Search results

I have no idea how anyone can come to that conclusion after reading passages like 2 Peter 3:10-12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3. You have to just ignore those passages in order to come to the conclusions that the day of the Lord refers to a long period of time.

Which rhetorical question are you talking about? You keep referring to it without telling me what it is. I'm sorry, but you are just terrible at communicating. It is not automatic for someone to repent. God doesn't force or coerce anyone to repent. But, again, I don't wish to turn this into a...

I have no problem getting what you were saying. Because of having part in Christ's resurrection by going from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ, as Jesus talked about in John 5:24-25, the second death has no power over us. People should read a verse like Revelation...

I've already explained this MANY times and you're still asking me this? Unbelievable. What is the reason you can't remember what I've said all the other times I've explained this to you? Why should I think you will pay attention this time? I've said MANY times that I don't believe anyone gets...

This is your man-made rules. Can you show me any scripture which supports this approach? You certainly won't find any support for it in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. What does this even mean? You're acting as if all of scripture is written in literal, straightforward text. You know that isn't true. So...

I don't use the same literal methods of interpretation that you do, so that doesn't apply to me. Almost all Premils will say that if it doesn't clearly indicate that it's symbolic then it should be interpreted literally. But, when it comes to a passage like 2 Peter 3:10-12 that interpretive rule...

I already have proved you wrong. Why can't you understand why applying the term "replacement theology" annoys me then? You should be able to understand that. How are you not doing that with me? You are doing exactly that. Are you kidding? I have explained that MANY times. This is my opportunity...

I did what?

I don't make that claim. I don't believe that the church has replaced Israel. I believe they are two separate entities. Yeah, so? Some spiritual Israelites are ethnic Israelites and some are ethnic Gentiles. There's nothing logical about accusing me of believing in replacement theology. You are...

Where is any of this indicated in passages like 2 Peter 3:10-13 or 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3? In those passages they strongly give the impression that there will be complete destruction of the heavens and the earth when the day of the Lord arrives. The destruction will be so complete to the point...

After all this time you have argued with us Amils, you don't even know what we believe? You have to be kidding me. You should educate yourself about what others believe before debating them. How can you know that our view is wrong if you don't even know or understand what we believe? Anyway...

Looks like he reads our posts as carefully as he reads scripture (not very).

Amil doctrine is founded on literal, straightforward passages like Matthew 25:31-46, Matthew 28:18, John 5:28-29, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Acts 17:31, 1 Thess 4:14-5:6 and 2 Thess 1:7-10. So, your claims about Amil are out of ignorance.

You should answer objections by using scripture and telling us how you interpret the scripture. Instead, in most of your posts, you make all kinds of claims left and right without explaining how you come to your conclusions. Take your post #2829, for example. You said "Look again. Peter is...

You're not understanding the point. The true or spiritual children of Abraham includes both ethnic Israelite believers and Gentiles. One's nationality has nothing to do with being a spiritual child of Abraham, as Paul indicated in Galatians 3:26-29. So, no one was saying that there aren't some...

It plainly says that He explained and interpreted the scriptures that concerned Him. Was He explaining and interpreting things that they already understood? No way. Why would He do that? That would be a waste of time. Yes, they should have understood, but they didn't, so He had to explain it to...

No, I'm not. Why does it indicate that? When you consider a passage like Romans 9:6-8, you should understand that that are two Israels rather than one, with one replacing the other. So, the term "spiritual Israel" does not imply a replacement. That would be the case only if I claimed that there...

How do you interpret this passage: 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. 11 Seeing then...

Yes, he was. Otherwise, why is he not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 where Paul gives the order of bodily resurrections unto incorruptible bodies? Where is your evidence to support this claim? I guarantee you have none because scripture never teaches this and this concept contradicts...