9Rock9 said:

Hello!

I'm undecided about eschatology but doing some research on it. I think good points are made for both amillennialism and premillennialism. The only view I currently hold to with is inaugurated eschatology (or "already and not yet") where most prophecy has double fulfillment. It's normally associated with George Eldon Ladd, who was a premillennialist, but I don't see why one can't be amillennial and also agree with inaugurated eschatology.

I'm wondering if one can hold to a non-literalistic premillennialism?

Like, I don't think the events in Revelation are strictly chronological and probably could be oit of order or just the same events from different angles.

I also don't know if I believe the 1,000 years mentioned in the book to be be a literal millennium.

Could one believe in a Millennial State after the Second Coming, but not think the Millennial Kingdom will be a literal 1,000 years?

Click to expand...

No.

(1) Premillennialism is totally preoccupied with, and dependent upon, one chapter in the Bible – Revelation 20. It interprets the rest of Scripture in the light of its opinion of one lone highly-debated chapter, 3 chapters before the end of the Bible, located in the most figurative and obscure book in the Bible. All end-time Scripture is viewed through the lens of Revelation 20. This is not a very wise way to establish any truth or doctrine. Take this passage out of the equation and Premillennialism has nothing in the inspired pages to support all its main tenets. This is demonstrated by the fact, there is not one single second coming passage in the Bible that teaches 1000 years (or any significant period of time) follows this great glorious event where sin and death continue. Amils have a problem with, and are opposed to, this loose form of hermeneutics and questionable mode of exegesis.

(2) Premillennialism hangs its doctrine on a very precarious frayed thread: that of Revelation 20 following Revelation 19 chronologically in time. To hold this, it has to dismiss the different recaps (or different camera views pertaining to the intra-Advent period) that exist throughout the book of Revelation, divorce their opinion of these 2 chapters from repeated Scripture on this matter and also explain away the clear and explicit climactic detail that pertains to Revelation 19. Revelation 19 depicts the end of the world where all surviving mortal life is destroyed - "the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great." Premillennialists conveniently refuse to take this literal because it exposes their thesis.

Disprove the chronology between Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 and Premillennialism falls apart.

(3) Premillennialists interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts numerous explicit climactic Scriptures. The coming of the Lord is shown throughout the Word of God to be "the end." There is no gap of time in-between the coming of Christ, the resurrection/judgment of mankind and the end. This all belongs to the one final all-consummating overall event. The second coming is shown to be the termination of all rebellion. It is the time “when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." This is the time “when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.” This is described as the end (1 Cor 15:24)! It is clear that everything is tied up at the end (“His coming”). Repeated Scripture calls this "the last (or final) day."

(4) Premillennialism is always explaining away the clear and explicit New Testament Scripture (the fuller revelation) by the shadow, type and vaguer Old Testament. It uses indistinct or misunderstood Old Testament Scripture to negate and reject clear and explicit New Testament Scripture that teaches otherwise. We Christians have the benefit of the New Testament to explain what is difficult or obscure in the Old Testament. Christ has superseded the old covenant arrangement and now fulfils the new covenant arrangement as predicted. The New Testament is the greater revelation. The interpretation placed on the Old Testament by Christ and the New Testament writers override all other opinions and interpretations of man. As Augustine wrote: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.”

(5) Premillennialism lacks corroboration for all its fundamental beliefs on Revelation 20. Whether you look at the binding of Satan, the release of Satan 1,000 years after the second coming, the restoration of animal sacrifices in an alleged future millennium, a thousand years of peace, perfection and prosperity, two different judgment days, two different resurrection days, the rebellion of the wicked at the end of the millennium, these enjoy no other support in Scripture. I struggle with this, because the only way to authenticate and understand any doctrine is interpret it with other Scripture.

Premillennialists somehow extrapolates two distinct physical future resurrection days (the first for the righteous, the second for the wicked) separated by a literal 1000 years+ out of Revelation 20. Where in Scripture does it even mention "resurrection days" (plural), pertaining to the end? Nowhere! What Scripture corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that there are two distinct future judgement days (that will see all mankind stand before Christ to give account for their lives) separated by a literal 1000 years+? Where in Scripture does it mention "judgement days" (plural), in regard to the end? What Scripture corroborates the Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 that Satan will be bound for a time-span of 1000 years after the Second Advent, then released for a "little season" to deceive the nations, and then destroy them? There is no other Scripture that teaches this doctrine. Premillennialists force that upon the sacred text.

They have absolutely nothing to reinforce their core beliefs. They interpret their opinion of Revelation 20 by their opinion of Revelation 20. This is ridiculous! This is one of many reasons why this non-corroborative doctrine should be rejected.

If we believe in Jesus Christ to be Lord (Owner-Master) and Savior of our lives, we are to be his followers, his servants who do as he commands. We are to follow him wherever he leads us in doing whatever his word requires of us, as those who profess his name. And we are to follow the leading and guidance of the Holy Spirit in our lives who gifts us with Spiritual gifts so that we can know and do what God has for us to do as his servants.

We need the wisdom of God in living our lives day in and day out so that we do what is right in the eyes of the Lord, and so that we do no wrong. But this isn’t just about moral right and wrong, but this has to do with God’s callings on our lives collectively, as well as individually. We need understanding to know what he has for us to do in his service, and in the giftedness he has bestowed upon us, so that we do his will in all things.

And this isn’t just about us and how we are living and what we are to do or not do, but we need a God-given sensitivity to see what is going on all around us in this world of ours, as well as in the gatherings of the church (or what are falsely being called “church”). In this way we are able to know what to pray for, and how to pray, and what to address as serious issues going on which need to be addressed and reconciled within the church.

For, the Scriptures not only give us guidance in how we are to believe and to behave as followers of Christ, but they command that we expose the fruitless deeds of darkness for what they are, that we call out the lies being spoken in the name of Jesus by “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and that we speak the truth of God to one another, and that we warn one another against false doctrines and false gospels which are leading many astray.

We should never hate anyone, but we should love all people, and we should hate every false way. We are to hate the evil, not the people. And out of genuine love for one another we are to speak the truth to one another for our good. And so we should let the church, the body of Christ, know what is truth, and what is being spoken of as truth but which are lies intended to deceive and to trap and to lead people to sin and to false gospel messages.

For we have many charlatans and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” among the gatherings of “the church” who are teaching the people lies, and not the truth of the Scriptures. They pull Scriptures out of context, and they twist them to make them say what they do not say if taught in the correct biblical context. And they are leading multitudes to believe that they can make a verbal profession of faith in Jesus Christ and now their salvation from sin and eternal life with God are guaranteed them, no matter how they live.

But Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

For by God-gifted faith in Jesus Christ, which is not of our own doing, we are crucified with Christ in death to sin and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin but as slaves to righteousness in walks of obedience to God’s commands. We are no longer to permit sin to reign in our mortal bodies to make us obey its desires. For if sin is what we obey, it results in death. But if obedience to God is what we obey, it results in sanctification, and its end is eternal life with God (see Romans 6:1-23).

So, be people of discernment who are testing what you hear against the teachings of the Scriptures, taught in the correct biblical context. And compare Scripture with Scripture, for the gospel message should not contradict itself. Therefore, Romans 10:9 must agree with Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; and Romans 12:1-2. For Jesus gave his life up for us on that cross that we will now die to sin and walk in obedience to his commands in holy living.

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

Your Servant

An Original Work / September 21, 2011
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Lord, I love to have You near me
As I go throughout my day,
Walking daily in Your footsteps,
As I humbly pray.
List’ning to You, hear You teaching
Me to live and work for You,
Lord, I pray You lead and guide me
Daily in Your truth.

Lord, I want to be Your witness,
Telling others of Your grace;
Telling how they can be set free
Of their sins today;
Share with them the love of Jesus,
He died on a cruel tree,
So that we’d be forgiven
For all eternity.

Lord, I want to serve You only,
As I bow on bended knee,
Making You my Lord and master,
And Your servant be.
Humbly walking in obedience,
Doing what You say to me,
Lord, may I be an example
Of one who’s set free.

Login to view embedded media
I Am Your Servant
An Original Work / November 18, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

mark46 said:

Why not simply deport all our poor (and those lame, sick) or simply refuse them medical service.

Click to expand...

Seems to me someone came up with a plan along those lines a while back.

-- A2SG, wonder what ever came of that....

Job 33:6 said:

I think, to answer that question, we would just look at whatever a person is already paying in premiums, deductibles, and co pays, and subtract 20%.

How we would get there with such an entrenched private healthcare system, I don't know. But that's what it would be.

Maybe for starters, someone would have to create a government health insurance option, that anyone could buy into. America doesn't have such a thing. We have programs like Medicaid, but they're restricted from the everyday public. We would need a government insurance option, that could compete with private insurers.

Click to expand...

When Mitt Romney established the Heritage Foundation plan that the ACA is based on here in Massachusetts, a government insurance plan was instituted for those who can't afford private insurance, called MassHealth. While not perfect (what is?) it serves those who need it better than many for-profit health insurance plans do.

Why can't we do that on the national level?

-- A2SG, just kidding, we all know the an$wer.....

Right now, I am feeling emotional; there is a lot going on in my head and heart.

Star Trek: The Animated Series

Never heard of Eric Metaxas and i do not know what he believes.

But this person might be, that is if Eric Metaxas tells Donald Trump to believe in Jesus (the person) for God's free gift of Eternal Life. Any other message will not get Trump to heaven.

Valletta said:

This move comes as President Trump looks for ways to boost affordability for Americans. The renewed focus follows the victory of democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, which has heightened attention on housing and everyday living cost.

Trump Signs Order Rolling Back Tariffs on Hundreds of Food Items

Trump rolls back tariffs on food items to reduce grocery costs for Americans.

townhall.com

I lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck and the Schumer shutdown was a shot that had a ripple effect that economically hurt a lot of people. President Trump is right on top of the situation.

Click to expand...

Wow.

So much spin here that you could hook the author up to a dynamo and power a small continent.

37 Years After Death, Baby Looks Like He Was Sleeping​

In this episode of Dive Deep, we explore a story many are calling miraculous: a baby that incorrupt. This is Baby Brian Gallagher, who died in 1982. But these images of him aren’t from 1982 — they’re from 2019, nearly four decades after his death. And yet, he looks as though he’s simply sleeping. What happened? We interview Brian's brother, Thomas, to get the full story and message the family wants you to know.

Login to view embedded media
28:35

Mmm. I'm thinking there's work to be done in equipping people to navigate community life - cultivating opennes, flexibility, creativity, mission focus, and so on - but I don't think it's a matter of a one-on-one conversation or a sermon. I think these are things that the community has to own as values and goals.

A Message from St. Augustine - Padre Pio Press

Vambram said:

The Trump businesses have a long standing decades history of success waaaaay before he decided to run for president. On the other hand, Hunter Biden doesn't.

Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how many times Donald Trump and used and abused the bankruptcy laws by using corporate bankruptcy to avoid paying contractors? And also stockholders? Abusing the bankruptcy laws is not business success.

rjs330 said:

When did liberals become fiscal conservatives?

Click to expand...

When were fiscal conservatives fiscal conservatives?

Pope Leo XIV urged parishes to invest in liturgical formation, especially for lectors, while also encouraging people to pray the Liturgy of the Hours and calling for attention to be paid to popular piety.

While receiving participants in a course organized by the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of St. Anselm in Rome at the Apostolic Palace for diocesan liturgical pastoral workers, the Holy Father saidthat “in the dioceses and parishes there is a need for such formation” and encouraged the creation of “biblical and liturgical courses” in places where such formation programs are lacking.

Through such courses, the pope said the institute could help local churches and parish communities “to be formed by the word of God, explaining the texts of the weekday and feast day Lectionary.”

For the pope, it is important that the liturgy be “expression of a community that cares for its celebrations, prepares them, and lives them to the full.”

Continued below.

dms1972 said:

No fundamentalism exists outside the US too. I think a lot of the churches here (N. Ireland) tend toward fundamentalist, or evangelical. We have many denominations, there is at least four Presbyterian denominations, and many of the others Anglican, Methodist, Baptist etc, but I don't think there are very many Lutheran churches here.

Click to expand...

If you were in the US, I'd suggest visiting an Episcopal church, as we're mostly free from the no-drinking-no-dancing prohibitions. But I don't know enough about the Anglican congregations in Northern Ireland to know how culturally similar they are to our Episcopal parishes.

Anything but Shakespeare.

Q. What's for dinner?
A. Whatever is on sale.

I've gone though my whole life this way and spend very little on food. And avoid process food, since it is always more expensive than putting some effort into cooking.

Douggg said:

Paul was not implying that man of sin's action to sit in the temple was the abomination of desolation.

You are right about the abomination of desolation's position will be that of standing.

What Paul described is what is called in Daniel 8:13 as the transgression of desolation (TOD). A transgression is an act.

Click to expand...

Paul is referring to Matt. 24:15 and Dan. 9:27. Dan. 8:12-14 is the same event. The 2300 "days" is really 2300 Evening and Mornings or 1150 days.

Douggg said:

No, not that simple as meaning Agreement. In Daniel 9:4, Daniel referred to the Mt. Sinai covenant.

Click to expand...

The Covenant my friend will be exactly what I explained, Israel will join the E.U. In Dan. 9:4 Daniel was just reminding God of his promise to free Israel after 70 years in Babylon.

Douggg said:

So the covenant in Daniel 9:27 is referring to the Mt. Sinai covenant. Required to be confirmed on a 7 years cycle in Deuteronomy 31:9-13.

Click to expand...

God is not dealing in a Covenant He sees as evil now. Those who trust in the Law over the Promise will not be in God's favor. My time is short tonight, gotta run, have a blessed day/night.

BPPLEE said:

I've lost 40 pounds now, still have a long way to go

Click to expand...

Congratulations!

Praying for the persecuted Church!

JSRG said:

Absent the presidential pardon power, this check is available: As far as I understand, Congress can just pass in both houses and have signed by the President an act pardoning any specific individuals or groups of individuals. It's right there. Eliminating the presidential pardon would simply require the President to get two houses of Congress to agree to pardon someone in order for the President to sign it and make it effective. This would ensure that any pardons would be for clear problems that both Congress and the President agree with, and also make it so Congress has to take the first act.

It'd also stop those annoying pardons that are literally issued on the very last day of their presidency, because a President would need congress to pass it first before they sign it.

Click to expand...

I think there's a very solid case for preventing the "lame duck pardons" as you mentioned...

Mainly, because once that layer of accountability of "I need to get re-elected, or at the very least, avoid impeachment" is removed, that's when those "time to let my buddies off the hook" pardons start flying fast & furious.

I've considered the congressional aspect you mentioned, but I don't think it solves the problem (at least in terms of a replacement), and I'll tell you why...


1) It's still going to be employed in a partisan fashion. No Democratic partisan congress is going to make a motion to pardon a well known Republican figure, and no Republican controlled congress is ever going to make a motion to pardon a well known Democratic figure.

2) If it's a collaborative solution (where a president has to do it with the approval of congress), it's going to be viewed as obstructionist when the congress is not on the same team as the Pres, and viewed as a farcical formality ("rubber stamp") when congress is on the same side as the Pres.


So all of the same challenges and perceptions of partisan bias will still be in full swing (just with extra steps)



Now, I have heard an option that I've heard described that I've liked (though I don't know how practical it is) that still has a multi-branch collaboration element.

There's a pardon board (similar to a parole board) comprised of 7 members.
3 appointed by the Senate Majority leader
3 appointed by the Senate Minority leader
1 appointed by the Senate Parliamentarian

(and each of those positions has to be confirmed through the same process as cabinet appointments)

The president has the power to send pardon referrals to that panel, but it needs a 4-3 vote in favor to "pass".



Ultimately, this is a sticky wicket because of the fact that the founders (despite having many awesome ideas about checks and balances), didn't have a great solution or remediation element to the fact that the judicial branch has an outsized amount of power compared to the other 2.

And the judicial branch is the only one for which there's no rigid tangible standard by which to "un-do" what they do. (outside the branch itself)

Plus, the branch is unique in that the "Supremacy Clause" doesn't fully apply.

A state level judge technically has the power to say "I deem this federal law to be unconstitutional, so this state won't be enforcing it for the time being"

No such dynamic exists in the other two branches.

Delvianna said:

That's not scriptural at all. John 3:16, John 3:36, John 6:29, 1 John 3:23. Be careful to add anything into your beliefs that aren't bible backed. You're altering salvation. Telling anyone that they'll be saved even if they disregard Jesus, isn't going to save them.

Also, search scripture to make sure people are correct in their stance of scripture. Quoting Albert Barnes, John Gill or literally anyone for that matter doesn't make them correct.

Albert Barns - Technically he's right but it's not just "worship" they broke the agreement they signed up for. They worshiped other gods and set up idols. An example of worship is prayer. How they prayed wasn't necessarily wrong, just who they prayed to. So it's not a 100% correct statement.

John Gill - There's instances in the bible of gentile nations following Jewish tradition. Jonah is a great example of that. What did the gentile nation do when they were given the warning? They repented. But not just repented... they clothed themselves in sackcloth and fasted which is a Jewish ordinance. So she's wrong in saying the gentile nations were "ignorant". God chose the Jews to teach the world about his ways and when they continually failed, God changed it to the gentiles to make them "jealous". I don't think she understands how salvation flowed from OT to NT.

Click to expand...

Hi Delvianna!

I almost didn’t “recognize” you with your new photo. A girl after my own heart, flowers and cats.

I know this is from a while ago but thank you to all of you for praying and supporting me in this. While there may be a few people that may look at everything through the lens of race and skin color, there are many that don't, and God sees me as a human being made in His Image, and not as a "race" or skin tone.

Also I shouldn't brag, but having multiple heritages is actually a cool thing to have, and I should embrace the identity God gave me and definitely not throw pity parties about envying people with blond hair and blue eyes or whatever. (Also I don't complain about my skin color when I don't get sunburns lol)

But the most important thing is that I am Christ's son and that I was made in the image of God. While the world might discriminate or do something contrary to God's Word, God loves me and protects me.

- ProsopoMillion