Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Limey_Bob

Why are people denying that Christ is presently a King?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

regards, Marilyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Behold
      Here is a simple  Thread concerning ONE always confused "lightning rod" topic(s).....3.) "What is blasphemy of the HS">.  along with 1.) OSAS, and 2.) "losing salvation". And the lack of understanding about these 3 really defines the distinction between legalists, and the born again.  It also exposes the level of New Testament understanding a believer or non, actually has understood, regarding The Blood Atonement and Redemption and Grace.   
      The fact is... if you are not saved, or if you are saved but are religious..(Legalist)  OR.... if you are very self righteous in both cases, then this comes to light very brightly regarding how you will react on Threads that deal with those 3 topics.
      Here is something to know... If you are a deep student of the word of God, then you are a deep student of Paul, of His epistles, =  deep student of the Grace of God.   If you are not a deep student of the word, you will not be familiar with Paul's teaching (Doctrine), and that is why you will have such an issue with understanding that Grace has replaced "works", and that is why so many argue endlessly on Christian Forums, trying to prove that the Grace of God is only as good as you are... regarding you "staying saved".
      Now think about that, and God give you light., if you are one of the many who is trying to keep yourself saved by your lifestyle.
      ---------------------------------------
      Ok, Blasphemy of the HS..     One way to think of it, is simply.... the act of being an  obstacle between a person and them finding the Lord or being born again.    In other words, if you or if anyone somehow creates a situation where someone would be blocked from their pursuit of Salvation.  This is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.   And example would be an Atheist online, on a forum, telling people that God is a myth, Jesus is not risen, and Christianity is a hoax.   If you are over 50, and you remember Peter Jennings,  former anchor of ABC News, or Christopher Hitchens, a famous European Political Analyst... Well, just before both of them died, they decided to pursue , in public, the idea that Jesus is a myth, and Christianity is a Hoax.   And they both died not long after they decide to preach this message of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.   So, its like i tell atheists on forums that are not Christian Forums..   I tell them that until they can prove that God does not exist, then its best to stand back from the pulpit where they are preaching their unbelief against God, in public, as God has shorter patience for this, ive noticed over the years.  "God is not mocked".  "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God".......and that is a fact, regarding God who is Love.
      The best state of mind and mouth an unbeliever can have, is to think..."well, until i can prove that God does not exist, i will keep an open mind and a closed mouth regarding preaching my unbelief in public.
      I personally, have zero patience and zero tolerance for anyone who claims the names of Jesus, and goes on Christian forums and tries to talk people out of their salvation, by lying to them. And the lie is to tell a born again believer that they can stop being born again, if they behave badly, or dont have enough obedience, works....commandment keeping....etc.    This really galls me,  and fires up my Righteous indignation to the MAX ,  because its a so called "christian" doing the devil's work, on a Christian forum, and this should not be allowed, and i do my best to stomp on it, because its so harmful in its effect on weak Christians who are not grounded in Grace, and fall prey to these mind blinded workers of deceit.    See, i dont think any of you have ever actually tried to help someone who believes they have lost their salvation, because some heretic idiot convinced them, usually by twisting verses in Hebrews, to cause this mental breakdown.  And i mean its a mental breakdown that many born again have and are having., thinking they are lost and going to hell, panicked, living in dreadful FEAR....Dysfunctional human beings....ruined...... when if fact they are saved and are going to heaven.   Ive seen the devastation of real Christians  that is caused by this work of the devil, using a so called "Christian" to achieve it.    And once you have seen this, you'll be a lot more anti-sensitive to these devils who hang out on forums like this one, then you are now.   Real Christian Forums, should have zero tolerance for these heretics.   ZERO.   Their should be a statement of Faith that says....""We do not allow members to harass and try to confuse other members regarding the heresy defined as " losing your salvation".  This is not tolerated.  If you are discovered to be doing it, you will be warned once. If you persist, you will be permanently banned. ""
      ====================================
      Ok, back to the teaching....
      Now, when we want to understand what Jesus is talking about when He is talking to the religious leaders, of His day,  about their blasphemy, then you have to stop right there, and see that this is a specific moment, with Jesus himself being accused of doing His works by the power of the Devil.    So, ask yourself.... who isn't doing this, is who this verse does NOT apply to ???? That would be everyone who was not there at that time.
      Now why would what these Pharisees were saying to and about Jesus, "not be forgiven now or in the world to come"..   and this is KEY..    If you can see this, then you will have a lot of light regarding something very simple that applies across the board to any and all Christ Rejectors..
      Understand that this sin that they were committing by accusing the Lord of being the Devil's tool.......  It isnt this specific sin that Jesus is referring to that would damn them that day, or "In the world to come"...  
      So, what is the sin that Jesus is actually talking about, that is their damnation, as it is the damnation of all who commit it?
      Its the sin of rejecting Christ as Savior.   Its the sin of dying unsaved.  Its Jesus explaining...."If you do not believe that I AM the messiah, then you will die IN YOUR SIN(s)". (Unforgiven)... And this is explained technically and literally in John 3:36, where it says that you dont have to be dead to be damned, and that the judgment of God against your sin, is currently IN PLACE, regarding anybody and everyone who is not born again and is of the age of accountability.
      See a person who is damned, is judged by God as damned, and this is happening as long as they are rejecting Christ, which means, RIGHT NOW....The only thing that changes, is that the final end result is given to them for their Christ Rejection, after they die.   = Hell, then the Lake of Fire.  That is the eternal end result of Christ Rejection, that IS Damnation, that was already their's when they were alive, living and breathing as Christ rejectors.
      So, in the case of these Pharisees, their damnation, was not their accusation, but it was their Christ Rejection...(in this world and in the world to come) ......same as it is for anyone who is lost, and is not a Believer in Yeshua.
      So, they were blaspheming against the Lord, and against the HS< but this is just sin..........However,  their damnation, that Christ is pronouncing against them, is based on their Rejection of Him......Their Unbelief, as its this that is causing their words.  (Heart Unbelief)   So, their words are a reflection of their unbelief, and its their unbelief that has them under God's judgment.   John 3:36
      So, if you are born again. you can't undo your salvation, because its not yours to undo... It is God's who did it for you, because its HIS, that Jesus earned and Gives.
      Salvation is not of you, or me..   We dont do it.   We can't save ourselves, and we can't keep ourselves saved.
      Salvation is what GOD DID, its a Finished Work,  through Christ,  that He APPLIES TO YOU and ME. = Forgiveness of all sin..... No longer holding us accountable for them, in eternity, and does not impute them to us now.   Romans 4:8
      We are SINLESS, as if we never sinned, in God's perspective, because He has given us the Righteousness of Christ, and given our sin to Jesus, our sin bearer, who died for them all.
      And a born again person says....>"but what about this sin".......and the answer is always the same no matter the sin, ... Final Answer:) Jesus died for that one, and all the rest.
      Every sin, all sinning, has already been paid for by Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross, = His death.
      "but what if i".... = ALREADY Paid for, on the Cross.
      "but what if i".. = ALREADY Paid for, on the Cross.
      "but what about this sin, its a fancy one, its rare".... = ALREADY PAID FOR, ON THE CROSS.
      "SIN", ALL OF IT... has been dealt with on the Cross, and you are now a SAINT of God, a Child of God, and this for eternity, even tho you are not perfect.   See, Jesus IS perfect, and His sacrifice was perfect, and God accepted His sacrifice, to accept you because of it.
      God does not accept you because of YOU.....WHO ARE YOU?   Who am I?     Understand.....God  ONLY accepted you, and accepts you still, and always will, if you are born again, =  because of the Cross.
      The blood and death of Jesus <> ALONE<>  made you acceptable to God and keeps you acceptable to God.    
    • By michaelcla
      Is "Son of God" a really best Christian Movie of 2018? that describes the life of Jesus Christ according to The Bible and the principles of Christianity.
    • By Behold
      John 6: 51
      Lets look at this verse, as its a wonder...  John 6:51.   Jesus speaking...." I AM < (God) the living bread which came down from heaven;.. and if ANY man eat of this bread, he (they, you, me) live forever: and the bread that i will give is my flesh....which i will GIVE (salvation is a free Gift), for the LIFE of the world.. = "give for the life of the world"
      Jesus speaking :  "I AM (notice that He uses this title a lot when talking about Himself, as this is God referring to Himself as "The Great I Am").  So, Yeshua is constantly reminding us that He is not just the "Son" ,  He is indeed and literally God Himself who is the One manifested in a human body .. 1st Timothy 3:16.    And notice that this verse im about to talk to you about relates specifically to  John 3:16.   And notice that God manifested in the flesh is 1 Timother 3:16.  And if you read John 3:16, you see how neatly and perfectly God is drawing a Divine String through His word, in these verses and many more..... always connecting the dots, always placing interesting CLUES and "light bulb" moments in His word for any and all who "study to show yourself approved"...
      Now, 
      How to see this verse's main point using scripture to explain it.    There is the spiritual way and means to understand all NT verses.   In that you compare scripture with scripture...   You use the Word to explain itself..  The word teaches you the word..  And the way God has implemented this is that He does not always or even often use a verse, followed by a verse, followed by a verse, in some type of continuing consecutive order, to explain a doctrine, etc..  No.  What He does is put it all in a circle that you have to study to find and thus understand.  In other words, He has created the NT to be a sort of spiritual puzzle and you are to SEE the Light more and more as you connect the pieces.  And these pieces are scattered, as in a circle that is all over the NT.    For example, you might discover a piece of doctrinal Light in one verse in Romans, and then later, in Jude, or in John you'll SEE another piece that connects, and then in Acts there is another piece that connects, and this is always how you "study"... Its by a lot of reading that God will show your inner- man all these pieces that keep connecting and connecting as you go through the word, again and again.
      So, lets look at this verse in a few parts so that we can see .......
      1. "If any man EAT of this Bread".       And what is the Bread?  and how do you eat it?   Well, the "bread" of course is the body of Christ on the Cross.   And symbolically its a part of Communion...   Now, here we go....  Remember that Christ said... "Man shall not live by bread alone"?...... hummmm..  "but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God"....   So, isn't that interesting?    And how does that work, within the context of this verse?   Well, how do you eat the body of Christ so that you (have eternal life)  become born again?    As in this verse the "eating" says that if you do it, you shall "live forever"..    So how do you do this?    Simple.  the "eating" that allows God to give you "life forever", which is eternal life, is to have Faith in Christ.   To Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved....(born again)    And so all this is explained by this verse..... John 6:47. : Jesus says unto you, All that BELIEVE IN ME, = HAVE Eternal life"...     So, you have this verse that says to eat the Bread who came down from Heaven which if you do, imparts a consequence..  And to eat Him, the "bread",= Jesus..... means to have Faith, to BELIEVE, (Having faith is spiritually eating) and by this spiritual eating, you then become born again, which means you "live forever"..    And why?   Because the One who is Eternal Life, the one you just ate, (believed on) (Faith), is now in you and you are "in Christ", so, because you have Him, you have Eternal Life, as He IS, eternal life.  1 John 5: 11-13.    Read it.
      2. "give for the LIFE of the World".       This is interesting, because now this verse is speaking universally, with a condition, regarding giving  Eternal Life to the "world".   And here we understand that Salvation, The Blood Atonement, is Jesus dying for the "world".  John 3:16  This means, the world of humanity, for all time, and especially subsequent to the lifting of the Cross and the bodily resurrection of The Christ.    
      "I came so that you can have LIFE"...   And who is  "you"?   = All that eat the Bread. (Faith), and what is the "life"?  =  Eternal Life, who IS Jesus, and when you have Him, its because you have eaten Him, (Faith), and now you are "in Christ", and Christ is "in you, the <>hope of Glory"<>", = This phrase, "hope of Glory"... is a true understanding of  the One who is our Heavenly Hope, who IS our Eternal Life, living inside us, who is going to bring us to Heaven, because Jesus IS the/our "Resurrection and the Life".
      So, in John 6:51, we see that to eat the bread that imparts eternal life, simply means to "believe on the Lord, and you shall be saved", with its symbolic counterpart being taking Communion.  And we see that this verse is speaking specifically and universally regarding the One who said, "I am the resurrection and the life", and "i came to give LIFE (eternal life) and that more abundantly"... to all of the world, with the condition being, that this gift of the One who Himself is Eternal life, has to be "eaten".....that is to say, believed on, = by Faith.   So that is the eternal result for us, if we do what the verse tells us to do, with  the opposite and dire consequence of you not believing or eating Him, who is the Bread of Life, is that "if you do not (eat) believe that I AM He, then you will die in your sin(s)",...... And also said in John 3:36, = that God's judgment and wrath is waiting to be delivered as an eternal sentence to ALL who lived and died and never ate the Living Bread, = died a Christ rejector and WILL face God unforgiven.  This is damnation. This is Eternal, and its a FREEWILL choice that someone makes that God accepts.   And this reader, is why a person who ends up in Hell and the Lake of Fire, can never honestly or accurately accuse God of sending them there, as all God does, is accept your FREEWILL choice, and from there, your choice while you were living decided where you ended up, after you Died.
      Choose wisely if you are reading this, and are not yet a believer in Christ.
      Trust in Christ today, believe on Jesus today in your heart, kneel at the Cross today, and later meet God as your Loving Father and not as your Eternal Judge.
       
       
      <B><
    • By Jonathan BeWell
      Yes! My old and gone comic book collection was quite questionable. If they had comic books like this around these days I would get back into the hobby. Can anyone recommend titles in print and for sale now? Such would make great Christmas gifts.

    • By Bam2001
      Before reading, just know that is a long text, and may seem like something ridiculous and not needing to bother with to most of y'all, but this means a lot to me, and I keep hoping to find answers, but can't find any, so that's why I'm here...
      Hey, Everyone! I am fairly new to this Forum and excited to be a part of it! I was born into the faith, and have been a Christian my entire life (I'm 17 years old, lol). It wasn't until around I was about 12 or 13, though, that I began to become more interested in Christianity and the Bible, and at the age of 15, I discovered Apologetics, which helped me retain my faith that I was struggling with at the time. Thanks to that, I now have learned much more about Christianity than I ever thought I would, and I am so happy to know that Christ is Lord and that I am a Follower of Him! 
      So y'all are probably wondering "what does any of this have to do with Tupac Shakur, as named in the title?" Well, that's where the questions come in.
       
      For any who don't know, Tupac Amaru Shakur (1971-1996) was a rapper who went by the stage names MC New York, 2Pac, and Makaveli. He was born in New York, and then moved to Maryland where he attended the Baltimore Academy of Arts (I believe that's what it is called), but then moved to California at the age of 17, where he was introduced to the drug and ghetto culture, where dealing, gang violence, sex, and robberies were frequent and even promoted. He was brought up as a thug, due to this, and incorporated this message in many of his songs. 
      Unlike many rappers today though, when Tupac rapped about drugs and crime, he didn't do it in an attempt to glorify them, he did it to show the consequences of dabbling with them and tried to show those that didn't live that lifestyle, what it's like to live it. Tupac even made songs that, to me, were very powerful. His songs such as: Changes, Dear Mama, Brenda's Got A Baby, Until the End of Time, etc. are enough to make one tear up (I did with Brenda's Got A Baby). Me, being born into the ghetto and being raised in a household of domestic violence, I began to feel extremely attached to his music and his message. I began to binge several of his interviews, videos, albums, films, etc. It got to the point to where he felt like a friend of mine, or even, family.
       
      Then, I saw an interview where he was asked his religious views, and this is where it gets downhill. His songs and poems show that he was an extremely strong believer in God, but when he is asked about what he follows, he responds, stating that he believes that if you are good in your heart and do good things, then you are closer to God. But if you're evil in your heart and do bad things, then you're closer to the Devil. But he then went on to say that the Bible, he believes, was made by a person who wanted to find a way to control people. He says that the Bible says that certain people (prophets, patriarchs, etc) are good because they suffered a lot. He then went on to say that he got shot 5 times, and that he was 'crucified' by the media, and he 'walked through with the thorns on', and he told the thief (probably someone in the jail he was in) that 'this ain't supposed to happen, I'll come back for you.' Then he clarified by saying that he ain't saying he's Jesus, but that people go through that type of 'stuff' everyday. He then went on to attack a lot of what he sees as selfishness by megachurches and gigantic cathedrals who won't help homeless people who need God (although I don't have an issue with that point). During this interview, he was quick to make sure that he wasn't trying to disrespect anyone's beliefs, and that these things he's saying are simply his opinions only.
       
      This broke my heart. I thought Tupac, someone who I see as an inspiration, was a full on believer! I began to overspeculate, and came to several conclusions, one of which was that Tupac wasn't being entirely truthful in the interview, as he does have different tones with different interviewers, and that he truly did believe in the Bible, but then I felt like I was lying to myself. There several factors that contribute to my continued belief that Tupac was a Christian. Such as:
      - He had a giant tattoo of a cross on his back
      - He had a tattoo of a cross, along with Jesus' face, with the words "Only God Can Judge Me" on his arm
      - His most frequently worn necklace was a necklace of a cross
      - He was extremely close to his mother, who was a very devout Christian, who even claimed that the group she was in (Black Panther Party) failed because they didn't involve God
      - In many of his songs, he implements Christian tones: "Hail Mary", "Only God Can Judge Me", "Black Jesuz", "Ghetto Gospel", "I Wonder If Heaven Got A Ghetto"
      - Many of his lyrics point to a Christian belief: 
      "Father please forgive me for my life of sin, my hard stare seems to scare my sister's kids.." (Until the End of Time)
      "Get on yo knees to pray, Oh Lord, Help me change my ways, and show a lil mercy on judgment day, it ain't me I was raised this way.." (Hell 4 a Hustla)
      "Is there a ghetto in heaven or do I go to hell?" (Gotta Survive)
      "Picture a world where black babies can survive past five, but we must keep hope, quotin the reverend from the pulpit.." (Everything You Own)
      "Question for the Lord, why don't He like me, please guard my soul" (High Speed)
      "Just another lost soul stuck callin Jehovah.. Father how the heck did I survive these five shots?" (All Out)
      "and I wonder if the Lord ever heard of me.." ([Song Title Contains Profanity])
      "and I pray to black Jesus to please take the rest of me.." (As The World Turns)
      "Before I go to sleep I pray and thank the Lord for another fruitful day.." ([Song Title Contains Profanity])
      "Dear God I been feeling like I'm close to Jesus.." (Catchin Feelings)
      "And God said He should send His one begotten son
      to lead the wild into the ways of the man
      Follow me; eat my flesh, flesh and my flesh" & "Catch me father please, cause I'm fallin," (Hail Mary)
      "Cry later but for now let's enjoy the laughter
      God bless the dead" (God Bless the Dead)
      "Dear Lord..How can I survive? Got me askin white Jesus
      will a  brotha live or die, cause the Lord can't see us
      in the deep dark clouds of the projects, ain't no sunshine
      No sunny days and we only play sometimes" (Still I Rise)
      "Keep yo' head up and try to keep the faith
      And pray for better days" (Better Dayz)
      "Searchin for Black Jesus
      It's hard, it's hard
      We need help out here
      So we searchins for Black Jesus
      It's like a Saint, that we pray to in the ghetto, to get us through" (Black Jesuz)
      "Who do you believe in?
      I put my faith in God
      Blessed and still breathing
      And even though it's hard
      That's who I believe in
      Before I'm leaving
      I'm asking the grieving
      Who do you believe in?" (Who Do You Believe In)
      These things often comfort me. In regards to Christianity, the closest he ever came to "insulting" it, is saying that the Bible wasn't "written by God". He harshly criticized pastors, priests, and especially televangelists, but he never once, not once, ever spoke bad about Jesus Christ. And even though he didn't hold the Bible in the same regard as we do here, he never insulted any prophet or person in the Bible that is shown as good. 
      What's strange though, is that, in an interview after this, Tupac, while acting in a movie called "Gang Related", states that his faith is in "Black Jesus" and that he has "been gifted by God, by Black Jesus". Here, Tupac refers to Jesus as God, (the reason he uses the term "Black Jesus", is because he wants to make it clear that he doesn't have the same thought pattern as WASP Christians) (also, note that this interview isn't part of the movie, lol).
      In an interview with MTV (I believe this was his last interview before he was eventually shot and killed), he compares Judas' Betrayal to his competition in the music industry. I don't remember what he said exactly, but it's easy to find online, and it's very short.
      After he was shot, he didn't die on the spot, but instead, fell into a coma and was rushed to the hospital, where he was alive for about 3-6 days until he eventually died from his wounds. During this time, he was visited by his mother, Afeni Shakur, and his aunt, Gloria Cox, both of whom were devout Christians, and they had with them, in Tupac's hospital room, an Evangelist, who was Tupac's aunt Gloria's cousin, who visited Tupac all the time and prayed over him, and also put oil over him and put a healing cloth on him, while he was still shot up and unconscious, but still alive. He eventually passed away, with the last ones seeing him pass on, being his mother and aunt.
      Now some of y'all may have a question of your own when reading this: "Why do you care so much?". Well, because I feel extremely close to Tupac, and he touched on so many things that meant a lot to me, and what he said are things that I very much relate to. He feels kind of like a best friend, or even a brother sometimes. I don't let this cloud my judgement, though, as there are aspects of him that I don't agree with. I don't want to follow the life he lived, and I believe that Biggie handled their feud in a much more mature manner and tried to calm people on both sides down, whereas Tupac, due to growing up in the ghetto and already being shot 5 times, became extremely paranoid and reacted somewhat militantly (though, only verbally, not physically). But as Tupac said, he didn't want to be seen as a role model, but instead, show the world what he alone was like.
      With all this being said, there are some questions I have regarding this.
      1) Tupac promoted songs and messages of righteousness, with some gangsta-type themes, only so he could connect and reach out to the people who lived in ghetto hood areas. First and foremost, 2Pac believed in helping the poor, and fought for those who couldn't, but often times his anger did get the best of him, and he would act out on it, but then regret it later on. ~ Does this make him more of a no good thug rather than someone who can be seen as good?
      2) Despite him not believing the divine context of the Bible (at least not at the time of the interview), do you think he could still be considered a Christian? He held a very strong and firm belief in God, and believed in the teachings of Christ as well. His Gang Related interview shows him calling Black Jesus, God. Maybe he could've been what is called an "Agnostic Christian"? What is the minimum requirement to being called a "Christian"?
      3) Would you say that Tupac made it into Heaven? Or that it seems like He could've? He did exactly what Jesus taught people to do in His Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, but he didn't seem to believe in Biblical authority, but he did refer to Jesus as God. This means he took Him as his "Lord", but I'm not sure if he then also took him as his "Savior". His body art and songs seem to show a promotion of Christian belief, though. I remember reading about King Solomon who was once righteous in the Eyes of God, but then turned to idolatry and had several women as his wives and concubines. I don't think Solomon would've landed in Hell though, so I don't think that what Tupac did, would've landed him in Hell (but I'm not the one to make that judgement).
       
      Sorry for seeming somewhat dramatic, and over thinking the faith and actions of one man, but the reason I do this, is because I love Tupac and I genuinely care about his condition and his faith. If there's anyone here, especially a fan of 2Pac who may also know about his life, who can give an answer, then as Tupac said in Dear Mama, "you are appreciated". I kindly ask for as many answers that can be received as possible. Thank you, and God Bless!
×
×
  • Create New...