Isaiah 65:17 vs. Revelation 21:1. How many NHNEs does that equal?

[WPM]

Don't know. You made this third group up.

What happens to the wicked when Jesus comes?
What happens to the righteous when Jesus comes?

 

[Timtofly]

Once again, you avoided every single point i made about weeping.

How is it carnal and sinful to build houses? Where does it say they will procreate?

Isaiah used the word infant and the word child. Isaiah used the word offspring. Do you think they have to build their own houses, or does God build them for them? Normally a man and wife build a house and plant, to raise a family. Obviously you must have some other spin on the chapter.

You have already spiritualized other verses in the chapter. Then you asked questions why Isaiah should have used different wording.

I have answered the question that people will rejoice to see a disobedient sinner die. Do you weep because you buy a lemon car that is accursed, or do you rejoice to see it dissappear from your sight?

Perhaps it is you who are too carnal minded that you hold onto death like it is something to mourn over?

Since being carnal minded is tied to the bondage of sin and death, and sin is disobedience to God, can you name some laws currently in heaven in God's presence that can be broken, and choices made that would make one a sinner in God's presence?

Then explain why Isaiah is stating what he does in that chapter? Surely you think they have to also build and plant in God's presence, no?

You theorize that the wicked will not be allowed in this scenario. I agree, they will all be dead before they reach 100, and no one will weep or mourn because a wicked person is killed. The point Isaiah is making is that a disobedient person will be rare and hard to find. They will also not be missed, due to carnal minds and human cruelty. People will rejoice because they have the heart and mind of God, and disobedience cannot be tolerated. Obviously carnal minded individuals just perceive this as God Himself being cruel and sadistic. Amil just cannot perceive God having a Day of the Lord where the earth is without sin and decay, that engenders a carnal mindset.

Why do you use carnal minded thoughts to make excuses that your Amil bias is grounded in? Is procreation sinful and carnal minded? Was God creating sin in this verse: Genesis 1:28

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Isaiah 65 sounds like God letting them do what Genesis 1:28 tells humans to do. Obviously your own opinions and theories trump Genesis 1:28. Since you decided to point out your own reasoning very meticulously, even using Hebrew, and then asking so many carnal minded questions, it makes one head spin. Can you put a spin on Genesis 1:28 now?

Obviously you won't be convinced by my say so, that those created on the 6th day were about to enter a Day of the Lord equal in length to the Day of the Lord mentioned in 2 Peter 3. Obviously Isaiah was not talking about Genesis 2.

I cannot say if people procreate in the NHNE. Obviously you think procreation ends at the Second Coming. I think there is more said about procreation in Isaiah 65 than either Revelation 21 or 22. Obviously there has to be a restoration after the heavens dissolve and all the works on earth burned up.

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Peter said there was a new heaven and earth after the Flood. The old heaven and earth perished. He contrasted the heaven and earth now, with the previous heaven and earth. Then Peter claimed the now heaven and earth will be destroyed by fire before the Day of the Lord. So yes, just like after the Flood, it is quite understandable that Isaiah states Jesus is creating a new heaven and earth. Isaiah was not talking about after the Flood.

Now we see Isaiah and Peter looking at the same event, but still not defined until John clears this event up in Revelation 20. The Day of the Lord is not found in Revelation 21. That is a totally different creation. We may not even view time the same way in the NHNE of Revelation 21. Especially if you claim time is no more in your own interpretation of this event. If time is no more, why be inconsistent and declare time returns? You are contradicting your own point. I don't have to contradict by pointing out Isaiah is describing the Day of the Lord. The time is up for the 6,000 years of punishment God placed on creation when Adam disobeyed God. The time is up for Daniel's 70 weeks. Isaiah is describing life after sin and decay is removed from this current creation. Both sets of time involve the mystery of God working in creation despite being under the curse of sin and death. That bondage is lifted and freedom is granted on this creation to have the last thousand years as God intended in Genesis 1:28

"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 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."

 

[WPM]

Isaiah used the word infant and the word child. Isaiah used the word offspring. Do you think they have to build their own houses, or does God build them for them? Normally a man and wife build a house and plant, to raise a family. Obviously you must have some other spin on the chapter.

You have already spiritualized other verses in the chapter. Then you asked questions why Isaiah should have used different wording.

I have answered the question that people will rejoice to see a disobedient sinner die. Do you weep because you buy a lemon car that is accursed, or do you rejoice to see it dissappear from your sight?

Perhaps it is you who are too carnal minded that you hold onto death like it is something to mourn over?

Since being carnal minded is tied to the bondage of sin and death, and sin is disobedience to God, can you name some laws currently in heaven in God's presence that can be broken, and choices made that would make one a sinner in God's presence?

Then explain why Isaiah is stating what he does in that chapter? Surely you think they have to also build and plant in God's presence, no?

You theorize that the wicked will not be allowed in this scenario. I agree, they will all be dead before they reach 100, and no one will weep or mourn because a wicked person is killed. The point Isaiah is making is that a disobedient person will be rare and hard to find. They will also not be missed, due to carnal minds and human cruelty. People will rejoice because they have the heart and mind of God, and disobedience cannot be tolerated. Obviously carnal minded individuals just perceive this as God Himself being cruel and sadistic. Amil just cannot perceive God having a Day of the Lord where the earth is without sin and decay, that engenders a carnal mindset.

Why do you use carnal minded thoughts to make excuses that your Amil bias is grounded in? Is procreation sinful and carnal minded? Was God creating sin in this verse: Genesis 1:28

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Isaiah 65 sounds like God letting them do what Genesis 1:28 tells humans to do. Obviously your own opinions and theories trump Genesis 1:28. Since you decided to point out your own reasoning very meticulously, even using Hebrew, and then asking so many carnal minded questions, it makes one head spin. Can you put a spin on Genesis 1:28 now?

Obviously you won't be convinced by my say so, that those created on the 6th day were about to enter a Day of the Lord equal in length to the Day of the Lord mentioned in 2 Peter 3. Obviously Isaiah was not talking about Genesis 2.

I cannot say if people procreate in the NHNE. Obviously you think procreation ends at the Second Coming. I think there is more said about procreation in Isaiah 65 than either Revelation 21 or 22. Obviously there has to be a restoration after the heavens dissolve and all the works on earth burned up.

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Peter said there was a new heaven and earth after the Flood. The old heaven and earth perished. He contrasted the heaven and earth now, with the previous heaven and earth. Then Peter claimed the now heaven and earth will be destroyed by fire before the Day of the Lord. So yes, just like after the Flood, it is quite understandable that Isaiah states Jesus is creating a new heaven and earth. Isaiah was not talking about after the Flood.

Now we see Isaiah and Peter looking at the same event, but still not defined until John clears this event up in Revelation 20. The Day of the Lord is not found in Revelation 21. That is a totally different creation. We may not even view time the same way in the NHNE of Revelation 21. Especially if you claim time is no more in your own interpretation of this event. If time is no more, why be inconsistent and declare time returns? You are contradicting your own point. I don't have to contradict by pointing out Isaiah is describing the Day of the Lord. The time is up for the 6,000 years of punishment God placed on creation when Adam disobeyed God. The time is up for Daniel's 70 weeks. Isaiah is describing life after sin and decay is removed from this current creation. Both sets of time involve the mystery of God working in creation despite being under the curse of sin and death. That bondage is lifted and freedom is granted on this creation to have the last thousand years as God intended in Genesis 1:28

"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 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."

You have both death and marriage (and procreation) in your supposed future millennium. This cannot be. Jesus refutes such an imagination.

In Luke 20:34-36 Jesus basically compares the temporal imperfect state of this present age/world to the glory of the age/world to come. Jesus says: “The children of this world (or aion or age) marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy (or kataxioō) to obtain that world (or aion or age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

This couldn’t be any clearer. Whilst the “children of this age marry, and are given in marriage” (according to Christ in Luke 20:34-36), Jesus presents the future age as a glorified place that is earned by those alone who are “accounted worthy to obtain that age.” These people are shown to be the glorified saints alone. This could never refer to the unsaved, mortals of any kind, or the nations that come against Jerusalem as some suggest. These would all obviously eventually die. Such people are expressly barred from the age to come. This is speaking about immortal glorified believers only.

There will be no marriage and no death in the age to come because the only ones worthy to attain it will be those who have been changed and possess immortal bodies. Contrary to what Premil claims, there are no engagements, marrying or procreation on the new earth; neither is there any sickness or funerals. Death is actually abolished at Christ’s return. Also, the age to come is eternal and not a temporary thousand years time-period as Premil argues.

 

[Timtofly]

What happens to the wicked when Jesus comes?
What happens to the righteous when Jesus comes?

Matthew 25:31-46

The sheep live on earth with Christ for a thousand more years or so.

The goats tossed into the LOF.

Among other judgments.

The tares are tossed into the LOF. The wheat live on earth with Christ for a thousand more years or so.

Jesus is not some super hero like death where one snaps a few fingers and the wicked are gone. It will take time and patience.

Jesus and the angels are on the earth, because that is what Jesus told us.

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:"

"Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels."

Yes, the wicked are destroyed and in some verses it seems instantly, but you have to incorporate the whole of Scripture, not just your pet verses, thinking you have an Amil point to make.

 

[WPM]

Matthew 25:31-46

The sheep live on earth with Christ for a thousand more years or so.

The goats tossed into the LOF.

Among other judgments.

The tares are tossed into the LOF. The wheat live on earth with Christ for a thousand more years or so.

Jesus is not some super hero like death where one snaps a few fingers and the wicked are gone. It will take time and patience.

Jesus and the angels are on the earth, because that is what Jesus told us.

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:"

"Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels."

Yes, the wicked are destroyed and in some verses it seems instantly, but you have to incorporate the whole of Scripture, not just your pet verses, thinking you have an Amil point to make.

So, who are the billions of wicked that rise up against Jesus at the end of the millennium as the sand of the sea (Gog and Magog)?

 

[Timtofly]

You have both death and marriage (and procreation) in your supposed future millennium. This cannot be. Jesus refutes such an imagination.

In Luke 20:34-36 Jesus basically compares the temporal imperfect state of this present age/world to the glory of the age/world to come. Jesus says: “The children of this world (or aion or age) marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy (or kataxioō) to obtain that world (or aion or age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

This couldn’t be any clearer. Whilst the “children of this age marry, and are given in marriage” (according to Christ in Luke 20:34-36), Jesus presents the future age as a glorified place that is earned by those alone who are “accounted worthy to obtain that age.” These people are shown to be the glorified saints alone. This could never refer to the unsaved, mortals of any kind, or the nations that come against Jerusalem as some suggest. These would all obviously eventually die. Such people are expressly barred from the age to come. This is speaking about immortal glorified believers only.

There will be no marriage and no death in the age to come because the only ones worthy to attain it will be those who have been changed and possess immortal bodies. Contrary to what Premil claims, there are no engagements, marrying or procreation on the new earth; neither is there any sickness or funerals. Death is actually abolished at Christ’s return. Also, the age to come is eternal and not a temporary thousand years time-period as Premil argues.

What age to come? The resurrection happened at the Cross. Jesus was talking about those in Paradise in heaven. Jesus was not talking about life on earth, nor Revelation 20. Even you don't interpret Scripture like that.

Being "like the angels" pertains to those humans in heaven with the angels. I am not the one saying the Day of the Lord is the age to come. You think the Day of the Lord started at the Cross, as that is your spiritualized millennium. You think Satan was bound at the Cross. You think time was up at the Cross. You think sin was removed from the earth at the Cross. You think there has been everlasting righteousness since the Cross. That is your age to come when humans are said to be as the angels in the resurrection. Certainly many Amil agree with you as they say that age to come is being in a spiritual body like the angels in heaven, which obviously cannot procreate other spiritual bodies.

 

[WPM]

Jesus is not some super hero like death where one snaps a few fingers and the wicked are gone. It will take time and patience.

What are you talking about? Jesus can do whatever he wants to do because he has God! The inspire text tells us that the wicked are destroyed from the very brightness of His coming.

II Thessalonians 1:7-10 says, “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire (1) taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When (2) he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”

There are no wicked left to enter into the alleged Premillennialism future millennium!!!

1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:3 confirms this saying: “we which are alive and remain unto the [Gr. parousia] of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

This coming is not only sudden but noisy. Christ is not coming secretly with an apologetic whisper but publicly with a triumphant shout. He appears with “with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.” This trumpet will sound and bring forth the elect from all nations. I Thessalonians 5:2-7 confirms that it isn’t just Christ’s coming that is sudden but also the destruction that accompanies. Likening Christ’s return to “a thief in the night” capably serves to impress the surprising nature of tHis coming for the lost. It shows that the wicked are caught abruptly in their folly at the apocalypse. The “sudden destruction” is so impactful that none escape. That is explicit in the narrative. The wicked are totally and completely destroyed, allowing no room for your future goat-infested millennium.

 

[Timtofly]

So, who are the billions of wicked that rise up against Jesus at the end of the millennium as the sand of the sea (Gog and Magog)?

Humans deceived by Satan. But they are not deceived until after the thousand years. You claim they were deceived the entire thousand years, which is not possible.

 

[Timtofly]

What are you talking about? Jesus can do whatever he wants to do because he has God! The inspire text tells us that the wicked are destroyed from the very brightness of His coming.

II Thessalonians 1:7-10 says, “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire (1) taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When (2) he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”

There are no wicked left to enter into the alleged Premillennialism future millennium!!!

1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:3 confirms this saying: “we which are alive and remain unto the [Gr. parousia] of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

This coming is not only sudden but noisy. Christ is not coming secretly with an apologetic whisper but publicly with a triumphant shout. He appears with “with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.” This trumpet will sound and bring forth the elect from all nations. I Thessalonians 5:2-7 confirms that it isn’t just Christ’s coming that is sudden but also the destruction that accompanies. Likening Christ’s return to “a thief in the night” capably serves to impress the surprising nature of tHis coming for the lost. It shows that the wicked are caught abruptly in their folly at the apocalypse. The “sudden destruction” is so impactful that none escape. That is explicit in the narrative. The wicked are totally and completely destroyed, allowing no room for your future goat-infested millennium.

You have pet verses, and you ignore the rest of Scripture.

 

[WPM]

What age to come? The resurrection happened at the Cross. Jesus was talking about those in Paradise in heaven. Jesus was not talking about life on earth, nor Revelation 20. Even you don't interpret Scripture like that.

Being "like the angels" pertains to those humans in heaven with the angels. I am not the one saying the Day of the Lord is the age to come. You think the Day of the Lord started at the Cross, as that is your spiritualized millennium. You think Satan was bound at the Cross. You think time was up at the Cross. You think sin was removed from the earth at the Cross. You think there has been everlasting righteousness since the Cross. That is your age to come when humans are said to be as the angels in the resurrection. Certainly many Amil agree with you as they say that age to come is being in a spiritual body like the angels in heaven, which obviously cannot procreate other spiritual bodies.

He is talking about the period that follows the general resurrection. Look at it. Read it in context. I say this respectfully, it might help if you remove your Premil glasses and you will see what it means. Scripture places our existence into two distinct and diverse ages: “this age” and” the age to come.” These two could not be more different. By the way, there is no third age.

​

Already​	Not yet​
“This age” (or “this time”)​	“The age to come” (or “that age”)​
“Time”​	“Eternity”​
“Now”​	“Then”​
“Here”​	“Hereafter”​
“Evil​	“Perfect”​
“Temporal”​	“Forever”​
“Corruptible”​	“Incorruptible”​

 

[WPM]

You have pet verses, and you ignore the rest of Scripture.

Again, more avoidance. If it is not Rev 20 it doesn't matter.

 

[WPM]

Humans deceived by Satan. But they are not deceived until after the thousand years. You claim they were deceived the entire thousand years, which is not possible.

But i thought the redeemed (dead and alive) are all glorified and caught up collectively to meet Jesus when He comes? What believers are excluded from that and why?

1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:3 confirms this saying: “we which are alive and remain unto the [Gr. parousia] of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

 

[PinSeeker]

This chapter is not talking about Adam's curse. It is talking about individuals who are accursed after the Second Coming. Since you dismiss the whole Day of the Lord bit, and go straight to the next reality, you have people alive in that new reality who can still choose to disobey God who are considered accursed on their own merit, not any other human, not even their parents. But then again, you may deny procreation altogether, thus you do have to spiritualize the chapter to remove all the context of building and living on earth.

Ugh; well, this is an interesting response, if nothing else...

I'm not even going to try to follow your... um, well,.. your trains of "thought" anymore, Timtofly. As long as you continue to think the events described in Revelation 20:1-6 are chronologically subsequent to the events of Revelation 19:11-21, you're going to continue to come to these erroneous inferences and conclusions regarding amillennialism... and Scripture itself. As I have said, you're not alone in doing so, and, as I have also said, that's okay.

So, at least for now, I'm just going to... let you, um, fly off... see what I did there?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[WPM]

You have pet verses, and you ignore the rest of Scripture.

Who is this 3rd group that you are too wicked to be caught up and too righteous to be destroyed? Who are these billions of wicked who survive the coming of Christ and overrun your supposed future millennium as the sand of the sea? Are they aliens?

 

[PinSeeker]

Yes, I agree. The Unsaved can become what I call "Nominal Christians," and can experience the powers of Christ, just as Judas did.

Hmm... I might assert that they can't truly experience the powers of Christ, but okay. There is what we call common grace, and, for these folks, yes, they can experience the outward benefits of fellowship with the saints, but they are not truly regenerate and in Christ as we are.

However, it was never "Eternal Life" that they experienced. That requires a full commitment to Christ, resulting in spiritual regeneration.

Ah, well, I agree, except that our full commitment to Christ is the direct result of our regeneration, our being born again of the Spirit. Remember what Paul says in Romans 9:16, and Ephesians 2:4-10... and Peter in 1 Peter 1:3-5...

This language has always been somewhat hard for me. How did Adam and Eve "die" that day?

I understand. It is hard for us to really grasp the spiritual, because we are naturally not spiritual, and because naturally speaking, the temporal is all we have ever really experienced.

Was this just talking about the fact they *would die* at some point in the present "day," or era?

Clearly, Adam and Eve, in crossing God's word lost some level of spiritual connection with God. And legally, they lost their right to an unbreakable, permanent relationship with God. Sin broke that connection in some sense, rendering them owners of a "Sin Nature."

But I'm not sure I can say they experienced "spiritual death." To me, "spiritual death" refers to the "2nd Death," which is eternal judgment. But I can understand and agree with where you're coming from. It's just the terminology I'm hung up on.

Of course. Current darkness is temporary.

Not for those who remain unrepentant...

Outer Darkness is permanent.

Right, and Jesus refers in Matthew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30 to this place of outer darkness where the unrepentant will spend eternity. So yes, permanent, but I would submit that both the words 'outer' and 'darkness' have much more and far greater implications than you seem to acknowledge here.

I see "glorification" as synonymous with "resurrection to immortality." It is donning bodies that can never again be separated from God's word.

That's part of it, certainly.

But I don't find that language in the Scriptures. In the Scriptures, glorification refers to our resurrection to immortality, unless you can find otherwise?

So, I wholeheartedly agree with what you say here, Randy, but we're getting back to the Scriptural concept of the now and the not yet. With regard to our glorification, there is both the now and the not yet, which for clarity's sake we might modify just a bit to 'partial' and 'in full.' You're referring here to the latter only, but there is a present reality for us now. It's not what it will be at the day of Christ, when our faith will be sight, but it is a present reality. As as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13, "we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away... For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now (we) know in part; then (we) shall know fully, even as (we) have been fully known."

So what is it--glorification by sanctification now, or glorification on the last day?

Yes.

I say glorification refers to the last day. I agree in principle with your sense of sanctification--I just don't think biblical language describes our sanctification today as an act of "glorification." I would need a Scripture in order to defend that language.

We are being glorified, even day by day. Not in full yet, but that is an absolute certainty. Paul is very clear in 1 Corinthians 13; see above.

Yet that is not an actual "resurrection."

Not bodily, no. But spiritually ~ our spirits which were dead in sin, by and in the Holy Spirit ~ yes.

To be "raised up in Christ" Paul indicates a *legal sense* of being "raised up." He is not talking about an actual resurrection, obviously.

Again... not a physical, bodily resurrection, but yes, an actual resurrection. It is the first resurrection referred to apocalyptically by John in relating his vision in Revelation 20:4-6.

Not even our human spirits have been raised up to heaven with Christ. They are still in our mortal bodies, unless we've put off those bodies, have died, and gone to be with the Lord!

Again, I would point out what Jesus says in Matthew 28:20. He says, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Well, 40 days after His resurrection, He ascended to heaven and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. So, is He actually with us now, as He said He would be? Or is He sitting at the Father's right hand in heaven? Well, yes. An emphatic yes to both questions. So how is He with us? And the reason I say it like this is, you can reverse all this and thus apply it to us. Are we here on earth and... yes, still in our mortal bodies? Or are we seated with Christ in the heavenly places? Well, yes. An emphatic yes to both questions. So, how is this possible? How is this possible, Nicodemus? Do not marvel...

So to be "raised up with Christ" is to infer that we spiritually participate in the benefits Christ obtained for us. We legally benefit from his vicarious death so that our redemptive status is sealed, and we can walk with those benefits.

Not... merely.

I don't believe this is what the "1st Resurrection" in Rev 20 referred to.

I'm... rather painfully ... aware of that.

Christ literally rose from the dead in a physical sense.

Absolutely.

But *we* are raised up with him in a purely legal sense, though there are real and immediate benefits to this. None of those benefits mean our spirits have literally been raised up to heaven to be with Christ. We must die to do that.

Well, I agree with you on the legal thing, but it does not stop there. We are raised and with the Lord now in a very real sense, but, well, far beyond just a wooden "We are here!" (Horton Hears a Who; Dr. Seuss) sense, beyond the temporal here and now. But rather, in the Holy Spirit. And this is what I was hinting at above ~ Jesus is with us now in the Holy Spirit, and we are with Him in the same way, in the Holy Spirit. It is a present reality.

...we are able to carry out our callings and gifts to testify to Christ.

Sure, and remember what Paul says to the Philippians, that we should "work out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Don't misunderstand him here; many do...

I was pointing out how this side of Heaven we suffer.

And why do we suffer, Randy? That's a rhetorical question, really.

The Gospel prevails through resistance.

And the more the resistance, really, the more it prevails, which gets us back... finally... to the original topic of conversation here. So how is it that you or any other Christian can possibly think that Satan still has, at this point, any ability to deceive the nations? And if you say, "Well, he doesn't" ~ which, you should, because he does not ~ then how can you not then read Revelation 20:1-6 and then say, "Hey, yes, we must be in God's millennium (at some point therein) now!"...?

Grace and peace to you, Randy!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hmm... I might assert that they can't truly experience the powers of Christ, but okay.

I've personally experienced over many years unsaved Christians be filled with the Spirit. They are "unsaved" because their character has not changed. They imitate Christ for purposes of reputation, and occasionally do good things in sincerity. But they have not moved outside the orbit of their own independent judgments. They have yet to defer completely to God's judgment. They do not appear to be actually "regenerated."

Regeneration means that a person has truly chosen to defer to Christ in their lives, to his judgments and to his character of love. To see a truly-reborn Christian is to see Christ in their lives, along with the character of his love. It is to see that love rule over their own carnal tendencies...at least part of the time.

The critical thing is to be able to see Jesus in their character. That smacks of "regeneration!" It is less an "imitation of Christ" than a revelation of Christ himself, along with his love.

Just the mere acceptance of Christ as their example, however, appears to be enough for God to make covenant with nominal Christians. He is so gracious that the mere confession of Christ as their Lord allows them to participate in his Spirit, in order to testify to Christ in front of others.

This benefits others through their testimony as opposed to accruing to the benefit of nominal Christians who are not fully on board with the message itself. They've actually chosen to "testify," which is good, but fall short of full compliance to the covenant.

This is very much like the Pharisees in Jesus' time, who taught many good things, but did not actually do them themselves. Judas had accepted the Spirit of God simply because he accepted his call to witness to Jesus as Messiah. He had the Spirit and went out healing as the entire group of 12 did. Yet inwardly he was still a thief, and merely covered up his inward motives with "good works." Jesus, however, saw him for who he truly was, a child of Satan.

Ah, well, I agree, except that our full commitment to Christ is the direct result of our regeneration, our being born again of the Spirit. Remember what Paul says in Romans 9:16, and Ephesians 2:4-10... and Peter in 1 Peter 1:3-5...

There would be no sense in asking someone to commit to Christ as Lord if it was impossible until after their "regeneration!" The Spirit moves upon a person when the Gospel is presented in the Spirit. Then the person responds to the word and the Spirit, enabling them to be regenerated, if their commitment is a compete commitment.

Otherwise, they are "anointed" to the degree they accept the responsibility to witness to the truth about Christ. God takes what people give Him.

But yes, the preemptive activities of the Holy Spirit precede our decision for Christ. I just don't believe "regeneration" itself precedes our choice to be regenerated!

I understand. It is hard for us to really grasp the spiritual, because we are naturally not spiritual, and because naturally speaking, the temporal is all we have ever really experienced.

Yes, but your message in this post is "over-spiritualized," in my opinion. "Spiritual understanding" is not the equivalent of "symbolic interpretation," though many Pentecostals see it this way. I know because I am a Pentecostal. I'll explain as we go along.

Right, and Jesus refers in Matthew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30 to this place of outer darkness where the unrepentant will spend eternity. So yes, permanent, but I would submit that both the words 'outer' and 'darkness' have much more and far greater implications than you seem to acknowledge here.

You seem to imply you have a greater "spiritual" understanding of Outer Darkness without explaining how. This is what I mean by "over-spiritualization."

To me it is cut and dried, and remains "spiritual." The truth itself is "spiritual," and not some deeper underlying meaning that you claim to have. It is not just some symbolic presentation of some esoteric truth beneath it.

"Outer Darkness" is spiritual darkness in the eternal sense. It is the destination of those perpetually committed to spiritual darkness.

Spiritual darkness happens in the world today, but God determines who has it permanently and who has it only temporarily. Nothing about this is difficult or overly "mystical."

So, I wholeheartedly agree with what you say here, Randy, but we're getting back to the Scriptural concept of the now and the not yet. With regard to our glorification, there is both the now and the not yet, which for clarity's sake we might modify just a bit to 'partial' and 'in full.'

Here again is where I think you're getting "overly mystical or spiritual." The truth is simpler than this, and does not require specialized "spiritual" glasses to interpret it. The Biblical language of "glorification" is clear to me, and not some vague concept available only to the "spiritual."

You are either "glorified now by being Born Again," or you will be "glorified in the future when you are resurrected and receive a glorified body." Pick A or B, but don't confuse them by claiming some vague "spiritual" understanding! A is not symbolic of B.

We are being glorified, even day by day. Not in full yet, but that is an absolute certainty. Paul is very clear in 1 Corinthians 13; see above.

I asked that you provide evidence of our glorification now, by being Born Again. And you give me 1 Cor 13, which says that we are only "partly there?"

That does not say a single thing about "glorification!" I was asking for proof about the language using "glorification" in regard to our present spiritual lives. You didn't do that. You perhaps *cannot* do that?

Again... not a physical, bodily resurrection, but yes, an actual resurrection. It is the first resurrection referred to apocalyptically by John in relating his vision in Revelation 20:4-6.

Once again, you are over-spiritualizing with the sense of our participation in Rev 20 and the 1st Resurrection. We both agree that the "1st Resurrection" refers to an actual physical resurrection of our bodies.

But I do *not* agree that there is an obvious underlying inference to a present "spiritual resurrection" that we experience now. That has to be "read into" the passage. And it is illegitimate to claim some superior esoteric understanding of the passage when we are specifically told *not* to add to the message of the book.

But then you claim it is both a physical and a spiritual resurrection without any proof at all! Just saying we have a spiritual life now based on the resurrection of Christ does not mean we participate in his resurrection now in the sense of Rev 20. Obviously, we are not yet raised from the dead and given immortal bodies!

Indeed we have a spiritual life now based on the resurrection of Christ. But what does the biblical language mean when we are told that we are "raised up with Christ?" Does it mean we actually participate in Rev 20 and the 1st Resurrection or does it mean something else? Clearly, it means something else if we are not to add to Rev 20.

For me, to be "raised up with Christ" is a metaphorical description of the spiritual benefits we derive from what Christ accomplished for us legally. We did not actually experience death, resurrection, and ascension for ourselves physically. Only Christ did this.

So Paul meant to suggest that we are "raised with Christ" in the metaphorical sense. By Christ's work in actually dying, rising, and ascending we are able to piggy-back on his accomplishment, not by experiencing these things for ourselves, but rather, through the benefits of our Salvation.

Instead of our dying, rising, and ascending ourselves, we metaphorically die, rise, and ascend with Christ and so benefit from his legal work. If we did not actually die, rise, and ascend, then our participation in Christ is described by metaphorical language--not literal language. It is not to be an overly-spiritualized concept, but nevertheless a true spiritual experience that we are able to experience here on earth even though we are not yet in heaven.

Our benefits today are received vicariously through what Christ did, and we should not confuse that. And I do think you're confusing these things by trying to say that the Millennium is now, and we are already resurrected and ascended into heaven!

Well, I agree with you on the legal thing, but it does not stop there. We are raised and with the Lord now in a very real sense...
And why do we suffer, Randy? ...
...So how is it that you or any other Christian can possibly think that Satan still has, at this point, any ability to deceive the nations?

The nations are still obviously deceived. Why do you think Paul says so in 2 Thes 2.9-12? Why do you think people do not accept the Gospel?

This is the problem I have with Amillennialism. You can't understand what Jesus meant by "the Kingdom suffers violence." You think Christian suffering is the result of Christian disobedience. You think we're already in the Millennium, and should be experiencing heaven now, and only experience bad things because we refuse to accept that we're already in heaven!

 

[WPM]

The nations are still obviously deceived. Why do you think Paul says so in 2 Thes 2.9-12? Why do you think people do not accept the Gospel?

This is the problem I have with Amillennialism. You can't understand what Jesus meant by "the Kingdom suffers violence." You think Christian suffering is the result of Christian disobedience. You think we're already in the Millennium, and should be experiencing heaven now, and only experience bad things because we refuse to accept that we're already in heaven!

You are avoiding the obvious again. You have to to sustain your position.

I cannot think a greater deception than the Premil paradigm. How can you in all seriousness argue that billions of ungodly religious phonies who have abode in the presence of the glorified Christ and the glorified saints, and have showed themselves to be the most deluded religious actors in history, stubbornly and relentlessly feigning allegiance to Christ throughout your supposed future millennium, and then at the first sight of their master Satan rise up in rebellion against Jesus and the Church, is not deception on a scale never seen before in history?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have no interest in offending you. My concern has actually been a consistent gripe Amils have had with you for years, how you refuse to present hard Scripture in your posts. All we are left with is your own opinions...
But again, I have no desire to antagonize you. I am sorry that is what you feel.

Brother, you continually miss the point. It is not about ad hominem. Rather, it is about maintaining not just a civil spirit, but more, compliance with the Holy Spirit. If we are not ministering to souls, then we are not ministering at all.

Your claim that I "have only opinions and no Scripture" is obviously untrue. What I think you mean is that my Scriptural arguments are not adequate for you to prove what I claim they prove? So are you saying I *never* quote Scriptures, or that I *sometimes* don't quote Scriptures?

Of course I do not have to quote Scripture for every point I make. Nobody does this in life! Do I have to validate everything I say with a quote from Scripture? No. Most everything I say about Scriptures has an implied Scriptural backing to it!

I'm not at all "thin-skinned." We are called to "discern spirits," and as I quoted, Paul called for us to ignore perpetually contentious people. If you can't even agree on the attitude of "love" called for in the Scriptures, what else can I say about you other than you're determined to be contentious? That is not ad hominem, but rather, an observation that needs to be noted.

I have put up with a lot of hard discussions for over 20 years on various forums. My 1st 10 years was spent on an unmoderated site. I've never complained about personal abuse to the mods--not that I can remember. Can you say the same?

Rather than write me off as "ad hominem" or "without Scripture" why don't you prove to be agreeable with respect to the Scripture I quoted? Why not simply agree that our disagreements should not be contentious of the spiritual kind, that we should avoid those who are in fact contentious and unspiritual?

 

[Randy Kluth]

You are a contentious person. I will receive questions from less contentious representatives of the Amill position.

If I answer you at all, it is not for you but rather to defend my position on behalf of those you wish to follow you. Paul in Titus warned us to have nothing to do with a contentious person. You've been warned several times, and your response is to call me "thin-skinned" instead of agreeing on our need to maintain the love of Christ among brothers and sisters.

Get back with me when you learn what the "love of Christ" means, when you've learned to humble your pride and put your carnal life under the control of Christ. You wish to draw men and women after yourself. Not all Amills do this.

 

[WPM]

Brother, you continually miss the point. It is not about ad hominem. Rather, it is about maintaining not just a civil spirit, but more, compliance with the Holy Spirit. If we are not ministering to souls, then we are not ministering at all.

Your claim that I "have only opinions and no Scripture" is obviously untrue. What I think you mean is that my Scriptural arguments are not adequate for you to prove what I claim they prove? So are you saying I *never* quote Scriptures, or that I *sometimes* don't quote Scriptures?

Of course I do not have to quote Scripture for every point I make. Nobody does this in life! Do I have to validate everything I say with a quote from Scripture? No. Most everything I say about Scriptures has an implied Scriptural backing to it!

I'm not at all "thin-skinned." We are called to "discern spirits," and as I quoted, Paul called for us to ignore perpetually contentious people. If you can't even agree on the attitude of "love" called for in the Scriptures, what else can I say about you other than you're determined to be contentious? That is not ad hominem, but rather, an observation that needs to be noted.

I have put up with a lot of hard discussions for over 20 years on various forums. My 1st 10 years was spent on an unmoderated site. I've never complained about personal abuse to the mods--not that I can remember. Can you say the same?

Rather than write me off as "ad hominem" or "without Scripture" why don't you prove to be agreeable with respect to the Scripture I quoted? Why not simply agree that our disagreements should not be contentious of the spiritual kind, that we should avoid those who are in fact contentious and unspiritual?

Address my biblical arguments and we can move forward. Keep the personal attacks out of it and we can engage. I have no interest in the personalized slant you always gravitate to.