The reign of amillenial theology

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
1. Why is it that you must always argue in such a spiteful manner?

1. The Didache is often cited as millenarian as have the writings of Clement, both of which are arguably NOT millenarian at all if examined closely.

2. You assert that amillenialism did not exist until Origen. But if much of the early church figures were NOT millenarian then what were they?

3. Even you would have to admit that it would be nice if a particular Biblical author would have written a concise and plain treatise on ALL of the escahtological themes.

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.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
I would list several scriptural challenges to the premill position.

1. Why is there a 2000 year break before the 70th week of Daniel?

2. Jesus refers to the "son of man" coming on the clouds of heaven - similar to the cloud motif in Daniel. This is arguably signifies judgment. Thus the Olivet discourse was quite likely referring to the 70 AD destruction of the temple (this generation).

3. If trumpets announce Christ's coming why is the rapture seen as secret? Jesus said it would be like lightning - no one would miss it!

4. If there is to be a pretrib rapture then why does Paul not mention that the believers wouldn't be around to see the antichrist in 2 Thessalonians?

I'm interested (and assume Ken is as well) in your answers. And you may give them without calling me pathetic, liberal, lost, ignorant or otherwise!

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.

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
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.

DD

You did a fast shuffle around my question but you failed to answer it. That is typical of Darbyites. I will pose the question again. This time try to answer it using the take it at face value interpretation that you Darbyites are so proud of.

I will show the passage from Revelation in two versions so take your pick and then show me where it talks about two resurrections as you stated in an earlier post.

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

NASB
1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
3 and threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

It is really quite comical the way the darbyites do a fast shuffle to avoid answering simple questions regarding their grevious errors in interpretating Scripture.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
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.

Its really quite simple. Interpret the passage according to the darbyite take it at face value method of interpretation and you will see that Jesus Christ Himself says: the hour is coming, the hour is coming, the hour is coming. He does not say the hours [plural] are coming when there will be multiple resurrections of the dead, some for the saved and some more for the lost and then there will be multiple judgments for the saved and for the lost.

Get real DD, get off Daniels 70th week and Darby's erroneous theology.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
I would list several scriptural challenges to the premill position.

1. Why is there a 2000 year break before the 70th week of Daniel?

2. Jesus refers to the "son of man" coming on the clouds of heaven - similar to the cloud motif in Daniel. This is arguably signifies judgment. Thus the Olivet discourse was quite likely referring to the 70 AD destruction of the temple (this generation).

3. If trumpets announce Christ's coming why is the rapture seen as secret? Jesus said it would be like lightning - no one would miss it!

4. If there is to be a pretrib rapture then why does Paul not mention that the believers wouldn't be around to see the antichrist in 2 Thessalonians?

I'm interested (and assume Ken is as well) in your answers. And you may give them without calling me pathetic, liberal, lost, ignorant or otherwise!

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. </font>[/QUOTE]DD

See what I mean, another fast shuffle. In South Carolina it might pass for the "Shag".

 

[Charles Meadows]

" I will take Irenaius, who strenuously asserted the premillenial return of Christ. "

And just what was Irenaeus' position on the millenium? Why did he think what he did? I already know this answer.

You didn'tlose your books on him too did you?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
My apologies Ken. It wasn't until I got home that I remembered that I sold my Berkhoff systematic on eBay.

That's okay, DD. What Berkoff wrote doesn't matter in the long run. Only what is written in the Bible does.

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[Daniel David]

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

 

[Daniel David]

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?

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
He would do just that.

Well, maybe you could copy and paste some quotes from the Internet that you think prove your point. Surely if this is such a common occurrence among non-premillers then it wouldn't be any problem to find some quotes on the Internet, would it, DD?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
He simply said that the time would come when each would come forth and be judged.

Well, since they are mentioned in the same sentence, it looks like the burden is on you, DD, to prove that there is a time gap between them.

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
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.

The book of Revelation begins by stating that it is in signs. Therefore, we are back to interpreting what the "1000 years" means as a sign.

You keep writing a lot on this thread, DD, but you have yet to substantiate any of your points. All we have are your statements and, frankly, that ain't good enough.

 

[Daniel David]

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).

 

[rjprince]

It is well known by anyone who has read very extensively regarding the millenium that leading amil and postmil writers openly acknowledge that a contextual literal grammatical historical will inevitably result in a premil position. The fact that someone here disputes this is evidence of a lack of research.

I am out of town myself right now, but will provide reference sources to document in the next few days.