Featured Irrational theology.

Revelation 19 says the unbelievers were killed. This means those who are left are entirely redeemed, found holy in Christ, no more sinful nature.

It sounds like you are saying that even though Christ has fully atoned for their sins, they are still in their damned state, along with any offspring. In your scenario, Jesus doesn't actually redeem them. That seems irrational to me.

The verses you quoted don't support your claim at all.

In the verses from the gospel where one is taken and the other is left, it is the unredeemed who are taken. Their bodies are fed to the vultures. They are throne into the winepress of God's wrath.
The ones left are those who are welcomed into the Kingdom.

 

But you have the 50% left as still being unredeemed and living in their contaminated, sinful bodies. There is nothing in the text that ever suggests this.

Moreso, you end up with two returns of Christ, yet the Bible only ever talks of one return. Your view stands in confusion with all of revealed scripture.

 

You say there are inconsistencies in the premill view. I think they are easier to deal with than the figurative way that Amill deals with the text.

Have you ever considered that not all people go to war and the bible does not say that every human went or were killed. Actually the bible presents Christ coming more than once or do you not think it is speaking about Christ in 1Th 4:16-17 or that Christ reigned on earth for 1000 yrs?

Also we see that Christ will return in the same manner as He left in a cloud but it does not say that He can only come back once.
Act 1:11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

As I said before I do not think that Sam Storm presented a good enough case for me to trust in the Amill view. I do hope that you read my post # 70. They explained from the Greek why your Amill view is wrong. But you will believe what you want to believe.

 

So if we have the risen saint's reigning with Christ for 1000 yrs. Who are they reigning over. All the redeemed are in Christ so are they reigning over themselves for a 1000 yrs?

Or are we to take Rev 20:3 as it is written ...that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished." and see that they reigned with Christ over the nations that Satan could not deceive anymore?

I am curious that since you seem to think that Rev 20:1-6 is figurative then how do you deal with the two witnesses in Rev 11:1-13 are they figurative also and if so then of what?

 

The text does not tell us.
It tells us that it's the first resurrection and we see that at our salvation we we're raised from the dead and sat on the throne with Christ (Ephesians 2). So this symbolic 1000 years is presently happening. It also means that there is activity in heaven with work to do, over which the saints reign with Christ. Silverhair, make the connection.

I take it that Satan is presently bound and is not able to deceive all the nations. In fact, we see that after being loose, he will be unrestrained from causing all governments from attacking the church.

The two witnesses are churches who endure and stand against evil. The olive tree is connected to Romans 11, both the original Jewish tree and the grafted in, wild tree.
The lampstands are churches (which two of the seven are commended) as revealed in the text.

(Revelation 11:4-5)
These two prophets are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of all the earth. If anyone tries to harm them, fire flashes from their mouths and consumes their enemies. This is how anyone who tries to harm them must die.

 

Taisto your approach to Revelation is to see it as figurative and as such you have to symbolize everything. How are you to know the truth of God as it is not the inspired word of God that you trust but rather your symbolic understanding of it. Yes some things are figurative as your quoted text shows but not everything is. 1000 yr is 1000 yrs 42 months is 42 months and 1260 days is 1260 days. You need to read the text to see what God is saying to us in His prophecy. Can we see it perfectly, no. As with all prophecy we will understand it clearly after it is fulfilled. Until then it is all speculation.

 

Was Daniel using literal numbers?
Was it exactly 1335 days?

(Daniel 9:24-27)
“A period of seventy sets of seven has been decreed for your people and your holy city to finish their rebellion, to put an end to their sin, to atone for their guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to confirm the prophetic vision, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until a ruler—the Anointed One—comes. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses, despite the perilous times. “After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, the Anointed One will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end. The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him.”

(Daniel 12:10-12)
Many will be purified, cleansed, and refined by these trials. But the wicked will continue in their wickedness, and none of them will understand. Only those who are wise will know what it means. “From the time the daily sacrifice is stopped and the sacrilegious object that causes desecration is set up to be worshiped, there will be 1,290 days. And blessed are those who wait and remain until the end of the 1,335 days!

You are forcing upon John and the Bible literal, exact numbers, when John never uses them this way.

 

Taisto you will read the bible as you see fit and I will do the same. As it must be obvious to you I use a literal approach to the text.

Literal in Theology The “literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation.

That to me is the most logical way to do it, you will disagree and do what seems logical to you. As I said before, your approach allows you to find in the text whatever you need.

 

I have shown you the rationale for Amillenialism. You can believe whatever you wish. Good luck.

 

What you have shown is that you do not trust what the text says and read it for a theological literal sense but approach it from a view that allows you to read into the text whatever you need to find.

Question for you Taisto. How can you know what the prophecies about the coming of Christ really mean or for that matter any text of scripture. You have no basis for saying that your understanding is correct. For example the Mormons could use Rev 20:4 "And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" to prove their idea that they can all become Gods and on what basis can you say they are wrong? Logically you have none.

 

Silverhair, you are free to hold a new interpretation of Revelation. Postmillennial and Amillennial views are well over 1000 years old. Dispensationalism is just over 200 years old. With the way you speak, you would condemn much of Christianity. Moreso, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses find their eschatology much closer to your futurism so any silly attempts to lump them in will fall on you. Your attempt to bring up Mormonism is laughable.

 

Your post and Amill views are quite new then. Taisto your view has no foundation in the bible as you do not trust what the bible says. Your view requires that you be able to make the text say anything you need it to say. Which is what we see in both the J. W. and Mormon churches. It is because the see this ability presented in your Amill view that they can justify them doing them same.

All Christians agree on these three things:

1) there is coming a time of great tribulation such as the world has never seen,
2) after the Tribulation, Christ will return to establish His kingdom on earth, and,
3) there will be a Rapture—a translation from mortality to immortality—for believers
(John 14:1-3; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).


The Pretribulation view has much to commend it. For example, the church is not appointed to wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, 5:9), and believers will not be overtaken by the Day of the Lord (1 Thessalonians 5:1-9). The church of Philadelphia was promised to be kept from “the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world” (Revelation 3:10). Note that the promise is not preservation through the trial but deliverance from the hour, that is, from the time period of the trial.

The Pretribulation view also finds support in what is not found in Scripture. The word “church” appears nineteen times in the first three chapters of Revelation, but, significantly, the word is not used again until chapter 22. In other words, in the entire lengthy description of the Tribulation in Revelation, the word church is noticeably absent. In fact, the Bible never uses the word "church" in a passage relating to the Tribulation.

The Pretribulation view is the only theory which clearly maintains the distinction between Israel and the church and God’s separate plans for each. The seventy “sevens” of Daniel 9:24 are decreed upon Daniel’s people (the Jews) and Daniel’s holy city (Jerusalem). This prophecy makes it plain that the seventieth week (the Tribulation) is a time of purging and restoration for Israel and Jerusalem, not for the church.

Also, the Pretribulation view has historical support. From John 21:22-23, it would seem that the early church viewed Christ’s return as imminent, that He could return at any moment. Imminence, which is incompatible with the other two theories, is a key tenet of the Pretribulation view.

So as you can see while the other views are as you say 1000 yrs old the pretribulation view has it's basis in the early church. The pretribulation concept of the Rapture did not suddenly appear on the scene in the 1830s. It had been developing slowly over a long period of time, with strands of it coming from various sources.

One of the cardinal concepts of the doctrine is imminency, which is the biblical idea that the Lord can return at any moment. This was clearly taught by the early Church Fathers. The point here is that for the Lord’s return to be imminent, there must be a Rapture that is separate and apart from the Second Coming because there are many prophecies that must be fulfilled before the Lord returns to earth. In other words, the Second Coming is not an imminent event.

 

Premill/pre-trib is only 200 years old. It was created by a couple Roman Catholic priests and then espoused by John Darby. The only place in Christendom where it is taught is in evangelical America and missionaries from that camp. All the rest of Christendom holds either a post-mill or amill view. All the reformers were post-mill (including the synergist you follow).

When trying to make Revelation into a linear futurist history book you end up with massive contradictions that you are purposely ignoring. I have pointed you to the linear problems in Revelation 19 that cause your view major problems. You just attempt to ignore them. I point to Daniel and his use of numbers as they relate to John's use and you simply ignore the fact that Daniel doesn't use the numbers literally, which shows you that John doesn't use them literally either.

The purpose of this thread is to look at irrational thinking. You are attempting to tell us that Christians from John's readers to the early 1800's, until Darby showed up, were irrational. Are you aware of how silly you are being?

 

Taisto you are just following your mentors and as such have not presented anything new or rational that would convince me that your view is correct. The fact you know so little about the pre-tribulation view is telling in itself.

I am not here to convince you of the merits of the pre trib view but to point out the errors of your view. You continue to ignore the errors as that would make you take a closer look at your view and you are not willing to do that.

So you think that because the reformers were post mill then I should be one. What kind of logic is that?

But as for me being a synergist well since Christ seemed to think that we had to do something, trust in Him, and God would save us because we did then that would make Christ a synergist so I think I am in good company.

So I have to ask, what criteria do you us to decide what text of the bible you are actually going to believe?

 

And they lived and reigned with Christ for 1000 years. That is yet future.

It is funny that you claim the Bible does not say something, and then you quote from the Bible, and it proves the exact opposite of what you said it doesn’t say.

 

You certainly think that it's a future, exact 1000 year period.

The scripture I have quoted shows that amillennialism is very rational.

Now explain how all the unredeemed are killed, yet somehow the redeemed revolt against Jesus after he reigns for a literal 1000 years. Do the redeemed somehow lose their salvation after 1000 years?
Why do you teach 2 returns of Christ when the Bible teaches one?

 

The redeemed do not revolt after the Millennium. As is true today (the children of redeemed people are unredeemed people who are born with sin natures), so it will be in the Millennium.

The ones who will revolt against Christ will be unredeemed people.

What exactly are you talking about when you speak about 2 returns of Christ?