Don't have alot of time now so let me pick off the low hanging fruit ...
The ones taken are taken away into judgment at the return of Christ ... there is no rapture in Matt 24. OK, but you just said that there was no judgment of unbelievers at the first resurrection.
I should have been more clear ... the "taken away into judgment" that is mentioned in Matt 24 is merely death. At the second coming Christ kills all unbelievers. Their final judgment awaits the GWT judgment after the MK. Sorry about that.
But there are no unbelievers going into the MK, correct? So where do they come from?
At the beginning of the MK there are no unbelievers. You have believing Jews and Gentiles only. But just like today, life will go on (albiet with some pretty radical changes as mentioned in the last post) ... and both Jews and Gentiles will still have children. This is mentioned in the Isaiah passage. And just like today, some of them may not believe, though there is variation in dispensational though as to whether there will be any unbelieving Jews. Some would say no based on the New Covenant passage in Jer. 31 ... "they will all know Me."
Where there's sin there's misery. There will still be death so there is misery. There will be unbelievers so there will be misery. No?
Yes, I agree, there will be a degree of misery because of what you have said. But Im missing your point though. I think with the radical changes to the earth that much of the misery that exists today will be gone. What are the sources of misery that we experience today? Lots of them. Starvation on entire continents; that will be gone. Accidents, natural disasters; those will be gone. Infant mortality; gone. Down the list. There will be some to be sure ... but nothing like today. Total absence of it will happen in the eternal state ...
A rod of iron cannot deal with our misery. Sin is the root of human misery. Until you finally deal with sin, you will have misery. And in the dispensational scheme, Jesus doesn't finally deal with sin and death until after the thousand years, no? No, a rod of iron cannot deal totally with our misery. The rod of iron seems to be related to how Christ will rule the nations. Many of the sources of human misery will be done away with in the MK. For example, we will not have human trafficking, there will be no poverty or war or famine, no infant mortality, etc. etc. etc. Correct, sin and death will finally be dealt with in the eternal state ... after the loosing of Satan, his defeat, the GWT judgment ... then on to the eternal state.
But deception is only one kind of sin. Rev. 20 says nothing about all the other sins that cause folks to stumble.
Which we are all susceptable to because of our sin nature. We don't need Satan to help us sin, we are capable of fouling things up all by ourselves. And I suppose that will be the great lesson of the MK ... that in spite of Jesus visible presence, perfect human environment to live in ... men still have the capacity to sin in and of themselves. Yes, I as a dispensationalist believe Calvin was correct in many things.
A rather large group of people, if you take a “literal” view of Rev. 20. He gathers all the nations against the camp of the saints. The image is of an overwhelming hoard, so large that they must be rescued by fire from heaven. Jesus on earth is apparently powerless to do anything, in the dispensational scheme.
Of course He is not powerless to do anything about it. The mere fact that He destroys them all attests to that. Why doesnt He destroy all unbelievers today and get on with the eternal state? Lots of reasons ... but the bottom line; thats not the plan.
Do you believe there will be a majority or minority of saved people with Jesus in the camp at this time?
Good question. I don't know. Seems like a priori that most people would be believers ... but as you have said, there are enough unbelievers from the nations to form a massive insurgency; which Christ deals with pretty much immediately.
I have to leave it at that for now ... more later ... thanks for the references.
So what coming and judgment is being pictured in Matt. 25:31ff?
31 " When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.It says “when He comes … then He will judge.”
32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
But, as I pointed out, the Isaiah 65 passage is speaking “literally” of the new heavens and new earth. It seems to me you need to address that problem vis-à-vis dispensationalism before you can apply Isaiah 65 to your MK scenario.
What radical changes in particular? Sinners will still be present, and sin ultimately is the source of our misery. Believers will, at some point, be producing unbelieving children (a true source of misery). Even with the resurrected Jesus personally hanging out in Jerusalem and available on big screen TV around the world, unbelief and sin will apparently flourish, at least at the end. Loved ones, both saved and unsaved, will still be dying.
Seems to me the most radical changes happen during the new heavens and new earth, in the dispensational system.
BTW, where are the resurrected/immortal rapture saints during this time and what are they doing?
In this section:
7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison“whose number is as the sand of the sea” – if we take that statement literally, doesn’t that indicate a very large number of unbelievers?
8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.
9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.
Where is Jesus residing during this event? If the fire comes down from God out of heaven, where does it say that Jesus destroys them? Unless, perhaps, Jesus is in heaven at this time.
How much of your views would you say is based on inference and how much is based on a literal reading of the text?