.

Paul

Um, no, not really. You just haven't been reading what I have been asserting and have been instead content to debate things that I have not said. Again, not the most productive use of our time.

ShirleyFord
Apr 29th 2008, 03:09 PM
Rookie,

I have a couple of questions.

If Jesus begins building the new earth at His Second Coming and His work on the new earth continues for 1000 yrs before the new earth is complete, wouldn't all of His work be destroyed by Satan's little season after he is loosed after the thousand years have expired?

Does Jesus then have to start all over again from scratch in building the new earth beginning with a second Second Coming since we see Him in heaven ending Satan's little season, and His saints rescured and with Him in heaven from where He pours out His fire from heaven onto the devil and all of the inhabitants of the earth?

Will there also have to be another 1000 year period to give Jesus time to build the new earth again?

wpm
Apr 29th 2008, 05:08 PM
I did no such thing. You simply (1) quoted me selectively (2) changing the context of what I said to (3) give the impression that I have stated two different positions.

Going back and reading my original statements, I have not done this. I have said the same thing consistently from the beginning - and the same thing that I have been saying for two years here,

That is not true. You have made completely opposing arguments on this thread re the arrival of the new earth. My questioning has been for the sole purpose of removing the ambiguity and conflict in order that we can establish your position. You have wrongly interpreted this as 'aha' (which is your perogative), which is totally contrary to what my intent was. I am sure I am not the only one that is unsure of what you are saying. If you are now saying all your statements on this thread are 'consistent' then I beg to differ. You need to explain how we can reconcile conflicting statements that you have made on this thread.


I previously asked on this thread: "When does the new earth arrive in your opinion?" (please note the word "arrive" in my question).

You replied in direct response: "at the Second Coming."

In a proceeding post, you did a complete U-turn, saying, "The new earth 'arrives' at the end of the thousand years."

These quotes are accurate and in context. Just like Rev. Jeremiah Wright's were. Now to me these accurate statements of yours are not consistent as you argue but totally contradictory. You must discard one or the other, which is it? This is not an unreasonable request. If you want to hold to both at the same time them you need to explain how you can accomplish (what I firmly believe is) such an impossibility.


How did we get on this subject? A living hell? Really Paul? Progressive dissolution? Remind me when I said that...

You and Bing have both previously argued that the fiery renewal outlined in 2 Peter 3 is ongoing throughout your millennial kingdom. I can only interpret that as a hellish age.

Let us view the detail. 2 Peter 3:10-13 says, “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. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 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? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

The Holy Ghost could not have worded this in more destructive terms. I personally wouldn't want to be in the midst of this for 1,000 years!!!


Um, no, not really. You just haven't been reading what I have been asserting and have been instead content to debate things that I have not said. Again, not the most productive use of our time.

Ok. When does the new earth in Isa 65 arrive - the following? Isaiah 65:17-21 states, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

When does this arrive: the Second Coming or after Satan's little season?

Paul

the rookie
Apr 29th 2008, 06:23 PM
That is not true. You have made completely opposing arguments on this thread re the arrival of the new earth. My questioning has been for the sole purpose of removing the ambiguity and conflict in order that we can establish your position. You have wrongly interpreted this as 'aha' (which is your perogative), which is totally contrary to what my intent was. I am sure I am not the only one that is unsure of what you are saying. If you are now saying all your statements on this thread are 'consistent' then I beg to differ. You need to explain how we can reconcile conflicting statements that you have made on this thread.

Hmmm. I thought I did. Maybe you could show me from the above post where I failed to do so? Because, we seem to have a problem here. The problem can be illustrated thusly:



I previously asked on this thread: "When does the new earth arrive in your opinion?" (please note the word "arrive" in my question).

You replied in direct response: "at the Second Coming."

In a proceeding post, you did a complete U-turn, saying, "The new earth 'arrives' at the end of the thousand years."

I find this strange, since I simply reposted exactly what I wrote, in context. I will do so again, now for the third time. Hopefully I won't strike out. Here are the four statements, reprinted exactly - you tell me how they conflict:


The Rookie: No - I actually think that Amils and Premils have the a similar expectancy related to the new earth, where they differ is related to timing (2000 years v. 3000 years), process (finished at the Second Coming after centuries of Jesus' indirect leadership over the nations v. finished after the Second Coming and 1000 years of Jesus' direct leadership over the nations), and the involvement of Israel in that process.

Quote:
The Rookie: It begins at the Second Coming and ends at the end of the 1000 years, IMO. It's a 1000 yr. process to renovate the earth and "make all things new" (Rev. 21:5).

I would think that, if we all actually stopped going 'round and 'round, we would find that our expectation of the new earth itself at the completion or the fullness of the plans of God would be the same.
Later on:

Quote:
The Rookie: The new earth "arrives" at the end of the thousand years. Jesus "arrives" at the beginning of it. In between is a process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration according to the promise that Peter spoke of. In other words, when He comes He will begin "creating" new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered or not come to mind when He is finished.

The Rookie: What begins at the Second Coming culminates at the end with the "arrival" of the new earth / new heavens. "Ending" and "arrival" are the same concept related to what I have been asserting. "Behold I create" in Isa. 65 speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. "the times of the restoration of all things" speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. I can't restate the same concept again much plainer.



These quotes are accurate and in context. Just like Rev. Jeremiah Wright's were.

Not quite - now they are. Again, I would ask for your help to point out where they differ. Jeremiah Wright?


Now to me these accurate statements of yours are not consistent as you argue but totally contradictory. You must discard one or the other, which is it? This is not an unreasonable request. If you want to hold to both at the same time them you need to explain how you can accomplish (what I firmly believe is) such an impossibility.

I appreciate that. I would also appreciate, beyond asserting that it must be so, if you could demonstrate it clearly, now that I have reposted all of my statements in this thread for the second time.




You and Bing have both previously argued that the fiery renewal outlined in 2 Peter 3 is ongoing throughout your millennial kingdom. I can only interpret that as a hellish age.

Ah! Got it. You are going on earlier discussions with myself and Bing. The problem is this - I don't believe that 2 Pet. 3 happens at the Second Coming, but at the end of the 1000 years, when the Father comes to the earth with cleansing, holy fire. The sea of glass, mingled with fire - is that a "living hell"?


Let us view the detail. 2 Peter 3:10-13 says, “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. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 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? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

The Holy Ghost could not have worded this in more destructive terms. I personally wouldn't want to be in the midst of this for 1,000 years!!!

I agree.



Ok. When does the new earth in Isa 65 arrive - the following? Isaiah 65:17-21 states, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.”

When does this arrive: the Second Coming or after Satan's little season?

Paul

Both. :D

It (Isaiah 65) begins at the Second Coming and ends in climactic fullness at the end of the 1000 years, after Satan's little season. At that time, the kingdom is handed to the Father (1 Cor. 15:20-28) and the earth is purged in fire (2 Pet. 3). Hope that's clear enough?

the rookie
Apr 29th 2008, 06:24 PM
Rookie,

I have a couple of questions.

If Jesus begins building the new earth at His Second Coming and His work on the new earth continues for 1000 yrs before the new earth is complete, wouldn't all of His work be destroyed by Satan's little season after he is loosed after the thousand years have expired?

No.


Does Jesus then have to start all over again from scratch in building the new earth beginning with a second Second Coming since we see Him in heaven ending Satan's little season, and His saints rescured and with Him in heaven from where He pours out His fire from heaven onto the devil and all of the inhabitants of the earth?

No.


Will there also have to be another 1000 year period to give Jesus time to build the new earth again?

No.

wpm
Apr 29th 2008, 06:43 PM
Hmmm. I thought I did. Maybe you could show me from the above post where I failed to do so? Because, we seem to have a problem here. The problem can be illustrated thusly:




I find this strange, since I simply reposted exactly what I wrote, in context. I will do so again, now for the third time. Hopefully I won't strike out. Here are the four statements, reprinted exactly - you tell me how they conflict:



Quote:
The Rookie: It begins at the Second Coming and ends at the end of the 1000 years, IMO. It's a 1000 yr. process to renovate the earth and "make all things new" (Rev. 21:5).

I would think that, if we all actually stopped going 'round and 'round, we would find that our expectation of the new earth itself at the completion or the fullness of the plans of God would be the same.
Later on:

Quote:
The Rookie: The new earth "arrives" at the end of the thousand years. Jesus "arrives" at the beginning of it. In between is a process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration according to the promise that Peter spoke of. In other words, when He comes He will begin "creating" new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered or not come to mind when He is finished.




Not quite - now they are. Again, I would ask for your help to point out where they differ. Jeremiah Wright?



I appreciate that. I would also appreciate, beyond asserting that it must be so, if you could demonstrate it clearly, now that I have reposted all of my statements in this thread for the second time.





Ah! Got it. You are going on earlier discussions with myself and Bing. The problem is this - I don't believe that 2 Pet. 3 happens at the Second Coming, but at the end of the 1000 years, when the Father comes to the earth with cleansing, holy fire. The sea of glass, mingled with fire - is that a "living hell"?



I agree.




Both. :D

It (Isaiah 65) begins at the Second Coming and ends in climactic fullness at the end of the 1000 years, after Satan's little season. At that time, the kingdom is handed to the Father (1 Cor. 15:20-28) and the earth is purged in fire (2 Pet. 3). Hope that's clear enough?

Before I address your last post in more detail, could you tell me what this process of renewal is and how it is perfected? What does it entail? Please advance supporting Scripture.

Paul

ShirleyFord
Apr 29th 2008, 07:09 PM
Thanks Rookie for taking the time to answer all 3 of my questions. :)




Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1621255#post1621255)
If Jesus begins building the new earth at His Second Coming and His work on the new earth continues for 1000 yrs before the new earth is complete, wouldn't all of His work be destroyed by Satan's little season after he is loosed after the thousand years have expired?

No.




Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1621255#post1621255)
Does Jesus then have to start all over again from scratch in building the new earth beginning with a second Second Coming since we see Him in heaven ending Satan's little season, and His saints rescured and with Him in heaven from where He pours out His fire from heaven onto the devil and all of the inhabitants of the earth?


No.




Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1621255#post1621255)
Will there also have to be another 1000 year period to give Jesus time to build the new earth again?

No.



Quote:
The Rookie: It begins at the Second Coming and ends at the end of the 1000 years, IMO. It's a 1000 yr. process to renovate the earth and "make all things new" (Rev. 21:5).


Do you believe then that Satan is allowed on the new earth to trample all over it with his massive wicked followers that he has been able to amass out of the millennium kingdom into a massive global military presence that is without number since it is so great until it is as the sand of the sea, can't be counted, to battle God and His saints?

I was just wondering how do you reconcile your view of the process of the new earth taking 1000 years to build. But we find that after the thousand years expire, Satan is let loose and all h*ll breaks loose on the brand new spanking clean pristine new earth, restored back to its pristine perfection as it was before man's fall in the garden, pouring out greater wickedness and evil it seems than ever before. Wouldn't that at least re-dirty and re-polute the new earth just a little bit?

the rookie
Apr 29th 2008, 07:15 PM
Before I address your last post in more detail, could you tell me what this process of renewal is and how it is perfected? What does it entail? Please advance supporting Scripture.

Paul

Okay.

Peter spoke of "the times of the restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21), which Paul corroborates later on in Eph. 1:9-10 when he states: ". . . that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him." Paul was speaking, of course, about the reconciliation of heaven and earth through Jesus - as was Peter.

This process is described by Paul in Romans 8:

19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Paul compares the process of the transformation of the earth not to an instantaneous transformation, but to the gradual process of sanctification. We who have the "firstfruits of the Spirit" are not immediately changed, but that groaning is part of the process of redemption, that, interestingly enough, Paul knits to intercession in the verses that follow.

This is because of Paul's paradigm from the prophets related to how they described the process of the redemption and transformation of the earth. The most famous promise in our day is found in 2 Chron. 7:14 -

14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 15 Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to prayer made in this place.

Again, I find it noteworthy that, in God's pattern of transformation, prayer is a non-negotiable component. The reason that I continue to include prayer in this little "walk-through" is that prayer is a critical part of the "process" of internal transformation / sanctification that brings us, over time, into agreement with the Lord. It is the manner in which God brings us into His plan and His processes, IOW.

The above promise is noteworthy in the manner in which it summarizes the promises of God to Israel in Deut. 28:1-14, which also happens to describe the process of cleansing and renewing the land:

1 “Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the LORD your God:

“Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country.

“Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.

“Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.

“Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.

“The LORD will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.

“The LORD will command the blessing on you in your storehouses and in all to which you set your hand, and He will bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

“The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. 10 Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. 11 And the LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. 12 The LORD will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. 13 And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you heed the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe them. 14 So you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right or the left, to go after other gods to serve them."

Isaiah vividly described what this would look like in the age to come in Isaiah 35:

1 The wilderness and the wasteland shall be glad for them,
And the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose;
2 It shall blossom abundantly and rejoice,
Even with joy and singing.
The glory of Lebanon shall be given to it,
The excellence of Carmel and Sharon.
They shall see the glory of the LORD,
The excellency of our God.
3 Strengthen the weak hands,
And make firm the feeble knees.
4 Say to those who are fearful-hearted,
“Be strong, do not fear!
Behold, your God will come with vengeance,
With the recompense of God;
He will come and save you.”
5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
6 Then the lame shall leap like a deer,
And the tongue of the dumb sing.
For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness,
And streams in the desert.
7 The parched ground shall become a pool,
And the thirsty land springs of water;
In the habitation of jackals, where each lay,
There shall be grass with reeds and rushes.
8 A highway shall be there, and a road,
And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean shall not pass over it,
But it shall be for others.
Whoever walks the road, although a fool,
Shall not go astray.
9 No lion shall be there,
Nor shall any ravenous beast go up on it;
It shall not be found there.
But the redeemed shall walk there,
10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return,
And come to Zion with singing,
With everlasting joy on their heads.
They shall obtain joy and gladness,
And sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

Ezekiel described the same thing in Ezekiel 47:

7 When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other. 8 Then he said to me: “This water flows toward the eastern region, goes down into the valley, and enters the sea. When it reaches the sea, its waters are healed. 9 And it shall be that every living thing that moves, wherever the rivers go, will live. There will be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters go there; for they will be healed, and everything will live wherever the river goes. 10 It shall be that fishermen will stand by it from En Gedi to En Eglaim; they will be places for spreading their nets. Their fish will be of the same kinds as the fish of the Great Sea, exceedingly many. 11 But its swamps and marshes will not be healed; they will be given over to salt. 12 Along the bank of the river, on this side and that, will grow all kinds of trees used for food; their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine.”

Rev. 22 assures us that this progressive healing of the land is yet future:

1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


Thanks Rookie for taking the time to answer all 3 of my questions. :)

Do you believe then that Satan is allowed on the new earth to trample all over it with his massive wicked followers that he has been able to amass out of the millennium kingdom into a massive global military presence that is without number since it is so great until it is as the sand of the sea, can't be counted, to battle God and His saints?

Yes.


I was just wondering how do you reconcile your view of the process of the new earth taking 1000 years to build. But we find that after the thousand years expire, Satan is let loose and all h*ll breaks loose on the brand new spanking clean pristine new earth, restored back to its pristine perfection as it was before man's fall in the garden, pouring out greater wickedness and evil it seems than ever before. Wouldn't that at least re-dirty and re-polute the new earth just a little bit?No .

John146
Apr 29th 2008, 07:35 PM
Sure. Me. And lots of my friends. (I have lots of them) :D

Well, I obviously believe you and your friends are quite mistaken. What is your basis for thinking that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ? When it speaks of the promise of His coming which promise is it speaking about (please give scripture references)?

the rookie
Apr 29th 2008, 07:55 PM
Well, I obviously believe you and your friends are quite mistaken. What is your basis for thinking that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ? When it speaks of the promise of His coming which promise is it speaking about (please give scripture references)?

Nah.

My earlier post was an assurance to you that Doug is not as out there as you were implying when you looked to isolate his viewpoint as an anomaly rather than a reasonable possibility.

Of course we can disagree on perspective and interpretation - and I appreciate your desire to elicit a sound defense of that interpretation. Since we have established that there are, well, thousands of people (I told you I had lots of friends :D) that share that perspective on 2 Pet. 3 we can dispense with the ad hominems and the two of you can break down the passage itself, if he chooses to.

John146
Apr 29th 2008, 08:01 PM
Nah.

My earlier post was an assurance to you that Doug is not as out there as you were implying when you looked to isolate his viewpoint as an anomaly rather than a reasonable possibility.

Of course we can disagree on perspective and interpretation - and I appreciate your desire to elicit a sound defense of that interpretation. Since we have established that there are, well, thousands of people (I told you I had lots of friends :D) that share that perspective on 2 Pet. 3 we can dispense with the ad hominems and the two of you can break down the passage itself, if he chooses to.

He thinks this is all a waste of time, so I'll talk to you instead. ;)

So, again, what is your basis for thinking that 2 Peter 3 says nothing at all about the second coming of Christ?

the rookie
Apr 29th 2008, 08:21 PM
He thinks this is all a waste of time, so I'll talk to you instead. ;)

:lol: That was funny - I connected with ol' winky smiley this time, mostly because that was a good line.


So, again, what is your basis for thinking that 2 Peter 3 says nothing at all about the second coming of Christ?

If you are asking "what is my basis for thinking that 2 Pet. 3 is talking about the coming of the Father to His resting place on the earth (Ps. 132:1-5; Isa. 66:1-2) at the culmination of the 1000 years, not just the Second Coming as many understand it," then we can frame this out with a bit more precision.

If you are implying that I see 2 Pet. 3 as saying "nothing at all about the Second Coming of Christ", then your assertion is off.

I see 2 Pet. 3 as being about both the Second Coming and the coming of the Father, which is not a simultaneous event but is one reality in Peter's thinking - a "thousand year day" (v. 8) that culminates with the events of v. 10-12. This passage, thematically, is a passage about the comprehensive holiness of God the Father - as a rebuttal to the false grace message preached by those who are propagating great unholiness throughout the church in 2 Pet. 2. Peter uses the theme of the thousand year process of preparing the earth, particularly from Paul's preaching, to illustrate how holy God is - and thus how holy we must be - without spot and blameless.

The Second Coming and the leadership of Jesus to prepare the earth for the coming of His Father (as described in the passages above, as well as Isa. 2, Mic.4, and Zech. 8) are one reality in Peter's thinking as it relates to the subject of holiness in particular. Thus, to say that I see 2 Pet. 3 as "having nothing to do with the 2nd Coming" is more than just an overstatement. 2 Pet. 3 has everything to do with the Second Coming as it relates to "His promise" of a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness (the Holy God) dwells with men.

John146
Apr 29th 2008, 09:00 PM
If you are implying that I see 2 Pet. 3 as saying "nothing at all about the Second Coming of Christ", then your assertion is off.

Here is what third hero said originally:



wpm,

Also, Peter is talking about a coming, but like I have shown before, I believe it is the coming of the Father's destruction of heaven and earth, which is exactly what Peter was talking about in chapter 3. You see the word "Coming" and make the leap from there. Again, a classic case of reading into scripture, which leads to so many misunderstandings.

This was my response:



Do you know of anyone else besides you who thinks that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ? I'm not just talking about verses 10 through 12. This includes verse 4 where the scoffers ask, "where is the promise of His coming?" and verse 9, which says "the Lord is not slack concerning His promise". Does anyone else, besides third hero, understand this to be speaking of the coming of the Father rather than the Son?

This is your response:



Sure. Me. And lots of my friends. (I have lots of them)

So, third hero said "Peter is talking about a coming, but like I have shown before, I believe it is the coming of the Father's destruction of heaven and earth. I asked, "Do you know of anyone else besides you who thinks that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ?". You answered "Sure. Me.". And now you are saying that my assertion is off that you said that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ? Huuuhhh?

Let me just simplify this. When "His coming" is mentioned in 2 Peter 3:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, whose coming is it referring to?



I see 2 Pet. 3 as being about both the Second Coming and the coming of the Father, which is not a simultaneous event but is one reality in Peter's thinking - a "thousand year day" (v. 8) that culminates with the events of v. 10-12. This passage, thematically, is a passage about the comprehensive holiness of God the Father - as a rebuttal to the false grace message preached by those who are propagating great unholiness throughout the church in 2 Pet. 2. Peter uses the theme of the thousand year process of preparing the earth, particularly from Paul's preaching, to illustrate how holy God is - and thus how holy we must be - without spot and blameless.

The Second Coming and the leadership of Jesus to prepare the earth for the coming of His Father (as described in the passages above, as well as Isa. 2, Mic.4, and Zech. 8) are one reality in Peter's thinking as it relates to the subject of holiness in particular. Thus, to say that I see 2 Pet. 3 as "having nothing to do with the 2nd Coming" is more than just an overstatement. 2 Pet. 3 has everything to do with the Second Coming as it relates to "His promise" of a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness (the Holy God) dwells with men.That's hard to follow. I truly don't think the chapter is meant to be as complicated as all that. There is another passage that mentions the day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night. It's your understanding that "the day of the Lord" refers to the thousand years collectively, correct? If so, then let's look at the following passage, which immediately follows Paul's description of the believers being caught up to meet Christ in the air when He comes again.

1But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3For 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.
4But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. - 1 Thess 5:1-6

Paul points out that he has no need to write to them about the times and seasons related to the coming of Christ. Then he says that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night. Just as Peter points out in 2 Peter 3:10. According to Peter, the day of the Lord brings with it the melting and burning up of the current heavens and earth. According to Paul, it brings "sudden destruction" upon unbelievers who are not ready for it, and "they shall not escape". Then Paul points out that believers are not in spiritual darkness so that the day of the Lord should overtake us as a thief. Believers are to watch and be sober.

Now, if the day of the Lord is a thousand years in duration, how is it that we should watch and be sober in anticipation of that day coming? And how can it be that it brings "sudden destruction" if the destruction that it brings is spread out over a thousand years?

One other thing. Are you saying that 2 Peter 3:8 somehow supports your position that it's related to the millennium? As if the thousand years is as a day means that the day of the Lord is the thousand years of the Lord? If that's the case, I would definitely disagree with that. The only reason Peter brought up the thousand years is as a day thing is that the scoffers act like the Lord's coming is taking a long time (implying that they think this is evidence that it will never happen), but Peter is pointing out that it's not a long time as far as the Lord is concerned.

Eric

ShirleyFord
Apr 30th 2008, 01:27 AM
Again thanks much Rookie. :)

But your answers just fosters more questions for me and your view of the redemption of the earth.




Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1621550#post1621550)
Thanks Rookie for taking the time to answer all 3 of my questions. :)

Do you believe then that Satan is allowed on the new earth to trample all over it with his massive wicked followers that he has been able to amass out of the millennium kingdom into a massive global military presence that is without number since it is so great until it is as the sand of the sea, can't be counted, to battle God and His saints?


Yes.

Isn't it your view that when every person on the planet is fully completely redeemed incorruptible, immortal and glorified during the thousand years then the earth will receive her complete redemption at the end of the thousand years and become the new earth? Wouldn't having Satan trampling all over the new earth make the corruptible again. And since you believe that the new earth cannot appear until every vistage of sin in removed from every person until they become incorruptible, immortal and glorified through and through, when we look at Revelation 20:8 we find all of this giganic force of wicked people, after the thousand years have expired. Where does Satan get them from? And where is Jesus during this time?





Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1621550#post1621550)
I was just wondering how do you reconcile your view of the process of the new earth taking 1000 years to build. But we find that after the thousand years expire, Satan is let loose and all h*ll breaks loose on the brand new spanking clean pristine new earth, restored back to its pristine perfection as it was before man's fall in the garden, pouring out greater wickedness and evil it seems than ever before. Wouldn't that at least re-dirty and re-polute the new earth just a little bit?

No.

So you are saying that the new cleansed redeemed earth is again filled with wickedness, sin, evil, corruption and with Satan in person pouring out his wrath? But the new earth nor the those in their new bodies on the new earth will be affected?

the rookie
Apr 30th 2008, 02:45 AM
So, third hero said "Peter is talking about a coming, but like I have shown before, I believe it is the coming of the Father's destruction of heaven and earth. I asked, "Do you know of anyone else besides you who thinks that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ?". You answered "Sure. Me.". And now you are saying that my assertion is off that you said that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ? Huuuhhh?

Sorry - good point. I was responding to this question:


Does anyone else, besides third hero, understand this to be speaking of the coming of the Father rather than the Son?

Since I believe that the passage is speaking as much about the coming of the Father ("day of God") as it is the coming of Christ, I thought I would chime in to demonstrate that his view isn't such a bizarre thought.



Let me just simplify this. When "His coming" is mentioned in 2 Peter 3:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, whose coming is it referring to?

I'm not sure, by the way, why "both" would be such an odd concept for an amill guy - wouldn't you already buy into that? Wouldn't it already be an odd thought that I see the passage as describing "two comings" - the Son first, the Father second, separated by 1000 years? Anywho, v.4 & v.9 would be the Son, in my thinking; v. 10-12 would primarily be the Father.


That's hard to follow. I truly don't think the chapter is meant to be as complicated as all that. There is another passage that mentions the day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night. It's your understanding that "the day of the Lord" refers to the thousand years collectively, correct? If so, then let's look at the following passage, which immediately follows Paul's description of the believers being caught up to meet Christ in the air when He comes again.

1But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3For 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.
4But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
6Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. - 1 Thess 5:1-6

Paul points out that he has no need to write to them about the times and seasons related to the coming of Christ. Then he says that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night. Just as Peter points out in 2 Peter 3:10. According to Peter, the day of the Lord brings with it the melting and burning up of the current heavens and earth. According to Paul, it brings "sudden destruction" upon unbelievers who are not ready for it, and "they shall not escape". Then Paul points out that believers are not in spiritual darkness so that the day of the Lord should overtake us as a thief. Believers are to watch and be sober.

Now, if the day of the Lord is a thousand years in duration, how is it that we should watch and be sober in anticipation of that day coming? And how can it be that it brings "sudden destruction" if the destruction that it brings is spread out over a thousand years?

You are mixing passages and their ideas with the assumption that your logic is sound. Was Paul, in speaking of "sudden destruction," referencing the sudden inbreaking of what Peter described? If this concept is so simple, why did Peter reference Paul's teachings on this subject and assure his readers that Paul's writings were complicated for everyone - not just them? Could it be that Peter wasn't thinking (or cross-referencing) what you are thinking on this matter?

Your scenario, in linking the two passages, seems to defy common sense. Will the peoples be crying out "peace and safety" during Satan's "little season"? Then Jesus comes with "sudden" judgment and fire, seemingly without warning? The buildup of destructive events in Rev. 6 alone seems to defy that scenario. And, for a people who are terrified by Jesus without warning, the unbelievers of Rev. 6:12-17 certainly seem to be theologically well-informed "caught off-guard-folks".

It seems as if the "sudden destruction" that Paul is referencing is different than the "sudden destruction" that Peter is referencing. Just an observation based on details you seem to have missed - which you've done now with Isaiah 59, 27, Zech. 8, 14, Joel 3, etc.


One other thing. Are you saying that 2 Peter 3:8 somehow supports your position that it's related to the millennium? As if the thousand years is as a day means that the day of the Lord is the thousand years of the Lord? If that's the case, I would definitely disagree with that. The only reason Peter brought up the thousand years is as a day thing is that the scoffers act like the Lord's coming is taking a long time (implying that they think this is evidence that it will never happen), but Peter is pointing out that it's not a long time as far as the Lord is concerned.


Are you sure that this is all Peter is saying? What are you basing your "definite" conclusion on? What evidence do you have to be so "definitely" sure about your assertion? Are you implying that there is a 100% chance that I am wrong about my exegesis of the passage?

the rookie
Apr 30th 2008, 02:50 AM
Again thanks much Rookie. :)

But your answers just fosters more questions for me and your view of the redemption of the earth.

Great!


Isn't it your view that when every person on the planet is fully completely redeemed incorruptible, immortal and glorified during the thousand years then the earth will receive her complete redemption at the end of the thousand years and become the new earth?

No.


Wouldn't having Satan trampling all over the new earth make the corruptible again. And since you believe that the new earth cannot appear until every vistage of sin in removed from every person until they become incorruptible, immortal and glorified through and through, when we look at Revelation 20:8 we find all of this giganic force of wicked people, after the thousand years have expired. Where does Satan get them from?

Your question is based on a faulty premise, as established above.


And where is Jesus during this time?

The New Jerusalem.


So you are saying that the new cleansed redeemed earth is again filled with wickedness, sin, evil, corruption and with Satan in person pouring out his wrath?

No.


But the new earth nor the those in their new bodies on the new earth will be affected?

I think you meant to ask, "But neither the new earth nor those in their new bodies (i.e.: us - resurrected believers who dwell in the New Jerusalem w/ Jesus) will be affected?"

And, so...yup.

wpm
Apr 30th 2008, 04:33 AM
I see 2 Pet. 3 as being about both the Second Coming and the coming of the Father, which is not a simultaneous event but is one reality in Peter's thinking - a "thousand year day" (v. 8) that culminates with the events of v. 10-12.

But hold on, that would allow no room for Satan's little season. Your theory runs out of time and space for Satan to be released!!! You have the world and all wickedness destroyed before Satan can be released to deceive. There is no Gog and Magog, they have just went up in smoke - a bit like your latest theory???

You are going to have to ammend your position again. :lol:

Paul

the rookie
Apr 30th 2008, 04:58 AM
But hold on, that would allow no room for Satan's little season. Your theory runs out of time and space for Satan to be released!!! You have the world and all wickedness destroyed before Satan can be released to deceive. There is no Gog and Magog, they have just went up in smoke - a bit like your latest theory???

You are going to have to ammend your position again. :lol:

Paul'

Hmmm. Methinks that you aren't reading a thing I'm saying, and still looking for your trump card, friend. Are having a discussion or are you looking for your angle to have the best last word?

wpm
Apr 30th 2008, 05:00 AM
Rookie

Referring to Isaiah 65:17-21 I asked: When does this arrive: the Second Coming or after Satan's little season?

To which you replied:



Both. :D

It (Isaiah 65) begins at the Second Coming and ends in climactic fullness at the end of the 1000 years, after Satan's little season. At that time, the kingdom is handed to the Father (1 Cor. 15:20-28) and the earth is purged in fire (2 Pet. 3). Hope that's clear enough?


Firstly, this is exactly the understanding I directed towards you and which you strongly dismissed as misrepresenting you. Now you are admitting it. You wonder why I say that your posts are totally contradictory. One minute you believe the new earth arrives at the Second Coming, the next breath 1,000 yrs+ later. It seems like you are unsure yourself. Please don't think it is strange that I am finding your posts hard to dissect!!! You chop and change from post to post.

Isaiah 65:17 is pretty clear, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.”

Isaiah here describes the arrival of the eternal perfect state and the removal of this current old temporal defective state, which is plagued by the bondage of corruption. He clearly and unambiguously tells us we are looking at the creation of the “new heavens and a new earth.” He explains how the arrival of this new arrangement coincides with the removal of the old corrupt arrangement: “The former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” Clearly we are looking at eternity. The new earth has been purged at this stage of all the evidences of the fall that has plagued creation since the Garden.

When does this occur? When does this arrive? A careful reading of Revelation shows that there is absolutely no mention of this in Revelation 20 – the passage you build your belief system upon. After all, there is nowhere else in Scripture that mentions a millennium.

Revelation 21:1-4 states, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all from their eyes; and there shall be no more, neither, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

As I already explained to you (and which you totally failed to address), the first John encounters the new earth is after the millennium. It is only then that he testifies: "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." You have the old arrangement passing away 1,000 yrs+ before John states so. This is wrong. Moreover, you introduce the "new heaven and a new earth" at the beginning of your millennium, when John expressly makes no reference to it until after Satan's little season. I feel your reasoning and John's vision don't correlate.

Your location of Isa 65 totally contradicts what Revelation says about the appearance of the new earth.

Paul

wpm
Apr 30th 2008, 05:10 AM
'

Hmmm. Methinks that you aren't reading a thing I'm saying, and still looking for your trump card, friend. Are having a discussion or are you looking for your angle to have the best last word?

You say your millennium relates to "a 'thousand year day' (v. 8) that culminates with the events of v. 10-12." You said this! Again, I am quoting you, and quoting you in context.

Now this reads to me - if there is such a thing as a plain face-value reading of this - that the 2 Peter 3 destruction is in your occurs in your 'thousand year day' - in fact at the very end of your 'thousand year day'.

Am I wrong?

Paul

third hero
Apr 30th 2008, 05:16 AM
Eric, are we going there again? I hope not.


Do you know of anyone else besides you who thinks that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ? I'm not just talking about verses 10 through 12. This includes verse 4 where the scoffers ask, "where is the promise of His coming?" and verse 9, which says "the Lord is not slack concerning His promise". Does anyone else, besides third hero, understand this to be speaking of the coming of the Father rather than the Son?

ANswer, Yes. My opinion? I do not care how many people believe what I believe. I am only stating what I believe, for the benefit of anyone interested in reading it.


You have spent a fair amount of time posting in a thread that you find to be a waste of time. ;)

It's not a salvation issue or anything, but I wouldn't exactly say it's a waste of time. Personally, if I felt the amil vs. premil debate was a waste of time, I'd stop posting about it.

This is entertainment for me. It is a way to have my senses sharpened, and to have my beliefs sharpened, as iron on iron. In terms of salvation, it truly IS a waste of time. However, I am not in this thread to degbate the issues tied to salvation. It is to debate views of the end times and to better understand the opposing views. That portion is not a waste of time.

You have to admit though, Eric, that debating over what happens to the earth and it's inhabitants AFTER Christ returns is really nonsensical, especially since, like I have stated before, we will not have to worry about any of it. If you are wrong, you are not going to jump ship, it'll be too late then. If I am wrong, I am not going to jump ship either.

So, why waste the time? I am only offering a perspective that is oftentimes overlooked by the debators locked in the heat of battle. I think that when it all boils down, this is only a matter of what we believe the scriptures say concerning the world after Christ returns, and it holds absolutely NO bearing on our salvation.... or anyone else's. It's like playing a football game or a video game, in the end, it's only a game. In this case, the same applies.

wpm
Apr 30th 2008, 05:44 AM
Rookie


Peter spoke of "the times of the restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21), which Paul corroborates later on in Eph. 1:9-10 when he states: ". . . that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him." Paul was speaking, of course, about the reconciliation of heaven and earth through Jesus - as was Peter.

Peter actually confirms the concluding nature of the Second Advent in Acts 3:20-21, saying, “And he (God) shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution (or reconstitution) of all things,which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”

This reading locates the times of the fulfilment of the “restitution of all things” as occurring at the Second Advent. This all-consummating event manifestly sees the elimination of the old temporal degenerate state, and the introducing of the new eternal glorified one. It is not merely the restitution of some things or even most things as some would have us believe, but (in complete agreement with 1 Peter 4:3-7), of “all things” as the text plainly declares.

This passage is clear in its instruction: “the heaven must receive (or) dechomai (or) detain [Jesus Christ], until the times of restitution of all things.” Just like heaven “received him” (Acts 1:9) nearly 2,000 years ago; it will continue to receive (or detain) Christ up until the arrival of “the times of restitution of all things.” Interestingly, the word until used here is the Greek wordachri (Strong's 891), which carries the idea of a terminus of time and meaning of up until or up to. It is variously interpreted in the King James Version as far as, for, into, till, even unto, even until. The termination of this detaining period – namely the climactic Second Advent – corresponds with the “reconstitution of all things” – thus the introducing of the “new heavens and a new earth” and the eternal state.

Christ, therefore, will not appear until the consummation, which is the time when every enemy of Christ and His kingdom are finally destroyed, when this sin-cursed world is destroyed, and the time when the kingdom of God will be finally revealed in all its glory.

This is another conclusive passage that supports Amil and refutes Premil. You have 'the restoration of some things'. Your millennium is a sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future millennial kingdom. Again, I feel you are trying to place a square peg into a round hole. Can we honestly say that a restoration of all things can truly be fulfilled and presented to an earth that remains under the curse where sin, death and decay still plague and reign among mankind? Would not the removal of the curse completely from a regenerated earth be the only viable occurrence? Wouldn't that alone constitute the only optimal and fullest possible fulfilment of the restoration of all things? In the Amil scenario, the new heavens and a new earth sees the restoration of all things as Scripture demands. Sin, sinners and death are removed forever. It is the new heavens and a new earth and the eternal state free of sin, sinners and decay - or all the vestiges of the fall that Premil re-introduces into their supposed future millennium.

It can't be the restoration of all things at His appearing as even after a thousand yrs in the Premil theory Christ has failed to restore billions of millennial inhabitants. It is the restoration of a very few things. The earth remains the same as today - no different - it is sin-cursed, goat-infested and death blighted.

The Coming of the Lord in reality will usher in the eternal state and witness the full manifestation of the glorified kingdom on a renewed earth in all its eternal perfection. This earth will be restored to its pristine condition – being eternally freed from all the bondage of corruption. Every enemy of God’s perfect righteous order will be finally eliminated with the fiery regeneration of this earth and the final and complete destruction of the wicked at His appearing.

Ephesians 1:10 similarly says, “in the dispensation of the fulness (or completion) of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.”The word translated “fullness” in this passage is ‘pleeroomatos’, which, significantly, means completion. The all-consummating nature detail of this reading therefore perfectly harmonises with the repeated teaching of Scripture indicating that the Second Coming of the Lord is the end. It is an event that sees the gathering “together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” a happening that is always identified with the appearing of Christ. The kingdom both in heaven and on earth are finally and completely bonded together forever at the consummation.



This process is described by Paul in Romans 8:

19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Paul compares the process of the transformation of the earth not to an instantaneous transformation, but to the gradual process of sanctification. We who have the "firstfruits of the Spirit" are not immediately changed, but that groaning is part of the process of redemption, that, interestingly enough, Paul knits to intercession in the verses that follow.


I feel you miss the link between the creature and creation You are disconnecting the two. When man fell then all creation experienced the consequences and fell simultaneously with him. The fall of creation coincided with Adam’s fall, the deliverance of man sees the deliverance of creation. What you are failing to see is that when man is finally rescued from this awful condition at the Coming of Christ the day of "the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body” (Rom 8) in the act of glorification or the change from corruption to incorruption then Scripture shows us that all creation joins us. The earth is indeed restored to its previous incorrupt condition. That is why we must be changed. Only glorified saints can inherit a glorified earth. This would therefore negate the Premil paradigm that allows the bondage of corruption to continue on the new earth. Amils accept that this age is sin-cursed. However, they believe (unlike the Premil) that the new earth (that will contain the glorified kingdom) is restored to its pristine condition being eternally free from the curse or any vestige of the curse. Moreover, the wicked are outside the kingdom in our understanding, whereas in yours the wicked inherit it along with the righteous.

When man fell he instantaneously was corrupted, so correspondingly was the earth. This was not a gradual demise but an immediate and absolute fall. So also is glorification. Man’s deliverance from the bondage of corruption with glorification, sees the same been poured out on creation. It is instantly purified as of fire (2 Peter 3). It is an act not a process – as you claim. Man is not gradually glorified over 1,000 yrs, no more than the earth is. There is absolutely no suggestion of that in Revelation 20. You import that in.

1 Corinthians 15:50-55 explains, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

Here it is. The change occurs “in the twinkling of an eye.” The earth corresponds. We see that in Romans 8.

Moreover, contrary to what you suggest, mortal sinful corrupt man is forbidden entry to the new perfected earth. He therefore requires glorification. These occur simultaneously – just like the fall.

In your paradigm, the “whole creation” must immediately recommence its now-finished groaning and travailing “in pain” after Christ’s Coming to facilitate the establishment of another corrupt age. You place the wicked in the kingdom after Christ's Coming along with the meek despite the fact they are forbidden (Psalm 37:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, Galatians 5:19-21). And "flesh and bone" (or mortals) into the kingdom despite the fact they are excluded (1 Corinthians 15:50). With the continued existence of the sinner in this future millennium after the Second Coming comes the persistence of sin; with the persistence of sin comes the resulting death and decay. The “bondage of corruption” is therefore fully restored.

Paul

Hawk
Apr 30th 2008, 12:27 PM
Rookie



Peter actually confirms the concluding nature of the Second Advent in Acts 3:20-21, saying, “And he (God) shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution (or reconstitution) of all things,which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”

This reading locates the times of the fulfilment of the “restitution of all things” as occurring at the Second Advent. This all-consummating event manifestly sees the elimination of the old temporal degenerate state, and the introducing of the new eternal glorified one. It is not merely the restitution of some things or even most things as some would have us believe, but (in complete agreement with 1 Peter 4:3-7), of “all things” as the text plainly declares.

This passage is clear in its instruction: “the heaven must receive (or) dechomai (or) detain [Jesus Christ], until the times of restitution of all things.” Just like heaven “received him” (Acts 1:9) nearly 2,000 years ago; it will continue to receive (or detain) Christ up until the arrival of “the times of restitution of all things.” Interestingly, the word until used here is the Greek wordachri (Strong's 891), which carries the idea of a terminus of time and meaning of up until or up to. It is variously interpreted in the King James Version as far as, for, into, till, even unto, even until. The termination of this detaining period – namely the climactic Second Advent – corresponds with the “reconstitution of all things” – thus the introducing of the “new heavens and a new earth” and the eternal state.

Christ, therefore, will not appear until the consummation, which is the time when every enemy of Christ and His kingdom are finally destroyed, when this sin-cursed world is destroyed, and the time when the kingdom of God will be finally revealed in all its glory.

This is another conclusive passage that supports Amil and refutes Premil. You have 'the restoration of some things'. Your millennium is a sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future millennial kingdom. Again, I feel you are trying to place a square peg into a round hole. Can we honestly say that a restoration of all things can truly be fulfilled and presented to an earth that remains under the curse where sin, death and decay still plague and reign among mankind? Would not the removal of the curse completely from a regenerated earth be the only viable occurrence? Wouldn't that alone constitute the only optimal and fullest possible fulfilment of the restoration of all things? In the Amil scenario, the new heavens and a new earth sees the restoration of all things as Scripture demands. Sin, sinners and death are removed forever. It is the new heavens and a new earth and the eternal state free of sin, sinners and decay - or all the vestiges of the fall that Premil re-introduces into their supposed future millennium.

It can't be the restoration of all things at His appearing as even after a thousand yrs in the Premil theory Christ has failed to restore billions of millennial inhabitants. It is the restoration of a very few things. The earth remains the same as today - no different - it is sin-cursed, goat-infested and death blighted.

The Coming of the Lord in reality will usher in the eternal state and witness the full manifestation of the glorified kingdom on a renewed earth in all its eternal perfection. This earth will be restored to its pristine condition – being eternally freed from all the bondage of corruption. Every enemy of God’s perfect righteous order will be finally eliminated with the fiery regeneration of this earth and the final and complete destruction of the wicked at His appearing.

Ephesians 1:10 similarly says, “in the dispensation of the fulness (or completion) of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.”The word translated “fullness” in this passage is ‘pleeroomatos’, which, significantly, means completion. The all-consummating nature detail of this reading therefore perfectly harmonises with the repeated teaching of Scripture indicating that the Second Coming of the Lord is the end. It is an event that sees the gathering “together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” a happening that is always identified with the appearing of Christ. The kingdom both in heaven and on earth are finally and completely bonded together forever at the consummation.



I feel you miss the link between the creature and creation You are disconnecting the two. When man fell then all creation experienced the consequences and fell simultaneously with him. The fall of creation coincided with Adam’s fall, the deliverance of man sees the deliverance of creation. What you are failing to see is that when man is finally rescued from this awful condition at the Coming of Christ the day of "the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body” (Rom 8) in the act of glorification or the change from corruption to incorruption then Scripture shows us that all creation joins us. The earth is indeed restored to its previous incorrupt condition. That is why we must be changed. Only glorified saints can inherit a glorified earth. This would therefore negate the Premil paradigm that allows the bondage of corruption to continue on the new earth. Amils accept that this age is sin-cursed. However, they believe (unlike the Premil) that the new earth (that will contain the glorified kingdom) is restored to its pristine condition being eternally free from the curse or any vestige of the curse. Moreover, the wicked are outside the kingdom in our understanding, whereas in yours the wicked inherit it along with the righteous.

When man fell he instantaneously was corrupted, so correspondingly was the earth. This was not a gradual demise but an immediate and absolute fall. So also is glorification. Man’s deliverance from the bondage of corruption with glorification, sees the same been poured out on creation. It is instantly purified as of fire (2 Peter 3). It is an act not a process – as you claim. Man is not gradually glorified over 1,000 yrs, no more than the earth is. There is absolutely no suggestion of that in Revelation 20. You import that in.

1 Corinthians 15:50-55 explains, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

Here it is. The change occurs “in the twinkling of an eye.” The earth corresponds. We see that in Romans 8.

Moreover, contrary to what you suggest, mortal sinful corrupt man is forbidden entry to the new perfected earth. He therefore requires glorification. These occur simultaneously – just like the fall.

In your paradigm, the “whole creation” must immediately recommence its now-finished groaning and travailing “in pain” after Christ’s Coming to facilitate the establishment of another corrupt age. You place the wicked in the kingdom after Christ's Coming along with the meek despite the fact they are forbidden (Psalm 37:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, Galatians 5:19-21). And "flesh and bone" (or mortals) into the kingdom despite the fact they are excluded (1 Corinthians 15:50). With the continued existence of the sinner in this future millennium after the Second Coming comes the persistence of sin; with the persistence of sin comes the resulting death and decay. The “bondage of corruption” is therefore fully restored.

Paul

Paul,

I think you've inserted your own conclusion into Acts 3:19 and Eph. 1:9-10 without actually addressing the link that rookie indicated. I am not sure there is a disagreement with the "reconstitution" that will occur, but you've failed to address the underlined words in rookie's original post. The word "times" used by Peter in Acts 3:19 demands a greater length of time than something "instantaneous".

5550. chronos, khron´-os; of uncertain derivation; a space of time (in general, and thus properly distinguished from 2540 "kairos", which designates a fixed or special occasion; and from 165 "aion", which denotes a particular period) or interval; by extension, an individual opportunity; by implication, delay: — + years old, season, space, (x often-)time(-s), (a) while.

Hawk

ShirleyFord
Apr 30th 2008, 01:07 PM
Great!



No.



Your question is based on a faulty premise, as established above.



The New Jerusalem.



No.



I think you meant to ask, "But neither the new earth nor those in their new bodies (i.e.: us - resurrected believers who dwell in the New Jerusalem w/ Jesus) will be affected?"

And, so...yup.

So in your endtime view Rookie, you believe that Jesus is in new Jerusalem during the time of Satan's little season after the thousand years have expired?

I agree. :)

Now let me ask you, Where is new Jerusalem located during Satan's little season in Rev 20:7-9?

Jesus said that new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven from God at some point.

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

And John was given a vision of the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven.

Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


This says to me that until new Jerusalem comes down from God out of heaven, new Jerusalem must be in heaven with God. That would include the time of Satan's little season. Is that how you see it Rookie?

And notice, John doesn't see new Jerusalem come down out of heaven until he sees the first or old earth pass away and he is shown the new earth.

Rev 21:1 AndI saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


When did John see the old earth passed away?

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Notice that this occurs after the thousand years have expired according to Rev 20.

And Rev 20:11 occurs after Jesus from heaven ends Satan's little season.

Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

These are some things we learn:

the fire comes from God in heaven.
the fire comes down from heaven
Satan and the global military that he has been able to amass during the thousand years are on earth. Rev 20:9 doesn't mention that Satan is on the new earth.
God's fire devours Satan and all of the wicked unsaved who follow him who made up his global military to fight against God and the righteous believers in Christ, whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Shirley

the rookie
Apr 30th 2008, 04:17 PM
Rookie



Peter actually confirms the concluding nature of the Second Advent in Acts 3:20-21, saying, “And he (God) shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution (or reconstitution) of all things,which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”

This reading locates the times of the fulfilment of the “restitution of all things” as occurring at the Second Advent. This all-consummating event...

You were doing great until you got to this point, right here. What makes you think that this is, from the text itself, one all-consuming event or moment in time? I would wager that your difficulty with this passage is related to your difficulty in understanding the things I am saying - you have an unrelenting habit of inserting your own conclusions into statements.

What I have been saying about the Second Coming, the regeneration, and the culmination of the millennium are clear and consistent statements. What I said about 2 Pet. 3 negates nothing that I have said, though your paradigm or lens inserts conclusions that demand such seeming "inconsistencies". The same forces at work in the manner that you insert your system into the text or my comments are now at work here.

How can "the times of the restoration of all things", as Hawk asked, be confined in your interpretation of the passage to one moment or a singular event? "Times" seems to indicate a progression of events that contribute to the regeneration, not one event that finishes it instantaneously. You cannot produce one verse that proves that the "regeneration" is instantaneous or the product of one event.

You can produce verses that prove that the destruction of the wicked happens at the return of Christ - but that is VERY different than the "regeneration".


...manifestly sees the elimination of the old temporal degenerate state, and the introducing of the new eternal glorified one. It is not merely the restitution of some things or even most things as some would have us believe, but (in complete agreement with 1 Peter 4:3-7), of “all things” as the text plainly declares.

Agreed. All things will be restored. During the "times" of their restoration.


This passage is clear in its instruction: “the heaven must receive (or) dechomai (or) detain [Jesus Christ], until the times of restitution of all things.” Just like heaven “received him” (Acts 1:9) nearly 2,000 years ago; it will continue to receive (or detain) Christ up until the arrival of “the times of restitution of all things.” Interestingly, the word until used here is the Greek wordachri (Strong's 891), which carries the idea of a terminus of time and meaning of up until or up to. It is variously interpreted in the King James Version as far as, for, into, till, even unto, even until. The termination of this detaining period – namely the climactic Second Advent – corresponds with the “reconstitution of all things” – thus the introducing of the “new heavens and a new earth” and the eternal state.

Agreed. Again, I refer you to what I said in my very first post on this thread:


The Rookie: No - I actually think that Amils and Premils have the a similar expectancy related to the new earth, where they differ is related to timing (2000 years v. 3000 years), process (finished at the Second Coming after centuries of Jesus' indirect leadership over the nations v. finished after the Second Coming and 1000 years of Jesus' direct leadership over the nations), and the involvement of Israel in that process.

I would think that, if we all actually stopped going 'round and 'round, we would find that our expectation of the new earth itself at the completion or the fullness of the plans of God would be the same.


Christ, therefore, will not appear until the consummation, which is the time when every enemy of Christ and His kingdom are finally destroyed, when this sin-cursed world is destroyed, and the time when the kingdom of God will be finally revealed in all its glory.


Agreed. I refer you again to the above quote.


This is another conclusive passage that supports Amil and refutes Premil. You have 'the restoration of some things'. Your millennium is a sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future millennial kingdom.

Disagree. I refer you to the last 750 posts and threads on this topic.


Again, I feel you are trying to place a square peg into a round hole. Can we honestly say that a restoration of all things can truly be fulfilled and presented to an earth that remains under the curse where sin, death and decay still plague and reign among mankind?

Loaded question.


Would not the removal of the curse completely from a regenerated earth be the only viable occurrence?

No.


Wouldn't that alone constitute the only optimal and fullest possible fulfilment of the restoration of all things?

Ultimately, yes. Immediately, no.


In the Amil scenario, the new heavens and a new earth sees the restoration of all things as Scripture demands. Sin, sinners and death are removed forever. It is the new heavens and a new earth and the eternal state free of sin, sinners and decay

Agreed. The Premil scenario sees the same.


- or all the vestiges of the fall that Premil re-introduces into their supposed future millennium.

"Re-introduces" is a loaded term that presumes the rightness of your system or paradigm and thus inserts into someone else's paradigm.


It can't be the restoration of all things at His appearing as even after a thousand yrs in the Premil theory Christ has failed to restore billions of millennial inhabitants. It is the restoration of a very few things. The earth remains the same as today - no different - it is sin-cursed, goat-infested and death blighted.

I am noting that I did exactly as you asked and provided scriptures describing the process of regeneration. I find it fascinating that you are choosing to completely avoid addressing those passages in their context and instead are choosing to lean on your own understanding, logic, and paradigm of how it "must" be.




Ephesians 1:10 similarly says, “in the dispensation of the fulness (or completion) of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.”The word translated “fullness” in this passage is ‘pleeroomatos’, which, significantly, means completion. The all-consummating nature detail of this reading therefore perfectly harmonises with the repeated teaching of Scripture indicating that the Second Coming of the Lord is the end. It is an event that sees the gathering “together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” a happening that is always identified with the appearing of Christ. The kingdom both in heaven and on earth are finally and completely bonded together forever at the consummation.

It seems as if you are reading and asserting (and inserting) much into this passage that simply isn't there. The rest of your post is more about your system, which I have read many, many times. I refer you again to my original post from above.

the rookie
Apr 30th 2008, 04:21 PM
So in your endtime view Rookie, you believe that Jesus is in new Jerusalem during the time of Satan's little season after the thousand years have expired?

I agree. :)

Now let me ask you, Where is new Jerusalem located during Satan's little season in Rev 20:7-9?

Above the earth.


Jesus said that new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven from God at some point.

Sure. When it comes down and when it joins the earth are two separate events.


This says to me that until new Jerusalem comes down from God out of heaven, new Jerusalem must be in heaven with God. That would include the time of Satan's little season. Is that how you see it Rookie?

Yes. Of course, the particulars of this are where we differ.


When did John see the old earth passed away?

At the end of the 1000 years.

wpm
Apr 30th 2008, 06:46 PM
It seems as if you are reading and asserting (and inserting) much into this passage that simply isn't there.

Firstly, whilst I have taken your posts point-by-point, you have circumvented most of my arguments.

Secondly, I have to smile at this statement. You are forcing a 1,000 yrs millennium into every single passage we consider when it is not there, so the charge that you throw out could more fairly be re-directed back to yourself. There is not the slightest hint of your supposed future millennium, not the faintest mention, allusion or intimation. Nothing! So Premil must import it into every passage.

Thirdly, where is the 1,000 yrs in these readings? Nowhere.

Where, anywhere in the Bible, is there support your notion on Rev 20 re the binding of Satan after the Second Coming - then his release 1,000 yrs later? Nowhere.

What about the uprising of Gog and Magog 1,000 yrs after the Second Coming?

The problem with Premil is that it inserts this supposed 1,000 yrs period of bliss, which we have found is in reality a mirror of our day, into passage after passage.

Because Premillennialism lacks any clear corroboration in Scripture, it is forced to claim passage after passage relating to the here-and-now (Isaiah 2, Micah 4) – the “last days”– and the same pertaining to the final eternal state (Isaiah 65, 66) – the "new heavens and a new earth" – forcing them all into a supposed future 1,000 yrs reign.

You force meanings into these reading that are not there. I think that you need to look into the mirror before throwing false charges at Amils that build their whole viewpoint on supporting Scripture with Scripture. You can't do that. You don't have corroboration. That is why you have to dump totally unrelated passage into this sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future millennial kingdom.


I am noting that I did exactly as you asked and provided scriptures describing the process of regeneration. I find it fascinating that you are choosing to completely avoid addressing those passages in their context and instead are choosing to lean on your own understanding, logic, and paradigm of how it "must" be.

One minute you compare the renewal of the earth to "process of regeneration," the next to a "process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration." Friend, the earth is glorified. It is purged of every vestige of the fall when we are. It is not a 1,000 yrs process.

In God's work with us, we were spiritally regenerated in an instant. Sanctification was a process. Glorification will be an act. The only thing that can remedy the downward slide in creation is the physical visible bodily return of the Lord on the day of redemption. With and by His Coming He removes the cause and continuance of the curse. Moreover, there will be no gradual deliverance/freedom from the fall, as you imagine, anymore than there was a gradual unfolding fall at the beginning. You limit the power of God. His very appearance melts the earth and the wicked. You ignore so much Scripture in order to get one passage (Rev 20) to fit.

Man fell in a moment when he partook of the forbidden fruit; similarly, he will be restored in a moment at the end. So will it be with the earth.

Anyway, your millennium is simply a re-run of this current age with all the bondage of corruption (including sin, death, decay, wickedness, rebellion) not only continuing but prospering in your paradigm. You aspire to an evolving millennium that gradually and increasingly becomes glorious with the supposed continued progressive increase and growth through the government of Jesus. However, when we analysis your millennium it is seen to be the opposite.

Rather than it being a progressively glorious age, it regressively degenerates into sin, death, rebellion and war. Rather than the wicked and wickedness being subjugated, the opposite occurs - they prosper and increase. The Premillennial millennium culminates in the greatest global uprising in history from the four corners of the earth as the sand of the sea against the camp of the saints. Scripture knows nothing of such a process. Scripture make no mention of, or allowance for, any imperfect semi-glorious/semi-corrupt transitional age in-between "this present time" or age and the eternal "age to come." This seems to be in contradiction to many Scriptures.


Rookie, stop fighting with Scripture. We are in the kingdom age now. Jesus introduced it through His earthly life. He curtailed Satan from blinding the Gentiles and now the whosover that believeth can come to Him. He now sits on David's throne (Acts 2:30-31) - He is king of Israel and all nations today.

Paul

Hawk
Apr 30th 2008, 07:57 PM
Firstly, whilst I have taken your posts point-by-point, you have circumvented most of my arguments.

Secondly, I have to smile at this statement. You are forcing a 1,000 yrs millennium into every single passage we consider when it is not there, so the charge that you throw out could more fairly be re-directed back to yourself. There is not the slightest hint of your supposed future millennium, not the faintest mention, allusion or intimation. Nothing! So Premil must import it into every passage.

Thirdly, where is the 1,000 yrs in these readings? Nowhere.

Where, anywhere in the Bible, is there support your notion on Rev 20 re the binding of Satan after the Second Coming - then his release 1,000 yrs later? Nowhere.

What about the uprising of Gog and Magog 1,000 yrs after the Second Coming?

The problem with Premil is that it inserts this supposed 1,000 yrs period of bliss, which we have found is in reality a mirror of our day, into passage after passage.

Because Premillennialism lacks any clear corroboration in Scripture, it is forced to claim passage after passage relating to the here-and-now (Isaiah 2, Micah 4) – the “last days”– and the same pertaining to the final eternal state (Isaiah 65, 66) – the "new heavens and a new earth" – forcing them all into a supposed future 1,000 yrs reign.

You force meanings into these reading that are not there. I think that you need to look into the mirror before throwing false charges at Amils that build their whole viewpoint on supporting Scripture with Scripture. You can't do that. You don't have corroboration. That is why you have to dump totally unrelated passage into this sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future millennial kingdom.



One minute you compare the renewal of the earth to "process of regeneration," the next to a "process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration." Friend, the earth is glorified. It is purged of every vestige of the fall when we are. It is not a 1,000 yrs process.

In God's work with us, we were spiritally regenerated in an instant. Sanctification was a process. Glorification will be an act. The only thing that can remedy the downward slide in creation is the physical visible bodily return of the Lord on the day of redemption. With and by His Coming He removes the cause and continuance of the curse. Moreover, there will be no gradual deliverance/freedom from the fall, as you imagine, anymore than there was a gradual unfolding fall at the beginning. You limit the power of God. His very appearance melts the earth and the wicked. You ignore so much Scripture in order to get one passage (Rev 20) to fit.

Man fell in a moment when he partook of the forbidden fruit; similarly, he will be restored in a moment at the end. So will it be with the earth.

Anyway, your millennium is simply a re-run of this current age with all the bondage of corruption (including sin, death, decay, wickedness, rebellion) not only continuing but prospering in your paradigm. You aspire to an evolving millennium that gradually and increasingly becomes glorious with the supposed continued progressive increase and growth through the government of Jesus. However, when we analysis your millennium it is seen to be the opposite.

Rather than it being a progressively glorious age, it regressively degenerates into sin, death, rebellion and war. Rather than the wicked and wickedness being subjugated, the opposite occurs - they prosper and increase. The Premillennial millennium culminates in the greatest global uprising in history from the four corners of the earth as the sand of the sea against the camp of the saints. Scripture knows nothing of such a process. Scripture make no mention of, or allowance for, any imperfect semi-glorious/semi-corrupt transitional age in-between "this present time" or age and the eternal "age to come." This seems to be in contradiction to many Scriptures.


Rookie, stop fighting with Scripture. We are in the kingdom age now. Jesus introduced it through His earthly life. He curtailed Satan from blinding the Gentiles and now the whosover that believeth can come to Him. He now sits on David's throne (Acts 2:30-31) - He is king of Israel and all nations today.

Paul

wpm, instead of just stating your position again (of which I am sure rookie is well aware) are you going to address the actual passages and points rookie made in the post I followed up with, specifically the issue of the "times" (plural) of this restoration? Just looking at the passage (which is all I am asking for here, without bringing in our own millennial standpoints) seems to indicate that there is more than one single instant in which the "restoration of all things" takes place. To try to say that Peter meant "an instant" is to completely misinterpret his use of "chronos".

"chronos", meaning time on the move, time as before and after, time as the future passing through the present and so becoming the past. From this Greek word we derive such English terms as chronic, chronicle, and chronology. Thus, we call an illness chronic if it lasts a long time. A chronicle is an account of events through a sequence of time. Chronology is the itemized, studied measurement of time.

"kairos", means time as a moment, time as occasion, time as qualitative rather than quantitative, time as significant rather than dimensional. Strictly speaking, we don't measure kairos.

If Peter had an all-consummating, single moment in mind, it would seem to me he would be using "kairos" or some other phrase to describe an instant (perhaps "rhipe", 4493), but definitely not "chronos".

Another point I did not bring up in that post was your response to rookie regarding Romans 8. While I agree that man fell and became corrupt in one moment, I think you're forgetting that its effects on the rest of the created order were not felt instantaneously. Surely there was a process by which the thoughts and intents of men's hearts became "only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). To assume that this happened "instantly" is to ignore the details of Genesis 4-6.

Believers will be brought into a new body in the twinkling of an eye, but to assume that creation will be delivered "instantly" is to, I believe, read too far into 1 Cor. 15 and Romans 8.

Do not read into what I'm trying to say here - I've purposely left out any "proof" points about any millennial view because I'm hoping we can actually address the passages themselves and the details contained therein.

Hawk

John146
Apr 30th 2008, 08:25 PM
Since I believe that the passage is speaking as much about the coming of the Father ("day of God") as it is the coming of Christ, I thought I would chime in to demonstrate that his view isn't such a bizarre thought.

It is a bizarre thought to me if he was saying that 2 Peter 3 doesn't even mention the coming of Christ at all. It seemed to me he was saying that "His coming" in verses 4 and 9 referred to the coming of the Father to destroy the heavens and the earth.



I'm not sure, by the way, why "both" would be such an odd concept for an amill guy - wouldn't you already buy into that? Wouldn't it already be an odd thought that I see the passage as describing "two comings" - the Son first, the Father second, separated by 1000 years? Anywho, v.4 & v.9 would be the Son, in my thinking; v. 10-12 would primarily be the Father.

So, you do see verses 4 and 9 as speaking of the second coming of Christ. That's all I was after. Are you asking why I would think it's odd to think of the coming referring to both the coming of the Father and the Son? I don't have a problem with that, really. The problem I had was the suggestion that it doesn't refer to the Son at all.



You are mixing passages and their ideas with the assumption that your logic is sound.

Silly me. ;)



Was Paul, in speaking of "sudden destruction," referencing the sudden inbreaking of what Peter described?

Yes, I believe so. I would think that if the entire earth is burned up, no one would really be able to escape that.



If this concept is so simple, why did Peter reference Paul's teachings on this subject and assure his readers that Paul's writings were complicated for everyone - not just them? Could it be that Peter wasn't thinking (or cross-referencing) what you are thinking on this matter?

Of course that's possible. It could be that neither one of us is correct in our interpretations, right? It's all a matter of opinion, isn't it. We each try to back up our opinions the best we can with scriptural support. That's all I'm trying to do. They both speak of the day of the Lord and I assume they are speaking of the same day of the Lord so I compare the passages and try to put two and two together.



Your scenario, in linking the two passages, seems to defy common sense.

Um, so I guess comparing scripture with scripture is something that defies common sense? :confused



Will the peoples be crying out "peace and safety" during Satan's "little season"?

Unbelievers will, sure. Why wouldn't they be? They will number as the sand of the sea and they will not see it as being that difficult of a task to defeat the saints because they likely will far outnumber them. I say that because it says they surround the camp of the saints. To me, this implies that they outnumber the saints and not by a small margin. That's already the case today, actually. It will only get worse. They will have no worries because Satan will have deceived them into having that mindset. They will seemingly (to them) be getting the better of the saints and the next thing they know fire comes down and destroys them.



Then Jesus comes with "sudden" judgment and fire, seemingly without warning?

Without warning to unbelievers, yes. I mean, they will be warned just like in Noah and Lot's days but they will not heed or pay attention to the warnings. They will go on about their normal business, oblivious to what is about to happen because they are spiritually blinded. Believers will be watching and therefore will not be caught by surprise when He returns because we are expecting Him to come while the scoffers ask, "Where is His coming"? as if He was never going to come.



The buildup of destructive events in Rev. 6 alone seems to defy that scenario. And, for a people who are terrified by Jesus without warning, the unbelievers of Rev. 6:12-17 certainly seem to be theologically well-informed "caught off-guard-folks".

It seems as if the "sudden destruction" that Paul is referencing is different than the "sudden destruction" that Peter is referencing. Just an observation based on details you seem to have missed - which you've done now with Isaiah 59, 27, Zech. 8, 14, Joel 3, etc.

Are you trying to say that Peter and Paul were speaking of different days of the Lord? I'm not following you.



Are you sure that this is all Peter is saying? What are you basing your "definite" conclusion on? What evidence do you have to be so "definitely" sure about your assertion? Are you implying that there is a 100% chance that I am wrong about my exegesis of the passage?

Does it offend you when someone is confident in their view and they disagree with yours? Can you show me where I claimed that my statement was 100% correct with absolutely no chance at all of being in error, even a little bit? I never even used the word "definite" or "definitely". All I said was that I disagreed with you and then gave my view on it. You can agree or disagree with what I said. If you disagree, I'm not offended. So, let's stick with what I actually said. Do you think that it's possible that the thousand years is as a day comment had to do with the idea that whether it takes one day or a thousand years for Christ to come, it makes no difference to the Lord (even though a thousand years is a long time to us)? If you disagree that it means that, can you give me evidence that it means something else?

wpm
Apr 30th 2008, 08:49 PM
Another point I did not bring up in that post was your response to rookie regarding Romans 8. While I agree that man fell and became corrupt in one moment, I think you're forgetting that its effects on the rest of the created order were not felt instantaneously. Surely there was a process by which the thoughts and intents of men's hearts became "only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). To assume that this happened "instantly" is to ignore the details of Genesis 4-6.


will be brought into a new body in the twinkling of an eye, but to assume that creation will be delivered "instantly" is to, I believe, read too far into 1 Cor. 15 and Romans 8.

Do not read into what I'm trying to say here - I've purposely left out any "proof" points about any millennial view because I'm hoping we can actually address the passages themselves and the details contained therein. [/font]

Hawk

Whilst man can certainly sink in his depravity, there is no such things as degrees of ‘fallenness’ - is either fallen or he is not. That was my point. And I think we have agreement here, the fall came instantly. Moreover, so did the affect upon creation.

There are some absolutes in the description of the fall in Genesis 3 that every honest Bible student would acknowledge. Firstly, the fall of man caused the fall of creation. Genesis 3:17 confirms this, saying, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake.”

Secondly, there is no mention or description in Genesis 3 (or anywhere else in the Bible) that there was any vestige of the bondage of corruption in creation before Adam’s fall. Genesis 1:31-2:1 shows that creation was perfect and un-cursed at the end of the sixth creation day when man was created: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

I think we have agreement so far in the linkage between the state of man and the condition of the earth. What I would like you to consider is that when you look at man's final deliverance from the bondage of corruption, the earth seems to likewise share in its victory. That is what Romans 8 is saying. There is no way of avoiding it. The linkage continues. It is not consistent to believe that there was a link at the start, but not one at the end. Especially when there is clear Scripture to indicate such.

Once again, there is no suggestion of the continuation (or resurrection) of the curse on the new earth after Christ's return - it simply isn't there.

When, then, will this perpetual groaning and travailing of all “creation” in pain, for the expressed reason of the continued existence of the awful “bondage of corruption” within “the creature,” actually be finally assuaged? This approaching change occurs at the one final future Coming of Christ – the day of redemption. You cannot disagree with that. That is what the text says. Premils try to reinterpret it or insert their corrupted Premil millennium in there. It just dioesn't fit.

This earth is glorified as of fire. 2 Peter 3:10-13 states: “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. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 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? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

Christ’s return on the day of the Lord, and the destruction that accompanies it, is said to appear like the arrival of a thief. The whole import of the narrative is the unexpected and climactic nature of the Lord’s Coming. This is a truth that is presented several times in the New Testament – most notably by Christ Himself.

Jesus said in Luke 12:39-40, “if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.”

He said also in Revelation 3:3, “If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.”

He said also in Revelation 16:15, “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.”

This repeated truth reference the unexpected nature of the Lord’s return demolishes the Pretrib belief that 2 Peter 3:10-13 is referring to a distant Coming of Christ (or the Father) 1,000 yrs+ after the Coming of Christ. The fact is, this is referring to the Lord’s one and only future return. Moreover, we can see that it unexpectedly arrives for the unprepared. That is why it is compared to a thief breaking into a house in the night hours. All these reading are an exhortation to watchfulness.

We should note, the original text relating to 2 Peter 3:10-13 is even more fiery and destructive than the KJV wording. It suggests: “the day of the Lord will arrive as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shallpass away (or) perish with a great noise, and the elements shall be loosed by being set on fire, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up utterly (or) consumed wholly. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, loosened (or) broke up … Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, melted (or) loosed, and the elements shall melt by being set on fire?”

The earth (gee) here is the ground, the land, the solid part of the globe. The word katakakeesetai used here in the original denotes complete destruction. It means to be utterly burned up or wholly consumed.

We see in this reading that “the day of the Lord will arrive (heko) as a thief in the night; in the which (en heé)” or literally translated “in which” (the word “the” being absent from the original). The word en is used 2,831 times in Scripture and is overwhelmingly interpreted “in” or “within” throughout. Significantly, it is not translated as ‘near,’ ‘close to’ or ‘close by’ in any of these references. We must pause for one moment and ask an important question, “in which” what? Wherever one locates the day of the Lord we surely know it arrives “as a thief in the night” (or suddenly) “in which” certain things occur. What are these things that accompany the arrival of the day of the Lord?

And continues, “seeing then that all these things (that is 1-4) shall be luomenoonordissolved / burned up utterly / consumed wholly. The old order of affairs is completely consumed by fire in a climactic conflagration in order to make way for the new eternal state. One cannot imagine how the Holy Spirit could have made the awful nature and full extent of God’s judgment any plainer to the human mind in this passage. This passage agrees totally with the all-consummating character of every other explicit Second Coming passage in Scripture; the day of the Lord sees the immediate destruction of the old heavens, elements and old earth, and the introduction of the “new heavens and a new earth” (2 Peter 3:13).

I put it to you that Revelation 20:11 describes the Lord's return as a thief in the night: "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth (gee) and the heaven fled (pheugo) away; and there was found no place for them."

Paul

John146
Apr 30th 2008, 08:52 PM
ANswer, Yes. My opinion? I do not care how many people believe what I believe. I am only stating what I believe, for the benefit of anyone interested in reading it.

I'm not trying to tell you what to believe but it is my opinion that if you hold a belief that no one else you know of agrees with, the chances are high that it's not correct. I don't believe God reveals truth to only one person on any part of scripture. That's my only point in asking that question, but you are, of course, free to believe what you want.



This is entertainment for me. It is a way to have my senses sharpened, and to have my beliefs sharpened, as iron on iron. In terms of salvation, it truly IS a waste of time. However, I am not in this thread to degbate the issues tied to salvation. It is to debate views of the end times and to better understand the opposing views. That portion is not a waste of time.

I agree




You have to admit though, Eric, that debating over what happens to the earth and it's inhabitants AFTER Christ returns is really nonsensical, especially since, like I have stated before, we will not have to worry about any of it. If you are wrong, you are not going to jump ship, it'll be too late then. If I am wrong, I am not going to jump ship either.

I agree. There are certain issues related to this whole thing (whether pre-trib, post-trib, amil, premil, whatever) that do affect our personal lives. Such as when a Christian, who believes in dispensationalism, decides to send two million dollars to unbelievers in Israel (as one man did) to support their cause while not sending a dime in support of Palestinian Christians. I'm just giving an example of how our end-times views can affect our behavior and I have no intention of debating what I just said with anyone.



So, why waste the time?

It's not a waste of time in terms of the ways that our end-times beliefs can affect our views of God and His plans and even our behavior at times. Also, it's God's Word. Studying God's Word and discussing it is never a waste of time even if what we are discussing doesn't necessarily have an actual direct impact on our lives.



I am only offering a perspective that is oftentimes overlooked by the debators locked in the heat of battle. I think that when it all boils down, this is only a matter of what we believe the scriptures say concerning the world after Christ returns, and it holds absolutely NO bearing on our salvation.... or anyone else's. It's like playing a football game or a video game, in the end, it's only a game. In this case, the same applies.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the amil vs. premil discussion has anything to do with salvation, so we should be able to have a passionate, yet respectful discussion regarding this matter and I think for the most part we do that in this forum.

wpm
Apr 30th 2008, 09:17 PM
wpm, instead of just stating your position again (of which I am sure rookie is well aware) are you going to address the actual passages and points rookie made in the post I followed up with, specifically the issue of the "times" (plural) of this restoration? Just looking at the passage (which is all I am asking for here, without bringing in our own millennial standpoints) seems to indicate that there is more than one single instant in which the "restoration of all things" takes place. To try to say that Peter meant "an instant" is to completely misinterpret his use of "chronos".

"chronos", meaning time on the move, time as before and after, time as the future passing through the present and so becoming the past. From this Greek word we derive such English terms as chronic, chronicle, and chronology. Thus, we call an illness chronic if it lasts a long time. A chronicle is an account of events through a sequence of time. Chronology is the itemized, studied measurement of time.

"kairos", means time as a moment, time as occasion, time as qualitative rather than quantitative, time as significant rather than dimensional. Strictly speaking, we don't measure kairos.

If Peter had an all-consummating, single moment in mind, it would seem to me he would be using "kairos" or some other phrase to describe an instant (perhaps "rhipe", 4493), but definitely not "chronos".

Another point I did not bring up in that post was your response to rookie regarding Romans 8. While I agree that man fell and became corrupt in one moment, I think you're forgetting that its effects on the rest of the created order were not felt instantaneously. Surely there was a process by which the thoughts and intents of men's hearts became "only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). To assume that this happened "instantly" is to ignore the details of Genesis 4-6.

Believers will be brought into a new body in the twinkling of an eye, but to assume that creation will be delivered "instantly" is to, I believe, read too far into 1 Cor. 15 and Romans 8.

Do not read into what I'm trying to say here - I've purposely left out any "proof" points about any millennial view because I'm hoping we can actually address the passages themselves and the details contained therein.

Hawk

Webster's 1828 Dictionary says, “Restitution” means; “The act of recovering a former state or posture, the putting the world in a holy and happy state.”

This I believe occurs at the Second Coming. When Jesus comes He puts all in order. He rescues the saints, destroys the wicked, wickedness, rebellion, death, decay and every vestige of the fall. He judges the world in righteousness. He sentences the unrighteousness to the Lake of Fire, welcomes the righteous into eternal blessing. Destroys Satan and introduces the incorrupt eternal This is what the Bible understands as the “restitution of all things.”

The Jews to whom Peter was addressing knew the “restitution of all things” meant a re-creation of the world which would restore it to an Eden-like, pre-flood, condition with the curse removed. Premillenialism doesn’t allow this. This school of thought holds to a new earth blighted by all the various evils of the curse and scared by increasing violence which mirrors our sin-cursed age. In the end the Premil millennium ends up in anarchy, the saints being finally surrounded by the wicked as the sand of the sea. Iniquity has prospered in an age supposedly governed by Christ with an iron rod. This just doesn’t add up.

This is the complete antithesis of what Premils like to depict. However, it is the reality of what we read in Revelation 20. Notwithstanding, Scripture shows us that all rebellion is finally subjagated at the Lord's return.

1 Corinthians 15:22-24 states, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his Coming. Then (or) eita (or thereupon)cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down (or) katargeésee (or abolished) all rule and all authority and power.”

The Coming of the Lord, described in this reading, is here carefully located at “the end.” In fact, the whole tenure of the passage is distinctly pointing to a climactic time in history when God separates righteousness and wickedness forever. It is the occasion approaching when Christ finally presents “up the kingdom to God” and will have, as He promised, “put down all rule and all authority and power.” Simultaneously, the glorification of the kingdom of God sees the destruction of the kingdom of darkness. It is the end-game for Satan and the conclusion of his evil efforts to obstruct the plan of God for mankind. Wickedness has finally and eternally been abolished.1 Corinthians 15:22-24 tells us that “all rule and all authority and power” are finally “put down” or katargeésee or abolished at the “Coming” or parousia of the Lord, which is, as we have established, confirmed in the next sentence as “the end.” The kingdom of God is finally and eternally presented “up,” whereas the kingdom of darkness is finally and eternally “put down.” This all-consummating last day that ushers in the end (or completion) of all things.

In other Scripture we know the coming of the Lord is ushered in by the sound of the trumpet. By clear implication, if the last trump relates to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ there must be others that precede it. Revelation seems to support this weighty inference. Moreover, the seven trumpets outlined in Revelation chapters 8 to 10 are the ONLY set of prophetic trumpets in Scripture.

Revelation 10:1-11 declares, describing the seventh trumpet, “And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.”

The symbolism and authority surrounding this great heavenly angel proves beyond a doubt that it is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ and a picture of His glorious Second Coming.

It continues,“And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.”

The End!!!

The King James Version interprets the passage correctly:

“chronos ouketi estai”

time - no longer – there shall be

The interpretation of these Greek words in this passage is in clear and absolute agreement with their usage everywhere else in Scripture. Those who interpret it otherwise probably do so to explain away the undoubted finality of the Second Coming.

Anyway, the whole import of the rest of the passage perfectly confirms the all-consummating nature of the Second Advent, saying, “when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of god should be finished.”

Paul

John146
Apr 30th 2008, 09:24 PM
When did John see the old earth passed away?
At the end of the 1000 years.

And after Satan's little season, right? Because the judgment clearly follows that. Didn't you say that you believe the 2 Peter 3:10-12 is fulfilled at the end of the thousand year day of the Lord? When does the day of the Lord of 2 Peter 3:10-12 begin? I think you have said at the second coming of Christ, right? So, in your understanding of 2 Peter 3:10-12, the first day of the thousand years is the day Christ returns. Fast forward a thousand years. Don't you believe that at the end of that thousand year day is when the heavens and earth will have finally been burned up and renewed or regenerated, resulting in the new heavens and new earth? If so, how does that allow for Satan's little season? If not, can you explain to me how the finishing of the burning up and renewing of the current heavens and earth would not result in the passing away of the current heavens and earth and appearing of the new heavens and new earth?

ShirleyFord
May 1st 2008, 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1622264#post1622264)
So in your endtime view Rookie, you believe that Jesus is in new Jerusalem during the time of Satan's little season after the thousand years have expired?


I agree. :)


Now let me ask you, Where is new Jerusalem located during Satan's little season in Rev 20:7-9?

Above the earth.

In heaven? That is the only place above the earth that Scripture places the the new Jerusalem until the old earth has passed away and the new Jerusalem comes down to the new earth.

But this really raises a problem for the premil view that teaches that Jesus leaves heaven a descends to the old earth and restores the earthly Jewish kingdom back to the earthly nation of Israel at the beginning of the thousand years. But you have Jesus in the new Jerusalem still "above the earth" after the millennium has expired.

Is it your view like some pretribbers believe, that Jesus physically comes to the old earth at the beginning of the millennium but once He finishes restoring the nation of Israel's kingdom and dividing up the land between all of the 12 tribes of Israel that God promised to Abraham and building the 4th stone temple and re-establishes the Levitical priesthood, then He takes back off to heaven to the holy city, new Jerusalem? And waits it out in heaven until after the millennium (no mention of Satan's little season) to come back again?






Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1622264#post1622264)
Jesus said that new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven from God at some point.


Sure. When it comes down and when it joins the earth are two separate events.

So if Jesus is in the new Jerusalem when it comes down from heaven, will His Coming in your view, be two separate events?

So when I asked you where the new Jerusalem would be during Satan's little season (sine you said that Jesus would be in the new Jerusalem during Satan's little season) and you said "above the earth, did you mean in heaven or hovering just above the earth?




This says to me that until new Jerusalem comes down from God out of heaven, new Jerusalem must be in heaven with God. That would include the time of Satan's little season. Is that how you see it Rookie?

Yes. Of course, the particulars of this are where we differ.






Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1622264#post1622264) When did John see the old earth passed away?



At the end of the 1000 years.

You have already said that the old earth passed away at the end of the millennium and also stated that the new earth would be in place before Satan's little season.

Does the old earth pass away before or after the new earth replaces the it?

the rookie
May 2nd 2008, 04:52 PM
Hey - I haven't forgotten about these posts - just haven't had the time over the past few days - thanks for the patience!

ProjectPeter
May 3rd 2008, 02:45 PM
Do you know of anyone else besides you who thinks that 2 Peter 3 has nothing at all to do with the second coming of Christ? I'm not just talking about verses 10 through 12. This includes verse 4 where the scoffers ask, "where is the promise of His coming?" and verse 9, which says "the Lord is not slack concerning His promise". Does anyone else, besides third hero, understand this to be speaking of the coming of the Father rather than the Son?

Um.... I certainly believe that it is speaking of the end of the reign of Christ. The fact that Peter speaks of the scoffers for all time who scoff at the coming of Christ... doesn't at all discount the fact that what Peter is describing is the purging of this old place we call the nasty now and now. Tis my opinion anyway. ;)

wpm
May 3rd 2008, 04:17 PM
Um.... I certainly believe that it is speaking of the end of the reign of Christ. The fact that Peter speaks of the scoffers for all time who scoff at the coming of Christ... doesn't at all discount the fact that what Peter is describing is the purging of this old place we call the nasty now and now. Tis my opinion anyway. ;)

PP

Good to see you again. :pp

Rookie and Bing argued that the scoffers were not referring to the Coming of Christ, but the Coming of the Father 1,000yrs+ after that. That is what Eric was questioning. Even as a Premil I never believed that or have I ever been subject to this new theory - and believe me I have debated this matter widely since 2000 - when I abandoned Premil. So, I know that most Amils, Postmils and Premils are in agreement that this is speaking of the future Coming of Christ.

Why would the scoffers be talking about the Coming of the Father in the last days when even Christians are only looking for the Coming of Christ? It just doesn't add up.

I see no difference between this new doctrine and Pretrib: both believe in two future Comings. Scripture only recognises one.

I need clarification here, because I have never run across this belief:

Q. 1. When did or will the last days commence?
Q. 2. When did or will the last days terminate?
Q. 3. When is the "last day" of the "last days"?
Q. 4. What occurs on "last day" of the "last days"?
Q. 5. When are the New Heavens and the New Earth ushered in, at the beginning or end of the millennium?

Paul

quiet dove
May 3rd 2008, 07:18 PM
You just said when you were pre mil, (and I am thinking you were once pre trib, but that may be because so many here have stated they were, don't really remember if you were one of them.) But you said


Even as a Premil I never believed that or have I ever been subject to this new theory then you said


I see no difference between this new doctrine and Pretrib: both believe in two future Comings. Scripture only recognises one.

This may be a new theory or view as far as what the scoffers are scoffing, but do not equate it with all of pre trib. As far as I am aware, pre trib that I am familiar with does not teach that these 2 Peter verses refer to after the 1000 years.

Just because pre trib teaches a rapture and a Second Coming and them being at two different times, does not equate to taking these 2 Peter verses as after the 1000 years. Pre trib teaches that the Second Advent is before the 1000 years and that the scoffers spoken of in 2 Peter are scoffing the Second Advent and that being prior to the 1000 years, not after, that in itself separates the two thoughts

ProjectPeter
May 3rd 2008, 07:47 PM
PP

Good to see you again. :ppSame here. :)


Rookie and Bing argued that the scoffers were not referring to the Coming of Christ, but the Coming of the Father 1,000yrs+ after that. That is what Eric was questioning. Even as a Premil I never believed that or have I ever been subject to this new theory - and believe me I have debated this matter widely since 2000 - when I abandoned Premil. So, I know that most Amils, Postmils and Premils are in agreement that this is speaking of the future Coming of Christ.I would disagree with that because I don't think it has to be explained. For years now we hear that scoffing. We hear it today. Until He comes... we are going to keep hearing it too. ;) Not sure that is what they were saying but even if... no big deal. They are allowed to be wrong now and again. :lol:




Why would the scoffers be talking about the Coming of the Father in the last days when even Christians are only looking for the Coming of Christ? It just doesn't add up. Well again... I don't agree with that.



I see no difference between this new doctrine and Pretrib: both believe in two future Comings. Scripture only recognises one.Don't get you there. But I am not pretrib so that could be why.


I need clarification here, because I have never run across this belief:

Q. 1. When did or will the last days commence?When Jesus was here or at least when Jesus was crucified and risen.


Q. 2. When did or will the last days terminate?When that one and the same Jesus splits those Eastern skies.


Q. 3. When is the "last day" of the "last days"? My opinion... we are in them now.


Q. 4. What occurs on "last day" of the "last days"? See Matthew 24/


Q. 5. When are the New Heavens and the New Earth ushered in, at the beginning or end of the millennium? At the end of the reign of Christ.

wpm
May 3rd 2008, 08:36 PM
You just said when you were pre mil, (and I am thinking you were once pre trib, but that may be because so many here have stated they were, don't really remember if you were one of them.) But you said

then you said


This may be a new theory or view as far as what the scoffers are scoffing, but do not equate it with all of pre trib. As far as I am aware, pre trib that I am familiar with does not teach that these 2 Peter verses refer to after the 1000 years.

Just because pre trib teaches a rapture and a Second Coming and them being at two different times, does not equate to taking these 2 Peter verses as after the 1000 years. Pre trib teaches that the Second Advent is before the 1000 years and that the scoffers spoken of in 2 Peter are scoffing the Second Advent and that being prior to the 1000 years, not after, that in itself separates the two thoughts

I was also a former Pretrib. Yes, I know the Pretrib/Premil view. Rookie and Bing, although opposed to Pretrib, also contain 2 future Comings in their theology even though they are Posttrib/Premil. I said, it is similar to Pretrib in my estimation, only there is 993 yrs+ more in their paradigm.

Paul

quiet dove
May 3rd 2008, 11:25 PM
I was also a former Pretrib. Yes, I know the Pretrib/Premil view. Rookie and Bing, although opposed to Pretrib, also contain 2 future Comings in their theology even though they are Posttrib/Premil. I said, it is similar to Pretrib in my estimation, only there is 993 yrs+ more in their paradigm.

Paul
No you didn't say it was similar in that they both believe in two comings, you said

I see no difference between this new doctrine and Pretrib: both believe in two future Comings. Scripture only recognises one.I am simply stating that believing in a rapture separated by a 7 year tribulation from the Second Advent, and a thousand years then between the Second Advent and the New Heaven & Earth is not the same interpretation as believing in a Rapture(of saints)/Second Advent of Christ after a tribulation , then a thousand years- then the New Heave and Earth.

The scoffing in question here then either comes prior to all or any of the three events, rapture, Second Advent, the New Heaven and Earth, except for amil in which case there is only one event including all three.

the rookie
May 4th 2008, 01:23 AM
PP

Good to see you again. :pp

Rookie and Bing argued that the scoffers were not referring to the Coming of Christ, but the Coming of the Father 1,000yrs+ after that.

I made my view quite clear, repeatedly. And I mean repeatedly. The scoffers and the mockers are connected to the false grace message of 2 Pet. 2; and thus, the first thing that Peter wants us to understand about the end of the age is that this false grace message produces scoffers and mockers who have no eyes to see the nearness of the return of Jesus in that hour.

The "scoffers", again, (for the fifth time) are speaking of Jesus and His return. In context to the climactic nature of 2 Pet. 3, I believe that the fullness of the coming of God the Father to the earth is also in view - so yes, I said that Jesus returns to begin the millennium and then His Father comes to the earth at the end. This is not a bizarre viewpoint related to premillennialism.

ProjectPeter
May 4th 2008, 01:26 AM
I made my view quite clear, repeatedly. And I mean repeatedly. The scoffers and the mockers are connected to the false grace message of 2 Pet. 2; and thus, the first thing that Peter wants us to understand about the end of the age is that this false grace message produces scoffers and mockers who have no eyes to see the nearness of the return of Jesus in that hour.

The "scoffers", again, (for the fifth time) are speaking of Jesus and His return. In context to the climactic nature of 2 Pet. 3, I believe that the fullness of the coming of God the Father to the earth is also in view - so yes, I said that Jesus returns to begin the millennium and then His Father comes to the earth at the end. This is not a bizarre viewpoint related to premillennialism.


Yeah well... now you are just being technical! :lol:

the rookie
May 4th 2008, 01:28 AM
Yeah well... now you are just being technical! :lol:

Just wanting to be clear - I'm running out of ways to say the same thing...:D

ProjectPeter
May 4th 2008, 01:44 AM
Just wanting to be clear - I'm running out of ways to say the same thing...:D
No way man... there are at least 101 ways to cook hamburger... so there has to be more ways to say the same thing. Hamburger is hamburger. :D

wpm
May 4th 2008, 02:23 AM
I made my view quite clear, repeatedly. And I mean repeatedly. The scoffers and the mockers are connected to the false grace message of 2 Pet. 2; and thus, the first thing that Peter wants us to understand about the end of the age is that this false grace message produces scoffers and mockers who have no eyes to see the nearness of the return of Jesus in that hour.

The "scoffers", again, (for the fifth time) are speaking of Jesus and His return. In context to the climactic nature of 2 Pet. 3, I believe that the fullness of the coming of God the Father to the earth is also in view - so yes, I said that Jesus returns to begin the millennium and then His Father comes to the earth at the end. This is not a bizarre viewpoint related to premillennialism.



Please list the 5 references? That is the first time I have seen you clarify that re the scoffers. Notwithstanding, your supposition doesn't add up or fit the thrust of the passage.

2 Peter 3:10-13 declares: “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. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 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? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

It says that “the day of the Lord will arrive (heko) as a thief in the night; in the which (en heé)” or literally translated “in which.” In which what? "In the which the heavens shall pass away (or) perish with a great noise, and the elements shall be loosed by being set on fire, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up utterly (or) consumed wholly. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, loosened (or) broke up … Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, melted (or) loosed, and the elements shall melt by being set on fire?”

When Jesus comes like a thief the aforemention will occur!!! Nothing could be simpler. A plain face-value reading of this could come to no other conclusion. Premil have to tamper with this in order to let this passage fit their paradigm.

You have the day of the Lord arriving 1,000 yrs after Peter and Paul say. I find your projecting of the fiery punishment forward 1,000 yrs+ totally untenable with the text. Once again, there is no future millennium mentioned or allowed in the text. You force it in there. This is the only way Premil fits. Anyway, your proposal totally destroys the need of Peter's warning to the wicked that they will be caught suddenly with the destruction described. It is warning (1) of the unexpected nature of the destruction, and (2) what befalls the scoffers when He appears “as a thief in the night.” Peter uses the flood as an example of how suddenly and completely the wicked will be destroyed. They continue in this day (the last days) to scoff “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

Peter says, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 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” (2 Peter 3:5-7).

Notably, Peter contrasts the happenings of this all-consummating day in this chapter to that of the last global judgment that came in like unexpected manner for the wicked upon this earth, and which also immediately destroyed the sum total of the wicked in Noah’s day. He also describes the means by which the Lord will destroy the world this time – at His Coming – as fire. The Lord says the same in Luke 17, saying, “the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all” (v27). Just like the former earth perished with the wicked and was renewed so will this current earth. Moreover, the time that this occurs will be when Christ comes to finally judge and abolish every evidence of the curse.

Peter earlier in 1 Peter 3:20 describes the period preceding the total destruction of the wicked in Noah’s day as “the longsuffering of God.” With this in view, we should remember that once the righteous were brought into the place of safety in the ark, and the ark door was closed, the day of salvation came to an immediate and sober close for those left behind. God’s longsuffering with that generation was finally over and there was no more time for repentance. The wicked and their vain scorn were immediately and totally wiped from the face of the earth.

The delay in the destruction of wicked men in our day is similarly presented in 2 Peter 3 as the “longsuffering of God.” The modern-day rebel must remember that this present day of grace also has a final termination point for the wicked. This is seen in the reading before us. And just like Christ strove with man in Noah’s day and men scoffed and rejected the message of God, causing the complete destruction of the wicked, so it will be at Christ’s appearing. Men mock “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”? The Holy Spirit immediately responds to the thinking of these misguided individuals, saying, “they willingly are ignorant.” Their careless reasoning will alas one day be exposed and come to an end. The Coming of the Lord will see the last evidence of God’s forbearance with the unregenerate. He will suddenly be destroyed along with his foolish imaginations.

In your supposition, they survive the Coming of the Lord and are still in a position to scoff “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” After all, the very thing that Peter is warning them of in this passage is the complete destruction of the old, and the complete replacement with a new arrangement - namely the new heavens and a new earth.

The fast-hastening approach of the immediate and complete destruction of the entire wicked is the unquestionable focus of this chapter, something Premillennialists try to ignore. John Brown, again says, in ‘Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?’, speaking on this passage: “having explained the merciful design of God in delaying this fire, and the execution of his vengeance against the ungodly – by reason of which men flatter themselves that it will never come – he warns such that it will burst upon them when least expected” (p. 276).

God’s punishing of the scoffers is inextricably linked in the passage with the heavens passing away with a great noise, the elements being loosed by being set on fire, the earth and the works that are within the earth being ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly. This all occurs at His appearing as a thief!!

When Peter states,“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness” (2 Peter 3:9) he was (1) speaking of His climactic Coming and (2)referring to “the last days scoffers” mocking the promise of the Lord’s return (2 Peter 3:3-4).

He then goes on to show how these foolish individuals will be finally and totally destroyed along with this current earth (and the element and the heavens) at Christ’s Coming (2 Peter 3:7). After, outlining the awful end of the wicked, Peter then turns to the believer and presents the great hope of the righteous, saying, “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:13). The Coming of Christ therefore brings completely differing outcomes for these two diverse companies. Christ’s Coming will witness the eternal banishment of all wickedness from off the face of the earth. A new earth – free of all sin, death, rebellion and the wicked – will then be gloriously ushered in.


You are mixing passages and their ideas with the assumption that your logic is sound. Was Paul, in speaking of "sudden destruction," referencing the sudden inbreaking of what Peter described? If this concept is so simple, why did Peter reference Paul's teachings on this subject and assure his readers that Paul's writings were complicated for everyone - not just them? Could it be that Peter wasn't thinking (or cross-referencing) what you are thinking on this matter?

Your scenario, in linking the two passages, seems to defy common sense. Will the peoples be crying out "peace and safety" during Satan's "little season"? Then Jesus comes with "sudden" judgment and fire, seemingly without warning? The buildup of destructive events in Rev. 6 alone seems to defy that scenario. And, for a people who are terrified by Jesus without warning, the unbelievers of Rev. 6:12-17 certainly seem to be theologically well-informed "caught off-guard-folks".

It seems as if the "sudden destruction" that Paul is referencing is different than the "sudden destruction" that Peter is referencing. Just an observation based on details you seem to have missed - which you've done now with Isaiah 59, 27, Zech. 8, 14, Joel 3, etc.


I Thessalonians 5:2-7, reinforces the immediate and total destructive nature of judgment, saying,“the day of the Lord will come (or appear or arrive) as a thief in the night. 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. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.”

How you can seperate these two parallel passages by 1,000 yrs+ shows again how you are doing injury to the reading. These mirror each other. I Thessalonians 5:2-7 confirms that it isn’t just Christ’s Coming that is sudden but also the destruction that accompanies. Likening Christ’s return to “a thief in the night” capably serves to impress the surprising nature of this Coming for the lost. It shows that the wicked are caught abruptly in their folly at the apocalypse. The “sudden destruction” is so impactful that none escape. That is explicit in the narrative. Furthermore, we learn that the speed that the pain of childbirth hits a woman will be like the destruction of the wicked. It is not saying that 'the whole child-birth experience is like the coming of the Lord' which would be needed to allow for the Premil understanding. After all, they have to stretch the judgment out over centuries, but it is not found in this text. In doing this they diminish the sudden nature of the destruction.

The Coming of Christ is here (as 2 Peter 3) likened to the appearance of “a thief in the night.” Moreover, the narrative demonstrates that the judgment that accompanies this climactic event is instantaneous and that it involves “sudden destruction.” Its focus is directed fully and entirely upon the sum-total of the wicked, not merely a percentage of them. This group that is referred to as “they” who “shall not escape” relates to the aggregate Christ-rejecting community alive at His return. It is they alone that experience immediate and “sudden destruction” which “cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child”; and “they shall [assuredly] not escape.” This climactic event pulls down the curtain on time and concludes the affairs of this life.

Paul

fellowservant
May 4th 2008, 05:16 AM
Peter seems to contradict the book of revelation doesn't he? when he says the earth will be burned up upon the second coming of Christ;) But he's not really, the earth will be burned up or refined or replaced, but only at its proper time. Just like the resurrection, every thing in its proper order. John was the last man standing, and it was him who God gave the key to end time events, not brother Peter, or even Paul.

Brother Peter wasn't the one to see all the end time events, it was brother John. The book of revelation is what the saints have been given to understand the events to come, not Peters few words on a part of this book, or visions, that John received.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


Even brother Paul had some revelation on these events, but just a glimpse of it. So like i've said before, its best to get your info from the book of revelation about end time events, and not just a few words from one of the apostles, then start a whole doctrine on it. Paul says we have come to the new Jerusalem in one of his letters, but we all know, or should know that what he said was just a prophetic figure of speech. Hyper Preterist use his figure of speech, to further their heretical doctrine.

Peters words about the earth burning up, at the second coming of Christ was likely a prophetic figure of speech as well. If not, it will contradict the book of revelation big time. Paul mentions a coming man of sin, so does the prophet Daniel. But without the book of revelation, its going to be very hard to figure out what exactly they were talking about. Or what is about to come to pass, the whole of scripture must be used, not just bits and pieces here and there. If your doctrine contradicts other scriptures, book of revelation included, then there is something wrong with it. Its best to try and find out what it is, then correct it.

Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.


God bless

ProjectPeter
May 4th 2008, 01:19 PM
Please list the 5 references? That is the first time I have seen you clarify that re the scoffers. Notwithstanding, your supposition doesn't add up or fit the thrust of the passage.

2 Peter 3:10-13 declares: “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. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 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? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

It says that “the day of the Lord will arrive (heko) as a thief in the night; in the which (en heé)” or literally translated “in which.” In which what? "In the which the heavens shall pass away (or) perish with a great noise, and the elements shall be loosed by being set on fire, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up utterly (or) consumed wholly. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, loosened (or) broke up … Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, melted (or) loosed, and the elements shall melt by being set on fire?”

When Jesus comes like a thief the aforemention will occur!!! Nothing could be simpler. A plain face-value reading of this could come to no other conclusion. Premil have to tamper with this in order to let this passage fit their paradigm.

You have the day of the Lord arriving 1,000 yrs after Peter and Paul say. I find your projecting of the fiery punishment forward 1,000 yrs+ totally untenable with the text. Once again, there is no future millennium mentioned or allowed in the text. You force it in there. This is the only way Premil fits. Anyway, your proposal totally destroys the need of Peter's warning to the wicked that they will be caught suddenly with the destruction described. It is warning (1) of the unexpected nature of the destruction, and (2) what befalls the scoffers when He appears “as a thief in the night.” Peter uses the flood as an example of how suddenly and completely the wicked will be destroyed. They continue in this day (the last days) to scoff “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

Peter says, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 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” (2 Peter 3:5-7).

Notably, Peter contrasts the happenings of this all-consummating day in this chapter to that of the last global judgment that came in like unexpected manner for the wicked upon this earth, and which also immediately destroyed the sum total of the wicked in Noah’s day. He also describes the means by which the Lord will destroy the world this time – at His Coming – as fire. The Lord says the same in Luke 17, saying, “the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all” (v27). Just like the former earth perished with the wicked and was renewed so will this current earth. Moreover, the time that this occurs will be when Christ comes to finally judge and abolish every evidence of the curse.

Peter earlier in 1 Peter 3:20 describes the period preceding the total destruction of the wicked in Noah’s day as “the longsuffering of God.” With this in view, we should remember that once the righteous were brought into the place of safety in the ark, and the ark door was closed, the day of salvation came to an immediate and sober close for those left behind. God’s longsuffering with that generation was finally over and there was no more time for repentance. The wicked and their vain scorn were immediately and totally wiped from the face of the earth.

The delay in the destruction of wicked men in our day is similarly presented in 2 Peter 3 as the “longsuffering of God.” The modern-day rebel must remember that this present day of grace also has a final termination point for the wicked. This is seen in the reading before us. And just like Christ strove with man in Noah’s day and men scoffed and rejected the message of God, causing the complete destruction of the wicked, so it will be at Christ’s appearing. Men mock “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”? The Holy Spirit immediately responds to the thinking of these misguided individuals, saying, “they willingly are ignorant.” Their careless reasoning will alas one day be exposed and come to an end. The Coming of the Lord will see the last evidence of God’s forbearance with the unregenerate. He will suddenly be destroyed along with his foolish imaginations.

In your supposition, they survive the Coming of the Lord and are still in a position to scoff “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” After all, the very thing that Peter is warning them of in this passage is the complete destruction of the old, and the complete replacement with a new arrangement - namely the new heavens and a new earth.

The fast-hastening approach of the immediate and complete destruction of the entire wicked is the unquestionable focus of this chapter, something Premillennialists try to ignore. John Brown, again says, in ‘Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?’, speaking on this passage: “having explained the merciful design of God in delaying this fire, and the execution of his vengeance against the ungodly – by reason of which men flatter themselves that it will never come – he warns such that it will burst upon them when least expected” (p. 276).

God’s punishing of the scoffers is inextricably linked in the passage with the heavens passing away with a great noise, the elements being loosed by being set on fire, the earth and the works that are within the earth being ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly. This all occurs at His appearing as a thief!!

When Peter states,“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness” (2 Peter 3:9) he was (1) speaking of His climactic Coming and (2)referring to “the last days scoffers” mocking the promise of the Lord’s return (2 Peter 3:3-4).

He then goes on to show how these foolish individuals will be finally and totally destroyed along with this current earth (and the element and the heavens) at Christ’s Coming (2 Peter 3:7). After, outlining the awful end of the wicked, Peter then turns to the believer and presents the great hope of the righteous, saying, “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:13). The Coming of Christ therefore brings completely differing outcomes for these two diverse companies. Christ’s Coming will witness the eternal banishment of all wickedness from off the face of the earth. A new earth – free of all sin, death, rebellion and the wicked – will then be gloriously ushered in.



I Thessalonians 5:2-7, reinforces the immediate and total destructive nature of judgment, saying,“the day of the Lord will come (or appear or arrive) as a thief in the night. 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. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.”

How you can seperate these two parallel passages by 1,000 yrs+ shows again how you are doing injury to the reading. These mirror each other. I Thessalonians 5:2-7 confirms that it isn’t just Christ’s Coming that is sudden but also the destruction that accompanies. Likening Christ’s return to “a thief in the night” capably serves to impress the surprising nature of this Coming for the lost. It shows that the wicked are caught abruptly in their folly at the apocalypse. The “sudden destruction” is so impactful that none escape. That is explicit in the narrative. Furthermore, we learn that the speed that the pain of childbirth hits a woman will be like the destruction of the wicked. It is not saying that 'the whole child-birth experience is like the coming of the Lord' which would be needed to allow for the Premil understanding. After all, they have to stretch the judgment out over centuries, but it is not found in this text. In doing this they diminish the sudden nature of the destruction.

The Coming of Christ is here (as 2 Peter 3) likened to the appearance of “a thief in the night.” Moreover, the narrative demonstrates that the judgment that accompanies this climactic event is instantaneous and that it involves “sudden destruction.” Its focus is directed fully and entirely upon the sum-total of the wicked, not merely a percentage of them. This group that is referred to as “they” who “shall not escape” relates to the aggregate Christ-rejecting community alive at His return. It is they alone that experience immediate and “sudden destruction” which “cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child”; and “they shall [assuredly] not escape.” This climactic event pulls down the curtain on time and concludes the affairs of this life.

Paul
Thing is though Paul... I certainly wouldn't use that text to prove the 1000 year reign of Christ. Not sure why anyone would really. What we have Peter doing is pretty much speaking of the same thing he did in Acts 2.

Acts 2:17 `AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,´ God says, `THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT UPON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
18 EVEN UPON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.
19 `AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE, AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BENEATH, BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
20 `THE SUN SHALL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS, AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
21 `AND IT SHALL BE, THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.´

Peter wasn't given folks a lesson on eschatology. He was using the day of the Lord as an example of "what godly lives we should be living because this day will come." That was the point of Peter... not an order of end time events.

2 Peter 3:11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.


In other words... my paraphrase... Live right now because how you live here in the nasty now and now is vital. It's about eternity stupid.

Add to that... not sure why anyone would try and use this passage as proof of the 1000 year reign of Christ. As I said... this wasn't an organized teaching of end times events. That was not even close to Peter's point in this passage. He did talk about the end times yes... but it was just a mention.

DeafPosttrib
May 4th 2008, 02:01 PM
I understand 2 Peter chapter 3 very clear, what it is talking about. The whole chapter makes point on scoffers.

Peter used the illustration of Noah's day. While Noah built the Ark. I am sure that Noah did warned to people that the flood will come and destroy the world. People think he is nut. And, people do not believe it will happen. Noah builted Ark, it took him for 120 years to completed it. 120 years seems long to people. That why, they think the flood is delay too long. And I am sure that they made fun or mocked at Noah for built huge Ark on dry land, they think he is nut. But, when the Ark's door shut, then seven days later, the flood sunddely came and took them away without expecting. This is the type of "thief in the night".

Peter told them, water did destroyed whole earth, there were NONE person survived in flood, all of them were killed.

Same with the second coming will be.

Many people make fun at Christians, heard rumors saying Jesus is coming. For many centuries past, it not yet happen, many of them died. People asked, 'where is the promise of his coming?' They have been hear gospel saying that Jesus is coming again for almost 2000 years already. It seems toooooo long time for them. They think Jesus' coming is delay, or, many saying it will never happen.

Peter warns us, that His coming will be suddenly and unexpect like as "thief in the night". God will send fire to earth, and destroy all unbelievers like as 'thief in the night'. There will be NONE unbelievers remain left beyond second coming. All unbelievers will be destroyed or gone, by send them away to the lake of fire at the judgment day.

I understand what 2 Peter 3:8 speaks of. This verse doesn't mean that there will be a literal exactly length time of a thousand years. This verse tells us, there is difference between our thoughts and God's thought, for example, our thoughts that a thousand years seem too long time for us. But, in the Lord's thought, 1000 years is LIKE AS one day. That means, it is too short time for Him. Also, another point is, His coming will be QUICK and unexpecting upon unbelievers as a thief.

Peter tells us, we must be sober and godly live, be ready and watch, not know what hour or day, Lord comes.

His coming will be suddenly.

Also, the Bible is clear teaching this old present earth will be burned away, so, we are eager looking forward for new heavens and a new earth that will be follow at the coming of Christ, not supposed wait another 1000 years later beyond second coming.

And the Bible doesn't saying that this earth will be recreated into new two times in the future. The Bible teaches us this old present earth will be burn by fire at once follow His coming. Then, God will create new earth at once, not twice.

I hope that all of you understand what 2 Peter chapter 3 is all talking about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

DeafPosttrib
May 4th 2008, 02:18 PM
ProjectPeter,

I understand what you mean.

Yet, Apostle Peter did speak on escahtology on Acts 2:17-21.

True, that we must sober and godly live daily all the times no matter what. Because our life is short time, when once after we die, the we shall face eternality destiny. But, also, Peter did speak of day of the Lord is clearly part of eschatology that Peter tells us sun will be darkned, and moon become darked as he quoted from Joel 2:31; and Matt. 24:29-30. This is clear speak of second coming at the end of the age.

Same with 2 Peter 3:10-13 talking about day of the Lord.

Right now, we are in day of salvation - 2 Cor. 6:2. The salvation is still open to all nations to believe and accept Christ. But, when once Christ comes again, the the day of salvation will be FINISHED. Time for the judgment to come. There will be no other second chance after second coming. Many Pretribs teaching there will be another second chance of salvation after rapture. But, the Bible didn't say it. Also, some premills saying there will be another second chance of salvation of "survive saints"(who will miss rapture, will be saved during so called, 'seven year of Tribulation period'), but they will not receive new body so called, "immortality", they will be remain mortal and will be survive into millennial kingdom, to be saved.

Matthew 25:1-13 teaching us very clear, when the door once shut, that means the salvation is done. It will be too late for them to repent of sins.

Second Coming is a Judgment Day.

Also, Matt. 25:31-46 teaching us very clear, there will be already fixed aparted between 'sheep' and 'goats'. Show there will be done. All goats(unbelievers) will be cast away into everlatsing fire follow at the seocnd coming. There will be no unbeliever remain left to inherit on earth with Christ and sheep.

That why I do not agree with premillennialism teaching.

Bible teaches us that we MUST sober live and be always be ready and watch for His coming. If we don't, then we will be end up as thief, cast us away into the lake of fire at His coming.

Can you see or find anywhere in the Scripture telling us that there will be another second chance for unbeliever to be repent ot to be saved BEYOND Second Coming? If so, please show us a verse to prove it.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 4th 2008, 05:12 PM
ProjectPeter,

I understand what you mean.

Yet, Apostle Peter did speak on escahtology on Acts 2:17-21.

True, that we must sober and godly live daily all the times no matter what. Because our life is short time, when once after we die, the we shall face eternality destiny. But, also, Peter did speak of day of the Lord is clearly part of eschatology that Peter tells us sun will be darkned, and moon become darked as he quoted from Joel 2:31; and Matt. 24:29-30. This is clear speak of second coming at the end of the age.

Same with 2 Peter 3:10-13 talking about day of the Lord.

Right now, we are in day of salvation - 2 Cor. 6:2. The salvation is still open to all nations to believe and accept Christ. But, when once Christ comes again, the the day of salvation will be FINISHED. Time for the judgment to come. There will be no other second chance after second coming. Many Pretribs teaching there will be another second chance of salvation after rapture. But, the Bible didn't say it. Also, some premills saying there will be another second chance of salvation of "survive saints"(who will miss rapture, will be saved during so called, 'seven year of Tribulation period'), but they will not receive new body so called, "immortality", they will be remain mortal and will be survive into millennial kingdom, to be saved.

Matthew 25:1-13 teaching us very clear, when the door once shut, that means the salvation is done. It will be too late for them to repent of sins.

Second Coming is a Judgment Day.

Also, Matt. 25:31-46 teaching us very clear, there will be already fixed aparted between 'sheep' and 'goats'. Show there will be done. All goats(unbelievers) will be cast away into everlatsing fire follow at the seocnd coming. There will be no unbeliever remain left to inherit on earth with Christ and sheep.

That why I do not agree with premillennialism teaching.

Bible teaches us that we MUST sober live and be always be ready and watch for His coming. If we don't, then we will be end up as thief, cast us away into the lake of fire at His coming.

Can you see or find anywhere in the Scripture telling us that there will be another second chance for unbeliever to be repent ot to be saved BEYOND Second Coming? If so, please show us a verse to prove it.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Sure he spoke on it... but he wasn't dwelling on that teaching nor was it a letter geared towards teaching on end times. It was reminding them what was ultimately going to happen at the end of time and as a result of that happening... they should be living a godly life etc. That was the context of that passage... not to prove or disprove an escatological view short the fact that the Lord would in fact return... this old earth is toast and everything on it is toast with it. :)

John146
May 5th 2008, 01:59 PM
Um.... I certainly believe that it is speaking of the end of the reign of Christ. The fact that Peter speaks of the scoffers for all time who scoff at the coming of Christ... doesn't at all discount the fact that what Peter is describing is the purging of this old place we call the nasty now and now. Tis my opinion anyway. ;)

Okay, and when does the "purging of this old place" occur? I believe 2 Peter 3 indicates that it occurs at the second coming of Christ. If you disagree, please show me in the text itself where it says otherwise.

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 02:08 PM
Okay, and when does the "purging of this old place" occur? I believe 2 Peter 3 indicates that it occurs at the second coming of Christ. If you disagree, please show me in the text itself where it says otherwise.
Again, and not sure how to make it any more clear, I don't see here where Peter is making a grand eschatology teaching. He is just reminding folks that hey... this time is coming (point being to be aware not that he is teaching them end times stuff) and because of that awareness...

14 ¶Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness,
18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

That was Peter's point and he just very much summarized the day of the Lord to drive that point home. This was not revelatory teaching at all nor was that the main point that Peter was hammering home.

the rookie
May 5th 2008, 02:17 PM
Please list the 5 references? That is the first time I have seen you clarify that re the scoffers.

Well, in our recent discussions, here's at least one reference:


The Rookie: The new earth "arrives" at the end of the thousand years. Jesus "arrives" at the beginning of it. In between is a process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration according to the promise that Peter spoke of. In other words, when He comes He will begin "creating" new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered or not come to mind when He is finished.Now, I see how that isn't 100% clear, so we could add this one:


The Rookie: If you are asking "what is my basis for thinking that 2 Pet. 3 is talking about the coming of the Father to His resting place on the earth (Ps. 132:1-5; Isa. 66:1-2) at the culmination of the 1000 years, not just the Second Coming as many understand it," then we can frame this out with a bit more precision.

If you are implying that I see 2 Pet. 3 as saying "nothing at all about the Second Coming of Christ", then your assertion is off.

I see 2 Pet. 3 as being about both the Second Coming and the coming of the Father, which is not a simultaneous event but is one reality in Peter's thinking - a "thousand year day" (v. 8) that culminates with the events of v. 10-12. This passage, thematically, is a passage about the comprehensive holiness of God the Father - as a rebuttal to the false grace message preached by those who are propagating great unholiness throughout the church in 2 Pet. 2. Peter uses the theme of the thousand year process of preparing the earth, particularly from Paul's preaching, to illustrate how holy God is - and thus how holy we must be - without spot and blameless.

The Second Coming and the leadership of Jesus to prepare the earth for the coming of His Father (as described in the passages above, as well as Isa. 2, Mic.4, and Zech. 8) are one reality in Peter's thinking as it relates to the subject of holiness in particular. Thus, to say that I see 2 Pet. 3 as "having nothing to do with the 2nd Coming" is more than just an overstatement. 2 Pet. 3 has everything to do with the Second Coming as it relates to "His promise" of a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness (the Holy God) dwells with men.Not too long afterwards:


Since I believe that the passage is speaking as much about the coming of the Father ("day of God") as it is the coming of Christ, I thought I would chime in to demonstrate that his view isn't such a bizarre thought.I left off a few of the earlier comments. To sum up, I agree with PP and assert yet again that 2 Pet. 3 is not an eschatological walk-through, but clearly is speaking about the Second Coming. It is also speaking of the coming of the Father. As I said, I would think that an Amil would agree with this assertion. What an Amil would disagree with is found in what I asserted in this post:


The Rookie: No - I actually think that Amils and Premils have the a similar expectancy related to the new earth, where they differ is related to timing (2000 years v. 3000 years), process (finished at the Second Coming after centuries of Jesus' indirect leadership over the nations v. finished after the Second Coming and 1000 years of Jesus' direct leadership over the nations), and the involvement of Israel in that process.95 posts later, I'm still right. What is clear, however, is that you have changed the plain meaning of my words yet again when you stated this:


WPM: Rookie and Bing argued that the scoffers were not referring to the Coming of Christ, but the Coming of the Father 1,000yrs+ after that.What I find astonishing is that you asserted this:


WPM: Firstly, whilst I have taken your posts point-by-point, you have circumvented most of my arguments.While avoiding this (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1621554&postcount=49) post, in response to this request:



WPM: Before I address your last post in more detail, could you tell me what this process of renewal is and how it is perfected? What does it entail? Please advance supporting Scripture.

Could you address the above post before making definitive statements about process and timing?

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 02:27 PM
Well, in our recent discussions, here's at least one reference:

Now, I see how that isn't 100% clear, so we could add this one:

Not too long afterwards:

I left off a few of the earlier comments. To sum up, I agree with PP and assert yet again that 2 Pet. 3 is not an eschatological walk-through, but clearly is speaking about the Second Coming. It is also speaking of the coming of the Father. As I said, I would think that an Amil would agree with this assertion. What an Amil would disagree with is found in what I asserted in this post:

95 posts later, I'm still right. What is clear, however, is that you have changed the plain meaning of my words yet again when you stated this:

What I find astonishing is that you asserted this:

While avoiding this (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1621554&postcount=49) post, in response to this request:



Could you address the above post before making definitive statements about process and timing?
It is like Jesus telling the folks to about doing good things with their alms and worlds goods (here in the nasty now and now) and using a point of what was to come to drive that home (instead store up treasure in heaven where moths can't eat, rust can't destroy, and thieves can't steal). It is only a partial description of something much larger... to make a point on how we should act here on this earth as a follower of Christ. This is exactly what Peter does.

YES... this passage in Peter, with other escatology Scripture can be put together to make the puzzle complete... but it is not a blow by blow account (like Revelation for example) of how things are going to be at the time of the end.

HA! Someone please tell me that this makes sense! I am working hard at cutting down the coffee... so maybe that is messing up the communication skills! :lol:

John146
May 5th 2008, 02:29 PM
Please list the 5 references? That is the first time I have seen you clarify that re the scoffers. Notwithstanding, your supposition doesn't add up or fit the thrust of the passage.

2 Peter 3:10-13 declares: “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. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 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? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

It says that “the day of the Lord will arrive (heko) as a thief in the night; in the which (en heé)” or literally translated “in which.” In which what? "In the which the heavens shall pass away (or) perish with a great noise, and the elements shall be loosed by being set on fire, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up utterly (or) consumed wholly. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, loosened (or) broke up … Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, melted (or) loosed, and the elements shall melt by being set on fire?”

When Jesus comes like a thief the aforemention will occur!!! Nothing could be simpler. A plain face-value reading of this could come to no other conclusion. Premil have to tamper with this in order to let this passage fit their paradigm.

You have the day of the Lord arriving 1,000 yrs after Peter and Paul say. I find your projecting of the fiery punishment forward 1,000 yrs+ totally untenable with the text. Once again, there is no future millennium mentioned or allowed in the text. You force it in there. This is the only way Premil fits. Anyway, your proposal totally destroys the need of Peter's warning to the wicked that they will be caught suddenly with the destruction described. It is warning (1) of the unexpected nature of the destruction, and (2) what befalls the scoffers when He appears “as a thief in the night.” Peter uses the flood as an example of how suddenly and completely the wicked will be destroyed. They continue in this day (the last days) to scoff “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

Peter says, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 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” (2 Peter 3:5-7).

Notably, Peter contrasts the happenings of this all-consummating day in this chapter to that of the last global judgment that came in like unexpected manner for the wicked upon this earth, and which also immediately destroyed the sum total of the wicked in Noah’s day. He also describes the means by which the Lord will destroy the world this time – at His Coming – as fire. The Lord says the same in Luke 17, saying, “the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all” (v27). Just like the former earth perished with the wicked and was renewed so will this current earth. Moreover, the time that this occurs will be when Christ comes to finally judge and abolish every evidence of the curse.

Peter earlier in 1 Peter 3:20 describes the period preceding the total destruction of the wicked in Noah’s day as “the longsuffering of God.” With this in view, we should remember that once the righteous were brought into the place of safety in the ark, and the ark door was closed, the day of salvation came to an immediate and sober close for those left behind. God’s longsuffering with that generation was finally over and there was no more time for repentance. The wicked and their vain scorn were immediately and totally wiped from the face of the earth.

The delay in the destruction of wicked men in our day is similarly presented in 2 Peter 3 as the “longsuffering of God.” The modern-day rebel must remember that this present day of grace also has a final termination point for the wicked. This is seen in the reading before us. And just like Christ strove with man in Noah’s day and men scoffed and rejected the message of God, causing the complete destruction of the wicked, so it will be at Christ’s appearing. Men mock “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”? The Holy Spirit immediately responds to the thinking of these misguided individuals, saying, “they willingly are ignorant.” Their careless reasoning will alas one day be exposed and come to an end. The Coming of the Lord will see the last evidence of God’s forbearance with the unregenerate. He will suddenly be destroyed along with his foolish imaginations.

In your supposition, they survive the Coming of the Lord and are still in a position to scoff “since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” After all, the very thing that Peter is warning them of in this passage is the complete destruction of the old, and the complete replacement with a new arrangement - namely the new heavens and a new earth.

The fast-hastening approach of the immediate and complete destruction of the entire wicked is the unquestionable focus of this chapter, something Premillennialists try to ignore. John Brown, again says, in ‘Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?’, speaking on this passage: “having explained the merciful design of God in delaying this fire, and the execution of his vengeance against the ungodly – by reason of which men flatter themselves that it will never come – he warns such that it will burst upon them when least expected” (p. 276).

God’s punishing of the scoffers is inextricably linked in the passage with the heavens passing away with a great noise, the elements being loosed by being set on fire, the earth and the works that are within the earth being ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly. This all occurs at His appearing as a thief!!

When Peter states,“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness” (2 Peter 3:9) he was (1) speaking of His climactic Coming and (2)referring to “the last days scoffers” mocking the promise of the Lord’s return (2 Peter 3:3-4).

He then goes on to show how these foolish individuals will be finally and totally destroyed along with this current earth (and the element and the heavens) at Christ’s Coming (2 Peter 3:7). After, outlining the awful end of the wicked, Peter then turns to the believer and presents the great hope of the righteous, saying, “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:13). The Coming of Christ therefore brings completely differing outcomes for these two diverse companies. Christ’s Coming will witness the eternal banishment of all wickedness from off the face of the earth. A new earth – free of all sin, death, rebellion and the wicked – will then be gloriously ushered in.



I Thessalonians 5:2-7, reinforces the immediate and total destructive nature of judgment, saying,“the day of the Lord will come (or appear or arrive) as a thief in the night. 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. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.”

How you can seperate these two parallel passages by 1,000 yrs+ shows again how you are doing injury to the reading. These mirror each other. I Thessalonians 5:2-7 confirms that it isn’t just Christ’s Coming that is sudden but also the destruction that accompanies. Likening Christ’s return to “a thief in the night” capably serves to impress the surprising nature of this Coming for the lost. It shows that the wicked are caught abruptly in their folly at the apocalypse. The “sudden destruction” is so impactful that none escape. That is explicit in the narrative. Furthermore, we learn that the speed that the pain of childbirth hits a woman will be like the destruction of the wicked. It is not saying that 'the whole child-birth experience is like the coming of the Lord' which would be needed to allow for the Premil understanding. After all, they have to stretch the judgment out over centuries, but it is not found in this text. In doing this they diminish the sudden nature of the destruction.

The Coming of Christ is here (as 2 Peter 3) likened to the appearance of “a thief in the night.” Moreover, the narrative demonstrates that the judgment that accompanies this climactic event is instantaneous and that it involves “sudden destruction.” Its focus is directed fully and entirely upon the sum-total of the wicked, not merely a percentage of them. This group that is referred to as “they” who “shall not escape” relates to the aggregate Christ-rejecting community alive at His return. It is they alone that experience immediate and “sudden destruction” which “cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child”; and “they shall [assuredly] not escape.” This climactic event pulls down the curtain on time and concludes the affairs of this life.

Paul

Excellent post, Paul. Both 1 Thess 5:1-7 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 imply that the day of the Lord is the day of Christ's return and it comes suddenly, unexpectedly and with finality. I don't see that either passage allows for a thousand year time period (plus Satan's little season) following the second coming of Christ.

John146
May 5th 2008, 02:34 PM
Again, and not sure how to make it any more clear, I don't see here where Peter is making a grand eschatology teaching. He is just reminding folks that hey... this time is coming (point being to be aware not that he is teaching them end times stuff) and because of that awareness...

14 ¶Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness,
18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

That was Peter's point and he just very much summarized the day of the Lord to drive that point home. This was not revelatory teaching at all nor was that the main point that Peter was hammering home.

What about 1 Thess 5:1-7, which indicates that the day of the Lord brings sudden destruction? How does that line up with your understanding of 2 Peter 3:10-12? Do you, too, see the burning up of the heavens and earth as occurring over a thousand plus year time period?

VerticalReality
May 5th 2008, 02:36 PM
Excellent post, Paul. Both 1 Thess 5:1-7 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 imply that the day of the Lord is the day of Christ's return and it comes suddenly, unexpectedly and with finality. I don't see that either passage allows for a thousand year time period (plus Satan's little season) following the second coming of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15 indicates a finality as well . . .



1 Corinthians 15:22-28
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Hawk
May 5th 2008, 02:37 PM
It is like Jesus telling the folks to about doing good things with their alms and worlds goods (here in the nasty now and now) and using a point of what was to come to drive that home (instead store up treasure in heaven where moths can't eat, rust can't destroy, and thieves can't steal). It is only a partial description of something much larger... to make a point on how we should act here on this earth as a follower of Christ. This is exactly what Peter does.

YES... this passage in Peter, with other escatology Scripture can be put together to make the puzzle complete... but it is not a blow by blow account (like Revelation for example) of how things are going to be at the time of the end.

HA! Someone please tell me that this makes sense! I am working hard at cutting down the coffee... so maybe that is messing up the communication skills! :lol:

PP, it does make sense, especially in the context of Peter's entire letter. Rather than a comprehensive "blow by blow" eschatology teaching, he seems to be more interested in motivating his readers to righteousness, especially in context to the coming judgment of false teachers as he states in 2 Peter 2 and the desire of the Lord for believers following their teaching to come to repentance.

In terms of eschatalogical literary style, it's distinctly different than something like 2 Thessalonians, where Paul is clearly instructing his readers about the end of the age.

Hawk

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 02:39 PM
Excellent post, Paul. Both 1 Thess 5:1-7 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 imply that the day of the Lord is the day of Christ's return and it comes suddenly, unexpectedly and with finality. I don't see that either passage allows for a thousand year time period (plus Satan's little season) following the second coming of Christ.
So then when we do have an Apostle that in fact does give us a detailed account of how things will be in the end times... we discount that totally for another Apostle that obviously was just hitting on a few points of how things are going to be in the end times in order to drive home a point of how we should live today? I'm not sure that works with simple common sense really.

John146
May 5th 2008, 02:43 PM
Peter seems to contradict the book of revelation doesn't he?

Not at all.



when he says the earth will be burned up upon the second coming of Christ;) But he's not really, the earth will be burned up or refined or replaced, but only at its proper time. Just like the resurrection, every thing in its proper order. John was the last man standing, and it was him who God gave the key to end time events, not brother Peter, or even Paul.

Brother Peter wasn't the one to see all the end time events, it was brother John. The book of revelation is what the saints have been given to understand the events to come, not Peters few words on a part of this book, or visions, that John received.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Even brother Paul had some revelation on these events, but just a glimpse of it. So like i've said before, its best to get your info from the book of revelation about end time events, and not just a few words from one of the apostles, then start a whole doctrine on it.Can you give me the names of any posters here who have done that? In my view, 2 Peter 3 is only a small part of the evidence that shows amillennialism to be true.



Peters words about the earth burning up, at the second coming of Christ was likely a prophetic figure of speech as well. If not, it will contradict the book of revelation big time.Why would that be? I believe 2 Peter 3:10-12 is fulfilled in Rev 20:9, which I believe occurs at the second coming of Christ "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess 1:7-8).



Paul mentions a coming man of sin, so does the prophet Daniel. But without the book of revelation, its going to be very hard to figure out what exactly they were talking about. Or what is about to come to pass, the whole of scripture must be used, not just bits and pieces here and there. If your doctrine contradicts other scriptures, book of revelation included, then there is something wrong with it. Its best to try and find out what it is, then correct it.

Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.


God blessI agree completely with what you said here. Amils see what scripture teaches about one resurrection of all the dead at the same time (Dan 12:1-2, John 5:28-29) on the last day (John 6:39-40, 12:48) and one day of judgment of all the dead at the same time (Dan 12:1-2, John 5:28-29, Matthew 25:31-46, Matthew 13:24-30,47-50) and see that a hyper-literal reading of Revelation 20 contradicts what those scriptures clearly teach. So, instead of insisting that those scriptures line up with a literal reading of a symbolic passage, we insist that the symbolic passage line up with the more clear passages such as the ones I referenced.

John146
May 5th 2008, 02:47 PM
So then when we do have an Apostle that in fact does give us a detailed account of how things will be in the end times... we discount that totally for another Apostle that obviously was just hitting on a few points of how things are going to be in the end times in order to drive home a point of how we should live today? I'm not sure that works with simple common sense really.

I'm not discounting anything, so what is your point?

John146
May 5th 2008, 02:48 PM
1 Corinthians 15 indicates a finality as well . . .

Yes, it does, and it indicates that the end comes at Christ's coming. The last enemy to be defeated is death. When is death defeated? At the same time as the resurrection of the dead, when death is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor 15:54).

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 03:02 PM
PP, it does make sense, especially in the context of Peter's entire letter. Rather than a comprehensive "blow by blow" eschatology teaching, he seems to be more interested in motivating his readers to righteousness, especially in context to the coming judgment of false teachers as he states in 2 Peter 2 and the desire of the Lord for believers following their teaching to come to repentance.

In terms of eschatalogical literary style, it's distinctly different than something like 2 Thessalonians, where Paul is clearly instructing his readers about the end of the age.

HawkWhew... thanks! I really didn't want that second cup of coffee! :lol:

VerticalReality
May 5th 2008, 03:04 PM
Yes, it does, and it indicates that the end comes at Christ's coming. The last enemy to be defeated is death. When is death defeated? At the same time as the resurrection of the dead, when death is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor 15:54).

Absolutely . . .

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 03:04 PM
I'm not discounting anything, so what is your point?Um... go back and read what I have said to this point... it really isn't that much. Don't know how I could make my point any more clear.

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 03:14 PM
What about 1 Thess 5:1-7, which indicates that the day of the Lord brings sudden destruction? How does that line up with your understanding of 2 Peter 3:10-12? Do you, too, see the burning up of the heavens and earth as occurring over a thousand plus year time period?Paul uses the word destruction and one need but read Revelation to see where John spoke of destruction in a major league way. Sudden destruction doesn't have to nor should it be read as total destruction. And as with Peter... Paul's little bit about the last days can't possibly be looked at as a complete rendering of what will go down during that time... even in 2 Thess. It is just a wee bit of what they know will happen. It isn't a full blow by blow description of that time. Again, like Peter, Paul used this bit to drive home the importance of the main point he wanted to make....

1 Thessalonians 5:11 Therefore encourage one another, and build up one another, just as you also are doing.
12 ¶But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction,
13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.
14 And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men.
15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all men.
16 Rejoice always;
17 pray without ceasing;
18 in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
19 Do not quench the Spirit;
20 do not despise prophetic utterances.
21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
22 abstain from every form of evil.
23 ¶Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In the second letter he was simply addressing a problem with some apparent teaching that the day of the Lord had already come.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him,
2 that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.


And even here... Paul didn't lay anything out even close to the same way that John did. He was just enforcing the fact that the day of the Lord hadn't already come so they didn't need to bite into that nonsense. ;)

John146
May 5th 2008, 03:32 PM
Paul uses the word destruction and one need but read Revelation to see where John spoke of destruction in a major league way. Sudden destruction doesn't have to nor should it be read as total destruction.

That is true, yet that certainly seems to be what both 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 imply.



And as with Peter... Paul's little bit about the last days can't possibly be looked at as a complete rendering of what will go down during that time... even in 2 Thess. It is just a wee bit of what they know will happen. It isn't a full blow by blow description of that time. Again, like Peter, Paul used this bit to drive home the importance of the main point he wanted to make....

1 Thessalonians 5:11 Therefore encourage one another, and build up one another, just as you also are doing.
12 ¶But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction,
13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.
14 And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men.
15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all men.
16 Rejoice always;
17 pray without ceasing;
18 in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
19 Do not quench the Spirit;
20 do not despise prophetic utterances.
21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
22 abstain from every form of evil.
23 ¶Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let's stick with the issue at hand. You can argue he was making a bigger overall point if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he was discussing the second coming of Christ and the events surrounding it. If the day of the Lord brings sudden destruction as he said earlier in that passage, then why would what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 not also occur suddenly rather than be drawn out over the course of a thousand year plus time period?

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 03:58 PM
That is true, yet that certainly seems to be what both 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 imply.Not really ... not when you look at the entire teaching in Scripture of that time. I'm thinking that is how we're supposed to do it. ;)



Let's stick with the issue at hand. You can argue he was making a bigger overall point if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he was discussing the second coming of Christ and the events surrounding it. If the day of the Lord brings sudden destruction as he said earlier in that passage, then why would what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12 not also occur suddenly rather than be drawn out over the course of a thousand year plus time period?Um... that is the issue at hand. What they did was simply use a couple of examples of how things would be in the last days to drive home the point that folks need live godly lives because that day is coming. When you read the gospels... Jesus did very much the same thing and we can put all of that together and learn various things about that time even though that time wasn't the only point or even the main point that Jesus was making.

John146
May 5th 2008, 04:08 PM
Not really ... not when you look at the entire teaching in Scripture of that time. I'm thinking that is how we're supposed to do it. ;)

And I disagree despite the fact that I believe I do look at the entire teaching in Scripture at that time. Are you implying that you think I don't do that? I don't base my entire doctrine on 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 alone. But I believe what those teach supports my doctrine. But that as far from the only passages that I believe supports it.



Um... that is the issue at hand. What they did was simply use a couple of examples of how things would be in the last days to drive home the point that folks need live godly lives because that day is coming. When you read the gospels... Jesus did very much the same thing and we can put all of that together and learn various things about that time even though that time wasn't the only point or even the main point that Jesus was making.

Um...whether it was the main point or not doesn't mean we can't derive any truth from what they said regarding the coming of Christ. In 2 Thess 2:1-2, the day of the Lord is equated with the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. We see scripture that says Christ will come like a thief. Likewise, the day of the Lord comes like a thief. Do you believe coming like a thief is a reference to a sudden event that happens quickly and is over quickly or one that is carried out over a period of a thousand plus years?

wpm
May 5th 2008, 06:30 PM
Thing is though Paul... I certainly wouldn't use that text to prove the 1000 year reign of Christ. Not sure why anyone would really. What we have Peter doing is pretty much speaking of the same thing he did in Acts 2.

Acts 2:17 `AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,´ God says, `THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT UPON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS;
18 EVEN UPON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy.
19 `AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE, AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BENEATH, BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE.
20 `THE SUN SHALL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS, AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.
21 `AND IT SHALL BE, THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.´

Peter wasn't given folks a lesson on eschatology. He was using the day of the Lord as an example of "what godly lives we should be living because this day will come." That was the point of Peter... not an order of end time events.

2 Peter 3:11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.


In other words... my paraphrase... Live right now because how you live here in the nasty now and now is vital. It's about eternity stupid.

Add to that... not sure why anyone would try and use this passage as proof of the 1000 year reign of Christ. As I said... this wasn't an organized teaching of end times events. That was not even close to Peter's point in this passage. He did talk about the end times yes... but it was just a mention.

Peter was actually detailing when the destruction identified with the day of the Lord would "arrive" and the fact it would catch the wicked unexpectedly in their folly. The scoffers would be destroyed in the same way the mockers were in Noah and Lot's day. You can't take any other meaning out of that - unless you had another school of thought to defend. The parallel passage in I Thessalonians 5:2-7 reinforces the fact that this fiery judgment will be "sudden destruction" not delayed or partial destruction as you intimate. The destruction is "sudden destruction" and is so comprehensive that it "cometh upon them ... and they shall not escape."

Paul

wpm
May 5th 2008, 06:40 PM
Well, in our recent discussions, here's at least one reference:

Now, I see how that isn't 100% clear, so we could add this one:

Not too long afterwards:

I left off a few of the earlier comments. To sum up, I agree with PP and assert yet again that 2 Pet. 3 is not an eschatological walk-through, but clearly is speaking about the Second Coming. It is also speaking of the coming of the Father. As I said, I would think that an Amil would agree with this assertion. What an Amil would disagree with is found in what I asserted in this post:

95 posts later, I'm still right. What is clear, however, is that you have changed the plain meaning of my words yet again when you stated this:

What I find astonishing is that you asserted this:

While avoiding this (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1621554&postcount=49) post, in response to this request:



Could you address the above post before making definitive statements about process and timing?

Not one single reference that you presented as evidence addressed the issue on the table that the scoffers were referring to the Second Coming. That was the issue that you tried to rebut me for. I was not looking for the fact you believe in 2 future Comings (like Pretrib), I know you believe that. The issue was which Coming was the mockers scoffing at - your Second or "Third" Coming ? You have still to address that.

Paul

Hawk
May 5th 2008, 06:44 PM
Not one single reference that you presented as evidence addressed the issue on the table that the scoffers were referring to the Second Coming. That was the issue that you tried to rebut me for. I was not looking for the fact you believe in 2 future Comings (like Pretrib), I know you believe that. The issue was which Coming was the mockers scoffing at - your Second or "Third" Coming ? You have still to address that.

Paul

"Third" coming? Whoa. That's a new one.

wpm
May 5th 2008, 07:19 PM
HA! Someone please tell me that this makes sense!

Ummmmm, no. :hmm:

The whole subject matter is the nature and suddeness of the judgment that befalls the wicked.


It is like Jesus telling the folks to about doing good things with their alms and worlds goods (here in the nasty now and now) and using a point of what was to come to drive that home (instead store up treasure in heaven where moths can't eat, rust can't destroy, and thieves can't steal). It is only a partial description of something much larger... to make a point on how we should act here on this earth as a follower of Christ. This is exactly what Peter does.

YES... this passage in Peter, with other escatology Scripture can be put together to make the puzzle complete... but it is not a blow by blow account (like Revelation for example) of how things are going to be at the time of the end.

Your opinion on Revelation is not the litmus test, especially not your take on Rev 20. You need to let the rest of Scripture interpret the highly symbolic book of Rev, instead of letting Rev 20 interpret the rest of Scripture. This is one of the main differences between Amil and Premil. Premils are always asking: 'What saith Rev 20?'

You have Peter and Paul contradicting each other when they are in fact describing the same event.

Peter says “the day of the Lord will arrive (heko) as a thief in the night; in the which (en heé)”:

1. The heavens shall pass away / perish with a great noise.
2. The elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’,
3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.
4. The works that are within the earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.

And continues, “seeing then that all these things (that is 1-4) shall be luomenoonordissolved / burned up utterly / consumed wholly."

It will come unexpectedly - like a thief. Unexpectedly for who??? The scoffers. They are going to get a fiery and eternal wake up. They are all destroyed. This passage agrees totally with the all-consummating character of every other explicit Second Coming passage in Scripture; the day of the Lord sees the immediate destruction of the old heavens, elements and old earth, and the introduction of the “new heavens and a new earth” (2 Peter 3:13).

It is the arrival of this dissolution that sweeps the wicked and their scoffing away forever. There is no second chance here like your paradigm demands. There are no wicked to polute your millenial earth.

This totally agrees with what Paul says. The “sudden destruction” is so impactful that none escape. You have many escaping and repopulating your millennial earth.

Paul

wpm
May 5th 2008, 07:29 PM
So then when we do have an Apostle that in fact does give us a detailed account of how things will be in the end times... we discount that totally for another Apostle that obviously was just hitting on a few points of how things are going to be in the end times in order to drive home a point of how we should live today? I'm not sure that works with simple common sense really.

I am glad you asked. No, John in Revelation (whom I assume you are referring to) totally agrees with Peter and Paul. The problem is, when Amils show Premils that the Coming of Christ in Rev disallows a second-chance opportunity for the wicked (at His Coming), in order to populate the new earth, they also explain that away. So here goes.

John says, “heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns …out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords” (Revelation 19:11-16).

Verses 17-18, saying, “I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven,Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. The loipoy (or) remaining ones (or) those left behind were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."

This narrative graphically shows us that the destruction that occurs is immediate, absolute and total and that, at this stage – after “the marriage of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7) – everyone left behind is completely consumed; the birds of heaven completely eating “the flesh of all men.” Significantly, the suffix “both free and bond, both small and great” is added in order to fully impress the all-inclusive nature of this feast. There are only two peoples in Scripture – the army of God and the army of the devil. One is completely and immediately rescued at His Coming (the righteous) the other is completely and immediately destroyed at His Coming (the wicked).

Paul

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 08:08 PM
wpm,

well saying. Amen.

You know that I am not calvinist. But, I am 100% completely agree with you on end times, how everything will be end up at Christ's coming.

ProjectPeter,

I am whole heart 100% agree with you that, the Bible motitives us that we must be sober and holy life, always be ready and watch for His coming. You did show us the context like, 1 Thess. 5:10-23. Yes I agree with this passage telling us, that we must be blameless and sober life, always be reayd for His coming, because He will judge us, and we shall face our future eternity destiny, where we shall spend.

But, I ask you does this passage prove you of premill? If so, please prove it to us.

Both 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 and 2 Peter chapter 3 telling the same thing what will be happen at Christ's coming. Both doesn't saying there will be a literal a thousand years beyond coming of Christ.

Paul and Peter both agree that the day of the Lord shall come suddenly upon the wicked. Because there will be no another second chance for wicked to repent once after Christ arrived. They will be destroyed.

When once Christ arrived. Then, the eternity age begins. That is the next age to come is eternity. Right now, we are in this present age. The Bible teaching us there are only two ages. The first age is present since from creation to today. Then next age to come is at Christ's coming, will be eternity.

That's simple as what the Bible actual teaching.

We have to accept what the Bible actual teaching. Believe it.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 09:16 PM
And I disagree despite the fact that I believe I do look at the entire teaching in Scripture at that time. Are you implying that you think I don't do that? I don't base my entire doctrine on 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 alone. But I believe what those teach supports my doctrine. But that as far from the only passages that I believe supports it.Well... those are the passages that you are tossing out there to support why it is that you think we are wrong... so I assumed you thought they proved your point. If you have others... then please feel free to toss them in the mix. But these passages, nor others, are going to negate Revelation 20... so we still have to contend with that.


Um...whether it was the main point or not doesn't mean we can't derive any truth from what they said regarding the coming of Christ.Hm... you think? I actually thought I just made that very clear in my last post to you with the example of the many times that Jesus gave us bits of information on the end of days.


In 2 Thess 2:1-2, the day of the Lord is equated with the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. We see scripture that says Christ will come like a thief. Likewise, the day of the Lord comes like a thief. Do you believe coming like a thief is a reference to a sudden event that happens quickly and is over quickly or one that is carried out over a period of a thousand plus years?Sure it denotes a coming at a time when you aren't expecting. That's simply what that denotes contextually. If you aren't ready... you will be sorely disappointed. Hence these lessons... be ready... live godly etc. That is exactly my point. Has nothing to do really with the speed of His coming... just the timing of it. Has nothing to do with Him coming in and leaving about as quickly as He came either. That's man reading into it.

Example

Matthew 24:43 "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
44 "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

In other words... be alert.

Again...

Luke 12:39 "And be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
40 "You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect."


Be Ready.

Now... in that same context Paul uses it. Nothing about in and out in a jiffy. Just that He is returning at a time when you think not... be ready. That way there is no surprise. ;)

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 09:21 PM
Peter was actually detailing when the destruction identified with the day of the Lord would "arrive" and the fact it would catch the wicked unexpectedly in their folly. The scoffers would be destroyed in the same way the mockers were in Noah and Lot's day. You can't take any other meaning out of that - unless you had another school of thought to defend. The parallel passage in I Thessalonians 5:2-7 reinforces the fact that this fiery judgment will be "sudden destruction" not delayed or partial destruction as you intimate. The destruction is "sudden destruction" and is so comprehensive "cometh upon them ... and they shall not escape."

PaulNot even trying to take away from the fact that God's destruction will be swift. Not sure why you would think I was doing that. Again... like I told John... when you read Revelation (more of a blow by blow account of the events to come) one can sure enough see where the destruction is going to be right swift. But then it still speaks of that reign in the 20th Chapter... you can't take any other meaning out of that - unless you had another school of thought to defend.

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 09:23 PM
ProjectPeter,

I am 100% wholeheart agree with you, that we must be alert and be ready all time not know when Christ will come. wpm, john146, and many amills believe Christ's coming is imminent.

But, I ask you, which premill or amill, you are?

Seem to me, that your belief either one is premill or amill is not clear to me, your belief of mill is still flaw to me. So, I would like to know what you actual believe the position of mill, what you are. Thaanks.

By the way, I am ex-premill, also, ex-pretrib too. Now, I am amill and posttrib. I am not ashamed to tlel to people what I believe. Because I am stand what I really believe what the Bible actual teaching.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

wpm
May 5th 2008, 09:25 PM
Well... those are the passages that you are tossing out there to support why it is that you think we are wrong... so I assumed you thought they proved your point. If you have others... then please feel free to toss them in the mix. But these passages, nor others, are going to negate Revelation 20... so we still have to contend with that.

Once again you interpret every single passage on end times in the light of your opinion of the highly debated Rev 20. You repeat the dangerous Premil mantra 'what saith Rev 20'. However, the only sure way to interpret Scripture is with other Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 says, “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.” The foremost consideration when studying Scripture must be to establish the contextual meaning of the text, whether it is literal, symbolic or parabolic, and what and when it relates to. We must also let other Scripture corroborate our understanding of it and shed further light on the meaning of the text in question.

I prefer what Paul says in Romans 4:3: "For what saith the scripture?"

What if your opinion of Rev is totally wrong - which I believe it is? What if it lacks absolutely no corroboration for all its main fundamentals in the rest of Scripture - which I believe is the case? Then that would leave you with nothing. No literal wooden 1,000 yrs (not that it says "one thousands yrs" anywhere - as has been shown on the recent debate on "a thousand").

Paul

wpm
May 5th 2008, 09:33 PM
Not even trying to take away from the fact that God's destruction will be swift. Not sure why you would think I was doing that. Again... like I told John... when you read Revelation (more of a blow by blow account of the events to come) one can sure enough see where the destruction is going to be right swift. But then it still speaks of that reign in the 20th Chapter... you can't take any other meaning out of that - unless you had another school of thought to defend.

Again you totally circumvent the issues Im presented and fall back upon your opinion of one lone chapter (Rev 20) - which cannot abide the many clear passages that show the Coming of Christ to be climactic. One resurrection, judgment, one end to the world and one new earth.

Paul

the rookie
May 5th 2008, 09:41 PM
Not one single reference that you presented as evidence addressed the issue on the table that the scoffers were referring to the Second Coming. That was the issue that you tried to rebut me for. I was not looking for the fact you believe in 2 future Comings (like Pretrib), I know you believe that. The issue was which Coming was the mockers scoffing at - your Second or "Third" Coming ? You have still to address that.

Paul

*sigh*

Okay.

1. 2 Pet. 3 is primarily concerned with the Second Coming.

2. The Second Coming is a critical component of events that culminate with Mal. 3-4.

3. Because of the holiness of God, there is a time delay in the processes related to preparing the earth for Eph. 1:9-10.

4. Once all is in readiness, Jesus "hands the kingdom" to His Father and the New Jerusalem joins fully with the earth - or the prepared "resting place" for God.

I eagerly await your next straw man building project after this post.

Interestingly enough, John the Baptist preached Mal. 3-4 as an immanent event related to the inaugeration of the kingdom at the First Coming (Matt. 3 & Lk. 3) without mentioning a time delay. One could easily imagine you teasing him a bit about his view of Mal. 3-4 at that time as well. :lol:

I'm still waiting on your take on those OT passages that give a clear picture of the process of transforming the land after the Second Coming.

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 09:50 PM
ProjectPeter,

I would like to tell you something about the harvest.

I believe that, Christ gave the simple lecture what will happen to the world at the end.

In Matthew chapter 13, Christ lectured about the harvest.

Notice verse 38, Christ said, "The field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;"

Christ tealls us there are two groups over the world -believers and unbelievers.

Notice verse 28 - "He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, 'Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?'"

The servants of the lord, ask him, shall they go and gathering them up now?

But the lord(Christ) said of verse 29-30, "But he said, Nay(no), lest whle ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. LET both grow together until the harvest: and in the TIME of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

Christ tells us, both believers and unblievers are growing over the world right now. There are almost 7 billion of people over the world right now. BOth believers and unbelievers are growing together over the world right now.

Verse 39-40 - "The enemy that sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the 'end of the world'; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, SO shall it be in the end od THIS WORLD(age)."

Christ tells us, right now, both believers and unbelievers are growing togetjer over the world in this present age. When Christ shall come with his angels at the end of THIS present age, He shall send angels to gathering all nations, but to apart them into two groups, apart unbelievers from believers, and cast all unbelievers away in the fire.

That will be follow at the Second coming, not supposed till a literal one thousand years later AFTER Second Coming.

This passage telling the same as Matt. 25:31-33; 46; when Christ shall come with his angels, there will be fixed apart all nations into two groups - sheep(believers) and goats(unbelievers). All unbelievers shall be cast away in the fire at once.

There will be no another second chance for wicked to be repent when ONCE after Christ comes. It will be too late for them. They will be catch up as "thief", who are not watch and not ready, shall be cats away into everlasting fire.

That what Christ, Paul, Peter, and John telling us very clear what will happen to the wicked at the end of this present age.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 09:53 PM
Ummmmm, no. :hmm:

The whole subject matter is the nature and suddeness of the judgment that befalls the wicked.



Your opinion on Revelation is not the litmus test, especially not your take on Rev 20. You need to let the rest of Scripture interpret the highly symbolic book of Rev, instead of letting Rev 20 interpret the rest of Scripture. This is one of the main differences between Amil and Premil. Premils are always asking: 'What saith Rev 20?'

You have Peter and Paul contradicting each other when they are in fact describing the same event.

Peter says “the day of the Lord will arrive (heko) as a thief in the night; in the which (en heé)”:

1. The heavens shall pass away / perish with a great noise.
2. The elements shall be ‘loosed by being set on fire’,
3. The earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.
4. The works that are within the earth shall be ‘burned up utterly / consumed wholly.

And continues, “seeing then that all these things (that is 1-4) shall be luomenoonordissolved / burned up utterly / consumed wholly."

It will come unexpectedly - like a thief. Unexpectedly for who??? The scoffers. They are going to get a fiery and eternal wake up. They are all destroyed. This passage agrees totally with the all-consummating character of every other explicit Second Coming passage in Scripture; the day of the Lord sees the immediate destruction of the old heavens, elements and old earth, and the introduction of the “new heavens and a new earth” (2 Peter 3:13).

It is the arrival of this dissolution that sweeps the wicked and their scoffing away forever. There is no second chance here like your paradigm demands. There are no wicked to polute your millenial earth.

This totally agrees with what Paul says. The “sudden destruction” is so impactful that none escape. You have many escaping and repopulating your millennial earth.

PaulUm... they aren't contradicting Paul... I mean come on man... couple of verses.... 20 chapters of writing on those days. Surely you did in fact get my point right?

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 09:55 PM
ProjectPeter,

Do you believe Revelation chapter 20 telling us, that there will be a LITERAL a thousand years follow at the Second Coming?

Am I right?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 10:08 PM
ProjectPeter,

I am 100% wholeheart agree with you, that we must be alert and be ready all time not know when Christ will come. wpm, john146, and many amills believe Christ's coming is imminent.

But, I ask you, which premill or amill, you are?

Seem to me, that your belief either one is premill or amill is not clear to me, your belief of mill is still flaw to me. So, I would like to know what you actual believe the position of mill, what you are. Thaanks.

By the way, I am ex-premill, also, ex-pretrib too. Now, I am amill and posttrib. I am not ashamed to tlel to people what I believe. Because I am stand what I really believe what the Bible actual teaching.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
I am post and hold to the possibly prewrath/mid-trib and an even slighter leaning towards pre-trib (heaviest leaning post ) although am pan-trib in that it don't matter what trib any of us are... it's happening when God says it happens no matter our belief.

And I do believe in the rule and reign of Christ on the earth for 1000 years.

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 10:11 PM
For many years, I used to intepreting Revelation chapter 20 - 'a thousand years' or 'the thousand years' literally. I was before believe there will be a literal one thousand years on earth after Second Coming.

But, when I come to Matthew chapter 13; Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:27-29, 6:39,40,44, & 54. These hit me, these telling me, Christ's coming will be climax. All everything will be finished or done at Second Coming. The eternity will be begin follow after the Second Coming.

Bible teaches me, that the gathering, judgment day, and resurrection, all will go together at same time on the last day of this present age.

I don't see anywhere in the four gospels that Christ did teaching on millennial. Because he never saying anything about "a thousand years' nothing.

Also, throughout all 65 books in the Bible say nothing of 'a thousand years' beyond Second Coming.

Some would saying, "Well, Revelation chapter 20 is a new doctrine to the Church after John penned it."

No. I don't think so.

Remember, the book of Revelation is filled of symbolic and spiritual meanings. There are so many misunderstandings & misinterepretings on Revelation.

My beliefs on Revelation have been changed alot since year 1988 to 2002.

Earlier in my Christian life, my intepreting of Revelation shown me that I am realized that I was misunderstanding and lot of errors within my own intepreting.

Throughout in my Christian life, my beliefs have been chnaging dramatically, because I have been reading and study God's Word so carefully and seriously.

The more I realized that I have seen enough there are too many errors within religions include Baptists on Bible with their doctrines and intepretings. That why I eschew men's teachings of Col. 2:8. Let Holy Spirit guide me to listen what God's Word actual saying.

The most importantly when you read Revelation chapter 20. You notice "SOULS" of Rev. 20:4. It means that, saints' souls are now in the heaven, are reigning with Christ. This passage is given the picture of Reigning in Heaven is already happening right now since after Christ's resurrection. It have been lasting for almost 2000 years already.

'A thousand years' or 'The thousand years', it represents that, it is a length time of period. It could be last several thousands of years, like 3,000 or 4,000 years. Who knows? Only God knows when it will be expired.

Later this week, I would like to type on explaining dept on whole Revelation chapter 20, what these are talking about. Or, maybe I will start new topic on Revelation chapter 20 this week, so, we need to understand what these are talking about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 10:13 PM
ProjectPeter,

Ahhh, now I know you are clearly premill. Right?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 10:22 PM
Once again you interpret every single passage on end times in the light of your opinion of the highly debated Rev 20. The only reason that it is "highly debated" is because there are folks that don't want to read it for what it is actually saying. ;)


You repeat the dangerous Premil mantra 'what saith Rev]Tell me this... we've been here before and you made it clear that the opinion of folks eschatology wasn't a salvation issue... and yet here you go again using that "dangerous" word. So what is dangerous about it? If Christ returns tomorrow and BOOYOW!!!! World is toast and the saved go to heaven and the unsaved to hell... cool. Nothing dangerous because there ain't anyone in this thread not making it clear... BE READY. Is it going to tick you off if Jesus does in fact reign that 1000 years? Is it going to be a danger to anyone? If you think that anything I teach or preach would lead anyone to believe hey... if I screw it up then I get a second chance then that isn't going to bode well in the honesty department. The person that reads Revelation in its whole can clearly see a big fact... lots of folks are going to die when the wrath of God starts raining down on this earth. Many that aren't killed by the various things that happen will be ones that took the mark of the beast and those folks are plain toast with no hope. There won't be many that survive any of this and those that die in sin die. Both physically and spiritually. Toast... well done... kicked up a few notches. So please Paul... share this great danger with me that I am teaching?

[/quote However, the only sure way to interpret Scripture is with other Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 says, “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.” The foremost consideration when studying Scripture must be to establish the contextual meaning of the text, whether it is literal, symbolic or parabolic, and what and when it relates to. We must also let other Scripture corroborate our understanding of it and shed further light on the meaning of the text in question. Thanks Paul... why I would have never thought of this before had you not just shared it!!! :rolleyes: ;)




I prefer what Paul says in Romans 4:3: "For what saith the scripture?"

What if your opinion of Rev is totally wrong - which I believe it is? What if it lacks absolutely no corroboration for all its main fundamentals in the rest of Scripture - which I believe is the case? Then that would leave you with nothing. No literal wooden 1,000 yrs (not that it says "one thousands yrs" anywhere - as has been shown on the recent debate on "a thousand").

PaulSo what Paul? Now reverse it Paul... what if my opinion is totally right and you are the one that has it wrong? What if.... (insert your own questions and put you in the wrong column. What if?

wpm
May 5th 2008, 10:23 PM
The most famous promise in our day is found in 2 Chron. 7:14 -

14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 15 Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to prayer made in this place.

Again, I find it noteworthy that, in God's pattern of transformation, prayer is a non-negotiable component. The reason that I continue to include prayer in this little "walk-through" is that prayer is a critical part of the "process" of internal transformation / sanctification that brings us, over time, into agreement with the Lord. It is the manner in which God brings us into His plan and His processes, IOW.


Rookie

Ok. I never considered replying to these OT references as, like all the NT passages you presented, there is not the slightest hint or mention of a millennium after Christ's Coming. In fact, there is no mention of His return in any of them. So they can't be identified with a so-called future time of sin and wickedness prospering on an earth (no different from this current one) after Christ's Coming.

Equally, I feel you are gelling several unrelated passages and forcing them into a supposed future millennium. Let us look at them. I will expalin my thoughts.



The above promise is noteworthy in the manner in which it summarizes the promises of God to Israel in Deut. 28:1-14, which also happens to describe the process of cleansing and renewing the land:

1 “Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the LORD your God:

“Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country.

“Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.

“Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.

“Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.

“The LORD will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.

“The LORD will command the blessing on you in your storehouses and in all to which you set your hand, and He will bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

“The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. 10 Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. 11 And the LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. 12 The LORD will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. 13 And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you heed the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe them. 14 So you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right or the left, to go after other gods to serve them."


This was a promise given to Israel in Moses day. It was fulfilled in Joshua's day. Joshua took the "whole land" (Joshua 11:23).



Isaiah vividly described what this would look like in the age to come in Isaiah 35:

1 The wilderness and the wasteland shall be glad for them,
And the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose;
2 It shall blossom abundantly and rejoice,
Even with joy and singing.
The glory of Lebanon shall be given to it,
The excellence of Carmel and Sharon.
They shall see the glory of the LORD,
The excellency of our God.
3 Strengthen the weak hands,
And make firm the feeble knees.
4 Say to those who are fearful-hearted,
“Be strong, do not fear!
Behold, your God will come with vengeance,
With the recompense of God;
He will come and save you.”
5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
6 Then the lame shall leap like a deer,
And the tongue of the dumb sing.
For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness,
And streams in the desert.
7 The parched ground shall become a pool,
And the thirsty land springs of water;
In the habitation of jackals, where each lay,
There shall be grass with reeds and rushes.
8 A highway shall be there, and a road,
And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean shall not pass over it,
But it shall be for others.
Whoever walks the road, although a fool,
Shall not go astray.
9 No lion shall be there,
Nor shall any ravenous beast go up on it;
It shall not be found there.
But the redeemed shall walk there,
10 And the ransomed of the LORD shall return,
And come to Zion with singing,
With everlasting joy on their heads.
They shall obtain joy and gladness,
And sorrow and sighing shall flee away.


This is figurative language pointing forward to Christ. Isaiah was looking to Messiah. The righteousness He provides (alone) endows us with holiness.

John the Baptist introduced Him:

Isaiah 40:3-5 prohesies: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

Was John going to bulldoze the mountains and raise up the vallies? I don't think so. This was figurative language.

John 1:23-30 Confirms: "He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me."

Jesus Himself said, in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”



Ezekiel described the same thing in Ezekiel 47:

7 When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other. 8 Then he said to me: “This water flows toward the eastern region, goes down into the valley, and enters the sea. When it reaches the sea, its waters are healed. 9 And it shall be that every living thing that moves, wherever the rivers go, will live. There will be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters go there; for they will be healed, and everything will live wherever the river goes. 10 It shall be that fishermen will stand by it from En Gedi to En Eglaim; they will be places for spreading their nets. Their fish will be of the same kinds as the fish of the Great Sea, exceedingly many. 11 But its swamps and marshes will not be healed; they will be given over to salt. 12 Along the bank of the river, on this side and that, will grow all kinds of trees used for food; their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine.”


This spiritual blessing that was again promised to Israelis. Some experienced hit, some didn't. However, Ezekiel 40-47 is a detailed conditional vision; it was not some distant prophecy. The prophet Ezekiel was taken up in the Spirit and given a revelation of better things than that was actually prevailing when he received it.

Ezekiel 40:2 confirms, “In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.”

In the vision Ezekiel witnessed greater things than what was around him. Ezekiel 43:2-5 records, “behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory. And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.”

Here we see the careful connection between the visions and Ezekiel being taken up in the Spirit. The prophet is supernaturally carried into situations that clearly did not exist at that time they were revealed to him. In reality, the temple was in ruin and the glory of the Lord had departed from the house of God. Notwithstanding, in the visions, “the glory of the LORD came into the house.” Ezekiel was so overwhelmed by what he saw in the Spirit that that we learn, he “fell upon” his “face.”

Ezekiel 43:10 basically outlines the value and purpose of the vision of the temple, saying, “Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.”

God was making a genuine offer to Israel if they would only repent. They didn't and they never entered into the reality of that offer. God essentially shows Israel a picture of what could be if they would only turn from their sin and rebellion. It was a promise of better things if only they would submit to God’s demands. It involved an improved arrangement to what existed at the time of the proposal. It was essentially a mirror that God set up in Ezekiel’s day to allow Israel to see how far (even in that day) they fell short of the old covenant requirements. It was to let Israel compare themselves and their practices against this vision of what God desired for them. God has always instructed Israel in the ideal yet they always fell short. Israel usually failed to adhere to God's conditions. In this situatuation God’s gracious provision did not materialise.



Rev. 22 assures us that this progressive healing of the land is yet future:

1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


Are you locating this bliss to your millennial earth now? I though this came after the millennium?

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 10:23 PM
Again you totally circumvent the issues Im presented and fall back upon your opinion of one lone chapter (Rev 20) - which cannot abide the many clear passages that show the Coming of Christ to be climactic. One resurrection, judgment, one end to the world and one new earth.

PaulActually... that is your opinion that I am doing that. Actually... I have made my case as has therookie his case and we are only doing as you accuse because we aren't agreeing with WPM. Funny how that works eh?

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 10:28 PM
ProjectPeter,

You say, you are more likely close as posttrib, but you say, you are pantrib.

I respect your belief.

Too many Christians are pantribs out there today. Nothing wrong with their belief.

But, when we come to the Word of God. Does the Bible actual teaching us that Christ's coming will be multiplies of times? If so, there will be several different plans of salvation in the future?

That why I eschew Dispensationalism teaching. Because it teaches there are different plans of salvation in the future.

But, the Bible teaching us there is only one plan of salvation throughout times from creation to end. The only one plan of salvation is by base upon faith only. You know that I believe in conditional salvation like you.

Bible is very clear teaching us that we are present in this age that the salvation is still open to all nations according 2 Cor. 6:2.

When once Christ comes to earth, then the salvation is done. Time for the judgment the world. The next age to come is eternity. That why all of us must make decision for our future everlasting destiny where I will spend after I die or Christ comes- right now. Once we die, then it is finished. Our everlasting destiny will be fixed upon us after we die. Or, when once Christ comes, then our everlasting destiny will be already fixed.

The Bible is very clear teaching us that, there will be no another second chance for a person to repent when once after Christ comes. It will be DONE.

Matthew 25:1-13 teaches us very clear, when the door once shut means it is FINISHED. There will be no another second chance for fool virgins(lost person) to repent.

Use our common sense, The Judgment Day will come by follow at the Second Coming same time.

Matthew 25:31-46 is very clear loud telling us enough that there will be ONE Judgment Day for the world follow at the Second Coming same time.

Bible doesn't teaching us that Christ will come 2 or 3 times. Heb. 9:28 tells us Christ shall come again again at once.

So, there is no pantrib rapture in the Bible.

Bible teaching us that we are already in "tribulations" - John 16:33; Acts 14:22; and Matt. 24:29.

Christ will come by follow after the tribulations.

It is very clear posttribulational in the Bible.

That why I am posttrib, and amill, because of what the Bible actual say so.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

wpm
May 5th 2008, 10:37 PM
Actually... that is your opinion that I am doing that. Actually... I have made my case as has therookie his case and we are only doing as you accuse because we aren't agreeing with WPM. Funny how that works eh?

From what I am seeing, you are not addressing the query of the thread. I would be more than happy to address Rev 20 and would happily start a new thread exegeting it. I believe that I could show that only an Amil approach to it fits and is corroborated by other Scripture. If you are up for it, the debate can begin. However, the subject here is: "Am I right? Amils and Premil seem to differ in their expectancy of the new earth?"

Whilst the answer to this question may include an analyse of Rev 20, I don't feel Premils are getting to the centre of my enquiry.

Paul

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 10:38 PM
ProjectPeter,

You say,


The only reason that it is "highly debated" is because there are forks that don't want to read it for what it is actually saying. ;)

You make me laugh. No, not always true.

None of amills saying that. Many amills are wholeheartly agree and read throughout whole Revelation chapter 20. They understand it very clear.

Understand, both amills and premills are interpreting Revelation chapter 20 differently.

Premills always stress on 'a thousand years' or 'the thousand years' are literal length exactly numbered of years.

I was one of premills before for long time.

Later this week, I am consider of going to start new topic on Revelation chapter 20, to explain on every verse by verse throughout whole chapter , what it is all talking about.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 10:40 PM
ProjectPeter,

I would like to tell you something about the harvest.

I believe that, Christ gave the simple lecture what will happen to the world at the end.

In Matthew chapter 13, Christ lectured about the harvest.

Notice verse 38, Christ said, "The field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;"

Christ tealls us there are two groups over the world -believers and unbelievers.

Notice verse 28 - "He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, 'Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?'"

The servants of the lord, ask him, shall they go and gathering them up now?

But the lord(Christ) said of verse 29-30, "But he said, Nay(no), lest whle ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. LET both grow together until the harvest: and in the TIME of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

Christ tells us, both believers and unblievers are growing over the world right now. There are almost 7 billion of people over the world right now. BOth believers and unbelievers are growing together over the world right now.

Verse 39-40 - "The enemy that sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the 'end of the world'; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, SO shall it be in the end od THIS WORLD(age)."

Christ tells us, right now, both believers and unbelievers are growing togetjer over the world in this present age. When Christ shall come with his angels at the end of THIS present age, He shall send angels to gathering all nations, but to apart them into two groups, apart unbelievers from believers, and cast all unbelievers away in the fire.

That will be follow at the Second coming, not supposed till a literal one thousand years later AFTER Second Coming.

This passage telling the same as Matt. 25:31-33; 46; when Christ shall come with his angels, there will be fixed apart all nations into two groups - sheep(believers) and goats(unbelievers). All unbelievers shall be cast away in the fire at once.

There will be no another second chance for wicked to be repent when ONCE after Christ comes. It will be too late for them. They will be catch up as "thief", who are not watch and not ready, shall be cats away into everlasting fire.

That what Christ, Paul, Peter, and John telling us very clear what will happen to the wicked at the end of this present age.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
You'll have to follow the post that TheRookie posted from Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. etc... might be some differing view but by and large we're on the same sheet of music. It is getting close enough to my study time that I'm not going to go into all of that. Been here, done that long enough to know that I am not going to convince most folks but it is there for those interested in my view of this. They have a Bible and can read it and make their own decision.

I understand what Jesus said. What He said alone freaked them out... imagine if Jesus would have related the vision Jesus later gave to John back in that day when those boys were still trying to figure out how it was that they were going to do some things like "forgive their brother from the heart 70 times times 7. I'm sort of thinking that they'd of not handled it well. ;)

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 10:42 PM
ProjectPeter,

You say, you are more likely close as posttrib, but you say, you are pantrib.

I respect your belief.

Too many Christians are pantribs out there today. Nothing wrong with their belief.

But, when we come to the Word of God. Does the Bible actual teaching us that Christ's coming will be multiplies of times? If so, there will be several different plans of salvation in the future?

That why I eschew Dispensationalism teaching. Because it teaches there are different plans of salvation in the future.

But, the Bible teaching us there is only one plan of salvation throughout times from creation to end. The only one plan of salvation is by base upon faith only. You know that I believe in conditional salvation like you.

Bible is very clear teaching us that we are present in this age that the salvation is still open to all nations according 2 Cor. 6:2.

When once Christ comes to earth, then the salvation is done. Time for the judgment the world. The next age to come is eternity. That why all of us must make decision for our future everlasting destiny where I will spend after I die or Christ comes- right now. Once we die, then it is finished. Our everlasting destiny will be fixed upon us after we die. Or, when once Christ comes, then our everlasting destiny will be already fixed.

The Bible is very clear teaching us that, there will be no another second chance for a person to repent when once after Christ comes. It will be DONE.

Matthew 25:1-13 teaches us very clear, when the door once shut means it is FINISHED. There will be no another second chance for fool virgins(lost person) to repent.

Use our common sense, The Judgment Day will come by follow at the Second Coming same time.

Matthew 25:31-46 is very clear loud telling us enough that there will be ONE Judgment Day for the world follow at the Second Coming same time.

Bible doesn't teaching us that Christ will come 2 or 3 times. Heb. 9:28 tells us Christ shall come again again at once.

So, there is no pantrib rapture in the Bible.

Bible teaching us that we are already in "tribulations" - John 16:33; Acts 14:22; and Matt. 24:29.

Christ will come by follow after the tribulations.

It is very clear posttribulational in the Bible.

That why I am posttrib, and amill, because of what the Bible actual say so.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
You'll search UNTIL Jesus comes looking for where I have ever said He comes back 3 or 4 times... and you still won't find any such thing. What is it that folks like slinging around in this thread... "that is your opinion" on what I am saying. Rest assured... your opinion of what I am saying is as wrong as rain is wet. ;)

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 10:42 PM
Hey, when wpm started this topic or thread. He is discuss about a new earth.

I ask you all, does the Bible saying anything that this present planet earth will be burned by fire in the future - TWO TIMES?? If so, please show us a clear verse to prove us. Thanks.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

wpm
May 5th 2008, 10:44 PM
PP



You repeat the dangerous Premil mantra 'what saith Rev]Tell me this... we've been here before and you made it clear that the opinion of folks eschatology wasn't a salvation issue... and yet here you go again using that "dangerous" word. So what is dangerous about it? If Christ returns tomorrow and BOOYOW!!!! World is toast and the saved go to heaven and the unsaved to hell... cool. Nothing dangerous because there ain't anyone in this thread not making it clear... BE READY. Is it going to tick you off if Jesus does in fact reign that 1000 years? Is it going to be a danger to anyone? If you think that anything I teach or preach would lead anyone to believe hey... if I screw it up then I get a second chance then that isn't going to bode well in the honesty department. The person that reads Revelation in its whole can clearly see a big fact... lots of folks are going to die when the wrath of God starts raining down on this earth. Many that aren't killed by the various things that happen will be ones that took the mark of the beast and those folks are plain toast with no hope. There won't be many that survive any of this and those that die in sin die. Both physically and spiritually. Toast... well done... kicked up a few notches. So please Paul... share this great danger with me that I am teaching?


So, who enters into this future millenium and what is their warrant to inhabit the millennial earth?

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 10:45 PM
Hey, when wpm started this topic or thread. He is discuss about a new earth.

I ask you all, does the Bible saying anything that this present planet earth will be burned by fire in the future - TWO TIMES?? If so, please show us a clear verse to prove us. Thanks.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Only once. At the end of the rule and reign of Christ. ;)

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 10:46 PM
Look at my favorite verse - Rev. 22:20 - says, "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I COME quickly. Amen Even so, COME, Lord Jesus."

Tell me, how many times Christ will come again in the future?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 10:48 PM
ProjectPeter,

You say,


Only once. At the end of the rule and reign of Christ. ;)

So, isn't Christ yet reign right now?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 10:52 PM
PP



So, who enters into this future millenium and what is their warrant to inhabit the millennial earth?

Paul
It ain't about "entering" it. It is earth... right here... not a different place to enter. No where in Revelation does it speak of Jesus coming to earth and slaying all the folks thus sending them to hell and getting the game on. One could clearly get that from the few verses that Peter and Paul wrote sure... but then one is going to have to explain away a lot of Revelation. No real need to go into the Old Testament prophecies since you figure those already a done deal anyway... but Revelation gives you fits enough and that is why you guys have to explain it away as pretty much ALL allegory and etc.

Hey.... if a person thinks the Old Testament prophets no longer have any prophetic value then there you go... you'll believe that until we find out if you are right or wrong. That is a person that certainly isn't going to understand much of anything that I would say on this matter. That is a pretty big separating factor in and of itself... so since this isn't going to effect your salvation or any other person reading... they can make their call. If they are ready then in the end it's all good and none of this matters a whit.

wpm
May 5th 2008, 10:52 PM
Actually... that is your opinion that I am doing that. Actually... I have made my case as has therookie his case and we are only doing as you accuse because we aren't agreeing with WPM. Funny how that works eh?

If I was building my whole theological edifice on one lone passage then yes it would be an opinion - that was the point I was trying to make. If I was viewing every plain text in Scripture in the light of Rev 20 then that would be a debatable opinion. But I use many clear and explicit face-value texts taken in context that show a general resurrection/judgment (devoid of and 1,000 yrs mention) that indicate a climactic and destructive end to the wicked, all wickedness and this sin-cursed earth when Jesus comes.

I don't deny that there are different schools of thought and that that is a legitimate right - that is obvious. :)

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 10:54 PM
Look at my favorite verse - Rev. 22:20 - says, "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I COME quickly. Amen Even so, COME, Lord Jesus."

Tell me, how many times Christ will come again in the future?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!Honestly... to continue on as if we are saying that Jesus comes back more than once again... that is very short of honesty. We've both explained that already and if you want to ignore it then fine. But to try and make this sound as if something we are saying when we are no such thing... that is just dishonest. It does no good to continue trying to beat that dead horse since that horse don't even exist anyway.

wpm
May 5th 2008, 10:54 PM
No real need to go into the Old Testament prophecies since you figure those already a done deal anyway...

Hey.... if a person thinks the Old Testament prophets no longer have any prophetic value then there you go... you'll believe that until we find out if you are right or wrong.

When did I ever say this? :rolleyes:

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 11:04 PM
If I was building my whole theological edifice on one lone passage then yes it would be an opinion - that was the point I was trying to make. If I was viewing every plain text in Scripture in the light of Rev 20 then that would be a debatable opinion. But I use many clear and explicit face-value texts taken in context that show a general resurrection/judgment (devoid of and 1,000 yrs mention) that indicate a climactic and destructive end to the wicked, all wickedness and this sin-cursed earth when Jesus comes.

I don't deny that there are different schools of thought and that that is a legitimate right - that is obvious. :)

PaulThat it is a "legitimate right" and that you "don't deny there are different schools of thought" in fact shows you circumventing my question your own self. I asked you what was "dangerous" about what I am saying and you have yet to answer that and it was in fact a word that you used in describing what I said. The only thing dangerous about it would be if that I believed it could send someone to hell. There is no other "dangerous" that matters. So what part of this belief in the reign of Christ on earth (you are standing in judgment of a lot of folks) is going to send a person to hell for believing this?

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 11:05 PM
ProjectPeter,

You say to wpm,


It ain't about "entering" it. It is earth...right here...not a different place to enter.

We have to read Matthew 25:31-46.

When Christ shall come with his angels. Angels will gathering all nations and apart them into two groups - believers and unbelievers.

Notice verse 41 says, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand. Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Christ will saying to unbelievers, that htey shall depart from him, send them away into everlasting fire(lake of fire) with Satan and fallen angels. That will be at Second Coming, not supposed literal one thousand years later after His coming.

Also, in verse 46 says, "And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT: but the righteous into life eternal."

Christ tells us, all unbelievers shall go away into everlasting punishment in the lake of fire, and other rest of all believers shall have eternal life.

Matthew 25:31-46 is very clear speak of Great White Throne will be bring down to the all nations by follow at the coming of Christ, not supposed literal one thousand years later after His coming.

All unbelievers shall not be survived to enter into on new earth after the Judgment Day follow at Christ's coming. All ubelievers will be cast away into lake of fire. Only all faithful believers shall enter eternal life on new earth after the Judgment Day follow at Christ's coming.

That what the Bible is clear teaching us.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 11:06 PM
When did I ever say this? :rolleyes:

Paul
You believe that there are still Old Testament prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled in regard to the last days? That would be cool but you'd be about the funniest Amil guy that I have ever known. :lol:

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 11:06 PM
ProjectPeter,

What I ignore it?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 5th 2008, 11:10 PM
ProjectPeter,

You say to wpm,



We have to read Matthew 25:31-46.

When Christ shall come with his angels. Angels will gathering all nations and apart them into two groups - believers and unbelievers.

Notice verse 41 says, "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand. Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Christ will saying to unbelievers, that htey shall depart from him, send them away into everlasting fire(lake of fire) with Satan and fallen angels. That will be at Second Coming, not supposed literal one thousand years later after His coming.

Also, in verse 46 says, "And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT: but the righteous into life eternal."

Christ tells us, all unbelievers shall go away into everlasting punishment in the lake of fire, and other rest of all believers shall have eternal life.

Matthew 25:31-46 is very clear speak of Great White Throne will be bring down to the all nations by follow at the coming of Christ, not supposed literal one thousand years later after His coming.

All unbelievers shall not be survived to enter into on new earth after the Judgment Day follow at Christ's coming. All ubelievers will be cast away into lake of fire. Only all faithful believers shall enter eternal life on new earth after the Judgment Day follow at Christ's coming.

That what the Bible is clear teaching us.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
Matthew 25:31 ¶"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32 "And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

And where did Jesus come to? Where is this throne? Hard to do that on a burned up earth and hard to judge folks on the earth who aren't on the earth. There will be no nations once the nations are destroyed. Only soul by soul by soul. Many lost... few found.

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 11:14 PM
ProjectPeter,

Isn't 'the throne' of Matt. 25:31 same as 'a great white throne' of Rev. 20:11?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

Hawk
May 5th 2008, 11:44 PM
ProjectPeter,

Isn't 'the throne' of Matt. 25:31 same as 'a great white throne' of Rev. 20:11?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

No. Jesus sits on the throne in Matthew 25:31 and the Father sits on the throne of Rev. 20:11.

DeafPosttrib
May 5th 2008, 11:46 PM
Hawk,

Isn't Jesus, God?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

ProjectPeter
May 6th 2008, 12:37 AM
ProjectPeter,

Isn't 'the throne' of Matt. 25:31 same as 'a great white throne' of Rev. 20:11?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
It doesn't say that does it? I'm not completely fluent in the Greek... but I miss that in the many translations. Mind you I am being technical a bit here and in honesty... doing some of that just for the sport of it. ;)

Hawk
May 6th 2008, 01:22 AM
Hawk,

Isn't Jesus, God?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

Absolutely.

But Matthew 25 says that the "Son of Man" will sit on the throne of His glory, and then Rev. 20 makes a distinction between "God" and "Christ" only a few verses before 20:11.

“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.”
(Matt. 25:31, NKJV)

“Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.”
(Rev. 20:6,11-12, NKJV)

Anyways, I don't want to to derail this thread - but it's an important eschatalogical distinction to note.

Hawk

DeafPosttrib
May 6th 2008, 01:39 AM
Hawk,

I will reply back to you tomorrow. Because I have to go to work - 3rd shift tonight.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

the rookie
May 6th 2008, 04:18 AM
This has to be your strangest reply yet - mostly because you make a bunch of assertions and declarative statements but don't really back them up or prove them. Some call that either "deductive reasoning" or "assuming what you are trying to prove". You pick. Case in point:

This is the deduction:




Equally, I feel you are gelling several unrelated passages and forcing them into a supposed future millennium. Let us look at them. I will expalin my thoughts.

Here is the first thought:


This was a promise given to Israel in Moses day. It was fulfilled in Joshua's day. Joshua took the "whole land" (Joshua 11:23). Here is Joshua 11:23, for the curious:

23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD had said to Moses; and Joshua gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. Then the land rested from war.

Supposedly, this is the "fulfillment" of the Deut. 28 blessings and cursings of God related to obedience and disobedience. According to wpm, this "obedience" supposedly "fulfilling" the blessings of God, which include the following:

"Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. 11 And the LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. 12 The LORD will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. 13 And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath..."

wpm seems to be counting "fulfillment" as "taking the whole land" (going by, of course, what was said above). The Deut. 28 passage, however, had a different requirement related to the blessings of God:

1 “Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth.

9 “The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways.

13 And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you heed the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe them.

So what does "23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD had said to Moses" mean? Does it mean that Joshua took the whole land according to careful observance of all the commandments of God? Of course not. The only way someone would draw that conclusion (and assert that Deut. 28:1-14 was fulfilled) is because they came to that conclusion deductively rather than inductively (inserting a preconceived idea from a theological system of thought). What was this verse speaking of? The context is established in the very passage itself:

11:12 So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded.

11:15 As the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did. He left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses.

11:20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Thus, when one gets to verse 23, one would not logically conclude that the "taking of the land" equaled "fulfillment of Deut. 28" and careful obedience by the people of Israel of the law of God. One would conclude that all that God commanded Moses related to taking the land was accomplished by Joshua.

I'm saying all of this in detail for clarity's sake, because things I have been saying lately have a tendency to be represented as a viewpoint wholly other than what I believe. And then rebutted. Not fun. :lol:

Here's the rebuttal to my Isaiah 35 point:


This is figurative language pointing forward to Christ. Isaiah was looking to Messiah. The righteousness He provides (alone) endows us with holiness.

Note the declarative statement asserting figurative language. The evidence? Well, it's from a completely different passage:


John the Baptist introduced Him:

Isaiah 40:3-5 prohesies: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

Was John going to bulldoze the mountains and raise up the vallies? I don't think so. This was figurative language.

John 1:23-30 Confirms: "He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me."

Jesus Himself said, in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”Honestly, I don't even know what to say. I quote Isaiah 35, and wpm is asking me if:


"John going to bulldoze the mountains and raise up the vallies? I don't think so."Um, okay. John the Baptist isn't going to bulldoze the mountains and raise up the valleys. Thus, ladies and gentlemen, wpm has proved for all of us that Isaiah 35 is using figurative language and we can therefore expect that none of it will come to pass as it was written.

Moving on, we have our next assertion:


This spiritual blessing that was again promised to Israelis. Some experienced hit, some didn't. However, Ezekiel 40-47 is a detailed conditional vision; it was not some distant prophecy. The prophet Ezekiel was taken up in the Spirit and given a revelation of better things than that was actually prevailing when he received it. I'm hoping for scriptural proof that this vision is conditional. Something to prove that this is not a prophecy that uses language like this:

"And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever."

I looked all over the vision, and couldn't find any conditional language, which sounds like this when I hear it:

14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

I mean, golly, I would call Deut. 28:14 a conditional promise because it contains similar clear language:

“Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth."

But I couldn't find it anywhere in the 8 chapters mentioned here, supposedly negating any connection between our mysterious river of Ezekiel 47 and (surprise!) a river flowing from the throne of God in Rev. 22! And, yup, another surprise! Both rivers heal things! Shockingly, however, there is no connection between the two passages because the earlier promise was conditional and Rev. 22 in no way reflects those conditions being met, nor is that passage in any way meant to evoke Ezek. 47. Because wpm asserts that it's true. With no evidence. Darn!

Well, that's not quite true. There were statements made backing up his claim. Kind of.


Ezekiel 40:2 confirms, “In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.”Confirms what? Not sure! But it's confirming something.


In the vision Ezekiel witnessed greater things than what was around him. Ezekiel 43:2-5 records, “behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory. And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east. So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house.”

Here we see the careful connection between the visions and Ezekiel being taken up in the Spirit. The prophet is supernaturally carried into situations that clearly did not exist at that time they were revealed to him. In reality, the temple was in ruin and the glory of the Lord had departed from the house of God. Notwithstanding, in the visions, “the glory of the LORD came into the house.” Ezekiel was so overwhelmed by what he saw in the Spirit that that we learn, he “fell upon” his “face.”Not really telling us anything stunning there. The vision showed Ezekiel "situations that clearly did not exist at that time they were revealed to him". That is the point of prophecy and future promises, yes. But how does this prove that the vision is conditional? Because the present condition of Solomon's Temple is nothing like the prophecy? Um, I'm not following. Maybe this will help:



Ezekiel 43:10 basically outlines the value and purpose of the vision of the temple, saying, “Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern.”Okay - Ezekiel is commanded to show them their destiny so that they can be provoked into obedience. Right? Um, I guess not - it seems like something more is going on - something that one wouldn't naturally read from the text itself. Luckily, wpm has the explanation for us:


God was making a genuine offer to Israel if they would only repent. Anyone read that from the above verse? Me neither. Thus, assertions that follows after might be true, but aren't that helpful because the initial premise is based on a logical fallacy:


It was a promise of better things if only they would submit to God’s demands. It involved an improved arrangement to what existed at the time of the proposal. It was essentially a mirror that God set up in Ezekiel’s day to allow Israel to see how far (even in that day) they fell short of the old covenant requirements.Again, did anyone else see that in the text itself? Nope. Me neither.

This is the wrap up:


Are you locating this bliss to your millennial earth now? I though this came after the millennium?

PaulHave no idea what is being asked here. I was comparing Rev. 22 to its obvious parallel passage in Ezek. 47, but I suppose that the opposing arguments were so solid that they completely demolished the legitimacy of such a connection. Or, this question could simply be an attempt at obfuscation, or avoiding the main point with a straw man. I can't quite tell.

wpm
May 6th 2008, 04:41 AM
This has to be your strangest reply yet - mostly because you make a bunch of assertions and declarative statements but don't really back them up or prove them. Some call that either "deductive reasoning" or "assuming what you are trying to prove". You pick. Case in point:

This is the deduction:



Here is the first thought:

Here is Joshua 11:23, for the curious:

23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD had said to Moses; and Joshua gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. Then the land rested from war.

Supposedly, this is the "fulfillment" of the Deut. 28 blessings and cursings of God related to obedience and disobedience. According to wpm, this "obedience" supposedly "fulfilling" the blessings of God, which include the following:

"Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. 11 And the LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. 12 The LORD will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. 13 And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath..."

wpm seems to be counting "fulfillment" as "taking the whole land" (going by, of course, what was said above). The Deut. 28 passage, however, had a different requirement related to the blessings of God:

1 “Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth.

9 “The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways.

13 And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you heed the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe them.

So what does "23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD had said to Moses" mean? Does it mean that Joshua took the whole land according to careful observance of all the commandments of God? Of course not. The only way someone would draw that conclusion (and assert that Deut. 28:1-14 was fulfilled) is because they came to that conclusion deductively rather than inductively (inserting a preconceived idea from a theological system of thought). What was this verse speaking of? The context is established in the very passage itself:

11:12 So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded.

11:15 As the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did. He left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses.

11:20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Thus, when one gets to verse 23, one would not logically conclude that the "taking of the land" equaled "fulfillment of Deut. 28" and careful obedience by the people of Israel of the law of God. One would conclude that all that God commanded Moses related to taking the land was accomplished by Joshua.

I'm saying all of this in detail for clarity's sake, because things I have been saying lately have a tendency to be represented as a viewpoint wholly other than what I believe. And then rebutted. Not fun. :lol:

Here's the rebuttal to my Isaiah 35 point:



Note the declarative statement asserting figurative language. The evidence? Well, it's from a completely different passage:

Honestly, I don't even know what to say. I quote Isaiah 35, and wpm is asking me if:

Um, okay. John the Baptist isn't going to bulldoze the mountains and raise up the valleys. Thus, ladies and gentlemen, wpm has proved for all of us that Isaiah 35 is using figurative language and we can therefore expect that none of it will come to pass as it was written.

Moving on, we have our next assertion:

I'm hoping for scriptural proof that this vision is conditional. Something to prove that this is not a prophecy that uses language like this:

"And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever."

I looked all over the vision, and couldn't find any conditional language, which sounds like this when I hear it:

14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

I mean, golly, I would call Deut. 28:14 a conditional promise because it contains similar clear language:

“Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth."

But I couldn't find it anywhere in the 8 chapters mentioned here, supposedly negating any connection between our mysterious river of Ezekiel 47 and (surprise!) a river flowing from the throne of God in Rev. 22! And, yup, another surprise! Both rivers heal things! Shockingly, however, there is no connection between the two passages because the earlier promise was conditional and Rev. 22 in no way reflects those conditions being met, nor is that passage in any way meant to evoke Ezek. 47. Because wpm asserts that it's true. With no evidence. Darn!

Well, that's not quite true. There were statements made backing up his claim. Kind of.

Confirms what? Not sure! But it's confirming something.

Not really telling us anything stunning there. The vision showed Ezekiel "situations that clearly did not exist at that time they were revealed to him". That is the point of prophecy and future promises, yes. But how does this prove that the vision is conditional? Because the present condition of Solomon's Temple is nothing like the prophecy? Um, I'm not following. Maybe this will help:

Okay - Ezekiel is commanded to show them their destiny so that they can be provoked into obedience. Right? Um, I guess not - it seems like something more is going on - something that one wouldn't naturally read from the text itself. Luckily, wpm has the explanation for us:

Anyone read that from the above verse? Me neither. Thus, assertions that follows after might be true, but aren't that helpful because the initial premise is based on a logical fallacy:

Again, did anyone else see that in the text itself? Nope. Me neither.

This is the wrap up:

Have no idea what is being asked here. I was comparing Rev. 22 to its obvious parallel passage in Ezek. 47, but I suppose that the opposing arguments were so solid that they completely demolished the legitimacy of such a connection. Or, this question could simply be an attempt at obfuscation, or avoiding the main point with a straw man. I can't quite tell.

Are speaking to me or about me???

Paul

wpm
May 6th 2008, 04:43 AM
You believe that there are still Old Testament prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled in regard to the last days? That would be cool but you'd be about the funniest Amil guy that I have ever known. :lol:

Are you alledging that Amils do not apply OT passges to the intra-Advent period?

Paul

wpm
May 6th 2008, 04:54 AM
Rookie

Ok, it would be helpful if you would clarify a few older points that remain unaddressed.

You said:


I see 2 Pet. 3 as being about both the Second Coming and the coming of the Father, which is not a simultaneous event but is one reality in Peter's thinking - a "thousand year day" (v. 8) that culminates with the events of v. 10-12.

You indicate that the day of the Lord = 1,000 years. Of course we know that the destruction occurs within "day of the Lord" (regardless of whether it is at the beginning middle or end), which you suggest is 1,000 literal yrs long. What is more, we must all agree, no wicked survive this all-consummating destruction of the world that is described in 2 Peter 3 (which must occur within the "day of the Lord." How then have we myriads and myriads of wicked walking about after the 1,000 years are finished??? Where then does Satan's little season fit in? According to your belief, the earth is burned up right at the end of the millennium (the 1,000th day), just before Satan's release. However, that would mean the world and all wickedness is destroyed before Satan can be released to deceive the nations.


What begins at the Second Coming culminates at the end with the "arrival" of the new earth / new heavens.


"Behold I create" in Isa. 65 speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. "the times of the restoration of all things" speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. I can't restate the same concept again much plainer.

What process? There is no suggestion of that in the reading. He just has to speak the word. Isaiah 65:17 is pretty clear, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.”

Isaiah here describes the arrival of the eternal perfect state and the removal of this current old temporal defective state, which is plagued by the bondage of corruption. He clearly and unambiguously tells us we are looking at the creation of the “new heavens and a new earth.” How can you locate this at the beginning of the millennium, when Rev doesn't recognise its appearance until after Satan's little season?

He explains how the arrival of this new arrangement coincides with the removal of the old corrupt arrangement: “The former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” Clearly we are looking at eternity. The new earth has been purged at this stage of all the evidences of the fall that has plagued creation since the Garden.

The first John encounters the new earth is after the millennium. It is only then that he testifies: "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away." You have the old arrangement passing away 1,000 yrs+ before John states so. Moreover, you introduce the "new heaven and a new earth" at the beginning of your millennium, when John expressly makes no reference to it until after Satan's little season. I feel your reasoning and John's vision don't correlate.

Paul

Cyberseeker
May 6th 2008, 08:46 AM
I used to be Pre-mill-post-trib for many years. But I had to change to Amil (kicking and screaming) because I realized when stars fall on the earth at Christ coming, the little ball we live on will burn up. Nothing – absolutely nothing will be left!

Please clear your brain from all previous viewpoints and simply consider these two facts:

The stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. (Mark 13:25)

And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs. (Rev 6:13)http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=72143

Be brutally honest with yourself. We do not have to be rocket scientists to figure what will happen. Nothing – absolutely nothing will be left.

However, God has promised that he would create a new earth.

ProjectPeter
May 6th 2008, 11:58 AM
Are you alledging that Amils do not apply OT passges to the intra-Advent period?

Paul
Okay... another avoided question? Do you believe that there are still Old Testament prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled in regard to the last days? That doesn't require a statement for further clarification does it? If yes then it is yes. If no then it is no. Let's get that out of the way and then my original point should be more clear.

John146
May 6th 2008, 02:01 PM
Well... those are the passages that you are tossing out there to support why it is that you think we are wrong... so I assumed you thought they proved your point. If you have others... then please feel free to toss them in the mix. But these passages, nor others, are going to negate Revelation 20... so we still have to contend with that.

Yes, I believe those passages support my view and I do believe those passages alone prove my point. Of course, there are many other passages we could talk about that I believe support my view as well. I don't really think I can convince you with only 2 passages. But, no one can deny that neither passage even hints at a future earthly millennial kingdom. Both passages speak of major destruction coming on the day of the Lord. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to be able to draw conclusions from what those passages say about the events related to the second coming of Christ. If we spoke about every passage that I believe supports my view then we'd have some very long posts. For now, I'm satisfied with continuing to discuss 1 Thess 5:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:3-13.



Sure it denotes a coming at a time when you aren't expecting. That's simply what that denotes contextually. If you aren't ready... you will be sorely disappointed. Hence these lessons... be ready... live godly etc. That is exactly my point. Has nothing to do really with the speed of His coming... just the timing of it. Has nothing to do with Him coming in and leaving about as quickly as He came either. That's man reading into it.

Does the destruction come suddenly or not? Let's take Revelation 20:9, for example. Do you think that the destruction of the wicked described there happens quickly? How about Revelation 19:15-21?



Example

Matthew 24:43 "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
44 "For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

In other words... be alert.

Yeah, and why do we need to be alert? Because those who aren't will be met with sudden destruction. Who is alert to Christ's coming? His people. Unbelievers are not. Just as in the days of Noah and Lot. The very day that the ark door was shut, the flood came and destroyed all unbelievers. The very day Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone came and destroyed all unbelievers there. Jesus said it would be the same way when He returns (Luke 17:30).



Again...

Luke 12:39 "And be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
40 "You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect."

Be Ready.

Now... in that same context Paul uses it. Nothing about in and out in a jiffy. Just that He is returning at a time when you think not... be ready. That way there is no surprise. ;)

Once again, the destruction comes quickly and suddenly and no unbeliever will escape. There is no implication in those passages that the destruction lingers on for a thousand plus years and there is no indication in those passage that any unbelievers escape the destruction.

John146
May 6th 2008, 02:12 PM
The only reason that it is "highly debated" is because there are folks that don't want to read it for what it is actually saying. ;)

We do read it for what it is actually saying. We just happen to disagree with what you think it is actually saying. ;););););););););););)

wpm
May 6th 2008, 02:19 PM
Okay... another avoided question? Do you believe that there are still Old Testament prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled in regard to the last days? That doesn't require a statement for further clarification does it? If yes then it is yes. If no then it is no. Let's get that out of the way and then my original point should be more clear.

I didn't honestly think you were being serious. Most eschatology students know the answer to that is yes.

Paul

wpm
May 6th 2008, 02:21 PM
We do read it for what it is actually saying. We just happen to disagree with what you think it is actually saying. ;););););););););););)

I have to agree.

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 6th 2008, 02:27 PM
I didn't honestly think you were being serious. Most eschatology students know the answer to that is yes.

Paul
Well... I needed the clarification hence why I asked. With all the pre... partial... mid... post... this that and the other folks use as labels now... and since I don't get in here that often... I rarely remember who is what.

You guys will have to excuse me from the conversation for a bit because we just had that new upgrade on the system and tons of new stuff that I have to figure out because I figure we're going to be getting a lot of questions on the HOW DO WE... nature and we're going to have to answer them. So... I'll get back in here hopefully by tomorrow if my brain doesn't implode first! :lol:

wpm
May 6th 2008, 02:30 PM
Well... I needed the clarification hence why I asked. With all the pre... partial... mid... post... this that and the other folks use as labels now... and since I don't get in here that often... I rarely remember who is what.

You guys will have to excuse me from the conversation for a bit because we just had that new upgrade on the system and tons of new stuff that I have to figure out because I figure we're going to be getting a lot of questions on the HOW DO WE... nature and we're going to have to answer them. So... I'll get back in here hopefully by tomorrow if my brain doesn't implode first! :lol:


All the best in this challenge. Thanks for your time. :)

Paul

John146
May 6th 2008, 02:32 PM
It ain't about "entering" it. It is earth... right here... not a different place to enter. No where in Revelation does it speak of Jesus coming to earth and slaying all the folks thus sending them to hell and getting the game on.

Nowhere except Revelation 19:15-21, right? When it says the fouls of heaven will feast on the flesh of all men (Rev 19:18) does that not mean all mankind (not believers, of course)? If not, why not.


One could clearly get that from the few verses that Peter and Paul wrote sure... but then one is going to have to explain away a lot of Revelation. No real need to go into the Old Testament prophecies since you figure those already a done deal anyway... but Revelation gives you fits enough and that is why you guys have to explain it away as pretty much ALL allegory and etc.

Oh, isn't that nice. The old "explain it away" argument. Revelation doesn't give us fits at all. Our interpretation of it allows us to keep it in harmony with scriptures that tell us all unbelievers will be destroyed when Christ returns(Luke 17:26-30, 2 Thess 1:7-8, 2 Peter 3:3-13, Revelation 19:15-21). It stays in harmony with the scriptures that tell us the resurrection of believers and judgment of unbelievers both occur on the last day (John 6:39-40,44,54, John 12:48). And it stays in harmony with the scriptures that tell us all people, saved and lost, will be resurrected and judged at the same time (Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, Matthew 13:24-30,47-50, Matthew 25:31-46).



Hey.... if a person thinks the Old Testament prophets no longer have any prophetic value then there you go... you'll believe that until we find out if you are right or wrong. That is a person that certainly isn't going to understand much of anything that I would say on this matter. That is a pretty big separating factor in and of itself... so since this isn't going to effect your salvation or any other person reading... they can make their call. If they are ready then in the end it's all good and none of this matters a whit.

I don't think anyone said that amils don't believe any of the OT prophecies have anything to do with the second coming of Christ. Isaiah 25, for example, clearly does, because Isaiah 25:8 is fulfilled when the dead are resurrected and death is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor 15:54).

the rookie
May 6th 2008, 02:59 PM
Are speaking to me or about me???

Paul

Thought I would take a different approach, since we've been going in circles and you've been assigning ideas and concepts to me that I don't believe.

Case in point:


According to your belief, the earth is burned up right at the end of the millennium (the 1,000th day), just before Satan's release. However, that would mean the world and all wickedness is destroyed before Satan can be released to deceive the nations.

Either there is a logical conclusion to the "1000 year day" that I am missing or you inserted an assertion that I hadn't asserted. Again, I can't figure out which. But clearly I believe that the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations happens at the end of the 1000 years before the end of the millennium and before the outpouring of fire upon the earth at the coming of the Father (i.e. 2 Pet. 3 & Mal. 3-4, Psalm 46).

I'll say it again - the climactic moment of Rev. 20, 2 Pet. 3, Mal. 3-4, Ps. 46 happens after Satan's release, not before. Those passages are clear that fire comes down after the peoples are gathered against God and His city - after 1000 years of the rule of Jesus on the earth.

All the wicked - the rebellious and the reprobate - are indeed purged from the earth at the Second Coming, specifically at the Valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3). It does not happen in fire instantly - Joel 3, Zech. 14, Ezek. 39, etc. give ample details to corroborate Rev. 14, 16 & 19's account of how things go down. So while you continue to insist that it happens with "a wave of Jesus' hand" and *poof*! everyone burns up, there are too many details that you are ignoring from the above passages to make that scenario work.

So how do we end up with another group 1000 years later? How can humans in a perfect scenario, a garden for example, under the perfect leadership of Jesus rebel? That's impossible - it could never happen! IOW, every time one examines that scenario and concludes: "Your millennium is a failure!" one must also extrapolate that "failure" of God and His leadership to a garden 6000 years ago when a similar thing happened.

It's called the "mystery of iniquity", and is a critical part of the story God is writing for us to bind our hearts to His in love for billions of years.



What process?

See the above post.

John146
May 6th 2008, 03:12 PM
Thought I would take a different approach, since we've been going in circles and you've been assigning ideas and concepts to me that I don't believe.

Case in point:

Either there is a logical conclusion to the "1000 year day" that I am missing or you inserted an assertion that I hadn't asserted. Again, I can't figure out which. But clearly I believe that the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations happens at the end of the 1000 years before the end of the millennium and before the outpouring of fire upon the earth at the coming of the Father (i.e. 2 Pet. 3 & Mal. 3-4, Psalm 46).

I'll say it again - the climactic moment of Rev. 20, 2 Pet. 3, Mal. 3-4, Ps. 46 happens after Satan's release, not before. Those passages are clear that fire comes down after the peoples are gathered against God and His city - after 1000 years of the rule of Jesus on the earth.

So, you believe that the day of the Lord, when fire comes down and burns up the earth, actually occurs after the thousand years? I thought you said the fire burns up and refines or renews the earth throughout the thousand year time period beginning with the second coming of Christ? Looks to me like the fire doesn't come down until the end of Satan's little season and not a thousand plus years before. How do you reconcile this?

wpm
May 6th 2008, 04:44 PM
Rookie


What begins at the Second Coming culminates at the end with the "arrival" of the new earth / new heavens. "Ending" and "arrival" are the same concept related to what I have been asserting. "Behold I create" in Isa. 65 speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. "the times of the restoration of all things" speaks of a process that takes time after the 2nd Coming. I can't restate the same concept again much plainer.

You have argued that the arrival of the new earth and the end are the same thing. I disagree. In the context of what we are looking at, arrival to me is the refers to the manifestation of the new earth or Christ. The end is the end, so I must clarify.

When is the beginning of the new earth in your paradigm (when does it first appear)?


I believe that the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations happens at the end of the 1000 years before the end of the millennium and before the outpouring of fire upon the earth at the coming of the Father

Are you saying what I think you are saying - the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations occurs before the end of the 1,000 yrs and terminates at the very very end of the 1,000 yrs?

Paul

fellowservant
May 6th 2008, 05:14 PM
I think someone mentioned here that theres only one resurrection left.

What dead are raised at the second coming? some say that all the dead are raised at the same time, both believer and unbeliever. Im under the impression through scripture, its the dead in Christ that are raised at his coming, and just them. Then we who are alive and remain are changed. Paul had a lot of insight into this, as he was caught up to heaven and seen some things that even he wasn't allowed to speak about. (Ie revelations)

Paul also said the the dead are raised in their proper order, and says that at the coming of Christ it is only folks who are in Christ that are raised. So just these two parts of scripture are enough to help John and his vision of rev 20. John sees the first resurrection of the just, then after the Mill he sees, in the same vision, God raiseing the rest of the dead. But they have according to his vision, the power of death over them.

And as far as the death being destroyed, and Christ must reign till it is destroyed. This doesn't happen untill death and hell are cast into the lake of fire, then and only then will death be abolished. We can't use Pauls words and say death is swollowed up in victory, unless we are in Christ. This is not a promise for unbelievers. Just thought id add some more thought here.

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


The persons here that are being raised at the coming of Christ are in him, they belong to Christ, and are blessed and holy. The rest of the dead are unbelievers, they are not resurrected at his coming. John verifies this in the book of revelation chapter 20. And if someone uses a contradiction to this, it can be explained. Let me use the one, where it says all that are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth. I heard a good saying somewhere on this. We could say in a sentence, well all my children will graduate, but that doesn't mean they will graduate all at the same time, everything must be in its order, if not, we end up out of order.

Edit: lol i must be getting old, im trying to interpret a scripture, that interprets itself.


Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 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.

So we see two separate resurrections here, Christ says it, and then John repeats it in the the book of revelation.


According to Amill interpretation the first resurrection is past. Satan is bound and so on, and so on


Plus this passage of scripture Edit: i mean the one in Daniel also says, that some will come forth to glory, and some to shame and everlasting contempt, something along those lines. Two things are happening here, so its likely tied into the timing of each resurrection. There is a resurrection of the just, and a resurrection of the unjust, so lets not just get stuck on the word ALL here.

Its called the book of revelation, not the book of no revelation, or forget it my people, you will never understand it revelation.:D plus the last parts of this book are some of the least symbolic parts to understand. As a matter of fact there is hardly any symbolism left from rev 19 on. Unless you consider heaven symbolic, the coming of Christ symbolic, or a new heaven and earth symbolic, or hell and death, or resurrections symbolic, or its all symbolic.;)


Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Rev 20:6 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.



God bless

John146
May 6th 2008, 07:06 PM
I think someone mentioned here that theres only one resurrection left.

What dead are raised at the second coming? some say that all the dead are raised at the same time, both believer and unbeliever. Im under the impression through scripture, its the dead in Christ that are raised at his coming, and just them. Then we who are alive and remain are changed. Paul had a lot of insight into this, as he was caught up to heaven and seen some things that even he wasn't allowed to speak about. (Ie revelations)

Paul also said the the dead are raised in their proper order, and says that at the coming of Christ it is only folks who are in Christ that are raised. So just these two parts of scripture are enough to help John and his vision of rev 20. John sees the first resurrection of the just, then after the Mill he sees, in the same vision, God raiseing the rest of the dead. But they have according to his vision, the power of death over them.

Paul doesn't say that only believers in Christ are raised at His coming. I believe it is his point that only believers will be raised at His coming with immortal bodies like Christ has. Unbelievers will not receive immortal bodies so there was no reason to speak about them within his comments about obtaining immortal and incorruptible bodies.



And as far as the death being destroyed, and Christ must reign till it is destroyed. This doesn't happen untill death and hell are cast into the lake of fire, then and only then will death be abolished. We can't use Pauls words and say death is swollowed up in victory, unless we are in Christ. This is not a promise for unbelievers. Just thought id add some more thought here.

To me, if death is swallowed up in victory, then death is defeated. No more death at that point. And that is exactly what we find when we link 1 Cor 15:54, Isaiah 25:8 and Rev 21:4 together (Isa 25:8 is quoted in both 1 Cor 15:54 and Rev 21:4). That happens at Christ's return. We can see that the day of judgment occurs when Christ returns from reading Matthew 25:31-46. Scripture ties His return, the resurrection of the dead and the day of judgment all together at the same general time. So, that's how it can be true that death is defeated at that time because believers will get new immortal bodies and death itself will be cast into the lake of fire along with unbelievers.



1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

The persons here that are being raised at the coming of Christ are in him, they belong to Christ, and are blessed and holy. The rest of the dead are unbelievers, they are not resurrected at his coming. John verifies this in the book of revelation chapter 20. And if someone uses a contradiction to this, it can be explained. Let me use the one, where it says all that are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth. I heard a good saying somewhere on this. We could say in a sentence, well all my children will graduate, but that doesn't mean they will graduate all at the same time, everything must be in its order, if not, we end up out of order.

Edit: lol i must be getting old, im trying to interpret a scripture, that interprets itself.

Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 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.

So we see two separate resurrections here, Christ says it, and then John repeats it in the the book of revelation.

No, we are not seeing two separate resurrections here. Jesus says here that the hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear His voice and come forth (rise out of the graves). He doesn't say the hours are coming. He is pointing to one hour or time when all are resurrected. Some to life and some to damnation. As Paul says in Acts 24:15, "there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.". One resurrection of the dead, including both the just and the unjust. Not two resurrections of the dead a thousand plus years apart.



According to Amill interpretation the first resurrection is past. Satan is bound and so on, and so on

Plus this passage of scripture Edit: i mean the one in Daniel also says, that some will come forth to glory, and some to shame and everlasting contempt, something along those lines. Two things are happening here, so its likely tied in to the timing of each resurrection. There is a resurrection of the just, and a resurrection of the unjust, so lets not just get stuck on the word ALL here.

Let's also not ignore that both Daniel 12:1-2 and John 5:28-29 point to one particular hour or time when both the just and the unjust are raised at that same time.

the rookie
May 6th 2008, 08:43 PM
So, you believe that the day of the Lord, when fire comes down and burns up the earth, actually occurs after the thousand years? I thought you said the fire burns up and refines or renews the earth throughout the thousand year time period beginning with the second coming of Christ? Looks to me like the fire doesn't come down until the end of Satan's little season and not a thousand plus years before. How do you reconcile this?

I said this when? Help me out a little bit - if I said that, I'd love the context and the sentence...can you furnish a quote for me?

ShirleyFord
May 6th 2008, 08:45 PM
I think someone mentioned here that theres only one resurrection left.

The Bible mentions only one physical resurrection of all the physically dead at Christ's Coming. The resurrection of believers is never called "the first resurrection" nor is the resurrection and judgement of unbelievers ever called "the second resurrection", not from what I have read from Genesis - Revelation.

In fact "the first resurrection" is found only 2 times in 2 verses in the entire Bible, Rev 20:4-5. But neither of those references mention that "the first resurrection" is the resurrection of the believing Church at the Second Coming of Christ or 7 years before His Coming at the Rapture of the Church.



1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:


You need to read v. 17 along with v. 16:

1Thess 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

What happens after that:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Notice Paul doesn't say in v. 17, "Then all unbelievers will be raised up after that.



Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


Paul refers to physical resurrection here:

1. Christ's physical resurrection is "first" - "first resurrection".

2. Then the physical resurrection of believers at Christ's Coming would be "second". "second resurrection".





So we see two separate resurrections here, Christ says it, and then John repeats it in the the book of revelation.


Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Rev 20:6 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.



God bless

Yes, we find two different kinds of resurrection at two different times, separated by a period of time called "a thousand years" in Rev. 20.

1. Christ the firstfruits, the first to rise from the dead - physical resurrection - before "a thousand years" begins.

2. Those who are raised from death to life spiritually, those physically dead who still lived in v. 4 while they were still physically dead who had part in the first resurrection of Christ (v. 6) ater His physical resurrection - their spiritual resurrection - during "a thousand years" period between the first and second comings of Christ.


Shirley

the rookie
May 6th 2008, 08:58 PM
Rookie



You have argued that the arrival of the new earth and the end are the same thing.

Nah. We're just not understanding each other.



I disagree. In the context of what we are looking at, arrival to me is the refers to the manifestation of the new earth or Christ. The end is the end, so I must clarify.

The two don't necessarily have to be synonymous - even in the verses you continually furnish to establish that it must be so.


When is the beginning of the new earth in your paradigm (when does it first appear)?

Well, to be technical, the First Advent, the cross, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit @ Pentecost were key moments in redemptive history related to the new earth. :D

The Second Advent then establishes the earthly leadership of Christ in fullness, as all those who disagreed with His leadership are removed; thus the process of restoring the earth from the curse of sin is accelerated at His coming.

Thus we come to the end of a process that began at the First Advent, the cross, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit - a process that, according to Peter, has continued throughout church history: Acts 3:19. Thus, if you are really out to negate any kind of "process" related to the restoration of all things, you really should deal with that verse as it relates to this age.

The end of this process is the time in which the fullness of God's plans for reconciliation have been completed, and the kingdom can be handed to the Father - thus the New Jerusalem joins fully with the earth and "all is made new" related to the place that God will dwell forever with men, now fully reconciled - all things fully restored.

So, technically, the beginning is the cross and the resurrection, or "the firstfruits" - the central event of all of history. :D



Are you saying what I think you are saying - the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations occurs before the end of the 1,000 yrs and terminates at the very very end of the 1,000 yrs?

Paul

Something like that.

the rookie
May 6th 2008, 09:01 PM
This has to be your strangest reply yet - mostly because you make a bunch of assertions and declarative statements but don't really back them up or prove them. Some call that either "deductive reasoning" or "assuming what you are trying to prove". You pick. Case in point:

This is the deduction:



Here is the first thought:

Here is Joshua 11:23, for the curious:

23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD had said to Moses; and Joshua gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. Then the land rested from war.

Supposedly, this is the "fulfillment" of the Deut. 28 blessings and cursings of God related to obedience and disobedience. According to wpm, this "obedience" supposedly "fulfilling" the blessings of God, which include the following:

"Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. 11 And the LORD will grant you plenty of goods, in the fruit of your body, in the increase of your livestock, and in the produce of your ground, in the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. 12 The LORD will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. 13 And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath..."

wpm seems to be counting "fulfillment" as "taking the whole land" (going by, of course, what was said above). The Deut. 28 passage, however, had a different requirement related to the blessings of God:

1 “Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth.

9 “The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways.

13 And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you heed the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and are careful to observe them.

So what does "23 So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD had said to Moses" mean? Does it mean that Joshua took the whole land according to careful observance of all the commandments of God? Of course not. The only way someone would draw that conclusion (and assert that Deut. 28:1-14 was fulfilled) is because they came to that conclusion deductively rather than inductively (inserting a preconceived idea from a theological system of thought). What was this verse speaking of? The context is established in the very passage itself:

11:12 So all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took and struck with the edge of the sword. He utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded.

11:15 As the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did. He left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses.

11:20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Thus, when one gets to verse 23, one would not logically conclude that the "taking of the land" equaled "fulfillment of Deut. 28" and careful obedience by the people of Israel of the law of God. One would conclude that all that God commanded Moses related to taking the land was accomplished by Joshua.

I'm saying all of this in detail for clarity's sake, because things I have been saying lately have a tendency to be represented as a viewpoint wholly other than what I believe. And then rebutted. Not fun. :lol:

Here's the rebuttal to my Isaiah 35 point:



Note the declarative statement asserting figurative language. The evidence? Well, it's from a completely different passage:

Honestly, I don't even know what to say. I quote Isaiah 35, and wpm is asking me if:

Um, okay. John the Baptist isn't going to bulldoze the mountains and raise up the valleys. Thus, ladies and gentlemen, wpm has proved for all of us that Isaiah 35 is using figurative language and we can therefore expect that none of it will come to pass as it was written.

Moving on, we have our next assertion:

I'm hoping for scriptural proof that this vision is conditional. Something to prove that this is not a prophecy that uses language like this:

"And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever."

I looked all over the vision, and couldn't find any conditional language, which sounds like this when I hear it:

14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

I mean, golly, I would call Deut. 28:14 a conditional promise because it contains similar clear language:

“Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth."

But I couldn't find it anywhere in the 8 chapters mentioned here, supposedly negating any connection between our mysterious river of Ezekiel 47 and (surprise!) a river flowing from the throne of God in Rev. 22! And, yup, another surprise! Both rivers heal things! Shockingly, however, there is no connection between the two passages because the earlier promise was conditional and Rev. 22 in no way reflects those conditions being met, nor is that passage in any way meant to evoke Ezek. 47. Because wpm asserts that it's true. With no evidence. Darn!

Well, that's not quite true. There were statements made backing up his claim. Kind of.

Confirms what? Not sure! But it's confirming something.

Not really telling us anything stunning there. The vision showed Ezekiel "situations that clearly did not exist at that time they were revealed to him". That is the point of prophecy and future promises, yes. But how does this prove that the vision is conditional? Because the present condition of Solomon's Temple is nothing like the prophecy? Um, I'm not following. Maybe this will help:

Okay - Ezekiel is commanded to show them their destiny so that they can be provoked into obedience. Right? Um, I guess not - it seems like something more is going on - something that one wouldn't naturally read from the text itself. Luckily, wpm has the explanation for us:

Anyone read that from the above verse? Me neither. Thus, assertions that follows after might be true, but aren't that helpful because the initial premise is based on a logical fallacy:

Again, did anyone else see that in the text itself? Nope. Me neither.

This is the wrap up:

Have no idea what is being asked here. I was comparing Rev. 22 to its obvious parallel passage in Ezek. 47, but I suppose that the opposing arguments were so solid that they completely demolished the legitimacy of such a connection. Or, this question could simply be an attempt at obfuscation, or avoiding the main point with a straw man. I can't quite tell.

Any comments on this at all?

wpm
May 6th 2008, 09:25 PM
Something like that.

I thought the 1,000 yrs was the millennium? I thought they were synonymous in your belief? Are you differentiating between them saying they are not exactly the same?

Paul

John146
May 6th 2008, 09:43 PM
I said this when? Help me out a little bit - if I said that, I'd love the context and the sentence...can you furnish a quote for me?

That was my understanding of what you have said. I know you probably think you've been very clear in your comments but personally I don't see that as being the case. So, instead of going through all the previous posts, let me just ask a question or two (or three) for clarification.

Do you believe that what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-13 begins when Christ returns?

Do you believe that the day of the Lord lasts a thousand years, a thousand years plus Satan's little season, or some other duration?

When Revelation 20:9 speaks of fire coming down from God out of heaven, do you see that as being a different event entirely than what is spoken about in 2 Peter 3:10-12?

John146
May 6th 2008, 09:50 PM
Are you saying what I think you are saying - the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations occurs before the end of the 1,000 yrs and terminates at the very very end of the 1,000 yrs?

Paul

Something like that.

Something like that or exactly like that? What do you mean exactly? Doesn't the text say that Satan isn't loosed until after the thousand years? Yet you're saying that Satan is loosed before the end of the thousand years?

the rookie
May 6th 2008, 10:57 PM
I thought the 1,000 yrs was the millennium? I thought they were synonymous in your belief? Are you differentiating between them saying they are not exactly the same?

Paul

I honestly have no idea why you are asking me that or what the question could possibly pertain to - sorry?

fellowservant
May 7th 2008, 03:18 AM
No, we are not seeing two separate resurrections here. Jesus says here that the hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear His voice and come forth (rise out of the graves). He doesn't say the hours are coming. He is pointing to one hour or time when all are resurrected. Some to life and some to damnation. As Paul says in Acts 24:15, "there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.". One resurrection of the dead, including both the just and the unjust. Not two resurrections of the dead a thousand plus years apart.


Well thats your opinion, John is of the opinion that that there are two major resurrections, and they are separated by 1000 years.



First resurrection below

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

Rev 20:6 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.



Second one is here below as well, after the one thousand years are expired.


Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.






Let's also not ignore that both Daniel 12:1-2 and John 5:28-29 point to one particular hour or time when both the just and the unjust are raised at that same time.


John here as well says otherwise, we can't have contradictions with our doctrines. I know this is just going round and round, it almost always does when you have to opposing doctrines, we shall see in the end won't we? We can get stuck on the word hour as well. Look at the text, not just a word in the text.

Im with John the revelator on this, as he was the last one to receive revelations on this, from Christ himself. As i said, he was the last man standing, and it is God who chose him to give the saints futher understanding, of end time events. If John can't tell us whats up with the ressurrection, no one can. And all the dead raising at the same time, contradicts John in the book of revelation rev 20, i myself can't agree on that.

God bless

wpm
May 7th 2008, 04:16 AM
Originally Posted by the rookie http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1628810#post1628810)
I believe that the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations happens at the end of the 1000 years before the end of the millennium and before the outpouring of fire upon the earth at the coming of the Father


How can Satan be released before the end of the millennium??? The millennium is the period of his restraint.

(1) How can Satan simultaneously be in the bottomless pit and on earth at the same time?

(2) How can Satan simultaneously be bound and be loosed at the one time?

(3) How can Satan simultaneously deceive the Gentiles and not deceive the Gentiles at the same time?

Paul

fellowservant
May 7th 2008, 04:32 AM
You need to read v. 17 along with v. 16:

1Thess 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

What happens after that:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Notice Paul doesn't say in v. 17, "Then all unbelievers will be raised up after that.

Exactly my point. Paul doesn't mention the resurrection of unbelievers at the coming of Christ. He only mentions a resurrection of believers that are in Christ. Makeing Johns revelation of the just being raised at the second coming of Christ, even more correct.




2. Then the physical resurrection of believers at Christ's Coming would be "second". "second resurrection".


You can have that resurrection, ill take the first one. The second resurrection according to John, still holds the power of death.


God bless

wpm
May 7th 2008, 04:38 AM
Exactly my point. Paul doesn't mention the resurrection of unbelievers at the coming of Christ. He only mentions a resurrection of believers that are in Christ. Makeing Johns revelation of the just being raised at the second coming of Christ, even more correct.




You can have that resurrection, ill take the first one. The second resurrection according to John, still holds the power of death.


God bless

The Holy Spirit consistently focuses upon God’s dealing with His own people in Scripture to the seeming exclusion of the lost at times. However, it doesn’t in anyway exclude the participation of the wicked in the respective subject matter. The fact is, the righteous are the overwhelming preoccupation of the Lord’s instruction; the Word of God is therefore principally for the understanding and admonition of the righteous. However, that in no way suggests that the wicked are omitted from the said matter or occurrence under discussion, no, rather, the wicked’s involvement in the particular happening is simply irrelevant to the main focal point – the fate of the believers. In the resurrection event under discussion, the main focus is clearly the deliverance of the elect of God from the wrath to come.

Paul

fellowservant
May 7th 2008, 05:18 AM
The Holy Spirit consistently focuses upon God’s dealing with His own people in Scripture to the seeming exclusion of the lost at times. However, it doesn’t in anyway exclude the participation of the wicked in the respective subject matter. The fact is, the righteous are the overwhelming preoccupation of the Lord’s instruction; the Word of God is therefore principally for the understanding and admonition of the righteous. However, that in no way suggests that the wicked are omitted from the said matter or occurrence under discussion, no, rather, the wicked’s involvement in the particular happening is simply irrelevant to the main focal point – the fate of the believers. In the resurrection event under discussion, the main focus is clearly the deliverance of the elect of God from the wrath to come.

Paul

Nice words of admonition, but keep in mind that although the spirit is concerned about the righteous, and the wrath to come. Hes still is the one who leads you into all truth. And the truth about the resurrection is that there is a resurrection of the just, and one for the unjust. Again rev 20.

We will have to agree to disagree here. But not about God caring for the righteous, he does care for us deeply. But like i said he leads into all truth, because he is the spirit of truth.

God bless

wpm
May 7th 2008, 05:37 AM
Nice words of admonition, but keep in mind that although the spirit is concerned about the righteous, and the wrath to come. Hes still is the one who leads you into all truth. And the truth about the resurrection is that there is a resurrection of the just, and one for the unjust. Again rev 20.

We will have to agree to disagree here. But not about God caring for the righteous, he does care for us deeply. But like i said he leads into all truth, because he is the spirit of truth.

God bless

I don't want to divert this discussion but I showed you on the last thread that other Scripture shows that Christ actually is the first resurrection.

Acts 26:23 describes Christ’s physical resurrection as the first resurrection, saying, “Christ should suffer, and that He should be protos ek anastasis nekros (or) the first resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (ethnos Strong’s 1484)."

Interestingly, the enlightening of the Gentiles (or) ethnos is carefully connected to the first resurrection of Christ.

Luke 24:46-47 is also very interesting as it describes the Lord’s appearance to His disciples after the resurrection. Here He speaks to them and explains the significance of the resurrection, saying, “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations (ethnos), beginning at Jerusalem.”

Colossians 1:18 closely mirrors Acts 26:23, saying, “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

Revelation 1:5 uses the same Greek word to describe Christ’s triumphant resurrection, saying, “Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten prootótokos (Strong’s 4416) of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Paul similarly says in 1 Corinthians 15:20, “now is Christ egeégertai (or) risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”

Paul

VerticalReality
May 7th 2008, 12:14 PM
Well thats your opinion, John is of the opinion that that there are two major resurrections, and they are separated by 1000 years.


Paul says that there are two resurrections but that Jesus Christ was the first one.



1 Corinthians 15:22-23
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.


That would then mean that there is only one more resurrection to go . . .



John 5:28-29
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.


Scripture indicates to me that the final resurrection will include both believers and unbelievers, and they will be judged each one according to their works.

ShirleyFord
May 7th 2008, 12:59 PM
Paul says that there are two resurrections but that Jesus Christ was the first one.



That would then mean that there is only one more resurrection to go . . .



Scripture indicates to me that the final resurrection will include both believers and unbelievers, and they will be judged each one according to their works.

And what you have shown by the Scriptures that Jesus spoke and Paul wrote that the final resurrection, the second resurrection after the resurrection of Christ occurs at the Coming again of Christ, Paul again couldn't be clearer when the final resurrection and judgement of all mankind occurs in 2 Thess 1:

When?

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: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; (When?)10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) (When is that?) in that day.


Paul doesn't mention two different days. He doesn't mention that Jesus comes one day and does some things and then waits around a thousand years until another day to finish up what He came to do.

Scripture that Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Peter called Paul's writings "the scriptures") says that when Jesus comes on "that day" that He comes in flaming fire "taking vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Since Peter agreed that Paul's writings was Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), this would indicate to me that Peter then agreed with Paul about what occurs on that day of Christ's Coming again, the day of the Lord, the day of God, the day of Christ, in the preceeding verses, scriptures of the same Chapter:

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.

John146
May 7th 2008, 01:01 PM
John here as well says otherwise, we can't have contradictions with our doctrines. I know this is just going round and round, it almost always does when you have to opposing doctrines, we shall see in the end won't we? We can get stuck on the word hour as well. Look at the text, not just a word in the text.

We don't have to get stuck on that word, but we also shouldn't completely ignore it. If He says that there is an hour or time in which all in the graves will come out then that's what we should believe instead of changing the text to say that there are hours or times when all of the dead will be resurrected.



Im with John the revelator on this, as he was the last one to receive revelations on this, from Christ himself. As i said, he was the last man standing, and it is God who chose him to give the saints futher understanding, of end time events. If John can't tell us whats up with the ressurrection, no one can. And all the dead raising at the same time, contradicts John in the book of revelation rev 20, i myself can't agree on that.

God blessAnd the way I see it is that your understanding of Rev 20 contradicts John 5:28-29 as well as the fact that John 6:39-40 and John 12:48 place both the resurrection of believers and the judgment and condemnation of unbelievers on the same day: the last day.

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 01:11 PM
How can Satan be released before the end of the millennium??? The millennium is the period of his restraint.

(1) How can Satan simultaneously be in the bottomless pit and on earth at the same time?

(2) How can Satan simultaneously be bound and be loosed at the one time?

(3) How can Satan simultaneously deceive the Gentiles and not deceive the Gentiles at the same time?

Paul

Yeah, who knows :lol:

Got anything on the OT passages you're ignoring?

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 01:11 PM
That was my understanding of what you have said. I know you probably think you've been very clear in your comments but personally I don't see that as being the case. So, instead of going through all the previous posts, let me just ask a question or two (or three) for clarification.

Do you believe that what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-13 begins when Christ returns?

Do you believe that the day of the Lord lasts a thousand years, a thousand years plus Satan's little season, or some other duration?

When Revelation 20:9 speaks of fire coming down from God out of heaven, do you see that as being a different event entirely than what is spoken about in 2 Peter 3:10-12?

So you can't furnish a quote?

John146
May 7th 2008, 01:12 PM
Yeah, who knows :lol:

Got anything on the OT passages you're ignoring?

Speaking of ignoring....have any answers to my questions from posts #181 and 182?

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 01:13 PM
Speaking of ignoring....have any answers to my questions from posts #181 and 182?

Did you not read the above posts?

John146
May 7th 2008, 01:16 PM
So you can't furnish a quote?

I probably could since obviously what I said was the result of my understanding of what you had said previously. Instead, though, I decided it would be better to get clarification of your view to make sure I'm understanding it correctly, which is why I asked those questions. So, can you please just answer the questions so we can be sure I don't misrepresent your view? You seem to think I was purposely misrepresenting your view, which I was not. We misunderstand each other fairly frequently, so I thought by asking those direct questions I would be able to understand your view better because you seemed to be saying different things at different times in your posts.

John146
May 7th 2008, 01:19 PM
Did you not read the above posts?

Yes, I have, and your comments are not clear to me because you have seemed to have said different things at different times in this thread that don't match up. That's why I asked those questions in order to get clarification. Is there anything wrong with me wanting to understand your view better?

Should I conclude that you believe that Satan is loosed before the end of the thousand years even though the text clearly says he is loosed after? Or is it better for me to ask you to clarify when exactly you believe Satan is loosed?

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 02:03 PM
Yes, I have, and your comments are not clear to me because you have seemed to have said different things at different times in this thread that don't match up. That's why I asked those questions in order to get clarification. Is there anything wrong with me wanting to understand your view better?

Should I conclude that you believe that Satan is loosed before the end of the thousand years even though the text clearly says he is loosed after? Or is it better for me to ask you to clarify when exactly you believe Satan is loosed?

I asked because "I don't know" would seem to be an acceptable answer in other settings... :lol:

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 02:05 PM
That was my understanding of what you have said. I know you probably think you've been very clear in your comments but personally I don't see that as being the case. So, instead of going through all the previous posts, let me just ask a question or two (or three) for clarification.

Do you believe that what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-13 begins when Christ returns?

It depends on what you are talking about.


Do you believe that the day of the Lord lasts a thousand years, a thousand years plus Satan's little season, or some other duration?

Probably. Not sure.


When Revelation 20:9 speaks of fire coming down from God out of heaven, do you see that as being a different event entirely than what is spoken about in 2 Peter 3:10-12?

Nope - same event. Add in Ps. 46 & Mal. 3-4

John146
May 7th 2008, 02:16 PM
It depends on what you are talking about.

I'm talking about 2 Peter 3:10-12 and what it describes. The day of the Lord coming as a thief in the night. The heavens passing away, the elements melting, the earth being burned up and so on. So, do you believe what it describes begins with the second coming of Christ?




Probably. Not sure.

Which? That you think the day of the Lord probably lasts a thousand years or do you think that it lasts a thousand years plus Satan's little season?



Nope - same event. Add in Ps. 46 & Mal. 3-4

So, you're saying 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the same event as Revelation 20:9. But Rev 20:9 doesn't occur until after the thousand years are over. Don't you believe 2 Peter 3:10-12 occurs during the thousand years?

wpm
May 7th 2008, 02:46 PM
Yeah, who knows :lol:

Got anything on the OT passages you're ignoring?

:lol:

I think you are pulling my leg.

I addressed your OT passages. Now you will admit Rev 20 is not an irrelevant obscure reading in this debate - it is the central narrative in this debate. If it doesn't fit then how can we see any other passage in Scripture fitting the Premil paradigm.

I would genuinely appreciate your explanation of this apparent contradiction.

Revelation 20:3 says, "And cast him (Satan) into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."

You can't have the millennium and Satan's little season continuing concurrently.

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 02:53 PM
:lol:

I think you are pulling my leg.

I addressed your OT passages. Now you will admit Rev 20 is not an irrelevant obscure reading in this debate - it is the central narrative in this debate. If it doesn't fit then how can we see any other passage in Scripture fitting the Premil paradigm.

I would genuinely appreciate your explanation of this apparent contradiction.

Revelation 20:3 says, "And cast him (Satan) into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season."

You can't have the millennium and Satan's little season continuing concurrently.

Paul
So what if it a thousand years plus 45 days... 60 days... an extra year. Nothing is lost in that especially considering the idea that you guys don't think it literal anyway. All you are doing is trying to trap someone in a literal interpretation as if that proves a point. It really doesn't. I would say that "little season" (which sounds a lot like mocking) could well just be a period of a few days... it doesn't at all take away from the 1000 year rule and reign of Christ on earth. With a day being like a thousand years to God... what would a year be? Just a moment or two into that day.

wpm
May 7th 2008, 03:10 PM
PP

That is not the issue. I am trying to unravel Rookie's comments that Satan's little season and the 1,000 yrs happen concurently:


I believe that the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations happens at the end of the 1000 years before the end of the millennium and before the outpouring of fire upon the earth at the coming of the Father.

I clarified:

"Are you saying what I think you are saying - the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations occurs before the end of the 1,000 yrs and terminates at the very very end of the 1,000 yrs?"

To which he agreed.

This is what I can't remotely comprehend. Honestly. It just doesn't add up. Can you explain?

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 03:18 PM
PP

That is not the issue. I am trying to unravel Rookie's comments that Satan's little season and the 1,000 yrs happen concurently:



I clarified:

"Are you saying what I think you are saying - the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations occurs before the end of the 1,000 yrs and terminates at the very very end of the 1,000 yrs?"

To which he agreed.

This is what I can't remotely comprehend. Honestly. It just doesn't add up. Can you explain?

Paul
I will try and keep in mind that I am not speaking for the rookie. If he differs from this then it works for me.

If he is loosed on year 999 and Ten months... it is still a day. If he is released on Day 1001 and time goes on another two weeks... three.. or four... even a month or two or three or four... the point is still the same unless one wants to totally be ABSOLUTE on this. If a day is like to God 1000 years... then what is another month or two or three but a blip in that day?

John146
May 7th 2008, 03:32 PM
So what if it a thousand years plus 45 days... 60 days... an extra year. Nothing is lost in that especially considering the idea that you guys don't think it literal anyway. All you are doing is trying to trap someone in a literal interpretation as if that proves a point. It really doesn't. I would say that "little season" (which sounds a lot like mocking) could well just be a period of a few days... it doesn't at all take away from the 1000 year rule and reign of Christ on earth. With a day being like a thousand years to God... what would a year be? Just a moment or two into that day.

We're not trying to trap anyone into anything, we're trying to get clarification of what exactly he believes because based on things he has said we perceive there to be contradictions or inconsistencies in his comments. Also, "little season" is the term that is used in the scripture itself so how can it be mocking to use that term?

John146
May 7th 2008, 03:38 PM
I will try and keep in mind that I am not speaking for the rookie. If he differs from this then it works for me.

If he is loosed on year 999 and Ten months... it is still a day. If he is released on Day 1001 and time goes on another two weeks... three.. or four... even a month or two or three or four... the point is still the same unless one wants to totally be ABSOLUTE on this. If a day is like to God 1000 years... then what is another month or two or three but a blip in that day?

You're clearly not seeing the issue here. Would you agree that the text says Satan is not loosed until after the thousand years, regardless of whether it is a literal thousand years? Yet, it "seems" like the rookie said that he believes Satan is loosed before the end of the thousand years. I base that on what he said here:


I believe that the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations happens at the end of the 1000 years before the end of the millennium and before the outpouring of fire upon the earth at the coming of the Father.So, it seems that he either believes the millennium is longer than a literal thousand years (which would be news to me) and includes Satan's little season or he believes that Satan is loosed before the end of the thousand years, despite the fact that the text says he is loosed after the thousand years expires.

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 03:42 PM
We're not trying to trap anyone into anything, we're trying to get clarification of what exactly he believes because based on things he has said we perceive there to be contradictions or inconsistencies in his comments. Also, "little season" is the term that is used in the scripture itself so how can it be mocking to use that term?
Honestly John... The Rookie has made it clear and I just clarified a bit deeper. Yet here we are many post later and folks are still going on about it. Simple fact... you disagree. That's cool. But there comes a point in time when one is either trying to play the ultimatel literalist (legalistic would be another word) card or they are trying to beat someone with a point. You've got your answer and can reject it or refute it and that is fine. But to badger someone with it... come on now. :lol: And this has reached that point long about how many post on it now?

John146
May 7th 2008, 03:46 PM
Honestly John... The Rookie has made it clear and I just clarified a bit deeper. Yet here we are many post later and folks are still going on about it. Simple fact... you disagree. That's cool. But there comes a point in time when one is either trying to play the ultimatel literalist (legalistic would be another word) card or they are trying to beat someone with a point. You've got your answer and can reject it or refute it and that is fine. But to badger someone with it... come on now. :lol: And this has reached that point long about how many post on it now?

This coming from someone who debated the OSAS vs. NOSAS issue for a thousand pages (not a literal thousand)? :lol: I think you're just trying to come to the defense of your buddy, but I'm sure he can handle these questions just fine without any help. He can just flat out refuse to answer them if he wants.

I believe the answers he gave aren't clear. So, it would be nice to have clarification. Nothing wrong with that. At one point he seemed to indicate that the day of the Lord begins with the second coming of Christ and it lasts exactly a thousand years. Then he said 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the same event as Rev 20:9. But Rev 20:9 occurs after the thousand years. So, it doesn't make sense and I'm asking him to clarify his view in case I'm not understanding it correctly. I'm actually giving him the benefit of the doubt here because if he's saying what it seems to me he's saying then we have a clear contradiction.

Eric

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 03:47 PM
You're clearly not seeing the issue here. Would you agree that the text says Satan is not loosed until after the thousand years, regardless of whether it is a literal thousand years? Yet, it "seems" like the rookie said that he believes Satan is loosed before the end of the thousand years. I base that on what he said here:

So, it seems that he either believes the millennium is longer than a literal thousand years (which would be news to me) and includes Satan's little season or he believes that Satan is loosed before the end of the thousand years, despite the fact that the text says he is loosed after the thousand years expires.
And you aren't reading what I said either. Before or after... a short season is but a blip in time.

Here is an example for you... one can take the legalistic view of things and say God short-changed them because God didn't give them that FULL three days... or one can get the point.

Exodus 19:9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I shall come to you in a thick cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe in you forever." Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.
10 The LORD also said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments;
11 and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
12 "And you shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, `Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.
13 `No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.´ When the ram's horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain."
14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments.
15 And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman."
16 ¶So it came about on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunder and lightning flashes and a thick cloud upon the mountain and a very loud trumpet sound, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled.

God came on that third day but God didn't let the full three days pass and then come at the end of it.

Morning of it... afternoon... evening... none of that is relevant to the point.

Same with the short season. If it is for the 1000 years (day) and God lets satan out for a few minutes (a short season when thinking a day is like 1000 years) before that actual time is up or right after that time is up... that isn't really all that relevant to the point. It is still that "day" or 1000 years.

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 03:50 PM
So what if it a thousand years plus 45 days... 60 days... an extra year. Nothing is lost in that especially considering the idea that you guys don't think it literal anyway. All you are doing is trying to trap someone in a literal interpretation as if that proves a point. It really doesn't. I would say that "little season" (which sounds a lot like mocking) could well just be a period of a few days... it doesn't at all take away from the 1000 year rule and reign of Christ on earth. With a day being like a thousand years to God... what would a year be? Just a moment or two into that day.

Yep, I would agree with that assessment. 30 days, 45 days, 75 days...any of those are possible...:D

That's why "I don't know" is actually an honest answer, not a leg-puller.

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 03:51 PM
This coming from someone who debated the OSAS vs. NOSAS issue for a thousand pages (not a literal thousand)? :lol: You're obviously just trying to come to the defense of your buddy, but I'm sure he can handle these questions just fine without any help.

I believe the answers he gave aren't clear. So, it would be nice to have clarification. Nothing wrong with that. At one point he seemed to indicate that the day of the Lord begins with the second coming of Christ and it lasts exactly a thousand years. Then he said 2 Peter 3:10-12 is the same event as Rev 20:9. But Rev 20:9 occurs after the thousand years. So, it doesn't make sense so I'm asking him to clarify his view in case I'm not understanding it correctly. I'm actually giving him the benefit of the doubt here because if he's saying what it seems to me he's saying then we have a clear contradiction.Actually it was literally more than two thousand but there wasn't badgering. That last one was actually probably one of the best threads we have had on the issue and I hated closing it... but it was nearing that point where it messes things up in the technical area on the boards so it was time.

And it isn't clear because you disagree. The points he made were just as clear as your points. I disagree with them and might refute them or just let the point go on by... but to keep hammering home on single issue post after post with a couple of folks doing so... that just gets old honestly.

If you don't understand what he is saying yet then it is perhaps just something you aren't going to get no matter how much clarification you get. That happens at times.

John146
May 7th 2008, 03:53 PM
And you aren't reading what I said either. Before or after... a short season is but a blip in time.

Here is an example for you... one can take the legalistic view of things and say God short-changed them because God didn't give them that FULL three days... or one can get the point.

Exodus 19:9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I shall come to you in a thick cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe in you forever." Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.
10 The LORD also said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments;
11 and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
12 "And you shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, `Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.
13 `No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.´ When the ram's horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain."
14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments.
15 And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman."
16 ¶So it came about on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunder and lightning flashes and a thick cloud upon the mountain and a very loud trumpet sound, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled.

God came on that third day but God didn't let the full three days pass and then come at the end of it.

Morning of it... afternoon... evening... none of that is relevant to the point.

Same with the short season. If it is for the 1000 years (day) and God lets satan out for a few minutes (a short season when thinking a day is like 1000 years) before that actual time is up or right after that time is up... that isn't really all that relevant to the point. It is still that "day" or 1000 years.

Are you saying that you believe the text doesn't say that Satan's little season occurs after the thousand years are over? That's the only issue I'm getting at here. All this other stuff you're talking about isn't necessary. How long the little season actually lasts has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

wpm
May 7th 2008, 03:56 PM
I will try and keep in mind that I am not speaking for the rookie. If he differs from this then it works for me.

If he is loosed on year 999 and Ten months... it is still a day. If he is released on Day 1001 and time goes on another two weeks... three.. or four... even a month or two or three or four... the point is still the same unless one wants to totally be ABSOLUTE on this. If a day is like to God 1000 years... then what is another month or two or three but a blip in that day?

I have just spend a whole thread debating with Rookie and Bing that a thousand doesn't need to be a literal wooden 1,000 yrs. They strongly disagreed. Now you guys are suggesting otherwise. This is inconsistency. It seems like the goal-posts are been continually moved to facilitate the Premil paradigm. I put it to you the reason is: Premil just doesn't fit.

Paul

wpm
May 7th 2008, 04:00 PM
And you aren't reading what I said either. Before or after... a short season is but a blip in time.

Here is an example for you... one can take the legalistic view of things and say God short-changed them because God didn't give them that FULL three days... or one can get the point.

Exodus 19:9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I shall come to you in a thick cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe in you forever." Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.
10 The LORD also said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments;
11 and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
12 "And you shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, `Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.
13 `No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.´ When the ram's horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain."
14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments.
15 And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman."
16 ¶So it came about on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunder and lightning flashes and a thick cloud upon the mountain and a very loud trumpet sound, so that all the people who were in the camp trembled.

God came on that third day but God didn't let the full three days pass and then come at the end of it.

Morning of it... afternoon... evening... none of that is relevant to the point.

Same with the short season. If it is for the 1000 years (day) and God lets satan out for a few minutes (a short season when thinking a day is like 1000 years) before that actual time is up or right after that time is up... that isn't really all that relevant to the point. It is still that "day" or 1000 years.

I have to disagree. If it is not “after” the 1,000 years are “fulfilled” (Revelation 20:3) / “expired” (Revelation 20:7) then what is it after?

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 04:09 PM
Are you saying that you believe the text doesn't say that Satan's little season occurs after the thousand years are over? That's the only issue I'm getting at here. All this other stuff you're talking about isn't necessary. How long the little season actually lasts has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,I personally think it will be after. Like I said... it will still be a day plus a blip in time. To eternity standard... that doesn't change a thing if it turns into another month or so. The Day is still done. The day of rest is over for the Father... enter a new age.

wpm
May 7th 2008, 04:09 PM
Yep, I would agree with that assessment. 30 days, 45 days, 75 days...any of those are possible...:D

That's why "I don't know" is actually an honest answer, not a leg-puller.

Oh, so now it is not a literalistic thousand years. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Will you now go to the 1,000 literal yrs discussion and indicate your change? There has been so many U-turns in your Premillenialism that I am getting dizzy.

I previously asked: "When does the new earth arrive in your opinion?" (please note the word "arrive" in my question).

You replied in direct response:


It begins at the Second Coming and ends at the end of the 1000 years, IMO. It's a 1000 yr. process to renovate the earth and "make all things new" (Rev. 21:5).

When pressed, you did a complete 180 degree turn, saying,


The new earth "arrives" at the end of the thousand years. Jesus "arrives" at the beginning of it. In between is a process of sanctification, cleansing, and restoration according to the promise that Peter spoke of. In other words, when He comes He will begin "creating" new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered or not come to mind when He is finished.

When I tried to clarify this confusion, asking: When is the beginning of the new earth in your paradigm (when does it first appear)?

You said


Well, to be technical, the First Advent, the cross, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit @ Pentecost were key moments in redemptive history related to the new earth.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

So here we have 3 existing Rookie opinions about the arrival of the new earth - all of which cannot be true. So, the burden of proof is with you to confirm which one of your opinions is the one that you hold today. Tomorrow will sort itself out.

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 04:11 PM
I have just spend a whole thread debating with Rookie and Bing that a thousand doesn't need to be a literal wooden 1,000 yrs. They strongly disagreed. Now you guys are suggesting otherwise. This is inconsistency. It seems like the goal-posts are been continually moved to facilitate the Premil paradigm. I put it to you the reason is: Premil just doesn't fit.

Paul
A thousand is a thousand. Don;t care how long you debated it. ;)

And no... not suggesting otherwise at all. I think it will be straight up... 1000 years.

wpm
May 7th 2008, 04:13 PM
A thousand is a thousand. Don;t care how long you debated it. ;)

And no... not suggesting otherwise at all. I think it will be straight up... 1000 years.

Are the 1,000 yrs and the millennium synonymous ?

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 04:14 PM
I have to disagree. If it is not “after” the 1,000 years are “fulfilled” (Revelation 20:3) / “expired” (Revelation 20:7) then what is it after?

Paul
I know you have to disagree. That's cool. It doesn't work with your eschatology and again... understand that. But the case has been made. You disagree. That happens! I can live with it... promise! :D

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 04:15 PM
I have to disagree. If it is not “after” the 1,000 years are “fulfilled” (Revelation 20:3) / “expired” (Revelation 20:7) then what is it after?

Paul
I think it is after by the way.

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 04:16 PM
Are the 1,000 yrs and the millennium synonymous ?

Paul
Sure... by definition of synonymous.

wpm
May 7th 2008, 04:21 PM
I know you have to disagree. That's cool. It doesn't work with your eschatology and again... understand that. But the case has been made. You disagree. That happens! I can live with it... promise! :D

Ok, Rookie said:


But clearly I believe that the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations happens at the end of the 1000 years before the end of the millennium and before the outpouring of fire upon the earth at the coming of the Father (i.e. 2 Pet. 3 & Mal. 3-4, Psalm 46).

So, do you believe with what Rookie says here?

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 04:23 PM
Ok, Rookie said:



So, do you believe with what Rookie says here?

Paul
Goodness! Are you even reading my post... I've made my own views pretty clear I thought. I BELIEVE... it will happen AFTER the 1000 years and for a short season. I don't believe that season will be but for even a month or perhaps a few days more than that.

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 04:28 PM
A straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-files-1)

Thank you, Wikipedia :lol:

I'm going back to my very first point on this thread:


No - I actually think that Amils and Premils have the a similar expectancy related to the new earth, where they differ is related to timing (2000 years v. 3000 years), process (finished at the Second Coming after centuries of Jesus' indirect leadership over the nations v. finished after the Second Coming and 1000 years of Jesus' direct leadership over the nations), and the involvement of Israel in that process.

I would think that, if we all actually stopped going 'round and 'round, we would find that our expectation of the new earth itself at the completion or the fullness of the plans of God would be the same.

I stated my points on Rev. 20 & 2 Pet. 3, you didn't like them. You stated your points on Deut. 28, Isa. 35, Ezek. 47, etc. and I thought they were off. So there we go. We're only going 'round and 'round from here. The key, at this point, is who gets to highlight whose supposed inconsistencies with the last word to appear the "most convincing". Since I wanted to stop the ride on my end, I thought it would be great to close with an honest "not sure". There are tons of details that aren't clear, to be honest. But I'd rather poke around at those details elsewhere, thanks.

If you want to press the issues with Rev. 20, I'll press the issues with the above passages that you butchered - but that doesn't strike me as productive at this point.

wpm
May 7th 2008, 04:33 PM
A straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-files-1)

Thank you, Wikipedia :lol:

Ok. It is now time to grasp the nettle - and stop side-stepping the issues.

You said:



I believe that the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations happens at the end of the 1000 years before the end of the millennium and before the outpouring of fire upon the earth at the coming of the Father (i.e. 2 Pet. 3 & Mal. 3-4, Psalm 46).


You have Satan released before the end of the millennium. Scripture says Satan's "little season" doesn't commence until the 1,000 years are [teleo] (or) “fulfilled” (Revelation 20:3) / “expired” (Revelation 20:7). Then, meta tauta (or) "after that" (as it says in Revelation 20:3) Satan will be released.

(1) How can Satan simultaneously be in the bottomless pit and on earth at the same time?

(2) How can Satan simultaneously be bound and be loosed at the one time?

(3) How can Satan simultaneously deceive the Gentiles and not deceive the Gentiles at the same time?

Paul

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 04:37 PM
Ok. It is now time to grasp the nettle - and stop side-stepping the issues.

:rofl:Sorry - had to look that one up:

"If you grasp the nettle, you deal bravely with a problem."

That's awesome. Hey, I added some points to my last post that you'd want to read before throwing that idiom out there - as entertaining as it is. :lol:

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 04:40 PM
Here - I'll make it easy for you:

I'm going back to my very first point on this thread:

Quote:
No - I actually think that Amils and Premils have the a similar expectancy related to the new earth, where they differ is related to timing (2000 years v. 3000 years), process (finished at the Second Coming after centuries of Jesus' indirect leadership over the nations v. finished after the Second Coming and 1000 years of Jesus' direct leadership over the nations), and the involvement of Israel in that process.

I would think that, if we all actually stopped going 'round and 'round, we would find that our expectation of the new earth itself at the completion or the fullness of the plans of God would be the same.
I stated my points on Rev. 20 & 2 Pet. 3, you didn't like them. You stated your points on Deut. 28, Isa. 35, Ezek. 47, etc. and I thought they were off. So there we go. We're only going 'round and 'round from here. The key, at this point, is who gets to highlight whose supposed inconsistencies with the last word to appear the "most convincing". Since I wanted to stop the ride on my end, I thought it would be great to close with an honest "not sure". There are tons of details that aren't clear, to be honest. But I'd rather poke around at those details elsewhere, thanks.

If you want to press the issues with Rev. 20, I'll press the issues with the above passages that you butchered - but that doesn't strike me as productive at this point.

wpm
May 7th 2008, 04:43 PM
A straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-files-1)

Thank you, Wikipedia :lol:

I'm going back to my very first point on this thread:



I stated my points on Rev. 20 & 2 Pet. 3, you didn't like them. You stated your points on Deut. 28, Isa. 35, Ezek. 47, etc. and I thought they were off. So there we go. We're only going 'round and 'round from here. The key, at this point, is who gets to highlight whose supposed inconsistencies with the last word to appear the "most convincing". Since I wanted to stop the ride on my end, I thought it would be great to close with an honest "not sure". There are tons of details that aren't clear, to be honest. But I'd rather poke around at those details elsewhere, thanks.

If you want to press the issues with Rev. 20, I'll press the issues with the above passages that you butchered - but that doesn't strike me as productive at this point.

Whatever subject we take re your take on Premil you make conflicting statements, ambiguous assertions and steer round real issues when clarification is requested. You have left more questions than provided real answers on this thread. However, these statements (which I have copied for my own reference) may be useful to keep in future discussions as we will definitely need clarification of these at some point.

Paul

the rookie
May 7th 2008, 04:49 PM
Whatever subject we take re your take on Premil you make conflicting statements, ambiguous assertions and steer round real issues when clarification is requested. You have left more questions than provided real answers on this thread. However, these statements (which I have copied for my own reference) may be useful to keep in future discussions as we will definitely need clarification of these at some point.

Paul

I'll be sure to keep those OT passages in my back pocket for just such an occasion :lol:

John146
May 7th 2008, 05:43 PM
I personally think it will be after.

I agree and the text seems pretty clear about that, right?



Like I said... it will still be a day plus a blip in time. To eternity standard... that doesn't change a thing if it turns into another month or so. The Day is still done. The day of rest is over for the Father... enter a new age.

Yep. The little season could be a very short time for all we know. So, just to be clear, you believe that the day of the Lord covers not only the thousand years, but Satan's little season as well, correct? In other words, do you believe Rev 20:9 occurs after the day of the Lord as described in 2 Peter 3:10-12, or at the end of the day of the Lord?

John146
May 7th 2008, 05:52 PM
I'll be sure to keep those OT passages in my back pocket for just such an occasion :lol:

All this back and forth rhetoric aside (notice I said back and forth - coming from both sides), I'm still wondering whether I read you right that you believe Satan is loosed before the end of the thousand years. Can you just clarify that one issue for me? Do you believe he is loosed before or after the thousand years? I know you probably think you already answered that, but if your answer is "before" then I don't see how that can be reconciled with what it says in Revelation 20:3 and 20:7. So, I'm just curious about this one last thing and then we can be done with this thread for all I care. :D

yoSAMite
May 7th 2008, 05:55 PM
From the OP:

Amils and Premils seem to be in agreement that the kingdom of God is eternal. They also seem to be in agreement that there is a dynamic continuity between the spiritual kingdom inaugurated before the cross and the final physical reality of the kingdom that is established at Christ’s coming. Both also see the progressive growth of the kingdom throughout the nations in this intra-Advent period.

Where Amils and Premils go their separate ways (major) is in their expectation of the new earth and the physical manifestation of the kingdom that Christ introduces at His ComingWhew, what a way to spend the morning, glad for days off.

Actually, I'd have to disagree with your first sentence, and this depending on definition I guess. It's my understanding (and I'm assuming that of most premils) that the kingdom is the 1000 years (literal or not) millennial period and that eternity is something different and occurs after the 1000 years.

It is also my understanding that eternity will in no way resemble the time/space dimension we currently live. There is what I think is a common belief that in eternity and in our glorified bodies that we will probably live in the full 10/11 dimensions of our current unseen reality. Some also believe eternity will more likely resemble pre fall Eden rather than post fall earth.

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 05:56 PM
I agree and the text seems pretty clear about that, right?



Yep. The little season could be a very short time for all we know. So, just to be clear, you believe that the day of the Lord covers not only the thousand years, but Satan's little season as well, correct? In other words, do you believe Rev 20:9 occurs after the day of the Lord as described in 2 Peter 3:10-12, or at the end of the day of the Lord?
Tell you what... if in all of my post of yet... you haven't figured it out... then you just take a guess and apply it to however you want to apply it. Goodness... I've been very clear on this and I know folks that aren't nearly as smart as guys like you and Paul and they know exactly what I am saying even if they disagree.

wpm
May 7th 2008, 06:17 PM
Tell you what... if in all of my post of yet... you haven't figured it out... then you just take a guess and apply it to however you want to apply it. Goodness... I've been very clear on this and I know folks that aren't nearly as smart as guys like you and Paul and they know exactly what I am saying even if they disagree.

PP,

I feel I know your position, but I am totally confused by Rookies' view.

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 06:28 PM
Well... not sure why you don't understand his (disagree I do understand) but hey... at least I hope I've been clear enough! :lol:

wpm
May 7th 2008, 06:39 PM
Well... not sure why you don't understand his (disagree I do understand) but hey... at least I hope I've been clear enough! :lol:

Ok, maybe thou art the man to help me. What does the following statement by Rookie mean?



"I believe that the release of Satan from his prison to deceive the nations happens at the end of the 1000 years before the end of the millennium"


Paul

Clifton
May 7th 2008, 06:40 PM
From the OP:
Whew, what a way to spend the morning, glad for days off.
Yep... I believe this is the first time I ever saw a Board-Forum-Thread seem like a virtual CHAT ROOM :D


Actually, I'd have to disagree with your first sentence, and this depending on definition I guess. It's my understanding (and I'm assuming that of most premils) that the kingdom is the 1000 years (literal or not) millennial period and that eternity is something different and occurs after the 1000 years.Yes, that is one of the reasons it is also referred as the 'Kingdom Age'.


It is also my understanding that eternity will in no way resemble the time/space dimension we currently live. There is what I think is a common belief that in eternity and in our glorified bodies that we will probably live in the full 10/11 dimensions of our current unseen reality. Some also believe eternity will more likely resemble pre fall Eden rather than post fall earth.Far-out and groovy talk - I can dig that.:)

Blessings.

John146
May 7th 2008, 06:42 PM
Tell you what... if in all of my post of yet... you haven't figured it out... then you just take a guess and apply it to however you want to apply it. Goodness... I've been very clear on this and I know folks that aren't nearly as smart as guys like you and Paul and they know exactly what I am saying even if they disagree.

Good grief, you guys are awfully touchy just over being asked questions for clarification. All I'm trying to do is make sure I understand you correctly. What is so offensive about that? Maybe I'm smart like you say but I'm being dense in this case. So what? Are my questions that grievous? My goodness. :rolleyes:

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 06:43 PM
Ok, maybe thou art the man to help me. What does the following statement by Rookie mean?


Paul
Like I said before... he thinks that it happens in a short season (and by short meaning maybe a month'ish or so)... right before the end. In other words... it will be hour 23:50. That short season is but a blip in the 1000 years. And also he has gone out of his way to say HE DOESN'T KNOW for sure how it will work but it will work out somehow in that 1000 year time frame being fore or after. I've read that a couple of times in his post and am really quite baffled why it is that you guys can't seem to actually see that.

John146
May 7th 2008, 06:44 PM
Well... not sure why you don't understand his (disagree I do understand) but hey... at least I hope I've been clear enough! :lol:

I thought we've been pretty clear as to why we don't understand his position. But maybe none of us are ever clear about anything, eh? He has made what seems to us as contradictory statements. So, we questioned him on it. How could we do such a thing?! :eek: :D

wpm
May 7th 2008, 06:45 PM
Like I said before... he thinks that it happens in a short season (and by short meaning maybe a month'ish or so)... right before the end. In other words... it will be hour 23:50. That short season is but a blip in the 1000 years. And also he has gone out of his way to say HE DOESN'T KNOW for sure how it will work but it will work out somehow in that 1000 year time frame being fore or after. I've read that a couple of times in his post and am really quite baffled why it is that you guys can't seem to actually see that.

Ok, if that is what he is saying, do you agree with that? Again, like Eric said, don't be touchy and defensive, I am genuinely trying to get the bottom of this.

Paul

John146
May 7th 2008, 06:49 PM
Like I said before... he thinks that it happens in a short season (and by short meaning maybe a month'ish or so)... right before the end. In other words... it will be hour 23:50. That short season is but a blip in the 1000 years. And also he has gone out of his way to say HE DOESN'T KNOW for sure how it will work but it will work out somehow in that 1000 year time frame being fore or after. I've read that a couple of times in his post and am really quite baffled why it is that you guys can't seem to actually see that.

Let me spell this out since you have hit here on the crux of the matter. How in the world can Satan's little season be at the end or before the end of the thousand years in light of what the following verses tell us?

3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Clearly, Satan isn't loosed until after the thousand years are over, not at the end of the thousand years.

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 06:50 PM
I thought we've been pretty clear as to why we don't understand his position. But maybe none of us are ever clear about anything, eh? He has made what seems to us as contradictory statements. So, we questioned him on it. How could we do such a thing?! :eek: :D


Ok, if that is what he is saying, do you agree with that? Again, like Eric said, don't be touchy and defensive, I am genuinely trying to get the bottom of this.

PaulWhat part of this is hard to understand... I mean honestly?


I thought it would be great to close with an honest "not sure". There are tons of details that aren't clear, to be honest.

I am pretty sure but that's my style. Now that being said... if it happens before... I won't cry. If it happens afterwards I want clap my hands. If it doesn't happen at all... I won't honestly care.

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 06:53 PM
Let me spell this out since you have hit here on the crux of the matter. How in the world can Satan's little season be at the end or before the end of the thousand years in light of what the following verses tell us?

3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Clearly, Satan isn't loosed until after the thousand years are over, not at the end of the thousand years.
Well the problem with your eschatology is that the thousand years is now two'ish thousand years and still counting. ;)

I have explained myself... if a day is as a 1000 years to God... what is a month or two or even a literal 3 month season that is short but say it goes 3. A minute past that 1000 years?

wpm
May 7th 2008, 06:55 PM
What part of this is hard to understand... I mean honestly?

Don't answer a question with a question. Do you believe that or not (yes or no)?

Paul

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 06:59 PM
Don't answer a question with a question. Do you believe that or not (yes or no)?

Paul
Now I am truly convinced that you are simply headhunting here Paul. I did ANSWER your question if you would actually read. HE SAID HE WASN'T SURE. Get it now?

I then went on to explain there Paul that I am sure and that's my style otherwise I'd keep my piehole shut. He isn't sure... I am sure. I already answered it that I think it happens AFTER and you already said you agree. Now my friend you are just being contentious.

John146
May 7th 2008, 07:00 PM
Well the problem with your eschatology is that the thousand years is now two'ish thousand years and still counting. ;)

Check the literal thousand year thread started by the rookie and we can discuss that issue there. ;););)



I have explained myselfYes, you have explained yourself. Well done! But right now we're trying to explain to you why we're having trouble understanding the rookie's comments.



... if a day is as a 1000 years to God... what is a month or two or even a literal 3 month season that is short but say it goes 3. A minute past that 1000 years?As I said, the duration of the little season doesn't have any impact on this discussion. The issue is whether it occurs before the end of the thousand years or after it. You, Paul and I believe it occurs after. The rookie seems to believe it occurs before the end of the thousand years. And we can't figure out why he believes that or even if he really does believe that for certain so that's what we're trying to understand, especially in light of what we believe Rev 20:3,7 clearly says.

John146
May 7th 2008, 07:01 PM
Now I am truly convinced that you are simply headhunting here Paul. I did ANSWER your question if you would actually read. HE SAID HE WASN'T SURE. Get it now?

Now, wait a minute. If he said that then I missed it, too. Those things happen in threads, right? Just show us where he said that and then we can put the issue to rest.

ProjectPeter
May 7th 2008, 07:01 PM
You are getting away from the issue. We all agree the thousand years are not necessarily a literal wooden thousand yrs. Deal with the issue of whether Satan's little season is in or after this non-literal thousand yrs. and don't get side-tracked. That is not the thrust of our enquiry.

Paul
Uh... again... you are now simply being contentious. Move on in this thread or move out of this thread and let it die. This is just silly now.