Jump to content
IGNORED

Why are people denying that Christ is presently a King?


Limey_Bob

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  327
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   172
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/30/2017
  • Status:  Offline

I am shocked at people denying Christ's work as King:

 

On another thread, I posted at length on a thread attempting to prove that Christ is currently King over his Kingdom, this Kingdom rule is spiritual, for since his ascension into heaven, Christ has been ruling as King over his deceased saints (in heaven), this is not some geographic reign based upon this earth, but a spiritual reign which will last until his second coming. Robert Redmond in his "New Systematic Theology of the Christian faith" on page 990, footnote 18 confirms this interpretation, that the "Kingdom of Heaven / Kingdom of God," both terms being fully interchangeable: "refers primarily to the reign, dominion or rule of God, and only secondarily to the realm over which his reign is exercised."

 

It has therefore shocked me that I have been personally and repeatedly attacked, as both a (non-Christian) deist, as well as somebody who has been "seduced by the enemy" (meaning Satan), for advocating orthodox Christian theology, which would be accepted world-world in any number of non-American Fundamentalist Christian Churches for two thousand years. I am not some heretic for advocating orthodoxy, American evangelicals might regard their own particular brand of Fundamentalism as "the only Christian truth," but the reality is that other Christians regard theology differently, and as I have discovered, the ungraciousness, and the deliberate misrepresentations of their opponents position discredits their own testimony.

 

Possibly the only way to discuss this online, is in a one on one moderated debate, as it seems that tempers quickly rise, but most annoying of all, it seems that no attempt whatsoever is made to even listen to the other side, by some, who delight in then dictating to the other side a series of deliberate "straw man" misrepresentations which are simply designed discredit me and my statements. When this happens no discussion is even possible, as one side is simply refusing to be fair. May I therefore throw open the offer of a one on one debate. I will outline below a few corrections of the most obvious errors which people have accused me of promoting, I may not respond to posts here in this thread, for the simple reason that I expect to be ignored and constantly misrepresented, however, a one on one debate does interest me.

 

·         Am I a Preterist?  No I am not, I reject this claim that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70, as far as I am concerned, much of the Book of Revelation has still to be fulfilled, such as the appearance of beast, false prophet and mark 666 of chapter 13.

 

·         Am I a deist?  No, I am not. God is not some wound up clock, moved by nature. God is Triune, an eternal omnipotent being who possesses self-will and sovereignty. In the 1980s I was briefly a Oneness Pentecostal, so the Trinity is now vital to me.

 

·         Being a Post-Millennialist don't I believe that things will get better and better? No I do not expect an ever improving world. I have pointed out repeatedly that not all Pre-Millennialists or Post-Millennialists believe and teach exactly the very same thing, the great 19th century Baptist Preacher C.H. Spurgeon was a Pre-Millennialist, yet his type of Pre-Millennialism rejected both the rapture, and the sharp dividing up the Jews from the Church, which almost all American Pre-Millennialists, who are dispensationalist futurists believe and teach. So likewise, my own Post-Millennialism sees the Kingdom (since the ascension and until the second coming), as a spiritual Kingdom which is currently situated in heaven, and I would not regard it as a geographic physical Kingdom upon this earth, which is created by things getting better and better as the Millennial Reign, as most Post-Millennialists will claim.

·         Do I believe in the rapture? That depends on how you define the rapture? For some people in this forum, whom I note are both American and Fundamentalist, the rapture is defined as "thinking exactly as I do," so by that definition I must reject the rapture. However, if by the rapture you mean that on the last day and at the last hour, the people of God are caught up to meet the Lord Jesus in the air, then I would say that I would certainly agree with that particular definition of the rapture.

 

·         Do I regard the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven as two different Kingdoms?  No, God only has one people (Galatians 3:28), and one Kingdom, Robert Redmond in his "New Systematic Theology of the Christian faith" on page 538, points out that the terms "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are interchangeable (contrast Matthew 13:11 with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10); so "both terms refer to the sovereign rule of God." Remember that Redmond, on page 990, footnote 18 points our that the terms "the Kingdom;" "refers primarily to the reign, dominion or rule of God, and only secondarily to the realm over which his reign is exercised." So when I talk about the Kingdom, I am referring to something which I'd regard as currently spiritual, whilst almost all Post-Millennialists and (American) Pre-Millennialists, when they refer to the Kingdom, they do so not in the primarily sense as the spiritual rule of God, but referring to some geographic location. So we are at cross purposes, in that our definitions of the word "Kingdom" are not the same.

 

·         Do I reject the Millennium?  No, the words "a thousand years" are used six times in Revelation 20, I would regard four of these as referring from Adam to Christ, and two occurrences, which mention of the reign of Christ (Revelation 20:4 and 6), as referring to Christ's present rule in heaven (a spiritual rule over his deceased saints). So unless I am mistaken, I'd regard the Millennial reign of Christ as spiritual, in heaven, and for two periods of "a thousand years" which makes a Millennial reign of Christ a period of two thousand years from his ascension until his second coming.

 

·         Do I reject the idea that Christ will reign upon the earth? No, Revelation 5:10 states of God's saints that: "we shall reign on the earth," so I would expect Christ our King to be here to, whether that is permanently or not I choose not to speculate. However, this reign of Christ on the earth, will be after the Millennial (Spiritual) reign of Christ (in heaven) has finished, at his second coming he returns to this world and only then, in the eternal state, will Christ then establish his physical and geographic (eternal) rule upon this earth from the city of Jerusalem.

 

·         Aren't the Jews on the earth and the Church in heaven eternally? No, that's taught in the Schofield Reference Bible notes, but not in the Bible itself. If you look on YouTube for the sermon: "Dispensationalism" by Stuart Olyott, in it he explains rather well the error of dividing up the people one God into two different groups with two different hopes. It's all based upon the faulty hermeneutic of using the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament, rather than the other way a round.

 

·         Aren't we arguing over semantics? Well I am not the one insulting others, and condemning people as satanic! As for dispensational theology, so beloved by American Fundamentalists, it has been undergoing a series of radical changes since the publication of the Revised Schofield Reference Bible in 1967. For American Fundamentalists in these forums to ignore challenges coming from their own scholars such as many from Dallas Theological Seminary, is to put your head in the sand! Classical Dispensationalism, as found is your typical Southern Baptist and Pentecostal church at pew level, is seriously being challenged by many of your top and most renouned dispensational scholars, who have developed more moderate forms of dispensational theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  30
  • Topic Count:  265
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  13,130
  • Content Per Day:  3.50
  • Reputation:   8,461
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/06/1947

29 minutes ago, Limey_Bob said:

I am shocked at people denying Christ's work as King:

·         Do I reject the idea that Christ will reign upon the earth? No, Revelation 5:10 states of God's saints that: "we shall reign on the earth," so I would expect Christ our King to be here to, whether that is permanently or not I choose not to speculate. However, this reign of Christ on the earth, will be after the Millennial (Spiritual) reign of Christ (in heaven) has finished, at his second coming he returns to this world and only then, in the eternal state, will Christ then establish his physical and geographic (eternal) rule upon this earth from the city of Jerusalem.

 

Hi Limey Bob,

I`ll just make a few comments on a couple of points there, bro.

Actually the Lord holds many Kingships, He is called the king of heaven, the king of glory, the king of the ages, the king of Israel, the king of Judah....

As to the Lord actually ruling on the earth physically, the word in Rev. 5: 10 is the Greek word `epi` which means over or on, so you would have to have other scriptures to back up which word you think. Also we know that God the Father has exalted the ascended Lord `far above all.` (Eph. 1: 21) `in this age & the one to come.` Thus I do not see the Lord vacating His seat of power in the third heaven, far above all & moving to His `footstool,` which the earth is.

regards, Marilyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  327
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   172
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/30/2017
  • Status:  Offline

I am not the one who has been insulting and stated that Christ is NOT reigning now as King. Several other people in these forums have argued that Christ is not now a king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  327
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   172
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/30/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Christ's present rule (since the ascension until his second coming) is spiritual in heaven and it is NOT CURRENTLY UPON THIS EARTH SITTING ON SOME THRONE IN JERUSALEM. However, Christ will return to this earth and when he does, then the rule (reign / kingdom of God) will be literal, physical and he will literally rule from a throne in Jerusalem over some physical geographic locality. The trouble is that we are using the word "kingdom" in one way, i.e. that it is currently spiritual, and in heaven, whilst most people in this forum being American Fundamentalists understand the word "kingdom" as only referring to a physical, literal geographic rule of Christ from the city of Jerusalem. So when I explain that to me the "kingdom" is currently spiritual and in heaven and it is not some literal geographic location upon this earth, they look incredulously at me, as to them you cannot have a spiritual kingdom in heaven, a kingdom must always be literal and physical and geographic upon this earth. So they are not allowing me to define my own terms, as it happens Robert Redmond in his reference book:   "New Systematic Theology of the Christian faith" on page 990, footnote 18 confirms this interpretation of mine, that the "Kingdom of Heaven / Kingdom of God," both terms being fully interchangeable: "refers primarily to the reign, dominion or rule of God, and only secondarily to the realm over which his reign is exercised."

 

So to summarize I can now understand the problem, when I say Christ rules now in heaven over a spiritual kingdom, some other people understand that to be the very polar opposite of what I have just said, because to American Fundamentalism, a spiritual Kingdom cannot exist. So whenever I say "spiritual kingdom" they ignore the word spiritual and then argue (quite accurately), that Christ is not now in the year 2017 reigning on some throne in Jerusalem, over some geographic physical location. But when I try to correct them and say no:  "Spiritual, it's a spiritual kingdom in heaven," they again completely blank out the word "spiritual" and "heaven," as to them a spiritual kingdom in heaven simply cannot exist, and so they just take that word "kingdom" and then twist my words to make them mean that as in the normal Post-Millennial position, I am claiming that the church is creation the Millennium by its preaching or by some similar gradual extension. But I never said or implied that, I claim the very polar opposite! They always filter out what I say, so that it then fits their own eschatology, but they do this even when I try to argue against them, and so even then when I say "spiritual kingdom" over and over again, they completely ignore the word "spiritual" and make me out (falsely) be claiming that Christ is now now ruling from Jerusalem, as they make my word fit their theology.

 

This is rather confusing and complicated, but I am now finally getting to understand why people think as they do and why we are at cross purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  327
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   172
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/30/2017
  • Status:  Offline

 

With regard to speaking at cross purposes, I have experienced something like this before with Jehovah's Witnesses (JW), when in talking to them, they reacted peculiarly whenever I used the words "cross" or "trinity." We would be having a decent conversation, but whenever I mention those two words the JW then reacts to those words as Dracula would to garlic, they recoil in horror and obviously switch off and completely ignore anything that I say from that point onward! They do this because in JW theology, both the cross and trinity are regarded as evil doctrines and so by merely mentioning these words, you are now said to be bringing demons into the room and possibly even in the poor frightened Jehovah's Witnesses.  

 

I have found that the only solution is to avoid using these two words, so instead of the word "cross" I'll speak of Christ's work on the tree or stake (even though he did die upon a cross) and instead of "Trinity, " I'd speak of Jehovah's arrangement or Yahweh God. Sadly I can now see that a similar misunderstanding has arisen in these forums regarding the word "kingdom," and the complete refusal of American Fundamentalists (influenced by Dispensationalism) to even consider, yet alone accept the possibility that a kingdom could be spiritual.

 

So even though I repeat myself and state over and over again that I believe that Christ is ruling now, in heaven, but it's a spiritual reign over disincarnate spirits i.e. "souls" in heaven at Revelation 20:4. Despite my saying spiritual over and over again, that word "spiritual" is filtered out so that the Fundamentalist can then reinterpret my words as a physical, literal and geographic Kingdom (from Jerusalem), as that is how Fundamentalists see it in the still future. In simple words, they refuse to allow me to define my own terminology, and every time that I say kingdom, they then wrongly assume that I am defining this word just as they do (physically and literally), when (confusingly) I do not do that with regard to Christ's present rule in the year 2017, but I would certainly agree with their definition with regard to the kingdom being literal and geographic in the eternal state (i.e. after Christ's second coming).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  30
  • Topic Count:  265
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  13,130
  • Content Per Day:  3.50
  • Reputation:   8,461
  • Days Won:  12
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/06/1947

Yes Bob, language & our views can make understanding difficult. Takes patience to understand each other.

regards, Marilyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  327
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   172
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/30/2017
  • Status:  Offline

I have revised my first post, I spent hours on this. I hope that it clarifies my position further. thank you. Might I clarify that I do welcome constructive criticism, I do make mistakes, my posts and claims are not perfect or gospel truth, there are merely my opinions and I can get things wrong. However folks, please address what i actually say, and do not misrepresent me as some in these forums have done, as nobody will learn from somebody dismissing straw man arguments against my claims.

 

...................................................

 

I am shocked at people denying Christ's work as King (REVISED POST):

 

On another thread, I posted at length on a thread attempting to prove that Christ is currently King over his Kingdom, this Kingdom rule is spiritual, for since his ascension into heaven, Christ has been ruling as King over his saints (but primarily the dead saints in heaven), this is not some geographic reign upon this earth, but a spiritual reign, over all of his saints, which will last until his second coming. Thus Revelation 20:4 calls his subjects "souls" for they are disincarnate spirits in what is called, the intermediate state. Theologian Robert Redmond in his book: "New Systematic Theology of the Christian faith" on page 990, footnote 18 confirms this interpretation, for he states that the "Kingdom of Heaven / Kingdom of God," both terms being fully interchangeable: "refers primarily to the reign, dominion or rule of God, and only secondarily to the realm over which his reign is exercised."

 

It has therefore shocked me that I have been personally and repeatedly attacked, as both a (non-Christian) deist, as well as somebody who has been "seduced by the enemy" (meaning Satan), for advocating orthodox Christian theology, which would be accepted world-world in any number of non-American Fundamentalist Christian Churches for two thousand years. I am not some heretic for advocating orthodoxy, American evangelicals might regard their own particular brand of Fundamentalism as "the only Christian truth," but the reality is that other Christians regard theology differently, and as I have discovered, the ungraciousness, and the deliberate misrepresentations of their opponents position discredits their own testimony.

 

Possibly the only way to discuss this online, is in a one on one moderated debate, as it seems that tempers quickly rise, but most annoying of all, it seems that no attempt whatsoever is made to even listen to the other side, by some, who delight in then dictating to the other side a series of deliberate "straw man" misrepresentations which are simply designed discredit me and my statements. When this happens no discussion is even possible, as one side is simply refusing to be fair. May I therefore throw open the offer of a one on one debate. I will outline below a few corrections of the most obvious errors which people have accused me of promoting, I may not respond to posts here in this thread, for the simple reason that I expect to be ignored and constantly misrepresented, however, a one on one debate does interest me.

 

·         Am I a Preterist?  No I am not, I reject the preterist claim that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70! So as far as I am concerned, much of the Book of Revelation has still to be fulfilled, such as the appearance of the beast, the false prophet and the forcible implementation of the mark 666 of chapter 13. Although I cannot yet prove it, I suspect that this mark will include a DNA upgrade, a genetic modification of human DNA, so that Christ cannot then save people who are no longer fully human.

 

·         Am I a deist?  No, I am not. God is not some wound up clock, moved by nature. God is Triune, an eternal omnipotent being who possesses self-will and sovereignty. In the 1980s I was briefly a Oneness Pentecostal, so the Trinity is now vital to me.

 

·         Do I believe in the rapture? That depends on how you define the rapture? For some people in this forum, whom I note are both American and Fundamentalist, the rapture is defined as "thinking exactly as I do," so by that definition I must reject the rapture. However, if by the rapture you mean that on the last day and at the last hour, the people of God are caught up to meet the Lord Jesus in the air, then I would say that I would certainly agree with that particular definition of the rapture.

 

·         Being a Post-Millennialist don't I believe that things will get better and better? No I do not expect an ever improving world. I have pointed out repeatedly that not all Pre-Millennialists or Post-Millennialists believe and teach exactly the very same thing. The great 19th century Baptist Preacher C. H. Spurgeon was a Pre-Millennialist, yet his type of Pre-Millennialism rejected the rapture, and the dividing up the Jews from the Church, which almost all American Pre-Millennialists, being dispensationalist futurists teach. So likewise, my own Post-Millennialism sees the Kingdom (since the ascension and until the second coming), as a spiritual Kingdom which is currently situated in heaven, and I would not regard it as currently a geographic physical Kingdom upon this earth, created by things getting better and better due to a "Millennial Reign," as most Post-Millennialists have claimed.

 

·         Do I regard the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven as two different Kingdoms?  No, God only has one people (Galatians 3:28), and one Kingdom, Robert Redmond in his "New Systematic Theology of the Christian faith" on page 538, points out that the terms "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are interchangeable (contrast Matthew 13:11 with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10); so "both terms refer to the sovereign rule of God." Remember that Redmond, on page 990, footnote 18 points our that the term "Kingdom;" "refers primarily to the reign, dominion or rule of God, and only secondarily to the realm over which his reign is exercised." So when I talk about the Kingdom, I am referring to something which I'd regard as currently spiritual, whilst almost all Post-Millennialists and (American) Pre-Millennialists, when they refer to the Kingdom, they do so not in the primarily sense as the spiritual rule of God, but referring to a secondary geographic location. So we are at cross purposes, because our definitions of "Kingdom" differs.

 

·         Do I reject the Millennium?  No, the words "thousand years" are used six times in Revelation 20, I would regard four of these as referring to 4,000 years from Adam to Christ, and two occurrences, which mention of the reign of Christ (Revelation 20:4 and 6), as referring to Christ's present rule in heaven (a spiritual rule over his saints). So unless I am mistaken, I'd regard the Millennial reign of Christ as spiritual, in heaven, and for two periods of "a thousand years" which makes a Millennial reign a period of two thousand years from Christ's ascension until his second coming.

 

·         Do I reject the idea that Christ will reign upon the earth? No, Revelation 5:10 states of God's saints that: "we shall reign on the earth," so I would expect Christ our King to be here too, whether that is permanently or not I choose not to speculate. However, this reign of Christ on the earth, will be after the Millennial (Spiritual) reign of Christ (in heaven) has finished, at his second coming he returns to this world and only then, in the eternal state, will Christ then establish his physical and geographic (eternal) rule upon this earth from the city of Jerusalem.

 

·         Aren't the Jews on the earth and the Church in heaven eternally? No, that's taught in the Schofield Reference Bible notes, but not in the Bible itself. If you look on YouTube for the sermon: "Dispensationalism" by Stuart Olyott, in it he explains rather well the error of dividing up the people one God into two different groups with two different hopes. It's all based upon the faulty hermeneutic of using the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament, rather than the other way a round.

 

·         If I am correct, when does the Spiritual reign of Christ (in heaven) end, and the literal and physical (geographic) reign of Christ begin?   At the second coming.

 

·         Aren't we arguing over semantics? Well I am not the one insulting others, and condemning others as satanic! As for dispensational theology, so beloved by American Fundamentalists, it has been undergoing a series of radical changes since the publication of the Revised Schofield Reference Bible in 1967. American Fundamentalists in these forums, cannot simply ignore the many challenges coming from their own scholars, such as those scholars at Dallas Theological Seminary, nicknamed the Vatican of dispensational theology, to your own system. To ignore the now overwhelming scholarly criticisms of the Schofield Reference Bible, upon which classical dispensationalism is based, would be to put your head in the sand!

 

·         What are the key issues in this complicated subject? Stuart Olyott in a now dated, but informative YouTube sermon titled: "dispensationalism,", has given a mnemonic (LAZER) which sums this up. It describes how in the dispensational system, one assumption then forces the next assumption, so that like dominoes, if you assume one thing then you'll consequently assume a whole range of things. To be fair this sermon is now rather dated and over harsh in its criticisms, it does not explain how scholarly dispensationalism has greatly moderated since the 1960s, so that modern progressive dispensationalists such as John McArthur, whom I would personally greatly respect, hold to a form of dispensationalism which is far closer to covenant theology than that of the freemason C. I. Schofield. The five points of LAZER are: (1) Take the Bible literally, using the Old Testament promises to the Jews to then reinterpret the New Testament. (2) Then you'll be forced to regard the Church as a mere afterthought, which was never in God's eternal plan.  (3) God has seven dispensations and saves people in different ways with different gospels in each dispensation (progressive dispensationalists reject this). (4) In eternity, the Church goes to heaven and Jews inherit the earth, so God has two separate peoples with two separate hopes.  (5) The rapture divides up the Church from the Jews, so that never the twain shall meet.

 

·         What are the worrying implications of this whole debate?  Nobody including myself gets everything absolutely right, I'm still learning and have much more to learn. But after a Christian walk of some 32 years now, sadly I've come to the conclusion that so much of what calls itself Christian, doesn't represent Christ at all, and that at the judgement he will say: "I never knew you, depart from me you who practice lawlessness!" (Matthew 7:23). Please do not think that I am pointing the finger only at those dispensationalists in these forums whom I happen to disagree with, not at all, I myself am reformed, yet we are every bit as bad as the Dispensationalists, Pentecostals, Charismatics and others who claim the name of Christ. Living as I do in Plymouth in the UK, where GOD TV is based, I see the most appalling apostasy here within local Churches. Which is why I no longer attend any fellowship, run by a clergy class, within a building called a church. Most Evangelical Church leaders here in Plymouth are functionally non-Trinitarian, as the Trinity is often misdefined by uneducated leaders making it up as they go as either tri-theism or modalism. This then has a terrible knock on effect on the person and work of Christ, which few church leaders can define accurately. Finally, if you get the Trinity and Christ wrong, then your gospel will also be wrong! However, the worst are the many abuses and lack of love shown by church leaders. The uncorrectable pride demonstrated by so many lazy, ignorant Christians (local to me) is simply shameful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
10 minutes ago, Limey_Bob said:

      Do I reject the Millennium?  No, the words "thousand years" are used six times in Revelation 20, I would regard four of these as referring to 4,000 years from Adam to Christ, and two occurrences, which mention of the reign of Christ (Revelation 20:4 and 6), as referring to Christ's present rule in heaven (a spiritual rule over his saints). So unless I am mistaken, I'd regard the Millennial reign of Christ as spiritual, in heaven, and for two periods of "a thousand years" which makes a Millennial reign a period of two thousand years from Christ's ascension until his second coming.

 

So why does the 1000 years sequentially follow the return of Jesus in Revelation 20, rather than the return of Jesus following the 1000 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  327
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   172
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/30/2017
  • Status:  Offline

23 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

So why does the 1000 years sequentially follow the return of Jesus in Revelation 20, rather than the return of Jesus following the 1000 years?

Firstly, it's not one thousand years, this phrase is actually mentioned six times, and six times one thousand makes six thousand years, not one thousand. Secondly, of these six references, four of them have no reference whatsoever to the throne of God (Revelation 20:2, 3, 5 and 7), but two references do indeed refer to God's throne (at Revelation 20:4 and 6), so I would assume that four of these periods of one thousand years refer from the four thousand year time period from Adam to Christ, and two of these (those which are directly related to the throne of God: which is in heaven at Revelation 4:2), refer to the Church age from the Ascension to Second Coming, which is two thousand years. The binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1, must have taken place is at the cross, see Colossians 2:15:  And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Finally, Revelation 20 covers the whole sweep of the church age, it begins with the binding of Satan at the cross (Revelation 20:1), go on to include the entire Church age, where Christ is currently ruling in heaven over the “souls” (Revelation 20:4) of his saints, who are extant but without human bodies in what is known as in the intermediate state. It then goes onto describe the battle of Armageddon which marks Satan’s final defeat (Revelation 20:8), and include Satan’s judgment (Revelation 20:10), and finally the judgement of wicked human beings before the great white throne (Revelation 20:11-15). To make the assumption that there is a single period of one thousand years, in complete isolation from the other five periods of time is mistaken. It is also mistaken to assume that Christ returns at the start of one of these single periods of a thousand years, people assume that, but they cannot prove it.

Edited by Limey_Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
2 hours ago, Limey_Bob said:

It's not 1,000 years, it's actually mentioned six times and six times one thousand makes six thousand years. Of these four have no reference to the throne of God and two do refer to God's throne (at Revelation 20:4 and 20:6), so I would assume that four of these refer from Adam to Christ and two (those related to the throne of God - which is in heaven at Revelation 4:2) refer to the Church age from the Ascension to Second Coming. The binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1 is at the cross, so this is covering the whole sweep of human history, including the Church age where Christ is ruling in heaven over his saints in the intermediate state.

No, there is a specific period of 1,000 years that sequentially follows the return of Jesus.   I am referring to THAT limited period of time, not every time "1000 years"  is mentioned in the Bible.  

The binding of Satan is NOT at the cross and the NT never speaks of Satan being bound during the church age.   He is bound during the 1,000 years that follow, sequentially,  the return of Jesus.    Satan is depicted in the church as a roaring lion, roaming to and fro, seeking whom he may devour. 

So you are not really looking at this properly   Jesus returns before the 1000 years of Revelation 20, there is a definite sequence given.  The Premillennial view is the biblical view.

Quote

Finally, Revelation 20 covers the whole sweep of the church age, it begins with the binding of Satan at the cross (Revelation 20:1), go on to include the entire Church age, where Christ is currently ruling in heaven over the “souls” (Revelation 20:4) of his saints, who are extant but without human bodies in what is known as in the intermediate state.

That is Preterism.   You may not be a Preterist, but that is exactly what Preterism teaches. And it is wrong.

Quote

It is also mistaken to assume that Christ returns at the start of one of these single periods of a thousand years, people assume that, but they cannot prove it.

No, there is a sequence describied between the return of Jesus and the 1,000 years.  An objective and plain reading of the text has Jesus return actually preceding the final 1000 millennium.   Sorry, but Premillennialism is Bible 101.   That is the biblical view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...