The Doctrine of Millennialism is destroy by Personal Symbolizing of Scripture.

[robert derrick]

Personal symbolizing of scripture according to our own personal faith, leapfrogs any credibility of teaching the true doctrine of Christ. And that especially includes the millennial reign of Christ.

It also ruins the validity of the Bible, as being no different from any other book of men about myths, legends, parables, and anecdotal tales, such as that of Aesop.

Such personal symbolizing of Scripture is used by unbelievers, who want to acknowledge wisdom in the Bible, but also do away with the flood over all the earth, the crossing of the Red Sea on dry ground, the sun standing still at the word of Joshua, or even the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And some believers use it to do away with the torment of hell, while trying to teach hell's symbolic 'significance'.

This in no way suggest, that those rejecting a millennial reign of Christ on earth after His return, as spiritual symbolism only, are also rejecting His resurrection, and the torment of hell and the lake of fire.

However, it is plain that such personal symbolizing of Scripture can certainly be ruinous to sound dcotrine of Christ.

Once we presume by personal faith alone, to 'discern' what Scripture is real or not, then we are only believing and teaching our own faith alone.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

We are free to think whatever we want about Scripture, and decide for ourselves what is symbol and parable only, but once we begin to teach that as the truth of scripture, without any objective proof from Scripture itself, or common understanding, then we become false teachers of our own private interpretation of Scripture, as being true Scripture of God itself.

 

[WPM]

Personal symbolizing of scripture according to our own personal faith, leapfrogs any credibility of teaching the true doctrine of Christ. And that especially includes the millennial reign of Christ.

It also ruins the validity of the Bible, as being no different from any other book of men about myths, legends, parables, and anecdotal tales, such as that of Aesop.

Such personal symbolizing of Scripture is used by unbelievers, who want to acknowledge wisdom in the Bible, but also do away with the flood over all the earth, the crossing of the Red Sea on dry ground, the sun standing still at the word of Joshua, or even the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And some believers use it to do away with the torment of hell, while trying to teach hell's symbolic 'significance'.

This in no way suggest, that those rejecting a millennial reign of Christ on earth after His return, as spiritual symbolism only, are also rejecting His resurrection, and the torment of hell and the lake of fire.

However, it is plain that such personal symbolizing of Scripture can certainly be ruinous to sound dcotrine of Christ.

Once we presume by personal faith alone, to 'discern' what Scripture is real or not, then we are only believing and teaching our own faith alone.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

We are free to think whatever we want about Scripture, and decide for ourselves what is symbol and parable only, but once we begin to teach that as the truth of scripture, without any objective proof from Scripture itself, or common understanding, then we become false teachers of our own private interpretation of Scripture, as being true Scripture of God itself.

The foremost consideration when studying Scripture must be to establish the grammatical contextual meaning of the text, whether it is literal, figurative or parabolic, and who, what and when it relates to. Is it speaking of the past, present or future? Is it principally speaking to the people receiving it or is it speaking prophetically of an approaching event? We should always be sensitive to its setting, style of writing, and the respective subject under discussion.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

 

[WPM]

Personal symbolizing of scripture according to our own personal faith, leapfrogs any credibility of teaching the true doctrine of Christ. And that especially includes the millennial reign of Christ.

It also ruins the validity of the Bible, as being no different from any other book of men about myths, legends, parables, and anecdotal tales, such as that of Aesop.

Such personal symbolizing of Scripture is used by unbelievers, who want to acknowledge wisdom in the Bible, but also do away with the flood over all the earth, the crossing of the Red Sea on dry ground, the sun standing still at the word of Joshua, or even the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And some believers use it to do away with the torment of hell, while trying to teach hell's symbolic 'significance'.

This in no way suggest, that those rejecting a millennial reign of Christ on earth after His return, as spiritual symbolism only, are also rejecting His resurrection, and the torment of hell and the lake of fire.

However, it is plain that such personal symbolizing of Scripture can certainly be ruinous to sound dcotrine of Christ.

Once we presume by personal faith alone, to 'discern' what Scripture is real or not, then we are only believing and teaching our own faith alone.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

We are free to think whatever we want about Scripture, and decide for ourselves what is symbol and parable only, but once we begin to teach that as the truth of scripture, without any objective proof from Scripture itself, or common understanding, then we become false teachers of our own private interpretation of Scripture, as being true Scripture of God itself.

The detail Premil attributes to Revelation 20 compared to what the actual text explicitly says is day and night. Revelation 20 does not remotely say what Premil attribute to it. Many extravagant characteristics, events and ideas are inserted into Revelation 20 that do not exist in the said chapter.

For example:

• For years, it has been the Premil mantra that Jesus will be ruling in majesty and glory with a rod of iron for 1000 years on planet earth after the second coming. But this can be found nowhere in Revelation 20 or any other passage in Scripture?
• Premillennialists argue that salvation will continue on after the second coming. But where does it say that? The second coming brings a close to the day of salvation. Scripture makes clear: now is the day of salvation. It also shows the completion of the great commission ushers in the end of the world (Matthew 28:19-20). Scriptures tells us that “the longsuffering of our Lord” that marks the period before Jesus comes as a thief in the night “is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). There is no more salvation after that.
• They argue that the old covenant arrangement will be fully restarted in a future millennium, even though Revelation 20 makes no mention of such teaching.
• Premillennialists speak about the restoration of an elevated position for ethnic Israel on their future millennial earth. But a careful study of Revelation 20 teaches no such thing.
• They insist that glorified saints and mortal sinners will interact in a future millennium, even though Revelation 20 makes no mention of such a belief.
• They present their future millennium to be perfect pristine paradise of peace and harmony when in fact it ends up the biggest religious bust in history, as billions of wicked as the sand of the sea overrun the Premil millennium. Their age is just 'more of the same'. There is more sin and sinners, more death and disease, more war and terror, more of the devil and his demons. The idyllic setting of the lamb enjoying sweet communion with the wolf, the bullock eating straw with the lion, the little kid-goat lying peaceably beside the leopard, the cow and the bear grazing happily together is quickly broken as the slaughter truck roar up from the temple. The Zadok priests quickly jump out and drag the unsuspecting animals aboard who had been lulled into a false-sense of security by Christ’s rod of iron rule. As the truck speeds off the millennial peace and harmony is broken forever by the bloody intent of the Zadok priests. When they arrive in Jerusalem they pointlessly slit the throats of the lambs, goats and bullocks because they are somehow needed as sin offerings, even though Jesus had made the final sacrifice for sin thousands of years previous.
• If there are mortal saints that surrender their lives to Christ in some supposed future millennium, and if the earth does indeed flee away after Satan's little season as Revelation 20 states, then there must be another rapture and glorification in order to rescue them from the regeneration or replacement of this current earth.

 

[robert derrick]

One common error in doing away with the validity of revealed Scriptural events, is by using the symbolic tools of Scripture in the event, to make the event itself only symbolic.

Examples:

1. Someone has said that the battle of Armageddon between the rebellious army of nations on earth, and the Lord and His armies of saints from the air, is only symbolic. They say so, because they perhaps rightly see that the sword proceeding from Jesus mouth must be symbolic only.

And so, based upon their private effort to symbolize the whole event, that mock them that say it is real on earth, by saying we think Jesus will be slaughtering armies of men with a sword sticking out of His mouth.

Personally, I say the risen Lord and God of all the earth can do whatever he wants, and in any way He chooses to do so.

After all, a good Marvel Movie could include a super hero Lamb with a sword that protrudes from his mouth. O maybe Monte Python can make a sequel to the Holy Grail, with such a lamb teaming up with the big toothed killer rabbit.

2. Another says that the judgment of sheep and goats on earth is only symbolic, because the Lord will not gather together a bunch of sheep and goats to judge between.

The point is, that conflating symbolic tools used in revealed events of Scripture, into the events themselves, is unfounded ignorance at best, and foolish mocking of Scripture at worse, as well as silly accusations against those taking Scripture of God at His word.

No one needs to believe the Lord will destroy armies on earth, with a sword hanging out of His mouth. Nor does anyone believe for one second, that He will round up a bunch for sheep and goats to judge them.

Ajax slew a bunch of sheep in his madness, thinking they were his enemies, but the Lord Jesus Christ was not a mad prophet, nor is He a crazy judge.

But hey, if He does have a sword out of His mouth to slay armies of rebels on earth, then I'm all for it.

That would be something to see, as well as being as upclose personal about the slaughter as a man can get.

Didn't Wolverine have a guy like that? Yes, I think he did.

 

[Christian Gedge]

hey, if He does have a sword out of His mouth to slay armies of rebels on earth, then I'm all for it.

Time for you to read WPM’s replies to you slowly and thoughtfully.

 

[WPM]

One common error in doing away with the validity of revealed Scriptural events, is by using the symbolic tools of Scripture in the event, to make the event itself only symbolic.

Examples:

1. Someone has said that the battle of Armageddon between the rebellious army of nations on earth, and the Lord and His armies of saints from the air, is only symbolic. They say so, because they perhaps rightly see that the sword proceeding from Jesus mouth must be symbolic only.

And so, based upon their private effort to symbolize the whole event, that mock them that say it is real on earth, by saying we think Jesus will be slaughtering armies of men with a sword sticking out of His mouth.

Personally, I say the risen Lord and God of all the earth can do whatever he wants, and in any way He chooses to do so.

After all, a good Marvel Movie could include a super hero Lamb with a sword that protrudes from his mouth. O maybe Monte Python can make a sequel to the Holy Grail, with such a lamb teaming up with the big toothed killer rabbit.

We know from repeated Scripture there are only two peoples on the earth – those whose names are written in the book of life (the redeemed Church throughout time) and those whose names are not written in the book of life (the Christ-rejecting world). Those that withhold their veneration of this evil beast are assuredly the elect of God – those chosen from the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-6, 11, Titus 1:1-2, II Thessalonians 2:13-14, 2 Timothy 1:9). The beast’s disciples include everyone else – that great number of Christ-rejecters on the broad road to destruction “whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Revelation 17:8 parallels this, saying, “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder (thaumazo or admire or marvel), whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast.”

This text makes clear that the beast attracts the affections of all the non-elect. All “that dwell on the earth” admire or marvel at the beast “whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.” The language here is pretty water-tight.

This passage again only recognizes 2 peoples: those who are in the Book of life that are shown to be the only ones that don’t admire the beast, and those who aren’t in the book of life and who consequently reverence the beast.

Throughout this chapter before us the Holy Spirit identifies and speaks respectively of God’s dealing with the sum total of either camp. The passage is written from God’s eternal aspect and depicts both the eternally righteous and the eternally damned – those who finally yield themselves to the world in reprobation and are therefore eternally doomed. The saved carry the mark of God upon them – which is the blessing and favour of God – and are the elect of God having their names written in “the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The lost consist of those “whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is the only two groups that have ever existed on this earth.

Remarkably, the sum total of those “that dwell on the earth ... whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world” shall admire and marvel “when they behold the beast.” They look with awe and amazement at him. They give their allegiance to this fiend. They esteem the incredible power and influence of this evil entity. The beast’s followers are therefore the sum total of the wicked. The beast holds the affection of all the unregenerate. We know the ungodly are besotted by this wicked influence because of the wording of Holy Writ. The beast gains the hearts and minds of the Christ-rejecter.

This can only refer to the full amount of those among the wicked that stubbornly refuse to bow their knee to Christ in this current life. It is they that are beguiled by the subtle prompting of the beast and are shown to have no time for the things of God. The awful consequence of this delusion is that they have no part or portion “in the book of life” which is said to be written in eternity – “from the foundation of the world.” It should be noted in passing, the delusion poured out by the beast is directed at human beings, not angels. We know for sure that those that are written in the book of life are the redeemed of God alone – embracing all those that put their trust in Christ alone. Therefore, we can deduce, the beast’s adherents are the remainder of mankind – the sum total of the unregenerate world, also known in the Bible as the damned.

Revelation 13:16-17 underpins the all-encompassing nature of the beast’s army, saying, “he (the false prophet) causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

Everyone on earth that is not written in the book of life is required to submit to the beast’s authority. When we look at the detailed description of the beast in Revelation (including his image and his mark), we can see that the apocalypse very clearly distinguishes between those who take the mark of the beast and those who don't.

The people in the beast kingdom are those whose names are not written in the book of life. They worship the beast and are part of the beast kingdom. Revelation 20:15 confirms the fate of all those who are not in the book of life, saying, “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

This interpretation of the beast perfectly aligns with the character and great influence of “that man of sin,” “the son of perdition,” “that mystery of iniquity” also known as “that Wicked” (in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-12). In fact every single unregenerate gives allegiance to this evil spirit. This spirit operates “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Plainly, if one isn’t in the Church they are in the world; if they aren’t in the world they are in the Church. When we say “the Church” we of course mean the true Church – the redeemed Church. Not the visible Church (or all those that profess Christ or attend church on a Sunday) but the invisible – them that are born from above. One is the direct antithesis of the other. There is no third vehicle for man, no alternative path in this life or no middle ground. Men are either saved or lost. To be saved is to be redeemed, to be lost is to be captivated by this world (the beast).

The beast is simply speaking of the energy or spirit behind Satan’s overall evil kingdom/empire on this earth over the centuries. It refers to that wicked system of influence that opposes God and everything He represents and commands. It finds its origins right back in the Garden of Eden when Satan first attempted to abort the will of God at the beginning and foist his blueprint upon mankind. This kingdom is captivated and controlled by the spirit of antichrist and represents everything that is contrary to the plan, purpose and will of God for mankind.

 

[WPM]

2. Another says that the judgment of sheep and goats on earth is only symbolic, because the Lord will not gather together a bunch of sheep and goats to judge between.

The point is, that conflating symbolic tools used in revealed events of Scripture, into the events themselves, is unfounded ignorance at best, and foolish mocking of Scripture at worse, as well as silly accusations against those taking Scripture of God at His word.

No one needs to believe the Lord will destroy armies on earth, with a sword hanging out of His mouth. Nor does anyone believe for one second, that He will round up a bunch for sheep and goats to judge them.

Ajax slew a bunch of sheep in his madness, thinking they were his enemies, but the Lord Jesus Christ was not a mad prophet, nor is He a crazy judge.

But hey, if He does have a sword out of His mouth to slay armies of rebels on earth, then I'm all for it.

That would be something to see, as well as being as upclose personal about the slaughter as a man can get.

Didn't Wolverine have a guy like that? Yes, I think he did.

Your bias Premillennialism is blinding you to the fact that there are only two types of people in this world - saved and lost. You try to invent a third group that are too wicked to be raptured and too righteous to be destroyed that do not exist. Your misinterpretation of one highly-symbolic passage in the most figurative setting in Scripture colors your view of all Scripture.

What happens to the righteous when Jesus appears? What happens to the wicked when He appears? In Matthew 25:33 Christ (the king) sets “the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.” He then sentences them, and eternally separates them. The sheep are the believers, the goats are the unbelievers. Jesus confirms this in this final sentencing of all mankind in Matthew 25:34, 41&46, declaring: “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world … then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels … and these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

The terms “the sheep,” “them on his right hand,” “ye blessed” and “the righteous” are seen to be synonymous in this parable. The wicked on the other hand are simply deemed “the goats,” “them on the left hand” or “ye cursed.” The righteous are seen in Matthew 25:31-45 to “inherit the kingdom” and “life eternal” whereas the wicked are cast “into everlasting fire” and receive “everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46). The designations and sentences can only relate to the saved and the unsaved. They could not be clearer. There are no exceptions or other groups additional to these two diametrically opposing groupings.

This is the final separation of the wicked from the redeemed of God. It is the climactic assignment of eternal destinies. All mankind is found embodied in one of these two unique groupings. There are no ‘nearly saved or ‘semi-saved’ people or ‘nearly lost’ or ‘semi-lost’ people on this day. One is either clothed with Christ’s robes of righteousness or eternally saved or he is He is clothed with his own filthy rags of righteousness and eternally lost. No one inherits the kingdom through national identity.

 

[robert derrick]

The foremost consideration when studying Scripture must be to establish the grammatical contextual meaning of the text, whether it is literal, figurative or parabolic, and who, what and when it relates to.

I completely reject this. You can treat Scripture like you want, according to your own personal faith and imagination, but I don't.

You want to pick and choose what is real in Scripture and what is not, solely by the pseudo 'discernment' of your own faith and imagination.

The first step to rightly dividing the word of truth, is to rightly divide between what is written, and what is not. We must first make proper distinction between what is Scripture of God, and what is only thought and imagination of our own minds, about Scripture of God.

Your willful practice of making what Scripture is real or not to you, is entirely by your own faith and imagination. The only discipline to it, is your own desire to believe what you want.

Here are examples of disciplined and consistent reading of parables and symbolic imagery in Scripture:

1. The woman clothed with the sun, and the red dragon in Rev 12 are called apparent wonders by Scripture, as well as the great whore being called a mystery and explained by Scripture.

2. All parables spoken by Jesus are plainly called parables in the Scriptures themselves, where He teaches them.

3. When Jotham in Judges 9 speaks of himself and the men of Shechem, as trees and brambles, he is obviously not saying he is a fig tree, and they have chosen a bramble bush to lead them.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."


Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The error is not in recognizing the possibility of symbolism used in Scripture about a revealed event. The error is in deciding to make the event itself as only symbolic as well.

Are you saying that the Lord faithfully keeping covenant and mercy with His people, is only symbolic, since he speaks of it as being for a thousand generations?

No. But you are more than willing to say His millennial reign on earth after His return, is only symbolic, because Scripture gives symbolic imagery in doing so.

Some do the same with a tormenting hell, not that you do, but you do the same with His millennial reigning on this earth.

That is why you lose credibility in teach such prophecy. Any objective reader can see you pick and choose what is real in Scripture and what is not, because they do not share in all your choices.

Your efforts to do away with any Scripture as being real and physical on earth, even then extends to saying God will not keep His promise to give the man Abraham the land he walked on this earth, and you make Job a false prophet and symbolizer only, of seeing his Redeemer and God standing on this earth.

In the end, your personalized efforts to teach Scripture the way you want by your own faith alone, catches up to you, and you won't even acknowledge what any objective reader can see you do plainly.

I do not say these things, because I do not agree with your doctrine, but I plainly say them, because I watch you plainly do it.

For me, the matter is already concluded between us about millennial doctrine. What I am finding fascinating, is how you go about trying to teach and push it on others, and the manner in which you react to differing responses, as well as to the dissenters personally.

Example:

You say anyone not agreeing with you, is refusing to judge between good and evil, righteousness and sin, and also is belittling the power of our risen Lord and God, while promoting Satan to equal status in opposition to Him.

This alone shows your zealotry in the doctrine of Jesus' millennial reign.

 

[robert derrick]

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Your manner of doing away with the event, due to symbology used to describe it, would need to do away with the event itself, that some do flee at the rebuke of another.

Your inconsistency proves your personal agenda.

You have some personal reason for not believing any possibility of Christ reigning over the earth, after His second coming here.

Why that is, is a mystery to me. However, I believe it is revealed in how you consistently speak of such a reign as a marauding continuance of only evil-doers on the earth, that is filled with nothing but pre-flood giants imagining evil only.

You plainly have no sense nor respect toward the obviously blessed nature of the returned Lord and His resurrected saints, wherein they will rule and shepherd over every nation, region, city, and town on earth, and at all times of the day and night. Which begins with day one and continues faithfully unto the last day of a thousand years.

You have this zealots way of judging all unbelieving natural men and women, as all evil doing all the time, where they do not want to do, nor even can do anything good for another.

The natural sheep are neighborly, that at least seek to do good rather than evil, and the natural goats are the wicked, that only seek how to do harm to others for personal benefit: this truth is seen on earth today, and is acknowledge by any reasonable person.

I was once such a zealot of righteous judgment as you are, who only sees Christians or devils, and have no regard for how some live to provide for their own, and love their neighbors naturally, and seek to do good, though gropingly without Christ. They are not the same as the wicked loving to do evil, and judging them the same is unrighteous and uncharitable.

And God says as much:

Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry.

Moses' father in law did not choose to go with the children of Israel, and yet he was not condemned as an evil man, but had done good to them.

Jesus never said the Samaritan was a believer nor disciple of His own, but was simply given as a good example of a good neighbor, that any sensible person would agree with.

These are the kind of natural sheep, that will be separated from the goats at the beginning of Jesus' reign on earth.

But you insist on talking like it's only the goats, that will remain on earth.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

This is for all men, believer and unbeliever alike. And the Lord choosing to have mercy and compassion on the unbelieving natural-born sheep, while destroying the wicked, is His choice and right, and not ours to gainsay nor despise

What happens is, your personal symbolizing of any Scripture you want, blinds you to the simple sense of real events revealed by Scripture.

The idea of a cleansed earth, with only natural sheep remaining, to be ruled and shepherded by the Lord and His saints, is not even acknowledged by you even as a possibility, so that all you speak of is a bunch of wicked men and women being bludgeoned to death by rods of iron for a thousand years.

You make a mockery of any such reign of the Lord Himself on earth.

 

[WPM]

You can treat Scripture like you want, according to your own personal faith and imagination, but I don't.

You want to pick and choose what is real in Scripture and what is not, solely by the pseudo 'discernment' of your own faith and imagination.

The first step to rightly dividing the word of truth, is to rightly divide between what is written, and what is not. We must first make proper distinction between what is Scripture of God, and what is only thought and imagination of our own minds, about Scripture of God.

Your willful practice of making what Scripture is real or not to you, is entirely by your own faith and imagination. The only discipline to it, is your own desire to believe what you want.

Why are you sooo vicious and full of ad hominem? Can you not communicate like a Christian?

Here are examples of disciplined and consistent reading of parables and symbolic imagery in Scripture:

1. The woman clothed with the sun, and the red dragon in Rev 12 are called apparent wonders by Scripture, as well as the great whore being called a mystery and explained by Scripture.

2. All parables spoken by Jesus are plainly called parables in the Scriptures themselves, where He teaches them.

3. When Jotham in Judges 9 speaks of himself and the men of Shechem, as trees and brambles, he is obviously not saying he is a fig tree, and they have chosen a bramble bush to lead them.

Revelation is a highly symbolic book. Revelation 1:1 says, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.”

The order of the transmission of this prophecy was expressly:

God – Christ – Angel – (signified or symbolised) – John

The Greek word interpreted ‘signified’, in this key introductory verse of Revelation, is semaino (Strong’s 4591), which actually means to signify or sign-i-fy. This word is found seven times in the New Testament and is interpreted as follows in the King James Version:

Signs (John 4:48)
Signify (Acts 25:27)
Signifying (John 12:33, 18:32, 21:19)
Signified (Acts 11:28; Revelation 1:1)

The Greek Word for sign in the New Testament is semeion (Strong’s
4592), which is significantly derived from the above word semaino (Strong’s 4591) that is found in Revelation 1:1. In fact, the word semaino itself originates from the shorter Greek word sema (meaning sign, token or mark). The whole weight of this interlinked family of words is definitely signs and sign language.

Vines Dictionary highlights Revelation 1:1, whilst explaining the meaning of the Greek, saying, “Rev. 1:1, where perhaps the suggestion is that of expressing by signs.”

This is exactly what the book of Revelation is; it a number of similar figurative visions indicating and impressing important spiritual truths by way of signs and/or symbols

Premillennial-literalists try to water down the symbolic meaning of the word semaino as its proper reading destroys the whole way of how they approach Revelation. They attempt to alter the true sense of the Greek by assigning all forms of alternative meanings simply to support their literalist concept of Revelation. Some Premils even try to resort to the New American Standard or other modern versions in order to find a translation that fits their understanding of the word. Interestingly, whilst the New American Standard interprets the word semaino in Revelation 1:1 as communicate, it elsewhere renders in this version as:

Signs (John 4:48)
Indicate (John 12:33, Acts 11:28, Acts 25:27)
Signifying (John 18:32, 21:19)

Interpreting the Greek word semaino as “signified” in Revelation 1:1 is plainly a correct translation and in perfect agreement with its consistent rendering elsewhere in Scripture. The word “signified” therefore simply means what it says – sign-i-fied.

The book of Revelation is manifestly a book written in sign language. Its number and images are visionary and are advanced to describe spiritual truths that are found elsewhere in Scripture. Revelation is a symbolic record of the overall battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. It relates, like every other New Testament book, to the period running between the first and Second Advents.

 

[WPM]

The error is not in recognizing the possibility of symbolism used in Scripture about a revealed event. The error is in deciding to make the event itself as only symbolic as well.

Are you saying that the Lord faithfully keeping covenant and mercy with His people, is only symbolic, since he speaks of it as being for a thousand generations?

No. But you are more than willing to say His millennial reign on earth after His return, is only symbolic, because Scripture gives symbolic imagery in doing so.

Some do the same with a tormenting hell, not that you do, but you do the same with His millennial reigning on this earth.

That is why you lose credibility in teach such prophecy. Any objective reader can see you pick and choose what is real in Scripture and what is not, because they do not share in all your choices.

Your efforts to do away with any Scripture as being real and physical on earth, even then extends to saying God will not keep His promise to give the man Abraham the land he walked on this earth, and you make Job a false prophet and symbolizer only, of seeing his Redeemer and God standing on this earth.

In the end, your personalized efforts to teach Scripture the way you want by your own faith alone, catches up to you, and you won't even acknowledge what any objective reader can see you do plainly.

I do not say these things, because I do not agree with your doctrine, but I plainly say them, because I watch you plainly do it.

For me, the matter is already concluded between us about millennial doctrine. What I am finding fascinating, is how you go about trying to teach and push it on others, and the manner in which you react to differing responses, as well as to the dissenters personally.

Example:

You say anyone not agreeing with you, is refusing to judge between good and evil, righteousness and sin, and also is belittling the power of our risen Lord and God, while promoting Satan to equal status in opposition to Him.

This alone shows your zealotry in the doctrine of Jesus' millennial reign.

How about actually address the questions instead of your usual ad hominem and avoidance. This is a classic Premil trait. You have no answers to the truth of Amil, thus your continued frustration.

 

[WPM]

The natural sheep are neighborly, that at least seek to do good rather than evil, and the natural goats are the wicked, that only seek how to do harm to others for personal benefit: this truth is seen on earth today, and is acknowledge by any reasonable person.

No one becomes a sheep by being good. There is none good. Hello! That is a false gospel. Salvation is by grace through faith. That is how someone becomes a sheep. You don't even understand what a child of God is and you want to lecture the rest of us. Get back to basics. Find out what salvation is then we can move forward. Mankind is either sheep or goats - saved or lost.

I was once such a zealot of righteous judgment as you are, who only sees Christians or devils, and have no regard for how some live to provide for their own, and love their neighbors naturally, and seek to do good, though gropingly without Christ. They are not the same as the wicked loving to do evil, and judging them the same is unrighteous and uncharitable.

And God says as much:

Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry.

Moses' father in law did not choose to go with the children of Israel, and yet he was not condemned as an evil man, but had done good to them.

Jesus never said the Samaritan was a believer nor disciple of His own, but was simply given as a good example of a good neighbor, that any sensible person would agree with.

These are the kind of natural sheep, that will be separated from the goats at the beginning of Jesus' reign on earth.

But you insist on talking like it's only the goats, that will remain on earth.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

This is for all men, believer and unbeliever alike. And the Lord choosing to have mercy and compassion on the unbelieving natural-born sheep, while destroying the wicked, is His choice and right, and not ours to gainsay nor despise

What happens is, your personal symbolizing of any Scripture you want, blinds you to the simple sense of real events revealed by Scripture.

The idea of a cleansed earth, with only natural sheep remaining, to be ruled and shepherded by the Lord and His saints, is not even acknowledged by you even as a possibility, so that all you speak of is a bunch of wicked men and women being bludgeoned to death by rods of iron for a thousand years.

You make a mockery of any such reign of the Lord Himself on earth.

You preach a false gospel. You invent a 3rd group of humans unknown to the sacred text.

John the Baptist said in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

If a man loves Christ He is saved. He will escape the wrath of God, if he doesn't he is under the wrath of God. Simple!!!

Jesus said in Matthew 12:30, “He that is not with me is against me.”

The only chosen people that God knows and accepts are those that accept His Son. The rest are of their father the devil.

Jesus said in John 5:23b-24, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

Christ-rejecting Jews and Gentiles are under condemnation and are therefore of their father the devil.

 

[Adam]

Then you will also have to accept reincarnation:

Matthew 17:11–13
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and qrestore all things. 12 But I say unto you, That pElias is come already, and they knew him not, but rhave done unto him whatsoever they slisted. Likewise shall also tthe Son of man suffer of them. 13 Then the disciples understood pthat he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Is this only symbolic now? What makes this passage, a direct proclamation by Jesus, symbolic, but the flood literal?

In either case - it is a major flaw of thinking to think that a symbol has less importance than matter. A symbol has MORE importance than matter because symbols come from the mind of God, while matter is essentially just a structure formed from random particles and subject to decay. Ideals are eternal, Noah's ark will always exist but wood won't.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The foremost consideration when studying Scripture must be to establish the grammatical contextual meaning of the text, whether it is literal, figurative or parabolic, and who, what and when it relates to. Is it speaking of the past, present or future? Is it principally speaking to the people receiving it or is it speaking prophetically of an approaching event? We should always be sensitive to its setting, style of writing, and the respective subject under discussion.

Moses employs `a thousand' in Deuteronomy 7:9 saying, "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

1 Chronicles 16:13-17 also states, "O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones. He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth. Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A thousand and ten thousand are used together in Psalm 91, saying, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee" (vv 5-7).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

A similar contrast between these two numbers or ideas is seen in Deuteronomy 32:30, where a rhetorical question is asked, "How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up?"

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Joshua affirms, on the same vein, in chapter 23, "One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you" (v 10).

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Isaiah the prophet similarly declares in Isaiah 30:17, "one thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one."

This incidentally is the only passage in Scripture that makes mention of the actual number "one thousand," albeit, the term is used to impress a spiritual truth.

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Psalm 84:9-10 says, "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The figure a thousand is also employed in Psalm 50:10-11 saying, "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

Ecclesiastes 7:27-28 succinctly says, "one man among a thousand have I found."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

In the same vein, Job 33:23 declares, "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The distinct contrast between one and a thousand is again found in Job 9:2-3, where Job declares, "I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand."

Is this a literal or figurative thousand?

The context dictates whether "thousand" is being used as a "saying" or not. The fact "thousand" is used in some places as a saying, eg as an exaggeration, or as a simplification, does *not* mean it should be used as such in any place it is found in Scripture. That would be a Interpretive Fallacy.

Again, it is Context that determines how "thousand" is being used. If it is not obviously being used as a "saying," then one cannot claim its use in one place as a saying is being used in another place the same way when there is no evidence that it is doing so.

If "thousand" is being used where no "saying" is implied, when there is no clear indication the word is being used as an exaggeration or simplification, then one should admit that its use could be literal. But the arguments being made are not being made from the context of the use of "thousand" in Rev 20. There is no indication it is being used as a "saying" there.

Rather, the argument against the literal application of "thousand" in Rev 20 is based on presuppositions based on Amillennial Theology. In other words, the argument against a literal Millennium is circular reasoning. The "thousand" years must be non-literal because Amillennialism says so. And Amillennialism is true because the "thousand" years are non-literal.

But let's not go this route of claiming the "thousand" is used in Scriptures as a "saying!" That doesn't prove anything other than a context in which as saying is being suggested indicates it is being used as a saying. It does not prove that when the context does not suggest a saying is being used, a "thousand" cannot be literal.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Personal symbolizing of scripture according to our own personal faith, leapfrogs any credibility of teaching the true doctrine of Christ. And that especially includes the millennial reign of Christ.

It also ruins the validity of the Bible, as being no different from any other book of men about myths, legends, parables, and anecdotal tales, such as that of Aesop.

Such personal symbolizing of Scripture is used by unbelievers, who want to acknowledge wisdom in the Bible, but also do away with the flood over all the earth, the crossing of the Red Sea on dry ground, the sun standing still at the word of Joshua, or even the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And some believers use it to do away with the torment of hell, while trying to teach hell's symbolic 'significance'.

This in no way suggest, that those rejecting a millennial reign of Christ on earth after His return, as spiritual symbolism only, are also rejecting His resurrection, and the torment of hell and the lake of fire.

However, it is plain that such personal symbolizing of Scripture can certainly be ruinous to sound dcotrine of Christ.

Once we presume by personal faith alone, to 'discern' what Scripture is real or not, then we are only believing and teaching our own faith alone.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

We are free to think whatever we want about Scripture, and decide for ourselves what is symbol and parable only, but once we begin to teach that as the truth of scripture, without any objective proof from Scripture itself, or common understanding, then we become false teachers of our own private interpretation of Scripture, as being true Scripture of God itself.

I may not agree with everything you're saying, but I agree with your basic point, that interpreting Scripture as symbolic where it is not warranted by the context is not credible and risks diluting Scripture. My argument is against the symbolic interpretation as applied to Rev 20 and a "thousand" when there is no indication that they are meant to be applied as a parable, allegory, or symbol.

The argument is made that "thousand" is used in places of Scripture as a saying, where its use is obviously non-literal. For example, a "day is as a thousand years," or "blessings will continue for a thousand years." These things are literary devices that apply to the word "thousand" only because the context obviously suggests such.

But in the case of Rev 20 where is the parable, saying, allegory, or symbol? "Thousand" in many places of Scripture are used quite literally, even if it may be a rounded off number. It is meant quite literally to be about a thousand people or items.

So if we turn to Rev 20, how do we find "thousand" being used? If there is nothing to suggest it is being used as a symbol, at worst it is about a thousand as a rounded off number. Either that or it means precisely one thousand years.

Other examples that you gave do not enter into this for me. I believe the Flood of Noah was an enormous local Flood in perhaps the area of the Black Sea or in some region with a deep depression that would fill up for many miles like a saucer. Since much of the world at one time lived in the Cradle of Civilization, it stands to reason that the Flood would be in that area of the world.

Interpreting the word "all" is not a matter of "symbolizing" the word, but rather, a matter of judging how the word is being used in context. Universal terms like "all" or "everybody" often are qualified by their context to mean "all in this region," or "everybody involved in the judgment." One can believe in a great local Flood and still believe in the literalness of the word "all."

I would say something similar about our view of Hell. Many Christians accept Dante's view of Hell without question, and yet, many Christians would argue that "Hell" has "flames" not to torture people, but to dispose of them like garbage from the earth. The souls of the ungodly are eternal, but their presence in the Kingdom of God on earth is not. The fire is not for torturing them, but for removing them. It is eternal not to continuously scorch them with pain, but rather, to remove them from God's Kingdom on earth forever.

There is a strong argument for "Hell" really being a place of Outer Darkness, far removed from God's presence and blessing, as opposed to a torture chamber where millions of people are dangled over fire continuously for all eternity. No God of love would ever do such a thing as the latter.

But your point is well taken. We should not turn into parable accounts that were meant to be taken literal, particularly if there is nothing in the passage that suggests the word "thousand" is being used as an allegory. To just assume that is surely wrong. Why would God expect anybody to assume something without actually telling us?

 

[Truth7t7]

The context dictates whether "thousand" is being used as a "saying" or not. The fact "thousand" is used in some places as a saying, eg as an exaggeration, or as a simplification, does *not* mean it should be used as such in any place it is found in Scripture. That would be a Interpretive Fallacy.

Again, it is Context that determines how "thousand" is being used. If it is not obviously being used as a "saying," then one cannot claim its use in one place as a saying is being used in another place the same way when there is no evidence that it is doing so.

If "thousand" is being used where no "saying" is implied, when there is no clear indication the word is being used as an exaggeration or simplification, then one should admit that its use could be literal. But the arguments being made are not being made from the context of the use of "thousand" in Rev 20. There is no indication it is being used as a "saying" there.

Rather, the argument against the literal application of "thousand" in Rev 20 is based on presuppositions based on Amillennial Theology. In other words, the argument against a literal Millennium is circular reasoning. The "thousand" years must be non-literal because Amillennialism says so. And Amillennialism is true because the "thousand" years are non-literal.

But let's not go this route of claiming the "thousand" is used in Scriptures as a "saying!" That doesn't prove anything other than a context in which as saying is being suggested indicates it is being used as a saying. It does not prove that when the context does not suggest a saying is being used, a "thousand" cannot be literal.

Randy you have been shown countless times, Revelation 20:1-6 is 100% in the ",Spiritual Realm"

Randy you know well there isn't literal time seen for "The Souls" and "The Dead" your playing make believe, your backed into a corner in complete desperation to create a literal kingdom on this earth that isn't seen

You can repeat yourself 1,000 times, wave the magic wand around and shout hocus pokus, and your desired kingdom won't be seen, because it's non-existant in scripture

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Randy Kluth]

Randy you have been shown countless times, Revelation 20:1-6 is 100% in the ",Spiritual Realm"

Randy you know well there isn't literal time seen for "The Souls" and "The Dead" your playing make believe, your backed into a corner in complete desperation to create a literal kingdom on this earth that isn't seen

You can repeat your self 1,000 times, wave the magic wand around and shout hocus pokus, and your desired kingdom won't be seen, because it's non-existant in scripture

Jesus Is The Lord

I'm not entertaining hope that you will accept any of my arguments, brother. You have an argumentative spirit. You're incorrigible, as far as I'm concerned.

If not, then show me typical instances in which you agree with me? If we are both Christians why is there not this typical spirit of agreement, and brotherly relationship? It is because you've chosen to entertain yourself as "clever." Many people in anonymous circumstances on the internet love to get attention by posing themselves as "superior."

I only say this because it's how you come across to me. The moment you stop giving me cheap quips and "no, it's not," without any substantial exchange of ideas, then I'll accept you as sincere and Christian in your approach.

My sense of "proper interpretation" is obviously a legitimate question. But this is how you respond! There is no "meat" in your response--just a sense that you have some kind of esoteric understanding that should be known by all.

To simply insult my posts and then claim Rev 20 is "100% spiritual" is meaningless at best, and corrosive of the meaning at worst. Christ himself is "100% spiritual" and yet had a human nature of flesh, as well.

Things "spiritual" and things" material are not at odds, are not diametrically opposed to one another. They are not mutually incompatible. Rev 20 can be "100% spiritual" without sacrificing it's literal meaning of "1000 years!"

Saying something is "100% spiritual," therefore, solves nothing in this matter. What really matters is the context, because it determines whether "1000 years" should be taken literally or not.

The lack of any sense that "thousand" is being used as a "saying" indicates it should *not* be taken as a "saying." There should be no reference made by anybody to the use of "thousand" in places in Scripture where "thousand" is used as a "saying." What matters is the immediate context for use of the word "thousand." That is a good point, and you've chosen to ignore it.

 

[marks]

Personal symbolizing of scripture according to our own personal faith, leapfrogs any credibility of teaching the true doctrine of Christ. And that especially includes the millennial reign of Christ.

It also ruins the validity of the Bible, as being no different from any other book of men about myths, legends, parables, and anecdotal tales, such as that of Aesop.

Such personal symbolizing of Scripture is used by unbelievers, who want to acknowledge wisdom in the Bible, but also do away with the flood over all the earth, the crossing of the Red Sea on dry ground, the sun standing still at the word of Joshua, or even the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And some believers use it to do away with the torment of hell, while trying to teach hell's symbolic 'significance'.

This in no way suggest, that those rejecting a millennial reign of Christ on earth after His return, as spiritual symbolism only, are also rejecting His resurrection, and the torment of hell and the lake of fire.

However, it is plain that such personal symbolizing of Scripture can certainly be ruinous to sound dcotrine of Christ.

Once we presume by personal faith alone, to 'discern' what Scripture is real or not, then we are only believing and teaching our own faith alone.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

We are free to think whatever we want about Scripture, and decide for ourselves what is symbol and parable only, but once we begin to teach that as the truth of scripture, without any objective proof from Scripture itself, or common understanding, then we become false teachers of our own private interpretation of Scripture, as being true Scripture of God itself.

If there is any unity to be found in the interpretation of Scripture, it is in NOT departing from the plain sayings of plainly stated passages.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

This part actually speaks of the origin of prophecy rather than it's interpretation.

2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV
19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Much love!

 

[robert derrick]

If there is any unity to be found in the interpretation of Scripture, it is in NOT departing from the plain sayings of plainly stated passages.

Exactly, which is many times down by symbolizing something real into something not real.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

This part actually speaks of the origin of prophecy rather than it's interpretation.

2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV
19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Much love!

It applies to both:

And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

The prophecy comes only from God, and the true interpretation can only come from the mind of Christ.

The prophets and apostles did not write Scripture from their own thinking and imagination, and we should not interpret Scripture according to our own thinking and imagination.

They did not insert their own minds into Scripture, and neither should we to teach Scripture.

We can all have our own private interpretations and imaginations and opinions about Scripture in our own minds and lives, but we must not then teach them as if it were Scripture of God.

When we teach something, that we personally believe, but Scripture cannot easily prove, then we are teaching our on word as that of God.

It's the same as making ourselves new prophets and apostles, thinking to write new Scripture as the truth of God.

Scripture calls it the traditions and commandments of men, that are not Scripture of God, but are spoken as such.

 

[Truth7t7]

I'm not entertaining hope that you will accept any of my arguments, brother. You have an argumentative spirit. You're incorrigible, as far as I'm concerned.

I will continue to expose you willful error, you disregard the truth when presented, choosing your pre-determined agenda in its replacement