Questions for Amillennialism

[Arial]

That's fine. You didn't like Peter's Scriptural argument about David. Besides, discussions about the throne is one of those dividing issues between Historical Premillennialism and Amillennialism. The topic is relevant to the OP in question of "spiritual reign" and to "whose throne." After all, Amillennialism asserts: 'Christ is already reigning and ruling on David’s throne now.' If Christ is already reigning and ruling on David’s throne, then why does Scriptures say he is waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool (Heb 10:12-13)? And it's a valid question to ask and also deserves an explanation.

Since Christ is waiting, or expecting, anticipating, looking forward to a future moment, and not yet exercising the thing he is waiting for. Then by logic this is not the language of Christ the king actively ruling over his enemies. It is the language of a king awaiting the moment when ruling over his enemies will to be made manifested. That means "ruling now" doesn't Scripturally and logically follow "waiting now." From that standpoint is gives you more questions than answers. For instance, how can Christ be ruling on David’s throne now if the New Testament says he is waiting for the very thing David’s throne is already supposed to accomplish?

Hebrews 10:12-13 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.​

​

Hebrews 2:8 ...and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.​

Notice that the 'restoration of all things' must occur first before the Father sends the Christ.

Acts 3:19-21 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.​

The universal Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is the eternal, all‑encompassing reign of God’s sovereign rule over all creation. The universal Kingdom is handed to the Father at the end (1 Cor 15:24–28), but the Davidic throne is handed to the Son by the Father (Luke 1:32) after the restoration of all things.

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.​

​

Strike through by Mod. Violates the rule against misrepresenting someone's position.​

That's not the moment when Davidic throne is given. I already addressed the two throne categories. Davidic kingdom comes in Christ's second coming after the restoration. So, what Is “the restoration of all things”? It is the future, renewal of the entire created order, including Israel’s national restoration, the resurrection, death itself, the renewal of the heavens and earth, and the visible establishment of Christ’s Davidic kingdom on earth which is the launching point of the age to come. Not an overlap of "this present age" with "age to come" and confusing their categories. Did you notice that, Ariel? I have underlined it for you. Christ at seated on the Father's throne is not the Davidic throne. The Father and the Son have their own distinctive thrones (Revelations 3:21). The kingdom comes AFTER his will is done on earth (Matthew 6:10, Luke 1:32–33; Isaiah 9:7; Daniel 7:13–14; Revelation 11:15).

This is just more of your circular conversation that is operating off of unproven assumptions. That is the very reason it is circular and repetitive. Answer the questions asked and maybe the circle will be broken, And do so without resorting to you two thrones assumption or referring again to Matt 6:10; Luke 1:32-33; Is 9:7; Dan 7:13-14; Rev 11:15. (At least I now have them down chapter and verse if nothing else. Are they the only passages in the Bible?). Answering the three questions does not require their use.

Where does the NT ever say Christ is not yet seated on David's throne?
What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?
If Acts 2 is not the fulfillment of the Davidic enthronement, then where does the NT ever identify when that promise is fulfilled?

 

[makesends]

Binyawmene said:
Hebrews 2:8 ...and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.
Notice that the 'restoration of all things' must occur first before the Father sends the Christ.

But, that WE DON'T AT PRESENT SEE IT, is no force of argument against it having already happened.

Binyawmene said:
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

And he has done it, whether WE see it or not.

This is just more of your circular conversation that is operating off of unproven assumptions. That is the very reason it is circular and repetitive. Answer the questions asked and maybe the circle will be broken, And do so without resorting to you two thrones assumption or referring again to Matt 6:10; Luke 1:32-33; Is 9:7; Dan 7:13-14; Rev 11:15. (At least I now have them down chapter and verse if nothing else. Are they the only passages in the Bible?). Answering the three questions does not require their use.

Where does the NT ever say Christ is not yet seated on David's throne?
What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?
If Acts 2 is not the fulfillment of the Davidic enthronement, then where does the NT ever identify when that promise is fulfilled?

In Church today, something in the passage the pastor had up on the overhead caught my eye: Colossians 2:13-15 ends with, "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." The language, there, describes a past tense accomplishment.

 

[Arial]

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

And he has done it, whether WE see it or not.

Well, the death of death has not occurred yet and the devil and his minions and the wicked and sin is still around. Jesus defeated sin and death on the cross, so they have no power over those in Christ to condemn or kill. The delay is not about two powers that are almost equal, however. What remains for now is by permission while Christ continues to gather his people. A strong case for specific atonement. He knows who they are and where and when to gather them and some likely aren't even born yet.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

And he has done it, whether WE see it or not.

Well, the death of death has not occurred yet and the devil and his minions and the wicked and sin is still around. Jesus defeated sin and death on the cross, so they have no power over those in Christ to condemn or kill. The delay is not about two powers that are almost equal, however. What remains for now is by permission while Christ continues to gather his people. A strong case for specific atonement. He knows who they are and where and when to gather them and some likely aren't even born yet.

Actually, they have no power over anyone to condemn or kill, but for God's purposes, (whether they intend it for God's purposes or not). (And not that you said otherwise.)

Your statement —"the death of death has not occurred yet and the devil and his minions and the wicked and sin is still around"— is true in the temporal sense. But we are not the arbiters of fact. "Already but not yet' applies here, too.

I think the death of death was accomplished fact at the cross. That WE don't see it and that WE do see the devil and his minions still milling about doesn't change the fact that the devil IS utterly defeated. That the walking dead (the lost) are still milling about, philosophizing and wreaking havoc, doesn't mean they aren't dead.

Which is one of my problems with the arrangement @Binyawmene supports. Christ IS reigning now, and all his enemies ARE under his feet. That WE don't see it yet doesn't change that.

 

[Josheb]

That simply ignores everything that has been presented to the contrary regarding those scriptures and repeats itself. Which is neither a conversation nor an intelligent debate. In fact it violates all rules of a debater, formal or otherwise. But I have found that is the way every exchange also goes with those who deny the Doctrines of Grace or with those who deny the deity of Jesus. That is neither meant as a red herring to change the conversation or as an insult. It is simply a cold, hard, observable fact. It is a tactic to avoid confronting anything that the person disagrees with.

"What purpose does a thousand-year reign of Christ in Israel, and the restored boundaries of a geopolitical Israel serve in the grand plan of redemption?

Great question! Especially since the thousand-year reign fails.

Revelation 20:7-8
When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore.

Jesus reigned for ten centuries and there remained more people willing to wage war against him than can be counted??? How is that an effective reign?

 

[TMSO]

makesends said:
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

And he has done it, whether WE see it or not.

Actually, they have no power over anyone to condemn or kill, but for God's purposes, (whether they intend it for God's purposes or not). (And not that you said otherwise.)

Your statement —"the death of death has not occurred yet and the devil and his minions and the wicked and sin is still around"— is true in the temporal sense. But we are not the arbiters of fact. "Already but not yet' applies here, too.

I think the death of death was accomplished fact at the cross. That WE don't see it and that WE do see the devil and his minions still milling about doesn't change the fact that the devil IS utterly defeated. That the walking dead (the lost) are still milling about, philosophizing and wreaking havoc, doesn't mean they aren't dead.

Which is one of my problems with the arrangement @Binyawmene supports. Christ IS reigning now, and all his enemies ARE under his feet. That WE don't see it yet doesn't change that.

So, for how much longer do His enemy get to ridicule Him here on Earth? The meaning of under His feet is that His feet is on their necks crushing them. They are dead under His feet, yet somehow, alive and well here on Earth despite Him. Hmm...

 

[makesends]

So, for how much longer do His enemy get to ridicule Him here on Earth? The meaning of under His feet is that His feet is on their necks crushing them. They are dead under His feet, yet somehow, alive and well here on Earth despite Him. Hmm...

Time will be no more.

 

[TMSO]

Binyawmene said:
Hebrews 2:8 ...and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.
Notice that the 'restoration of all things' must occur first before the Father sends the Christ.

But, that WE DON'T AT PRESENT SEE IT, is no force of argument against it having already happened.

Actually, when translating/interpreting, if the normal sense makes sense, that is how it should be understood. Not some special case that is not at all present in the passage, or in the context. Paul is saying this specifically because of the reality that is present before us.

Binyawmene said:
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

And that putting under foot is the picture of putting one's foot on the necks of the enemy, which basically means, they are dead.

And he has done it, whether WE see it or not.

If this is true, why did Paul bother mentioning that we do not see it "YET AT PRESENT". The we do not see is not speaking of what we see in with our eyes. The we is a general we. Paul is saying yet at present we do not see everything subject to them, because it is not yet subject to them.

In Church today, something in the passage the pastor had up on the overhead caught my eye: Colossians 2:13-15 ends with, "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." The language, there, describes a past tense accomplishment.

Yes. However, when one looks at the world, it is what we see that matters. This triumph means nothing to those who do not believe in Christ. This is solely the action of the cross. There is still the final triumph and the final defeat of death, which we see in Revelation 20, at the end of the Messianic Kingdom.

 

[TMSO]

Time will be no more.

So you agree... future.

 

[JesusFan]

Scripture asserts Christ is already reigning and ruling. Logic dictates that necessity as well.

Making his enemies a footstool is evidence of his rule. Their being made a footstool is an inevitability. Why? Because he rules!

No, it's not a valid question. It's the kind of question a devil's advocate would ask when trying to find an inconsistency in scripture.

Did God really say.....?

Please provide the verse stating Jesus is not yet exercising the thing he is waiting for. Please do not say, "look around," because that is a post hoc and extra-biblical response that does not provide the scripture that is being requested.

The lapse in logic is arguing Jesus is not currently reigning and ruling when scripture repeatedly states he is NOW king.

Luke 19:37-40
And as soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the [r]miracles which they had seen, shouting: "Blessed is the king, the one who comes in the name of the LORD; Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” And yet some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples!” Jesus replied, “I tell you, if these stop speaking, the stones will cry out!”

Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.

This is a fulfillment of prophecy. Are these people mistaken, deluded, or lying? If not, then Jesus is King, King of all other kings, and he was King at least as far back as his entry into Jerusalem. Within the week Jesus would asserting his sovereignty in a manner not possible by any other king. He'd be conquering sin and death.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

If Jesus does, in fact, have all authority, then he is NOW king and, again, King over all other kings. He and he alone has all authority. He has the authority over everything and the power to implement that authority. This authority is explicitly stated to be on the earth. If Jesus has all the authority but does not use it, then he is a poor steward of that authority. If he is a poor steward, then he is neither Lord nor Savior. He cannot have the authority and not use it. He may not use it the way you or I think it should be used, or the way some post-scriptural eschatological doctrine assumes it must be used, but that's a problem on our end, not God's word.

Ephesians 1:18-21
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of his calling, what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the boundless greatness of his power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised him from the dead and seated him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under his feet and made him head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Jesus has all rule, authority, power, and dominion and that dominion includes the earth. Everything is subject to him.

Philippians 2:9-11
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross. For this reason also God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

His name is above all others. Every knee will bow. That's not simply an eschatological statement. If any other ruler from any point in history, from any geography on the planet were summoned before Jesus that ruler would be compelled to kneel before Christ. Why? Because Jesus NOW has the name above all other names. Jesus is now exalted and his exaltation is explicitly stated to apply on earth.

Colossians 1:15-16
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through him and for Him.

Everything was created for him, both in the heavens and the earth - even all the other dominions, rulers, and authorities.

This is just a sampling of the many verses declaring Jesus is NOW king over and on the earth.

Jesus is NOT directly ruling though, as his kingdom reign will mean Satan has been bound, no disease, wars, etc, and no one can honestly stater that Age has ever appeared on Earth yet

 

[Josheb]

Jesus is NOT directly ruling...

Scripture states otherwise.

...though, as his kingdom reign will mean Satan has been bound, no disease, wars, etc...

Except for the binding of Satan to prevent him from obstructing the gospel, that is incorrect. At the end of his reign there are enough people to foment a rebellion. Armies of them. That is NOT a reign with no disease. It's not actually a reign with no war, either. It's just a reign where the war wasn't acted out. It's not possible to have armies (plural) of people awaiting rebellion at reigns end and call that a successfully, peaceful, authoritative (or restorative) reign.

and no one can honestly stater that Age has ever appeared on Earth yet

Non sequitur. You are not and have not ever been asked to tell anyone what will happen in the future. What you were asked to do is acknowledge the fact of Christ's sovereignty and rule NOW existing.


And, btw, I'm still waiting on the answer to whether or not sin and death still exist in the new heaven and earth.

 

[makesends]

So you agree... future.

Nope. Only future to THIS human POV now.

 

[makesends]

Actually, when translating/interpreting, if the normal sense makes sense, that is how it should be understood.

Depends on what the normal sense is. If it is what an Arminian makes of it, or what bad exegesis makes of it, no.

Not some special case that is not at all present in the passage, or in the context. Paul is saying this specifically because of the reality that is present before us.

You left a lot of room there. First you suggest ignoring what is not present in the passage, and just going with what you call, "plain sense", and now you think context should be taken into consideration?

And that putting under foot is the picture of putting one's foot on the necks of the enemy, which basically means, they are dead.

True enough. They are indeed dead.

If this is true, why did Paul bother mentioning that we do not see it "YET AT PRESENT". The we do not see is not speaking of what we see in with our eyes. The we is a general we. Paul is saying yet at present we do not see everything subject to them, because it is not yet subject to them.

Because there are those who will try to make like, because WE don't yet see it that way, that it is therefore NOT a done deal, when it is. I should ask you, "Why did Paul bother mentioning that it is a done deal?"

Yes. However, when one looks at the world, it is what we see that matters. This triumph means nothing to those who do not believe in Christ. This is solely the action of the cross. There is still the final triumph and the final defeat of death, which we see in Revelation 20, at the end of the Messianic Kingdom.

No. It is what God sees that matters. Why does it matter what this triumph means to those who do not believe in Christ? I agree there is, from our POV the consummation of the ages. And, yes, like I said, that is from our POV. Nevertheless, it is fact for which God need not wait, but spoke into fact from the beginning. God is not like us.

 

[TMSO]

Nope. Only future to THIS human POV now.

That's weak reasoning. It is future because we are temporal. It will be future. It will be so until the temporal ends at the consummation.

 

[TMSO]

Depends on what the normal sense is. If it is what an Arminian makes of it, or what bad exegesis makes of it, no.

The normal sense has to do with grammar and the meaning of words. The fact that you would make it about what one believes is rather troubling. It looks at context, meaning of words in normal usage in such context, etc. So where it says in scripture that peace be upon those who listened/do what Paul said, and upon the Israel of God, the main usage of AND (addition) makes sense, so is what should be considered. The Israel of God is those of the nation of Israel that God has elected as individuals. Israel is a national election of a group of people, while the Israel of God are those within the nation who have been chosen/elect by God.

You left a lot of room there. First you suggest ignoring what is not present in the passage, and just going with what you call, "plain sense", and now you think context should be taken into consideration?

Plain sense is what is present in the context/passage. Context is important in considering what the usage of a word is. Some people say that those who listen and the Israel of God are one and the same, except that that is not using the proper usage of the word and given the context. Paul specifically says peace upon those of the first group, and, specifically says upon the second group, showing there are two groups if read as given.

True enough. They are indeed dead.

Because there are those who will try to make like, because WE don't yet see it that way, that it is therefore NOT a done deal, when it is. I should ask you, "Why did Paul bother mentioning that it is a done deal?"

No. It is what God sees that matters. Why does it matter what this triumph means to those who do not believe in Christ? I agree there is, from our POV the consummation of the ages. And, yes, like I said, that is from our POV. Nevertheless, it is fact for which God need not wait, but spoke into fact from the beginning. God is not like us.

It was Jesus Himself who spoke to the consummation, so God seea it as well. And Jesus says only the Father knows when. So Jesus didn't know. This is where remembering Jesus had a human nature as well as a divine nature explains some. While they were in full communion and fellowship, that doesn't mean that there aren't things the human nature did not know. Things that the human nature was not told, so Jesus didn't lie to the disciples when He said He didn't know, even though Jesus was also God.

 

[makesends]

The normal sense has to do with grammar and the meaning of words. The fact that you would make it about what one believes is rather troubling.

I didn't make it about what one believes. I'm saying (rather obviously, I thought) that what one believes colors their use of "the grammar and meaning of words" as you describe "normal sense".

It looks at context, meaning of words in normal usage in such context, etc. So where it says in scripture that peace be upon those who listened/do what Paul said, and upon the Israel of God, the main usage of AND (addition) makes sense, so is what should be considered. The Israel of God is those of the nation of Israel that God has elected as individuals. Israel is a national election of a group of people, while the Israel of God are those within the nation who have been chosen/elect by God.

That's irrelevant. Yes, it is talking about how we see it. I'm not saying otherwise. But before that the plain meaning is that was already accomplished—God's POV. The two together, then? —Already, but not yet, is how I like to put it.

That's weak reasoning. It is future because we are temporal. It will be future. It will be so until the temporal ends at the consummation.

It was weak arguing to try to rope me into agreeing with you. The real question is, what does God see? We see temporally, God sees [at least] purposely, decree, his word spoken, his will, his doing.

Plain sense is what is present in the context/passage. Context is important in considering what the usage of a word is. Some people say that those who listen and the Israel of God are one and the same, except that that is not using the proper usage of the word and given the context. Paul specifically says peace upon those of the first group, and, specifically says upon the second group, showing there are two groups if read as given.

That's a different argument from where I began my comments. Let me repeat:
makesends said:
Binyawmene said:
"Hebrews 2:8 ...and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.
Notice that the 'restoration of all things' must occur first before the Father sends the Christ."

But, that WE DON'T AT PRESENT SEE IT, is no force of argument against it having already happened.

It was Jesus Himself who spoke to the consummation, so God seea it as well. And Jesus says only the Father knows when. So Jesus didn't know. This is where remembering Jesus had a human nature as well as a divine nature explains some. While they were in full communion and fellowship, that doesn't mean that there aren't things the human nature did not know. Things that the human nature was not told, so Jesus didn't lie to the disciples when He said He didn't know, even though Jesus was also God.

Irrelevant. How does any of that prove that there was no such thing as God explicitly says there WAS, in @Binyawmene 's post, "Hebrews 2:8 ...and put everything under their feet.” In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them."

 

[JesusFan]

Scripture states otherwise.

Except for the binding of Satan to prevent him from obstructing the gospel, that is incorrect. At the end of his reign there are enough people to foment a rebellion. Armies of them. That is NOT a reign with no disease. It's not actually a reign with no war, either. It's just a reign where the war wasn't acted out. It's not possible to have armies (plural) of people awaiting rebellion at reigns end and call that a successfully, peaceful, authoritative (or restorative) reign.

Non sequitur. You are not and have not ever been asked to tell anyone what will happen in the future. What you were asked to do is acknowledge the fact of Christ's sovereignty and rule NOW existing.


And, btw, I'm still waiting on the answer to whether or not sin and death still exist in the new heaven and earth.

The Messianic Age will be no wars, rumors of wars, no diseases, no starvation, yet to come future state

 

[Carbon]

The Messianic Age will be no wars, rumors of wars, no diseases, no starvation, yet to come future state

Where did you read that? Curious

 

[Josheb]

The Messianic Age will be no wars, rumors of wars, no diseases, no starvation, yet to come future state

I have already addressed that claim. You have not addressed that response. What you did was repeat an already-posted, and already-addressed assertion. Please address the fact the thousand-year reign ends with a war of rebellion, and please address that fact without further delay or obfuscation.

 

[TMSO]

Where did you read that? Curious

You can read it in the Old Testament. There are quite a few prophecies that deal with the messianic kingdom. The sign of the old people walking without using canes is a big deal. We aren't talking about middle age, or even what we call senior citizens. We are talking OLD, you know, like Methusaleh old. There will be prolonged life as there was in the beginning, and people won't grow weak as they do now. Sin has been sealed away, as well as Satan. Satan is not out deceiving the nations into wars.