The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Davidpt]

At the regeneration of all things this earth and our bodies as we know it will be gone and Matthew 19:28 is the judging throne. The reigning from Revelation 20 will be expired by then.

Revelation 3:21 is just a promise that who overcomes will reign spiritually with Him. The context of the letter to the Laodiceans were that they were lukewarm and about to be rejected by Jesus.

Did you notice verse #14? “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.

Yes, Jesus reigns over all of Gods creation now

The context of Matthew 25:19 is the judgement day at the end of our world and the regeneration, after the reigning of Revelation 20.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

What did Jesus say here? A) or B) below?

A) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne

B) To him that overcometh NOT, will I grant to sit with me in my throne

Why this matters is simple. I couldn't care less if some insist NOSAS is not Biblical. That does not make it unbiblical just because they say so. NOSAS is 100% Biblical, period. If you disagree then take it up with Jesus when He returns. Be sure to tell Him you disagree with Him as well. That assuming you disagree NOSAS is Biblical. But if you agree it is Biblical, it is then a moot point and not applicable to you.

Amil's position is basically this. When one is initially saved they then begin reigning with Christ a thousand years spiritually from that moment on. Then when they die they continue reigning a thousand years in a disembodied state in heaven. Thus far, there are no real issues here. Not until we factor this in--that not everyone that are initially saved remain saved.


Therefore, there is only one way to resolve this without causing a contradiction in Revelation 3:21, IMO.

The way to resolve this with there being zero contradictions is that no one is rewarded with sitting with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. The ones that fell away, per this scenario, Jesus never grants them this to begin with. Per Amil, Jesus also grants this to ones that fall away. Which is absurd that Jesus meant both A) and B) in Revelation 3:21 rather than just A).

Apparently then, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, only Premil does not contradict Revelation 3:21 but Amil does, is how I see it.

This is not difficult. Either Jesus meant A) or He meant B). There are no other options. One can't have it both ways.

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


Revelation 3:21 can't be meaning during when this is meaning. Right? Therefore, it has to fit somewhere before the time of that verse.

What are some options then?

1) prior to the millennium

2) during the millennium

3) during satan's little season after the millennium

4) during the GWTJ

IMO, the best fit is 2). And if Amil perhaps agrees, there is then the fact that Amil's proposed millennium doesn't resemble Premil's proposed millennium and vice versa. So why not use yet more Scripture to help determine when verse 21 is meaning? Such as Matthew 25:31. Per Amil we would be in the time of the GWTJ at that point, not during the millennium, if we use Matthew 25:31 as a timing marker of sorts. But per Premil that is exactly where we would be per Matthew 25:31, at the beginning of the millennium.

Per this scenario, if Matthew 25:31 helps us determine the timing of Revelation 3:21, and that both camps agree the millennium is the best fit for Revelation 3:21, we then end up with Matthew 25:31 benefiting Premil and not even benefiting Amil at all.

Keep in mind here, I'm being hypothetical, and that I'm not remotely insisting this equals Amil's view of things.

NOTE: I edited this post and cleaned it up somewhat

 

[Davidpt]

Some of this is a repeat of what I said in previous post.

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne

Notice what Jesus doesn’t say--- He does not say---Everyone who initially believes now sits with Me, regardless of what happens afterward. He explicitly conditions the promise on overcoming---persevering to the end.

This is crucial because overcoming is demonstrated over time, obviously, not simply at the moment of initial faith.


Amils often argue---Believers are already reigning spiritually with Christ now. Christ’s throne is being shared in principle with all who are saved.

But here’s the problem---Not everyone perseveres. Scripture (Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26–31; 2 Peter 2:20–22) shows some fall away.

If Amil is correct, Jesus has already granted those believers sitting with Him, even before overcoming is confirmed. That means some are granted the reward before earning it first, which contradicts Rev 3:21.

Put another way---Revelation 3:21 explicitly links reward---overcoming.

Amil makes the link instead---initial salvation---present reward. Therefore, Amil breaks the sequence. Reward is given without overcoming, which the text does not allow.

Premils read Revelation 3:21 and the related texts as future-oriented. Overcoming is fully demonstrated by perseverance to the end of life. Only those who overcome receive the reward(sitting on the throne, reigning with Christ). Those who fall away never have part in the first resurrection to begin with, therefore never reign with Christ (Revelation 20:4–6). OTOH, Amil has those that fall away having part in the first resurrection initially, then losing part it in because they have fallen away. Granted, Amils that don't agree NOSAS is Biblical to begin with, this likely appears to be a straw man argument. Except there are some Amils, believe it or not, that do agree NOSAS is Biblical. Now what? Per their perspective is this still a straw man?

Therefore, the Premil reading avoids all the contradictions the Amil reading produces.
|


The Bible presents a reward pattern---overcoming then reward. Christ Himself followed the same pattern to a T. He was not enthroned before overcoming. Premil preserves this pattern perfectly---only those who overcome reign. Amil inverts or collapses the pattern---reward is given before overcoming, creating direct textual tension with Revelation 3:21, Hebrews 6, Luke 19, etc.

Essentially, Premil is consistent with perseverance and conditional rewards. Amil struggles to reconcile initial salvation, perseverance, and reward in a coherent way.

 

[Truth7t7]

I disagree with a lot of his preterist views as well, and I don't hide my disdain for preterism itself, but he's a good example for us of how to have a respectful discussion. I appreciate that about him. Let's you and I try to do better as well. Deal? That's what I would prefer rather than the insults we tend to exchange.

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

You believe that Daniel's AOD seen in Matthew 24:15 below has already been fulfilled?

Matthew 24:15KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

You believe that the great tribulation seen below in Matthew 24:21 has already been fulfilled?

Matthew 24:21KJV
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

 

[Truth7t7]

Some of this is a repeat of what I said in previous post.

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne

Notice what Jesus doesn’t say--- He does not say---Everyone who initially believes now sits with Me, regardless of what happens afterward. He explicitly conditions the promise on overcoming---persevering to the end.

This is crucial because overcoming is demonstrated over time, obviously, not simply at the moment of initial faith.


Amils often argue---Believers are already reigning spiritually with Christ now. Christ’s throne is being shared in principle with all who are saved.

But here’s the problem---Not everyone perseveres. Scripture (Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26–31; 2 Peter 2:20–22) shows some fall away.

If Amil is correct, Jesus has already granted those believers sitting with Him, even before overcoming is confirmed. That means some are granted the reward before earning it first, which contradicts Rev 3:21.

Put another way---Revelation 3:21 explicitly links reward---overcoming.

Amil makes the link instead---initial salvation---present reward. Therefore, Amil breaks the sequence. Reward is given without overcoming, which the text does not allow.

Premils read Revelation 3:21 and the related texts as future-oriented. Overcoming is fully demonstrated by perseverance to the end of life. Only those who overcome receive the reward(sitting on the throne, reigning with Christ). Those who fall away never have part in the first resurrection to begin with, therefore never reign with Christ (Revelation 20:4–6). OTOH, Amil has those that fall away having part in the first resurrection initially, then losing part it in because they have fallen away. Granted, Amils that don't agree NOSAS is Biblical to begin with, this likely appears to be a straw man argument. Except there are some Amils, believe it or not, that do agree NOSAS is Biblical. Now what? Per their perspective is this still a straw man?

Therefore, the Premil reading avoids all the contradictions the Amil reading produces.
|


The Bible presents a reward pattern---overcoming then reward. Christ Himself followed the same pattern to a T. He was not enthroned before overcoming. Premil preserves this pattern perfectly---only those who overcome reign. Amil inverts or collapses the pattern---reward is given before overcoming, creating direct textual tension with Revelation 3:21, Hebrews 6, Luke 19, etc.

Essentially, Premil is consistent with perseverance and conditional rewards. Amil struggles to reconcile initial salvation, perseverance, and reward in a coherent way.

You fail to recognize the fact of scripture and predestination, God has foreknowledge of all who will be glorified, simple, clear, easy to understand

Foreknowledge, Predestination

Called, Justified, Glorified

Romans 8:28-30KJV
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[Truth7t7]

I think if you kept more engaged and were fairer with your representation of Amil then we would respect you. We all know you know what Amils believe. No one has had that position explained to them more over the years. But you tend to ignore and distort that. Also, if you start a conversation develop it. Do not run after 2 posts. That is frustrating.

We all have to make a greater effort.

I apologize for any hurts i have caused you. That is not my heart.

We need to understand that the word Amil means nothing more than (No Future Millennium On This Earth)

Many posting here have the Amil belief in common, there are many that try to "Expand" the definition of "Amil" into denominational beliefs and Interpretations with Matthew Chapter 24 and the Olivet Discourse being just one example

Reformed preterism and eschatology holds no monopoly on the word Amil as many try to include their denominational beliefs into the definition of Amil "Wrong"

Amil Definition: No Future Millennial Kingdom On This Earth

 

[Marty fox]

No.

Really?​

​

Yes, the name Israel is traditionally understood to mean "he who wrestles with God" or "God prevails," originating from Jacob's encounter with God in Genesis.​

Biblical Origin​

The name Israel was given to Jacob after a dramatic encounter described in Genesis 32:22–32, where Jacob wrestles with a mysterious figure through the night. This figure is referred to as a "man," an "angel," and ultimately identified with God (Elohim) in the biblical text. After the struggle, Jacob is renamed Israel, which signifies his perseverance and transformation through this divine encounter (Genesis 32:28) Bible Hub+2.

Meaning and Etymology​

In Hebrew, Yisrael (יִשְׂרָאֵל) combines the root yisra (to struggle, strive, or prevail) with El (God). The name can be interpreted as "he who struggles with God" or "God prevails" learnhebrewforchristians.com. This etymology reflects both the act of wrestling and the spiritual outcome: Jacob’s encounter leaves him changed, symbolizing a personal and intimate relationship with God My Jewish Learning+1.

Symbolic Significance​

The story and the name carry deep spiritual meaning:

• Persistence in faith: Wrestling with God is not seen as disrespect but as an honest engagement with the divine, reflecting the human struggle to understand and connect with God learnhebrewforchristians.com+1.
• Transformation: Jacob’s new name marks a shift from his earlier life as a deceiver to a person who has confronted God and prevailed, foreshadowing the nation of Israel Bible Hub+1.
• Enduring reminder: Jacob’s dislocated hip, a result of the struggle, symbolizes that encounters with God leave lasting marks, shaping character and destiny learnhebrewforchristians.com+1.

Broader Interpretation​

In Jewish thought, the name Israel represents the ongoing human journey of questioning, wrestling, and seeking understanding of God. It emphasizes that faith involves inquiry and struggle, and that spiritual growth often comes through challenge and perseverance My Jewish Learning+1. The name defines not just an individual but a people characterized by their enduring relationship with God.
In summary, Israel literally and symbolically means "he who wrestles with God," capturing both the struggle and the blessing inherent in Jacob’s encounter and the spiritual identity of the nation that descends from him.



Another question then, did Jesus come down to observe Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[Davidpt]

Decided to delete this post altogether. It was in bad taste per my part.

 

[Truth7t7]

Amil says He said both A) and B) the fact Amil has those that fall away being granted the same thing overcomers are granted.

Your confused in the definition of the word (Amil) the acronym for the word (Ammillennialism) you continue to expand a false definition of the acronym including multiple doctrines found within "Reformed Eschatology" and other denominations

The Acronym (Amil) covers nothing more than those that "Deny" a future Millennium on this earth at the second coming of Jesus

Many of the poster you are interacting with are promoting the doctrines found in "Reformed Eschatology" please don't intermingle their doctrinal beliefs with the acronym (Amil)

Merriam Webster: Amillennialism

noun​

amil·len·ni·al·ism
¦ā-

plural-s
: the denial that an earthly millennium of universal righteousness and peace will either precede or follow the second advent of Jesus Christ

 

[WPM]

In the event you also read post #401, it is then telling why you didn't engage with that post. The obvious reason being, you do not want to go on record which would have revealed your intellectual dishonesty. There is is only one way to correctly answer that post, and that Jesus only said A) and never B). And that presents a major major problem because anyone that doesn't overcome, yet sits with Jesus in His throne regardless, that equals B) not A) and that Jesus never said B) He said A).

You might think you can get around this because you deny that NOSAS is Biblical, but how is one going to get around this that doesn't deny that NOSAS is Biblical? How can they be being intellectually honest if they insist that those that fall away, they too sit with Jesus in His throne when they clearly know Jesus never said any such thing in that verse?

How can anyone being knowingly, thus willfully intellectually dishonest be the one that is understanding that verse properly? Why would any intellectually honest person rather put their doctrine above the truth? It might be different if this subject were difficult or something. Except it isn't. Either Jesus said and meant A) or He said and meant B), and that He said both is not an option.

Amil says He said both A) and B) the fact Amil has those that fall away being granted the same thing overcomers are granted.

This problem goes away entirely, as in 100% goes away when we accept, thus are being intellectually honest, that no one sits with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. Therefore, 100% impossible per this scenario that anyone that falls away, thus fails to overcome, is granted with sitting with Jesus in His throne, period.

Everyone needs to keep the following in mind at all times. Maybe we can lie to others, maybe even lie to ourselves, but one thing we can't do is lie to God and think there won't be any consequences for knowingly and willfully doing that. It's real telling about someone that is more worried about how they will be perceived by their peers if they are intellectually honest here, than they are worried about how God perceives them if they knowingly and willfully decide to be intellectually dishonest instead. Image that, fearing man more than fearing God Himself. Wow.

You will not let up with your false accusations. Several of us tried to reach out to you to start a new chapter. You didn't even reply. It is you that is always trying to be provocative and offensive. Until you change you can expect to be challenged on this.

 

[Truth7t7]

In the event you also read post #401, it is then telling why you didn't engage with that post. The obvious reason being, you do not want to go on record which would have revealed your intellectual dishonesty. There is is only one way to correctly answer that post, and that Jesus only said A) and never B). And that presents a major major problem because anyone that doesn't overcome, yet sits with Jesus in His throne regardless, that equals B) not A) and that Jesus never said B) He said A).

You might think you can get around this because you deny that NOSAS is Biblical, but how is one going to get around this that doesn't deny that NOSAS is Biblical? How can they be being intellectually honest if they insist that those that fall away, they too sit with Jesus in His throne when they clearly know Jesus never said any such thing in that verse?

How can anyone being knowingly, thus willfully intellectually dishonest be the one that is understanding that verse properly? Why would any intellectually honest person rather put their doctrine above the truth? It might be different if this subject were difficult or something. Except it isn't. Either Jesus said and meant A) or He said and meant B), and that He said both is not an option.

Amil says He said both A) and B) the fact Amil has those that fall away being granted the same thing overcomers are granted.

This problem goes away entirely, as in 100% goes away when we accept, thus are being intellectually honest, that no one sits with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. Therefore, 100% impossible per this scenario that anyone that falls away, thus fails to overcome, is granted with sitting with Jesus in His throne, period.

Everyone needs to keep the following in mind at all times. Maybe we can lie to others, maybe even lie to ourselves, but one thing we can't do is lie to God and think there won't be any consequences for knowingly and willfully doing that. It's real telling about someone that is more worried about how they will be perceived by their peers if they are intellectually honest here, than they are worried about how God perceives them if they knowingly and willfully decide to be intellectually dishonest instead. Image that, fearing man more than fearing God Himself. Wow.

You failed to respond to the clear and simple scripture presented below "Why"?

You fail to recognize the fact of scripture and predestination, God has foreknowledge of all who will be glorified, simple, clear, easy to understand

Foreknowledge, Predestination

Called, Justified, Glorified

Romans 8:28-30KJV
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[Marty fox]

Let's all agree to be 100% intellectually honest here regardless what doctrines we hold. Agree? And the way we are going to test who keeps their word, thus remains intellectually honest, regardless, is simple.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

What did Jesus say here? A) or B) below? Keeping in mind, it obviously can't be both.

A) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne

B) To him that overcometh NOT, will I grant to sit with me in my throne

Why this matters is simple. I couldn't care less if some insist NOSAS is not Biblical. That does not make it unbiblical just because they say so. NOSAS is 100% Biblical, period. If you disagree then take it up with Jesus when He returns. Be sure to tell Him you disagree with Him as well. That assuming you disagree NOSAS is Biblical. But if you agree it is Biblical, it is then a moot point and not applicable to you.

Amil's position is basically this. When one is initially saved they then begin reigning with Christ a thousand years spiritually from that moment on. Then when they die they continue reigning a thousand years in a disembodied state in heaven. Thus far, there are no real issues here. Not until we factor this in--that not everyone that are initially saved remain saved.

Keeping in mind, the promise to remain intellectually honest, regardless, what does it equal if someone is initially saved but fall fall away before they die? Does it equal A) or B)? If it equals B), and surely it does, well Jesus never said what B) says to begin with. And we all know it, including Amils.

Therefore, there is only one way to resolve this without causing a contradiction in Revelation 3:21. Keeping in mind, anyone that is purposely being intellectually dishonest because of doctrine they hold, couldn't possibly be the one that is interpreting and understanding Revelation 3:21 properly. Plus, to be purposely intellectually dishonest obviously equals being purposely deceitful.

The way to resolve this with there being zero contradictions is that no one is rewarded with sitting with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. The ones that fell away, per this scenario, Jesus never grants them this to begin with. Per Amil, Jesus also grants this to ones that fall away. Which is absurd that Jesus meant both A) and B) in Revelation 3:21 rather than just A).

Obviously then, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, only Premil does not contradict Revelation 3:21 but Amil does. It is profoundly absurd that a position that blatantly contradicts something vs a position that doesn't, that it the position that blatantly contradicts something being the true position and the one not contradicting anything per this scenario being the false position.

This is not difficult. Either Jesus meant A) or He meant B). There are no other options. One can't have it both ways.

I'm once saved always saved but your fruits prove if your are saved.

That being said, amil doesn't contradict anything, you only reign if you are truly saved God knows if you are truly saved or not

1 John 2
18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

 

[Marty fox]

Some of this is a repeat of what I said in previous post.

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne

Notice what Jesus doesn’t say--- He does not say---Everyone who initially believes now sits with Me, regardless of what happens afterward. He explicitly conditions the promise on overcoming---persevering to the end.

This is crucial because overcoming is demonstrated over time, obviously, not simply at the moment of initial faith.


Amils often argue---Believers are already reigning spiritually with Christ now. Christ’s throne is being shared in principle with all who are saved.

But here’s the problem---Not everyone perseveres. Scripture (Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26–31; 2 Peter 2:20–22) shows some fall away.

If Amil is correct, Jesus has already granted those believers sitting with Him, even before overcoming is confirmed. That means some are granted the reward before earning it first, which contradicts Rev 3:21.

Put another way---Revelation 3:21 explicitly links reward---overcoming.

Amil makes the link instead---initial salvation---present reward. Therefore, Amil breaks the sequence. Reward is given without overcoming, which the text does not allow.

Premils read Revelation 3:21 and the related texts as future-oriented. Overcoming is fully demonstrated by perseverance to the end of life. Only those who overcome receive the reward(sitting on the throne, reigning with Christ). Those who fall away never have part in the first resurrection to begin with, therefore never reign with Christ (Revelation 20:4–6). OTOH, Amil has those that fall away having part in the first resurrection initially, then losing part it in because they have fallen away. Granted, Amils that don't agree NOSAS is Biblical to begin with, this likely appears to be a straw man argument. Except there are some Amils, believe it or not, that do agree NOSAS is Biblical. Now what? Per their perspective is this still a straw man?

Therefore, the Premil reading avoids all the contradictions the Amil reading produces.
|


The Bible presents a reward pattern---overcoming then reward. Christ Himself followed the same pattern to a T. He was not enthroned before overcoming. Premil preserves this pattern perfectly---only those who overcome reign. Amil inverts or collapses the pattern---reward is given before overcoming, creating direct textual tension with Revelation 3:21, Hebrews 6, Luke 19, etc.

Essentially, Premil is consistent with perseverance and conditional rewards. Amil struggles to reconcile initial salvation, perseverance, and reward in a coherent way.

See post #411, there is no contradiction with amil here, if your not truly saved you never reign

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Please correct me if I'm wrong?

You believe that Daniel's AOD seen in Matthew 24:15 below has already been fulfilled?

Matthew 24:15KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

You believe that the great tribulation seen below in Matthew 24:21 has already been fulfilled?

Matthew 24:21KJV
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

You are correct. Do you know what "a lot" means? It doesn't mean "all". I disagree with A LOT or MOST of what a typical preterist believes as it relates to eschatology. Are you able to understand what I'm saying?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I only believe in two actual comings, not multiple as Amill and Pretrib believe in.

Don't lump all Amills together. Only partial preterists believe in three comings of Christ, including one in 70 AD. Not Amills like me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let's all agree to be 100% intellectually honest here regardless what doctrines we hold. Agree? And the way we are going to test who keeps their word, thus remains intellectually honest, regardless, is simple.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

What did Jesus say here? A) or B) below? Keeping in mind, it obviously can't be both.

A) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne

B) To him that overcometh NOT, will I grant to sit with me in my throne

Why this matters is simple. I couldn't care less if some insist NOSAS is not Biblical. That does not make it unbiblical just because they say so. NOSAS is 100% Biblical, period. If you disagree then take it up with Jesus when He returns. Be sure to tell Him you disagree with Him as well. That assuming you disagree NOSAS is Biblical. But if you agree it is Biblical, it is then a moot point and not applicable to you.

Amil's position is basically this. When one is initially saved they then begin reigning with Christ a thousand years spiritually from that moment on. Then when they die they continue reigning a thousand years in a disembodied state in heaven. Thus far, there are no real issues here. Not until we factor this in--that not everyone that are initially saved remain saved.

Keeping in mind, the promise to remain intellectually honest, regardless, what does it equal if someone is initially saved but fall fall away before they die? Does it equal A) or B)? If it equals B), and surely it does, well Jesus never said what B) says to begin with. And we all know it, including Amils.

Therefore, there is only one way to resolve this without causing a contradiction in Revelation 3:21. Keeping in mind, anyone that is purposely being intellectually dishonest because of doctrine they hold, couldn't possibly be the one that is interpreting and understanding Revelation 3:21 properly. Plus, to be purposely intellectually dishonest obviously equals being purposely deceitful.

The way to resolve this with there being zero contradictions is that no one is rewarded with sitting with Jesus in His throne until He returns first. The ones that fell away, per this scenario, Jesus never grants them this to begin with. Per Amil, Jesus also grants this to ones that fall away. Which is absurd that Jesus meant both A) and B) in Revelation 3:21 rather than just A).

Obviously then, whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, only Premil does not contradict Revelation 3:21 but Amil does. It is profoundly absurd that a position that blatantly contradicts something vs a position that doesn't, that it the position that blatantly contradicts something being the true position and the one not contradicting anything per this scenario being the false position.

This is not difficult. Either Jesus meant A) or He meant B). There are no other options. One can't have it both ways.

David, I thought you wanted to have a more respectful tone in these discussions going forward? This is far from that. To demand that one verse proves Premil is true is nothing less than utterly ludicrous. That's as nicely as I can say it. This is not how to form a doctrine. We can't just narrow everything down to one verse to determine if Amil or Premil is true. You're talking about being intellectually honest here, but you yourself are being far from intellectually honest by doing what literally no one else would even attempt to do in the never ending Amil vs. Premil debates, which is to narrow the debate down to just one verse. We can talk about what that verse means respectfully without declaring that it can only possibly mean one thing. Are you interested in doing that? The way you're talking here does not give that indication.

 

[Marty fox]

David, I thought you wanted to have a more respectful tone in these discussions going forward? This is far from that. To demand that one verse proves Premil is true is nothing less than utterly ludicrous. That's as nicely as I can say it. This is not how to form a doctrine. We can't just narrow everything down to one verse to determine if Amil or Premil is true. You're talking about being intellectually honest here, but you yourself are being far from intellectually honest by doing what literally no one else would even attempt to do in the never ending Amil vs. Premil debates, which is to narrow the debate down to just one verse. We can talk about what that verse means respectfully without declaring that it can only possibly mean one thing. Are you interested in doing that? The way you're talking here does not give that indication.

Yet premils reject this verse

Romans 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

The problem is that they don't understand the amil definition of reigning

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Some of this is a repeat of what I said in previous post.

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne

Notice what Jesus doesn’t say--- He does not say---Everyone who initially believes now sits with Me, regardless of what happens afterward. He explicitly conditions the promise on overcoming---persevering to the end.

This is crucial because overcoming is demonstrated over time, obviously, not simply at the moment of initial faith.

Agree.

Amils often argue---Believers are already reigning spiritually with Christ now.

You disagree with that? Keep in mind that I'm not asking if you agree with the Amil interpretation of Revelation 20, I'm asking if you disagree with the idea that we are reigning spiritually with Christ now, regardless of how we interpret Revelation 20.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved ), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

I think passages like these make it clear that those who are saved right now reign with Christ spiritually right now.

Christ’s throne is being shared in principle with all who are saved.

But here’s the problem---Not everyone perseveres. Scripture (Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26–31; 2 Peter 2:20–22) shows some fall away.

If Amil is correct, Jesus has already granted those believers sitting with Him, even before overcoming is confirmed. That means some are granted the reward before earning it first, which contradicts Rev 3:21.

Nope. You need to stop lumping all Amils together. That's not fair to Amils like me. Not all Amils see everything the same just as not all Premils do. What you're describing is not how I see it. I believe that Revelation 3:21 is talking about literally being with Christ and not figuratively sitting with Him in heavenly places as passages like Ephesians 2:4-6 talk about. What isn't completely certain is whether someone starts sitting with Christ on His throne in heaven immediately upon death (their souls go to be with Him in heaven) or is it talking about when He returns. I lean towards the latter, but either option is viable. Regardless, a passage like Revelation 2:10-11 makes it clear that overcoming involves being faithful until death. So, regardless of the timing of when someone believes Revelation 3:21 begins, it can't begin before someone dies. I'm in agreement with you on that.

Put another way---Revelation 3:21 explicitly links reward---overcoming.

Agree.

Amil makes the link instead---initial salvation---present reward.

Not this Amil.

Therefore, Amil breaks the sequence. Reward is given without overcoming, which the text does not allow.

Not this Amil.

Premils read Revelation 3:21 and the related texts as future-oriented. Overcoming is fully demonstrated by perseverance to the end of life.

So do I and I'm Amil. You have somehow decided that all Amils look at this the same way when it should be obvious that almost the only things that all, or at least a vast majority, of Amils agree on is that Christ started reigning spiritually and Satan was bound around the time of His death and resurrection and that the thousand years began at that time.

Only those who overcome receive the reward(sitting on the throne, reigning with Christ).

Right.

Those who fall away never have part in the first resurrection to begin with, therefore never reign with Christ (Revelation 20:4–6).

This is where I believe you go astray. You assume that verse is talking about reigning with Christ after they die, whether that begins immediately upon death when one's soul goes to be with Him in heaven or when He bodily returns. But, as I showed above with the references to passages like Ephesians 2:4-6 and Revelation 1:5-6, there is a sense in which believers reign with Christ spiritually now. If spiritually sitting in heavenly places with Christ as His kings and priests isn't a description of us reigning with Him now, then I don't know how else reigning with Him would be described.

Look at what the following verse says.

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

This verse relates being priests of God and of Christ directly to having part in the first resurrection. Revelation 1:5-6 says that we are priests of God and of Christ right now. How do you reconcile this with your view that we are not reigning with Christ right now in any way? What about the souls John saw? Does someone lose their status in Christ as one of His priests when they physically die? Of course not. So, even if we assume that the above verse can only apply to those who have overcome, why can't it refer to the souls John saw who had physically died?

There's more ways to look at this then the one that's in the box that you have created for yourself. You like to sometimes talk about thinking outside the box, but I don't feel like you are doing that in this case.

Think of it this way. At what point can it be said the second death has no power over someone and that they are priests of Christ? Again, Revelation 1:5-6, as well as 1 Peter 2:9, indicate that we are priests right now. Does the second death have any power over us (Christians) right now? No, right? Do you disagree? If not, then why can't Revelation 20:6 apply to us now? Or why can't it at least apply to the souls of the dead in Christ right now?

OTOH, Amil has those that fall away having part in the first resurrection initially, then losing part it in because they have fallen away.

Granted, Amils that don't agree NOSAS is Biblical to begin with, this likely appears to be a straw man argument. Except there are some Amils, believe it or not, that do agree NOSAS is Biblical. Now what? Per their perspective is this still a straw man?

Therefore, the Premil reading avoids all the contradictions the Amil reading produces.

What contradictions? The only thing my view contradicts is the views of others, which doesn't matter to me. You can't point to one thing I believe and say that it contradicts something else I believe. My view is consistent. So, again, what contradictions are you talking about other than contradicting your understanding of things, which means nothing to me in relation to either contradicting myself or contradicting scripture, either of which would result in me losing all credibility?

The Bible presents a reward pattern---overcoming then reward.

Yep.

Christ Himself followed the same pattern to a T. He was not enthroned before overcoming.

Yep.

Premil preserves this pattern perfectly---only those who overcome reign.

Does Premil deny that we sit now in heavenly places with Christ (Ephesians 2:4-6) and are His holy priesthood (Revelation 1:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9)? This is not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

Amil inverts or collapses the pattern---reward is given before overcoming, creating direct textual tension with Revelation 3:21, Hebrews 6, Luke 19, etc.

Not this Amil.

Essentially, Premil is consistent with perseverance and conditional rewards.

So is this Amil.

Amil struggles to reconcile initial salvation, perseverance, and reward in a coherent way.

Not this Amil.

 

[Truth7t7]

You are correct. Do you know what "a lot" means? It doesn't mean "all". I disagree with A LOT or MOST of what a typical preterist believes as it relates to eschatology. Are you able to understand what I'm saying?

Your beliefs fit what is known as "Partial Preterism"

I believe Matthew 24:15 and Matthew 24:21 are future events unfulfilled im a "Futurist", you believe they're fulfilled as a "Preterist" it's that simple

You disdain Preterism? You Are A Preterist Lol!

Quote Spiritualite Israelite Post #385 Below

"I don't hide my disdain for preterism itself"

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yet premils reject this verse

Romans 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

The problem is that they don't understand the amil definition of reigning

Right. In the post I just created previous to this one, I tried to explain this to him. It seems that a lot of his disagreement that he has with Amil is due to him not understanding what we believe. So, he ends up making a lot of strawman arguments. But, he also brings in unnecessary confusion by trying to make this about OSAS vs. NOSAS, which really has nothing to do with the Amil vs. Premil debate.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your beliefs fit what is known as "Partial Preterism"

I believe Matthew 24:15 and Matthew 24:21 are future events unfulfilled as a "Futurist", you believe they're fulfilled as a "Preterist" it's that simple

You disdain Preterism? You Are A Preterist Lol!

Quote Spiritualite Israelite Post #385 Below

"I don't hide my disdain for preterism itself"

Stop trying to sidetrack this thread, buddy. As if believing that one thing occurred in the past is all it takes to be a preterist? In that case, you are a preterist, too, because you believe that the prophecies about Christ's first coming were fulfilled in the past. So, we're both preterists! And futurists! And historicists! Isn't that awesome, buddy? Woohoo!

Oh, but you know what, buddy? I have bad news. We're also Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons because we believe that Jesus died and rose again from the dead just like they do.