Search results

That is why you should reject Premil. Your theology forces you to deny the obvious! It contradicts numerous Scripture. It simply doesn't add up. If you take a literal straightforward reading of multiple passages in the Bible that describe the second coming, you will see that the destruction is...

According to Revelation, does the new heavens and new earth come at or after the millennial?

Did you even read my post? I addressed it directly, and took time to answer all your arguments. Please address it. Peter's teaching is primarily a warning to the wicked. There is no doubt about that. What is described is a fiery conflagration. You sidestep that. Premils have to. Granted, there...

I have showed you above what the thousand years is used for here. It has nothing to do with some suppose future millennium. I suspect you know that. Anyway, the age that you insert in between "this age" and "the age to come" is longer than 1000 years. So, this blows apart your whole thesis.

You are adding 2+2 and getting 22. No view says the wrath of God is upon the righteouss apart from Pretribbers who equate their future 7-year-trib with the wrath of God and have countless believers functioning in this period. The wrath of God is upon the wicked now, that does not mean it is upon...

Thanks for your detailed response. But 2 Peter 3:3-13 couldn't be clearer: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming [Gr. parousia]? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue...

Why cannot it be the case? Saying that is not enough. You must prove your case.

Did you even read what I wrote about the consummation? I am noticing a pattern with you: you ignore every Scripture that forbids your position and respond with a cut-and-paste that you have convinced yourself of that does not support what you are claiming. It is time to address other posters...

You are trying to refute Amil with your mistaken view of Rev 12. That is folly!

The beast/antichrist/man of sin have been about since before John or Paul. The reason why many good Bible scholars have held that the “man of sin” is not a lone human being is because he has been alive and kicking for a lot longer than the lifetime of any human. In fact, the...

I agree bro. It is childish.

It is you that takes the Dispensationalist gap-theory position.

No. I have never said that - ever. I don't know where you got that.

Please address the evidence instead of always avoiding it.

When have i ever say "the consummation" was AD70? Where do you get that from?

In His response to the first question in Matthew 24:15-22, He spoke of the end of the 40 year probationary period (AD 70), saying, “When ye (the disciples) therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him...

I have to disagree. The context of Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 is clearly the destruction of Jerusalem. In His discourse in Matthew 23:37-24:2 the Lord warns, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often...

I already refuted your teaching but your ducked around it. You have to! You are fighting with the Scriptures.

You did not answer my question.

Oh! So, you've now become a Full Preterist to somehow support the Premil position on that passage. That is why Amils do not take Premil serious. It has no solid, trustworthy or consistent hermeneutics. Everything is fluid. Whatever needs to be forced upon the sacred text is done so in order to...