Premillennial or Amillennial? An introductory Study

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/7895/preoram.html ^ | Chester E. Tulga, D.D.

[xzins]

Satan is bound? Sure doesn't look like it.

It doesn't look like he's bound in terms of evil behavior. Nor does it look like he's bound in terms of the gospel being spread without opposition. Nor does it look like he's bound in terms of people's minds being open and unblinded.

Or are you now telling me that their minds are not blinded?

You're telling me that this world in which we live now IS the millenial reign mentioned in scripture? Huh? Where is the place where 100 years old is considered young? Where are the lambs and lions playing together? Where is the lack of war?

But, of course.....we need to SPIRITUALIZE everything. That'll be fun. Then we can spiritualize the Angels words to Mary. Since he won't have to sit on a literal throne, then she won't have to be a literal virgin, he won't have to have the name Jesus, he won't have to be a descendant of David, and he won't have to really be the Son of God. It'll all be swell. Maybe we can just mix and match: literal here, spiritual there; spiritual here, literal there. Lit, lit, spir, lit spir. We can do permutations and combinations.

Luke 1:30 Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end."

[Fithal the Wise]

What part of "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years(Rev 20:6)" don't you understand?

As stated previously clearly this comes before the Great White Throne Judgement of Rev 20:11-15 You really have to at least exegete the whole of chapter 20 in context to elucidate your position.

[Jean Chauvin]

"I have repeatedly told you that the scripture is right there in chapters 19 and 20. A shred? How about the listing of settings from Ch 19 & 20....you complained about it being a longer post, so you must have seen it."

What's right there in chapters 19 and 20? A specific description of a 1000 year reign of Christ on earth ~after~ the 2nd Coming and ~before~ He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth? (Hint: let the words of these passages speak for themselves. Don't let Martyr speak for them)

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble finding that description. Apparently, Peter forgot about that as well in his vivid description of Christ's 2nd Coming and His institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth. (2 Peter 3:10-13).

It seems, as well, that Jesus forgot to consult with Justin Martyr. You see, it seems Jesus mistakenly taught that the Resurection of ~all men~ and the Judgement of ~all men~ happened on the same day (John 6: 39,40,44,54) -the ~LAST~ day! Jesus also apparently was mistaken when he taught that the Resurection of ~ALL~ men happened in an ~HOUR~. Martyr taught the Resurrection happened in two stages separated by a '1000' year temporary reign on earth. The 'saved', according to Martyr, would be resurrected before this short lived reign and the 'condemned' would be resurrected ~after~ this short lived reign on earth. Only after the 2nd resurrection would the Judgement happen. Jesus forgot to consult the well known work of Martyr you quoted!

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"Satan is bound? Sure doesn't look like it."

Well then, I guess Matthew (12:29), Mark (3:27), Luke (11:20) and John (12:31) all had it wrong. Either that, or Jesus had it wrong -he really ~didn't~ bind Satan as he claimed.

Was Jesus wrong to claim he bound Satan? Did the Gospel authors quote him wrong? I don't get it?

(Hint: let the words of Rev 20 speak for themselves. Don't let Martyr do it for you. Your expectations of what results of the ~binding~ just might be wrong.)

"Or are you now telling me that their minds are not blinded?"

Rev 20 doesn't tell us the binding of Satan will result in all mens minds ~not~ being blinded. It simply says that Satan will be bound so he can deceive the nations no more.

"Where is the place where 100 years old is considered young? Where are the lambs and lions playing together? Where is the lack of war?"

Isaiah 65:
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Whoah...hold on there Tex...stop the tape...back it up a little:

17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

"But, of course.....we need to SPIRITUALIZE everything"

I'm not attempting to Spiritualize anything. The amil position believes the binding of Satan is ~very~ real. The amil position believes the reign with Christ (Eph 2:4-7) is ~very~ real. Just because we don't believe that there will be a temporary 1000 year reign of Christ on earth ~after~ his 2nd Coming and ~before~ He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth doesn't mean we believe it is any less 'real'!

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"you complained about it being a longer post, so you must have seen it."

Actually, I never complained about 'it being a longer post'. Re-read my words here.

I was merely responding to your comments regarding your complaint about longer posts. What I objected to was your comments about my (as well as others) post being to long, but it was OK for you to make several points. If you are to make several points, you must expect my response to them in total. Don't complain about it later.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"What part of "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years(Rev 20:6)" don't you understand?"

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where Rev 20:6 (or any other part of Rev 20, for that matter) specifically mentions the '1000' year reign of Christ (it specifically says 'with Christ') to be on earth (it never mentions earth) and to take place ~after~ the 2nd Coming of Christ and ~before~ He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth (wherein dwells righteousness).

It seems Peter had this same problem. For he vividly describes Christ's 2nd Coming as well as the Judgement as well as the advent of the New Heavens and the New Earth (wherein dwells righteousness). Yet he never mentions this temporary earthly 1000 year reign in Jerusalem (this seems to be a common 'problem' with ~ALL~ the other NT writers as well -including Jesus himself -they ~never~ mention it!). Why is this? Did he (and they -including Jesus) forget about it?

Question: During this '1000' year temporary reign on earth after His 2nd coming and before He ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth, do we 'reign with Christ' in our bodies? If so, then why does John mention that he sees only our souls?

Jean

[xzins]

I was merely responding to your comments regarding your complaint about longer posts.

I understand that. I apparently poorly wrote what I was trying to communicate....something similar to what you've said above.

I'll be out of the net most of tomorrow. See you late or on Friday.

Interesting verse: Zech 14: 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5 You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake [1] in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

Houston, we have touchdown. On planet Earth.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Houston, we have touchdown. On planet Earth"

Apparently Zechariah forgot to mention the '1000' years and the 'fact' that this is supposed to happen ~after~ the 2nd Coming and ~before~ Christ ushers in the New Heavens and the New Earth. ;)

Yup, 'touchdown' alright. Heh Heh -your name isn't really Jim 'Wrong Way' Marshall (October 25, 1964; San Francisco, CA.) -is it? Whoops!

Jean

[RnMomof7]

I THINK in general we have more agreement here xzins amil does not seem correct to me

I am a post trib kinnda gal...Jerry had some charts that were useful at one time ..Jerry would you email them to my reg email again? ( They were cleaned off when I had the operating system put on )

[winstonchurchill]

I'm a methodist and not a baptist, but this article seemed to put the case for premillenialism in perspective. The point is that it is not a fly-by-night addition to the biblical scene. It is in fact the oldest eschatological interpretation going. (The Apostle John's interpretation.) One doesn't need to be calvinist to be pre-millenial, nor does one need to be dispensational. I do tend in a dispensational direction because I do draw a distinction between the Church and Israel. As this article points out, that is a critical issue in bible prophecy.

With all respect, my friend, I think you overstate the case.

First the article. If you carefully outline the argument he makes, it is not a strong one. The first section argues in effect, "Just because relatively few of the earliest church fathers expressed themselves on the subject and those that did were critical of millenarianism does not mean that there were not those who held to that view."

While that is surely true, it is hardly a ringing endorsement of millenarianism. I, for one, do not doubt that there were many among Christ's immediate followers who expected Him to return and set up an earthly reign. I think the reason that view faltered so completely among the early church was not simply the fact that it didn't occur (as the author argues) but the fact that it didn't occur after 70 AD and the great persecution which followed.

I think that the fact that so many of the prophecies of the Apocalypse seemed to be fulfilled in the collapse of society in 70 AD and yet Christ did not visually return and surely did not set up any earthly reign caused the church to cast about for other interpretations of the NT materials.

In my view, this is to the good because I believe the problem lay in the hermeneutic of those who wished then (and those who wish now) to interpret Rev 20:1-6 in terms of a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. They must (i) ignore the genre of the work (apocalypse, with rich imagery which cannot possibly be construed as literally intended), and (ii) interpret the very passage (let alone the entire book) inconsistently, i.e. the angel is said to "... then thr[o]w him into the abyss and lock[] and seal[] it". Now, does anyone think an angel can 'throw' the devil as one would a curve ball, or, better yet, that the 'abyss' is a physical place with a 'lock' on the 'door'. Of course not. Yet, they would gladly interpret that portion of the passage (correctly) in a very spiritual way, yet try to insist that the poetic '1000 years' is somehow to be taken literally.

This, of course, in the very midst of descriptions of various multi-headed beasts which few have ever contended should be taken literally.

Your problems multiply with the 'dispensationalist' overlay of John Nelson Darby. Sadly, Jean Chauvin is correct here (although, as usual, he manages to present his case in the most obnoxious possible manner: "Answer my question first..."). Darby's speculations are, indeed, late arrivals, but that, Jean Chauvin to the contrary notwithstanding, is not their greatest defect. [If that were true, on that ground the world would be spared Calvin's vicious trepidations.] The problem, again, in my view, is Darby's inconsistent hermeneutic. What the author terms "periodic "Back-To-The-Bible" movements" might better be seen as periodic desires for fresh reasons to believe, as the main page from which the posted article is derived declares, "The Lord Jesus is coming back soon! (www.rapture-report.com)."

Unfortunately, these periodic movements often display the same "I now know all the answers, including the secret handshake" so viciously displayed by the construct defenders here. Although I am not currently a member of a Methodist-heritage denomination, I think that, of all the historical movements, the emphasis of the Methodist movement of Mr. Wesley on 'holy living' almost alone avoided the unwholesome pridefulness of the construct defenders, the self-centeredness of the 'look at my gift' tongues-speakers and the know-it-all, 'look at my chart of the end-times' of the dispensationalists.

As the healthy skepticism of ponyespresso ("Am I a bad Christian for not really caring about all this end-times stuff as much as some people?") suggests, there are some things it simply does not behoove us to know all that much about. I would rather know more about holy living than the suprasubinfralapsarian order of non-existent 'decrees' or the ins-and-outs of who's first to the clouds in a non-existent 'rapture.' Yet how little 'press' such thoughts on holy living receive in the Christian churches of our era. Not 'cool' enough, I guess.

So, on this one, I part company with you, my friend. Why not use that fine Asbury background of yours and post some great biblical teaching on the 'second blessing' and the holy life and really send the construct defenders rushing down the hill into the sea?

[Jerry_M]

I will have to find the charts, they aren't on this computer. I am going to be out-of-pocket for awhile, it might be a couple of weeks before you see them.

[xzins]

So, on this one, I part company with you, my friend. Why not use that fine Asbury background of yours and post some great biblical teaching on the 'second blessing' and the holy life and really send the construct defenders rushing down the hill into the sea?

Winston, you are a breath of fresh air. And you have the audacity (freedom) to go public with a disagreement with a friend. LOL. Don't you worry about the repercussions if others think we can disagree on some things and agree on others? They might think that we ACTUALLY believe in free will.

Now, to your argument. I do think that premillenialism has a stronger case than does amillenialism.

In premillenialism one has essentially the problem of putting together all the pieces of a vast puzzle/treasure of prophetic utterances found in the bible. That is no small task and it presents great difficulty. In short, I do it because in my reading of the Bible the prophecies given before Christ had a literal fulfillment (a real virgin, a real Bethlehem, etc.) EVEN IF presaged by a symbolic passage. (EG; Nebuchadnezzar's statue with head of gold, shoulders of silver, etc. That symbolic statue was fulfilled in literal kingdoms and persons.)

Amillenialism, on the other hand, has these weaknesses. First, it is contrary to the testimony of the early church. Read post #9 and that is abundantly clear. Second, once one accepts amillenialism's view that fulfillments can be "spiritual/symbolic" then anything goes. Anything can be right and anything can be wrong. Third, amillenialism says that NOW is that peaceful kingdom of God....(When the moon is in the 7th house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars, and we survive our planet and love will rule the stars...Aquarius, aquarius, harmony and understanding...)

To say Satan is bound and that this is the era of peace is simply absurd. Beware when they say "peace, peace, when there is no peace."

So, then, as a premillenialist I'm left trying to explain how all these prophetic pieces fits together, AND amillenialists are left trying to explain how this Jeffrey Dahmer, Osama Bin Laden, David Westerfield PEACE fits together. (piece and peace...get it?)

I'll stick with fitting prophetic puzzles together. The other guys simply can't sell (to me anyway) what they're trying to push.

[xzins]

Heh Heh -your name isn't really Jim 'Wrong Way' Marshall (October 25, 1964; San Francisco, CA.) -is it? Whoops!

Didn't the great running back Jim Brown also run a touchdown the wrong direction? I wouldn't swear to it, but I think I remember it.

[fortheDeclaration]

This is from the Scofield notes:


The two Advents--Summary:

(1) The O.T. foreview of the coming Messiah is in two aspects--that of rejection and suffering (as e.g. in Is 53), and that of earthly glory and power (as e.g. In Is 11 Jer 23 Eze 37). Often these two aspects blend in one passage (e.g. Ps 2). The prophets themselves were perplexed by this seeming contradiction 1 Peter 1:10,11. It was solved by partial fulfilment. In due time the Messiah, born of a virgin according to Isaiah, appeared among men and began His ministry by announcing the predicted kingdom as "at hand."

(See Scofield "Matthew 4:17") . The rejection of King and kingdom followed.

(2) Thereupon the rejected King announced His approaching crucifixion, resurrection, departure, and return (Mat. 24., 25). Matthew 12:38-40; 16:1-4,21,27; Luke 12:35-46; 17:20-36 ; 18:31-34; 19:12-27.

(3) He uttered predictions concerning the course of events between His departure and return Matthew 13:1-50; 16:18; 24:4-26

(4) This promised return of Christ becomes a prominent theme in the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation.

Taken together, the N.T. teachings concerning the return of Jesus Christ may be summarized as follows:

(1) That return is an event, not a process, and is personal and corporeal Matthew 23:39; 24:30; 25:31; Mark 14:62; Luke 17:24; John 14:3; Acts 1:11; Philippians 3:20,21; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17.

(2) His coming has a threefold relation: to the church, to Israel, to the nations.

(a) To the church the descent of the Lord into the air to raise the sleeping and change the living saints is set forth as a constant expectation and hope Matthew 24:36,44,48-51; 25:13; 1 Corinthians 15:51,52; Philippians 3:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 4:14-17; 1 Timothy 6:14; Titus 2:13; Revelation 22:20.

(b) To Israel, the return of the Lord is predicted to accomplish the yet unfulfilled prophecies of her national regathering, conversion, and establishment in peace and power under the Davidic Covenant Acts 15:14-17 with Zechariah 14:1-9.

[drstevej]

The original is Wrong Way Roy Riegels of Georgia Tech (1929 Rose Bowl vs. California)...

How will you ever get theology straight if you mangle football?

Here

[xzins]

How will you ever get theology straight if you mangle football?

What's worse.....we are NOW in football season! heheheh (unless, of course, you are a fan of baseball strikes.)

[drstevej]

The original is Wrong Way Roy Riegels of California(1929 Rose Bowl vs. Georgia Tech)...

Guess we all make mistakes. Great story none the less.

[xzins]

fan of baseball strikes.....the players union kind; not the Randy Johnson kind.

[drstevej]

Randy Johnson and Nolan Ryan might be lesser lights if Satchel Paige had been born a generation later.

The modern professional game for me has lost it's luster. College baseball is huge here (LSU) and I think it's refreshing!

[Jean Chauvin]

"Amillenialism, on the other hand, has these weaknesses. First, it is contrary to the testimony of the early church. Read post #9 and that is abundantly clear."

Correction: "...it is contrary to the testimony of [part of] the early church..." Historic/Classical (Non-dispensational) Pre-Millenialism was ~not~ the only postion and arguably was ~not~ even the majority position (but again, the majority position is not ~necessarily~ the correct position -so that is irrelevant).

"Second, once one accepts amillenialism's view that fulfillments can be "spiritual/symbolic" then anything goes. Anything can be right and anything can be wrong."

Correction: Amillenialism does ~not~ 'view that fulfillments can be "spiritual/symbolic"'. Amillenialism views the '1000' years as symbolic, yes, but you just admitted that the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's statue was 'symbolic'. If Nebuchadnezzar's statue can be a 'symbolic' representation in the prophecy, why cannot the '1000' years? So, how come you guys get to interpret certain aspects of phrophecy 'symbolically' and it's OK, but when Amillenialists do so, it is a 'bad bad' thing?

No, x, Amillenialims most assuredly believes the fulfillment of the millenial prophecy is ~REAL~. It just disagrees with the interpretation of the prophecy.

Question: Is fulfillment of prophecy in the Spiritual ~Realm~ any less real then fulfillment in the Physical ~Realm~? Another way to put it, is the Spiritual ~Realm~ any less real than the Physical ~Realm~?

"Third, amillenialism says that NOW is that peaceful kingdom of God...."

So does Jesus:

Matthew 12:28
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

So does John the Baptist:

Mark 1:
14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

"To say Satan is bound and that this is the era of peace is simply absurd"

x, Jesus plainly declares Satan bound! I showed you the scripture. Why is that not good enough for you?

Furthermore, where does Rev 20 declare that there will be an 'era of peace' during Satan's binding? It simply says Satan will be bound so he can decieve the nations no more. It says nothing more and nothing less. And we know that soon after Christ's accomplishment on the cross and for the first time in history, the gospel spread out into the world (the nations) like wild fire! Coincidence?...I think not!

Jean