The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics.

[Ronald Nolette]

Satans activity in all unrestrained power goes forth one last time just before the judgment and destruction of the deluded at the second coming.

Incorrect! the verse you use to defend that position is about the antichrist and those deceived by Him and the miracles the antichirst works under his fathers powersa.

As it says in REv. 20 Satan is abyssed after Jesus returns for 1,000 years and after those 1,000 years he is loosed again to deceive one more time. that is believing the Word of God exactly as how God inspired it to be written.

He could have had His Word written your way and then I would believe you!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If taken at face value, the thought was not completed about the earth now, was it.

This is how you all read the verse:

"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 will be burned up, and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

You add those words to interpret your point, at least many Amil do. You have stated the earth is not dissolved, so therefore why interpret the verse that way?

The "also" is just referring to the works thereof, not the earth itself.

That is not true. Why are you lying like this? Here is how the verse is written in the KJV:

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.

You are trying to say that it just says the works that are therein shall be burned up, also. As you can see, that is NOT what it says. Here is another translation that is more clear as to what it is saying:

2 Peter 3:10 (NIV): 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare (NIV note: some manuscripts say "be burned up").

So, it's saying that the earth itself and everything done in it will be burned up. What that means is that all of the natural things on earth like the trees, grass and so on will be burned up as well as all of the man-made things on earth. The entire earth will be affected just as it was in the flood, which is the point Peter made here:

2 Peter 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Since Peter was comparing two global events directly to each other, then we can safely say that he was referring particularly to the entire surface of the earth since that is what was affected by the flood in Noah's day. Like Jesus Himself did in Matthew 24:35-39, Peter was comparing a future global destruction event to the global destruction event that happened in Noah's day. And he related it directly to the time of Jesus's second coming.

 

[jeffweeder]

Incorrect! the verse you use to defend that position is about the antichrist and those deceived by Him and the miracles the antichirst works under his fathers powersa.

Its still the activity of satan.
satan was unable to go forth in all his power of deception as his agent has been restrained until the appointed time.

People who reject the gospel in this age will be JUDGED AND CONDEMNED when the Lord destroys satans activity by the power and glory of his coming. Those who believe are the only ones who can possibly stand in his glorious presence when he comes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well I didn't seem to think based on the one verse. I based that on the whole counsel of Scripture based on all verses talking about the ten kings!

Similarly, I don't interpret the thousand years of Revelation 20 in isolation, but based on the whole counsel of Scripture based on all verses that talk about Christ reigning, His people reigning as priests, the resurrection of the dead and the day of judgment.

I will try. I am not sure the bible gives a why for the sacrifices, but just announces that there are the sacrifices.

Why would that be? I don't believe that makes any sense. It is not typical for the Bible to leave out such details. I don't believe for a second that such details would be left out.

Tomorrowe is busy. we have several showings of our house so Please leave me a reminder tomorrow and I will try to list all the verses about life in teh millenial including teh millenial temple and sacrificial system.

This isn't important enough to me to try to remember that. If you remember, fine, and if you don't, fine. Either way, we both know that we will still disagree. But, it would be nice to know how you come to your conclusions on this particular issue.

I hope to have teh verses categorized and listed by Friday for you.

No rush.

Well when your spiritual discernment differs from others spiritual discernemnt- who is right? You because you say so?

That was not the point. The point is that we need spiritual discernment to understand things like this. Do you disagree? I'm not sure why you would. Interpreting scripture is not the same as reading a factual news article that simply reports everything that occurred straightforwardly in chronological order in such a way that anyone can understand it. Just read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 and you should see that is clearly not the case.

I have read over a dozen "interpretations" of what the 1,000 years mean. They all claim they got them by spiritual discernment from god and they all differ!

Whatever. That has nothing to do with the point I was making. I was simply saying that we all need to rely on the Holy Spirit for understanding of things like this.

And all of them say the 1,000 years is not literal. Whose spiritual deiscernment is the right spiritual discernemnt.

Again, it wasn't my point to say whose spiritual discernment is right, it's my point to say that we can't understand things like this without spiritual discernment that comes from the Holy Spirit. It simply is not just spelled out for us the way some people imagine. If that was God's intention then why is there so much symbolism in the book of Revelation?

And no. god wrote Scripture so the average believer with their limited understanding and education could understand and frow in the word.

Are you saying they can understand it with their own understanding? I hope you're not saying that because that is far from the truth. Just read 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 and you should see what I'm talking about.

God did not hide anything so we need to have a man who claims to have gotten the "real interpretation" from god spiritually. That is a cult mentality.

Okay, now I'm just going to have to quote that passage since it seems like you may have never read it.

1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” the things God has prepared for those who love him—10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

I would consider some of the things we discuss on this forum to be the deeper things of God. They go beyond the basics of Christianity. Paul taught that in order to understand those kinds of things we can only discern them through the Holy Spirit's teaching. And you are saying this is like a cult mentality! Are you kidding me? Getting discernment from the Holy Spirit is far from a cult mentality. Paul said it's a requirement for understanding the deep things of God. Are you going to say Paul was wrong?

Do you believe Jesus literally rose physically from teh dead?

Of course I do. Please don't ever ask me a question like this again. It's insulting.

What about those who spiritually discerned He didn't? Are they wrong because they simply disagree with you?

What is your point here? My goodness. Hopefully, what I've said earlier in this post makes it more clear as to the point I was making. Questions like these make it clear that you didn't have a clue about the point I was making before.

I believe He physically rose form teh dead on the third day because it is written in plain simple language with no construct or words to tell anybody it was not to be taken literal.

Okay, but does that mean everything in scripture is spelled out to us plainly like that? Of course not. If that was God's intention then why did Jesus speak in parables and why does the book of Revelation contain so much symbolism?

Spiritual discernment is not taking the word of God and subtly reinterpreting it.

Of course it isn't! Good grief, man! Who said it was?

Spiritual discernemnt is the Spirit empowering our souls to receive th eworld of God as is written with all the rules of grammar invovled.

Show me where Paul said that or where anyone else said that in scripture. Looks like you're making up your own rules here. I'd rather go by what scripture teaches about this then the rules that you make up.

Remember Paul says the natural man receive not the things of God!

Hello?! That is exactly what I've been telling you all along. Holy goodness. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here.

Does that mean they reject the physical resurrection of Jesus for their sins because that needs to be spiritually discerned and "reinterpreted by that supposed discernment?"

Of course not! That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making. Yes, sometimes scripture is straightforward like that. And sometimes it's not. You sometimes seem to act like it's always straightforward. Clearly, that is not. Otherwise, even the natural man could understand all of scripture, but that is not the case.

when do yo0u tak passages that are writtn in a literal manner literally and when do you take them spiritually to be discerewned and tell us all what they really mean? How do you know? whose authority do you change what is plainly written?

It's not easy putting into words how the Holy Spirit teaches us things. I would hope you would understand that. But, one thing that we can do to validate our interpretations is to compare them to other scripture. Our interpretations of any given passage should not contradict even one verse in the rest of scripture. So, that is one way to know if your interpretation is correct or not.

As far as your question "whose authority do you change what is plainly written", I find it to be a ridiculous question. Who made you the Authority on what is supposedly plainly written and what isn't? In 2 Peter 3:10-13, I believe Peter plainly wrote that the heavens and the earth will be burned up on the day Christ returns like a thief in the night and that is why in verse 13 he said we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth in fulfillment of the promise of His second coming. The heavens and earth being burned up and renewed fulfills what is promised in conjunction with His second coming. Do you read that plainly as written? I don't believe so. So, should I ask you "whose authority do you change what is plainly written in passages like 2 Peter 3:10-13?".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Its still the activity of satan.
satan was unable to go forth in all his power of deception as his agent has been restrained until the appointed time.

People who reject the gospel in this age will be JUDGED AND CONDEMNED when the Lord destroys satans activity by the power and glory of his coming. Those who believe are the only ones who can possibly stand in his glorious presence when he comes.

Well said. You had made a great point and, as usual, it was ignored. Paul clearly indicated that Satan is the one who is behind the man of sin's activities and he is the one who leads many to fall away from the faith during the time period just before the return of Christ. That shows he is restrained before that time, which we call Satan's little season. Premils just don't recognize that his binding is a restraint rather than him being rendered completely incapacitated.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So, this is not Amil, but the correct pre-mill view.

You condemn both modern pre-mill and Amil in one chop of the ax. Probably should have just pointed out the errors of this modern technological view of the Second Coming, than to jump in the Amil fire, and incinerate yourself.

LOL! Are you for real? He is condemning his own Amil view, eh? No, he's not. Why do you have to lie all the time? I'm truly amazed at how some people on here are willing to blatantly lie about what others are saying and what they believe. You do know that lying is wrong, right?

 

[Timtofly]

Except that we do. You're not an Amil, so you don't know what we've come across sometimes in these debates. There are some who can't even fathom how the word "thousand" could possibly be used figuratively in scripture, so we have to show them. We don't do it to prove that it has to be used that way in Revelation 20, but just to prove that it can be.

Randy was Amil, but despite not paying attention is the figurative angle all you have?

No one is arguing Satan was not highly curtailed, but is that a literal binding or a figurative one in the first century? Paul seemed to think it was figurative as he pointed out the devil was still out and about. Peter claimed Satan was still out and about. How could the historical antichrist church have existed without Satan out and about influencing humanity?

How can that be describing this Millennium yet to come, by the early church fathers? Not one of them declared it was the here and now. No where in Scripture does it claim that Satan has influence in the Millennium.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. You can't be taken seriously when you try to say that Adam was 1,930 years old when he died. Not that you could be taken seriously, anyway, but things like this just make it impossible to take you seriously.

Then you fail to take God's Word seriously.

 

[Timtofly]

Where did Jesus claim that He would return before the thousand years?

Revelation 19

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Randy was Amil, but despite not paying attention is the figurative angle all you have?

He was Amil, but I doubt he participated in Amil vs. Premil debates at the time. Anyway, for some reason he didn't realize that some Premils are not aware that the word "thousand" is sometimes used figuratively in scripture.

No one is arguing Satan was not highly curtailed, but is that a literal binding or a figurative one in the first century?

It depends on what you mean. When you say "literal binding" are you talking about a physical binding? His binding is figurative as it has nothing to do with him being literally bound and incapacitated as Premils believe.

Paul seemed to think it was figurative as he pointed out the devil was still out and about. Peter claimed Satan was still out and about. How could the historical antichrist church have existed without Satan out and about influencing humanity?

It never says that Satan was bound from persecuting Christians or trying to wreak havoc in the world. But, what he was not able to do is keep the world in spiritual darkness without hope and he was not able to keep God's word from spreading throughout the world as he was able to do in Old Testament times.

How can that be describing this Millennium yet to come, by the early church fathers?

I have no interest in discussing what some guys in the early church believed. A small number of early church fathers don't represent the entire early church, so I don't care to get into all of that personally.

Not one of them declared it was the here and now.

How would you know? Have you read all of their writings? Did every early church father write things down? Don't act as if you know things like this.

No where in Scripture does it claim that Satan has influence in the Millennium.

Where does it say he has no influence at all? That is your assumption, but we have other scripture like 2 Thess 2 that speaks of him being restrained, so his binding should be understood in that context rather than thinking it means he is completely incapacitated.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Revelation 19

Show me where in Revelation 19 that Jesus said He would return before the thousand years. Which verse? It looks like you're lying again. You do know that lying is wrong, right? Or don't you?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Then you fail to take God's Word seriously.

No, I fail to take you seriously, which is a good thing.

 

[Timtofly]

You missed the point. I was talking about this verse:

2 Peter 3:13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

I assume you understand "his promise" refers to the promise of His coming that was first mentioned in 2 Peter 3:4 and referred to again in 2 Peter 3:9. It is in direct fulfillment of His second coming that we look forward to a new heaven and a new earth. If the new heaven and new earth weren't ushered in until 1000+ years after the fulfillment of the promise of His second coming, then this verse would not make sense. Instead, it should say we look forward to a temporary earthly kingdom in keeping with His promise of coming again instead of saying we look forward to a new heaven and new earth in keeping with the promise of His second coming.

It looks like you don't know what the word "ironic" means. It also looks like you didn't read what was being discussed very carefully, which is not surprising.

Certainly it does, and just like Peter says Paul was hard to understand, Peter still wrote it out like Paul did.

There were 3 gatherings of Christ mentioned in Scripture: the OT, the NT, and the handing back of the kingdom. Then cometh Revelation 21.

 

[Timtofly]

What do you think "a thousand generations" means in Deuteronomy 7:9? What do you think "a thousand hills" means in Psalm 50:10?

1,000 generations.

1,000 hills.

 

[Timtofly]

Show me where in Revelation 19 that Jesus said He would return before the thousand years. Which verse? It looks like you're lying again. You do know that lying is wrong, right? Or don't you?

When Jesus comes at Armageddon, the FP and beast are cast into the LOF. Satan is then bound for 1,000 years. Jesus does come from heaven to earth in Revelation 19, unless you think otherwise. You are the one denying Satan is bound. Better than what you claim: Jesus returns in Revelation 20..

That is not true. Why are you lying like this? Here is how the verse is written in the KJV:

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.

You are trying to say that it just says the works that are therein shall be burned up, also. As you can see, that is NOT what it says. Here is another translation that is more clear as to what it is saying:

2 Peter 3:10 (NIV): 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare (NIV note: some manuscripts say "be burned up").

So, it's saying that the earth itself and everything done in it will be burned up. What that means is that all of the natural things on earth like the trees, grass and so on will be burned up as well as all of the man-made things on earth. The entire earth will be affected just as it was in the flood, which is the point Peter made here:

2 Peter 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Since Peter was comparing two global events directly to each other, then we can safely say that he was referring particularly to the entire surface of the earth since that is what was affected by the flood in Noah's day. Like Jesus Himself did in Matthew 24:35-39, Peter was comparing a future global destruction event to the global destruction event that happened in Noah's day. And he related it directly to the time of Jesus's second coming.

Laid bare is not the earth dissolving into nothing.

 

[Timtofly]

No, I fail to take you seriously, which is a good thing.

Time will tell.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As much as you're trying to invent your own narrative, the facts forbid your conclusions. Lactantius did not source his beliefs in the writings of Irenaeus, he received them from the pagan Sibyl prophetesses. Here is the evdience:

as the Sibyl testifies and says:--

You apparently failed to recognize that Lactantius only used extra-biblical and even non-Christian sources as a *confirmation* of his biblical beliefs?

Lactantius did not derive his main source from anything other than from the Bible. His interest was in deriving confirmation even from secular sources--not to indicate they were his main source.

lactantius divine institutes book 7 chapter 14
But we, whom the Holy Scriptures instruct to the knowledge of the truth, know the beginning and the end of the world, respecting which we will now speak in the end of our work, since we have explained respecting the beginning in the second book. Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six thousandth year is not yet completed, and that when this number is completed the consummation must take place, and the condition of human affairs be remodelled for the better, the proof of which must first be related, that the matter itself may be plain. ..

...And as then a mortal and imperfect man was formed from the earth, that he might live a thousand years in this world; so now from this earthly age is formed a perfect man, that being quickened by God, he may bear rule in this same world through a thousand years. But in what manner the consummation will take place, and what end awaits the affairs of men, if any one shall examine the divine writings he will ascertain. But the voices also of prophets of the world, agreeing with the heavenly, announce the end and overthrow of all things after a short time, describing as it were the last old age of the wearied and wasting world. But the things which are said by prophets and seers to be about to happen before that last ending comes upon the world, I will subjoin, being collected and accumulated from all quarters.

Ch. 24 recounts the Millennial Age, citing the Sybil as confirmation of the biblical account, but not the source of his biblical information. His reference earlier to the Antichrist was obviously sourced in the book of Daniel, and not with the Sybils, who he uses only to confirm from extra-biblical sources the truth of this material.

Ch. 25 These are the things which are spoken of by the prophets as about to happen hereafter: but I have not considered it necessary to bring forward their testimonies and words, since it would be an endless task; nor would the limits of my book receive so great a multitude of subjects, since so many with one breath speak similar things; and at the same time, lest weariness should be occasioned to the readers if I should heap together things collected and transferred from all; moreover, that I might confirm those very things which I said, not by my own writings, but in a special manner by the writings of others, and might show that not only among us, but even with those very persons who revile us, the truth is preserved, which they refuse to acknowledge. But he who wishes to know these things more accurately may draw from the fountain itself, and he will know more things worthy of admiration than we have comprised in these books.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course, I do! I wonder why? Because there are multiple quotes that I have presented above that prove that Irenaeus believed Satan was bound at the First Advent.

Surely you understand the difference between use of the "strong man" analogy as a *principle* and reference to the "binding of Satan" in the latter days, when Antichrist is defeated at the 2nd Coming? Irenaeus indeed applied the "strong man" analogy to the defeat of Satan at the cross, because it requires a stronger one to defeat the one maintaining the condemnation.

But Satan isn't actually tied up, bound, and thrown into a bottomless pit at the Cross. Instead, he is simply rendered helpless before the almighty act of God in raising Jesus from the dead, not counting sins against those who repent in Jesus' name.

The actual act of binding Satan, and sending him into a prison, takes place, biblically, at the 2nd Coming. And Irenaeus distinguishes this event from the defeat of Satan at the Cross. Both events render Satan impotent. But only at the 2nd Coming is he actually bound and sent into prison.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Irenaeus believed that Satan will be destroyed at the Second Advent!

The ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire (Against Heresies Book I, Chapter X, 1 – Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world).​

Satan is not destroyed ever! Irenaeus knew this! Satan is destroyed, in a sense, when Antichrist is destroyed. It is his *kingdom* that is destroyed on earth--not his existence!

Evil is destroyed and imprisoned at the 2nd Coming. But it is forever dealt with by fire at the end of the Millennium. That's when all evil is committed to the Lake of Fire. However, evil is initially defeated at the 2nd Coming, at which time Satan begins his imprisonment. He is let go for only a very short time at the end of the Millennium, in preparation for his final destiny.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think you might be a tad bit overly sensitive. It goes without saying that we're all sharing our opinions here. Do we really have to say "I think this" or "I think that" all the time to make that clear? I think that is unnecessary.

Was Jesus being "sensitive" when he warned us not to take away from the words of his book?

Yes, we should do that, but I have seen you fail to do that many times on this forum. For example, I have tried to politely ask you to stop using the term "replacement theology" when talking to me, but you continued to do so, anyway, even though you know it offends me. So, it's a little hard to take you seriously when you talk about things like this.

This is not a lack of love for you. It is unreasonable for you to protest and say, "Don't call me an Atheist" if that's exactly what you are. If you say, "Don't say I'm a bad person," when that's exactly what you are. There are loving ways to tell people what they are, but it isn't by denying what they are.

I assure you, if RT wasn't the best way of abbreviating our disagreement, I wouldn't use it. But we simply have to abbreviate when we can.