Featured What is the Revelation and How Should Christians Read it

The last resort of those that have no foundation for their theories, when questioned ask for an exact quote. As I said you are very inconsistent in your responses you read into text what you need to find "since all sinners were killed in Revelation 19" and deny clear scripture in Rev 20:1-6. Are you now saying that the 1000 yrs is a literal 1000 yrs and that the beheaded saint are raised and reign with Christ?

 

You're not tracking, are you.

My view is that we are presently in the period where Satan is bound (restrained). The first resurrection is our being made alive with Christ (going from death to life) in salvation. All believers, who have died, now reign with Christ, in heaven, during this "millennial" time. The events of Revelation 19 are showing what Jesus will do to Satan and all in rebellion as mentioned in Revelation 20:7-10.

Since you refuse to understand Revelation as a cyclical look at the same events from different viewpoints (Revelation as a picture book), you will not understand anything outside of a very narrow, linear, thought espoused by premillennial thinking. It is not my concern that you have narrowed your mind against the most prevalent views in Christendom that go back to the early church fathers. You are free to hold your view.

 

Would I be right in generally saying that your view is what is called Amillenialsim?

 

The fact the bible says you are wrong does not seem to matter to you @taisto. I know that you find it hard to follow the flow in Revelation but here is a clue. Rev 20:1-6 comes before Rev 20:7-10. And a major clue is right there for you to read Rev 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired G5055, Satan will be released from his prison. {G5055 to bring to a close, to finish, to end Webster}

 

Still do not deal with the problem of your inconsistency.

 

I guess you think that all Christianity had it wrong until John Darby came along.

 

No I just think we should actually trust what the Holy Spirit said. Don't you?

You seem to hang your hat on John Darby, I do not. I did not even know of him until I started to look into all these end time views as of late. What I find is that no one can provide what would be called a definitive proof text That is why we have many different views put forward. I did a two year study through Revelation 14 yrs ago and even then we did not get into all this silly speculation.

From reading the text of the bible it is clear to me that the return of Christ for His church is before the tribulation, you disagree but you have yet to provide any scriptural support for your view.

The Pretribulation view has much to commend it. For example, the church is not appointed to wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, 1 Thessalonians 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 Rapture theories, is a key tenet of the Pretribulation view.

The Pretribulation view seems to be the most in keeping with God’s character and His desire to deliver the righteous from the judgment of the world. Biblical examples of God’s salvation include Noah, from the flood; Lot, from Sodom; and Rahab, from Jericho.

 

You should know him. His teaching is what your whole theory is built upon. You are living in a house of cards.

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 has nothing to do with a rapture of the Church. The coming wrath is the Return of Christ to destroy the enemy. You and I will not be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

1 Thessalonians 5:1-9 is directly tied to Jesus teaching in Matthew 24. In that passage the ones who are left go into eternity with Christ. The one's who are taken go to the Lake of Fire. Silverhair, you don't want to be taken.

That passage is not about a pre-trib rapture.

Did you live in Philadelphia, in Asia Minor. Revelation 3:10 is written to that church.

Silverhair your exegesis is awful.

This argument is terrible. The Greek word for church isn't used so therefore there must be a rapture.

There is no mention of a rapture of the church in Revelation 4. If you imagine the book is a linear timeline, then you must show us an actual rapture of the church between Revelation 3 and Revelation 4. You cannot do this so you force John Darby's theory onto the text.

Paul tells you in Romans 2, Romans 9, and Romans 11 that the Church is Israel. When Daniel was writing, he was describing the Church, the chosen people of God.

You have bought into terrible theory that is not taught in the Bible. We are told that there is now neither Jew, nor Greek, nor slave nor free, nor male, nor female, but we are all one in Christ Jesus our Lord. We are called to support the Redeemed, not the wicked.

All believers look for the return of Christ Jesus our King. He is coming to destroy His enemies and set up His eternal Kingdom.
(John 21:21-23)
Peter asked Jesus, “What about him, Lord?” Jesus replied, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? As for you, follow me.” So the rumor spread among the community of believers that this disciple wouldn’t die. But that isn’t what Jesus said at all. He only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

This passage has literally nothing to do with a pre-trib rapture. You are trying to force John Darby's theory onto the text.

Read Matthew 24 and Matthew 25.
In Ch 24 we read about Noah and about God bringing the flood when no one expected it. In Genesis it says that God sealed the door shut. No one could enter

Now go to the parable of the bridesmaids and the return of the groom. Not he comes at a surprising time after being delayed. The door gets shut and five bridesmaids cannot enter.

(Matthew 24:37-42)
“When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day. In those days before the flood, the people were enjoying banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat. People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes. “Two men will be working together in the field; one will be taken, the other left. Two women will be grinding flour at the mill; one will be taken, the other left. “So you, too, must keep watch! For you don’t know what day your Lord is coming.

(Matthew 25:1-13)
“Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten bridesmaids who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. The five who were foolish didn’t take enough olive oil for their lamps, but the other five were wise enough to take along extra oil. When the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and fell asleep. “At midnight they were roused by the shout, ‘Look, the bridegroom is coming! Come out and meet him!’ “All the bridesmaids got up and prepared their lamps. Then the five foolish ones asked the others, ‘Please give us some of your oil because our lamps are going out.’ “But the others replied, ‘We don’t have enough for all of us. Go to a shop and buy some for yourselves.’ “But while they were gone to buy oil, the bridegroom came. Then those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was locked. Later, when the other five bridesmaids returned, they stood outside, calling, ‘Lord! Lord! Open the door for us!’ “But he called back, ‘Believe me, I don’t know you!’ “So you, too, must keep watch! For you do not know the day or hour of my return.

There is no pre-trib rapture ever mentioned in the Bible, Silverhair. Not one time. John Darby created a fantasy story and you were told it as a child. You believe it because you think it's true, but the Bible never once tells you there is a pre-trib rapture. The verses you show as a proof-text all show you proof that you are wrong.

Pick up your cross, Silverhair, you and I have a date with suffering. The whole book of Revelation is given to encourage you to endure because Jesus wins. Embrace this truth.

 

I would ask where you get your silly ideas from but as you have shown you have a fertile imagination so I will just put it down to that.

You are exhibiting a very unchristian attitude when you call someone a liar. I do not hold to your philosophy but I would not call you a liar but rather just uninformed and misled. But you do tend toward ad hominem attacks when people point out your errors.

 

Look in the mirror.

"You are exhibiting a very unchristian attitude when you call someone a liar. I do not hold to your philosophy but I would not call you a liar but rather just uninformed and misled."

 

So you believe in replacement theology, that explains a lot. Funny you say that Pre-mill is not mentioned in scripture but as much as I searched I could not find your Amill either. But then we do find that Christ reigns for a 1000 yrs during which Satan is bound in a pit. We also see that after that time he will be released. But you say there is no actual millennium just an indefinite amount of time. And of course the two witnesses do not prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days. I mean why would you believe what the Holy Spirit inspired John to write when you can come up with such great stories.

@taisto you can believe all the stories that you want about your Amill view, I will just trust the Holy Spirit inspired word of God.

 

Please quote where I called you a liar @taisto? Were these not your words to me "Your dishonesty is well known." post # 48 Very unchristian of you taisto.

You are just flailing around in your desperate attempt to support your view.

 

It's not replacement, Silverhair. It's the same olive tree with people from every nation, tribe, and tongue grafted in to the tree. There is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male nor female. We are all one in Christ. The Israel of God has always been those who are justified by faith.

The term you use was created by Darbyists who don't know better.

Silverhair, you are forcing literalism on a text that isn't using literalism. Do you actually think a spirit is going to be thrown into a dirt pit and wrapped in iron chains?

There is an appointed time for Satan to be bound. (Read Daniel 11 to see how God appoints specific times). Peter tells us that with God a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years. How long Satan will actually be bound is appointed by God. 42 months is a much shorter time appointment than 1000 years, but it is foolish to demand a literalism on these numbers when John wasn't using literalism in his writing.
You have been taught that everything written in Revelation is literal. That teaching is wrong. The text itself shows you that.

Now, you are free to hold your view. All Christians would rejoice if they were removed from trials and tribulations, especially those who are presently being persecuted, so a pre-trib dream would take believers out of the world of sin. But, there is no teaching in the Bible that we will be removed from our trials and tribulations. Jesus tells us in this world there will be many troubles, but he has overcome the world. We are called to carry our cross and follow Jesus. Revelation is written to encourage us to endure, not to gloat over the wicked that we won't have to suffer.

 

You guys sound like 14 year olds.

 

@Piper then why do you not add your two cents worth. It is easy to sit on the sidelines.

 

I'm talking about when people call each other liars and then the other says "Prove it. SHow me a quote where I called you a liar."

It's the same as when people on here classify widely held beliefs as "False Doctrine." I can see calling Baptismal regeneration a false doctrine, or salvation by works in the RCC, but to call Imputed Righteousness "False Doctrine?"

 

@taisto I understand that you want to hold to your Amill view and that is your right but you have yet to provide any scripture that would convince me that that view is correct. You keep saying I must show this or that but when I do provide scripture you dismiss it out of hand.
You will read the verses through your Amill lens and I will just read the text from a literal view. So we will not agree.
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.

You made a comment that "the Church is Israel". Now who is reading into the text what they want to find?
The church is the body of Christ and you are only in that church through faith in Him. If the church were to become Israel then we would logically have to reject Christ and trust the sacrificial system and Jewish laws for our salvation.

The Church always has been and always will be persecuted as long as we are in the world, but this is not the same as the wrath of God poured out during the Tribulation. You understand that you will be here to go through it whereas I see that Christians will not suffer the wrath of God.

 

Piper you may not mind someone saying you are know to be dishonest but I do. As I said it was a unchristian comment that Taisto made.

 

Israel is part of the church, the church is not all Israel. Galatians 6:15-16, ". . . For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. . . ."

 

I agree. I have someone on the board claiming that I hold False Doctrine, as though I were a Mormon or something. Makes me really angry. I have to ask the Lord for grace to not blow up.