Amillennialism Debate -Part Three

OldRegular: "48 hours is not a calender day ... "

Sure 48 hours the the length of a named day on the calendar througout the whole earth.

41 hours the day 02 Mar 2005 dawned in the Fugi Islanda. It is now about 1PM in the central time zone. In an hour the day will end in the central time zone. IT will be 6 more hours before the final time in 02 Mar 2005. Each calendar day is 24 hours long at each spot on the earth. There are 24 times zones. A calendar day on the whole earth lasts 48 hours.

Prophetically speaking 'day' is 'the appropriate time'.

There are about a dozen other definitions of 'day' in most good dictionaries.

 

Talk about convoluted logic. You **snipped*** have been arguing through three different threads that 1000 years in Revelation 20 is 1000 years. Now you tell us it is X years. So you now admit that Revelation 20 is not to be taken literally. That being so why do you want to turn souls into bodies? I guess that is permissible under the dispensational literal? hermeneutic, everything else seems to be.

EE In case you haven't recognized it yet DPT showed you why Revelation 20 should not be taken literally. I am glad you now admit it.

Well EE you have conceded to a non-literal interpretation of Revelation 20, but we are also to use a figurative interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10. [Incidentally us amillennialists know all about figures of speech. DPT gave an excellent summary of the use of time as a figure of speech.] You say "2 Peter 3:10 is a summary of final events, not mentioning all of the, but only the FINAL RESULT (a new heavens and a new earth).". If 2 Peter 3:10 is a summary of the final events how does the Day of the Lord, which you have previously argued represents the 1000, sorry, the X year millennial reign come as a thief in the night since its already here??????

[ March 03, 2005, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

Now we understand the logic behind dispensational doctrine!!!!!!!!!

 

Your mockery of facts is noted - it displays what sort of person you are. Your ignoring opinions of others is noted - it displays what sort of person you shall become.

I note that the the 48-hour day (in the world as a whole) is a simple fact. It has nothing whatsoever to do with dispensatinal doctrine. To even mentione the two together is a logical error called the Non-sequitur.

 

DPT: "Day of the Lord is the day WHEN Christ shall come again, to judge the world."

Here are listed the DIFFERENCES between four future Judgements of Christ. Each could be (and is) called the DAY OF THE LORD. Only one of them comes down in one 8-hour work day. Two of them are 3½-years long. Again, what you or i say 'day' means is an opinion. What 'day' really means to God is the inerrant written Word of God.
-----------------------------------


Five Judgements

The Lord God is a judging God

"To judge" can mean three things in the Holy Bible:

A. to discern between good and evil (human function)
B. to condemn, usually falsely (human function)
C. to reward the just & punish the evil (Godly function)

The Five Judgements:

1. Believers for SIN on the Cross
WHO: All who will Believe
WHEN: 33AD
WHERE: Jerusalem
WHY: The Lord God is a merciful God.
HOW: The Grace of God through Messiah Jesus
WHAT: found innocent by the Bood of Jesus

How to get from judgement 1 to judgement 2
(and avoid judgements 3, 4, or 5):

Romans 10:9 (KJV): "That if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from
the dead, thou shalt be saved."

2. Judgement Seat of Christ
WHO: Believers for works
WHEN: during the Great Tribulation on earth;
Right after the Rapture/Resurrection that starts
the Tribulation
WHERE: Heaven
WHY: to assign rewards (including
the Millinnial Kingdom rest)
to the redeemed for their good works
HOW: The Grace of God through Messiah Jesus
WHAT: found innocent by the Bood of Jesus

3. Judgement of Yisrael under Antichrist
(Ezekiel 22:17-22 Time of Jacob's Trouble; Ezekiel 20:34-38;
Jeremiah 30:1-24; Revelation 6-19)
WHO: Yisrael
WHEN: during the Tribulation
WHERE: earth
WHY: The Lord God fulfills His promises
HOW: The wrath of God by Messiah Jesus
WHAT: Great Tribulation

4. Throne of His Glory judgement
WHO: the nations: the living survivers of the Great Tribulation
(these people are NOT saved, they are human in human bodies)
WHEN: after the Great Tribulation, before the Millennial Age
WHERE: Jerusalem
WHY: The Lord God fulfills His promises: God will bless those
who bless Yisrael and curse those who curse Yisrael
HOW: Judged by their treatment of Yisrael
WHAT: the cursed to Hell; the blessed to the Millennial Age

5. Great White Throne judgement
WHO: the wicked dead
WHEN: after the Millennial Age; before endless ages
WHERE: between Hell and the Lake of Fire
WHY: The Lord God is not mocked
HOW: The wrath of God by Messiah Jesus
WHAT: the Messiah rejectors consigned to endless punishment

NOTE: The delineation of the five revealed
judgements above does not preclude other specific
or general judgements. One place on the net i found
a chart where TWENTY-FOUR judgements were delineated.
The Lord God is a judging God and His hand is not shortened
by His revelation to us nor
by our understaning of His revelation to us.

May Jesus our Savior and our Lord be Praised!

--compilation by ed,
incurable Jesus Phreaque

 

OldRegular: "So you now admit that Revelation 20 is not to be taken literally."

You are a hard man, Brother OldRegular. You misunderstand instead of disagreeing. You have the right to disagree, you have the right to have an alternate opinion, i do not grant you the right to not understand.

There are parts of Revelation 20 to be taken physical and parts to abe taken figuratively/spiritual - both are literal. 'Literal' is not the opposite of 'figurative'; 'physical' is the opposite of 'figurative'. The term '1,000 years' may be figurative of a long time. What the 1,000 years represent - that is taken physical.

 

DPT: "Bible does not teaching us there shall be series or phases of the resurrections in the future."

Sorry, Brother DeafPosttrib, but you cannot defeat my whole essay about the differences between the various future resurrections of with a simple dismissal of the whole essay. My writing shows details from the Bible about the different resurrections that are possible because Jesus was resurrected. Last Sunday in my Sunday School class we studied the last Chapter of Mark abou the Resurrection of Jesus. It is the very nature of GOd to resurrect beginning (in importance, not time-wise) with the Resurreciton of our blessed Lord and Savior - Messiah Yeshua. And it is because of the Resurrection of Jeues that we each can look forward to our own resurrection (unless we are so fortunate /not deserving, blessed by the Grace of God/ as to be raptured at the beginning of the Day of the Lord: the 7-year-day Tribulation period.

 

According to Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary the following definitions apply.

figurative: The nature of or involving a figure of speech, a metaphor, metaphorical, not literal.

literal: In accordance with, involving or being the strict meaning of the word or words, not figurative or metaphorical.

physical: Of or pertaining to that which is material.

spiritual: Of or pertaining to or consisting of spirit; incorporeal. Of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature.

Webster says literal is the opposite of figurative.

Webster says physical is: Of or pertaining to that which is material.

Mr. Edwards I do grant you the right to not understand. I guess that makes me more charitable or patient than you.

 

Mr. Ed

I asked you, way back on the 2nd thread, what kind of bodies the pre-trib resurrected Saints would have in the 1000 year, sorry X year, millennial kingdom. In your busy schedule you have neglected to answer. I really need to know so would appreciete you giving the matter some consideration.

 

[snipped] What does it say about "those that are born again do not sin,...neither cannot sin."
Is this the lifestyle of a Christian?

You have been warned not to name-call (against BB rules), not to refer to others by another name (in particular Darby), and yet persist in doing so.

What inferences do you make in doing so?
1. That you are right and everyone else is wrong-even though you can't prove it.
2. No evidence provided that Darby was the founder of pre-trib, therefore you are the instigator of false accusations, lies, and the propagation thereof.
3. The universal negative "There were no pre-tribbers before Darby," is a logical fallacy and is impossible to prove. [snipped]

Unless you can prove the above statement true, I ask you to refrain from using any name-calling, or I will just delete your posts.

Baptist Board Rules

DHK

[ March 03, 2005, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

What does the Bible say about "all liars?" Seriously?
Or what does it say about "those that are born again do not sin,...neither cannot sin."
Is this the lifestyle of a Christian?

You have been warned not to name-call (against BB rules), not to refer to others by another name (in particular Darby), and yet persist in doing so.

What inferences do you make in doing so?
1. That you are right and everyone else is wrong-even though you can't prove it.
2. No evidence provided that Darby was the founder of pre-trib, therefore you are the instigator of false accusations, lies, and the propagation thereof.
3. The universal negative "There were no pre-tribbers before Darby," is a logical fallacy and is impossible to prove. That statement in itself makes you the liar.

Unless you can prove the above statement true, I ask you to refrain from using any name-calling, or I will just delete your posts.

Baptist Board Rules

DHK </font>[/QUOTE]SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG HERE. I CALL THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE DOCTRINE PROMULGATED BY JOHN NELSON DARBY EITHER DARBYITES, FOLLOWERS OF DARBYISM OR DARBY AND I AM PUBLICLY REBUKED FOR A PERSONAL ATTACK, YET YOU, A MODERATOR, CALL ME A LIAR. IS THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK??? FURTHERMORE, YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE ON THIS FORUM TO CALL ME A LIAR, A HERETIC, IGNORANT, AN UNBELIEVER, A DRUNK, AND VARIOUS OTHER ASSORTED PEJORATIVES. I HAVE DOCUMENTED THAT ON THE PREVIOUS THREAD, YET TRAILBLAZER AND I HAVE BEEN THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY REBUKED.

YOU CORRECTLY STATE THAT I CANNOT PROVE THAT THERE WERE NO BELIEVERS IN A PRE TRIB REMOVAL OF THE CHURCH PRIOR TO THE TEACHINGS OF DARBY. SIMILARLY THERE IS NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF A PRE TRIB REMOVAL OF THE CHURCH EXISTED PRIOR TO DARBY. IF SO WILL YOU PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO SHOW IT TO ME. HOWEVER, IT IS A HISTORICAL FACT THAT JOHN NELSON DARBY, AIDED BY E. I. SCOFIELD AND HIS REFERENCE BIBLE, IS THE FATHER OF THE MODERN DISPENSATIONAL MOVEMENT.

YOU POST THE BAPTIST BOARD RULES WHICH STATE; [4.] PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. YET, TO REITERATE, YOU CALL ME A LIAR. I ASK YOU AGAIN, AS A MODERATOR, IS THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK?

WHY DO FOLLOWERS OF DARBY'S AND SCOFIELD'S TEACHINGS RESENT BEING REFERRED TO BY THAT NAME. ARE THEY ASHAMED OF IT. I AM NOT ASHAMED IF SOMEONE CALLS ME A BAPTIST, OR A CALVINIST, OR AN AMILLENNIALIST [THOUGH AMILLENNIALIST HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AS THE LOWEST OF GOD'S CREATURES ON THIS FORUM, EVEN BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHO SAID “A-mil is the weakest of the four views of eschatology, the least biblical, and associated only with the most liberal of Baptists.”]. I AM NOT EVEN ASHAMED OF BEING CALLED A CHRISTIAN. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT CALLING SOMEONE A LIAR IS A PERSONAL ATTACK BUT PLEASE TELL ME HOW CALLING SOMEONE A FOLLOWER OF DARBY IS A PERSONAL ATTACK.

IF IT IS SHOWN THAT I IMPUGNED THE INTEGRITY OF ANYONE ON THIS FORUM BY CALLING THEM THE NAMES TO WHICH I HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED THEN I WILL APOLOGIZE BUT I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR REFERRING TO SOMEONE AS A FOLLOWER OF DARBY, DARBYISM, SCOFIELD, OR SCOFIELDISM.

IF YOU DISPENSATIONALISTS WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR OWN LITTLE ELITIST WORLD AND SALVE EACH OTHERS OPINIONS THEN SAY SO AND DELETE BAPTIST FROM THE NAME OF THIS FORUM.

I PRESENT BELOW AN EARLIER POST I REFERRED TO ABOVE. AS I HAVE NOTED I HAVE SEEN NO PUBLIC REBUKES RELATED TO ANY OF THESE NAME CALLINGS;

posted March 02, 2005 09:55 AM

DR. Bob

Apparently you have a double standard on this forum. It is OK for those who believe in amillennialism to be called heretics; gnostics, quacks; liars; ignorant; devoid of reason, truth, reality, and intellectual honesty; obscene; evil and sinful; and finally from the most recent post by carlaimpinge I am either a lying dog or a blind drunk..

These remarks are all documented below and I posted them twice on the previous thread except those of March 1. Yet you have not found it necessary to publicly rebuke any of these people. Is it that you agree with their remarks? Is use of Darbyite really that pejorative? After all he is that father of dispensationalism. I won’t say what Scofield is.


Posted by carlaimpinge, March 01, 2005 10:44 PM

We have a imbibing, car driving, Afro-American state legislator here in Montgomery who you remind me of. He is against the Christian right who are pushing to have a law against same sex marriage. He thinks it's nobody's business what goes on in anyone's bedroom EVEN IF they're having sex with an animal.

You're either a lying dog or a blind drunk.

A man sucking the air out of an "intertube" left in our church parking lot could get more out of the Bible than you.


Posted by OldRegular, February 23, 2005 02:59 PM

The following is a summary of remarks by Daniel David directed at various amillennialists. It is not necessarily complete.

The Meat in Daniel David Posts.

February 12, 2005 12:06 AM

Watchman, don't waste your time. I have used that verse and countless others to get amills out of their unbelief, but alas, they would rather believe a lie.


February 13, 2005 12:22 AM

Maybe amills can do more than some pathetic hacheneyed attempt to explain away truth.

Oldreg, I encourage you to stop putting verses into a hat, shaking it up, and then picking one out and then starting over again to get your systematic theology down.

Try exercising thinking skills.


February 13, 2005 01:27 AM

Hardly a secret. It will be a world wide event. The Scriptures tell us that God will send a lie for people to believe after the rapture takes place.

Secret? Not likely.

Another mindless strawman that characterizes all amill thinking skills? Definitely.


February 13, 2005 09:59 PM

Amill theology wasn't even invented until the heretic Origen came along. I know history isn't your strongpoint, but those are the facts.

Amill theology reigned during the dark ages. Nice associations.

I don't expect an answer. To answer these issues truthfully would be to negate amill theology. In other words, to have integrity with the Scripture, you would cease to be amill.


February 14, 2005 07:48 PM

Nice to see you gnostics, errrggg, amills are still alive and well.

Deafposttrib, allow me to lay it out for you, as you have been theologically drugged by amill theology.

I don't understand why amills are so confused, so easily.

Oldreg
I realize you don't have a clue about history, so this point is really for those who have biblical integrity on this issue.

Matt, no one cares about your reconstruction of history and distortion of reality. Liberal theology is a waste of everyone's time. Your post is devoid of reason, truth, reality, and intellectual honesty.


February 15, 2005 07:36 PM

Trailblazer, why do you fear interaction with me? Why can't you answer basic questions? Why are you a gnostic? Why do you sit in judgment upon God's word?

I have demonstrated countless times that premillenialism can be dated all the way back to the disciples of John himself. Do you get that? Can you comprehend such information? Is this going over your head?

The roots of amillenialism can be seen in the writings of the heretic, gnostic Origen. This was quickly followed by the gnostic Augustine.

So, if you want to argue history, man up and deal with the issues and not these mindless retorts about cult leaders. I can trace my beliefs to the disciples of John. I can trace your beliefs to a couple of gnostics.


February 16, 2005 10:56 PM

Matt and Trailblazer, this is good stuff. You see, this is the kind of stuff we need. I love when you amills try to delve into history and theology. Your view is so hopelessly pathetic, it borders on obsene.

I know you both just used google to find your info. However, a student wouldn't be so reckless.

Again, a student would know this instead of some hack amill site that wants to discredit Christianity's first systematic theologian.

Get a copy of his books. Do the research. Stop being ignorant (amill). Come out of shadow and into the light.

I can recommend a few good books that deal with early christian theology.


February 18, 2005 07:51 AM

When you say there are no scriptures supporting the idea of a 1,000 year reign on earth, I know you are simply deceiving yourself.

Again, in Revelation 5:10, saints already in heaven are looking forward to reigning upon the earth. Get that? Reigning upon the earth. Get that? Reigning upon the earth.

I only repeat myself becuase amills lack good thinking skills. Hopefully repitition will aid them.

As for Matthew 19:28, that has to be the absolute worst job I have ever seen. That was almost funny, if it wasn't so tragic that you would actually come up with that stuff.

Sigh, such is the need for all who are gullible enough to believe amillenialism. It is so sad. I hope you don't teach anywhere, for that would be making others to be reckless with the word as well.


February 21, 2005 01:45 PM

dpt, amill is heretical teaching. Your inability to comprehend why doesn't nullify the fact.


February 21, 2005 02:04 PM

It is a gnostic doctrine. Gnosticism is evil and sinful, like your amill theology.


February 21, 2005 05:07 PM

I have already explained the gnosticism in amill theology in the other thread. If you really care, look it up.

Basically, it boils down to seeing the material as evil and the unseen as spiritual. Therefore the kingdom can't be a visible one.

It is thinking like that that moved the heretic Origen and then Augustine to invent amill theology.


February 21, 2005 05:45 PM

sorry oldreg, your little post is hardly the whole of amillenial theology. Whether your post has it or not, I couldn't care less. I was simply pointing out the historical development of amillenial theology.

Further, I am not a "darbyite". For one, I believe in one people of God. That alone severs me from that connection, so your continued usage of that term toward me demonstrates a cowardice on your part to actually deal with the issues.


February 23, 2005 01:24 PM

The lengths you quacks go to to defend your catholic/gnostic theology is quite amazing.

 

[snipped]

[ March 03, 2005, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Then please tell me what is wrong with referring to those who adhere to the doctrine, which I believe you admitted was formulated or formalized by Darby, as followers of Darby or Darbyism? I am curious.

Incidentally I was called a lying dog or a blind drunk on March 1, this thread, post #7, page 2, by carlaimpinge. I did not see any public rebuke. That is not 3 weeks back.

 

Dr. Bob

Are you going to rebuke DHK for calling me a liar?

 

[snipped - banned word used against stated policy. If continued violation occurs, poster will lose privilege of posting here.]

[ March 03, 2005, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

So, much for Christian behavior by a Pastor...