"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11
| 2016/4/24 9:37||Profile|
| Re: A literal second coming|
/David- you seem to be suggesting, as others have that Julius (or I) do not believe in a literal and physical 2nd coming of Jesus./
No, I was not suggesting that because I know that you have expressed clearly in the past your belief in a literal second coming. I heard you when I said that and I remember it and intend to remember it. What I was pointing out, or at least trying to, was the flawed logic in the proposal that the holy city that John saw coming down to the earth is already down and here. Then it was said this is so becuasue this city is the church. I attempted to point out that the city is portrayed as coming down from God after the resurrection of the dead and Satan's final expulsion to the lake of fire has occured. So if the holy city is already down, following this line of reasoning, shouldn't we reasonably expect that the resurrection of the dead (Rev 20:4-5) and Satan's expulsion to the lake of fire (Rev 20:10) would have already occured also? Satan's final expulsion occurs after the thousand years are completed (Rev 20:7-10). Since the resurrection of the dead coincides with and occurs at the same time as the second coming of Christ, then under Julius' reasoning that the "city is already down," Christ should have already make His second advent. The only alternative to get around this conundrum in logic is to spiritualize the second coming and resurrection etc. And since you don't do that then it just shows that the holy city described by John cannot have yet descended down to earth. The resurrection, at Christ's second coming, is portayed in Rev ch 20 and ther holy city begins to be spoke of in Rev ch 21 - AFTER the resurrection. Therefore, the proposal that the holy city is already down is caught of the horns of its own contradiction in logic much less the unsound and text denying exegesis it employs.
1 - I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
2 - And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready asa bride adorned for her husband. (Rev 21:1-2)
It seems clear that the first heaven and earth have to pass away before the new Jerusalem comes down. If the holy city is already here then we are already living in the new heavens and new earth. I feel I can safely propose that it just isn't so!
/The belief in a literal 1000 mile cube resting on or near the earth, given the extreme and pervasive symbolic and apocalyptic language of Revelation, is dubious at best./
When has it ever been proposed that this will be so? Perhaps some have but why not let scripture be our guide. Scripture tell us first of all, in the above verses, if it does rest on the earth it will be resting on a newly created earth and not the one we have now. The new earth would likely be well able to accomodate such a structure. Why have you missed I guess that the setting for this "new Jerusalem" is on a new earth after the present one has passed away? Who has sad it will be resting perhaps near and above the earth? Thwe true premill teaching does not teach so and it makes me think again that those who repeat these things have still a BASIC MISUNDERSTANDING of the premill teaching in much of its particulars. It's in the same vein as you saying as far as you can tell the premill view says Jews will automatically get saved at Christ's return and all Gentiles will be doomed from that point on. That's not true and in my opinion only shows you need to go back to the drawing board a bit and dig more deeply into what is really being taught. Even if people are wrong it's still a good thing to properly represent them even if you think they are wrong. I know you believe that but from my observation, many people who openly criticze the premill view still suffer from a basic misunderstanding of the view in many areas. Sure I admit, it bothers me to see the teaching I believe in misrepresented. I plead guilty. Yet these forums can be a good place to more fully understand one another and I don't believe trying to do so is a bad thing. Yet to say that the holy city is already down is illogical given the chronological order scripture gives and is therefore exegetically untenable in my opinion.
- How can the holy city be down already if scripture shows it coming down after the second advent and the resurrection? (John 6:44,54; Rev 20:4-5)
- How can the holy city be already down if it is to occur only after the new heavens and new earth come into being? (Rev 21:1-2)
| 2016/4/24 10:20||Profile|
| Re: |
Let's not talk about headcoverings in this thread, if you don't mind.
by TMK on 2016/4/24 8:41:09
I wish someone would answer J's 6 questions with "yes" or "no" answers. It would help clarify what is actually believed by premillenials.
David- you seem to be suggesting, as others have that Julius (or I) do not believe in a literal and physical 2nd coming of Jesus.
I can tell you that I certainly do, and I fairly certain Julius does too.
I just think that when Jesus returns, the Church is raptured and that is when the new heavens and earth are created. There are no second chances for anyone beyond that point.
The belief in a literal 1000 mile cube resting on or near the earth, given the extreme and pervasive symbolic and apocalyptic language of Revelation, is dubious at best.
Thanks, TMK. I will repost those questions that no one has answered.
If you are a premillenialist, whether dispensational or not how do you answer these important questions?
1. Does this belief system propose that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ's second coming?
2. Does this system believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ's second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the Fall of man?
3. Does this system believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years following the return of Christ?
4. Does this system believe unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years following His return?
5. Does this system believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years following the return of Christ?
6. Does this system believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years following the return of Christ?
It seems to me that sin in the lives of God's people, corruption of the natural creation, and the experience of physical death would terminate upon the appearance of Jesus Christ. And that the resurrection of the body, and the final judgment, would commence?
When you read Revelation 20:4-6 carefully, notice the things that are NOT mentioned:
1) The Second coming of Christ
2) A bodily resurrection
3) A reign of Christ on earth
4) The literal throne of David
5) Jerusalem of Palestine
6) Conversion of the Jews
7) The church on earth.
These are things which have been “read into” this passage in a vain attempt to give support to imaginative theories and erroneous doctrines.
Those who teach a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth also teach that the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the wicked will occur at different times, one thousand years apart.
This simply will not fit the words of Jesus in John
John 5:28, 29
28* “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29* and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
Whose words are you going to accept? The words of Jesus, or the words of men?
| 2016/4/24 10:23|
| Re: |
Edited for additions..
Good points brother. Well said & thank you for saying them.
Apparently now you're going to get told what you are and aren't allowed to bring up & not bring up in the SI Forum threads? I guess you just have to "stick to the predecided narrative" some are dead-set intent on pushing? Don't forget that the original title & intent of this thread was to call those of Premillineal persuasion deceived false believers who bought a false Gospel (which de facto means one thinks Amil/Supercessationism/Preterism, whether partial or full, IS the (true) Gospel). When you start there, and call other believers false believers (& twist scriptures out of their clear meaning/context to do it), continually answering questions just engenders more strife & argument. Like casting pearls only because someone wants to trample them, & that public ally. And what difference would it make if they were all answered again from scripture: after all, why would anyone receive from someone they've already stated openly they believe to be deceived false brethren?
| 2016/4/24 10:29|
| Re: |
by jeffmar1130 on 2016/4/24 10:29:59
Good points brother. Well said & thank you for saying them.
Apparently now you're going to get told what you are and aren't allowed to bring up & not bring up in the SI Forum threads?
I am just asking respectfully that this not be turned into a headcovering topic. I complied with Blane when he asked not to turn the "Satan defeated thread" into an endtimes thread.
I'm just asking, that's all. If Greg wants to continue, that is his prerogative. I think he only made a side comment and don't believe Greg is intending to turn this into a headcovering thread, but then another responded and you know how it goes. We can all get on a rabbit trail. I am probably the biggest offender and I try to keep aware of that fact.
Thanks Greg, thanks PP.
| 2016/4/24 10:33|
| Re: A scriptural sequence (edited)|
(Edited this AM to remove statements regarding info I formerly misconstrued. Soorry bout that!)
/The mistake that many make is to view Revelation as sequential, chronological events. I don't know about you, but one thing this study has done for me is to remind me of the wonderful, present realities that are available in Jesus Christ. An anemic, powerless, worldly church ignores these realities./
I plead guilty to wanting to follw the chronological sequence that scripture presents. Only those who want to spiritualize many things believe the sequence is not important.
Speak for yourself reagrding an anemic church nullifying present realities. Every person I go to church with and every premill teacher I know believe in the wonderful and present life changing realities of Christ. To want to have a clear a knowledge as possible of what is coming - "that day shall not overtake you like a thief" -is not at all a practice that nullifes the present realities of Christ within each believer. To study the future scripture portrays can be a robust sign of proper spirituality.
| 2016/4/24 10:42||Profile|
| Re: |
Thanks Doc for pointing that out.
We all can be wrong & grow in our understanding in humility (the whole point of iron sharpening iron), but when we constantly shift, are dishonest about our positions, seemingly "change" all the sudden in our public narrative & then deny it & then accuse those who disagree of being false converts & of another spirit, something is actually really seriously wrong.
I am not quick to that conclusion, nor joyful or gleeful about it (quite the opposite), but quite convinced of it (it's called discernment) at this point. Talk about an agenda. I don't know if it's even a "conscience" one or not, but I definitely clearly see it's there.
| 2016/4/24 10:48|
| Re: |
Docs, you said I said "the book of Revelation is not concerned with any future events".
I did not say that and don't believe that.
Will you answer my questions regarding the Millennium?
| 2016/4/24 11:13|
| Re: |
Unless someone else would like you to answer the questions there is no need to respond to me as I am bowing out of discussions on the millennium.
Please continue if you so desire.
| 2016/4/24 13:42|
| Re: |
quote: "That's not true and in my opinion only shows you need to go back to the drawing board a bit and dig more deeply into what is really being taught. Even if people are wrong it's still a good thing to properly represent them even if you think they are wrong. I know you believe that but from my observation, many people who openly criticze the premill view still suffer from a basic misunderstanding of the view in many areas."
That is why I am hoping someone with a premillennial view will answer J's question with yes or no answers.
| 2016/4/24 15:58||Profile|