Posted on 08/27/2002 4:44:19 PM PDT by xzins
"In verse 20:9 - Where are the saints...on earth or in heaven? What city are they in....Jerusalem or Milwaukee?"
When does verse 9 take place? Before, During or After the '1000' years?
(Hint, look at verse 7)
Jean
Are you wanting me to dig you out of your quagmire? (Anyway, I am way too busy at present to get any more involved in this discussion, and it won't get any better for about 3 weeks.)
Even if Justin Martyr speaks of the saints ruling with Christ in Jerusalem, and not Milwaukee, why does this negate an a-mill position? Don't you expect that the new heavens, and the new earth (to include the new Jerusalem) are going to last forever?
I think that you haven't thought enough about this yet.
~ASSUMING~ this is a factually true statement (that it was the majority opinion may not be the case -again, evidence suggest this indeed may not be the case and the 'majority' position is not ~necessarily~ the correct decision), one could make the same statement regarding the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages.
Jean
how about: "hope for you yet....like me except for these chains."
Even I thought it was getting long as I wrote it. The verse list makes it look longer than it is, but that's no excuse.
Nonetheless, I hate long posts and point/counterpoints on every statement that end up stretching out into infinity.
After the 1000 years years are completed during which the saints were in "the camp of the saints and the beloved city."
Satan is shortly disposed of and is THEN thrown into the location where the beast & false prophet have ALREADY been for 1000 years.
That is a perfectly logical, literal rendering of the sequences of those verses. It is the premil position.
Do you stick by the statement that the premil position is simply "bonkers?"
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
The third day he rose again from the dead:
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
I believe in the Holy Ghost:
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
The forgiveness of sins:
The resurrection of the body:
And the life everlasting. Amen.
You seem to be indicating that it was ~the~ position of the early church, as in the ~only~ position or even the ~dominant~ position. That is debateable. The Apostles Creed -the earliest creed of the Christian Chruch- is clearly Amillenial.
"The premil position cannot lightly be dismissed as "bonkers." It is and has been from the founding of the church, a powerfully legitimate position."
I ~clearly~ called Pre-Tribulational Pre-Millenialism "bonkers" (as in nonsense). Pre-Tribulational (Dispensational) Pre-Millenialism has ~not~ 'been from the founding of the church'! It was invented about 170 years ago and ~never~ existed before then! It is Historical/Classical Pre-Millenialism (which is ~not~ Dispensational Pre-Millenialism) which existed in the early church.
I ~clearly~ did not call Historical/Classical Pre-Millenialism "bonkers".
"Just the lengths you're going to in arguing against it proves that it's occupied a large place in your thoughts and is on the short list of positions contrary to amillenialism against which you've developed a position."
Since I have yet to see the Pre-Millenial position (any variety) laid out in Scriture, so I have yet to argue against it.
Interestingly, I keep asking for Scripture and you keep pointing me to Justin Martyr!?!
"It is, IMO, the correct position."
Then you should be able to ~clearly~ demonstrate it from Scripture -which you have yet to do!
Jean
It also fits perfectly with the amil position which has Christ returning to earth at his 2nd coming, instituting Judgement and then ushering in the New Heavens and the New Earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). (It fits better with the passage, too!)
"Do you stick by the statement that the premil position is simply "bonkers?" "
Historical/Classical Pre-Millennialism? No -never said this position was "bonkers" -just confusing. Pre-Tribulational (Dispensational) Pre-MIllennialism and it's close cousins? Yes, absolutely!
Jean
Then I have no problem. I've already said that amillenialism is a valid position. I think the premil position is more faithful to a literal rendering of scripture, an observation of the current state of earth, and to the beliefs of the early church.
By the way, do I understand correctly that amill in general thinks that Satan is now bound in the abyss?
I, of course, completely disagree that the 'premil position is more faithful to a literal rendering of scripture'. I have repeatedly asked you for scripture that specifically describes a 1000 year earthly kingdom ~after~ the 2nd Coming of Christ and before He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth.
That you have failed quite miserably to provide a shred of evidence other than Justin Martyr, who is not a Canonnical writer, seems to be contrary to your statement that the pre-mil position is 'more faithful to a literal rendering of scripture'. Somehow, a specific description of a 1000 year earthly reign after the 2nd Coming of Christ and before He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth seems to be missed by ~all~ the NT writers.
"By the way, do I understand correctly that amill in general thinks that Satan is now bound in the abyss?"
As the words of Rev 20:3 declare, Satan was bound for a very specific reason: "that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled".
(The Rev 20 passage also explains that Satan will be released 'after the 1000 years are completed' and for a very specific reason -vs 7,8-...to deceive the nations once again. It's interesting how this fits in with the description of the Tribulation in Matthew 24 as well as the description of the coming Apostasy in 1 Timothy 4:1-5)
Yes, we do believe Satan was bound at Christ's first coming as the Gospels record Christ's words declaring such:
Matthew 12:29
Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
Mark 3:27
No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
Just who do you think the 'strong man' might be in reference to?
John 12:31
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Interesting, isn't it, that with Christ's first coming, something unique happend that ~never~ happened before in the history of the Church. The gospel was spread through all the nations. It makes one think that perhaps the reason Satan was bound as stated in Revelation 20:3 might have some application to this fact.
I don't think the 'abyss' is a literal physical place any more than the 'chains' Satan is 'bound' with are physical chains. How can 'physical' chains bind a spiritual being?
I am truly puzzled as to why you ask for this reference when it is contained twice in the very chapter under discussion.
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection : on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Rev 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth,...
Clearly this comes before the Great White throne judgement of Rev 20:11-15 You really have to at least exegete the whole of chapter 20 in context to ellucidate your position.
Then you can go on and explain for example, how the prophesy of Zechariah 14:16-21 fits with your view.
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:17 And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
Zec 14:21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
Yes, Rev 20 makes reference to a '1000' year reign (actually two of them). But it never mentions that this takes place on earth after Christ's 2nd Coming and before He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth (the specific context of my question). (In fact, it never specifically mentions his presense on Earth at all -perhaps in vs 11 and after, but that, again, is an inference.)
You see, this Pre-Millennial teaching is said to be 'clear' and to be a 'literal' interpretation of Rev 20. The words of Rev. 20 simply say absolutley nothing at all about Christ being on earth and ruling over Israel for 1000 years ~after~ his 2nd Coming and ~before~ he ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth. I, no doubt, see the '1000' years. What I'm having trouble doing is connecting the '1000' years to an earthly reign of Christ which takes place ~after~ the 2nd Coming and ~before~ He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth.
Yes, '1000' years is mentioned in Rev. 20, but narry a word explaining that this is after the 2nd Coming and before the New Heavens and New Earth. Rev 20 doesn't specify. No NT writer specifies this. Even 2 Peter 3, which makes specific and explicit mention of the events of Christ's 2nd Coming and His ushering in of the New Heavens and the New Earth, fails to mention a 1000 year earthly reign of Christ in between. Did he forget?
As to your Zecharia passage. No mention of this being a time of 1000 years. No mention that this 'time' comes after Christ's 2nd Coming and before He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth.
I'm looking for explicit and specific mention in Scripture that there will be a time of 1000 years in which Christ will reign over the nation of Israel after his 2nd Coming and before He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth.
Both passages say nothing of the sort.
Jean
I have repeatedly told you that the scripture is right there in chapters 19 and 20. A shred? How about the listing of settings from Ch 19 & 20....you complained about it being a longer post, so you must have seen it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.