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

[robert derrick]

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.

That's all I'm talking about. Rampant symbolizing of Scripture, turns the revealed truth of God into just another book of myths and legends of men.

The Bible is not Aesop's Fables.

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?

Well said.

 

[robert derrick]

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.

Which means we don't symbolize what God is revealing through symbols about it.

If a thousand is used as a symbol, then that does not do away with the fact of walking with the Lord freshly after a thousand years, even as day one.

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.

Sorry. You've lost credibility here.

You're doing the same thing you preach against: symbolizing something into something else, because you don't want to believe it as written.

The partial flood of Gilgamesh is not the truth, and the Bible is not merely repeating another version of it, as you and other men say.

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.

Not sure which side you are arguing for, but symbolizers also get rid of a tormenting flaming hell and lake of fire.

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.

Scripture does speak of both, flames of torment, and black darkness.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.

Therefore, the flames cannot be with light.

Neither spiritually nor physically.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Why do you "suck up" to an abusive Christian like WPM?

“Suck up?” WPM and I have our various topic interests and consider them.

… nothing remotely Christian-like comes from his posts when someone disagrees with him. He claims so, but they must be extremely rare.

I was referencing post #3 on this thread. I never saw anything unchristian. Somewhat pointed perhaps, but not abusive.

I have yet to see any substantial refutation to Premill as I've recently presented it. Where is your refutation, as opposed to "just listen to WPM?"

Substantial refutations are hard on my brain. But give me a link and I’ll select 1 or 2 points and share my thoughts.

 

[Marty fox]

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.

So if its literal then is the fresh of all people eaten by the birds?

 

[Randy Kluth]

“Suck up?” WPM and I have our various topic interests and consider them.

I was referencing post #3 on this thread. I never saw anything unchristian. Somewhat pointed perhaps, but not abusive.

Substantial refutations are hard on my brain. But give me a link and I’ll select 1 or 2 points and share my thoughts.

The problem I have, Gedge, is that referring to WPM's material is a reference to his character, as well. To "think slowly" suggests that the more time one spends meditating on what that guy says, the more you should agree with him. But I find it to be the opposite, that the more I think about what he's saying, the more I realize that he wants to scandalize Premills.

So indeed let's slow-walk his points, and you can reaffirm how solid his points are, or not?

1) 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?

WPM simply denies that the many prophecies of the "Messianic Kingdom" in the Prophets have a proper application to the Millennium in Rev 20. The fact that the "Messianic Kingdom" is foretold in the Prophets is undeniable. To say it isn't in the Millennium is determined by how one looks at the 3 points of the Millennium:

1. the Coming of Christ
2. the binding of Satan
3) the resurrection of the martyrs under Antichrist and their reign with Christ

If we find all 3 of these points having to do with the promised Messianic Reign, then yes the reign of Christ exists in Rev 20.

But as usual, his claim is that the word "thousand" is not in any of the passages in the Prophets having to do with the Messianic Kingdom. Does the lack of mention of how long it lasts mean that this Kingdom Age is not mentioned in Rev 20? Of course not! Not mentioning the length of time is not necessary to understand that it is being *given a time length of one thousand years in Rev 20!*

2) 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.

I've elsewhere pointed out that Israel's national salvation *begins* at Christ's Coming in biblical prophecies. For example, Zech 12.10.

Zech 12.10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

3) 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.

This is just a flat-out misrepresentation of Premill as a whole. Only some Dispensationalists suggest a return to the celebration of OT traditions--certainly not any sense of salvation through the Law! And many Premills are not Dispensationalists at all, and reject outright any reconstitution of OT holidays and celebrations. For one, I don't!

4) 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.

The relationship between glorified Christians resurrected in the next age with mortals they rule over is indicated by Jesus.

Matt 19.28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

5) 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.

Isaiah predicts a time of peace on earth, Jesus said to them, when the wolf will dwell with the lamb. (Isa 11.6)

Rev 20 indicates the nations will no longer be deceived by Satan into inciting international warfare. The rebellion taking place at the end of the Millennium results from Satan being released again *at the end of* the Millennial period.

I don't at all understand why slow-reading WPM's constantly-repeated material makes it any better an argument than at 1st read?

 

[Christian Gedge]

Commenting on three of WPM’s points together with your answers.

1) 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?

WPM simply denies that the many prophecies of the "Messianic Kingdom" in the Prophets have a proper application to the Millennium in Rev 20. The fact that the "Messianic Kingdom" is foretold in the Prophets is undeniable.

Indeed, the "Messianic Kingdom" foretold in the Prophets is undeniable. The classic example is Daniel 2:44. Which kingdom do you think John the Baptist was referring to when he heralded, “The Kingdom of God is at hand?”

2) 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.

I've elsewhere pointed out that Israel's national salvation *begins* at Christ's Coming in biblical prophecies. For example, Zech 12.10.

An end-time Jewish revival into Christ‘s Church, or a “national salvation?” Please read chapter 15 of The Atonement Clock.

3) 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.

This is just a flat-out misrepresentation of Premill as a whole. Only some Dispensationalists suggest a return to the celebration of OT traditions--certainly not any sense of salvation through the Law! And many Premills are not Dispensationalists at all, and reject outright any reconstitution of OT holidays and celebrations. For one, I don't!

Im glad you don’t adhere to this awful doctrine. Bear in mind though, WPM was speaking to Robert - a wooden literalist if ever there was one, and probably dispensational.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Commenting on three of WPM’s points together with your answers.


Indeed, the "Messianic Kingdom" foretold in the Prophets is undeniable. The classic example is Daniel 2:44. Which kingdom do you think John the Baptist was referring to when he heralded, “The Kingdom of God is at hand?”

So you think the Messianic Kingdom began at the 1st Coming of Christ? If so, why did the Scripture authors continue to quote Jesus that his Kingdom is "near" well after the Age of the Gospel had already begun?

Matt 4.17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
Matt 10.7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’
Rom 13.11 And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.
Rom 13.12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here.
Phil 4.5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.
Jam 5.8 You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near.

If you think Jesus taught the Kingdom was to be initiated at the beginning of the Church Age, why did the apostles claim that the Kingdom was still only "near?" Clearly, you are interpreting "at hand" to mean something other than what John the Baptist, in context, intended to convey. He was actually declaring that Jesus *represented the Kingdom as its Messiah," and thus stood as an immediate sense that the Kingdom was sure to be initiated at the coming of his Kingdom.

I know you won't be able to answer this question because quite frankly, you can't. It's always going to be a pebble in the shoe of all Amills.

An end-time Jewish revival into Christ‘s Church, or a “national salvation?” Please read chapter 15 of The Atonement Clock.

Im glad you don’t adhere to this awful doctrine. Bear in mind though, WPM was speaking to Robert - a wooden literalist if ever there was one, and probably dispensational.

I have too many other materials that I'm more interested in. If I thought there was a real argument for Amill, that I haven't already heard, I would study more. But if you're referencing an "awful doctrine," then it doesn't represent Premill overall, and you fall into the same trap as WPM, characterizing a very broad belief as if a few kooks represent it.

If you want others to "slow read" WPM's material, ie meditate on it, or study it, then why can't you even answer a few questions rebutting it? Could it be that you just don't want to see any challenges to your chosen position?

Let me just say, brother, that despite my criticism I do like your gentle, disciplined spirit. It strikes me as very Christian. I'm not trying to flatter you--just state what seems apparent to me. So all of my rhetoric has to be understood in the context of respect I truly have for you. Okay, now you can disagree as strongly as you like!

 

[Adam]

Once again. Disingenuous debate is filled with misstating the words of others, to appear ridiculous.

I don't know anyone who has ever said there is no symbol, allegory, parable in the Bible, so that all things of Scripture are literal.



When symbol's are in the mind of God, then His word says so. And no Scripture of God is more important than any other Scripture of God.

It's the symbolizing from the mind of man, that makes Scripture nothing but symbolic only.




I'm not an idealist, and so I don't know what you are talking about.

I will agree that the truth of Scripture is more important than the words on paper.

However, without those words and paper, there is no truth of God known on earth.

The essence of the Bible, from an Idealist perspective is that, ideals are more real than matter. Ideals are eternal and unchanging, and were conceived even before the physical world, by God. The physical world exists to reveal these ideals.

For example, maybe there was a worldwide flood and Noah needed to save 2 of each animal. Maybe in your life you will experience a great destruction and have to save what you can for posterity. Maybe Pharoah had an adopted son that had to choose between a life of luxury or freedom for his people. Maybe you have an overbearing father that controls your family. Maybe Job lost everything but still praised God and maybe you will also find yourself in a hard time one day and struggle with your faith. These scenes play out again and again across history, in peoples' lives, as these are the symbols our world is based off of. So inside of you, you have a little Noah, or a little Moses, or a little Job; and the Bible tells us how to live through these situations by giving advice applicable to our own lives. But whether there was an actual Noah's ark - who can say? All we can say is that there is truth in the belief in Noah's ark.

 

[WPM]

The problem I have, Gedge, is that referring to WPM's material is a reference to his character, as well. To "think slowly" suggests that the more time one spends meditating on what that guy says, the more you should agree with him. But I find it to be the opposite, that the more I think about what he's saying, the more I realize that he wants to scandalize Premills.

The biggest slanderer on this board trying to criticize the behaviour of others. I do not think it! Here is a little part of your hate campaign against Amils:

I just have concerns about the side effects of being an Amil.

What kind of weird cult do you belong to that you don't believe basic Christian doctrine? Surely you don't belong here, spreading heresy among Christians

Amills here act like a gang of thugs.

You just seem to lay these things on the shelf when discussing your idol, Amillennialism.

Why else would you make this an idol?

Amil is his idol, put quite simply. Yes, that's my opinion

I question your Christianity, or the quality of your Christianity.

For you Eternal Life seems to be a concept, a doctrine, rather than a life experience

Are you even a real Christian?

you're a fake Christian, a backslidden Christian, or some kind of egotistical Christian.

I'm honestly concerned for the state of your soul.

you must be spiritually blind

I'm arguing with someone who has no sense of discernment!

You just seem to be a little more open--angry, paranoid perhaps

How long have you been hood-winking people like this?

Like the carnal person that you are

you've proven yourself to be incorrigible, unteachable, and narcissistic. You seem to be looking for followers, for confirmation that you're right. Why else would you make this an idol?

I lose interest in reading the rest of your trash talk.

It's a work of your own, and not a work of the Lord.

I stand by all of my statements because they're true. And although they're true, that you're a very carnal Christian, who makes me wonder if he isn't in some kind of false Christian cult, I keep trying to reach out in fellowship.

I can't imagine why you think he's a "saint?" He cultivates followers--I know the type, and yes--I have a gift of discernment.

You can sometimes tell that someone is off track and not aligned with the word of God. Their rage is evidence of that fact. Their obsessive idolization of their doctrines indicate that somewhere along the way they've gotten off track, gotten lost, and now find themselves groping in the dark

You try to create carnal divisions in the church to preserve your idol, Amil?

You just seem to lay these things on the shelf when discussing your idol, Amillennialism.

you are disruptive,

You don't have love

You're lawless,

You dummy!

This goofball

You're immature.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The biggest slanderer on this board trying to criticize the behaviour of others. I do not think it! Here is a little part of your hate campaign against Amils:

Yes, I own my manners, good or bad. You are extremely provocative. I've tried to give you opportunities to end the disturbing, insulting rhetoric, but you won't. You think it's perfectly acceptable to argue and claim others are inferior in their thinking, in their studies, and in their beliefs. Change your ways, and we'll be fine.

You do realize, don't you, that you just called me a "slanderer," the "biggest on this board?" You do realize that you just told me that I have a "hate campaign against Amils.?" So what is different about what you perceive to be an attack on you? All of my comments were prompted by your attacks on me! They were all responses to your insults towards me! Just go back and consider what it is *you said to me* that prompted my outbursts.

Of course I apologize for my angry outbursts. But again, they are prompted by your insulting rhetoric, which you refuse to owe up to. If you tone things down, I'll be fine by anything you say. But your style of promoting Amillennialism seems to be by insulting Premillennialism. Though this kind of nasty exchange has gone on for centuries, do we really have to continue in the same way? I don't think so.

Just state your views, and leave out the insulting rhetoric. That's all I ask. The few insults won't bother me half as much if it shows that you are trying to tone things down, and treat brother Christians as brothers, as you should. True Christianity requires that the teachers of Christianity actually live it, that they combine their doctrinal instruction with genuine love towards the brethren.

James 1.22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

1 John 3.11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

1 Cor 13.4 Love ... is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

 

[WPM]

Yes, I own my manners, good or bad. You are extremely provocative. I've tried to give you opportunities to end the disturbing, insulting rhetoric, but you won't. You think it's perfectly acceptable to argue and claim others are inferior in their thinking, in their studies, and in their beliefs. Change your ways, and we'll be fine.

You do realize, don't you, that you just called me a "slanderer," the "biggest on this board?" You do realize that you just told me that I have a "hate campaign against Amils.?" So what is different about what you perceive to be an attack on you? All of my comments were prompted by your attacks on me! They were all responses to your insults towards me! Just go back and consider what it is *you said to me* that prompted my outbursts.

Of course I apologize for my angry outbursts. But again, they are prompted by your insulting rhetoric, which you refuse to owe up to. If you tone things down, I'll be fine by anything you say. But your style of promoting Amillennialism seems to be by insulting Premillennialism. Though this kind of nasty exchange has gone on for centuries, do we really have to continue in the same way? I don't think so.

Just state your views, and leave out the insulting rhetoric. That's all I ask. The few insults won't bother me half as much if it shows that you are trying to tone things down, and treat brother Christians as brothers, as you should. True Christianity requires that the teachers of Christianity actually live it, that they combine their doctrinal instruction with genuine love towards the brethren.

James 1.22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

1 John 3.11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

1 Cor 13.4 Love ... is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

It is always someone else's fault. Yea right! I highlighted your hate campaign above. It is vicious, extreme and relentless. It is a fact. The evidence is there for all to see. You would be long banned on any other board. You not only attack me, your attacks are towards all Amils. Your hatred and frustration is palatable. You think you are God and have the right to judge other peoples salvation. That is unbelievable. Who else does that apart from you and Davy here? You take me calling out your avoidance and lack of Scripture as ad hominem (which is ridiculous), whilst you think you have the right to defame and offend others. I don't think so. When I ignore you, you constantly mention me in your posts. I seem to have free rent-space in your mind. You are obviously threatened by the position i hold and the biblical arguments i present.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is always someone else's fault. Yea, right! I am describing your hate campaign here. It is vicious, extreme and relentless. It is a fact. The evidence is there for all to see. You would be long banned on any other board. You not only attack me, your attacks are towards all Amils. Your hatred and frustration is palatable. You think you are God and have the right to judge other peoples salvation. That is unbelievable. Who else does that apart from you and Davy here? You take me calling out your avoidance and lack of Scripture as ad hominem (which is ridiculous), whilst you think you have the right to defame and offend others. I don't think so. When I ignore you, you constantly mention me in your posts. I seem to have free rent-space in your mind. You are obviously threatened by the position i hold and the biblical arguments i present.

You are no threat to me at all. And my only campaign is to defend the honorable position Premills hold to. Since you are the most ardent opponent of Premill here, obviously your posts are what I often have to deal with. You would be surprised at how little I would mention you if you weren't always on the attack mode against Premill.

I'm not in the least bothered by your defense of Amill. I'm only bothered that you do it by *insulting" Premill believers and beliefs both. As well, I'm concerned that in your wish to concoct long lists of your concerns about Premill you misrepresent the belief system as a whole, focusing on some points that are peripheral issues held by only some segments of Premills. In dealing with Premill so broadly you misrepresent Premills who do not hold some of the more controversial positions.

For example, you constantly mention the beliefs Dispensationalists have about restoring OT forms of worship. And you mention how they believe in the exaltation of Israel over all other nations. I've told you repeatedly that I and many other Premills are not Dispensationalists and do not hold to these positions. I've also informed you that most Dispensationalists do *not* believe in the restoration of Old Covenant typology to actually *obtain salvation.* Dispensationalists adhere to NT theology in which the Christian is saved not by the Law but by NT grace. The notion of restoring OT forms of worship for them would be like observing Passover as a memorial holiday, rather than as a legalistic requirement.

But you just ignore this and continues to repost your "updated" lists, saying the same things over and over. And you do this while at the same time insulting those who you misrepresent in this way. Furthermore, you fight back any complaint by doubling down on the same without an ounce of contrition for this regular misrepresentation of the facts.

So do I accept your claim that I should be banned for thus defending the truth? Of course not. You wish to get me banned because you wish to scandalize Premill beliefs unopposed. You relish getting me banned from a particular thread on another forum, when you are the cause of all of this trouble. Right after I was banned, and I refused to request you be banned, the mods decided to ban your thread, because you continued to post hostile rhetoric. In the end, they shut down debate altogether. That wasn't me, brother--it seems it was you!

 

[robert derrick]

So if its literal then is the fresh of all people eaten by the birds?

All the slain armies at Armageddon are.

There's nothing new here, except that God calls all the fowls of the earth to one scene of battle.

So all the fowls of the earth eat, just not all the people of the earth.

 

[Randy Kluth]

All the slain armies at Armageddon are.

There's nothing new here, except that God calls all the fowls of the earth to one scene of battle.

So all the fowls of the earth eat, just not all the people of the earth.

I've been saying this for a long time. Words mean what they mean *in context.* Anti-literalists constantly rail against the use of the word "all," indicating that a literal application of the same means *all the universe* will be annihilated. This is their end of the world scenario.

But as you rightly point out, this is a limited use of the word "all flesh," indicating that only a single battle is in context. I don't know why context matters so little for those who wish to apply literal meanings?

I would also add that Amills tend to be unable to understand generalizations. My wife has a problem with rounding off numbers. When she mentions the cost of something, she often gives the price down to the last penny!

Seriously, math students are normally taught to be able to generalize mathematically. They should be able to use words like "all" to generalize, meaning "most." Or, they should be able to use the word "thousand" to mean "about one thousand."

But the real issue is, what do these words literally mean in the context in which they are used? "All flesh being eaten" refers to "most all," or "all kinds" that are available on the field of battle. It would not, for example, only include Chinese people, or men, or those who were completely annihilated by nuclear bombs. Obviously, "all," to be taken literally, must take into consideration the context and the intent of the author.

 

[WPM]

You are no threat to me at all. And my only campaign is to defend the honorable position Premills hold to. Since you are the most ardent opponent of Premill here, obviously your posts are what I often have to deal with. You would be surprised at how little I would mention you if you weren't always on the attack mode against Premill.

I'm not in the least bothered by your defense of Amill. I'm only bothered that you do it by *insulting" Premill believers and beliefs both. As well, I'm concerned that in your wish to concoct long lists of your concerns about Premill you misrepresent the belief system as a whole, focusing on some points that are peripheral issues held by only some segments of Premills. In dealing with Premill so broadly you misrepresent Premills who do not hold some of the more controversial positions.

For example, you constantly mention the beliefs Dispensationalists have about restoring OT forms of worship. And you mention how they believe in the exaltation of Israel over all other nations. I've told you repeatedly that I and many other Premills are not Dispensationalists and do not hold to these positions. I've also informed you that most Dispensationalists do *not* believe in the restoration of Old Covenant typology to actually *obtain salvation.* Dispensationalists adhere to NT theology in which the Christian is saved not by the Law but by NT grace. The notion of restoring OT forms of worship for them would be like observing Passover as a memorial holiday, rather than as a legalistic requirement.

But you just ignore this and continues to repost your "updated" lists, saying the same things over and over. And you do this while at the same time insulting those who you misrepresent in this way. Furthermore, you fight back any complaint by doubling down on the same without an ounce of contrition for this regular misrepresentation of the facts.

So do I accept your claim that I should be banned for thus defending the truth? Of course not. You wish to get me banned because you wish to scandalize Premill beliefs unopposed. You relish getting me banned from a particular thread on another forum, when you are the cause of all of this trouble. Right after I was banned, and I refused to request you be banned, the mods decided to ban your thread, because you continued to post hostile rhetoric. In the end, they shut down debate altogether. That wasn't me, brother--it seems it was you!

You never take ownership of your wrongs. It is always someone else's fault (as per above). Until you show an ability to act like a Christian and stop attacking those you disagree with you, i will only highlight your hypocrisies when you are lecturing others.

 

[robert derrick]

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.

I like the way you use context for determining Scriptural expression as well as meaning. It can also be called the sense of Scripture, or even common sense.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

An example is Jotham's allegory in Judges 9. Context makes the chapter an obvious allegory about himself and the usurpers of Shechem.

By context, no one can possibly think he was calling himself a fig tree.

This seems beyond obvious, but when dealing with undiscipline and rampant over spiritualizing and symbolizing of Scripture, then strict rules of discipline must be held to.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You never take ownership of your wrongs. It is always someone else's fault (as per above). Until you show an ability to act like a Christian and stop attacking those you disagree with you, i will only highlight your hypocrisies when you are lecturing others.

Feel free to do what your conscience tells you. My concern about you is not intended to be "personal." As I just explained, I take issue with you only because your Amill arguments are done by insulting Premill beliefs, and by misrepresenting them as a whole.

My intention is not to "lecture you." I quote the Bible on the matter of "our attitudes" as something we *all* need to submit to.

 

[Marty fox]

All the slain armies at Armageddon are.

There's nothing new here, except that God calls all the fowls of the earth to one scene of battle.

So all the fowls of the earth eat, just not all the people of the earth.

But it doesn’t say that it separates the armies and people so if its literal it’s all people

Revelation 19:17-18
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

 

[robert derrick]

Revelation 20:1-6 Isnt A Millennial Kingdom On This Earth, Dont Be Deceived​

I've been wondering about this fixation on Rev 20, as though it is the only chapter in the Bible that determines a millennial reign of Christ on earth.

The return and millennial reign begins in Rev 19, not 20.

That is the main chapter that people must symbolize, in order not to allow the risen returning Lord to reign over His own earth.

 

[WPM]

Feel free to do what your conscience tells you. My concern about you is not intended to be "personal." As I just explained, I take issue with you only because your Amill arguments are done by insulting Premill beliefs, and by misrepresenting them as a whole.

My intention is not to "lecture you." I quote the Bible on the matter of "our attitudes" as something we *all* need to submit to.

Not true. You lecture others about what you are most guilty of. It is called projection. No one else presents such hatred and slander, apart from maybe Davy on this board. You are obviously a very bitter person. Please read your own words. Think about the gravity of them. Who else would articulate such venomous attacks? The fact that you do not drop your head in shame speaks volumes. I am not prepared to give you credibility by engaging with you. I know i am not the only one.

What kind of weird cult do you belong to that you don't believe basic Christian doctrine? Surely you don't belong here, spreading heresy among Christians

Amills here act like a gang of thugs.

You just seem to lay these things on the shelf when discussing your idol, Amillennialism.

Why else would you make this an idol?

Amil is his idol, put quite simply. Yes, that's my opinion

I question your Christianity, or the quality of your Christianity.

I just have concerns about the side effects of being an Amil.

For you Eternal Life seems to be a concept, a doctrine, rather than a life experience

Are you even a real Christian?

you're a fake Christian, a backslidden Christian, or some kind of egotistical Christian.

I'm honestly concerned for the state of your soul.

you must be spiritually blind

I'm arguing with someone who has no sense of discernment!

You just seem to be a little more open--angry, paranoid perhaps

How long have you been hood-winking people like this?

Like the carnal person that you are

you've proven yourself to be incorrigible, unteachable, and narcissistic. You seem to be looking for followers, for confirmation that you're right. Why else would you make this an idol?

I lose interest in reading the rest of your trash talk.

It's a work of your own, and not a work of the Lord.

I stand by all of my statements because they're true. And although they're true, that you're a very carnal Christian, who makes me wonder if he isn't in some kind of false Christian cult, I keep trying to reach out in fellowship.

I can't imagine why you think he's a "saint?" He cultivates followers--I know the type, and yes--I have a gift of discernment.

You can sometimes tell that someone is off track and not aligned with the word of God. Their rage is evidence of that fact. Their obsessive idolization of their doctrines indicate that somewhere along the way they've gotten off track, gotten lost, and now find themselves groping in the dark

You try to create carnal divisions in the church to preserve your idol, Amil?

You just seem to lay these things on the shelf when discussing your idol, Amillennialism.

you are disruptive,

You don't have love

You're lawless,

You dummy!

This goofball

You're immature.