Search results

I don't need to. There is no relation between Adam's age and Revelation 20 and that is clear to see. The onus is on YOU to show that they relate. You think that Revelation 20 is talking about a time after Christ's return. Where is the scripture which says that Adam's age relates to a time after...

There is no contradiction in my view. I, unlike you, acknowledge the effect that Christ's ministry, death, resurrection and the preaching of His gospel had on Satan while you foolishly act as if nothing changed for Satan from OT to NT times. I said no such thing. All you are able to do is...

What is your problem? Why are you lumping me in with preterists? I'm not a preterist. I do not say I "can't see any of these things as fulfilled unless they are/were living during the era of time some of these things are/were fulfilled."? Why do you lie about me all the time? Do you have no...

They are directly related. You have to be completely lacking in discernment to not see that. Jesus was obviously comparing the nearness of summer when a fig tree's leaves come out to the nearness of His return when "all these things" started happening. Your understanding of things is the most...

I told you the context. Did you read my post? Is it too hard for you to address what I said? How about you tell me what you think the context is then?

I'm not a Calvinist. Did you even read my post? Apparently not.

LOL. I'm saying it's a stretch to relate that to Revelation 20. You know your doctrine is weak when you have to resort to nonsense like this to try to to support it.

Did you not read the passage that I referenced? Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise...

And that somehow means there will be a 1,000 year reign in the future? No. That's quite a stretch. Premils have no clear scripture to support their doctrine, so they have to resort to nonsense like this instead.

No, it denies the false interpretations of the words of God made by Premillennialism. Where do you see a literal 1,000 year reign taught in Genesis?

No, He did not. Why do you ask? Did you read Matthew 24:32-33? That is the scripture being discussed. The context is in relation to knowing when Jesus's return is near. Matthew 24:32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know...

Where do you see this taught in scripture? Where do you see this taught in scripture?

That's interesting. But, what I'm asking is whether or not the early church fathers wrote about what they believe in terms of the timing of the rapture in relation to the tribulation (whatever their view of "the tribulation" might have been) as far as whether they said it would be post-trib?

They were never blinded permanently. Paul talked about saving some of the Israelites who were blinded in his day (Romans 11:7-14).

In my opinion that wasn't even worth two cents. All Jesus is doing in Matthew 24:32-33 is comparing the nearness of His return in relation to when "all these things" happen to how we know summer is near when a fig tree's leaves start to grow. That's it. There is no basis whatsoever for reading...

I know he probably hasn't done nearly as much research as you have. In what you've read, what did most of the early church fathers teach as it relates to the timing of the rapture in relation to the tribulation that occurs before Jesus returns (whatever their understanding of "the tribulation"...

So, what do you think is the reason he misrepresents Amillennialism so often then?

What are you talking about? Yes. So? Scripture does not teach that we can't know if someone else is a Christian or not. Jesus said you know them by their fruits. Do you think He was just making that up? Do you think someone can be a Christian who denies His deity and claims that one's physical...

No, I don't have Satan deceiving the nations while he is imprisoned, either. No one does. That would obviously contradict what it says in Revelation 20 when it indicates that he is bound from deceiving the nations during the thousand years. David misrepresented my view (the Amill view that you...

Did you not read my post where I already addressed this? The phrase "no more" does not mean it's talking about Satan's general ability to deceive, as you believe. What it means for him to "deceive the nations" is debatable. Based on how I understand it, I believe he does it "no more" during the...