Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Origen

Poll Question: Millennialism

Poll Question: Millennialism  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll Question: Millennialism

    • Amillennialism
    • Postmillennialism
    • Historical Premillennialism
    • Dispensational Premillennialism


Recommended Posts

Staff

Which view do you hold?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

How doe any view effect personal evangelism, and or missions? Is the view you have the same as the church or denomination? How seriously have you studdied the four views? I am just wondering, this is NOT part of the poll, juts my wondering. Blessings, and those who answer can come by my house for a nice dinner. LOL

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to attempt to answer some of these questions if I may

 

How doe any view effect personal evangelism, and or missions?

 

Not always easy to quantify but here are a couple of examples I'm aware of

 

1) I knew a Post-millennial who believed Jesus would only return after all of the people groups of the world had been reached with the gospel. That belief really gave him a certain drive to support missions which is very commendable, however sadly he wasn't so interested in seeing them saved, merely reached.

 

2) It is possible that dispensational might effect one efforts and focus on evangelism as well

 

However that being said it is my believe that eschatology drives evangelism, that is what Paul is getting at in 2 Cor 5:11 "Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences."

 

 

Is the view you have the same as the church or denomination?

 

As a confessional baptist I believe the BCoF excludes all views except Amill/post mill so I line up with my confessional standards.

 

I don't understand for example how anyone who isn't dispensational can sit under a dispenstaional ministry (especially if said person is reformed) the hermeneutic employed is so different that whilst many of the biblical conclusions are reached are thankfully the same, the way of getting their is entirely alien.

 

How seriously have you studdied the four views?

 

Very well - for example - I have folk from a dispensation background in my fellowship and we have talked long and hard about these matters. the one I am perhaps least familiar with is post-millenialism. One thing to bear in mind those is that these are broad terms that cover a multitude of variations, for example the dispensationalism of MacArthur is very different to that of Lindsey. My own personal amillenialims is a historic recapitulation view.

 

I am just wondering, this is NOT part of the poll, juts my wondering.

 

Happy to answer, hope they help :RpS_thumbsup:

 

Blessings, and those who answer can come by my house for a nice dinner. LOL

 

Very kind of you - it's probably a long way to travel though :RpS_laugh:

 

Share this post


Link to post

Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ. Satan is bound in the Abyss for that length of time and then released -- then there is the final confrontation between satan and God's people. But fire comes down from heaven and devours the enemy. Satan is thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already Are.

 

Zechariah 14:4 has Christ coming in person and standing on the Mt. of Olives , east of Jerusalem. vs 9 says that "The Lord will be king over the whole earth."

  • Like 2
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ. Satan is bound in the Abyss for that length of time and then released -- then there is the final confrontation between satan and God's people. But fire comes down from heaven and devours the enemy. Satan is thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already Are.

 

Zechariah 14:4 has Christ coming in person and standing on the Mt. of Olives , east of Jerusalem. vs 9 says that "The Lord will be king over the whole earth."

Ezekiel 40-48 gives even more details about what life will be like during the Millennurm.

Share this post


Link to post
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ.

 

This is just a poll, and not a discussion, but can I just point out that I have never read any translation of Rev 20 that contains the word 'literal' - You might understand it to be a 'literal 1000 years' (which for the purpose of the poll is fine - but the pedant in me pushes to me to point out what literally is written:

 

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

 

Revelation 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison

 

By mu count that is:

 

3 x we have 'a thousand years

3 x we have 'the thousand years'

 

we don't have 'a literal thousand years' though.

 

Sorry to be so pedantic :RpS_thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ.

 

This is just a poll, and not a discussion, but can I just point out that I have never read any translation of Rev 20 that contains the word 'literal' - You might understand it to be a 'literal 1000 years' (which for the purpose of the poll is fine - but the pedant in me pushes to me to point out what literally is written:

 

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

 

Revelation 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison

 

By mu count that is:

 

3 x we have 'a thousand years

3 x we have 'the thousand years'

 

we don't have 'a literal thousand years' though.

 

Sorry to be so pedantic :RpS_thumbsup:

Taking a poll is inviting discussion, isn't it?

 

Since there are those who don't believe in a 'literal' 1,000 yrs. -- as in "a thousand years are as a day and a day is as a thousand years' -- it Might be important to specify 'literal'.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ.

 

This is just a poll, and not a discussion, but can I just point out that I have never read any translation of Rev 20 that contains the word 'literal' - You might understand it to be a 'literal 1000 years' (which for the purpose of the poll is fine - but the pedant in me pushes to me to point out what literally is written:

 

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

 

Revelation 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison

 

By mu count that is:

 

3 x we have 'a thousand years

3 x we have 'the thousand years'

 

we don't have 'a literal thousand years' though.

 

Sorry to be so pedantic :RpS_thumbsup:

Yes it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ.

 

This is just a poll, and not a discussion, but can I just point out that I have never read any translation of Rev 20 that contains the word 'literal' - You might understand it to be a 'literal 1000 years' (which for the purpose of the poll is fine - but the pedant in me pushes to me to point out what literally is written:

 

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

 

Revelation 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison

 

By mu count that is:

 

3 x we have 'a thousand years

3 x we have 'the thousand years'

 

we don't have 'a literal thousand years' though.

 

Sorry to be so pedantic :RpS_thumbsup:

I would say the vast majority of Christians today and historically don't believe in literal future millennium - but that is by the by - my point still stands - Rev 20 does 'say' that the 1000 years is 'literal' that is how you read/ understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ.

 

This is just a poll, and not a discussion, but can I just point out that I have never read any translation of Rev 20 that contains the word 'literal' - You might understand it to be a 'literal 1000 years' (which for the purpose of the poll is fine - but the pedant in me pushes to me to point out what literally is written:

 

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

 

Revelation 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison

 

By mu count that is:

 

3 x we have 'a thousand years

3 x we have 'the thousand years'

 

we don't have 'a literal thousand years' though.

 

Sorry to be so pedantic :RpS_thumbsup:

By what criteria do you say that the 'vast majority of Christians today and historically' - Don't believe in a literal future millennium. I have an NIV study Bible in English "And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key o the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss and locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving he nations any more until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."

 

Is That as literal as, say, Noah's flood? The various numbers of years stated? Is That literal? I believe it's as literal as the 1,000 yrs. And as literal as Jesus Christ being in the grave and rising on the 3rd day.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ.

 

This is just a poll, and not a discussion, but can I just point out that I have never read any translation of Rev 20 that contains the word 'literal' - You might understand it to be a 'literal 1000 years' (which for the purpose of the poll is fine - but the pedant in me pushes to me to point out what literally is written:

 

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

 

Revelation 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison

 

By mu count that is:

 

3 x we have 'a thousand years

3 x we have 'the thousand years'

 

we don't have 'a literal thousand years' though.

 

Sorry to be so pedantic :RpS_thumbsup:

@Sue D. Psalm 50:10 "For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills."

 

Sue, who owns the cattle on 1001 hills?

 

Further question Sue, if Satan is not bound now how is it that all you need do is resist him? Is his power over you and the nations limited by the Lord and Savior of the world? That is, unless you do not believe Christ is actually ascended to the right hand of God and reigns now?

 

And to clarify, Amillinnialist do not reject 1000 years, but they simply accept the symbolic representation of the number which is a time of completion.

 

By what criteria do you say that the 'vast majority of Christians today and historically' - Don't believe in a literal future millennium.

 

Don't know exactly what you mean, but dispensationalism is centered or epicentered in the West. Amil is arguably the largest historical eschatological camp worldwide. The author of the Eschatological chart which RB supplied says, "It would be my educated guess that about two-thirds of the Christian family espouse an amillennial eschatology."

Share this post


Link to post
What is the difference between historical premillenialism and dispensational premilleniumism?

 

oww...where to start :RpS_cool:

 

This might help:

http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm

 

Basically, apart of the word 'premillenial' they have very little in common.

I was just reading the link -- the chart. Very helpful. My understanding of amilleniulism is that apparently we're living in that Now? That satan is actually bound Now? And that Jesus Christ is Now reigning? That which is described in Scripture about the 1,000 hr reign of Christ. That is Not how this present world Is - presently. Far from it. There is no peacefulness in this world. Jesus Christ is Not reigning in Jerusalem now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ.

 

This is just a poll, and not a discussion, but can I just point out that I have never read any translation of Rev 20 that contains the word 'literal' - You might understand it to be a 'literal 1000 years' (which for the purpose of the poll is fine - but the pedant in me pushes to me to point out what literally is written:

 

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

 

Revelation 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison

 

By mu count that is:

 

3 x we have 'a thousand years

3 x we have 'the thousand years'

 

we don't have 'a literal thousand years' though.

 

Sorry to be so pedantic :RpS_thumbsup:

Sue D, you still haven't shown me where we can read the words in Rev 20 'a literal 1000 years' - I have shown you that they are not there. I know you believe that is what the text 'means' but it is not what the text 'says' it says 'a thousand years' three times, and 'the thousand years' three times - and I'm not sure what having an NIV study has to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
What is the difference between historical premillenialism and dispensational premilleniumism?

 

oww...where to start :RpS_cool:

 

This might help:

http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm

 

Basically, apart of the word 'premillenial' they have very little in common.

Sue D. Is it really the case that we are not seeing Satan bound today, and Jesus reigning, or is it that we are not seeing what you expect those things to look like?

 

I'm interested in what scripture has to say about when the binding of Satan took place, and what the bible has to say about the reign of the saints and the rebellion of the wicked - I'm also very interested in what the Bible has to say about there being two ages (this present age and the eternal age that is to come) which is why I have written this long post on those subjects and others:

https://www.christforums.org/forum/christian-community/apologetics-and-theology/dispensationalism/65422-why-i-don-t-accept-that-rev-20-refers-to-a-future-literal-millennium

Share this post


Link to post
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ. Satan is bound in the Abyss for that length of time and then released -- then there is the final confrontation between satan and God's people. But fire comes down from heaven and devours the enemy. Satan is thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already Are.

 

Zechariah 14:4 has Christ coming in person and standing on the Mt. of Olives , east of Jerusalem. vs 9 says that "The Lord will be king over the whole earth."

Including all those animal sacrifices (sin offerings) - 40:39;m 43:19; 21; 22; 25; 44:27; 29; 45:17; 22; 23; 25: 46:20 - don't you find it strange that in the millennial temple where Christ is reigning having made the one offering for sin and having sat down at the right hand of the Father that people are still offering animal sacrifices to 'atone' for their sin? Remember if this is a liberal temple in the millenial kingdom, those must be literal sin offerings as well :D

Share this post


Link to post
Book of Revelation states in chapter 20 that there Will be a literal 1,000 yr reign of Jesus Christ.

 

This is just a poll, and not a discussion, but can I just point out that I have never read any translation of Rev 20 that contains the word 'literal' - You might understand it to be a 'literal 1000 years' (which for the purpose of the poll is fine - but the pedant in me pushes to me to point out what literally is written:

 

Revelation 20:2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

 

Revelation 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

 

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

 

Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison

 

By mu count that is:

 

3 x we have 'a thousand years

3 x we have 'the thousand years'

 

we don't have 'a literal thousand years' though.

 

Sorry to be so pedantic :RpS_thumbsup:

@7.6 please read 7. 4 the part in quotes -- I was sharing the Bible I'm using just in case the one you are using has different wording. I was using the phrase "a literal 1,000 yrs." because there are those who don't believe it Is a literal period of time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
By mu count that is:

 

3 x we have 'a thousand years

3 x we have 'the thousand years'

 

we don't have 'a literal thousand years' though.

 

Sorry to be so pedantic :RpS_thumbsup:

If these aren't literal years, what kind are they?

 

@Sue D. Psalm 50:10 "For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills."

 

Sue, who owns the cattle on 1001 hills?

 

Further question Sue, if Satan is not bound now how is it that all you need do is resist him? Is his power over you and the nations limited by the Lord and Savior of the world? That is, unless you do not believe Christ is actually ascended to the right hand of God and reigns now?

 

And to clarify, Amillinnialist do not reject 1000 years, but they simply accept the symbolic representation of the number which is a time of completion.

We know that the reference to the cattle a thousand years is symbolic because there are more than a thousand hills. Our only source of information on how long the Millennium will last is the Bible and it clearly says it will last a thousand years.

 

We can resist Satan because ouf our relationship with Christ. If Satan were bound there would be no need for us to resist him. The nations are still deceieved by him so we can't be in the Millennium yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If these aren't literal years, what kind are they?

 

A long period of time - see my reasoning here:

 

https://www.christforums.org/forum/christian-community/apologetics-and-theology/dispensationalism/65422-why-i-don-t-accept-that-rev-20-refers-to-a-future-literal-millennium

 

We know that the reference to the cattle a thousand years is symbolic because there are more than a thousand hills. Our only source of information on how long the Millennium will last is the Bible and it clearly says it will last a thousand years.

 

Your right, the Bible is our only source of information - so let me ask you this about the Book of Revelation

 

1) Doers it contain to help understand or does it expect us to figure out on it's own? I believe the close language employed in Ch 1 (close to Daniel 2) and that vision, not mention repeated references to being in the Spirit all suggest that Revelation is a book of pictures.

 

Let me ask you a question relevant to rev 20 - is Satan a physical being or a spiritual one?

 

What are the implications for those chains if he is a spiritual being (can they be 'literal' chains)?

 

We can resist Satan because ouf our relationship with Christ. If Satan were bound there would be no need for us to resist him. The nations are still deceieved by him so we can't be in the Millennium yet.

 

Can you establish that is what the binding of Satan means though?

 

I would suggest the binding of Satan is seen in something very different to that - we see when Satan is loosed that his forces oppress the church turning into a enclave of God's people, in much the same way as Israel was surrounded by enemies - that is not actually the case today!

 

I notice also you have responded to comment on Ezek 40-48 :RpS_thumbsup:

 

Share this post


Link to post

If these aren't literal years, what kind are they?

 

A long period of time - see my reasoning here:

 

https://www.christforums.org/forum/christian-community/apologetics-and-theology/dispensationalism/65422-why-i-don-t-accept-that-rev-20-refers-to-a-future-literal-millennium

 

We know that the reference to the cattle a thousand years is symbolic because there are more than a thousand hills. Our only source of information on how long the Millennium will last is the Bible and it clearly says it will last a thousand years.

 

Your right, the Bible is our only source of information - so let me ask you this about the Book of Revelation

 

1) Doers it contain to help understand or does it expect us to figure out on it's own? I believe the close language employed in Ch 1 (close to Daniel 2) and that vision, not mention repeated references to being in the Spirit all suggest that Revelation is a book of pictures.

 

Let me ask you a question relevant to rev 20 - is Satan a physical being or a spiritual one?

 

What are the implications for those chains if he is a spiritual being (can they be 'literal' chains)?

 

We can resist Satan because ouf our relationship with Christ. If Satan were bound there would be no need for us to resist him. The nations are still deceieved by him so we can't be in the Millennium yet.

 

Can you establish that is what the binding of Satan means though?

 

I would suggest the binding of Satan is seen in something very different to that - we see when Satan is loosed that his forces oppress the church turning into a enclave of God's people, in much the same way as Israel was surrounded by enemies - that is not actually the case today!

 

I notice also you have responded to comment on Ezek 40-48 :RpS_thumbsup:

1,000 years IS a Long period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
William -- I'm not being allowed to post in the Comment section. :(

Never mind -- now I Am able to. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Poll Question: The Rich man and Lazarus Parable or Not?

      Is the story of the Rich man and Lazarus a parable and does it really make a difference?  Wouldn't the story still teach the same truths even if is a parable?   John Calvin held the view that it is not a parable but he also states "But that is of little consequence, provided that the reader comprehends the doctrine which it contains."

      in Bible Study

    • Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census

      By Kevin Daley - A federal judge in New York barred the Trump administration from including a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire. The decision appears to have significant implications for a related matter the Supreme Court is poised to decide in the spring. “The attempts by the Trump administration to mandate a question about citizenship were not rooted in a desire to strengthen the census process and would only undermine our immigrant communities,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Inciting fear in our residents is not only immoral, but also ill-conceived.” The Constitution mandates a census every ten years to apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states. Population is also used as a basis for rewarding federal aid. A coalition of Democratic cities, states, and interest groups challenged the addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire in April 2018, warning it would discourage minority participation. An incomplete survey of minority populations, the plaintiffs feared, would result in diminished federal funds and congressional representation for urban areas. The plaintiffs charged that the addition of the citizenship question violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law establishing protocols for the issuance of regulations. In his Tuesday decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman accepted the plaintiffs’ APA claims while rejecting their constitutional arguments. “[Ross] failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices — a veritable smorgasbord of classic, clear-cut APA violations,” Furman wrote. Elsewhere in the decision, Furman said Ross was not truthful about his motives for adding a citizenship question. Though the secretary initially said publicly that the question was added at the request of the Department of Justice, subsequent evidence showed Ross discussed the matter with White House aides far earlier than initially understood. “Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the evidence is clear that Secretary Ross’s rationale was pretextual — that is, that the real reason for his decision was something other than the sole reason he put forward in his memorandum,” Furman wrote. Former President Barack Obama elevated Furman to the federal bench in 2012. The plaintiffs sought a deposition from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross at a previous phase of the litigation. The Department of Commerce oversees the Census Bureau, and Ross himself authorized the addition of the citizenship question. Though Furman authorized the Ross deposition, the Supreme Court intervened to stop it in October 2018. Shortly thereafter in November 2018, the high court agreed to decide what evidence Furman could rely upon when making his decision. When plaintiffs challenge agency action in court, the agency itself generally turns over the body of documents and evidence it relied upon to make its decision. Those writings are called the administrative record. In most cases of this nature, the court will make its decision based only on the administrative record. However, Furman allowed the plaintiffs to gather evidence beyond the administrative record to challenge the citizenship question. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether that decision was correct. The Justice Department may appeal Furman’s decision. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Electrical Question

      This is for the electrical engineers of the group, or at those who fancy themselves in that group.  I have a couple of motion sensor switches I want to install in my bathrooms.  The problem is that nearly nothing in this house is grounded, as it was built in the 50's.  My question is, is it possible, or simply inadvisable, to connect the ground wire of the switch to the neutral wire, which should ultimately be connected to the main ground out at the power pole?  Is this stupidly dangerous, or actually quite doable?

      in Computers & Technology

    • David Hogg Avoids CNN’s Simple Question About Gun Control

      By Nick Givas - Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg ignored a simple question about gun control and background checks on CNN’s “New Day” Tuesday and refused to answer directly. Host Alisyn Camerota asked Hogg if universal background checks would have prevented the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and he failed to come up with a clear answer. “I think there’s many instances and instances of gun violence that could have stopped further acts of gun violence. There’s 40,000 people that die of gun violence every year and a very small minority of them end up being in school shootings,” he replied. “When we’re talking about hardening our schools and different things, what we’re not talking about is how we’re going to make our communities safer. When we’re talking about school safety we’re neglecting the thousands of students that die either coming to school or coming back from school every day or simply just outside their house.” “Our congressmen and our elected officials have said that they don’t care about them or their violence because of the zip code they live in or the number of figures in their bank account,” Hogg continued. “And if we really want to start talking about a national emergency like the president likes to talk about, 40,000 Americans dying annually from gun violence is a pretty damn good one to start out with.” Hogg then claimed the Parkland shooting could have been prevented but didn’t provide details on what could have stopped it. He also blamed the NRA for the violence and accused them of trying to “benefit” from mass shootings. “It is an issue that is non-partisan. At least, I would hope so, considering the fact that both Democrats and Republicans die from gun violence. Bullets don’t discriminate and neither should our legislators. No legislator should look at these laws and say to themselves, oh I can’t vote on that because I’ve taken campaign contributions from the NRA. That’s what they’re thinking,” he said. “The American people need to wake up and realize again and again, the reason these laws are not getting passed — the reason why — for example, disarming people like the shooter at our high school could have happened through an extreme risk protection but didn’t is because that law was actively advocated against by the National Rifle Association. That uses due process to disarm people like terrorists and domestic abusers, but they actively try to stop because it stops these things from happening in the first place, which they benefit from. [sic] Because after every single mass shooting, gun sales go up significantly and the NRA benefits from that.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] David Hogg Avoids CNN’s Simple Question About Gun Control is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Need help with an apologetics question re: Old Covenant

      I was talking with a somewhat liberal Catholic who has also attended the Eastern Orthodox for a period of time.  He said that he didn't believe in the Catholic notion that if you commit one mortal sin you go to hell, but that there was certainly greater and lesser sins.  I said that I believed all sins were mortal in a sense, in that we all deserve hell for our sins. He said that if that were the case, then Christians would be worse off then under the Old Covenant where you could sacrifice animals to atone for sin and Gentile God-fearers could be saved.  I asked what was the point of Jesus coming and dying if some of us could be a sinner that was "not really that bad", but beyond that I blanked out on how to answer his point.   Any input would be greatly appreciated if only so I can answer myself in my own mind. 🙂

      in Apologetics and Theology

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.