The church is to preach sound doctrine, and trust God for the increase. Not capitulate to the immorality of the lost world to bolster attendance. Im inclined to think that the attitude of ditching sound doctrine to attract millenials in order to save the church is a great offence to God, for it demonstrates a disregard for his word and his sovereignty. Only God can add to his church. These apostates might add to their congregation, but not necessarily the church, as in true believers. They need to reach millenials with the gospel, for that is how God adds to his church.
J4J, Since the second half of that verse states that a thousand years is as one day, I could just as easily say the day of the Lord is just one day. I dont think we are gonna get anywhere concerning the day of the Lord, so Id like to agree to disagree.
Lurker, what are your views concerning the millenium? Im very interested to see your thoughts on this subject.
Your interpretation of the day of the Lord is one I have never heard of before. Can you please explain this position for me, as Im not exactly sure what you are saying it is? Unfortunately I have to go to work soon, so Ill have to check it out later.
Even dispensationalist concede that the day of the LORD is the second coming. Lets look at another verse that uses the same terminology.
1 Thessalonians 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
It is clear from this passage that the day of the Lord is the second coming, for it says ye ARE not in darkness, speaking of their present state at the time, and Verse 6 has the same exhortation to watch for that day like we see else where like Matthew 25:13.
2Peter 3:10-13 makes it quite clear that the new heavens and earth accompany the second coming of Christ (the day of the LORD). There is nothing in these verses that indicates the two events are separated by a thousand years.
I have to go to work, so Ill be away fo a while. Id like to say that I have no animosity towards my premillenial brethren, and do not look down on those that hold that position. I use to hold that position, so I know how the Scriptures would seem to say as much, but IMHO, upon further study it doesnt hold up. Anyway, I look forward to reading further comments.
Christ has already recieved the throne of David in heaven, NOT a throne in Jerusalm for a thousand years. Besides which, the new earth accompanies the second coming of Christ, it is not sepatated by a thousand years.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord (his second coming) will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
And not confined to a thousand years. All the verses concerningthe throne of David or the Kingship of Christ (2Sam 7:16, Psa 89:3,4, Isa 9:6,7, Jer 33:20,21, Acts 5:31, 1Pet 3:21,22, Phi 2:9-11, Eph 1:20-23, Mat 28:18) seem to confirm Peters statement that Christ is ruling and reigning from his throne in heaven, and not some earthly reign of Christ. Also:
Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be NO END.
How is kingdom but a thousand years if this verse teaches his kingdom has no end?
All right lets consider the very thing penned is arguing for.
Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
This verse is quite clear that the physical throne of David was a type or shadow of the spiritual throne of the greater David (Jesus Christ), and that this throne is everlasting and not confined
I never said you believe those absurdities, but rather that the literal approach dispensationalist rely on naturally leads you there. Also, I never said that I dont take the Bible literally, but rather that one should interpret Scripture with Scripture. Some verses are literal, others symbolic. Surely you dont take every verse in the Bible literally.
US, I dont think Amillenialism is based on one verse, but rather is the correct conclusion based on many verses. Ill give an example in another post since I dont have room in this post.
First off, name one doctrine supported by only one verse.
Secondly, like I said, you do not make scripture conform to one verse, but take all scripture into account. For example, this literal approach lands you in all kinds of absurdities such as a literal future restoration of all the former historical conditions of Israels life: the great powers of the Old Testament (Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians), and the neighboring nations of Israel (Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Philistines) must again appear on the scene (Isa. 11:14, Amos :12, Joel 3:19, Mic. 4:1,2 , Rev. 18). The temple will have to be rebuilt ( Isa. 2:2,3, Mic. 4:1,2, Zech. 14:16-22, Ezek. 40-48) The sons of Zadok will again have to serve as preists, (Ezek. 44:15-41, 48:11-14). And even sin and tresspasses offerings will again be brought to the altar for atonement! (Ezek.42:13, 43:18-27). Not only that, but all the nations would have to come to Jerusalem year to year to celebrate the feast of tabernacles (Zech. 14:16), and week to week to worship Christ (Isa. 66:23).
No where else in the entire Bible other than Revelation 20 is there any mention of a thousand year reign of Christ, and this is found in a book full of symbolism. Instead of making the rest of the Bible conform to one obscure passage, how about use the rest of the Bible to interpret the obscure passage.
MG from the Land Down Under writes: 2 Cor 3 is talking about the "vail" or the glory being taken away - not the law!
Re read the text and youll see it is speaking of the law. For example: 2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be DONE AWAY: 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
Verse 9 says that the ministration of condemnation was glory. The ministration of condemnation is obviously the law. So in verse 4 when it says "which glory was to be done away, it is speaking of the ministration of condemnation, or the law.
2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be DONE AWAY: 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 3:11 For if that which is DONE AWAY was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is DONE AWAY in Christ.
Mormons believe Jesus is the brother of satan, and that he is not God, which is rank heresy. That alone tells you they do not worship the same Christ as us, but a lowly counterfeit.
The reason which they cannot be considered Christian is that they are trusting in a false gospel for salvation, which has zero power to save anyone. Only the true gospel has the power to save.
2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF CHRIST, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
John UK writes: Well you'll have to take that up with your fellow American posters who keep me informed about the sad state of the church over there, and that some of them to attend a decent church would have to spend most of the Lord's Day travelling.
I drive 50 miles to the church I attend, and many of the other members drive as much as two hours one way to get there, because there simply arent any local churches worth going to.
Of course he wouldnt, considering he never once spoke of any such thing at all during his earthly ministry. Rather strange that he had plenty to say about his second coming, yet failed to mention anything at all about this "other" coming, which would actually make his second coming his third.