PDA

View Full Version : Scripture forbids mortals entering the new earth



wpm
Dec 9th 2008, 06:24 AM
1 Corinthians 15:50-55 plainly declares, “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?”

This reading is speaking about the change that occurs at the Second Coming. It is describing the change that is required to inherit the new earth. It is talking about an obligatory change that must happen in order for men to be able to inhabit the new earth. It is not just that our corruptible bodies will be changed; it is that they must be changed. Why? The kingdom that they are going to inherit is an incorrupt one. It has been purged by fire of all the bondage of corruption (Romans 8:19-23) thus restoring it back to its original state – pristine and perfect. It is not just that we are changed, but the earth is correspondingly and simultaneously changed.

Premils talk about the millennial kingdom or simply the kingdom. Well, this kingdom is an incorrupt one. Every vestige of the fall is removed. No mortal can inherit/inhabit or possess this great incorrupt state. It is solely the domain of the glorified. Plainly: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” This eliminates the oft stated Premillennial claim that the unsaved can in fact inhabit the new earth. Regardless of whether one is saved or not, if they aren’t glorified they cannot inherit the new earth. No mortal will inhabit it. This is an absolute and must challenge the Premillennial thinking.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 makes clear: “the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.”

It is plain to see, for man to be able to inherit the new glorified earth – which is totally free of the curse – he must be suitably fitted for it. His whole sinful makeup must be completely changed in order to allow him to grace it. Every vestige of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. The invisible man is not only changed, but Paul speaks of a complete bodily change. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs.

Our “earthly” bodies will be changed to “spiritual” bodies that are completely devoid of sin and corruption. The saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new eternal order. This arrangement will never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible eternal arrangement.

If the believer needs completely changed in order to make him fit to enter the new regenerated earth then how could the unbeliever enter the same without this change? How can unregenerate mortals inherit the incorruptible earth in their fallen nature, when believers need glorified to allow them entry? Such a notion is untenable. When Paul explains that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," he is demonstrating why the resurrection is necessary. Paul is showing why the resurrection is required in order for a person to enter that curse-free domain.

No one could surely argue against the fact that this reading is talking about Christ's Coming. It is expressly outlining the conditions of entry for the new earth - no mortals are allowed. It says, "flesh and blood (or mortals humans) cannot inherit the kingdom of God (the final glorious kingdom that will come to earth); neither doth corruption (our current fallen state) inherit incorruption (the new glorified pristine earth). The reason being, the earth will be made incorrupt at His appearing. This creates a difficulty for man - he is sinful and corrupt. God then has to change him to make him worthy of the kingdom inhabitancy. This he does by changing us from corruption to incorruption - glorification.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians 15 is the perfecting of the believer’s body by “the resurrection of the dead” where he is “raised in incorruption,” “raised in glory,” “raised in power” and “raised a spiritual body.” Why? Because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” The earth that the redeemed inherit is perfect. It is purged of every vestige of the fall by fire. It is wonderfully glorified and prepared for the equally glorified saints.

In short, 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 shows why glorification is necessary - "neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." The new earth inhabitants must of necessity be immediately changed to enter the new glorified kingdom. As there was a commonality in the fall, so there will be a commonality in the glorification. The belief therefore amongst some Premils that the new glorified earth does not occur to the end of the Premillennial millennium makes this change premature – 1,000 yrs+ premature.

The whole glorification process could be put on hold for 1,000 yrs until the second Premillennial new earth comes along, as the new millennial earth is corrupt, sinful and full of death and rebellion. It culminates in billions of millennial inhabitants rising up to surround Christ and the saints at the end. The Premil new earth is therefore little different from today. It is plagued by corruption. In essence what you have (despite what this passage explicitly says) is incorruption inheriting corruption; the glorified saints inheriting an unglorified earth.

Some Premils argues it will be a purified new earth; however, the reality is it is no different than our own earth. Even if one accepted this Premil response, you have corruption (in the form of the supposed mortal millennial saints) inheriting incorruption (in the form of a glorified earth). This just doesn’t add up. Whatever way you look at this, it just doesn’t make sense. This is contrary to what Scripture is saying here. What will in fact be ushered in is an incorrupt kingdom. It is a purified new earth devoid of the bondage of corruption. Premillennial must reject this in the light of their interpretation of Revelation 20. In fact, take Revelation 20 out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing explicit to build its paradigm on.

third hero
Dec 9th 2008, 07:01 AM
1 Corinthians 15:50-55 plainly declares, “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?”

This reading is speaking about the change that occurs at the Second Coming. It is describing the change that is required to inherit the new earth. It is talking about an obligatory change that must happen in order for men to be able to inhabit the new earth.

The New Earth is not mentioned here. It is only talking about the Kingdom of God. THis scripture is dealing with the current condition, where no flesh or blood can inherit the Kingdom of God. Only those who are born again, believers, can inherit the Kingdom, and even then, our mortal bodies can not inherit the Kingdom. There is no mention of any earth, let alone the "New Earth", in this passage, and thus is irrelevant for the End Times discussion.

It is not just that our corruptible bodies will be changed; it is that they must be changed. Why? The kingdom that they are going to inherit is an incorrupt one. It has been purged by fire of all the bondage of corruption (Romans 8:19-23) thus restoring it back to its original state – pristine and perfect. It is not just that we are changed, but the earth is correspondingly and simultaneously changed.[/quote]

This was never in question. What is in question is the time in which the New Earth will appear, and according to Revelation, it does not happen until every last enemy of God is defeated and sent into the Lake.


Premils talk about the millennial kingdom or simply the kingdom. Well, this kingdom is an incorrupt one. Every vestige of the fall is removed. No mortal can inherit/inhabit or possess this great incorrupt state. It is solely the domain of the glorified. Plainly: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” This eliminates the oft stated Premillennial claim that the unsaved can in fact inhabit the new earth. Regardless of whether one is saved or not, if they aren’t glorified they cannot inherit the new earth. No mortal will inhabit it. This is an absolute and must challenge the Premillennial thinking.

I see. Again, since you have been finding it difficult to rebuke Premil doctrine, you have to go into tangeants in order to prove what has been disproven in previous threads. How ironic. What premils consider is Revelation 20:4-10, where there is a period in time, as written, where the evil one is sealed away from the earth, and the world is under the DIRECT sugjugation of Lord Jesus. This Kingdom is the Lord's Kingdom, and He will reign in it until the New Earth is ready. When that happens, well, let scripture tell the tale.

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. Revelation 21:1-2

As we see here, the new earth begins, with the old earth, this one, dead; hence the term, "passed away". This happens when? According to Revelation 20-21, it happens after Satan is imprisoned, after his release 1000 years later, after the last day rebellion, and after the GWT judgment, when ALL of the wicked are hurled into the Lake of eternal destruction. (Revelation 20:1-15).

One other thing. Notice that New Jerusalem is hailed as the city prepared fro the bride, who has been married to Lord Jesus during His return, some 1000+ years earlier, in chapter 19? The New Jerusalem, the new city of God on the New earth, does not come into existence until the Lord has not only married Himself with the church, has ruled this current earth, and done away with all of the Lord's enemies at the GWT. According to Revelation 19:11-20:15, at least 1000 years pass between the marriage and the move to New Jerusalem.



1 Corinthians 15:42-44 makes clear: “the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.”

It is plain to see, for man to be able to inherit the new glorified earth – which is totally free of the curse – he must be suitably fitted for it. His whole sinful makeup must be completely changed in order to allow him to grace it. Every vestige of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. The invisible man is not only changed, but Paul speaks of a complete bodily change. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs.

Our “earthly” bodies will be changed to “spiritual” bodies that are completely devoid of sin and corruption. The saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new eternal order. This arrangement will never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible eternal arrangement.

If the believer needs completely changed in order to make him fit to enter the new regenerated earth then how could the unbeliever enter the same without this change? How can unregenerate mortals inherit the incorruptible earth in their fallen nature, when believers need glorified to allow them entry? Such a notion is untenable. When Paul explains that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," he is demonstrating why the resurrection is necessary. Paul is showing why the resurrection is required in order for a person to enter that curse-free domain.


So, you write all of this in order to say that since the Righteous are resurrected to life when the Lord returns, that the wicked are resurrected to destruction at the same time? Revelation 19 debunks that notion. The Saints are with Lord Jesus in the air, (verse 11-12), and yet, the wicked are on the earth, awaiting their destruction. The Wicked are not resurrrected then, but killed. The Lord defeated all of the armies of the world, at one battle, in one place. This has nothing to do with your idea that because flesh is found during the MIllennium, that the Kingdom that will be present there is not the Kingdom of God.

According to Daniel 7 and Revelation 20, the saints gain control of the earth. According ot Revelation 7, the saints who come out of the Great Tribulation are with Jesus perpetually, and if they are on the earth while the Lord is on it, even in their incorruptible bodies, they will represent the Lord's Kingdom, even as rulers over the heathen that are left.


No one could surely argue against the fact that this reading is talking about Christ's Coming. It is expressly outlining the conditions of entry for the new earth - no mortals are allowed. It says, "flesh and blood (or mortals humans) cannot inherit the kingdom of God (the final glorious kingdom that will come to earth); neither doth corruption (our current fallen state) inherit incorruption (the new glorified pristine earth). The reason being, the earth will be made incorrupt at His appearing. This creates a difficulty for man - he is sinful and corrupt. God then has to change him to make him worthy of the kingdom inhabitancy. This he does by changing us from corruption to incorruption - glorification.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians 15 is the perfecting of the believer’s body by “the resurrection of the dead” where he is “raised in incorruption,” “raised in glory,” “raised in power” and “raised a spiritual body.” Why? Because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” The earth that the redeemed inherit is perfect. It is purged of every vestige of the fall by fire. It is wonderfully glorified and prepared for the equally glorified saints.

In short, 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 shows why glorification is necessary - "neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." The new earth inhabitants must of necessity be immediately changed to enter the new glorified kingdom. As there was a commonality in the fall, so there will be a commonality in the glorification. The belief therefore amongst some Premils that the new glorified earth does not occur to the end of the Premillennial millennium makes this change premature – 1,000 yrs+ premature.

The changing of the saints do not change the facts. In Revelation 20:4-6, we see the immortal saints, ruling the earth during the millennium of Satan's imprisonment. This is not premil banter, but scripture. Again, you're achilles heel is the actual scriptures themselves. I didn't write them, I merely believe them.


The whole glorification process could be put on hold for 1,000 yrs until the second Premillennial new earth comes along, as the new millennial earth is corrupt, sinful and full of death and rebellion. It culminates in billions of millennial inhabitants rising up to surround Christ and the saints at the end. The Premil new earth is therefore little different from today. It is plagued by corruption. In essence what you have (despite what Scripture explicitly says) is incorruption inheriting corruption; the glorified saints inheriting an unglorified earth.

Premil argues it will be a purified new earth; however, the reality is it is no different than our own earth. Even if one accepted this Premil reponse, you have corruption (in the form of the supposed mortal millennial saints) inheriting incorruption (in the form of a glorified earth). This just doesn’t add up. Whatever way you look at this, it just doesn’t make sense. This is contrary to what Scripture is saying here. What will in fact be ushered in is an incorrupt kingdom. It is a purified new earth devoid of the bondage of corruption. Premillennial must reject this in the light of their interpretation of Revelation 20. In fact, take Revelation 20 out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing explicit to build its paradigm on.


No matter how you slice it, your debate is not with premils, but scripture. No matter how you try to evolutionize the scriptures, the scriptures speak for themselves. IF a spirit being is to be locked up and sealed away for 1000 years, and the immortal believers are to rule the world with Christ for not only that time, but until the end of the earth, (Daniel 7:22, 27; Revelation 20:4-10), then the glorification of the church has to happen 1000 years prior to the GWT judgment. Again, scripture speaks.

DurbanDude
Dec 9th 2008, 08:45 AM
Some Premils argues it will be a purified new earth; however, the reality is it is no different than our own earth. Even if one accepted this Premil response, you have corruption (in the form of the supposed mortal millennial saints) inheriting incorruption (in the form of a glorified earth). This just doesn’t add up. Whatever way you look at this, it just doesn’t make sense. This is contrary to what Scripture is saying here. What will in fact be ushered in is an incorrupt kingdom. It is a purified new earth devoid of the bondage of corruption. Premillennial must reject this in the light of their interpretation of Revelation 20. In fact, take Revelation 20 out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing explicit to build its paradigm on.

wpm, the following verses indicate that the whole earth will NOT be destroyed at the second coming. Each verse either indicates that some nations will survive (normally in the context of a disciplined rule under the iron rod), or that some regions will survive:

Zechariah 12/13 , Zephaniah , Joel 3, Ezekiel 38/39 , Isaiah 2, Rev 19:15, Jeremiah 4:27 , Isaiah 25, Daniel 7, Rev 11:15, Zechariah 8, Isaiah 34, Isaiah 61, Zechariah 14, Psalm 2

I believe it would be very difficult to explain each one of these verses as being represented in a spiritual manner by the current church age. To me these speak about a literal age of Messianic rule on this earth that has never happened yet.

Here's a thought, in the OT the Jews were concerned about Mount Zion, Jerusalem and the future physical destiny of Israel. They received prophecies concerning a future period of peace on this earth, after their Messiah established His rule with a rod of iron, and Israel becomes the blessed nation as always prophesied from the beginning of the Israelites as a nation.

Then in the NT we are more concerned with spiritual salvation, knowing the truth of the cross. The receiving of our resurrection bodies and our eternal destiny at the Second Coming is of paramount importance rather than a focus on the future physical destiny of Israel. We are told again and again to be prepared and to keep our faith to the end, when Jesus comes. So the prophecies are mainly concerned with our destiny following the second coming, either eternal life or eternal damnation, life with Christ or the lake of fire. Whether we are in the camp of the saints (Rev 20) for 1000 years or in the heavenly Jerusalem or the New Earth is less significant to us as Christians, whichever way we reign with Christ forever and have our resurrection bodies. Rev 20 explains the sequence in more detail, explaining how the period of Messianic rule fits into this post second-coming period, but our destiny as Christians is sealed at the second coming, what follows the second coming does not affect us at all, we have our full blessing with Christ.

DeafPosttrib
Dec 9th 2008, 10:47 AM
third hero,


The New Earth is not mentioned here. It is only talking about the Kingdom of God.

Please definition what "kingdom of God" means?

Secondly, please definition, 'you must be born again, or cannot enter the "kingdom of God" - John 3:3,5 what Christ was talking about?


In Revelation 20:4-6, we see the immortal saints, ruling the earth during the millennium of Satan's imprisonment

Immortal saints beyond Christs' 'coming'? Isn't Rev. 20:4-6 conflicts with 1 Cor. 15:51-54 clearly telling us that all saints' mortal bodies will put away and changed into immortal at Christ's coming?

Notice Rev. 20:4 says, "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 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."

This verse tells us, John saw saints' souls are now in heaven after they were killed for keeping their testimony in ther life. Because, they had overcame the world of their faith in life.

Notice Rev. 20:6 says:

"Blessed and holy is he that [B]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."

This verse speaks of saints' destiny that, anyone who did overcame the world in the life at their death, now they have their part of "the first resurrection" which speaks of have eternal life with Christ is the picture of salvation.

So, that the "the second death" cannot overcome saints' souls after they already died, which it speaks of everlasting punishment in the lake of fire separate from God.

Therefore, the scene of Rev. 20:4-6 speaking of overcomers who already died in their testimony of life, that they already overcame the world in the faith, NOW their souls are in the heaven, reigning with Christ for a thousand years, that is called, "the first resurrection". Thousands or millions of Christians who already died, and their souls are in heaven are reigning with Christ for nearly 2,000 years now since Christ became the firstfruits of the resurreaction at His resurrection 2000 years ago.

DurbanDue,


the following verses indicate that the whole earth will NOT be destroyed at the second coming


In 2 Peter 3:10-13 telling us, Peter and Christians are earnest looking forward for new heavens and a new new earth that, will be follow at the Day of the Lord come. We are earnest looking for Lord's coming that, the present heavens and present old earth will be destroyed with fire, so, we are looking for new heavens and a new earth will be created same time.

2 Peter 3:10-13 did not saying that we will have to wait for another one thousand years after His 'coming' to see new heavens and a new earth to be created. This passage clearly telling us, this present old earth will be burned with fire at His coming same time so, so we will looking for new heavens and a new earth will be create right after his coming, not wait another one thousand years later after His coming.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

third hero
Dec 9th 2008, 12:10 PM
third hero,



Please definition what "kingdom of God" means?

Secondly, please definition, 'you must be born again, or cannot enter the "kingdom of God" - John 3:3,5 what Christ was talking about?

Is the New Earth the Kingdom of God? If this is so, then the Kingdom of God does not exist yet, for it can not exist until this earth is destroyed. And so no, the Kingdom of God does NOT ean the new earth.

What is the Kingdom of God? Is it not the believers? Is it not the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who has paid the price for all of our sins? If this is the case, and it is, then how can you redefine what the Bible has clearly defined? The Kingdom of God is not relegated to a location, but rather to a person. The Kingdom of God is related to Lord Jesus, and wherever He goes, the Kingdom goes with Him. This is what it means when the Father said to the Lord, "you are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased".

You see, if Lord Jesus ends up taking over the world, and rules it from Jerusalem, the Kingdom of God will have come to this earth. When the Lord returns, He brings the Kingdom with Him. When the Lord goes to the New Earth, the Kingdom will go with Him. His Kingdom is perpetual, with no end. It is not tied to New Jerusalem, the New Earth, or even this one. It is tied to God's Son, a fact that I feel is being severely overlooked.


Immortal saints beyond Christs' 'coming'? Isn't Rev. 20:4-6 conflicts with 1 Cor. 15:51-54 clearly telling us that all saints' mortal bodies will put away and changed into immortal at Christ's coming?

Come on, this is false if ever there is a false statement out there. There is no contradiction between 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20. The contradiction lies in the Amil doctrine, stating that the Lord will destroy everything when He returns, when according to both 1 corinthians and Revelation 20, the saints are raised from the dead. And although Revelation 20 does not specifically mention the saints that live through the Great Tribulation, Revelation 7 does. And so, the whole group of people who have come out of the Great Tribulation, both the ones who lost their heads, and the ones who were rescued, are changed into immortals, as described in 1 Corinthian 15.


Notice Rev. 20:4 says, "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 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."

This verse tells us, John saw saints' souls are now in heaven after they were killed for keeping their testimony in ther life. Because, they had overcame the world of their faith in life.

Sorry about that, but you are incorrect. The souls are those who are mentioned in Revelation 15, aka those who have lost their heads because of their testimonies. These are not the souls who are now in heaven, aka the souls under the altar.


Notice Rev. 20:6 says:

"Blessed and holy is he that [b]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."

This verse speaks of saints' destiny that, anyone who did overcame the world in the life at their death, now they have their part of "the first resurrection" which speaks of have eternal life with Christ is the picture of salvation.

So, that the "the second death" cannot overcome saints' souls after they already died, which it speaks of everlasting punishment in the lake of fire separate from God.

Therefore, the scene of Rev. 20:4-6 speaking of overcomers who already died in their testimony of life, that they already overcame the world in the faith, NOW their souls are in the heaven, reigning with Christ for a thousand years, that is called, "the first resurrection". Thousands or millions of Christians who already died, and their souls are in heaven are reigning with Christ for nearly 2,000 years now since Christ became the firstfruits of the resurreaction at His resurrection 2000 years ago.

Although it is true that those who are a part of the first resurrrection will not have to worry about the second death, it is not true as to whom Revelation 20:4-6 are talking about. By reading Revelation 14-20, we find that chapter 15 shows the souls of the Tribulation saints who overcome the enemy. These are not the same as those who have died from the point of Christ's resurrection to today. Those souls are under the altar in heaven, singing a song about the Lord taking vengeance upon the earth.

Again, the only contradiction is the amil doctrine in comparison to Revelation 20, and other scriptures that support it.

the rookie
Dec 9th 2008, 02:14 PM
Are there any other verses that prove this point or just one?

Because if we're going with the "one verse establishes doctrine" point, then the one mention (six times) of the "1000 years" seems way more clear in establishing an end-times context than this verse from 1 Cor. 15 which doesn't say what's being presented here nearly as straightforward as Rev. 20.

Just sayin'
:lol:

wpm
Dec 9th 2008, 03:54 PM
The New Earth is not mentioned here. It is only talking about the Kingdom of God. THis scripture is dealing with the current condition, where no flesh or blood can inherit the Kingdom of God. Only those who are born again, believers, can inherit the Kingdom, and even then, our mortal bodies can not inherit the Kingdom. There is no mention of any earth, let alone the "New Earth", in this passage, and thus is irrelevant for the End Times discussion.

It is not just that our corruptible bodies will be changed; it is that they must be changed. Why? The kingdom that they are going to inherit is an incorrupt one. It has been purged by fire of all the bondage of corruption (Romans 8:19-23) thus restoring it back to its original state – pristine and perfect. It is not just that we are changed, but the earth is correspondingly and simultaneously changed.

This was never in question. What is in question is the time in which the New Earth will appear, and according to Revelation, it does not happen until every last enemy of God is defeated and sent into the Lake.

I see. Again, since you have been finding it difficult to rebuke Premil doctrine, you have to go into tangeants in order to prove what has been disproven in previous threads. How ironic. What premils consider is Revelation 20:4-10, where there is a period in time, as written, where the evil one is sealed away from the earth, and the world is under the DIRECT sugjugation of Lord Jesus. This Kingdom is the Lord's Kingdom, and He will reign in it until the New Earth is ready. When that happens, well, let scripture tell the tale.

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. Revelation 21:1-2

As we see here, the new earth begins, with the old earth, this one, dead; hence the term, "passed away". This happens when? According to Revelation 20-21, it happens after Satan is imprisoned, after his release 1000 years later, after the last day rebellion, and after the GWT judgment, when ALL of the wicked are hurled into the Lake of eternal destruction. (Revelation 20:1-15).

One other thing. Notice that New Jerusalem is hailed as the city prepared fro the bride, who has been married to Lord Jesus during His return, some 1000+ years earlier, in chapter 19? The New Jerusalem, the new city of God on the New earth, does not come into existence until the Lord has not only married Himself with the church, has ruled this current earth, and done away with all of the Lord's enemies at the GWT. According to Revelation 19:11-20:15, at least 1000 years pass between the marriage and the move to New Jerusalem.

So, you write all of this in order to say that since the Righteous are resurrected to life when the Lord returns, that the wicked are resurrected to destruction at the same time? Revelation 19 debunks that notion. The Saints are with Lord Jesus in the air, (verse 11-12), and yet, the wicked are on the earth, awaiting their destruction. The Wicked are not resurrrected then, but killed. The Lord defeated all of the armies of the world, at one battle, in one place. This has nothing to do with your idea that because flesh is found during the MIllennium, that the Kingdom that will be present there is not the Kingdom of God.

According to Daniel 7 and Revelation 20, the saints gain control of the earth. According ot Revelation 7, the saints who come out of the Great Tribulation are with Jesus perpetually, and if they are on the earth while the Lord is on it, even in their incorruptible bodies, they will represent the Lord's Kingdom, even as rulers over the heathen that are left.

The changing of the saints do not change the facts. In Revelation 20:4-6, we see the immortal saints, ruling the earth during the millennium of Satan's imprisonment. This is not premil banter, but scripture. Again, you're achilles heel is the actual scriptures themselves. I didn't write them, I merely believe them.

No matter how you slice it, your debate is not with premils, but scripture. No matter how you try to evolutionize the scriptures, the scriptures speak for themselves. IF a spirit being is to be locked up and sealed away for 1000 years, and the immortal believers are to rule the world with Christ for not only that time, but until the end of the earth, (Daniel 7:22, 27; Revelation 20:4-10), then the glorification of the church has to happen 1000 years prior to the GWT judgment. Again, scripture speaks.

There is nothing here that you present which is a direct rebuttal of my points. You are just saying: 'I disagree, and this is what Rev 20 says'. Please address what I am saying. Forget about Rev 20 for one minute. It seems like it doesn't matter what clear and explicit passage Premils bring up the debate always gravitates toward Rev 20. This is one major difficulty Amils and Postmils have with Premil - it is depentant upon their opinion of one lone chapter. Look at the Matthew 25 discussion. You won't directly address the problems Premils face with that clear reading. I am still getting you to answer one simple question: are you saying the sheep and goats are all wicked?

We have had countless discussions on Rev 20, I have repeatedly showed you Rev 20 is the beginning of the 7th recapitulation in Revelation. That Jesus is the first resurrection. Satan has been spiritually bound by the earthly mission of Christ. The new earth does not arrive until the end of the millennium (not the start as you claim). So I would appreciate it if you please address my several points here and keep it on topic.

I have one question on your comments: I thought you locate Isa 65 describing the new heavens and new earth at the beginning of the millennium not the end? Am I correct? Please clarify this.

wpm
Dec 9th 2008, 03:59 PM
wpm, the following verses indicate that the whole earth will NOT be destroyed at the second coming. Each verse either indicates that some nations will survive (normally in the context of a disciplined rule under the iron rod), or that some regions will survive:

Zechariah 12/13 , Zephaniah , Joel 3, Ezekiel 38/39 , Isaiah 2, Rev 19:15, Jeremiah 4:27 , Isaiah 25, Daniel 7, Rev 11:15, Zechariah 8, Isaiah 34, Isaiah 61, Zechariah 14, Psalm 2

I believe it would be very difficult to explain each one of these verses as being represented in a spiritual manner by the current church age. To me these speak about a literal age of Messianic rule on this earth that has never happened yet.

Here's a thought, in the OT the Jews were concerned about Mount Zion, Jerusalem and the future physical destiny of Israel. They received prophecies concerning a future period of peace on this earth, after their Messiah established His rule with a rod of iron, and Israel becomes the blessed nation as always prophesied from the beginning of the Israelites as a nation.

Then in the NT we are more concerned with spiritual salvation, knowing the truth of the cross. The receiving of our resurrection bodies and our eternal destiny at the Second Coming is of paramount importance rather than a focus on the future physical destiny of Israel. We are told again and again to be prepared and to keep our faith to the end, when Jesus comes. So the prophecies are mainly concerned with our destiny following the second coming, either eternal life or eternal damnation, life with Christ or the lake of fire. Whether we are in the camp of the saints (Rev 20) for 1000 years or in the heavenly Jerusalem or the New Earth is less significant to us as Christians, whichever way we reign with Christ forever and have our resurrection bodies. Rev 20 explains the sequence in more detail, explaining how the period of Messianic rule fits into this post second-coming period, but our destiny as Christians is sealed at the second coming, what follows the second coming does not affect us at all, we have our full blessing with Christ.

Again, like 3H you have failed to address the passages/arguments in view. It seems to me that Premil always wants to change the debate to Rev 20. I must insist on us staying on subject. I feel that is the only pay I can pin a passage down. I am not going to sidetrack until we have dealt with this passage that I feel challenges the Premil paradigm. I want to see explanations.

wpm
Dec 9th 2008, 04:04 PM
Are there any other verses that prove this point or just one?

Because if we're going with the "one verse establishes doctrine" point, then the one mention (six times) of the "1000 years" seems way more clear in establishing an end-times context than this verse from 1 Cor. 15 which doesn't say what's being presented here nearly as straightforward as Rev. 20.

Just sayin'
:lol:

As you know, I have many passages that rebut the Premil belief, I am just trying (unsucessfully I admit) to get Premil to address other Scripture outside of Rev 20. :lol:

I have much Scripture to corroborate what I am saying here. I thought I had enough meat here to digest for the moment before moving on. ;)

threebigrocks
Dec 9th 2008, 06:05 PM
What if...*gasp*...what if.... we could find 1 point to agree on? Then maybe another one. *shudder* :cool: :P

third hero
Dec 9th 2008, 07:50 PM
We have had countless discussions on Rev 20, I have repeatedly showed you Rev 20 is the beginning of the 7th recapitulation in Revelation. That Jesus is the first resurrection. Satan has been spiritually bound by the earthly mission of Christ. The new earth does not arrive until the end of the millennium (not the start as you claim). So I would appreciate it if you please address my several points here and keep it on topic.

As many times as we have had discussions on Revelation 20, you have failed to show how the details written in that book are figurative. You claim that God can not have an angel bind a spirit being (Satan), in chains, and seal him away in the bottomless pit for 1000 year, and you base that claim on the fact that the enemy is a spirit being. I hqave disproved that, countering with the FACT that the Angel is a spirit being, the chain is a real chain made from material in the heavenlies that are capable of binding a spirit being, and the Lord is VERY capable of locking away the enemy. I have not read any sort of satisfactory response to that point.


I have one question on your comments: I thought you locate Isa 65 describing the new heavens and new earth at the beginning of the millennium not the end? Am I correct? Please clarify this.

The New Heaven and earth, as described in Revelation 21, is devoid of death. Death is clearly present in Isaiah 65:19-20. Therefore, this passage has to fit another time period, a period where although death is weakened, it is still present. And so, by combining scripture from 1 Corinthians 15:23-26, Revelation 20:1-10, Zechariah 14, and Psalm 2, I have found that the Bible clearly talks about a time when The Lor4d rules this earth, and not just the one in the future.

And then I have found that in Revelation 16:17-20, the earth, this one, is changed forever. The mountains fall and the islands disappear, due to a massive earthquake that is the seventh vial of God's wrath. What i have deduced is this.

The Lord sometimes shows prophets glimpses of the future in visions. If Isaiah seen a world devoid of mountains except for Mount Moriah, and a perpetual peace that is not found in this earth, then it would be easy for him to say that this is a new earth, which it would be. If any of us would live to see the Millennium, we would not be able to recognize this planet, because all of the mountains and islands would be gone. It may not be new in it's truest word, but it would be new to just about everyone who has lived in this planet.

Therefore, Isaiah 65 fits into the Millennium, because of the fact that the Old Order, including sin and death, would be extinguished when the New Earth is created, after this earth passes away. Verse 19-20 explains it all.

third hero
Dec 9th 2008, 08:09 PM
As you know, I have many passages that rebut the Premil belief, I am just trying (unsucessfully I admit) to get Premil to address other Scripture outside of Rev 20. :lol:

I have much Scripture to corroborate what I am saying here. I thought I had enough meat here to digest for the moment before moving on. ;)


Here is what I compare what you are attempting to do, the 2007 New England Patriots.

You see, until a virtual unknown receiver caught a 4th down and long pass in the Super Bowl, the Paztriots were undefeated. However, the catch happened, and then the NY Giants won the super bowl. Like the patriots, you say, "well let's look outside of Revelation 20, while premils stand on the fact that Revelation 20 exists. Therefore, like the NE Patriots, you have to accept that reality. I know you do not like that reality, much like the almost undefeated Patriots don't like the results of that Super Bowl, but you are going to have to accept it.

Most of the Premils here, myself included, accept the scripture as written, and because of that, you will not be able to turn anyone against what is actually written there. It says that Satan will be bound in the Abyss for 1000 years. It says that the Tribulation saints are going to rule this world with Christ for that entire time. It says that Satan will be released, and it also says that he will attempt a coup to take back the earth from the Lord. It also says that Our Heavenly Father will destroy all of the wicked by fire. Then, after all of that, the Lord announces judgment against all mankind, and heaven and earth disappear. We then see the judgment of mankind, including all of the dead. After alll of that, we see the New Earth come into being, with the city of God that wass promied the believers.

This is what we see in those scriptures, and this is what we believe. Like it or not, the scriptures state all of this. Therefore, no matter how much you want to deviate the discussion concerning the Millennium away from Revelation 20, Premils will continue to bring that back up, since it is scripture.

wpm
Dec 9th 2008, 08:55 PM
[/size][/font]

As many times as we have had discussions on Revelation 20, you have failed to show how the details written in that book are figurative. You claim that God can not have an angel bind a spirit being (Satan), in chains, and seal him away in the bottomless pit for 1000 year, and you base that claim on the fact that the enemy is a spirit being. I hqave disproved that, countering with the FACT that the Angel is a spirit being, the chain is a real chain made from material in the heavenlies that are capable of binding a spirit being, and the Lord is VERY capable of locking away the enemy. I have not read any sort of satisfactory response to that point.

The New Heaven and earth, as described in Revelation 21, is devoid of death. Death is clearly present in Isaiah 65:19-20. Therefore, this passage has to fit another time period, a period where although death is weakened, it is still present. And so, by combining scripture from 1 Corinthians 15:23-26, Revelation 20:1-10, Zechariah 14, and Psalm 2, I have found that the Bible clearly talks about a time when The Lor4d rules this earth, and not just the one in the future.

And then I have found that in Revelation 16:17-20, the earth, this one, is changed forever. The mountains fall and the islands disappear, due to a massive earthquake that is the seventh vial of God's wrath. What i have deduced is this.

The Lord sometimes shows prophets glimpses of the future in visions. If Isaiah seen a world devoid of mountains except for Mount Moriah, and a perpetual peace that is not found in this earth, then it would be easy for him to say that this is a new earth, which it would be. If any of us would live to see the Millennium, we would not be able to recognize this planet, because all of the mountains and islands would be gone. It may not be new in it's truest word, but it would be new to just about everyone who has lived in this planet.

Therefore, Isaiah 65 fits into the Millennium, because of the fact that the Old Order, including sin and death, would be extinguished when the New Earth is created, after this earth passes away. Verse 19-20 explains it all.

Revelation 20

You seem determined to side-track this thread unto Rev 20. I will say by way of closure on this diversion on this thread: no one has addressed your views on Rev 20 in more detail than myself. I feel I have (1) rebutted your position directly and repeteadly, and (2) have corroborated the Amil position with much biblical support, yet you simply dismiss it. I honestly believe that Amil is the only Mill position with corroboartion on Rev 20.

I have showed you repeated Scripture that shows Christ the first resurrection Colossians 1:18, Acts 26:23. 1 Corinthians 15:20, Revelation 1:5, Revelation 20:6). I have showed you that the binding is spiritual because Satan and His minions are spiritual. The demonic world is bound by chains until the judgment (as demonstrated in 2 Peter 2:4, Jude v6). Likewise, Revelation 9 describes an abyss that is full of wicked spirits that are restrained, but will be released prior to the Second Coming for a short season. They had a king over them (Abaddon / Apollyon), a ruler who marshalled their hosts. This is Satan - the only king in the kingdom of darkness.

Isaiah 65

I have addressed this countless time. You just refuse to accept the location of this. It is not the millennial period but the “new heavens and a new earth.” I will try again. Isaiah 65:17-21 says, “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.”

The first thing we see in this reading is the time period in view; the Old Testament prophet explains that he is specifically speaking of the “new heavens and a new earth.” This is indisputable and cannot be a matter for theological debate.

The first line of the debated Isaiah 65:20 in the original says:

Yaamiym `uwl `owd mishaam yihªyeh Lo'- yaamaayw et-yªmalee'

Literally:

Days babe more thence become not days even full

What is this telling us? Basically, in eternity, there will be no more dying for babies. The TLB says, “"No longer will babies die when only a few days old.” The TEV says, “Babies will no longer die in infancy.” The NLT says, “No longer will babies die when only a few days old.” This is good news for mankind and a situation that could only happen in the eternal state. This is an age to look forward to. The KJV simply says: "There shall be no more thence an infant of days."

It continues:

lo'- 'ªsher wªzaaqeen yaamuwt shaanaah mee'aah ben-

Literally:

not that an old man die a hundred yrs old

Here is more good news– now for older people: No longer will old men be dying at a hundred. So, whether one is really young or really old there will be no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown.

Death was the awful result of the fall. The curse brought death and decay upon every living organism – including all human life. The good news for man is that the introduction of the new heavens and new earth will witness the elimination of the curse. It will see the final downfall of death on earth. Only the wicked remain in a perpetual state of death – eternal death (the second death) – in the Lake of Fire. Our participation with Christ in His death, burial, and glorious resurrection lifts us from the power, pain and penalty of sin and the second death.

This reading tries in some way to impress the glory and splendour of the eternal existence within the new heavens and new earth upon the finite human mind. It reinforces the great truth that the curse will be removed. That is hard for us that have been subject to it in this life to fully comprehend.

The Holy Spirit then succinctly continues:

hana`ar Kiy shaanaah mee'aah ben-

Literally:

Child for a hundred yrs old

This is articulating in mere human terms what eternity is like for the believer. It is like an infant being an infant for a hundred years. This is what it is like. Man can in a small way relate to such an analogy, as it is done in language that he can in some way comprehend. As excellent as the KJV is, the original does not actually say or intimate (as it does) that “the child shall die an hundred years old”

This verse is simply trying to transmit a deeper meaning than what can be ordinarily conveyed in normal every-day phraseology. Isaiah was simply putting eternity in comprehendible human terms. Since we can’t really fully grasp eternity, the prophet chose an earthly way to explain it that the reader could better understand. Whether the Holy Spirit employed a hundred or a million years to convey this truth is not important, it is simply that eternity will be far removed from the here-and-now in time and character. We will not age like we do now. A hundred year old man will be like a child in eternity.

The reading concludes this thought by making a solemn passing allusion to the wicked and their lot in eternity:

wªhachowTe yªqulaa

Literally:

[but] the sinner [will be] accursed

The result of the fall and the damage of the curse continue on, however, not on the new heavens and new earth. The wicked have their own eternal abode – the Lake of Fire. The wicked will remain in the awful ongoing reality of the curse for time and for eternity. This is too terrible to even contemplate. This text is definitely not saying there will be mortal sinners on the new earth after the Coming of Christ, as some argue. It is just saying sinners will remain accursed (even a hundred years after the appearing of the new heavens and earth). It could easily have said a thousand years or a million years. In short: They will remain accursed for all eternity.

This correlates beautifully with Rev 21.

So, let us now move to 1 Corintians 15.

wpm
Dec 9th 2008, 09:05 PM
Here is what I compare what you are attempting to do, the 2007 New England Patriots.

You see, until a virtual unknown receiver caught a 4th down and long pass in the Super Bowl, the Paztriots were undefeated. However, the catch happened, and then the NY Giants won the super bowl. Like the patriots, you say, "well let's look outside of Revelation 20, while premils stand on the fact that Revelation 20 exists. Therefore, like the NE Patriots, you have to accept that reality. I know you do not like that reality, much like the almost undefeated Patriots don't like the results of that Super Bowl, but you are going to have to accept it.

Most of the Premils here, myself included, accept the scripture as written, and because of that, you will not be able to turn anyone against what is actually written there. It says that Satan will be bound in the Abyss for 1000 years. It says that the Tribulation saints are going to rule this world with Christ for that entire time. It says that Satan will be released, and it also says that he will attempt a coup to take back the earth from the Lord. It also says that Our Heavenly Father will destroy all of the wicked by fire. Then, after all of that, the Lord announces judgment against all mankind, and heaven and earth disappear. We then see the judgment of mankind, including all of the dead. After alll of that, we see the New Earth come into being, with the city of God that wass promied the believers.

This is what we see in those scriptures, and this is what we believe. Like it or not, the scriptures state all of this. Therefore, no matter how much you want to deviate the discussion concerning the Millennium away from Revelation 20, Premils will continue to bring that back up, since it is scripture.

So will you now address 1 Cor 15 (which is the subject of this thread), which I believe rebuts the Premil position? Stop derailing it. We should build our theology on what Paul said in Romans 4:3 "what saith the scripture?," not what saith Premils on Rev 20. I am trying to get you to look at other Scripture on end-times that give us more explanation on the book of Revelation. In my opinion, people make revelation say anything, yet they circumvent the many clear passages in Scripture that describe the climactic last day.

jeffweeder
Dec 10th 2008, 04:37 AM
I am trying to get you to look at other Scripture on end-times that give us more explanation on the book of Revelation. In my opinion, people make revelation say anything, yet they circumvent the many clear passages in Scripture that describe the climactic last day.

There are many scriptures outside rev that give you an almost complete picture of whats going to happen on the last day ,and what Christ is going to do when he comes again.
I believe the premill view of rev 20 turns that picture into a indistinguishable, blurry mess.

Paul wrote sometime in 50's AD, that no need for anything more to be written to you, because you know full well that the lord is going to come like a thief.
He is coming, so that we can put off this old flesh and blood existence and inherit the place he has gone to prepare --the new Heaven and the new Earth--in the Fathers house.
We know from Peter and Jesus that God has a day in store like he did in Noahs day, only this time the heavens as well as the earth will be destroyed, leaving only those who believed.
Peter urges his congregation to be people worthy, as they look to the new Heaven and the new Earth, looking for and hastening the day when Christ comes to destroy the old.

As soon as Christ comes the last day, fate is sealed. (God is patient , not slow in coming, but all are called to repent now ,before he comes)
We either are like him for we see him as he is,(ressurected- glorified) or we are judged, because they rejected him and his message.-Jn 12.






"If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
25 "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
26 "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.


"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."


14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.


See the picture emerging of when Christ comes;

The last day to either glorify or judge.
The heavens/earth being nomore-,passing away
He renders to everone accordingly
seperates sheep from goats
harvests the wheat, and burns the tares at harvest time.
comes to afflict those,who afflicted his people, with everlasting seperation--on the same day as we are glorified and marvel at him.


For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you,
7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,
8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
10 [U]when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.

conclusion--today is the day to get saved, tomorrow maybe to late.


All these events of Christs second coming, which involves -,
the last day,-ressurection
Judgement,
hev and earth passing away,
eternal seperation from God...........and marveling at God

are all post Millenium events according to Rev.

Those who believe and are born again, partake of the first Ressurection, we are saved from this awful last day and the second death will not touch us...thanks be to Jesus Christ forever and ever

DurbanDude
Dec 10th 2008, 07:17 AM
Again, like 3H you have failed to address the passages/arguments in view. It seems to me that Premil always wants to change the debate to Rev 20. I must insist on us staying on subject. I feel that is the only pay I can pin a passage down. I am not going to sidetrack until we have dealt with this passage that I feel challenges the Premil paradigm. I want to see explanations.

I believe the opening post was answered directly in post 2 by 3H.

He said that 1 Cor 15:50-55 does not mention a New Earth , but is referring to the Kingdom of God. This is how I interpret 1 Cor 15:50-55 as well. In my opinion the verse is not even controversial. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the spiritual kingdom of God. The corrupt cannot receive an incorruptable eternal body. And the corrupt cannot be part of an incorruptable eternal kingdom (this is a spiritual kingdom that we are already part of). These scriptures are not referring to a physical earth at all.
When the context describes the Kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom, we know this is referring to salvation and no ungodly mortal of the millenium can be part of this spiritual kingdom that is described throughout the NT.

So regarding your title:
1) Mortals cannot enter the New Earth - agreed
2) Mortals cannot enter the spiritual Kingdom of God - agreed
3) Mortals can be ruled over with an iron rod during the Messianic rule of this transformed earth - on post 3 I mentioned some of the supporting verses for this.
4) Even you admit that mortals are ruled over , I have heard your version of Rev 19:15, how you have described this "rule" as representing a shepherd. Does this make them part of the kingdom of God just because they are ruled over, just because God is in control? I think not. The kingdom of God is all about being voluntarily ruled over , when we receive Christ as our Lord. The nations that God will finally destroy are undeniably under the ultimate control of God and yet they are not regarded as part of that kingdom.

wpm
Dec 10th 2008, 02:10 PM
I believe the opening post was answered directly in post 2 by 3H.

He said that 1 Cor 15:50-55 does not mention a New Earth , but is referring to the Kingdom of God. This is how I interpret 1 Cor 15:50-55 as well. In my opinion the verse is not even controversial. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the spiritual kingdom of God. The corrupt cannot receive an incorruptable eternal body. And the corrupt cannot be part of an incorruptable eternal kingdom (this is a spiritual kingdom that we are already part of). These scriptures are not referring to a physical earth at all.
When the context describes the Kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom, we know this is referring to salvation and no ungodly mortal of the millenium can be part of this spiritual kingdom that is described throughout the NT.

So regarding your title:
1) Mortals cannot enter the New Earth - agreed
2) Mortals cannot enter the spiritual Kingdom of God - agreed
3) Mortals can be ruled over with an iron rod during the Messianic rule of this transformed earth - on post 3 I mentioned some of the supporting verses for this.
4) Even you admit that mortals are ruled over , I have heard your version of Rev 19:15, how you have described this "rule" as representing a shepherd. Does this make them part of the kingdom of God just because they are ruled over, just because God is in control? I think not. The kingdom of God is all about being voluntarily ruled over , when we receive Christ as our Lord. The nations that God will finally destroy are undeniably under the ultimate control of God and yet they are not regarded as part of that kingdom.

Premil has incorruption (namely the perfected saints) inheriting corruption (the Premil millennial kingdom age).

Premil has also corruption (namely the heathen nations) inheriting corruption (the Premil millennial kingdom age).

I believe this text actually says the opposite to what Premil imputes into it. 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 perfect is come” then “that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

wpm
Dec 10th 2008, 07:37 PM
The New Earth is not mentioned here. It is only talking about the Kingdom of God. THis scripture is dealing with the current condition, where no flesh or blood can inherit the Kingdom of God. Only those who are born again, believers, can inherit the Kingdom, and even then, our mortal bodies can not inherit the Kingdom. There is no mention of any earth, let alone the "New Earth", in this passage, and thus is irrelevant for the End Times discussion.

Firstly, it is you that applies "new earth" passages (like Isa 65 and Isa 66) to your millennial kingdom.

Secondly, 1 Cor 15 is not talking about a spiritual act that occurs upon conversion, it isn't even talking about our entrance into the presence of God upon death, it is expressly talking about a physical change that occurs "at the last trump" in order to prepare us for the prepared coming kingdom that accompanies Christ when He returns. The whole wording and theme is explicit on this. You need to consider the focus and meaning of this reading. We should carefully note, this is speaking of something that occurs “at the last trump.” Also, it is describing the arrangement that will be ushered in by God at that glorious event: a state of “incorruption.” Thirdly, it is chronicling the conditions for embracing that perfect state: namely a supernatural change in which man is suitably clothed in order to inherit the said state: “this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

(1) One doesn't need an incorruptible body to be saved.
(2) One doesn't need an incorruptible body to enter heaven upon death, because we don't have our bodies to the general resurrection.

So, your hypothesis doesn't fit in with the wording, context and the location of the event under discussion. We are looking at something that happens at the Second Coming. In fact, the whole context is man's ultimate physical 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.


This was never in question. What is in question is the time in which the New Earth will appear, and according to Revelation, it does not happen until every last enemy of God is defeated and sent into the Lake.

Why do you keep locating Isa 65 and Isa 66 in your millennial kingdom when the passages relate it to the "new heavens and new earth"?



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. Revelation 21:1-2

As we see here, the new earth begins, with the old earth, this one, dead; hence the term, "passed away". This happens when? According to Revelation 20-21, it happens after Satan is imprisoned, after his release 1000 years later, after the last day rebellion, and after the GWT judgment, when ALL of the wicked are hurled into the Lake of eternal destruction. (Revelation 20:1-15).


Exactly, the new earth does not come until after the millennium, not at the start of it as you claim.



One other thing. Notice that New Jerusalem is hailed as the city prepared fro the bride, who has been married to Lord Jesus during His return, some 1000+ years earlier, in chapter 19? The New Jerusalem, the new city of God on the New earth, does not come into existence until the Lord has not only married Himself with the church, has ruled this current earth, and done away with all of the Lord's enemies at the GWT. According to Revelation 19:11-20:15, at least 1000 years pass between the marriage and the move to New Jerusalem.


If you keep ignoring the recaps in Revelation you will continue to see the events there (mistakenly in my view) as chronological.


So, you write all of this in order to say that since the Righteous are resurrected to life when the Lord returns, that the wicked are resurrected to destruction at the same time? Revelation 19 debunks that notion.

Like the rest of Scripture, Rev 19 records the complete rescue of the saints in the “marriage of the lamb” and the complete destruction of the wicked when the fowls consume the entire wicked left behind. The passage makes mno allowance for goats-survivors in this great destruction passage or mortals squeezing into a supposed future millennium. This reading seems to fit in with the scriptural pattern of an all-consummating Coming - all the wicked being consumed.


The Saints are with Lord Jesus in the air, (verse 11-12), and yet, the wicked are on the earth, awaiting their destruction. The Wicked are not resurrrected then, but killed. The Lord defeated all of the armies of the world, at one battle, in one place. This has nothing to do with your idea that because flesh is found during the MIllennium, that the Kingdom that will be present there is not the Kingdom of God.

The wicked are immediately destroyed and partake in a physical the resurrection for judgment.



According to Daniel 7 and Revelation 20, the saints gain control of the earth. According ot Revelation 7, the saints who come out of the Great Tribulation are with Jesus perpetually, and if they are on the earth while the Lord is on it, even in their incorruptible bodies, they will represent the Lord's Kingdom, even as rulers over the heathen that are left.

The changing of the saints do not change the facts. In Revelation 20:4-6, we see the immortal saints, ruling the earth during the millennium of Satan's imprisonment. This is not premil banter, but scripture. Again, you're achilles heel is the actual scriptures themselves. I didn't write them, I merely believe them.

No matter how you slice it, your debate is not with premils, but scripture. No matter how you try to evolutionize the scriptures, the scriptures speak for themselves. IF a spirit being is to be locked up and sealed away for 1000 years, and the immortal believers are to rule the world with Christ for not only that time, but until the end of the earth, (Daniel 7:22, 27; Revelation 20:4-10), then the glorification of the church has to happen 1000 years prior to the GWT judgment. Again, scripture speaks.


1 Corinthians 6:9-10, saying, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?”

So, the future ‘kingdom age’ (that Premils talk about) cannot involve mortals and cannot involve the wicked. This totally contradicts the goat-infested picture that Premils depict of the new earth. It seems like every prohibition that the sacred pages have placed upon inheriting the incorruptible kingdom are overridden and ignored and countless rebels are forced on the new earth. Scripture does not allow this.

Psalm 37:9-11 says, “For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."

Psalm 37:22 says, "For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off."

Christ confirmed this in Matthew 5:5 saying, "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

Please note that the earth is the inheritance. This is something that only the righteous can indeed experience. Psalm 37:9-38 shows the outcome for these two parties when Christ returns. It shows the only two types of people He encounters when He appears. God’s people are known here as the upright (v18), the meek (v 11) and “the righteous” (v 29). It is this choice company that are said to “wait upon the LORD” (v 9) – “such as be blessed of him” (v 22). It is they alone that will “inherit the earth” (vv 9, 11, 22). In fact, verse 29 goes further, saying, they shall “dwell therein for ever” and “delight themselves in the abundance of peace." This is an incredible hope and a sure heritage for the redeemed of God.

Whilst the righteous enjoy great assurance and hope, the unrighteous face destruction when Christ appears. They are described in this reading as evildoers (v 9), “the wicked” (vv 20, 38) and the transgressors (v 38). This company is described as “they that be cursed of him (God)” (v22). “For evildoers shall be cut off” (v9), “the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away” (v20), “the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off” (v 38).

John146
Dec 10th 2008, 08:56 PM
[/size][/font][/color]

The New Earth is not mentioned here. It is only talking about the Kingdom of God. THis scripture is dealing with the current condition, where no flesh or blood can inherit the Kingdom of God. Only those who are born again, believers, can inherit the Kingdom, and even then, our mortal bodies can not inherit the Kingdom. There is no mention of any earth, let alone the "New Earth", in this passage, and thus is irrelevant for the End Times discussion.If the passage in question, 1 Cor 15:50-55, is dealing with the current condition then do you believe some people already have immortal bodies? Has the last trumpet already been blown? The implication in that passage is that the kingdom of God will be inherited at the same time that we are changed, which occurs at the last trumpet. Yes, we are in the kingdom of God in a sense already, but there is also a future manifestation of the kingdom that we have not yet inherited.

John146
Dec 10th 2008, 09:09 PM
Are there any other verses that prove this point or just one?

Because if we're going with the "one verse establishes doctrine" point, then the one mention (six times) of the "1000 years" seems way more clear in establishing an end-times context than this verse from 1 Cor. 15 which doesn't say what's being presented here nearly as straightforward as Rev. 20.

Just sayin'
:lol:There are these passages as well:

Matt 13
24Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30Let 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.

36Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

This passage teaches that we will inherit the kingdom of the Father at the end of the age. Other scripture indicates that Jesus returns at the end of the age (Matt 24:3).

Then there is this passage:

Matt 25
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
41Then 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:
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

This passage indicates that at Christ's return all people will be gathered before Him and will be separated into two groups. The sheep will inherit eternal life in the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world while the goats will be cast into "everlasting fire".

I believe 1 Cor 15:50, Matt 13:43 and Matt 25:34 all speak of the same event when we will inherit the kingdom of the Father and each passage indicates that this will happen when Christ returns, assuming that you believe the He returns at the last trumpet and at the end of the age.

John146
Dec 10th 2008, 09:21 PM
[/size][/font]

As many times as we have had discussions on Revelation 20, you have failed to show how the details written in that book are figurative. You claim that God can not have an angel bind a spirit being (Satan), in chains, and seal him away in the bottomless pit for 1000 year, and you base that claim on the fact that the enemy is a spirit being. I hqave disproved that, countering with the FACT that the Angel is a spirit being, the chain is a real chain made from material in the heavenlies that are capable of binding a spirit being, and the Lord is VERY capable of locking away the enemy. I have not read any sort of satisfactory response to that point.

[font=Arial][size=3]

The New Heaven and earth, as described in Revelation 21, is devoid of death. Death is clearly present in Isaiah 65:19-20. Therefore, this passage has to fit another time period, a period where although death is weakened, it is still present. And so, by combining scripture from 1 Corinthians 15:23-26, Revelation 20:1-10, Zechariah 14, and Psalm 2, I have found that the Bible clearly talks about a time when The Lor4d rules this earth, and not just the one in the future.

And then I have found that in Revelation 16:17-20, the earth, this one, is changed forever. The mountains fall and the islands disappear, due to a massive earthquake that is the seventh vial of God's wrath. What i have deduced is this.

The Lord sometimes shows prophets glimpses of the future in visions. If Isaiah seen a world devoid of mountains except for Mount Moriah, and a perpetual peace that is not found in this earth, then it would be easy for him to say that this is a new earth, which it would be. If any of us would live to see the Millennium, we would not be able to recognize this planet, because all of the mountains and islands would be gone. It may not be new in it's truest word, but it would be new to just about everyone who has lived in this planet.

Therefore, Isaiah 65 fits into the Millennium, because of the fact that the Old Order, including sin and death, would be extinguished when the New Earth is created, after this earth passes away. Verse 19-20 explains it all.So, you have the new heavens and new earth appearing at the return of Christ, but you believe sin and death will still be around on the new earth, at least until the end of the supposed future earthly millennium is over. But what about what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:10-13? Doesn't he imply there that the new heavens and new earth will not arrive until after the earth is burned up? He also says the new earth will be a place "wherein dwelleth righteousness". But you say it will be a place where wickedness will also dwell, at least for a thousand years?

Also, there's this:

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.

John says that the new heaven and new earth don't appear until after the current heaven and earth pass away. How do you reconcile this verse with your understanding of Isaiah 65? Based on what you're saying, this verse should say "I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away".

Your view has two new heavens and two new earths. But scripture does not speak of two new heavens and two new earths. It only refers to the new heavens and new earth in a singular sense.

DurbanDude
Dec 11th 2008, 02:08 PM
Premil has incorruption (namely the perfected saints) inheriting corruption (the Premil millennial kingdom age).

Premil has also corruption (namely the heathen nations) inheriting corruption (the Premil millennial kingdom age).

I believe this text actually says the opposite to what Premil imputes into it. 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 perfect is come” then “that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

wpm, let's just agree to disagree here, I feel you are reading too much into the verse, I don't feel it's talking about the New Earth , yet you do, and we have both explained ourselves clearly , no use dwelling on it.

John146
Dec 11th 2008, 05:16 PM
wpm, let's just agree to disagree here, I feel you are reading too much into the verse, I don't feel it's talking about the New Earth , yet you do, and we have both explained ourselves clearly , no use dwelling on it.Are you willing to acknowledge that the kingdom of God mentioned in 1 Cor 15:50 is inherited at the same time we inherit new bodies, when this mortal puts on immortality and corruption puts on incorruption? The text clearly implies this. We know that will happen at the last trumpet when Christ returns.

It seems to me that premil would demand that 1 Cor 15:50 is speaking of the millennial kingdom because that is the kingdom that premil (or at least post-trib premil) believes is ushered in upon the second coming of Christ. Yet, premil allows mortal flesh and blood to inherit the kingdom. That is in direct contradiction to what Paul said, which is that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and corruption cannot inherit incorruption.

DurbanDude
Dec 11th 2008, 06:07 PM
Are you willing to acknowledge that the kingdom of God mentioned in 1 Cor 15:50 is inherited at the same time we inherit new bodies, when this mortal puts on immortality and corruption puts on incorruption? The text clearly implies this. We know that will happen at the last trumpet when Christ returns.

It seems to me that premil would demand that 1 Cor 15:50 is speaking of the millennial kingdom because that is the kingdom that premil (or at least post-trib premil) believes is ushered in upon the second coming of Christ. Yet, premil allows mortal flesh and blood to inherit the kingdom. That is in direct contradiction to what Paul said, which is that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and corruption cannot inherit incorruption.

Like I said to wpm , let's just agree to disagree here. When I read 1 Cor 15 seems to speak mainly of the resurrection body to me , and comparing it to our current mortal bodies. Most of the chapter is about our physical resurrection. The kingdom of God is when we live forever with Christ, this has already been fulfilled at salvation and will be even more fulfilled at the physical resurrection. Our spirits (now) and our eternal bodies (at the second coming) are forever with God , no flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of God.

John146
Dec 11th 2008, 06:27 PM
Like I said to wpm , let's just agree to disagree here. When I read 1 Cor 15 seems to speak mainly of the resurrection body to me , and comparing it to our current mortal bodies. Most of the chapter is about our physical resurrection. The kingdom of God is when we live forever with Christ, this has already been fulfilled at salvation and will be even more fulfilled at the physical resurrection. Our spirits (now) and our eternal bodies (at the second coming) are forever with God , no flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of God.Okay, we can agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. But I can't help but want some clarification from you, if you don't mind. When you say the kingdom will be even more fulfilled at the physical resurrection, isn't that what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 15:50-55? It will be more fulfilled then because we will have immortal bodies at that time. No mortal flesh and blood will be there. Yet you seem to think that mortal flesh and blood will be allowed there. That's where your view doesn't seem to line up with that passsage, IMO.

Also, do you believe the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, as mentioned in Matthew 25:34, will be inherited in the future or is it inherited at salvation? How about the kingdom of the Father, as mentioned in Matthew 13:43? When do you believe that will be inherited?

DurbanDude
Dec 11th 2008, 07:19 PM
Okay, we can agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. But I can't help but want some clarification from you, if you don't mind. When you say the kingdom will be even more fulfilled at the physical resurrection, isn't that what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 15:50-55? It will be more fulfilled then because we will have immortal bodies at that time. No mortal flesh and blood will be there. Yet you seem to think that mortal flesh and blood will be allowed there. That's where your view doesn't seem to line up with that passsage, IMO.

Also, do you believe the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, as mentioned in Matthew 25:34, will be inherited in the future or is it inherited at salvation? How about the kingdom of the Father, as mentioned in Matthew 13:43? When do you believe that will be inherited?

Don't you believe its the millenium now? Don't you believe Christ rules now and Satan is bound now? You believe Christ can be ruling now , yet only the saved are actually in the kingdom of God now. Just because you believe the nations are currently ruled by Christ in the current millenium doesn't mean they are all part of the kingdom of God now.

Now just apply the same thinking that you apply to the "current millenium" to my view of a literal future millenium rule of Christ, individuals under the "iron rod" rule of Christ, but not part of His kingdom. Is this difficult for you to understand? I don't think so.

John146
Dec 11th 2008, 10:06 PM
Don't you believe its the millenium now? Don't you believe Christ rules now and Satan is bound now? You believe Christ can be ruling now , yet only the saved are actually in the kingdom of God now. Just because you believe the nations are currently ruled by Christ in the current millenium doesn't mean they are all part of the kingdom of God now.

Now just apply the same thinking that you apply to the "current millenium" to my view of a literal future millenium rule of Christ, individuals under the "iron rod" rule of Christ, but not part of His kingdom. Is this difficult for you to understand? I don't think so.I guess you didn't want to answer my questions. Oh, well.

pinky
Dec 11th 2008, 10:12 PM
1 Corinthians 15:50-55 plainly declares, “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?”

This reading is speaking about the change that occurs at the Second Coming. It is describing the change that is required to inherit the new earth. It is talking about an obligatory change that must happen in order for men to be able to inhabit the new earth. It is not just that our corruptible bodies will be changed; it is that they must be changed. Why? The kingdom that they are going to inherit is an incorrupt one. It has been purged by fire of all the bondage of corruption (Romans 8:19-23) thus restoring it back to its original state – pristine and perfect. It is not just that we are changed, but the earth is correspondingly and simultaneously changed.

Premils talk about the millennial kingdom or simply the kingdom. Well, this kingdom is an incorrupt one. Every vestige of the fall is removed. No mortal can inherit/inhabit or possess this great incorrupt state. It is solely the domain of the glorified. Plainly: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” This eliminates the oft stated Premillennial claim that the unsaved can in fact inhabit the new earth. Regardless of whether one is saved or not, if they aren’t glorified they cannot inherit the new earth. No mortal will inhabit it. This is an absolute and must challenge the Premillennial thinking.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 makes clear: “the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.”

It is plain to see, for man to be able to inherit the new glorified earth – which is totally free of the curse – he must be suitably fitted for it. His whole sinful makeup must be completely changed in order to allow him to grace it. Every vestige of the fall must be divested before entering into that new arrangement. This is accomplished by way of glorification. The invisible man is not only changed, but Paul speaks of a complete bodily change. Whilst we have “earthly” bodies now, at the Lord’s Coming we will have new “spiritual” bodies. Our current bodies that are corruptible must be changed into incorruptible ones, so that no trace of the curse remains. Paul presents glorification as the means by which this supernatural metamorphous occurs.

Our “earthly” bodies will be changed to “spiritual” bodies that are completely devoid of sin and corruption. The saints will undergo the same simultaneous transformation that creation experiences. The creature is thus then adequately prepared to inherit the new incorrupt glorified earth. Both can now live in perfect harmony in God’s new eternal order. This arrangement will never again be blighted by the bondage of corruption. Man and creation enter into a new irreversible eternal arrangement.

If the believer needs completely changed in order to make him fit to enter the new regenerated earth then how could the unbeliever enter the same without this change? How can unregenerate mortals inherit the incorruptible earth in their fallen nature, when believers need glorified to allow them entry? Such a notion is untenable. When Paul explains that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," he is demonstrating why the resurrection is necessary. Paul is showing why the resurrection is required in order for a person to enter that curse-free domain.

No one could surely argue against the fact that this reading is talking about Christ's Coming. It is expressly outlining the conditions of entry for the new earth - no mortals are allowed. It says, "flesh and blood (or mortals humans) cannot inherit the kingdom of God (the final glorious kingdom that will come to earth); neither doth corruption (our current fallen state) inherit incorruption (the new glorified pristine earth). The reason being, the earth will be made incorrupt at His appearing. This creates a difficulty for man - he is sinful and corrupt. God then has to change him to make him worthy of the kingdom inhabitancy. This he does by changing us from corruption to incorruption - glorification.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians 15 is the perfecting of the believer’s body by “the resurrection of the dead” where he is “raised in incorruption,” “raised in glory,” “raised in power” and “raised a spiritual body.” Why? Because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” The earth that the redeemed inherit is perfect. It is purged of every vestige of the fall by fire. It is wonderfully glorified and prepared for the equally glorified saints.

In short, 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 shows why glorification is necessary - "neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." The new earth inhabitants must of necessity be immediately changed to enter the new glorified kingdom. As there was a commonality in the fall, so there will be a commonality in the glorification. The belief therefore amongst some Premils that the new glorified earth does not occur to the end of the Premillennial millennium makes this change premature – 1,000 yrs+ premature.

The whole glorification process could be put on hold for 1,000 yrs until the second Premillennial new earth comes along, as the new millennial earth is corrupt, sinful and full of death and rebellion. It culminates in billions of millennial inhabitants rising up to surround Christ and the saints at the end. The Premil new earth is therefore little different from today. It is plagued by corruption. In essence what you have (despite what this passage explicitly says) is incorruption inheriting corruption; the glorified saints inheriting an unglorified earth.

Some Premils argues it will be a purified new earth; however, the reality is it is no different than our own earth. Even if one accepted this Premil response, you have corruption (in the form of the supposed mortal millennial saints) inheriting incorruption (in the form of a glorified earth). This just doesn’t add up. Whatever way you look at this, it just doesn’t make sense. This is contrary to what Scripture is saying here. What will in fact be ushered in is an incorrupt kingdom. It is a purified new earth devoid of the bondage of corruption. Premillennial must reject this in the light of their interpretation of Revelation 20. In fact, take Revelation 20 out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing explicit to build its paradigm on.


This is a really good post.....and a really good point.


Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.


The New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Eternal Kingdom, the New Earth, the land promised to Abraham, etc., are all one in the same......inherited through Christ. However, it seems that premill portrays these as seperate kingdoms........ and creates loopholes that are confusing and require human exegesis (exit-Jesus)......imho.

The flesh cannot inherit this Kingdom.......period.

I also agree with jeffweeder:


I believe the premill view of rev 20 turns that picture into a indistinguishable, blurry mess.

wpm
Dec 12th 2008, 02:34 AM
Like I said to wpm , let's just agree to disagree here. When I read 1 Cor 15 seems to speak mainly of the resurrection body to me , and comparing it to our current mortal bodies. Most of the chapter is about our physical resurrection. The kingdom of God is when we live forever with Christ, this has already been fulfilled at salvation and will be even more fulfilled at the physical resurrection. Our spirits (now) and our eternal bodies (at the second coming) are forever with God , no flesh and blood can inherit the kingdom of God.

Let us remind ourselves of what 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 says: “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? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

It seems like you are acknowledging 50% of the equation - namely the reality of the perfecting or glorification of the bodies of the saints at the Second Coming. However, you are completely ignoring the other 50% of the equation - which is why the saints need physically perfected or glorified. Could this be that your perception of the earth continuing unabated in it its current corruptible state after the Second Coming is colouring your judgment of this passage?

To sustain your argument you seem to suspend Christ's climactic appearing in power and glory (Matthew 19:28, 24:29-30, 25:31-32, Mark 13:24 and Luke 21:25-27) for an extra 1,000 yrs+. From what I can see, the Premil earth is little (if anything) different from ours today. It is saturated in sin, death, decay and rebellion. It is simply a re-run of our day. Many unsaved survive to enter into this future earth and prosper to such a degree that they overrun the earth. Corruption abounds relentless despite Christ victoriously ushering it in and reigning unsuccessfully for 1,000 yrs with the glorified saints with a subjugating rod of iron. The failure of this so-called glorious reign is exemplified in the fact that there is not one single convert for truth - in your paradigm.

You fail to see that God's fiery wrath is going to accompany His return, destroying the wicked and this current sin-cursed earth. He is then going to perfect (or glorify) this earth through regeneration in order to prepare it for the perfected (or glorified) saints. You don't recognise that mankind is either caught up or caught on, resulting in annihilation. You have some unsaved being destroyed with the wrath of God, others miraculously (and somehow) dodging it. This seems like a confused mess. Millions of wicked march into the millennial kingdom to inherit it along with the perfected saints.

The reality is, 1 Corinthians 15 tells us: “flesh and blood (or sinful mortals) cannot inherit the kingdom of God" because it is only the glorified in their glorified bodies that survive Christ's return and populate the new glorified earth. Also, "corruption" cannot enter unto the new earth because corruption cannot "inherit incorruption” (I Corinthians 15:50). The first fact we see in this reading is: the new earth that ushers in the kingdom of God is totally incorrupt. In doing so, Paul makes it crystal-clear that corruptible mortals are forbidden access to the new earth. Man in his sinful state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth.

Please look at the second part of the equation because it is still not being correlated.

John146
Dec 12th 2008, 03:22 PM
Let us remind ourselves of what 1 Corinthians 15:50-55 says: “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? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

It seems like you are acknowledging 50% of the equation - namely the reality of the perfecting or glorification of the bodies of the saints at the Second Coming. However, you are completely ignoring the other 50% of the equation - which is why the saints need physically perfected or glorified. Could this be that your perception of the earth continuing unabated in it its current corruptible state after the Second Coming is colouring your judgment of this passage?

To sustain your argument you attempt to suspend Christ's climactic appearing in power and glory (Matthew 19:28, 24:29-30, 25:31-32, Mark 13:24 and Luke 21:25-27) for an extra 1,000 yrs+ to sustain the Premil belief. The Premil earth is little (if anything) different from ours today. It is saturated in sin, death, decay and rebellion. It is simply a re-run of our day. Many unsaved survive to enter into this future earth and prosper to such a degree that they overrun the earth. Corruption abounds relentless despite Christ ushering it in power and glory and reigning unsuccessfully for 1,000 yrs with the glorified saints with a subjugating rod of iron. The failure of this so-called glorious reign is exemplified in the fact that there is not one single convert for truth - in your paradigm.

You fail to see that God's fiery wrath is going to accompany His return, destroying the wicked and this current sin-cursed earth. He is then going to perfect (or glorify) this earth through regeneration in order to prepare it for the perfected (or glorified) saints. You don't recognise that mankind is either caught up or caught on, resulting in annihilation. You have some unsaved being destroyed with the wrath of God, others miraculously (and somehow) dodging it. This seems like a confused mess. Millions of wicked march into the millennial kingdom to inherit it along with the perfected saints.

The reality is, 1 Corinthians 15 tells us: “flesh and blood (or sinful mortals) cannot inherit the kingdom of God" because it is only the glorified in their glorified bodies that survive Christ's return and populate the new glorified earth. Also, "corruption" cannot enter unto the new earth because corruption cannot "inherit incorruption” (I Corinthians 15:50). The first fact we see in this reading is: the new earth that ushers in the kingdom of God is totally incorrupt. In doing so, Paul makes it crystal-clear that corruptible mortals are forbidden access to the new earth. Man in his sinful state cannot inherit an incorruptible regenerated earth.

Please look at the second part of the equation because it is still not being correlated.
I completely agree. This goes along with what Jesus taught here:

Matt 13
40As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Only the saved, with immortal and incorruptible bodies will inherit the kingdom of the Father. This is the same kingdom Paul refers to in 1 Cor 15:50 where no mortal and corruptible flesh and blood will be allowed. What happens to the tares/unbelievers here? They are gathered and cast "into a furnace of fire", which is no doubt a reference to the lake of fire. This happens at the end of this age, which is when Christ returns (Matt 24:3). Mortal unbelievers will not be allowed to survive into a supposed earthly millennium. They will be gathered out and cast into the fire along with "all things that offend". There will be no unbelievers or anything wicked left upon the new earth following the judgment that occurs at the end of the age when Christ returns.

third hero
Dec 12th 2008, 05:02 PM
So, you have the new heavens and new earth appearing at the return of Christ, but you believe sin and death will still be around on the new earth, at least until the end of the supposed future earthly millennium is over. But what about what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:10-13? Doesn't he imply there that the new heavens and new earth will not arrive until after the earth is burned up? He also says the new earth will be a place "wherein dwelleth righteousness". But you say it will be a place where wickedness will also dwell, at least for a thousand years?


That is not what I had wrote, eric. I have the New Heaven and New Earth appearing after the old earth, Death, satan, Hell, sin, the wicked, the Beast, and the false prophet, all representatives ofd the old order, are wiped out. This, according to Revelation 20, happens at least 1000 years after the Lord returns and sentences the Beast and the False prophet to the Lake. (Daniel 7:11-14, REvelation 19:19-20:15). Let me be clear. The old order, the order of sin and death, has to be defeated and destroyed before the New Earth can come into being. If any portion of the old order, the one we are living in right now, exists, then the New Eartth can not. Therefore, like 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 proclaims, the Lord must rule this earth ,this old order, until the very last enemy of God is defeated, which like Revelation 20:11-14 proclaims, is death.

Isaiah 65:19-20 still has death in the picture, whereas Revelation 21 does not. There is no more death in the New Earth, for in Revelation 20:14, death is hurled into the Lake. Therefore, like Revelation 20:1-10 tells us, there has to be a time where there is peace, the Lord's direct rule, but with the existence of death. This is the MIllennium. This is what happens after the Lord returns. The Lord destroys the armies of the world, sets up His throne in Jerusalem, judges the nations, and then rules over them. (Psalm 2, Zechariah 14, Matthew 24:29-31, 25:31-45, Revelation 19:15-20:6). He will continue to rule them even after Satan is released. However, with the release of Satan comes the resurrection of war. According to Revelation 20:7-10, the people who Satan ends up recruiting to rebel against Lord Jesus and the saints will be destroyed by the fire of Heaven, as the Lord will destroy all of them, and the earth along with them.


Also, there's this:

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.

John says that the new heaven and new earth don't appear until after the current heaven and earth pass away. How do you reconcile this verse with your understanding of Isaiah 65? Based on what you're saying, this verse should say "I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away".

I think I have explained this already. What happens in Revelation 16? The earth sufferes from a massive earthquake, one that levels all of it's mountains and sinks all of it's islands. And so, if Isaiah calls the place where there is perpetual peace with Death still being present a new earth, then by all means, that earth will be a new one. However, that "new" earth" will not be the same as the New Earth in Revelation 21. IN the Revelation 21 picture of the New Earth, the old one has passed away. IN Isaiah 65, it does say that the Lord will createe a new heavens and a new earth, yes. However, Death is still present in this "new earth". The way I see it, the Lord brings forth the earthquake. The Earthquake will replace the flood, whereas the world will be "destroyed". Notice that in Genesis, the world is destroyed by water, and yet, the earth still existed. At the return, the earth is destroyed again, but this time by earthquake. The result will be a "new earth", one where there is perpetual peace, where Death is struggling to exist (Isaiah 65:19-20).


Your view has two new heavens and two new earths. But scripture does not speak of two new heavens and two new earths. It only refers to the new heavens and new earth in a singular sense.
NO, actually , I do not. I recognize that the new earth in Isaiah 65 still has death in it, an aspect that is absent from Revelation 21. That difference causes me to recognize that the picture here in Isaiah 65 is not the "New heaven and new earth" that is mentioned in Revelation 21, but the New earth that is created out of the massive earthquake in Revelation 16, the same one that the Lord rules over in chapter 20.

wpm
Dec 12th 2008, 05:24 PM
That is not what I had wrote, eric. I have the New Heaven and New Earth appearing after the old earth, Death, satan, Hell, sin, the wicked, the Beast, and the false prophet, all representatives ofd the old order, are wiped out. This, according to Revelation 20, happens at least 1000 years after the Lord returns and sentences the Beast and the False prophet to the Lake. (Daniel 7:11-14, REvelation 19:19-20:15). Let me be clear. The old order, the order of sin and death, has to be defeated and destroyed before the New Earth can come into being. If any portion of the old order, the one we are living in right now, exists, then the New Eartth can not. Therefore, like 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 proclaims, the Lord must rule this earth ,this old order, until the very last enemy of God is defeated, which like Revelation 20:11-14 proclaims, is death.

Isaiah 65:19-20 still has death in the picture, whereas Revelation 21 does not. There is no more death in the New Earth, for in Revelation 20:14, death is hurled into the Lake. Therefore, like Revelation 20:1-10 tells us, there has to be a time where there is peace, the Lord's direct rule, but with the existence of death. This is the MIllennium. This is what happens after the Lord returns. The Lord destroys the armies of the world, sets up His throne in Jerusalem, judges the nations, and then rules over them. (Psalm 2, Zechariah 14, Matthew 24:29-31, 25:31-45, Revelation 19:15-20:6). He will continue to rule them even after Satan is released. However, with the release of Satan comes the resurrection of war. According to Revelation 20:7-10, the people who Satan ends up recruiting to rebel against Lord Jesus and the saints will be destroyed by the fire of Heaven, as the Lord will destroy all of them, and the earth along with them.



I think I have explained this already. What happens in Revelation 16? The earth sufferes from a massive earthquake, one that levels all of it's mountains and sinks all of it's islands. And so, if Isaiah calls the place where there is perpetual peace with Death still being present a new earth, then by all means, that earth will be a new one. However, that "new" earth" will not be the same as the New Earth in Revelation 21. IN the Revelation 21 picture of the New Earth, the old one has passed away. IN Isaiah 65, it does say that the Lord will createe a new heavens and a new earth, yes. However, Death is still present in this "new earth". The way I see it, the Lord brings forth the earthquake. The Earthquake will replace the flood, whereas the world will be "destroyed". Notice that in Genesis, the world is destroyed by water, and yet, the earth still existed. At the return, the earth is destroyed again, but this time by earthquake. The result will be a "new earth", one where there is perpetual peace, where Death is struggling to exist (Isaiah 65:19-20).


NO, actually , I do not. I recognize that the new earth in Isaiah 65 still has death in it, an aspect that is absent from Revelation 21. That difference causes me to recognize that the picture here in Isaiah 65 is not the "New heaven and new earth" that is mentioned in Revelation 21, but the New earth that is created out of the massive earthquake in Revelation 16, the same one that the Lord rules over in chapter 20.

I have showed you several times that this is not saying there will be death on the new earth. Neither is there the remotest reference to your first new earth (the supposed future millennial age). You need to read the following carefully.

Re Isaiah 65:19-20, the first line in the original says:

Yaamiym `uwl `owd mishaam yihªyeh Lo'- yaamaayw et-yªmalee'

Literally:

Days babe more thence become not days even full

What is this telling us? Basically, in eternity, there will be no more dying for babies. The TLB says, “"No longer will babies die when only a few days old.” The TEV says, “Babies will no longer die in infancy.” The NLT says, “No longer will babies die when only a few days old.” This is good news for mankind and a situation that could only happen in the eternal state. This is an age to look forward to. The KJV simply says: "There shall be no more thence an infant of days."

It continues:

lo'- 'ªsher wªzaaqeen yaamuwt shaanaah mee'aah ben-

Literally:

not that an old man die a hundred yrs old

Here is more good news– now for older people: No longer will old men be dying at a hundred. So, whether one is really young or really old there will be no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown.

Death was the awful result of the fall. The curse brought death and decay upon every living organism – including all human life. The good news for man is that the introduction of the new heavens and new earth will witness the elimination of the curse. It will see the final downfall of death on earth. Only the wicked remain in a perpetual state of death – eternal death (the second death) – in the Lake of Fire. Our participation with Christ in His death, burial, and glorious resurrection lifts us from the power, pain and penalty of sin and the second death.

This reading tries in some way to impress the glory and splendour of the eternal existence within the new heavens and new earth upon the finite human mind. It reinforces the great truth that the curse will be removed. That is hard for us that have been subject to it in this life to fully comprehend.

The Holy Spirit then succinctly continues:

hana`ar Kiy shaanaah mee'aah ben-

Literally:

Child for a hundred yrs old

This is articulating in mere human terms what eternity is like for the believer. It is like an infant being an infant for a hundred years. This is what it is like. Man can in a small way relate to such an analogy, as it is done in language that he can in some way comprehend. As excellent as the KJV is, the original does not actually say or intimate (as it does) that “the child shall die an hundred years old”

This verse is simply trying to transmit a deeper meaning than what can be ordinarily conveyed in normal every-day phraseology. Isaiah was simply putting eternity in comprehendible human terms. Since we can’t really fully grasp eternity, the prophet chose an earthly way to explain it that the reader could better understand. Whether the Holy Spirit employed a hundred or a million years to convey this truth is not important, it is simply that eternity will be far removed from the here-and-now in time and character. We will not age like we do now. A hundred year old man will be like a child in eternity.

The reading concludes this thought by making a solemn passing allusion to the wicked and their lot in eternity:

wªhachowTe yªqulaa

Literally:

[but] the sinner [will be] accursed

divaD
Dec 13th 2008, 03:33 PM
So, you have the new heavens and new earth appearing at the return of Christ, but you believe sin and death will still be
around on the new earth, at least until the end of the supposed future earthly millennium is over. But what about what Peter
says in 2 Peter 3:10-13? Doesn't he imply there that the new heavens and new earth will not arrive until after the earth is
burned up? He also says the new earth will be a place "wherein dwelleth righteousness". But you say it will be a place where
wickedness will also dwell, at least for a thousand years?




2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

IMO, one should interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 from the perspective of 2 Peter 3:7.


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

Since Scripture is used to answer Scripture, and since we're not specifically told in this passage when this occurs, we need to look to other Scripture for the answer. This verse doesn't tell us this happens at Christ's return. It only tells us that this is the ulimate goal. But before that can happen, other things must transpire first.

Revelation 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.
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.
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.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


This is when 2 Peter 3:13 occurs. Obviously Rev 21:1-4 can't occur until death has been destroyed in the lake of fire. What would be the point of a new heaven and a new earth if death hasn't been destroyed yet? To say that 2 Peter 3:13 occurs at the return of Christ would be in contradiction to Rev 21:1-4, not to mention the 1000 yr period spoken of in Rev ch 20. There is nothing unreasonable about a premil using Rev chs 20 and 21 in support of their position. It would seem unreasonable to ignore these 2 chs, or to spiritualize them away, etc. Ch 20 specifically speaks of a literal period of time..1000 yrs. This 1000 yrs should be interpreted as literal, since it would be a part of the day of the Lord, a day being 1000 yrs.

Raybob
Dec 13th 2008, 07:09 PM
...There is nothing unreasonable about a premil using Rev chs 20 and 21 in support of their position. It would seem unreasonable to ignore these 2 chs, or to spiritualize them away, etc. Ch 20 specifically speaks of a literal period of time..1000 yrs. This 1000 yrs should be interpreted as literal, since it would be a part of the day of the Lord, a day being 1000 yrs.

What is unreasonable would be to think that Revelation is a chronological book, as if Rev. 19 was followed by 20, then 21. If it was chronological, then you would find the return of Christ in only one chapter. If you study the book, you will find the return of Christ in many passages throughout Revelation. You will find the return of Christ in at least these passages.:

Rev 6:14-17 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. (15) And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; (16) And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: (17) For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Rev 10:5-7 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, (6) 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: (7) 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.

Rev 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Rev 19:7-8 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. (8) And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Rev 19:21 And the remnant 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.

Rev 20:11-12 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. (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.

Obviously, this can't be a chronological book as each of those passages describes different aspects of His coming.

Raybob

wpm
Dec 29th 2008, 05:27 AM
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

IMO, one should interpret 2 Peter 3:10-12 from the perspective of 2 Peter 3:7.


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

Since Scripture is used to answer Scripture, and since we're not specifically told in this passage when this occurs, we need to look to other Scripture for the answer. This verse doesn't tell us this happens at Christ's return. It only tells us that this is the ulimate goal. But before that can happen, other things must transpire first.

Revelation 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.
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.
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.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


This is when 2 Peter 3:13 occurs. Obviously Rev 21:1-4 can't occur until death has been destroyed in the lake of fire. What would be the point of a new heaven and a new earth if death hasn't been destroyed yet? To say that 2 Peter 3:13 occurs at the return of Christ would be in contradiction to Rev 21:1-4, not to mention the 1000 yr period spoken of in Rev ch 20. There is nothing unreasonable about a premil using Rev chs 20 and 21 in support of their position. It would seem unreasonable to ignore these 2 chs, or to spiritualize them away, etc. Ch 20 specifically speaks of a literal period of time..1000 yrs. This 1000 yrs should be interpreted as literal, since it would be a part of the day of the Lord, a day being 1000 yrs.

2 Peter 3 and Rev 21 correlate beautifully. The Second Coming ushers in a new perfect state.

third hero
Dec 30th 2008, 12:02 AM
What is unreasonable would be to think that Revelation is a chronological book, as if Rev. 19 was followed by 20, then 21. If it was chronological, then you would find the return of Christ in only one chapter. If you study the book, you will find the return of Christ in many passages throughout Revelation. You will find the return of Christ in at least these passages.:

Rev 6:14-17 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. (15) And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; (16) And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: (17) For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Rev 10:5-7 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, (6) 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: (7) 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.

Rev 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Rev 19:7-8 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. (8) And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Rev 19:21 And the remnant 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.

Rev 20:11-12 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. (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.

Obviously, this can't be a chronological book as each of those passages describes different aspects of His coming.

Raybob

NOw this I find funny. You claim that the book of Revelation should not be viewed in chronological order, and yet the verses you used are to describe event that actually happened in "Chronological order".

You have in chapter 6 the heathen saying that the Day of the Lord's wrath has come. I have stated in other threads that the blood-moon sign of not the sign of the Lord's return, and that the "heaven rolling up as a scroll" does not mean that the heavens are destroyed, but rather that the winds have stopped blowing, which is mentioned in the very next verse.

After that you quote chapter 10, which claimed that not only the event of chapter 6 has come and passed, but all of the events clear up to that verse has happened, depicting chronological order.

After that you use chapter 14:1, which shows the moment that the Lord bails Jeruslem out of the clutches of the Beast, as mentioned in Zechariah 14:3-5 and Revelation 12. Again, that shows chronological order, wheras the Lord stands on the Mount of Olives BEFORE He comes to claim His elect. (Zechariah 14:3-5).

Then after that, you use the verses that show the Lord's coming.

Now I find that rich. You disproved your own statement with the evidence that you chose to use.

Raybob
Jan 1st 2009, 02:51 AM
NOw this I find funny. You claim that the book of Revelation should not be viewed in chronological order, and yet the verses you used are to describe event that actually happened in "Chronological order".


Each quote describes the 2nd coming of the Lord. If they were chronological, then which one is the real one? Would that make every other description a fake? I don't understand what you are saying.:help:

Bing
Jan 4th 2009, 09:40 AM
1 Corinthians 15:50-55 plainly declares, “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?”

This reading is speaking about the change that occurs at the Second Coming. It is describing the change that is required to inherit the new earth. It is talking about an obligatory change that must happen in order for men to be able to inhabit the new earth. It is not just that our corruptible bodies will be changed; it is that they must be changed. Why? The kingdom that they are going to inherit is an incorrupt one. It has been purged by fire of all the bondage of corruption (Romans 8:19-23) thus restoring it back to its original state – pristine and perfect. It is not just that we are changed, but the earth is correspondingly and simultaneously changed.

wpm, first might I express my heartfelt felicitations in having the opportunity to once more correspond with you. It has been too long, my dear friend, but I have been rather busy these last few months. I should like to jump right in and note two things. First, I know that we still disagree rather fervently on certain issues. I am still premillennial, and you are still amillennial. That said, I believe that I agree fundamentally with almost all you are saying in this post, though not with the way you are saying it. Permit me to comment.

First, I would question how inaugurated your eschatology is. I would wonder how far you would subscribe in the theology that the kingdom already has come, and that all that remains is for Jesus to return and fulfill it. As I understand amillennialism, your angle would demand that the kingdom already coexists with corruption, though it is diametrically opposed to it, and fighting a battle against it that will culminate in Christ's return and the coming of the new heavens and new earth, the glorification of the saints and the judgement of men. To my mind, this would remove the objection that premillennialism waits for the institution of a corrupt kingdom under Jesus' leadership, as Jesus is already king, already enthroned and already reigning over His kingdom (albeit in a limited and incomplete way).

Our disagreement, then, would be in the measure of its completion upon His return; you insist that in the very second of His return His kingdom is complete, the dead evaporate and the saints become rulers; I suggest that this process might take a little longer. Regardless, this has ceased to be an issue of premillennialists contenting themselves with an imperfect kingdom, any more than it would be to say that you amillennialists are content with things as they are now!

I shall comment more on the rest of your opening post presently; I do not wish to overload our plate, and I would delight in the opportunity of entering into a deep discussion on this point which is, I confess, one upon which I would appreciate clarity rather than an opportunity to score a point at your expense.

Bing
Jan 20th 2009, 05:42 AM
wpm? Anybody there?

Raybob
Jan 20th 2009, 07:12 AM
Hi Bing,
Paul has not posted lately.

You asked, "...how far you would subscribe in the theology that the kingdom already has come, and that all that remains is for Jesus to return and fulfill it."

I don't know how Paul would reply but as an a-mill believer myself, I believe the Kingdom came when Jesus took the throne of David (Acts 2). Satan still roams about seeking whom he may devour but he is bound from deceiving the gentiles (nations) on the ability to reign with God.

I believe that when Jesus returns, Satan and all non-followers of the Lord will be thrown into the lake of fire (eternal damnation) and then the Kingdom will be fullfilled completely in the new earth.

Raybob

Bing
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:22 AM
Raybob,

Thank you for commenting. I have a rather long-running correspondence with wpm, and I shall still hold out hopefully for a reply, though in the meantime I wonder if, in the context of this discussion that he began, you could comment on my summary that "this has ceased to be an issue of premillennialists contenting themselves with an imperfect kingdom (the Millennial Kingdom and unsaved mortals being the fulfillment of my hope), any more than it would be to say that you amillennialists are content with things as they are now (with Satan bound from deceiving the nations, but still prowling like a lion)!

Raybob
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:36 AM
Raybob,

Thank you for commenting. I have a rather long-running correspondence with wpm, and I shall still hold out hopefully for a reply, though in the meantime I wonder if, in the context of this discussion that he began, you could comment on my summary that "this has ceased to be an issue of premillennialists contenting themselves with an imperfect kingdom (the Millennial Kingdom and unsaved mortals being the fulfillment of my hope), any more than it would be to say that you amillennialists are content with things as they are now (with Satan bound from deceiving the nations, but still prowling like a lion)!

Bing,
I'm content knowing I reign with Christ in His kingdom wearing my whole amour of God and I have power to bind Satan (through prayer) whenever he attacks. No, the world ain't perfect and won't be until He comes again and brings us a new earth and heaven. We aren't promised a perfect physical kingdom on this earth, anywhere in the bible. We are promised to reign with Him in His kingdom (that comes without observation and is within us).

As an ex-pre-millennialist myself, one of the last things that made me give up the idea of a future temporary reign on this earth was the fact that it had to, by nature, have sin and sinners in that kingdom. I realized that made absolutely no sense. Jesus told us heaven and earth will pass away. He told us of the "last day". Obviously, when the earth and heaven pass away, time as we know it will no longer be able to be measured without a sun or moon existing. Jesus also told us of what happens on that 'last day'.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

We are promised eternity with the King after His return. My last straw as a pre-miller was wondering just what would be the point of a future temporary non-perfect kingdom for a mere 1000 years before we begin to be with Christ for all eternity? It really makes no sense.

After all, when we've been there 10,000 years, we've only just begun!:spin:

Raybob

Joyfulparousia
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:03 PM
Scripture forbids mortals entering the new earth

Your title is a misnomer. Mortals don't enter the new earth because the earth isn't made new until after the millennium (Rev. 21). You've only imposed your idea that the creation of a new earth occurs during Second Coming. :)

In one sense you are correct - there will no longer be mortal humans on the new earth.

In the other you are incorrect - mortals do enter the millennial earth after the inauguration of Jesus as King of the earth. Rather, they were already there. :hmm:

John146
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:45 PM
Your title is a misnomer. Mortals don't enter the new earth because the earth isn't made new until after the millennium (Rev. 21). You've only imposed your idea that the creation of a new earth occurs during Second Coming. :)

In one sense you are correct - there will no longer be mortal humans on the new earth.

In the other you are incorrect - mortals do enter the millennial earth after the inauguration of Jesus as King of the earth. Rather, they were already there. :hmm:Paul said that mortal flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God that is manifested at the resurrection (1 Cor 15:50-54). Yet your view has mortal flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom.

Also, Jesus said that in this temporal age people marry but in the eternal age to come people will no longer marry or die.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world (age) marry, and are given in marriage: 35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

He didn't seem to have any knowledge of this intermediate millennial age that you believe in.

ScottJohnson
Jan 23rd 2009, 10:38 PM
Your title is a misnomer. Mortals don't enter the new earth because the earth isn't made new until after the millennium (Rev. 21). You've only imposed your idea that the creation of a new earth occurs during Second Coming. :)

In one sense you are correct - there will no longer be mortal humans on the new earth.

In the other you are incorrect - mortals do enter the millennial earth after the inauguration of Jesus as King of the earth. Rather, they were already there. :hmm:
I honestly mean no disrespect here but an event as gargantuan as the Earth being ruled for a thousand years by a glorified Christ should at least have some literal mention within the epistles and or gospels of the new testament.

Peter sure doesn't leave a lot of room for a thousand year gap between the return of Christ and the revelation of the new earth.

2Pe 3:10-13
(10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with rushing sound, and having burned the elements will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be burned up.
(11) Then all these being about to be dissolved, of what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness,
(12) looking for and hastening the coming of the Day of God, through which the heavens having been set afire will be dissolved; and burning, the elements will melt?
(13) But according to His promise, we look for "new heavens and a new earth," in which righteousness dwells.

quiet dove
Jan 24th 2009, 03:16 AM
I honestly mean no disrespect here but an event as gargantuan as the Earth being ruled for a thousand years by a glorified Christ should at least have some literal mention within the epistles and or gospels of the new testament.

Peter sure doesn't leave a lot of room for a thousand year gap between the return of Christ and the revelation of the new earth.

2Pe 3:10-13
(10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with rushing sound, and having burned the elements will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be burned up.
(11) Then all these being about to be dissolved, of what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness,
(12) looking for and hastening the coming of the Day of God, through which the heavens having been set afire will be dissolved; and burning, the elements will melt?
(13) But according to His promise, we look for "new heavens and a new earth," in which righteousness dwells.


The NT is geared toward those who will not be mortals during that time. There is not really much detail on exactly what heaven or eternity will be either other than we know more than we can imagine. The NT is geared to teach Jesus is the Messiah, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what it means to follow Him, what is exspected of those who are in Christ. The NT, though it contains prophecy, is not for prophecy so much as teaching us what it means to serve Christ, to be the servants we are supposed to be, that we are to live our earthly lives as Christ lived His, as servants.

Regardless of what comes next, we are promised that we will always be with Christ, nothing else really much matters, whether there is a Millennial reign or not, we will be immortal, incorruptible and with Christ. That much we are told. :pp

ScottJohnson
Jan 24th 2009, 06:50 AM
The NT is geared toward those who will not be mortals during that time. There is not really much detail on exactly what heaven or eternity will be either other than we know more than we can imagine. The NT is geared to teach Jesus is the Messiah, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what it means to follow Him, what is exspected of those who are in Christ. The NT, though it contains prophecy, is not for prophecy so much as teaching us what it means to serve Christ, to be the servants we are supposed to be, that we are to live our earthly lives as Christ lived His, as servants.
To be honest Quiet Dove, I think that the NT is geared considerably toward prophecy. We see in it, the fulfillment of a lot of the OT prophecy. Our current understanding of eternity is based on NT prophecy.

I agree that the NT contains a lot of behavioral teaching but likewise it also contains quite a bit of information pertaining to prophetic events such as 70 AD and Christ's physical return.

It just strikes me as odd, just how silent the NT is concerning a period of human history where the spiritual cohabitates with the physical under the reign of a glorified Christ while at the same time, temple rituals are in full swing.


Regardless of what comes next, we are promised that we will always be with Christ, nothing else really much matters, whether there is a Millennial reign or not, we will be immortal, incorruptible and with Christ. That much we are told. :pp

For the most part, I agree with this. I'd be a fool not to. But I still think that we have a responsibility to gain as accurate an understanding of God's word as we possibly can. I've done the best I can to understand the concept of a thousand years reign. All my study has led me to believe that it's not a literal physical kingdom. I responded to someone that has obviously come to a different conclusion than what I have. I'd just kind of like to find out if I've been wrong or not. That's all. So far no one has been able to convince me I'm wrong, but regardless, iron sharpens iron. :)

Joyfulparousia
Jan 24th 2009, 11:16 AM
Paul said that mortal flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God that is manifested at the resurrection (1 Cor 15:50-54). Yet your view has mortal flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom.

Also, Jesus said that in this temporal age people marry but in the eternal age to come people will no longer marry or die.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world (age) marry, and are given in marriage: 35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

He didn't seem to have any knowledge of this intermediate millennial age that you believe in.

The kingdom is not equivalent to eternity when earth and heavens are made new. To inherit the kingdom means to have inheritance in the kingdom, therefore, a mortal can be "in" the kingdom and not "inherit" the kingdom. These mortals do not have resurrected bodies.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world (age) marry, and are given in marriage: 35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36Neither can they die any more:

Note that this verse says only those that obtain the world with resurrected bodies will not be given in marriage.

Joyfulparousia
Jan 24th 2009, 11:25 AM
I honestly mean no disrespect here but an event as gargantuan as the Earth being ruled for a thousand years by a glorified Christ should at least have some literal mention within the epistles and or gospels of the new testament.

Peter sure doesn't leave a lot of room for a thousand year gap between the return of Christ and the revelation of the new earth.

2Pe 3:10-13
(10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with rushing sound, and having burned the elements will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be burned up.
(11) Then all these being about to be dissolved, of what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness,
(12) looking for and hastening the coming of the Day of God, through which the heavens having been set afire will be dissolved; and burning, the elements will melt?
(13) But according to His promise, we look for "new heavens and a new earth," in which righteousness dwells.

The full picture wasn't given until Rev. 20 when John saw a full 1000 years. The apostles didn't need to say what wasn't given in fullness they were already building on what was common knowledge of the day. The Jewish people and prophet expected Messiah from the tribe of Judah to rule from Jerusalem- and they were partially right; they had half of the picture. The actual time period of the millennium was not known at that time.

How does the amil see Rev. 20:4 & 5 as symbolic but stays to the letter in 2 Peter 3:10-13? This is an inconsistent method of interpretation IMO.

Benaiah
Jan 24th 2009, 06:11 PM
The kingdom is not equivalent to eternity when earth and heavens are made new. To inherit the kingdom means to have inheritance in the kingdom, therefore, a mortal can be "in" the kingdom and not "inherit" the kingdom. These mortals do not have resurrected bodies.

Luke 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world (age) marry, and are given in marriage: 35But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36Neither can they die any more:

Note that this verse says only those that obtain the world with resurrected bodies will not be given in marriage.

The problem with your view is that Scripture is very clear that when the Kingdom is fully manifest it is eternal ( has no end), but your view has the kingdom fully manifested on earth as a Temporal kingdom that must come to an end before eternity begins.

When the kingdom is fully manifested those who have an inheritance in it, inherit at at that time. anyone who does not has no inheritance.

quiet dove
Jan 24th 2009, 06:18 PM
I've done the best I can to understand the concept of a thousand years reign. All my study has led me to believe that it's not a literal physical kingdom. I responded to someone that has obviously come to a different conclusion than what I have. I'd just kind of like to find out if I've been wrong or not. That's all. So far no one has been able to convince me I'm wrong, but regardless, iron sharpens iron. :)

My point was that if we want to know God's purpose for the Bride, we have it in the NT. If we want to know God's purpose for the nation of Israel, we have the OT. (Which is not to say that Jews can't be saved here and now and be part of the Bride where there is no Jew or Gentile, so lets don't go there - and of course not to say they there is any discrepancy between the OT and NT because I certainly believe all of the Bible is in harmony)

There of course is only one Way of atonement for sin, however, there are more than one purposes. Even you and I, both saved the same way, both working in the same Body with the same Spirit, but not necessarily the same purpose. Hypothetically for example, maybe you plant and I water.

Let me try putting my thoughts this way. I trust and believe God has a purpose for me, just like you trust and believe He has a purpose for you. Now we both know, it will not be us who accomplishes His purpose with us, it will be Him, we trust Him and find comfort and joy in knowing He will, if we are willing, He will accomplish His purpose in our lives. Even if we have stumbled around and made mistakes. It's kinda the same principle with Israel, He will accomplish what He set out to do with the nation of Israel to be His witness. He won't do it because Israel is so special, just like He didn't save us because we are so special. He will do it because of who He is, not who we/they are.

ScottJohnson
Jan 24th 2009, 06:43 PM
How does the amil see Rev. 20:4 & 5 as symbolic but stays to the letter in 2 Peter 3:10-13? This is an inconsistent method of interpretation IMO.

Not exactly. 2 Peter was written in literal terms. The Book of Revelation was written in symbolic terms. Chapter 20 gives no indication as to a shift form symbolism to literalism.

The real inconsistency comes out of the futurist camp. Modern pre-millennialism teaches that the thrones in Rev 20:4 are on the earth but there is no demand for such an understanding in the text.

Pre-millennialism would also say that the "they" mentioned in the verse would be the previously raptured saints that return to Earth with Christ. a-millennialism might argue that point in light of the fact that most passages that speak of Christ's return show Him returning with angels and not people. Personally I believe that the "they" would be the twelve apostles sitting on the thrones with Christ. Matt 19:28.

While pre-millennialism interprets the Book of Revelation according to human logic, A-millennialism will do it's best when possible, to compare the symbolism of Revelation with the rest of the NT or even OT, but most of us feel that the NT should always be the final authority.

Just as an example. The a-millennialist would interpret the binding and imprisoning of Satan in Rev 20 1-3, with with the binding of the strong man spoken by Jesus in Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27 and Luke 11:21-22, as well as Satan's fall found in Luke 10:18. It's not about an end to disease, hardship, sin and death. It's about the ability to spread the gospel.

Satan pretty much has control of this world. Adam gave it to him. Before Christ, the truth of God was, for the most part, confined to the Hebrew race while the rest of the world, at the behest of Satan, was kept in sin, hopelessness and darkness. Because of Christ's works, (bruising the serpent's head) at the cross, the gospel (good news) has been going into all the nations.

Pre-millennialism teaches that because of Satan's absence, that the world will enjoy a period of pristine peace, prosperity and abundance on the Earth. Satan's absence can't bring that about. Only Christ's presence can.

Jesus never said that Satan, sin, hardship or anything else would be taken of the world, what He said was...

The one practicing sin is of the devil, because the devil sins from the beginning. For this the Son of God was revealed, that He might undo the works of the devil. 1Jn 3:8

"I have spoken these things to you that you may have peace in Me. You have distress in the world; but be encouraged, I have overcome the world." Joh 16:33

ScottJohnson
Jan 24th 2009, 07:21 PM
My point was that if we want to know God's purpose for the Bride, we have it in the NT. If we want to know God's purpose for the nation of Israel, we have the OT. (Which is not to say that Jews can't be saved here and now and be part of the Bride where there is no Jew or Gentile, so lets don't go there - and of course not to say they there is any discrepancy between the OT and NT because I certainly believe all of the Bible is in harmony)

There of course is only one Way of atonement for sin, however, there are more than one purposes. Even you and I, both saved the same way, both working in the same Body with the same Spirit, but not necessarily the same purpose. Hypothetically for example, maybe you plant and I water.

Let me try putting my thoughts this way. I trust and believe God has a purpose for me, just like you trust and believe He has a purpose for you. Now we both know, it will not be us who accomplishes His purpose with us, it will be Him, we trust Him and find comfort and joy in knowing He will, if we are willing, He will accomplish His purpose in our lives. Even if we have stumbled around and made mistakes. It's kinda the same principle with Israel, He will accomplish what He set out to do with the nation of Israel to be His witness. He won't do it because Israel is so special, just like He didn't save us because we are so special. He will do it because of who He is, not who we/they are.
I understand what you're saying Quiet Dove, I'm just not so sure I understand why you're saying it.

Joyfulparousia
Feb 1st 2009, 12:14 PM
Not exactly. 2 Peter was written in literal terms. The Book of Revelation was written in symbolic terms. Chapter 20 gives no indication as to a shift form symbolism to literalism.

:lol: I would say that it gives no indication of shifting from literalism to symbolism.


The real inconsistency comes out of the futurist camp. Modern pre-millennialism teaches that the thrones in Rev 20:4 are on the earth but there is no demand for such an understanding in the text.

It's because the understanding is already there. The disciples were told that because they left all they would rule on 12 thrones. Rev 2 says if any believer overcomes they would "rule the nations with a rod of iron." These nations are on the earth. Jesus, being the King of kings, rules in partnership with His saints for the duration of the millennium. This is not less than reigning in the Kingdom now, this is a great glory!


Pre-millennialism would also say that the "they" mentioned in the verse would be the previously raptured saints that return to Earth with Christ.

Amen to that. That's what Daniel saw

Dan 7:18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.



a-millennialism might argue that point in light of the fact that most passages that speak of Christ's return show Him returning with angels and not people.


Personally I believe that the "they" would be the twelve apostles sitting on the thrones with Christ. Matt 19:28.

Great! At least we agree that the disciples are ruling with Christ in the millennium. ;)


While pre-millennialism interprets the Book of Revelation according to human logic, A-millennialism will do it's best when possible, to compare the symbolism of Revelation with the rest of the NT or even OT, but most of us feel that the NT should always be the final authority.

Where does it say that the NT is the final authority? IMO, I think this perception grew from an inability to symbolize OT passages.


Just as an example. The a-millennialist would interpret the binding and imprisoning of Satan in Rev 20 1-3, with with the binding of the strong man spoken by Jesus in Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27 and Luke 11:21-22, as well as Satan's fall found in Luke 10:18. It's not about an end to disease, hardship, sin and death. It's about the ability to spread the gospel.

Was He talking about Satan being bound in Rev. 20?

To come to this conclusion several things are assumed by the amilllennialist:

1.) "a strong man" is talking about Satan

2.) the house is the earth

3.) "plunder his goods" must mean, souls saved by the gospel?

4.) Satan's house is currently being plundered.

Where does this tie into Rev. 20 beyond the mention of the word "bind"? There is no mention of an angel laying hold the Dragon, no mention of a chain, no mention of the "strong man" going into the pit, no mention of the strong man being shut up, or a seal set on him. No mention of that strong man not deceiving the nations.

In my bible, the context is talking about casting demons out of people, not the taking of the earth from Satan.




Satan pretty much has control of this world. Adam gave it to him. Before Christ, the truth of God was, for the most part, confined to the Hebrew race while the rest of the world, at the behest of Satan, was kept in sin, hopelessness and darkness. Because of Christ's works, (bruising the serpent's head) at the cross, the gospel (good news) has been going into all the nations.

Yes. But seriously is really Satan bound? Is the gospel really victorious over every religion. Right now in America is the gospel mightier than pornography?



Pre-millennialism teaches that because of Satan's absence, that the world will enjoy a period of pristine peace, prosperity and abundance on the Earth. Satan's absence can't bring that about. Only Christ's presence can.

This is a wonderful argument in favor of premillenialism. Christ's presense on earth is what causes the "regeneration" and the "restoration of all things". What was lost through the fall of man is restored through the perfect leadership of Yeshua.



Jesus never said that Satan, sin, hardship or anything else would be taken of the world, what He said was...

The one practicing sin is of the devil, because the devil sins from the beginning. For this the Son of God was revealed, that He might undo the works of the devil. 1Jn 3:8

This verse does not undermine premillennialism at all.


"I have spoken these things to you that you may have peace in Me. You have distress in the world; but be encouraged, I have overcome the world." Joh 16:33

He also said in 1Jn 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

This passage was written after Jesus was crucified, ascended, and by your understanding "bound" Satan.
Who is the "he" who is the the world? It can't be Satan because He's bound and in a the bottomless pit. unless the bottomless pit means he's still around which would render Rev. 20 a pretty much meaningless passage.

Blessings in Christ,

Raybob
Feb 1st 2009, 06:42 PM
:lol: I would say that it gives no indication of shifting from literalism to symbolism.



It's because the understanding is already there. The disciples were told that because they left all they would rule on 12 thrones.

Check the scriptures again. The disciples were told they would judge (not rule) the 12 tribes, not nations.


Rev 2 says if any believer overcomes they would "rule the nations with a rod of iron." These nations are on the earth. Jesus, being the King of kings, rules in partnership with His saints for the duration of the millennium. This is not less than reigning in the Kingdom now, this is a great glory!

Actually, Rev 2 speaks of the day when the nations are "smashed to bits" in the judgment.

Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Any potter's vessel that isn't kept is totally destroyed or "broken to shivers" with nothing left of it to be found.

Raybob

ScottJohnson
Feb 2nd 2009, 01:21 AM
:lol: I would say that it gives no indication of shifting from literalism to symbolism.
So what you're saying is that you anticipate literal locusts that resemble war horses. With the faces of men and hair like women with the same authority as a scorpion has. Is there to be a literal beast coming out of the sea with seven heads and 10 crowns being literally ridden by a literal prostitute? If these things aren't literal, then according to your own standards, your method of interpretation is inconsistent.

It's because the understanding is already there. The disciples were told that because they left all they would rule on 12 thrones. Rev 2 says if any believer overcomes they would "rule the nations with a rod of iron." These nations are on the earth. Jesus, being the King of kings, rules in partnership with His saints for the duration of the millennium. This is not less than reigning in the Kingdom now, this is a great glory!
Neither of these arguments lends proof to these thrones being on Earth though. Conjecture is not plausible hermeneutics. Plus if you're referring to Matt 19:28, Jesus said that His disciples would judge the 12 tribes of Israel, not rule the nations.

Amen to that. That's what Daniel saw

Dan 7:18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.
I don't think so. Daniel speaks of eternity. You speak of only a 1,000 year period

Great! At least we agree that the disciples are ruling with Christ in the millennium. ;)
Again, I don't think so. You see the disciples ruling over the nations, I see them judging over Israel exactly as Jesus said and as John wrote in Rev 10:4 "And I saw thrones, and they sat on them. And judgment was given to them,"

Where does it say that the NT is the final authority? IMO, I think this perception grew from an inability to symbolize OT passages.
Much of Old Testament prophecy is written in prophetic imagery. It's not that difficult to realize the symbolic language that had been used.

As far as the NT being the final authority, it doesn't say any where. Do you not believe that all authority has been given to Christ?

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Mat 28:18-20


The New Testament is the teaching of Christ and the New Covenant. Christ's blood is the New Covenant. (See Matt 26:28)

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
(Heb 8:13)

The writer of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant becomes obsolete and fades away. What authority does something obsolete have other than language that better supports a favored doctrine?

Was He talking about Satan being bound in Rev. 20?

To come to this conclusion several things are assumed by the amilllennialist:

1.) "a strong man" is talking about Satan

2.) the house is the earth

3.) "plunder his goods" must mean, souls saved by the gospel?

4.) Satan's house is currently being plundered.

Where does this tie into Rev. 20 beyond the mention of the word "bind"? There is no mention of an angel laying hold the Dragon, no mention of a chain, no mention of the "strong man" going into the pit, no mention of the strong man being shut up, or a seal set on him. No mention of that strong man not deceiving the nations.

In my bible, the context is talking about casting demons out of people, not the taking of the earth from Satan.
Was Jesus talking about Rev 20 when he spoke of binding the strong man? I doubt it. Never the less, the premise is the same.

People, because of their own sinful nature surrender themselves to the will of Satan. This is why this person was demon possessed. This is why God's truth was confined primarily to the Hebrew people prior to Christ's first advent. It's because of Christ's work on the cross that now God's truth can go out to all the nations. Didn't Christ save us from our sinful nature?

Where does this tie into Rev. 20 beyond the mention of the word "bind"? There is no mention of an angel laying hold the Dragon, no mention of a chain, no mention of the "strong man" going into the pit, no mention of the strong man being shut up, or a seal set on him. No mention of that strong man not deceiving the nations.

Who does Paul speak of in Ephesians when he says;

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
(Eph 6:12)

Doesn't this statement imply, very strongly that Satan does have much control over this world?

During the temptations of Christ in the desert, Satan offers Jesus the world if He would only bow down before him. I personally believe that Satan was well within his rights to make such an offer since Adam handed over world dominion to him when he allowed himself to be subject to Satan's will.

Yes. But seriously is really Satan bound? Is the gospel really victorious over every religion. Right now in America is the gospel mightier than pornography?

Yes. You like most futurist you seem to be of the opinion that were it not for Satan, there would be no sin. I believe that our capacity for sin can shine with or without satanic influence. I also feel that were it not for Christ's crushing the head of the serpent, that satanic influences would stop the spread of the Gospel.

This is a wonderful argument in favor of premillenialism. Christ's presense on earth is what causes the "regeneration" and the "restoration of all things". What was lost through the fall of man is restored through the perfect leadership of Yeshua.
And yet in spite of Christ's physical presence, the devil is able to out smart Him and raise up for himself an army to rebel against Christ's authority. Why would anyone rebel against peace, prosperity and pristine conditions?

This verse does not undermine premillennialism at all.
Nor does it lend any credibility to it.

He also said in 1Jn 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

This passage was written after Jesus was crucified, ascended, and by your understanding "bound" Satan.
Who is the "he" who is the the world? It can't be Satan because He's bound and in a the bottomless pit. unless the bottomless pit means he's still around which would render Rev. 20 a pretty much meaningless passage.
You object to my spiritualizing Rev 20:1-3. You say that it must be taken literally. My point is simple. Rev 20:1-3 is basically a parable demonstrating how Christ's works have overcome Satan preventing him from stopping the truth of God from shining in the world. Futurism obviously rejects this idea in favor of a doctrine that teaches that Christ's works were insufficient for Him to even overcome the Devil until His return when He has an angel do it for him.

Joyfulparousia
Feb 2nd 2009, 12:11 PM
Check the scriptures again. The disciples were told they would judge (not rule) the 12 tribes, not nations.

Thrones. My bible says thrones. :)



Actually, Rev 2 speaks of the day when the nations are "smashed to bits" in the judgment.

Rev 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Any potter's vessel that isn't kept is totally destroyed or "broken to shivers" with nothing left of it to be found.

Raybob

No, this isn't referring to one day but rather a quote from Ps. 2 where Jesus is promised to rule over the nations of the earth from Jerusalem.

p.s. is that an american tele?

Joyfulparousia
Feb 2nd 2009, 01:12 PM
So what you're saying is that you anticipate literal locusts that resemble war horses. With the faces of men and hair like women with the same authority as a scorpion has.

Demons.


Is there to be a literal beast coming out of the sea with seven heads and 10 crowns being literally ridden by a literal prostitute? If these things aren't literal,

They are literal spiritual with a literal manifestation on the earth that corresponds directly to the descriptions of their actions. They are not allegorical. Were the 10 plagues of Egypt spiritual plagues?


then according to your own standards, your method of interpretation is inconsistent.

I mean literal as "face value" understanding.:)


Neither of these arguments lends proof to these thrones being on Earth though. Conjecture is not plausible hermeneutics. Plus if you're referring to Matt 19:28, Jesus said that His disciples would judge the 12 tribes of Israel, not rule the nations.

Isn't Israel a nation? What is the function of one sitting on a throne?

Luk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;


I don't think so. Daniel speaks of eternity. You speak of only a 1,000 year period

Who said that being a king stops at the end of the millennium?

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Who are these kings?



Again, I don't think so. You see the disciples ruling over the nations, I see them judging over Israel exactly as Jesus said and as John wrote in Rev 10:4 "And I saw thrones, and they sat on them. And judgment was given to them,"

What judge sits on a throne?



Much of Old Testament prophecy is written in prophetic imagery. It's not that difficult to realize the symbolic language that had been used.

This difficulty lies in knowing when what is being said is actually going to happen.



As far as the NT being the final authority, it doesn't say any where. Do you not believe that all authority has been given to Christ?

Yes I believe Christ is the final authority. I'm not assuming that the OT is less relevant today. In fact, Christ, Paul, even John are continually quoting and using OT language in their writings.



The New Testament is the teaching of Christ and the New Covenant. Christ's blood is the New Covenant. (See Matt 26:28)

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
(Heb 8:13)

The writer of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant becomes obsolete and fades away. What authority does something obsolete have other than language that better supports a favored doctrine?

Where does it say OT= Mosaic covenant?


Was Jesus talking about Rev 20 when he spoke of binding the strong man? I doubt it. Never the less, the premise is the same.

But this is the premier amil verse to support the binding of Satan at the cross. Am I wrong?



People, because of their own sinful nature surrender themselves to the will of Satan. This is why this person was demon possessed. This is why God's truth was confined primarily to the Hebrew people prior to Christ's first advent. It's because of Christ's work on the cross that now God's truth can go out to all the nations. Didn't Christ save us from our sinful nature?

What about a child who is demon possessed. Have they surrendered their will to Satan? You're saying it's a conscience choice to become demon possessed -which I believe to be true to some extent but not fully.

Luk 9:42 But as he was yet coming up, the demon tore him and violently convulsed him. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the child, and gave him back to his father.



Who does Paul speak of in Ephesians when he says;

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
(Eph 6:12)

These are all plural entities.




Doesn't this statement imply, very strongly that Satan does have much control over this world?

Right, which makes me think that "bound" isn't bound at all. The language of Rev. 20:1-3 is so clear and meant to be so. I'm saying the whole pretense that Satan is bound is weak, because it can be easily disproved, but one that Amils rest heavily upon. Look at the language and think for a minute if what I'm saying is possibly true, what stronger language could the Lord have given John?

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
Rev 20:3 And 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.

1.) An angel (not Christ) binds Satan
2.) The angel has a key to the "bottomless pit" - a prison from which there is no escape
3.) The angel has a "great chain" - one that Satan cannot break
4.) Satan is laid hold of
5.) Satan is bound - by a spirtual chain capable of incapacitating his abilities
6) The duration of his sentance is 1000 years
7) He is cast into the bottomless pit - he is only there for 1000 years
8) He is shut up in the pit
9) He is sealed in the pit
10) He is not allowed to decieve the nations for the duration of his time in the pit
11) Then He is allowed to be loosed - meaning that he is not loosed in Rev. 20




During the temptations of Christ in the desert, Satan offers Jesus the world if He would only bow down before him. I personally believe that Satan was well within his rights to make such an offer since Adam handed over world dominion to him when he allowed himself to be subject to Satan's will.

Yes agreed. Foundational understanding. First dominion of earth was committed to Adam, then resigned to Satan by Adam, then taken from Satan at the cross. But authority that you mentioned from Mt. 28:18 doesn't require that judgement and righteousness are being excersized.

[quote=ScottJohnson;1966924]
Yes. You like most futurist you seem to be of the opinion that were it not for Satan, there would be no sin. I believe that our capacity for sin can shine with or without satanic influence. I also feel that were it not for Christ's crushing the head of the serpent, that satanic influences would stop the spread of the Gospel.

I agree somewhat with this. Where did it see that Satan's head was crushed at the cross? Romans 16:20 isn't present tense.




And yet in spite of Christ's physical presence, the devil is able to out smart Him and raise up for himself an army to rebel against Christ's authority. Why would anyone rebel against peace, prosperity and pristine conditions?

Where did it say that Satan outsmarts Jesus? This argument is easily answered from the "pristine" conditions of the Genesis garden. Unlike the Amil camp which sees an instant transformation of the heavens and earth, the premil sees the "regeneration" as exactly what it is called. A "process" that renews the face of the earth. It will take much time to complete this process. Where is the verse that says Jesus will wave His hand over the earth and suddenly everything is new?

Psa 104:30 You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the earth.

Did not God walk with Adam? Yet how was Satan able to outsmart God? Note that Satan is the usurper, and like you implied, usurped the authority of earth from Adam. To whom would that authority been consigned had not Satan deceived mankind?



You object to my spiritualizing Rev 20:1-3. You say that it must be taken literally. My point is simple. Rev 20:1-3 is basically a parable demonstrating how Christ's works have overcome Satan preventing him from stopping the truth of God from shining in the world.

I understand your point brother. But do not parables have substance? Applied truth? You have said yourself that Satan is not bound, yet the amil stance hangs on this pretense.


Futurism obviously rejects this idea in favor of a doctrine that teaches that Christ's works were insufficient for Him to even overcome the Devil until His return when He has an angel do it for him.

I do not, and will not minimize the glory and victory of the cross. The futurist sees that Christs first coming had a distinct purose from His second. The amil simply groups them together.

Heb 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 from that time onward waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

I say Yeshua is waiting. :)

Blessings in Yeshua

ScottJohnson
Feb 7th 2009, 07:05 PM
Demons.



They are literal spiritual with a literal manifestation on the earth that corresponds directly to the descriptions of their actions. They are not allegorical. Were the 10 plagues of Egypt spiritual plagues?

I mean literal as "face value" understanding.:)
When something such as the beast with seven heads or a being that is part locusts, part human and part machines is used to represent something else such as demons then it's safe to say that symbolism or allegory is being used.

Tim LaHay, in his Left Behind books, in an effort to exercise his strict literal approach to Bible interpretation, presented both the locusts and the 100 talent burning hail stones at literal face value. But he couldn’t do that with seven headed beast. The beast was needed by his doctrine to be the evil little anti-Christ guy and his global government. So much for the strict literal method of interpretation.

I don't see the parallel to the plagues of Egypt though. The writer of Exodus gives no reason to view these plagues as anything other than literal. In Contrast John is clearly using symbolism. He's using an apocalyptical style of writing. A style or genre of writing, which uses symbolism in describing cataclysmic events, one that wasn't at all uncommon among Jews at that time.

Isn't Israel a nation? What is the function of one sitting on a throne?

Luk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

The function of one sitting on a throne is either a ruler or judge….

But 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. And before Him shall be gathered all the nations; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And indeed He will set the sheep off His right, but the goats off the left hand.
(Mat 25:31-33)

…Jesus may be a ruler, but in this passage, upon His return he sit on a throne in judgment.

Yes, Israel can be a nation, but it can also be an ethnic group. A people that trace their lineage back to Jacob the son of Isaac. I believe it's the latter that is in view in Luke 22:30 and Matt 19:28.

Who said that being a king stops at the end of the millennium?
I don't believe that anyone said any such thing. I was merely distinguishing the apparent viewpoints between you and Daniel in Dan 7:18, where as you see a material kingdom headed by Christ where the spiritual and physical co-habitate. Daniel seems to have an eternal kingdom in view beginning with the works of Christ.

Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
Who are these kings?
I'm guessing that they would represent political leaders who have surrendered to Christ.

What judge sits on a throne?
While they may not have sat on literal thrones, I believe that the Scripture makes it clear that many of these did serve in a ruling capacity.

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn163/ruffedge_II/Clipboard01-8.jpg

This difficulty lies in knowing when what is being said is actually going to happen.
When you place the fulfillment of any prophecy into our future then all you have is speculation as to it's fulfillment. At least until the newspapers and/or history books report stories that can be proven to be the fulfillment of any particular prophecy. Even then it's still all speculative as to whether or not the current event would indeed be the fulfillment of a prophetic utterance.


Yes I believe Christ is the final authority. I'm not assuming that the OT is less relevant today. In fact, Christ, Paul, even John are continually quoting and using OT language in their writings.
Yes the NT does mention the OT a lot. Usually to point out the fulfillment of some prophecy concerning Christ or His works.

Where does it say OT= Mosaic covenant?
It's a given, Joyful. The Mosaic system of worship, was the religious practice from the time of the exodus until the cross. It was Christ that brought about a New Covenant. The age of grace.

In actuality, The OT actually equates to the "law and the prophets". Jesus Himself said that He came not to abolish these things but to fulfill them. If they find their fulfillment in Christ and our understanding of Christ comes primarily from the NT, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the NT should be the final authority when it comes to doctrinal issues. Or at least when possible.

But this is the premier amil verse to support the binding of Satan at the cross. Am I wrong?
I don't think that there is such a thing as a "premier amil verse", try these;

And the seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us through Your Name. And He said to them, I saw Satan falling out of Heaven as lightning!
(Luk 10:17-18)

Demonstrates a believer’s authority over demons through Christ

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to Myself. (Joh 12:31-32)

Demonstrates how Christ’s crucifixion will draw people to Himself and Satan, the “ruler of this world” is helpless to stop it.

and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. (Joh 16:11)

Demonstrates the judgment of the Satan even though both of us know that he is still running around.

Since, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, in like manner He Himself also shared the same things, that through death He might cause to cease the one having the power of death, that is, the devil; and might set these free, as many as by fear of death were subject to slavery through all the lifetime to live. (Heb 2:14-15)

Again demonstrates Christ’s victory at the cross over the one having power over death, the devil. Those that have been set free have been set free from the bondage of Satan through Christ.

Christ has incapacitated the devil, He hasn't fully destroyed him, at least not yet. Through His death on the cross, Christ has overcome death and the one that has power over death. Satan can persecute, he can deceive, he can even destroy the body. But he cannot stop the light of God's truth, (the Good News of the Kingdom) from going into the nations. He cannot prevent anyone from repenting and confessing Christ. This is completely up to the individual.

So likewise, when we see the devil being chained and tossed into the bottomless pit in Rev 20, this represents his limitations when it comes to the advancement of Christ's church. His utter destruction is demonstrated in his beign thrown in the lake of fire.

What about a child who is demon possessed. Have they surrendered their will to Satan? You're saying it's a conscience choice to become demon possessed -which I believe to be true to some extent but not fully.

Luk 9:42 But as he was yet coming up, the demon tore him and violently convulsed him. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the child, and gave him back to his father.
I didn't necessarily say that it was a conscious choice, but rather tried to say that our surrender to the devil is a logical response (either voluntary or involuntary) that might come from our innate sinful nature. We’re born into a sinful nature so it’s just as likely that a child could easily become overcome by demons.

Even Paul said that the good he seeks to do, he does not. But the evil he hates, that he does. It's our nature. This alone lends credibility to our endless need for a savior.

These are all plural entities.
Right, so is Satan and his demons. Unless you know of another force that fits the description of "spiritual wickedness in high places".

Right, which makes me think that "bound" isn't bound at all. The language of Rev. 20:1-3 is so clear and meant to be so. I'm saying the whole pretense that Satan is bound is weak, because it can be easily disproved, but one that Amils rest heavily upon. Look at the language and think for a minute if what I'm saying is possibly true, what stronger language could the Lord have given John?

How about, And the Devil leading them astray was thrown into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet were. And they were tormented day and night to the ages of the ages.
(Rev 20:10)

and threw him into the abyss, and shut him up, and sealed over him, that he should not still lead astray the nations, until the thousand years are fulfilled. And after these things, he must be set loose a little time. (Rev 20:3)

How did Satan lead astray the nations? By keeping the truth from them. But now, through Christ, he can't do that anymore. The devil fell like lightning from heaven. Christ tied up the strong man. Satan's world can be plundered.

Look at Europe. Once the epicenter of the Christian religion, (however corrupt it may have been), it was still Christianized. Today though, most churches on the European continent are virtually empty on Sunday mornings. It's almost as though Satan has been freed from his bondage an is once again leading the nations astray.




I agree somewhat with this. Where did it see that Satan's head was crushed at the cross? Romans 16:20 isn't present tense.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.
(Gen 3:15)

Satan bruised Christ's heal when he had Him crucified. But because of His Death, Jesus bruised Satan's head. At least this is how I've heard it explained

Where did it say that Satan outsmarts Jesus?
I'll recant the "outsmart statement". That was out of line. Sorry.
According to a futurist pre-mill doctrine though, doesn't Satan musters up a huge army to rebel against Christ's authority?

This argument is easily answered from the "pristine" conditions of the Genesis garden. Unlike the Amil camp which sees an instant transformation of the heavens and earth, the premil sees the "regeneration" as exactly what it is called. A "process" that renews the face of the earth. It will take much time to complete this process. Where is the verse that says Jesus will wave His hand over the earth and suddenly everything is new?
And yet this process will take place while sinful man continues to roam the planet. (?)

Peter describes this time as a time of fire and elements dissolving and melting all at Christ's coming. This is in stark contrasts to the idea that this renewal takes place over time during a 1,000 years period while sin and death remain on the planet.


Peter offers no mention of a millennial kingdom between Christ's coming and the new heaven and new earth.

Then all these being about to be dissolved, of what sort ought you to be in holy behavior and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the Day of God, through which the heavens having been set afire will be dissolved; and burning, the elements will melt? But according to His promise, we look for "new heavens and a new earth," in which righteousness dwells.
(2Pe 3:11-13)

Nor does Paul seem to place a millennium between Christ's coming and the end.

But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruit; afterward those of Christ at His coming. 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. (1Co 15:23-24)



Did not God walk with Adam? Yet how was Satan able to outsmart God? Note that Satan is the usurper, and like you implied, usurped the authority of earth from Adam. To whom would that authority been consigned had not Satan deceived mankind?
Yeah I suppose he did. I don't believe that God's presence was literally visible to Adam though. It seems as though humans in our current form are unable to bear God’s presence. My opinion, but I also don't believe that Adam was fully aware of his own actions at the time of committing them. Of course I could be wrong.

In contrast to the futurist’s millennium, Christ is visible. The earth is inhabited with both physical and spiritual beings. All would, at least I would imagine, be fully aware of just how good they have it.

I understand your point brother. But do not parables have substance? Applied truth? You have said yourself that Satan is not bound, yet the amil stance hangs on this pretense.
Parables also use symbolism as well as allegory. Should a parable be spoken in literal language? Maybe parable was a bad choice of words, but I still believe that John is using symbolism to represent something. In this case Satan’s inability to stop the Gospel.

What appears to be straight literal text to you, isn't to me. I pretty much see the entire Book of Revelation as symbolic. Futurism seems to pick and choose as needed. The locusts is a symbolic representation of demons yet the binding and imprisonment of Satan must be literal. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills would be a figurative statement, but Satan bound for a thousand years is a literal chronology of time.

Try to read the following passage not as a separate time frame but as a parallel passage to Rev 20:1-3. Though you probably won't agree, you might at least gain an idea of where the amiller is coming from.

Rev 12:7-11 And war occurred in Heaven, Michael and his angels making war against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels made war, (8) but they did not have strength, nor yet was place found for them in Heaven. (9) And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent being called devil, and, Satan; he deceiving the whole habitable world was cast out onto the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (10) And I heard a great voice saying in Heaven, Now has come the salvation and power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Christ, because the accuser of our brothers is thrown down, the one accusing them before our God day and night. (11) And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the Word of their testimony. And they did not love their soul even until death.




I do not, and will not minimize the glory and victory of the cross. The futurist sees that Christs first coming had a distinct purose from His second. The amil simply groups them together.

Heb 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 from that time onward waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
Let me apologize for that comment. It was totally out of line. It's not really my intention to put anyone in a negative light because of their beliefs.