Taking the mark means you've made your choice. And everyone will be forced to finally choose.
Much love!
So in you view you can’t repent from taking the mark but Paul could repent from persecuting the church?
Does that sound fair?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Taking the mark means you've made your choice. And everyone will be forced to finally choose.
Much love!
Aren't there other places in the Bible where people's opportunity to be saved was ended? Like Romans 1? Or 2 Thessalonians 2? And doesn't death itself end the opportunity for all unsaved?
Much love!
Truth is not our personal opinions.So in you view you can’t repent from taking the mark but Paul could repent from persecuting the church?
Does that sound fair?
Witch verses in those chapters?
Romans 1:26-28 KJV
26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 KJV
10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12) That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Much love!
It sounds final. Final answer time.So in you view you can’t repent from taking the mark but Paul could repent from persecuting the church?
Does that sound fair?
It is actually premillennialists like you who oppose plain scripture. I will give just a few examples where they do this even though I could give many.2. HIGHLY DEBATED: Only by Amillennialists because they are opposing plain Scripture. They hate the idea of a literal Millennial reign of Christ (which Satan also hates).
Do you think the following is referring to a literal one thousand generations?3. MOST FIGURATIVE: How in the world can "one thousand years" (Gk chilia ete) be seen as anything other than 1,000 years (which is called a "Millennium" from the Latin "milli" for 1,000).
Why don't you stop wasting time with your rhetoric and actually take one or two of the points made in the original post and try to refute them? As of now, it appears that you are just all talk and no substance.4. OBSCURE BOOK: If indeed it was an obscure book it could not possibly have this blessing: Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. (Rev 1:3)
So you really do not have a leg to stand on. And hopefully no one will be swayed by your nonsense.
Can we please talk about this topic in a separate thread and keep this thread about why Premil doctrine is false?I strong disagree, scripture teaches the mark of the beast and image worship will be "Literal", and will be received by the world through the "False Prophets" deception in false miracles
Revelation 19:20KJV
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
I've tried to read your OP's half a dozen times. I find the profusion of loaded language so detrimental to communication, well, life is too short to read "point" after "point" of straw men and loaded language. 22 points, but it seems you are making the same "point" over and over.invent an unscriptural
Just take one point at a time then. It's not that hard and I see no straw men arguments being made there. Just give me even one example of that, if you can.I've tried to read your OP's half a dozen times. I find the profusion of loaded language so detrimental to communication, well, life is too short to read "point" after "point" of straw men and loaded language.
It isn't the same point over and over. Again, just take one at a time if reading about all 22 points is overwhelming for you.22 points, but it seems you are making the same "point" over and over.
Just take one point at a time then. It's not that hard and I see no straw men arguments being made there. Just give me even one example of that, if you can.
(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine. Take this passage out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing in the inspired pages to support their main tenets. Amils have a problem with, and very much disagree with this form of hermeneutics and exegesis of many Scriptures.
Underwhelming is more the word for it.all 22 points is overwhelming for you.
Hogwash -- all of it!
Within a year you will retract all your words and flush them.
We are likely IN the Great Tribulation Period. The pestilence, wars and famine soon to overtake billions of people will have you scratching your empty heads.
This is where the rubber meets the road ... the death toll.
If you read Rev. 6, describing the Riders of the FOUR HORSES, the accumulative death from these alone account for about 2 billion people. Nothing in history has ever caused 25% loss of life in a few years time. The Black Plague came close to killing 20% of the planet in the 14th century (estimates are uncertain). Even all the wars in the 20th century account for maybe
2 % death.
That is the GT just getting started. Then you have the events in the rest of the Seals, the Seven Trumpets and the the wrath of God in the Seven Bowls before it is complete. The world will experience a worldwide earthquake, 1/3 of the planet literally on fire (likely the Middle East), super-volcanic eruptions causing massives tsunamis, nuclear war, etc. So after all that you can add another couple billion deaths.
60 million people die on average on earth annually. So when you see billions die - then you will know that this is not normal. Capisce?
Then if that is not enough to convince you, when "every eye sees Him" coming in the clouds, you will be ashamed of yourself for not only being in denial of His Second Coming, but that you spent years trying to lead others down the wrong path.
This is a straw man.
Those who hold pre-mil views do not universally interpret all the Bible "through the lens of" a single verse or chapter.
"totally occupied", "dependant upon", "one lone highly debated", "figurative and obscure", that's some of the "loaded language", if you wanted an example of that also.
Much love!
There's a lot more than just the duration, you realize.So, what other NT text teaches a thousand years after the second coming?
Underwhelming is more the word for it.
But I realize you are using your own loaded language.
Much love!
There's a lot more than just the duration, you realize.
Personally, I think it's better to begin here:
Jeremiah 31:31-37 KJV
31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
God is not done with Jacob's children.
Much love.
You are arguing against the Pre-Millennial View, which offers several views of Christ's Second Coming. Whether it's a Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib or Post-Trib rapture on either end or in the middle of a 3 1/2 year or 7 Year period Great Tribulation frame of events, outlined in Rev. 6-18, followed by 1000 year literal reign of Christ_ on earth.You totally missed my point. You need to address it.
P.S. No need for the nasty language.
You are arguing against the Pre-Millennial View, which offers several views of Christ's Second Coming. Whether it's a Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib or Post-Trib rapture on either end or in the middle of a 3 1/2 year or 7 Year period Great Tribulation frame of events, outlined in Rev. 6-18, followed by 1000 year literal reign of Christ_ on earth.
Am I missing something?
I didn't know "hogwash" was nasty language. It is just trough of water that pigs drink out of.
Since abandoning Premillennialism I have engaged in many debates/discussions on the matter of the second coming, end-times and the here-after. These are some of the major weaknesses I find in the Premillennialism doctrine, and are strong reasons why I believe the dogma should be rejected.
It does not matter what Scripture one looks at, or what topic under discussion, Premils have no plausible explanation for what they believe and no clear corroboration for their opinions. Their doctrine is bereft of any reasonable, logical, theological, or textual acceptance.
I want to list some of the issues that forced me to eventually abandon Premillennialism and embrace Amillennialism. My main reason for abandoning Premil was the severe lack of corroboration. I had a major issue with that!
What is more: I had multiple problem-texts as a Premil that showed the Coming of Christ to be climactic and all-consummating. I have presented a lot of these questions in discussions over the years (since 2000) on boards like this and have failed to get any satisfactory corroboration for these questions.
What I normally get is either blatant avoidance of the issues or "Revelation 20 says." This is so frustrating because Revelation 20 does not corroborate Revelation 20. Amils on the other hand tend to use the biblical premise "what saith the Scripture." The only conclusion I could arrive at is that the Premil interpretation of Revelation 20 is in error, it conflicts with numerous Scripture, and enjoys NO other serious scriptural support.
(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20.
It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine. Take this passage out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing in the inspired pages to support their main tenets. Amils have a problem with, and very much disagree with this form of hermeneutics and exegesis of many Scriptures.
(2) Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Premil is dependent upon the dubious premise that Revelation 20 is chronological to Revelation 19. That is it! Disprove that and Premil falls apart.
(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night.
How about actually addressing it a point at a time. So far, no Premil has had a rebuttal.
(1) Premil is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine.
(2) Premil hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce it from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19.
(3) The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.
(4) Premillennialists interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scriptures. Premillennialists have to insert “a thousand years” in passage after passage where it does not exist.
(5) Premil is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament. It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise. We Christians have the benefit of the New Testament to explain what is difficult or obscure in the Old Testament. Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted. The New Testament is the greater revelation.
(6) Many testify that they are Premillennial because they take the Word of God literal, yet, when you put their theology to the test an opposite picture unfolds. Premillennialism spiritualizes the literal passages and literalizes the spiritual passages. Their hyper-literalistic approach to highly-figurative Revelation is a case-in-point.