The reign of amillenial theology

Oldreg, I will point out the John text for everyone again:

John 5:28-29

Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth - those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

This is what was said:

1. Christ teaches that all will one day be raised.
2. Christ teaches a bodily resurrection (which preterism denies btw).
3. Christ teaches that the wicked will be punished and the righteous rewarded.

What Christ did not say in this text:

1. When the hour would be.
2. Whether or not the judgment for each would be at the same time.

Christ just said that the time was coming. He did NOT say that it would all happen at the same time. This is what Amills wish Christ had said. He didn't.

Only an amill could get hung up on this text and read their general resurrection idea into it.

 

Chaz, before I answer, can you tell me if you ever were able to stop picking your nose? Thanks.

1. The Didache includes the statement that he wishes he could understand Revelation. I don't think that is a person I want on my side. I will take Irenaius, who strenuously asserted the premillenial return of Christ.

2. Um, look up when Origen lived, Chaz.

3. While I do wish the Bible was writen like a systematic theology book, it is not difficult to understand eschatology at all. It is difficult for those who don't want to embrace the premill view. Subjection and chaos take over. Remember, amill helped produce the dark ages. Disagree? I have history on my side.

 

Chaz, most of your objections are not to premillenialism, but to pretribulationalism. Although I would love to discuss that issue, it really doesn't fit in this discussion.

1. Pretrib issue.

2. Even if Matthew 24 was about the events in AD 70, that still wouldn't disprove premillenialism.

3. Pretrib issue.

4. Pretrib issue.

 

Oldreg, allow me to point out what is said in Revelation 20:

Verses 2-3:

Satan will be bound for a 1000 years. During that time, the nations will not be deceived any more.

Tell me, are the nations deceived at all?

Verse 4

Those who did not worship the beast reigned with Christ for a 1000 years.

Tell me, if the binding of Satan happened in Matthew 12, the beast must have existed prior to that event. Yet, John mentions the beast years after the Matthew 12. Can you explain the amillenial way of ignoring basic math figures? Don't forget that satan gives the beast its power. Satan isn't supposed to be deceiving anyone anymore.

I don't know if it would be a good time to remind you that Peter spoke of satan as a devouring lion. Oops, we don't have to go there.

Verses 4-5

Verse 4 mentions believers living and reigning. Amills want this to be spiritual. They would relate this to being born again.

The problem with that is in verse 5. John mentions the 'rest of the dead' who will be raised AFTER the thousand years.

Okay, okay, if verse 4 is talking about being born again, who are the 'rest of the dead'? They must be unbelievers, right? Because if they were believers, they would be in the first group, not the second.

Here is what I love about amill: the 'rest of the dead' come to life after the 1000 years. So according to amill theology, EVERYONE will be born again. I love it. You are a closet universalist.

It doesn't mean that you say. Okay, then you have another little problem.

The language of reigning with Christ is rather interesting. Did John previously mention anything about a kingdom of priests reigning?

Whoa, Revelation 5:10 says:

And have made us (those believers in heaven) kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the EARTH.

There you go. A vision of believers in heaven looking forward to reigning upon the earth. Now, if those in Revelation 20 are reigning with Christ, and they would reign on the earth, where is Christ in Revelation 20? Yep, you got it, ON THE EARTH.

Now, this is just the tip. You are so far under you are about to drown. Give up and come back to a reality based understanding of truth.

Btw, I would love an exegesis of Revelation 20:1-6 from you non-premillers, if you can man up enough. It takes so little effort to smack amill theology that I haven't even broken a sweat.

 

Ken, you wanted the proof of my assertion that even amills concede the truth behind my opening post. He would do just that. Frankly, eschatology wasn't the only thing he was off on.

 

Chaz, Irenaeus was premillenial. Do you not read well?

 

Oldreg, my response to Charles' 4 questions regarding premillenialism were right on topic. I didn't dodge any of them. They were not questions that related to the topic of the millenium, but the rapture. Are you really so ignorant?

 

Oldreg, regarding John 5, I have already pointed out what Christ did say and what he did not say. You build the entire idea of amill theology around what he did NOT say.

He did NOT say that the judgment for the righteous and unrighteous would be at the same time. He simply said that the time would come when each would come forth and be judged.

Here is just another aspect you fail to grasp:

Take away Daniel's 70th week, and you still don't do away with premillenialism. No matter how hard you, Ken, and everyone else has tried, you still cannot produce a single objection to premillenialism that is based in reality. Everything is a smokescreen for you people who are so easily confused.

 

Oldreg, either you didn't read what I said about Revelation 20 or you didn't understand it. Given your brief history here discussing eschatology, it is a pretty good chance you didn't understand it.

In order for there to be a first resurrection, there must also be a second or last.

Further, if those who lived with Christ in verse 4 is a reference to spiritual rebirth, the 'rest of the dead' must be unbelievers. So you have a problem here. If the above is true, then you are a universalist without realizing it. Verse 5 says that the 'rest of the dead' will come to life. That would mean that all unbelievers will experience the rebirth. Is this what you believe?

Btw, I have read very little of Darby. I couldn't care less about Schofield or Chafer either. Why don't you express some understanding in the issues. I am not asking for you to agree with me, I just wish you could discuss the actually issues that I have brought up on 5 pages now, without revealing your serious lack of eschatological knowledge.

 

That is my point. The Scripture is silent as to the when. Jesus simply said that the time was coming.

Given that Revelation 20:5 puts the resurrection of the unrighteous at the end of the 1000 years, we can all correctly understand that there is a time gap.

 

Then answer what I did say on page 5 about Revelation 20.

Even if you think the 1000 years are figurative, you still have a division between the righteous and unrighteous by the 1000 years (or whatever figurative time).